First Disney CG film - Chicken Little or Dinosaur?

[ajmrowland]

I like the movie, but that doesn't make it an instant commercial success. Whether or not part of the movie's budget went to the Secret Lab(which I though closed in 2002-03) is the factoring point. If that wasn't a factor, and Dinosaur still made $130 million, still a good ten million more than what disney had before.

[steve]

Apparently it's being considered a member of the WFDA canon according to wikipedia.

I don't count it in the canon, since it was shoved in after the fact.

I too was surprised when it was added to the cannon because I was under the impression that the division of Disney that made it, Disney's Secret Lab, was separate from WDFA.

I know this is off the subject of first CG film, but I thought it was important to mention this, since so many people brought up the canon (by which I assume everyone is referring to the list where the Disney animated classics are all numbered in the order they were released, e.g. Snow White is #1, Beauty and the Beast is #30, Hunchback is #34, etc.)

The fact is, the canon really doesn't seem to count for anything any more (I'm not sure it ever really did - someone could enlighten me), as for the past few years, here in the UK & Ireland, we've been given a different canon! Dinosaur is nowhere to be seen on our list (formerly included inside most UK Disney DVD cases) whereas The Wild is. The Wild!!! It actually says "Disney's 47th Animated Classic" on the box! Dinosaur is ten times closer to being a Disney animated classic than The Wild!

[Kyle]

Yeah, its kinda annoying to be honest, constantly seeing people arguing over nothing at all. why should it matter? judge the movies all you want, but canon, non canon it shouldnt change anything.

[SpringHeelJack]

The fact is, the canon really doesn't seem to count for anything any more (I'm not sure it ever really did - someone could enlighten me), as for the past few years, here in the UK & Ireland, we've been given a different canon! Dinosaur is nowhere to be seen on our list (formerly included inside most UK Disney DVD cases) whereas The Wild is. The Wild!!! It actually says "Disney's 47th Animated Classic" on the box! Dinosaur is ten times closer to being a Disney animated classic than The Wild!

The canon was mostly something just used to keep track of movies produced at WDFA. It was used for promotional purposes additionally in the late 90's (i.e. trailers would say "Walt Disney's 31st animated feature!" etc.). Why it was phased out, I have no idea, and why Europe got a weird "Wild" inclusive canon, I also have no idea. Frankly, "The Wild" has less business being there than "Dinosaur", seeing as it wasn't even done by Disney. I can only assume it was added to possibly stimulate home video sales... if you see it ranked with the likes of "The Little Mermaid" and "Pinocchio", Joe Average might be more likely to pick it up on video / DVD.

[merlinjones]

With those two films, who's counting...

Let's say "TRON" or "Toy Story" - - it's more glamorous!

[goofystitch]

The cannon list of classics is defined as a chronological list of feature animated films produced in house by Walt Disney Animation Studios (AKA Walt Disney Feature Animation). Dinosaur was made by a division of WDAS, so it should count, whereas The Wild was outsourced, and so it shouldn't, even though it is on the list in other countries for marketing reasons. But the creation of the list was originally started solely for marketing reasons to begin with. So that new films and rereleases could be brand as "The (insert number here) Disney Animated Classic." There are many who feel that the package features shouldn't be included in the list, meaning that Cinderella would come after Bambi. There are others who only count the hand drawn films, meaning their list currently ends with Home on the Range and will resume in November with The Princess and the Frog. I personally use the full list of animated "classics" as created by Dave Smith, which does include Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt, and the package features. I only really use the cannon list to display my DVDs on my shelf in chronological order. To most people, it is and should be useless.

[yukitora]

I too was surprised when it was added to the cannon because I was under the impression that the division of Disney that made it, Disney's Secret Lab, was separate from WDFA. However, it was more of a branch of WDFA than a separate division. I am still torn as to whether or not it should or shouldn't be included. It is mostly animated, but the fact that it uses live action backgrounds is what holds me back from sticking it in with the rest. I know that most of the backgrounds as they appear in the film are very much altered, or even composites where several pieces of film are compiled into one background.

The Three Calaberos used heaps of live action. It's the studio that makes it, not the medium used (imo).

[steve]

I completely forgot - in France, all the DTV sequels are included in the list. Every Disney DVD over there is numbered on the spine of the case, e.g. Cinderella is #12 - as it should be - but Cinderella II: Dreams Come True is #74 and Cinderella III: A Twist in Time is #104...

[goofystitch]

yukitora wrote:

The Three Calaberos used heaps of live action. It's the studio that makes it, not the medium used (imo).

But if that is the case, than all of the other live action films that have animation from WDAS would also count. My understanding is that Caballeros is included because it is mostly animated, with a few live action scenes combined with animation, vs. the other films that are mostly live action with some animation.

[KubrickFan]

I liked the movie but yeah it wasted more money than it ended up earning.

my problem with it was it seemed like a land before time wanna be. I wish we could have seen the non talking version of the movie. probablly would have been better. the opening sequence alone proves that I think.

The movie seemed like more of a failed experiement than anything though.

I agree. I used to watch that opening on the Tarzan dvd (it was a trailer for the film) extremely often. I just loved the way the CG and the backgrounds worked together, and the great epic score by James Newton Howard. I was very disappointed by the actual film.
I have no doubt it would've been a better film if the animals didn't talk. For one, the 'humor' would not be there. And the animation didn't look quite convincing when they talked.
But the combining of real backgrounds and CG animation looked amazing. I wonder why they didn't do that more, apart from the additional cost it brings.