Freezing The King - A Rant

Yes, Frozen may actually freeze The Lion King… At the box office, that is…

Box Office Mojo's Ray Subers, in his write-up of this weekend's box office results, suggests that the new Walt Disney Animation Studios event could possibly make more than $300 million at the domestic box office.

You heard that right. $300 million…

This excites me and frustrates me at the same time.

Frozen may have a shot at being the first Disney Animation film to gross $300 million in North America, and it could also possibly be their highest-grossing of all time. The Lion King's "initial release" domestic take was a then-monolith $312 million. The 2002 IMAX re-release added another $15 million, the 2011 3D re-release added a shocking $94 million. Its total lifetime gross is $422 million, and there's no way Frozen will beat that. Of course, we don't expect it to. I don't count re-release totals when it comes to this. (i.e. The Rescuers was the biggest Disney animated film on initial release back in 1977, but of all-time counting re-issues? Nope.)

This weekend, the icy film lightly slipped a great 15% from its previous weekend. The film has grossed $192 million in nearly a month. The Christmas week will greatly add to it, and it'll have excellent legs afterwards. It's got the animation and family film world all to itself until The Lego Movie opens in February, because… Let's be honest here, The Nut Job ain't touching this film with a 39 1/2-foot pole.

The great thing about this is, it not only shows that Walt Disney Animation Studios is a worthy competitor at the box office (a few years ago, they weren't), but also a roost-ruler. Pixar currently sits on top alongside Illumination (though I have a feeling that outside of Despicable Me and Dr. Seuss, they'll be making good-sized hits at best), and occasionally DreamWorks. Very few animated films have topped $250 million at the domestic box office since 2010. Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 have raced past that mark, now it looks like Frozen will do the same. Yes, Disney is sitting up there with the giants… Finally…

But why am I also somewhat peeved about this? I should be all-out happy with this film's success, right? Right?

Well, I am happy - first and foremost - for the film itself and Walt Disney Animation Studios. They've deserved a $200M+ domestic hit since Bolt. But that's just it…

If you've seen my review of Frozen, you'll know that I am not gushing over the film. I didn't think it was a "great" movie, but a "very good" movie instead. I had problems with it, and at times I felt that it was very inconsistent and even a little undercooked. Considering the hell this project went through for nearly two decades, I guess we can all say that we should be happy that the film is decent at the least. This could've been a major league disaster, so I am thankful for it being good.

I can accept the fact that something like this went through a lot to get to the big screen, but I'm just not too keen on all the hyperbole. "Best Disney animated film since Lion King!" Stop that already, please take the time to watch films like The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, Lilo & Stitch, Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Winnie the Pooh and Wreck-It Ralph. If you did and still consider this the best since Lion King, fine. At least you have seen the films, but I get the feeling that a lot of people haven't, or only saw them once when they were ten and rejected them.

If Frozen hits $300 million domestically, it'll have scored a 4.5x multiplier, which is a notch higher than Frog and Tangled's multipliers. I bet you if both of those films opened with $66 million like this film did, they would've grossed around the same amount in the end. Problem is, Frog opened with $24 million, Tangled opened with $48 million. This film would've opened with around the latter's amount if the marketing department didn't wise up and give us that wonderful "First Time in Forever" trailer, heavily plug the soundtrack and make the film look good to people over the age of twelve.

Frozen's got the legs that Bolt, Frog and Tangled had. It's only outgrossing them by a wide margin because of the opening weekend gross, plus some added hyperbole. When you put it out there that it's supposedly the "best" since Lion King, obviously people will flock to see it.

Now I'm not angry that Frozen is outgrossing what I believe are superior films (such as Bolt, Frog, Tangled and Ralph), I'm just cautious because Disney suits may react to this success the wrong way. Executives tend to do this kind of thing. I can hear it now, actually.

"They like modern princess movies! They like Broadway-style musicals! Make more!"

Okay fine, you can make more. I am anticipating Giants, which is essentially the third "modernized fairy tale musical", the first two being Tangled and this of course. I'd be down with one every three years, it's not a bad template. Tangled's story is very different from Frozen's. If there are any similarities, then they are very small. Snow White and Cinderella aren't the same, but they happen to have princess leads, handsome princes, cute animals and are based on fairy tales. Storywise, they are very different.

But if Disney executives push Disney Animation to just stick to fairy tales, I won't be pleased. Fairy tales may be what Disney is best known for, but other classics like Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, One Hundred and One Dalmatians and heck, freakin' Lion King, prove that Disney is more than just fairy tales. They are also more than just snarky comedy-drama Broadway musicals.

Why am I concerned though?

Well, Disney Animation's next two films are not fairy tales nor are they musicals in a "classic Disney" sense. Big Hero 6 is about as anti-Renaissance-era Disney as you can get, ditto Zootopia. I'm glad they are, because I'm not keen on Disney sticking to a formula. Walt hated formulas, he wanted to be diverse. I believe Disney Animation should be that way, all of the time. Try something different, but still revisit what you tried before every once in a while because it is a top menu on the item.

But here's a big concern of mine…

What if Disney were to view Bolt, The Princess and the Frog, Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph as the sort of Oliver & Company and Great Mouse Detectives of the last 5 years? Or "lesser" films that were successful but not huge (i.e. Hunchback, Hercules, etc.)?

When Disney was finally smashing the box office left and right with popular hits like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and so on, those two 1980s films - one was a profitable and critically well-liked film, the other was a modest success that got mixed reviews - fell to the wayside. The Great Mouse Detective is never promoted with a lot of fanfare whenever it comes around, ditto Oliver & Company.

The Great Mouse Detective may not be a sweeping musical event like Beauty and the Beast, and I do consider Beast to be a better film than Mouse Detective, but that doesn't mean the Sherlock Holmesian rodent romp should be treated like a red-headed stepchild. Yes, I believe Disney treats it like that to an extent, at least it's listed in the classics canon. The Great Mouse Detective in my book is a brisk, fun, breezy, simple adventure story with some very likable characters, a highly enjoyable villain and some incredibly entertaining sequences. A film more people should at least watch. It was also the first film directed by Ron Clements and John Musker, who would give us some of Disney's most beloved films after that. However, it's not really promoted like other Disney films, its DVD and Blu-ray releases lack the attention and care given to the disc releases of something like Beast (now I'm not asking for a packed mega 2-disc set, though that would be nice), and it's just really kind of… Obscure. It isn't dated, it's not a product of its time. It's a Victorian-set sleuth story, that's kind of timeless if you ask me.

I'm not saying Disney should shove Basil of Baker Street, David Q. Dawson, Olivia Flaversham, Professor Ratigan and the rest of the cast down your throat, but come on! A little push, maybe some more prominence in merchandise and theme parks? Maybe that could attract… You know… Potential fans? Yes it's on Netflix, but that isn't enough if you ask me. It's more than just an "obscure Disney film that happens to be on Netflix." (Over a decade ago, something like Disney's House of Mouse was a good way to keep many characters in the minds of fans, casual viewers and whatnot.)

As for Oliver & Company, well… That's kind of tricky. Again, I don't think Disney should shun any of their animated classics, but Oliver & Company is a near-embarassment because it was really just amped up to be hip in 1988, to make a safe, quick buck. That it did. It was the highest grossing animated film on initial release at the time, and it just functioned as a way to keep Disney Animation trucking and to also show Don Bluth that he wasn't going to be the only one ruling the roost. That being said, it should not be forgotten. It's a footnote, and Disney should treat it as that. Not as an obscure "Ehhh we're scraping the bottom of the barrel so we have to put it out on Blu-ray" film.

Then there's the post-Lion King Renaissance-era films. Films like The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Hercules seem to only be discovered by nostalgic 90s folks today, Mulan and Tarzan are in good standing since they were sizable hits back in the day, ditto something like Robin Hood - which was always doing fine in video sales in the 1980s and 1990s - or Pocahontas, though they could get a little more push from the Mouse. Maybe more prominence in merch and parks, that always helps. Maybe some of these films, like Mouse Detective, aren't animated Citizen Kanes. Maybe they may not be iconic, but that doesn't mean they should be neglected or seen as "lesser". You can make films like these, well, popular enough.

After Disney got the box office and critical power they had been waiting for in the early 1990s, they effectively shoved The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company out of sight. The latter, I can see why. Again, it was dated and just thrown together to make an easy buck. But why did the former have to get shut out? It wasn't dated or cobbled together, it was a genuinely enjoyable flick. Oh what? It didn't make a blockbuster total at the box office? Whatever. They should've used its modest success to its advantage, treat it like a little Sword in the Stone or Robin Hood. Something of the sort, a little profitable film that continues to do well and garner fans.

See, this is why I'm a bit worried about Disney possibly shutting out some of the last string of films. Bolt was a modest hit, as it did double its budget worldwide and sold well on DVD/Blu-ray. It got great reviews, too! Kind of like Great Mouse Detective, and Disney ignores that film even though it got good reviews and it has a sizable fan base.

Meet The Robinsons will probably get the shaft, big time. Wasn't a box office hit, got okay reviews at best, and is seemingly already forgotten. It's seen as a sort of slightly salvaged mess, one Lasseter could not save, etc. (I beg to differ, but…)

The Princess and the Frog and Tangled are safe, being familiar princess films and merchandising monsters.

Winnie the Pooh might not have been seen by many, but the character is now and forever. It's pretty much safe.

Wreck-It Ralph, box office-wise, is above the Oliver & Company spot. It wasn't a modest success, it was a success. Doubled its budget, sold well on home video, merchandise sold well. Out of the other films, that one is the least likely to be pushed aside. But the video game angle could hurt it, as some inside the company may view it as dated… Like Oliver & Company. Unlike that movie though, it was well-received, it took home a few awards as well! It's kind of in the middle.

But back to Frozen, now that I got the "forgetting thing" out of the way.

Another big concern of mine is this…

How will Disney approach future animated features now that a familiar tale has become their biggest hit since The Lion King?

Disney's marketing department has shown that they can't always market a film correctly, which is true of pretty much every other big studio. For instance, this year Warner Bros. totally botched the marketing for Pacific Rim, making something unique look like just another dull summer blockbuster or "Transformers with giant monsters". Fox couldn't make DreamWorks' Turbo look like anything but a silly kiddie film with its been-there done-that trailers and ads. Last summer, Paramount sold DreamWorks' Rise of the Guardians as an action-packed film, something quasi-cool for action-loving teens, and the movie blew up in their faces. In the process they left out the whimsy and imaginative tone that would've attracted other demographics.

… and so on… Disney has had a history of bad marketing outside of animated films: John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Prince of Persia, The Sorcerer's Apprentice…

But… Bolt and Frog's marketing (done by the previous team, not the current one that was established in 2009 after Rich Ross took over) was inexcusably poor, Tangled's was too cynical. Yes, it gave the film its good-sized opening weekend gross, but it did alienate adults and fans in the process. Ralph's marketing also shut out adults, with its emphasis on "Hero's Doody" jokes and less emphasis on the story. Frozen's campaign smartly emphasized the story, music and characters (albeit at the last minute) which in turn got more adults to show up. Sorry Scott Mendelson of Forbes, but I feel that your defense of the kid-centric marketing is way off.

Had Ralph or Tangled's campaigns did what Frozen did in the end, they would've performed similarly to this new picture.

Now that the studio has a huge hit under its belt, the marketing needs to keep things going. Good marketing sells a movie, no matter how good or bad the movie is. Disney Animation, of all things, just needs to be sold properly to audiences. Big Hero 6 needs to be an event, Zootopia needs to be an event, Giants, Moana, all the future projects. All of them. They need to be events! They need to look appealing to moviegoers. The studio is firing on all cylinders and are delivering top notch stories with great characters, lovely animation and a diverse batch of settings, themes and narratives.

Let's hope that Disney emphasizes the future films' qualities in the trailers, ads and marketing materials instead of just slacking off, instead opting to be cliche and pelt the audiences with jokes, jokes and more jokes - like trailers for every other big-release animated movie out there. Big Hero 6 isn't a big musical fairy tale like Frozen, but so what? The Incredibles was an animated superhero film and that was big, Marvel movies are in, superheroes are in. Period. Strike the iron while it's hot! Big Hero 6 could very well nestle itself in the top five highest grossing Disney animated features league. Zootopia is a talking animals film, but that doesn't matter, make it look awesome to the general public! Show how cool the animals-only world of the film will be! Don't market it like Ice Age 12 or whatever, it's more than that!

The goal is to show audiences that Disney Animation isn't just about fairy tales, once upon a time stories, musicals and cutesy talking animal romps. Disney Animation can tackle anything, they can do a space opera, a mystery thriller, an epic fantasy, a small-scale drama… Anything! Audiences may think Disney can or "should only" do fairy tales, no. They can do more, Pixar wins because of this. Diversity rules in the end, and Disney can get other audiences to go see their animated films by tackling new genres. In turn, their audience will grow and grow. They can sit right alongside Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm. No wait, they already do!

I'm not saying Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Giants, Moana and the rest should all be $300 million+ blockbusters… That's unreasonable to expect. Pixar couldn't do it, The Incredibles didn't come close to Finding Nemo's huge $339 million gross. (The press went all "What went wrong?", especially when Cars' opening weekend was a little below The Incredibles' opening weekend.) But I all want them to do very good, so they keep the studio going and also get the public to accept new kinds of stories from Disney, so no one goes "But Disney should only do fairy tales! That's what they do best!"

This kind of thing was attempted last decade, but corporate meddling and mismanagement ran that plan into the ground. Dinosaur was killed by the decision to make the dinosaurs talk in hip slang. Emperor's New Groove cost too much because it evolved out of another movie that was already costly enough, it looked bad from the previews and the actually good movie had to rely on word of mouth to make its money… And it still bombed. Atlantis was not allowed to be the cool epic action film it could've been, ditto Treasure Planet plus the marketing made it look like "Disney Extreme Sports… In Spaaaaaaaaace!" Brother Bear and Home on the Range were aimed at kids first, which alienated everyone else. It's quite telling that the derivative, cynical, Shrek-chasing Chicken Little did better than all these films. It's also quite telling that a good film like Lilo & Stitch outgrossed these films.

I see this new era as a revival of that failed plan, but this time, there's no David Stainton or executives having too much control over the product. If Wreck-It Ralph was made in 2002 during the Eisner-Stainton era, it would've tanked, because its screenplay would've been dumbed down, its better ideas would've hit the cutting room floor and the marketing would've made it look terrible. Nope, Wreck-It Ralph was a hit because the screenplay played to adults and kids - it didn't pander to them, bad ideas hit the cutting room floor and the marketing made it look good enough.

Big Hero 6, Zootopia, Moana, Dean Wellins' "Space Race" film, King of the Elves and several others are risky and different like Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Treasure Planet and Sweating Bullets (yes, Bullets became Home on the Range, but that early incarnation of Disney's failed Western had lots of potential). The difference is, these films are going to be allowed to be good movies… And what they want to be. That's all thanks to the awful, horrible devils that are John Lasseter and Ed Catmull, plus the great writers and animators who bring these stories to life.

Now also…

Attendance and grosses are two different things…

The Lion King's initial $312 million domestic total translates to roughly 74 million tickets today. If Frozen finishes up with $300 million, it'll have sold less than 40 million tickets. Still a big amount of tickets, but…

Grosses don't mean everything. People still saw films like Tangled and Wreck-It Ralph. People have discovered the likes of Bolt and Frog on video, television or other ways. Frozen may make a lot, but Disney better not reserve a throne for that film whilst telling the canine, the frogs and the video game wrecker to take a hike. They already did that to the hunchback, the super-strong hero and several others.

So hopefully the success of Frozen doesn't continue Disney's rather unfair trend of picking and choosing, and hopefully it doesn't drive Disney to go about selling their future animated films the wrong way. They should use the success of Frozen and the films before it to their advantage. Even though Bolt and Frog didn't outgross Chicken Little, they still outgrossed films like Treasure Planet, Brother Bear and Home on the Range. Chicken Little was lucky, because in 2005, if you were CGI and had a DreamWorks-y attitude, you were a hit. Today? Not so much.

Since Bolt and Frog outgrossed the non-fad films from the studio during the 2000-2005 period (minus you know who, of course), they could be used to demonstrate a growing momentum. It's kind of similar to how Disney used the grosses of Oliver, Mermaid and Beast to prove that Disney Animation was getting bigger and bigger. Bolt and Frog could be them saying: "Look. We're slowly winning back the audiences we lost." Now add in the success of Tangled and Ralph, they'll show: "Look! We got even bigger with those two!" Then Frozen can be their capper, their Aladdin/Lion King smash: "We're back in action now!"

This in turn could really hype up the next string of films, it could drive the marketing department to want to keep the gravy train going. The Renaissance fell after The Lion King because we started getting films like Pocahontas; films that were messes, byproducts of misguided intentions clashing and executive meddling. The declining quality of films got good amounts of people to stay away, not marketing. The marketing still gave it their all when readying films like Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan to at least help the films make their money back. Guess what? The films did good at the box office! Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan were by all means "hit films" back in the day. Lion King was that rare, once-in-a-lifetime freak success that also hit the summit of the momentum mountain. Did they really think that Pocahontas would repeat that? Or Aladdin's then-enormous $217 million gross? It doesn't work that way. The ignorant higher ups scoffed at the post-Lion King films just because they didn't make Aladdin or Lion King numbers despite being very profitable and selling like mad on home video afterwards. Boo-frickity-hoo…

The quality is consistent with these new films, thanks to the studio's current environment. No formulas, no repeating, no annoyances in the films that drive audiences away. No focus groups telling them what to do, no executives taking their cool ideas and watering them down for toddlers. The current Disney brass better know this, and they better take advantage. A new Renaissance is upon the studio, one that could last a very, very long time.

Time to go big or go home.

In fact… That should be Big Hero 6's tagline. "This Fall… Go BIG or go home!"

More Lessons To Be Taught

… and more instances of me sounding like a broken mp3. Anyways...

Walking with Dinosaurs opened in theaters this past weekend.

*crickets*

When the trailers for this film first came out, I was not too keen on the animation itself but I did like what I was seeing. The international trailer promised a silent adventure story, though the American trailer added some cheesy narration. But still, it seemed like this film - based on the highly acclaimed BBC miniseries of the same name - would be something special. A big epic adventure about dinosaurs with no dialogue, no script. Something for everyone really, adults could enjoy the adventure and spectacle (well again, the animation was questionable in the trailers - not sure if it looks better in the film itself)

As the film was on its way to theaters, something happened…

Some higher-up bozo decided that the film must have dialogue in it, and not just dialogue… Terrible dialogue that's on the level of something you'd see in a cartoon aimed at little kids. Because… Animation is for little kids first, right? Right?

Gee, doesn't that horror story sound familiar?

Yes indeed, this is the same thing that happened with Disney's Dinosaur. It was Disney Animation's first predominantly computer animated film (technically, a lot of sequences were live action with CG dinos), and the company set up a computer animation unit to make it happen: The ill-fated Secret Lab. That's a good $300 million+ they invested into this big project! It had "ambitious" written all over it, and it was planned to be a silent film.

But Disney at the time was ran by executives who didn't see animation as an art form, but rather a kids' medium meant to sell merchandise. Their ignorance essentially murdered what the filmmakers had in mind, Michael Eisner demanded that there would be talking in the film because he felt a silent dino film would be unmarketable.

Okay, the dinosaurs can talk. Fair enough. The Land Before Time was first conceived as a silent film until it was decided that there would be talking in it. But whereas Bluth and co. came up with okay dialogue and acting for the film's prehistoric protagonists, Disney killed Dinosaur with awful, embarrassing "hip" dialogue and slang. The film is bar none one of Disney Animation's worst and insulting films, minus the completely silent opening sequence. The opening shows how awesome the film could've been.

The film was lucky, however. It was released in 2000, when CGI was getting eaten up like candy by audiences. It was Disney, it was about dinosaurs, it was aggressively marketed, it made $137 million at the domestic box office and over $300 million worldwide.

Walking with Dinosaurs probably would've done okay in 2000, when audiences were able to look past terrible juvenile dialogue and just enjoy films for the spectacle. Today, however, they aren't so forgiving. What was the studio rewarded with?

A terrible $7 million opening. This is one of the worst openings for an animated feature. It's deserved, sadly… The animators don't deserve it, they worked hard on this. The idiot executives who had voice-overs added deserve the punishment. At least in Dinosaur, the talking decision was made before production really took off, so the dinosaurs at least act and the lines match their mouth movements. Here, the voice-overs flimsily sync up with the dinos' mouth movements.

When your scripts aims at the under 10 crowd, you get a flop like this.

When will people learn that the most successful animated films do well because of adult audiences? When will people learn that if you just target a movie to little kids, it'll fail? It's important, people. You need adults in the audience, too. Frozen is not crossing $250 million just because of kids, it's because their parents wanted to see it and so did adults who don't have children. Scott Mendelson of Forbes praised Frozen's kid-centric marketing, saying "kids dragging their parents to the cinema" is what made the film successful. WRONG.

Kids may want to see what's playing at the local cinema, but the parents are the ones making the ticket buying decisions. They work, drive and have money to get movie tickets. Kids don't. A parent can say what his/her kid will see in the theaters or not. If little Johnny says "Mommy, I wanna see Smurfs 2!", maybe mom will say, "No sweetie. We'll wait till the DVD comes out." A lot parents don't like subjecting themselves to something that'll bore them to sleep or make them cringe. They wait till the DVD or whenever it hits On Demand, so they can put it on in the other room and not have to watch it.

My aunt always tells me the humorous story of when she was doing childcare in the 1980s, and she whoever she was taking care of at the time to see The Care Bears Movie. She always joking tells me how awful that experience was…

Parents took their kids to see Frozen because it did not look like torture. Parents probably liked what they saw in the trailers, and so did many non-parents. It is not 1983 anymore, many teenagers and adults are beginning to go see animated films by themselves. Because guess what? Being "cool" is a joke, people will see what they want to see! Plus, animation is also no longer the bubonic plague of the film and pop culture world. Has been since the Second Golden Age.

Look at something like Alpha and Omega. It was for kids only, really. It only grossed $25 million at the box office in 2010, a huge contrast from How To Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After, Toy Story 3 and Tangled, which all grossed over $200 million domestically. You mean to tell me that Frozen did well mostly because of kids? You mean to tell me that kids are an animated family film's target audience?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. (Proceeds to lightly boop your head with a newspaper.)

When will everyone learn? Probably never, unless a revolutionary change takes place sometime in the future…

Sorry Fox, but kids, parents and childless adults are going to get their animated fix this holiday season with a far superior film, Frozen. To the people who pushed for unnecessary dialogue in this film, I hope you're happy…

Let this be a lesson to all of you…

Treat animation like it's just for kids, you lose.
Pander heavily to kids, you lose.
Shut out adults, you lose.
Take the young audience for granted, you lose.
Assume that just because kids will like it, it'll do well, you lose.



Mhm.

Not So Golden

It's old news by now, but yes… The Golden Globe nominations are out… And I'll put it bluntly, I'm not pleased with the animation results.

Only three nominees this year. A paltry three, instead of five. Who made the cut? The Croods, Despicable Me 2 and Frozen. Aside from Frozen's nomination - which I'm totally fine with - my reaction is a resounding, "Are you kidding me?"

No offense to anyone who enjoyed or loved The Croods or Despicable Me 2, but where is The Wind Rises? Oh wait, that's nominated for Best Foreign Film. Sheesh, these people like to put animation in its own category, yet don't nominate what is arguably the year's greatest animated film as Best Animated Feature. Who would've thought?

Where's Ernest & Celestine? Apparently that wasn't good enough, or they didn't even see it. Then again, we are talking about the same people who completely snubbed ParaNorman last year yet allowed the much inferior Hotel Transylvania to make the cut. Apparently box office plays a major role in this ceremony too, sorry, I don't follow it enough. I should know…

Anyways, if box office performances are taken in account, then… (and this is the biggest question…)

Where is Monsters University???

Did the voters truly not care for this year's Pixar offering? Or was it a clear case of them thinking, "It's a sequel/prequel, and Pixar totally fails at making those!" Probably the latter, but maybe the former. Monsters University garnered better critical reception than The Croods and Despicable Me 2, I certainly felt that it was way better than The Croods. I didn't see Despicable Me 2, but I for the life of me don't understand the appeal of The Croods. Good as the animation and art direction was, I couldn't get into it. All I saw was a good-looking movie with a bland story, one-dimensional characters and major tonal imbalances. Was it trying to be a good for-the-whole-family adventure? Or a slap-happy gabfest for little kids?

Basically, meh to this line-up. It should've been five slots, that way we get both Monsters University and The Wind Rises in. If they can't nominate The Wind Rises, then they need to rethink their ways a bit. I don't care if The Wind Rises was made in Japan, it's still an animated feature-length film. It should have been nominated for Best Animated Feature, simple as that. By leaving that out, they also leave out the praised Ernest & Celestine. Had it been five slots, those two could've gotten in and could've sat alongside the three American films.

Oh well, we'll see who wins… I'm guessing it'll most likely be Frozen, since that got the best reception of the bunch, is well-liked and touted as a new Disney masterpiece, and it is the safest choice. After all, Brave took the grand prize last year. Predictable, but damn… The results this year are disappointing as all hell. Hopefully the Oscar nominations for Best Animated Feature are a little more balanced…

What's your take? Do you think the choices for the nominees are just fine? Or do you think certain films got snubbed? Who do you think will win? Sound off below!

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...

Setting Animation Back 50 Years

Hayao Miyazaki's swan song The Wind Rises is getting closer to closer to American cinemas, although the film is being shown in Los Angeles right now so it can compete in this year's animated Oscar race…

And already, the film is getting complaints…

There are concerns over how American audiences will respond to the film's themes, as it was already very controversial in South Korea, they saw it as a "celebration of Japan's wartime aggression". It also generated a lot of brouhaha in its home country, the New York Times states that Japanese conservatives didn't take too well to the film, declaring it unpatriotic.

But this is the usual for animated features. Need I bring up how many Americans embraced WALL-E? Or how about when someone freaks out over something as harmless as The Lorax because of a lightweight environmental message?

The other complaints are idiotic. Concerns over smoking? Seriously? Imagery of bombs and tuberculosis? My goodness, think of the children!

Oh wait, this is not a children's film. It is not a family film, either. It's carrying a PG-13 rating and it's being released under Disney's Touchstone banner!

This is proof that we have a loooooooooong way to go. Animation still doesn't get the full respect it deserves in America, we're still in 1966 apparently. Everything animated must be "for kids" or "childish" to some degree, animation can't tackle "serious" stories. This is one good reason why more artistic foreign films or films with adult-oriented content in them have a hard time catching on here… Unless the films in question have innuendos, raunchy humor and crap that makes immature 12 year olds laugh. A Family Guy Movie would easily make $150 million domestically.

Then there was the whole issue with the film's 126-minute running time, and how some people at a screening said it was too long. Yeah, because animation can't cover two-hour epics, right? Right? They can't be serious films, they gotta be short-n-sweet romps with dancing farting animals and goofy action! To people used to 90-minute diversions, something this long is apparently unheard of.

Animation just keeps getting sent back to the kiddie corner by the ignorant adults here… Oh well, here's hoping that The Wind Rises tries to reverse this and is actually something of a domestic box office surprise hit. Pipe dream...

I Wanna See That!

This weekend, Alfonso Cauron's highly acclaimed Gravity fell an amazing 20% this weekend, grossing $44 million over the course of three days. Word of mouth is going to be particularly strong for this one, but it's a bit of an anomaly. A lot of "leggy" films often open small (The Help is a good example, off the top of my head) and end up grossing more than $100 million domestically based on the word of mouth, people who saw it telling their friends to go to see it, etc.

Why is Gravity different? Gravity opened with $55 million, a near blockbuster-level total! Heck, it outgrossed a lot of big budget tentpoles already released in the last three years! I see a lot of people talking about what audiences go to see, what audiences like and whatnot. I'll often hear generalizations like "American audiences are idiots and they only go to see crap! Transformers anyone?"

If that's the case, why did something like Battleship sink on its opening weekend? Also, who are you to deem the American moviegoers and masses "stupid" or "idiotic"? If anything, Gravity's success on opening weekend proves one thing to me...

American moviegoers (and this extends to moviegoers around the world) go to see what "looks" good. Quality is out of the question here.

If it's true that American moviegoers have no taste at all (they have a taste for something, even if it is drivel), then why is Gravity - a highly-acclaimed film that's even considered by some as one of the greatest films ever made - doing so well at the box office? How come many critically well-liked films have done well at the box office over the decades? Those meddling American moviegoers are idiots, right?

The high-horse mentality needs to go. Earlier in the summer, everyone sounded the alarm when Pacific Rim failed to outgross Grown Ups 2 on its opening weekend. Apparently this was humanity going backwards, humanity was coming to end! People had no faith in the human race because more people paid to see a stupid Adam Sandler comedy with pissing deer than Guillermo del Toro's passionately-made big-budget pet project. Apparently all those people who saw Grown Ups 2 but didn't check out Pacific Rim are bad, terrible, horrible idiots. Right? Right?!

I think the bigger issue here is how people treat others who have certain tastes in film. Yes, it would've been nice to see del Toro's film make big bucks at the box office, but it exists and it's delighted many - so what's the big deal? We are still going to get a lot of great films, both mainstream and independent. It's not like the end of the world or anything, all because of the success of an Adam Sandler movie that was going to do well to begin with. I wasn't horribly upset with Pacific Rim grossing less ($37 million on its opening weekend wasn't too bad for a film that was very badly marketed) than Grown Ups 2, I was more upset with how people reacted. (Film aficionado Cinemaxwell wrote an excellent piece on this topic.)

I accept the fact that people like certain things or will go to see certain things. Lots of people eat McDonald's, should we call them horrible idiots that only make humanity go backwards because they'll eat that and shun a gourmet meal? We can politely question their taste (literally in this case), but if anything, all this callous name-calling and insulting sets humanity back more than one's taste in film does.

Which brings me back to Gravity. If mainstream audiences are such idiots that set humanity on a trail to backwards-dom, why is this film doing well?

The marketing was great. The marketing made it look like a film that people would definitely want to see. When you succeed in marketing your film, it becomes a big success. Let's go back to this past summer. Why did Pacific Rim only open with $37 million? It had nothing to do with a pissing deer, Warner Bros. ' marketing campaign is to blame. The trailers made the film look highly uninteresting. I read the premise for this film a while back and was like, "Humans building robots to fight giant monsters? Sign me up!"

I saw the trailers and thought "Looks like every other blockbuster, where's the story?" Most people looked at it and said, "Looks like Transformers with giant monsters. Pass!" I'm in the know, I wanted to see the film regardless. I can't the say the same about other moviegoers who probably don't take the time to read up on movie news, and that's totally alright. The film world may not be of their interests, it's my interest on the other hand and that's why I'm in the know about upcoming films that aren't out for years. It's also partially the reason why I was excited about the film beforehand, I knew the premise, who was making it and everything else.

Also, coincidentally, Pacific Rim and Gravity are both Warner Bros. releases.

Americans gravitate towards blow-em-up/big budget blockbusters, you say? Well then, tell me why White House Down, Pacific Rim, The Lone Ranger, R.I.P.D., Battleship, John Carter and several other films like that underwhelmed on opening weekend?

Marketing.

Marketing makes and breaks films, no matter who they are from. The marketing's job is to give audiences an incentive to see a certain film, and if it fails, then the film most likely will. Legs are a different story, that kicks in after the opening.

I can extend all of this to the world of animation...

Let's look at ParaNorman, shall we? Focus Features did the marketing, the film's theatrical trailer was a poorly-edited and often painful mess of jokes, potty humor and ghoulish stuff. It was too much for toddlers in the audience, but it was also too silly for anyone over the age of 12. What happened next? This wonderful LAIKA film only grossed a paltry $14 million on its opening weekend last summer - a pretty damn low gross for a wide-release animated feature. Word of mouth and legs spread from the few who saw it on opening weekend, but it ultimately wasn't enough - the film only grossed $56 million in the end. (4x multiplier.)

Weeks later, Sony Animation's Hotel Transylvania opened with $42 million and had good word of mouth, and thus that film grossed over $140 million at the domestic box office. Double what ParaNorman took in. The marketing for that film was pretty good, the trailer actually had me chuckle a few times! On the other hand, I was worried that ParaNorman was just going to be laden with middle school-level potty humor and that would be the antithesis of the great Coraline. I actually wanted to see Hotel Transylvania despite what I had thought of the voice cast, the studio's overall track record and the (in my opinion) awful teaser.

I saw ParaNorman, I was blown away by it. Hotel Transylvania? I only enjoyed a few parts and I did like the animation, but I don't plan to watch it again. It was very forgettable in many aspects for me.

Audiences most likely reacted the same way I did to those trailers. Why did I see ParaNorman, though? I know who LAIKA is, I'm an animation fanatic and I had heard good things about it from screenings and those who were working on it. Are other American moviegoers even thinking of those things? No. They saw that poorly-made trailer and made the decision from the get-go: "No, I am not interested in seeing that." It didn't help that the movie was also not for young children. The film wasn't for little kids, and the marketing shut the adults out (Rule of thumb: You need to entice adults to go see your animated film if you want it to be a success!)... You were left with a film that did poorly at the box office.

How about we look at last year's animated films and this year's?

Only five films grossed over $50 million on their opening weekends. Two Pixar films: Brave and Monsters University. The other two were from Illumination: The Lorax and Despicable Me 2. Then there was Madagascar 3.

Pixar movies gross over $50 million on their opening weekends by default, even the dreaded Cars 2 - arguably more for young children than the other Pixar films - opened with a great $66 million! Why's that? Adults respect Pixar and know they'll deliver animated entertainment for them that they'll enjoy. Brave opened with $66 million, I think it wouldn't have done as well had it been made by another studio. Monsters University, we can except, it's a prequel to a beloved film. Prior to Toy Story 3, WALL-E and Up grossed over $60 million on their opening weekends, Ratatouille's adjust opening is $55 million.

As for Illumination's two films... The Lorax was something of a fluke, but the marketing for that film was great, it was in your face and also it's a Dr. Seuss adaptation! In hindsight, a $50 million+ opening was inevitable. Despicable Me 2? Well, the first one broke out on opening weekend thanks to great, great marketing... So the sequel was poised to do just as well if not better! Madagascar 3 came off two successful films and had an effective marketing campaign. How come films like Wreck-It Ralph, Hotel Transylvania and The Croods only settled for opening weekend grosses between $40-50 million?

The marketing campaigns for those films were good enough, they worked to ensure opening weekend grosses of that size. ($40-50 million) But none of those campaigns were great. Wreck-It Ralph looked like every other animated movie out there, except with some recognizable video game cameos. Hotel Transylvania looked like every other animated movie out there. The Croods looked like every other animated out movie there. All of them looked like colorful, silly, kiddie comedies. Wreck-It Ralph was classic Disney magic with a bite, it inched close to a $200 million domestic gross. It would've completely topped $200 million had the marketing been great. The marketing hid its inner greatness. The Croods got to $187 million thanks to having many weeks to itself, so that word of mouth did its work. If that film had to encounter an animated release in April, it would not have grossed over $170 million. Hotel Transylvania's word of mouth was good, and it didn't have any legitimate competition until Wreck-It Ralph came out, so it was able to gross over $140 million. Ralph got close to $190 million while duking it out with direct competition, Croods got to $187 million because it could, there was barely any competition in its way. Hotel Transylvania would've grossed less than it did if it fought what Ralph went up against.

When will a non-Pixar animated film gross over $50 million on its opening weekend? Simple, when one comes along that has a great marketing campaign that differentiates it from the other animated films out there. Free Birds doesn't look like it'll make that amount on its opening weekend. Frozen looks like Tangled on Ice to many fans and moviegoers, and typical animated film fluff on top of that. The Lego Movie might be the next non-Pixar animated movie to hit that threshold, given the great buzz that the teaser had gotten and the fact that it's... Well... A Lego movie.

In the end, marketing makes or breaks many films. Audiences go to see films that look good, the trailers have to get them interested early on.

Gravity's success on opening weekend more than proved that to me.

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.

More Stupid Rebooting

Disney has announced that a live action "origin" film about Cruella de Vil is in the works... You read that right, a live action origin film about the evil, vain, puppy-murdering villainess from One Hundred and One Dalmatians...

Yes, it was reported by /Film today and quite frankly, I don't care who is writing it, who is going to be in the cast, yadda yadda yadda. This is a foolish idea, and one that tells me that Disney has no faith in their live action studio after the failures of Prince of Persia, John Carter and The Lone Ranger. It doesn't help that Marvel and Lucasfilm are going to be the ones supplying them with live action hits and big franchises... And Bob Iger loves those franchises...

Look, it's not right to pre-judge it, but the problems I have with this project are the same ones I have with the upcoming Maleficent.

First of all, why does Disney feel the need to take the stories they adapted into their animated classics and re-imagine them as darker, grittier live-action films? To get teens into the theater? To cash-in on the already beloved classics? Why? Alice in Wonderland was huge for many reasons, it looked great, it was the first major 3D film after Avatar and the marketing made it look like something that made everyone say "I gotta go see that!" Oz did well because the original is beloved, and people went to see the new take on it out of curiosity. The marketing was good, too.

Soon, this rebooting fairy tales/family-friendly stories trend will come to an end. Alice in Wonderland's massive success was lightning in a bottle, as Oz couldn't recapture it neither could non-Disney fairy tale reboots like Snow White and the Huntsman and Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. Maleficent probably won't set the box office on fire next summer, at best it'll perform like Oz. I'll be very surprised if it does much better than that film did.

But this rebooting fairy tales thing and the whole reaction to The Lone Ranger's box office performance makes me worry about the Walt Disney Studios. Now, not every live action release from the company over sixty years has been great, but at least there were different stories to be told. Walt Disney himself, not being too fond of sequels, usually opted for something different with many of his live action films, whether it was a period piece or a good old-fashioned family adventure or a zany goofball comedy or even a drama. Even during the 1970s and 1980s, at least they weren't trying to reboot the animated films as live action films, despite gravitating towards Herbie sequels and madcap comedies like the 1960s ones.

Now the plan is to explores stories that have already been told. I could care less for the Maleficent film because I don't need an origin story that paints the mistress of all evil as a sympathetic figure, plus she's a terrible villain, why have any shred of sympathy for that? Same goes for Cruella. Kenneth Branagh's Cinderella? Walt Disney was able to tell the story of Cinderella with all the drama and heart in less than 75 minutes, will this new film add another 50 minutes of pointless exposition, medieval violence and back story stuff? Will it include the violence that Walt Disney didn't opt to put in the original film? Because, you know, Disney's animated fairy tale adaptations suck because they aren't violent or gory like the original fairy tales. Right? Right?!

The Jungle Book? Disney already did a decent live action adaptation that was closer to Rudyard Kipling's original story than Walt's bizarrely-flawed but enjoyable animated film. Pete's Dragon? As if that 1977 family-friendly musical needed a remake that doesn't have (gasp) songs. The Rocketeer? Can we please leave an already good cult classic alone? Why not just give the original some kind of big re-release and do a sequel to it instead, like you did with TRON: Legacy? Flight of the Navigator? Again... Why not just introduce newer generations to the damn original, instead making a new film?

If anything, it seems like Walt Disney Studios will only be specializing in two things: Small-scale live action fare... And blockbuster re-imaginings of stories that they have already covered. I guess we won't be seeing the likes of The Stuff of Legend or Matched or Terra Incognita and the other fresh projects that Alan Horn happened to green light last year.

It baffles me that executives aren't figuring out why John Carter and The Lone Ranger, instead they assume that they should just drop that kind of approach to live action tentpoles and just be very, very safe. So you'll let Marvel and Lucasfilm go all out because they can, but you won't at least try something new for your own studio? Touchstone is doing okay with their small-scale stuff, as Disney should do well with that stuff too. (The Odd Life of Timothy Green, for example, was a profitable success.)

There is some hope. Brad Bird's Tomorrowland could very well blow the likes of Oz and Maleficent out of the water, while also being the success that John Carter and The Lone Ranger weren't. What if this thing is an all-out blockbuster that makes more than just a big profit? In 2014, they've also got Into The Woods, which is at least something they haven't done before - regardless of how it turns out! I'll be more than happy if those two films outdo Maleficent and show the suits that people want fresh, new live action fare from Disney. John Carter and The Lone Ranger? We all know why those two films flopped, so Disney should not assume that audiences don't want something fresh and new.

I mean... Pirates of the Caribbean, anyone?

Big risk. Paid off. Started a big multi-billion dollar franchise...

Oh, and the first was put into production when pirate films were considered box office poison. Oh, and it was a PG-13 Disney release. Not a Touchstone one.

Sometimes people want something fresh, new and even risky. They just have to go about it the right way. Disney didn't for John Carter, which could've very well launched a trilogy and subsequent franchise. They also screwed up with The Lone Ranger, and they're ignorantly showing TRON the door despite the fanbase and the newly-acquired fans brought on by the 2010 sequel... Meanwhile, they pour the marketing love into Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm's releases... Oh, and Walt Disney Animation Studios' films to a lesser extent.

I think the ambitious Pirates of the Caribbean should more than be a great lesson for the current Disney brass...

The Good Decision

Yesterday, I talked about how Pixar's decision to delay The Good Dinosaur was actually a good move. One that inspired confidence in me rather than fear. Now, I will expand on this...

In addition to the announcement of the delay, Ed Catmull once again spoke...

"Nobody ever remembers the fact that you slipped a film, but they will remember a bad film. Our conclusion was that we were going to give the film some more time."

There you have it. This tells me something... This tells me that the Brain Trust is well aware of the consequences brought on by the Cars 2 and Brave fiascoes. Of course, my theory about those films and what they went through is that the problems were rooted in the release schedule. In April 2008, Pixar confidently felt that Newt would be ready for summer 2011, The Bear and the Bow/Brave would be a fall 2011 release and Cars 2 would be the summer 2012 film. They announced these dates very early on, which may have put tremendous pressure on the filmmakers.

Moving Cars 2 from its original summer 2012 date to summer 2011 most likely put a lot of pressure on original director Brad Lewis, so much so that the film probably was a giant mess by the time John Lasseter took over as director in fall 2010. I think that project was a salvaged one, big time. Not that it says anything negative about Brad Lewis' abilities as a director, I just think that cutting the time given to him took a toll on him and his project. If anything, Cars 2 could have been much, much worse. You heard next to nothing about Newt between summer 2008 and February 2010, when it was reported to be "dead" by a commenter on the TAG blog only for its shelving to be officially confirmed by Pixar in May of that year. I don't think it had anything to do with Rio similarities, that film was in trouble for a while - Rio coming out just didn't help. Brave's director change made more people say that Pixar was on the decline, and Brenda Chapman's comments added to that. But is her dissatisfaction with Pixar's work ethic all just sour grapes? Insinuating that Pixar does the same old story over and over makes me question her, I didn't hear such talk from Jan Pinkava or Brad Lewis. Bob Peterson seems to be taking his ousting from his project pretty well, I'd say. Or were the Brain Trust truly unfair to Chapman? No clear cut answer here, as both sides are contradicted. (I'm not getting into that again.)

Then you got the sequels, but that's a moot point because Toy Story 3, Monsters University and Finding Dory had to be made - no two ways about it. Circle 7, anyone? Plus, Andrew Stanton himself confirmed that Disney did some nudging, but Stanton essentially said, "We tell them that we'll do it when we are ready." This is why you didn't see a Nemo sequel 3 years ago, and why you won't see one for another 3 years. Cars 2? Bob Iger probably coaxed John Lasseter into making another one, but again, that's my own little conspiracy theory. It's a coincidence that these director changes occurred when all these sequels were coming, because three of the four sequels had to be made, the fourth was obviously greenlit for the green paper, and Pixar wanted to take their time on the main three that they had to do. Toy Story 3 is considered a masterpiece, and Monsters University got better reception overall than Cars 2 and Brave... As if sequels/prequels are such a bad thing...

About Monsters University... The only big complaints I see about the film basically say "It was too safe." I heard no criticisms of the story or comic relief or whatever, just "It was safe/dull/bland/lacking/vanilla/etc." The consensus seems to be, "It's Pixar's best since Toy Story 3, but it's not all that great."

That didn't go through a director change either, as the story was pretty consistent and smooth. Cars 2 and Brave's stories aren't bad, they just have some problems, Cars 2 especially. Monsters University was always a summer 2013 release too, it wasn't announced back in 2008 or 2009. By the time it was announced during the spring of 2010, it was probably already in good shape. The November 2012 date was probably just picked by Disney to hype it up, after all it was first announced as "Monsters, Inc. 2" back then. Looks like Dan Scanlon had time to craft a solid story, because he had a lot of time to do it and he had no officially announced release date on his back.

Not to mention, nothing is ever set in stone in the world of animation. A film could be well into production when the people behind it realize that there are problems. Sometimes a last-minute fix or two can work, just look at Toy Story 2! Many Disney films apply as well, and probably countless other animated films from other studios. Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois didn't have much time to retool a very problematic How To Train Your Dragon over at DreamWorks, but they gave the project their all and saved it from becoming a possible disaster. Sony Animation's Hotel Transylvania went through six different directors and took six years to finally complete. Heck, the world of live action films is no stranger to this!

But the two-in-a-row director musical chairs debacles at Pixar inspired a lot of skepticism in fans and many other people, and when it seemed like The Good Dinosaur would restore the studio's "former glory" (in their eyes), Pixar surprised us yet again. This time, it was a veteran who was being removed from his project... Not a relative newcomer or someone who hasn't been there for a long, long while. Even I got very worried, but now there's hope...

I personally believe that John Lasseter and the Brain Trust are more than concerned about what just happened between the fall of 2010 and the summer of 2012...

The Cars universe is very near and dear to John Lasseter, it's such a personal endeavor for him... And he thought he saved the sequel from turning out to be a complete disaster, only to see the finished film get fired at with scorn and absolute disapproval - to the point where people gave up being fans of Pixar. Lasseter defended his film, using "audiences loved it" as an excuse... If anything, that suggests that the criticism really hurt Lasseter's feelings and he wouldn't be willing to address the film's problems. Listen to commentary on the Cars 2 Blu-ray; he clearly loves this universe and is very passionate about it.

He's also been rather quiet about Brave and even Monsters University. You don't sense much enthusiasm from the Brain Trust towards those films, the way they were enthusiastic about films like Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up and Toy Story 3 didn't seem to be there. I think they've realized that removing the directors and not delaying the films in order to salvage them was a series of bad moves. The critical reception of the last three films, the general "Pixar is declining" mood coming from the ever-so-nice press and the overall backlash didn't pass by them. I think they are aware that they inspired so much worry, skepticism and even anger.

This all explains to me why The Good Dinosaur was ultimately delayed by a year and a half... Pixar truly wants a quality production here, and they'll do whatever it takes to ensure that the film is great. Ed Catmull more than sums it up in his statements. The Brain Trust and Lasseter aren't the heartless creativity-killing bastards that everyone is making them out to be, or so it seems for now. Should The Good Dinosaur turn out to be a bad film, then I say we should question what the Brain Trust is doing - not necessarily yell "They were evil!"

Pixar delayed it knowing that they wouldn't have something ready for audiences next summer, they were willing to break the one-film-a-calendar-year tradition to save this film from being below par. Catmull points out that people will remember a "bad" film (although many will say "But Cars 2 was bad! Catmull is just sugarcoating things!")...

If anything, this situation is a combination of the Ratatouille pre-production woes and the release schedule causing problems...

There was a time when you had to wait for Pixar films, you did not have the privilege of getting a new film from the Emeryville studio every year. I became a big fan of Pixar at the age of 10 back in fall 2002, after numerous repeat viewings of my Monsters, Inc. DVD and immersing myself in the set's two discs worth of bonus features. When Finding Nemo came out (I was in fifth grade at the time) and I saw the release date for The Incredibles at the end of the teaser, I was basically thinking, "Wow... That's a long wait. I'll be in seventh grade by then!" When Cars was delayed from November 2005 to June 2006 - a month after the trailer debuted no less! - I was pretty upset about that. I remember thinking, "Awwww, that's way too long!"

Flash-forward to today. Pixar releases one film every summer, and plans on releasing two in a calendar year every once in a while in addition to one every year. That's a big feat. DreamWorks releases 2-3 films every year, but to be honest, I don't think all of their films are of high quality. For every How To Train Your Dragon and Kung Fu Panda 2 leaving me satisfied, there's a Megamind or Croods that fails to impress me.

Andrew Stanton spoke up about this new scheduling problem a few moths ago...

"We can’t have the amount of labor it takes to do these movies at the same time because it becomes unsustainable economically, but it means if one director has a problem, everybody’s connected to the same bed sheet. You pull one end and it makes wrinkles in the other one. It’s a new problem."

He hit the nail on the head. A Brain Trust member no less! In addition to that, he mentioned that hefty $200 million budgets and the ramping up of the schedule puts "strains" on the studio's resources.

I mentioned this earlier in the month, the whole "one-a-year" thing can create problems and Stanton more than sums up what I thought: It was the problematic schedule all along, not the Hawaiian Shirt Man being some egotistical devil or the Brain Trust being control freaks. Again, look at Walt Disney Animation Studios' last five films...

Cars 2 and Brave could've been beyond messy due to the release dates approaching so soon, and the director changes were a result of the Brain Trust acting fast. Consider it like panic mode for them: "The film is in trouble and the release date is almost here! It's got to be fixed!" Again, Cars 2 had the unfortunate date switch happen when the film was still in development. Brave had to be finished in less than two years. The new director of The Good Dinosaur has more than two years to fix the film, and with no film coming out next year, there will be more concentration from everyone else involved. I'm more than glad that Pixar delayed this film.

Now you may ask, "Now that they have time, why is Peterson not back on board?"

Again, Jan Pinkava... Pinkava just wasn't fit for directing his personal project, Ratatouille. It was chock full of issues and it just wasn't working. Brad Bird had to save it, but in the process, he made a modern masterpiece and one that's called the pinnacle of Pixar's storytelling prowess. Perhaps Bob Peterson just couldn't make this film work, much like how Pinkava couldn't make Ratatouille work. Brad Lewis and Brenda Chapman, from the way I see it now, couldn't work wonders within such a tight schedule. If Cars 2's release date was undetermined for a long while, it probably would've been a pretty strong film, ditto Brave. Pixar can't assign dates to films anymore, but rather let them and their creators breathe... And when one is truly ready, then ink a release date for it.

I understand that competition is wild, and first pick is a big deal, but... Disney and Pixar proved earlier this year that you can pick a bunch of release dates for films, but not tell anyone what exact films are hitting theaters on those dates. If I didn't read up on Blue Sky Disney prior to this year's D23 Expo, I'd have no idea that Zootopia was going to be the March 2016 release. I'd have no idea that the November 2016 and March 2018 films would be Giants and Moana. If I knew about the latter two films, I wouldn't know exactly when they'd be coming out. Remember, Bleeding Cool's Brendon Connelly implied in an article that Giants could very well arrive at movie theaters long after 2016... But we all know it's definitely the fall 2016 release for now thanks to Blue Sky Disney and the information that Honor Hunter gets.

So in the future, Pixar should just pick dates and not say what's coming out on those dates. Teddy Newton's film for example - don't say it's slated for fall 2017 two or more years before it's expected to hit theaters! Same goes for Mark Andrews' untitled project and Dia De Los Muertos! Disney Animation isn't outright saying that Giants is coming in November 2016, heck they're not even saying that Zootopia is the March 2016 release! By not setting the dates in stone, you're not pressuring your creative teams with ticking clocks. It all brings me to a specific line from Toy Story 2... I bet you can guess what it is...

That's right... "You can't rush art!"

In the end, I think Pixar just learned a lesson. It's life, people make mistakes and learn from them - Pixar is no different. The people there are not gods of perfection or anything of the sort, and they know that. Let what happened from the fall of 2010 to the summer of 2012 be the mistakes, and these few weeks being the "learning" phase. The resulting films released from 2011 to 2013 forms the sort of punishment (okay, that may sound harsh - but you get the idea, Pixar doesn't need to be "punished") for what they did, and now they're attempting to do better next time around. And if you ask me, that's welcome.

At the same time, I can accept the fact that not every Pixar film is going to be perfect. I'm totally fine with a string of greats and a string of not-so-great films. I'm no longer in shock, because we got two films that had problems and a film that was not spectacular plus... They're only human and they can't make every film great or perfect. It's reality, Walt Disney's animation unit went through the same kind of phases where the films weren't up to snuff and no one seems to bat an eye.

Just think about it too... Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur are both coming out in the same calendar year... What if both are bonafide critical hits? What if both are considered excellent by critics and audiences? I can just hear it now... "Pixar, what a comeback!" "They picked themselves up out of that slump!" "Looks like John Lasseter isn't so bad after all!" The tides will turn fast, really fast. People will be praising them out the wazoo and covering up their snide comments they made during the last few years. I bet it'll happen, and I'd gladly eat crow if it doesn't.

Almost as if Pixar is well aware of the backlash and the reaction to their last three films, and they're up to something... They're making sure that they make a big splash in 2015...