Disney's Frozen - Part 1

[Octoberist]

I'm starting to see the 'branding' and novelty of it. I'm okay with it now, but yeah, back when Tangled was released, I was annoyed.

 

[X Knight]

and before I watched Tangled, I was dead set against 3d/computer animated films. I had always preferred the traditional 2d/hand drawn animation of the Renaissance era and before.

In fact, that was one main reason why I skipped Tangled in the theaters. I didn't like the fact they went the computer animated route. For me, I had always found the 3d/computer animated films "lifeless."

But, of course, after watching the film, I feel like I would have enjoyed it less had it not been 3d/computer animated. It really just made the characters feel more alive and real. Rapunzel, especially, really felt like a real girl, not just some animated princess. And that made her more relatable, imo.

Same with Anna and Elsa. I connect and relate to those 3 princesses way more than I ever did with the prior princesses ( with the possible exception of Belle ).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I must say that while The Hobbit 2 is making big money, it's not doing gangbusters ala Catching Fire money. in fact, I think the momentum for Frozen picked up after it's release, and now it's a train that cannot be stopped.

It is losing horribly domestically next to the first Hobbit film. $31m behind at this point and losing ground everyday. Going to probably tap out between $250m-260m. That is all you really need to know.

 

[Octoberist]

I only said 'big' so that people don't jump at me.

I think people are just over 'The Hobbit'. It makes me wonder about the Avatar sequels, especially with 3 and 4. Even then, what Cameron has over Jackson is something called 'polish'. I didn't like his Avatar but he knew what he was doing, like the rest of his filmography.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I only said 'big' so that people don't jump at me.

I think people are just over 'The Hobbit'. It makes me wonder about the Avatar sequels, especially with 3 and 4. Even then, what Cameron has over Jackson is something called 'polish'. I didn't like his Avatar but he knew what he was doing, like the rest of his filmography.

The international box office is what is going to save The Hobbit in the end, but even with those numbers the ticket sales are well behind even Fellowship. Not great, and I think quality has quite a bit to do with it.

And I agree on Avatar. I think the first sequel will do big numbers, but with 3 and 4 coming right after, those numbers are going to diminish quite a bit imo.

 

[X Knight]

yeah......it's fatigue with these film series. plus....those movies are too damn long!! lol

 

[DarthSkywalker]

yeah......it's fatigue with these film series. plus....those movies are too damn long!! lol

I don't think it is fatigue, they just aren't that good. If these were event films that came every so often, even if they weren't great, they'd get a bit better takes. That is one thing Transformers has going for it. They are event films that come ever so often. But if you are going to release mediocre films back to back it is going to effect the numbers.

 

[X Knight]

I wouldn't say the Hobbit films aren't good. and I thought they were supposed to be "event" films? like, it was a special treat that we're getting a new Tolkien trilogy after all these years....lol

but I see what you're saying, and I suppose it is the risk of releasing these films in consecutive years.

we'll see how Disney fares with Star Wars, since they said they want a SW film every year starting 2015.

that can run the risk of oversaturation.....especially if the in-between "solo" films aren't that good.

 

[Lord]

Let's not Forget Marvel is releasing 2 of their connected films a year, and there's no fatigue, if Avatar 2 is great i'm certain that the next ones will keep the number.

 

[X Knight]

idk.....I think there is some superhero movie fatigue creeping in........

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I wouldn't say the Hobbit films aren't good. and I thought they were supposed to be "event" films? like, it was a special treat that we're getting a new Tolkien trilogy after all these years....lol

but I see what you're saying, and I suppose it is the risk of releasing these films in consecutive years.

we'll see how Disney fares with Star Wars, since they said they want a SW film every year starting 2015.

that can run the risk of oversaturation.....especially if the in-between "solo" films aren't that good.

Star Wars is going to be a bit different. The numbered Star Wars films will still have years between them. They will be the "events". Kinda like the Avengers films.

And I think the Hobbit films are good, but they are poor compared to the LotR in terms of filmmaking and storytelling. Really poor.

Let's not Forget Marvel is releasing 2 of their connected films a year, and there's no fatigue, if Avatar 2 is great i'm certain that the next ones will keep the number.

I don't know about that. TDW started strong, but it kinda died. Was destroyed by Catching Fire. Right now the big money makers are the Avengers and Iron Man series. Lets see what happens with TWS and GotG. Both look great, but the numbers will be telling. As will the AoU numbers. Will it be able to duplicate the first Avengers numbers?

 

[X Knight]

yeah....I'd say I enjoyed the LOTR movies way more than the Hobbit films. we'll see with Part 3 next year.

 

[Octoberist]

I think with Marvel, and because it's a consistent presence, even I have to admit that each film feels less special. I don't feel the build-up to the hype anymore. Verses James Bond which comes around only 3-4 years and they feel special because it's not a constant thing. It actually good for a franchise to step back for a little bit so people can appreciate it and miss it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think with Marvel, and because it's a consistent presence, even I have to admit that each film feels less special. I don't feel the build-up to the hype anymore. Verses James Bond which comes around only 3-4 years and they feel special because it's not a constant thing. It actually good for a franchise to step back for a little bit so people can appreciate it and miss it.

I get you completely. QoS following up CR only 2 years later felt too soon, as weird as that sounds.

With Marvel, certain series get me more hyped then others. So it is less about "Marvel" and more about Cap, Avengers and Thor if that makes any sense. I also like they will be starting two new potential series in GotG and Ant-Man. Will help keep things fresh imo.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah...GotG sounds bonkers, and I love Edgar Wright and Paul Rudd so that's that.

I hope though that these future movies will look better, cinematography wise. I didn't like the cinematography for Avenger, Iron Man 3 or Thor 2 (which was the better of the three). Cap 2 looks ok, but I hope James Gunn and Edgar deliver movies that look beautiful, and not just a digital affair. And trust me, I'm a believer in digital cameras but the Marvel movies are kinda dropping the ball. I want something to look like Skyfall, which used the Arri.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah...GotG sounds bonkers, and I love Edgar Wright and Paul Rudd so that's that.

I hope though that these future movies will look better, cinematography wise. I didn't like the cinematography for Avenger, Iron Man 3 or Thor 2 (which was the better of the three). Cap 2 looks ok, but I hope James Gunn and Edgar deliver movies that look beautiful, and not just a digital affair. And trust me, I'm a believer in digital cameras but the Marvel movies are kinda dropping the ball. I want something to look like Skyfall, which used the Arri.

I agree completely. The movies just don't look cinematic. They aren't ugly, but when you see a film shot digitally that looks like Skyfall, there is no excuse. But Cap 2 looks betters, Guardians has potential, and I have complete faith in Wright being able to deliver something truly beautiful.

 

[X Knight]

and I think it was good that there was some distance between Tangled and Frozen, instead of releasing them in consecutive years. it makes the princess/fairy tale movies feel more special, while in between we get other animated fare like Ralph or Big Hero 6.

 

[Octoberist]

Ant-Man might be the best looking Marvel to date. He makes beautiful looking movies...so We shall see.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

and I think it was good that there was some distance between Tangled and Frozen, instead of releasing them in consecutive years. it makes the princess/fairy tale movies feel more special, while in between we get other animated fare like Ralph or Big Hero 6.

Tangled and Frozen didn't really need that much distance imo. They could do these every year and if they were good, people would come. Kids would love it. I love Ralph and I think the Big Hero 6 has potential, but they aren't going to do huge numbers.

 

[X Knight]

well....hey.....the more princesses the merrier!!

wait....what??

but yeah.....it will be interesting to see what kind of #s Big Hero 6 can do, as well as other non-princess movies......

if the pattern continues that the princess/fairy tale movies vastly outperform the non-princess movies.......well..........that should tell them that the world still loves princesses!!!

no more princess movies my a**.........

 

[sueb1863]

PJ just went too crazy with The Hobbit and turned what was a nice, simple adventure fantasy story into a huge, bloated mess that is now only barely about Bilbo. He threw in so much extra stuff that the charm of the story is simply drowned in CGI glitz.

He had such a great chance to create memorable characters in the dwarves, but all of their character stuff got chopped out and relegated to the extended editions to make room for all the overlong CGI battles and made-up scenes to tie the story into LotR. So they're the same faceless mass of anonymous characters they are in the book, with one or two exceptions.

I think audiences just have Tolkein fatigue - they've seen all this before and it's just no longer interesting.

 

[X Knight]

I must admit......this is pretty stunning fan art of Anna!! Like, Damn!!

Spoiler

and now here's Elsa!!

Spoiler

Both from here:

http://mandiemanzano.deviantart.com/gallery/

 

[X Knight]

I'm starting to see the 'branding' and novelty of it. I'm okay with it now, but yeah, back when Tangled was released, I was annoyed.

y'know......branding is actually a good word, and perhaps it is a major reason why Disney is using names like Tangled and Frozen instead of the traditional fairy tale name.

perhaps it is their way of distinguishing their own "Disney" version of the story from the original. After all, Disney does make changes to these stories, often drastic, too, as in the case of Frozen.

When you hear the name "The Snow Queen," you think of the original story or any of the various retellings of that story. But, when you hear the name "Frozen," you now associate that with the Disney version alone. and not just with the film, but with the characters, the merchandising, etc.

There can be many versions ( be it in book, tv show, movie, etc. ) titled "The Snow Queen" based on the original story. But, there is only one Frozen, and that's Disney's version.

although, ironically, if Frozen had indeed been called The Snow Queen, there's a strong chance that most people would then associate that name with the Disney version and not the original. Just because of the popularity, reach, and influence that Disney has.

I mean, when you say Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast, I'm sure most people would immediately think of the more popular Disney films, and not the original stories.

 

[sueb1863]

I don't think they *could* use 'The Snow Queen' since the final product has virtually nothing to do with the original story aside from the fact there's a character in it who could be called a snow queen and one or two plot points.

 

[jmc]

it depends.

before I watched Tangled, I was annoyed. I was like.......why not just call it Rapunzel?

but, after watching the film, the title Tangled fits and actually seems more appropriate.

The reason I say that, is because Tangled didn't feel like a "traditional" fairy tale movie. Just the tone had this more "modern" feel to it. No stuffy narrator, story book opening, etc. Even Rapunzel herself really felt like a modern day girl next door type.

Same thing with Frozen.

I dispute that Tangled fits that film at all. There's really nothing in that film that even relates to the title which is what bugs me the most. Frozen I can kinda forgive to a degree because it's a very loose adaptation of the Snow Queen, but Tangled is essentially a modern retelling of Rapunzel in a big way, I can't even bring myself to call the movie Tangled because to me it's Disney being in denial about what the film actually is. To me it's dumb branding.