Originally Posted By Hista98 I was just thinking about it and since they both opened around the same time I think Avatar is hurting the attendance for Princess. If you look at box office mojo the princess opened the week before avatar. The week avatar opened the princess lost 47% of its audience and its never regianed it. I think because at this time of year most people only go to the thetares once a month or so (its not like summer, everyone is in school or work and doesn't have time to get out.) so more people would rather go see Avatar then anything else. Should Disney have relased it later? would that have helped?
Originally Posted By dshyates Without a doubt Avatar hurt PatF. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get good release dates.
Originally Posted By DlandDug PatF opened in a very crowded film season with a lot of good films. So did Avatar.
Originally Posted By dshyates Just think what Avatars numbers would have looked like if it didn't have to go up against PatF.
Originally Posted By DAR Disney may have been better off releasing PATF Thanksgiving weekend and dumping Old Dogs to sometime this monthy.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I wonder if they had switched PATF and A Christmas Carol (you know, so it would actually still be in theaters around Christmas time), that it might have made both do better. I would think that PATF would have benefitted from the early buzz and picked up a really strong Thanksgiving weekend out of it. Then, just as the buzz on that was dieing, CC would come along and grab the holiday market, which didn't really seem to have anything this year. Yah, it still would have gotten its butt kicked by Avatar, but I think the timeliness of it might have helped it out (and helped drown out the reviews).
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Problem with that theory, is Christmas Carol was in IMAX 3D, and PatF wasn't. Cameron locked in Avatar's holiday release for IMAX before Christmas Carol could grab it. So... CC had to be released in November, because of the IMAX theater schedule.
Originally Posted By Hista98 they should have relaesed PatF in march not as many movies to compete with.
Originally Posted By markymouse I'm not sure what went wrong. But I just saw PATF and I thought it was great. But I've seen very, very little hyping or even advertising of this movie. I couldn't help but think the powers that be had decided to give up on the theatrical release of the movie, and look forward to every girl between 3 and 13 getting the DVD for Christmas next year.
Originally Posted By ToonKirby >But I've seen very, very little hyping or even advertising of this movie.< Funny you said that as I was surprised to still see TV commercials for it as late as last week. They should have opened it wide Thanksgiving weekend instead of just limited release. "Enchanted" did really well when it opened then 2 years ago.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Don't make excuses for P&TF's weak performance. Every film opened with tough competition this holiday season. Even with Avatar Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks are both passing 200 million... Blame the tired old Princess formula that most of America who are male and over the age of 8 are sick of.
Originally Posted By xrayvision @Toonk- Agreed. Based on strong pre-holiday advertising, people were dressing their kids like princess Tiana by Halloween and buying PATF products. They were actually looking for the PATF movie during the Thanksgiving break as a film for the whole family to see, which there were few new offerings at that time. Opening PAFT so close to school closing, it lost word of mouth advertising opportunities in its school-age target market and put it in competition with a larger selection of movies also opened in December. The other was that PaTF story was good but not billiant, with a great villian, likable princess and supporting characters in a beautifully drawn film that lacked the original storytelling and memorable music that made prior Disney 2-D drawn films a longer standing success (eg, Beauty, Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King). PaTF had the hype and public interest, but it didn't have repeat viewing appeal to keep the kids and adults coming back to theater for more PaTF. Beauty, Mermaid and Lion King did have repeat appeal helping ticket sales and post movie consumer product sales.
Originally Posted By xrayvision ^ "brilliant" - wrong word to use and have a typo mistake...lol. Avatar gives its audience a rich and beautifully animated world that is fresh, unexpected and full of adventure, with a storyline that keeps you captivated. PaTF was beautifully hand drawn with a great New Orleans setting and great characters, but with an OK storyline & musical score and re-used formula that included borrowed elements from other Disney offerings we'd already seen (eg Disney movies and attractions)... which I didn't expect but kept on seeing these borrowed Disney elements, until it became a distraction for me. This is why I liked PaTF, but didn't think it was great storywise, and is why I loved Avatar's more original tale and feel, which was which will probably bring me back to the theater to see the film again.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Avatar looked great and was fun, but... original tale and feel?? <a href="http://web.me.com/pascalboogaert/Site/foto3_files/original.jpg" target="_blank">http://web.me.com/pascalboogae...inal.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Avatar gives its audience a rich and beautifully animated world that is fresh, unexpected and full of adventure, with a storyline that keeps you captivated.*** Meh. I think your first sentiment about "good but not brilliant" is more appropriate. Oh, wait. You were talking about some movie OTHER than Avatar? Well, works for Avatar just as well. Meh, indeed.
Originally Posted By Mr X Don't get me wrong, I liked Avatar. But I definitely don't think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I'm at a loss to understand why on Earth it has been so tremendously popular. Highest grossing movie of all time? WHY? I "get" Titanic and why it worked far more than I get why Avatar is so popular. Frankly, I think the fact that it's breaking all box office records is kinda pathetic in a weird way. Is THAT what we've all come down to?
Originally Posted By xrayvision Honestly, PaTF and Avatar are two different animals (no puns intended), hand drawn fairy tale vs computed-animated sci-fi adventure. For comparisons, I would more so use Beauty, Mermaid, Lion King (ect) as benchmarks for comparison for PaTF. Avatar should be compared with other sci-fi adventures (Star Wars, ect). Comparing PaTF with Avatar is like comparing Beauty/Lion King with Star Wars, if they had come out the same year. So, if the choice is Fairytale over Sci-fi, as a guy (kid or adult), my choice would be Sci-Fi. Answering the original poster's question, a good sci-fi movie (that happened to have been largely computer animated) proved to be a formidable contender for all films that opened in December, which included PaTF. In it's own genre of animation, PaTF was good but not the best in comparison to Disney's other animated musical films.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<But I definitely don't think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I'm at a loss to understand why on Earth it has been so tremendously popular.>> I think its performing so well because it happens to be one of those movies that has something that appeals to everyone. Plus, it has the added bonus of the amazing 3D visuals that make it an "Event film". Whether you love the story or not, the visuals alone make it worth seeing in 3D on the big-screen, and I think people realise this. It's never gonna look this cool again - even if you have a large screen 3D tv, so why wouldn't you at least see it once? It's an event, and people are flocking to it. Personally, I've seen it twice and enjoyed it both times. I would have seen PaTF again, but my time and money are limited, so I'd rather spend them on something that won't be as good on DVD.
