Chicken Little Discussion

[Pluto Region1]

This is an "economy" post - several comments/questions from various posts here rolled into one big post:

RE: Chicken Little in 3-D
OH BOY! I have a 3-D camera and glasses and projector etc. Used to be in the L.A. 3-D club (my camera is currently broken, needs repair). This is great! I didn't know it was going to be in 3-D. Time to dig out my glasses!

RE: VALIENT as a Disney Project
Somone mentioned that Valient wasn't really a Disney movie, they "just distributed it." I read an article about how Disney partnered with that British animation studio as an experiment with trying out different studios due to the fact that they might not be able to renew contract with Pixar. So if the other Pixar films are considered "Disney" why wouldn't "Valient" be considered a Disney film too? Perhaps the article I read was incorrect and the deal with the British studio was somewhat different than the deal they had with Pixar?

RE: Different Animation Divisions?
Someone mentioned that one of Disney's films was done by DisneyToon Australia, but that CL is done by "Disney Feature Animation". I thought that Disney just had one animation place in Burbank, CA. Can someone briefly explain? I guess this person was saying that Disney Feature Animation is the best?

Differences in 2D, vs. 3D and CGI?
Well I am confused; What is the difference betw. 2D and 3D animation and "CGI" ? Now that I think about it, how the heck do they have a 3-D animation? I mean, I understand about the special cameras (what was that called) that Disney used in the old days to give a 3-D effect, but the way 3-D works (at least my 3-D camera) is that you have 2 lenses set a certain distance apart and then film the object. So I guess they film a cartoon strip using 2 lenses set at a distance apart like my 3-D camera. (is this a question for Deathie Mouse? If you guys don't want to answer this one, I won't blame you!)

[2099net]

This is an "economy" post - several comments/questions from various posts here rolled into one big post:

RE: VALIENT as a Disney Project
Somone mentioned that Valient wasn't really a Disney movie, they "just distributed it." I read an article about how Disney partnered with that British animation studio as an experiment with trying out different studios due to the fact that they might not be able to renew contract with Pixar. So if the other Pixar films are considered "Disney" why wouldn't "Valient" be considered a Disney film too? Perhaps the article I read was incorrect and the deal with the British studio was somewhat different than the deal they had with Pixar?

Yes, its different. Pixar films are partially funded by Disney and distributed by Disney worldwide. Valiant is only distributed by Disney in America (it has various distributors worldwide) and Disney didn't put any money into the making of the film, other than a commitment to distribute it in America (which helped Vangard get other funding).

[Pluto Region1]

Seriously, I had high hopes for this movie. High. High. Hopes. The trailers made it look very funny and entertaining, but after reading all 40 of those critics reviews (because I......don't have a lot goin' on right now ), my expectations have reached rock bottom. I know you shouldn't pay too much attention to what the critics say (they're people just like us), but when you read reviews that say.....

"The film is another sign of Disney's fall as an animation power. For most of the past decade, the studio has cranked out out-of-touch, uninspired hand-drawn fluff. Now they've moved on to out-of-touch, uninspired computer-drawn fluff."

"Disney eradicated their hand-drawn animation department for this?"

I didn't know they ELIMINATED their hand-drawn animation division - that is cracked! Well I guess if someone can explain to me the differences betw. 3D, 2D and CGI, maybe I can understand why they'd do that? .... but anyway, don't loose all hope! I know these reviews are not boding well for Disney and unfortuantely I think alot of people get influenced by reviews and then do not go. that can be very bad, but the reviews are coming out so soon, so perhpas some viewers will not get a chance to see these reviews and will just go see the film and perhaps many will like it and things will turn around.

You UD members are all big fans of Disney animation - you've collected many of the movies, don't let the reviewers influence you too much. I myself am looking foward REGARDLESS of what the reviews say because I've found I've liked many movies that reviewers hated. Just give it a chance, go see it. Also we should remember that many movies have been panned by critics only to become successful with the masses.

It is kind of funny because you guys are Disney's biggest fans, but you also seem to be their biggest critics. I hope some Disney insiders come here and read the posts. I don't think we should discourage them from coming here and commenting or reading. They need your expert opinions!

[TinTinV]

Like I said, it's going to be one of those "Gotta see it for yourself" kind of films. I'm excited to see it tonight. I might even go see it in 3D. (can anyone compare yet?)

Critics help, yes. But we've all got opinions too. So if you liked it, go around and spread the word. Besides, the critics have hated a lot of films that have been successful in the past. People are going to go see it. Because it's Disney. Because it's cute. Because they want to.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I didn't know they ELIMINATED their hand-drawn animation division - that is cracked!

Boy do we have ALOT to teach you!

"The film is another sign of Disney's fall as an animation power. For most of the past decade, the studio has cranked out out-of-touch, uninspired hand-drawn fluff. Now they've moved on to out-of-touch, uninspired computer-drawn fluff."

...

This one will likely get the treatment of Disney mediocrity: only three direct-to-video sequels and no traveling ice show.

Was I the only one who said "Ouch" when I read that? I agree with the reviewer, but still: "Ouch".

I looked up that critic Phil Villarreal who said the comment you thought was "ouch", let me tell you, his history rather stinks! He's has given alot of garbage really high ratings, and he has given alot of films I've really enjoyed bad ratings!

Also about the reviewer who said this goes with the rest of their "2-D-fluff", boy I don't think I could disagree with him more! Disney has relased ALOT of great stuff the past decade: Tarzan, The Emperor's New Groove, Treasure Planet, Mulan, Fantasia 2000 and Brother Bear were all great IMO! And Lilo and Stitch and Hercules was pretty decent too. I didn't care for the rest. But the point is how could he not like at least ONE of those movies!

Frankly, 2099net NAILED it! Brother Bear was "bad" because it's just a repeat of what Disney has done in the past! Well so is Finding Nemo, but I don't hear any of complaints for that film! And then other films get dissed because they are too much unlike Disney like Home on the Range. I haven't seen HONR yet, but still I wished the critics would tell Disney what they really want instead of trying to think of something that is wrong with it!

Overall I'll see Chicken Little. I think I might like it even with these critics' reviews because to be honest, critics have NEVER has good taste for movies!

[PatrickvD]

I haven't seen HONR yet, but still I wished the critics would tell Disney what they really want instead of trying to think of something that is wrong with it!

oh now hold it right there. It is not the critics jobs to tell studios what should be done and give them ideas. I usually don't defend critics but that's just stupid. It's WDFA's job to keep us entertained. It's not our job to come up with ideas for them. I understand it gets tiring to see how each new Disney movie is squashed with negative reviews. It's Disney's job however to win the critics and audiences over once again.

[Pluto Region1]

So if you liked it, go around and spread the word.

Good idea! I hope it is good because they need a hit and seems like they put everything into promoting this. ABC has run a couple of guest spots with voice people from the flick, all their channels on TV are carrying ads... the whole Disney machine is in high gear. This will be their first animation release where I was paying any notice to any of this, all of you have watched them flop on their cartoon movies before.... maybe this much hype goes into every release. If it flops and they aren't the sole investor in it to begin with, it won't be that devastating, will it?

Those reviews T/P Fan quoted are some pretty nasty reviews! it is almost like they hate disney; maybe these reviewers are biased against Disney?

I hate Hollywood and I hate the industry these days. It's been a record slump for the whole box office this year because the theater experience just isn't as magical as it used to be. And you got crowded release schedules, this week alone saw 4 high profile movies in one weekend. It's hard for audiences to pick. And yeah, it's also because teens would rather stay at home or be out somewhere else besides the movies.

Well maybe it is because it costs like $9 to go to a film and even $7 for a matinee? Seems to me that it is just too expensive!

[Prince Eric]

I haven't seen HONR yet, but still I wished the critics would tell Disney what they really want instead of trying to think of something that is wrong with it!

oh now hold it right there. It is not the critics jobs to tell studios what should be done and give them ideas. I usually don't defend critics but that's just stupid. It's WDFA's job to keep us entertained. It's not our job to come up with ideas for them. I understand it gets tiring to see how each new Disney movie is squashed with negative reviews. It's Disney's job however to win the critics and audiences over once again.

Yeah, I agree. It's the job of the critic to pass judgement on a completed project, not give tidbits to the studios to make their movies better. If that were the case, the job of critics would be dissolved and we'd have every movie be great. People use the word "great" too haphazardly. Just because you like a movie, doesn't make it a great one, which is probably why most critics give out mediocre scores. I hate that form of writing where the review basically says it's not a really good movie, but it's recommended to certain people who might like that particular genre. That's weak writing and very unintelligent. I'd rather have a reviewer say that the movie sucks and deconstruct everything bad about if than say "it's not a masterpiece, but still a good movie." OK...

[musicradio77]

"Chicken Little" lays an egg

Could push Disney to back in animation pecking order?

**

CHICKEN LITTLE. Animated, with voices of Zach Braff, Garry Marshall, Joan Cusack. Director: Mark Dindal (1:21). G.

If "Chicken Little," the first of four computer-generated cartoons from Disney's revamped animation division, is the best the studio can do, it had better continue negotiating with Pixar.

The story sense and writing for "Chicken Little" are strictly Saturday-morning cartoon quality, and the animation - while miles better than the usual choppy, hand-drawn Saturday fare - is almost rudimentary compared with such Pixar/Disney hits as "Finding Nemo" and "The Incredibles."

Unlike those CGI industry leaders, and the "Shrek" movies put out by DreamWorks, "Chicken Little's" appeal is to tots and tots alone. While it is colorful and jaunty and filled with benign barnyard creatures, the occasional jokes and pop references aimed for designated guardians in the audience are more insulting than entertaining.

As in the fairy tale, "Chicken Little" begins with the cries of a young chick (voice of Zach Braff) who is clunked on the head with a falling object and begins screaming, "The sky is falling."

In fact, it sort of is.

Alien space ships are up there somewhere carving octagonal chunks out of the sky and sending them to Earth on scouting missions. But on the occasion of Chicken Little's first alarm, the only evidence of falling objects is that proverbial acorn.

Having embarrassed himself and his proud father Buck Chuck (Garry Marshall) before the citizens of Oakley Oaks, Chicken Little waddles home with his tail feathers between his legs, hoping beyond hope for a chance to redeem himself in his father's eyes.

In a drawn-out baseball game that exists only as filler, Chicken gains a little respect by scoring the winning run, but it's his coming encounter with aliens who seem intent on destroying Earth where Chicken will really begin to cluck.

With him on this mission are his pals Amy Mallard (Joan Cusack), an ugly duckling who has a crush on him; Fish Out of Water (Dan Molina), a ridiculously misplaced goldfish who wears a water-filled diver's mask over his head; and the ironically named Runt of the Litter (Steve Zahn), a zeppelin-size pig who is both a nervous eater and an emotional hysteric.

I wish I could vouch for the cuteness of these critters, but they are so derivative of past animated characters they seem to have been snatched out of the cartoon archives. The only marginally original creature is Kirby (Matthew Josten), an orange, three-eyed alien fur ball who looks like a first cousin of a gremlin.

The doomsday scenario in the plot is debunked before youngsters will know there was ever a threat. Though the vaporizing rays of the aliens' robots - spidery creatures not unlike those in Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" - are a little menacing, no animated characters are harmed in the telling of this story.

But much harm will be done to Disney's self-confidence.

The studio's fresh corps of CGI animators may get up to speed before the current four-picture cycle is completed, but if they don't get better material to work with, the sky will indeed be falling along Dopey Drive.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

oh now hold it right there. It is not the critics jobs to tell studios what should be done and give them ideas. I usually don't defend critics but that's just stupid. It's WDFA's job to keep us entertained. It's not our job to come up with ideas for them. I understand it gets tiring to see how each new Disney movie is squashed with negative reviews. It's Disney's job however to win the critics and audiences over once again.

Ummm... I didn't say that!

You're right, it's NOT the critic's job to tell Disney what to make, but that's not what I said or meant. Many critics seem to judge Disney for making "bad" movies without putting much thought into their opinions. This was just one of my examples: First they want something different than "regular" Disney, then they want something similar to "regular" Disney.

I'm not saying you had to like Brother Bear or Home on the Range, in fact I'd be fine if someone disliked both, however I would like to see them give good reasons to why they disliked it because often times they don't even know what type of movie they want from Disney!

Remember critics are not gods, like everybody else, they are human beings!

[memnv]

I saw Chicken Little today and thought it was cute it also had a lot of funny parts in it. I will get this on DVD in 2006

[TinTinV]

I JUST got back from seeing it with a couple of friends and we LOVED IT!

It has a lot of hilarious parts in it and I just loved the entire film. I honestly felt as if the movie never tried to take itself too seriously. It told a story, and it made us laugh. It'll be a great "pop in anytime" kind of movie for me. Seriously, I recommend it. Just don't expect anything. Let go and have some fun. The movie was just cute and amazing. Loved it. Amazing. Can't wait for the DVD.

P.S. I'm going to see it in 3D within the next few days too. . .I'll let ya know how it compares.

[Isidour]

you aren´t missing anything remarkable

Is the classic story of the chiken who tries to regain his father´s trust after the falling-sky affair, all his friends ignore him except for the other weird like the fatty pig and the ugly duck.

At least it have some cool songs, but is not like the incredibles or something, I really belive that Disney must buy Pixar while its on sale

[singerguy04]

me and my friends really enjoyed this movie. i think disney did good!

[Papa Bear]

Thanks Pluto Region 1 for the info and advice. I did however find some info at www.animated-news.com:
at this link: http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00004093.html

And it has a list of all the theaters as well as a link to the advertisement for the 3D version. And some info on it.

[RJKD23]

We think Disney did good on this as well!
The previews didn't really give away the whole story, which was a good thing. It had a good story line to it and likeable characters, especially fish out of water and a certain orange adorable thing! At first, I thought it wouldn't be as good, but it is good. Not great, but good.

[GhostHost]

it is a good film, but not a masterpiece. Disney Feature has done alot worse with Home on the Range, but this is no BATB or TLK, but it was never meant to be. It was meant to be a fun romp, that just isn't as funny as WandG:COTWR.
Anyway, still a good movie, but not a crowning acheivement.
A quote near the end however is one of the greatest of all time.

[Kenai]

Well, according to boxofficemojo.com, Friday's estimates are 10 million so far. Jarhead isn't too far behind, appearing to be making more in less theaters. Wow, another surprise. I wonder if it were released in wide format if it would've outperrformed Chicken Little? Wow and wow.

Well, at least we know lone adult males aren't seeing CL.

[dvdjunkie]

I am just surprised how many of you let a "critic" tell you what movie to watch. I read reviews, but like everything else, I just consider it one person's opinion. I feel that I am the best critic in the world, and I can judge for myself what is good and what is a waste of money.

I saw "Chicken Little" yesterday, opening day, and I loved it. While not on the same scale as a Pixar animated film, it was a very good attempt to entertain us with a 'decent' story, and some over-the-top jokes that both kids and adults will like. The last 10 minutes of the movie are riotous, and had me laughing very hard.

I never compare one movie to another when I go see it. That is a foolish business. It is like the "Star Wars" people who tried to compare Episodes I, II and III with the first released Episodes IV, V, And VI. It made me sick that they were already prejudging a film before it was completed.

Disney has a long way to go in the CGI animation field but this film was a good attempt to show us how far they have come. I hated "Twice Upon A Christmas" because the CGI is so tacky and the characters didn't look like their 2-D animated counterparts. Now maybe I will go back and look at that one with a more open mind as to what Disney is trying to do.

[Big Worms]

I am going to see this movie this weekend, but I will say that Disney will have the number one movie this weekend. My prediction.