Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
December 14, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Disney's The Princess and the Frog, a return to 2-D animation after a couple of years hiatus, earned $24.2 million this weekend. How should the studio feel about this result?
Josh Spiegel: I would imagine a bit disappointed, frankly. Disney has been touting this movie for the entire year, and for the film to not get a higher opening weekend may feel sour for some executives and John Lasseter. Of course, on the other hand, with the Christmas season being mostly forgiving to family films (for example, Disney's A Christmas Carol is very close to making four times its opening weekend), Princess and the Frog is probably going to end up with a nice amount of dough at the end of the day. Still, I bet Disney was hoping for a much higher result.
Max Braden: That's only a moderate improvement over Atlantis: The Lost Empire's $20 million opening in 2001 and much less than Lilo & Stitch's $35 million in 2002, and The Princess and the Frog looks more traditional-Disney than either of those. It might add insult to injury if Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 makes a load of money too. But really The Princess and the Frog allows Disney to add another character to their Princesses lineup, which means plenty of money in related items.
Jim Van Nest: Ya know, the studio may well be disappointed with this result, but I'm a bit surprised. I was beginning to think that 2-D animation was a lost art. I honestly didn't know if people would go to the theater for it anymore. Bottom line, there's at least six different cable stations now devoted to nothing but 2-D animation. It seemed to me like people would only show up for the stuff they CAN'T get on TV - Pixar, Shrek XVIII, Ice Age - Oh Crap, Global Warming, etc. I'm very excited to see that a traditional animated project can still win a weekend.
Matthew Huntley: On the one hand, the studio should be grateful there's still an audience willing to pay for 2-D animation, and if the cost for making these features can be lessened, the format may stick around for a while. On the other, $24 million is on the lower end of expectations and may not justify the film's reported $100 million budget. The studio probably preferred something more in the $35 million range, which would better guarantee a final box office north of $100 million, but they're probably expecting decent legs with this one (so long as Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 doesn't provide too fierce of competition). Right now, I think it's too early to say whether or not this weekend's performance was good or not, but my guts tell me the studio is disappointed.
Michael Lynderey: That number's a little lukewarm, that's for sure. It's a muddle of ambiguity - not the kind of breakout result that would get the Disney folks' fists pumping in the air, and definitely not an outright disappointment, either. As with many movies this time of year, the total this one carries one month from now will really tell the tale on how Princess/Frog is going to be remembered. If it's around $90 million - and I suspect that's going to be the case - then Disney should be pleased if not overly enthused. If the picture takes in more than that, I'd call it a strong win, especially considering that would make it one of only three traditionally animated films to cross $100 million this decade.
Shalimar Sahota: They should enjoy being on top while it lasts, since positive reviews for an animated film is no guarantee here anymore, especially after seeing the stop frame animated Fantastic Mr Fox dwindle. It'd be good to see strong legs over the next few weeks, but competition from Avatar is likely to hurt it plenty and, as horrible as it sounds, I wouldn't be too surprised if Alvin & the Chipmunks 2 made more money than this.
Tom Macy: If I were Disney I'd be cautiously optimistic. I know I am. The Christmas through New Year's period - where films like Marley & Me and Alvin and the Chipmunks made a killing - is tailor made for family entertainment. Throw in the positive reviews and the nostalgia of old school Disney - which I think the marketing has done a brilliant job of capturing while not exploiting - and we could be looking at a solid $125 million earner. But maybe I'm deluding myself. I just want this film to succeed more than I have any other in a while. Perhaps that will change when I see it, though.
Kevin Chen: I doubt that John Lasseter is feeling any disappointment, given that he was one of the primary forces responsible for insuring that The Princess and the Frog was able to see the light of day. I'm sure it's recognized internally that there is a lot of brand rebuilding to be done after the erosion of their traditional animated studios, particularly since the capitulation to CG technology continued to ignore the weakness of the underlying writing elements. While The Princess and the Frog cleaves strongly to the modern Disney formula, it feels a lot closer to the Disney Renaissance than the films which marked the end of the 2D studio, and as such should be read as baby's first step, not an Olympic sprint.
Reagen Sulewski: That's definitely the important thing to remember here, is that they've let people get out of the habit of viewing these films as an annual event. While they're not starting from as deep a hole as they were before the Disney Renaissance, consider that The Little Mermaid opened to just $6 million and earned $84 million, not blockbuster numbers even by the standards of that time (20 years ago now!). Thanks to Christmas business, The Princess and the Frog could conceivably get into the $150 million or more area.
Sean Collier: I think many of us wouldn't have been surprised if Disney never made another 2D film. Considering that the Mouse House is essentially reviving a form, here, and one that hasn't been truly big business for them since the early part of this decade, the result is fine. Christmas will push it into something resembling profitability, most likely, and as Max pointed out, the real money here comes when Princess whatshername takes a place in line alongside Jasmine and Belle et al in the endless line of merchandise. Nothing wrong for Disney here.
George Rose: For publicity's sake, they should pretend to be thrilled. In all reality, they might be, especially considering how long it's been since the last time they did a musical in this medium. However, I'm not part of the Disney marketing machine and won't sugar coat this. Given how unappealing the story and setting of the film are, this is more than I expected it to make, so in that regard I congratulate the movie. On the other hand, this is a Disney animated musical, and as far as its predecessors are concerned, this is bad. Real bad. If the novelty of the long awaited return to this traditional form can only muster $25 million on opening weekend, that doesn't speak well to future projects in the works. Fine, okay, it seems to have worked to moderate extent for this one movie on this one holiday season, but this should by no means trigger a slew of new 2D musical in the near future.
Jason Lee: For me, this simply proves how much of an uphill battle it will be for Disney to revive the 2-D animation genre. A classic story, theatrical villain, likable sidekicks, hand drawn animation, Broadway-style musical numbers . . . it all feels like a throwback to a bygone era. It'd be fine if viewers came out in droves for a big of cinematic nostalgia, but they didn't. I just question whether or not this film's eventual theatrical gross will justify the effort that's gone into it. My guess is "no."
Kim Hollis: I'm going to disagree, Jason. Reagen and Kevin are right in that with the period of time that's elapsed between 2-D animated films - and good ones, at that, it's going to be a process for Disney to rebuild that brand. They won the weekend, reviews are stellar, and it's certainly a plus on the merchandising side of things. This is going to be a win in the long run.
They're all just intimidated by Miyazaki
Kim Hollis: Does this opening and potential solid theatrical run mean that more studios, including Disney, will give traditional animation another look as a viable investment for future projects?
Josh Spiegel: Well, since John Lasseter is so happy to get involved in 2-D and 3-D animation, I'm sure Disney's not about to stop its production slate. For other studios, though, I don't think they're going to start venturing into 2-D animation. The major competition Disney has is in CGI animation, not 2-D. In the days before Pixar, though there were other 2-D animation companies, none were nearly as powerful or lucrative as Disney. This result likely proves that there will always be an audience for any kind of animation style, but I don't know that Dreamworks or Sony is going to throw away their computer technology.
Jim Van Nest: Unfortunately, I don't think so. $25 mil is nothing compared to the openings they can get rolling out another crappy Madagascar flick. I would expect Disney to continue to make 2-D, but the other studios? Not so much.
Tom Macy: If Frog can fight its way to being considered a legitimate success - not just by not being a failure - then the door for further cell animated projects will remain open. Another big test lies ahead with the release of Rapunzel, Disney's next Princess-driven throwback, opening on the potentially lucrative Thanksgiving weekend of 2010. A solid performance from Frog could whet audiences appetites for more 2-D fare, putting Rapunzel in a prime position to break out. Don't forget, it's been almost 15 years since Disney stopped churning out animated classics of this kind. There's a whole generation that's been brought up on Pixar and 3-D animation. Maybe exposing this new younger audience could provide Disney with a chance to make something old new again. Geez, all this positive spinning is making me sound like one of George Lucas's assistants.
Shalimar Sahota: With so many already grounded in computer animation and looking towards 3D, it seems unlikely. Though I would love to see what a traditionally animated Pixar film would be like. There really is only one studio to count on for your traditional 2D animation fix, and that's Studio Ghibli. Although they barely crack the US box office, very few can match them in terms of sheer storytelling and detail.
Michael Lynderey: I don't think we're going to see a flood of traditionally animated titles just yet. Such a scenario would have to follow an outright old-school animation hit - a film that would take in north of $150 million. This almost certainly isn't that film, but it might inspire a studio to greenlight the very project that would end up playing that role - thus making Princess + Frog an important stepping stone in the animation resuscitation process, if not quite the main course.
Matthew Huntley: I don't think so, especially for other studios, who can't count on the Disney brand name to sell tickets. If films like these can't open with at least $40 million, it makes it hard to think 2-D animation will return as a viable investment, not when their budgets keep growing. I think 2-D animation will be around for years to come, but they'll be a rarity compared to computer animation and 3-D.
George Rose: This should serve as a reminder, a throwback, to the traditional animated musical, NOT as new a trend setter. I will lose all faith in the marketing whores of Hollywood if they start green lighting all sorts of 2D extravaganzas. I'm almost 100% sure this will not earn enough to set the world on fire. I doubt it will earn as much as the live-action/animated split Enchanted, and even that hasn't spawned a sequel yet. I'd rather see a second installment to that franchise (of which there are endless possibilities) than a sequel to this or another attempt at this medium. What I want to know is why nobody has made a CGI animated musical. I'm not entirely sure why 2D animation (and their musical sub-genre) died all together in the light of straight CGI. Sure, CGI took a step up by occasionally implementing 3D glasses, but they never tried making Shrek or Buzz Lightyear sing and dance. As awful as the idea sounds, I'd rather see that experiment than another attempt at rejuvinating 2D animated musicals. Its time has come and gone. The Princess and the Frog is like Michael Jackson's This Is It; a reminder of that which is dead and a pleasant experience for die hard fans, but the final nail in the coffin for everyone else.
Reagen Sulewski: Probably no one is more excited about this development than Don Bluth, I'd say. But as always, Hollywood is a town of copycats. If the return of traditional animation can find a niche, other studios are going to try and exploit it. It depends a lot on the cost, though - most studios have sunk their costs into the digital studios, and only Disney has the patience and ability to absorb the re-growing pains of this medium so easily.
Sean Collier: It's hard to say, since Avatar is about to completely change film as we know it forever and ever, Cameron without end, amen. The world of animation is in such a state of flux right now, with 2D, computer animated, 3D computer animated, IMAX 3D computer animated, and motion capture all being toyed with - and a big part of Cameron's project seems to be blurring the lines between animation and live-action. The dust is going to take a long time to settle on this subject.
Jason Lee: In a word, no. This type of film will simply not fall into the "must-see" category in the near future, especially with 3-D animation (goggles and all) so much on the rise.
Kim Hollis: I think Disney will try to keep the faith. Lasseter will dedicate the studio to that. But I agree that not many other studios are going to give it a go. The world of animation has changed.