Green Froggy is ready to launch on Blu Ray stateside, but it's still moving in foreign venues.
The Princess and the Frog may have slipped out of the top five internationally, but it still added $8.32 million on 3053 screens in 28 markets for a total of $143.18 million. It had no major market openings again this week, but it added $2.84 million on 689 screens over the weekend in France for a total of $27.30 million after a month of release there. This weekend the film debuted in Japan, which could help it return to the top five.
The froggy will pick up additional millions overseas before it hops onto the little silver disk, even though it might not cross the $300 million goal line before migrating to "supplementary markets." But the amphibian will no doubt creep into profits before all the cash streams dry up.
The problem, of course, is that Diz Co. is always looking for big margins rather than small ones. If Tangled overperforms for the conglom in November, there will probably be a more pronounced tilt toward CG animation in Burbank as we move along.
Posts
24 comments:
Incredible... angry people about Tangled title.
200 comments and counting.
http://www.cinematical.com/2010/03/09/the-real-reason-why-disney-changed-rapunzel-to-tangled
I think these folks should take chill pills and get over it.
Rapunzel-Tangled-WhatsIt is a Moo Vie. Let's keep the various elements of life in perspective.
Easy for you to say Steve. You havent poured yourself into this movie for the last ___ years only to have it cheapened by spineless suits who are scared into making knee-jerk decisions.
Is it any surprise the fans are reacting this way?
Sure, theres no lives being saved or humanity-changing science being performed here in Burbank, but we still take pride in what we do, and we hate seeing the film being trotted out like this.
But what do you care, right? Enjoy your new building.
" on 3053 screens in 28 markets for a total of $143.18 million"
-----
That is the foreign box-office (cumulative) , right ?
So that would mean The Princess and the Frog combined domestic and foreign box-office to date is $246,882,725. It's still going strong in France, Italy, and other European markets and just opening in Japan this week . The Japanese box-office take is likely to be significant. So it ends up somewhere between $250 million to $275 million.
Not great , but not bad either. Certainly not a good reason to scuttle plans to do more 2D . If it hadn't cost so much (reported $105 million budget) PATF would actually be in a pretty good place right now.)
But perhaps they should take some lessons from recent indie animated films like "Persepolis" - budget $7 million , "The Secret of Kells" - budget $8 million , or Sylvain Chomet's upcoming "The Illusionist" - budget $22 million. Even blockbuster mainstream Japanese animated films like Studio Ghibli's "Spirited Away" or "Howl's Moving Castle" cost equivalent of $19 million U.S. (Spirted Away) and $26 million U.S. (Howl's ). Miyazaki's films have made $274,925,095 (Spirited Away) and $235,184,110 (Howl's Moving Castle) worldwide.
Miyazaki's films didn't do huge numbers in the U.S. , but as we're so often told : we're in a Global Economy now. Money is money.
Ok, maybe some of the above numbers on European or Japanese budgets are not a fair comparison because those European indie films were comparatively low-budget , non-union films without the overhead that Disney carries. So, let's look at older Disney films: Adjusted for inflation a film like "101 Dalmatians" - 1961 budget = $4 million , would cost $28,968,732 in 2010 dollars. "Aladdin" - 1992 budget = $28 million, would cost equivalent of $44,109,679.41 in 2010 dollars.
Get the budgets down to under $50 million , preferably in the $30 to $45 million range and they can make money with good 2D films. (even if most of that money comes from European and Asian markets) .
A name change somehow denegrates what efforts you put into the film? It changes the film how?
It will work - or not - regardless of what its called. The point I think Steve is trying to make is the studio marketing geniuses seem to feel that the name is what ruined BO for PatF. And you and your fanboys seem to think the same thing.
Frankly, from the sounds of it, you have bigger problems then what the name is.
I remember when Disney was so knee-jerk traumatized by not understanding why Atlantis had underperformed (that one was easier to figure out), their industry witch-doctors told them that "Audiences hate action movies--Just look at Titan AE!" And while they kept the title, the Eisner-era marketing immediately set on changing Treasure Planet's marketing to promote it as a wacky, slapping, bonking, farting, pratfalling Martin Short comedy, since that was what the audience "wanted".
Now, I grew up reading Stevenson. I liked the original '52 old-Disney movie. I wasn't there to work on Planet, but the new "fear" ads made me want to put a bag over my head like Sylvester Jr. in the old Warner cartoons.
To change your movie is to APOLOGIZE for it. And to apologize to the audience is to be afraid of them. And to be afraid of the audience is the be the superstitious island native who doesn't want to anger Hu-Ha the Terrible Volcano God. That's not what a storyteller does.
I'm trying to look up the quote, but think it was Roger Ebert who said, "Ten thousand years ago, the first storyteller around the fire could have stopped and asked his listeners how they wanted the story to come out. It is to our benefit that he didn't."
"Frankly, from the sounds of it, you have bigger problems then what the name is."
I hope that stab made you feel better.
But yes, I feel like the film should be appropriately titled, and I feel that the trailer should appropriately reflect the tone of the film, and I feel that both do a poor job. Does my actual work suffer? No. Im awesome, and I make awesome work. ;) So I hate seeing a cheap, ugly label slapped on it and a cheap, ugly trailer made for it because the truth is, people pay attention to trailers and marketing, and moves CAN live or die by them. So yeah, Im upset. And honestly, you would be too if this was YOUR project.
The irony is, the title "Princess and the Frog" had little or nothing to do with the film not being a success, yet the title "Tangled" likely will have a lot to do with it being a failure.
Either that, or its a brilliant marketing move to stir up controversy.
After all, theres no such thing as bad publicity, right?
After all, theres no such thing as bad publicity, right?
(I don't know, just ask Toyota...) ;)
I wouldn't be surprised if ALL animators want to hurl when they see the trailers for the movies they work so hard on. They're uniformly asinine, juvenile and brain-dead. Which reflects the way the suits regard the public, I suppose...
Easy for you to say Steve. You havent poured yourself into this movie for the last ___ years only to have it cheapened by spineless suits who are scared into making knee-jerk decisions.
Mais non, mon ami.
I spent YEARS of my life working on Basil of Baker Street. You know, another movie that had it's name changed to a stupid title?
So I know the situation precisely. And I restate my previous position.
Relax. Be angry. But get over it. Endless whining about it won't change things. (I know from experience.)
In the early 60s Disney released POLLYANA. A nice little movie that did not do good box office. Disney often stated the film deserved better and would have done better with a different title. Walt felt the title made the movie sound more like a girl's film than a broader family film. Walt thought titles were important. But what did Walt know.
He also thought that audiences hated Alice.
(And ironically, he did the version we liked.)
Unless you're suggesting that the Disney has a LONG history of jumping to knee-jerk conclusions on circumstantial evidence, rather than judge the marketability of two solid hours-plus of Hayley Mills.
Audiences DID NOT like Alice. It's got a lot of fun stuff in it, and some great songs, but really isn't a very good movie. Audiences didn't then, and still don't, respond well to it.
And Hayley Mills is awesome in Tiger Bay and Whistle Down the Wind.
The irony is, the title "Princess and the Frog" had little or nothing to do with the film not being a success, yet the title "Tangled" likely will have a lot to do with it being a failure.
Tell that to my son who wanted nothing to do with an "eeew, Princess movie."
And knowing him, I honestly don't think naming a movie "Tangled" will scare him off.
(That said, I don't think "Rapunzel" would either, but my point here was about the "Princess and the Frog" title.)
It's my suspicion that if Princess and the Frog was a better movie as a whole, your son would have been more interested in it.
Did he like "The Princess Bride?" I did when I was a boy. Maybe times have changed though. Maybe it has to be Transformers for boys to be interested these days, and if thats true, then it's sad.
Disney marketing can try reading tea leaves or goat entrails, etc. but it all comes down to what Steve Hulett wrote in an earlier post (quoting Sam Goldwyn):
"When people don't want to come and see your movie, you can't stop them."
coupled with William Goldman's maxim:
"Nobody knows anything" (re: 'conventional wisdom' in the motion picture business) .
The Princess and the Frog is a good movie that just didn't catch on with audiences (in the U.S. especially) in as big a way as Disney would have liked. It's doing better in Europe and other foreign markets , and probably will do well in Japan where it has opened this week.
PATF has done pretty good at the box-office, but the budget is a factor. Reported budget was $105 million, but that actually seems too high to me. I wonder how much of the start-up costs of research and development for getting a new hand-drawn animation pipeline in place were tacked on to the final budget ?
If they could have made the movie in the $40 to $60 million range it would be solidly in the money by now . When all's said and done the movie will not have lost money and I expect over the years it will become quite profitable (I think even with the BluRay/DVD sales and rentals it will become profitable very soon) .
Judging by ratings on sites like Rotten Tomatoes the people who actually did see The Princess and the Frog liked it very much ("85% Fresh" from critics, "88% Fresh" from audiences) . Just not enough of them saw it in December '09 and January '10 to qualify it as a genuine HIT in the U.S.
But for whatever reason or no reason it didn't connect with the mass audience in the U.S. when it was released . Neither did Pinocchio, Bambi, or Fantasia , which are now considered classics . The Wizard of Oz was a box-office failure on first release. Citizen Kane = failure at the box-office, etc. , etc. , etc. Who knows why ?
You don't, I don't , "nobody knows anything".
It's my suspicion that if Princess and the Frog was a better movie as a whole, your son would have been more interested in it.
It's possible. I haven't really asked him about the reasonings. I suspect (he is 10) that if his friends went to go see it and said it was great, that he might have relented, so you might have a point. It's all hypothetical at that point because his friends didn't go watch it either.
My guess is not just the title but also the advertising he saw for it was mainly about the frog kissing Tiana and her turning into a frog. Not exactly something that would entice him as much as something like say, Alvin and the Chipmunks 2.
Neither did Pinocchio, Bambi, or Fantasia , which are now considered classics .
Remember the fangirl who said "I loved Hercules!" on another thread?--Before Treasure Planet, that had been the biggest theatrical flop in the studio's history. (And not because of wartime, December scheduling or studio development costs, either.)
As for which Disney movies get to be "flops" and which ones stay that way, that question's left for a year on home video to decide.
Princess was nice, but it just had TOO big a buildup, TOO big a pair of historical shoes to fill, TOO few kids available that week to go see it, and TOO many headlines when outside factors (like blue alien chipmunks) tripped it up. And as for marketing, the New Orleans trappings were the appeal once you actually got in, but Frog Prince parodies are a dime a dozen, and that's what kids saw. (And be glad it didn't resemble E.D. Baker's original book.)
My guess is not just the title but also the advertising he saw for it was mainly about the frog kissing Tiana and her turning into a frog.
I think you're onto something there...male boys might not be interested in an animated chick flick?!? Sounds about right. How about girls? My niece was not interested at all.
Marketing needs to readjust their ideas about what kids want these days....
n.
"Been in this business since before you were born, sonny"
Wow, youve been in the business 42 years? You must be famous!
He must be looong in the tooth.
But about this:
Get the budgets down to under $50 million , preferably in the $30 to $45 million range and they can make money with good 2D films.
Happily, Winnie the Pooh owns a reputed budget of $35 million.
"Princess and the Frog" will never be a classic like Bambi and Pinocchio - it had no heart. We need more movies with heart and storytelling that engages the audience. PATF was a big disappointment considering the build up and the fact that it was suppose to continue the "Beauty and the Beast" tradition which it didn't. It was lucky that it had a Princess in it for franchise marketing purposes. But this doesn't mean that 2D is dead, can't wait to see "Secret of the Kells" and "The Illusionist".
Post a Comment