Now with sparkly green Add On.
So The Princess and the Frog is about at the $100 million marker, since the weekend gross puts it at $99,248,026. Per Box Office Mojo, it's collected $12,663,224 in foreign lands ...
Assuming the froggy does the majority of its business overseas (most high profile American releases do), I would guesstimate that TP&TF ends up at the $220-$250 million range.
Obviously, actual mileage could vary, since I have zero information about the ultimate foreign release pattern of the picture.
Add On: The studio announces the Blu-ray/DVD street date for green froggy, which ends up being March 16th. (Disney is not going to run into the problem that Sony did with Cloudy, rolling out the little silver disks before the theatrical run is finished.)
And we'll see how the DVD sales do.
Posts
26 comments:
Hopefully "On the Road with Long Haired Girl" will do better than "Princess and the Frog" when it comes out during the holidays later this year.
Or whatever lame name that it gets stuck with.
Rapunzel is not going to be renamed!
Interesting that Box Office Mojo is only reporting $12,663,224 foreign box-office cume to date.
Frog still hasn't opened in some major foreign markets , but it has opened wider overseas than Box Office Mojo's chart would have one believe.
Another movie tracking site "The Numbers" has Frog's domestic box-office as $99,248,026 so far , with the International box-office take as $67,300,000 so far , for a total worldwide gross of : $166,548,026 as of January 25, 2010.
Remember when BOLT "only" made $114 million domestically (on a reported budget of $150 million), but went on to gross $199.9 million in the foreign box offices, for a total of $313,953,579. If PATF's foreign numbers track similar to Bolt's then PATF could end up grossing $295 - $300 million when all the pennies have been counted.
with a much smaller budget than Bolt.
"Rapunzel is not going to be renamed!"
Sorry, but yes it is.
That's what happens when you want to find a reason why it had trouble pulling in a hundred mill.
I wish it would stay with the simple and appropriate title, but it won't.
If Rapunzel's gonna be renamed, then why does every reference to it on Disney's website, Disney Animation's website, Disney Animation's Facebook fan page, and even Rapunzel's Facebook fan page (yes, it has one)refer to it as Rapunzel?
Now, suppose Rapunzel (or whatever it's gonna be called) is a huge hit - 300 mill - does that tell Disney that CG can make a hit out of even a girly princess movie when 2D could not? Or do they chalk it up to something else? Do they rethink what 2D should be doing and leave princess movies to Disney CG? or drop 2D altogether and hope no one notices?
Go ahead...discuss...
Children as old as twelve have not consciously experienced 2D movies in the cinema, except for feature length adaptations of tv cartoons. Therefore it's not unlogical to conclude the young public of today associates 2D animation with television.
To find an audience 2D should step up and bring something to the big screen which 3D cannot, by either utilizing its flat nature or handcrafted origin, or taking all the features 3D has and add design to it.
So is PatF a hit? A flop? A disappointment?
I heard PatF is not doing that great overseas...
Studio estimates for The Princess and the Frog are $150 million foreign resulting in about $250 million worldwide on a budget that is actually closer to $140 million. Including merchadise and DVD sales The Princess and the Frog still may not turn a profit.
I can also guarantee you that Bolt's budget was much higher than $150 million.
Wishing that 2d came back is like wishing that black and white movies came back.
BW
YOu guys are nuts. Frog didn't cost anywhere near 100million.
doesn't matter if it cost less or more. THAT is the benchmark Disney is going to use to determine whether it's a hot or a flop.
And as of now it is a flop.
Will it be huge flop? probably not after merchandise and junk, but compared to the merchandise numbers it could've brought in if it was a hit I doubt anyone at Disney is very happy.
Let's move on. I'm not sure why this is being endlessly debated.
I do think this has become pointless to discuss on this blog. So much conflicting information , or in some cases mis-information , and no one really wants to give solid sources (and if someone does try to quote a source by referring to reported figures on Box Office Mojo , The Numbers, or even from Variety , there is a chorus of voices saying: "you can't believe anything you read on those sites, all the numbers are manipulated by the studios" )
"A priest, a rabbi and a cardinal" asserts :
"Wishing that 2d came back is like wishing that black and white movies came back."
but just above that Anonymous (9:44:00 AM) asserts:
"I can also guarantee you that Bolt's budget was much higher than $150 million."
which, if true, would mean that Bolt hasn't made any money , neither has Meet the Robinsons, or Chicken Little , (and neither did the first Disney CG film Dinosaur) ... so if these Disney CG films have been a string of flops then why is CG preferred to Hand-Drawn and those advocating a vigorous return to 2D at Disney are condescendingly likened to those wishing for a return to B & W movies ? What difference does it make if they all lose money ? I can't wait for the Mo-Cappers to start sneering that pure keyframe CG animation is dead and that post-Avatar anyone who wants to go back to animated movies like "The Incredibles" or "Kung Fu Panda" are in the same category as those wishing for a return to B & W movies.
and finally someone else asserts : "You guys are nuts. Frog didn't cost anywhere near 100 million."
But never with any sources to back it up, so it's all just the blind leading the blind into a ditch until someone speaks up with some real data.
>>But never with any sources to back it up, so it's all just the blind leading the blind into a ditch until someone speaks up with some real data.<<
Youll never see real data on this. That is the point.
"Wishing that 2d came back is like wishing that black and white movies came back."
Anonymous might be referring to a meeting during "FROG" production I sat in at Disney where Ed Catmul told us that the "people across the street" consider 2D as "black and white" films - OLD technology that audiences don't want to see anymore.
>>doesn't matter if it cost less or more. THAT is the benchmark Disney is going to use to determine whether it's a hot or a flop.
And as of now it is a flop.<<
You don't know what Disney is using for benchmarks.
Regardless, it doesnt matter. Disney has a slate of 2D films lined up. PATF is a profitable movie due to ancillary revenue and merchandise.
The debate of whether or not it's dead is only valid when studios arent making 2d features. Disney is still making them, thus it is not dead, thus this argument is pointless.
The hand drawn media is a work of art in every way. Looking forward to seeing more of this beautiful art form. I enjoy a good CG film too, but bringing drawings to life never ceases to amaze.
In my opinion, comparing 2D animation to black and white films, saying that when 3D came around, it should take over the way color movies did, is the equivalent of saying that when the motion picture was invented, photography should have went six feet under. And as I think most would agree, that logic is nonsense. They're two totally different animals. Why can't they live in peace?
Anon at 12:53 has it right: arguing about it is pointless. Disney is still making 2D movies, and as long as they continue to not be absolute failures, they will most likely continue to do so. People want to see it.
You're comparing different media, while handdrawn and 3D are different techniques of the same medium. The important thing here is that handdrawn and 3D are trying to appeal to the same audience.
I love animation and off course I'm looking forward to see more 2D on the big screen. But I'm not the target audience. Now imagine yourself to be a ten year old in this day and age. Would you want to go see PatF or Up in 3D?
What exactly is PatF's audience suppose to be? I admire Lasseter's decision to leave it up to the directors which technique to use. But, in this case, the directors chose an old hat style that's not up to par with today's competition. It's a visual style that was loosing its appeal over ten years ago. They brought nothing new to the table since The Lion King.
Neither can this handdrawn animation appeal to a grown up audience in the form of nostalgia, as the people who were 4 to 8 when they saw The Lion King don't have children old enough yet to use as an excuse to see the films again they saw when they were young.
If handdrawn, as a technique, wants to make a profit like the competing 3D animated features do, it will have to bring something to the screen that surpasses the other techniques. It will have to utilies aspects of the technique to show it can do something 3D cannot. Otherwise the audience will always percieve it as an oldfashioned technique. And frankly, they are right.
On a side note: I don't understand how one can see debating the future of his craft as pointless. Especially when that person is willing to make the effort of commenting on its pointlessness.
"On a side note: I don't understand how one can see debating the future of his craft as pointless. Especially when that person is willing to make the effort of commenting on its pointlessness."
I think the two posters that mentioned that were referring specifically to fact that people are saying "2D is dead." Which, in fact, it is not, because it's still being done. So, debating whether 2D is "dead" or not is pointless. However, debating the future of the medium itself and where it needs to be headed, as you have done, is not pointless. You make some very good points. Starting with The Little Mermaid, Disney completely renewed the artform. They need to somehow make a leap forward of that magnitude again.
...Ed Catmul told us that the "people across the street" consider 2D as "black and white" films - OLD technology that audiences don't want to see anymore.
So why did Ed and the Disney braintrust try to show that 2D isn't 'old' by making a movie that looked old? PATF could have been made in the '70's or the '80's. That's why it's had no momentum.
And now, to really prove that 2D is modern and current, we're going to get another Winnie the Pooh movie, which will take them right back to 1977. Such visionary leadership.
"In my opinion, comparing 2D animation to black and white films, saying that when 3D came around, it should take over the way color movies did, is the equivalent of saying that when the motion picture was invented, photography should have went six feet under"
Classic example of a "strawman". And 'anon 2:42' is right on the money. Disney might have 2d projects on their to do list, but unless they are greenlit, that means nothing. Hey, I could have 20projects of my own that I want to do, it means nothing, unless the pencil hits the paper!
I simply think 2d is less and less relevant. No one else other than Disney is doing 2d movies.
I doubt that Disney paid so much for some kind of brainless leadership. OBVIOUSLY they are greenlighting movies focused specially on merchandising. If the artists at Disney think that they are part of the problem, they are wrong, Perhaps Disney wants them to believe that. When Meet the Robinsons was a disappointment.... Did they stop making CGI movies? Disney needs, at least, another “Lilo& Stitch”. I wonder... where are Dean and Chris now?...
Post a Comment