Originally Posted By DLFAN79 I KNEW this was going to happen. Not only is the film going to bomb, it seems to have started a little civil war in the Studio. <a href="http://jimhillmedia.com/article.php?id=1723" target="_blank">http://jimhillmedia.com/articl e.php?id=1723</a> Its almost as if Walt has cursed them all to CGI hell. haha......i predict the return of 2-D in 5-10yrs.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA From the Jim Hill article <I've heard that Disney's marketing department has also come under considerable fire. Supposedly for mounting what's being seen as a rather inept promotional campaign for this particular picture.> I disagree. I've never seen so much press, commercials and tie-ins as I have for 'Chicken Little.' Why is it inept?
Originally Posted By iceknyght I would agree... Promotion for this film has been everywhere! And started a while back, but in the last few weeks, I have seen commercials up the wazoo, Tie-Ins and any place where kids *might* be... I don't think we can say how well/bad this movie will do until the opening weekend numbers are in... My guess is that unless this film is utter crap, and the kids hate it, it is going to be a financial success...
Originally Posted By wahooskipper We had a halloween event at a local Town Mall and someone had set up a "Chicken Little" booth passing out posters and other trinkets to promote the movie. I was stunned.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 And how long have the ads been touting the Time Magazine review? At least for a month. And to the original poster of this thread. Why do want Chicken Little to fail? Just so you can gloat and say I told you so. I've never understood that mentality of wanting something to fail to prove your point.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead Honestly, I was afraid that people would be complaining about TOO MUCH Chicken Little by now. He's everywhere. He was in the Macy's parade, and that was almost a full year ago. And that commercial with the quote from Time has been running CONSTANTLY.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead I just think it's funny how Disney films are required to do more than just entertain. Brother Bear was supposed to save traditional animation. Atlantis was supposed to save the DL subs. Now Chicken Little is required to spawn an instant renaissance. Oy. These poor films.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<I just think it's funny how Disney films are required to do more than just entertain.>> A few weeks ago John Landis, the director of Animal House, Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London, was being interviewed by the morining radio show I listen to. And he stated when it comes to go to the movies, what other form of entertainment does the consumer pay the same price no matter what it is. Whether it's an art house film or 80 plus million animated film like Chicken Little. Their only goal for the most part is to entertain.
Originally Posted By Imagineer This Nobody wanted the Disney/Pixar films to fail. If it looks like a stinker people will be honest and say so. Ebert and Ropert work for parent company Disney, but if they think that Chicken Little is a flop they will review it that way in their show. Even Lucas and Spielberg have had movies that have flopped. Remember Howard the Duck and 1941? It's not because Chicken Little is Disney, but because the meddlers at Disney won't let the animators make a quality film. Disney fans want Disney to succeed and the meddlers to get out of the way.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Wow. Has anybody who has posted above SEEN the film for themselves? I ask only because I'm always AMAZED at how eager people are to champion the opinions of others without first at least attempting to form an opinion for themselves; an opinion based on experience rather than conjecture. It's how much I like a film that matters to me. It's nice to be part of a crowd that is like minded, but film and theatre are so personal to me that I'm comfortable with having an opinion all my own. If being part of a widely held opinion was all that critical to me than I could find plenty of support in the press if I looked. Just as I can find plenty of bad reviews for films I like, and plenty of good reviews for films I don't like. I personally doubt Chicken Little will "bomb" and I'm totally confused by people who are happy to see any group of talented people fail. Why? (And shame on Jim Hill for deciding to give legs to a rumor, and to report it in such a tawdry, cheap, sensational and negative way. It seems spiteful and vengeful and like shoddy journalism and I'm gravely disappointed that he's stooped to this. How boring and pathetic. And I'm very surprised by Jerry Beck's decision to report without fact checking, as he has all the access required to do so before reporting as he did. Jerry Beck is a wonderful and thougtful professional, who has great integrity and is a fine historian and great dean of animation, so it has me truly puzzled.) There are a LOT of changes coming at Disney and in Feature Animation. The politics of the division is not to be confused with the product of people who aren't embroiled in those issues, and it would help both Disney in particular and the animation industry as a whole if rank and file "insiders" would stop taking out their frustrations on their colleagues by running around spreading bits and pieces of stories of which they have no first hand knowledge, simply supplementing their lack of talent with gleeful attempts at petty vengence! There are so many gifted people who worked on this film along with Mark Dindal and Randy Fulmer, like Nik Ranieri, Ellen Woodbury, Eamonn Butler, Doug Bennett, and others. Why would anyone take pleasure in scuttling their launch, or be happy at even the most remote possibility that they made a bad film? Please, PLEASE trust me when I tell you that none of these people were enslaved in some evil kingdom and forced to do something against their will. They worked very hard and tried to tell a fun story that they would hope people would see and enjoy. This is Disney, not a gulag for goodness sake! I'm certain Chicken Little will be forced to go head-to-head with the box office figures of the last CG marvel from either Pixar or DreamWorks or BlueSky, but I no longer believe that says much about whether a film is good or bad. If it truly does, in the long run, then why is the original Fantasia so popular and well respected now? And how can a film that did so poorly, like Pinocchio, end up a "classic" as so deemed by AFI and other arbiters of such things? It's one thing to be a purist, but another thing altogether to hope for the failure of others who don't share your concepts of what is "best" or "better than." I have seen the film. And in the end, it is entirely different from anything else I've seen from Disney. Is that so bad? It's something to be judged as its own work apart from the films that have come before it (but sadly has very little chance of avoiding the comparisons, I fear.) Truly, how many nay-sayers and over-eager failure forecasters will actually sit down without pre-judging it and let it play all by itself? I find Mark Dindal has not once disappointed me as a director, and I left happy, entertained, and feeling very much that this film deserved to be made, and made in CG (also in excellent 3-D which I urge people to see if this format is an option in your local theatres) and hopefully it will find its audience. Some people will love it, some will like it, some will dislike it, and some will hate it. I just wish with all my heart that every film wasn't tried in the critical press, as it were, and had a fair shot at being seen by people interested in the genre and the theme. If it appeals to you, go. If it doesn't appeal to you, stay home. If you've seen it and hate it, say why and if you've seen and like it, say why as well. I personally don't give a flying leap what TIME or Ebert and Roper say, I have my own brain and I would hope that every one will use their own brains over someone else's when forming an opinion. r. "I can manage the despair. It's the hope that I mind" - John Cleese, "Clockwise"
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 (And shame on Jim Hill for deciding to give legs to a rumor, and to report it in such a tawdry, cheap, sensational and negative way.<< Isn't that how he makes a living?
Originally Posted By Imagineer This I liked most of the Pixar Movies, and they all made a lot of money. 2 were just ok for me. Everyone experiences things differently and you can't make them see things your way. From the trailers so far Chicken Little does not grab my attention and I have a right to feel that way. People may feel different after they have seen the whole movie. Each viewer is different and who are we to say that the reporters who did not like the film are wrong? They have their opinions too.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Yes, Imagineer This, I agree that everyone experiences things differently. You're quite right when you say that "People may feel different after they have seen the whole movie." In fact, that's very much to my point, and so it confounds me that anyone would join critics of the film without having seen it for themselves. There is no "right or wrong" to any opinion, so long as it formed through the direct influence of the object of criticism rather than the subjective critique of someone else. There is value to discourse, and merrit to gathering facts before acting. Critics certainly play such a role. But how can anyone think it's fair or good to champion and cheer the possible failure or even the success of something they haven't seen? It's one thing to stay away from the theatre because you heed what you feel is a fair warning or to go see a film because someone has told you it is good, but it is something else entirely to either praise or trash a film, book, piece of music or painting that you have not personally seen, read, heard or viewed. People who do so should begin and end every comment relating thereto with a loud "Baaaaaaaa."
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 AFA great points as always. By the way any more great animated performances coming our way? Concerning Chicken Little, if you read most of the box office websites. Box Office Mojo, Box Office Guru and Box Office Prophets they're all prediction between 35-38 million this weekend. Certainly not Pixar or Shrek numbers but not the gloomy scenario that Jim Hill paints.
Originally Posted By idleHands "This is Disney, not a gulag for goodness sake!" I know where you can get 10-to-1 odds against that, actually. ;^) Look... I highly doubt anyone here or on other discussion boards would like to see the artists fail in their jobs, or be tossed to the curb, as a result of poor executive decision making. Much of the "angst" being generated on the boards these days is born out of sheer frustration at what WDC has become in recent years, particularly in the WDFA and WDI business units. There once was a time when executives in this company would regularly reduce their myopic focus on the bottom line, long enough to pay attention to what their artists needed to do their jobs, doing what was necessary to keep said artists productive and pleased in their occupations and working environments. Sure, it's a business and always will be a business. But it's a business based on the creative output of non-linear thinkers and dreamers. In other words... those individuals who didn't go to business school. The bean counters didn't always understand their artists, but they knew better than to try and meddle too much in the creative process. However, those days are long gone. This company has become waaaaay too top-heavy with overpaid executives who couldn't tell the difference between a highly-trained and talented animator, versus a pet parrot turning the knobs of an Etch-A-Sketch. Too many artists have been shoved to the curb, all in the name of "cost cutting." Why? Because it's the only way these overpaid executives can produce "growth" at WDC. Layoffs and division closures have been the main tool in the business arsenal of Disney executives for years, long before Eisner got his 45% no-confidence vote. And I doubt any of this will change under Iger's leadership. If anything, it will most likely increase. Chicken Little will probably do OK at the box, and modestly well in video sales. But what's so darn frustrating about this situation, is that CL could have been so much more, just like with DCA, WDSP, and HKDL, the red-headed theme park stepchildren of the WDC family. Chicken Little had too many executives meddling in the creative process, demanding adherence to their short-sighted business philosophies, such as "if it's good enough for Shrek..." mental processing filter that will ultimately doom WDFA to the dustbin of animation history, if it isn't tossed by the wayside very soon. The investor community is not particularly pleased with media/entertainment companies as of late, and their demands for high box office returns has more to do with WDC decision making, than tepid film reviews or discussion board rants. Even if Chicken Little earns a tidy sum over its entire domestic run, Wall Street will not be satisfied if it doesn't produce those Nemo-like profits during its opening weekend. So why go after the fans when they call a spade, a spade? If they choose to prejudge a film based on a 33% Tomato-Meter reading, that's their choice. And given such a low rating, chances are quite good that any one individual filmgoer will not find CL worth their time and money, statistically speaking. As Mary Richards once claimed, "You don't have to be a chicken to recognize an egg."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Chicken Little had too many executives meddling in the creative process, demanding adherence to their short-sighted business philosophies, such as "if it's good enough for Shrek..." mental processing filter that will ultimately doom WDFA to the dustbin of animation history, if it isn't tossed by the wayside very soon.>> Do you have any information at all to back up that claim, or is that just speculation based on your pre-conceived notion that Disney always operates like that today? If you have examples of executive meddling with Chicken Little, I would LOVE to hear them. It would be really interesting to know what goes on behind the scenes.
Originally Posted By idleHands "Do you have any information at all to back up that claim, or is that just speculation based on your pre-conceived notion that Disney always operates like that today?" <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/default.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68806-P-1&Refresh=1104024047" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/de fault.asp?WCI=MsgBoard&WCE=T-68806-P-1&Refresh=1104024047</a> Post #8 by Darkbeer is one example. I'm sure there are many more.
