Looks nice. I am looking forward to it. My main concern, however, is how and when is it going to be promoted. If Disney really wants to make this a hit, they would have to be promoting it RIGHT NOW!

I am really looking forward to Enchanted... from what I have seen, it looks like its going to be a big hit for Disney.  That said, I hope that Disney continues to produce original, high-quality movies.  It worries me somewhat that Aviv is using "The Pacifier" as a template for future Disney projects.  I think that its important that films have wide-appeal, but its important that they're high quality and are well-received by critics.  Thoughts?

I was lucky enought to catch "Enchanted" last weekend in L.A. and I can tell you that Disney has a big hit on its hands. The gentleman that introduced the movie said it was a final print and it's a good thing because I wouldn't change a thing. The songs are catchy and the lyrics are hysterical! Amy Adams is going to be a much sought after actress with this one on her resume.

Most importantly to all the Disney fans out there (and if you are reading this then I know you are), this movie is chock full of "easter egg" references to some of Disney's biggest animated feature films. I don't want to spoil them, but look for references to Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp and The Little Mermaid, just to name a few. I can't wait to see this one again and truly hope this is just the beginning of Disney's move back to traditional 2D animation!

I'm really excited about "Enchanted". I think I am desperate for good, old-fashioned Disney storytelling. The animation looks great and I can't wait to hear the music! I really hope this is a big hit for Disney as I want to see Disney helming more 2D projects.

I'm enthusiastic .... but really ... 8 minutes of animation is hardly enough to get me ... or anyone else "excited" about 2D animation. I'm guessing the animated scenes will feel rushed ... and faster paced than the live action parts ... I hope not.

Another thing .... too much "comedy" ruins it for me. The classics didn't have to be over the top funny.

I'm so excited for this movie!  Thanks so much for posting the pictures & their descriptions, Jim!  

Disney has already started to market the film- I've seen the trailer on TV quite a bit.

Early screeners have been less than positive (see "Ain't It Cool News").  My biggest fears (that this is more "Shrek + Princess Diaries" and less "Beauty and the Beast + Who Framed Roger Rabit") seem to have been confirmed.  I'm nervous this will be a film that laughs at the classics rather than with them... a less than auspicious attempt to bring back 2-D fairytale stories to 21st century audiences.

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the animation in this movie and using the box office performance to judge whether 2d animated films can do well.  It's nice that there's some animation, but with only 8 minutes I'd hardly compare it to roger rabbit.  For the most part this is a disney live action flick, not an animated one.

I'd agree with minderbinder... it will, at most, put animation in the collective consciousness of a lot of people, but I'd be very surprised if it actually does more than that.

That said, the trailers have looked hilarious.

Bhb007 said: "I'm nervous this will be a film that laughs at the classics rather than with them... a less than auspicious attempt to bring back 2-D fairytale stories to 21st century audiences."

Yes, this is a concern I share too. The ironic humour, the cutting off of a song as it's just starting - these are ploys generally used by people who consider themselves too hip to really like Disney musicals. I will likely see "Enchanted", but it is more because I am starved for seeing new Disney traditional animation than I am in seeing what could be too much of a parody of the genre for my liking.

It's going to be a big budget sit-com... nothing more, nothing less.

From the looks of the trailer it belongs on the Disney channel, not on the big screen.

Please!  Two short 'bookends' that aren't even created by Disney can't hardly be considered the 'return' of Disney animation.  Like others have mentioned, this looks to be another Disney 'filler fluff' that seems to work to fill-in between weightier fare.  I have no doubt it may be enjoyable, but 'enjoyable' ain't the same as 'classic'.

And is a good thing The Rock's flick is doing well domestically because it's going to tank overseas.  Just the American football references on the poster is going to cause a lot of people to move right on to something else.

"Early screeners have been less than positive (see "Ain't It Cool News")"

That sucks because people who read AICN are EXACTLY the kind of people who Disney is hoping would see this movie.

I concur with several points that I will reiiterate because I can.

This is a live action movie that should not be compared to "...Roger Rabbit" nor compared to any animated movie (eight minutes doesn't count). Don't make it into what it clearly is not JHM.

Plus, I fail to believe that one movie will make it or break it for the animation division. It should be the cumlative effect that a number of pictures does that matters, not riding one's faith on one picture.

I do hope the pic does well.

I desperately want this movie to do well, since it seems to be becoming a test case for Disney's future in animation, although as everyone else has said, 8 minutes of 2-d not even made by the in-house studio can hardly be used as a harbinger of how well the Frog Princess movie and others will go over.

IMO, Enchanted could go either way... yet another imitation "Shrek" or a genuinely light, funny flick.  The trailer has peaked my interest, and I'll most likely see it, but good old Rotten Tomatoes will determine whether I head to the theaters or catch it on the Disney channel when it eventually ends up there.

I like what I've seen.  I hope to see more.  

That's how buzz begins.

Cant wait to see it. Seems like a project Walt might have approve himself .

Watched the trailer yesterday in the Jungle Book DVD and it was amazing!

Ponsonboy Britt said: "Yes, this is a concern I share too. The ironic humour, the cutting off of a song as it's just starting - these are ploys generally used by people who consider themselves too hip to really like Disney musicals. I will likely see "Enchanted", but it is more because I am starved for seeing new Disney traditional animation than I am in seeing what could be too much of a parody of the genre for my liking."

I was worried about that at first too. What I've come to think, is that "Enchanted" will begin as a parody, but will restore what "Shrek" and its many imitators stole: Old-fashioned storytelling, musicals, fairytales. Maybe I'm being too optimistic but I hope that this film's message is that its okay to view the world magically and I could realisitically see them taking that route. I can't see Kevin Lima, who directed "Tarzan" and "The Goofy Movie", animated for "Oliver and Company" and "The Little Mermaid", and created the story for "Aladdin", poking fun in the cynical way "Shrek" did. I think this movie is setting up success for "The Princess and the Frog", or at least trying, and other projects like it. Hopefully it will raise awareness that these type of films aren't around anymore and are missed.

I hardly think 8 minutes of animation (not even done in house BTW) will make or break Feature Animation's future. And I wouldn't even try and compare this to "Roger Rabbit" one of my all time favorites, since that was a ground-breaking use of live action and classic animation before all the current advances with CG and the like. If anything, "The Simpsons Movie" showed that 2D is still a viable draw (even thought this feature had a built-in audience - myself included).

Interesting comment about The Rock's flick. When I saw the TV ads the first thing I thought of was "The Pacifier II". Same formula: big macho/masculine charater pressed into handling the mundane everyday things most parents face. One side note though, even though its held #1 for two weeks, there is absolutely no competition out there right now and the numbers aren't that fantanstic (its gross is lower than Pacifier in the same time frame)

I'm also willing to bet that Enchanted is an "anti-Shrek" feature. One that tries to steer the audience away from the smart-alecky stuff, which is already running its course.

What little animation we get in the main feature should be compensated in the Goofy short that precedes it.

Off topic, but international numbers are in for last weekend.  Ratatouille opened huge in germany (making in one weekend almost as much as Cars made in its entire run there) and had a $19M weekend overseas.  The german opening was even better than the opening in France, where it has gone on to make over 63 million so far.  It still has yet to open in Italy and the UK, where it has a good shot at similarly big numbers.

At this point, it only lags Cars by 12 million worldwide, which it could make by the end of next weekend.

Just a heads up for Jim so he can be ready with his "Oops, I Was Wrong About Ratatouille" article.

I love how no one is really giving any REAL credit to the people who REALLY did the work on the animation in this project. The folks at James Baxter Animation are responsible for the images you posted and I didn't see Mr. Aviv mention him once in his letter. Yes, there were a lot of people involved in the project but just as in ALL of the rest of the recent hand drawn Disney films, the people who REALLY deserve the artistic credit get overlooked. Jim Hill DID slightly mention the studio but i think that more needs to be said about the quality of work they did. Anything that gets said about the look of the animation (both good AND bad) needs to be directed at the true artists and craftsmen that brought it to the screen. It gets real old seeing producers and money men continue to reap the benefits and credit for this art form when the true "passion" and "shepherding" comes from the people behind the pencils and paper. In this art form, i have realized, credit is RARELY given where it is due. If anything is being 'passed on' to the next generation of hand drawn films, its the fact that the artists will continue to be stepped on order for management to rise. Let no one be deceived, nothing has changed at Disney. Same mistakes, different year.

elevatorphone said: "Anything that gets said about the look of the animation (both good AND bad) needs to be directed at the true artists and craftsmen that brought it to the screen."

Alright, it that vein, here's my comment directed at James Baxter Animation's craftsmen.  I don't like the look of it.  It looks Don Bluthy to me, and I really despised that period of Disney/Don Bluth Studios animation.  Y'all can disagree, but I really am not a fan of the style, and I'm not planning on rushing out to see the movie, partly because of that, and partly because of the above-mentioned laughing at the characters, not with.

I, for one, like the look of the animation and I'm sure I'm going to wish there was more of it.  For the record, I always liked Bluth's animation and this *does* remind me of it and that's a good thing.  Bluth never really had the people behind him to reach his potential, but when he gave it his all, his stuff looked great.  There's a reason "Dragon's Lair" is considered an all-time great video game and it ain't because of the gameplay.

And as far as the "laughing at" compared to "laughing with" question, as near as I can tell, there's only one character being "laughed at", the Prince, and a comic relief character is par for the course for this kind of film.  Giselle seems to be portrayed very sympathetically and "Enchanted" doesn't seem to be treading too much "Shrek" territory.

Oh, and I'm not sure the minutia-obsessed people at AICN are the target audience here, either, so a negative look over there isn't going to impact the real movie-going public.