Originally Posted By jaycub I had the opportunity to see this movie today as a sneak preview, and I have already posted my review on Internet Movie Database, but I am also going to post it here so the real Disney fans can read it: <<After a long wait, Chicken Little will finally be released to the public this week, and after a preview screening, I think they should have delayed the release a little longer. I love Disney, it's something that has its roots in my childhood. I hold ambitions to work in the animation industry, and would love to owork for the company that has provided me with so many wonderful memories over the years. With that said, nothing makes me more sad than to see Disney continuously putting out films like Chicken Little. The concept was interesting, the animation phenominal, but the story was atrocious (not as bad as the Blue Sky offering "Robots," but still not worthy of the Disney name.) Disney used to be the pioneers of the industry, always pushing the competition to do better, as well as pushing themselves. Now the real talent from Disney has apparently moved to Pixar, while corporate mokeys who have no place in a creative environment are writing the films. Chicken Little feels like a rip off of movies like Shrek, Madagascar, and the like. Rather than committing to something magical, they cram the film with gags that have run their course, and crummy remakes of pop songs that didn't really do that well to begin with. The real shame is that there are still some creative people working for the mouse who'd talents are being choked off by the suits who think they know better. I still am optimistic for the future, and I think that the films currently in production have a lot of potential, but they will have to raise the bar quite a bit to move beyond Chicken Little. For a more enlightening animation experience, I say that you should save your money and go see the Wallace and Grommit movie instead.>> Well, that's my thoughts in a nutshell. They had a trailer for the remake of the Shaggy Dog with Tim Allen, and it looks terrible.
Originally Posted By idleHands "They had a trailer for the remake of the Shaggy Dog with Tim Allen, and it looks terrible." What's next? A remake of "Absent Minded Professor" with Robin Williams? Oh wait... Thanks for the review, Jaycub. I have a sinking feeling that you will not be alone on CluckSuck Island, after November 4.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead I saw it in a preview today too, and I have to say that I really enjoyed it. I get that Disney seems reactionary and is taking a lead from other CGI trends, but I think it still totally works. It has more heart than any Dreamworks film, and I laughed pretty much throughout. What I loved most about it was the animation. It seems that, with CGI, came this need to forego animation as "illusion of life" and more of an exact replica. That was the true loss in the demise of 2D animation. But Chicken Little (which I think is far and away the best ANIMATED CGI film ever) and The Incredibles show that people are actually doing animation that made me love animation. And I am DYING to see this movie in 3D! The movie moves like Tarzan did in all those great spots, so it should be pretty awesome. I saw a pic of the glasses too (which, according to the poster in my theater, you will get to keep), and they look like little sunglasses.
Originally Posted By guerillagorilla Very nice, and on par with my opinions as well. I also wrote an IMDb entry, as follows... >>There have been many, many movies that Disney has put out that I've had a high desire to see "succeed". All in all, most Disney animated movies that have made it to the big screen in the more modern cinema history of, say, from "Beauty and the Beast" all the way up to "Lilo & Stitch" and "Brother Bear", have done that. Perhaps some are only a financial success, like "Treasure Planet", but certainly they were popular enough with one group of moviegoers or another to have a good box office take. Unfortunately, "Chicken Little" is not a success. In pooling my thoughts to review this movie, I am so highly disappointed that good animation is its only high mark. In this pivotal point in the history of The Walt Disney Company, where its relationship with Pixar is still on the rocks while a new president is stepping up, I wanted this movie to be a smashing success. I wanted this to be the movie that starts another Golden Age revolution, where it is possible that Disney takes the top spot in producing awesome animated movies. I fear that there aren't many good storytellers left at Disney Feature Animation, and there didn't seem to by any present for the making of "Chicken Little". The story itself, chronicling the tales of the title character proving to his community that he is not a failure, was a good enough premise. Though it wasn't executed well at all. Instead of solid, premise-building scenes where it's main characters interact well with others (and get the audience laughing along the way), we get a sappy, melodramatic mini-soap with voice actors who don't have a good script...followed immediately by, more times than I'd care to recall, potty humor gags. Judging by the audience of my screening, made up of at least 40% little kids, only they found that funny. With so many 3D animated movies coming out recently, like "Madagascar", "Robots" and "Valiant", all released this year, many companies are trying to prove their movie-making chops to us movie-goers. They can make a very beautiful looking movie, with wonderfully rendered characters that can move so fluidly and realistic...but the very vital element of sharing a good story is missing in action. It's my belief that a great story without great animation will be a much better movie than one that looks great, but has a weak story. Though, both elements are what made Pixar's "The Incredibles" an Oscar-contending, $265 million hit. Computer animation is, indeed, not the shoe-in, cure-all solution to a great movie. To boot, "Chicken Little" has a weak soundtrack, composed mainly of songs that were popular at one time or another...to the pre-teen-aged crowd. Instead of beautiful, original, fully-composed songs like "A Whole New World" in "Aladdin" (or anything close to it), we are treated to Spice Girls' "If You Wanna Be My Lover" (complete, by the way, with karaoke subtitles). Unoriginal and highly annoying. Having sufficiently railed on the movie, it is my belief that the corporate suits in charge of financing Feature Animation have more blame for the steady decline in their movies than anybody working under them. It seems they think they know what makes a successful movie, over-riding many decisions of the animators and storytellers--those who are still at Feature Animation--who have proved they can make great movies. I believe said pencil pushers are what made last year's "Home on the Range" fail, critically and financially. All in all, I believe "Chicken Little" is a failure that I define as hot having a good story to match its sweet computer animation. In Disney's quest to prove that they are still the Best of the Best, movies like this will prove to the world that they are merely the best of the rest. And we all know that it's not the Disney we grew up on and cherished. "Chicken Little" gets 4 of 10 stars<< As a caveat, I thought "Treasure Planet" did have a decent take...until I looked up its box office loss of just north of $100 million.
Originally Posted By kennect I just love reading all of the comments above...It will be very interesting to see how the public embraces this film next week....I don't know how to say this...But this film really means so much to Disney in terms of if they have what it takes to keep their animation division alive and profitable....I have read so many different opinions about this film...I can't wait to see how it plays out...
Originally Posted By Imagineer This I think Disney is a little "chicken" when it comes to making their own great animated movies. They just don't have what it takes at this time. Blame it on Eisner and anyone else at fault. I just don't know what went wrong? (
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Blame it on Eisner >> I'll bet Eisner, Eiger and anyone else at the top probably had nothing to do with Chicken Little.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Let's see what Roy Disney said in 2003... <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2003/nf2003124_5457_db008.htm" target="_blank">http://www.businessweek.com/bw daily/dnflash/dec2003/nf2003124_5457_db008.htm</a> >>Q: Is Eisner the micromanager that people say he is? A: He ran a very repressive regime. And he has a way of imposing his will. One example -- and it might sound small -- is that we are making this animated film about Chicken Little. And everyone knows that it's a story about a little girl who thinks the sky is falling. Well, all of a sudden, Michael comes into a meeting and decides it should be a boy, not a girl, and walks off. He never explained it to me, but do you know how much money it cost us to change the little girl's room into a boy's room, and to do things like that? <<
Originally Posted By jaycub <<I'll bet Eisner, Eiger and anyone else at the top probably had nothing to do with Chicken Little.>> I have a friend who works in the story department at WDFA (Walt Disney Feature Animation.) He told me that Eisner was VERY involved in the decision making process for the animated films. I don't know about Iger yet.
Originally Posted By kennect Well I love an article I read somewhere that mentioned that this film has been in the works for five years....That I can understand considering everything...But the real bottom line is its story and if the good story line isn't there than it means nothing...I also love the idea that our paper today had no ads regarding the film opening this week....I thought that was a little strange since I was most interested in learning if we were going to get it here in 3D at any theater.....
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, us Cauldron girls already said it before and we'll say it again: This movie is a travesty and shouldn't be allowed to steal the title from the original classic, since it has nothing to do with the original story. Henny Penny is the REAL star of CHICKEN LITTLE--not this...this little freaky chick with glasses who ought to be spanked for agreeing to try and steal Henny Penny's thunder!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: An' if Mikey Ei$ner went an' stuck HIS dirty finger in the pot, it ain't no surprise why the whole movie's gonna' stink!!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Oh Witches... Leaders at Disney have always been messing with the animated movies. Why, take your movie 'The Black Cauldron' for example... Eisner was only with the company one year before that movie was released, so he couldn't have had that much influence.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: Well, Heck, Jim ducklin', ain't us Cauldron gals been complainin' 'bout our own flick fer years? ORDDU: And, since Mr. Eisner was known to hate THE BLACK CAULDRON he actually DID have some influence on the film--certainly in the way it was marketed. ORWEN: And--even though it's true that other movies have been 'messed around with' in the past, it's no excuse to continue doing it--especially when this latest one has been messed up more than any other movie we can think of at the moment.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<One example -- and it might sound small -- is that we are making this animated film about Chicken Little. And everyone knows that it's a story about a little girl who thinks the sky is falling. Well, all of a sudden, Michael comes into a meeting and decides it should be a boy, not a girl, and walks off.>> I have a question but did Roy Disney see the 1943 version that was produced for the studio? Chicken Little was a boy in that version too. It's not like Disney hasn't made changes to this before hand.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <And, since Mr. Eisner was known to hate THE BLACK CAULDRON> Oh my dear witches, there are lots of people who share Mr. Eisner's assessment of that movie. And didn't the animators horse around with the 'The Black Cauldron' for cloe to 10 years? Perhaps if Eisner had not insisted it be released, it might still be getting re-tooled.
Originally Posted By paulyahoo NY Times writes that if Chicken Little bombs, Iger can propose Jobs to buy Pixar.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Just read that and posted this on another thread: And if there is a functioning brain cell left in upper Disney Management - this purchase accomplishes two things -- the majority of the market in CGI , as well as returning a lot of talent that left the Mouse for PIXAR.....especially the story telling talent that is sooooo lacking at Disney right now- regardless of medium And while it is inevitable that PIXAR will put out a low box office returner one of these days -- I don;t see teh vultures circling yet. As for CARS -- remember the buzz on Nemo was not very good either ( and not just from Eisner) - the thought of it all being filmed under water etc...how did that turn out ? It's all in the story telling
