What era will "The Princess and the Frog" lead?

[SpringHeelJack]

And in its initial theatrical release, it underperformed. When Robin Hood was first released to theatres, it became the *most successful* animated Disney film of all time.

You sure about that? The way I've understood it, it was a financial flop.

Escapay's correct. "Robin Hood", for whatever reason, did gangbusters. I think read the same thing he did in the Christopher Finch book about it being the most financially successful DAC to that point.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Maltin's "The Disney Films" also confirms Robin Hoods box office success and (perhaps deserved) critical trashing.

[Jules]

Maltin's "The Disney Films" also confirms Robin Hoods box office success and (perhaps deserved) critical trashing.

This may be off-topic, but I really wish to buy and read Maltin's The Disney Films, only the last edition is ancient. I fear he will no longer update it.

[Flanger-Hanger]

This may be off-topic, but I really wish to buy and read Maltin's The Disney Films, only the last edition is ancient. I fear he will no longer update it.

As far as updates go the fully detailed reviews/critiques/summaries are reserved for the films made when Walt was alive (from Snow White to The Happiest Millionaire) and the other sections are less detailed, though still interesting summaries. With that in mind I'd say just get whatever edition he has out now because it's an excellent read and you shouldn't really wait to see if he does update it. After all 1997 was the last time we got another edition of The Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters.

[Escapay]

Escapay's correct. "Robin Hood", for whatever reason, did gangbusters. I think read the same thing he did in the Christopher Finch book about it being the most financially successful DAC to that point.

Maltin's "The Disney Films" also confirms Robin Hoods box office success and (perhaps deserved) critical trashing.

Actually, my main source for that info (beyond the Maltin book and Finch book) was the castmember version of the 1984 VHS for Robin Hood. It was at the Disney Learning Center, and if ever I finished a shift early and had time, I'd just go there and watch the movie, then go home or meet up with friends at Downtown Disney (and Earl of Sandwich). The VHS always had scrolling text every five minutes or so during the film and it displayed the same information (that it was the most successful animated film of all time, at least by 1984).

Despite it's many faults, Robin Hood is still a favourite of mine.

albert

[Prudence]

I have a feeling that the movie will lead into an era known as "The Age of Overestimating The Success" as that's what most Disney fans seem to be doing with The Princess and the Frog and Rapunzel (whilst at the same time, overlooking the Winnie the Pooh sequel and King of the Elves). It's good to be enthusiastic for a film, but already calling this an "age" of anything before the movies even come out is really pushing it.

albert

"The Age of Overestimating The Success & Later Denying The Success Was Overestimated If Not Forgetting Hoopla Entirely"

I'm most curious for King of the Elves, on a note. I like the short story.

[Disney's Divinity]

Wow. Pessimistic overload.

I do agree that the praise for TP&TF has gone overboard (even before there was anything to praise, honestly). But I still think the movie will mark a point in Disney history regardless of whether it's successful--it's the first African American Disney animated film and it also represents an attempt at a 2D comeback. And that's supposing I think it won't be a success--Princess, African American, Oprah? Yeah, I think it'll be hard for it not to be a substantial hit, at the very least. And it'll make up for what it doesn't bring in with merchandise and tie-ins.

So, the movie will have its age, even if that age turns out not to be in-line with Cinderella and TLM's "ages." Even the films like Robin Hood, The Aristocats and The Sword in the Stone have their own "age," even if it wasn't a very successful one (long-term). But it would be hard to put a name to TP&TF's age until after the age is already over; it's easier to look back than to know going forward.

(Also, I don't think Rapunzel has been overly praised--that one's been kind of borderline. "Unbraided? 3D? Ugly designs?" And I've known about The King of the Elves for some time--only no info. has been released concerning it and the story sounds unappealing to me personally anyway. So it's not hard for me to understand why that one's been thrown by the wayside at the moment.)

[Escapay]

I wasn't really being pessimist, it was more of a common-sense "see how successful the film and its followups are - if they are successful - before you call it a success". As you said, it's hard to put a name on the age until the age is over.

A sort of "don't count your chickens until they hatch". After all, we don't say stuff like "Tonight I am going to a club where I will meet someone, ask them out on a date, keep dating them for two years, pop the question, have a one-year engagement, get married on the beach, move into our first house, have 2.5 kids and a pet squirrel, retire at 65, and then live happily ever after! In Guam!"

albert

[pap64]

There's a HUGE difference between being realistic and being pessimistic.

I BELIEVE that Princess and the Frog will be a hit. Disney has spent millions making sure people know about this film. They have done everything from creating theme park attractions to re-releasing crappy direct to video specials with small Frog content. The doubters are now delighted to see the film thanks to the previews Disney has done.

Disney truly believes in this film and I think it will all pay off in the end.

When I say that the movie has to crush the box office earnings of Pixar and Dreamworks film is because I KNOW critics and films will say the movie wasn't a hit if it manages to only earn 200 million dollars.

Again, look at Bolt. The movie received amazing reviews and in the end did 200 million plus dollars in the US, much more in the end. But it was considered a "flop", because the hype, the reviews and the Miley Cyrus casting didn't create bigger numbers.

We unfortunately live in an era in which people put more faith in numbers than actual performance. If something doesn't exceed even the smallest expectations its considered a flop, even if its a really solid and great performer.

I can bet anything from money to my clothes and my dignity that if Princess and the Frog doesn't exceed expectations a teeny, weeny TINSY MINUSCULAR bit, people will be all over the net saying 'OMG THE MOVIE IS A FLOP CG FOREVAH!'.

[Goliath]

Escapay's correct. "Robin Hood", for whatever reason, did gangbusters. I think read the same thing he did in the Christopher Finch book about it being the most financially successful DAC to that point.

And I've also read that, when The Rescuers came out, that one became the most financially succesful Disney film up until that point. And both The Jungle Book and The Aristocats were big hits too. So if they all had so much succes, then why they did have to work on such tight budgets and use a lot of recycled animation to fill the films? And if they did so well, why is this era known as the 'Dark years'? It doesn't make sense to me.

[Flanger-Hanger]

And I've also read that, when The Rescuers came out, that one became the most financially succesful Disney film up until that point. And both The Jungle Book and The Aristocats were big hits too. So if they all had so much succes, then why they did have to work on such tight budgets and use a lot of recycled animation to fill the films? And if they did so well, why is this era known as the 'Dark years'? It doesn't make sense to me.

The Disney Films also makes note of Rescuers success and every film minus The Black Cauldron released after Jungle Book and before Little Mermaid made money (with Oliver and Company really starting the consistent trend of box office record setting know as "The Disney Renaissance").

It doesn't make sense Goliath, and the only reason the negative term "dark ages" does exist is because of nostalgic perceptions and marketing tactics. Since Disney press releases and documentaries of more recent times don't gush about the actual success of these titles and because there is no major push by marketing the public perceives them as begin "shunned" for a reason (with only Rescuers begin done so because of something actually bad, a home video scandal).

It really sucks for those of us who enjoy these titles and their contributions to Disney film history, but unfortunately the OMG LITTLE MERMAID IS BEST 90s DISNEY EVAHS!!! crowd will sadly drown out the truth.

[pap64]

I thought the reason that era is called "The Dark Ages" was because the company was struggling to get by thanks to the absence of Walt Disney. Disney was going through changes. The Nine Old Men were getting, well, old, the studio needed to complete its projects while staying afloat economically. It was also when creativity was limited, hence why many of the projects either recycled animation or were pretty much carbon copies of older films (technically, this is still going on, but what I mean is that they tried to be like Disney when he was gone, which mean replicating the success of his previous efforts).

To me, it was a period of change because the founder had died and now the company had to continue without his guidance and see how they could keep his spirit alive. It's something that would take them years to find.

I may be mistaken, so feel free to correct me. Just saying that the dark ages doesn't apply to the films but to the state of the company after Walt's death.

[Elladorine]

pap- I think you actually hit the nail on the head with that. There was a lot of uncertainty during that era with Walt gone, the 9 old men needing to pass the torch, and speculation about the animation studio closing down.

[Flanger-Hanger]

pap- I think you actually hit the nail on the head with that. There was a lot of uncertainty during that era with Walt gone, the 9 old men needing to pass the torch, and speculation about the animation studio closing down.

But there was talking of ditching animation after Sleeping Beauty was released with animation equipment sold prior to Jungle Book's release and animation did go when the company was making billions every year.

The Company's struggle had more to do with the lower returns on the "bread and butter" pictures and them not having any kind of huge hit in that department for years. Animation may have struggled to tell a good story but they were capable of making money (as were the theme parks). The studio as a whole had major issues, but animation in terms of generating revenue was not necessarily a problem.

[Goliath]

It doesn't make sense Goliath, and the only reason the negative term "dark ages" does exist is because of nostalgic perceptions and marketing tactics. Since Disney press releases and documentaries of more recent times don't gush about the actual success of these titles and because there is no major push by marketing the public perceives them as begin "shunned" for a reason.

But it still doesn't add up. Because Disney *loses* money by shunning the 1967-1988 films. They don't pay any attention to them, the characters don't get any merchandise, they are not in the theme parks. Why would Disney want to emphasize failure instead of succes?

And one question remains: why the tight budgets, recycled animation and 'cheap' looks of the films, when their predescessors enjoyed great succes?

[DisneyJedi]

But it still doesn't add up. Because Disney *loses* money by shunning the 1967-1988 films. They don't pay any attention to them, the characters don't get any merchandise, they are not in the theme parks. Why would Disney want to emphasize failure instead of succes?

And one question remains: why the tight budgets, recycled animation and 'cheap' looks of the films, when their predescessors enjoyed great succes?

I dunno. But they did have meet and greets for Bolt, Mittens, Rhino, and others. But I do recall meet and greets for Baloo and Louie. Not sure if they'll still around, though. The rest are somewhat rare.

[Flanger-Hanger]

But it still doesn't add up. Because Disney *loses* money by shunning the 1967-1988 films. They don't pay any attention to them, the characters don't get any merchandise, they are not in the theme parks. Why would Disney want to emphasize failure instead of succes?

And one question remains: why the tight budgets, recycled animation and 'cheap' looks of the films, when their predescessors enjoyed great succes?

It's a frustrating thing Disney marketing. They're fairly clueless about the company's past and assets and will stick to their fads out of the principle of making a fast buck. Making a property give the company a perpetual source of income over time is out of the question unless it involves a princess (and even then...poor Eilonwy...).

The "cheap" look had to do with inflation and a smaller sized staff. Risking alot of spending was also something Disney wasn't fond about in the 70s (which is why Island at the Top of the World looks so cheap despite the budget demands of the script).

[DisneyJedi]

Which reminds me. Was Bedknobs and Broomsticks a financial success or failure?

[kurtadisneyite]

Memory says Bedknobs and Broomsticks was a modest success, not a runaway hit.

As for TPATF, my 2-cents is it must resonate with the younger, hipper audiences if Disney is to truly launch a "new age" alongside their successful Pixar franchise. trying to update the older Disney classics via sequels has been hit or miss (Cinderella III seems the best, but Lasseter has killed that approach for now), the new product remains the only avenue left.

However, older "boomer era" Disney artists I know who saw TPATF told me it looked and sounded __fantastic__, but was trying to be too contemporary and "didn't create its own world".

[Rudy Matt]

I'm hopin this film will lead to "The Age Of The 2-D Comeback". Plus, I doubt this film will fail (I see it as an Oscar nominee).

I'm hoping this film will lead to people ceasing to use the phrase "2-D animation" when they should say "hand drawn animation" instead.