Originally Posted By woody "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." There'a a reason why some movies are called Blockbusters. They cost more because they deliver bigger bucks to the producers. Disney has probably overhyped Chicken Little. That's why there is too much noise about the results.
Originally Posted By merlinjones Here are some highlights from a particularly relevant review by by Jeffrey Chen: >>I was shocked to watch this. I expected better. Disney folks are offering Chicken Little as evidence that they can survive the 3-D animated battlefield without Pixar. I had worried about their movie being nothing but a Pixar knockoff, and now I only wish that were true. The filmmakers, instead, have decided to use DreamWorks animated movies as their template. There can be no worse idea. Chicken Little emerges as the umpteenth bad descendant of Shrek, with overloaded postmodernism, "hip" irreverence, and tiresome dependence on pop culture references. And, to top it all off, the movie isn't even good-looking; it's a competition of inconsistent texture maps (some hairy creatures look hairy, others look smooth, all of them look sub-par) on grotesque character designs.<< >>I repeat, I was shocked. Adding to the irony is the fact that Chicken Little was supposed to be Disney's shining example of the superiority of 3-D animated storytelling over traditional 2-D. To seemingly emphasize their point, these filmmakers didn't even give one backward glance at the glory of their past works to help guide them. Chicken Little couldn't be more dissimilar to the joyful projects of their last golden age -- The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin. Where those movies emitted a human warmth and gave focus to believable character depictions, Chicken Little is a refrigerated parody of stock characters and situations, more concerned with being clever than being empathic. But, of course, who worries about storytelling when the Chicken Littles of animation cry, "The sky is falling!" over the supposed demise of 2-D animation? I wonder if this was the subconscious reason for Disney's choosing Chicken Little as their first 3-D project. They've selected a story where the protagonist originally brought disaster upon his friends thanks to their collective paranoia and gullibility, and modified it to one where the protagonist's concerns are actually justified. This would be a pretty clever metaphor if it were true, but the resulting movie is so unoriginal it would render the point moot. As it is, the ironies just keep piling up. How lamentable to watch Disney's artists join the current bad 3-D animated movie trend! They were always the pioneers; now they're the followers, and apparently somewhere around fourth in line. Please guys, listen. These 3-D movies don't have to be hip, flashy, zippy, ironic, pop culture-driven, 90-minute distractions for kids on any given afternoon. They don't have to be cynical when they present their moralistic themes. They need to believe in their characters. Why do all these movies seem stuck with this same personality? I think it's Shrek's fault. Just because that movie made fun of fairy tales, it seems every studio but Pixar has been bullied out of creating sincere stories. Only Pixar manages to do anything original now; the rest emulate Shrek, and it's a very sad day when Disney chooses to do the same. << <a href="http://www.reeltalkreviews.com/browse/viewitem.asp?type=review&id=1465" target="_blank">http://www.reeltalkreviews.com /browse/viewitem.asp?type=review&id=1465</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Why do all these movies seem stuck with this same personality? I think it's Shrek's fault. Just because that movie made fun of fairy tales, it seems every studio but Pixar has been bullied out of creating sincere stories.>> Can you blame them? All-Time USA Boxoffice (from www.imdb.com) 3. Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036 27. Shrek (2001) $267,652,016 50. Aladdin (1992) $217,350,219 101. Beauty and the Beast (1991) $171,301,428 266. The Little Mermaid (1989) $109,859,444 I realize some of the difference is due to increasing ticket prices, but even adjusted for inflation Shrek2 would beat them all by a substantial margin. You also have to acknowledge that Disney has done very well with the Pixar films that contained a pretty fair amount of <<postmodernism, "hip" irreverence, and tiresome dependence on pop culture references. >>. 13. Finding Nemo (2003) $339,714,367 29. The Incredibles (2004) $261,437,578 32. Monsters, Inc. (2001) $255,870,172
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA While the box office numbers by themselves seem to speak, Roadtrip, it also seems to suggest that just because Shrek worked in CGI Animation, that the other animation studios need to churn out a bunch of Shrek-like movies -- snappy, smug, modern-day jokes, lots of slapstick and action, but none of which capture the humor or box office numbers of Shrek. I don't understand why Disney isn't working on a new musical using CGI technology. Audiences will go see another animated musical [heck 'Chicago' won the Best Picture Oscar just 3 years ago0, and 'Beauty and the Beast' was nominated 15 years ago]. It seems that, like other entertainment companies, Disney seems to just follow trends instead of creating them. That's where the frustration and criticism comes from actingforanimators!
Originally Posted By actingforanimators I too would like to know who, specifically, at the "executive level" interferred with Chicken Little in such a way that any failure or success should rest on their shoulders. There is an astounding assumption among fans (and among some production assistants and frustrated and bitter ex-staffers) that somehow the directors and producers at Disney are just puppets. That, like the land just North of Sleeping Beauty's castle, is pure fantasy, and any perceived story failure is first the responsibility of the director and writers. If anyone at Disney feels so ashamed and removed from their work that they want their name off of the product, the union makes it entirely possible for them to do so, all the way down the line to the reception staff. It's been done before, so MBA's aside (or, if I had my druthers, overboard) the story told and fashion depicted are choices, guided and influenced but never with gun held to head. I'll take those odds, by the way. By year's end you're guaranteed to see a few surprises, and then I let's see who wants to blame the "executives."
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 The box office website box office prophets had two different writers predict that Chicken Little will finish in the top three films for the month. "After years of (a) riding Pixars's coattails, and (b) releasing one traditional hand drawn clunker after another - Brother Bear or Home on the Range, anyone? - Disney has finally created its first in-house CGI animated movie. Voice talents include Zach Braff and Joan Cusack, among others, in a tale about the old "sky is falling" routine of doomsday soothsayers. The animation from the previews and trailers looks pretty good, and the story is certainly a fun idea. But will Chicken Little be more Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, or more Shark Tale and Robots? My hunch is that it will be somewhere in between on the quality end of things. Financially, though, it is a big question mark. Of course it will bring easily pass the century mark (and, unless it's a stinker, will threaten $200 million total) and will no doubt sell a ton of DVDs, but in the larger scheme of things Disney has a lot riding on this. With a new CEO and its long-term relationship with Pixar still in doubt, Disney needs to prove that they can still hit it big on their own. The Disney name isn't what it used to be. Opening weekend: $53 million." "I can't believe this film is finally here! I remember seeing a quick teaser for this film probably two years ago. At that time, I thought for sure that it would be released soon. After all, there was already some animation. Silly me! But now, seeing the movie and its story fleshed out in the more recent advertisements, it makes me want to see it even more. And I think there will be even more than just the usual families turning out for this latest Disney movie."
Originally Posted By Imagineer This I predict that Chicken Little will be the biggest blockbuster in history! Better than Shrek, Star Wars and ET combined! Do you guys really believe all the hype? (
Originally Posted By Imagineer This >>And, to top it all off, the movie isn't even good-looking; it's a competition of inconsistent texture maps (some hairy creatures look hairy, others look smooth, all of them look sub-par) on grotesque character designs. Why do all these movies seem stuck with this same personality? I think it's Shrek's fault. Just because that movie made fun of fairy tales, it seems every studio but Pixar has been bullied out of creating sincere stories. Only Pixar manages to do anything original now; the rest emulate Shrek, and it's a very sad day when Disney chooses to do the same. << It looks as if Disney has reached the bottom of the barrel when it comes to creativity. Forget a quality story and charm, just give them potty humor and gas jokes! (
Originally Posted By Imagineer This "The movie did make me smile. It didn't make me laugh, and it didn't involve my emotions, or the higher regions of my intellect, for that matter. It's a perfectly acceptable feature cartoon for kids up to a certain age, but it doesn't have the universal appeal of some of the best recent animation." ~ Roger Ebert Too bad it wasn't better. (
Originally Posted By HRM It seems that people are just looking for a reason for Disney to fail... whether or not the movie is any good. Just read some of the reviews out there, certain things are just way over the top.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Dear Imagineer This, When you quote Roger Ebert's opinion and then say "Too bad it wasn't better", are we to understand that you say this because you HAVE NOT seen it but always trust Roger Ebert, or because you HAVE seen it and share Roger Ebert's opinion, or that you ARE Roger Ebert?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA With all due respect, actingforanimators, I remember when 'Home on the Range' was about to be released. The buzz was not so good. People here had opinions about the previews and about what they were hearing. You castigated them for prejudging the movie before they saw it. Then, when I saw 'Home on the Range', and didn't like, I was told, by you, that I must not have much of a sense of humor to not think 'Home on the Range' was hilarious. You seem to have some working relationship with the Disney animators -- you seem to know them, or are somehow part of the process. And good for you. You have a personal stake in the process and the movie, and that's great that you do, and it's okay for you to have that bias. For me, I'm just looking at a movie. I'm not watching it thinking, 'Oh, I wonder how Mark Dindal is feeling about this?' I'm just watching the movie. And I'm a big boy, I just had my 43rd birthday, and I've been watching movies a long time. I can decide for myself. And frankly, I don't need you to tell me that my opinion is right or wrong. Anymore than Roger Ebert, Michael Medved, or Kar2oonMan. But thanks a bunch.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Thanks, Jim. I'll keep that in mind. At least you're willing to debate your own opinion, rather than someone else's. Oh, by the way, Happy 43rd, and many more! Perhaps next year I can get you a sense of humor for your birthday. (*wink*)
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <But will Chicken Little be more Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, or more Shark Tale and Robots? My hunch is that it will be somewhere in between on the quality end of things.< Ok, just saw it and I have to say maybe because my expectations had been lowered by the chatter from critics and from LP -- but it was better than I expected. Was it Toy Story quality -- absolutely not. Was it better than Madagascar and Robots -- yes, by a good deal. I agree it will land somewhere in between. Went to a 30 screen Cineplex at 5:45 PM - and they had a screens at 5:45 - one 450 seats the other 240 - and both were sold out. I thought the movie slugged it's way thru the first half -- but the second half I thought the quality of the jokes and wit got much better. And the one thing I can say is maybe this really is more of a kids animated movie than an adult one -- and yes I know usually the quality Disney movies didn't fall into one category or another -- but the kids were laughing out loud in the show and often. I wasn't rolling in the aisle but I thought several of the gags were pretty clever. Even though I knew all the supporting songs -- I think they missed the boat by not going with more current music because I think this movie is going to be a hut hit with say the 10 and under crowd for sure, and the tweens pretty likely. on a scale of 5 stars I would give it 3 to 3.5 -- and yet feel financially it will do well ( until Potter comes out) - and the new Potter looks like it will scare the pants off of little kids -- so maybe it will get some more legs than also. all just IMHO !
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Thanks for the comments, actingforanimators. Appreciate you 'hearing' me. [you know, you can't really 'hear' people on a message board etc...]
Originally Posted By CTXRover As I posted in another thread, Chicken Little did very well over the weekend, surpassing (or at least meeting) many industry estimates prior to the film's opening. With an opening weekend of $40.8 million according to studio estimates, it places Chicken Little as second behind only the Lion King as the biggest opening for a non-Pixar Disney animated film.
Originally Posted By idleHands "With an opening weekend of $40.8 million according to studio estimates, it places Chicken Little as second behind only the Lion King as the biggest opening for a non-Pixar Disney animated film." And what was the average price of a movie ticket, back in 1994, when Lion King opened? Not anywhere near today's current average price, that's for certain. Chicken Little was marketed out the wazoo for months, just as Disney does for the Pixar films. But this time last year, Incredibles raked in $70 million on opening weekend. And the year before that, Finding Nemo also got $70 million on its opening weekend. Disney marketing... CGI animation... experienced animators and voice talent... but only 57% of what Pixar films earn during their first weekends? WDFA is not new to this craft. WDFA is not new to digital animation. (Secret Lab was not Area 51... it really did exist.) Anyone who feels that this opening weekend was "excellent" for Disney is cutting them way too much slack. When will the fans stop drinking the Kool-Aid and hold this studio accountable for all the schlock they've committed to celluloid for the past several years? This is Disney, for cryin' out loud! Chicken Little should have been much, much better than this.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, you already know us Cauldron girls agree with you, idleHands, duckling. ORDDU: And just because a motion picture does well at the Box Office--to begin with--doesn't mean it will have a long lasting affection in the hearts of audiences. Anyone remember the re-make of the favored television series, LOST IN SPACE? It did outstanding business at the box office and it seemed certain that a sequel would come. But so many went to see LOST IN SPACE--the movie--out of curiosity, as well as out of loyalty to the TV series--and also ended up HATING the movie for what it turned out to be--that no sequel was ever made.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Actually, Witches, a sequal to "Lost in Space" was in negotiations when the screenwriter took another job ("A Beautiful Mind") and then the studio heads all changed so the contract option expired. It is still in play, but has not found a screenwriter, so in fact regardless of any lack of affection on some movie-goers part, "Lost in Space" is somewhere in turn-around and you may yet see a sequal. No sequal had nothing to do with critical response and everything to do with contracts.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: I suppose it depends on whom you believe, then, duckling. Everything we have ever read about the film has indicated that it was a flop in terms of audience acceptance and that this was the main reason it didn't get made into a sequel. (Not that there weren't some fans who liked it--my sisters and I being among them, by the way.)
