Originally Posted By Erjontem This is heartwarming stuff... Every time I read about someone's experience of the movie, I start believing there could actually be a great movie behind all this dumb marketing: <a href="http://www.latinoreview.com/news/interview-nathan-greno-and-byron-howard-on-disney-s-tangled-11104" target="_blank">http://www.latinoreview.com/ne...ed-11104</a> <a href="http://www.latinoreview.com/news/el-guapo-presents-a-sneak-peek-at-disney-s-tangled-11091" target="_blank">http://www.latinoreview.com/ne...ed-11091</a>
Originally Posted By Y Tywysog Disney I think people who are fans of films like Shrek, Hoodwinked or Happily N'Ever After but hate fairy tale musicals like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and go to see "The Movie Formerly Known as Rapunzel" expecting to see a pop-culture filled, fairy tale parody of a comedy, may actually be dissapointed. I actually am looking forward to this, even if I don't like the marketing. They mention that this is the first CGI musical, but from the marketing and the trailers, you would never know that. Which is a shame because I can't wait to hear more Alan Menken songs! I am still a little worried that this film will have a bit of competition with films like MegaMind, Harry Potter and Narnia. I'm also worried that because of the dumb marketing, Disney fans won't want to see the film, but DreamWorks fans (to whom Disney seems to be marketing) may see this and then expecting another "Shrek" or "How to Train Your Dragon", could be dissapointed and so by word of mouth, will tell people not to see it. Hopefully there will be enough "word of mouth" coming from Disney fans as well.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I think people who are ... expecting to see a pop-culture filled, fairy tale parody of a comedy, may actually be dissapointed.<< Maybe. They're going to see a REALLY good Disney movie instead. Good enough that they just might get over their disappointment.
Originally Posted By Y Tywysog Disney Those of us here, have been anticipating this film for years, and yet the general public didn't even know about it until this year. Toy Story 3 was such a huge success and anyone who saw it, also saw the infamous Tangled trailer (unless they came in late) and before they saw TS3, had no idea that Disney was making this. It's sad that for an extremely large amount of the general public, that awful trailer is the only thing they think of, if you mention the film "Tangled" (aka The Movie Formerly Known as Rapunzel)
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I think people who are fans of films like Shrek, Hoodwinked or Happily N'Ever After but hate fairy tale musicals like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast and go to see "The Movie Formerly Known as Rapunzel" expecting to see a pop-culture filled, fairy tale parody of a comedy, may actually be dissapointed.> Odd, isn't it? Because Disney is marketing it exactly like a Shrek type of fractured fairy tale. Notice we haven't heard a note of even one song? It's a musical, and they're not even suggesting that in the previews. Weird, Disney, Weird.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Notice we haven't heard a note of even one song? It's a musical, and they're not even suggesting that in the previews.<< I know, right? It makes no sense. Remember the extended previews for Lion King, where they played the whole opening chorus? You didn't know for sure what the plot of the movie was, but you knew you HAD to go see it. I guess it didn't work out so well, what with the deeply disappointing box office performance of The Lion King. Better to downplay that whole "musical" aspect. People hate Disney musicals. Okay, that last paragraph burned out my Sarcast-O-Meter again.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA It seems to me that the movie marketing executives (who probably have no interest in movie musicals) have convinced themselves (and I can hear them say it 'people don't want to see an animated musical.' It seems that they also suffer from the..."I just don't get it when people break into song" I always counter with -- 'you ever watch a music video? How do you justify that? This attempt to market 'Tangled' as anything other than a musical is stupid. Didn't 'Chicago' win Best Picture in 2002? Or is that ancient history when it comes to movie making?
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Mamma Mia sold more tickets in the UK than Titanic. But I guess to the executives, that's a pretty good sign that musicals aren't going to sell at the box office...maybe...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>This attempt to market 'Tangled' as anything other than a musical is stupid.<< This is my "disagree with Jim" month, apparently. Nothing personal. Disney musicals AREN'T going to sell at the box office. The marketing research doesn't lie, and neither do the P&tF box-office returns. Yes, the Lion King opening was really exciting in 1994, but this is not 1994. Disney is not the Awesome Animation Studio that made Aladdin and B&tB. They're an also-ran, known for their entertainment for boys and girls of all ages ... between 9 and 14, oh and never mind the boys because we haven't quite talked most of them into buying the princess junk yet. I think the latest promo piece (this one <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4I2qfp_0uc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...2qfp_0uc</a> ) shows that they've finally figured out how they can promote Tangled to the audiences of 2010 without making it look like something it isn't. Yes, there's a lot more to it than the trailer shows, and would it kill them to throw in some actual movie music? But at least it doesn't look like The Flynn Movie anymore. I hope they make an actual theatrical trailer like that, because the ones that are out there now just aren't cutting it. IMHO.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Even though it's true that audience tastes change over the years, I think it's too soon to lose confidence in Disney musicals--especially when they're based on Fairy tales. It wasn't that long ago that Enchanted was released and it did well enough for them to start considering a sequel.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Yes, the Lion King opening was really exciting in 1994> Yes it was really exciting. Because audiences had finally caught up with Disney's new take on animated movies. It took them 'The Little Mermaid' 'Oliver & Co.' 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'Aladdin' to figure out that an animated movie musical might be worth seeing. "The Lion King" opening in 1994 for Disney Animation is akin to the theme park attraction "Pirates of the Caribbean" opening in 1967. It was that explosively positive for the respective industries and divisions of Disney. <but this is not 1994.> Correct. However, I would argue that it was pretty risky at the time to produce a full-blown, Broadway style musical like "The Little Mermaid" and release it in 1989. Where was the market research on that one? Did they think about 'marketing to young boys?' I'm guessing not. <Disney is not the Awesome Animation Studio that made Aladdin and B&tB. They're an also-ran, known for their entertainment for boys and girls of all ages ... between 9 and 14,> Disney has always ebbed and flowed. Your description above reads a lot like the Disney today -- at least animation-wise. Go back from 'The Lion King' to 1985. That year, Disney released "The Black Cauldron," "Return to Oz," "The Journey of Natty Gann" and "One Magic Christmas." What on earth would convince Disney to begin production of an animated musical based on Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale? It seems crazy. <never mind the boys because we haven't quite talked most of them into buying the princess junk yet.> I can't imagine young boys back in 1985 buying a "Natty Gann" action figure but maybe it's just me. (I might have) My point is that once upon a time, Disney was a leader in animated entertainment. But it wasn't always that way. Trust me, I suffered through "Robin Hood" and "The Rescuers" and "The Fox and the Hound" and "The Black Cauldron" -- heck even "The Great Mouse Detective" (which showed promise) and "Oliver & Co." (which should have just been made for TV) So for the regime at that time to bank on a movie like "The Little Mermaid" was very risky. But they went out and found talent -- two hot composers -- Menken and Ashman -- fresh off of their hit 'Little Shop of Horrors' -- to help write the songs and craft the story. That was smart. In short (unlike this post), with the release of "The Little Mermaid," Disney re-invented what the animated movie musical could be. That's what they need to do now. The problem with "Princess and the Frog" is that it just felt like a redux of 'Mermaid' 'BatB' and 'Aladdin' and some of the other 'modern' musicals. We'd been there before. If Disney wants to turn it around, animation-wise, they're going to have to stay away from market research and give us something new and fresh and different.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think market research lies plenty. People ALWAYS ask for what they know. And sooner or later, something new and surprising comes along and becomes a big smash hit. Then every other studio scrambles to produce something similar and it falls out of fashion again. After Disney's string of Broadway musical animated hits, other studios took a crack at aping the Disney Broadway musical animated feature (Anastasia, Thumbelina, others that escape memory). Most of them didn't do so well, because they were largely based on that trusty market research. And the Shrek came along and the in thing was to spoof fairy tales. Heck, until Pirates of the Carribbean was released, common wisdom was that no one in the 2000s wanted to see a movie about pirates. I'm just not a fan of promoting a movie in a way that downplays what it really is. I don't think it's smart, or fair to a potential audience. And worse, it blows off the potentially huge amount of people that would love to see a new Disney musical (all those folks gobbling up tickets to see Disney theatrical productions and shows like Wicked and such.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan In short, if Tangled is a big hit, it will be in spite of the marketing, not because of it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'm just not a fan of promoting a movie in a way that downplays what it really is. I don't think it's smart, or fair to a potential audience.<< Ah, but you just answered yourself with ... >>People ALWAYS ask for what they know.<< And therein lies the rub. It's risky to do anything that strays from whatever the formula du jour is. Whatever you think about P&tF, you HAVE to admit that it was light years better than Alvin and the Chipmunks, The Squeakuel. Furthermore, it LOOKED light years better from the promos. But which one did We the People go see? Tangled is a wonderful movie, but I wouldn't put any money on it doing better than that Yogi Bear cinematic-sewer-pipe-rupture we've been hearing about. People go see things that remind them of the last movie they enjoyed. A movie they enjoyed in 1987? Not so much. So I can't blame Disney for pushing the action-comedy elements of Tangled rather than the musical stuff. Get the butts in the seats, then let word of mouth do the rest. The fine line, IMHO, is the difference between playing up certain elements of the movie vs. being outright misleading as to its content. The theatrical trailers (including that latest Flynntacular) lean too far to the bad side of that line, IMHO.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <And therein lies the rub. It's risky to do anything that strays> Yes. But with great risk, comes great reward. "Princess and the Frog" was not risky. It was simply trying to cash in on what Disney felt 'people wanted' from an animated movie. Didn't work. Strangely enough, both 'Wall-E' and 'Up' were quite successful. Wondering how much market research was done to find out if people wanted to go to an EPCOT Center?
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, I still think it's silly and misleading of Disney to try and market any film for something other than what it really is. They can come up with as many reasons for doing what they do as they want to but it all boils down to a lot of clap trap when they're so dishonest with the public. If they don't think fairy tales can stand on their own without a phony disguise then they should bother making them in the first place.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Sorry. I meant to say they SHOULDN'T bother making them in the first place.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>People go see things that remind them of the last movie they enjoyed.<< Some do. But if it were that easy, every Disney animated feature would be a big hit. I'm actually okay with playing up the Flynn part of the story. If it's in the movie, fine, and it's fine to let the boys know there's stuff in the movie for them, too. But I can't understand completely ignoring the musical side of it. And for goodness sake, poor Rapunzel seems all but forgotten. Other than "Best. Day. Ever." we've hardly heard a word from her in the trailers. She seems more mute than any princess since Ariel traded her voice for gams.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I think the Disney rennaisance probably started with The Rescuers Down Under, and each film after that built upon the audience until there was a palpable buzz with Aladdin and then The Lion King. I really think The Princess and the Frog was the first possible step in another reboot of the Disney animated brand, but just like it took a couple of really good films to build up the audience before, I think it will take a few to do it this time as well. - Anatole
Originally Posted By leemac <<I think the Disney rennaisance probably started with The Rescuers Down Under>> Boy-o-boy do I agree with that statement. Rescuers Down Under is an absolute gem - I never understand why it is ignored. The characterizations are wonderful - especially Joanna and Frank (the egg scene with the poacher and the key scene are priceless). <<I really think The Princess and the Frog was the first possible step in another reboot of the Disney animated brand>> I tried so hard to love that movie but it really became another forgettable tale for me. It felt like a movie made by a committee - all too safe. I also hated the songs - completely unmemorable (I don't get Lasseter's obsession with Randy Newman AT ALL). Tangled just doesn't interest me at all - I've seen a lot of it now and it has left me cold. It isn't bad - I just can't warm to it at all. I have heard all of the songs and they are definitely a highpoint.
