DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:44 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:06 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:55 pm
Posts: 1401
Location: Los Angeles
I keep reading how dissapointed people are with Frozen & how WDAS is not in a 2nd Renaissance post Tangled. But there is one thing Tangled/WiR & Frozen had that the renaissance fims didn't: Competition!
Lets take a look-see: according to Boxoffice Mojo.

In 1989 TLM made over $84mil domestic. It's only competition was a Re-issue of Peter Pan over $29mil & Don Bluth's All Dogs go to Heaven at $27mil.

In 1991 B&tB made over $145mil domestic. It's only competition was a Re-issue of 101 Dalmatians over $60mil & An American Tail: Fievel Goes West with over $22mil.

In 1992 Aladdin topped the domestic Boxoffice with over $217mil. It's only competition was Ferngully: The Last Rainforest with over $24mil & a Re-issue of Pinocchio with over $18mi.

In 1994 TLK made over $312mil domestic. It's only competition was The Pagemaster with over $13mil & The Swan Princess with over $9mil.

But in 1995 Toy Story topped the domestic Boxoffice with over $191mil while Poccahontas made over $141mil.


So pretty much the only competiton during the Renaissance era was Disney themselves rereleasing Walt's classics. So while the Renaissance era my be unmatchable, there really wasn't anything else on the market.
I respect Tangled/WiR & Frozen for clearly holding their own in this very competitive CGI-Modern era. And i'm sure next year's BH6 will do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:43 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 am
Posts: 643
Location: Arkansas
The Renaissance films had more competition than Walt's original classics... I don't see what the point is. Quality is what makes or breaks a film GENERALLY. (Sometimes, it's a release at a bad time. With no marketing, no advertising or stiff competition ... a la, Great Mouse Detective, The Rescuers Down Under and 2011's Winnie the Pooh.)

Hopefully this increase in competition is making WDAS step up their game, finally.

But, still, these latest films don't really hold a candle to the majority of the Renaissance (or even some of the post-Renaissance titles such as Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch) as far as I'm concerned.

And the box-office, while the best in a great long while, still isn't all that impressive when you look at the budgets behind them... Tangled made nearly 600 million. On a 260 million budget. Ralph pulled 500 on a 165 million budget. Frozen, with a budget of 150 million had so far made 266... I doubt it'll go much higher than 600, to be honest. Who knows. It may be the one that out-grosses them all. We'll see.

Compare these numbers to the profits of the post-Lion King 'failures' of the Renaissance, though:

Pocahontas had a 55 million dollar budget and grossed 346 million.
Hunchback pulled 325 on a 100 million dollar budget.
Hercules on 85 mil grossed 252.
Mulan on 90 grossed 304.
Tarzan on 130 grossed 448.

We're pretty much back to immediate post-Lion King numbers if you adjusted for inflation. That's why I don't consider this present situation much of a 'Renaissance' so much as a long overdue return to form.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:48 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:55 pm
Posts: 1401
Location: Los Angeles
ProfessorRatigan wrote:
The Renaissance films had more competition than Walt's original classics... I don't see what the point is. Quality is what makes or breaks a film GENERALLY. (Sometimes, it's a release at a bad time. With no marketing, no advertising or stiff competition ... a la, Great Mouse Detective, The Rescuers Down Under and 2011's Winnie the Pooh.)

Hopefully this increase in competition is making WDAS step up their game, finally.

But, still, these latest films don't really hold a candle to the majority of the Renaissance (or even some of the post-Renaissance titles such as Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch) as far as I'm concerned.

And the box-office, while the best in a great long while, still isn't all that impressive when you look at the budgets behind them... Tangled made nearly 600 million. On a 260 million budget. Ralph pulled 500 on a 165 million budget. Frozen, with a budget of 150 million had so far made 266... I doubt it'll go much higher than 600, to be honest. Who knows. It may be the one that out-grosses them all. We'll see.


Compare these numbers to the profits of the post-Lion King 'failures' of the Renaissance, though:

Pocahontas had a 55 million dollar budget and grossed 346 million.
Hunchback pulled 325 on a 100 million dollar budget.
Hercules on 85 mil grossed 252.
Mulan on 90 grossed 304.
Tarzan on 130 grossed 448.

We're pretty much back to immediate post-Lion King numbers if you adjusted for inflation. That's why I don't consider this present situation much of a 'Renaissance' so much as a long overdue return to form.


Well, there it is then. Tangled/WiR & Frozen are nothing compared to The Renaissance & Classics & certainly nothing to Pixar & Dreamworks. Why does WDAS even continue to make new animated films than? To be 2nd rate?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Q
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:01 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts: 968
Location: Los Angeles
Interesting topic... I certainly think that the animation market is much more crowded now. Does that affect the NUMBERS when it comes to boxoffice? IM SURE.

But I dont think competition affects the QUALITY of the films themselves. Little Mermaid wasnt actually that successful when you consider what blockbusters made in 1989. But it became a huge hit on VHS, where it was competing with EVERY film ever made, animated or not.

But I agree that Frozen and Tangled are a return to form, not a renaissance. These films, in my opinion, are not nearly as good as the "fab four" (story and music wise). But I would put them in the same league as the late 90s films. I do feel that Frozen was a missed opportunity: it had potential to be a great film, and it was only "good". And there is no second chance for disney to make it again.

I think when it comes to Disney making fairy tales, they should ask what Howard Ashman asked himself during the making of Little Mermaid (as I have seen in taped interviews): Does this film fit comfortably on the shelf with all the disney classics?
Does Tangled? maybe. it gets close. I dont think Frozen does (Im not commenting on wreck-it-ralph cause its not a fairy tale, so there is less pressure for it to be the "definite version" of a classic tale).

But I think Disney is on the right track


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:16 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:15 am
Posts: 1235
Location: Europe
Not true.

1989- Don Bluth was pretty massive competition, he was pretty much making Disney look like things of the past with American Tail and Land Before Time.

For Little Mermaid to beat All Dogs Go To Heaven via cinema viewings is pretty huge, it was a huge deal and impressive feat.

1991- Most Disney fans thought that Little Mermaid was just going to be a lucky fluke and people were getting ready for Beauty and the Beast to fail big, however it didn't. It didn't have competition from other big animation companies, but it was in competition with their depressing and rusty past.

1992-
Aladdin had Home Alone 2 as competition and Batman Returns and beat them both, just because they weren't animated, doesn't mean that they weren't big guns, as most most families would of been attracted to see those movies together.

Again, huge impressive feat.

1994 Okay, Lion King didn't have competition here, which maybe why it got so huge. It's only competition was The Santa Claus, and The Flintstones. Talk about lucky year for Disney.

Minus the Lion King, most of the Disney movies back then did have big competition.

-Looking at 1996 Box Office, the competition for HOND was pretty huge. Though for some strange reason people preferred to go see 101 Dalmatians live- action instead, wtf ?

- Pocahontas still did pretty well, most Disney fans act like it was a huge failure, but it still beat out huge movies like Die Hard

- Hercules did worse than Batman and Robin, now that's just depressing. All it's competition beat it out, I think that this is the beginning of the low point of this era.

-Mulan failed to beat out most of the big guns, but it did manage to beat out DreamWorks's Prince of Egypt.

- Tarzan did pretty well, and beat out The Mummy, Runaway Bride, and Stuart Little.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Q
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:43 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2672
I don't think some of those are apt comparisons, since some of those films came out months apart. For example, Batman Returns had already come and gone from screens by the time Aladdin opened.

Also, I'm honestly not surprised All Dogs Go to Heaven tanked. I contribute the success of An American Tail and The Land Before Time to Steven Spielberg's name, rather than Don Bluth's. In the 80s, Spielberg had basically surpassed Disney as the trusted brand for family audiences. So, an animated film with his name attached was certain to bring in the crowds. Take him away and it's no surprise All Dogs couldn't trounce The Little Mermaid.

Though, after The Little Mermaid, I think Disney managed to take back its crown. Which is why Beauty and the Beast managed to not only beat Fievel Goes West, but Hook as well.

Marce82 wrote:
Little Mermaid wasnt actually that successful when you consider what blockbusters made in 1989. But it became a huge hit on VHS, where it was competing with EVERY film ever made, animated or not.

You have to compare The Little Mermaid to what animated films typically did at the time. And $84 million for an animated film in the '80s is pretty damn good, considering Oliver & Company fell into the $50 million range. It was why it was such a big deal when Beauty and the Beast made over $100 million on its original run. Without adjusting for inflation, it was the first animated feature to do so.

_________________
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:04 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:50 pm
Posts: 651
Location: Orange County, California
Hindsight is always 20/20 and now the idea of something like "Fievel Goes West" being serious competition for a masterpiece like "Beauty and the Beast" is laughable.

But at the time, there WAS media speculation about who was going to prevail. Mind you, "An American Tail" was a huge success a few years previously, and at the time, no one knew whether "The Little Mermaid" was going to be a one hit wonder (especially after "The Rescuers Down Under" didn't perform all that well the previous year). If I remember correctly, I think there was an article in maybe Newsweek? that depicted characters from Fievel Goest West and Beauty and the Beast in a boxing ring (before the movies came out, obviously).

No disrespect to those who love "Fievel Goes West" . . . I've only seen part of it and was bored out of my mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:54 pm 
Online
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:00 pm
Posts: 1747
FGW had none of the charm or soul of the original. It looked like it was made by a completely different studio.

_________________
Support To Belong
Hullabaloo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:16 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:48 pm
Posts: 968
Location: Los Angeles
Hey Estefan,

I know what 89 million was a lot for an animated movie in 89. But that wasnt my point. My point was that Little Mermaid became a HUGE hit on VHS, competing with ALL movies, which is a testament to how GREAT a movie it is, regardless of what else is/was on the market at the time.

And cmon, people.... no one can deny there is WAY more animated competition now than there was back then. How many major animation studios are there in the USA alone (let alone the entire world)? How many were there back then?

Let's face it: Disney had an almost-monopoly of the animated feature market for decades!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:58 pm 
Offline
Special Edition

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:13 pm
Posts: 443
Location: ICELAND
Since 2009 Disney has owned the traditional animatedmarket with grand total of 2 films, vs some indepent animators.
Last mainstream traditional animation film none Disney was The Simpsons Movie released in 2007. So that is kind sad affair for Traditional animation features.

As for Walt is era, he dominated that one until his death even if you exclude the package films of the 40's since they are all tecnically shorts collected together and relased as "feature". There was no proper feature film between Bambi and Cinderella that was fully animated.

_________________
Der Fuehrer's Face is the greatest Donald Duck cartoon ever made.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:00 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2672
Marce82 wrote:
Hey Estefan,

I know what 89 million was a lot for an animated movie in 89. But that wasnt my point. My point was that Little Mermaid became a HUGE hit on VHS, competing with ALL movies, which is a testament to how GREAT a movie it is, regardless of what else is/was on the market at the time.

And cmon, people.... no one can deny there is WAY more animated competition now than there was back then. How many major animation studios are there in the USA alone (let alone the entire world)? How many were there back then?

Let's face it: Disney had an almost-monopoly of the animated feature market for decades!

Yeah, that's true, though I think parents will buy anything animated for their children to watch. Even box-office disappointments like Rise of the Guardians, All Dogs Go to Heaven and FernGully: The Last Rainforest have sold multiple video copies.

Anyway, I actually think it's great so many animated films are coming out today and most of them in good quality, in my opinion. We're also a long way from the 90s when almost every animated film simply tried to copy the Disney formula. Nowadays, Blue Sky, DreamWorks, Sony, Illumination, Disney and Pixar are all doing their own thing. Not to mention, foreign animated films seem to be more widely distributed in North America today than they used to be.

_________________
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:39 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:20 pm
Posts: 4091
Location: Malta, Europe
unprincess wrote:
FGW had none of the charm or soul of the original. It looked like it was made by a completely different studio.


It was made by a different studio, in fact. Unless I am mistaken, the original American Tail was made by Don Bluth at his Sullivan Bluth studio, whereas the sequel was made at an at then still young Amblimation Animation.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:50 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:20 pm
Posts: 1030
Had The Little Mermaid been given the marketing push in 1989 that was given to Beauty and the Beast in 91, it would have easily grossed over $100 million. There weren't even any dolls out till AFTER the film's release. The only thing I saw in stores beforehand were things like coloring books and puzzles, plus the McDonalds Happy Meal toys right at release. Nothing like how films are marketed ahead of time since Mermaid's success. I find Ariel's $84mil more impressive than Lion King's $324mil simply because her success was due to word of mouth that it was a fantastic movie. The Mermaid merchandise machine didn't really start hitting big till the following Christmas after her Oscar wins and successful VHS debut in May 1990.

As for the Renaissance comparing to Tangled, Ralph & Frozen, anyone thinking or wanting lightning to strike twice in exactly the same way it did back then is just setting themselves up for disappointment. The early 90's was a different world than now. Movies are received and treated so differently now in Hollywood that it just doesn't make sense to compare one's success with something 24 years ago. The only fair comparison is of an artistic point of view, which has nothing to to do with competition and box office numbers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:33 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2672
In Waking Sleeping Beauty, John Musker commented that Jeffrey Katzenberg was certain The Little Mermaid wouldn't make more than Oliver & Company, because it was a "girl's movie." So I guess that explains the lack of merchandising (I hadn't known about that, actually, but then again, I was just a baby at the time).

Based on Katzenberg's comment, I'm surprised the marketing team didn't force them to use a gender-neutral adjective title earlier. :P

_________________
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:48 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:20 pm
Posts: 1030
Initially, yes, Katzenberg had little faith, but he changed his tune well before release after seeing a rough cut of the film and predicted it to be the first animated feature to gross over $100 million. Unfortunately it was too late by then to get merchandise in the stores before Christmas to help sell tickets. Still the word of mouth was so great that it still became the highest grossing animated film till BatB, even if falling short of Katzenberg's 100mil prediction.

…Of course, he also thought Part of Your World should be cut. rotfl


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:01 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:41 pm
Posts: 231
DancingCrab wrote:
As for the Renaissance comparing to Tangled, Ralph & Frozen, anyone thinking or wanting lightning to strike twice in exactly the same way it did back then is just setting themselves up for disappointment. The early 90's was a different world than now. Movies are received and treated so differently now in Hollywood that it just doesn't make sense to compare one's success with something 24 years ago. The only fair comparison is of an artistic point of view, which has nothing to to do with competition and box office numbers.


It's true that we cannot expect a repeat of Disney Renaissance of the 1990's because simply times have changed, and so have people's tastes and so has the techniques and technologies to make the films. That said, I do believe the lastest films in the Disney cannon are issuing in a new Renaissance - albeit a different one - in that the films are a welcoming return to form and classic Disney style, combining elements of Golden Era style and animation, Renaissance style music, and Modern Era CGI and technology. It's a perfect blend, fitting with the times and current tastes. However, that said again, though Disney has learned from its mistakes and flops (Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, etc.), I do think that they can still do better. Princess and the Frog had the magic of 2D animation, great story and characters, great heart and a dark and very sinister villain - however, it was lacking in the songs. Tangled had the perfect blend of CGI with the feel of 2D hand-drawn, a great story, great villain, and great music - but was lacking in magic, romance and deeper character development (in the case of Rapunzel and Flynn - too comedic.). Winnie The Pooh had it all but was essentially a reboot of the earlier films aimed at young children. Wreck-it-Ralph had awesome animation, great chararters and story, great conflict and villain - but was lacking in music. And now we have Frozen. Everything is there - the Disney magic, the story, the music, the characters - but again it's lacking in the romance area and in the conflict and villain. Though I do belive that the current name for this period would be "The Rebirth" If they combine all the elements in a future film without leaving anything out, I'm sure we'll finally have the new definite modern day Disney classic Renaissance that will set the tone for future films. On a side note, I hope the Disney parks open a cool dark ride attraction themed to Frozen. I think that would be spectacular, perfect for Fantasyland!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 8:26 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:53 pm
Posts: 1389
Location: Virginia
Angeldude98 wrote:
DancingCrab wrote:
As for the Renaissance comparing to Tangled, Ralph & Frozen, anyone thinking or wanting lightning to strike twice in exactly the same way it did back then is just setting themselves up for disappointment. The early 90's was a different world than now. Movies are received and treated so differently now in Hollywood that it just doesn't make sense to compare one's success with something 24 years ago. The only fair comparison is of an artistic point of view, which has nothing to to do with competition and box office numbers.


It's true that we cannot expect a repeat of Disney Renaissance of the 1990's because simply times have changed, and so have people's tastes and so has the techniques and technologies to make the films. That said, I do believe the lastest films in the Disney cannon are issuing in a new Renaissance - albeit a different one - in that the films are a welcoming return to form and classic Disney style, combining elements of Golden Era style and animation, Renaissance style music, and Modern Era CGI and technology. It's a perfect blend, fitting with the times and current tastes. However, that said again, though Disney has learned from its mistakes and flops (Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, etc.), I do think that they can still do better. Princess and the Frog had the magic of 2D animation, great story and characters, great heart and a dark and very sinister villain - however, it was lacking in the songs. Tangled had the perfect blend of CGI with the feel of 2D hand-drawn, a great story, great villain, and great music - but was lacking in magic, romance and deeper character development (in the case of Rapunzel and Flynn - too comedic.). Winnie The Pooh had it all but was essentially a reboot of the earlier films aimed at young children. Wreck-it-Ralph had awesome animation, great chararters and story, great conflict and villain - but was lacking in music. And now we have Frozen. Everything is there - the Disney magic, the story, the music, the characters - but again it's lacking in the romance area and in the conflict and villain. Though I do belive that the current name for this period would be "The Rebirth" If they combine all the elements in a future film without leaving anything out, I'm sure we'll finally have the new definite modern day Disney classic Renaissance that will set the tone for future films. On a side note, I hope the Disney parks open a cool dark ride attraction themed to Frozen. I think that would be spectacular, perfect for Fantasyland!!!


I agree, this new era is more like a "Revival", if anything...

_________________
Disney, Pixar, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and Film fan since 1999


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:11 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 1286
Who cares about Renassaince or not

Disney is finally making again good movies, and that's great.

Long gone are the days of Home on the Range and Chicken Little.

_________________
Awaiting for the Beatles of DVDIzzy: Disneyjedi , disneyphilip, TsWade2, and 2DDisney4Ever

And Goliath and Duster were Sonny and Cher.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:18 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:12 pm
Posts: 836
thedisneyspirit wrote:
Who cares about Renassaince or not

Disney is finally making again good movies, and that's great.

Long gone are the days of Home on the Range and Chicken Little.


This. I've never been so excited for the next DAC since Tarzan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 21, 2013 12:31 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 7:55 pm
Posts: 1401
Location: Los Angeles
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.ca/2 ... equel.html

Meanwhile WDAS will give us "Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Giants & Moana" ALL original films!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DisneyFan97, Google [Bot], unprincess and 60 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group