Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II

[DisneyJedi]

Today, my aunt, who works and is experience in Hollywood media, told me that that recent movie, Knight and Day with Tom Cruise, the marketing exec thought it would be good idea to erase tom cruise's face off for some unknown reason to prevent people from know he's in the movie or something. Point being is that any of these big companies' marketing are always sometime irrational when it come to thinking logically with these. especially when dealing with creative(art etc) field.

Yeah, seeing that the next two movies in the DAC are being released on or the week after one of the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows movies, I can only imagine either...

a. the marketing is hoping for Tangled and Winnie the Pooh to be the "rebound" on the off chance that parents will only realize at the ticket counter that Deathly Hallows is PG-13 and change their minds and see a G/PG movie instead.

or

b. the marketing actually does desire for the movies to fail. o_o

Yeah... they pitted Bolt, a PG animated movie against Twilight, a PG-13 rated movie based on a book that kicked off the most overrated vampire franchise in the history of franchises. And look what happened.

Of course, we'll have to wait and see.

[ajmrowland]

They also placed PatF directly in front of Avatar, and squeezed a little kid named Caspian into the back seat with two fat kids called Iron Man and Indiana Jones.

[estefan]

Heck, you can even go back to 2002 to see Disney's odd release dates, when they put Treasure Planet in-between the latest Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings instalments.

Even in 1988, they released Oliver & Company on the SAME DAY as The Land Before Time. Guess which opened at #1 that weekend?*

*Though, Oliver did end up having incredible word-of-mouth.

[toonaspie]

Heck, you can even go back to 2002 to see Disney's odd release dates, when they put Treasure Planet in-between the latest Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings instalments.

Even in 1988, they released Oliver & Company on the SAME DAY as The Land Before Time. Guess which opened at #1 that weekend?*

*Though, Oliver did end up having incredible word-of-mouth.

But Disney did end up turning the tables on everyone the following year when The Little Mermaid went up against All Dogs Go to Heaven (on the same day too).

So it's a mystery to me as to how some Disney films have marketing success while others do not.

[Rudy Matt]

This film is going to open 5 days AFTER Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt 1 comes out.

What are your thoughts on this?

I say this film can kiss any #1 box office spots goodbye. 5 days is not enough separation between this and a film that will likely overtake them. Tangled will probably have good #2 numbers though with their opening prior to Thanksgiving weekend. The only way a #1 is even possible is if there's a major slowdown in December with no competition and the Potter phase has died down by then.

I think that there's no chance that Tangled will be #1. Why aren't Pixar films opening against huge franchise sequels? Conspiracy theory...I'm telling you!

Monsters Inc opened around the same time as Harry Potter, close enough for the Pixar boys and girls to make a "charades" trailer referencing HP.

[Babaloo]

Saying that Tangled won't do well because of Harry Potter being released so close is no excuse at all. Yah HP will take some business away from Tangled but that doesn't mean it won't make money at all. If people want to go watch Tangled, they will. Another movie won't stop them. Look at Alvin and The Chipmunks 2...It was released 5 days after Avatar and look how well it did. PatF didn't do well because people didn't want to see it. Not because Avatar was released a week later. All Disney needs to learn to do is market the movie well. Why is it when it came to Alice in Wonderland and now Tron and Sorcerer's Apprentice, I see advertisements like crazy? If they used the same tactics for Tangled I'm sure they would gain a bigger audience.

Sorry about that but I don't think PatF's failure was due to Avatar, when other movies released at the same time still did well. Is it Avatar's fault that half the people I asked about watching PatF didn't even know anything about it, let alone it being out?

Yet I do have hope for Tangled . Although I don't agree about the marketing strategies they're using on this movie it does seem to be working. My brother (who just started high school and thinks he's too cool for Disney movies) actually really wants to watch this movie (I had to drag him to go watch PatF with me )! And surprisingly so do his friends when he showed them the trailer.

[Rudy Matt]

Saying that Tangled won't do well because of Harry Potter being released so close is no excuse at all. Yah HP will take some business away from Tangled but that doesn't mean it won't make money at all. If people want to go watch Tangled, they will. Another movie won't stop them. Look at Alvin and The Chipmunks 2...It was released 5 days after Avatar and look how well it did. PatF didn't do well because people didn't want to see it. Not because Avatar was released a week later. All Disney needs to learn to do is market the movie well. Why is it when it came to Alice in Wonderland and now Tron and Sorcerer's Apprentice, I see advertisements like crazy? If they used the same tactics for Tangled I'm sure they would gain a bigger audience.

Sorry about that but I don't think PatF's failure was due to Avatar, when other movies released at the same time still did well. Is it Avatar's fault that half the people I asked about watching PatF didn't even know anything about it, let alone it being out?

Yet I do have hope for Tangled . Although I don't agree about the marketing strategies they're using on this movie it does seem to be working. My brother (who just started high school and thinks he's too cool for Disney movies) actually really wants to watch this movie (I had to drag him to go watch PatF with me )! And surprisingly so do his friends when he showed them the trailer.

I think Princess and the Frog's failure was due to falt-out racism. I know people in my own family who refused to see the movie. When I asked why, they said the movie was in "bad taste". This from the same people who marched their kids to see Hannah Montana 3-D and Jonas Brothers and all that Disney channel tweener crap. The truth is that they didn't want to go see a Disney movie with black people as the leading characters. Hard cold truth. I called them on it. They haven't spoken to me since.

But that's why PATF only grossed $100 million. A racially-boiling, extremely upset America post-Obama stayed away from the movie in droves.

[tsom]

You know, I've held my tongue about this and I'm just going to say it:

The Princess and the Frog didn't do as well as Disney hoped because there was an African-American as the lead. There, I said it. It wasn't because of Avatar or Alvin. I have friends who loveeeeee Disney movies but refused to see the film. They kept making one excuse after another. It wasn't because of 2-D or the music or whatever. Their reason was plain and simple, but they were scared to admit it. There was plenty of advertising. I saw commercials ALL THE TIME on TV and the movie got lots of press. I had been telling my friends to see the movie since July 2009, but most of them never did.

As for Tangled, I don't care if it's coming out around the same time HP. If people want to see it, they will see it. I, personally, would see Tangled before seeing Harry Potter anyway.

[Rudy Matt]

You know, I've held my tongue about this and I'm just going to say it:

The Princess and the Frog didn't do as well as Disney hoped because there was an African-American as the lead. There, I said it. It wasn't because of Avatar or Alvin. I have friends who loveeeeee Disney movies but refused to see the film. They kept making one excuse after another. it was because of 2-D or the music or whatever. Their reason was plain and simple, but they were scared to admit it. There was plenty of advertising. I saw commercials ALL THE TIME on TV and the movie got lots of press. I had been telling my friends to see the movie since July 2009, but most of them never did.

As for Tangled, I don't care if it's coming out around the same time HP. If people want to see it, they will see it. I, personally, would see Tangled before seeing Harry Potter anyway.

That's the truth. I personally won't go see Tangled until I see a trailer that doesn't make the movie look like an insult to the intelligence of three year olds.

[jpanimation]

It's SOO easy to just blame it on racism when their is plenty of other more logical reasons for it's failure. Seriously, people just don't trust Disney's traditional efforts after being fooled by the DTV sequels, not to mention the last traditional effort they got from Disney was Home on the Range (which would leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth), boys stayed away because of the word "Princess" in the title (this one is true, as I know plenty of little kids that said they'd be embarrassed to see a movie with that title, hell, I was embarrassed to be seeing a "Disney Princess Movie" that was marketed with "Don't make me light my butt" and fart jokes), Chipmunks and Avatar certainly did affect The Princess and the Frog's box office performance and lastly, it just wasn't that great a movie (I know that may be hard to take, which is why you chose to blame it on racism, but it's true).

Rudy Matt, I totally understand the race card being pulled by you. Since you stated that The Princess and the Frog is the best thing Disney has done since Sleeping Beauty (another movie I'm not fond of), I can see you completely ignoring the fact that the movie isn't as great as you think it is and looking for any excuse possible as to why it failed beyond that fact. Not to mention, just going by your ridiculous racism accusations in the Fantasia Uncut thread, that you're one to throw that claim around to defend your view of Disney.

Seriously, your racist families don't represent America.

[Rudy Matt]

People who want Disney to mass-market a version of Fantasia with the Sunflower character animation unaltered are not racists...they're just magpies pretending to be historians. Not racists, just greedy.

[ajmrowland]

^You're trying to get a response out of that, arent you?

And babaloo, you seem to underestimate the power of the fanbase. the sheer popularity of Harry Potter will trample anything released in November.

[Babaloo]

And babaloo, you seem to underestimate the power of the fanbase. the sheer popularity of Harry Potter will trample anything released in November.

I know Harry Potter has a huge fanbase (I'm part of it and always have), but that doesn't mean Tangled cant do well. I'm pretty sure little kids will want to watch Tangled over Harry Potter which will bring in some families. Yah I think Tangled won't be number 1, but it can still make money. If Disney markets the movie well, then there will be people who will want to watch Tangled and will pay to see it. Also it comes out during Thanksgiving weekend in the USA which will probably help it in its opening weekend. Anyways we'll see come November...

[Rudy Matt]

^You're trying to get a response out of that, arent you?

And babaloo, you seem to underestimate the power of the fanbase. the sheer popularity of Harry Potter will trample anything released in November.

No, my friend, that's exactly what I feel is the truth. I'm not trying to get a reaction. It's the truth. Anyone who WANTS TO can go watch the Sunflower Fantasia footage right now. True? Yes.

So what's with this argument that it should be mass-marketed on DVD and Blu-Ray in order to preserve history? History is already preserved. You want to see it? YouTube.com. You'll see it in 30 seconds. Once you realize the central argument is invalid, yuo then have to ask what the true motive actually is...and the truth is that many people are rabid collectors of all things Disney, and they want to own and shelve every frame of film they can get their hands on. Like a less mercenary version of the Wayne Knight character in Toy Story 2, they are all about collecting. They don't want to own an uncut Fantasia because they care about the movie, they just want an uncut Fantasia so they can say they have it.

Truth. Hard cold truth. You want to see the Sunflower scenes? Go watch them right now. I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the Sunflower scenes - that Walt himself would have surely deleted himself or re-drawn - should be mass-marketed to the entire planet. You know why I haven't heard that convincing argument stating the Sunflower scenes should be mass-marketed to the entire planet?

There isn't one.

[mawnck]

Rudy Matt, I totally understand the race card being pulled by you. Since you stated that The Princess and the Frog is the best thing Disney has done since Sleeping Beauty (another movie I'm not fond of), I can see you completely ignoring the fact that the movie isn't as great as you think it is and looking for any excuse possible as to why it failed beyond that fact. Not to mention, just going by your ridiculous racism accusations in the Fantasia Uncut thread, that you're one to throw that claim around to defend your view of Disney.

Seriously, your racist families don't represent America.

Putting the word "card" after the word "race" doesn't negate the truth of his argument. That was clearly one of the factors in the movie's underperformance, along with the others you mentioned. Pretending racism doesn't still exist in America won't make it go away. In fact it tends to have the opposite effect. Perhaps you live somewhere where it's not a major issue. Consider yourself fortunate.

And your personal fondness for a movie is not a proxy for its overall quality or appeal. I thought The Princess and the Frog was excellent, and I'm a picky cuss. (For the record, I agree with you about Sleeping Beauty. It's very pretty, but one of the weaker Disneys in the story and characters department.)

Everybody needs to stop trying to represent and/or speak for America. We're a diverse nation, and no one group speaks for everybody, about movies or anything else.

[mawnck]

I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the Sunflower scenes - that Walt himself would have surely deleted himself or re-drawn - should be mass-marketed to the entire planet.

(1) Some people "on the planet" want them, regardless of the reason.

(2) Deleting them interrupts the flow of the segment and (when they digitally blow up the frame) screws up the quality of the image.

(3) Fantasia IS a historical film. All of it. Yes, I DO want to own an uncut Fantasia because I care about the movie. How dare you tell me otherwise. (See my previous post.)

(4) A low-rez YouTube video from an unrestored 16mm source is not preservation by any stretch.

[ajmrowland]

Rudy Matt, by your logic, we should stop asking for the original colors of BatB because we're being greedy. You make it sound like asking for as much of the original cut to be preserved as possible is a crime.

Also, you seem to believe that parents will actually buy Fantasia when Disney will obviously not give it the same marketing as a Princess or a Pixar film, DE or not.

For the record, I looked up the definition of "Greed" and came up with this:

noun
excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

a.k.a. materialistic possessions such as money, toys, games, collectibles, electronics, etc.

While DVDs are technically material, one can argue that the content on them-stories, essentially-is not.

While History alters stories and they change through time and culture, some people enjoy hearing the original, even if the masses dont. So our "greediness" for wanting an uncut version of Fantasia does not root itself in artistic intent nor is it meant to disrespect the filmmaker. It's just plain curiosity and love for entertainment.

We dont pretend to be "Historians". We're just simply aware of things that happened in film history and do not favor some of the things that did.

[Disney Duster]

Right. You're wrong there Rudy Matt, especially since you can't know what every single person thinks and why they want something.

We want the whole film perserved together. We want the film as it was originally seen, preserved. Keeping them seperate is not preserving the original theatrical film, or the experience.

However, I just realized, if Walt cut it out, that is what is intended, and he most definately wouldn't want it seen today. So, honestly, Disney not giving it to us is fine, though giving it to us is fine, too, included as an option to watch. What's not fine is the way the release has looked in the past. They need to find a better way to cut the character out, because it looks crappy! They need to do a better job. I would totally opt for just removing the character digitally, instead of zooming.

[Rudy Matt]

(1) Some people "on the planet" want them, regardless of the reason.

I think the reason is highly relevant. Some people want things for their own selfish reasons and don't give a damn about larger implications. they lie and say they want to see the footage for "historical research" purposes. If they want to see it, they can. Right now. Once you present that to such people, the truth starts to emerge.

(2) Deleting them interrupts the flow of the segment and (when they digitally blow up the frame) screws up the quality of the image.

No shots are deleted in the 2000 DVD. 1990 version, yes. There are frame crops in the 2000 DVD version. Want to see what you missed? Go to YouTube. In 30 seconds, you'll have your curiosity sated. I suspect you've seen it already though. So you're really not interested for history. You just want it.

(3) Fantasia IS a historical film. All of it. Yes, I DO want to own an uncut Fantasia because I care about the movie. How dare you tell me otherwise.

You care about the movie? Then you surely know the movie is the most conintuously altered film in film history, and was *planned* to be constantly revised. Yes? You surely know Walt Disney altered his films years after release if their content offended people. Yes? You care about the movie and you care about the creator and surely you care about people of African descent, so why do you want a mass market release that would harm all three? When you give me an answer I can respect and agree with, I'll stop making the observation that people who want a mass-market uncut Fantasia only want it for their own selfish greed.

(4) A low-rez YouTube video from an unrestored 16mm source is not preservation by any stretch.

Your Disney DVD and Blu-Ray collection is a preservation archive?

[jpanimation]

Putting the word "card" after the word "race" doesn't negate the truth of his argument. That was clearly one of the factors in the movie's underperformance, along with the others you mentioned. Pretending racism doesn't still exist in America won't make it go away. In fact it tends to have the opposite effect. Perhaps you live somewhere where it's not a major issue. Consider yourself fortunate.

You obviously didn't read his original argument. He stated that race is the only reason the movie didn't do well. If anything, that reason is on the very bottom of the list. I also have to think that more African Americans went to see this movie than your average Disney animated feature. Do the two cancel out, how the hell should I know? I'm NOT arguing that racists don't exist, I just feel labeling all of the world that didn't see it as racist is a ridiculous argument. There were SOO many other factors against this movie and reasons not to see it in the public's mind (the Disney image isn't what it was 15 years ago) that racism couldn't begin to account for this movie underperforming.

Yes, I don't live in a racist area but it was still nearly impossible to get someone to go with me (I now owe them, which means I'm obligated to go see some crappy movie they want to see). Seeing Disney movies in theaters, especially "Princess Movies" with horrible child aimed marketing, is extremely embarrassing. Disney movies just aren't event movies anymore ever since the DTV sequels reared their ugly heads.

And your personal fondness for a movie is not a proxy for its overall quality or appeal. I thought The Princess and the Frog was excellent, and I'm a picky cuss.

I'm picky too but personal fondness has nothing to do with movie quality. The movie is just a mess with moments, not bad, but certainly not as great as some people seem to think. I know what it's like to have guilty pleasure. There are bad movies I enjoyed as a kid, and with nostalgia still enjoy now, but I certainly recognize the poor quality. I try to distinct the two (between how much I enjoy a film and the quality of the film) when I can and I'm talking about the quality of the film, which can affect the box office gross (unlike my fondness, which won't).

Back to Rapunzel, I hope we get Tick Tock Tale before it. It looks cool and I've actually gotten to the point where I anticipate their shorts more that their features.