Originally Posted By actingforanimators idle hands - so let's account for inflation and say the box office actuals are more like $29M by 1993 standards. $29M in 1993 or 1994 was still an outstandingly successful weekend opening, so like it or not, this film is doing good box-office. No, it's not a record breaker, but remember that part of what brought about the end of the last era was an unreasonable expectation that everything make "Lion King" numbers. That's an absurd expectation by any accounting method.
Originally Posted By bayrr326 I just saw the pic earlier today and enjoyed it. Was it up to Pixar standards, no but it is a turn in the right direction. Fish out of Water stole every scene he was in. I could have lived without all the old pop songs. If they are going to use songs they should use new ones. I did enjoy the couple of new songs that were in the film. I can't believe that this movie is getting worse reviews than Sharktale(an unwatchable mess) and Madagascar(boring and uninspired except for the Penguins and the Lemurs). The audience I was with seemed to enjoy the movie/ I am looking forward to seeing this in 3d in a couple of weeks when I visit a friend in Tampa. Someone in another topic on this movie think this movie will not have legs but I think it will cause of the 3d(which was what saved The Polar Express) and that Harry Potter is a little darker now and there really isn't any other animated film coming out this year like there usually is. B
Originally Posted By idleHands "That's an absurd expectation by any accounting method." Absurd or not, that's precisely what Pixar has been delivering with their films. Here's a breakdown of their opening weekend takes: The Incredibles (11/04) - $ 70.4 Finding Nemo (05/03) - $70.2 Monsters, Inc. (11/01) - $62.5 Toy Story 2 (11/99) - $57.2 Bug's Life (11/98) - $33.2 Granted, Bug's Life didn't perform as well as Lion King on opening weekend, just four years later. But, it was only Pixar's second feature. Toy Story 2 did much better than Bug's Life, just one year later, largely attributed to its pre-sold audience. (Case in point: Shrek 2 did $108 million opening weekend, versus Shrek at $42.3 million.) But the last three Pixar films have done exceedingly well on opening weekend. Pixar has a great momentum going, which I feel will continue into next summer, with Cars.
Originally Posted By CTXRover <<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.>> And I have to wonder when the naysayers will just give up on saying Chicken Little would/will be a flop. Sure, its still premature to assume that it will have any kind of legs, but the opening was solid, despite the critics reviews and those "fans" that said it would flop big-time. While not stellar when compared to the likes of Pixar's openings, it was strong, and beat most industry expert's expectations leading up to Friday who expected it to just cross the 30 million dollar mark. One might even say that Disney proved their point with this one. Even if an animated movie gets bad reviews, if it is animated in CG, the crowds will come. I personally still don't buy that either, but when Chicken Little makes more than the TOTAL domestic sum of Disney's last traditional animated film that was supposed to "save the company" (Treasure Planet) in one weekend, they will probably take this as their approach is on the right track (and no, Brother Bear and Home on the Range were never as highly regarded within the company as TP was before it opened)
Originally Posted By CTXRover I just wanted to add that despite the relatively bad reviews from critics and all the pessimists about Disney's foray into the world of CG animation, Chicken Little may survive past just one good weekend with good word of mouth as well. According to CinemaScore, who polls movie audiences, moviegoers gave Chicken Little a grade of an "A".
Originally Posted By idleHands "And I have to wonder when the naysayers will just give up on saying Chicken Little would/will be a flop." That isn't the point I was trying to make. It's not about Chicken Little being a "flop" of a film. It's about how Disney USED to make films that were of the same quality -- especially with regards to story -- as the films that Pixar has been producing. Expecting WDFA to produce films as good as Pixar's is not an "absurd expectation." They used to do it. What the heck happened? (Rhetorical question... we all know what happened.) Disney wrote the book on feature animation. They were the torch bearers for decades. Then... everything started to unravel. Disney dropped the torch. But fortunately for us animation fans, Pixar picked it up and ran like heck with it. And I don't see any evidence of Pixar slowing down, anytime soon. But Disney? It's going to take lots of heavy lifting for WDFA to put things right again. And if Chicken Little is the best that they can do, even with all the decades of experience at their fingertips, it's gonna be a very long wait indeed.
Originally Posted By thenurmis I just got back from my second viewing of Chicken Little, and liked it as much the second time round as I did the first. The story may not follow the orig. (I don't know the "true" story of Chicken Little) but it flows just fine, and had the movie crowd laughing out loud many times (both nights). Guess I'm not a hard core Disney fan, searching for the pure Disney magic found only in the past or made by people other than Disney. If it's true and Disney is looking at buying Pixar, their value has just dropped a bit. Why pay top doller for some thing, when what you have, will work as well?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 What you don't have is PIXAR's talent base ( many of whom used to be Disney ) -- and after I looked past the story -- the CGI was good, but it wasn't Toy Story / Monsters Inc good, just IMHO.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Does anyone here honestly think "Lilo and Stitch" is dropping the torch? Or that "Lorenzo" is dropping the torch, particularly when one considers that no other studio has been willing to finance and distribute a short animated feature in a traditional approach and with so much R&D poured into it? Is the current slate of films in development dropping the torch? (And I can't wait for the day the announcement comes about the next films in production, including a mostly traditionally animated feature, if for no other reason than to stop conjecture about how CG will always draw a crowd no matter how bad, since it's obvious that "Valiant" didn't nail that lid closed tightly enough.) If "Chicken Little" is dropping the torch, then is it not also true that "Melody Time", "Make Mine Music", "Ichabod & Mister Toad" and "Alice in Wonderland" were the pioneering generation dropping the torch? (There are pages and pages and pages of argument to deliver on why they weren't if anybody truly wants to go down that road.) I'm exhausted by this debate, truly. It's the kind of race round-and-round the garden that never leaves a moment to stop and smell even the smallest blooms. So I surrender. Have your delight in how many critics weren't entirely enthusiastic about the film. Enjoy the fact that Disney has no recent track record on which to hitch this particular wagon - like The Incredibles did with Nemo and Nemo did with Monsters Inc and Toy Story 2 did with Toy Story, etc. - and revel late into the night with the knowledge that being right about Disney not hitting it out of the park means that they're over and done with. Take that belief and own it, embrace it, bumper sticker it or tattoo it on your foreheads. But please, before you do, could just one person who is determined to win the "Chicken Little" is the biggest mess argument just tell us that you actually saw the film. Don't care if you liked it, hated it, were indifferent or slept through it, just one of this crowd of falling sky town criers please, please, please say that you actually base your opinion on not trailers or reviews but personal experience. I'm outa' here. And yes, I'll watch the door on my way out, thank you. And I still contend that it is indeed an absurd expectation to hold Disney accountable for matching box office successes of Pixar. Is anyone here a middle child? (I'm not for what it's worth, so please skip any analysis thereof.) But honestly, is a creative team - and yes Disney has an outstanding creative team - to be held accountable for not creating the same as another company's creative team?
Originally Posted By actingforanimators ....door hasn't quite slammed so while I have a minute, if you really want to know what kills the possibility of any real creativity rising above executive and MBA accounting concerns, it's a Monday morning meeting where nobody is pleased to see that a film has made back nearly 70% of its cost in three days, and that only "high concept" films that look, sound and cash in like the last $300M movie your competitor made are ever going to be "good enough." That's some healthy place for creative growth, let me *WHACK* *thud* right...door hits @#%* and I'm gone.
Originally Posted By idleHands "But honestly, is a creative team - and yes Disney has an outstanding creative team - to be held accountable for not creating the same as another company's creative team?" When the other company's creative team is comprised of animators who cut their teeth at Disney, then holding Disney accountable is reasonable. Disney is not the new kid on the block. They are the reason this industry is even in existence. How can you NOT feel that with their decades of experience and NAME RECOGNITION that Disney shouldn't be able to match Pixar's box office numbers? And FWIW... I don't blame the "creative team" at WDFA for the failures of the past several years. I blame the team's bosses. Creative leadership is a rare bird, and Disney has seen plenty of theirs fly south in the past decade. (Many want to blame Eisner for this, and perhaps he does deserve most of the negative criticisms.) But regardless of what the reasons are, as to why Disney cannot meet or beat Pixar's numbers at the box office, it's painfully depressing to see the once 800-pound gorilla of feature animation become an 80-pound weakling. And given all the Disney animation studio downsizings and closings in the past two years, it appears that the gorilla got that way through anorexic/bulimic behavior. How can this possibly not have an effect on creative output? Perhaps Chicken Little is the beginning of a new era for WDFA. I hope it is, sincerely. I've been a Disney fan all my life, but it's been very difficult to stay "faithful" when Pixar continues to deliver the films I'm eager to see and thoroughly enjoy, and Disney does not. It's now a matter of "wait and see" for the next features coming down the WDFA pipe. If they do as well or better than Chicken Little, then I would say that Disney is turning the corner, finally. But until I see a "trend" of successful films coming out of Disney again, I'll continue to remain skeptical.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>and after I looked past the story -- the CGI was good, but it wasn't Toy Story / Monsters Inc good, just IMHO. << I agree. But it was a step up from previous flops, and better than a lot of other (non-Pixar) stuff out there.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<But until I see a "trend" of successful films coming out of Disney again, I'll continue to remain skeptical.>> You might remain skeptical for a long time. Remember that after Dalmatians (or perhaps Jungle Book), there wasn't a trend of successful films until Little Mermaid 20+ years later.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <....door hasn't quite slammed so while I have a minute, if you really want to know what kills the possibility of any real creativity rising above executive and MBA accounting concerns, it's a Monday morning meeting where nobody is pleased to see that a film has made back nearly 70% of its cost in three days, < welcome to my world -- the world of large corporations, shareholders, quarterly targets, YTY growth estimates and analysts who can see bad when things are good for some, and give others a pass no matter how dismal their returns are....not the world for creative people...you'll just get frustrated -- needs to be a buffer between the two worlds
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It's not about Chicken Little being a "flop" of a film. It's about how Disney USED to make films that were of the same quality>> I really appreciate having my opinion informed by the more advanced Disney fans on this board. Really I do. But I would be curious as to just WHEN that golden age of Disney filmmaking was? Many of the films that are now considered classics were critical and financial flops at the time.
