Discussing The Initial failure of "Sleeping Beauty"

[rodis]

Well, what can I say.
"Sleeping Beauty" is a masterful work of art. Hands down one of Disney's all time best.
You see the $6 million invested in the movie in every single frame. It's lush and incredibly detailed.
The music - "Once Upon A Dream" is an amazing song, as is the rest of the songs and the whole score...
Now the movie isn't considered one of the public's favorite Disney movies. (Although it is ranked #5 on both Disney's Official 100 Years Of Magic and UltimateDisney's animated classics countdown).
Not at all. Yes, its box office numbers improved with subsequent rereleases.
But it didn't do very well when released on video in 1986. Yes, sales weren't as high back then but 'only' 1 million copies sold is quite absurd. Especially for a classic like this.
What else... Rentals. The movie generated $21 million in rentals. It's considerably low, compared to the $41 million of "Cinderella" and the enormous $80 million of "Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs".

I don't accept the execuse that "audiences found Sleeping Beauty to be too derivative of "Snow White" & "Cinderella" (with all the animals and stuff). I disagree. One could say that "Cinderella" is derivative of "Snow White" as well.

Ugh I will never understand why this movie was so underrated for such a long time (I feel that only in the last couple of years it got HALF of the respect it deserves). I like it as much as "Cinderella" and better than "Snow White".

[Jack]

Sleeping Beauty is one of my favorite movies, and I think its a really inspirational peice. Agree that it doesn't get anywhere near the respect it deserves, but I can understand why - Aurora and Phillip are pretty emotionally distant and not some of the most well-developed main characters. Snow White & Cinderella on the other hand were characters that I think the audiences could more easily invest emotionally in.

Also, the way the story is presented in the film itself is focused on the 3 fairies, which in my opinion, was done to draw out the running time to feature length. It doesn't really bother me, as the fairies are entertaining, but its not a really strong story structure like some of the other Disney fare.

I think the pure artistry of it is what makes it so special - the way the animation and backgrounds are done is attractive to me. Again, I don't feel the characters and story are weak, but the standout of the movie to me is the animation itself. This doesn't pack theaters like movies with more well-rounded stories and characters.

[Mr. Toad]

1. I would think calling the movie a failure is a little excessive, especially as a re-release. While it did not set the world on fire the sales numbers were not terrible. Look at the list of top 100 sellers for the year and count the re-releases i.e. those we had already seen on video. There were not a whole lot. I am trying to remember now, but I believe Indiana Jones and the Lion King were the only two to beat out Sleeping Beauty.

2. Although the movie is an artistic masterpiece, an incredible visual experience, the story is not nearly as good as Cinderella, and there is nothing Disney can do about that. I think everybody can identify with being mistreated by family members, to one degree or another and the wish for some sort of revenge. Or they can identify with the loss of a loved one or not having enough money to make ends meet. However, identifying with a princess who cant wake up is a little harder. To me Cinderella works a lot better as a movie, despite the better animation of Sleeping Beauty.

[Maerj]

Yeah, I would hardly call it a failure. Granted the inital budget was $6 million and it pulled in more than $5 million at the box office in it's inital release, by looking at it from an artistic point of view it's an outstanding achievement. Also, they made thier money off of it over the years in re-releases, video releases, merchandise, etc.

It reminds me of a quote that I just got in a SaveDisney.com email:

"Cartoon features give us our biggest financial problems. They take a lot of manpower that could produce much more in other fields. Like most luxuries, however, there is solid value in the feature cartoon. While they're expensive, they are also prestige builders."

-- Walt Disney

[PatrickvD]

Yeah, I would hardly call it a failure. Granted the inital budget was $6 million and it pulled in more than $5 million at the box office in it's inital release, by looking at it from an artistic point of view it's an outstanding achievement. Also, they made thier money off of it over the years in re-releases, video releases, merchandise, etc.

It reminds me of a quote that I just got in a SaveDisney.com email:

"Cartoon features give us our biggest financial problems. They take a lot of manpower that could produce much more in other fields. Like most luxuries, however, there is solid value in the feature cartoon. While they're expensive, they are also prestige builders."

-- Walt Disney

I got that too, and I think this really is what it is all about... in time, if its good, the money will come in... not every movie is an instan Lion King or Finding Nemo.. I believe if its good, time wil do it justice!

[SNERWW22785]

Sleeping Beauty is on the same tier as Aladdin...it came around in the middle of Disney at the height of a golden age and derived almost all of its strength from the villian and the supporting characters. Not that I wanna rip on Aurora & Phillip or Aladdin & Jasmine, but both of them as couples completely got upstaged. This makes it a little strange to judge the movie, and audiences in 1959 just didn't react well to it. However, I think the film has gained stature over time and will be highly regarded for years to come.

Though it was a huge financial success, many critics offered mild to lukewarm praise for Aladdin as a film, though they of course loved Robin Williams as Genie.

P.S. One of the reasons I always thought of Sleeping Beauty as sequel-proof was the film provided no even semi-natural second telling; specifically, what could they possibly offer up in the villain department for an encore? Not only can you not beat that performance by Eleanor Audley, you can't create any believable new foe. The only way I'd accept a Sleeping Beauty sequel would be if Maleficent was reincarnated, like a Jedi she gets struck down yet becomes more powerful than we can possibly imagine.