Originally Posted By Bystander "Disney isn't losing money on this." Oh, absolutely not. Very few films actually *lose* money.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"Disney isn't losing money on this." Oh, absolutely not. Very few films actually *lose* money.< you mean like Treasure Planet which lost $125M ?
Originally Posted By Imagineer This "The Opening Weekend performances of recent Disney Animated Features based on their Per Screen Averages Dinosaur ...................................$11,929 per screen average Tarzan ........................................$11,338 per screen average Lilo and Stitch .........................$11,049 per screen average Chicken Little ............................$10,970 per screen average Hercules .......................................$8,125 per screen average Mulan ............................................$7,875 per screen average Hunchback of Notre Dame .........$7,572 per screen average The Polar Express .........................$6,839 per screen average Atlantis: The Lost Empire .............$6,755 per screen average Brother Bear ...................................$6,404 per screen average Does it strike anyone else as ironic that -- after all the money that has recently been poured into Disney Feature Animation in order to turn that traditional animation operation to a state-of-the-art CG studio -- that "Chicken Little" 's opening weekend box office performance still couldn't quite equal the grosses of two traditionally animated films, "Tarzan" and "Lilo and Stitch"? Or -- better yet -- that this Mark Dindal movie (even with its inflation-boosted ticket prices) still couldn't come close to matching the per-screen-average box office performance of "Dinosaur"? Which ( let's remember) was produced by WDFA during Disney's last flirtation with computer animation. When hundreds of millions of dollars were poured down "The Secret Lab" rat-hole ... Never to be seen again ..." Jim Hill Media
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Umm...why is The Polar Express on that list? Jim Hill Media should know better than that. It's a little hard to take them seriously when they can't even distinguish between Disney films and the other studios.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Also, the per screen average is a nice way to tweak the numbers to make certain films look better than others. It's a little misleading to try and say one film was more successful than another based solely on per screen averages....but typical from Jim Hill's site...
Originally Posted By DLFAN79 This is NOT Good. Not good for the furture of 2-D. Lets hope this one drops off fast, then gets steamrolled by Potter, then gets sent into oblivian when 10yrs in the making Rent comes out.
Originally Posted By cstephens Polar Express - too funny. Gurgitoy2 is right that you can't have any kind of credibility as a Disney commentator if you can't even tell the difference between their own films and the competitor's films! Shouldn't "Anastasia" be added in there too then? /cs
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Dear Imagineer This, Have you yet seen the movie? Many of us are still wondering when we'll hear what you think of it personally versus having you tell us what others think. I know you're happy about the "comeupance" of $40Million, but many of us honestly want to hear your own reasoning for why you do or do not like the final product after you have sat and watched it from start to finish. I will happily pay for your ticket so that you don't have to worry about how much "uppance" comes the film's way in its second week. Yours in Sky Falling Terror, AFA P.S. - Feel free to hand-write your response and mail it, as computers are evil and have completely destroyed the time honored tradition of letter writing. Disney fans everywhere have become sheep, communicating on internet message boards, and Laughing Place has come to ruin by having simply followed a trend and taken us all down a road to ruin that will eventually end polite society as we know it. Break free from those shackles! Pick up a pencil and some postage stamps!
Originally Posted By Jafar30 <<This is NOT Good. Not good for the furture of 2-D.>> Kind of strange that next years adaptation of Curious George is going to be 2-D, it's not Disney, but it's not completely dead. <<Lets hope this one drops off fast, then gets steamrolled by Potter, then gets sent into oblivian when 10yrs in the making Rent comes out.>> Again I'll ask why do you hope this is a failure? It doesn't benefit anyone.
Originally Posted By MrToadWildRider >>Again I'll ask why do you hope this is a failure? It doesn't benefit anyone. << Because they seem to have some grudge against a company that they seemingly can't get enough of.....it's weird. Maybe if we all wish hard enough the Disney Company will die and there will be NO more parks and NO more movies and then we won't have to complain! Seriously what is wrong with some of you? It's not good that Disney made a successful movie? Give me a break. I saw it on Saturday in 3d with my gf and we loved it. We even went during the afternoon so the show had all the kids screaming and we still loved it. And on the T later on in Saturday night it was past 11:00PM and I saw many people coming into the station all college age or older with the Chicken Little 3d glasses. It's a good movie - is it a classic like Beauty and the Beast or Little Mermaid? No, not really but it's still a very nice, fun, well made movie.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Seriously what is wrong with some of you? It's not good that Disney made a successful movie? Give me a break.>> Some people still want the the studio to be in 1950's mindset.
Originally Posted By thenurmis Oh it is a fan site, not question in that. LP has always been filled with conflicting views (and funky spelling), You can't let the idea that to be a "Fan" of some thing you must be blind to all but the clearest of pools and the warmest of days, that is just not the case. I happen to really like Chicken Little, and think it's a great addition to the "family" . That dosn't make me a bigger fan of the Mouse than say Jim Hill, or others that are less impressed with the movie. I have to admit that I am at time confussed with the "dark siders", but I do not question their love of the world of Disney. I just think they are wrong ; )
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <It's sad, I thought this was a Disney FAN-site :-\> Being a 'fan' doesn't mean you like everything that you're a fan of. Think of a sports fan. A Chicago Cubs baseball team fan. The fan may not like every choice the club makes to add players to the team or whatever, but they're still fans. Same thing with me. I don't automatically like everything Disney does. It doesn't mean I hate Disney. Here, I'll use this tired analogy. I hate crowds at Disneyland, but I don't hate Disneyland. Life isn't just black and white.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I think partly hating this film vindicates their feelings about Eisner and the job her did at the end. It also adds to the argument that they shouldn't have let Pixar gain so much, and let the traditional animation unit die.
Originally Posted By MrToadWildRider >>That dosn't make me a bigger fan of the Mouse than say Jim Hill, or others that are less impressed with the movie.<< >>Being a 'fan' doesn't mean you like everything that you're a fan of.<< It's one thing to be a fan of Disney and just not like something Disney does and completely another to be a "fan" and just blatantly WANT to see Disney to fail at things. I'm a Disney fan but there have been a lot of things I don't really like from Disney. If I didn't like Chicken Little I'd say I don't like Chicken Little - but I don't say "I hope this movie fails!" that's just nuts. A "fan" wouldn't want the company/group/person/etc. they're a fan of to fail. Maybe in some twisted sense of logic if this movie fails they'll get a movie they do like - but that's not how it works. Believe it or not there's a thing called money in this world and by failing you lose money and without money you can't make more things. It's not like Disney will say "Oh Chicken Little failed back to 2D" I think they'd be more likely to pull out of the animated movie game than to just completely revert to back to 2D. Anyway, to claim to be a fan and in the same breath hope the company fails makes no sense at all. When I see a movie I don't like I say "That's too bad I hope they do better next time" I don't say "GOOD! NOW THEY'LL FAIL! <insert maniacal laughter>" and if you do the latter I don't see in what universe you can be considered a "fan". It seems like a number of these people haven't even seen the movie either - they just don't like it because it's a)Disney b)it's not Pixar c)it makes Eisner look just a little bit less of a complete moron and villain and d)Walt Disney didn't wake from the dead and somehow bless this Rooting for failure in no way makes you a "Fan" and I don't care how you spin it.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Rooting for failure in no way makes you a "Fan" and I don't care how you spin it.> Yeah, I see that. I would agree with you there.
Originally Posted By thenurmis I don't know, some time back I had a rather heated chat in the "land of gray clouds" (DCA topic section). The impression it left me with was that some ones love can be manifested in many diffrent ways. What you or I may read as a wanting of failure, can in some on elses eyes be a call to arms. Meaning that they truly feel that as a fan , they are exspected to bring issues and opertunities to light. It is not that I aggree with that perspective, only that I think that we should be care full as to how we limit the defination of the word, to fit our own needs. I'm dipping too far off topic here.. so back to the story at hand. Box office will put the Little bird where it belongs, and If we are all placing bets , I figure that when its said and done ( released on DVD) the movie will have hit a bit over 200g's It will be a success, and it will effect the price of Pixar's sale.
