Disney's Frozen

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5461
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » December 23rd, 2011, 3:23 pm

Yeah, well, at the end of the day, a title's just a title. And given the success that "Tangled" found, it's hard to argue with that. What's important is that the movie is actually getting made now.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Post by Dusterian » January 3rd, 2012, 9:11 pm

Hello! Haven't been here in a while. Nice to see ya. I'm just dropping in to say that if some of you can say "it's just a title" and "Disney needs to market it with that title for it to be a hit", then it is only fair that I at least once say no, it is not just a title, it is a detail of the film as important as something like the Snow Queen herself having the title of being the Snow Queen, and for the film to feel it has a Disney title it should stick to titles like those Walt and thethe Renaissance had, titles closer to the original stories, and maybe the film wouldn't be as huge a hit as it would be because maybe not enough boys or non-Disney fans would see it, but we don't even know if that's true, and it would still be enough of a hit anyway.
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Re:

Post by GeorgeC » January 4th, 2012, 12:57 am

Dacey wrote:Yeah, well, at the end of the day, a title's just a title. And given the success that "Tangled" found, it's hard to argue with that. What's important is that the movie is actually getting made now.

Titles are important... but in the end, it's the way the story unfolds and characterizations develop that's more important.

No story, no memorable/likeable characters = NO AUDIENCE!
The end product is forgettable, disposable muck that's best left to rot in a vault.
Like 90% of the other films that preceded it.

You can have the technically best looking, best-shot, best-choreographed, etc., etc., but if the film itself lacks character/"charm" and doesn't have someone in it that the audience can empathize with, good luck in finding many people that care 5-10 years later.

Entertainment in general is disposable because of the assembly line mentality of the business.

Classic films are few and far between -- even at the better studios.
It's always been that way in every major era.

Attitudes are definitely different between the eras, though.
At times, it feels like there was more pride in the film-making whether it was a small picture or epic.

There's definitely been some change in attitude in movies since I've grown up but I think every generation has had its say about this. It just feels crasser than anything I've seen from the late 1960s/early 1970s which was another jarring cultural transition.

As self-absorbed as the 1970s and parts of the 1980s were, I find that particular character fault more prevalent now... and whether it's the filmmakers transmitting this aspect into films or business people interfering with the scripts and demanding all kinds of nonsense be put in at the last minute, I just don't know.

I know in general that I'm not missing much in skipping the "new age" of films at theaters.

With what you save on theater popcorn alone now, you can rent at least 3-4 BETTER films on DVD from most kiosks. Or at least feel less ripped spending $1-$1.50 to see a film at home versus spending upwards of $15 or more PER PERSON at a theater AND getting ripped off completely. I don't think any major theater chain honors demands to "Give Me My Money Back!" from audience members yet.

**************

It's almost hysterical to me to find that articles are popping up now quoting movie analysts as saying that "ticket prices must go up to ensure studio profits rise this year!"

Utterly clueless and missing the point completely...
(This just goes to show that having an advanced degree in anything doesn't make you an automatic genius or demonstrate that you have common sense. I find common sense completely lacking in most news personalities and experts that get interviewed on air. And these are the people ridiculing and lecturing the rest of us???)
But then again, it's both the creatives and business people that are failing the audiences right now...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 376
Joined: March 19th, 2010
Location: Probably Cinemark

Re: Snow Queen

Post by LotsoA113 » January 4th, 2012, 8:51 am

Actually, I agree with you George, A lot of the movies made today are too focused on commerce and less on story and characters. Frankly, 2011 was a pitiful year for film and 2012 looks only a little better (though I greatly anticipate TDKR, Avengers and Nero Fiddled)

Hopefully Snow Queen...er, Frozen, will be much better than most of the stuff coming out these days.
I love all things cinema, from silent movies to world cinema to animated cinema to big blockbusters to documentaries and everything in between!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3351
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » January 4th, 2012, 2:36 pm

Again, if Disney thinks that All Animated Films Have to Be Tangled for the moment because Tangled saved their hinder, in this case, it works out:
If you go back to links in previous posts and read about Eisner arguing over the previous incarnations of Snow Queen, earlier drafts had NO CLUE what the story was about: "Will the Snow Queen's heart finally be warmed by love?"--Uh, that's not even remotely what Andersen's story was about. Just because her name is in the title doesn't mean she's the main marketable character. (Which could be another reason for the title change.)

The story is supposed to be about our young couple (normally brother and sister, but that can be updated), and the SQ is only the fantasy catalyst that separates them, gives our heroine something to quest for (ah, the heroine is now empowered, like teen Rapunzel, to continue the post-Tiana princess apologies!), and forces the male character to choose what he really wants, cold desire (like a crown) or true love. And if they stay close to the Andersen, it's even got a funny thief sidekick, too.
I'd object if they tried turning Snow White or Sleeping Beauty into a wisecracking HTTYD-esque Flynn-and-Rapunzel story--But think someone noticed enough resemblances to give the project the right kick in the pants, and the right "Just like our last hit!" arguments to get it past the boardroom suits.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 59
Joined: November 18th, 2004

Re: Snow Queen

Post by starlioness » January 11th, 2012, 2:22 pm

so wait, if this is in CGI. is King of the Elves still happening .. and is that going to be in 2-D? .. so confusing..

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 126
Joined: December 8th, 2011
Contact:

Re: Snow Queen

Post by laughingoctopus » January 11th, 2012, 2:28 pm

I've been wondering this too. I hope it does, I was excited for King of the Elves

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 126
Joined: December 8th, 2011
Contact:

Re: Snow Queen

Post by laughingoctopus » June 11th, 2012, 9:01 pm

So this film has officially been confirmed by Disney for a November 2013 release as Frozen.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 744
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Re: Snow Queen

Post by Bill1978 » June 12th, 2012, 5:54 am

And that it is a musical. Sign me up. While I wasn't totally blown away by the duos work on Winnie The Pooh, they were still decent in their musical execution and I imagine their laidbackness was more to do with the Winnie vibe than their writing. Since the guy co-wrote the Book Of Mormon, I have hopes that this will be a musical more like my fave Menken then the disappointing musical approach of randy Newman.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 744
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Re: Disney's Frozen (formerly Snow Queen) 2013

Post by Bill1978 » July 1st, 2012, 8:56 am

Not sure how reliable this image is, but apparently it is being touted as the offical logo

http://i50.tinypic.com/2ljm4if.jpg

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7175
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Re: Disney's Frozen (formerly Snow Queen) 2013

Post by James » July 1st, 2012, 10:57 am

I'm dubious. Disney has all but stopped using the phrase "Walt Disney Pictures" on their promotional material. I bet it's fan made and they forgot about that.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Re: Disney's Frozen (formerly Snow Queen) 2013

Post by Macaluso » July 1st, 2012, 3:45 pm

It probably is fake, but looking it up, Enchanted, which isn't too many years old, used the Walt Disney Pictures Presents thing on it.

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7175
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Re: Disney's Frozen (formerly Snow Queen) 2013

Post by James » July 2nd, 2012, 10:16 am

I think the dropping of the 'Walt' and 'Pictures' is more recent than that. Last year maybe? Jim Hill had a big piece on it at the time.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 49
Joined: November 11th, 2009
Location: St. George, UT

Re: Disney's Frozen (formerly Snow Queen) 2013

Post by TitusTodd » July 6th, 2012, 2:14 am

How can a studio lose sight of commerce? It it does, it can't make movies anymore. Doesn't mean they should forget about story and character but you can't drop the commerce. You've got to get people in the door to see your product or all the story and character is going to be enjoyed by few, regardless of how good it is.

Frankly, the shorter less descriptive titles of Tangled, Brave and Frozen work for me. Leaves out some of the possibility of people skipping it because a descriptive title doesn't "do it" for them. People do that and sometimes miss out on a great production that would have appealed to them if they had just looked past the title.

Tangled's success didn't discourage this trend and it appears Brave won't either.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19126
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Re: Disney's Frozen (formerly Snow Queen) 2013

Post by Ben » July 6th, 2012, 2:17 pm

Hmmm...

While the first reaction could be to say "fake", this is a *teaser* image, and Disney could still use their complete logo for these, as they have done in the past.

Then again, the "Frozen" isn't very stylized in terms of any bend or character to the font...even the F isn't bigger than the rest of the word, and Disney routinely makes their first and last letters larger in names like this.

However, I wouldn't go shouting fake immediately...quite often the Studios mock up a title treatment that gets refined as the release date draws near.

Post Reply