Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/w/news/2014/03/30/frozen-becomes-highest-grossing-animated-film-of-all-time/" target="_blank"><b>3/30/14: Frozen Becomes Highest Grossing Animated Film Of All Time</b></a>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros This seemed inevitable, but it's still quite impressive. Especially when you consider that the other high-grossing animated films have been sequels or benefitted from re-releases through the years, it's particularly impressive It would be interesting to see how the actual number of tickets plays into this. Obviously movie tickets are far more expensive than they were decades ago, and 3D only adds to the difference more. I understand why they tout finances in the entertainment industry, but it seems like the number of tickets would make a better apples-to-apples comparison. Stadiums always talk about the number of tickets, not the money
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Adjusted for inflation it's not quite as impressive... <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm">http://boxofficemojo.com/allti...sted.htm</a> Note that it's at #109 - but that's the 109th most successful film ever of any type, out of 10's of thousands made, so impressive by any measure. There are other animated movies ahead of that, though. Note that Snow White, 101 Dalmatians and Lion King are all in the top 20. And there are other animated movies in between. Of course, the "classic" Disney features were all released multiple times, so even Fantasia and Pinocchio - money-losers on their first release - are in there (#22 and 39 respectively.) Impressive showing for Frozen with just one release no doubt, but the list provides a little perspective.
Originally Posted By JeffG The adjusted for inflation list is another interesting perspective on it, but, in many ways, it is still an apples and oranges comparison as the marketplace for theatrical exhibition of movies has changed so much over the years. Up until the late 70s or early 80s (with the debut of premium cable and then home video), a movie theater was the only place that you could see an unedited and uninterrupted version of a movie and prior to the late 50s or early 60s, even broadcast TV wasn't there a secondary market. In those early days, there also wasn't competition from TV programming at all. Of course, most of Disney's animated classics were also withheld from any home viewing at all until they started doing videocassette releases in the mid-80s. Today, with a film like "Frozen", there is much less urgency to see the movie in the theater at all and certainly a lot less incentive to see it multiple times. Even when the movie was brand new, most people were well aware that the movie would be available for repeated home viewing in just 3-4 months. In light of that, movies play for a much shorter time (in the days before home video, a blockbuster like "Frozen" would stay in theaters for well over a year) and re-issues are rare. Of course, the other side of the coin is that movie tickets are a lot more expensive and there are a lot more movie theaters, most of which are now multiplexes with lots of screens. The international market for American films is also a lot larger than it used to be. The result of all that is that it is really pretty difficult to come up with an especially meaningful measurement for comparing the success of current films with those older than about the last 25-30 years. By modern standards, "Frozen" is a huge success. You can make a pretty strong argument that it is among the most popular animated films in a long time. How it fits in to the entire canon of animated films (or even Disney animated films) will probably be much harder to measure until we see how well it endures the test of time.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead " I understand why they tout finances in the entertainment industry, but it seems like the number of tickets would make a better apples-to-apples comparison." They're going to tout the numbers that put them in the best light. Frozen comes out on DVD, and they get the free publicity that comes with being "the highest grossing animated film of all time." It's not so sexy saying you're the 109th most successful movie of all time. "The adjusted for inflation list is another interesting perspective on it, but, in many ways, it is still an apples and oranges comparison..." Absolutely. People say that 3D prices are an unfair advantage, but movies today are competing with so much more. The entertainment available to kids even just 30 years ago was a drop in the bucket compared to what kids have today. My seven-year old daughter loves the iPad, where she has thousands of hours of entertainment LITERALLY at her fingertips, anywhere in the house. She is untethered and in control. Not to mention that from my end, a month's subscription to Netflix is cheaper than buying us two movie tickets...what incentive is there to leave the house to seek out entertainment? Based on that, it's mildly impressive that my daughter wanted to go see Frozen. It's insanely impressive that she went to see it three times. And it's downright nutty that I sort of had to convince her that three was enough.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <The adjusted for inflation list is another interesting perspective on it, but, in many ways, it is still an apples and oranges comparison as the marketplace for theatrical exhibition of movies has changed so much over the years.> Well, sure. There's no really good way to compare eras. (Just like baseball... opening day, baby! But I digress...) Frozen has had the advantage of ticket prices that have gone up faster than inflation, plus the 3D premium for many showings. Plus a marketing/TV/synergy/social media blitz that earlier animated films couldn't match. It has the disadvantage of (probably) ONE major release, and the fact that everyone knew it would be available for home consumption a few months afterwards. No question it's the most successful WDFA movie in a long time, though - probably since Lion King.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I am completely surprised at how popular this movie is. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, I really did, but I am somehow missing what makes it so different from any number of Disney animated musicals. And I'm at a complete loss as to why this movie has completely clicked with teenagers where other Disney films haven't. I'm not disputing or quibbling with the numbers -- there's no denying this is the biggest Disney animated hit in at least a decade. When we went to see it, it had been out awhile, and several teenagers in the audience had seen it several times because they were whispering lines of dialogue and singing along with the songs. It's just amazing to me why some movies catch on and others do not.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>It's just amazing to me why some movies catch on and others do not.<< I agree. It's certainly not a bad film by any stretch, but I just didn't feel like it was *that* much better than a lot of the other stuff they've done. I enjoyed it myself (even saw it twice in theaters), but I have no idea why it's caught the public's attention so well I had a similar reaction to Lilo & Stitch, which I thought was "just okay", but the film was a pretty big hit that made its way through pop culture
Originally Posted By skinnerbox OK, I'm going to take a stab at why this film is popular, especially with the teen set. First off, thanks to great music by husband and wife team Robert Lopez and Kristen-Anderson Lopez, the film has a definite youth/"Glee" vibe to it, given that this team wrote the songs for Avenue Q and Book of Mormon. They're snappy and easy to sing. Can't wait to see the Broadway version. I predict lots of Tonys and major career launches for up and coming young performers a la Spring Awakening. Second, it's a positive story about sisters and their love for one another. That's a biggie. One of the main driving forces behind Hunger Games' popularity, no doubt, the love between Katniss and Prim. Hollywood doesn't tap into this social phenom very often, so when it's done well, it's almost a guaranteed success. Third, our characters are likeable. Really, REALLY likeable. Including the typically annoying sidekicks who aren't annoying at all. Olaf could have been but his enthusiasm is tempered and not overplayed. Ditto for Sven. And Kristoff is just so gosh darned... nice. Cute. And nice. Nothing intimidating about the guy at all. Another big score for the tween girls looking for their first romance. Kind of a Norwegian version of Peeta from the Hunger Games. Very sweet but capable. All of these things come together nicely. It's not any one single item, it's the whole package. They all fit together well and complement each other. If either the music or the character development or sidekicks had been a bit off, the film wouldn't have worked at all. It was a wonderful blend of all elements, the sum being greater than the total of individual parts. But as usual, YMMV.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Those are all valid reasons, and I don't doubt them at all. But I guess, for me, those elements all exist in one way or another in most of Disney's animated musicals, especially from Little Mermaid and beyond. Why is it seen as something new in 2014? Not the story of two sisters, that's a key difference, but the music has been top notch Broadway style show tunes all along. Again, I'm not knocking Frozen, I'm just baffled as to why what has been there all along and doesn't really break a lot of new ground is catching on so much this time as if it's a new invention.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I think the music is much more relatable to teens than most Disney films. It's probably not common for songs from animated movies to make the billboard top ten, like Let it Go did. To me, the music from Frozen doesn't seem as Broadway/musical in it's style, and that's probably a good thing when trying to appeal to teenagers.
Originally Posted By leobloom Interesting you say the characters are likeable. I actually thought the relationship between Anna and Elsa was underdeveloped -- and Elsa was quite two-dimensional. Maybe because I got to the movie well after the hype train, but I just didn't think it was anything special. Thought Tangled was more entertaining.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros ^^I agree that I didn't think Elsa was as great as everybody else, but I did enjoy that about 15 minutes from the end I had no idea how the story would conclude (though that's in part to a total blindside that was barely foreshadowed). I also agree that I like Tangled better, but that's probably in part because I'm a guy, and Flynn Rider is a much more interesting and fully-formed character than any of the guys in Frozen >>It's probably not common for songs from animated movies to make the billboard top ten, like Let it Go did.<< I believe the last time it happened was the version of A Whole New World that plays over the end credits. I'm not sure exactly where it landed, but there's always trivia about it being the best-ranked song of the Second Golden Age
Originally Posted By darcy-becker <To me, the music from Frozen doesn't seem as Broadway/musical in it's style, and that's probably a good thing when trying to appeal to teenagers.> I find it more Broadway in style and knew it as soon as Do You Want to Build a Snowman started.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead It's funny - there are so many similarities between "Frozen" and the Broadway musical "Wicked," and now even this conversation is similar. People were stunned by the incredible success of Wicked. The show got mediocre reviews. It lost the Tonys for score and musical. And yet it did a TON of business. Crazy business. That audience of teen and pre-teen girls became obsessed and couldn't get enough. They listened to the cast recording ad nauseam, and if you lived within 100 miles of the show, your birthday / Christmas / Bat Mitzvah gift was yet-another-ticket to the show. It will wind up being one of the most profitable Broadway musicals of all time. People tried to analyze what it was about Wicked and not other shows, and the consensus seemed to boil down to this: Wicked was this big, brassy show about sisterhood and Girl Power that tapped into a rarely-tapped-into audience of adolescent girls. They both just clicked. The show - with a book by a woman - had a real female voice, and the two female leads were relatable to the extent that girls saw themselves up on that stage, in either character, usually both. And the thing that sealed the deal was this big musical moment at the end of act one where the girl tosses off the shackles of what the world tells her she is supposed to be and decides finally to be herself. It was a powerful message, a powerful song, and it made those young fans come back time after time after time. And now we see "Frozen" do the exact same thing with the exact same results. I know I am speaking in broad generalizations, but Hollywood thinks they're tapping into that young female audience by making a princess movie or a Tinker Bell movie or a Nicholas Sparks movie. And they usually see success. But then along comes an Anna or a Belle or an Elphaba that does something unexpected and different with a female character, and I think girls react...I don't know...dramatically? Hence, crazy success.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead One minor quibble... "given that this team wrote the songs for Avenue Q and Book of Mormon." The Lopezes didn't write the scores to Avenue Q and Book of Mormon. Robert Lopez worked with others on both of those projects, not his wife. But looking at the songs from all three shows (Frozen, Book of Mormon, Avenue Q) you see a common thread of sincerity. Despite those other musicals being over-the-top, ridiculous, and offensive, they are sincere. I think people aren't used to seeing that so much.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I just saw a commercial for Rio 2 that quoted a critic saying "the best animated spectacular since Frozen". You know, that film that was still in every theater in the country last month. You just can't make this stuff up
