I find it a sign of weakness and a sign that Disney isn't supporting and believing in it's own projects. If they cave in and change the title after using the title "Rapunzel" for this project up untill their own annual report, released in january and now completely re-write the movie's synopsis where the focus in placed on the male character instead of the female character, then I think it's time for someone to speak up and address this marketing failure. ALWAYS stand by your products. People at Disney who have seen the movie have said that the project looks really solid, so then why not support the movie and trust it's creative team instead of caving in to focus groups and marketing execs? Did James Cameron let public opinion infuence his vision in creating Avatar? No ,he stuck to his gut feeling and passion and it paid off! Believing in yourself and your product is the first step...UmbrellaFish wrote:But that's not marketing. That's Disney making empty statements to hype up audiences, and they've being doing that forever.robster16 wrote:For YEARS Disney has been reffering to this movie in press releases that this movie was a return to the classic Disney animated fairytale. The evidence is clear that this change was a last minute decision and Disney insiders have told us exactly why they changed the title, for fear of having another Disney princess movie. Well people, that's what this project is, has been and will always be. People on non related Disney boards are even going "WTF are they doing". The decision is stupid and I will not accept it! NEVER EVER!
Yeah, it was a last minute decision, yeah, some people on the internet might be talking, and yeah, this decision was made to keep the movie afloat. If they think this will make the movie "gender-friendly" (eww, I hate writing that, but nevertheless), so be it. Obviously, Disney is already sweating at the collar over this film's success. I'm not going to burden myself with (dramatic- BUM! BUM! BUM!) a name change when Disney animation could very well be over as we know it by the time this film comes out.
I rather Disney market it the way they see fit if that's what they think is the key to the movie's finacial success. And as I've stated, they haven't marketed any yet. We'll just have to wait and see.
Tangled! (The Artist Formerly Known As Rapunzel)
-
robster16
- Special Edition
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:09 pm
- Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
robster16
- Special Edition
- Posts: 708
- Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:09 pm
- Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands
here are some links to articles about the title change, be sure to read the general consensus about the movie's new title. I'm betting Disney is very happy now that they changed the title and see these reactions from the general public:
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienew ... mentLstTop
and
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnoth ... 7080747199
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienew ... mentLstTop
and
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnoth ... 7080747199
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
UmbrellaFish
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5717
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:09 pm
- Gender: Male (He/Him)
There's no way I can disagree with that, but love 'em or hate 'em, they just ain't going to have any confidence until they get either a MAJOR critical or financial success (preferably both). If "Tangled" is going to make more money than "Rapunzel" we'll see... Let Disney make there mistakes, because they can't learn until they've made them. And maybe wait before we deem anything a mistake too early.robster16 wrote: I find it a sign of weakness and a sign that Disney isn't supporting and believing in it's own projects. If they cave in and change the title after using the title "Rapunzel" for this project up untill their own annual report, released in january and now completely re-write the movie's synopsis where the focus in placed on the male character instead of the female character, then I think it's time for someone to speak up and address this marketing failure. ALWAYS stand by your products. People at Disney who have seen the movie have said that the project looks really solid, so then why not support the movie and trust it's creative team instead of caving in to focus groups and marketing execs? Did James Cameron let public opinion infuence his vision in creating Avatar? No ,he stuck to his gut feeling and passion and it paid off! Believing in yourself and your product is the first step...
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
-
UmbrellaFish
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5717
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:09 pm
- Gender: Male (He/Him)
I think that's an early judgement.ajmrowland wrote:The problem is.........they keep making 'em and never learn. Lasseter's my hero, but there's only so much one man can do.
They haven't had anything to learn from yet, besides TPATF, and that said some major things, I think. We may not like some decisions, but we don't know what goes on over there. Disney's at least showing a willingness to change, and I haven't the company so shaken up in a long time.
Disney's only just started it's whole "brand turn-around" and I find it all completely fascinating. I haven't been so engrossed in Disney news for a long time now and I'm very curious to see what lies in store for the Mouse House. These years, a fourth "Golden Age" or not, will be very influential in the course of Disney history...
-
KennethE
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: San Diego, California
I don't know if any of you are big Lord of the Ring fans, but I feel like Aragorn in Return of the King after he chops off the "Mouth of Sauron's" head and yells: "I do not believe it!!! I will not believe it!!!!!"
This news distresses me beyond belief! I won't go into the reasons why, because the 20 or so previous posts sums it up nicely.
Looking on the bright side, let's hope that the film will rock the world beyond belief, despite the title. (Personally, I did not like the title for "The Princess and the Frog," and to this day I always refer to it as "Frog Princess.")
Oh well.... The trailer will be the one defining moment on whether this will be good or bad. Until then, I'm just hoping the name change is just a bloated lie because:
"I DO NOT BELIEVE IT! I WILL NOT BELIEVE IT!!!!"
This news distresses me beyond belief! I won't go into the reasons why, because the 20 or so previous posts sums it up nicely.
Looking on the bright side, let's hope that the film will rock the world beyond belief, despite the title. (Personally, I did not like the title for "The Princess and the Frog," and to this day I always refer to it as "Frog Princess.")
Oh well.... The trailer will be the one defining moment on whether this will be good or bad. Until then, I'm just hoping the name change is just a bloated lie because:
"I DO NOT BELIEVE IT! I WILL NOT BELIEVE IT!!!!"
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
Disney never learns. They are inherently stupid and refuse to see logic.
If Rapunzel does well the first thing they are going to do is clap themselves on the back and say, 'Tangled was a fantastic idea, let's make all our movies geared towards boys!' instead of 'Our movie was great and it did well because of the strong story and characters!'
Princess and the Frog, though I have not seen it, did not fail because it had Princess in the title. That's stupid. I have no real idea why, but, but, but MAYBE because of what DISNEY themselves have done to their own brand name. Look at Dreamworks, Blue Sky and Sony. They had to build their name and the trend is the gross is going up, of course the quality must be up to par.
Disney can't expect to jump right in again and think it'll be king. They need time to build it up but they might not get it with that ***tard Rich Ross and Bob Iger running around hating on anything creative.
Lasster also needs to let up. I mean, sure, he has the final say, but instead of him making the decision to kill it because he doesn't like it personally, he should revert back to the days where there was a group of directors doing constructive criticism. It is well known he hates Lilo which was the most amazing Disney movie this side of the decade.
But Disney have run down their brand name, be it their fault or not. When 3D animation came about and made their medium 'obsolete', did they hit back with creativity or did they just release uninspired flicks like Home on the Range? They didn't even go out with a bang the first time round.
If Rapunzel does well the first thing they are going to do is clap themselves on the back and say, 'Tangled was a fantastic idea, let's make all our movies geared towards boys!' instead of 'Our movie was great and it did well because of the strong story and characters!'
Princess and the Frog, though I have not seen it, did not fail because it had Princess in the title. That's stupid. I have no real idea why, but, but, but MAYBE because of what DISNEY themselves have done to their own brand name. Look at Dreamworks, Blue Sky and Sony. They had to build their name and the trend is the gross is going up, of course the quality must be up to par.
Disney can't expect to jump right in again and think it'll be king. They need time to build it up but they might not get it with that ***tard Rich Ross and Bob Iger running around hating on anything creative.
Lasster also needs to let up. I mean, sure, he has the final say, but instead of him making the decision to kill it because he doesn't like it personally, he should revert back to the days where there was a group of directors doing constructive criticism. It is well known he hates Lilo which was the most amazing Disney movie this side of the decade.
But Disney have run down their brand name, be it their fault or not. When 3D animation came about and made their medium 'obsolete', did they hit back with creativity or did they just release uninspired flicks like Home on the Range? They didn't even go out with a bang the first time round.
Well put,BK wrote:Disney never learns. They are inherently stupid and refuse to see logic.
If Rapunzel does well the first thing they are going to do is clap themselves on the back and say, 'Tangled was a fantastic idea, let's make all our movies geared towards boys!' instead of 'Our movie was great and it did well because of the strong story and characters!'
Princess and the Frog, though I have not seen it, did not fail because it had Princess in the title. That's stupid. I have no real idea why, but, but, but MAYBE because of what DISNEY themselves have done to their own brand name. Look at Dreamworks, Blue Sky and Sony. They had to build their name and the trend is the gross is going up, of course the quality must be up to par.
Disney can't expect to jump right in again and think it'll be king. They need time to build it up but they might not get it with that ***tard Rich Ross and Bob Iger running around hating on anything creative.
Lasster also needs to let up. I mean, sure, he has the final say, but instead of him making the decision to kill it because he doesn't like it personally, he should revert back to the days where there was a group of directors doing constructive criticism. It is well known he hates Lilo which was the most amazing Disney movie this side of the decade.
But Disney have run down their brand name, be it their fault or not. When 3D animation came about and made their medium 'obsolete', did they hit back with creativity or did they just release uninspired flicks like Home on the Range? They didn't even go out with a bang the first time round.
The 2D films of the 2000's (outside of L&S) didn't do as well because people were bored of the medium, it's because the overall quality went down. Lilo and Stitch was released in 2002 and was a huge hit, Treasure Planet was released later that year and flopped. (although I think it's an entertaining flick) Of that era, L&S was the only film that was a hit and is generally seen as the best of the bunch from 2000 - 2004. So the art form was not the problem.
The reason BatB, Aladdin and Lion King were such huge successes was because they were great films. Whether it was the music, the story, or the characters, the films were loved for what they were, not just because they were 2D animation.
-
Dream Huntress
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:08 pm
- Location: Somewhere
I wonder if the Disney execs are reading the Facebook comments, or at least have interns reading the comments, because people over there are completely freaking out. It's not too late to take it back, the movie is still being referred as "Rapunzel" in the Disney Animation Studios site. Though if they do read the comments they could dismiss them by saying "Oh, it's just a bunch of crazy fans", which would be a mistake Disney, right now, we're you're only real loyal audience.
There's a part of me that thinks that maybe we're overreacting about this whole thing, I mean, I remember how pissed off people was with the changes made with "Bolt" and "The Princess and the Frog", and both turned out to be pretty good movies. Then again, we're talking about the company that greenlighted a "Cinderella" sequel and thought that making movies based on their theme rides was a good idea -sure, "Pirates of the Caribbean" worked out, but that was a once in a million chance, plus they have Johnny Depp-
Now, are they taking in account this is their 50th film? That's a big deal, I mean, they should be promoting this thing like crazy, mentioning stuff like "half a century creating for all ages" and stuff like that. Now, they taking away the focus from Rapunzel to Flynn? Because whenever they talked about the movie they always referred to it as a coming of age story about Rapunzel and her relationship with Mother Gothel, which if I recall correctly was supposed to be a bizarre co-dependent one, I don't know. Now, one of the aspects that I found very appealing is that almost all the story was going to rest in those aspects, the relationship between Rapunzel and Mother Gothel and Rapunzel and Flynn, and that would be a very interesting angle to the tale, and they could have finally done a movie without comedic sidekicks, but now is like they finally throwing the towel and say, "ah, what the hell, let's do again what Dreamworks stopped doing like three years ago".
Then there's the whole "appealing to the boys market", and, I'm sorry, isn't this the company that makes millions out of the Disney Princesses, Hanna Montana and Jonas Brothers brands? When it became unprofitable to target their products solely at girls? Therefore, if the title change is actually because of this idea, then it is silly and hypocritical. And let's get real, "The Princess and the Frog" underperfomed at the box office not because it was focused too much on the whole princess aspect, it was because of poor marketing and because they released the movie one week before frigging Avatar! Didn't you learn anything from releasing "Bolt" at the same time that Twilight? C'mon, even the people who thought "Avatar" would suck knew it was going to destroy all competition at the box office.
There's a part of me that thinks that maybe we're overreacting about this whole thing, I mean, I remember how pissed off people was with the changes made with "Bolt" and "The Princess and the Frog", and both turned out to be pretty good movies. Then again, we're talking about the company that greenlighted a "Cinderella" sequel and thought that making movies based on their theme rides was a good idea -sure, "Pirates of the Caribbean" worked out, but that was a once in a million chance, plus they have Johnny Depp-
Now, are they taking in account this is their 50th film? That's a big deal, I mean, they should be promoting this thing like crazy, mentioning stuff like "half a century creating for all ages" and stuff like that. Now, they taking away the focus from Rapunzel to Flynn? Because whenever they talked about the movie they always referred to it as a coming of age story about Rapunzel and her relationship with Mother Gothel, which if I recall correctly was supposed to be a bizarre co-dependent one, I don't know. Now, one of the aspects that I found very appealing is that almost all the story was going to rest in those aspects, the relationship between Rapunzel and Mother Gothel and Rapunzel and Flynn, and that would be a very interesting angle to the tale, and they could have finally done a movie without comedic sidekicks, but now is like they finally throwing the towel and say, "ah, what the hell, let's do again what Dreamworks stopped doing like three years ago".
Then there's the whole "appealing to the boys market", and, I'm sorry, isn't this the company that makes millions out of the Disney Princesses, Hanna Montana and Jonas Brothers brands? When it became unprofitable to target their products solely at girls? Therefore, if the title change is actually because of this idea, then it is silly and hypocritical. And let's get real, "The Princess and the Frog" underperfomed at the box office not because it was focused too much on the whole princess aspect, it was because of poor marketing and because they released the movie one week before frigging Avatar! Didn't you learn anything from releasing "Bolt" at the same time that Twilight? C'mon, even the people who thought "Avatar" would suck knew it was going to destroy all competition at the box office.
-
DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
- Gender: Male
You know what? That's it! I am sick and tired of hearing this "Ooh! The Princess and the Frog failed" crap! If it "failed", would it have earned $196 million worldwide by now?! 
Think about it! The only reason it wasn't a runaway hit was that it competed against a so-called Pocahontas "ripoff", a non-stereotypical Sherlock Holmes and a sequel to a live-action adaptation that is stereotypical of today's crappy cartoons! ENOUGH SAID!!!
Think about it! The only reason it wasn't a runaway hit was that it competed against a so-called Pocahontas "ripoff", a non-stereotypical Sherlock Holmes and a sequel to a live-action adaptation that is stereotypical of today's crappy cartoons! ENOUGH SAID!!!
-
Dream Huntress
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:08 pm
- Location: Somewhere
Again, it has done $150,094,748 worldwide: $101,139,686 domestic and $48,955,062 foreign. It didn't bomb, but it did underperform. Look, I get you love the movie, I like it too, but staying on denial doesn't help anybody.DisneyJedi wrote:You know what? That's it! I am sick and tired of hearing this "Ooh! The Princess and the Frog failed" crap! If it "failed", would it have earned $196 million worldwide by now?!
I think that was exactly my point, plus bad marketing, so yeah.DisneyJedi wrote:Think about it! The only reason it wasn't a runaway hit was that it competed against a so-called Pocahontas "ripoff", a non-stereotypical Sherlock Holmes and a sequel to a live-action adaptation that is stereotypical of today's crappy cartoons! ENOUGH SAID!!!
-
DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3737
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
- Gender: Male
Wait. What? But The-Numbers and BoxOfficeGuru said it earned $196 million worldwide.Dream Huntress wrote:Again, it has done $150,094,748 worldwide: $101,139,686 domestic and $48,955,062 foreign. It didn't bomb, but it did underperform.DisneyJedi wrote:You know what? That's it! I am sick and tired of hearing this "Ooh! The Princess and the Frog failed" crap! If it "failed", would it have earned $196 million worldwide by now?!
-
PatrickvD
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Get your facts straight. The $48.9 million figure is incorrect. Box Office Mojos international updates haven't been accurate in months.Dream Huntress wrote:Again, it has done $150,094,748 worldwide: $101,139,686 domestic and $48,955,062 foreign. It didn't bomb, but it did underperform. Look, I get you love the movie, I like it too, but staying on denial doesn't help anybody.DisneyJedi wrote:You know what? That's it! I am sick and tired of hearing this "Ooh! The Princess and the Frog failed" crap! If it "failed", would it have earned $196 million worldwide by now?!
-
Babaloo
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:23 pm
- Location: Ottawa, ON, CANADA!
I was reading some of the facebook comments, and to tell you the truth, I think its only us Disney fans who are not liking the title change. Yah there are some who don't like it, but overall it doesn't seem to be a problem. When I first read that the name changed to "Tangled" you should have seen my mouth drop, but then I thought...as long as the movie is good, I don't care. It might have a stupid name, but it could be a good movie. And like someone else said, it might actually have something to do with the film (I don't know, something like to complete opposites *cough Tiana and Naveen cough*, get "tangled" together). And you know what if that's what it takes for Disney to bring in more viewers, then let them do it! Obviously it wasn't the best title choice (I would have loved if they kept Rapunzel), but if it's one that'll help, then its fine.
And about Flynn potentially having a more prominent role, I think that's fine too. Lots of people on UD say "it's about Rapunzel, not him", but the fact is it would be another princess movie. I LOVE princess movies, but you have to remember Disney is a company. They have to make back their money. For PatF the estimated production cost was $105 million, but that doesn't include other things. You know sometimes marketing for an animated film can cost up to $150 million. If it was another princess movie, many boys wouldn't want to go see it, and that's taking away almost half the desired audience. The reality is, yah I would love them to make films catered to fans, but it's not going to happen. They want to please everyone, not just fans.
And about Flynn potentially having a more prominent role, I think that's fine too. Lots of people on UD say "it's about Rapunzel, not him", but the fact is it would be another princess movie. I LOVE princess movies, but you have to remember Disney is a company. They have to make back their money. For PatF the estimated production cost was $105 million, but that doesn't include other things. You know sometimes marketing for an animated film can cost up to $150 million. If it was another princess movie, many boys wouldn't want to go see it, and that's taking away almost half the desired audience. The reality is, yah I would love them to make films catered to fans, but it's not going to happen. They want to please everyone, not just fans.
-
Dream Huntress
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:08 pm
- Location: Somewhere
More like in one month, the last time it was updated for the PATF foreign box office was on 01/31/10. Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but people has to face the fact that the movie didn't meet the financial expectations everybody had set, because it didn't. Yes, it was a wonderful movie, yes, it got glowing reviews, yes, it got back it's production costs, yes, it will make a lot of money from the DVD sales, but it wasn't a box office succes, and the execs are using that as excuse to shelve many good projects, and left people unemployed and running away to Dreamworks.PatrickvD wrote:Get your facts straight. The $48.9 million figure is incorrect. Box Office Mojos international updates haven't been accurate in months.Dream Huntress wrote: Again, it has done $150,094,748 worldwide: $101,139,686 domestic and $48,955,062 foreign. It didn't bomb, but it did underperform. Look, I get you love the movie, I like it too, but staying on denial doesn't help anybody.
-
Daydreamer
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:25 am
- Location: Italy