>7 days differenceVery smart, Disney
Keep them blue
>>222782810Disney hates 2D animation
>>222782810isn't blue = jew?
>>222782810I've seen Princess and the Frog more times than I've seen Avatar.
>>222782810What?
>>222782810Avatar was released at a time when Disney didn’t own 20th Century Fox
>>222783764DON'T YOU DISRESPECT ME LITTLE MAN
>>222783764Is it good?
>>222784363At the end of the day it feels a little "white washed" like most Disney flicks (as in thematically, not racially).But the animation is great, the villain is a lot of fun and deserved more screen time, and it's got a solid soundtrack and bayou setting.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Il8L0O1AQ
>>222785294>the villain is a lot of fun and deserved more screen timethat costs money. frogs talking about fucking gumbo is much cheaper.
>>222782810Didn’t the Sherlock Holmes movie also come out 7 days apart from Avatar, and made 400 million?Come to think of it, the Chipmunks movie did too and it also made 400 million. Huh! I wonder why those two movies made that much money but this one didn’t despite the similar timeframe and genre? I wonder if there’s something else… unironically it’s because it was 2D which had been getting fucked over since the turn of the millennium, no Disney or dreamworks 2D movie made 300 million worldwide. It’s not that complicated people didn’t wanna pay for a 2D movie; they wanted shit like Ice Age 3 that came out that same year and made 800 million. >>222782963They gave this thing a massive for 2D budget, which is pretty mid compared to CGI, and a huge marketing push because first black president. They just lost to cgi chipmunks.
>>222785352Princess and the frog is the sixth most expensive 2D animated movie, period. They didn’t skimp on the budget. Unless you compare it to CGI animated ones, in which case it’s not in the top 50. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_animated_films
>>222783822He's trying to suggest Disney tanked PatF. This is a common narrative surronding the failure of their last 2D animated feature, Winnie the Pooh, which was released on the same day as the last Harry Potter film.The problem is thinking a Disney princess movie is aimed at the same demographic as Avatar, or that anyone could've predicted that would've been such a big hit.
>>222785546The issue is that viewers are morons because the Winnie the Pooh movie was pure kid kino
>>222785546And it’s not like others didn’t succeed at the same time, Chipmunks has a similar demo and it did great. The sad fact is disney didn’t need to sabotage anything, audiences had tuned out for almost a decade by this point. If anything Pooh was sent out to die so they didn’t have to admit Tiana was the last nail in a long built coffin.
>>222785528>They didn’t skimp on the budget.I call barely moving single color frogs talking about fucking gumbo "skimping on the budget." For its padding. And padding is, by definition, a way to skimp on the budget.
>>222785528>the sixth most expensive 2D animated movieokay now account for inflation...
>>222785546>or that anyone could've predicted that would've been such a big hit.It had the biggest Budget of a scifi movie to that. Saying there wasn't an inordinate amount of faith placed in it is as dishonest as saying PatF was sabotaged (treasure planet was but that's a different story).>>222782810>>222782963Avatar was a cross demographic adventure movie. PatF was a princess movie.
>>222785679Sure.Lion King adjusted for inflation in 2009 is less than 60 million, meaning it’s about half of the Princess and the Frogs budget. As is Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin. The closest adjusted for inflation to it is Black Cauldron. Fun fact! If you took the adjusted for inflation money used to make Lion King and used it at the exact same time as Despicable Me 2, DM2 would be more expensive.
>>222785661> I call barely moving single color frogs talking about fucking gumbo "skimping on the budget."You can but that’s stupid, it’s part of the movie to establish a relationship. They had the budget to animate something else, obviously, they just picked that. They weren’t forced to pad shit. They chose it. They thought it was important.
>>222785683Avatar was the highest grossing movie of all time. I don't think that was the expectation going in. It opened well, but what made that movie such a hit was its legs, which was built more on word-of-mouth than marketing spend. It's all moot anyway because as >>222785659 pointed out, Avatar didn't monopolize the market. Sherlock Holmes did just under $500 million. Alvin 2 (which was from the same studio as Avatar) grossed ~$450 million. Avatar has little to do with PatF's failure.
>>222785997> It opened well It surprisingly didn’t even have that crazy an opening, I’m sure shareholders were panicking at “just” 77 million opening weekend.
>>222785528>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_animated_filmsso i adjusted for inflation and gets knocked down to 11th from 6th. But at the same time they're saying beauty and the beast and aladdin cost under 30m, so extreme bullshit needs to be called.
>>222786132>>222785528this is literally fucking insane.
>>222786132>. But at the same time they're saying beauty and the beast and aladdin cost under 30mBecause they did, animation salaries were in the fucking gutter thanks to the whole "Dark age of animation" thing the Disney Renaissance ended. The higher budgets and salaries of the 1996 movies onward are precisely because The Little Mermaid and The Lion King proved Animation wasn't just viable, it could make you a LOT of money. Something that movies like Great Mouse Detective, Aristocats and Oliver and Company very much put in doubt.It's hard to accept but 2D, on the whole, is actually pretty cheap. It's biggest flaw used to be it was time consuming, but considering they redid all of Emperor's New Groove in 15 months and were ready on schedule despite being 35 million in the hole, that problem had been solved a while ago. CGI was always a vastly more expensive and in cases like Tangled a much more time invasive venture, it just had the potential for success 2D didn't.
>>222786183>Anon discovers 2D animation is cheapWait till he finds out Stop Motion is even cheaper. It's not just the slave labor for anime, it's genuinely a much cheaper process.
>>22278606277m for an original IP is pretty big anon. especially in 2007. People are shitting themselves over 127m openings today and acting like its beyond amazing.
>>222782810>waste billions of USD on a princess cartoon nobody wanted>it's the last high budget 2D animation
>>222786329>77m for an original IP is pretty big anon. especially in 2007.Oh for sure, but at the same time they knew the real price tag of 237 million in 2009 dollars that the rest of the public wouldn't find out about for a decade, they were probably hoping it to beat Iron Man's opening weekend if nothing else and it falling short of that, which only went on to gross 518 million, probably puckered some assholes.
>>222786303>The Lion King proved Animation wasn't just viableanon that was 45m for a 979m gross in 1994. That's 2.2billion in today money.
>>222786385Did you have a stroke halfway or did you somehow miss the rest of the sentence. It ends at the period, anon, keep reading.
>>222786383>the real price tag of 237 million in 2009 dollars... anon lightstorm is private and essentially independent film... fox is/was just the distributor. its why no one is really batting an eye (or can do anything to stop) james cameron from spending the rest of his life on pandora.
>>222786415>make great movies>make a lot of money>make movies that will basically alienate 99.9% of your possible audience>still make back your budget>this proves 2D isn't viable we can't just shit out whatever we actually have to exert effort this isn't sustainable people don't like sitting through an hour of dull filler to get 15 minutes of the cool villain
>>222786433>... anon lightstorm is private and essentially independent film... fox is/was just the distributor.That's nice?What, if I may, the fuck does that have to do with the real price tag the studio and distributor both would know about, which would not be revealed to the public for a decade? What do you see that we don't see here.
>>222786322> Stop Motion is even cheaper.says who
>>222786499>what does the fact james cameron owns his production company and fox can't say shit to him about what he spends his money on have to do with the budget of the movieThe question is what you think the amount of his own money that james cameron spent on avatar has to do with literally anything.
>>222786490I think you're reading something I'm not seeing or don't know the common phrase "X wasn't just sustainable, it was producing lot!"
>>222786521Easily researched budgets?It's not really complicated. Just go read the numbers. The most expensive of all time is Missing Link, almost all of the others are under 70 million.
>>222786555Its more that you're babbling incoherently and jumping around randomly in the timeline. Aristocats made 200m off a 4m budget in 1970. Great mouse detective was 40m domestic off 14m. Oliver and company was 75m off 31m.
>>222786701>Its more that you're babbling incoherently Ah, I see. "Viable" seems to have confused you.>and jumping around randomly in the timeline.Pre-those two movies and post those two movies is pretty well defined timeline wise, but you seem easily confused.>Aristocats made 200m off a 4m budget in 1970No sir it did not. You seem to be looking at the wiki and unaware film releases did not work the same way we know now, that number you are citing is the end result of multiple re-releases. It, in fact, made 18 million dollars in 1970. Total. Please keep that in mind as this is the only "Success" you cited during the disney dark ages, when it was struggling to stay afloat.
>>222786599well, laika did just kill itself by spending 100m to make this pile of shit.
>>222786803>kill itselfIt's got that Nike money, they're fine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POneS8h1jyU
>>222786599Why so defensive? Just post a picture next time nig.
>>222786795>It, in fact, made 18 million dollars in 1970.oh no it only netted twice its budget
>>222786835None of it is true btw.
>>222786894Ah, I figured anon was pulling shit out of his ass.
>>222786923Well glad you're easily convinced and didn't, I dunno, look it up?You are swayed freakishly easy.
>>222786795at no point in time was disney ever once "struggling to stay alive." You seem to be forgetting that disney is primarily a themepark company that makes movies to avoid taxation.you really don't seem to have any idea whatsoever of what you're talking about. But you're quite confident that you do, and that's the important part.
>>222786984>at no point in time was disney ever once "struggling to stay alive.I genuinely don't know what made you type this without looking it up. Even if you just meant "Early days", let alone Black Cauldron's aftermath, it's happened a lot. This can't be hard to look up.>You seem to be forgetting that disney is primarily a themepark company that makes movies to avoid taxation.I am not, and I am just as aware that those theme parks went through some SHIT in the 70's. It was a disaster, and considering they were losing money in the theaters it very nearly took them out. I know this because it's really easy to ask "Hey did Disney ever go bankrupt" and read some articles.This isn't even "have any idea whatsoever what I'm talking about", you can just look it up. Quickly. Easily.
>>222787081I see, you're getting your information from grok. cool.
>>222786923>Ah, I figured anon was pulling shit out of his ass.Boy fucking howdy did you get fooled easily. By the second guy I mean. Because you're an idiot.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_animated_filmsSee if you can find it, it's not hard. There's exactly one other movie above 70 million in budget besides Missing Link. Try not to get swayed if someone says those numbers are fake.
>>222782810>daughter has tons of Disney princess toys and clothes >knows all of them by name >except this girl, who she just calls princess and the frog Is my little girl a racist?
>>222787162No. The movie was just boring as fuck.
>>222787156Google linking to articles and documentaries. I don't have twitter.They're right there it's not like they're hidden, type it in on the big bar they give you answers.
>>222785913Except the actual reason its in the movie is the most hamfisted "diversity" message ever committed to film and it was aggressively boring and stupid.
>>222782810The cartoon was mediocre at best.It had maybe 2 good songs and that's all.
