Now with a multitude of Add Ons ... and relocated to the weekend.
About an hour ago, Nikki Finke admitted she had had her headline written for the holiday b.o.: "Hair No Match For Harry".
But maybe not ...
At 2:45 pm Nikki quoted "rival studios" saying that Tangled could be opening "much bigger that expected". The CW has been in the range of $35 to $40 mil for the five-day weekend. At 5 pm she quoted a Disney exec predicting numbers in the high $60s. Word may have gotten out that Harry Potter 7.1 is too intense for little ones (I personally observed a parent leading a sobbing five- or six-year-old out of the Cinerama Dome last Sunday, after the scene where Hermione is tortured).
We shall see ...
Add On: I went to see Tangled (flat screen edition) today. Happy to report there were no sobbing kids being led from the theater. Feature went over well. It was great seeing the whole thing after watching bits and pieces for the past sixteen months.
Good movie. And assuming projections hold up, the Mouse will have its first bonafide animated hit after several lower-grossing efforts. Congratulations to the crew, top to bottom. They did themselves proud.
-- Hulett
Add On Too: Time Magazine makes some salient points:
... [T]his Disney near-classic wades into the DreamWorks style of sitcom gags and anachronistic sass. ("Sorry, Blondie," Flynn tells Rapunzel at one point, "I don't do backstory.") But the visual palette is more sophisticated, especially in the scenes where sparkling nocturnal lanterns illuminate Rapunzel's birthday; and the film gradually achieves the complex mix of romance, comedy, adventure and heart ...
Add On #3: The Nikkster says in an update: Disney sources now tell me that Tangled opened with $10M-$11M today ...
Add On #4: Ms. Finke has the projections for the holiday weekend:
1. Harry Potter/Deathly Hallows, Pt 1 (Warner Bros) Week 2 [4,125 Runs] -- Friday $14.4M, Estimated 5-Day Holiday $90M, Estimated Cume $230M
2. Tangled 3D (Disney) NEW [3,603 Runs] -- Friday $11.7M, Estimated 5-Day Holiday $69M
3. Burlesque (Screen Gems/Sony) NEW [3,037 Runs] -- Friday $2.8M, Estimated 5-Day Holiday $17.8M
4. Megamind 3D (DreamWorks Animation/Paramount) Week 4 [3,401 Runs] -- Friday $2.6M, Estimated 5-Day Holiday $22M, Estimated Cume $135M
5. Love And Other Drugs (Fox) NEW [2,455 Runs] -- Friday $2.1M, Estimated 5-Day Holiday $15.1M
We have two animated features in the Top Four. And of course Harry and the other wizards rely on a lot of animated visual effects for their pizzazz.
Add On #5: Animation does well on Turkey Day:
... "Tangled"... took in something north of $8 million on its second day of release.
And "Megamind" ... took the fifth slot for the day, collecting about $2 million as it ended its third week in theaters with more than $115 million in its account.
Add On #6: The Nikkster tells us, "... [T]hough I and many others took early swipes at new marketing czarina MT Carney, she ensured this toon wasn't dismissed as just another Disney fairy tale princess story, taking pains to attract boys by emphasizing the toon's male hero and making some surprising TV ads aimed at parents. (I especially liked the clever hair growth spot during a recent Saturday Night Live.) This was the largest U.S. word-of-mouth screening program for a Disney animated film ever ..."
2. Tangled 3D (Disney) NEW [3,603 Runs] Wednesday $11.8M, Thursday $8.1M, Friday $19.7M -- Estimated 3-Day Weekend $50M, 5-Day Holiday $70M
3. Megamind 3D (DreamWorks Animation/Paramount) Week 4 [3,401 Runs] Wednesday $2.6M, Thursday $2M, Friday $5.3M -- Estimated 3-Day Weekend $15M, 5-Day Holiday $19.7M, Cume $132.6M
So as we come around the far turn of the holiday weekend, the animated entries are running "place" and "show" against the wizard. Disney Feature Animation (aka Walt Disney Animation Studios) is back in the game, this time assisted instead of hindered by Disney marketing, and Megamind will pick up almost $20 million for the holidays. Splendid work all around.
Add On #7: Richard Corliss of TIME Magazine weighs in on the long weekend:
... [A]s an overachiever, Tangled takes the prize. An arduous six years in production, with numerous directors and reimagineerings - and a final budget in the $260 million range, which may make it the costliest animated feature ever ... Industry touts forecast another Disney disappointment ... Instead, the picture amassed a fairy-tale $69 million, for the second biggest Thanksgiving week opening, after the $80.1 million for Toy Story 2 in 1999. ...
(There's really no way for civilians to know how much Tangled cost, and Disney accountants aren't saying.)
Add On the Last: Our final Add wraps things up:
... Tangled unfurled with an estimated $49.1 million on approximately 5,400 screens at 3,603 locations, lifting its sum to $69 million in five days and ranking as the second highest-grossing Thanksgiving opening ever (behind Toy Story 2).
So now maybe the Mouse will now pick up the production pace and hire more animation employees back. Here's hoping.
Posts
83 comments:
"Clearly the new Disney regime did a great marketing job moving the Rapunzel fairy tale out of its Little Misses & Moms niche and into a wider demographic arena by emphasizing its comedic flair."
It bugs me that the movie's box office success is chalked up to marketing, when the marketing was so clearly abysmal.
I'm going to see them both this week. Although, it will be my second time seeing Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
The film itself is primarily a little girl's wet dream. It has virtually NO interest for boys at all. It is princess movie on steroids--all pink, purple, and lavender. The marketing to push the prince angle is basically a lie. The movie is a cute film for small children but has little interest for anyone over the age of 5.
I agree with "anonymous" above - I'll be very put out if the (hopeful) overperformance of Rapunzel is attributed to marketing. To me, it has succeeded despite its horrible, horrible trailers and commercials. Congrats to the animators at Disney...
Agree with anonymous #1, I should clarify.
I disagree with anonymous #2! I brought my little brother and his friends (one boy, one girl who is a bit of a tomboy) and they all loved it! My brother is 11 almost 12 by the way. Movie was fantastic, new favorite!
The marketing to push the prince angle is basically a lie.
And I think we can see who hasn't seen the movie. There is no prince in Tangled.
I'll go a step further. For the people who have actually seen the movie, now please take a look again at the first teaser trailer (the one with the song by Pink), and tell me if you think that accurately reflected the tone of Tangled.
Can't wait to see Disney reverse themselves and start praising princess movies.
And, watch marketing congratulate themselves for a lousy ad campaign.
Anonymous #3 didn't see the movie, clearly.
Saw the movie twice now. Once at a pre-screening. It was wonderful then. Went with my girlfriend this evening and it was wonderful once again. Everyone in the audience seemed to enjoy it.
Surely enough two teen boys sitting in the same row as us were laughing their butts off and stayed all through the credits. Disney definitely has a winner on their hands.
Assuming the new estimates are legit and the film does reach 60mill for the 5-day weekend, the the elephant in the room needs to be addressed.
CG was able to do what 2D was not. Make a new princess film (and despite the attempt to convince everyone it isn't a princess film, it absolutely is - even to the point of changing Rapunzel's parents from being poor to royalty)that audiences were willing to go see.
Is this the last nail in 2D's coffin for something other than Pooh movies...?
I don't want to derail the conversation to much, but I saw HP 7.1 last week and I was horrified with how many parents brought their 5 year olds!?!?! No way is that movie good for a kid that young.
Sorry back to Tangled, I can't wait to see it. I need to somehow convince my "girls are yucky" boys to go with us.
Is this the last nail in 2D's coffin for something other than Pooh movies...?
Actually, the standard knee-jerk complaint heard from most of the people who haven't seen it yet, and are just judging on the hideous marketing, seem to be the traditional audience reflex paranoia of "CGI?...Gags?...Eww, looks like Dreamworks, ick, poo!"
As usual, that doesn't exactly suggest the Medium Over the Message.
Audiences in search of A Disney Movie seem to be more sentimental for their own subjective ideas of what A Disney Movie has IN it, even if (like P&tF) those ideas might come up short in the final product--Princesses, if necessary, being non-negotiably on the list. And Tangled seems to deliver, even if CGI wasn't the original idea going into the project.
I have NO idea what you're trying to say....maybe you should try calrifying it in simple terms and clear thoughts....?
Tangled had a good story and slick visuals. PATF had slick visuals but a bad story. The end
Now, now, we cant have it both ways. We can't blame marketing for a movies failure and also blame marketing for not contributing to it's success. I might be in the minority but I think the marketing was great on Tangled. And the name change was as well.
"Good movie. And assuming projections hold up, the Mouse will have its first bonafide animated hit after several lower-grossing efforts. Congratulations to the crew, top to bottom. They did themselves proud." - Hulett
Thank you.
I'm flabbergasted. I thought Tangled's audience would be too enthralled in Harry's penultimate adventure to care about a Disney cartoon. But I shouldn't have been looking back; people tend to go for lighter, jollier fare in the holiday season. I'm glad the movie is getting recognition both financially and critically - if all goes to plan I'll be seeing it next week.
Maybe this will convince John Lasseter and his buddies to rethink their Princess-movies-are-dead mentality. Personally, I don't want to see the future of Disney packed with nothing but Pirates and Prince and Persias (which, by the way, targets the same audience as the aforementioned Harry Potter, which terrified little kids in the audience.)
"And I think we can see who hasn't seen the movie. There is no prince in Tangled."
Prince/shmintz---it's the same thing. They marketed it as more of an action/boy movie, but the movie is as girly girl as a barn full of Laura Ashley.
"Maybe this will convince John Lasseter and his buddies to rethink their Princess-movies-are-dead mentality."
Who said this? Oh...NO one. Not Lasseter. Not Catmull. Stop repeating the lie--you must love Faux News.
All they said was there were no fairy tales on their current slate. Period.
And kids need to be scared. Disney and Pixar don't make films for little kids. They make them for a GENERAL audience.
Oh, "Faux" News spread this lie? And here I thought it was the ultra-liberal LA Times.
Grow up already.
John & Ed are really lost at Disney.
Congratulations to Glen and all the animators. GROUNDBREAKING ANIMATION
Lost?
Yeah, I'm sure Lasseter's guiding hand had nothing to do with it.
Sigh..
Liberal vs conservative; who cares. Fact remains that bit of "news" was incorrectly reported.
The other fact is that cg has, and always will cost way more than a traditionally drawn toon. Remember that was one of the stakes in the 2d coffin. Cg was suppose to be cheaper. No one ever seems to talk about that.
True, but more CG films are successful - wildly successful - than 2D films have ever been.
So the studios aree willing to put up more money for CG then 2D.
And the success (assumingly) of Tangled helps reinforce this fact.
That could change if Pooh 2D has a 60 mill opening weekend, but it's doubtful it will and it's doubtful that if it does it would change much anywhere except Disney. Even that's not guaranteed.
Pooh doesn't need a 60 million weekend since it cost around 40 million. Far less that Frog or Tangled. It doesn't need to make have as much to be twice as successful. The bar for next years film is far easier to reach. Now 2013 is another question.
All the audience wants is for Disney to make Disney films again. Thank goodness they finally saw the light and made one.
Congratulations to Disney and the great "Tangled" team for returning to their roots. Remember what Mufasa said. "Remember who you are."
Prince/shmintz---it's the same thing. They marketed it as more of an action/boy movie, but the movie is as girly girl as a barn full of Laura Ashley.
You haven't seen the movie. Your opinion has no credibility. See the movie first, before embarrassing yourself.
"True, but more CG films are successful - wildly successful - than 2D films have ever been.
So the studios agree willing to put up more money for CG then 2D."
Did it ever occur to you that you were putting the cart before the horse? CG films might be more successful because studios are more willing to invest development time money and talent in them?
During the 90s there were quite a few studios that were heavily investing in 2D (go ask WB and Fox to name two), but the only studio that was successful (until they weren't anymore) was Disney. And now many, MANY studios are finding gold with CG - including Disney.
You can argue all you want about the quality of stories and projects or whatever, but that's not how the suits look at it. They look at what is or isn't a hit. CG is a hit with audiences in a way 2D never was. Currently that is the fact of our industry.
And, by the way, it doesn't matter if Pooh only needs to make a fraction of what other films make to earn its money back. If it does not hit BIG it will not be recognized as a hit. Even though there's not enough money in any BO for Tangled to make its money back it will be perceived as a hit if it reaches 200mill and over.
All you're suggesting is that 2D cannot compete with CG monetarily and that's a shame. 2D will become the low budget bastard cousing of animation if only 40 million dollar Pooh films are the only way 2D can make money.
Wow. What a GREAT movie! Had a blast, and was THOROUGHLY entertained! Congratulations to all the artists at Disney who pulled this together. Especially Art Director David Goetz. The film LOOKED FANTASTIC!
Thank you!
What's really great about Tangled is that the legendary Disney quality just drips from it. Beautiful animation is a Disney staple, and at last WDAS has found a way to translate the visual richness of a Pinocchio to CGI. This movie is GORGEOUS. Add that to a really good story, and it's no wonder it's winning raves.
And I agree with Mr. Norman. Perhaps Disney has finally found its footing again.
If a movie opens big on its opening weekend, it's mostly due to marketing (artists of course were responsible for all the scenes used for the trailers, so it's not all marketing, but someone's gotta know who to show the trailers to on TV spots, how to put them together, etc).
If a movie keeps making good money throughout its run (or as box office-ologists say, "has good legs"), then that's mostly due to how well the story was made by the artists. Great word of mouth will never happen just on marketing.
I personally thought marketing for this was horrendous, but I can't argue with the results. Kudos to marketing for a good opening weekend, and big big kudos for Disney Animation for making this terrific film.
I was watching the marketing pretty closely, and while Im generally disappointed in it (especially early on) I'm impressed at how much EXPOSURE Tangled got. It was everywhere, and on everything. People cant go to something they've never heard of before.
Now, do I think the trailers convinced people to go see the movie. Sure, a bit. But when they started putting the clips from the actual film online, you started seeing people say "Oh, THIS is what the movie is like? NOW I want to go see it!"
I agree that putting extended clips online helped a great deal.
I suspect the clips salvaged the film from horrendous first impressions from that first teaser featuring the Pink song.
The clips showed that the movie is not at all a smart-aleky snarkfest, but a sincere fairy tale.
Great movie. Thank God this time Mr. Lasseter was busy directing Cars 2 ... the picture speaks by itself.
Uh---believe me, Mr. Lasseter had PLENTY to do with the outstanding quality of this film. Like making it happen.
The word of mouth on twitter, facebook and social networks also helps. There are a LOT of reports from people on twitter saying they loved the movie. Tangled even was a trending topic at some point. Which is quite amazing.
The projected opening weekend is now around 73 million dollars. More then double what Disney was hoping for. and only 10 million dollars less then what is now projected for Harry Potter in it's second week and THREE times as much as TPATF's opening weekend. And almost twice the amount of The Lion King (although with inflation that would probably be an unfair comparison). But still quite amazing!
Its a 5 day holiday weekend. If they made 35 mil that would be a disaster. And with nothing new next week they should win that week unless the potter heads go for a 3rd time. But that's all they left tangled because then the big guns films pile on.
Tangled made almost 20 million dollars on friday, witch is dangerouly close to Potter.
Take that Disney Haters!!!
Yeah! Take that Disney Marketing haters!!
Tangled made almost 20 million dollars on friday, witch is dangerouly close to Potter.
Not to mention,
A) Friday numbers for a family film are about a third of what the Saturday and Sunday numbers bring in, since fewer families go to the 7 and 9pm shows,
and
B) $35M might be a "disaster" in summer, but in Holiday season, opening grosses are scaled to about half of what they are in May and June, with kids in school and fewer afternoon shows, and any opening over $50M in December is a runaway smash hit.
Either way, just so long as Disney's got its public validation back, and we don't have to pretend to like P&tF much more than we did.
Yeah! Take that Disney Marketing haters!!
Do me a favor. If you have now seen the whole movie, take a look again at that first teaser trailer. The one with the song by Pink.
Tell me if you feel that is an accurate reflection of the tone of the movie.
According to nearly all reaction I've heard, the reason why people are flocking to Tangled is because they are excited it is a sincere, non-snarky telling of the story.
Lastly, a likely big reason for its success is because Tangled had the most preview screenings of any movie in history--250 free screenings to generate positive word-of-mouth. All this to overcome the initial bad reaction to the early marketing efforts.
lol...you can't have it both ways. If Tangled had bombed you would've balmed marketing - right?
So maybe, jusat maybe they knew what they were doing and the only ones that disliked the marketing were the jaded people on this boad and Animation Brew and that the marketing actually workled to get butts into the seats.
As for wheter the real word of mouth works, next weekend will tell you that. You can't create your own reasons for whyt a film is a hit the first weekend. AND by the way those special free screenings are all due to marketing. They didn't happen becuuase the animators decided to give them.
Now that you've seen the BO for the first weekend why don't you admit that maybe marketing knew what they were doing...?
Do you work for marketing or something?
You didn't answer the question. Did that first teaser trailer accurately reflect the tone of the movie or not? It's a simple yes or no.
It would seem that you, too, are "creating your own reasons" for why the movie is a success. The fact that most people are coming away from the movie very (happily) surprised that it's NOT a snarkfest would suggest that marketing did the film a disservice with much of its efforts.
If the marketing for this film was so sterling then why did pretty much every animator on the film hit the web to beg people to ignore the trailers and commercials? Twitter was full of creative staff saying "This is not our film. Our film is actually good."
But I guess it was all good because they had a totally hip "double rainbow" spoof?
"So maybe, jusat maybe they knew what they were doing and the only ones that disliked the marketing were the jaded people on this boad and Animation Brew and that the marketing actually workled to get butts into the seats."
^ This. The first trailer with the Pink song was terrible, but everything after that was fine, IMHO.
There's been a lot of criticism about the focus on Flynn and the action parts of the story, which I don't quite understand. The film *did* have quite a bit of action, and the Flynn/Maximus interaction was one of the highlights of the movie. After seeing the film, I don't feel like the later advertising was a misrepresentation at all.
Oh, and I think it's hilarious that the "best day ever" line was actually there in the film...didn't a few people try to claim that that line was just added by marketing?
So will the film make what it needs to over the next few weeks? Hope it can be number 1. I think the number crunchers will only focus on how the film finishes. So. Let's hope for the best for the next 3 or 4 weeks.
sorry, Michael, but if you think that the reason for the big BO is due to animators begging people to go to see Tangled then you really have stars in your eyes.
Twitter is capable of a lot but not a 70mill weekend.
It really is possible that despite the fact that you and the animators on Tangled disliked the marketing that it actually did the job of getting butts into seats.
This is simple.
Marketing hit a giant "foul ball" with the Pink trailer.
It barely got a "single" with the subsequent trailers (where was Mother Gothel? The songs? The drama?).
It got a "double" by sheer awareness (facebook, twitter, billboards, TV).
It got a "triple" with releasing the clips from the film online.
It hit a "home-run" with the pre-screenings.
^ So basically if they would have sold "THE MOVIE" out of the gate (instead of making it "seem" like it was something it wasnt) it would have even done better. Because people went to the theater after realizing the marketing was wrong.
I probably read 30 reviews that included something along the lines of "not sure why Disney was marketing it wrongly, but, the movie was much better than I expected..."
Pro-marketing person-
For months I have been seeing and hearing comments just like the one I am about to copy/paste (this one is from a typical non-animation forum, and is just the first I found within seconds, I could easily find a lot more):
Saw the trailer and yeah it looks funny, but more than anything it looks like "Shrek with different overlay". Oh look, the spunky modern princess. The silly animal sidekick. The foolish and brave hero. An 'edgy funky take on an old classic!!!!!!'.
Yes, I know this is the standard formula and shouldn't really complain. It just feels like Shrek beat this trope into the ground and it's best left dead and buried for a while.
It's a friggin miracle the movie has done as well as it has, given the uphill battle it's had to fight against the misguided sabatoge of marketing.
I think the baseball analogy is pretty spot-on.
There wasn't any buzz on this until the screenings, and then word of mouth went through the roof. Apparently the film is its own best spokesperson. Besides, if the crappy trailer worked the magic, why didn't the crappy trailer for Sorcerors Apprentice or the crappy trailer for Prince of Persia work too?
Well said, Michael.
I agree, the aforementioned baseball analogy hit a homerun itself.
Funny, the name change got a lot of people talking. Free press. All the "crappy" spoofs got a lot of people taking. All the screenings worked because it's great movie. Full clips, parodies, spoofs, etc. All worked, got people talking. Free press. Word of mouth. Appeal to all segments. Shotgun approach but smart. Now, what didn't work here?
You'd think everyone would finally be happy Disney has a hit. Their first TRUE hit since The Lion King. Does it really matter HOW Disney got butts in the seats?
Walt Disney Animation Studios was saved this week.
Sadly, no matter how well the movie does, the artists won't be seeing any bonuses. Heck, half of them don't even work there anymore. Sorry to be a Debbie Downer. I know it's a good thing to have a box office success so there will be more work in the future but it's still frustrating. I worked on Alice - made over a billion dollars before DVD and swag sales. Fat lot of good it did me. Just sayin'.
Boy you guys are such a partykillers.
Disney finally has a movie that is both critically AND financially huge success, enough with the hating already.
Not to be a downer but a realist. Anyone that thinks a good opening will change everything hasn't been in the business long. The final run is what will matter. Many films opened strong but didn't giive the studio what it wanted. So get the word out because the film will need a lot more sales. And maybe will be number 1 next week, nothing comes out next week.
"why didn't the crappy trailer for Sorcerors Apprentice or the crappy trailer for Prince of Persia work too?"
Keep in mind that those were both live action. CG movies have a lot of positive buzz right now, which makes them stand out more than generic live action movie #596.
In reply to the above Anon (7:58), hold on, because I thought a primary reason the Winnie the Pooh movie was being made was to keep the crew (at least the 2D crew) working while they were waiting to work on a 'real' feature?
I don't think Disney's hire-and-fire practices will last too much longer - IF their next several cartoon features are hits. Also what needs to happen is that they need to greenlight more projects so that crews won't go idle due to a feature being in Development Heck. I feel for the Anonymous above me and the rest of the crew, though, because I think it'll take 5-10 years for Disney to get back on their feet.
Marketing hid the lame, dated songs, and the gag-inducing Mother Gothel, and the film's central plot point (hey, she's really yet another lost and abused princess!). They were smart to do that. Marketing emphasized the beauty of the film, the great animation, and made it look like something boys, girls, and adults might enjoy in 2010.
And they succeeded. If the film had bombed, marketing would have taken the hit. But now that Tangled has succeeded beyond all expectations, the fact that marketing did their job gets second guessed by all the arm-chair quarterbacks. It's too funny.
I probably wouldn't have gone to see it if I'd have heard the actual songs (which were mostly unmemorable, unnecessary, and distracting), or if I'd seen how much Mother Gothel was in the film (what a train wreck). The animators were being honest when they bitched that the trailers misrepresented the film, but they should be applauding marketing instead.
That's your opinion, and you're allowed to be wrong.
PS) Gothel was not a train wreck
Here are the facts:
Tangled is a hit this week.
Despite all the worry and complaining the name change and marketing DID NOT hurt the film. It probably helped it. maybe those that were complaining weren't the people the film was being marketed to...?
Next week will determine if peoiple were misled by the marketing. either the film will drop due to that or it will stay steady due to good word-of-mouth.
The 3D price ticket probably helped a lot. We'll know more after the numbers of tickets are revealed.
This was CG film and will probably not influence any decisions that Disney might make concerning 2D.
Anything else is only speculation.
It's a good thing Disney's marketing dept. and Rich Ross told animation not to make anymore princess movies.
This weekend Tangled made 49 million dollars, only 1 million dollar less then what Harry Potter took this weekend. Combined with the extra 2 days it's full total right now stands at 69 million dollars, so far!
Tangled is a SMASH hit at the box office, a critically acclaimed movie which is LOVED by the audiences as well. With twitter exploding with positive remarks!
For those of us who watched like a HAWK, all the twitter/facebook/message boards/forums, plus all of the reactions from the press when screened at the studio, the response was:
"The movie was better than we thought it was going to be" and "this is not the movie we thought it was"
That means, if you put your thinking cap on, that the movie did well because it WASNT like what marketing made it out to be, it worked IN SPITE of the marketing.
I think the above poster with the baseball analogy has it right. If the press and pre-screenings hadnt reviewed or tweeted about how good the film was, and how different it was from the marketing, it wouldnt have done as well opening weekend.
... if you put your thinking cap on, that the movie did well because it WASNT like what marketing made it out to be, it worked IN SPITE of the marketing.
Unprovable thesis.
The unassailable fact is that "Tangled" is a success. But nobody can prove precisely WHY. Quality of the film? Sure, probably. But "Star Wars, Part I" was a monster hit, sooo ....
The selling/marketing? Maybe. But people can point to their own favorite anecdotal evidence to show why this isn't so. But anecdotal "evidence" isn't proof.
The film succeeded, people. Let's rejoice. If it had cratered, different departments at Disney would be pointing fingers at each other and blaming one another. Because failure is always an orphan, and success forever a babe with lots of doting parents.
I'm thrilled that the picture is a hit. As far as I'm concerned, all parts of the Mouse House can bask in the glory. (Believe me, they will anyway.)
cinemascore was A+ for Tangled. No other film this year got an A+. Not Toy Story 3, not Dragon, not Social Network or Inception. Word of mouth is HUGE for Tangled. This will play all season. It's THE family film to see this holiday season.
And the thing is, even adults over 25 rated it an A+. It's a 4 quadrant hit.
A big, old fashioned crowd pleaser.
But anecdotal "evidence" isn't proof.
You're right. And until some professor or Disney suit does some case study about it, the best I can do is offer my observations, and let me tell you, it comes from months of obsessive amounts of tracking this film from dozens of sources.
And the overwhelmingly prevailing message from the professional reviewers, forums, tweets, facebook comments, and press days at the studio was: The marketing for Tangled didnt represent the film, and it wasnt until after finding out it was a classic, non-cynical, action adventure, musical princess movie did people want to go.
I could be wrong, but thats overwhelmingly what I found.
Psst...your 'obssesive tracking' was very limited in scope and can't be proved to be the reason why the film is a hit. Believe it or not if everyone you 'tracked' via Twitter and the Internet were the only ones who went to see the film it probably would have tanked. It needed all those 'other' people all over the US that don't login every morning to go see the film for these numbers to happen.
My best guess is that Twitter word of mouth helped a lot of the cynical naysayers to go see it that may not have, but the marketing that didn't come off as cynical to the average non-web savvy movie goer might have actually worked to get them to go see the film.
YOU and others like you might be tired of the whole Shrek snarky type of film, but the fact that Shrek4 did so well proves that not everyone agrees with that tiny world view.
I seem to recall certain voices here (hi, Rob) that guaranteed it would bomb unless they chanmged the name back to Rapunzel...
Either way Tangled is a big hit and unless it drops a huge amount next weekend Disney fiunally has something to celebrate and JL can keep his seat at the table (assuming he wants it still)
Interesting. So you claim that marketing misrepresented the film, and millions of people saw through that misrepresentation and went anyway? That's impeccable logic. And, if the film had died, you would have given exactly the same logic -- that marketing had misrepresented the film.
So either the marketing for Tangled WAS effective, or marketing is IRRELEVANT to how a film does. And if it's the latter, then why did Disney spend $60 million dollars marketing this film?
That was aimed at the anonymous at 4:12, and not the one right above.
... the overwhelmingly prevailing message from the professional reviewers, forums, tweets, facebook comments, and press days at the studio was: The marketing for Tangled didnt represent the film
No kidding. Then how come Ms. Finke, one of the professional reviwers on her own forum whom I quote up above, wrote:
[T]hough I and many others took early swipes at new marketing czarina MT Carney, she ensured this toon wasn't dismissed as just another Disney fairy tale princess story, taking pains to attract boys by emphasizing the toon's male hero and making some surprising TV ads aimed at parents. (I especially liked the clever hair growth spot during a recent Saturday Night Live.) This was the largest U.S. word-of-mouth screening program for a Disney animated film ever ..."
That screening program? That was part of marketing/sales. So your evidence, it ain't so overwhelming.
I agree that the film worked despite the early poor marketing. By the way, Im the same anonymous who posted the baseball analogy up in the comments somewhere.
I also saw a lot of reviews that said "despite poor marketing" (theres a bunch of them on Rotten Tomatoes, feel free to dig through them).
But I think the fairest conclusion is that if marketing had continued down that path, we'd have seen different results. Marketing shifted their strategy halfway through selling the film (how do I know this? Roy Conli, the producer, told us in a meeting) and ultimately ended up just showing the film to garner good buzz.
So while on one hand I see you guys piling onto the "marketing worked" bandwagon, I think both sides are correct by saying that marketing did a poor early job, but got their act together, and ended strong.
Had they not done that, and Tangled bombed, it WOULD have been their fault.
Believe it or not if everyone you 'tracked' via Twitter and the Internet were the only ones who went to see the film it probably would have tanked. It needed all those 'other' people all over the US that don't login every morning to go see the film for these numbers to happen.
Yes of course, but that slice of the population helps to get a sense of how the population as a whole reacted to the marketing. Thats how surveys and polls work.
I mean, cmon, I dont claim to be an expert here, but thats ALL I saw for weeks until the early reviews and free screenings started serious buzz. And kudos to marketing for doing the right thing at the end.
But that Pink trailer needs to be remembered as a lesson.
I agree absolutely that it appears that marketing changed their strategy after a certain point, and it got better as it went along.
The Pink trailer was abysmal. The wide, massive free screenings are the primary force of what kicked up positive word-of-mouth.
Thank goodness they took that path.
Call them brilliant or call them stupid, marketing didn't bamboozle the kids in the theater in front of me. They were there to see Disney's Rapunzel. A story about a princess.
You can fool the adults - but you can't fool the kids. They're on to you.
Yeah, but the kids didn't cash their paychecks, drive to the theater, and buy the tickets, now did they? The parents are the ones who make decisions about which movies to see, so the parents are who marketing is aiming at.
Clearly, the parents drive to the theater and buy the tickets. However, the choice of the movie is heavily influenced by the kids. That's been my experience anyway. Perhaps I'm living in a different world.
Ironically, after seeing how beautiful a 3d film with Glen Keane's thumb prints all over can be, I don't think I ever need to see an old fashioned 2d animated film on the big screen again. This nailed the 2d aesthetic better than real 2d ever did. It was everything people loved about the old films delivered in 3 dimensions. Sorry to say.
Post a Comment