DVDizzy Forum

This is just a theory, but honestly; Do you think "The Princess and the Frog" would have performed better theatrically if it was released in 2008, the year after "Enchanted", instead of 2009? While "Enchanted" wasn't a mega hit, it still made 127 millions domestically; Better than "The Princess and the Frog". Considering "Enchanted's" animated sections, perhaps it would have made people seem nostalgic for hand-drawn animation. Just a theory of mine. What do you guys think?

I think it would have done the same really; it still did well, people forget that. Just wasn't as huge a figure as was hoped.

I don't think the film was good enough to warrant a huge global box office smash hit; I personally enjoyed it, but the characters weren't as easily loveable as previous Disney movies, especially the Princess films.

It was 'almost there' (pardon the pun), but just didn't quite sink into the public domain like Tangled did.

What about Bolt though since that came out in 2008?

Anyway, I honestly just wish Disney would have done something else as the return to 2D animation movie. I'm convinced that Princess and the Frog was never going to be a hit because of the "race issues". Disney should've just went with something safer imo.

And yet if they did, Disney would've been criticised for another non-black princess, facing a different race issue.

Given Oprah was in it, I don't know how big the race issue was.

Personally, I think it would've performed better if it were a better movie.

Victurtle wrote:Personally, I think it would've performed better if it were a better movie.

This. Totally this.

I'm tired of people saying "it wasn't good enough" to describe that it didn't do better, because that's so completely down to personal opinion. I personally thought the film was fantastic and an amazing return to form for Disney. Even excluding my own opinion, it was widely acclaimed by critics and got an Academy Award nomination in a very competitive year for the category (where Ponyo, Mary & Max and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which were also strongly received, missed out). Plenty of widely panned films have done incredible business, so this reasoning doesn't fly in my book. Sometimes, critical reception doesn't entirely match with box office receipts. Rush is currently having a disappointing performance in the United States and it's gotten some of the best reviews of the year and audience reception has been high, too.

I've said this a million times before, but it all comes down to the title. Over the last decade, Disney has made the term "princess" synonymous with "girly" things like pink and dresses, which boys tend to not be interested in. By inserting "princess" into the title, they turned off half of the intended demographic. Obviously, Disney was looking at the performance of their princess line, but while you can get away with marketing to separate genders at Toys 'R' Us, you need to grab both of them at the multiplex. If they gave it a gender-neutral title like they later did with Tangled and Frozen, it would have done much better. I'm 100% certain of it.

estefan wrote:I'm tired of people saying "it wasn't good enough" to describe that it didn't do better, because that's so completely down to personal opinion. I personally thought the film was fantastic and an amazing return to form for Disney. Even excluding my own opinion, it was widely acclaimed by critics and got an Academy Award nomination in a very competitive year for the category (where Ponyo, Mary & Max and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which were also strongly received, missed out). Plenty of widely panned films have done incredible business, so this reasoning doesn't fly in my book. Sometimes, critical reception doesn't entirely match with box office receipts. Rush is currently having a disappointing performance in the United States and it's gotten some of the best reviews of the year and audience reception has been high, too.

Thank you .

estefan wrote:I've said this a million times before, but it all comes down to the title. Over the last decade, Disney has made the term "princess" synonymous with "girly" things like pink and dresses, which boys tend to not be interested in. By inserting "princess" into the title, they turned off half of the intended demographic. Obviously, Disney was looking at the performance of their princess line, but while you can get away with marketing to separate genders at Toys 'R' Us, you need to grab both of them at the multiplex. If they gave it a gender-neutral title like they later did with Tangled and Frozen, it would have done much better. I'm 100% certain of it.

I don't think it was just the title. PatF had a number of factors working against it (princesses, racial issues, hand-drawn stigma, stiff competition), it was basically DOA. We should be glad it did as well as it did.

estefan wrote:I've said this a million times before, but it all comes down to the title. Over the last decade, Disney has made the term "princess" synonymous with "girly" things like pink and dresses, which boys tend to not be interested in. By inserting "princess" into the title, they turned off half of the intended demographic. Obviously, Disney was looking at the performance of their princess line, but while you can get away with marketing to separate genders at Toys 'R' Us, you need to grab both of them at the multiplex. If they gave it a gender-neutral title like they later did with Tangled and Frozen, it would have done much better. I'm 100% certain of it.

I can't believe you think it's the title that did it. You really think boys didn't want to see it just because of that? You really think parents would have had boys stay home while they brought their girls to see it? You really think a lot of girls seeing it still wouldn't have made it a hit? You really think Tangled only did as well as it did because of the title?

Who knows if Tangled would have performed as well as it did if TPATF didn't pave the way for it and show that Disney could put out good movies again. It put out shitty movies for nearly a decade prior to TPATF (with a couple exceptions), it shouldn't have been expected to perform amazingly.

And the race/2D/marketing issues obviously contributed to its "failure" ( ) as well. If Tangled came first and was 2D I doubt it would have been so successful so everyone can STFU about how much better it is.

Lady Cluck wrote:Who knows if Tangled would have performed as well as it did if TPATF didn't pave the way for it and show that Disney could put out good movies again.

It's the same reason why B&tB and Aladdin had larger intakes than TLM. TLM started the climb, following years of disinterest in Disney films, so of course it was lower than those that followed it. And the same applies to TP&TF.

Tbh, I think a lot of people checked TP&TF out on DVD because the Disney brand has/had become so unreliable, and after liking that movie + a new movie based on a well-known fairy tale (Rapunzel) inspired audiences to actually go see a Disney movie in theaters again.

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:

Victurtle wrote:Personally, I think it would've performed better if it were a better movie.

This. Totally this.

Funny some say this considering P&TF had more Oscar nods than Tangled & Wreck-It Ralph combined.

^ Oh, wow. That fact had totally escaped me.

I don't think I want to talk about this. It's frustrating!

DisneyEra wrote:

atlanticaunderthesea wrote: This. Totally this.

Funny some say this considering P&TF had more Oscar nods than Tangled & Wreck-It Ralph combined.

Box office and Oscars do not make one movie better than others, like a user on here said, all down to personal opinion.

I just don't think this film touched hearts / sunk into peoples conscience the way Tangled and Ralph did. Whether it was the stories, characters, who knows, but TPATF just didn't effect people very much, longevity-wise.

TPATF had much more heart to me. Tangled is cute and entertaining, but it doesn't make me feel anything. It's more marketable because it was 3-D and Rapunzel looks like Barbie. Let's not kid ourselves.

Well yeah... When did PATF come out late Dec/ Nov ? The only competition during 2008 during that time was The Tale Of Despereaux


It would of done so much better during that certain time period imo but would of struggled if Disney brought it out during Ku Fu Panda or Madagascar 2 so if Disney was smart and played their cards right, it could of done better. Because Chipmunks basically stopped some Parents from taking their kids to go and see Princess and Frog.

Lady Cluck wrote:TPATF had much more heart to me. Tangled is cute and entertaining, but it doesn't make me feel anything. It's more marketable because it was 3-D and Rapunzel looks like Barbie. Let's not kid ourselves.

Gosh, that's quite a harsh statement. I do like PATF, but just didn't quite hit the spot for me. And I judge that on rewatching as well; I've only popped in Frog to watch a handful of times after my initial cinema viewing. Tiana is a great character, and I really root for her in the movie, but I find Ray / Louis / Naveen all quite irritating. And the songs, bar 'Almost There'.

Now it sounds like I'm bashing the movie, which I don't mean to sound like, as I do like it ! Just not as much as other recent Disney efforts, because I just don't think the film is as strong.

Lady Cluck wrote:It put out shitty movies for nearly a decade prior to TPATF (with a couple exceptions), it shouldn't have been expected to perform amazingly.

Which ones?

To be honest, although it was strange at first, I thought it was a bit refreshing that Disney made different movies after "Tarzan". I liked the handdrawn films prior to "TPATF" and I appreciate its risks (although I have issues with both "Lilo & Stitch" and "Brother Bear" for reasons that I've mentioned before. I also like "Dinosaur", despite it's thin story. I never saw "Meet the Robinsons", but there's no doubt that both "Chicken Little" and "The Wild" are messes (despite that "Chicken Little" had an enjoyable first act). But there's no denial that Disney got back on track after "Bolt" (which I thought was average and forgettable).

If Tangled came first and was 2D I doubt it would have been so successful so everyone can STFU about how much better it is.

While I don't consider neither "TPATF" or "Tangled" them to be great, I thought "Tangled" was the inferior movie as well. Not because of the medium, but because it begs for comparisons to other Disney movies and comes off as quite derivative. Besides, I prefer Menken than Newman, but Menken's music for "Tangled" was lackluster (with the exception of "I See The Lights", the only marvelous song in the movie). Newman's music in "TPATF" was more enjoyable and catchy.

Overall, I though "TPATF" was more fun and watchable. "Tangled" is not bad at all; It has a simpler story and great animation, but it also didn't had a consistent tone and was too dark at times (yes, laugh if you will, but I thought "Tangled" was dark at times). Besides, Mother Gothel was a lackluster villain. "TPATF" has better characters and a better villain.

It's funny that people have complained about "TPATF" having a busy script, when both "Hercules" and "Tarzan" both had busy scripts.

I liked both Princess and the Frog and Tangled about the same, but I do like a lot. Some things I prefer in PATF (villain and animation) and some things I prefer in Tangled (couple and comic relief animal characters). I personally prefer the music of PATF over Tangled. I'm not the biggest fan of Randy Newman (like most people lol), but I found his songs tolerable and consistent imo. With Tangled, I found the songs disappointing. I love "I See The Light" (should have won the Oscar that year), but that is it. The other songs weren't that great and "Mother Knows Best" is one of the weakest villain songs I've heard in a Disney movie. Like I said earlier, I really like both movies, so I really don't have a favorite.

frankf3 wrote:I liked both Princess and the Frog and Tangled about the same, but I do like a lot. Some things I prefer in PATF (villain and animation) and some things I prefer in Tangled (couple and comic relief animal characters).

Oh, I forgot about the couples! Naveen and Tiana has a great chemistry together, perhaps one of the best chemistry I've seen in a Disney couple. So I'm sorry, but I disagree.

With Tangled, I found the songs disappointing. I love "I See The Light" (should have won the Oscar that year), but that is it. The other songs weren't that great and "Mother Knows Best" is one of the weakest villain songs I've heard in a Disney movie.

Agreed. "Mother Knows Best" sounds like it would fit a movie from Walt's era, not in a 2010 Disney flick. Either way, two of the songs are derivative. "I've Got a Dream" is exactly like the drinking song in "Dumbo" and "Mother Knows Best" reprise sounds almost like "Savages" from "Pocahontas".