DVDizzy Forum

Hi to all the people out there! There's something I really want to discuss...
I live in Malta, Europe and I went to see Chicken Little in theatres when it opened in Malta last February. (Bit late, considering it opened in the US in November). I liked the movie. But the other day I stumbled across this website called http://www.rottentomatoes.com, and WOW!!! You should see the critics' reviews on Chicken Little! About 96 practically called it absolute dung. I don't know what words floated in front of my eyes..."bland","cheap","... should've spent a little more time in Disney's incubator","If Finding Nemo established the gold standard of CG, then Chicken Little is little more than chicken feed.","Obviously, this is the source of the new bird flu."



Those comments were only a few and there are even worse...

There are 96 reviews like this, and around 60 which were classified "fresh", meaning the reviewers liked the film.

But very few of these 60 reviewers think Chicken Little is a very good movie. The majority think it's not bad, but DEFINATELY not on par with a Pixar film.

But to top it all, I think that the worst humiliation Chicken Little has had to endure is John Lasseter's verdict. I read somewhere on the net an article of some of John Lasseter's plans for revitalising the Walt Disney Co.

He said that he wants the Disney Studio's films as high in quality as the Pixar Animation Studio's. He added that he wants his films to be funny and moving and continued that if anyone shed a tear for the UNDERCOOKED Chicken Little, it was probably from FEATHER ALLERGY!!

How terribly embarrasing for Disney to receive a comment like that about its first CGI film from a person at PIXAR.

Now I've found out that Chicken Little has been added to the Walt Disney Classics canon of animated films.

Is the movie an embarassment to the Walt Disney Classics?

What do YOU people think?

-Julian





[/b]

Hey Julian,

First of all, welcome to the UD forums!

As for Chicken Little, we've already known about the constant negative reviews for Chicken Little and we each have different opinions.

Personally, I'll just say it short, the critics are wrong. It's not the best Disney movie, but it has charm IMO.

Wow! Do you know you replied to me only minutes after I'd posted my comments?

I don't want to sound freaky here but this is the first time I'm using a forum and the first time I've communicated with someone on the other side of the world in minutes!!

OK I'm not crazy. I know what you guys are thinking! "What's all the fuss about?! Doesn't he know that you can send a message to the other side of the world in seconds?!"

It's just that I hadn't had Internet access for about five months before two days ago, and...I REALLY HAVE NOT EVER COMMUNICATED WITH ANOTHER PERSON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD!!!!

This is exciting!

And...I live in Malta, which is a tiny island in the Mediterranean, just south of Sicily. We joined the EU recently, but as I'm 16 years old (almost 17 this month) and have never been abroad (except for 8 hours in Sicily), this feels quite thrilling!!

Anyway, back to Chicken Little

I don't know much of Chicken Little's critic reception because it was released late here in Malta! LAST FEBRUARY!!

But I don't care what the critics say...
I'd label it as an average Disney film which does have its charming moments.

AND IT CERTAINLY IS BETTER THAN DREAMWORKS' MADAGASCAR!!

Madagascar's story was so lame...
It was not bad, but it didn't make me laugh much.

It's got a lot to learn from The Emperor's New Groove. I almost needed hospitalization after that one. (snigger) Because I laughed so hard of course!

-Julian

Hey Julian! Welcome to UD.
Hmm... About Chicken Little. I'd say both. On the one hand it was poorly recieved, and was titled like just another kid flick. On the other hand, this is Disney's first full CG attempt, so it kinda deserves the spot to show the progression the company has made. It's a shame to see that Lasetter disapproves of the film (though I agree with him ), but having said that, we must remeber that he's now head of Disney's animation department. All these comments are said in order to improve. If Chicken Little is the level to which other movies aspire to avoid, then so be it. Either way, there's no point crying over spilt milk. What's done is done, and it is labled a classic. We can only hope that things will pick up from here onward.

I know Box Office is no indication for quality, but it's always interesting

Hercules $252,712,101
Mulan $304,320,254
The Emperor's New Groove $169,327,687
Atlantis: The Lost Empire $186,053,725
Lilo & Stitch $273,144,151
Treasure Planet $109,578,115
Brother Bear $250,397,277
Home on the Range $103,951,461

Chicken Little $307,443,973

Most of the traditionally animated films are far superior... Hercules, Mulan and New Groove in particular.

My own personal opinion, well Chicken Little wasn't bad.... but I prefer every single one of the movies up there over Little.

juliancarter wrote:OK I'm not crazy. I know what you guys are thinking! "What's all the fuss about?! Doesn't he know that you can send a message to the other side of the world in seconds?!"

It IS fascinating! And interesting and useful. We can discuss whatever we're interested in, such as Disney animation, with people who are into the same thing, without worrying about where to find them.

Yeah, I suppose so.

It's easy to see why Disney is so recognized...I mean all of their animated features are of high quality, except maybe Robin Hood (1973) which I think is the worst in the canon, though it's not bad either.


There are still some films which I havn't seen and which I would like to see, like Saludos Amigos!, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Melody Time, Ichabod and Mr.Toad, The Rescuers, Basil the Great Mouse Detective...


I just can't find them anywhere in the local DVD Rental Shops in Malta.
Maybe because they're not as popular as the others.

I don't know...

I havn't even seen Pixar's Monsters Inc because when I rented it, the DVD was so scratched that it stuck in the last part, when I was really enjoying it!

But maybe I'll see it some other time...

I think the majority of the bad reviews were very undeserved. I never see movies based on good or bad reviews...I prefer to judge movies for myself. I think most critics judge the movie on whether they personally enjoy it...not based on the intended audience.

Sure, I'd prefer Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin anyday....but I hate when new Disney movies that come out are compared to their ancestors.

Forget the Disney name is attached to the movie and judge it for what you see. I enjoyed Chicken Little. I cannot wait for it to come out on DVD. It was entertaining, had laughs, and was a very enjoyable experience for my children.

I enjoyed Chicken Little a lot more than i thought i would! and i am actually kinda excited for it's DVD release. I agree that i think more critics judge it against the rest of the Disney cannon and just isn't fair. i say watch and decide for yourself!

It wasn't as good as I thought it was gonna be. From the commercials I thought it was gonna be really funny. I'll probably be skipping on the DVD,but I'd say its worth to see it once.

"What were we talking about?"

PatrickvD wrote:I know Box Office is no indication for quality, but it's always interesting

Hercules $252,712,101
Mulan $304,320,254
The Emperor's New Groove $169,327,687
Atlantis: The Lost Empire $186,053,725
Lilo & Stitch $273,144,151
Treasure Planet $109,578,115
Brother Bear $250,397,277
Home on the Range $103,951,461

Chicken Little $307,443,973

Most of the traditionally animated films are far superior... Hercules, Mulan and New Groove in particular.

My own personal opinion, well Chicken Little wasn't bad.... but I prefer every single one of the movies up there over Little.

I have to say something about comparing box office sales between cgi films and none - you can't do that. CGI makes much more.

the following is all CGI movies box office sales (in the US) from the very first one up until the latest:

HOODWINKED - $50,802,483 - 2005 - Blue Yonder Films
CHICKEN LITTLLE - $135,003,958 - 2005 - Disney
VALIANT -$19,478,106 - 2005 - Vanguaro Animation UK
MADAGASCAR - $193,595,521 - 2005 - Dreamworks (now owned by Viacom)
ROBOTS - $128,200,012 - 2005 - Blue Sky
THE INCREDIBLES - $261,441,092 - 2004 - Pixar
SHARK TALE - $160,861,908 - 2004 - Dreamworks (now owned by Viacom)
SHREK 2 - $441,226,247 - 2004 - Dreamworks (now owned by Viacom)
FINDING NEMO - $339,714,978 - 2003 - Pixar
ICE AGE - $176,387,405 - 2002 - Blue Sky
MONSTERS INC - $191,796,233 - 2001 - Pixar
SHREK 2 - $267,665,011 - 2001 - Dreamworks (now owned by Viacom)
TOY STORY 2 - $245,852,179 - 1999 - Pixar
BUG'S LIFE - $162,798,565 - 1998 - Pixar
ANTZ - $90,757,863 - 1998 - Dreamworks (now owned by Viacom)
TOY STORY - $191,796,233 - 1995 - Pixar

Now i must say i had very high hopes for this film i love Disney but Chicken Little was just - nothing to me it was so bad even Robots was better.

Now Disney's MADAGASCAR copycat movie - THE WILD looks even worst.

And I think I'm not alone on this - hence the takeover Pixar - Disney's smartest move.

I will always miss the traditional animation though.
CGI is ok but far from the hand drawing films.

Just a note: Dreamworks Animation is seperate from Dreamworks SKG and is not part of Viacom's purchase.

Hello All,

I think Chicken Little compared to Finding Nemo is like The Aristocats compared to the Lion King. In short plenty of room for improvement.


As for Disney abandoning hand-drawn animation I think it's sad And a mistake as well.
They don't have to flood the market with hand-drawn feature films every year but two or three real quality works a decade could be really succesfull and even become unique amongst the upcomming CGI storm.

Comparing handdrawn animation with CGI is kinda like comparing a painting with a photograph. Both can be enjoyed and fit better in certain situations, but hand-drawn pictures or paintings can radiate a mood, poetry and emotion CGI never can and never will.

Above all this i think the story and characters are what counts the most and combined with the right art-form (2D/3D) to bring it to life will determine its succes.

2099net wrote:Just a note: Dreamworks Animation is seperate from Dreamworks SKG and is not part of Viacom's purchase.

you are wrong

lighthousemike wrote:

2099net wrote:Just a note: Dreamworks Animation is seperate from Dreamworks SKG and is not part of Viacom's purchase.

you are wrong

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/ar ... 1001658430

Under the agreement, Paramount is acquiring all of DreamWorks' projects currently in development; DreamWorks' television division and its properties; and exclusive rights to future DreamWorks Animation TV characters in TV shows. Although the publicly traded DreamWorks Animation is not part of the deal, Paramount will take the worldwide distribution rights to its movies, currently held by the original DreamWorks, beginning in 2006 and continuing for seven years.

All right, 2099net and lighthousemike...don't start bickering.

lighthousemike said:
"Now Disney's MADAGASCAR copycat movie - THE WILD looks even worst."

Be careful! The Wild is not actually made by Disney. It's being made by a company called Core or something like that. Disney will simply be publishing it.

Why are Disney presently publishing a lot of other studio's work, like Valiant or The Wild?

And is the upcoming CGI film (I don't know what it's called) about the boy genius who invents the memory-associated thimagagig made by Disney, or published by Disney?

Because if I'm not mistaken. the next CGI film from Disney is gonna be 'American Dog', and then 'Rapunzel Unbraided'.
The latter sounds particularly interesting, and it's being the directed by master 2D animator Glen Keane. But's scheduled fro 2009...long wait...I'll be 20 by then. (I'll be an old man...WAAAH!!!)

juliancarter wrote: And is the upcoming CGI film (I don't know what it's called) about the boy genius who invents the memory-associated thimagagig made by Disney, or published by Disney?

The film, Meet the Robinsons (formerly known as A Day with Wilbur Robinson) is being made by WDFA, so it's Disney.

juliancarter wrote:...long wait...I'll be 20 by then.

Reminds me of WHMS...

Sally: And I'm gonna be forty!
Harry: When?
Sally: Someday...
Harry: In eight years!
Sally: But it's there!

Escapay

kbehm29 wrote:I think the majority of the bad reviews were very undeserved. I never see movies based on good or bad reviews...I prefer to judge movies for myself. I think most critics judge the movie on whether they personally enjoy it...not based on the intended audience.

Well...duh.

To answer the question of the original post, of course Chicken Little was a success...financially.

Artistically, the movie was horrible. Disney proved it has the technology to produce CGI films, but they also showed they don't have the talent to pull them off successfully. More needs to go into the story, because there is obvious heart missing here. Easily one of the worst pictures of 2005.

Prince Eric wrote:

kbehm29 wrote:I think the majority of the bad reviews were very undeserved. I never see movies based on good or bad reviews...I prefer to judge movies for myself. I think most critics judge the movie on whether they personally enjoy it...not based on the intended audience.

Well...duh.

To answer the question of the original post, of course Chicken Little was a success...financially.

Artistically, the movie was horrible. Disney proved it has the technology to produce CGI films, but they also showed they don't have the talent to pull them off successfully. More needs to go into the story, because there is obvious heart missing here. Easily one of the worst pictures of 2005.

I'm sorry to say but the movie was not a "success...financially" look at the box office chart at the top u'll see CL made much less the the PIxar movies did. that is why the dvd release is so lame.

Any movie that makes that much money is a success. You can only call that number a failure in relation to other movies, namely, the Pixar titles as you said. However, that wasn't the question of the thread, now, was it?