Enchanted

Post by **Ben** » September 21st, 2007, 11:21 am

Welcome surfnspy...my take on the hand-drawn approach takes some of our points into consideration. Hope you stick around!

Post by **surfnspy** » September 21st, 2007, 2:41 pm

Truth be told, I am the guy who bought the pitch a millon years ago at Disney and am now one of the producers.

SO, I am happy to clarify anything you might be concerned about.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 21st, 2007, 6:49 pm

Wow.....that is SOOOO cool!!

Post by **Ben** » September 22nd, 2007, 9:43 am

So could you give us a name...or initials?

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 26th, 2007, 2:28 pm

Re Jim Hill story on Enchanted and nutrition....

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... anted.aspx

No idea what they were thinking about marketing it like this....this feels totally empty to me and just trying to please parents' groups so they'll take the kids to it.
What in the world does nutrition have to do with the story of this film????

Disney films=short end of the stick when it comes to marketing their own pictures. Let's just put it this way, if Disney went to Pixar and said: "Um, yeah, when marketing Ratatouille, do you think it would be OK if we stick in a whole bunch of messages on how Remy should only be cooking HEALTHY food?"

Big John would NOT have stood for a lame marketing campaign like that, but I guess it's good enough for an actual Disney film.

Post by **Kinoo** » September 26th, 2007, 2:30 pm

How do you know what people would do anyway? ? ? That's lame, i'm sure Lasseter doens't have a word to say regardind the marketing, whatever movie it is. Change your disc!

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 26th, 2007, 2:40 pm

I just think that the idea for Enchanted and nutrition is lame. I was trying to say that I think that the people at Pixar, namely Lassetter & Company, are much too smart too agree to a stupid idea like that when marketing their own movie, although technically Ratatouille is food-related and probably a more "appropriate" platform to discuss nutriton than a modern-day fairy tale. (The omelet, pastries and ratatouille all looked delicious, but I don't know how healthy they would really be....

)

Post by **Ben** » September 26th, 2007, 3:09 pm

Kinoo wrote:i'm sure Lasseter doens't have a word to say regardind the marketing, whatever movie it is.

Yes. Yes he does. Very much so.

Post by **Meg** » September 26th, 2007, 5:21 pm

Yeah - because we all know Lasseter really wants Disney's films to bomb at the B.O.

Why is it he gets blamed for EVERYTHING that people don't like over at Disney? Shouldn't Iger get the blame for this lame marketing campaign?

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 26th, 2007, 5:51 pm

Shouldn't Iger get the blame for this lame marketing campaign?

Yes, Iger is to be blamed as well.

Yeah - because we all know Lasseter really wants Disney's films to bomb at the B.O.

No, he just wants to see Pixar's do better than everyone else's. Animated feature films are an extremely small market, regardless of how it seems, and Disney and Pixar are competing for the exact same audience.

Post by **surfnspy** » September 26th, 2007, 9:57 pm

Jim Hill has an unusual brand of reporting. He mixes fact with speculation and creates a "news" story. This is not to say it isn't entertaining and his stories usually DO contain some kind of news. Just remember it's really just a blog.

So calm down folks. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. (Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

Regarding ENCHANTED being marketed with healthier fare. Of course the movie has nothing to do with food and there is no intention of using these products as the sole tie in to the film.

Here's how it works. Studios, like Disney, make big movies. Animated, live-action whatever. These movies are expensive to make. In order for your expensive movie to stand out, you hope to get some promotion in place. This means the movie's image appears on some products. The product pays to have this done so the studio gets some free marketing.

In the past, Disney and other studios have been criticized by promoting films that appeal to kids thru fast food outlets such as McDonalds which may not have the healthiest food for kids. SO, despite being a pretty synergistic relationship between the two companies (McMouse gets some cheap promotion and McD gets some novel way to drive customers into their restaurants) their relationship has fizzled out.

Now Disney is trying to partner with products that are better for kids. Things that kids might like, but are not as bad for you as a Happy Meal.

That's it.

Kids buy the drink. It has a little picture of the movie and they think, "Oh, i should see that movie."

What's wrong with that?

They try to do something better and you people get on the conspiracy train and work yourselves into a paranoid lather.

And to suggest that ANY Disney exec wants a film to fail.

Well, that's just silly.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 26th, 2007, 10:22 pm

Don't get me wrong, in principle I don't think there's anything wrong in trying to associate Enchanted with healthier food at all. I really hope that I didn't come across as offensive, not my intention. (Especially with the PRODUCER of the film right on the board.

) But this is the return of big-screen traditional animation, (albeit 15 minutes' worth of it) after more than three years. Even with the admirable efforts of the marketing staff...I just think it deserves more.

So calm down folks. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. (Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

LOL!!

Post by **Phil** » September 27th, 2007, 9:09 am

Jim Hill wrote:Will "Enchanted" 's health-conscious promotional campaign ultimately result in robust box office receipts for this new Walt Disney Pictures release?

I don't think this advertising campaign will have much if any effect on the box office for Enchanted. I know I don't pick movies based on what food product they advertise on; I generally go by the trailers.

In fact, I think these type of campaigns do more to benefit the product than the movie. For example, I didn't decide to go see Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End because I saw it advertised on an M&M bag. But I did buy some "Pirate Pearl" M&M's because of the pirate-y theme of the package.

Similarly, my children may choose a box of cereal based on the characters advertised on the front, but they don't beg to see a movie just because "Princess Giselle was on my Froot Loops box!"

Personally, I miss the days of the McDonald's Happy Meal promotions because of the toys. Not just a picture on a package, but something to collect, set up on your shelf, and yes, play with. Those were the days.

Post by **Ben** » September 27th, 2007, 9:20 am

surfnspy wrote:And to suggest that ANY Disney exec wants a film to fail.

Well, that's just silly.

It's well known that Eisner was hoping for a failure from Cars, before he left and Mouse and Lamp married. He wanted to drive down Pixar's price.

Could you hint at who you are from the Enchanted team? That's a very easy claim to make, with the greatest of respect.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 27th, 2007, 1:12 pm

I don't think this advertising campaign will have much if any effect on the box office for Enchanted.

But then (and this is with total respect, as Ben said) why did they even do it? Shouldn't they be focusing their attention on more useful marketing outlets?