Melvin Frohike

June 15, 2019

On 6/13/2019 at 2:27 PM, cannastop said:

That's partly because Frozen fits in with their marketing paradigm better than Big Hero 6 or Zootopia.

When and why? Before its release, no one at Disney wanted to touch Frozen--only WDAS had any faith that they had created something worthwhile and compelling, but even they weren't sure how the public would receive their creation (worldwide, only Disney Japan saw its potential and promoted it as a special event movie, with little information booklets for moviegoers and everything). The movie had the usual lame trailers, but I only saw infrequent 5- and 15-second TV ads during late-night TV (one of the cheapest times). ABC never helped promote the movie on Good Morning America (although it would later on after the movie became a huge blockbuster). The only interview I saw was Idina Menzel on the Today show, which is owned by one of Disney's main competitors, and that was because it was of interest to Broadway fans. And at the Disney theme parks, the usual plans to have princess walkaround/meet & greet characters were put on hold until they knew whether the movie would flop. Then after the movie became a massive phenomenon, the parks had to scramble to quickly come up with tie-ins, some of which suffered from the lack of preparation and time.

What Frozen did it did on its own, left practically out in the cold (so to speak) as a likely flop, and that probably had something to do with the fact that it had two female leads (ironic these days with female leads--including the obviously crappy ones--being shoved down our throats by marketing now). Only after it broke out and garnered a lot of attention did Disney support and begin to promote the movie, and they've kept doing this because it also became a merchandising phenomenon. The latter is probably how it fits any marketing paradigm Disney might have, but given what Frozen accomplished on its own and how it was treated by Disney before its release, I wouldn't credit Disney with its longevity. No matter what Disney/WDAS fans may think, even with the backlash from "Let It Go" (most of which comes from people who haven't seen the movie anyway) the general public loves this movie more than other recent Disney animated features, and finds it more memorable. Disney never hyped it before release, and it doesn't need Disney's manufactured hype now.

June 15, 2019

On 6/12/2019 at 4:45 PM, captainwondyful said:

Disney is All About IMAGINATION.

Imagination doesn't mean that anything and everything goes. In order to be believable and engaging, it needs to be grounded in some sort of internally consistent reality, as well as honor continuity. Every idea you have suggested would not make for good storytelling, no matter how imaginative. Such a spoof might be entertaining for some, but as for WDAS making it for general release, as their usual high-budget tent pole movie, I wouldn't hold my breath.

On 6/12/2019 at 4:50 PM, Rorschach said:

A Disney Princess team-up movie would probably be the film to dethrone Avatar at the worldwide box office methinks.

Nah, what was done with the princesses in Ralph Breaks the Internet was pretty entertaining and high-profile, yet it didn't seem to help much at the box office. The movie did OK, but less than what Disney would expect from an original WDAS movie, let alone a sequel. Fans might have been geeking out over this, but the general public are not exactly dying to experience a Disney princess overload, much less a feature-length one with a necessarily highly contrived premise (or even one with a solid story, if that would be possible). I don't mean to be such a killjoy, but not everything can or indeed should imitate the MCU.

June 15, 2019

2 hours ago, tupek said:

Frozen has two or three memorable characters and good songs, but narrative-story-wise it's nothing we haven't seen before, but that is not only a Disney thing

On the contrary, Frozen's narrative with all of those twists is very different from anything we've seen before, and I think that a major reason for its massive success at the box office was that the general public enjoyed how it surprised them by subverting what WDAS normally do in such movies.

Obviously we have very different views of the same movie, but the real point of my response was to clarify what I originally said after you misrepresented it.

June 15, 2019

On 6/12/2019 at 3:19 PM, The Futurist said:

Is Ripley a Disney princess now ?

Short answer:
No.

Long, rambling, meandering, pedantic answer:
Absolutely not! What a Disney princess is should not be such a hard thing to pin down. WDAS is the original studio Walt and Roy Disney founded when they arrived in Los Angeles, and this tradition of Disney princesses (a subset of Disney heroines) is, traditionally and in a creative sense, intrinsically linked to this animation studio. The parent Disney company has long since gone off and become a faceless conglomerate holding company like Berkshire Hathaway, but WDAS survives as a studio today, carrying much of Disney history from back in Walt's time with it. Disney princesses are princess characters that WDAS created, exclusively. It can be this simple.

People can and have tried to define them differently, but it can get awfully complicated and pretty random when they use things like the roster of Disney Consumer Products' Disney Princess™ merchandise licensing franchise as a source or reference. DCP's job is to sell as much merchandise as possible, not to come up with a high-minded, intellectual, philosophical reason for including or excluding various characters they peddle merchandise for. Yet this is what many people go by--absolutely swear by as supposedly "official"--and therefore I guess Elsa, Anna, Moana, and several other WDAS princess characters supposedly are not Disney princesses, while Merida from Pixar--a whole other studio--somehow is. Yeah, right....

Legal ownership by the Disney holding company is another common justification used by some people, but it is merely an excuse to label and put together characters that have no history or continuity behind their association. In my view, characters created by entities other than WDAS have nothing to do with Disney princesses aside from ownership at best, so why should they be lumped in with them? Back to Ripley, is she even a princess at all? No, so how does any of this even apply to her to begin with? Where is the sense in any of this? People are free to define things as they like, but usually the least complicated answer is the truest one.

By the way, I am so glad that WDAS, in Ralph Breaks the Internet, pointed out the weirdness of Merida being widely considered a Disney princess. The latter was never their doing, and Leia from Lucasfilm and Anastasia from Fox Animation being Disney princesses would be even weirder to them (and me).

June 15, 2019

On 6/13/2019 at 12:44 PM, tupek said:

Thats a pretty low bar for recent Disney movies, then...

Says you. That's certainly not what I said or meant. I think the relatively recent Disney animated features starting with Bolt have all been great, but among them Frozen is a cut above the rest.

June 13, 2019

On 6/10/2019 at 6:57 PM, Royce said:

Elsa will be forever alone and die a virgin just like the "Virgin Queen" Elizabeth I of England

Well, if nothing else this example from real life makes it plausible. And who knows, maybe Elsa would inadvertently kill anyone she tried to procreate with (or worse). No, I'm not trying to make her fear herself again, I'm just applying the old superhero explanation for never "getting it on" with normal humans. 🙂 It remains to be seen whether there are others with the same powers as Elsa, but I'm thinking no, she will remain unique, although there will be non-human beings who have different powers.

On 6/10/2019 at 7:33 PM, Yandereprime101189 said:

To Me, Frozen is actually the hardest Disney movie to properly make a sequel to. It has a good beginning, a great middle and a fantastic end. It came entirely full circle. To me it's an absolute masterpiece. As a movie made for families and fans of Disney in general, it's a massive delight.

Nicely said, and I totally agree.

On 6/10/2019 at 7:33 PM, Yandereprime101189 said:

Now, a lot of Disney movies also follow the same path and got sequels to, but they all had tiny potential hooks to follow (I personally think sequels to Big Hero 6 and Zootopia are much more plausible). Frozen really didn't have one. They're going to use where she got her powers now I'm assuming, but I don't entirely think we necessarily need some massive backstory of why Elsa got her powers.

Right. While I think the directors made the best possible choice in finally doing a road trip adventure, as Frozen was originally intended to be, rather than repeating what they did in any way, I think they made perhaps the worst possible choice in trying to explain the source of Elsa's powers. I realize that a lot of people have wondered about this, but it's the kind of thing that is usually best left unexplained, especially given how her powers metaphorically represent traits that we are all born with. Explaining why she has powers may dilute and/or complicate this metaphor unnecessarily, especially if they give her powers some kind of definite, predetermined purpose that she has to discover (I said "if"). I don't want Elsa to lose her near-universal relatability. If it were up to me, I'd leave this stuff to fanfic writers to run wild with rather than give it a canonical answer. "She was born with them" is good enough for any character unless the story requires more, and this one does not.

On 6/10/2019 at 7:33 PM, Yandereprime101189 said:

That said, I'm there day one due to my massive love of the original and the fact that the first teaser was jaw dropping and spectacular.

I'm vastly looking forward to the movie, but I'm also terrified it won't top or be equal to the original.

Part of me wishes I could agree, but I don't support forced sequels.

On 6/10/2019 at 7:36 PM, cdsacken said:

Often Disney spends nothing on the sequel and it is crap. They look like they put a ton of effort into it. It also never made sense that she had powers and her sister didn't.

That was back (way back) when the parent Disney company had a different studio make non-canonical cash-grab sequels for cheap, farming the animation production out to TV studios. On the other hand, this big-budget, canonical sequel is being made by the same directors and studio, WDAS, as the original movie, so yes, there is a huge difference, but it is still unfortunately something Disney forced them to do. They are trying their best because their reputation is on the line, but it wasn't something they had ever considered originally, much less planned for. Frozen was always intended as a standalone movie, and it sure looks the part.

As for Anna not having powers, there is nothing strange about this, as non-identical-twin siblings don't share all of the same traits.

On 6/11/2019 at 1:53 AM, danhtruong5 said:

Disney princess with superpower....

Disney typical princess X Superhero ?

Superheroes are still popular, I think. Elsa can be both, and I think even the first movie might well have benefited some from this.

On 6/11/2019 at 1:53 AM, danhtruong5 said:

In the first movie, it didn't concentrate much on power of Elsa (origin, source,...)

Frozen 2 seems to concentrate on that.

Does it appeal to people?

Not to me, but in general I would have to say yes, as it seems that a great many people have wondered out loud about where Elsa's powers came from. I'm completely satisfied to leave them a mystery and something she was simply born with, and think that exploring this is a mistake in terms of story, but I think for the public this is one of the more intriguing stories they could tell with this franchise.

On 6/11/2019 at 9:14 AM, catlover said:

I never thought Disney would Endgame the marketing with these teasers/trailers. But hey it works for me. It made me go from "I loved the first movie but I don't need a sequel" when they announced it, to "GIVE ME FROZEN II NOOOW!!".

I haven't changed my position one bit--I don't like WDAS making sequels, and I really don't like when they're forced to.

On 6/11/2019 at 11:04 AM, Krissykins said:

Still don’t really get what the story is. This was another teaser, a bit of a light show.

You'll have to watch the movie to find out--that's a great advertising strategy as long as people are actually intrigued, and clearly they are.

On 6/11/2019 at 11:04 AM, Krissykins said:

They need another song which hits the same level as Let It Go did.

No, that song drove many people crazy for some reason (don't ask me why, as I think it's a great song) and created a huge backlash and a lot of ill-will toward the original movie. I'm not sure whether it going "viral" like that helped or hurt more at the box office overall, but Frozen had many other characteristics that I think would have ensured that it became a huge hit regardless. The sequel doesn't need such a song any more than the original did, or other movies need any original songs at all. What it needs is solid songs that support the story (not that "Let It Go" didn't--it did) without driving millions of people--many of whom have never even seen the movie--up the wall.

On 6/11/2019 at 11:26 AM, gadd said:

The trailers for Disney Animation movies don't tend to show much of the story, which I really admire. It was great to walk into Frozen, Zootopia and Moana for example not knowing what the crux of their story was and being blown away by the emotional depth and spectacle they boasted. On the other hand, I'm often frustrated with their marketing campaigns because they rely too heavily on comedic moments or humorous side characters which don't do justice to the scale of the films themselves. That's why I'm so thrilled with how Frozen II is shaping up - as usual they're not showing much of the story, but they're actually giving people of all ages reasons to be invested instead of just pandering to the kids with slapstick comedy or seemingly goofy characters.

Frozen II's advertising style is a double-edged sword. Lately Disney has had great success in underselling WDAS' movies, and this is almost certainly one reason (but not the only one) they have the strongest box office legs of any of Disney's studios (including Pixar). The original Frozen is the best of the best in this regard for its era, and except for its not-all-that-widely-viewed third trailer, it was grossly undersold. Audiences were intrigued enough to come in decent numbers on OW anyway, didn't know what to expect, had kind of iffy-low expectations, and were blown away by the movie, resulting in massive WOM advertising and amazing endurance.

What I wonder is why the advertising style has changed so dramatically for Frozen II. If the movie is so great that this is what they consider underselling, then I guess we have nothing to worry about, but even then they could be underselling it much harder. I think they feel that they have to overcome the heavy backlash (haven't seen so much since Titanic, which likewise had a viral song) that the franchise has received, as well as the childish, throwaway impression that the lighthearted short films have given much of the public. Many people now consider Frozen a lightweight, happy-happy-joy-joy movie geared specifically toward younger children and toddlers only. I kid you not, as I hear and read this all the time. Accordingly, most people would dismiss the sequel if it were undersold, and a weak OW domestic gross would create bad press. As a result, Disney seems to be going all out for the big OW, which is really weird for modern-era WDAS, and definitely a risk. If the movie, on the whole, is supposedly not as "impressive" in certain ways as the trailers implied, then the movie could sink like a stone.

Risk is unavoidable, but this is still interesting to think about. On the upside, concerning box office, if Frozen II opens extra-big and still manages to have average or better WDAS legs, then it's going to be a monster. On the other hand, if it opens on the weak side, like WDAS movies tend to do in comparison to other tent pole blockbusters, and disappoints because, GASP!, it has some comedy, then it could underperform relative to expectations.

20 hours ago, tupek said:

Story-wise, Frozen 1 is not that great

I think the original Frozen's story is the best WDAS have come up with this millennium, so there!

June 12, 2019

On 6/11/2019 at 6:16 AM, Valonqar said:

so...where's the girlfriend? isn't that the main selling point?

For whom? If it were a selling point, then it would be a pandering stunt under the circumstances, but I don't see any selling on Disney's part going on, just wishful thinkers attempting to pressure WDAS to give them what they want. They may or may not, and I seriously doubt that they will. It's not as though Elsa were even thought of as being homosexual in Frozen by the directors. I can't read their minds, but it's a pretty safe assumption that is implicitly backed up by the following tweet:

https://twitter.com/alittlejelee/status/366307024956444672?lang=en

They could always change their minds because the original movie doesn't explicitly say, but why at this point? They can come up with a better reason than being pressured by a small but vocal minority during a politically charged era. Maybe some other time with another character in another franchise and better reasons.

Quote

the trailer looks visually stunning but lacks charm. hopefully they have a power song up their sleeve.

It's just a second teaser, and they're not going for charm yet. Besides, Elsa and Anna provide plenty of charm on their own. Speaking of which, are they even more dolled up now? The apparent subtle aging they've been given has increased their visual appeal. Sure enough, they're in the age range that heterosexual men of any age would find the most physically attractive in women. Yes, that sounds bad in a way--pretty unfair, too. But that is life, and it is the truth.

On 6/11/2019 at 6:20 AM, Sunny Max said:

Yeah .. Frozen II has OS advantage Especially in asian markets (China/Japan)

The franchise is at its most popular in Asia, that is true enough, albeit the box office performance of the original was so outsized in certain markets--namely Japan and South Korea--that I can easily imagine the sequel dropping in those markets. This may or may not be fully compensated for by a potentially huge increase in China, where it scored $49 million under unfavorable circumstances. I've heard that since then the franchise has become much better known and very well liked in China, which positions the sequel perfectly for the kind of huge growth in box office revenue we've often seen with sequels, particularly animated sequels. It could potentially be really big in China if conditions are favorable this time around.

On 6/11/2019 at 6:36 AM, Claudio said:

I'm male and I'm already interested with Anna and Elsa. No need to add other elements to attract male when you have 2 beautiful leads.

I never could understand why some people think that Frozen doesn't appeal to males. It did skew female in theaters, but relatively mildly at 57% (lower than most female-led movies) despite all of this prejudice. The story could have been told with two male protagonists and no significant changes, and as you pointed out, the female leads are appealing. Additionally, it is virtually devoid of the "Mary Sue" girl-power crap that is both misogynistic and offensive to anyone who isn't the most naive possible kind of feminist.

On 6/11/2019 at 6:58 AM, danhtruong5 said:

Can it overperform in China? Frozen $49M there back then....

It's much better known in China now, and seems to be popular from what I've heard, so I'd be surprised if the sequel doesn't blow that number out of the water. That isn't so hard, though, so there are still the questions of by how much and whether it will be enough to make up for the probable drops in Japan and South Korea, its two largest Asian markets.

Where Frozen really underperformed was Mexico and the rest of Latin America, so I can easily see major growth in that whole large region, unless for some broad cultural reason I'm unaware of they just don't like this franchise there. Europe also has some room for growth, but frankly I have no idea about the domestic market.

On 6/11/2019 at 7:04 AM, Sunny Max said:

Ahnnnn ?? no chance Frozen2 wont be topping AEG ... even $2 B would be huge for the film

Did you really just mention $2 billion?

On 6/11/2019 at 7:17 AM, Royce said:

Like what causes Elsa to go to the trolls again at least? Never mind how they solve it, what is the actual conflict?

Oh no, the trailers haven't answered these questions, and are only raising new ones! You're dying to learn the answers, but how? If only there were some way to get these answers, preferably starting on November 22 at the latest. If only.... 🤔😉

On 6/11/2019 at 7:23 AM, captainwondyful said:

Disney dragging its feet on creating a Princess Team-Up Movie is mind-blowing after the response they got from Wreck-It-Ralph.

Well, like me WDAS are probably having trouble getting their heads around the concept. These characters don't all exist in the same universe, so how could there be a plausible, believable scenario in which they'd all team up to do something that people could take seriously? They're not superheroes who do that stuff as an occupation. The only answer I can think of is making a huge spoof, but Ralph Breaks the Internet already found an ideal excuse to do that (albeit with web versions or "avatars" of the princesses, not the actual princesses), and I for one don't want a whole spoof movie. It'd be kind of cool if they could make a real movie like this, but it doesn't make sense. It'd be more like a video game than a movie.

March 19, 2017

This is obscene, and I mean that in the worst possible way. :sick: There will be more of this crap to come from Disney for sure. :sadno:

October 13, 2016

4 hours ago, James said:

Why would we only count the original run.

So we'd be comparing an apple to an apple instead of an apple to two apples.

4 hours ago, James said:

In a world were Minions makes makes 823m OS, the fact that Dory, Pixar's greatest, can't even get to 550m is pretty pathetic.

On whose part, the movie's or the audience's?

October 12, 2016

On 10/11/2016 at 11:22 AM, IMojammer said:

Moans is gonna underperform compared to what I see here on BOT, so many 300+ predictions here that I don't think are anywhere close to the mark. In fact I think under 200 is more likely than over 300, but my prediction is in the 220-250 range.

Quite possibly. Here is an excerpt of something I said back in December: "Moana, I think, has a ton of potential, but in my opinion the public may not find it as immediately appealing as Zootopia...I think [the latter is] something the public will like right off the bat and make a note of to go see; personally, I don't think that the characters of Moana, for one thing, have nearly the same level of immediate mass appeal...". I already had a feeling that Zootopia, contrary to popular belief at the time, was going to outperform Moana, and although it obviously hasn't happened yet, nothing I've seen or learned since then has changed my impression, including Zootopia's billion-dollar WW run, of course. So for better or worse, I'll stick with this feeling for now and guess that Moana will most likely underperform against the general (and rather high) expectations of BOT in addition to coming in under Zootopia. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but that's up to the movie itself and how audiences respond after seeing it.

October 12, 2016

8 hours ago, Quigley said:

He was wrong. Nemo's inital run was $528M, a number Dory will surpass

Right, I should have said "currently" or "yet" :blush: --he'll be wrong about that, too, soon enough.

October 11, 2016

On 10/9/2016 at 9:42 AM, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

it opened lower than some of the 2D Disney films and has a lower DOM-gross than some of them.

The second part of the sentence shouldn't be too surprising, given the first, since WDAS movies--even the poorly-performing ones--generally have above-average multipliers, even for animated features. The lowest in what seems like forever would be Chicken Little's multiplier, but even that was around the industry average for successful animated releases. In contrast, IA5's multiplier is definitely low for an animated feature, especially one that opened so small--it's more comparable to decent live-action movies' multipliers.

Your points are valid--I just wanted to add an interesting (to me, anyway) observation/factoid. Over the past couple of decades WDAS movies haven't always performed adequately in terms of total box office gross per production cost, but they've consistently done well relative to their opening weekends--their multipliers are average at worst, almost always above average, and sometimes spectacular. That's in the DOM market, of course, but for example in Japan they've been nothing short of amazing lately, as four out of their last five movies have had multipliers exceeding 15, which even in that market is a streak that defies belief. No, Pixar haven't ever matched that, and I'd have to double-check to be sure, but I've never noticed even Studio Ghibli pulling off such a feat. Crazy! I have to wonder why WDAS movies pretty consistently open well below their potential. There could be any number of reasons for this (easy to name), but which are they exactly (not so easy to determine)? Perhaps a bit of each.

October 11, 2016

10 hours ago, James said:

It still won't match Nemo OS so I wasn't wrong

You weren't wrong about that, but you said:

On 6/26/2016 at 9:19 AM, James said:

Lol, this is has 0% chance of matching Nemo OS. It should be content with 450-480m max. Also, 1B WW is not happening.

$480M max OS--wrong. And $1B WW is not happening--also wrong. That's OK, we all get things wrong--just stop claiming that you weren't in this case. Personally, I thought it would make more than it did (less DOM but much more OS), but I was wrong. See how easy that is?

October 10, 2016

On 10/9/2016 at 0:38 PM, movieboner said:

Pixar needs to hire the marketing team from Illumination, so they can make $1.5 to 2 billion per film worldwide.

Highly doubtful. The general audience just really love Illumination animated features...I would say unconditionally, unlike Pixar movies. This may and probably will change, sooner or later, but that's how things have been.

22 hours ago, NCsoft said:

I think Dory is a great achievement for Pixar for picking a unique angle to tell a story That was not begging to happen.

While I agree that it wasn't begging to happen and Pixar did a good job of it, I think the basic concept of finding out what happened to Dory is a pretty obvious one. For contrast, WDAS will need a hell of a lot more luck trying to find a suitable story concept for Frozen 2. I would be amazed if they could make anything decent of that, and I bet they would be, too. My advice: they should keep putting it off for as long as possible, as they have been, and then maybe Iger's eventual successor could be convinced to let it go. I'm not kidding.

20 hours ago, CoolK said:

Don't forget that zootopia's 1bn was mainly boosted by powerhouse performance in China where it made 250+.. If it were normal blockbuster like 70-80 it would made similar total like IO

On the other hand, scoring so big in certain individual markets, especially since they're foreign, is an impressive achievement in itself, so at the very least it's a wash, in my view. Therefore I simply go with the total instead of excluding specific markets.

5 hours ago, Fullbuster said:

So glad about Dory reaching $1B, Disney rocks

Well, Disney bought the right studios (Pixar in this case, plus Lucasfilm and Marvel, of course), anyway.

October 7, 2016

2 hours ago, cannastop said:

Still, they announced Frozen 2 voice sessions:

http://www.slashfilm.com/frozen-2-production-start/

That was from March, and edroger3 and I touched on it earlier. Kristen was supposed to come in for recording sessions in April, but she was never called in or even sent a script. Then I recall a TV interview with her in July or August in which she said that still nothing had happened yet. Then in September and October there were announcements of the creators working on a smaller Frozen-related project (already mentioned above), in addition to scuttlebutt about the sequel being temporarily delayed, which makes perfect sense, as I had been hearing all along about progress being slow anyway. I suspect they were trying to press ahead too quickly and then thought better of it, but to be clear the latter is speculation on my part.

October 6, 2016

5 hours ago, cannastop said:

How do you know this? Do you have some informant or something?

Well, even if I did, not everyone on the inside knows everything with certainty, so perhaps I should have called it scuttlebutt (in my experience much of it ends up being true, but you do have to "separate the wheat from the chaff"). You can pick up a bunch of scuttlebutt from insiders on websites/blogs/forums such as Cartoon Brew or the TAG Blog, for example:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com

If I know something others here do not, then I must have kept coming back to the same articles and reading more comments from the insiders, and such.

Actually, I do know some insiders, but they're not free to speak on such matters (their own discretion), and I don't press them for information.

October 6, 2016

On 7/28/2016 at 7:14 AM, MrFanaticGuy34 said:

Oh, and before any of you diehard Frozen-fans are saying "Oh, nothing will ever beat Frozen again!" "I don't want any other animated film to top it."

Will and want are two different things, of course, and one thing that I don't want is for a sequel to be at the top.

Quote

.......well, it got to $1.276B due to Japan adding in over $240M over there.

So? Are we talking totals or some far more complex analysis that diminishes the contribution of certain hand-picked markets? That could be done with most any movie to make most any point.

Quote

But i won't count Frozen 2 as one of them.....cause let's be honest......it's from the same franchise. So that doesn't count.

So? Not all sequels gross more, especially when the original is of the specific type of phenomenon that we see here, performed extremely well OS (where most of the gain is usually to be had), and does not in any way demand a sequel (some movies are simply this way--the story is DONE).

On 7/28/2016 at 9:36 AM, Jason said:

If I had to name a film that could be a contender, I'd go with Frozen 2. Earliest possible release for Frozen 2 is November 2019, by which time it's possible that the USD will not be quite as strong as it is now. Even then I expect it will depend on Frozen 2 being the phenomenon in Japan that Frozen was.

Frozen 2 matching the original's gross in Japan is, in my estimation, extremely unlikely for the reasons given above, only even more so in this market.

On 7/29/2016 at 1:44 PM, edroger3 said:

I don't think we will see F2 in next few years. Disney knows well that the wave of first movie isn't coming to an end and tries to milk the cow in every possible way (theme parks, Broadway, cruises, app & videogames). Other, more important, the big licensing partners, mainly Hasbro and Lego, are putting the mouse house under pressure for new partnership, as the sales of Star Wars related items aren't so great as expected overseas and, by now, Frozen is always at the top of the whishlist . So the creative team behind F2 is now involved in other "co-financed" projects and the developement of the cinematic sequel is delayed. The most important of those is "Frozen Northern Lights", a brand new story in partnership with Lego that will be released in late 2016: there will be a tv serie, books and obviously toys. (I remember you that in 2015 the top seller among Lego items was the "Elsa ice Castle" building set). Wel'll see.

You hit the nail on the head here. There are so many other ways to "milk" this franchise that the sequel could be saved for when it's needed, which theoretically would be when the franchise could use a major boost. Until then, as you pointed out, the creative team will be occupied anyway with the Broadway show and other productions that are less involved and difficult to crack than a full-on sequel to a movie that was never intended to have one (the latter opinion is mine). They weren't making great progress anyway, as for example Kristen Bell said she expected to start recording in March, which didn't happen, and then July/August, which also didn't happen--no one has sent her even a draft script so far, and it has been nearly three years since the original movie was released. Then in September, like you I heard that the sequel would be delayed. Delayed from what date and for how long are open questions, but I get the sense that the potential release date has always been an open question itself to everyone. This means that they're not working on the sequel right now, or put it on the "back-burner" at least.

The sequel will happen when it can, and hopefully not before because frankly I don't like what I heard from the creators, who were obviously being pressed not only to make a sequel they never intended, but to replicate the success of the original--they said something to the effect that they think they've finally figured out what people liked so much about the original (they didn't know at first--they were just trying to tell a story), and would give more of that to the audience. That's exactly the wrong way to tell a good story and make a good movie--fully contrived to pander to the target audience. They need more time and "space" and less pressure to get their heads in the right place again--hopefully eventually finding the right ideas will inspire them to do much better than what they said, but like I said, the original doesn't call for a sequel in the slightest, so.... :unsure: Really, it shouldn't be that hard--if coming up with an idea for a sequel can stump the creators for years, then obviously this means that a sequel shouldn't be made, but hey, money talks.

On 7/29/2016 at 1:49 PM, cannastop said:

Right now, WDAS has untitled slots for the Wednesday before Thanksgiving in the years 2019 and 2020. I think Frozen 2 is going to be in one of those slots.

Those could be anything (WDAS themselves don't know)--whatever happens to be the most ready for production at those times, and although Frozen 2 could still make those dates, the creative team are doing other things right now.

On 7/29/2016 at 3:12 PM, cannastop said:

I was disputing your statement that Frozen 2 wasn't going to come out in the next few years. Are you aware that Frozen 2 has already officially been announced?

No release date has ever been announced, progress has been slow, and other things have come up. That's the word from inside the studio, and some of it has made it to the media, as well. And despite Disney's extreme propensity to create franchises and endless sequels (which is finally, sadly gripping WDAS), fortunately there has never been a big rush with Frozen in regard to a sequel.

October 4, 2016

On September 12, 2016 at 0:32 PM, TalismanRing said:

THR isn't what I'd call very positive, it's positive but points out Sing has a problem other Illumination films do - that pesky thing - story

Such a problem would potentially be devastating for the likes of WDAS or Pixar, and most likely the movie's gross would be ordinary, if it doesn't flop. But Illumination? Like water off a duck's back--it doesn't matter a whole lot, if at all. Maybe in the "long-long" run it might, but it has been pretty long so far, and it still hasn't mattered--it's not why people have flocked to their movies since their brand became established.

On September 13, 2016 at 8:53 AM, RedX said:

Is this being marketed well? I haven't seen much

Yeah, I've seen surprisingly little so far, and personally think that the ads offer nothing, but for people in general I believe that they have been very effective. All they have to do is show various animals singing familiar songs, and the box office will get flooded.

On September 13, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Spidey Freak said:

I have a strong feeling Disney will pull the "Sing Along version" card from its sleeve for Moana a little after Sing releases. Sooner than they did it for Frozen.

I can see that happening, although I suppose it will depend on whether the songs catch on enough with the public.

September 10, 2016

34 minutes ago, Murgatroyd said:

That just means that one character thinks he's divine, not that he necessarily is.

I realize that characters and even the narrator at times can be unreliable (e.g. the Unreliable Narrator trope), but in this case a character, who is also kind of the narrator (same actor, I think), is never contradicted at any point. The only one questioning what he says is the protagonist, Judah, who is wrong about a lot of things at that time. Then at the end, Jesus dying on the cross, all the lightning in the sky, and his blood flowing across the land precisely coincide with the miraculous healing of Miriam and Tirzah of their leprosy. Even if the 1959 movie isn't explicit and direct about Jesus' divinity (save for one character's words), the implication here sure still doesn't seem vague to me. And because those words were never contradicted or even left high and dry--in fact, they were supported later on while Judah's doubt was contradicted--perhaps they are to be taken at face value in regard to the movie's message (i.e. the audience learning a lesson through the protagonist's learning).

September 9, 2016

On 8/24/2016 at 3:27 PM, dudalb said:

You could not get away with the "ecumenical" approach the 59 version did with today's Christian audiences .

I'm not sure what you mean. Doesn't "ecumenical" mean something that applies/involves all Christian traditions? What do today's Christian audiences demand from a movie, the perspective of a specific Christian tradition (e.g. Catholicism, Evangelicalism, etc.)? Or do you mean "secular" or "agnostic" instead?

On 8/24/2016 at 3:27 PM, dudalb said:

The 1959 film is very vague on the divinity of Jesus, and very deliberately so.

But doesn't Balthasar at one point literally proclaim that Jesus is the "Son of God"? That doesn't seem very vague to me.

September 9, 2016

On 9/6/2016 at 8:40 PM, cannastop said:

That's going to be in early March, just like Frozen.

If I'm not mistaken (I don't claim to be an expert on the Japan box office), that would trade off some of the benefit of Golden Week for more time with the kiddies (with school being out) and away from the competition. I'm having trouble figuring out which period would be more advantageous overall for foreign animated features. It seems to be a wash, and Frozen doesn't count as an example because it took full advantage of everything in the vicinity. :lol:

Quote

I think that ¥10B is the upper limit on what it will do.

That's usually a safe bet, but I think I'll wait till I've seen Moana myself to decide. I can do this in this thread, you see, because the Japanese themselves prefer to wait for WOM before going to see a movie, and often they even wait till a movie has been released in the rest of the world before deciding how to handle its release in Japan, so really I'm just keeping things thematically consistent here.

On 9/7/2016 at 1:52 PM, Fullbuster said:

You can't rule out Moana becoming a phenomenon there.

Right, but is there any compelling reason yet to believe that it will become one in Japan? I love the concept, but so far I'm not sold on the execution. It's early and I fully realize how bad Disney's advertising can be (especially of WDAS' movies), so I'm not trying to prejudge the movie, but I'm still stuck in a wait-and-see mode with it. In general, setting one's expectations too high can be just as unfair to a movie as anything else can be.

September 9, 2016

2 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Are you skipping over Winnie the Pooh's multiplier in Japan?

Yes, for full disclosure, I always ignore Winnie the Pooh when discussing the box office because that was a low-budget, low-profile project done at the express request of the Consumer Products division. DisneyToon had been slated to take it on, per their usual role, but WDAS, who were looking for work for their remaining 2D animators while decisions were being made on the future of hand-drawn feature animation at Disney, insisted on doing it instead. They took care in making the movie regardless, and in the big picture and in terms of history I consider it one of their "official" releases, but it's still a movie aimed squarely at young children (for the purpose of selling toys), not one of the largely self-determined, big "tent pole" movies aimed at the general audience (all ages) that WDAS normally make. For these reasons, personally I don't see this movie as relevant to box office discussion, so I consistently leave it out entirely, although of course we're all free to decide that for ourselves.

I guess it's sort of like how nobody points out that Disney had a massive animated flop in Strange Magic last year. It had been in production for a long time (by Lucasfilm Animation and ILM), and it looks as though it must have cost a pretty penny to make, but is it really relevant to discussions of Disney's box office track record? It was a personal George Lucas thing and came with the deal for the Star Wars franchise--Disney promised that they would release it, and then they unceremoniously dumped it and wrote it off in January. Should any of us care? Does it tarnish Disney's track record for that year? Not really, in my view--it's just not relevant. Similarly, in my view Winnie the Pooh just isn't relevant in discussing WDAS' box office track record--in this case, the reason is that it's a different kind of movie in terms of audience, budget, and expectations.

By the way, although a lot of people either forget or ignore The Rescuers Down Under from the Disney Renaissance era, I don't because it is one of their major releases. Maybe I wouldn't mention it a lot because success is generally more interesting and memorable, but in terms of box office track record the fact that it flopped was definitely a relevant and even interesting event. Similarly, Wreck-It Ralph's relative lack of OS success is relevant to the current era, in my view. And Moana, too, is the kind of movie that WDAS normally make (obviously), so whatever it does will count, whether positive or negative. I sure hope that one way or another it will continue WDAS' ridiculous track record of 15+ multipliers in Japan, but if it doesn't then oh well, and I would count this.

September 9, 2016

On 9/7/2016 at 9:40 AM, cannastop said:

So Zootopia got to ¥7.6B with a multiplier of over 17 and Finding Dory is going to finish under ¥7B with a multiplier under 10. I don't think many people would have predicted that back in January.

That doesn't surprise me, actually, as previously three out of the last four (and now four out of the last five) WDAS movies have achieved 15+ multipliers in Japan, which I pointed out on several occasions--probably later than January, to be honest, but I was basing this on an existing trend in any case. And it doesn't surprise me that a sequel would decline in Japan, since it's not an uncommon occurrence there. Additionally, a 10 multiplier is right in Pixar's usual range, which isn't bad at all for a sequel (excellent for any movie, really, in the grand scheme of things). That said, I am surprised that Finding Dory didn't open bigger--I had expected a substantially larger opening weekend and a smaller multiplier. I realize that many were using Monsters University as a baseline, but I think that for whatever reasons that movie over-performed.

By the way, any example of a 15+ multiplier is astounding, so WDAS seeming to make it routine lately is even far more astounding. Even without Frozen and its record 33 multiplier, they'd have quite the amazing streak going. I almost feel like predicting that it will happen yet again with Moana even this far ahead! Either the Japanese people keep underestimating how much they're going to like WDAS movies, or the movies benefit from massive amounts of repeat viewership, or maybe a bit of both.

September 9, 2016

6 hours ago, newbie BO buff said:

We drive on the left side ... because our steering wheels are on the RIGHT side

Good, you totally got my point.

September 9, 2016

On August 22, 2016 at 0:12 AM, Fullbuster said:

It's not an animated movie ^^

The Jungle Book has tons of animation, but you're right in the sense that it's meant to appear as a live-action movie, as much as possible, and is not overtly caricatured.

On August 22, 2016 at 5:12 AM, titanic2187 said:

I think Pixar's movie doesn't fare well in china because of cultural factor, the pixar formula never work in china, and not only china, several asian country also display the same condition, just china is too big and hence, get attention

Pixar's movies tend to be more particularly or even specifically American (including Canada) on the average than, say, WDAS movies for comparison. In western countries that share many values and cultural elements with America (especially the UK and Australia), they can get away with that fairly well, but in Asia it's kind of iffy and more variable. For instance, I don't think that most Asian people found the subject matter of Inside Out very interesting or compelling--for them it's kind of weird and questionable to be concerned about stuff like that. Now, Japan is usually an exception for various reasons (some cultural), which is why Pixar movies have generally fared well there, but even they didn't go for Inside Out all that much.

On August 22, 2016 at 7:23 AM, titanic2187 said:

there are still different of style between pixar and WDAS, you've need to search that feeling, feel it, WDAS have frozen, big hero 6 and zootopia keep performing above pixar, meaning that two studio still differentiating themselves in the way many people not having notice it.....

Without getting too deep into this, to me Pixar and WDAS subjectively have noticeably different styles, despite sharing virtually the exact same market as well as many goals in their filmmaking--from their humor to the way they actually tell their stories, they are quite distinct in my perception. And they have always been this way, despite John Lasseter having come out of WDAS to found Pixar (as an animation studio) and then returning to manage both studios. Lasseter himself agrees, albeit I wouldn't put it the way that he does, which is that Pixar is about "What if?" while WDAS is about "Once upon a time"--it's succinct but too vague and inconsistent to have any real meaning.

There is too much to cover here, but as an example for illustration, let's look at how they generally approach the subject of childhood. Pixar usually take a nostalgic perspective on childhood, and frequently (and usually overly obviously) try to tug at our heartstrings even more by portraying the end of childhood as we transition to adulthood--there is a sense of loss combined with nostalgia that gets to many people, which seems to be the intention. On the other hand, WDAS, despite so many of their movies actually taking place during this transition to adulthood for their protagonists, draw no such boundary. The characters learn some hard lessons and grow and mature as people, but fundamentally on the inside they're the same child who has the same dreams, only now they're better equipped to realize their dreams--to paraphrase one WDAS character, they're the same guy but with power! Growing up is not nostalgic and sad in WDAS' view, it's awesome because you can take your dreams with you and with determination, hard work, and the pervasive outlook of your inner child, now you can make them come true, just like Walt Disney himself. Although this is not absolute (what is?), I think it's one difference that informs these studios' respective approaches to storytelling.

On August 22, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Jiffy said:

What do you see as being the key difference that has allowed the Pixar formula to enjoy great success in Japan?

I'm not sure precisely. For that matter, beyond movies, what makes Japan like Disney so much, including their parks, which were embraced warmly by Japan long before WDAS' animated features really caught on?

Quote

In a country famed for its animation industry, Pixar had been the reigning studio for animated imports for years.

And now WDAS have been riding a pretty fantastic hot streak there. I'm just guessing, but I think that part of the reason is that reputation seems to be rather important in Japan, and these two foreign studios have made real names for themselves. Then you have their general love for Disney, into which Pixar, while still distinct from WDAS, can be lumped.

On August 27, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Hades said:

Disney must sick of Illumination always trolling them.

Heh, I think it must be pretty frustrating for Disney that Illumination (part of Universal) can match Pixar and WDAS at the box office at every step so effortlessly. And by the latter, frankly I mean without even trying hard to make good movies. The movie-going public would never be so forgiving of Disney for releasing an animated feature that didn't meet their usual high standards--these studios have to spend well in excess of $100M for each movie and wrack their brains and guts out to make the best movies they possibly can just to have a chance to turn a profit (counting only the box office), while Illumination can flourish while doing so much less (from what I can see).

On September 5, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Fullbuster said:

Americans hate to do like everybody else, that's why they still use miles and gallons instead of meters and litters

While there is some truth in this in the sense that Americans don't strive to be like everyone else, at the same time I don't think we're deliberately trying to be different in this respect. It's just that for mundane, utilitarian things like this, people generally tend to stick with what they know and are accustomed to (as long as it works), and only change when they have to. Countries with less clout are strongly compelled to conform to newer international standards, while an "800-lb gorilla" (that would be about 362.874/362,874 kg) like the US doesn't have to. :lol: People in general are stubborn by default, and in this case Americans specifically can afford to be stubborn--we won't change because you can't make us. Meanwhile, a minority of countries still insist on driving on the left side of the road. Why don't they drive on the right side like everyone else (including the US)?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Blogs

Gallery

Annual Subscriptions

Media Demo

Posts posted by Melvin Frohike

Important Information