Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

[tyler2cfhs]

The Princess and the Frog has been out for two full weeks now and has only grossed around $45 million. This is compared to $137 million by Up in its first two weeks. Since Tiana is performing below expectations, is this the end of original animation? This was believed by many to be Disney's renaissance(part 2) of what made The Walt Disney Company so famous, but since The Princess and the Frog has underperformed so, and there is not any movies green-lighted for production, is the renaissance stopping short for now and maybe forever?

I personally love original animation and would be devastated if this is true. The Princess and the Frog has been well received by critics (Time Magazine named it their movie of the year), but critics do not give the Mouse money. Only time will tell. Let's hope that The Princess in the Frog has a good long run in the box office.

Thoughts?

[DisneyIPresume]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

I think the main problem was this movie's marketing. Initial marketing should have tried to target boys instead of only to girls. This could hve been done like Disney did much more successfully with Enchanted. But they failed to do this.

I think it was a good movie, but I think in this regard they shouldn't have made her a princess. That alone is a turn-off with most boys. And while I think it is a great movie overall I don't think it made sense to have a princess in New Orleans because there's no such thing as royalty in he US. And it would have made the film less threatening to a certain audience that could have easily been included.

[BC_DisneyGeek]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

It lost 50% of its business in its' second weekend. It might get a boost over Christmas, but it looks like a long run isn't going to happen, unfortunately.

I haven't seen it myself, but the reviews are good. Audiences for whatever reason have responded to computer generated animation, and fewer and fewer of us are willing to embrace the traditional stuff.

I think it's safe to say the Princess and the Frog is a better movie than many of the CG films of recent years that have outperformed it at the box office.

[dead_Mau5]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

2011 will see the theatrical release of the sequel to 1977's 'The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh'. And either Christmas 2013 or 2014 will see the release of 'The Snow Queen'. A winter epic ,to be scored by Alan Menken, that very well may become the next Lion King.

Walt's original animation isn't going anywhere but upward in the future!

[Dustysage]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Princess and the Frog is a fantastic film and an instant classic. Early box office won't necessarily reflect it's long term value to the company. It polled VERY well with audiences who actually saw it. Since Disney is capable of re-releasing a film (at least on DVD) every generation, you can bet that Tiana will be pulling in $$$ for Disney for years to come (Toys, DVDs, Princess Paraphernalia).

[PhillipA82]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

I think the main problem was this movie's marketing. Initial marketing should have tried to target boys instead of only to girls. This could hve been done like Disney did much more successfully with Enchanted. But they failed to do this.

I think it was a good movie, but I think in this regard they shouldn't have made her a princess. That alone is a turn-off with most boys. And while I think it is a great movie overall I don't think it made sense to have a princess in New Orleans because there's no such thing as royalty in he US. And it would have made the film less threatening to a certain audience that could have easily been included.

Agree!

[Disney Magic]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

.... And while I think it is a great movie overall I don't think it made sense to have a princess in New Orleans because there's no such thing as royalty in he US. And it would have made the film less threatening to a certain audience that could have easily been included.

I really don't see how that makes any difference at all, and certainly don't see that it harmed the movie. Some of Disney's most popular princesses weren't born into royalty as a princess, like Belle and the quintessential Cinderella, so it doesn't matter that US doesn 't have a monarchy. It is a fairy tale not everthing has to be so accurate to real life.

The movie in my opinion has classic written all over it and will continue to do well for the company for a long time to come.

[SnorkletsMom]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Naveen is a prince from a foreign country, Tiana 'becomes' a princess upon their marriage. So they are indeed royalty, whether they reside in the US or not. The princess angle appeals more to girls, but gender isn't always an issue...Cars didn't have a lot of classic girly appeal but the film and its merchandise have performed incredibly well.

The film hasn't performed terribly well so far, but it may have 'legs' and end up with solid earnings. It looks like some of the merchandise has sold well, which is very important to the Disney company and their bottom line. I think the release should have been timed a little better, but it may do well over the holiday school break.

The animation division (not Pixar) has Rapunzel and King of the Elves on their schedule, so we'll see what happens down the road. I hope Rich Ross isn't shortsighted, but I fear he is motivated by dollars and only dollars.

Every film is not an instant hit, but sometimes they become a classic. "It's a Wonderful Life" was a dud in the theaters and sat forgotten for years, but now is a holiday staple.

[DisneyIPresume]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Coincidentally I was talking to one of my non-Disney obsessed coworkers about this movie today and she told me that both her and her 5 year old daughter thought that this movie was incredibly boring especially because the main charcter spent a majority of the movie as a frog.

I saw this movie and I loved it. Of course I am a huge Disney fan. As I said this movie alienated the boys, but perhaps it didn't deliver to the little girl market as well as the other princess movies either.

[aimster]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

I think a lot of people are probably skeptical due to the last few turkeys Disney has put out (Home on the Range, anyone?). Plus Disney has been marketing the bejebus out of it... I'm sure some people are sick of seeing and hearing ads for it by now as they've been pushing this movie for several months.

I'll be seeing it on Christmas. Looking forward to it!

[sailerm]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Audiences for whatever reason have responded to computer generated animation, and fewer and fewer of us are willing to embrace the traditional stuff.

This is a misconception, but the same one Micheal Eisner had.
I agree that marketing had a few missteps, but mainly because the let all the news outlets lean far too much on the 'first black princess' aspect. I think it alienated a lot of people (both black and white). I mean really The Little Mermaid was never marketed as 'Disney's first 'half fish' Princess', and Mulan and Pocahontas' ethnicity was rarely mentioned.

But Disney has had a few box office bombs in it's day (Pinocchio, Fantasia, ect) that have become cherished (money making)icons for them.

Truth be told, the first teaser trailer never grabbed me (it looked like a Swan Princess sequel to me) nor the whole fairy tale in New Orleans setting. Repunzel already has more of my attention. Frog may just be this animation cycle's Fox & the Hound or Oliver and Company.

[Rocker]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Looking at the earnings, this film has only made that amount of money for this reason:

-Competition
Disney released this film one week before the anticipated "Avatar," so that is going to drive away audiences from it. Next week on Christmas Day, The "Alvin" sequel comes out, and that will drive audiences away from the film as well (and I didn't even like the first one all that much, so I don't even know how they do it), so Disney released this film in a really competitive time. I liked "The Princess and the Frog" personally, and so did my Mom, so everyone has an opinion

[flynnibus]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Just goes to show... focusing on the method doesn't really matter if the results miss the mark. CG rendered or film scanned or hand drawn.. the audiences don't care as long as it's not distracting. Poorly done matters 10x more then whatever format it was.

Disney pimped this film like crazy... and even got national media attention.. and still can't pull in the numbers. The movie is not resonating with the audiences and isn't pulling in peers.

It's fallen FLAT. Given the amount of money they spent pimping this thing - I bet it is a big loser for the company as it stands now.. let alone the actual production budget.

[sailerm]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Disney released this film one week before the anticipated "Avatar,"

Two completely different audiences and demographics, so Disney does not loose that much from Avitar. Though they did shoot themselves in the foot when they released Narnia 2 a week before Indiana Jones,because those two summer films did share the same demo (teen boys)

The "Alvin" sequel comes out, and that will drive audiences away from the film

This film has a built in family crowd, given the success of the first film, it will kill off what ever is left for Frog. My kids have been eager to see the further adventures of Alvin and Co. We may just have to sneek over to see the 1pm Wed showing.

This is another sore spot for Disney, as they had the film rights to Alvin for years and did nothing with them. The Belesarian family had to sue to regain the rights, and then shopped the idea around town. Score another win for 20th Century Fox.

[animagusurreal]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Two completely different audiences and demographics, so Disney does not loose that much from Avitar. Though they did shoot themselves in the foot when they released Narnia 2 a week before Indiana Jones,because those two summer films did share the same demo (teen boys)


This film has a built in family crowd, given the success of the first film, it will kill off what ever is left for Frog. My kids have been eager to see the further adventures of Alvin and Co. We may just have to sneek over to see the 1pm Wed showing.

This is another sore spot for Disney, as they had the film rights to Alvin for years and did nothing with them. The Belesarian family had to sue to regain the rights, and then shopped the idea around town. Score another win for 20th Century Fox.

Wasn't it Universal that had the rights to the Chipmunks, and then the Bagdasarians sued them? I thought that's why they did those direct-to-video movies with the Universal monsters ("The Chipmunks Meet Frankenstien", "The Chipmunks Meet the Wolfman"). I don't know whether Disney also had them at some point, though.

Anyway, after Cars, I'm convinced that as long as Princess and the Frog performs decently at the box office, all that will matter to Corporate Disney is how much merchandise it sells. If it does well in that department, hand-drawn animation has a future at Disney. (This is not why I think it should have future at Disney - I think they should carry on the tradition and that hand-drawn is still a beautiful and distinctive way to make a movie.)

I think it may have been a mistake to put "princess" in the title in terms of marketing it to boys. When I worked for an Elementary School after school program, one time we had a dance teacher coming in, and we were told, "Don't call it dance, call it music and movement. If you call it dance, the boys won't want to do it." (I'm a guy and I never thought that way, but I guess I'm weird ). So we called it "music and movement" and the boys had no problem with it.

But again, maybe it was more important to Disney to let little girls know what franchise this was a part of .

[BC_DisneyGeek]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

This is a misconception, but the same one Micheal Eisner had.

I don't know, it used to be that no one could touch Disney when it came to animation.

I can point to movies that aren't very good, and far inferior to PATF (at least based on the reviews), such as Shrek 3 or Shark Tale.

Those movies will easily outgross PATF. Am I wrong to attribute this to CG animation?

People used to gravitate to Disney for their animation fix, why are so many mediocre animated movies by rival studios now doing such big business?

[Magenta Panther]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

It hurts to say this, but I'm afraid it's true that Princess/Frog is underperforming. I think there are several reasons for this:

1. The princess thing. Yes, it's been a merchandising bonanza for Disney, but it's marketed solely, of course, to girls. That limits the audience right there. And...maybe Disney has been "princessed" out. The same thing happened when Sleeping Beauty premiered. People back then had had enough of princesses for a while. They'd seen Snow White, and Cinderella, and they probably thought Sleeping Beauty was just more of the same. Of course, in reality, it's a very different film from the other two (visually more stunning, if weaker in story elements), but audiences made assumptions and avoided it.

2. Frogs. Frogs aren't cute, not like mice, bunnies, ducks, dogs, cats, fawns, and lion cubs are cute. Not even Kermit has a cute factor like Mickey has a cute factor. Plus the frogs in the movie were very bland and very generic-looking, and that was obvious in the trailers. And unfortunately, Tiana, who is a wonderful character (as she proved in the showstopping "Almost There"), spends much too much of her time in the film as a frog, and she really loses a lot of her charm. Too bad. I really liked her...when she was human.

3. The sidekicks were also lacking in the charm department. It's pretty tough in the first place to make an alligator seem cuddly (especially one that looks a lot like the man-eating crocodile in Peter Pan), and I think that even the amazing animator Eric Goldberg couldn't make Louie the equivalent of Pumbaa or Baloo. As for Ray, he had far more charm in the film than he did in the trailers. But he is, after all, a bug. And bugs don't have that cuddly quality either.

4. The whole film was just too dependent on a familiar formula. When people said they wanted 2D back, they didn't necessarily mean they wanted it to portray the same old thing. Me, I have high hopes for the upcoming (I hope) Snow Queen. The mind reels with visions of beautifully-animated snow and ice, something I think 2D can do better than 3D. Plus the Snow Queen isn't the usual princess-and-prince thing, that is, if Disney stays true to the story; in the Hans Christian Anderson version, the girl risks all to rescue the boy, and has incredible adventures along the way. It also has a lot of emotional punch to it. It's something Disney could do extremely well, and I have high hopes for it.

5. The music. Just blah. Except for "Almost There", it was never any more than servicable.

Speaking of assumptions, a lot of people skipped my fave movie of the year, Astro Boy, for the same reason: they assumed that a new version of an old classic would be crapped up when transferred to CGI. It's not true - it's excellent, which was the last thing I expected it to be. I wish I had been as similarly surprised and delighted by Princess and the Frog, but it just about met my expectations. Too bad. It's kind of heartbreaking...but I think Disney can learn from this and "keep moving forward" - as Walt himself would say...

[rob3gd]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

one, because the press focused on the first black princess, it made the movie image a bit polarizing, thus alienating some people.


two, the music should had been better, you know, it lacked some of that Disney magic kind of.

[dead_Mau5]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

Disney once again limits it's audience to young families and prepubescent girls.
Though the property may still be a success through merchandise, the actual film could have performed better with a February 2010 release. Free from the clutches of CG powerhouses, Avatar and 'Chipmunks II' and with a stable month long ground before 'Titans' would open in March.

Also, if it's budget would have been greater than 103.1 million(a striving half of the average Disney 2D adventure) its story development could have been less rushed.
Major characters such as Louis, Mama Odie and (depressingly)Tiana could have been more fleshed out. Naveen the only character really gaining any lesson from his transformation.

Now 'Frog' is still a A-class animated film. It isn't one of Disney's best, but it remains a charming return to the company's original form of magic.

[Mac Daddy]

Re: Poor Performing Princess (and the Frog)

I think the main problem was this movie's marketing. Initial marketing should have tried to target boys instead of only to girls. This could hve been done like Disney did much more successfully with Enchanted. But they failed to do this.

I think it was a good movie, but I think in this regard they shouldn't have made her a princess. That alone is a turn-off with most boys. And while I think it is a great movie overall I don't think it made sense to have a princess in New Orleans because there's no such thing as royalty in he US. And it would have made the film less threatening to a certain audience that could have easily been included.

You might be on to something here. We had a boys night out at our house tonight and when it came down to Princess and the Frog vs Avatar, guess who won? I think just the word "Princess" in the title alienates almost all boys who are over 10 years of age. Not ALL, but ALMOST all. I think if they had come up with another title...like...Oh...I don't know....something like "Le Frog du Magique" or "The Amphibian's New Groove" you might have had something that was more marketable to both genders.

That, and I think they could have done a better job with marketing. I mean...Shrek was basically a princess movie...sort of...and it raked in huge numbers. Actually, it was an "anti" princess movie, so I guess that doesn't really count. But "Little Mermaid" and "Beauty" were both princess movies that did very well. Were both of those movies released in December? I thought they were both Summer films.

Regardless, I loved Princess and the Frog and it's disappointing to not see higher numbers by now. Avatar is a monster comparatively. I hope Disney doesn't equate this lack of turnout with lack of interest in 2D. The two have NOTHING to do with each other.