Enchanted

Post by **Ben** » October 6th, 2007, 9:03 am

First thing I thought: it's that same heavy block font that all animated films seem to have to use.

And there's still not enough animated touches here. Where <I>is</I> the fairytale princess. We need to see some combination posters coming on. Animated Giselle with Patrick Dempsey for example.

But it's getting better...I hope they really start ramping up with this now.

Post by **EricJ** » October 6th, 2007, 10:40 am

Ben wrote:First thing I thought: it's that same heavy block font that all animated films seem to have to use.

And there's still not enough animated touches here. Where <I>is</I> the fairytale princess. We need to see some combination posters coming on. Animated Giselle with Patrick Dempsey for example..

If you look up the JHM articles on the subject, you can see about five or six different ad-concepts that were floated all over the map for how to promote the movie:
Do they promote it as a pro-Disney movie? An anti-Disney spoof? Generic "Pretty Woman"? Sell the wicked queen as the big plot draw?
Do they throw themselves completely on the wishful-geek-fan momentum of the hour and promote it as a 100% pro-2D-fairytale tribute?

Basically, Disney literally didn't know where to go with the movie, since the original script had been following Shrek princess-bashing leads and going for much sourer humor--
A dozen rewrites after Dreamworks wore out its welcome pretty much genericized the story into straightforward Disney hi-concept, and they're just going with what they have, now that people like Disney films again.
As such, the marketing is just staying safely in the middle, without having to set foot too far into one territory past the other.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 6th, 2007, 4:39 pm

I HATE THAT SQUIRREL.

If anything should be animated, its him.

Yes, some of those early posters were much better. Particularly the one with Amy Adams looking up at the city from the limo.

Basically, Disney literally didn't know where to go with the movie, since the original script had been following Shrek princess-bashing leads and going for much sourer humor--

That reminds me a lot of the whole Rapunzel issue. Where that project has gone as a film, and how they're actually going to promote it.

Post by **Meg** » October 7th, 2007, 1:59 pm

Chipmunk, Vi! It's a chipmunk!

(But yeah, he does look pretty wonky in that poster.)

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 7th, 2007, 8:10 pm

Gotcha Meg.

He looks sneaky in the poster, like he's plotting something....

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » October 9th, 2007, 12:05 pm

ShyViolet wrote:

Basically, Disney literally didn't know where to go with the movie, since the original script had been following Shrek princess-bashing leads and going for much sourer humor--
That reminds me a lot of the whole Rapunzel issue. Where that project has gone as a film, and how they're actually going to promote it.

Wait,wait,wait,what do you mean sourer humor?

(i know she was mistaken as a stripper but...).

Post by **surfnspy** » October 9th, 2007, 2:08 pm

Mr. Hill has some of his facts wrong again. ARGGH. But at least he's plugging the movie--so no major gripes.

Anyway, about the initial script--the opening was NOT animated. A live-action fairy tale book ended the story. Someone along the way had the bright idea to make the opening animated and really do what no other studio could--pay homage to Disney 2-D animation.

Yes, she was mistaken for a stripper when she popped out of a huge cake at the Patrick Dempsey characters bachelor party. Remember, the movie was sold to TOUCHSTONE way back when they were two very different and somewhat competitive groups. That old Disney group passed on the spec script as did DreamWorks.

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » October 9th, 2007, 4:17 pm

surfnspy wrote:Mr. Hill has some of his facts wrong again. ARGGH. But at least he's plugging the movie--so no major gripes.

Anyway, about the initial script--the opening was NOT animated. A live-action fairy tale book ended the story. Someone along the way had the bright idea to make the opening animated and really do what no other studio could--pay homage to Disney 2-D animation.

Yes, she was mistaken for a stripper when she popped out of a huge cake at the Patrick Dempsey characters bachelor party. Remember, the movie was sold to TOUCHSTONE way back when they were two very different and somewhat competitive groups. That old Disney group passed on the spec script as did DreamWorks.

Oh,werid,glad they decided to make it animated

.
Sounds werid but okay

.
By the way-there's a concept art of the movie showing a tree with snacks,do you know something about it?.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 9th, 2007, 4:39 pm

Wait,wait,wait,what do you mean sourer humor? Shocked (i know she was mistaken as a stripper but...).

]

Basically, Rupunzel was originally a traditionally animated, traditionally told planned film back in the 90s. Then after Shrek came out they not only wanted to make it CGI but a "fairy tale send up" type spoof.

Now, thanks goodness, it's been returned to its traditional origins (at least storytelling wise if not aesthetically.)

I just hope they get a GOOD release date and marketing campaign.....

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 9th, 2007, 4:39 pm

Wait,wait,wait,what do you mean sourer humor? Shocked (i know she was mistaken as a stripper but...).

Basically, Rupunzel was originally a traditionally animated, traditionally told planned film back in the 90s. Then after Shrek came out they not only wanted to make it CGI but a "fairy tale send up" type spoof.

Now, thanks goodness, it's been returned to its traditional origins (at least storytelling wise if not aesthetically.)

I just hope they get a GOOD release date and marketing campaign.....

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » October 10th, 2007, 7:20 am

ShyViolet wrote:
Wait,wait,wait,what do you mean sourer humor? Shocked (i know she was mistaken as a stripper but...).
]

Basically, Rupunzel was originally a traditionally animated, traditionally told planned film back in the 90s. Then after Shrek came out they not only wanted to make it CGI but a "fairy tale send up" type spoof. Now, thanks goodness, it's been returned to its traditional origins (at least storytelling wise if not aesthetically.)

I just hope they get a GOOD release date and marketing campaign.....

Agreed,why whould they want to make a movie based on a movie which is trying to be a anti-Disney?

.
Anyway,i hope they'll allready release it

.

Post by **surfnspy** » October 10th, 2007, 1:21 pm

I don't know anything about a digital snack tree.

One version of Rapunzel started out in the "real world" and had them go to the animated world, thus bringing a real world sensibility to the traditional Disney animated princess world. When live action/animated culture clash Enchanted was greenlit, it sort of nudged Rapunzel off of that track. (I don't think this was the only reason that version didn't go forward tho.) I have no idea what the storyline for the current version of Rapunzel is.

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » October 11th, 2007, 9:34 am

Yeah,i heard about Rapunzle and glad they changed it (what take them so long?).
Wait,does Giselle,Tiana and Rapunzle will become Disney Princesses and join the franchise too? i"ll be glad if Giselle will

but i think Alice should join the franchise (she's the only female main character who is not in the franchise-Snow White,Cinderella,Aurora,Ariel,Belle,Pocahontas and Mulan (Jasmine is the only one who isn't the main character in her film) are allready in the franchise and Alice is a princess in Kingdom Hearts).

Post by **Ben** » October 11th, 2007, 10:11 am

How about Eilonwy?

She's a real princess who seems to have been forgotten!

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » October 11th, 2007, 11:13 am

Ben wrote:How about Eilonwy?

She's a real princess who seems to have been forgotten!

She is but her movie didn't done well and most people don't know who is she (even some Disney fans don't) and this line is franchise character most of people knows like Aurora,Jasmine,Mulan or Ariel.