The Princess Problem.
It's no big secret that I love Disney movies. The very first film I saw at the cinema, and one of the earliest memories I have, was Aladdin, I was brought up with nightly readings from these abridged Disney storybooks my parents got me and even today I get giddy when I watch their films. Well, some of their films, I get a bit cringey with Pocahontas. I was incredibly excited to see John Lasseter, one of my heroes, take the helm of Disney after the studio had lost its way, jumpstarting things by re-opening the 2D animation studios and bringing us The Princess and the Frog. I freaking loved that movie. I already know most of the songs by heart and the only thing stopping me from owning the DVD and half price figurines that come with it when you buy it in Tescos is money troubles. It was truly a return to form, earning them a Best Animated Picture Oscar nomination and a whole new generation of fans.
Unfortunately, it was a financial disappointment. By disappointment, I mean by Disney's standards. I'd personally consider over $200million of box office receipts, double the film's budget, something of a success, but granted it didn't make as much money as the studio's most famous films, such as The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. One of the problems taken into consideration was that the audiences were predominantly young girls. Disney saw this as a sign that boys aren't a fan of princess movies, which caused some problems for the next scheduled Disney animated feature, Rapunzel. The film, after much retooling, is a pretty basic Disney style re-telling of the classic fairytale and focuses on the eponymous princess. So how do you entice boys to see this film? Simple - change the title to the less gender specific Tangled and market it as a Shrek rip off. The trailer isn't particularly exciting, not to mention the animation, which is supposed to resemble an oil painting, looks very uninspiring, and the tone is mainly focused on action and humour. Which isn't a problem, but the main focus of the trailer also lies on the male protagonist Flynn, despite the film itself being centred around Rapunzel.
Disney openly admit that they've restyled the film to appeal to boys. "We did not want to be put in a box," said Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, explaining the reason for the name change. "Some people might assume it's a fairy tale for girls when it's not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody." That's perfectly reasonable but the assumption that the female character is what's stopping boys from seeing it (but if the character is male it won't matter because girls will see it anyway) is pretty insulting, not just to girls but boys as well. I went to see The Princess and the Frog with Nat and he flailed over it more than I did. I swear there was one moment where he actually clapped like a seal. This brings up another question: if Disney want to appeal to boys, why not make a film that also appeals to boys instead of another supposedly boy excluding princess movie? Remember, this is Disney, do you really need an answer to that?
Money, of course. The Disney Princess franchise, a cash cow merchandise machine centred around the 9 main, most popular princess figures from Disney films, was expected to make a profit in 2009 somewhere along the lines of $4billion. The line includes every possible thing you could imagine with the cartoon princesses faces slapped onto them. Understandably, when you have a money making machine that's that lucrative, one is reluctant to give it up. It's already been announced that Rapunzel will be included in the Princess franchise and god knows how much money they'll make from long haired dolls and blonde wigs for little girls. Disney are trying to get the best of both world - a movie that will get boys on the seats but is also easy enough to turn into merchandise.
The change of title and marketing strategy has already been criticised by several prominent Disney figures, such as Floyd Norman, a retired Disney/Pixar animator who said "I'm convinced they'll gain nothing from this except the public seeing Disney as desperately trying to find an audience."
It's unfair to assume boys won't see a female-centric movie, and it's just plain lazy to go straight for the cash cow easy way out over making an actual effort to make a film for all. I'm getting similar vibes from this change in the same way I did when Disney stopped making 2D animated feature films. 2D animation became the scapegoat for bad storytelling - their post Renaissance films have their problems and certainly aren't as good as Disney in their prime, but their faults certainly don't lie with the style of animation - and it resulted in an entire way of filmmaking being shut down at the studios! Now that their return to 2D animation, with a female-centric character, is seen as a failure, I'm worried that they'll fall back on old ways. They've already cancelled a 2D adaptation of The Snow Queen, with another female lead, and their future schedule does not include anymore 2D films outside of some shorts. I already commented on the default sex issue in media and I think it's disappointing that Disney are not only following this pattern but marketing it to children. Disney introduced me to some kickass heroines as a kid, I hope others get that chance.
If anyone is interested in some extra viewing, the Nostalgia Chick did a great piece on Disney Princesses. Otherwise, if my ranting bored you, let's discuss everyone's favourite Disney movie. Here's mine.
Unfortunately, it was a financial disappointment. By disappointment, I mean by Disney's standards. I'd personally consider over $200million of box office receipts, double the film's budget, something of a success, but granted it didn't make as much money as the studio's most famous films, such as The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast. One of the problems taken into consideration was that the audiences were predominantly young girls. Disney saw this as a sign that boys aren't a fan of princess movies, which caused some problems for the next scheduled Disney animated feature, Rapunzel. The film, after much retooling, is a pretty basic Disney style re-telling of the classic fairytale and focuses on the eponymous princess. So how do you entice boys to see this film? Simple - change the title to the less gender specific Tangled and market it as a Shrek rip off. The trailer isn't particularly exciting, not to mention the animation, which is supposed to resemble an oil painting, looks very uninspiring, and the tone is mainly focused on action and humour. Which isn't a problem, but the main focus of the trailer also lies on the male protagonist Flynn, despite the film itself being centred around Rapunzel.
Click to viewDisney openly admit that they've restyled the film to appeal to boys. "We did not want to be put in a box," said Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, explaining the reason for the name change. "Some people might assume it's a fairy tale for girls when it's not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody." That's perfectly reasonable but the assumption that the female character is what's stopping boys from seeing it (but if the character is male it won't matter because girls will see it anyway) is pretty insulting, not just to girls but boys as well. I went to see The Princess and the Frog with Nat and he flailed over it more than I did. I swear there was one moment where he actually clapped like a seal. This brings up another question: if Disney want to appeal to boys, why not make a film that also appeals to boys instead of another supposedly boy excluding princess movie? Remember, this is Disney, do you really need an answer to that?
Money, of course. The Disney Princess franchise, a cash cow merchandise machine centred around the 9 main, most popular princess figures from Disney films, was expected to make a profit in 2009 somewhere along the lines of $4billion. The line includes every possible thing you could imagine with the cartoon princesses faces slapped onto them. Understandably, when you have a money making machine that's that lucrative, one is reluctant to give it up. It's already been announced that Rapunzel will be included in the Princess franchise and god knows how much money they'll make from long haired dolls and blonde wigs for little girls. Disney are trying to get the best of both world - a movie that will get boys on the seats but is also easy enough to turn into merchandise.
The change of title and marketing strategy has already been criticised by several prominent Disney figures, such as Floyd Norman, a retired Disney/Pixar animator who said "I'm convinced they'll gain nothing from this except the public seeing Disney as desperately trying to find an audience."
It's unfair to assume boys won't see a female-centric movie, and it's just plain lazy to go straight for the cash cow easy way out over making an actual effort to make a film for all. I'm getting similar vibes from this change in the same way I did when Disney stopped making 2D animated feature films. 2D animation became the scapegoat for bad storytelling - their post Renaissance films have their problems and certainly aren't as good as Disney in their prime, but their faults certainly don't lie with the style of animation - and it resulted in an entire way of filmmaking being shut down at the studios! Now that their return to 2D animation, with a female-centric character, is seen as a failure, I'm worried that they'll fall back on old ways. They've already cancelled a 2D adaptation of The Snow Queen, with another female lead, and their future schedule does not include anymore 2D films outside of some shorts. I already commented on the default sex issue in media and I think it's disappointing that Disney are not only following this pattern but marketing it to children. Disney introduced me to some kickass heroines as a kid, I hope others get that chance.
If anyone is interested in some extra viewing, the Nostalgia Chick did a great piece on Disney Princesses. Otherwise, if my ranting bored you, let's discuss everyone's favourite Disney movie. Here's mine.