2/5-7 Weekend BoxOffice
Juan F. Lara
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
14 9 Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel $2,125,922 -46.8% 1,965 -561 $1,082 $212,156,137
21 17 The Princess and the Frog $443,350 -44.6% 516 -212 $859 $101,001,641
29 24 Planet 51 $224,681 -20.2% 268 -14 $838 $41,258,445
35 32 The Fantastic Mr. Fox $112,168 -18.0% 155 +3 $724 $20,528,217
61 56 A Town Called Panic $9,076 -44.9% 6 $1,513 $84,309
Along with work obligations, I hadn't been posting these lists because
Brandon's list had been acting strangely lately. For all the weeks since new
year, he's been reporting results without any rank. He's still doing that in
fact for the films with the lowest boxoffices. I don't know why the Box Office
Mojo list is having this problem.
The last time I posted, I noted that the fall and winter releases had
been having trouble just reaching their reported budgets. Not so for "Alvin
and the Chipmunks: the Squeakquel". The Academy never disqualified that movie
like it did the original flick. So I'm listing it. It reported a budget of
only $75M, which it soared past to $212M as of this time. That in spite of its
critical reception.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/alvin_and_the_chipmunks_the_squeakuel/
There you go....
The one movie that is matching its budget, though, is "The Princess and
the Frog". I apologize for thinking that it wouldn't make it. But it did
pass the $100M mark last week, and in a few weeks can pass the reported budget
of $105M. Now on the one hand, Box Office Mojo notes that studios only keep
55% of the boxoffice. On the other hand of course, there's the non-NA
boxoffice, the DVD sales, and TV broadcasts. So "Princess" should cover its
costs no matter what.
The same applies to "Planet 51" and "The Fantastic Mr. Fox". Both made
only about half their reported budgets, but they can make up their costs via
all the other income sources. Particularly "Mr. Fox" now that it has an Oscar
nom to boast about.
No longer in theaters is "A Christmas Carol". It closed with a final
North American Boxoffice of $137,855,863, about 65% its $200M budget. But it's
already covered that with its non-NA boxoffice of $185,700,036.
Note also the release of "A Town Called Panic".
http://www.atowncalledpanic.com/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/town_called_panic/
This is a stop motion animation from Europe based on an old TV series. It was
one of the obscure movies that qualified for the Best Animated Feature Oscar.
Among that group, "The Secret of Kells" got the nom instead of this movie.
But you can see from the handful of reviews that "A Town Called Panic" was
highly praised as well. Catch it if it comes to your neighborhood.
The 2010 Animated Feature season has been slow to start, eh? :-) Missing
in action is the first movie scheduled for a 2010 release: "Hoodwinked Too:
Hood vs. Evil". It was supposed to come out MLK weekend, but it disappeared
due to problems with the Weinstein company.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/whatever-happened-to-hoodwinked-too.html
I haven't heard of any future release date, and I'm disappointed. I liked
the original movie. It did have very mediocre CGI animation, but it had a
clever story that relied on characterization and plot intricacy instead of
cultural references. I was looking forward to this sequel under the assumption
that the animation had been greatly improved. For now, though, the first
scheduled 2010 release is "How to Train your Dragon", on 3/26, the week before
Holy Week.
- Juan F. Lara
Paul S. Person
F. Lara) wrote:
<snippo>
> Note also the release of "A Town Called Panic".
>
> http://www.atowncalledpanic.com/
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/town_called_panic/
>
>This is a stop motion animation from Europe based on an old TV series. It was
>one of the obscure movies that qualified for the Best Animated Feature Oscar.
>Among that group, "The Secret of Kells" got the nom instead of this movie.
>But you can see from the handful of reviews that "A Town Called Panic" was
>highly praised as well. Catch it if it comes to your neighborhood.
I saw it a few weeks ago. It is very funny and delivers on all the
promises made in its trailer.
The subtitles translated "Madam" as "Mrs", which is certainly one
option, but, in this case, I suspect that "Madam" is the character's
title as a music teacher, and not an indicator of marital status.
Although with a horse it is hard to be sure.
I don't think it's going to advance the art of animation very much
though: stop-motion with toy figures on stands is not, I suspect, the
wave of the future. But it is definitely worth watching!
--
Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses.
Anim8rFSK
lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
> The one movie that is matching its budget, though, is "The Princess and
> the Frog". I apologize for thinking that it wouldn't make it. But it did
> pass the $100M mark last week, and in a few weeks can pass the reported budget
> of $105M. Now on the one hand, Box Office Mojo notes that studios only keep
> 55% of the boxoffice. On the other hand of course, there's the non-NA
> boxoffice, the DVD sales, and TV broadcasts. So "Princess" should cover its
> costs no matter what.
Princess is this months Disney Video Club "we're gonna send you this
crapfest unless you return the card and cancel online and call and
cancel and maybe even that won't stop us" offering. That's, what, 90
days from theatrical release to DVD? Seems tight; I suspect they didn't
think it was going to do this well.
Of course, I don't think they cared if it did. Princess exists only to
have a black princess character for toys and parks. To that end it's
probably like Mulan where the suits didn't care about it and kept their
hands off and it turned out better than expected. :)
I wish they'd had the cajones to actually come up with a story about a
black princess in, oh, say, Africa. One of those magical lost kingdoms
Tarzan was always running across or such.
Speaking of cajones, now that they've got an Asian princess, a Persian
princess, and a black princess, I assume Latin will be next? Think
they'll go for Spain or Mexico, or maybe Aztek?
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a terrible way to go-go"
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>In article <hl6rne$l6p$1...@hubcap.clemson.edu>,
> lj...@ces.clemson.edu (Juan F. Lara) wrote:
>
>> The one movie that is matching its budget, though, is "The Princess and
>> the Frog". I apologize for thinking that it wouldn't make it. But it did
>> pass the $100M mark last week, and in a few weeks can pass the reported budget
>> of $105M. Now on the one hand, Box Office Mojo notes that studios only keep
>> 55% of the boxoffice. On the other hand of course, there's the non-NA
>> boxoffice, the DVD sales, and TV broadcasts. So "Princess" should cover its
>> costs no matter what.
>
>Princess is this months Disney Video Club "we're gonna send you this
>crapfest unless you return the card and cancel online and call and
>cancel and maybe even that won't stop us" offering. That's, what, 90
>days from theatrical release to DVD? Seems tight; I suspect they didn't
>think it was going to do this well.
Sounds like a Doubleday Book Club.
Of course, with those it was sometimes possible to return the item and
get the billing cancelled.
>Of course, I don't think they cared if it did. Princess exists only to
>have a black princess character for toys and parks. To that end it's
>probably like Mulan where the suits didn't care about it and kept their
>hands off and it turned out better than expected. :)
I liked it much better, on first viewing, than /Mulan/.
Of course, I didn't see /Mulan/ in a theater. I saw it after reading
endless hype about how magnificent it was. This produced a bit of a
disappointed feeling as I realized that it was a standard-issue Disney
animated movie. Which, by the way, meant it was quite good.
I saw /The Princess and the Frog/, on the other hand, in a theater
with only the trailer, really, providing information about it, and it
was at least as good as the trailer suggested. Even if its view of
race relations in New Orleans in the 1910's/1920's was a bit ..
sanitized.
>I wish they'd had the cajones to actually come up with a story about a
>black princess in, oh, say, Africa. One of those magical lost kingdoms
>Tarzan was always running across or such.
It's been a while since I read the Tarzan books (and, since I would
have to buy them again to do it, I don't expect to read them again);
however, the only hidden kingdom I recall was a lost Roman colony, and
the people in charge were all of European descent. The slave they fed
to the lion, /that/ unfortunate was African.
I don't recall the Tarzan books being particularly anti-racist, even
implicitly.
>Speaking of cajones, now that they've got an Asian princess, a Persian
>princess, and a black princess, I assume Latin will be next? Think
>they'll go for Spain or Mexico, or maybe Aztek?
An Aztec princess wouldn't be Latin, she would be another Pocahontas.
Well, except for the human sacrifice bit, of course.
Anim8rFSK
I saw Mulan with no expectations and was very pleasantly surprised; I
think the only misfire was the dragon. But it's like Aladdin; while I
liked it, I had no interest in seeing it again.
>
> I saw /The Princess and the Frog/, on the other hand, in a theater
> with only the trailer, really, providing information about it, and it
> was at least as good as the trailer suggested. Even if its view of
> race relations in New Orleans in the 1910's/1920's was a bit ..
> sanitized.
>
> >I wish they'd had the cajones to actually come up with a story about a
> >black princess in, oh, say, Africa. One of those magical lost kingdoms
> >Tarzan was always running across or such.
>
> It's been a while since I read the Tarzan books (and, since I would
> have to buy them again to do it, I don't expect to read them again);
> however, the only hidden kingdom I recall was a lost Roman colony, and
> the people in charge were all of European descent. The slave they fed
> to the lion, /that/ unfortunate was African.
That's Tarzan and the Lost Empire; there's also Athne: the City of
Ivory, Cathne: the City of Gold, Opar (which IIRC is the descendants of
Atlantis), The Forbidden City, the lost race of Tarzan the Magnificent,
Mayans in Tarzan and the Castaways, Gorilla Grodd's city in Tarzan and
the Lion Man, a lost tribe of crazy Christians (!) in Tarzan Triumphant,
Pellucidar, Knights and Crusaders in Tarzan Lord of the Jungle, Minuni
in Tarzan and the Ant Men, Pal-ul-don (which is full of dinosaurs) in
Tarzan the Terrible, and lots more I'm sure in the movies; I recall Mike
Henry finding a lost city in Central or South America, athough I don't
remember the inhabitants.
>
> I don't recall the Tarzan books being particularly anti-racist, even
> implicitly.
>
> >Speaking of cajones, now that they've got an Asian princess, a Persian
> >princess, and a black princess, I assume Latin will be next? Think
> >they'll go for Spain or Mexico, or maybe Aztek?
>
> An Aztec princess wouldn't be Latin, she would be another Pocahontas.
>
> Well, except for the human sacrifice bit, of course.
Fair point; do they consider Pocaontas a part of the princess line? I
bet they don't, so they need to do that one anyway.
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>In article <ti3jn51ho4bdh0nr2...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:24:33 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
<snippo>
>> >Speaking of cajones, now that they've got an Asian princess, a Persian
>> >princess, and a black princess, I assume Latin will be next? Think
>> >they'll go for Spain or Mexico, or maybe Aztek?
>>
>> An Aztec princess wouldn't be Latin, she would be another Pocahontas.
>>
>> Well, except for the human sacrifice bit, of course.
>
>Fair point; do they consider Pocaontas a part of the princess line? I
>bet they don't, so they need to do that one anyway.
Well, I know this is Wikipedia, but here is a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Princess
The link to the "Princess web site" produces an intro which should not
be watched if you have diabetes and then ... nothing at all.
So I guess Wikipedia is as good as it gets. And it includes Pocahontas
but clearly excludes Alice.
Anim8rFSK
Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:16:06 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ti3jn51ho4bdh0nr2...@4ax.com>,
> > Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:24:33 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>
> >> >Speaking of cajones, now that they've got an Asian princess, a Persian
> >> >princess, and a black princess, I assume Latin will be next? Think
> >> >they'll go for Spain or Mexico, or maybe Aztek?
> >>
> >> An Aztec princess wouldn't be Latin, she would be another Pocahontas.
> >>
> >> Well, except for the human sacrifice bit, of course.
> >
> >Fair point; do they consider Pocaontas a part of the princess line? I
> >bet they don't, so they need to do that one anyway.
>
> Well, I know this is Wikipedia, but here is a list:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Princess
>
> The link to the "Princess web site" produces an intro which should not
> be watched if you have diabetes and then ... nothing at all.
>
> So I guess Wikipedia is as good as it gets. And it includes Pocahontas
> but clearly excludes Alice.
Hah! Great list, thanks.
A couple ponderings:
Belle? How does Belle possibly qualify to be a Princess? Even given
that they've modified the criteria from 'daughter of royalty' to
'somebody's girlfriend' (which sort of makes sense that neither Tink nor
Wendy made the cut, same notation for Alice) but ...
If Belle and Mulan count, why in the world doesn't Esmerelda?
The only possible common thread I see is 'mentioned in the title' but
that would eliminate Jasmine. Hmm. I guess if we go with 'related to
royalty somehow and/or mentioned in the title' - no, that's no good,
that gives us Alice.
Paul S. Person
wrote:
This being Disney, you mean, of course, "a Prince's bride";
"girlfriend" isn't nearly strong enough.
>If Belle and Mulan count, why in the world doesn't Esmerelda?
Also Tiana ... the resolution of "The Princess and the Frog" /depends/
on marriage to a Prince making a girl a Princess, if she wasn't one by
birth. That cover's Belle, and perhaps Mulan, since it is likely that
high-ranking military leaders in ancient China were at least of the
nobility. Mulan is a stretch, but it is possible.
When Disney's "Hunchback" came out, there was an interesting
discussion on another newsgroup, which resulted in one of the regulars
taking a week off and watching every movie version of the story he
could get his hands on. The conclusions?
1) Quasi /never/ ends up with Esmerelda.
2) If Phoebus survives, /he/ ends up with Esmerelda.
3) If Phoebus does not survive, Esmerelda ends up with someone else
(IIRC, it is whoever replaces Phoebus in the second half, but I may be
simplifying).
4) Frollo and the Archdeacon are split in some versions, and united in
one character in others.
(In this other group, the important conclusion was: the Disney version
is well-within the established tradition for movie versions of the
novel. The only actual innovation is the living gargoyes.)
So in no case does Esmerelda end up marrying a Prince (even Captain
Phoebus would probably be the second son of a noble, never to inherit
a title). And, apparently, she is just a Gypsy girl, not a Gypsy
Princess.
>The only possible common thread I see is 'mentioned in the title' but
>that would eliminate Jasmine. Hmm. I guess if we go with 'related to
>royalty somehow and/or mentioned in the title' - no, that's no good,
>that gives us Alice.
The stated criteria don't make sense to me either, but then, I am not
a four-year-old girl. Maybe the stated criteria make sense to the
target audience, the ones who encourage their parents buy the
products.
Anim8rFSK
Ah, excellent catch.
>
> >If Belle and Mulan count, why in the world doesn't Esmerelda?
>
> Also Tiana ... the resolution of "The Princess and the Frog" /depends/
> on marriage to a Prince making a girl a Princess, if she wasn't one by
> birth. That cover's Belle, and perhaps Mulan, since it is likely that
> high-ranking military leaders in ancient China were at least of the
> nobility. Mulan is a stretch, but it is possible.
See below for the bad news on Mulan.
>
> When Disney's "Hunchback" came out, there was an interesting
> discussion on another newsgroup, which resulted in one of the regulars
> taking a week off and watching every movie version of the story he
> could get his hands on. The conclusions?
>
> 1) Quasi /never/ ends up with Esmerelda.
> 2) If Phoebus survives, /he/ ends up with Esmerelda.
> 3) If Phoebus does not survive, Esmerelda ends up with someone else
> (IIRC, it is whoever replaces Phoebus in the second half, but I may be
> simplifying).
> 4) Frollo and the Archdeacon are split in some versions, and united in
> one character in others.
I love people that do their homework. :)
>
> (In this other group, the important conclusion was: the Disney version
> is well-within the established tradition for movie versions of the
> novel. The only actual innovation is the living gargoyes.)
I've only seen Hunchy once, a long time ago, despite making the
Esmerelda Voodoo GoDisney website. Is there anything that says the
gargoyles were 'real' and not a delusion?
>
> So in no case does Esmerelda end up marrying a Prince (even Captain
> Phoebus would probably be the second son of a noble, never to inherit
> a title). And, apparently, she is just a Gypsy girl, not a Gypsy
> Princess.
Don't we lose Pocahantas then? Or is she an Indian princess by birth?
>
> >The only possible common thread I see is 'mentioned in the title' but
> >that would eliminate Jasmine. Hmm. I guess if we go with 'related to
> >royalty somehow and/or mentioned in the title' - no, that's no good,
> >that gives us Alice.
>
> The stated criteria don't make sense to me either, but then, I am not
> a four-year-old girl. Maybe the stated criteria make sense to the
> target audience, the ones who encourage their parents buy the
> products.
Okay, let's look at the list
Official:
Snow White - married a prince
Cinderella - married a prince
Aurora - princess by birth and marriage
Ariel - princess by birth
Belle - married a prince
Jasmine - princess by birth
Pocahontas - princess by birth
Mulan - ack!!!!! From Wiki, and Mulan II:
"To make sure the three princesses aren't forced to marry against their
will, Mulan takes their place marrying the son of the ruler of the
neighboring land, and wonders if Shang will return." - you're freaking
kidding????
Tiana - married a prince
Unofficial:
Alice - a pleasant peasant girl, too young to marry
Tinkerbell - not royalty, not married
Giselle - no good explanation, and I don't buy Wiki's 'royalties'
argument; how could Disney, of all people, not have the rights to market
a character?
Maid Marion - from Wiki: in the animated Disney Robin Hood; it is
stated that Maid Marian is King Richard's niece, even though she is
depicted as a fox and he as a lion, and Maid Marian is not treated as a
royal although she does live in Nottingham Castle.
Nala - I like the idea of a non human princess (no snide remarks about
Ariel) and she *did* marry the King of the Beasts.
Megara - this one makes no sense; she's officially a "Princess of the
Gods"
Minnie - depends on Mickey's status I guess
Wendy - like Alice, a pleasant peasant girl, too young to marry
Jane - okay, at first I gagged on that, but, wait - she *did* marry the
King of the Jungle, the Lord of the Apes. Technically she's a queen or
a baroness or something, but I'll let that slide.
Absolutely not:
Esmerelda - gypsy princess don't count :)
Incoming:
Rapunzel (did they actually change the name of that to 'Tangled'??
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>In article <5paon55dk5fdpch5a...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:08:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
<snippo>
Not that I recall. Still, Quasi as paranoid schizophrenic seems a bit
... dark ... for a Disney film, so I see them as real (within the
Paris of the film).
>> So in no case does Esmerelda end up marrying a Prince (even Captain
>> Phoebus would probably be the second son of a noble, never to inherit
>> a title). And, apparently, she is just a Gypsy girl, not a Gypsy
>> Princess.
>
>Don't we lose Pocahantas then? Or is she an Indian princess by birth?
Her father was the high Chief of his confederation, IIRC. So, by
birth.
>> >The only possible common thread I see is 'mentioned in the title' but
>> >that would eliminate Jasmine. Hmm. I guess if we go with 'related to
>> >royalty somehow and/or mentioned in the title' - no, that's no good,
>> >that gives us Alice.
>>
>> The stated criteria don't make sense to me either, but then, I am not
>> a four-year-old girl. Maybe the stated criteria make sense to the
>> target audience, the ones who encourage their parents buy the
>> products.
>
>Okay, let's look at the list
>
>Official:
>Snow White - married a prince
>Cinderella - married a prince
>Aurora - princess by birth and marriage
>Ariel - princess by birth
>Belle - married a prince
>Jasmine - princess by birth
>Pocahontas - princess by birth
>Mulan - ack!!!!! From Wiki, and Mulan II:
>"To make sure the three princesses aren't forced to marry against their
>will, Mulan takes their place marrying the son of the ruler of the
>neighboring land, and wonders if Shang will return." - you're freaking
>kidding????
Whatever it takes, I guess.
>Tiana - married a prince
>
>Unofficial:
>Alice - a pleasant peasant girl, too young to marry
Peasant girls didn't generally get an education, at least, not one
involving books, and, whether Tutor or Older Sister, Alice is clearly
being given one, whether she wants it or not.
>Tinkerbell - not royalty, not married
>Giselle - no good explanation, and I don't buy Wiki's 'royalties'
>argument; how could Disney, of all people, not have the rights to market
>a character?
That film was live action, IIRC, not animated. That changes the rules:
the actress may well own her own image (depending, I suppose, on the
contract she signed to do the film), but an animated character's image
is owned by the studio.
>Maid Marion - from Wiki: in the animated Disney Robin Hood; it is
>stated that Maid Marian is King Richard's niece, even though she is
>depicted as a fox and he as a lion, and Maid Marian is not treated as a
>royal although she does live in Nottingham Castle.
>Nala - I like the idea of a non human princess (no snide remarks about
>Ariel) and she *did* marry the King of the Beasts.
A wee bit of anti-animal bias? Perhaps Disney Princesses have to be
human, at least by the end of the film (Ariel is human, IIRC, at the
end of the film).
>Megara - this one makes no sense; she's officially a "Princess of the
>Gods"
At the end of the film, both Megara and Hercules are human (mortal);
Hercules isn't a Prince when he is mortal; and Megara, apparently,
wasn't born a Princess.
Yes, I'm just making this up as I go along. Who can say what the real
reason is?
>Minnie - depends on Mickey's status I guess
The second half of "Fun and Fancy Free" had a deleted scene (it is on
the DVD) where Minnie plays the King's daughter. She buys the cow for
six beans. But that is a character she is playing, not Minnie herself.
>Wendy - like Alice, a pleasant peasant girl, too young to marry
She lives in a house in Londeon with a Nanny. OK, the Nanny is a dog,
but still, hardly a peasant.
>Jane - okay, at first I gagged on that, but, wait - she *did* marry the
>King of the Jungle, the Lord of the Apes. Technically she's a queen or
>a baroness or something, but I'll let that slide.
She isn't the classic type, but then, neither are Pocahontas or Mulan.
OTOH, judging entirely from the trailer, the new girl in the second
Hunchback film is very reminiscent of Jane, which is odd for someone
in a story set so far back in time. Perhaps they used the same actress
as a reference for both.
>Absolutely not:
>Esmerelda - gypsy princess don't count :)
I'm not sure she was a Gypsy princess. Well, unless all young,
unmarried, female Gypsies supporting themselves are "princesses".
>Incoming:
>Rapunzel (did they actually change the name of that to 'Tangled'??
I see that story a little differently after seeing "Into the Woods"
(ever wonder what climbing up a rope of hair that is still attached to
someone's head would look like?). It'll be interesting to see how
Disney transmogrifies it (we can't /really/ have the Prince's eyes
gouged out, even if he does get them back at the end, can we? or
Rapunzel wandering in the wilderness for two years and producing twins
before being married?).
If you like fairy stories, "Into the Woods" is worth watching, if you
can find it.
Andrew
> In article <5paon55dk5fdpch5acp788cl94pavqr...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:08:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >In article <v1mln5tisj45dnfrb4baa7gg5gl2rco...@4ax.com>,
> > > Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:16:06 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >In article <ti3jn51ho4bdh0nr216n5b3q5rpjbej...@4ax.com>,
> > >> > Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:24:33 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net>
So, maybe her father was a fox and her mother a lion?
> Nala - I like the idea of a non human princess (no snide remarks about
> Ariel) and she *did* marry the King of the Beasts.
> Megara - this one makes no sense; she's officially a "Princess of the
> Gods"
> Minnie - depends on Mickey's status I guess
> Wendy - like Alice, a pleasant peasant girl, too young to marry
> Jane - okay, at first I gagged on that, but, wait - she *did* marry the
> King of the Jungle, the Lord of the Apes. Technically she's a queen or
> a baroness or something, but I'll let that slide.
>
> Absolutely not:
> Esmerelda - gypsy princess don't count :)
>
> Incoming:
> Rapunzel (did they actually change the name of that to 'Tangled'??
What about Bianca,Duchess,Vixey,Eilonwy(a
princess!),Faline,Lady,Perdita,and Sari?
Andrew 'Bambi was a Prince' Kieswetter
>
> --
> As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
> the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
> as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
> "What a terrible way to go-go"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anim8rFSK
Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
> >Giselle - no good explanation, and I don't buy Wiki's 'royalties'
> >argument; how could Disney, of all people, not have the rights to market
> >a character?
>
> That film was live action, IIRC, not animated. That changes the rules:
> the actress may well own her own image (depending, I suppose, on the
> contract she signed to do the film), but an animated character's image
> is owned by the studio.
She starts out animated, and they've got dolls of her:
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4600000/Animated-Giselle-enchante
d-4694252-1280-1024.jpg
http://www.getprice.com.au/images/uploadimg/895/350__1_1878791-1.jpg
The animated character bears no more than a passing resemblance to the
live actress. I call shenanagins on this whole story!