Originally Posted By Erjontem Having followed Tangled's box office performance pretty much daily since it came out, I can't help but feel confused: is the movie a hit or not? I feel like optimistic facts keep popping up every day: better than expected opening, beat Harry Potter the second week -- which is WILD, why don't people talk about this more? -- fastest movie to cross $100 MM since Lion King, etc. But overall, somehow, the movie seems to be dragging its way to a relatively sobering total domestic gross. Or am I wrong? The oft-projected $175 MM is about what Tarzan did, and that movie was considered very successful by post-Lion King standards, but the stakes are obviously much higher for Tangled... So how would you guys say the movie is doing, financially? Is it much more of a hit than the much less expensive PatF, and/or is it still a disappointment for the studio? Is it just too early to tell? And more importantly... will it do well enough to bring on more animated classics? (Snow Queen, will you rise again?) On a different note, my intense desire for the movie to do well notwithstanding, I must say I thought it was good, but not great. Sorry guys! I've been reluctant to post a review because I don't want to be a Debby Downer... But honestly, if this movie had come out in 1995 instead of 2010 (in the context of the real Renaissance as opposed to post-Brother Bear-Home on the Range-Bolt), would everyone be raving about it? It compares favorably with PatF, but that's about all I could say when I came out of the theater... And what happened to Alan Menken's genius?!?
Originally Posted By mawnck My impression is that its box office performance thus far has been right in that gray area where those who want it to succeed can claim it's a success, and those that don't can claim it's a failure. Which is going to be just as true in the boardrooms of Disney as the boards of LP. So I suspect they're going to stick with plan A (whatever that was) regardless. And I wouldn't hold my breath on The Snow Queen. (PS - regarding Snow Queens - if you haven't seen this: <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/the_snow_queen_1959_animation" target="_blank">http://www.archive.org/details...nimation</a> you should.)
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer I certainly hope so, and think so. Fantastic movie, I found very few flaws in it. Based in it's profits, I think that yes, it's a win for Disney. Don't know if it's a blockbuster, but it's definitely a win.
Originally Posted By Britain If the movie had come out in 1995, we'd all be raving about how superior its graphics were to that other Disney release that year, Toy Story. Of course I get your jist. You're saying that setting aside box office, it still isn't as good as Mermaid, Beast, Aladdin, Lion King. I agree. The real question is whether this 'good but not great' is part of an upswing (Oliver & Company, Great Mouse Detective-style) or is it as good as WDA gets these days?
Originally Posted By cheesybaby <<My impression is that its box office performance thus far has been right in that gray area where those who want it to succeed can claim it's a success, and those that don't can claim it's a failure.>> I agree. In domestic gross, it has already surpassed (going back through the years) PATF, Bolt, MTR, HOTR, TP, Brother Bear, Atlantis, TENG, Fantasia 2000, Hercules, and Hunchback (of course, the further you go back, the greater the impact of inflation, so the comparisons become less useful). If it tops out at $150 million (which is most likely now without a strong Christmas boost), it will also surpass Chicken Little, Lilo & Stitch, Dinosaur, Mulan, and Pocahontas. So this would make Tangled the biggest (domestic) moneymaker for WDAS since Tarzan in 1999 (again, not adjusted for inflation). So it is definitely a step in the right direction and puts WDAS on a winning streak. But is $150 million a "big enough" step? Inside TWDC, supporters can say it's the biggest WDAS release since the 90s heyday! While others can say a $150 million domestic gross from a $260 million budget is a disaster. I think the answer will come as we continue to see the international business. It has a staggered release schedule (don't they always?) so it will be hard to say for a while. But it has opened well so far (in Russia it is the most successful WDAS release in history after only 2 weeks). International numbers will trickle in throughout the spring for the foreign territories. So the cloudy answer isn't likely to get any clearer for a while...
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<While others can say a $150 million domestic gross from a $260 million budget is a disaster.>> This is precisely how Disney execs will view it, since ROI is pretty much the only thing that matters. The problem I see for Tangled is how well the brand will do in the future. DVD sales are down for all studios, so that revenue stream is in doubt. And merchandise for this film doesn't seem to be all that plentiful. I visited my brand new local Disney Store the other day, and Tangled merch was barely noticeable. TS3 and Cars merch was in abundance, but very little Tangled, comparatively. I agree with the $150 mil prediction for domestic box, and I don't see international numbers going higher than $250 mil, once all countries have released it. (Japan doesn't get it until March.) If Tangled's total take ends up around $400 mil, with lackluster DVD sales and a weak merchandise line, I firmly believe Disney execs will label this film as a failure. I get the strong sense that execs are becoming increasingly impatient with WDAS performance, given that the cash cow Pixar is now part of their family. I wouldn't be surprised to see a major restructuring of WDAS in the future, especially with regard to upper management. Personally, I feel Lasseter and Catmull are stretched way too thin, and need to hand over WDAS to a different team and return to E-Ville. Bouncing back and forth every week between the two studios isn't serving either one well.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>This is precisely how Disney execs will view it, since ROI is pretty much the only thing that matters.<< Don't recall if it was here or elsewhere, but I read an insidery type person's claim that the $260 Million figure is bogus, in that previous versions of the Rapunzel movie have already been written off and thus will not count against Tangled. It's purely an accounting distinction, to be sure. But if it's true, then management isn't necessarily looking at this from a "glass half empty" perspective. Besides, I just want Disney to make good movies, and they did. Trying to read exec's minds makes my head hurt.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 >>Besides, I just want Disney to make good movies, and they did. Trying to read exec's minds makes my head hurt.<< No doubt, right?! I realize that in the cynical new world of Disney business, image and reputation don't mean as much as instant ROI. However, I hope that animation is one area that is still a little bit sacred, and that the suits will realize the intrinsic value in giving the fans a good movie they like despite the actual profit $$ attributed to the film. (At least if it doesn't lose $$.) For me, this movie went a long way to restoring my faith that Disney can right itself still. I suppose it is "a dream my heart is making" kind of wishful thingking, but I hope they place some value in restoring their image. Wouldn't it be a major blow to folks to hear that Disney, the Disney we grew up with and created Mickey, wasn't doing animation anymore? Or is that blatantly naive and the average person figures Pixar is same same?
Originally Posted By cheesybaby <<I read an insidery type person's claim that the $260 Million figure is bogus, in that previous versions of the Rapunzel movie have already been written off and thus will not count against Tangled. It's purely an accounting distinction, to be sure.>> Yep. Again, this can be spun two ways. $260 million was in fact spent, but how much of that by the Stainton regime? Can Lasseter successfully pitch to Iger that this film's development cycle was a total fluke? And that the WDAS train should keep on rolling now that Iger has made the investment in the Catmull/Lasseter regime? Iger should go watch another HKDL parade. Nothing has changed. If he was serious about WDAS back in 2005, he should still be serious about it now.
Originally Posted By Erjontem << In domestic gross, it has already surpassed (going back through the years) PATF, Bolt, MTR, HOTR, TP, Brother Bear, Atlantis, TENG, Fantasia 2000, Hercules, and Hunchback >> True, but what has to hurt, if the movie does top out at $150 MM domestically, is that something as simple and under-hyped (by Tangled standards) as "How to Train your Dragon" broke $200 MM based on word of mouth alone, following a lackluster start. True, that movie was a surprising hit, but its numbers show that Tangled has only done well in comparison with recent Disney fare, which has widely been regarded as disastrous. By today's industry standards, it just couldn't be considered a smash hit. Then again, the holiday season has only begun, and I've seen tougher competish in years past... Mawnck: that Snow Queen is awesome. The Queen herself is so beautiful and threatening at the same time... A Russian cousin of Snow White's wicked queen?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I believe the box will continue to slow, with the possible exception of Christmas weekend. I finally saw the film today at a noon 3D showing in downtown SF. Union Square stores were packed with shoppers, many of whom were convention refugees from Moscone Center, still wearing their convention badges. Anyway, there were only five people in the theater. FIVE. I realize it's the middle of the week, but... it's downtown San Francisco just before the holidays with lots of tourists shopping and dining. I've attended pre-holiday mid-week daytime screenings before, and they're typically more crowded than this. In fact, I finally got around to seeing Potter yesterday, and there were about 50 people in the IMAX theater. Not a huge crowd, but... Potter has been out longer than Tangled, and the IMAX was not 3D. The ticket price was more expensive for Potter than Tangled 3D, but Potter's audience was at least 10 times greater. The point I'm trying to make is that Tangled probably won't improve its weak attendance while everyone is focused on last-minute shopping. It might get a nice bump on Christmas, but... I don't believe it will be much of one. I believe the $150 mil prediction is correct. Just about everyone who wanted to see Tangled has seen it by now. Families will probably see Narnia or Yogi over the holidays instead. And FWIW, I liked the film, but wasn't dazzled by it. The animation was drop dead GORGEOUS. I loved the music/score, but not terribly impressed with the songs. I found them unremarkable and easily forgotten. Fabulous rich eye candy, for sure. And the 3D was well done, too. But I wasn't wowed by the film. When I saw Dragon in IMAX 3D, I was wowed. The flying sequences in 3D, the lighting direction, the richness of the environments, and the story... it's still my favorite animated feature this year. TS3 is a very close second, but Tangled, sadly, is not. I want WDAS features to "WOW!" me again. But with the current management team running the show, I wonder if that will ever happen.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>I believe the $150 mil prediction is correct. Just about everyone who wanted to see Tangled has seen it by now. Families will probably see Narnia or Yogi over the holidays instead.<<< Well, I know of a few people holding out for this weekend, seeing Winter Break/Holiday Break starts. But I dunno. Hopefully it continues to do well. ...Sorry it didn't wow you, it certainly got me. Felt like something out of the 90's.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Felt like something out of the 90's.>> I think that's why it didn't "wow" me, EE. My tastes in film have been changing over the years. Tangled did fit the mold of the "Waking Sleeping Beauty" era films, which is fine, if that's the goal. In hindsight, I found most of the songs to be a distraction from the story. Tangled could have been told a la Pixar (non-musical) and it might have worked better, at least for me. YMMV, of course.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer ^^^ Really? I found the songs to fit the story very well. Much more organic than PatF's, which seemed over the top, and too much. I agree with what you said about your tastes changing, too, though. But I kinda liked that it felt "retro" in that respect, but the CGI, and dialogs made it feel modern.
Originally Posted By Evening Star >>And merchandise for this film doesn't seem to be all that plentiful. I visited my brand new local Disney Store the other day, and Tangled merch was barely noticeable.<< Target has quite a bit for little girls. I think there is even a large tower playset out there.
Originally Posted By mapleservo From a non-financial standpoint, I'd say it was a big success. First Disney movie I've seen in a long time that I'd consider seeing again in the theatres, and I've heard that from a few people. Maybe a some repeat business will help a wee bit at the box office. Artistically, I'd love to see Disney be more ambitious (but maybe this is ambitious considering their last few films.)
Originally Posted By Manfried <<While others can say a $150 million domestic gross from a $260 million budget is a disaster.>> This is precisely how Disney execs will view it, since ROI is pretty much the only thing that matters. And now you know why they are making "Cars 2." If Tangled has a great run in merchandising and more, expect more.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>This is precisely how Disney execs will view it, since ROI is pretty much the only thing that matters.<< The question is, how are they defining "I"? You're assuming that development work on Rapunzel Unbraided will be charged against Tangled. That's assuming facts not in evidence.
Originally Posted By Erjontem << When I saw Dragon in IMAX 3D, I was wowed. The flying sequences in 3D, the lighting direction, the richness of the environments, and the story... it's still my favorite animated feature this year. TS3 is a very close second, but Tangled, sadly, is not. >> I also LOVED Dragon. I wasn't expecting to, but I left the theater feeling exhilarated and filled with wonder. Same with Toy Story 3 (but with a few tear streaks down my cheeks). I left Tangled thinking: that was pretty good. Not $ 260 MM, 100% on Rotten Tomatoes good, but pretty good. At its best (to me), the film is kind of a paint-by-numbers retread of the early 90s masterpieces, with CGI. But it looks like what Disney needs these days is a complete reevaluation of what its (non-Pixar) animation department can do. Think about Mermaid when it came out in 1989. It was so incredibly new. The Broadway songs. The grownup-friendly humor. The human drama. The complexity and verisimilitude of the characters (Ariel, anyone?). The quality of the animation (compare it with Oliver and Company that came out the year before -- easily as great a leap in animation as you can see from "The Goddess of Spring" short to "Snow White" in the 30s). Let's face it, Disney is creatively, artistically, and financially stalled if it can't make a similar leap now. I have no idea how it can be done, but that's what needed. PatF didn't do it. Tangled didn't do it. Remove the CGI and it's a poor cousin to Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin. I enjoyed the movie, and I look forward to seeing it again, but it just doesn't compare that favorably with the predecessors it's designed to be reminiscent of. I'm worried that if the movie's financials verify this (though again, as mawnck says, much of it depends on ROI accounting), the company will just decide to stop trying and move on. After all, it has more than a few cash cows to keep shareholders happy. But a world without Disney animation would just be too bleak for some of us.
