VALIANT - 1st non-Pixar CG film from Disney...

[Luke]

according to IMDB -

Runtime: 109 min / France:75 min / USA:76 min

Trusting IMDb....

[TaleAsOldAsTime]

The film grossed $1.8 million on it's opening day. Which is horrible. The film will lucky gross between $5.5 to $6 million for the weekend

[Pasta67]

If anyone cares about critics reviews, here they are.

I guess we won't see "critically acclaimed" anywhere on the DVD.

EDIT: Woot! Post #700!

[MickeyMousePal]

WOW!!! Valiant really bombed and The 40-Year Old Virgin and Red Eyes did excellent (which I both thought sucked).

[Jake Lipson]

Well, I just got back from seeing it, and it was fun. It was nothing special -- it's not going to go down in history as a landmark in CG animation as Toy Story did ten years ago -- but I don't really think it was intended to. It was rushed at times, the script could have been better, and the animation, while very good, didn't wow like Pixar's does. It was just not as fresh or envoloping as Pixar's productions are.

But it was fun; in and of itself, it was very good, very colorful and stylized, and its spirit and spunk was obvious. It delivered an enjoyable, funny 76 minutes, and its plot was strikingly original for a movie aimed at family audiences; the characters were endauring, and the vocal performances were top notch. So, it engages you and you find yourself having fun. Even though you know exactly how the happily-ever-after ending works well in advance of actulally seeing it, you cheer anyway. It brings a smile to your face and does it with a degree of intelligence that, while it isn't quite up to par with Pixar, certianly surpasses a lot of the other CGI crowding the market these days.

It's flawed, yes, and it could be better than it is with a little more work and a longer runtime to work with, but its heart is in the right place, and that's more than I can say for a lot of movies these days. The Vanguard folks had fun doing it and tell a sturdy enough story while bringing pleasure to their audiences. I'll happily see another movie from them, and think I may well pick this one up on DVD, too, because for all of its formulatic shortcomings, it manages to be entertaining and exciting and sheer FUN. Today, that's a very good thing.

It's also very commendable for being done on such a slim budget compared to the other movies in its genre, and yet the only problems it has are in areas that are completely unrelated to budget. It can't hurt to be supportive of that -- especially when it gives you a smile or two in return. It's a shame to see this one underperforming, because, like Valient himself, it's a case of the small little movie with a big heart that could, if given the chance, do a lot. And I hope DVD will be kinder to it.

[Robin Hood]

I just came back from seeing the movie and it was good, funny and original.

[Solid Liquid Fox]

Pixar has set the bar pretty high.

Disney really has very little to do with Valiant in the creative side. I'll wait for Chicken Little to see if they can mimick the Pixar magic. I doubt it. Pixar has the ability to do an adult story, smart funny dialogue and groundbreaking CGI all in most their movies.

Disney is yet to show me all of those in one film.

[2099net]

according to IMDB -

Trusting IMDb....

http://film.guardian.co.uk/Film_Page/0,,1423636,00.html

Well, the UK Guardian Newspaper review confirms the UK release was 109 minutes, and all of the US reviews confirm it was 76 mins. So yes, I trust the IMDB in this case.

updte: Valiant has only been passed at 76 minutes at the BBFC, so it would appear nothing it altered in any territory. I wonder why several places still list 109 mins, with IMDB being one of them. Perhaps there was a longer cut that failed test screenings?

[ichabod]

Perhaps there was a longer cut that failed test screenings?

But even if they were to edit it down, would they really cut a whole 34 minutes! Maybe if such a large amount was cut that would perhaps be an explanation to the story problems?

[Today4U]

With such a poor opening weekend, hopefully Disney will realize that 2D is not a waste. Poor stories and marketing are a waste.

[BrandonH]

I just got back from seeing this, and I thought it was a decent movie with a few good laughs. I loved the characters, especially the falcons, and there was a good mixture of adult and kid-oriented humor.

It's definitely worth seeing once, and I give it 3.5/5 stars.

[TaleAsOldAsTime]

Valiant debuted @7 and made about $6.1 million it's OW

[universALLove]

I thought "Dinosaur" was Disney's first CG animated film which wasn't created by Pixar?

[Luke]

I thought "Dinosaur" was Disney's first CG animated film which wasn't created by Pixar?

It was mostly CG-animated, but it did use live action backgrounds (albeit highly manipulated by computers), so technically, this is the first fully-CG film, but of course it wasn't made by Disney. That 'honor' will go to <i>Chicken Little</i>.

[toonaspie]

I would like to take a stab at untwisting everyone's confusion about this film.

Disney was the first to release (not make) CGI films for the big screen by distributing Pixar's films such as Toy Story.

In 2000 the Disney Company decided to produce, make, whatever there own CGI film. They called this studio (which Disney owned, the Secret Lab. The Secret Lab was a CGI animation studio which made Dinosaur the first non PIxar CGI film made by Disney. Becuase Dinosaur failed at the box office, The Secret Lab was shut down forever.

Now that Pixar has broken off its contract with Disney, Disney wanted to release more CGI films under the Disney name.

Vanguard is a CGI animation production studio/company in England that made Valiant. Disney is the North American distributor of that film.

This makes Valiant the first non Pixar CGI film released by Disney.

And Chicken Little will be considered the first Disney produced CGI film provided that you forget the fact that Dinosaur or the Secret Lab ever existed (which I think Disney is trying to do)

[Disney-Fan]

Becuase Dinosaur failed at the box office, The Secret Lab was shut down forever.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Dinosaur was one of Disney's biggest cash makers that year.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Becuase Dinosaur failed at the box office, The Secret Lab was shut down forever.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Dinosaur was one of Disney's biggest cash makers that year.

DisneyFan is right!

http://movies.go.com/boxoffice?cat=2000

It did better than "hits" like Remember the Titans and Charlie's Angels. But they closed it because it took a REALLY long time to make and it didn't gross as much as the Pixar films or Disney's biggest hits(The Lion King, Aladdin).

[2099net]

Valiant has a UK release on November 7th. Sadly, as expected, it is an Entertainment in Video release, so begin to the fearing now...

No news if is is a single or double disc release (and no news if it is the 76minute or 109minute release )

[2099net]

As you may know, there is some confusion about the run-time of Valiant in the UK.

From what I can gather, all pre-release reviews list the runtime as 109 mins. Such as

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/inci ... p?FID=9778
http://www.iofilm.co.uk/fm/v/valiant_2005.shtml
http://film.guardian.co.uk/Film_Page/0, ... 36,00.html
http://www.unreel.co.uk/reviews/v/Valiant/index.cfm
etc.

And yet, according to the BBFC, only a 76 minute version was submitted for classification, which is the same as the American Disney release.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classifie ... enDocument

So was there a longer cut, which was harshly edited down just before release (perhaps the result of some of the unfavourable reviews)?, or can it simply be attributed to a typo on a single bad Press Release or something?

Is it possible the DVD will contain a number of deleted scenes, if a longer cut did exist?

[Luke]

or can it simply be attributed to a typo on a single bad Press Release or something?

I would say that IMDb got bad information and those sites relied on it. Or it's possible the official press release from the UK was incorrect. Either way, I highly doubt there'd be 33 minutes missing from a movie widely touted as costing so little.