Disney's Frozen

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3144
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » February 14th, 2010, 12:39 pm

estefan wrote:On the plus side, at least Disney is blaming the "princess" in the title on the fact that it's grosses didn't meet their massively high expectations rather than the film being hand-drawn..
Yeah, at least they're leaping to loopy paranoid-fatalist inferiority-complex conclusions, rather than take part responsibility, analyze real audience trends over the holiday season and objectively appraise the business of the release market...What a relief! :x

On the subject of Snow Queen, J*m H*ll (who seems to have calmed down a bit, with no one listening to him nowadays) went back to the source to do a good old-school analysis of how Eisner and Stainton flailed about with the story the last time--
Makes you appreciate what an idiot Mike and his immediate board really were, but also that nobody really DOES appreciate Andersen's character--The Snow Queen story isn't about the SQ, nor is it about her trying to find love or even whether she wants to; she's just the fantasy catalyst to our two heroes' cross-country-journey-for-love, and not really a villainous character per se.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18518
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » February 15th, 2010, 2:27 pm

You guys know that Snow Queen doesn't have a chance, right?

Disney will release the next big hope Rapangled for the holidays 2011, and Fox will put out a threequel for Night At The Museum or Alvin, whichever they can rush out first, which will kill princesses for good.

Until Alvin 4 comes along, when he meets a princess. :(

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7781
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Snow Queen

Post by ShyViolet » February 15th, 2010, 5:13 pm

That's a real shame; I've always loved this story and it could look absolutely beautiful in either CGI or 2d. (although of course I'd prefer 2d.) It's such a great story and people like Glen Keane, Wise/Trousdale, and of course M & C could do great things with it.
click to reveal content
I do think that the princess factor is partially to blame for the lower grosses of PATTF; not the film itself but the actual marketing. PATF was a clever, funny, good little film that made real strides towards restoring Disney's reputation. As we know adults enjoyed it every bit as much as kids. But the marketing all signaled: "Cute little princess movie with funny characters and true love." It definitely seemed like a kid's film (which of course it wasn't). Aladdin, Beauty and Lion King had great marketing aimed at adults and children (the simple, stylish posters was one example). I also think the marketing came too late. True, on-line clips, images, and a few interviews were shown 6-8 months before the release, but there should have been a lot more.

I think the public who actually watched PATTF loved it, but I think many other people simply saw it as some kind of DVD retread of Disney's glory days. A big, loud shiny film like Alvin made more money in its first three days than PATF made in the previous two weeks of its own release. The film needed so much more than what it got...20 years ago no one would have to persuade people (adults and kids) to go out and see a 2d film, but everything is different now. People don't necessarily like CGI better, but it's what they know.

Rapunzel/Tangled is very much a concern because Disney princesses can already be found in a million products out there (and 2d movies on DVD) and the Old has to be made New again. But this is very difficult in this day and age, especially, as said above, with all the competition from brands that people already know. :?
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 493
Joined: November 11th, 2007
Location: NY

Post by Foxtale » February 15th, 2010, 11:21 pm

Pixar canned Newt? Aw, I was excited to see what that was going to be like. I don't think Pixar has dried up, i have faith in the studio. I am sad to see Snow Queen go but unless Disney wants to cater to an older audience I'm having trouble visualizing the story for young viewers of this age. I wonder what they are going to do to fill the shoes of these films?
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/Foxtale/almostthere_signature_smaller.jpg[/img]

American_dog_2008

Re: Snow Queen

Post by American_dog_2008 » February 16th, 2010, 7:51 am

Wait?

Newt got canned?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » February 16th, 2010, 1:10 pm

According to Floyd Norman it did...In this case, it's unfortunate that he's usually a valid source for this stuff, as I think the movie sounded cute.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3144
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » February 26th, 2010, 3:47 am

Also accdg. to the Guild Blog (or at least the anti-Disney curmudgeons trying to stem some of the pro-Disney soapboxing), Disney may not have been happy with the film so far, thought Chris Buck and Kevin Lima were moving the picture along too slowly, and may have just used some other post-P&tF crackdowns as a "convenient" excuse to put the picture on hiatus and switch directors.
That's one story, anyway. It's possible, although the timing is still too suspicious.

Still, the idea that "Disney was afraid of princesses/royalty" is now firmly 100% cemented in the public's mind as the reason, which's why it's important to keep the fan pressure on about Rapunzel's title.
At this point, even if Disney came out and gave a lot of reasonable excuses about the directors, it would still sound like corporate spin-doctoring, and most of their fans wouldn't buy it even when if it were the truth--Which, even if Disney didn't give in and put SQ back into production, would still put them trapped in the middle, and their only way out of it would be to make some smaller "plea bargain" concession to the fans, such as, oh...giving in on the Rapunzel requests.

It's a dirty business, fan petitions, and sometimes you gotta play hardball.
It ain't just going to some website, y'know.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 164
Joined: April 13th, 2009
Contact:

Post by ELIOLI » December 22nd, 2011, 5:14 pm

http://www.elioliart.com/

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18518
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » December 22nd, 2011, 7:40 pm

Snow Queen back on?

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vis ... -jr-276088

Oops...pretty much the same news as Eli, but another take on it.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 164
Joined: April 13th, 2009
Contact:

Post by ELIOLI » December 22nd, 2011, 8:09 pm

Both interesting reads, though!
http://www.elioliart.com/

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 677
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » December 22nd, 2011, 10:29 pm

Seeing this thread sitting at the top of the page made my heart skip a beat, if this does turn out to be Snow Queen I do hope that it is a musical retelling with Menken songs. Thanks for posting guys, a lovely early Christmas present.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3144
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » December 22nd, 2011, 11:14 pm

And like the old jokes earlier (please don't tell them again... :roll: ), looks like Disney really IS superstitiously putting its faith in isolated adjective verb-forms to reproduce the "It's not a princess movie, honest!" success of Enchanted and Tangled.
I'd have to look back, wasn't "Frozen" the default-list joke we came up with for Snow Queen, right next to "Treasured!" and "Stitched!"?

Still, if they think the name change means they have to make the story look like Tangled as well, that's at least not a bad part of the superstition--Desperately Reproducing the One Audience Smash-Hit They Had Over and Over was the secret to the 90's Mermaid renaissance in the first place.
Just so long as they remember the original story is not about the Snow Queen, and try to sell the Flynn-and-Rapunzel rocky romance of our two characters.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7781
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Snow Queen

Post by ShyViolet » December 23rd, 2011, 7:43 am

According to the TAG blog, CGI is more likely:

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... -snow.html
"That’s right, folks, it’s gonna be a Meg episode, stick around for the fun.
Here’s the clicker...no one’d blame ya.”

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18518
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » December 23rd, 2011, 8:01 am

I don't mind if it is CG, I'm just glad that Tangled's success means we get more of the same. I think I did say, after it was such a hit and Disney had pretty much announced no more fairytale musicals, that I wondered how long it wouod take them to backtrack. After all they can't exactly turn down the opportinity to milk the same cow.

On the title, yep, I believe Frozen was our joke title for the film. But, again, if that's how Disney feel they need to matket a film in order to make it a hit, then that's what they should do. After all, they're doing it for The Bow And The B...oops...Brave, too.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 56
Joined: August 19th, 2008
Contact:

Re: Snow Queen

Post by Hewylewis » December 23rd, 2011, 2:56 pm

I actually called the Walt Disney Studios in California last night and talked to one of their operators. I asked her to give a message to the studio head about the name change. I said that names of Disney movies shouldn't be changed to appeal to a wider audience. Mermaid, Beast and others had their titles and had great success. Also, that the name Frozen was already used by a horror movie in 2010. She said she'd give the message and to have a magical day. I just hope she remembers to give it.

Post Reply