Does Disney regret Chicken Little Meet the Robinsons & Bolt?

[DisneyEra]

I've seen the topic why everyone hates TP&TF & how it was the death of 2D animation. So this topic will be about Disney's embarrassing intro to CGI films. While most agree that the early 2D films of the 2000s killed 2D animation for the studio, what did these 3 CGI disappointments do for the studio besides embarrass themselves to their rivals "Dreamworks & inhouse Pixar" and underwelm at the Boxoffice? I have nothing against these films, but why do they get a free pass for underwelming, while TP&TF is considered the funeral of 2D animation?

[DisneyJedi]

I don't think people consider TPatF to be the "death" of 2D animation, but I don't know how people would consider Disney regretting its three CG films. I liked Meet the Robinsons and Bolt. Chicken Little, I wasn't too crazy about.

[estefan]

I don't think Chicken Little gets too much of a free pass. I keep seeing that one cited as one of the worst in the Disney animated canon. Even during production, a number of the people in the Hat Building weren't very enthusiastic about the project and the whole movie does seem to reek of studio executive mentality by trying to repeat the Shrek formula that was popular then (a Spice Girls song? Seriously?).

I think Meet the Robinsons and Bolt will be viewed in the future like an Aristocats or a Robin Hood, i.e. not the most popular of Disney's animated films, but they will probably have an okay number of supporters here and there.

[gardener14]

I agree with the comparison to The Aristocats and Robin Hood. Not every Disney movie is going to have the legacy of Snow White, Cinderella, or The Little Mermaid. I don't think Disney should be embarrassed by their intro to CGI films at all. They may not have been as financially successful as they had hoped, but they were far from flops on the scale of John Carter or The Lone Ranger either. Many people enjoy Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt, and Disney has nothing to be ashamed of.

[DisneyEra]

I agree with the comparison to The Aristocats and Robin Hood. Not every Disney movie is going to have the legacy of Snow White, Cinderella, or The Little Mermaid. I don't think Disney should be embarrassed by their intro to CGI films at all. They may not have been as financially successful as they had hoped, but they were far from flops on the scale of John Carter or The Lone Ranger either. Many people enjoy Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt, and Disney has nothing to be ashamed of.

But how did Dreamworks bottom feeder films like "Shark's Tale, Over the Hedge & Bee Movie" all do better business? Also Pixar's Ratatouille & Wall E did over a Billion dollars in worldwide gross combined & won Oscars. Disney's first 3 CGI films weren't even close! Disney won't even acknowledge this, but when TP&TF underpreformed, they made it clear that they weren't happy "Princess in the title" "2D" "Bad release date".

[DisneyEra]

I don't think Chicken Little gets too much of a free pass. I keep seeing that one cited as one of the worst in the Disney animated canon. Even during production, a number of the people in the Hat Building weren't very enthusiastic about the project and the whole movie does seem to reek of studio executive mentality by trying to repeat the Shrek formula that was popular then (a Spice Girls song? Seriously?).

I think Meet the Robinsons and Bolt will be viewed in the future like an Aristocats or a Robin Hood, i.e. not the most popular of Disney's animated films, but they will probably have an okay number of supporters here and there.

Wasn't CH suppose to get a TV series?

[disneyboy20022]

I actually really really enjoyed Meet The Robinson's. The whole message of Keep Moving Forward and I fell completely in love with it.

When it first came out I liked Chicken Little and I was just about to write how the adults are too mean spirited for my like and that no town can be that rude, However While typing that I realized I did identify with Chicken Little having the whole town against him as I felt the same way. I screw up once, and the whole town assumes I'm like that all the time no matter how hard I tried to say there's more to me that what they see. That was the difficulty of having Asperger's 17 years ago in a small town. I guess I really never thought about that aspect until right now.

However I do really love Meet The Robinson's message of Keep Moving Forward and even celebrate your failures because at least you tried it.

[Victurtle]

I agree with the comparison to The Aristocats and Robin Hood. Not every Disney movie is going to have the legacy of Snow White, Cinderella, or The Little Mermaid. I don't think Disney should be embarrassed by their intro to CGI films at all. They may not have been as financially successful as they had hoped, but they were far from flops on the scale of John Carter or The Lone Ranger either. Many people enjoy Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt, and Disney has nothing to be ashamed of.

But how did Dreamworks bottom feeder films like "Shark's Tale, Over the Hedge & Bee Movie" all do better business? Also Pixar's Ratatouille & Wall E did over a Billion dollars in worldwide gross combined & won Oscars. Disney's first 3 CGI films weren't even close! Disney won't even acknowledge this, but when TP&TF underpreformed, they made it clear that they weren't happy "Princess in the title" "2D" "Bad release date".

I feel like you are unhappy that TPATF was treated differently to other films, and that first three 3D films should have been subjected to the same criticism. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, but it seems you are unhappy Disney didn't publicise disappointment of their own films.

If that is the case, fighting for 'equality' should entail arguing why TPATF should be treated better, not arguing that other films should have be treated worse. This is sort of moot anyway. They are films, not people. Equality is irrelevant.

Secondly, why would you want a company to bag their own movies? You are clearly unhappy they appeared to do so with TPATF - its a terrible feeling, so why would you endorse them doing this more often? What benefit will Disney get out of moaning about their lack of comparative success with other studios?* Instead they are focusing on continuing to improve their story telling abilities to produce a new era of great Disney classics.

In any event, I think Disney is quite proud that Chicken Little and Bolt helped recover the losses of the 2D era before it, and recognise Meet the Robinsons and Bolt as important steps towards making the films they do now.

[DisneyEra]

But how did Dreamworks bottom feeder films like "Shark's Tale, Over the Hedge & Bee Movie" all do better business? Also Pixar's Ratatouille & Wall E did over a Billion dollars in worldwide gross combined & won Oscars. Disney's first 3 CGI films weren't even close! Disney won't even acknowledge this, but when TP&TF underpreformed, they made it clear that they weren't happy "Princess in the title" "2D" "Bad release date".

I feel like you are unhappy that TPATF was treated differently to other films, and that first three 3D films should have been subjected to the same criticism. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, but it seems you are unhappy Disney didn't publicise disappointment of their own films.

If that is the case, fighting for 'equality' should entail arguing why TPATF should be treated better, not arguing that other films should have be treated worse. This is sort of moot anyway. They are films, not people. Equality is irrelevant.

Secondly, why would you want a company to bag their own movies? You are clearly unhappy they appeared to do so with TPATF - its a terrible feeling, so why would you endorse them doing this more often? What benefit will Disney get out of moaning about their lack of comparative success with other studios?* Instead they are focusing on continuing to improve their story telling abilities to produce a new era of great Disney classics.

In any event, I think Disney is quite proud that Chicken Little and Bolt helped recover the losses of the 2D era before it, and recognise Meet the Robinsons and Bolt as important steps towards making the films they do now.

What i'm unhappy about is that P&TF is being blamed the main reason 2D animation at WDAS is dead. It's like this film is the poster boy for the death of 2D feature animated films from the studio. But what was Disney doing so great before it? CH/MtR & Bolt clearly did not elavate WDAS back to the top, while Pixar & Dreamworks CGI films were setting BO records & winning multiple oscars. CH took a critic beating, MtRs made less than 2D films like Atlantis & Brother Bear & Bolt was a distant 3rd in 2008 to Wall E & Kung-Fu Panda. It took Disney 5 years to finally have that break-out hit with Tangled, a CGI film that can rival anything Pixar/Dreamwork can do. Everything changed after Tangled's success. If TP&TF is blamed for 2D's death at the studio, then CH/MtRs & Bolt should not be ignored for being lackuster at the BO as well. I'm sure Disney expected much more from those films than what they eventually earned. It's almost like the entire decade of the 2000s was lackluster exculding Lilo & Stich. I'm not buying that at all!

[DisneyJedi]

... why would you want a company to bag their own movies? You are clearly unhappy they appeared to do so with TPATF - its a terrible feeling, so why would you endorse them doing this more often? ...

I'm sorry, what? Does that mean they're trying to forget that the movie ever existed? Because I doubt that's the case, since elements of the film are pretty prominent in the parks, mainly in the SoundSational parade at Disneyland in which the movie got its own float, not to mention Tiana is meetable at the parks, along with (occasionally) Naveen and (around Halloween time) Dr. Facilier.

Heck, Tiana and her movie are even on quite a bit of Disney merchandise and featured in some storybooks and coloring books.

[thedisneyspirit]

They weren't good films tbh.

[Lady Cluck]

Chicken Little and Abby Mallard still appear in the parks from time to time. They should burn those costumes already!

[DisneyFan09]

I don't think Chicken Little gets too much of a free pass. I keep seeing that one cited as one of the worst in the Disney animated canon. Even during production, a number of the people in the Hat Building weren't very enthusiastic about the project and the whole movie does seem to reek of studio executive mentality by trying to repeat the Shrek formula that was popular then (a Spice Girls song? Seriously?).

I think Meet the Robinsons and Bolt will be viewed in the future like an Aristocats or a Robin Hood, i.e. not the most popular of Disney's animated films, but they will probably have an okay number of supporters here and there.

At least "Bolt" was received with acceptable reviews. More than you can about "Chicken Little".

Either way, I haven't seen "Meet the Robinsons", so I can't say my opinion about that one. My problem with "Chicken Little", isn't the weak story or the pop culture references (which I thought was amusing), but how a muddled and inconsistent mess it is. The tone is quite inconsistent, from frenetic to sentimental and the father/son dynamic was a failure. The film could at least been okay and more enjoyable if it had a more consistent tone. At least the first twenty minutes of the film was tolerable.

As for "Bolt"; I've only seen it once, but I was unimpressed. It was just okay and nothing beyond that.

[gardener14]

Chicken Little and Abby Mallard still appear in the parks from time to time. They should burn those costumes already!

It always makes me happy when I see them in the parks. I truly enjoy that movie and the character of Chicken Little that I relate to very much.

[thelittleursula]

Chicken Little and Abby Mallard still appear in the parks from time to time. They should burn those costumes already!

sURE the park and the young kids would REALLY enjoy that


They would be traumatized for life.

[Kyle]

The only movies I think they regret are things like the lone ranger and John Carter. Animation wise nothing comes to mind. Unless you want to count The Wild. I don't think any thing truly bombed to the point of regretting it. You don't see a ton of merchandise because not enough people fell in love with them. that doesn't mean Disney hangs their head in shame. They tried and moved on. And probably think of them as necessary learning experiences on how to get to the level they are now.

[Lady Cluck]

Chicken Little and Abby Mallard still appear in the parks from time to time. They should burn those costumes already!

sURE the park and the young kids would REALLY enjoy that


They would be traumatized for life.

LOL well I didn't mean a public burning, but that would be even better. BURN BURN BURN!

[disneyboy20022]

sURE the park and the young kids would REALLY enjoy that


They would be traumatized for life.

LOL well I didn't mean a public burning, but that would be even better. BURN BURN BURN!

[unprincess]

yeah it does seem that theyre far more ashamed about their 2d films of that era than their cgi films.

also the more I read about whats currently going on at Disney the more I think the poor financial performance of 2-d is only part of whats been going on. There seems to be alot of anti-2d politics in the studio going on, like some faction(of cgi animators) there that at some point took over & was determined to slowly turn Dsney into an all CGI studio, regardless of their 2d legacy.

but Im just speculating...

[DC Fan]

Chicken Little is the worst by far. A shameless attempt to copy Dreamworks back then; and failing miserably.

I really dislike Meet the Robinsons but at least here they tried.

Bolt to me it´s a meh movie. Just average.

You´ve mentioned that these movies could compare to Robin Hood and The Sword in the Stone. Sorry but no. Yes, Robin and Sword are far from perfect. But they are charming. Something these movies aren´t.