tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post1643807231329230521..comments2024-03-29T02:18:35.303-07:00Comments on TAG Blog: "Harry No Match For Hair" ... ???Steve Huletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-65093183015012269532010-11-29T17:25:07.197-08:002010-11-29T17:25:07.197-08:00Ironically, after seeing how beautiful a 3d film w...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-47194290152134768702010-11-29T16:58:55.382-08:002010-11-29T16:58:55.382-08:00Clearly, the parents drive to the theater and buy ...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.Floyd Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08635960964922892254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-88183382154725023692010-11-29T15:50:51.566-08:002010-11-29T15:50:51.566-08:00Yeah, but the kids didn't cash their paychecks...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-5160093484861626982010-11-29T11:05:44.543-08:002010-11-29T11:05:44.543-08:00Call them brilliant or call them stupid, marketing...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.<br /><br />You can fool the adults - but you can't fool the kids. They're on to you.Floyd Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08635960964922892254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-62830015855205300622010-11-28T22:16:28.444-08:002010-11-28T22:16:28.444-08:00I agree absolutely that it appears that marketing ...I agree absolutely that it appears that marketing changed their strategy after a certain point, and it got better as it went along.<br /><br />The Pink trailer was abysmal. The wide, massive free screenings are the primary force of what kicked up positive word-of-mouth. <br /><br />Thank goodness they took that path.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-28521682919807094172010-11-28T21:35:55.745-08:002010-11-28T21:35:55.745-08:00Believe it or not if everyone you 'tracked'...<b>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.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />But that Pink trailer needs to be remembered as a lesson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-32893025896045440112010-11-28T21:21:38.169-08:002010-11-28T21:21:38.169-08:00I agree that the film worked despite the early poo...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.<br /><br />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). <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Had they not done that, and Tangled bombed, it WOULD have been their fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-58329918159327468322010-11-28T20:05:37.516-08:002010-11-28T20:05:37.516-08:00... the overwhelmingly prevailing message from the...<b>... 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 </b><br /><br />No kidding. Then how come Ms. Finke, one of the professional reviwers on her own forum whom I quote up above, wrote:<br /><br /><i>[T]hough I and many others took early swipes at new <b>marketing czarina</b> 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 ..." </i><br /><br />That screening program? That was part of marketing/sales. So your evidence, it ain't so overwhelming.Steve Huletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-86235436114778966732010-11-28T18:31:08.517-08:002010-11-28T18:31:08.517-08:00That was aimed at the anonymous at 4:12, and not t...That was aimed at the anonymous at 4:12, and not the one right above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-5956494620942638552010-11-28T18:29:32.503-08:002010-11-28T18:29:32.503-08:00Interesting. So you claim that marketing misrepre...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. <br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-34979654686879675472010-11-28T17:45:05.731-08:002010-11-28T17:45:05.731-08:00Psst...your 'obssesive tracking' was very ...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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />I seem to recall certain voices here (hi, Rob) that guaranteed it would bomb unless they chanmged the name back to Rapunzel...<br /><br />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)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-27052069816606956292010-11-28T16:12:37.121-08:002010-11-28T16:12:37.121-08:00But anecdotal "evidence" isn't proof...<b>But anecdotal "evidence" isn't proof.</b><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />I could be wrong, but thats overwhelmingly what I found.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-12488127593300921732010-11-28T13:53:08.829-08:002010-11-28T13:53:08.829-08:00cinemascore was A+ for Tangled. No other film this...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.<br /><br />And the thing is, even adults over 25 rated it an A+. It's a 4 quadrant hit.<br /><br />A big, old fashioned crowd pleaser.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-58923819259267822602010-11-28T13:49:51.855-08:002010-11-28T13:49:51.855-08:00... if you put your thinking cap on, that the movi...<b> ... 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.<br /></b><br /><br />Unprovable thesis.<br /><br />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 ....<br /><br />The selling/marketing? Maybe. But people can point to their own favorite anecdotal evidence to show why this isn't so. <b>But anecdotal "evidence" isn't proof.</b><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)Steve Huletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-29554215412918924462010-11-28T13:18:08.575-08:002010-11-28T13:18:08.575-08:00For those of us who watched like a HAWK, all the t...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:<br /><br />"The movie was better than we thought it was going to be" and "this is not the movie we thought it was"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-27867011944750707092010-11-28T13:16:07.825-08:002010-11-28T13:16:07.825-08:00This weekend Tangled made 49 million dollars, only...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!<br /><br />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!robster16https://www.blogger.com/profile/14385077387955296431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-30440212543901879812010-11-28T13:13:16.248-08:002010-11-28T13:13:16.248-08:00It's a good thing Disney's marketing dept....It's a good thing Disney's marketing dept. and Rich Ross told animation not to make anymore princess movies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-89883693088477224922010-11-28T12:12:15.567-08:002010-11-28T12:12:15.567-08:00Here are the facts:
Tangled is a hit this week.
...Here are the facts:<br /><br />Tangled is a hit this week.<br /><br />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...?<br />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.<br /><br />The 3D price ticket probably helped a lot. We'll know more after the numbers of tickets are revealed.<br /><br />This was CG film and will probably not influence any decisions that Disney might make concerning 2D.<br /><br />Anything else is only speculation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-68424507138756663702010-11-28T11:56:21.298-08:002010-11-28T11:56:21.298-08:00That's your opinion, and you're allowed to...That's your opinion, and you're allowed to be wrong. <br /><br />PS) Gothel was not a train wreckAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-27570830671104011032010-11-28T10:02:33.239-08:002010-11-28T10:02:33.239-08:00Marketing hid the lame, dated songs, and the gag-i...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-25938947566913960382010-11-28T10:00:10.478-08:002010-11-28T10:00:10.478-08:00In reply to the above Anon (7:58), hold on, becaus...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?<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-83491459708288992092010-11-28T09:59:05.260-08:002010-11-28T09:59:05.260-08:00"why didn't the crappy trailer for Sorcer..."why didn't the crappy trailer for Sorcerors Apprentice or the crappy trailer for Prince of Persia work too?"<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-10396827096852733222010-11-28T08:49:22.212-08:002010-11-28T08:49:22.212-08:00Not to be a downer but a realist. Anyone that thi...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-57008519955735281342010-11-28T08:25:19.629-08:002010-11-28T08:25:19.629-08:00Boy you guys are such a partykillers.
Disney fina...Boy you guys are such a partykillers.<br /><br />Disney finally has a movie that is both critically AND financially huge success, enough with the hating already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-36590836965914455532010-11-28T07:58:49.664-08:002010-11-28T07:58:49.664-08:00Sadly, no matter how well the movie does, the arti...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'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com