Top Dog

Frozen has officially claimed the record for biggest opening of a Walt Disney Animation Studios film…

Beating out previous record-holder Wreck-It Ralph ($49 million), the new film from the Burbank studios has taken in an estimated $66 million (!) over the weekend. Since the film opened on Wednesday, it's now sitting at a huge $93 million, beating out the Thanksgiving opener record held for 14 years by Toy Story 2 ($80 million).

Boy… Walt Disney Animation Studios must be super happy. Again, that's what happens when you emphasize on what your movie is really about when marketing it. The final trailer and the constant plugging of the soundtrack did the trick, because many were certain that this film was going to underperform on opening weekend at best. (Boxoffice.com had predicted $38 million!) The teaser and the trailer upset many animation fans and many had already made up their minds about the film… Until that Elsa-centric trailer!

That weekend gross, though…

For a while, very few animated films released after 2010 - other than Pixar's - seemed to gross over $50 million on opening weekend. DreamWorks scored one film that did so in 2012, but that was a sequel - Madagascar 3 ($60 million). Illumination's The Lorax inexplicably opened with $70 million earlier that year, Despicable Me 2 inevitably opened with $83 million. Anything else besides the three previous Pixar films? Nope. Pixar earns their $60 million weekends given their history of great films, and thus they have a built-in adult audience that shows up on opening weekend.

Since Frozen was sold - albeit very late in the game - as a heartfelt and humorous musical fairy tale Disney classic, it got the audiences, the fans and adults into the theater. Now, Disney marketing, I beg you… Please dedicate the same amount of care and effort into the marketing campaigns for all future Walt Disney Animation Studios films. Treat all the future films, that includes the non-fairy tale/musical films, as events. Big Hero 6 is an event, Zootopia is an event, Giants is an event, Moana is an event. Your previous six films are events, regardless of how they did at the box office. A Walt Disney Animation Studios film is an event!

It is high time that Walt Disney Animation Studios films regularly open with more than $50 million at the domestic box office. (Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph all had the potential to do so.) Why's that? Because Walt Disney Animation Studios films are, once again, events. Treat them all as such, even the previous string of films. Audiences need to see these films!

Frozen Frenzy

Frozen is most likely going to score the biggest opening weekend gross for a Disney animated film, beating out the previous record-holder held by last year's Wreck-It Ralph (which took in a solid $49 million) while also possibly being one of the rare non-Pixar films to cross the $250 million mark at the domestic box office. That's what good marketing does for you!

On Wednesday, it took in a very good $15 million, which is higher than Tangled's $11 million first day gross. Already great, then on Thursday, it took in $11 million. Also good… Yesterday, however…

$26 million…

You read that right… $26 million on Friday alone. I heard reports of the movie selling out all over the country, of all things! It's in second place behind The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which didn't outgross it by much! $26 million… That beat out the likes of Brave and Cars 2, both of which opened with $66 million domestically. It also outdid several other recent animated films, and it legitimately has a shot at grossing over $70 million this weekend. Maybe even a lot more since it's the holiday season! There is talk of it topping the Thanksgiving 5-day record held by Toy Story 2 ($80 million), and possibly making more than $90 million by Sunday… It's very doable!

See Disney, that's what happens you advertise a film the way it should be advertised. That final trailer must've done the trick, while the more pandering marketing (meaning, everything up until the third "Elsa" trailer came out) helped a little bit. Now please, market all of your future films correctly, please walk away with a valuable lesson from this film's success! (And no, not an "audiences only want 90s-style Disney fairy tales!" lesson, more like a "we need to make movies look good to the audiences!" lesson.)

Now if only The Princess and the Frog was that successful… Tangled would've opened with this much had the marketing not made it look like a Shrek-era DreamWorks film… But, that's what crappy marketing does to your films, it limits them from doing better. If Disney were smart, they'd market their future Disney animated films the way they marketed Frozen. They need to fully convince their audiences that Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Giants and Moana are events, not throwaway animation hit-of-the-week films. Films worth seeing over and over in theaters! I know they can do it, the question is… Will they? That's another story...

Disney Slate Update: Alice Returns, Jon Favreau Hits the Jungle

Disney is slowly but surely beginning to fill 2016 up with definite releases. For a while, 2016 only had three films: Two Walt Disney Animation Studios films (in reality, those two currently "untitled" films are Zootopia and Giants) and a Pixar film (formerly something untitled, now Finding Dory) - now it has a big live action tentpole release. Not the first Star Wars spin-off, not one of Marvel's untitled movies, not the delayed fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film...

Alice in Wonderland 2…

When is it coming out? May 27, 2016.

For a while, I've been predicting that the long overdue sequel to the 2010 Tim Burton box office smash would be a summer release in 2016 since that's the earliest it can open at this rate. Well, it's now moving forward after talk of a new director (The Muppets and Muppets Most Wanted director James Bobin) and a few other things. But one thing is definitely certain, it is not going to repeat the success of the first one - well, domestically at least.

Alice in Wonderland, as many have pointed out, happened to open at the best possible time. Avatar kickstarted a brief 3D craze, the marketing for the film was excellent and everybody and their brother wanted to see it hence that huge $116 million opening weekend gross. But the legs, despite the movie having pretty much the whole month to itself, weren't anything spectacular because the movie… Well… Wasn't all that good.

Anyways, it's sure to do very well overseas given how huge the first one was plus Johnny Depp and Mia Wasakowski are of course returning. I have no real interest in it, and if anything, I'd be happy if Disney took its Memorial Day weekend release date and gave it to Finding Dory instead, because that's currently set to open against How To Train Your Dragon 3, and Fox most likely won't move that DreamWorks sequel. After all, they are in something of a match with the Mouse House. (The Fantastic Four fiasco, putting films out on the same days as Disney's…)

The other new addition to their slate is Jon Favreau's live action take on The Jungle Book, which I have very little excitement for. I like Favreau and I think he'll make a pretty good film (as long as the script is alright, we don't want another Cowboys & Aliens), but I'm tired of Disney's dependence on live action re-imaginings of classic stories that they already adapted into animated features (see Maleficent and the 2015 Cinderella), which is why I'm hoping Brad Bird's Tomorrowland is not only good, but blows all of those films out of the water at the box office.

Disney is jettisoning original live action films and live action films based on riskier properties because of how poorly John Carter and The Lone Ranger did at the box office, though they'll never take the blame for the failures. It must be the movies, right? Right? Yeah yeah, you've heard it from me many times on here, but damn it I'm a broken record - bad marketing and corporate negligence killed those two films! That annoys me greatly, and it annoys me that Disney is holding potentially cool live action fare like The Stuff of Legend, the third TRON, Terra Incognita and Matched at bay, favoring the safest options possible. Oh… And remakes of other films, too. Do we really need remakes of classic live action Disney fare like Flight of the Navigator and Pete's Dragon?

Walt didn't start making live action films for nothing, he took big risks with live action from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to Mary Poppins. Now the studio just wants to rehash what worked in the past, while Marvel continues to expand on a huge connected franchise and Lucasfilm will continue making Star Wars films… Tomorrowland better be a huge hit because we need some fresh, new stuff in the mix. Live-action Disney can't just be about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Star Wars and re-imagings/remakes…

The film could be good, and I hope it will be, because Walt's film is a very loose adaptation of Rudyard Kipling's stories and this is one that could be redone and fleshed out. Disney already tackled the books in a proper manner with a live action film in 1994, but Favreau could make something interesting. But still, I'm just not feeling it. I guess if Disney's game plan wasn't "remake our animated classics to go with the dark, gritty, updated fairy tale/classic story trend", I wouldn't mind its existence so much. Alice in Wonderland was one thing, and give them credit, it is a visually cool re-imagining… But it's Hollywood, of course they're going to milk that dry. I'd rather have something like Alice in Wonderland once in a blue moon, but no… Maleficent, Cinderella, an Oz sequel, a Cruella de Vil origin story (*cringe*). Bo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ring!

The film is set to open on October 9, 2015… A very interesting choice of release date for many reasons…

When's the last time Disney released a big budget tentpole movie in October? When do studios ever release big budget blockbusters in October?

If anything, the success of Gravity might've motivated them to place a film in the early October spot. The month will slowly but surely become a blockbuster month… All the months will be in due time. It's well-spaced out from The Good Dinosaur, which opens at the end of November that year and it's far enough away from Marvel's Ant-Man. Between July 31 and October 9, Disney will probably throw a few small-scale films out into theaters along with that IMAX space film that they announced for a 2015 release.

So now their 2015 slate should look like this…

Small-Scale Film - January/February
Cinderella - March 13th
Disneynature Film - April
The Avengers: Age of Ultron - May 1st
Tomorrowland - May 22nd
Inside Out - June 19th
Ant-Man - July 31st
Planes 3 - August (it's more or less confirmed, sorry folks)
Small-Scale Film - August
IMAX Space Film - September
The Jungle Book - October 9th
Small-Scale Film - October/November
The Good Dinosaur - November 25th
Star Wars: Episode VII - December 18th

The Mouse House will practically destroy every calendar in the future if they go by this template…

Now with another 2016 release being officially announced, when will we get more? Let's leave Marvel out, since Kevin Feige said that we won't get anymore big Phase 3 information until next spring. When will Disney outright say that Zootopia is in fact Walt Disney Animation Studios' March 4, 2016 release? When will Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales get a release date? When will Lucasfilm announce what the first Star Wars spin-off/origin (most likely Han Solo) film will be and when it'll hit theaters?

Ahhh, the waiting game...

The Event

To the people at Disney marketing... I have one thing to say...

Now that's how you do a trailer!



That all being said, I'm not watching it again for fear of any potentially spoilerific shots. Despite my criticisms of Disney's marketing department, I have to hand it to them... I was in awe during this trailer, because it got a lot of things right and it made the film look exciting. I'd say it's their best (spoiler stuff aside) trailer since Brave's final theatrical trailer; if we exclude spoilery stuff, the best one in a while.

It featured at least one song, and it dominates the last half of the trailer. That was truly great. There was even text saying "The music"!

The trailer also said "Experience the greatest Disney animated event since The Lion King"... Okay, I'm glad they said animated event, because every film of theirs as of late is an animated event, but the whole Lion King thing is all subjective of course. But it's a good way to entice audiences to see it since The Lion King is often named the best Disney animated film by many.

The mix was mostly even, but I'm just happy to see a trailer where the story was the main focus and not the gags. Disney marketing may realize that this routine won't work this time around given how a lot of family-friendly animated comedies just didn't do so well at the box office this year, so it was great to see them differentiate this film from the rest. Now if only this was done for trailers as far back as 2008, when Bolt was coming out. Hopefully they keep it up for their future films, now that the studio is financially successful again and the next slate of films delivers a boatload of promise.

Given their expertise with viral marketing, this trailer shows that Disney's marketing department people do have the ability to cut very good, effective trailers.

So yes... Watch it!

Zero Identity

Earlier this year, I talked about how Disney's animated output doesn't have that "event status" anymore and what they could do to bring it back...

This year, Disney's very questionable marketing department proved how inept they can be with the studio's upcoming Frozen. Aside from a cute throwaway teaser that obviously wasn't meant to really hype it up, the marketing team hasn't given this film or Disney's own animated output much of an identity. They had the perfect opportunity to do so with this film, with the success of Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph behind them, but they blew it.

Frozen's sole theatrical trailer (if another one comes, it'll be nice, but...) makes the film look like - as many have said - "Tangled on Ice" or better yet, every other animated film that's playing or opening soon. I'm more than tired of the new approach to marketing animated films, where the focus is on the comedy. Yes, I know, adults seem to only embrace "warm" and "funny" animation... But we need to find ways to make them embrace animation in general. Some films coming out in 2015 look to do that, that is if they are marketed correctly!

But that's not the point, the point is, Disney needs to market Walt Disney Animation Studios film as... Well... Walt Disney Animation Studios films. The attempt to break any studio confusion with the "From the creators of Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph" headings is not going to help. They need to create a new identity now that everyone else has excelled in the family-friendly animation market.

Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph certainly didn't feel Disney-esque from the marketing, the former's campaign was way too cynical and Shrek-like while the other relied on the video game jokes and the comedy in general, rather than immersing us in Ralph's story or the different video game worlds. Nope, "Hero's Doody" is what sells, not Ralph's dissatisfaction or the worlds he discovers on his journey.

Secondly, stop with this "Disney" branding. Disney is a corporation, yes, and it's okay to put just "Disney" on a box for a toy or some kind of consumer product, but... When presenting films, why in the world did you have to get rid of Walt Disney Pictures Presents? The last I saw of the name in print was on the posters for The Princess and the Frog, and as far as home video covers go, the Blu-ray and DVD of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs were the last to say "Walt Disney". (This was the end of that phase where Disney removed the 's from Walt Disney's on their video covers of the Walt films.)

Then in 2011, they got rid of the "Walt" and "Pictures" in the film logo itself. Everything from The Muppets and onwards opens with a logo that just says "Disney". Sorry, no defense there. It just seems so bland and corporate... Walt Disney Pictures has such a cinematic feel to it, take that away and you're left with something so... Shallow. I know Disney is a corporation, but I want to separate that fact from when I watch one of their films. I don't know, Walt Disney Pictures just complete it for me. Not only in the films, but on the posters and video covers.

But the biggest thing that is preventing Walt Disney Animation Studios from having an identity outside of their films is the suits' paranoia over young boys. You know how much I hate their fear of what young boys want to see in theaters.

Disney brass... Boys aren't your target demographic! Kids aren't your target demographic!

Who is your target demographic?

EVERYONE.

Play to everyone, families, kids, adults, moviegoers... You'll get a big success on your hands, it's not freakin' rocket science! By trying too hard to appeal to boys, you alienate the adults who will make your films more successful than they are. You also come off as sexist, and you also make young girls feel left out. What is this? A boys-only treehouse? This is Disney, something everyone deserves to experience.

Also, if you treat Disney animation as a treehouse for boys that doesn't allow girls... Then you're limiting your audience. Teens and adults don't want to go into a boys treehouse, because that's kids' stuff. Is Disney animation kids' stuff? No. Need I remind the suits about beloved films like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast??? Good thing those weren't made today, they probably would've done decent business at best.

This obsession with pleasing one minor chunk of their audience all stems from The Princess and the Frog. Disney's newly-hired staff came on board when that film was released, and those "geniuses" failed to realize that Frog's campaign was lame (Even I thought it looked terrible back then!) and that the film had other pre-release baggage. But in corporation fashion, the suits and marketing are never wrong... It's obviously the fault of the film, or the title. *proceeds to bang head against the wall*

Now I will be seeing the film, and all future Walt Disney Animation Studios films, because I'm a fan of Disney and I'm not a casual moviegoer. I'm an animation aficionado and a Disney nutcase. Is a lot of America like me or other animation fans? No.

Frozen's campaign has only lead to extreme skepticism. Many are doubting that this film can be good or anything decent, and a lot of people are up in arms over the character designs thanks to what a lead animators stated recently, people are angry about the revisions to the original tale (hello, Disney does this!) and people are also mad because it seems too much like Tangled. See Disney, you probably lost a good chunk of potential moviegoers. Even some animation fans aren't willing to see it, and this campaign probably is the reason. People go by marketing, not what they imagine about the film. It's a yay or nay decision when it comes to viewing the trailer in theaters, and it determines the opening weekend at the box office - and if your opening weekend gross isn't up to snuff, then you're deemed dead on arrival.

I fear that if Frozen does not meet expectations (I still think it's going to do well, since Tangled's awful marketing campaign still worked to some degree - but if that film had better marketing, it probably would've opened with a lot more than $60 million), then Disney will make another dumb assumption like "People don't like fairy tales" or "Fairy tales are old-fashioned". Disney was convinced that Tangled wouldn't do well based on how Princess and the Frog performed, and they were quick to say "no more fairy tales". I can only thank goodness that Wreck-It Ralph was not only profitable, but a hit that audiences really liked. Imagine if that didn't do well? *shudder*

Luckily, Disney has Giants coming. Not saying Frozen will underperform, but if it does, then that 2016 release would be a sort of test to see if audiences reject fairy tales or not. If anything, Disney should be asking, "What can we do to make audiences care about Anna and Elsa? We don't want this to go over badly" not "Do audiences like fairy tales anymore?" Why don't they consider how Disney anything would go over in the 1990s? Audiences had no hesitation showing up for The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, because both looked great and people were rediscovering Disney - something they had missed. Audiences also didn't hesitate to see the Arabian Nights-flavored Aladdin or the all-animal Shakespearian The Lion King. Even Disney was a bit worried about that one at the time, but look! People flocked to see! It's one of Disney's most popular films!

Why? Because it looked great. Make it look great, and when people realize how good the movie is, the word of mouth spreads and BOOM! Success! The marketing seemed to forget that when they compiled the trailers and designed the posters for Tangled and Frozen. I'd say Wreck-It Ralph is their only success, but barely, because the second trailer wallows in animated trailer formula a little too much. If anything, Disney's marketing department succeeds in the viral department. Now they are great there!

I absolutely loved Toy Story 3's viral campaign, which played directly to college-aged folk and teenagers so that the trailers and TV spots did not have to. (For the record, Toy Story 3's final domestic trailer was bad.) It also had quirky little things, like the 80s-styled Lots-O-Huggin' Bear ad, the Japanese Lotso ad and other things. Wreck-It Ralph's campaign had those super cool advertisements for Litwak's, arcade flyers and some cute fun stuff like the Fix-It Felix hammer advertisement. Now that's smart viral marketing.

But the sad thing is, they excel at this but not at doing the real marketing: The trailers, the posters and the TV spots. Maybe Disney needs a top wing of people that'll handle that stuff, and let the current marketing people do the viral stuff. That would be great, but will Disney do this? Probably not.

If this happened, then they could approach the films the way the 90s marketing team approached films like Beauty and the Beast. Look at these posters...

The first poster is appealing to adults. It makes the film look like a grand event, something they should go see - regardless of whether they have children or not. I've read about how Beauty and the Beast was promoted as a "date film", well I can believe that because Disney did do this for some re-releases at the time (late 1980s), such as Sleeping Beauty. That re-release did pretty well! Give the adults a reason to go by themselves and see it, they'll go see it!

Now the second poster is definitely kiddie. Its color scheme is very bright and saturated, it's definitely nothing like the film's color scheme! Everyone's all happy and chipper, there's heavy emphasis on the comic relief and side characters. Where's the Beast? Oh he's brooding in the clouds, but that's in the far background.


Now look at that! Now this is not a perfect trailer by any means, but it at least gives you a good idea of what the story is, the editing isn't slip-shod, they make room for both comedy and the other aspects (points off for showing the mob trying to get into the castle), plus it pleases both adults and kids. It makes the film look good to both. Oh, and it has *gasp* SONGS! Yes, that's right! This film has songs in it! Oh yeah that's right, it's a Disney movie. Tangled and Frozen's marketing went to great lengths to hide the musical numbers, with the exception of this year's D23, since the people running D23 know that the fans are present.

Also, notice anything else?

Disney's 30th full-length animated motion picture? The canon numbers don't matter anymore, do they? When Tangled came out, Walt Disney Animation Studios put out this awesome "50 Classics" montage... Why wasn't that in the trailers? Or a teaser?

Dozens of all new Disney characters? Disney characters in the 1990s were treated as one big family, and Disney would act as if new faces like Belle, Beast, Aladdin, Jasmine, Simba, etc. were new to the Disney family. "The Disney family grew even larger with new friends like Ariel, Flounder and Scuttle..." said announcer Mark Eliot on the Beauty and the Beast behind-the-scenes first look from mid-1991. (This appears on the 1991 VHS of The Jungle Book.)

Featuring 6 new songs from the composers and lyricists of The Little Mermaid? Yes, remember when songs mattered? Not to mention the people who crafted the songs?

What happened to announcers? Now we get quick text saying quick things. "She's Been Grounded... Like... Forever!" Jokes dominate, the story takes a backseat to pretty much everything and... Ugh...

These things that gave Disney an identity are gone, it's time for them to come back. It's time for Disney marketing to give Disney animation its own identity - in turn, they'll entice many fans, adults and other people to see their films in droves.

Sequences

Full scenes in animated films as trailers? Yes, this is something that I believe should be done with more animated films...

A little history here...

In 1993, Walt Disney Feature Animation didn't have something ready for release for the movie theaters all around the world. Their King of the Jungle project, retitled The Lion King at this point, had run into major league story problems. As a result, they couldn't have it ready by its planned Thanksgiving 1993 release date. Disney animated films were now an annual holiday season event after the success of Oliver & Company in 1988 and they'd have one film ready every autumn... But The Lion King would break that trend and soon Disney animated films were big summer events.

Disney went about marketing this film in a very unique way... A trailer for the film wasn't even a trailer per se. In fact, it was the entire opening sequence of the film! Audiences saw "Circle of Life" unravel before them in the theaters. It certainly drummed up anticipation! Pocahontas' early trailer that debuted with the sorta-kinda re-release of The Lion King in fall 1994 was the full "Colors of the Wind" sequence.

Rarely do studios do this, and after the mid-1990s, it wasn't much of a thing anymore. Disney did this one more time in 1999 for Dinosaur, as the trailer attached to Toy Story 2 had that incredible opening sequence and then in 2001, Fox made a brilliant decision by showing moviegoers the first couple of minutes of Ice Age before the film hit theaters. That hilarious sequence with Scrat immediately got audiences to think, "Gotta see that!"

Some 11 years later, Disney pulled a Lion King on us when marketing Pixar's Brave last spring. A slightly shorter version of the archery tournament sequence was unspooled in early 2012 and boy did it amaze! Now I really wish that this was sort of a common once-in-a-while thing for Disney and Pixar, and maybe even DreamWorks.

To be honest, I'd like to see a first act sequence instead of a frenetic, messy trailer for Frozen or something from Pixar like The Good Dinosaur. Sequences that don't give away way too much (one of my biggest problems with Pixar's trailers), and ones that I'd actually take the time to watch over and over. It's just a great way to hype up your film and show audiences why they should see it, rather than pelting them with quick cuts of scenes and barrage of jokes and action scenes. That's what trailers for other animated films are supposed to do.

Earlier this year, I had suggested that Disney should make trailers that make it very clear who made the film since their upcoming films are computer animated. Frozen's teaser begins with "From the creators of Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph", which is sort of a good start... But what happened to the trailers for Disney films that would show montages of the classics? Remember when the numbers were a big deal? Disney's 30th full-length animated motion picture event! Remember that lovely montage that was released on YouTube by Walt Disney Animation Studios when Tangled came out? That montage that showed all 50 of the classics? Why wasn't that part of a trailer for Tangled?

But all of that aside, Disney and Pixar (to some extent) would really differentiate their work from the rest with some trailers that had sequences. DreamWorks could do it too, given the quality of their films nowadays. How To Train Your Dragon 2's teaser might be a scene from the actual film, and if it is, bravo to DreamWorks and Fox. I think a sequence, a well-picked one, would really gear audiences up. It would make the film feel like an event, and that's what Disney Animation films need these days... That "event status". These films aren't "hits of the week", they are something more and the marketing needs to accentuate that...

Spoiled

If there's one thing I've been noticing about Disney's marketing for Pixar's films lately, it's that they reveal a lot of things... Too many things. Spoilers that help someone piece the whole plot together, or spoilers that give away something that you would not have expected... Let's dive in, shall we?

Just to get one thing out of the way, I won't discuss the Japanese trailers for Pixar films because we all know they spoil a lot. Remember on Twitter when Pixar animators immediately warned people not to watch the Japanese Monsters University trailer? Well they were right, because it does in fact spoil the entire film. I'll be focusing on the domestic and European trailers for these films.

First off, one could say that Toy Story 3's marketing made it obvious that Lotso was essentially a deceptive Stinky Pete-esque villain, though most of the marketing didn't really show too much of him when he truly showed how evil he was (i.e. having Buzz reprogrammed). It just didn't help that he was a big and elderly teddy bear with a cane. But from the final domestic trailer, you got the sense that leaving the daycare wasn't going to be easy for the toys... Remember the shot of Lotso saying "You've got a playdate with destiny!"

But the great thing about Toy Story 3's American and European trailers was that they didn't show how truly evil Lotso was, you just knew he was going to be the big villain... But in what way was the question! This is what made the shocking revelation that precedes the incinerator sequence such a shock, because you might've thought for a moment that he possibly had a change of heart.

The problems slowly began with the marketing for Cars 2. An international trailer revealed that Francesco Bernoulli beats Lightning McQueen in the first race and the second race. Gee, talk about good trailer editing... Why in the world would you spoil the outcome of two of the three races in the film? Then again, one could argue that the racing was irrelevant since the main story was the spy plot, but still! McQueen losing the Tokyo race is what drives Mater to leave and get wrapped up in the spy hi-jinks. The American trailers, luckily, didn't spoil too much. Regardless of the quality of the film itself, it's still kind of dumb to spoil key moments.



Beyond the trailers, a promo for the film that coincided with Prince William's wedding (since the Cars world equivalents of the Queen herself and the Prince are in the film) pretty much gave away the ending, along with the character images for the two. Mater gets knighted, though one could assume that it wasn't Mater who was getting knighted... But still, someone gets knighted! Yes we know the day was going to be saved in the end, but did you really have to show the hero getting their particular reward?

But that's not a problem if you don't dive into the non-trailer marketing, which I currently don't do. However, I want to avoid all trailers (except the teasers) for Pixar films. Here's where the problems get bigger...

Things really kicked into high gear with Brave's marketing...

It's a shame, because the first teaser was excellent. One of the only Pixar teasers that I'd call good, because Pixar teasers are probably meant to be mediocre. They have a joke, but they only function to get audiences that don't normally care about animation as an art form to go see their film. Remember, most audiences want comedy and "warm fuzzies" (as Disney blogger Jim Miles put it) in their animated film trailers. Drama and heavier parts? Not so much... And then people wonder why Frozen's teaser turned out to be a little comedic sequence. But this isn't a rant about American trailers focusing on comedy... What was wrong with the subsequent trailers and promos for this film?

Brave's first official trailer showed the sequence where Merida's triplet brothers are bear cubs scaring Maudie. There's also a dark split-second shot of Elinor as a bear, running. Luckily that shot goes by quick... Unless you're the type that analyzes trailers frame-by-frame. So one could deduce that the twins become bears, and there's also the shot of a brewing cauldron... It totally implies that at least someone is magically turned into a bear. Or bears.

However, the final trailer spoils the film's major twist with a mere couple of shots. We see Elinor as a bear in two shots at the end of the trailer, the first of which being the scene where her and Merida follow the wisps to the eerie kingdom ruins. This is after we've seen a more terrifying-looked bear attack her in the teaser whilst popping up elsewhere. Then the final shot of the teaser is Merida jumping in an attempt to escape from Mor'du, while her mother is trying to save her. You can totally see her!

I mean, who else would that be? Add to the fact that you saw the triplets as little bear cubs in the last teaser and several other promos, it becomes clear that Merida inadvertently has someone (presumably a witch) turn her mother and her brothers into bears. Non-animation fans who normally don't pay attention to details may not notice, since all they see is pretty animation and appealing characters... But us fans do! And people who do notice spoilerific shots in trailers!

Then some promos spoiled it as well. Apparently Disney's marketing department felt that Toy Story 3's incredibly unique viral marketing campaign could be applied to something like Brave, which is why you saw the humorous fake ads for Kilt fashion, Witch's Brew and an album called Freedom Broch. Anyways, the Witch's Brew ad reveals the witch's appearance, whereas we only heard her voice quickly in the American trailers. We even saw shots from the fishing sequence in some other promos!

But if the trailers didn't spoil things for the fans, then the film's working title did. Look, I don't like the title Brave and I think The Bear and the Bow is a much better title because it perfectly defines the story, but it also gives away the twist. Of course, Pixar went against their grain and revealed quite a few details on their upcoming slate way back in the spring of 2008... In a time when Brave was called The Bear and the Bow and the plot was detailed. Rebellious princess? A curse that affects the kingdom? People already pieced that together on forums back in the day, or at least before the teaser showed up.

Maybe it was unwise of Pixar to unveil the title so early on, maybe things wouldn't have been easy to piece together from the start had Brave been announced after May 2009, when the title change was officially confirmed. Maybe... But the trailers were too spoilerific...

Oddly enough, there were many who seemed shocked by the twist upon seeing the film. Apparently they didn't get the "mother turns into a bear" plot twist from the trailers and marketing! I can't give Disney's marketing machine a pass for that though, because a lot of other people guessed that twist...

Now we get to Monsters University, and boy did the first official trailer spoil the third act with a couple shots and some dialogue! The shots of a determined Mike in the university's door lab, monsters trying to get into said door lab, Sulley grabbing a closet doorknob and Dean Hardscrabble's voice frantically calling "Don't go in there! It's dangerous!" gave it all away for me. Right off the bat, I could tell that the two (or at least one of them, which ended up happening!) were going take a crazy risk and enter the human world... And it was going to happen towards the end of the film. The following trailer built on those shots, showing Sulley going through the closet door he was about to open and worriedly climbing a mountain in the human world!

I get it. Most audiences probably wouldn't notice or if they did, they most likely wouldn't piece it all together like I did... And I avoided everything but the trailers for this film, but after giving the second trailer one viewing, I stayed away from the final trailer. I'm glad I did!

After Brave, my new code was to never go beyond the trailers. Just watch the trailers a couple times and avoid everything else as much as possible. Now, I will avoid the trailers for their films and only watch the teasers, look at some stills and a few thing others... But that's it! I know it may sound insane, but I feel that Pixar's recent trailers are giving away way too much. I am also a bit concerned for Disney Animation, as I feel that the marketing department may go this route for that studio's film as well.

Wreck-It Ralph's official trailer came close. In the rather epic "Some Nights" montage, there was a shot of Ralph breaking his way into the cell where Fix-It Felix, Jr. is locked up. From there, I knew that Felix was going to get in some sort of trouble in Sugar Rush with King Candy and that Ralph would come to his rescue... But I didn't know why, the trailer at least kind of implied that King Candy was going to be no good. There was so much they kept hidden so nothing was really, really spoiled for me before the film opened. The international trailer on the other hand explicitly shows how Ralph accidentally brings a Cy-Bug out of Hero's Duty and into Sugar Rush. But those two sequences weren't enough... I couldn't guess what big twists were going to occur in the second and third acts of film, so I was surprised the whole way through.

So this may mean that Frozen's official trailer won't have any shots that will spoil a lot, but you never know with Disney's marketing these days. I initially didn't even want to watch the Japanese teaser until hearing that nothing in it was spoiler-heavy. I'm now wary of the upcoming official domestic trailer...

In the mean time, I'm going to be extra-cautious about Disney's marketing of their animated output...

Role Reversal

Not necessarily news, but something I've been noticing lately... Little by little...

For a very long time, being a fan of Pixar meant that you had to wait a while for information on an upcoming film of theirs. Simple things, like the title and a taste of the plot. You didn't know much about their full upcoming slate between 2003 and 2007-ish...

Let's go back to May 30, 2003... The night Finding Nemo opened in theaters nationwide. Before the film began, a trailer for The Incredibles played, which showed a rather plump Mr. Incredible attempting to put on a belt. Like all of the Pixar teasers since A Bug's Life, what's in it will not be in the film. It's footage that's made special for the teaser. When is it coming out? November 5th... 2004... Over a year away! What's Pixar got cooking for 2005? Go to IMDb or look at some news and you'll see Cars, a John Lasseter film. What is it about? All we know is that it's about talking cars (obviously) and it takes place in a Route 66 setting. What do the Pixar wizards have in store for us in 2006? Ratatouille... What do we know? Just the title and who will be directing it, Jan Pinkava. That's it... Nothing about any future productions, unless something about WALL-E happened to slip through the cracks... Chances are you came across W.A.L.E. instead... And you had no idea what it was about. WALE? What does that mean? Wales? Whales?

Flash forward November 5, 2004... The Incredibles is now playing at your local cineplex after the long wait, the reviews are stellar, the film is making big bucks at the box office! A teaser trailer for Cars is rolling before it. The teaser - like every teaser Pixar had made since A Bug's Life - has footage that won't appear in the final film. All we knew at the time was that it was coming to theaters on November 4, 2005... Until it was delayed to June 9, 2006 one month later. We knew Owen Wilson and Larry the Cable Guy were in it, we knew the basic plot, but that was about it. Now what about Ratatouille? What's the deal? Well, we got a plot synopsis! One that was... Well... Nothing like what we got! A rat living in a Parisian restaurant with an eccentric, famous chef? Not quite. (Oh, and do you remember any of those "the villain will be an exterminator" rumors?) No word on anything else for a good while...

June 9, 2006... Cars is now out. A Ratatouille teaser is shown before it, implying that the film is about a rat who wants to make a living off of good food in Paris... Essentially wacky rat hijinks where he has to steal cheese and make it through the battlefield of the kitchen to survive... "Good food... Is hard! For a rat to find!" he says to the audience while his brother Emil chows down on garbage. What's coming after Ratatouille? Well now that Disney had acquired Pixar, we knew a Pixar-produced Toy Story 3 was coming. Possibly for a 2009 release, after that W.A.L.E. movie, which was the 2008 release!

Anyways, in short, we knew little about Pixar's upcoming projects. Details and information would slowly come forth as a certain movie's release date came closer and closer. In 2003, we saw a teaser for The Incredibles that didn't say much about the plot nor did any website. Cars and Ratatouille were films that we knew about, but knew nothing about. In 2003, Cars was being geared up for production and Ratatouille was in development. WALL-E was in early development, the failed Trash Planet concept from 1994 was being retooled. Some of the first pieces of concept art were drawn for Up. Brave could've been in its very, very, very early stages at this time as well... And lord only knows what else!

By contrast, in a year like 2004, we knew about upcoming Disney projects like Chicken Little, A Day with Wilbur Robinson, American Dog, Rapunzel Unbraided and Fraidy Cat. Other projects were rumored, and we knew some of the plots of these films. Rapunzel Unbraided was slated for a 2009 release! Way back in 2004 they had that planned! American Dog seemed like it would be out sometime in 2006 or 2007. Wilbur Robinson was on track for 2006 since early 2004. Fraidy Cat? Must've been 2010. Throughout the years, we heard of changes and new additions to their upcoming slate as we got very little info on Pixar's upcoming films.

Now... Let's flash forward to what has gone on in the last 5 years.

Prior to April 2008, we all knew that Up would follow WALL-E in 2009 with Toy Story 3 coming after it for 2010. Out of nowhere, a full upcoming slate was unveiled that very spring... The announced slate told us about Newt (June 2011), The Bear and the Bow (November 2011) and Cars 2 (2012). We even got info on the directors behind the projects, and even plot details for Newt and The Bear and the Bow! Cars 2's details gave us a good idea of what it would be about. We saw an unusually big amount of details unravel before us in the coming years.

Today, we know of many Pixar films that are in production. They are still secretive to a certain extent though. The Good Dinosaur, which opens next summer, was first announced in 2011. A taste of the plot was given to us in September of that year, long before they settled on a title in April 2012! They also told us what their then-untitled mind movie was about, the title wasn't officially revealed until last month! Lee Unkrich's "Dia De Los Muertos"? Well we only knew the title of that one and the main theme. Monsters University, of course we knew some stuff about that film as well.

So now... Today, May 25th, 2013... What do we know? What's coming after Inside Out hits theaters in summer 2015? Finding Dory is set for November 2015, we know a bit about the plot and some other details. We still don't know much about the Dia De Los Muertos film, but we know that quite a few untitled films are in the works: A Teddy Newton-directed film, a Mark Andrews-directed film and two mystery films... And possibly another sequel. Gee... Back in 2004, we only knew about 2-3 or so. Nothing about what would come after 2006. (Remember, Ratatouille was initially pegged for fall 2006 at the time.)

Now, what's the deal with Walt Disney Animation Studios?

Frozen and Big Hero 6 are next and we know enough details about them. (Well... Maybe not Frozen!) Anything after that? Well we know of an untitled Ron Clements/John Musker project, reportedly a South Pacific-set re-imagining of Rumplestiltskin called The Name Game... Reportedly being the key word here. Whether it will come out in 2015 or 2016, who knows? We also know of a secret project that will be directed by Tangled co-director Byron Howard; a "wild and weird" talking animal comedy starring Jason Bateman that happens to be action-packed! No idea of a release date has been implied at the moment. John Kahrs, director of Paperman, has a film in development... And that's about it! No word on the Mickey Mouse animated feature that Burny Mattinson confirmed back in 2011. King of the Elves? Is that even in the cards for now? Anything else? Nada...

So for Pixar, we know what's coming in 2015 and possibly 2016 along with details: Inside Out, Finding Dory and Lee Unkrich's Dia De Los Muertos film. We know the basic plot lines to the first two, nothing on the third. We are also aware of two untitled projects and possibly 2-3 more. Of course, we know nothing about them other than minor details (i.e. who is directing it).

Disney Animation? Well we got word on projects that are in the works, but no release dates have been set... All we know is this: Ron and John have a film coming, Byron Howard has got something in the works and John Kahrs is working on something. Frozen's story, everyone knows, obviously. Big Hero 6? Nothing. We don't know what the plot will be or who is even in it.

My point is... They're becoming more and more secretive these days. Pixar is still secretive to an extent, but nowadays, we know of projects that will be released in theaters after 2016. For Disney Animation, we know bits and pieces of what's in store for us after Big Hero 6 bows in 2014. This secretive streak has been beginning slowly since 2008, in terms of marketing at least. In the summer of 2008, Disney released a teaser trailer for The Princess and the Frog that contained animation that was not in the finished film. Just like a Pixar teaser! Of course, the following trailers would contain footage from the finished film. In the summer of 2010, Disney made a similar move for Tangled. The teaser contained some scenes from the finished film, but some of it was composed of scenes that were made special for the teaser. Did Rapunzel beat up the unsuspecting Flynn Rider with her hair in the film? Nope!

From 2008-2009, we had a clear idea of what was coming in the next few years: The Princess and the Frog in 2009, Tangled in 2010 (then titled Rapunzel), Winnie the Pooh in 2011 (first announced in mid-2009) and King of the Elves in 2012. As King of the Elves slowly began to fade away into cancellation, rumblings about other things made the waves.

In 2010, we got word on Reboot Ralph, a rewrite of a failed film called Joe Jump. When was that supposed to come out? March 22, 2013. When Tangled came out, there was some talk of Mort, a Ron and John-helmed adaptation of the Discworld novel by Terry Pratchett. Turns out, Disney couldn't secure the rights. King of the Elves and the Snow Queen project? They were on and off.

2011? Reboot Ralph becomes Wreck-It Ralph and the film is moved from its original spring 2013 spot to November 2012. Frozen is announced in December, taking the fall 2013 spot that Pixar's The Good Dinosaur previously occupied. What's coming in 2014? Who knows... King of the Elves? That Mickey Mouse film that was mentioned once?

Summer 2012, Disney flat out tells us that Walt Disney Animation Studios teamed up with Marvel Studios to do Big Hero 6. It's 2014 release date is confirmed earlier this year, but we all knew it would be the 2014 film.

Now here we are, late spring 2013... We know about two untitled projects, rumors surrounding Ron and John's film made the waves not too long ago... But we don't know if it's really a Rumplestiltskin film or not. We do know, however, that it has a South Pacific setting. We only know about some details surrounding Byron Howard's film. King of the Elves is presumably off the slate. Anything on Mickey Mouse? Nothing...

Slowly but surely, we're beginning to know less and less about what the Mouse House is cooking up for the next 3 years. It's funny how they are seemingly swapping roles with their Emeryville allies now, ten years later. Walt Disney Animation Studios, now that they have climbed back to the top of the mountain, are now adapting Pixar's old routine by keeping details, titles and plots under wraps. They have a whole slate of "exciting" projects... They just aren't telling us! Believe me, I know it!

Maybe next year, when Big Hero 6's teaser is out, this is what the deal will be... Their 2015 release? We know the title of the film and the plot... That's it. 2016? Just the title of the film and the director(s) behind it. 2017? Nothing. No info, no film is listed. We don't hear about it until 2015.

Do you think Walt Disney Animation Studios will end up becoming very secretive about upcoming films in the coming years?

Out in the Cold [Update]

Walt Disney Animation Studios' Frozen, their 53rd feature, is opening in theaters this autumn. November 27th, to be exact. Let's see... What we know so far?

It's a musical fairy tale based on Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen, and it's been in the works for a while. Chris Buck, co-director of Tarzan and Surf's Up, is the lead director. The co-director is Wreck-It Ralph scribe Jennifer Lee. Kristin Bell, Idina Menzel and Jonathan Groff will provide voices. We know what the plot is, who the main characters are and who will be doing the score and the songs.

So what do we have so far in terms of marketing materials and stuff like that?

Well got the official logo last year and one piece of concept artwork, in addition to many drawings and sketches. Then we got these rather unappealing character posters which were confirmed to be fake, but the character designs on there are said to be final. In fact, these same poses were used on a German site for Disney... Unless that was a big mistake.

Other than that, no teaser poster, no teaser, no first images or anything. Let's take a trip back to April 2012. What did we know about Disney's Wreck-It Ralph at the time? There was a logo that was revealed as far back as the summer 2011 D23 expo along with a plot description, cast and crew details, an arcade cabinet of the film's Fix-It Felix, Jr. game, lots of concept artwork and near-final images. Folks who attended that D23 expo got to see the first six minutes of the film, some of which was actually animated. That same first six minute portion was also shown at the April 2012 CinemaCon. The film also got its minimalist 8-bit teaser poster in the middle of the month.

Yet Frozen seems to be... Hidden. We've heard very little about it lately. You'd think Disney would've released a teaser poster or image by now, but I don't understand why there is nothing of the sort that's out yet. If I can recall correctly, in early 2010, Tangled's first images were up. The poster didn't arrive till after the teaser debuted in the summer, but still... Why is Disney holding out on us? Is it possible that they just want to market whatever is coming out first? I get that they had to promote Iron Man 3, Monsters University and The Lone Ranger in the first quarter of the year. I get that the last of three especially needed a boatload of marketing... But we could've at least gotten an image or a poster for this film. The teaser trailer is most likely coming in June, since Disney seems to be taking this route lately with their animated films: The teaser for Tangled debuted in June 2010, the film opened in November. Ditto Wreck-It Ralph in 2012. At this year's CinemaCon, nothing was revealed. Nothing. Will they show something at this year's San Diego Comic-Con? Hopefully, but that'll be after the teaser premieres. (That is, if it does come out in June.)

Other than that, there doesn't seem to be as much buzz for this film. The skeptical side of me says it has to do with the recent layoffs at Walt Disney Animation Studios and the marketing staff, maybe the marketing people don't want to plug this one very early on and will wait it out, assuming that it'll do good because it's a Disney animated film and a fairy tale adaptation at that. All I expect is an aggressive marketing campaign after the teaser trailer premieres, much like Tangled and Ralph's campaigns.

However, it could be because Disney was too busy promoting the summer slate. Iron Man 3 was of course going to get a lot of marketing muscle, ditto Monsters University. Both are hugely anticipated films. Then the rest of the effort was going into The Lone Ranger, a risky-as-hell $250 million Western that most likely needs to make over $600 million to break even! It might not even do that with all this marketing behind it! So the lack of promotion for Frozen right now is a bit understandable, but there still could've been some images or something highlighting it at CinemaCon. Disney's been very... Well... Hush-hush about this icy flick.

Which is strange, because in my eyes, this seems like a much easier sell than Wreck-It Ralph. Disney made sure to get the word out on that film very early on, but for this film, it seems like they're holding back. Is it possible that they're assuming it'll be another Tangled-sized success? Perhaps. Do they think that it'll do well by default, regardless of when they start really promoting it? Maybe. But it seems like they're not excited about this project... There should be lots of buzz right now. Now with the teaser and poster for Thor: The Dark World out of the way, it is now time for them to get the ball rolling.

Will we see some form of marketing for Frozen next month? Will we get a poster, a teaser or an image? Or more news on the film's details? Sound off below!

Update: Just as I posted this, some footage was leaked! The video even featured director Chris Buck! There was completed animation along with storyboards, unfinished animation and... Pencil tests! From what was shown in completed form, it looks like what was achieved with Tangled in terms of the look was taken up to eleven. Not only does it looks different from the fake posters, but it looks like a computer animated hand-drawn film... If that makes any sense. Paperman seemed to be a testing ground for this, rather than a later feature. Maybe this style is what Walt Disney Animation Studios will turn to for the future, though it would be nice if they kept the classic style of hand-drawn animation. I will say, I'm very very happy with this style. Traditional and innovative at the same time, just what I expect from Disney. The video was expectedly and quickly taken down by Disney. Does this mean we'll get an official one soon?

William Jardine of A113 Animation managed to get a still from the video... Just look at it!

Beautiful... Just beautiful... I also like what Buck had to say about the story itself. Things like "heart", "intense action" (kind of thought that we were going to get that given some earlier plot details) and something along the lines of a "new level for storytelling for Walt Disney Animation Studios". That little preview really got me excited, so hopefully we'll get an official one or something similar soon!

The Animation Revolution, Part 2

In my article, "The Animation Revolution", I took a look at the current state of the animation industry in North America and offered what I felt were reasonable suggestions to the studios, suggestions on how to help the art form by opting for better films rather than derivative moneymakers. I am well aware that these studios want to make money, because, let’s face it, who doesn’t? At the same time, however, creativity is being shunted aside. I went over the other films that are dominating the animation scene, the ones that aren’t from whom I consider the “big three”: Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks. I will be honest, I do enjoy some animated romps that don't aim to be serious. I'm not saying "fun" animated films are bad. There's a a place in this world for those kinds of films. The problem is, there are too many in this day and age.

I firmly believe that we are going through The Third Golden Age of Animation. I believe it started five years ago in early 2007, after there wasn't such a glut of animated films but still enough to make it the start of the Golden Age. Fortunately, out of all the animated films released in 2007, we saw some quality endeavors instead of mediocre films that came and went. This would continue in the next few years, and we've seen studios like Disney and DreamWorks stepping up their game while Pixar delivered critical and commercial smashes. So here we are now, in the middle of 2012. Looking at the output, it seems like a very strong year. 2013 looks good too, as does the future projects coming from Disney, Pixar and DreamWorks. The Third Golden Age will continue, as long as these films wow critics and bring in the bucks, but...

In order to really kick things into high gear, mainstream animation in the United States and around the world needs an upgrade. I am perfectly fine with Pixar, Disney and DreamWorks making great, thoughtful family films. Family films are necessary, but the other studios making kid-friendly films that are less mature than what the big three offer need to step up their game. Now I suggested that they try ambitious projects every once in a while, while also making their bread and butter through tame projects. The problem is, if all of the big animated films are family films, some people are still going to perceive animated films as baby-sitters, children's films or films that aren't to be taken seriously.

More and more people are beginning to realize that animation is an art form, and animated family films are also for adults. Some people, however, say things like "These movies are for the kid in you" and "I love Disney and Pixar films because I feel like a kid again". Nostalgia isn't the reason why I admire great animated family films, and it should not be the reason why people enjoy animated family films. I admire them because they are great films. No "little kid in me" gets excited, I admire these films as a mature nineteen-year-old. I admire the storytelling, the heart, the writing, the craftsmanship, everything. What's also annoying is when someone says "These animated films are getting more and more adult these days..." No, they aren't getting "more adult". Are you trying to say they were only for children in the past and not for adults? The Disney animated classics were never only for kids, Walt Disney himself said so. I don't care how Disney themselves markets their films, the filmmakers and artists didn't make these things for kids first and foremost. Pixar's films from the beginning were not just for kids, and so on. These films have no target audience, they are made for anyone.

Also what makes them "adult"? One shouldn't use that term, because a G or PG rated film that's suitable for children (well, not all children of course) can be mature, meaningful and complex. Just look at Pixar's recent films like WALL-E and Up. What kid is going to watch WALL-E and say "Wow, what a great film about the evils of mass consumerism and reliance on technology"? Probably none, unless you spell the message out for them. They'll probably just like the colors, the characters and the funny parts. Also, will children immediately understand some of the deeper themes in the early Disney films? Probably not. Noticing these things as an adult, it's quite mind-blowing. Yes, Bambi's mother's death made children cry, but did kids understand the other themes of the film? Probably not. It makes it all the more frustrating when people write off family films as films that are not "adult". Well you might as well say the same about G and PG-rated live action films that are family film staples like The Wizard of Oz, The Sounds of Music, Star Wars, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and several others.

Unfortunately, people tend to equate specific film content with the terms "adult" and "mature". Anyone with common sense knows that gratuitous violence, sex and language doesn't make a film "adult" or "mature". Pixar's films have none of these, though they do tend to have violence, frightening scenes and humor that might not be suitable for everyone. Same with Disney and DreamWorks' recent films. However, they are still perceived by some as "kiddie" because they aren't rated PG-13 or R. Does a Pixar film need to be gory or loaded with sex and swearing in order to qualify as an "adult" or "mature" animated film? No. You might as well say something like Star Wars isn't adult because of this, but that film seems to get a pass along with every other G and PG-rated live action film because... They are "real" movies. That's another thing, why is live action the only supreme form of moviemaking? Animation is not an inferior way of moviemaking.

I guess if you are making an animated film, it has to be PG-13 or R-rated in order to be called an "adult" animated film. Funny, isn't it? In fact, family friendly live-action films are called "kids movies" as well. So if it's family friendly, that means it's kids' stuff? Lovely logic... As for family friendly animated features being perceived as kids' stuff, what can one do to shake that belief? Here's one way the studios could do it, by marketing a G or PG-rated animated film as something adults would have the desire to see.

One gigantic problem has persisted for a while, what is it? It's the way Disney markets their animated output. Whenever the classics come to home video, they are advertised as fluffy, kiddie stuff. There are exceptions, like The Lion King, where most of the advertising focuses on the more "epic" side of the film. Something like Bambi, a very mature and artistic film, comes off like a cutesy funny bunny romp in the advertising. It doesn't help when the covers from the home video releases always show Bambi as a fawn, smiling and happy with Thumper and Flower. Previews for Disney classics when they hit home video throughout the years usually showed kids enjoying them, implying that these films are nothing but mere baby-sitters. Even worse, some of their animated classics are shown on Disney's preschooler channel, Disney Junior. An animated classic that took years to make, intended for general audiences, being degraded by being shown on a channel for preschoolers... Sickening, isn't it? Disney, being one of the first things you might think about whenever "animation" or "cartoon" is brought up, wrote itself into a corner because of this, especially during the Eisner regime. Disney soiled their image and made themselves look like a shameless money machine that was making "kiddie stuff", rather than a studio that specialized in good quality family entertainment and the occasional adult-oriented films (notice I didn't say "adult" films).

Under Eisner, Disney "had" to be "for kids" some way or another. The films made during the Renaissance were usually watered down to satisfy children. Read up on all the horror stories. Certain films were altered because children got antsy during test screenings. Remember how Jeffrey Katzenberg almost cut "Part of Your World" out of The Little Mermaid? "If I Never Knew You" from Pocahontas got cut (though it was finished and put back into the film for its 2005 DVD release), ambitious ideas were ruined (see Atlantis: The Lost Empire) and unnecessary cuts were made to make certain films more kid-friendly (The Black Cauldron, Lilo & Stitch). Everything had to be for kids. Just look what happened to Dinosaur. Kid-friendly "sidekicks" were inserted into the films, not for comic relief, but to lighten the load for children. Pixar doesn't do that. Walt didn't do that. Even worse, merchandise was everywhere. Must I bring up the "Disney Princesses" brand?

Big difference!

Disney's blatant push to make themselves appear as an overtly kid-friendly brand ruined their image and hurt animation in many ways. Blame the corporate side, because the artists and storytellers at Disney want to make good films, not cheap cash grabs. Not toy commercials. The direct-to-video sequels and the Disney Channel's transition from a good channel into a teenybopper channel made matters worse. This "it has to be for kids" problem also affects other studios, who market their films as "kiddie stuff". Trailers usually focus on comic relief and the more cutesy elements of the films. Look at how Paramount has marketed some of DreamWorks' more recent films. Kung Fu Panda 2 and Puss in Boots are fine examples, with trailers and commercials that focused more on the comic relief than the story. This is probably why DreamWorks' hasn't really scored an opening weekend of over $50 million recently. Even some of the trailers for Pixar's films were pretty bad, such as WALL-E, Toy Story 3 and the Brave trailer from last autumn. Other animated films? Marketed as kiddie fluff. Laika's upcoming ParaNorman focuses more on the comedy, and less on the creepy ghouls. As for films that are fun comedies, there's no need to make something like Despicable Me look like something epic, since it's a comedy, but why is that formula (trailers with comic relief, less story) used to market animated films that aren't necessarily funny comedies? What if these films were marketed correctly? Sometimes Disney's marketing department gets it right. Brave's recent trailer is more in line with the Japanese trailers for Pixar films, which effectively start by introducing the characters and then showing the more dramatic side of the film, while using comic relief wisely. The trailer for DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians is beautiful, not throwing unnecessary humor at you. The trailer for Frankenweenie is a nice trailer where the humor works. That's about it, though...

Now that I got that out of the way, here's another suggestion I have. Independent animated films... Think about it. They don't cost way too much to make. If a studio like Columbia or Universal were to acquire an animated film like that and give it some pretty good marketing, they could score a profitable success. Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox comes to mind, a $40 million film that was marketed poorly and released at the wrong time. Now what if 20th Century Fox gave it a better release date and marketed it with confidence? I'm not saying they have to go all out and shell out $100 million, but still, make the film look good from the trailers and TV spots. Make sure people know it's coming out. What if that little film took in around $70 million domestically and over $150 million worldwide? It would be a success for them. Instead, they got rewarded with a flop. Did they learn a lesson? Apparently not...

I understand that some independent animated films might not be embraced by mainstream audiences with enthusiasm, but you never know what audiences will accept. Rango scored a decent multiplier, and that wasn't like your usual animated film. Coraline, despite being deemed too scary for kids, had longevity at the box office. Something like Fantastic Mr. Fox or The Illusionist could've been profitable. They didn't have to be big blockbusters, but them being successful would give studios confidence if they don't want to do a big budget risk, like Rango or something like a Pixar film. Why can't that they try that? If that was being done right now, there would be a sort of demand for independent animated films and more foreign animated films. With all of those performing well alongside the big three and the kid-friendly romps, we'll get ahead. These animated films won't be hard to find. They'll get the attention they really deserve. With that, animation will get more and more accolades, and more people will realize that the art form has endless possibilities. Right now, animated films do very well and will continue to do well, and it's the perfect time to be ambitious, to start taking some risks. The medium is not a novelty, and people need to understand this sooner or later.

It can happen. If it does, new heights will be reached. Audiences will appreciate animation in ways they never did before. Animated classics will be sought after by those who once deemed animation as inane "kiddie stuff". Foreign animated films and more experimental endeavors will be the norm. Animation will dominate... It can happen...

Rant: Disney's Marketing Department

Note: I'm no expert and this entire rant is opinion-based. If you're looking for exactness, don't read any further.

Disney's marketing department has been receiving considerable amounts of criticism for their failure to promote Andrew Stanton's adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' epic science fiction novels, John Carter. What do I say? They deserve it, every last bit of it. While I don't approve of the folks who slammed the film, Andrew Stanton and the Mouse House in general, the marketing department really tripped up here. This, and along with other blunders, is what makes Disney's marketing department a target of criticism from folks such as myself, fans and the press. This colossal failure is also what hurts Disney in the long run along with their animation studio and other projects.

John Carter... It was once thought to be an epic science fiction blockbuster from the Mouse House, but it has now become the punchline of the press. It's already being forgotten by mainstream audiences, as the film has eked past $66 million at the domestic box office off of a $30 million debut. Word of mouth couldn't save it, it left audiences cold. While the reviews were on par with the likes of Tron: Legacy and higher than most summer blockbuster films that somehow gross $250 million when they don't deserve to, it still wasn't enough to save the film. It's doing respectable business overseas, but a $350 million final total won't make Disney executives happy. Lead actor Taylor Kitsch has been defending the film to the press, but we haven't heard from anyone else. Disney seems to be ashamed of the film itself.

What they should be ashamed of is how they marketed this film. Articles are everywhere, criticizing the marketing campaign. While some people were a little too mean-spirited towards the film and the Mouse House, Disney's marketing department does deserve the criticism it's getting. I firmly believed (along with many others) that the title change was what crippled Stanton's epic adaptation of Burroughs' influential classic from the start, along with the disappointing trailers and equally disappointing TV spots. In short, Disney's marketing department killed this film, and some of the people working for Disney are putting the blame on Andrew Stanton. (No, really!) Disney's marketing department crippled other films that could've been hits. This might sound insane, but something like Bolt could've easily taken in $200 million at the domestic box office, or $150 million at the least. No, that film only grossed $114 million domestically, a weak total when you stack it up next to other 2008 animated hits such as Blue Sky's Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! ($154 million), DreamWorks' Kung Fu Panda ($215 million), Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa ($180 million), and Pixar's WALL-E. ($223 million) Instead, the marketing was lazy. The trailer was poorly put together, and the marketing pushed Miley Cyrus' name, whose character Penny isn't one of the lead characters. In fact, she's not even in it as much.

If Disney felt that this would help get the film popular, then they were dead wrong. Showing Cyrus' name probably scared off the people (such as myself) who hate "that" side of Disney. You know, the crass side of Disney that's all about Hannah Montana and the schlock on the Disney Channel. It didn't scare me off, what drove me away was the trailer. Also, I was still a bit bitter about the whole change from Chris Sanders' quirky American Dog idea into something more conventional. When I saw the film for the first time on Blu-ray (it was a blind buy, no less), I really enjoyed it. I wanted to turn back time and see the film in the theaters.

Bolt opened with $26 million at the domestic box office, which was an incredibly low opening weekend for a wide release animated film from a high profile studio. That was only a bit more than what Meet the Robinsons pulled in on its opening weekend back in 2007. Then something happened. It grew legs. Audiences clearly liked this film, but the low total said otherwise to Disney. Let's say the film was marketed properly, it would've made at least $35 million on its opening weekend. Let's just say it took in $40 million, then had the same word of mouth it did, it would've made over $170 million domestically. Maybe even more. Thanksgiving is a great time to release animated family films, but Disney blew it.

Disney blew it again with The Princess and the Frog. Instead of releasing the film sometime in November, before competition like Avatar, Sherlock Holmes and the "shitmunks" sequel, it would've scored a good-sized opening weekend. If they had marketed it like an event, and not some attempt to recreate the Disney Renaissance, then it would've had a bigger opening weekend than $24 million. (Even lower than Meet the Robinsons and Bolt!) With enough time to rake in cash before the heavy hitters came in, the film would've crossed $150 million domestically. But no, Disney released the critically panned comedy Old Dogs on the weekend Frog should've been released on. (Frog received a two theater-only release that weekend, the wide release was on December 11th) Old Dogs did poorly, and did it teach Disney a lesson? Sort of. Tangled was released on the Thanksgiving weekend, but against Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Part 1. Still, the film's marketing was aggressive and in-your-face. This is why it opened with $48 million, got great word of mouth and worked its way up to $200 million despite the heavy competition. (With some fudging from Disney, of course) If Frog opened on that weekend back in 2009 with aggressive marketing behind it, it would've made around $35 million or more, and with legs, it would've been the hit it deserved to be!

So Tangled does extremely well, but the hand-drawn film doesn't, and now Disney's future in animation seems to be CGI-topia! If Frog didn't underperform, there would be a push for more hand-drawn projects. Not anymore, especially with Winnie the Pooh being the one of the least attended Disney animated films of all time. Apparently Disney is reverting back to their 2003 mindset: "It failed because it was hand-drawn!" No, Winnie the Pooh failed because there was hardly any effort put into the marketing and it was released against heavy-hitters in a box office bloodbath of a month. Now look, The Snow Queen is Frozen and it's going to be computer animated! Well, hopefully it's a good film or one that at least deviates from the style they used for Bolt and Tangled. If it's going to be a remake of Tangled, then I won't be happy.

See where I'm getting at? These animated films that are superior to their crop in the last fifteen years and something ambitious and enjoyable like John Carter have all done okay or horribly. If Disney's marketing department didn't make all of these blunders, these films would have been successful. John Carter's sequel is now doomed, but Disney is still going through with ambitious live action projects, like Paladin. The Lone Ranger is hitting theaters in May 2013. What about Walt Disney Animation Studios? Sure, we've got the risky Wreck-It Ralph coming out. We have no idea what Frozen will be like. All we know is that after Frozen, nothing is scheduled for 2014 or 2015. All we know is that a Mickey Mouse film is in the works and that King of the Elves is in development, as it has been in development since 2008! Anything else? What happened to Mort? Or better yet, how come we don't know about other projects that are in the works? What other ambitious projects are in the works at the Mouse House? Hardly any. Maybe in 2015, they'll surprise us all. Maybe they won't.

It's not the quality of the films, it's the marketing. Imagine if Disney's marketing department tripped up marketing another studio's film? Let's say they messed up marketing something like The Hunger Games, they would've thrown away a great opportunity. Imagine if John Carter was handled by someone like Warner Bros. or Paramount, perhaps it wouldn't have been the colossal box office disappointment that it is.

That said, Disney's marketing department is probably aware of the fact that the name "Disney" alone turns people off, especially in America. We live in a country where animation and all things Disney are called "kiddie stuff". We live in a country where classic animated films and icons are perceived as lame and kiddie. We live in a country where teen audiences won't be seen attending anything with the Disney name on it that's family friendly. It's not just in America, either, animation gets the same flack everywhere else, but in America, it is rampant. In order to get something like one of their recent animated films or something like John Carter to appeal to audiences, they need to have chops. Make these films look epic. Don't waste the trailers on failed jokes or just action. You got to find a way to lure audiences in, especially if you're putting some of your films up against heavy hitters. That's Disney's other big problem. Combining lackluster marketing with putting the films against obvious hits. (Harry Potter, Twilight, etc.)

Look at how Disney markets Pixar's films. They pour a lot of effort into marketing Pixar's films. Just look at the marketing for Toy Story 3 and Brave. Toy Story 3's marketing had the popularity of the first two films behind it, but they still put effort into it. Remember the viral marketing? The college cliffhanger screenings? They aggressively marketed it to everyone, from adults to teens to families. Brave has an excellent two-minute clip of the film being shown in theaters as a trailer, much like the trailer for The Lion King that was actually the entire "Circle of Life" scene. The marketing for Toy Story 3 and Brave made these films appeal to adults and teenagers. To everyone. Despite the "Disney is for kiddies" syndrome that people tend to suffer from, the marketing convinced them that these are events worth seeing. The only things that don't work are the trailers, but people know that Pixar delivers the goods, so the mediocre trailers never throw them off.

I can't say the same about the way they market their other films. John Carter? Three underwhelming trailers, an awful Super Bowl TV spot and TV spots that focused on action, action, action with no oomph. The recent animated films? A few trailers, not much marketing, unconvincing TV spots, and that's pretty much it. Most of these marketing materials are skewering kids anyway, while these films are designed for everyone to enjoy. Disney will keep getting the "Disney is for kids only" flack if they keep marketing their animated films this way. If their films did better, maybe animation wouldn't have such a hard time catching on in this country. If they can convince people that G and PG-rated animated films from another studio are worth seeing no matter how old they are, they can also do so for their own animated films.