Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=73858" target="_blank"><b>Latest: ToonZone: What's Wrong with Disney Feature Animation?</b></a> <p>The <i>Toon Zone</i> in a two-part blog evaluates Disney Feature Animation's recent box office disappointment - "The Princess and the Frog" in an effort to uncover why it didn't perform better.</p>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros That was an interesting read. It seemed to go into a lot of depth on all of the theories I've heard for why Disney's animated features aren't doing well, but I'm not sure I agree with the way of comparing the films. Yes, the Tinkerbelle movies have been a success, but on what scale? To have a successful direct-to-video film is completely different than having a successful wide-release theater run of a film. Tink has generated incredibly positive word of mouth, but I don't think most people see it as the same thing as the theater releases. It may be because Tink is an existing character, but I think it's more that people just have lower expectations for the direct-to-video films. I enjoyed the first Tink movie, but no more than Bolt or PATF. I think it's just one of those times where people expectations were exceeded, which made it look a lot better. Not because it is nessecarily better or a more marketable product, but simply because opinions are all relative to expectations. They did a ton of buildup for PATF. I enjoyed the film a lot, but I'm not sure if it lived up to everything they built it up to be. Thus far, they've lowered my expectations for Rapunzel/Tangled so far far beyond belief, that pretty much anything will have me give a positive review. Yes, Disney is formulaic, people are seeing 2D animation as a bad thing, and merchandising drives everything, but if a person goes into a film with high expectations that are met, they are much less likely to tell their friends than if they see a great movie that they expected to just be okay. The dumbing down of their next release in its promotions may be the smartest thing they've done to try and save their animation department.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan One of the things that is sometimes forgotten is that the Disney animated features -- in the pre-home video era -- were released in a 7-year or so cycle. Snow White was a mega smash hit, but so many other now-cherished movies earned their keep over time. Re-releases are a moot point now, they happen very seldom. (Re-engineered versions of Star Wars and the like being the exception). Perhaps after Lion King, the bar has been set unrealistically high for a traditionally animated film. Maybe the theory that a good sized chunk of the audience out there won't go see a hand drawn film in theaters is the sad truth at this point (just as they'll avoid a B&W film). It can't be ignored that the CGI chipmunks sequel raked in that much money. Perhaps CGI is more attractive to audiences regardless of the quality of the story.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I know it's the exception rather than the rule, but Schindler's List was black and white and that didn't seem to stop it from being successful. I don't know how much it made, but I can't think of anybody who wouldn't see it simply because it doesn't have color. Maybe there's a way to make a simiarly grand film using 2D animation to get people to question their notions about what animation is capable of. The rereleases is an interesting argument to make. I would love to see a lot of the older films on the big screen, but unfortunately it just doesn't look like it will happen any time soon.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'd also challenge the notion that Disney animated features are all that formulaic. If you look back at the films of the 90's, I was always impressed by how many chances they took. It wasn't a series of Beauty and the Beast knockoffs at all. The films took chances stylistically (Aladdin, Hercules), in terms of tone, taking on some more "heavy" adult issues (Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Lion King) and trying some action oriented stuff (Atlantis, Mulan, Treasure Planet, Tarzan).
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt We saw PATF twice, I loved it but, let's face it, it's a whole lot cheaper to wait for the $20 DVD than to bring the family to the movies and spend even more money on overpriced candy. The kids got gift certificates to the cinema for Christmas so it didn't cost me anything.
Originally Posted By markymouse AHH has a point, but it doesn't explain why so many more people went to the theater to see Alvin, but not PATF. I'm tempted to try to talk about a lot of the points that have brought up. But I can't shake the notion that Disney (non-Pixar) animation doesn't need a reason to fall short. It needs a reason to really succeed. Falling at least a little short seems to be the norm. And it's been the norm for a very long time. From Bedknobs and Broomsticks to Bolt, Disney has put out a lot of feature animation that couldn't live up to the masterpieces of some vague golden age. I liked the reference to the fact that kids can eat up the merchandise without feeling a great need to see the movie. Our youngest has toys, pjs, etc. from X-Men, GI Joe, Clone Wars and Transformers, but has never seen any of those movies. And that's probably just fine with Disney. When you spend $40 at the Disney store, Disney probably ends up with a bigger piece of that then when you spend it on popcorn and soda at the theater.
Originally Posted By markymouse What about the idea that movie viewers, and maybe especially kids, prefer a burger and fries over filet mignon. Our guys watch Bolt and Chicken Little a whole lot more than Lion King or Finding Nemo. There's something to be said for being accessible, fun and light.
Originally Posted By alexbook I think Disney runs into trouble sometimes by presenting their movies as "events." PatF in particular seemed to suffer from that, as the ads made it sound like something that would be uplifting and good for you, as opposed to the Squeakquel, which was marketed as something that would be simple, mindless fun.
Originally Posted By Y Tywysog Disney I think timing could have something to do with it... If The Princess and the Frog had been made in 1993, for example, it probably would have been more successful... on the other hand, and I know most people would definitely say that "The Princess and the Frog" was not anywhere near as good as "The Little Mermaid", but how successful would "The Little Mermaid" have been if it had been released in December 2009? I'm just saying that, Disney is blaming the underperformance at the box office on the idea that boys were turned off by a feminine sounding title... yet "The Little Mermaid" sounds pretty feminine.. and I'm pretty sure that 20 years ago there were boys turned off by that film (and that film is probably more feminine than PATF)... and yet that didn't stop the Disney Renaissance from happening.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 The princess and the frog as was put into wide release one week before Avatar, that film took the boys, the girls and everyone else. Also Disney has put out one terrible hand drawn film after another for a long time. One film isn't going to change the public perception of what a typical Disney animated film is going to be like. That and there weren't any hit singles to come out of the film to help cross promote it and those are the reasons it was a moderate success. Box Office Mojo reports the world wide take to be over $250 million, so the film made a little bit of money from its theatrical release... now it depends on the DVD market, so it is a profit earner just not a blockbuster.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby Interesting article, but a key part of the guy's premise is flawed, namely the "fact" that the Tinker Bell movies have been hugely successful. Have they been? Everything we have heard says they have been "so-so". He also names Bolt and Meet the Robinsons as examples of Disney's recent flops. A check to www.the-numbers.com shows that the Tinker Bell movies have each done $82 million in DVD sales - BUT MTR itself did $78 million, in addition to its $169 million worldwide theatrical gross. Bolt also sold $82 million in DVDs (same as each TB movie) - in addition to $314 million worldwide theatrical. Yet the article calls TB a huge franchise hit and MTR and Bolt as disappointments.
Originally Posted By markymouse Thanks for the fact check, cheesybaby. Journalists rarely let actual facts get in the way of their premise.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Thanks for those figures. I wonder if (what I presume were) lower production costs for Tink and (again, I presume) greater merch sales colors how Disney looks at the success of the Tink movies? If they're credited with moving a bunch of merch other than DVD's, that's success of a different kind, but still success in Disney's eyes.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I saw Princess and the Frog at the movies twice and my daughter received the dvd as a birthday gift. I thought it was a wonderful movie. Every bit the "experience" Disney played it out to be. I thought it was just as good as most of the Disney classics. I thought the music was great, and the story was really good too. I expected it to do extremely well at the theater. I think that, unfortunately, the race factor plays a bigger role than some might think. I think maybe a lot of people didn't see this because they looked at it as a "black" movie. And, I wonder if Disney isn't partly to blame for this. My daughter is into Princess toys and I have to usually buy her princess things for Birthdays, Christmas, Easter, etc, so I pay attention to the marketing and adds done for princess things. Whether it's toys, clothes, or whatever. Has anyone noticed that every time you see an ad for Princess and The Frog toys/clothes, etc, it's exclusively black girls featured in the ads? I've seen ads advertising the other princesses and their toys, and it's usually a mix of whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc dressed up playing with the toys, but with Princess and the Frog it's exclusively black children. I find that odd. Why would they do marketing like this when these toys can be enjoyed by children of all races?
Originally Posted By Manfried If the Tinkerbell movies weren't popular and making money, Disney would quit making them.
Originally Posted By basil fan I see your point, Constance, and I've wondered myself if Disney will allow any non-black child to appear in an ad playing with Tiana dolls or wearing Tiana merchandise.
Originally Posted By jdub Hi Everyone. That's interesting, about the ads for the merchandise. I don't recall having seen any of those, so it's news to me. Very bad news--and maybe I'm sheltered to find such naivety in advertising surprising in this day & age. As to the films themselves, something I've wondered for a long time is what might be the fate of a Pixar film produced in traditional-style animation. Take one of their best stories they're working on, use that awesome hand-drawn production art (which I always love better than the final product)-- and animate it like that. Releasing it under the Pixar label, of course. I'd love to see that. Think we'd notice a change in the resulting critical reception & box office take?
Originally Posted By basil fan jdub, I'd love to see them try it. The Tarzan Equation <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/tarzan.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...zan.html</a>
Originally Posted By MousDad There are only 2 players in the animated film industry right now - Pixar and Dreamworks. In fact, I say Dreamworks is now to Pixar what Universal parks have become to Disney parks. Strong, strong competition. Which is why its not surprising to hear Disney might start distributing Dreamworks animated films, as it will give them even more creative AND profitable media to peddle rather than produce. (It's one thing to be creative, but creative and profitable means you rule.) I remember there was an apologist on another Disney site last fall predicting that How To Train Your Dragon would end up with fewer receipts than PATF (this was after PATF's run was over). Of course, HTTYD obliterated the PATF total by its 3rd week, and is now the number 1 movie in its 4th week, for 2 number 1s in its first 4 weeks. Anyone catch HTTYD yet? Wow, it's awesome. It's not that WDFA can't make films that good (Bolt was on that level), but the desperation to find a way to marry the traditional WDFA product with commercial appeal is so apparent. It's really such a shame that Walt Disney Animation is such a has been player in the animated film industry. I don't have an answer for the situation, other than WDFA simply being content to be 4th best in the industry, and let its parent company buy up and peddle all the winners to fund their work.
