DVDizzy Forum

Sotiris wrote: Apparently, WDAS is not planning on going ahead with their initial "plan" on having "one hand-drawn film every two years" after the disappointing box office results of The Princess and the Fog as there are currently no hand-drawn features in development.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WWaLxFIVX1s" frameborder="0"></iframe>

That is ALL!!!!

I love the idea and the concept art, but I am saddened to learn that neither this nor The Snow Queen will be in 2D. They will both look great in 3D, but it would be nice to have one of them in 2D for some variety. I hope that Pooh does well, and convinces Disney that 2D is worth a try, but lets be realistic, it won't, not with the non existent marketing it's getting.

I'm really excited for this film and very happy that things are moving forward with it. I personally want more originality in the future and while this is an adaptation, the story itself is unlike any that Disney Animation has adapted before. I'm indifferent on how the film is animated, if it's CG, I don't mind, I just hope the film is good enough to continue the success Disney has had with Princess and the Frog and Tangled.

Okay. And frankly, if Winnie the Pooh turns out to be their final hand-drawn film, I don't mind. It sounds like a better way to close that legacy than Home on the Range was.

disneyprincess11 wrote:

Sotiris wrote: Apparently, WDAS is not planning on going ahead with their initial "plan" on having "one hand-drawn film every two years" after the disappointing box office results of The Princess and the Fog as there are currently no hand-drawn features in development.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WWaLxFIVX1s" frameborder="0"></iframe>

That is ALL!!!!

No offense, but old meme is old.

TheValentineBros wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote: <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WWaLxFIVX1s" frameborder="0"></iframe>

That is ALL!!!!

No offense, but old meme is old.

None taken.

i'm really glad that KOTE wasn't shelved the story seems really interesting and I think I will be really good. I don't think we will see Snow Queen for a few more years. I hope this is 2D but I wouldn't mind CGI either. maybe a mixture of both? Also I don't think Winnie the Pooh will do so well ... It only made $6m+ in the U.K and the advertising for the movie was poor, no trailers on tv or interviews with cast members to promote the movie etc. I really think they made Winnie the Pooh to promote the Winnie the Pooh Franchise and Disney Baby Franchise. But can't wait for King of The Elves, the concept art looks amazing

Of course, Disney executives are going to think CGI > hand-drawn, because the CGI film happened to make more money.

Never mind the fact that both hand drawn films, PatF and Pooh have had little to no advertising while Tangled had a heap loads.
Plus, both films have the worst release dates (PatF released a week before Avatar, Winnie the Pooh coming out the same day as the final Harry Potter film)

Maybe if they promoted their hand-drawn films as well as their CGI ones, more people would go see it. Even the crappiest of movies will get viewers to go if there's a commercial for it every 5 minutes.
It almost feels like they're not confident enough to put money into advertising their hand-drawn films because they think people won't see it. Meanwhile they're actually hurting themselves by doing the exact opposite. Like it's "safer" to promote the CGI film.

After all, look what happened with Mars Needs Moms. There were a shitload of ads for that film because the obvious mindset was "OH HAY WE'RE DISNEY AND WE'VE GOT A SHINY NEW CGI MOVIE. PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY GOING TO SEE THIS." and yet it bombed because it was crap.

What Disney really needs to do is put confidence in their hand-drawn movies again. Make a beautiful movie and do a trailer so epic that it will pull audiences in like no other. We need another Lion King.

LySs wrote:
After all, look what happened with Mars Needs Moms. There were a shitload of ads for that film because the obvious mindset was "OH HAY WE'RE DISNEY AND WE'VE GOT A SHINY NEW CGI MOVIE. PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY GOING TO SEE THIS." and yet it bombed because it was crap.

Mars Needs Moms failed because it was dead-eyed mo-cap crap from Zemeckis. Even Disney knew it wouldn't do well and closed Zemeckis' studio months beforehand. They just didn't realize they had a Delgo sized turkey on their hands.

LySs wrote: Never mind the fact that both hand drawn films, PatF and Pooh have had little to no advertising while Tangled had a heap loads..

I have to disagree. Well I'm from the UK and I have to say (regardless of Pooh) Princess and the Frog had loads more advertising than Tangled. Every week on Disney Channel they would have this short series how to be a princess inspired by the movie. Tangled on the other hand had no advertising on the Disney Channel. Tangled success was mainly down to word of mouth not advertising,

DisneyDude2010 wrote:

LySs wrote: Never mind the fact that both hand drawn films, PatF and Pooh have had little to no advertising while Tangled had a heap loads..

I have to disagree. Well I'm from the UK and I have to say (regardless of Pooh) Princess and the Frog had loads more advertising than Tangled. Every week on Disney Channel they would have this short series how to be a princess inspired by the movie. Tangled on the other hand had no advertising on the Disney Channel. Tangled success was mainly down to word of mouth not advertising,

Hmm... guess I haven't seen that then. I don't know about on Disney Channel, but I would see commercials for Tangled show up all the time on regular channels such as FOX or CBS. I remember seeing only one commercial for PatF one night, and that was AFTER it was in theaters.

I'm beginning to get the impression from Disney that they are basically only producing hand-drawn films to please us hardcore fans. My reason being that these films seem to be almost tributes more that anything flashy and new, their advertising seems to be aimed at those of us who would be the most interested in the projects, and the release dates seem to aim directly at times when only hardcore disney fans would go to these films. I don't think that hand-drawn animation is dead, but I do think that is beginning to be targeted towards specific audiences. Therefor the quick turnaround of Winnie the Pooh from theaters to home release isn't really surprising me at all.

I would be happiest if Disney would consider making limited edtion Collector's Editions of it's films via the Atlantis, Dinosaur, Tarzan, and Emperor's New Groove releases. I love them!

I do notice that the beginning of the TPatF trailer had that whole handrawn sketch into real animation thing of BatB, TLM, TLK - making it seem so epic. Plus the grandiose music they used (which I wish I knew what it was...)

And the whole Pooh "taking the characters back where they belong." with the Keane song.

Those ads both are like "look, we are making these classic Disney movies."

Versus Tangled's ads with the P!nk song and the sassy quotes, it was more like: "this is a hip, young movie!"

... perhaps you're right, they are gearing the hand drawn marketing more towards hardcore fans.

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

XXX!

Neal wrote:Plus the grandiose music they used (which I wish I knew what it was...)

It's by a company called Future World Music that uses different composers to create awesome music specifically for movie trailers.

You can hear the full song here -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzVfI2ZNrZc

^ ^ ^

Thanks very much. I'm getting it on itunes

As for hand drawn animation, I agree that it's almost entirely being pitched to us enthusiasts these days. It might appeal to kids, but it's the older relatives who are being encouraged to take them, through nostalgia, which I don't mind. It's better than 2D only being used to make celluloid babysitters. There's nothing wrong with marketing through nostalgia, given that 2D is the older medium.

Disney Geek wrote:Thanks very much. I'm getting it on itunes

As for hand drawn animation, I agree that it's almost entirely being pitched to us enthusiasts these days. It might appeal to kids, but it's the older relatives who are being encouraged to take them, through nostalgia, which I don't mind. It's better than 2D only being used to make celluloid babysitters. There's nothing wrong with marketing through nostalgia, given that 2D is the older medium.

No problem!

And I agree - it makes sense that they would market it this way. Hell, maybe that means that if they know hand drawn will be geared towards enthusiasts from now on, they'll make the stories more mature as well.

If it's true that Disney is in fact gearing it's traditional hand-drawn films towards the pre-existing fans, then it also has to be expected that these films will not make as much profit in the end. That is something that is bothering me about the company these days. It feels like they are deliberately marketing these films to specific demographics then acting surprised that they only sell to those demographics. Then to rub salt in their already self inflicted wound, they blame the film itself for it's short comings. Not to sounds all conspiracy theorist or anything, but the company cannot be blind to these reactions. I think the company has a plan to phase out hand-drawn animation slowly, after seeing how ripping it away from us had backlashed against the company. Of course, I'd rather see a new hand drawn film every few years than have them go away completely.

OMG! Thanks so much SWillie!

DisneyDude2010 wrote:i'm really glad that KOTE wasn't shelved the story seems really interesting and I think I will be really good.

I agree, it sounds like a really interesting story that fits the "Disney" style very well. I'm excited about it!

DisneyDude2010 wrote:Also I don't think Winnie the Pooh will do so well ... It only made $6m+ in the U.K and the advertising for the movie was poor, no trailers on tv or interviews with cast members to promote the movie etc.

I'm not sure it has to make that much. It didn't cost too much to make in the first place. Yes, I know in the states it is going up against the last "Potter" film, but I honestly think most of the folks that would go to "Potter" are probably not the same people that want to see a new "Winnie-the-Pooh" movie. Most rational parents are going to take their young children to see "Pooh," NOT "Potter." Plus, if it stays in the theaters for any amount of time, it will most likely make it's money and some.

I think the fact that it was put late in the summer says a lot as well. Disney wasn't betting the farm on "Pooh." Their box office hopes were tied to "Pirates 4" and "Cars 2," and both delivered. Anything more "Pooh" brings is just cherries on top of the ice cream. I don't think we need to worry yet. It cost $35 million and has already grossed just over $6 million. And that is without opening in the US yet, which is most likely were it will make the bulk of it's money. It only needs $30 more million and anything past that is profit.

LySs wrote:Of course, Disney executives are going to think CGI > hand-drawn, because the CGI film happened to make more money.

Maybe if they promoted their hand-drawn films as well as their CGI ones, more people would go see it. Even the crappiest of movies will get viewers to go if there's a commercial for it every 5 minutes.
It almost feels like they're not confident enough to put money into advertising their hand-drawn films because they think people won't see it. Meanwhile they're actually hurting themselves by doing the exact opposite. Like it's "safer" to promote the CGI film.

I mostly agree with you. I think we see this in how Disney has handled the "Disney Afternoon" shows on DVD, or even their new "Generations Collection" on DVD. Somewhere, their corporate hot shop ad guys decide what will and will not do well, and then they push like mad, almost to the point of force, in getting people into what they want them into (like Blu Ray or 3D movies) and then kind of only half hearted push things they don't really want to succeed, like the "Disney Afternoon" shows. They have been doing the same crap with their animation unit the last few years. It's frustrating, but it's Disney. The Disney of today anyway.

singerguy04 wrote:If it's true that Disney is in fact gearing it's traditional hand-drawn films towards the pre-existing fans, then it also has to be expected that these films will not make as much profit in the end. That is something that is bothering me about the company these days. It feels like they are deliberately marketing these films to specific demographics then acting surprised that they only sell to those demographics. Then to rub salt in their already self inflicted wound, they blame the film itself for it's short comings. Not to sounds all conspiracy theorist or anything, but the company cannot be blind to these reactions. I think the company has a plan to phase out hand-drawn animation slowly, after seeing how ripping it away from us had backlashed against the company. Of course, I'd rather see a new hand drawn film every few years than have them go away completely.

Bingo! They are toying with the entertainment market me thinks to try and make it in the image they feel it should look like, instead of letting the market decide what should be.