Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[Disney's Divinity]

Also Disney Divinity, I think the POYW sequence in Little Mermaid works better in the character level and emotional level, but the backgrounds and stuff are less impressive, maybe because it was designed o be that way, more intimate, it is, after all her grotto full of secret stuff, while Elsa is very happy when she builds her snow castle and thus, the design is more "out there", and I do think CGI handles the background details much better, we must remember that even Disney used CGI effects in Lion King or Hunchback for backgrounds and crowds even they gave them a "painterly" feel, same goes with Ghibli's Princess Mononoke, they used some CGI even if they didn't want it to "feel" CGI.

And the 3D used in hand-drawn films also looks incredibly dated now--like the chandelier in B&tB or the clocktower in TGMD. I don't believe that 3D creates better backgrounds, and those in the "Let It Go" sequence are definitely not more impressive than those found in the "POYW" scene. The mountain(s) at the end of the scene, for instance, look atrocious. There's also the fact that there really isn't much of anything in the background except snow and sky for most of the scene...

Most of them—and this is where Disney films *really* muddy the water—have also benefited from being re-released over and over and over again:

Really? Because in the list I've kept for myself, all those films are still above Frozen just based on their FIRST release. Stop reaching in order to make Frozen look better. It's fine with what it is without trying so hard.

There are so many factors that matter for which adjustments cannot account.

That's true, but I don't think that's any excuse to throw adjustments out the window and declare movies more successful on the most limited measures when it's convenient. There are many factors that have changed that make things easier for Frozen--such as the built-in idea of a family going to see animated films that was fostered by Disney in the '90s and the flux of animated films in the 2000's, while early Disney films were looked at with a much different eye by audiences, along with the other things I've mentioned. I'm not sure why you think the factors that make Frozen look better than it is are more important than the factors that show it is less impressive than people like to pretend.

Oh, and I agree with SWillie, would definitely be nice if Disney was just open about what the situation is, rather than act like they're open to or behind doing something they clearly aren't.

[Fflewduur]

Most of them—and this is where Disney films *really* muddy the water—have also benefited from being re-released over and over and over again:

Really? Because in the list I've kept for myself, all those films are still above Frozen just based on their FIRST release.

Well, either you've got bad data (or far better than what's generally available), you've misread or misinterpreted something somewhere, or your list is on crack. Nothing personal. Just sayin'.

• Pinocchio, for example: Boxofficemojo only breaks out the '84 and '92 re-releases, so the other 5 *must* be included in what reads as its initial release. There's simply *no way* that the film made nearly $39 million *unadjusted* domestic its first go-round (more than US Steel earned in the first half of that year), or that it sold an estimated 55 million tickets in its first release (which would approximate 40% of the entire US population at the time), as boxofficemojo's presentation suggests. And we know it's not possible, not just because those numbers are absurd on their face, but because we know that Pinocchio didn't even recoup its budget on its initial release.
  
  Fantasia ? *Well* established and widely accepted that it didn't *begin* to make a profit until it's '69 re-release (the fifth of nine theatrical return engagements).

(Boxofficemojo clearly needs some clarification in how they're presenting data, because it's also not possible that the original run of Gone With the Wind made nearly $190 million unadjusted in 1939, or that its first theatrical engagement sold 70 million more tickets than the entire US population.)

So that's two. The Jungle Book, Sleeping Beauty, Lady & the Tramp--none of them have pre-1980 re-releases parsed out from their theatrical debuts.

• Bambi is one of those listed Disney films ranked ahead of Frozen in all-time adjusted domestic gross that actually *does* break out the numbers for theatrical re-releases before the early 80s. Adjusted for inflation, Bambi grossed not quite $88.5 million domestically in its first release, and sold an estimated 11 million-plus tickets. Against Frozen's nearly 49 million tickets and domestic gross (adjusted, of course) of nearly $390 million, I don't know how Bambi comes out as a winner. Difference in population doesn't account for the difference: the US population has more than doubled since 1942, but Frozen's ticket sales more than quadruple Bambi's both in units and in adjusted dollars. The only reason Bambi is halfway to the top of the all-time adjusted list from Frozen's place is that Bambi's had six re-releases. (Heck, it made more box and sold more tickets in '57 than on its debut run.) Not to dis Bambi at all, bee-tee-dubs.
  
  
  101 Dalmatians: there *is* an argument that it's performed better than Frozen. Adjusted, it grossed nearly $450 million domestically on first release and sold approximately 56 million US first-run tickets versus Frozen's slightly sub-$400 million and estimated 49 million US tickets. So what does that really tells us? It's fair to say Dalmatians was a more popular film on its debut. It's also fair to say it's harder to get people out to the theatre today--if attendance proportions were constant, the 10th highest grossing film of 1961 *couldn't* beat out #3 for 2013 whether in ticket sales *or* adjusted domestic gross, given the increase in population over the past 50 years. (And it's also fair to say international distribution is far more important today, considering markets outside the US make up 2/3 of Frozen's total take, but only 1/3 of the spotted doggie movie's.)

• TLK made more than $590 million, adjusted domestic, and moved nearly 90 million US tickets in its initial (year-long) run. Well, we've always known it's the modern era's world-beater.
  
  Aladdin actually makes things simple for us by virtue of not having had theatrical return engagements! Domestic adjusted gross of ~$417 million on an estimated 52 million US tickets sold. (Gotta say I still don't get the discrepancies at work for these last two films released two years apart--Aladdin grosses 70% of TLK on less than 60% of TLK's estimated ticket numbers? Really? That's some fuzzy math).

Frozen, at just under $400 million domestic and ~49 million estimated US tickets, comes as close to comparable to Aladdin as we can get in the modern era. I think that sounds pretty close to right.

[Disney's Divinity]

Boxofficemojo may have inaccurate information for their first releases (they are missing all info. for Alice in Wonderland and Cinderella, after all), but where are the receipts for your information? As far as I can see, you're just making it up based on personal assessment, in other words--nothing, because I don't consider you a source. And of course Bambi is the only one you will say boxofficemojo separates "correctly" to your eyes, since it conveniently was very low on its first release.

[TsWade2]

This is all the executives fault! I told you those executive are nothing but a bunch anti-hand drawn animation jerks. They are ruining the legacy of Walt Disney and John Lasseter is still a coward because of those evil greedy executives. If Bob Iger is so smart, then he should of fire those executives........long ago. I bet those executives follow Michael Eisner's advice to make sure that hand drawn animation is dead. And nobody gives a damn about it. What wrong with these guys? Their Disney! And they shouldn't be afraid of hand drawn. Their not honest. Their being cowards and won't admit it. I bet the executives point guns at John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, Bob Iger, and etc as a threat to kill them. They killed hand drawn animation. There is no hope. No hope at all because of them. I just wish Tom Staggs (Yes, I vote for Tom as the new CEO) to fire those evil executives so we can see hand drawn again.

[Fflewduur]

Boxofficemojo may have inaccurate information for their first releases (they are missing all info. for Alice in Wonderland and Cinderella, after all), but where are the receipts for your information? As far as I can see, you're just making it up based on personal assessment, in other words--nothing, because I don't consider you a source. And of course Bambi is the only one you will say boxofficemojo separates "correctly" to your eyes, since it conveniently was very low on its first release.

What exactly is your problem? Why would I make any of this stuff up? What evidence have *you* brought to the table?

Box office numbers and estimated ticket sales are all taken from boxofficemojo. *Anyone* is welcome to double-check them, and/or bring forth variant numbers and sources--I settled on that site because it quickly seemed the most comprehensive, and I fully admit I may have misread or misunderstood something along the way.

But their data is *clearly* incomplete, certainly in terms of separating early re-releases from debut engagements.

Because in the list I've kept for myself, all those films are still above Frozen just based on their FIRST release. Stop reaching in order to make Frozen look better.

Not reaching. Not even a little.

None of these are primary or even secondary sources; these cites wouldn't pas muster in academia, but they do repeat what is already generally known to folks who've made any serious casual study of the Walt-era studio--

Disney's Pinocchio, Fantasia, The Reluctant Dragon, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty were all box office flops when they were first released.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... OfficeBomb

Look at the initial returns on Disney’s earliest feature films:

Snow White – Made $8.8 million
Pinocchio – Lost half a million
Fantasia – Lost more than Pinocchio
Dumbo – Profitable, but only 64 minutes long and made for half the cost of Snow White and a third of Pinocchio.
Bambi – Lost money

http://www.byrdseed.com/the-surprising- ... lt-disney/

Based on a famous Italian novel, the story of the titular puppet has become universally adored. Unbelievably though, Pinocchio was initially a box-office flop, failing to recoup its hefty budget. In fact, such was the film’s financial shortcomings that many critics of the time believed there might not be a third animated feature from Disney.

http://www.liveforfilms.com/2014/01/13/ ... chio-1940/

Of all Disney’s creations, Fantasia (1940) stands out like a sore thumb. Not only does it stand on a highly regarded precipice for its unique creativity and imagination, it hurt Disney’s accounts department with the pictures profoundly disappointing losses.

http://intellectquarterly.com/2014/03/0 ... n-a-theme/

“Bambi” premiered on August 8th, 1942 in London – a very daring move in the midst of war, and did not open in New York until five days later. Despite glowing reviews, it was an initial box office disappointment and brought the Disney empire to the brink of collapse...

http://www.thefloridastandard.com/2013/ ... vie-bambi/

In fact, Sleeping Beauty was such a box office bomb (at least, compared to the cost of production) that the company decided that princess movies weren’t exactly the wave of the future. They didn’t make another princess movie until 30 years later, when The Little Mermaid was released in 1989.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54852/13 ... ing-snooze

[DisneyJedi]

Did I mention that the executives should stop using the hand-drawn medium/animators as their scapegoat for moderate box office revenues when it's their fault for pitting them against movies like Avatar, Harry Potter 7.5 and Captain America? I mean, they knew that it was their fault that Bolt didn't do so hot because they let it get overshadowed by Twilight. But when Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh didn't meet financial expectations, it's the MEDIUM'S fault?! I mean, really! What the hell?!

[Musical Master]

Did I mention that the executives should stop using the hand-drawn medium/animators as their scapegoat for moderate box office revenues when it's their fault for pitting them against movies like Avatar, Harry Potter 7.5 and Captain America? I mean, they knew that it was their fault that Bolt didn't do so hot because they let it get overshadowed by Twilight. But when Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh didn't meet financial expectations, it's the MEDIUM'S fault?! I mean, really! What the hell?!

Yeah..... That's really weird..

[DisneyEra]

Really? Because in the list I've kept for myself, all those films are still above Frozen just based on their FIRST release.

Well, either you've got bad data (or far better than what's generally available), you've misread or misinterpreted something somewhere, or your list is on crack. Nothing personal. Just sayin'.

• Pinocchio, for example: Boxofficemojo only breaks out the '84 and '92 re-releases, so the other 5 *must* be included in what reads as its initial release. There's simply *no way* that the film made nearly $39 million *unadjusted* domestic its first go-round (more than US Steel earned in the first half of that year), or that it sold an estimated 55 million tickets in its first release (which would approximate 40% of the entire US population at the time), as boxofficemojo's presentation suggests. And we know it's not possible, not just because those numbers are absurd on their face, but because we know that Pinocchio didn't even recoup its budget on its initial release.
  
  Fantasia ? *Well* established and widely accepted that it didn't *begin* to make a profit until it's '69 re-release (the fifth of nine theatrical return engagements).

(Boxofficemojo clearly needs some clarification in how they're presenting data, because it's also not possible that the original run of Gone With the Wind made nearly $190 million unadjusted in 1939, or that its first theatrical engagement sold 70 million more tickets than the entire US population.)

So that's two. The Jungle Book, Sleeping Beauty, Lady & the Tramp--none of them have pre-1980 re-releases parsed out from their theatrical debuts.

• Bambi is one of those listed Disney films ranked ahead of Frozen in all-time adjusted domestic gross that actually *does* break out the numbers for theatrical re-releases before the early 80s. Adjusted for inflation, Bambi grossed not quite $88.5 million domestically in its first release, and sold an estimated 11 million-plus tickets. Against Frozen's nearly 49 million tickets and domestic gross (adjusted, of course) of nearly $390 million, I don't know how Bambi comes out as a winner. Difference in population doesn't account for the difference: the US population has more than doubled since 1942, but Frozen's ticket sales more than quadruple Bambi's both in units and in adjusted dollars. The only reason Bambi is halfway to the top of the all-time adjusted list from Frozen's place is that Bambi's had six re-releases. (Heck, it made more box and sold more tickets in '57 than on its debut run.) Not to dis Bambi at all, bee-tee-dubs.
  
  
  101 Dalmatians: there *is* an argument that it's performed better than Frozen. Adjusted, it grossed nearly $450 million domestically on first release and sold approximately 56 million US first-run tickets versus Frozen's slightly sub-$400 million and estimated 49 million US tickets. So what does that really tells us? It's fair to say Dalmatians was a more popular film on its debut. It's also fair to say it's harder to get people out to the theatre today--if attendance proportions were constant, the 10th highest grossing film of 1961 *couldn't* beat out #3 for 2013 whether in ticket sales *or* adjusted domestic gross, given the increase in population over the past 50 years. (And it's also fair to say international distribution is far more important today, considering markets outside the US make up 2/3 of Frozen's total take, but only 1/3 of the spotted doggie movie's.)

• TLK made more than $590 million, adjusted domestic, and moved nearly 90 million US tickets in its initial (year-long) run. Well, we've always known it's the modern era's world-beater.
  
  Aladdin actually makes things simple for us by virtue of not having had theatrical return engagements! Domestic adjusted gross of ~$417 million on an estimated 52 million US tickets sold. (Gotta say I still don't get the discrepancies at work for these last two films released two years apart--Aladdin grosses 70% of TLK on less than 60% of TLK's estimated ticket numbers? Really? That's some fuzzy math).

Frozen, at just under $400 million domestic and ~49 million estimated US tickets, comes as close to comparable to Aladdin as we can get in the modern era. I think that sounds pretty close to right.

I would like to know your take on which film was more profitable: The Rescuers or The Fox & the Hound. According to Boxoffice Mojo The Rescuers made $29million on a $1.2million budget in June 1977. The Fox & the Hound made $39.9million on a $12million budget in July 1981.

[TsWade2]

Those executives are evil and should of been fired! Someone must do something with those executives. I say.....we beat them up for their own cruelty and selfishness! If we can't make a campaign of bringing hand drawn animation back, then we should make a campaign to get rid of those anti-hand drawn animation jerks! Who's with me?

[ce1ticmoon]

Well, I'm a bit late to the party, but that is the worst quote from Catmull yet... Deflecting the blame to the directors. Just not cool.

As for the whole box office thing, one needs to realize that the classic Disney films became enduring classics because they've continued to be loved and adored over time and across generations, not necessarily because they were some untouchable hits beyond compare at the time of release (though some definitely were huge hits). Everything needs to be taken into context. Since the prime focus here is on domestic box office, I'll go with that, but Frozen was the #3 (and not far behind #1 and #2) top-grossing film of the year. It made a lot of money and sold a lot of tickets (at this point, the number doesn't even really matter). It has a multi-platinum soundtrack album that has spent around 10 weeks at #1 on the album chart. Merchandise is sold out every where. Its the subject of endless Internet memes. I think it's pretty safe to say it has reached phenomenon status. It is amongst the most popular animated films of all time.

Snow White was also a huge hit. It was the #1 film of the year at the time of release, and was a phenomenon--and it became the highest grossing sound film until Gone With The Wind came along 3 years later. In addition, it was an absolute game changer, and in terms of influence and importance, Frozen could only dream of touching it. SW was not only hugely important for animated filmmaking, it was important to filmmaking, period. That said, even though a higher percentage of the population in 1937/38 saw SW as compared to Frozen in 2013/14, I honestly can't say with confidence that SW was significantly more "popular "then, than Frozen is now. Snow White broke several box office records; but then, so did Frozen. Snow White was a phenomenon, so is Frozen.

I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is no way to "adjust" or create some sort of equalizer for films released across all points in time. There are too many variables to account for. You can't simply take the gross dollar amount (that's obvious). The "adjusted" and/or "tickets sold" could give you a clearer picture in some respects, but it is by no means some absolute, end-all, be-all indicator of success or popularity. (And that's true especially when you consider the wonkyness of adjusted numbers for films with multiple re-releases. This flaw with BOM's data is basically recognized as fact by all box office enthusiasts. Just go peek into any of those types of communities.) Just like how the unadjusted list gives the edge to recent films, the adjusted list or a list based on ticket sales gives the edge to older films. It absolutely goes both ways. I'm in no way trying to make Frozen's success look greater than it is, or trying to downplay the achievements and successes of the Walt era films. I'm just saying it is all about context.

[Disney's Divinity]

Since the prime focus here is on domestic box office, I'll go with that, but Frozen was the #3 (and not far behind #1 and #2) top-grossing film of the year. It made a lot of money and sold a lot of tickets (at this point, the number doesn't even really matter). It has a multi-platinum soundtrack album that has spent around 10 weeks at #1 on the album chart. Merchandise is sold out every where. Its the subject of endless Internet memes. I think it's pretty safe to say it has reached phenomenon status. It is amongst the most popular animated films of all time.

I agree, and that's not something I was trying to dispute, but it is not the most popular animated film of all time.

And I would say that Snow White is clearly the larger phenomenon. I would say it’s larger than TLK, which I personally see as being a larger phenomenon than Frozen itself.

Just like how the unadjusted list gives the edge to recent films, the adjusted list or a list based on ticket sales gives the edge to older films. It absolutely goes both ways

The difference is that an unadjusted list makes the movies look as if they exist in a vacuum, where an adjusted list at least attempts to be fair about changes over time (or, as you say, keep things “in context”). For that reason, I don’t think it goes both ways. I see the former as the media trying to create hype with a statement that is only technically true if you want to ignore reality. There’s nothing wrong with the media trying to make something bigger than it is--that is its thing, I guess--but it’s not as if everyone has to blindly agree with something that’s flawed on its face.

Sleeping Beauty was such a box office bomb (at least, compared to the cost of production)

This would be similar to Tangled’s own issues, I suppose. Sleeping Beauty was still in the top film-earners that year. I believe all of Disney’s first 5 films had enormous budgets except for Dumbo, too. That doesn’t make a case to me (especially, in the case of Bambi, I never argued it wasn’t a flop on its first release). The only one that really seems bizarre is Fantasia.

[MeerkatKombat]

Those executives are evil and should of been fired! Someone must do something with those executives. I say.....we beat them up for their own cruelty and selfishness! If we can't make a campaign of bringing hand drawn animation, then we should make a campaign to get rid of those anti-hand drawn animation jerks! Who's with me?

You need to take up boxing or something.
Anything to get this anger out rather than constantly moaning about the same thing here. You should channel your anger in a more productive way.
It's not cruelty or selfishness. It's business, even if we don't agree with it.
I don't think you understand what evil actually means. They aren't villains in your own Disney film.
Chill

Hand drawn isn't dead. It will make a comeback eventually when the time is right.
Stuff goes out of fashion but it usually comes back in again. Yeah you, jelly shoes.



I want a pair

[Fflewduur]

I would like to know your take on which film was more profitable: The Rescuers or The Fox & the Hound. According to Boxoffice Mojo The Rescuers made $29million on a $1.2million budget in June 1977. The Fox & the Hound made $39.9million on a $12 million budget in July 1981.

Well, I’m not comfortable with some of these numbers. Boxofficemojo lists “N/A” for both films’ budgets. DisneyWiki claims an estimated $1.2 million budget for Rescuers, which number is also on imdb, while TVGuide’s reprinted 1977 review claims an $8 million budget. It’s also said that Robin Hood’s $1.5M budget a few years earlier stands as the lowest in the feature canon, while there are other mentions of Robin having a $15M budget, so…frankly, better data is called for. At least the $12M estimate for Fox appears stable.


But for discussion’s sake, if we accept $1.2M and $12M as the budgets, then the net results are a wash—$27.8M v $27.9M. The difference of $100 grand doesn’t mean much here—depending on the numbers from which they rounded up or down to arrive at those estimates, that $100,000 difference could shrink or disappear entirely. Without international returns, it’s moot speculation; besides tipping the scale one way or the other, we need to know *all* of the box office to determine profitability.

If the $8M budget for Rescuers were correct, Fox obviously becomes the most profitable (at least domestically).
If $1.2M is correct, then Rescuers made a 2400% return on its investment compared to less than 350% for Fox; for what they put into it, the studio got better value out of Rescuers.

[Musical Master]

Those executives are evil and should of been fired! Someone must do something with those executives. I say.....we beat them up for their own cruelty and selfishness! If we can't make a campaign of bringing hand drawn animation, then we should make a campaign to get rid of those anti-hand drawn animation jerks! Who's with me?

You need to take up boxing or something.
Anything to get this anger out rather than constantly moaning about the same thing here. You should channel your anger in a more productive way.
It's not cruelty or selfishness. It's business, even if we don't agree with it.
I don't think you understand what evil actually means. They aren't villains in your own Disney film.
Chill

Hand drawn isn't dead. It will make a comeback eventually when the time is right.
Stuff goes out of fashion but it usually comes back in again. Yeah you, jelly shoes.



I want a pair

I couldn't agree with you more.

[DisneyEra]

I would like to know your take on which film was more profitable: The Rescuers or The Fox & the Hound. According to Boxoffice Mojo The Rescuers made $29million on a $1.2million budget in June 1977. The Fox & the Hound made $39.9million on a $12 million budget in July 1981.

Well, I’m not comfortable with some of these numbers. Boxofficemojo lists “N/A” for both films’ budgets. DisneyWiki claims an estimated $1.2 million budget for Rescuers, which number is also on imdb, while TVGuide’s reprinted 1977 review claims an $8 million budget. It’s also said that Robin Hood’s $1.5M budget a few years earlier stands as the lowest in the feature canon, while there are other mentions of Robin having a $15M budget, so…frankly, better data is called for. At least the $12M estimate for Fox appears stable.


But for discussion’s sake, if we accept $1.2M and $12M as the budgets, then the net results are a wash—$27.8M v $27.9M. The difference of $100 grand doesn’t mean much here—depending on the numbers from which they rounded up or down to arrive at those estimates, that $100,000 difference could shrink or disappear entirely. Without international returns, it’s moot speculation; besides tipping the scale one way or the other, we need to know *all* of the box office to determine profitability.

If the $8M budget for Rescuers were correct, Fox obviously becomes the most profitable (at least domestically).
If $1.2M is correct, then Rescuers made a 2400% return on its investment compared to less than 350% for Fox; for what they put into it, the studio got better value out of Rescuers.

Yeah, i'm not buying that The Rescuers had only a $1.2million budget. The $8million budget seems much more legit.
I also believe that if Bluth & other animators had not walked during Fox & the Hound's production, which delayed the film for months, it's $12million budget would of been lower.

[TsWade2]

Those executives are evil and should of been fired! Someone must do something with those executives. I say.....we beat them up for their own cruelty and selfishness! If we can't make a campaign of bringing hand drawn animation, then we should make a campaign to get rid of those anti-hand drawn animation jerks! Who's with me?

You need to take up boxing or something.
Anything to get this anger out rather than constantly moaning about the same thing here. You should channel your anger in a more productive way.
It's not cruelty or selfishness. It's business, even if we don't agree with it.
I don't think you understand what evil actually means. They aren't villains in your own Disney film.
Chill

Hand drawn isn't dead. It will make a comeback eventually when the time is right.
Stuff goes out of fashion but it usually comes back in again. Yeah you, jelly shoes.



I want a pair

Okay, fine.

[Fflewduur]

Sleeping Beauty was such a box office bomb (at least, compared to the cost of production)

This would be similar to Tangled’s own issues, I suppose. Sleeping Beauty was still in the top film-earners that year. I believe all of Disney’s first 5 films had enormous budgets except for Dumbo, too. That doesn’t make a case to me (especially, in the case of Bambi, I never argued it wasn’t a flop on its first release). The only one that really seems bizarre is Fantasia.

Similar in that both Tangled & Beauty spent a long, expensive time in development.

Not so similar in that Tangled grossed 2.5x its budget on its initial run, while SB only earned $1.7M more than its $6M costs on initial release (underperforming so poorly that animators were laid off and the company suffered a net loss for the year).

What "case" is this of which you speak? The fact these films were unsuccessful on first release? There's no *case*. It *happened*.

Snow White was a huge success, costing ~%1.5M and grossing nearly $3.5M in North America and $7.8M internationally on its first run.

Pinocchio cost nearer $2.3M and (reports vary) brought in somewhere from $1.4M-$1.9M.

Fantasia cost about the same as Pinocchio. It didn't recoup its budget, either.

Lotta things hurt both films' releases, including the war and the loss of international markets; Fantasia's original roadshow presentation was a real money pit, too.

There are bombs and there are bombs. A film can can gross more than its budget and still bomb--just covering production costs does not pay to maintain company infrastructure (personnel and facilities), nor does it provide any dividends to investors.

But failing to recoup the cost of production is as bomby as it gets.

[ce1ticmoon]

I agree, and that's not something I was trying to dispute, but it is not the most popular animated film of all time.

And I would say that Snow White is clearly the larger phenomenon. I would say it’s larger than TLK, which I personally see as being a larger phenomenon than Frozen itself.

I wasn't there for Snow White, so I can only imagine what the phenomenon was like from reading about it or seeing documentaries. I know it was huge, so I wouldn't deny a claim that it was larger phenomenon than Frozen is overall. The sheer amount of films being released was lower, so I think it is logical to assume that a break-out hit then would technically be "bigger" than a break-out hit today (or more easily so, anyway).That's the only reason why I say that I can't say with confidence that SW was significantly more popular than Frozen. I'm not talking about the absolute sense (in which I could agree with you that SW>Frozen), but a comparative sense (if SW had the same amount of competition back then, would it still have rose a head above everything else? Ultimately we just don't know). Again, it's hard to compare hits from two very different eras.

As for the The Lion King, I'm still not so sure (I won't dispute this one either; I'm open to the argument). Anecdotally speaking, I was in elementary school at the time, so I experienced how huge it was among children. Today, as an adult, I know a lot of adults, young and old alike, that went (or are going) pretty crazy over Frozen, more than any recent animated film, perhaps even including Toy Story 3. And the children, well that goes without saying. You don't really even need to know any children personally to see it. But I remember you mentioning just a few days ago something along the lines that it's still far behind BATB and Aladdin. In regards to that, I'd say nothing could be further from the truth.

But ultimately I agree with you. Frozen is not the most popular animated film of all time. At a certain point, stuff like that probably isn't even quantifiable. Amongst films from my lifetime, I'd throw it in an all encompassing category along with Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Finding Nemo, Shrek 2, and heck, probably even TLM and all three Toy Story films. TLK probably sold nearly twice as many tickets as the original Toy Story, but I guess that shows goes to show how much emphasis I would actually place on box office and ticket sales as a measure as to how "popular" a film is.

The difference is that an unadjusted list makes the movies look as if they exist in a vacuum, where an adjusted list at least attempts to be fair about changes over time (or, as you say, keep things “in context”). For that reason, I don’t think it goes both ways. I see the former as the media trying to create hype with a statement that is only technically true if you want to ignore reality. There’s nothing wrong with the media trying to make something bigger than it is--that is its thing, I guess--but it’s not as if everyone has to blindly agree with something that’s flawed on its face.

I don't know exactly what you mean when you say the "unadjusted list makes the movies look as if they exist in a vacuum," but I agree that the unadjusted list is far (and I mean, far) from painting the entire picture. Again, it's really only useful when comparing other recent films. I think using the adjusted list works to an extent when looking at films from say, the late 80s or early 90s, compared to today's films. But again, that still doesn't account for changing movie-going habits, change in economic circumstances, or like you mentioned elsewhere, change in population. Again, in general, the hugest hits of yesteryear (even in the 80s and 90s) generally sold a lot more tickets than the hugest hits today. Thus, I'm hesitant to make any sort of absolute comparison between films released at different times. (Are the biggest hits of the 80s and 90s "more popular" than the biggest hits of today? Maybe, but if that's the case, then should we even put them to the standards of older films?) Thus, I think it absolutely goes both ways. I don't think whether it leans slightly toward one way or the other really matters to the argument I am making.

But if you're argument is just that one is closer to the truth than the other, then yes, I'd certainly take the adjusted list over the unadjusted one. (I mean, the unadjusted list basically doesn't have anything older than 30 years .) I'm just saying it isn't an end-all, be-all. And really, that is all I've been trying to say.

As for the media reporting that Frozen is the biggest animated film of all time, I agree with you. When it surpassed Jurrasic Park's gross, I remember reading an article stating that Frozen has now become "more successful" than Jurrassic Park. I think that is utterly ridiculous to make such a claim based on Frozen grossing more in today's dollars (and at the time, it was just barely). But like you said, it's understandable that they want to create hype. They need clicks and/or readers. I absolutely agree that nobody should take such claims at face value. But then again, I don't think we need to downplay its success either. If it's breaking records, then it is definitely achieving something significant.

[Disney's Divinity]

@Fflewduur: You're probably right that all those films did fail to make back their budgets. But what does that have to do with determining how popular or successful those films were with the public? While the company was hurt by investing so much money into film, if their gross is still as high as their largest films, what does that have to do with popularity? If OH&OD had an impossible-to-recoup budget, would that suddenly make its earning and popularity irrelevant?

To me, they were still successful because the public went to see those films, unlike, say, something like Treasure Planet which both had a huge budget and was not liked/seen by the majority of filmgoers.

@ce1ticmoon: I'm included in those group of adults who went crazy over Frozen. So don't take anything I've said as meaning that I don't love the film. I believe I'd say it's in my top 10 favorite Disney films at this point.

[ce1ticmoon]

@ce1ticmoon: I'm included in those group of adults who went crazy over Frozen. So don't take anything I've said as meaning that I don't love the film. I believe I'd say it's in my top 10 favorite Disney films at this point.

Don't worry, I've in no way interpreted your posts to imply that you don't love the film... Actually, judging from your posts in other threads, your opinion on Frozen is a fair bit higher than mine.

Don't get me wrong, I love it too. But I have quite a few problems with it, and think its quite "overrated." I think Tangled is the better film. (And yes, I know your opinion on that one too. )