DVDizzy Forum

D82 wrote:It reminds me of the Tangled teaser poster. In that one we only saw the characters faces like here, and they were sorrounded by hair while here they are covered with snow.

My thoughts exactly! And I actually like it!

Hey guys, seems like the HD version of the french posters (the Elsa and Anna ones) are avaible in HD in http://www.bestmoviewalls.com/directory ... jdVzcauxh0 (is this considered like spam? if it's that, I would delete the mesage), the bad thing is that you have to pay for them...

What I hate the most about this poster is that the main character, Elsa, did not get a new pose or something...

They're so lazy that they won't even bother creating new faces.. what the heck!

Yes, was just thinking that too! Ever so guilty of posting the same head onto different body poses. We only ever see her from one side with that darn raised eyebrow!

taei wrote:What I hate the most about this poster is that the main character, Elsa, did not get a new pose or something.

Nor did Kristoff. How lazy.

I've seen high school media arts students who've created way better movie posters than those monstrosities.

Okay, maybe I am exaggerating (or...not, some high school students actually are really great at Photoshop and would probably be excellent additions to Disney's marketing team), but the poster with all of the main character's heads sticking out of the snow is laughable mostly because they used the same character art we've seen before, at least for Kristoff and Elsa. Seriously though, Kristoff is hilarious in that poster. God, that expression. He looks so dead eyed.

The marketing is not worth getting surprised over (after Tangled and all), but it sure is fun to make fun off it.

What most people will think from that poster:

Hey! This is a movie about a snowman who wants to be in summer. The humans are just side characters who help him out.


Though I will say this.. I'm glad that they're not marketing Sven that much. Max was the second weakest thing in Tangled IMHO.

What I love most about this mess is that The Disney Store got a new banner, but the poster didnt....

Look, Disney. I know you want to market Frozen to everyone. But to make Olaf look like he's the main character and to literally bury the REAL main characters in snow?

Really? Really?!

Now, this is what the new poster makes me think:
In the new Dreamworks movie, Olaf, a funny snowman voiced by Josh Gad (voice of Louis in Ice Age) goes on an adventure to restore summer back to his land. In this journey he'll meet Anna, voiced by Kristen Bell (voice of Lucy Stillman in Asssasins Creed), the sister of a woman who is responsible for making the summer gone, and Kristoff, who has a nice reindeer that will try to eat the funny snowman's nose. Who's the other guy? Never mind, he has a horse! He's not a prince or anything related to girl movies. This movie is cool.

Now seriously, it's funny how Disney took revenge of Dreamworks ""stealing"" and satirizing their movies and now Disney steals Dreamworks advertising strategies (Yet Dreamworks advertising strategies show what the actual movie is like). It's like Nostalgia Chick said in one of her videos. http://blip.tv/nostalgia-chick/dreamwor ... ow-4539914
As long as it works and the movie remains being good (and as long as they release an actual good american poster, or translate the french one), it's ok with me. Tangled had that hair poster with Rapunzel and Eugene but then the other "classical" poster came out (I don't know exactly when, if it was before or after the movie release)

I don't know how I say this, but Dreamworks weren't made famous in the first place, none of this would of happen.
Thanks a lot, Dreamworks! You ruined Disney and hand drawn animation!

TsWade2 wrote:I don't know how I say this, but Dreamworks weren't made famous in the first place, none of this would of happen.
Thanks a lot, Dreamworks! You ruined Disney and hand drawn animation!

To clarify, it's shrek. Shrek is at fault.
If shrek had not come out, parents wouldn't see CGI as a medium for adults and hand drawn as a medium for the entire family.

taei wrote:

TsWade2 wrote:I don't know how I say this, but Dreamworks weren't made famous in the first place, none of this would of happen.
Thanks a lot, Dreamworks! You ruined Disney and hand drawn animation!

To clarify, it's shrek. Shrek is at fault.
If shrek had not come out, parents wouldn't see CGI as a medium for adults and hand drawn as a medium for the entire family.

Same thing!

taei wrote:

TsWade2 wrote:I don't know how I say this, but Dreamworks weren't made famous in the first place, none of this would of happen.
Thanks a lot, Dreamworks! You ruined Disney and hand drawn animation!

To clarify, it's shrek. Shrek is at fault.
If shrek had not come out, parents wouldn't see CGI as a medium for adults and hand drawn as a medium for the entire family.

So true. In the spring of 2001 there was only 1 animated movie I wanted to see:



There isn't a day in hell I would ever choose Shrek over this! But the mainstream choose Shrek cause it was cool

The new poster is still a step up imo, since we actually get to see the other characters. Still I'm waiting for the separate Anna and Elsa posters!

PrincessElsa wrote:Nevertheless, the double-headed eagle emblazoned on the wall can only represent the Holy Roman Empire, which inaugurated the use of this symbol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsadler

There were a few duchies within the Holy Roman Empire (e.g., Brabant) that did, during certain periods, also use the fleur-de-lis in their heraldry.

Also, you will observe that both in the opening and closing ceremonies of the film, the hall is awash in fabric banners of every sort, likely honoring the visiting dignitaries.

The huge black Reichsadler, on the other hand, is tile-work impressed directly onto the masonry, thus adoring the stone wall of the castle itself, and therefore a permanent adornment, not removable, like a temporary banner.

That's interesting! Thanks for the information...this whole time I would have been under the assumption that Aurora hails from France. It proves that Disney is capable of merging history with entertainment (Pocahontas hardly counts lol).

DisneyEra wrote:

taei wrote: To clarify, it's shrek. Shrek is at fault.
If shrek had not come out, parents wouldn't see CGI as a medium for adults and hand drawn as a medium for the entire family.

So true. In the spring of 2001 there was only 1 animated movie I wanted to see:



There isn't a day in hell I would ever choose Shrek over this! But the mainstream choose Shrek cause it was cool

The ironic thing is Atlantis ditched a lot of the 90's Disney tropes that the public came to expect while Shrek took shots at the then tired cliché formula. The irony is that when Shrek came around it was seen as a breath of fresh air but now since we have had nothing but the same Shrek formula in the 2000's people have now been clamoring for the old Disney style of storytelling.

I'm rather sick of all the Shrek bashing around here. Anytime a Disney character so much as raises an eyebrow people start screaming it's some kind of Dreamworks rip-off.

It's been twelve years now and you guys are still angry about the film's impact? If anyone is to be blamed for Disney supposedly copying Dreamworks and their so-called "formula" (which I don't actually agree with it), it's Disney's fault for not leading the way, not Shrek's.

enigmawing wrote:I'm rather sick of all the Shrek bashing around here. Anytime a Disney character so much as raises an eyebrow people start screaming it's some kind of Dreamworks rip-off.

It's been twelve years now and you guys are still angry about the film's impact? If anyone is to be blamed for Disney supposedly copying Dreamworks and their so-called "formula" (which I don't actually agree with it), it's Disney's fault for not leading the way, not Shrek's.

I still don't like the impact the movie had on the animation genre as a whole.and I also think that shrek 2 is a comedy marvel. One the best I have ever seen. Shrek one, while good, still first compare to the sequel.

enigmawing wrote:I'm rather sick of all the Shrek bashing around here. Anytime a Disney character so much as raises an eyebrow people start screaming it's some kind of Dreamworks rip-off.

It's been twelve years now and you guys are still angry about the film's impact? If anyone is to be blamed for Disney supposedly copying Dreamworks and their so-called "formula" (which I don't actually agree with it), it's Disney's fault for not leading the way, not Shrek's.

Actually a lot of other animated studios either copied either Shrek or Ice Age in formula. I mention Ice Age because it was one of the forerunners of the GGI animated comedies that came out during the 2000's. Although I think the first Ice Age movie was good and had some darkness in it missing from the sequels.

I do agree that Shrek 1 and 2 are good while 3 and 4 were the big jump the shark moments.

Well, don't get me wrong, I like Shrek. Donkey is my favorite. He's so cute and cuddly. But, I think this whole rivalry between Disney and Dreamworks are getting out of hand.

I suppose I can see a certain amount of influence, but "rip-off" is pretty debatable IMO. Irreverent comedy in an animated feature was not original to Shrek, it just happened to capture the public's interest (and it's the only trace of a "formula" that I can even remotely see). And it had good reason to capture the public's interest; it was funny and different, and given the lackluster performance Disney had been giving in the past few years it made people realize that animation was for adults too; something Disney had lost sight of and is still continuing to struggle with. And I agree the sequel was better than the original.

What I can't stand is seeing the "It's all Shrek's fault!!!" mentality taking over. Once again, any character so much as raises an eyebrow and it's "ZOMG, SHREK!!!1111" and "Why is it all DreamWorksy?"