DVDizzy Forum

KubrickFan wrote:I think it is a flop. Making 113 million dollar while your movie cost 105 million to make can't be called making a profit. Remember, Disney also spends a lot on advertising, so the actual money spent is even higher. This isn't called greed, it's running a business.

Do you Americans forget that there is s few other countries out there?;) You should wait for the international releases and then consider if the movie is a flop or not.

However, Disney was not smart when they released it at the same time as Alvin 2 and Avatar. Also, all the "Disney Princess merchandise franchise"-focus in the advertising was not good for the film's reputation I think.

To be honest, it would be so easy for Disney to rename this and give it a more boy-friendly title. They could just call it "The Snow" for all it matters. It would be so easy to rename.

I really don't see what the deal is. This is frankly why Disney bought Marvel, to have stuff out there for boys. It's really silly, when I was a kid young children period enjoyed these films. Is it possible that it could be a sign of the state of childhood today?

I don't think we're saying boys can't enjoy these movies. I loved The Little Mermaid and Beauty and The Beast when I was younger (still do). But let's be honest, it doesn't attract too many boys. Boys won't bother to ask to see that movie when Fast and The Furious 87 is playing, parents with boys don't think "hmm a princess movie, i gotta take little johnny to that", I mean with the Disney name, some parents would, just not too many.

I for one would love a boyish type movie. As much as I would probably love to PatF being a teenage male my pride prevents me from going to the cinema. When I was younger Disney was one of the coolest things out there, Treasure Planet, Tarzan, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis. We need another batch of those. The fact is that in today's society no boy is going to take themselves to see a princess movie, things like BatB were okay I mean there was the Beast to make the movie balanced.

Yet we can keep in mind that many "boy movies" were considered flops... Treasure Planet, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis......

Perhaps but they were at least successful over here in the UK. By successful I mean that at least everybody I knew went into see them, school talking about them etc. I think all or most of them got to number 1 at the box office as well. Obviously I don't know why they were flops but I do know that most boys are not going to go into see something like Princess and the Frog. Perhaps there is just more girls than boys?

yamiiguy wrote:Perhaps there is just more girls than boys?

That would Explain Tiger Woods' and David Lettermen's problems latley....and a lot of politicians....

yamiiguy wrote:The fact is that in today's society no boy is going to take themselves to see a princess movie, things like BatB were okay I mean there was the Beast to make the movie balanced.

The frog isn't good enough? Then again, it is kind of a gender-neutral animal. It's not in pony territory, but it's not on the lion side of things, either. The frog seems to fall in the middle.

Poody wrote:Yet we can keep in mind that many "boy movies" were considered flops... Treasure Planet, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis......

Does Oliver & Company fall under the "boy movies" category? Because that did well.

yamiiguy wrote:I for one would love a boyish type movie. As much as I would probably love to PatF being a teenage male my pride prevents me from going to the cinema. When I was younger Disney was one of the coolest things out there, Treasure Planet, Tarzan, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis. We need another batch of those. The fact is that in today's society no boy is going to take themselves to see a princess movie, things like BatB were okay I mean there was the Beast to make the movie balanced.

I saw it in theaters all by myself, no shame. Even saw other guys there. most of them younger, about 14 with just their parents.

yamiiguy wrote:Perhaps but they were at least successful over here in the UK. By successful I mean that at least everybody I knew went into see them, school talking about them etc. I think all or most of them got to number 1 at the box office as well. Obviously I don't know why they were flops but I do know that most boys are not going to go into see something like Princess and the Frog. Perhaps there is just more girls than boys?

Wow, I never thought those movies would get that much attention. Maybe it's because over here in America the movie's performance really matters.

DisneyJedi wrote: Does Oliver & Company fall under the "boy movies" category? Because that did well.

Hmmm that's what I thought, but apparently some people consider it a flop too.

Personally, the whole idea of gender stereotyping Disney films annoys me to no end. I blame Katzenberg and his way of thinking back around Little Mermaid when he talked to Ron and Jon, telling them not to expect much since Little Mermaid is a "girl's film and won't do well like a boy's film like Oliver & Co." Ron and Jon said they never saw it as a girl's film - simply a film for the whole family, and that's how I think Disney films should still be to me. They're films that can enjoyed by everyone of every age because they have certain things that one can always connect with - a central heroine, a central hero, a menacing or enjoyable villain, humorous or endearing side characters. It shouldn't matter what the story is as long as you can connect to the audience of any age or gender with these kinds of characters, or certain kinds of situations or emotional impacts in your stories.

Until I see a Disney film completely covered in rosy pink, with no male heroes or characters, and pink ponies farting out rainbows and sunflowers, with princesses chatting the entire time about how they're so pretty, then I'll consider them always family films before either a boy or girl film.

I agree, labeling these films "boy" or "girl" films is dumb. Frankly "Mermaid" was probably about the "girliest" film, and yes I admit that when it came out originally as a young boy, I didn't like it as much. But, what I'm saying is that back before it became to norm to take kids to see "PG-13" and "R" rated actions films, EVERY Disney films was just a Disney film and children enjoyed them.

Take a film like "Aladdin," which I guess by modern standers may be thought of as a "girl" movie. While it may be called a princess film today, it really is a film for everyone. girls may enjoy the romance and Princess Jasmin parts, but what boy doesn't enjoy the carpet ride in the Cave of Wonders? Or Genies many jokes?

Point being that good Disney films have something for almost everyone, so that by labeling them "boy" or "girl" films, they ruin their own brand name. Again, this is why they bought Marvel, so boys would have something while girls have the Princess and Tink stuff.

KubrickFan wrote: I thought it made $167-78 million?

KubrickFan wrote: Do you Americans forget that there is s few other countries out there?;) You should wait for the international releases and then consider if the movie is a flop or not.

However, Disney was not smart when they released it at the same time as Alvin 2 and Avatar. Also, all the "Disney Princess merchandise franchise"-focus in the advertising was not good for the film's reputation I think.

If I remember correctly, Avatar's release date was announced after PATF, and quite frankly it wouldn't have mattered anyway, that movie proved that could destroy any other film in the box office. And they did push back PATF release date, to avoid sharing the weekend with New Moon the way Bolt did with Twilight.

And PATF has done so far $149,513,353... worldwide, $100,558,291 domestic and $48,955,062 foreing. This was once of my biggest fears, that everybody would set all their expectations and hopes of the comeback of 2D an Disney returning to it's previous glory, and then the movie would underperform, which is exactly what happened.

Now, don't get me wrong, PATF is a good movie, it has it's flaws but it's funny, sweet and entertaining, but is was never meant to be to be the big comeback everybody was hoping for. It's not "The Little Mermaid", it's more like "The Great Mouse Detective" or "Oliver and Company", where it showed that Disney still had it but weren't enourmous succeses. The movie I've always thought was gonna be the TLM of this generation, the movie that will bring back their cred to Disney, and I have believed this ever since they announced it would follow PATF, is Rapunzel, something tells me that's the movie the Disney fans are waiting for, I could be wrong of course, but there's something about that makes me think so, you know at least as long they keep the tittle, and that they push back the release date, because a week after it "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" it's gonna be released.

About the whole not marketing to boys thing, I think this is one of those situations where they really need to market only to girls when it comes to Rapunzel, because last time I checked girls watch just as many movies as boys do, I know it would be pandering to the audience, but hey, if it helped to make money for a crapfest like "Twilight", I don't see why Disney shouldn't take advantage of it while releasing a good movie at the same time.

Oh, I hate this kinda thing with a passion.

Im so not through trying to explain this to people, but they are so through listening.

Dream Huntress wrote:
And PATF has done so far $149,513,353... worldwide, $100,558,291 domestic and $48,955,062 foreign

What? But I thought it had made $67-78 million in foreign markets, not including UK grosses?! WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN?! I'M CONFUSED ENOUGH ALREADY!!

Yeah, about $70-ish million are the foreign figures I read as well. It is doing incredible business in France, too (which is kind of funny, since wasn't there where they complained about the "Frog Princess" title or am I think of somebody else).

Anyway, to be honest, I think another problem is that children seem to be growing older way too fast now, which is something that terribly disturbs me, as I think they should keep their childhood innocence until 13 at the latest. Nowadays you have even more children than usual using cellular telephones, swearing and what-not younger and younger. So, naturally, they are prone to labelling. In my day (which really makes me sound like such an old codger, since I'm of the 90s generation), boys like myself felt no embarassment with watching films like The Little Mermaid and Mulan or shows like Pepper Ann. Nowadays, children seem to be label their entertainment, so they don't want to see something with princesses, because it's too "girly." I think Disney is simply dealing with a much-faster growing generation.

When I went to see The Princess and the Frog a second time , the screening was filled with mainly girls, their parents and 20-somethings (the latter was a more gender-mixed group). And in line, the male-filled family in front on me were a lot more intent on seeing Planet 51 than The Princess and the Frog.

estefan wrote:Yeah, about $70-ish million are the foreign figures I read as well. It is doing incredible business in France, too (which is kind of funny, since wasn't there where they complained about the "Frog Princess" title or am I think of somebody else).

Anyway, to be honest, I think another problem is that children seem to be growing older way too fast now, which is something that terribly disturbs me, as I think they should keep their childhood innocence until 13 at the latest. Nowadays you have even more children than usual using cellular telephones, swearing and what-not younger and younger. So, naturally, they are prone to labelling. In my day (which really makes me sound like such an old codger, since I'm of the 90s generation), boys like myself felt no embarassment with watching films like The Little Mermaid and Mulan or shows like Pepper Ann. Nowadays, children seem to be label their entertainment, so they don't want to see something with princesses, because it's too "girly." I think Disney is simply dealing with a much-faster growing generation.

When I went to see The Princess and the Frog a second time , the screening was filled with mainly girls, their parents and 20-somethings (the latter was a more gender-mixed group). And in line, the male-filled family in front on me were a lot more intent on seeing Planet 51 than The Princess and the Frog.

I know how you feel. In those days I didn't feel bad at all watching The Little Mermaid or Mulan as a young boy, I saw it as a Disney movie and nothing more. Kids were much more enjoyable and fun back in the 90's generation than today. Now you have these little obnoxious punks running around cursing and acting tough like they're trying to be "cool." Picturing a kid as a typical teen always sickens me. It looks like the old people were right. Kids these days.