Yesterday I wrote about the possible effects of the box-office success of Alice in Wonderland on fairy-tale revisionism in family films to come. The flip side is the box-office disappointment of Disney’s The Princess and the Frog, which hit DVD shelves yesterday.
It looks like concern over The Princess and the Frog‘s poor performance is translating into branding concerns for upcoming animated fairy tales, including the Disney project formerly known as Rapunzel, and possibly Pixar’s The Bear and the Bow.
I found The Princess and the Frog to be an engaging blend of classic Disney themes and contemporary sensibilities, despite scary, morally mixed voodoo imagery too intense for younger kids. It didn’t click with audiences, though … and there’s some feeling that the title may have been part of the problem.
With its classic fairy-tale cadences and Disney princess branding, “The Princess and the Frog” may have lacked the unisex (i.e., non-girly) appeal that seems to be a key factor for successful family entertainment today, from every Pixar film to date to the Harry Potter phenomenon. (Even J. K. Rowling’s sex was downplayed behind authorial initials.)
Consider: One of the few successful cartoons in recent years with a female protagonist had the extremely boy-friendly title Monsters vs. Aliens, as well as a virtually all-male supporting cast (and a trailer that emphasized rude humor). A few films have bucked the trend, notably the ambiguously named Coraline and Burton’s Alice, both of which benefited from dark, Gothic sensibilities and 3D punch (as well as Alice‘s use of live actors including Johnny Depp).
In a word, princess branding may move product at the Disney Store, but it may no longer be a viable niche on the big screen.
Apparently taking the lesson to heart, Disney recently cast a nervous eye at its Rapunzel feature in development—and has retitled it Tangled, a title with all the fractured fairy-tale cred of Enchanted and its ilk.
That’s not all. Many sources are reporting that Pixar’s The Bear and the Bow—billed as Pixar’s first fairy-tale and first film with a girl protagonist—may be re-branded Brave, a one-word, monosyllabic concept title much like Up or Cars (compare also the polysyllabic Ratatouille and the eponymous WALL-E).
Even though “The Bear and the Bow” makes no mention of princesses, perhaps the traditional rhythms of the title (compare to “The Bear and the Wolf” or “The Princess and the Pea”—or the frog!) may be thought passé.
This last change, if it takes, seems to me a bit melancholy. “The Bear and the Bow” is a lovely, evocative title; “Brave” isn’t bad, but are all Pixar titles going to sound the same now? What seemed, well, bravely unconventional with Up seems less so with Brave, and could quickly become dull. (Not to mention the difficulty of targeting these short, generic titles with search engines…)
What happens, too, when the issue percolates past branding issues to story development? I’m no fan of the Disney princess phenomenon, but on the other hand I don’t want girl protagonists to become even rarer. Or all fairy tales to be more determinedly non-traditional and fractured than they are now.


Comments
Post a Comment
WHAT?!THIS IS STUPID!!the princess and the frog shouldnt be a cause of it!!i dont get why people are dissing the movie because of the magic!!ALL disney princess movie have magic!!its not like theres blood in it!!i dont see any diffrence than the others!!
I rather like the title “The Bear and the Bow”. Here’s hoping they don’t change it.
None of it is worth my or my children’s time. It has been a long, long time since I have found an acceptable movie for my children’s viewing, one that doesn’t make me wince and wish my kids hadn’t seen that. The real wake-up call in theater-going came with Disney’s “Hercules” to which I took my then young son and his friend, and subsequently left before it finished. The noise, violence and paganism—what a dreadful combo for a kids’ movie!
Actually, I’m glad for the demise of family TV and movie entertainment because it has led us to allow very little TV and movie watching in our home. We never go to the movie theater. I grew up watching way too much TV and saw way too many movies at the theater because TV and movies weren’t that bad in the 60s.
Wow! If family entertainment is that worthless, I’ve really been wasting my time as a critic for the last 10 years!
I’d agree that Disney’s Hercules is a lousy movie, from what little I remember of it. (Odd that you complain about its “paganism” tho ... what did you expect from a story based on classical (i.e., pagan) Greco-Roman mythology?) It was a lame entry from the butt end of Disney’s flagging 1990s renaissance.
That was 13 years ago. You say you’ve “found” nothing worth watching since then? Have you looked?
I’m not sure what you mean by “the demise of family entertainment.” On the contrary, the last 13 years have produced some truly remarkable family entertainment. I can hardly imagine Easter in our house without The Miracle Maker, for instance. Pixar, of course, has produced most of the best stuff, including Up, The Incredibles and Finding Nemo. (See my Decent Films Blog post today on Pixar history.) Other highly worthwhile contributions include The Prince of Egypt, The Emperor’s New Groove, The Story of the Weeping Camel and Dr. Seuss’s Horton Hears a Who (“A person’s a person, no matter how small!”).
Let me be clear that I absolutely respect your preference for a house with little if any TV watching or movies. It’s an honorable choice with definite advantages. But if you think it’s because there’s nothing out there that’s “worth your family’s time,” well, that’s just not correct.
If nothing else, I urge you to get yourself a copy of The Miracle Maker by Easter, and see what you’ve been missing!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.