Now DO NOT get me wrong; I am ETERNALLY GRATEFUL this film was the old-school Disney style. Even if, pathetically enough, the folks from Pixar (particularly J. Lasseter himself), MAY very well have created this film simply in an attempt to "shut [us] stupid idiots up about [our] precious 2D artform", according to a user named zakima on the now deleted "Tangled" thread "Goodbye, Disney..." from 2013.
I've responded to your conspiracy nonsense before, but I can assure you that John Lasseter is not a Bond villain out to destroy 2D animation.
But, c'mon; how did this lose to "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel"? I'm actually in the supreme minority that the Chipmunks aren't completely despicable, but if you guys hate them so much, why did they outgross "The Princess and the Frog"? Do y'all really hate this film even more than "Alvin"? Again, I like both Frog Princess and Chipmunks, but the "Squeakquel" was a weak point in the ongoing series, and this film is still better than the original '07 "Alvin and the Chipmunks" and even the '11 threequel, "Chipwrecked".
I'm assuming you mean total box office as they didn't open against each other. Either way, I don't have an answer for this. If you like them, that's fine, but I personally find the Chipmunks films to be complete and utter idiocy. Really though, Avatar is generally considered the big culprit in holding PatF's numbers down.
And don't even get me started on "Frozen"!!!! That once-tolerable, NOW-GODAWFULLY OVERRATED AS FÜCK FILM was never meant to be a success; not since LASSETER shifted artforms, and retitled it to channel the relative success of "Tangled"... Grrr!!!
I've never understood the idea of hating a film simply because it's popular. While the film obviously exceeded expectations at the box office, I'm still sure Disney wants all their films to be successful. As for it's renaming from The Snow Queen, it's kind of stupid, but really the film was barely based on that story anyways.
I also made a post indirectly to Lasseter on his IMDb entry's message board, "MURDERER! FÜCK YOU!" about him spitting on Walt Disney's grave and killing Walt's hard work and efforts! At least Michael Eisner had SOME respect for Walt and his artform (hence he kept it alive with DisneyToon, before Lasseter came along and killed it off for good - or at LEAST until the fatzo realizes his sin and changes his fiendish ways)!
Once again, Lasseter is not a diabolical villain or anything like that. If anything, Eisner was more of a villain for his money first approach that often hurt the quality of Disney's films, shows, and theme parks. As for DisneyToon, I'm assuming you're making mention of the sequels they made and to that I say good riddance.
But verdict: DOES how a film's animated REALLY determine its success or lack thereof???
Well after all that, we finally get to the main question. Honestly, I really don't know the answer to this. I think bad release timing led to TPatF and Winnie the Pooh's box office numbers more than anything. I do believe that Frozen would have been just as popular if it had been kept 2D like it was originally planned. But nobody is taking a chance on mainstream 2D animated films right now so who knows. I'd like to believe that if something 2D came out and it was well written and well marketed, it could still do very well.
"Unless you're an alien, time traveler, or esper, your opinion doesn't matter."
reply
share
idonnowho
9 years ago
Eh tu, Mizz Bianca (and not the prissy yet sweet white mouse)? Yes, as a matter of fact I was talking about DisneyToons sequels! While they may not have been written the best, and many weren't even shown in theaters pathetically enough, I for one at LEAST appreciate them as a way of seeing 2D ANIMATED FEATURES, while there was a lull production of them in theaters! Even Walt himself who supposedly didn't like sequels would at least be glad to see his company SOMEHOW keeping HIS signature artform alive unlike Johnny L and his motley Pixar crew... >:/
PS I've heard Disneytoon would've made some original 2d films such as The Velveteen Rabbit before Fat Old Foureyes effectively murdered them (though he still greenlit the spinoff Planes pathetically enough...)
reply
share
TutuAnimationPrincess
9 years ago
What Walt cared about most was making animated films that could be artistic, respected the audience, and entertain people of all ages. Some might disagree, but the DisneyToon sequels don't really fit that bill. They feature below average animation a lot of the time, cater to low denominators, and don't seem to entertain a lot of people. The films that have recently come from Disney Animation Studios and Pixar do seem to do all those things for the most part. I know there's an argument about the artistry of CG, which can appear limited, but I seem much potential still. A film like Tangled for instance proved just how beautiful a CG film could be.
To break away from Disney for a sec, though, I would like to say I dislike the whold 2D vs 3D animation wars. As an animation lover, I believe the best solution always is to support as much animation as you can. Sure, the big American companies aren't doing 2D films often, if at all. But there is so much more out there. There are traditionally made animated films being made in America on the independent scene should you go look for them. And the foreign market, most notably France and Japan, have continued to put out beautiful and artistic films in various 2D styles.
Sorry for a bit of a rant, but I can be passionate on this subject. On a final note, once again, John Lasseter is not some sort of Bond villain sitting on a golden throne stroking his fat cat. He may be in charge of the animation studios but he can only do so much. The people have to show they want 2D Disney back and the Disney company as a whole then has to acknowledge that.
Edit: I'm no longer Bianca as my true identity has been revealed!
Edit2: I've changed my username again, I think I've got it perfect now!
"Unless you're an alien, time traveler, or esper, your opinion doesn't matter."
reply
share
racy1285
9 years ago
At least Michael Eisner had SOME respect for Walt and his artform (hence he kept it alive with DisneyToon, before Lasseter came along and killed it off for good - or at LEAST until the fatzo realizes his sin and changes his fiendish ways)!
LOL Michael Eisner was going to kill Hand Drawn Animation as well. In fact he shut down the Disney Animation Studio in Orlando Floria just to get ready for it and The Studio in Burbank was next until he was forced out by Roy Disney. Thats how much respect he had for Walt Disney. You seem to have a short memory. Since I remember a film while Michael Eisner was still running Disney called
Chicken Little. Say what you will about
Tangled or
Frozen. They are the best films ever made when you compare them to
Chicken Little. Thats the future Disney Animation would have had under Michael Eisner. Films like
Chicken Little and all of them CG animation films btw. In fact it was the negative reaction towards
Chicken Little that convinced Roy Disney to take a stand against Michael Eisner in the first place. Which led to him being replaced by Bob Iger. So the next time you praise him do some research and learn some facts first.
Eh tu, Mizz Bianca (and not the prissy yet sweet white mouse)? Yes, as a matter of fact I was talking about DisneyToons sequels! While they may not have been written the best, and many weren't even shown in theaters pathetically enough, I for one at LEAST appreciate them as a way of seeing 2D ANIMATED FEATURES, while there was a lull production of them in theaters! Even Walt himself who supposedly didn't like sequels would at least be glad to see his company SOMEHOW keeping HIS signature artform alive unlike Johnny L and his motley Pixar crew... >:/
Those films were garbage. They were a cheap and no effort was made to make good films at all. They were there to make money simple as that.
The best example I can come up with for those films. Is that the Disney people took a crap and wrapped that crap in the skin of their great films and then sold it to their loyal fans. Thats exactly what those films are. I don't care if your Hand Drawn Animation or CG Animation at least put up the effort to make good films. I can't thank Johnn Lassetter enough for getting rid of those films.
If you think Walt would be glad to see those films then you are so wrong. Anybody who has read about Walt Disney knows that he was a perfectionist. When he felt that one of his films was not the same quality of work as his best films. It made him depressed. He also put his company near bankruptcy many times just so his Animated films were top quality every time. The Disneytoon Sequels are the exact opposite of that philosophy.
Also one more thing. It was also the Disneytoon Sequels that really killed hand drawn animation at Disney. Thanks to them the audience got sick of them and the fact that the quality was so low in each of them. People no longer saw the Disney Animated Films as must see. They over saturated the market and ruined the reputation of the Disney Animated films. So again I'm glad they are gone.
reply
share
racy1285
9 years ago
I'm assuming you mean total box office as they didn't open against each other. Either way, I don't have an answer for this. If you like them, that's fine, but I personally find the Chipmunks films to be complete and utter idiocy. Really though, Avatar is generally considered the big culprit in holding PatF's numbers down.
How did Avatar hold PATF's numbers down? They don't even attract the same audience. Avatar is a scifi action adventure film. While PATF is a Disney Princess film. The majority of the people that was watching Avatar was never going to watch a Disney Princess film to begin with and the same goes for the majority of the people who watch Disney Princess films. That makes no sense.
idonnowho is right. Alvin and the Chipmunks was the film that hammered Princess and the Frog. They have the same exact audience. The people that should have been going to see PATF that "month" was watching Alvin and the Chipmunks instead. Just look at the numbers. Alvin made $443 million at the boxoffice (nearly double what PATF made) and they performed that well even though the film was released 4 days after Avatar. So clearly Avatar had no effect on Alvins boxoffice performance.
reply
share
TutuAnimationPrincess
9 years ago
I'm not an expert on the box office nor do I really care. Either way, people went and saw Avatar or a bad Chipmunks movie instead of PatF. Which ever was more responsible is irrelevant.
"Unless you're an alien, time traveler, or esper, your opinion doesn't matter."
reply
share
racy1285
9 years ago
I'm not an expert on the box office nor do I really care. Either way, people went and saw Avatar or a bad Chipmunks movie instead of PatF. Which ever was more responsible is irrelevant.
Well then why you brought it up if its irrelevant to you? I'm just stating the facts here. Because people here always say something thats no where close to the truth and it annoys me quite frankly. Thats the point of my comment. I just want to state the facts. You said Avatar was the reason PATF didn't do so well. Looking at the facts, I had to disagree with your comment. No need to get offended by it.
reply
share
TutuAnimationPrincess
9 years ago
I was in no way offended, sorry if I came off that way. As for bringing up Avatar, I was going by things I had heard. To be honest, I care so little for those Chipmunks films that I really didn't know it had made so much money. The other points I've made in regards to the original topic are more important anyways than me trying to get into the minds of the paying public.
"Unless you're an alien, time traveler, or esper, your opinion doesn't matter."
reply
share