Originally Posted By mawnck >>Remove the CGI and it's a poor cousin to Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin.<< ... which are poor cousins to The Little Mermaid. Methinks there is some grumpy-old-man-ism in this line of reasoning. "In my day, we had GOOD Disney movies with NEW stuff in 'em." Why is fairy tale musical #3 (Aladdin) a classic but fairy tale musicals #4 and 5 (P&tF and Tangled) aren't? As it happens, I saw The Little Mermaid at the Egyptian Theater just a few days after I saw the finished Tangled. Yes, it IS a better movie. But not THAT much better. And there is some animation in Mermaid that's downright lousy by P&tF standards. And about 20 minutes after Mermaid finished, they rolled "I See the Light" for us. It had NO trouble standing up against Mermaid - the leap forward in visuals was spectacular - and it wasn't even in 3D. And the heck with y'all, the song is fantastic.
Originally Posted By leemac <<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. >> Horse manure. All development and pre-production costs for movies are included in the budgeted cost - management will look at the total cost to get a movie to the audience - including all development, pre-production, production, marketing and distribution costs. It is the only way to determine the success of a product - you then compare that to all revenue attributable to that product. It has nothing to do with accounting - it is purely a summation of the costs. The accounting is complex - you typically capitalize costs and amortise over the life of a product (which could be short if it is a failure but a lot longer if it has a residual life outside of its primary domestic run). The breakeven point for Tangled will probably never be reached. It would have to do about $1bn in revenue from all sources to justify its cost base (that includes Disney's share of theatrical runs, home video, TV rights sale, merch etc.). The issue should be how WDAS management allowed the budget to Tangled to explode to POTC proportions. I'm not completely convinced by the notion that the division wanted Tangled to fail but it was never going to be a blockbuster like Alice or TS3 - it never had a chance. Look - I get that there are a lot of folks championing this movie - I'm glad it has a rabid following amongst Disney fans but you can't ignore the fact that it is a $300m movie (before international costs) - that doesn't make commercial sense at all.
Originally Posted By leemac <<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.>> ROI will include long-term appeal - particularly where there is evidence that a synergistic property can live into perpetuity. Don't forget though that future cashflows are worth less today (you discount back to today) so any movie product needs to still get the bulk of its revenue from first-run.
Originally Posted By Christi22222 >>The issue should be how WDAS management allowed the budget to Tangled to explode to POTC proportions.<< This!! This has been nagging at me. Why on Earth should an animated family film be trying to justify an exraordinary budget in order to be considered a success? Regardless of whether or not I liked Tangled, none of the films should come with this kind of baggage. So my fear is that WDAS will be nixed over the 'failure' of Tangled when it is obvious that the measuring stick masked a bigger problem they need to fix.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>... which are poor cousins to The Little Mermaid. Methinks there is some grumpy-old-man-ism in this line of reasoning. "In my day, we had GOOD Disney movies with NEW stuff in 'em." Why is fairy tale musical #3 (Aladdin) a classic but fairy tale musicals #4 and 5 (P&tF and Tangled) aren't? As it happens, I saw The Little Mermaid at the Egyptian Theater just a few days after I saw the finished Tangled. Yes, it IS a better movie. But not THAT much better. And there is some animation in Mermaid that's downright lousy by P&tF standards. And about 20 minutes after Mermaid finished, they rolled "I See the Light" for us. It had NO trouble standing up against Mermaid - the leap forward in visuals was spectacular - and it wasn't even in 3D. And the heck with y'all, the song is fantastic.<<< Agreed totally. I can easily place Tangled in line with the 90's... What was different about it anyway?
Originally Posted By Britain Given the premium cost of 3D tickets, and the better executed campaign (no Christmas Carol hogging the space, no 'girly' title -arguably ridiculous, but hey, it looks like it's working) I don't find it surprising at all that Tangled is doing better business than P&tF. But is it a better film? In my opinion, P&tF was aiming for something more modern and sophisticated (Do fanciful notions like 'wishing on a star' apply to real life? Marriage for love or money? Giving up what you want for what you need, etc.) than in Tangled (um... Evil kidnappers are bad... Go live your dream... love conquers all... those were the best answers comments on the boards have given me). Arguably, Tangled may have been more successful at achieving it's storytelling goals than P&tF, but even so, isn't that a step backwards for WDA? "Okay, you managed to make a story with themes like "Love conquers all" work as opposed to failing at "Marriage for love or money?" Isn't that essentially damning with faint praise? WDA still seems light years away from being able to tell a story about how "Anyone can cook," "Letting go of your dead spouse" or "Americans consume too much." Thoughts?
Originally Posted By andyll <<It has nothing to do with accounting - it is purely a summation of the costs. The accounting is complex - you typically capitalize costs and amortise over the life of a product>> LOL Only someone that does not work in accounting would say that. How the accounting looks is all that counts and no modern Corp uses a cash basis in their accounting. Management will only see GAAP and TAX basis numbers which can be night and day different from the actual cash received. Outside of Walt Disney Studios the individual movies will not even be broken out on the balance sheets.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<WDA still seems light years away from being able to tell a story about how "Anyone can cook," "Letting go of your dead spouse" or "Americans consume too much.">> I think you might be asking a little too much in this instance. Tangled is an animated fairy tale - a re-telling of the Rapunzel story, just like Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, The Little Mermaid, etc. As such, I pretty much expect it to tell the story of that fairy tale, and Tangled succeeds in doing so. I guess I just don't see what you think is missing? Does The Little Mermaid add some amazing new moral to that story? Or Beauty and the Beast? If you're saying that Disney shouldn't be making new fairy tales, then that is a different argument all together. But to claim that Tangled wasn't as good because its theme was too basic really isn't a fair criticism - the theme was basic because that's the story they were telling - Rapunzel.
Originally Posted By Evening Star Compared to the era of the 90s, Tangled is missing many thematic elements that have made other Disney fairy tales so enjoyable. Had Tangled debuted before The Little Mermaid it would have been hailed as a great success. But trailing after such films as Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast it does not reach the same level of thoughtful storytelling. Arguably I would throw Princess and the Frog in there for its story telling attempt. The set up for Tangled was great: a magic flower, an enchanted princess, hair that heals, the secret of eternal youth. But the execution of that story fell flat for a Disney movie.
Originally Posted By Britain "If you're saying that Disney shouldn't be making new fairy tales, then that is a different argument all together. But to claim that Tangled wasn't as good because its theme was too basic really isn't a fair criticism - the theme was basic because that's the story they were telling - Rapunzel." I'm moving beyond whether or not Tangled was good, I'm saying Tangled may have succeeded, but was aiming low.
Originally Posted By Britain ^ and, by extension, is WDA capable of doing something deeper, more sophisticated, more insightful?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<is WDA capable of doing something deeper, more sophisticated, more insightful?>> You mean like a Wall-E or an Up, right? I don't see why they couldn't do something like that, given the opportunity. But I'm not sure they will. American animated movies seem to all basically be about the same - cute, funny stories, sometime musicals, sometimes not. All the big animation companies in the States seem to follow the same formula again and again - even Pixar. True, movies like Wall-E and Up were a bit more sophisticated than some of the others, but they were still, at the core, cute stories told with humor. And that seems to be what American audiences want from animated films. I don't think we'll ever see Disney or Pixar animating something like "Grave of the Fireflies".
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<The set up for Tangled was great: a magic flower, an enchanted princess, hair that heals, the secret of eternal youth. But the execution of that story fell flat for a Disney movie.>> Thank you. My sentiments exactly. I felt the story was uneven, and didn't quite know which aspects of this tale to focus on, from moment to moment. As a result, there were times when the songs felt more like a distraction, interrupting the flow of development simply so someone could sing a tune, because, hey, it is a musical. I never felt this way about the songs from TLM or BatB or Aladdin. Maybe because the songs weren't as good? I don't know. But I agree with those posters who stated that without the gorgeous art direction and CGI animation, it would have been even less entertaining than previous films from the Waking Sleeping Beauty era.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I don't think we'll ever see Disney or Pixar animating something like "Grave of the Fireflies".>> This. In spades.
Originally Posted By Evening Star >>^ How so? How did other movies do the execution better?<< I'm going to have to agree with "deeper, more sophisticated, more insightful." The story lines for the Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast (and arguably P&tF in parts) operated on a higher level of the fairy tale genre. Characters made difficult choices, difficult issues had to be dealt with, and sometimes difficult choices had to be lived with. Tangled as a retelling was told about twenty years too late to be a triumph of Disney storytelling. Though it certainly was pretty to look at.
Originally Posted By Evening Star >>I don't think we'll ever see Disney or Pixar animating something like "Grave of the Fireflies".<< Nor even Spirited Away or Howl's Moving Castle.
Originally Posted By Britain Yes, it's like Disney stopped trying to make animated children's versions of Hamlet or Pride and Prejudice (which Lion King & Beauty and the Beast are essentially) and decided instead on making an animated children's version of 'The Proposal' or any other forgettable romantic comedy. They did it well. I buy the chemistry between Rapunzel and Flynn, I really do! It's just that WDA isn't acting very artistically ambitious right now. I guess they're scared of being shut down, and fear of failure kills creativity.
Originally Posted By Evening Star >>Yes, it's like Disney stopped trying to make animated children's versions of Hamlet or Pride and Prejudice (which Lion King & Beauty and the Beast are essentially)<< To be fair, Hunchback of Notre Dame was an attempt to showcase literary value in a family friendly way. Though that didn't turn out so well. Though for me Hunchback's failure was in the unchecked comedy of the sidekicks, rather than a lack of compelling storytelling.
