Olaf's Frozen Adventure being pulled out of theaters due to complaints

The thing that gets me a little bit about this whole thing is that isn't it really only adding 10 minutes more than if there was a more "traditional short" preceding the movie?
 
The thing that gets me a little bit about this whole thing is that isn't it really only adding 10 minutes more than if there was a more "traditional short" preceding the movie?

I think most of the shorts are less than 8 minutes - so more like 15. As much as the length (and when you add that to 15-20mins of previews it did make for a long time int he theater for some kids) was that it was a) unexpected by many to be that long and b) had a silly tone contrasting to the more emotional Coco, AND just wasn't a nice touched, beautifully animated PIXAR short that is often up for awards, etc, that are usually before PIXAR movies .... so it is about what it WASN'T as well as what it WAS
 
Curious why you have zero interest in seeing Coco? Coco was 1000x better than the Frozen short in my humble opinion.

Based on the previews, it looks like it might have made a decent Halloween movie, but just not my thing. I never watched Nightmare before Christmas and wasn't that impressed by Coraline and this (based on previews) looks like more of the same.
 
Based on the previews, it looks like it might have made a decent Halloween movie, but just not my thing. I never watched Nightmare before Christmas and wasn't that impressed by Coraline and this (based on previews) looks like more of the same.

Obviously everyone is different but I will say, in my opinion, Coco was NOTHING like Nightmare Before Christmas or Coraline. Coco isn't creepy or odd or anything. It's really just a touching movie about family and remembering when you come from but also to drive your future, etc. And the Land of the Dead is presented as being very vibrant and, ironically, alive.
 


Based on the previews, it looks like it might have made a decent Halloween movie, but just not my thing. I never watched Nightmare before Christmas and wasn't that impressed by Coraline and this (based on previews) looks like more of the same.

Oh I can definitely see what you mean, it can come across as a Halloween movie from previews, but it really isn't like Coraline. I didn't like that movie either and I feel very meh about nightmare. Even though Coco is skeletons, it feels more like a Thanksgiving/Christmas movie. Very family and tradition-oriented, and the skeletons aren't meant to be scary at all.

Maybe one day you'll watch and be pleasantly surprised :)
 
I went to watch Olaf's Frozen Adventure yesterday before it was pulled. Is it a bit cheesy at times, yes, but overall it was an okay Christmas Special.

Pros --

1. Olaf is hillarious. "You're a Princess. You don't have to settle." made me chuckle as did his reaction to the candy cane
2. I loved the ending

Cons --

1. The movie didn't fill the screen. Another reminder of it being originally intended as a made for TV special. It appeared to be shot in 16:9, which resulted in it being pillarboxed on wider theater screen.
2. None of the songs really struck me as the next "Let It Go" or even "Do you wanna build a snowman". They were okay, but definitely a bit of a let down compared to how amazing all the songs were in the original movie.

As for some of the complaints, I never felt it dragged on. Maybe that was because I knew what I was going to be seeing - a 21 minute Christmas Special. I guess if you were expecting an 8 minute Short, it might seem long, but it really wasn't. I also did not feel it had too many songs. In fact, I think they had room for another. My only complaint is the songs could have been better. Olaf is supposed to be like that. That is what makes him so endearing. He is a snowman that was brought to life.

Oh I can definitely see what you mean, it can come across as a Halloween movie from previews, but it really isn't like Coraline. I didn't like that movie either and I feel very meh about nightmare. Even though Coco is skeletons, it feels more like a Thanksgiving/Christmas movie. Very family and tradition-oriented, and the skeletons aren't meant to be scary at all.

Maybe one day you'll watch and be pleasantly surprised :)

I went ahead and stayed after the "Short" (since I had paid for it) and was pleasantly surprised by Coco. The previews did not do it justice. It started off slow and I found myself thinking "I don't like this", but once Coco ended up in the Land of the Dead, it took off. It definitely did not feel like a Halloween movie as I had thought.
 
I went to watch Olaf's Frozen Adventure yesterday before it was pulled. Is it a bit cheesy at times, yes, but overall it was an okay Christmas Special.

Pros --

1. Olaf is hillarious. "You're a Princess. You don't have to settle." made me chuckle as did his reaction to the candy cane
2. I loved the ending

Cons --

1. The movie didn't fill the screen. Another reminder of it being originally intended as a made for TV special. It appeared to be shot in 16:9, which resulted in it being pillarboxed on wider theater screen.
2. None of the songs really struck me as the next "Let It Go" or even "Do you wanna build a snowman". They were okay, but definitely a bit of a let down compared to how amazing all the songs were in the original movie.

As for some of the complaints, I never felt it dragged on. Maybe that was because I knew what I was going to be seeing - a 21 minute Christmas Special. I guess if you were expecting an 8 minute Short, it might seem long, but it really wasn't. I also did not feel it had too many songs. In fact, I think they had room for another. My only complaint is the songs could have been better. Olaf is supposed to be like that. That is what makes him so endearing. He is a snowman that was brought to life.



I went ahead and stayed after the "Short" (since I had paid for it) and was pleasantly surprised by Coco. The previews did not do it justice. It started off slow and I found myself thinking "I don't like this", but once Coco ended up in the Land of the Dead, it took off. It definitely did not feel like a Halloween movie as I had thought.

I'm glad you got to see the short and that you liked Coco more than you were expecting to! They really didn't market it well at all. It was completely off my radar until I happened to watch the preview at DHS and that gave a much better feel of the movie.
 


I took my daughter to see the Olaf short yesterday. We had already seen it, but she wanted to see it again in the theater. We have moviepass, so might as well! We could not stay for all of Coco, but we had watched it before.

They were both very good. I get the complaints about the length, but other than that, they were both well done!
 
It's official! Olaf's Frozen Adventure will premiere on ABC on Thursday. Looks like Disney's going through with their original plan of showing it on TV: http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/908275-olafs-frozen-adventure-to-debut-on-abc-december-14#/slide/1
Seems like a bit of a bait and switch ...

"Hey Frozen fans! Come see this movie you may not be interested in to see a brand new Frozen mini-movie!" You know we never air these shorts on TV ... EVER and the only way to see them is to go see a movie or buy the DVD when it releases."

"Surprise! .. We'll be showing it on the public airwaves for free after three weeks in the theatre! and you can't even see it in the theatre anymore!"

I mean .. sure .. if that was their ORIGINAL intention to show it on TV (which it appears it was based on its length), that's fine, but just seems odd to switch it around like this.

I'm glad we can watch it on TV, my kids are a little young to go see CoCo, but they will enjoy the Frozen short I am sure. DVR is set! (Even though currently it just calls it a "World of Disney Holiday Special" (with no details).
 
Seems like a bit of a bait and switch ...

"Hey Frozen fans! Come see this movie you may not be interested in to see a brand new Frozen mini-movie!" You know we never air these shorts on TV ... EVER and the only way to see them is to go see a movie or buy the DVD when it releases."

"Surprise! .. We'll be showing it on the public airwaves for free after three weeks in the theatre! and you can't even see it in the theatre anymore!"

I mean .. sure .. if that was their ORIGINAL intention to show it on TV (which it appears it was based on its length), that's fine, but just seems odd to switch it around like this.

I'm glad we can watch it on TV, my kids are a little young to go see CoCo, but they will enjoy the Frozen short I am sure. DVR is set! (Even though currently it just calls it a "World of Disney Holiday Special" (with no details).

Did they come out and say "we never show these on TV - EVER!!!"? I don't recall that but if they did put it out there that the only way to ever see the short was to go to the movie (or buy the DVD down the road) then I agree that is bait and switch - but if they never highlighted that fact I don't see it as a big deal
 
Did they come out and say "we never show these on TV - EVER!!!"? I don't recall that but if they did put it out there that the only way to ever see the short was to go to the movie (or buy the DVD down the road) then I agree that is bait and switch - but if they never highlighted that fact I don't see it as a big deal
I don't think they SAID that specifically .. or if they used the words "exclusive" when advertising the shorts ... but in their history have they ever shown these shorts on TV?
So to me .. historical precedent would probably get a TON of people to think "I need to go to the theaters to see this!"

I am just thinking about "Frozen Fever". That was released in front of Cinderella in March (2015) and came out on DVD/digital a few months later in August (and I think was also showing in Hollywood studios that summer for the "Frozen Summer Fun" event).
I'm not sure if it has ever aired on TV? And it is only 7 minutes long.

It seems pretty likely that they PLANNED to show this on TV originally. Some marketers didn't think Coco would sell tickets as well, so some executive said .. "Hey, let's stick this "short" in front of Coco" to get all those Disney Frozen fans into the seats." People go .. expecting another 7-10 minute "short" and get a full 20 minute TV episode (like it was designed for) and are upset that their kids have to be in a theater for over 2 hours!. Coco sells well enough on its own, so they backtrack their plans and pull it and air it on TV.

But if they JUST decided to plop this on TV .. what had they planned for that slot originally?

So, maybe they had this planned all along. (which seems "sneaky" or good marketing depending on your perspective). Release it with a movie, to get people thinking that may be the only way to see it, but still show it on TV after the first few weeks of the movie. Then they get TONS of TV traffic because of all the publicity of the movie and the publicity of showing this short that is now being "pulled" from the theaters on TV. This will probably be a HIGHLY watched special on ABC.
 
I don't think they SAID that specifically .. or if they used the words "exclusive" when advertising the shorts ... but in their history have they ever shown these shorts on TV?
So to me .. historical precedent would probably get a TON of people to think "I need to go to the theaters to see this!"

I am just thinking about "Frozen Fever". That was released in front of Cinderella in March (2015) and came out on DVD/digital a few months later in August (and I think was also showing in Hollywood studios that summer for the "Frozen Summer Fun" event).
I'm not sure if it has ever aired on TV? And it is only 7 minutes long.

It seems pretty likely that they PLANNED to show this on TV originally. Some marketers didn't think Coco would sell tickets as well, so some executive said .. "Hey, let's stick this "short" in front of Coco" to get all those Disney Frozen fans into the seats." People go .. expecting another 7-10 minute "short" and get a full 20 minute TV episode (like it was designed for) and are upset that their kids have to be in a theater for over 2 hours!. Coco sells well enough on its own, so they backtrack their plans and pull it and air it on TV.

But if they JUST decided to plop this on TV .. what had they planned for that slot originally?

So, maybe they had this planned all along. (which seems "sneaky" or good marketing depending on your perspective). Release it with a movie, to get people thinking that may be the only way to see it, but still show it on TV after the first few weeks of the movie. Then they get TONS of TV traffic because of all the publicity of the movie and the publicity of showing this short that is now being "pulled" from the theaters on TV. This will probably be a HIGHLY watched special on ABC.

Oh, I definitely think it was the plan to originally have this on TV and then they thought it would help with the numbers for Coco .... Guess I am ok with them marketing it initially for the preview so that you can see it first/early and then see it on TV again - though I recognize I went to see Coco and this was a "bonus" for me ... I do know others didn't care about Coco and just went to see this and if I was them and spent $14/person when I could have just waited a few weeks and seen it for free I likely would feel different
 
I think most of the shorts are less than 8 minutes - so more like 15. As much as the length (and when you add that to 15-20mins of previews it did make for a long time int he theater for some kids) was that it was a) unexpected by many to be that long and b) had a silly tone contrasting to the more emotional Coco, AND just wasn't a nice touched, beautifully animated PIXAR short that is often up for awards, etc, that are usually before PIXAR movies .... so it is about what it WASN'T as well as what it WAS
YEa think the biggest issue is really the unexpected length of it by people. Some fo the other Pixar films have been longer with the first two Cars movie and Incredibles all being around 2 hours long. Coco was 1hr and 49m so the overall length of Olaf and Coco would be similar to those others with their shorts before them.
 
YEa think the biggest issue is really the unexpected length of it by people. Some fo the other Pixar films have been longer with the first two Cars movie and Incredibles all being around 2 hours long. Coco was 1hr and 49m so the overall length of Olaf and Coco would be similar to those others with their shorts before them.

I think a lot of things with life in general, but especially when it comes to Disney are expectations and are the met. You "expect" to have to sit through a 5-7 minute short to get to the main reason you are there and it turns out to be 20+ minutes you are upset/annoyed. Same thing like with 7 Dwarf Mine Train - if you were expecting a trill ride on the level of Big Thunder Mountain you are disappointed by it but if you were expecting a better themed Barnstormer you are pretty happy with it
 
I don't think they SAID that specifically .. or if they used the words "exclusive" when advertising the shorts ... but in their history have they ever shown these shorts on TV?
So to me .. historical precedent would probably get a TON of people to think "I need to go to the theaters to see this!"

I am just thinking about "Frozen Fever". That was released in front of Cinderella in March (2015) and came out on DVD/digital a few months later in August (and I think was also showing in Hollywood studios that summer for the "Frozen Summer Fun" event).
I'm not sure if it has ever aired on TV? And it is only 7 minutes long.

It seems pretty likely that they PLANNED to show this on TV originally. Some marketers didn't think Coco would sell tickets as well, so some executive said .. "Hey, let's stick this "short" in front of Coco" to get all those Disney Frozen fans into the seats." People go .. expecting another 7-10 minute "short" and get a full 20 minute TV episode (like it was designed for) and are upset that their kids have to be in a theater for over 2 hours!. Coco sells well enough on its own, so they backtrack their plans and pull it and air it on TV.

But if they JUST decided to plop this on TV .. what had they planned for that slot originally?

So, maybe they had this planned all along. (which seems "sneaky" or good marketing depending on your perspective). Release it with a movie, to get people thinking that may be the only way to see it, but still show it on TV after the first few weeks of the movie. Then they get TONS of TV traffic because of all the publicity of the movie and the publicity of showing this short that is now being "pulled" from the theaters on TV. This will probably be a HIGHLY watched special on ABC.

Frozen Fever has shown on Disney Channel. I'm not sure how long after the initial release it was though. As for Olaf's Frozen Adventure, another sign that it was intended for TV - it was done in 16:9 and didn't fill the wider (2.39:1 ???) theater screens. Personally, Coco was pretty long itself, so I don't get the complaints about the extra 21 minutes. Heavens, I saw Gettysburg in the theaters when I was 10 and that was FOUR AND A HALF HOURS (huge history nerd growing up). I think the real issue for many folks was it delayed the start of Coco from 17 minutes (previews) to 38 minutes and a lot of Coco fans were not particularly fond of Frozen.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top