One big problem, which is not DISNEY's fault is that there is a glut of animated movies. There is only so much time and money to see so many. Plus, the fact that one can say they can wait to catch a movie  in a few months on pay-for-view, DVD, Netflix etc. Not everyone needs to see movies on a big screen to enjoy them obviously.

It might not hurt if marketing can claim the fact that "in the age of computer animation and CGI that  this DISNEY movie was pain-stakingly hand-drawn, just like the classic DISNEY pics." That is a a weak point to play up but, they got to generate some kind of excitement.  

<em>People just doesn't consider a new Disney animated feature to be all that special anymore.</em>

Bingo. Which is why Pixar had to be bought at an enormous price - just to get back into the race again. Note that Pixar continues to insist on their own brand, because pure Disney animation doesn't yet (again) stand for a premier animation product.  

In the "miscellaneous" department, add that the "Tinkerbell" movie was DVD released only a month prior to Bolt, the Bolt concept was right out of "Toy Story", the "Twilight" effect on young female attendance and an ad campaign that didn't appeal (to me anyway).  Finally, and this is just a guess,  Disney has got the young girl audience locked up, but the boys went to see the kick a*s "Kung Fu Panda" and weren't that interested in a movie about a girl and her lost movie star dog.

I have to agree with the execs who said that people don't get that "wow" feeling over a new Disney movie any more in large part due to the direct to video market being massively oversaturated by their own company.  One super-high-quality film every year or year and a half was a great formula for them; heck, even taking a good long break from animating period probably helped the animation department's revival - remember how surprised and anxious to get back to the theater everyone was when they announced "The Little Mermaid"?  (The original, not "Little Mermaid 27: Ariel's Distant Cousin Goes to Band Camp" or whatever they are up to.)

Admittedly though, one of Disney's downfalls is that they pretty consistantly still use their classic storytelling format, and after a while people get bored with that.  As much as I thought "Bolt" was a great film in general, I was still calling plot points, and in a couple of cases almost word for word dialogue, well before the scene occurred, where a film like Madagascar 2 kept throwing more twists.  Disney needs to break the mold a little more . . . maybe take a few hints from Miyazaki that there's a lot more great - and very DIFFERENT - stories out there that would make for great films that don't have to be the same old "misfit finds their place in the world" tale that gets told over and over and OVER.

For a lot of people, especially those families who used to flock to the latest Disney film on opening weekend, it's simply an economic decision. It's true that in the times of the Great Depression, Hollywood films were all the rage -- but there weren't as many ways to escape back then with cable TV, the Internet, etc.

If marketing hasn't primed the pump and really excited the loyal 16- to 35-year-old demographic, well, a film may struggle at the box office. And if there's little positive word-of-mouth after opening weekend (and what tween/teen is going to talk up "Bolt" on his/her MySpace or FaceBook page?) then the studio probably can't do too much to boost the box office receipts. Did the "Cars" short help "Bolt" in any significant way?

Taking a family of 4 to the local bijou -- even to a matinee -- will set you back more than the $15-$20 purchase price of the DVD, maybe even the $20-$30 price of a Blu-ray version of that film in 4 to 6 months. And, I'm afraid I beginning to enjoy watching a film in the "quiet and comfort" of my own home more than I do in a communal theatrical setting. And, lets face it, large screen TVS and home theater systems (along with upscaled DVDs or Blu-rays and descent sound systems) are far more common today than 3 to 5 years ago.

In addition, the film-junkie in me responds to the behind-the-scene and bonus material that I don't get when I watch the film at the theater. Also, there are several places like "Red Box" where you can rent DVDs and Blu-Rays for $1 per day -- quick, convenient and very inexpensive.

I'm still a loyal purchaser of Disney and other studios' Blu-Ray and DVDs, but outside of the animated films, special-effects laden blockbusters and classics, I'm renting more dramas, mid-level and arthouse hits than buying. I used to annually see 50-plus films in the theater; but I'd say the average the last couple of years is closer to 20-25 .

"Bolt," while it did get pretty good reviews, etc., seemed a bit more kid-centric than entertainment for the broader "family." You can blame the direct-to-video titles for some of this, because I don't know very many adults who will sit down and watch "Lion King 1 1/2" as they would "The Lion King." I don't think tweens and teens were all that excited about "Bolt," in the same way were interested in  "Kung Fu Panda." Opening up on the same day as "Twilight" wasn't the smartest marketing move, either.

Still, the bottom line should after DVD/Blu-Ray and licensing proceeds are included, and no one will be able to convince me that "Bolt" is a dog when it comes to adding to Disney's coffers. It's a good, entertaining film and one I'm looking forward to adding to my Blu-Ray collection. When Disney carps about a film's poor box office receipts ... when we in the public see the video games, the clothing, the plush and all the toys and we know the company is getting paid for all that licensing ... it comes across as corporate greed on an Eisnerian scale.

Quite a few of the animated films made during Walt's time weren't box office hits out of the gate -- the company needed the international box office receipts, the licensing, even a re-release or two before some of them turned a profit. Maybe some of today's animated films won't be profitable until the DVD is released ... so what? I'd still bet that in the past 20 years, Disney's animated "failures" weren't nearly as draining on the company's reserves as some of its live-action "bombs."

Pixar's films have had stuff for children, but have worked on the broader "family" level, with stuff very much geared to teens and adults. From what little I know about "Up," I can see grandparents taking their grandkids out for a very special bonding opportunity.

I think "The Princess and the Frog" with its black princess and jazz-infused soundtrack might be a theatrical must-see, but Disney should be getting families excited about the film 6 months or a year before its release. It's time for a full "Wonderful World of Disney" episode behind the scenes look at the film and an early introduction of Disney's newest princess (maybe even rename her Michelle) in the theme parks.

Oh where do  begin?

The company didn't stand behind it.

There was no buzz.

There was little to no merchandise.  (mnmears that point about licensing would work except nobody can find any shirts or toys to buy)

And that "ambitious" marketing campaign completely missed the mark.

Disney has just got to get out of the CGI business.  It's not their game.  Pixar is the big daddy of computer animation and Disney will always look like a small also-ran next to it and Dreamworks.  They gotta go whole hog into 2-D animation and not just "hype" it.  They should ANNOUNCE The Princess and the Frog like it's the most important cinematic event of the year.  I mean a FULL TRAILER during the Super Bowl after the kickoff with the most jaw dropping animation and best music they have.

Remember during the nineties where the second most important part of watching a Disney movie was getting in before the trailers so you could see what's next?  Remember going to see Aladdin and sitting down and a trailer would start and you started hearing animal noises and didn't know what was going on and the full CIRCLE OF LIFE played on screen and blew your mind away.  The title at the end was burned into your mind and you had to remind yourself what movie you were about to watch because you were still excited about the trailer!  (I'm going to have to go watch Lion King now...)

My point is, Disney has got to stop acting like they want to be one of the cool kids and remember that they're the GRANDDADDY of animation and you do NOT mess with the granddaddy.  They're been here longer then you have.  Their stuff is better then your's and will be remembered WAY longer then you can hope for.  They don't have to be one of the cool kids, they're already the guys the cool kids hope to become!

(Incidentally, because it just has to be said, I'm wondering if Jim thought about telling those execs they need to hold back the whining and maybe put a pin in it?)

Here's a suggestion... don't pin your marketing hopes on a guest appearance on "The Bonnie Hunt Show"!...  What is that show anyway?  A terrestrial broadcast TV afternoon talker?  A sit-com?  I don't even know.

bonk!  

Disney sucks at marketing.  They have no clue how to market ANYTHING. I haven't seen an ad for anything from Disney in YEARS that got me excited.  And I'm a built in consumer.  I want to go anyway.  Bolt had lame trailers. Nothing in the trailers made the movie seem cool. The design for Bolt was lame. John Travolta and Miley Cyrus were terrible choices. Travolta is a terrific actor, but voice acting is better left to real voice actors, or comedians who can really bring somthing.  Remember how great Tim Allen and Tom Hanks were in Toy Story?  Tim Allen was sensational as a deluded toy. Which is similar to Bolt.  Who cares about Miley Cyrus if you aren't going to make Bolt a MUSICAL!!!! THAT is what Disney does best. Animated MUSICALS. Go back and do those. Then you can cast Miley Cyrus and all those High School Musical folks. And get some HUMOR.  It's sad that the best part of Bolt was a HAMSTER.  Madagascar was full of fun characters.  Same for Kung Fu Panda.  And you knew it was going to be fun from the trailer.  Bolt was a better movie, but it need so much punch.  And then a marketing campaign that wasn't lame.  I have to say that the preliminary art for this when it was a Chris Sanders film was SOOOOOOO much more interesting.

I'm honestly having a bit of a chuckle at the expense of the Disney Studio exec who finds it "hard to take" that "Bolt" lagged behind animated features from studios other than Pixar.  High opinion of yourselves much?  The theatrical animation market is a very different place than it was in the days when Disney ruled animation and virtually no other studio could even get a foothold.  Pixar may well be tops when it comes to art and story, but they don't dominate the box office to the exclusion of all others.  Other studios have been able to carve out identities for themselves and effectively compete, leading to a less than $10 million gap between "WALL-E" and its closest competitor "Kung-Fu Panda."  As the other exec says, Disney's identity has become diluted, focusing more on quantity than quality.  A Disney movie has become something you can pick up at the store on a whim to keep the kids occupied for an afternoon, rather than a highly anticipated family event.  "Madagascar 2" was a sequel, "Horton Hears a Who" is based on a well-known children's book, and from everything I hear "Kung-Fu Panda" may be the best film Dreamworks has ever made.  One step Disney may need to take before continuing on is choking down a big old slice of humble pie and realizing that things are different now and the studio has work to do in order to prove itself to audiences again.

So what to do when it comes time to promote "Ths Princess and the Frog"?  Play to the strengths Disney used to have.  Remind people of the classics from Disney's glory days.  It worked to help promote something totally different with "Lilo and Stitch" and it worked to some degree when promoting "Enchanted."  Speaking of "Enchanted," I wouldn't worry too much about the less than hoped box office performance of that film.  "Enchanted" was a light parody of a kind of film that hadn't really been seen in theaters for over a decade, coming years behind "Shrek."  This time, audience will be getting the real thing.  Embrace the 2D.  Embrace the fair tale.  These are the things that make Disney unique now.  Do that and stay away from direct-to-DVD, and maybe Disney will start to be associated with quality again.

Disney Animation, as had been said here a few times, needs to find its identity once again. Pixar is known for breaking the mold, goin outside of the expected. Dreamworks is known for topical, entertainment with alot of pop culture references. Blue Sky is safe family-style animation, nothing too outlandish and safe. Disney is ????? Hand-drawn - no not any more. Musicals? -no. Fairy tales? Kiddie pics? that seems to be what they are thought of at this point.

Thjey have a chance to break out of that, The Walt Disney Pictures logo does not hurt National Treature, Pirates, Bedtime Stories, etc. But in animation, it is kiddie pics. My 10 year old son enjoyed Bolt, but he didn't go running off to his friends telling him he saw it. He did tell them about Bedtime Stories, though.

Pixar has an identity. Lasster, et al, need to find one for Disney animation.

There was absolutely no buzz about the film. I helped work on the film and when I went home for the holidays no one outside my immediate family had even heard about the film. My sister-in-law with twin 4 year old girls hadn't heard about it. My wife's former boss with 4 kids ages 4-16 hadn't heard about it. My best friend's parents hadn't heard about it. The father-in-law of a Pixar employee that I met hadn't heard of it. My Grandma told some family friends about it but they thought it was called "Volt". Between my wife's family and my family which includes 18 adults and 5 children only my parents have gone to see the movie, AND I WORKED ON IT! I guess I didn't do a very good job marketing it either.

Everyone who has gone to see the movie has loved it. It is the highest reviewed movie currently in the theaters. It has an A- CinemaScore. It is one of the three animated movies to be nominated for a Golden Globe. The fact is that Disney marketing put more effort into marketing the Wall-E and Tinkerbell DVDs than it did to marketing Bolt.

I have been thinking that the marketing campaign for "The Princess and the Frog" should emphasize the new movie's connection to princess films of the past, show that it is extending the tradition started by Snow White.  Bring that nostalgia in, and most importantly, convince the little girls that this is a movie they've got to see.  =)

Oh and for heaven's sake, get Mark Elliot to do the trailer.  =)

Regarding Bolt, there was a specific moment when I decided to wait until the DVD release. It was when watching a trailer and they talk about a TV show dog that thinks he has special powers, only to discover that he really doesn't. I immeadiately thought: Why would I want to see another version of 101 Dalmation II. (Jim did mention this) I will, however, but the DVD. I don't like the theater experience too much. In my own case, I have worked in a theater as a projectionist. Been there, done that. (I will say that I had intended to see "Bolt" in a theater, but that story line did it for me)

However, I am genuinely excited about The Princess and The Frog and I will see     that in when it's in theaters. Sometimes I do make exceptions.

Disney promotes everything as a comedy these days. Even the teaser for "Princess and the Frog" was supposed to generate chuckles but the truth is, their jokes aren't very funny. Sometimes amusing, but trying to imitate Dreamwork's formula is an embarrassment for them. "Bolt" was well reviewed, but having seen the other aforementioned animated films, it doesn't stand out as one of the year's best nor anything to rival any of their golden age projects.

Reading Tuckenie's post, I got chills. I remember seeing a work-in-progress trailer for "Pocahontas" before "The Lion King" what, 15 years ago now? I remember that TO THIS DAY! I doubt any of us could recall a trailer for "Chicken Little" or "Meet the Robinsons" that long from now.

Scrap the CGI-attempts, leave it to Pixar. Scrap the tongue-in-cheek humor and leave it to Dreamworks. Focus on the art, the music, the storytelling, and the characters. That is by far more memorable than watching a princess arguing with a frog or a hampster in a ball.

Can't wait for "Princess and the Frog" and I hope it's everything I expect it to be. If it isn't, then it's going to be a long time before Disney reclaims their leadership title, if they ever do.

From what I understand, Bolt had issues for a long time, ever since Chris Sanders was moved off of the project.  Some movies can benefit by having a visionary with awesome story telling skills jump into a project like this (see: Brad Bird, Ratatouille)   Disney chose to take the "safe" route by making the story and characters fairly generic.

It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't anything special.   In this case, as with many other fairly well made but poorly received films, the artists put a lot into what they are working on, and can come out with some really fine stuff that stands well on its own, but as a whole, the movie lacks a confident foundation to stand on.  And that's when the masses become disinterested.

a day late...but, i think the problem lies with the marketing. the trailers did not make me want to see this movie. i went anyways (because we see all of disney's animated movies) and i enjoyed it, but i think the marketing needs to do a better job.

i thought the same for 'meet the robinsons'. i thought the marketing team did a poor job. as pointed out on here when that movie came out, the trailers made it seem like a movie about singing frogs and a dinosaur. there's a lot more to the movie than little comedy snippets. i think that's what the problem is...just trying to show the funny parts of the movie. why not show parts of the movie that will make the person want to see it?

Can someone please explain to me why Marley and Me made $110 million in 12 days while it took Bolt 6 weeks to make $110 million? Don't tell me that Marley has an original story. I've seen that story a million times before. Cute dog? Bolt has a cute dog. Outstanding cast? Owen Wilson and Jennifer Anniston? Release date? It was released in a crowded holiday frame that had at least three other direct competitors and several other high profile movies to compete with. Based on a popular book? I've never heard of the book before. It scored a 58% on Rotten Tomatoes with the critical consensus: "Marley and Me is only sporadically successful in wringing drama and laughs from its scenario." Bolt had an 85% rating whose critical consensus says: "Bolt is a pleasant animated comedy that overcomes the story's familiarity with strong visuals and likable characters." So why is Marley and Me going to make twice as much money as Bolt?

jewalker:

People love Jennifer Aniston and yellow labs, not necessarily in that order.  ;)

More importantly, why did people love that Vince Vaughn/Reese Witherspoon thanksgiving movie???!!

jewalker> I wouldn't discount the effect of cast and a recognizable title on the success of "Marley and Me."  You may have never heard of the book, but many people have, making the film name instantly appealing to most people who enjoyed the book.  Neither Wilson nor Aniston is necessarily the best that Hollywood has to offer, but they are well known and popular actors and audiences get to see them, not just hear their voices.  (And I'd be willing to argue that voice work by Miley Cyrus is actually a turn-off for anyone just about anyone but pre-teen girls who, as we now know, all skipped "Bolt" to go see "Twilight" anyways.  People do like labradors.  And the movie seems to go for relatively easy "the dog misbehaves, but we love him anyway" type humor.  Above all that, though, audiences can be hard to predict.  Sometimes they'll go and see the well-reviewed film, sometimes they turn out in droves for a critical bomb.  Figure it out and you can probably get a job in Hollywood.

I do think the advertising campaign on "Bolt" was a significant step up from "Meet the Robinsons" which, as peoplemover pointed out, just seemed like a parade of singing frogs, crazy people, a T-rex with subtitles, and a lot of generally unfunny jokes with no real opportunity for the viewer to get a hold on what the movie was actually about.  While they still had their flaws, the ads for "Bolt" at least manage to convey the core concept of the film rather than leaving the viewer utterly confused.

Overall, I'm with megustajake.  Comedy is not Disney's strongest suite.  Bring back the magic!

Count me among those who don't believe that the movie itself was the problem with "Bolt." As has been pointed out, it got a ton of positive reviews, and people who went to it enjoyed it. I really had hoped it would sprout some legs and take off, but no such luck.

I was stunned when "Madagascar 2" beat it so soundly. I don't see the two movies as being in the same league.

I have to agree with the observations regarding the marketing. However, you have to go back a few movies to "Meet the Robinsons," to understand my issues. I saw that movie, and it was fun, only the commercials kept showing a dancing dinosaur. A dancing dino! What was that about? I kept looking for that in the movie, but it never happened. So Disney was trying to sell a great movie about a lost kid finding his place in the world, with a dancing dino. Fast foward to this year. I see a commercial for "Bolt," and the first thing out of my mouth is: "Wasn't this movie already made. And wasn't it called 'Firehouse Dog?'" I was never impressed with the marketing. The commericals were confusing (is it a buddy movie, or an action adventure tv show?) and the art was a bit off putting. Disney had a long way to go to make this movie work. They weren't able to do it. Disney needs to get their marketing department to start making the films look good. Not making them look like yet another CGI movie.

The trailers made the movie look so very, very blah.  Big deal, wait for it on DVD.

Now if the characters had been even remotely interesting, then maybe...but it's been a long while since Disney took a risk in presenting characters that truly grabbed you.  Characters that were quirky--so quirky that you couldn't predict what might happen.  Characters that were perhaps even a little damaged, like...Lilo?

Thanks to Disney's traumatic restructuring of its animation departments, a truly original film like Lilo & Stitch will never again be able to slip beneath the radar until it's too late for the bigwigs to stop it.

But what art form had Disney perfected in the meantime?  How about the dreck-to-video garbage that forever tainted the Disney name.  And nobody in upper management saw the backlash coming.  Great job, guys.  And now you're repeating this mistake with the Disney parks, where you're focusing so intently on short-term gains that you can't even see you're creating a long-term perception problem that will take decades to fix.

That unnamed executive totally had it right. I can totally relate to what he said. NO MORE CHEAPQUELS!

BOLT probably didn't do well because the concept wasn't that impressive and original. Sure, the movie was good and the story had heart, but the idea has been done many times before.

The executives shouldn't worry too much about THE PRINCESS AND THE FROG. I'm sure that audiences will flock to it. The movie will bring back nostalgic memories of when Disney made traditional animated films with engaging characters, nice music, and interesting stories. I am slightly worried about ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS sequel being released the same day. Hey, you should be worried too! The first movie was the #1 at the box office for over a week!