Gnomeo is Bleeding

Disney has a solid hit on its hands heading into spring.  Gnomeo & Juliet debuted to a solid $25.3 million and has held up well, even against new animated competition from Rango.  Going into its fifth weekend, Gnomeo had grossed $85 million and looks to have enough momentum to eventually become a $100 million success.  But it does have more competition coming this weekend...from Disney.

Disney is releasing one of it's major 2011 tentpoles this weekend, Mars Needs Moms.  The impact on Gnomeo is significant, beyond the obvious increase in the number of pictures vying for the family audience.  Gnomeo & Juliet is also losing nearly 400 screens to make room for the new wide release.  And perhaps most importantly, Gnomeo has lost marketing support.  Almost as soon as Gnomeo opened, Disney had to shift all of its marketing and media attention to Mars Needs Moms.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time that Disney has stepped on its own toes and in the process limited the full potential of an unexpected success.  Back in February of 2006, Disney released Eight Below.  The movie was a kind of throwback to the live-action animal adventure films that Disney used to specialize in, was quite well received by audiences, and became an unlikely sleeper hit.  But just three weeks later, Disney released The Shaggy Dog, a high-profile release starring Tim Allen that benefited from a major marketing push.  Eight Below ultimately grossed $81.6 million to Shaggy Dog's disappointing $61.1 million.  Had Disney given Eight Below a little more breathing room and support, it's very possible that it could have become an even bigger hit.  The weekend that Shaggy Dog debuted, Eight Below's box office dropped 45% after holding well the previous two weekends.

A similar scenario played out a few years earlier in 2003.  In early November 2003, Disney released Brother Bear, one of its last announced traditionally animated films at that time.  Disney clearly didn't have high expectations for the film because just four weeks later came The Haunted Mansion, a major holiday release timed for the Thanksgiving weekend and starring Eddie Murphy.  But once again, the big release underperformed against the sleeper that was overlooked by the studio.  Brother Bear ended up grossing $85.3 million versus only $75.8 million for the costly Haunted Mansion.

You want me to keep going?  In 2008, Disney released Beverly Hills Chihuahua and High School Musical 3 just three weeks apart, likely cannibalizing itself in the process as both films stalled at the box office before reaching the symbolic $100 million mark.

It's an interesting case study in the importance of properly managing release schedules.  Disney didn't have any faith in films like Eight Below and Brother Bear and didn't expect them to have any legs at the box office.  But audiences found these movies and liked them even more than the big alternative movie that Disney was pushing just a few weeks later.  In the case of Gnomeo, Disney didn't even want to call it a Disney movie.  The poor thing bounced around in development for years and was ultimately released under the Touchstone banner.  What will audiences choose this time around?  Unfortunately, it looks like Mars Needs Moms is on its way to becoming one of Disney's costliest bombs.  Wherefore art thou, Gnomeo?

Wake Up Call

Sometime on Thursday, Tangled will cross the $100 million mark at the box office, an important milestone that indicates that the movie is well on its way to being Disney Animation's first big hit in several years.  Perhaps in the future we will look back on Tangled as the start of a new renaissance for Walt Disney Animation Studios after a string of  disappointments.  Of course, this isn't the first time that the animation studio has pulled itself out of a long slumber.  Released this week on DVD, Waking Sleeping Beauty tells the story of how the studio ushered in a new era of animated classics in the 1980s and 1990s, including The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King.  I had the opportunity to watch the documentary at a special screening at the Smithsonian earlier this year, and I was mesmerized.  Seldom does Disney pull back the curtain on itself in such an open and honest way, but the filmmakers (Disney animation vet Don Hahn and former Disney animation executive Peter Schneider) received an astonishing level of cooperation from the company and from the key figures involved in the behind-the-scenes drama:  Michael Eisner, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Roy Disney.  In many ways, the film covers much of the same ground as the excellent book DisneyWar, but with a particular focus on the animation studio and the people that worked there.  If you are a Disney fan, an animation fan, or simply interested in the business of show business, I highly recommend you give Waking Sleeping Beauty a look.

Turkey & Crow

Well, it turns out that turkey isn't the only thing I'm eating this Thanksgiving season.  And I couldn't be happier about it.  I've been pretty strong in expressing my frustration with Disney's marketing campaign for Rapunzel Tangled, going so far as to predict that the film would be yet another disappointment for the "new and improved" Walt Disney Animation Studios, regardless of the movie's actual quality (to be fair, even Disney seemed to be hedging its bets about how the movie would perform ahead of its release).  Man, was I ever wrong.  Tangled opened this past Thanksgiving weekend to a very robust $68.7 million for the 5-day holiday weekend and $48.8 million for the three-day weekend.  That three-day total was just barely behind box office behemoth Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I, resulting in an unexpectedly close box-office race.  Just as importantly, Tangled received an extremely rare CinemaScore from audiences of "A+."  Clearly, people really like this movie and positive word of mouth should sustain the movie in the weeks ahead.  If Tangled continues to perform well through Christmas, Walt Disney Animation will finally have the one thing that has stubbornly eluded them since the Pixar team of John Lasseter and Ed Catmull took over in 2006 -- a Pixar-sized hit.

The Winter of Disney Studio's Discontent

I'm sure it looked good on the calendar: three sure-fire hits for the holiday movie season.  First, a 3-D animated Christmas film from award-winning director Robert Zemeckis, using the same motion capture technology that Zemeckis used to create "The Polar Express."  Instead of Tom Hanks performing multiple roles, it would now be Jim Carrey performing in "Disney's A Christmas Carol."  Next, a broad family comedy reuniting the director of the surprise blockbuster "Wild Hogs" with star John Travolta and adding Robin Williams for "Old Dogs."  Last, a triumphant and long-anticipated return to hand-drawn animation and classic fairytales, "The Princess and the Frog."  Now on the cusp of the new year, Disney instead has two disappointments and an outright bomb.  What happened?

"Disney's A Christmas Carol" -- First of all, I hate this title.  This will be addressed in a future post, but to me it's a branding shortcut that insults the audience.  When the film debuted to a less than stellar $30 million, some blamed the release date (first week of November) as being to early for a Christmas film.  But other Christmas-themed films have successfully debuted in that same time frame.  "Carol" showed some staying power and has grossed a respectable $135 million, but that's still less than "The Polar Express" made five years ago.  And for all the talk of dead-eye syndrome and the uncanny valley, "The Polar Express" is an original and charming story.  "A Christmas Carol" is, well, a tale as old as time.  Zemeckis keeps getting better at the motion capture animation and he makes excellent use of the 3-D environments, but his film lacks warmth and wit and charm.  It's simply a very competently told version of the story.  Without the 3-D gimmick there's not much of anything unique to recommend it.

"Old Dogs" -- I don't have much to say about this.  I have not seen the movie, but from the early trailers onward this looked like a lazy, tired, formulaic comedy that aimed squarely for mainstream audiences and apparently mainstream audiences completely saw through it.  The marketing conveyed nothing but uninspired gags, the movie title and poster were confusing (is this a "Beethoven" type of comedy about dogs?) and it's been over a decade since Robin Williams toplined a successful movie.  What were they thinking?  The movie has grossed about $46 million since it's debut a month ago and its box office run is essentially over.  A total dud.

"The Princess and the Frog" -- There was so much hope and promise bound up in this film, it may have been impossible for it to fully deliver.  But, realistic or not, this was supposed to be the beginning of the next golden age, the return of the great fairytale musicals of Disney's past such as "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast," and the coronation of John Lasseter as savior of Disney animation.  Personally, I think they nailed it.  I loved it.  The animation is truly beautiful, the songs are charming, the vocal performances are perfect.  Most critics seem to agree.  Richard Corliss at Time called it the movie of the year (that may be a bit much, but okay).  But you know what?  Audiences aren't really buying it.  It's grossed $70 million to date, and it looks on track to finish in the range of Disney's other recent middling animation successes such as "Bolt" or "Chicken Little."  To be an unqualified success, this needed to be a Pixar-sized hit.

I don't know why the audience isn't showing up, but I have a kernel of a theory.  The uniqueness of the film is that it is Disney's first modern fairytale.  It is not set in a storybook world, it's set in 1920s New Orleans.  The net effect is that the film really plays like a richly layered valentine to the Big Easy.  The attention to detail is truly remarkable.  As a native son of the Bayou State I loved it, but I wonder if it also limits the broad appeal of the film.  In the upcoming weeks we'll learn if word-of-mouth will sustain the film to higher grosses, but right now the "Alvin and the Chipmunks" sequel has a clear a strangle hold on the family market.  The redeeming hope for "Princess and the Frog" is that it will prove itself on the consumer products side by reinvigorating the Disney Princess brand.  This would follow the pattern of "Cars," which continues to be a merchandise juggernaut after what was considered to be a disappointing box office run in 2006 (and it grossed over $460 million worldwide!).

What does this mean for the future?  Three thoughts: 1) Iger's decision to dismiss former studio chief Dick Cook continues to look justifiable.  2) John Lasseter has yet to produce a big hit outside of Pixar.  There's no question that "Princess and the Frog" is a high-quality product, but  Lasseter is supposed to re-build Walt Disney Animation Studios into a powerhouse on par with Pixar.  Lasseter's success with Pixar has given him broad influence not only over animation but also into merchandising and the theme parks.  If Disney animation continues to struggle, will his influence and reputation diminish?  3) Disney has signed high-profile deals with Zemeckis (through his ImageMovers production company) and with Steven Spielberg (though DreamWorks Pictures) to help fill their pipeline of filmed content.  The first product of those deals was a disappointment.  Will Disney come to regret these deals?  With product from Zemeckis, DreamWorks, Pixar, and soon Marvel, in addition to Disney live-action and Disney animation, will new studio boss Rich Ross have trouble positioning all of these productions successfully?  This calls to mind the problems Disney had with Walden Media regarding the Narnia franchise.  2010 will be an interesting transition for Walt Disney Studios as they release another ambitious and unproven slate of films.