JB2 outdoing Treasure Planet

[All Aboard]

Through 8 days of release JB2 is about $500k ahead of TP. It's a mix-match of days but includes a 5 day weekend for TP and a 4 day weekend plus the following Friday for JB2. The 2nd weekend Friday for JB2 was a half million better than that of TP. TP had a $5.5m second weekend, looks like JB2 will beat that handily. Seems JB2 will top $40m. If so, does that make it a financial success on par with Return to Neverland?

Place your bets now for Feb 2004's sequel. Put me down for Sleeping Beauty.

 

[DisneyKidds]

This just illustrates the fact that subject matter is one of the most important considerations in a Disney animated film. I would imagine that the animation itself in TP surpasses that of JB2. Heck, the complexity of the characters and plot are even much deeper. However, Disney does best when it puts out cute animated flicks that the whole family can really enjoy. TP didn't do that, IMHO. JB2, as substandard as the animation might be, does a better job at this.

Yes, there is a large contingent of people who want to see Disney films that can be appreciated for the greatness of their animation. However, there is a larger contingent of those who want a wholesome feature that provides a family experience. If only the days when Disney gave us both in the same film would come back.

I'll put my $$$$ on another installment of Dumbo.

 

[d-r]

I guess it is true that there is no accounting for taste.

 

[raidermatt]

Dk, I more or less agree with your point, that Disney should probably steer clear of "adventure-type" animated films like TP and Atlantis, at least until they get a better handle on how to make them more appealing.

I just don't quite agree that JB2 is really proving this point. True, TP was a complete dud, but Atlantis did gross over $80 million, showing it had far more appeal than RTN or JB2 (probably), if we are going by box office numbers.

Films like JB2 and RTN are safer, because there is a definite market for family entertainment that doesn't necessarily have to be of high quality, and they have the advantage of the original films' success.

The market for adventure animated films that lack the "heart" of traditional Disney films is questionable at best.

It would be interesting to see how Disney would do with an ORIGINAL story that used the JB2 and RTN production methods. You know, a $20 million pic that wasn't based on a previous film, and didn't invest much (relatively speaking) in story, animation, etc.

In other words, try Lilo & Stitch with a $20 million budget instead of $70-80 million.

 

[raidermatt]

I don't have a problem with that direction at all, Scoop. I'm just of the "nothing is impossible" school, so I wouldn't shut the door on anything completely. However, there'd have to be a darn good reason for letting anything in through that particular door right now or in the forseeable future.

 

[Snow Brite]

So much was made of TP not doing well as it was competing against not only Disney's own Santa Clause, but also the Lord of the Rings movie, and all the other family oriented holiday stuff.

Now there is nothing out to compete with JB2. If I wanted to take the kids to the movies last Saturday then that was really the only option.

What would have happened if TP had been released now and JB2 had been released in November? I think you would be seeing the numbers for the two films flip flopped and maybe even seeing bigger numbers for TP.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

RaiderMatt,

What is the new pictue in your clipart of?

 

[married2grumpy]

I recently took my kis 5,4 & 2 to see JB2 and they loved it. I thought it was cute for a sequel. Neither I nor my kids had any interest in seeing TP or Atlantis. They both had no appeal for children 5 and under. I did eventually persuade my 5 year old to let me rent Atlantis for us to watch one evening. It was a movie I enjoyed but didn't hold the attention of my kids. Too scientific for their minds. I am a big fan of the Disney classic movies and would love to see them come out with another picture along the lines of Beauty & the Beast. There are so many princess/romance/adventure type stories out there for them to explore but it seems that the recent movies, including Lilo & Stitch, are moving away from that direction. My kids find the whole outer space part of L&S to be extremely boring.

I'd like to see a Princess and the Pea story, Rapunzel or Rumplestilskin.

 

[primax]

I loved TP and Atlantis! Beauty and the Beast & Atlantis are my favorites.

 

[JeffH]

"...all the other family oriented holiday stuff. "
I didn't notice any other competition like this out there, and considering that Rings was not a kids movie (little too dramatic, intense and complicated), the only competition was The Santa Clause and Harry Potter, so I really didn't understand why TP flopped. I also don't understand why Star Trek Nemisis flopped so badly, either, since Rings (which had already been out a few weeks) was it's only competition. I have to agree that last winter, for whatever reason, was just a real weak season. Rings (and Potter), which I guess people just had to get out to see, was the only film that did as expected.
The year before we had 3 blockbusters (Potter, Rings, Monsters) hit during that season, so you would think that this year it could have been Potter, Rings and TP?

 

[Testtrack321]

Wow, it took us this long, this many flops, and prolonged debates to find out Disney does better with cutsie flicks than action movies.

note sarcasm

 

[Douglas Dubh]

I also don't understand why Star Trek Nemisis flopped so badly, either, since Rings (which had already been out a few weeks) was it's only competition.

Actually, Nemesis came out before Rings. I think Nemesis' big competition was for the action-adventure crowd, and it lost to Bond and the Bourne Identity and XXX, as well as Harry Potter. I know I wanted to see it, but the one chance I had I chose the new Bond over it, figuring it came out sooner so would leave sooner. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

 

[JeffH]

Yeh, that's right...
Nemisis did respectable numbers the 1st week then tanked when Rings came out.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Better handle? There is no handle for this type of theme in an animated flick. Fox has tried multiple times, Dreamworks has tried multiple times, as well as Disney and others.

And the common denominator?

Bad commercial results.

There is simply not enough demand for this action-animated genre. Dispose of it.

Scoop, I'm trying to stay with what you are saying. OK, Fox released Titan AE. What other ones are you counting? Surely not Anastasia, right? Balto? (I'm not sure that was FOX; was it WB)?

WB released Iron Giant...does that count as action animated? I'm not sure?

But what was the Dreamworks release? Chicken Run? El Dorado? Spirit? I'm not sure what you are talking about here? What about Shrek? There was some action in that, right? Didn't the evil king or duke or whatever chase Shrek and the princess and the donkey around, and wasn't there a big climax scene fighting a dragon?

Now help me think about Little Mermaid, or Alladin, or Lion King...or even Sleeping Beauty, for that matter...what is it that separates them from being action-animated?

You know, most every non-Disney Saturday morning cartoon is action (x-men, spider-man, batman, jackie chan, pokeman and the knock offs, etc.). So why does this format work so much better on TV?

What about Scoobie Doo? Is that action animated?

Also, what about Anime? There is a ton of action - why does this format work so well in Japan but not the US?

I really am not sure if I buy your premise...I'm not sure if these movies have been marketed correctly, but I'm not sure I believe that the format itself is the issue - convince me some more why you think it is - and up front I do not buy for a minute that animation isn't "suspenseful" because you know it is animated and not live action - that doesn't ring true to me at all (I mentioned on another thread suffering through XXX on the flight over here; there was no "suspense" in those action sequences, certainly; and by the same logic, there should be no emotional attachment to poor orphan dumbo because we know he is a cartoon; or no concern over arial getting her voice back, etc.)

DR

 

[d-r]

Hi again Scoop-

Sorry to be dragging this out and if I am being dense, but to be honest, I still don't get it - I mean the reason why.

FWIW, I don't get how El Dorado (a buddy travel comedy) or Prince of Egypt (the story of Moses) are action adventure. If El Dorado is action adventure, then is Emporer's New Groove? Sure ENG is a lot funnier than El Dorado, but basically they both are about buddies on the road, and there is as much "action" in the plot of ENG as in El D. I'm really not sure how El Dorado or Prince of Egypt can be "action adventure" but Lion King or Alladin aren't - what is the distinction there? Or sherk or chicken run for that matter?

I _think_ that I think that the two best non-disney-affiliated-is-some-way animated films I've seen are iron giant and anastasia. Well, I might throw in Princess Manonoke, I might not (I'm honestly not sure how much I liked it, but then it might be Disney affiliated for that matter, like Spirited Away). Anyway, I really honestly do not know if you would classify the first two as action-adventure, because I don't understand the criteria that you use to classify - that's the crux of my question, really.

Final Fantasy, really, was more like a live action movie than an animated one, in a lot of ways - that movie wasn't good because it wasn't good, not because it happened to be animated. In some ways, I could buy someone arguing that final fantasy was one of the best computer animated films technically, in terms of the techincal animation, in that it was so smooth and lifelike. But the problem with it was the weak story.

I thought there were some good things about Titan AE, but mostly it wasn't that good as a film, not because it was animated. There were some highpoints and fun points, but overall it wasn't that wonderful. Would Titan AE have been any better if it was live actors acting out the same story? I don't see how it would, and if it was done in live action and it wasn't any better that wouldn't make me think that science fiction (which is what it really was more so than action adventure) is a genre that won't work for live action. Actually, I pretty sure that someone could come up with a longer list of live action science fiction films that were very bad and unsuccessful than a list of animated, but I don't think that would mean the genre doesn't work for live action. I'm absolutely positive that someone could come up with a very long list of very poor live-action action-adventure films that were horrible; again, that doesn't mean that action-adventure films don't work for live action movies, does it?

Honestly, I think that you are taking animated films that have underperformed at the box office and lumping them together as "action adventure" - I'm left wondering what makes one animated film "action-adventure" and another something else....so what is the criteria here? What excludes Lion King, Alladin, the Little Mermaid, Tarzan, Toy Story, Pocohontus, Mulan? I'm being quite serious here. How about Lilo and Stitch?

"The main point is that so far, I have yet to see of any animated film, within recent times, whose plot was an action plot, that did diddly-squat at the box office."

Tarzan? Mulan? Toy Story 2? Again, I'm not sure what the criteria is here for an "action plot." Surely the gang sneaking out of Andy's room on the treacherous track to Al's toy barn to rescure Woody, with the sub-plot of Buzz vs. Zurg, is action? Certainly if El Dorado is, right? What am I missing?

And again, how come action adventure shows are the tops for animated television, but not successful at the theatre? Again, what about the success of anime? I ask these because I don't understand what the Process is that results in animation not being a viable format for action-adventure feature films.

And remember, scoop, Fantasia was a commercial disaster. Certainly people thought that format didn't work. But for you it defines Disney. So where is that desire for innovatin and breaking new ground?

It is odd to me that people will criticize Disney for "playing it safe, never trying something new or risky, rehashing the same old same old, etc." whereas other people will criticize the smallest steps away from the formula. Perhaps the cheapquals aimed at 3-8 year old girls and 3-6 year old boys really are the way to go, from a business standpoint. After all, parents will take their preschoolers to see any "nice" G-rated film anyway since it is the only thing in the theatre and they simply must take their kids to something. Right?