DVDizzy Forum

Strictly speaking, only a small handful of Disney's 2D animated features were genuinely based on fairy tales. There was Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty within Walt's lifetime, then later the Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, and now the upcoming Frog Princess. Aladdin is actually one of the Arabian Nights stories, but is often classified as a fairy tale all the same, so I'll let that one go.

Most other films were based on well-known tales of a different nature (the Sword in the Stone, Robin Hood, Hercules, etc) or adapted from novels (Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmatians, Jungle Book, etc).

Caballero Girl wrote:Strictly speaking, only a small handful of Disney's 2D animated features were genuinely based on fairy tales. There was Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty within Walt's lifetime, then later the Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, and now the upcoming Frog Princess. Aladdin is actually one of the Arabian Nights stories, but is often classified as a fairy tale all the same, so I'll let that one go.

Most other films were based on well-known tales of a different nature (the Sword in the Stone, Robin Hood, Hercules, etc) or adapted from novels (Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmatians, Jungle Book, etc).

Yes, but the non-fairytales were rarely big successes, especially during the Disney Renaissance of the 80s and early 90s. There's no doubt that people love Disney Princesses, especially today. Disney is instantly associated with fairytales by the general public, and it's the general public that generated the bulk of Disney's cash flow, not necessarily those of us who love almost anything "Disney." Most of Disney's money comes from non-Disney obsessed parents buying stuff for their kids, and they tend to prefer fairytale type stuff for them than dramas about Hunchbacks or that sort of thing, no matter how well made.

As for Aladdin, that's why I said the "fairytale/storybook thing." Aladdin having the "storybook" thing. Of course, as you stated, "fairytale" doesn't have to exclude storybook stories. The term is not limited to folklore tales. For example, Pinocchio is often referred to as a fairytale as well.

It is not only cause of the movies that people associate Disney with fairytales, but also because of Disney's marketing. Disney always has slogans like wishes, dreaming comes treu ect. Ussualy with a godmother or pixy like tinkerbell in the commercials.

The Merman wrote:It is not only cause of the movies that people associate Disney with fairytales, but also because of Disney's marketing. Disney always has slogans like wishes, dreaming comes treu ect. Ussualy with a godmother or pixy like tinkerbell in the commercials.

Good point! Disney sells itself with its fairytales more than anything. They sell the fairytale experience, and they are always showing us Tink, the Castle, Cinderella, and the Fairy Godmother more than anything. And the Princesses in general of course. And, hey, their symbol is a fairytale castle! Parents who are not that into Disney expect fairytales from Disney, despite how many of them they have actually made. Heck, a lot of folks that aren't obsessed with Disney have never even seen many of the non-fairytale movies.

In response to an earlier post, I have yet to see Home on the Range. While Atlantis has SOME good qualities, I agree that it is the worst Disney animated feature, aside from SOME of the sequels. Still, I enjoy many of the sequels more than Atlantis. MANY of them.

See Home on the Range and be baffled by how bad it is! Especially the part with the pink and yellow flashing dancing cows!!!

2099net wrote: Well, Shrek is basically satire. And almost all satire is based on anger, frustration and personal opinion. Some of the ideas in Shrek are actually very clever - and that's what makes me hate the film even more, it never lives up to its own potential.

I know that is the point of Shrek, and it is clever enough to entertain me for the most part, but at times it is too much of a one man vs. another man hatred that the film is based on rather than a film mocking Disney or fairytales in general. That's when it gets distasteful for me and makes Katzenberg look small and petty.

2099net wrote: (I believe Antz by Dreamworks in one of the most "adult" animated films ever made - and yes, I think its far better than A Bug's Life. Now there's real satire for you. And I also believe Dreamworks were planning to make more films of a similar nature, but the fact Antz wasn't fully embraced made the studio tinker with the films in production: Shrek and Road to Eldorado, both of which have obviously more intelectual concepts, but ended up being watered down.)

While I did like the Road to El Dorado (mainly for its attempt at recreating the old Hope and Crosby Road picture, something I have always wanted to do in live-action), I'm sure there was room for improvement (haven't seen it in a while). "Antz," on the otherhand, I didn't like that much, and not nearly as much as "A Bug's Life," which I loved, even if the plot had been done before. "Antz" wasn't the kind of film to just please everyone looking for a more "adult" animated feature though. It was a film that played better to a specific audience. It was very Woody Allen/New Yorky type film, and if that isn't your thing, you're not likely to LOVE it. I liked it okay, but I didn't care much for the character designs at all, and while I like Woody Allen type stuff in moderation, I don't LOVE it. Stuff like that has a specific audience, and when you make it in animation, the audience gets even smaller. Of course, one could argue that everything has a specific audience, but sometimes that specific audience is larger than others. I guess Disney keeps shooting for that kid audience more than anything because it's really huge and really profitable. That's a given. But that's why it's all people come to expect or want from Disney. When they try something different and it doesn't bring in much cash, they immediately abandon the daring idea of "other directions" and go back to the stuff with more kid appeal.

2099net wrote: I haven't seen Over the Hedge yet (its out on DVD here in a week or so) but from the reviews it looks like Dreamworks has finally got the satire/broad comedy mix about right to appeal to a wider audience without one aspect suffering at the hands of another)

Yeah, there were some dud jokes throughout, mainly in the beginning (not a good place to have them), but it's a pretty pleasing flick over all.

2099net wrote: As for the movement away from fairy tales, the same happened under Walt's watch (and beyond). Alice and Wonderland, Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, Winnie the Pooh (which of course Walt was involved with) aren't exactly fairy tales. Lady and the Tramp and 101 Dalmatians being the obvious exceptions. 101 Dalmatians doesn't even have singing.

True, but looking back on those, they are seen as wonderful films by most people nowadays. Fewer folks feel that way about the post Walt stuff, like Robin Hood (often called the worst Disney animated feature until Atlantis came along) and Fox and the Hound. They have their hardcore fans, but they are often said to be missing something or to be outright weak. Something interesting that you have pointed out though, is how Walt was less concerned with pleasing the people asking for more fairytales and musicals than he was with making the films he wanted to make, and making them well.

2099net wrote: As I've said before, I think its wrong for people to expect Disney or its creative talents to only produce one type of film. Its only natural that both the company and the talent would want to try new things. Walt himself switched his attention away from animation in favour of his live-action films.

I agree totally, as long as the films care kept at a level where families can watch them together, which I believe is what Walt would have wanted.

2099net wrote: After the new crew came on board, they too felt the need to move away from Disney's fairytale legacy (Ironically, a legacy that they built upon Walt's early foundations. I belive the new fairy tale films are what is responsible for the public seeing Disney as a fairy tale/princess company) But again they felt the need to try something else, something new. And all power to them for doing so.

Well, I think, as I've said before, it's a much older idea than that. Ever since Snow White, people wanted more fairytales from Disney. That doesn't mean they always appreciated them, but that's how long that feeling has been around. Using a big fairytale castle as the centerpiece of Disneyland illustrates how clear this was to Walt, and only emphasized the connection between Walt Disney and Fairytales. Same with using Tinkerbell to open his anthology series. Cinderella is a film that saved the studio when it was in a dire situation financially. The Little Mermaid later saved Disney Animation, and it was the first animated film since Walt's death that seemed to "have it all." Then, "Beauty and the Beast" came out, and I distinctly remember how everyone was saying, "You have to see this one! It's better than "The Little Mermaid!" And, as much as I am in love with Ariel, they were right! Disney's fairytales have had the most impact on both the studio and the public since the beginning, and this is why Disney is associated with fairytales probably just as much as it is associated with a mouse.

2099net wrote: Nobody expects Steven Speilberg to just make thrillers, or historical documents, or family friendly comedies. He can quite happily do them all, and any other genre he decides to film. Why can't Disney animation?

I belive that if you did encourage Disney's animation department to just make fairy tales, the resultant films would be worse than the films we did get (not that I see anything wrong with most of them), because the creative talent's heart wouldn't be in it.

I'm not sure how true this is. Certainly, it would be a shame to put such restrictions on any studio, but I don't see why they wouldn't still make great films and be able to put their heart into it. It would probably become known that if you don't want to work on fairytales, you shouldn't apply to Disney.

2099net wrote: I know you aren't responsible for the "animation is for kids" feeling, and I know that labelling annoys you just as much as it does me, but if companies like Disney never experiment, we're never going to loose that attitude in society.

Ha, I think you got the wrong idea from my post. I wasn't supporting the idea that Disney shouldn't venture out of fairytales, I was just stating that they are not as successful when they do, because it is NOT what the general public expects of them. And, since the money guys are making all the decisions at Disney right now, that's why they don't let the artists do it enough to change that public opinion. They would have to release a lot of non-fairytale films in a row and have a couple hit it big, before people would start noticing the non-fairytale stuff. They also would have to showcase the non-fairytale stuff more. Right now, it's hard to see anything past the princesses, unless it's PIXAR. Even Pooh seems to be less noticable behind the princesses nowadays! Anyways, as I stated before, I LOVED Treasure Planet and the Jungle Book, and almost all the other Disney non-fairytales out there. Unfortunately, Disney does seem to have used the lack of success of the recent non-fairytales as an excuse to phase out 2D, whether it was a hardcore conspiracy or just taking advantage of the situation. The conspiracy theory is plausible because of all the cutbacks to 2D before it was decided to phase it out, not to mention releasing a couple of DTV quality sequels to theaters instead of DVD, where they belonged. Those films may have generated some quick and easy money, but they did nothing for the rep of Disney 2D theatrical animation. But now, Disney is still trying to find its footing with 3D. Dinosaur was a bit of a flop as their first venture into 3D without PIXAR (though I liked it for the most part), Chicken Little was a stinker that tried to copy PIXAR and Dreamworks at every turn, and they are still trying to find other studios to become new PIXARs for them (weren't "The Wild" and "Valiant" made at non-Disney studios?). One thing I remember Walt saying is that he wanted anything with the Disney name on it to actually be made by Disney. That went out the door with PIXAR and some of their TV stuff, and probably even before that (I haven't actually researched it). I just hope John Lasseter turns out to be the guiding light Disney Animation needs. Though, I wasn't as impressed with Cars as with PIXARs previous films. Still great though.

The Merman wrote:See Home on the Range and be baffled by how bad it is! Especially the part with the pink and yellow flashing dancing cows!!!

Ha, I'm still open minded about this because it looked okay from the previews, but I will buy it eventually and check it out. Most people have told me it's okay, just not great.

In my honest opinion I think the whole thing of Treasure Planet "bombing" at the box office was just because it costed too much. The company used way too much budget on getting the handdrawn animation and CGI blend together correctly (but they did achieve). The film did well on it's release and a lot of people loved it (altough it was critisized on not having true Disney songs), but it could have never earned as much as the budget or top it, and that's why it officially bombed. I have no sources for this, but I heard this was the official statement Disney made (or at least some staff of the movie)... I don't think Disney would have let a film with a budget like that bomb. I would believe that for "Home on the Range" and "Brother Bear" (that last one only in the USA), but not for Treasure Planet.

Yep Brother Bear did do very good internationally when it was also expected to be a huge flop for some reason. It seems that most movies that are predicted to be limited by Disney become more of a succes. Like the Lion King, and The Little Mermaid. Mabey there is les pressure as stated by someone before and the artists get perhaps more room to put there own heart into the movies.

The high cost of the movie was due to many things going wrong during the making of it. But visually Treasure Planet is amazing! Especially the opening scene that is so heartwarming with little Jim and his mother. The way they animated the ships in the story book ect. The cutest moment is when his mother blows on little Jims belly! So Cute!

The Merman wrote:See Home on the Range and be baffled by how bad it is! Especially the part with the pink and yellow flashing dancing cows!!!

I'm surprised ichabod hasn't killed you yet.

Anyway, I like Home on the Range. It's no masterpiece, I'll admit, but I still am baffled how much bad word it gets. Sadly I bet every last dollar I own that if HOTR were made by someone other than Disney(could be anyone) and it'd get better word than it has. I mean how is it worse than Spongebob Squarepants? Yet it managed to get decent reviews and about 30 million at the box office more than "Range". People thought a film about talking cows looked bad because they were cows, but then how did SharkTale make a profit, it looked horrible from the previews and... it turned out pretty horrible. Yet, "Range" gets picked on mainly because it's made by Disney. I don't see why Disney always get a beating no matter what they do.

It's a comedy, therefore treat it like a hour and a half Chuck Jones cartoon, not compare it to "Beauty and the Beast". It might get a slightly better reputation. And that particular scene was awsome with the psychedelic animation. If you think that scene was bad, I guess you also consider "The Pink Elephants" scene from Dumbo bad, or "Heffalumps and Woozles" scenes bad too.

slave2moonlight wrote: Right now, it's hard to see anything past the princesses, unless it's PIXAR. Even Pooh seems to be less noticable behind the princesses nowadays!

Obviously you forgot about a cute fluffy alien named "Stitch" and a drunk pirate named "Jac... er Captain Jack Sparrow".

Unfortunately, Disney does seem to have used the lack of success of the recent non-fairytales as an excuse to phase out 2D, whether it was a hardcore conspiracy or just taking advantage of the situation.

Can you blame them? Personally I believe every Disney animated film since Hercules are waaaaaay better than both Shrek of Finding Nemo, yet none of those films did as well, which I still never get. Critics want "originality" yet Disney has done this more than any other animation company I believe, even more than those Gods at Pixar.

Chicken Little was a stinker that tried to copy PIXAR and Dreamworks at every turn...

And I'm surprised Escapay or I haven't killed you yet.

Anyway, if you're talking about financially, well Chicken Little happened to gross more than Treasure Planet and Home on the Range combined and grossed more than Brother Bear, so technically, Chicken Little was a success.

As for artistically "tried to copy Pixar and Dreamworks at everyturn" *sigh*.....NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

Chicken Little isn't anything like Pixar, it's way better and more creative than Pixar. If Pixar made Chicken Little, I'm sure it's be about aliens who capture Abby Mallard, Chicken Little, the serious and heroic one, teams up with Runt-Of-The-Litter, the wacky comic relief, and they go to the "outside" world(space) and cover many episodic adventures. Sounds like every single other Pixar film(with the excpetion of "The Incredibles") now doesn't it?

I really believe people say it's "trying to copy Pixar" because it was computer animated. Had it been hand-drawn, I don't think it would. Oh yeah, that father and son "relationship"(which is just like Nemo), well, I could almost name a hundred animated films that had "father/son relationships" including Treasure Planet. And frankly I think pretty much almost any other animated film that has a father/son relationship is better at it than Nemo is(yep, Chicken Little included ).

Dreamworks? No way. How can you say that? If you mean "pop-culture" references, definitely not. There were only about 5 pop-culture jokes(Shrek, SharkTale and sadly, Aardman's recent "Flushed Away" having millions) which I think is hardly enough to age a movie. With that said, I guess Aladdin was copying Dreamworks with pop-culture references despite the fact it was made before Dreamworks existed. Heck, pop-culture references exist almost as long as animation has.

Well, I'll stop now, as I can go one pointing out the specific aspects of "Chicken Little" that make it an absolute masterpiece, anyway, I understand we all have different opinions and to each their own and I can see why some may totally dislike it, and respect your opinion slave2moonlight but, IT DESERVES BETTER THAN TO BE CALLED A FINDING NEMO OR SHREK RIP OFF AS IT'S NOT, AND EVEN IF IT WAS, THERE'S SOO MORE TO IT THAN THAT.

*breathes* okay where was I? Oh yeah, about fairy tales.

Anyway, I don't mind if Disney makes a couple fairy tales every so often, but I definitely agree it's never a good thing for Disney to do just princess stories. It gets formulatic and tiring eventually as critics can tell you. Disney has tried so many new genres and stories recently, and while I admit they're not all great, they should be given credit for their creativity and originality at least. As for me, a guy who has loved Disney all his life, but never really cared too much of the princesses(my favorite of the "Fab Four" unsurprisingly happens to be The Lion King, the least "Princess-esque" of them) I think it's only good Disney tries new concepts, stories and genres. When Walt was alive, after Snow White was released, he didn't release Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty right after that, he tooks risks and tackled different projects(even to this day, Fantasia still remains unique to anything ever done). Why can't Disney today do the same or something similar?

As far as Treasure Planet goes, I definitely doubt any Disney executive wanted a movie with such a high budget to fail. HOTR, maybe, but not Treasure Planet. As for artistically, I think it's a great film. I still believe it's the Fantasia of Sleeping Beauty of today, which weren't raved when first released, but in time turned into beloved classics. I believe Treasure Planet will get more love as the years go by.

Jens wrote:

In my honest opinion I think the whole thing of Treasure Planet "bombing" at the box office was just because it costed too much. The company used way too much budget on getting the handdrawn animation and CGI blend together correctly (but they did achieve). The film did well on it's release and a lot of people loved it (altough it was critisized on not having true Disney songs), but it could have never earned as much as the budget or top it, and that's why it officially bombed. I have no sources for this, but I heard this was the official statement Disney made (or at least some staff of the movie)... I don't think Disney would have let a film with a budget like that bomb. I would believe that for "Home on the Range" and "Brother Bear" (that last one only in the USA), but not for Treasure Planet.

Regardless of what the film cost to make, "Treasure Planet" only made $38 million in it's U.S. release. Not looking at what it cost to make, that is still a bomb for an animated feature and especially for a family film released during the peak holiday season. I personally feel the poor attendance records was due to the way in which the film was marketed. They didn't try to advertise the film to whole families. They almost exclusively advertised it to boys between the ages of 6 and 12. What did the trailor and TV spots show? Jim riding his rediculously cool hover-board-sail thing that every kid in that age group wished was real and the big ship going at light speed through space. I'm not saying that was a bad move, but it greatly limited the appeal so who ended up seeing the film in theaters? Mostly 1-2 adults bringing between 1-3 children, one of which if not all were between 6 and 12 and primarily boys. A film like this up against the cross-gender cross-age group appealing "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" had no chance for success. Disney knew Harry Potter was coming out. That didn't make them think "Gee... maybe we should bump this up or push it back so we can let the Potter craze die down..." like every other studio with a big budget film did. So in the end was "Treasure Planet" a failure? Worldwide total box office gross: $109 million. Cost to make the film without any form of marketing: $140 million. I don't know who originally said this, but "the only reason to go into business is to make money." "Treasure Planet" didn't make money until it's home video release, and it didn't have great sales on DVD. No matter which way you try to look at it, "Treasure Planet" failed and Disney could have tried a little harder by releasing it in the spring and having a more appealing add campaign. Also, I don't think anybody was waiting for Jim and Long John Silver to burst into song about their friendship when a Disney character hadn't burst into song since Tarzan's mother sang him 2 lines of "You'll Be in My Heart" in 1999. "Brother Bear" earned $250 million worldwide and "Home on the Range" earned $50 million domestically, $12 million more than "Treasure Planet" in the US... I think Disney deffinatley let this film bomb and bomb it did no matter what state of denial anyone at Disney is in.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:

slave2moonlight wrote: Right now, it's hard to see anything past the princesses, unless it's PIXAR. Even Pooh seems to be less noticable behind the princesses nowadays!

Obviously you forgot about a cute fluffy alien named "Stitch" and a drunk pirate named "Jac... er Captain Jack Sparrow".

Ha, well, I didn't see too much of Stitch last time I went, but you're right about the Pirates of the Caribbean Stuff. I guess I was thinking more about the animated films. I actually love the princesses myself, and Stitch, and Pooh, and Pirates, but I really miss the days when Disney Stores were FULL of Disney variety. I will give them credit for covering a movie well in the stores when it comes out. I know that when Treasure Planet came out, they did have a lot of related merchandise. Though, I think they had it on clearance pretty fast. I got all the plush toys that way. Well, Jim, Long John, BEN and the Captain, anyway. I also got all the Happy Meal toys from Treasure Planet, which each came with a piece to make the sphere shaped "Treasure Map." Very cool!

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:And I'm surprised Escapay or I haven't killed you yet.

Anyway, if you're talking about financially, well Chicken Little happened to gross more than Treasure Planet and Home on the Range combined and grossed more than Brother Bear, so technically, Chicken Little was a success.

Well, I wasn't talking about financially, ha. I blind-bought it on DVD one day because I had high hopes. I quickly grew disappointed as I watched. I have only disliked two theatrical Disney animated films, Chicken Little and Atlantis. I haven't seen Home on the Range, Valiant, The Wild, or the Heffalump Movie yet though. Oh, I also didn't LOVE James and the Giant Peach, ha.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:As for artistically "tried to copy Pixar and Dreamworks at everyturn" *sigh*.....NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!

Chicken Little isn't anything like Pixar, it's way better and more creative than Pixar. If Pixar made Chicken Little, I'm sure it's be about aliens who capture Abby Mallard, Chicken Little, the serious and heroic one, teams up with Runt-Of-The-Litter, the wacky comic relief, and they go to the "outside" world(space) and cover many episodic adventures. Sounds like every single other Pixar film(with the excpetion of "The Incredibles") now doesn't it?

Uh, no, not really. I can see you're blinded by love though, and that's cool. It's all good.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote: I really believe people say it's "trying to copy Pixar" because it was computer animated. Had it been hand-drawn, I don't think it would. Oh yeah, that father and son "relationship"(which is just like Nemo), well, I could almost name a hundred animated films that had "father/son relationships" including Treasure Planet. And frankly I think pretty much almost any other animated film that has a father/son relationship is better at it than Nemo is(yep, Chicken Little included ).

Ha, well, okay, but I don't think all father and son relationships, even in films, are the same. There wasn't even a father/son relationship in Treasure Planet. It was about Jim's desire to have one and John filling that void for him, and the difficulties involved with that (him being a bad guy and all). Very different. Of course, the father/son thing in Chicken Little wasn't the same as in Nemo, but it was still about a real father who had lost his wife and was struggling with his relationship with his son as a single dad, not to mention with having some confidence in the boy. The fact that it came so soon after the big hit "Finding Nemo" makes it really feel like a copycat idea. The fact that it feels forced and contrived makes it seem inferior and possibly unnecessary, and all the more "copied." And, I'm sure there were a lot of other things I found that reminded me of PIXAR, but I have purposely not watched it in quite some time.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote: Dreamworks? No way. How can you say that? If you mean "pop-culture" references, definitely not. There were only about 5 pop-culture jokes(Shrek, SharkTale and sadly, Aardman's recent "Flushed Away" having millions) which I think is hardly enough to age a movie. With that said, I guess Aladdin was copying Dreamworks with pop-culture references despite the fact it was made before Dreamworks existed. Heck, pop-culture references exist almost as long as animation has.

Well, no one is claiming SharkTale was better than Chicken Little. I haven't had the displeasure of watching SharkTale. I also haven't seen Flushed Away, but I assume it's very good, because I have faith in Aardman so far. Though, it might not be as good as previous Aardman films, and that's what everyone says. The thing about Aladdin copying Dreamworks is a little silly, and I never even said I was talking about Pop Culture references, ha. But, now that you bring it up, they are definitely done in the more blatant style in Chicken Little, as they are in films like Shrek and other non-Disney/PIXAR CGI films. More than that though, what really made me think instantly of Shrek when I watched Chicken Little were the sorts of songs they used. Didn't they even have a sing-a-long thing at the end? Sorry, it's been a while since I've seen this movie, or I'd point out more similarities.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote: Well, I'll stop now, as I can go one pointing out the specific aspects of "Chicken Little" that make it an absolute masterpiece, anyway, I understand we all have different opinions and to each their own and I can see why some may totally dislike it, and respect your opinion slave2moonlight but, IT DESERVES BETTER THAN TO BE CALLED A FINDING NEMO OR SHREK RIP OFF AS IT'S NOT, AND EVEN IF IT WAS, THERE'S SOO MORE TO IT THAN THAT.

Okay, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that, ha. Personally, it looked like an attempt by Disney to forcibly make a hit computer animated film by taking all sorts of ideas from computer animated films that came before it and combining it into one movie with all this stuff that they think people like. Kids love aliens! Adults love jokes about psychology! Oy. I will give them credit for Fish. Fish was funny. There were some good ideas here and there. The visuals were obviously top drawer, too, though the only character designs I liked were Chicken Little and Fish. Still, it tried too hard to be a crowd pleaser and came out more like a mess. But that's just my take on it.

goofystitch wrote:I personally feel the poor attendance records was due to the way in which the film was marketed. They didn't try to advertise the film to whole families. They almost exclusively advertised it to boys between the ages of 6 and 12. What did the trailor and TV spots show? Jim riding his rediculously cool hover-board-sail thing that every kid in that age group wished was real and the big ship going at light speed through space. I'm not saying that was a bad move, but it greatly limited the appeal so who ended up seeing the film in theaters? Mostly 1-2 adults bringing between 1-3 children, one of which if not all were between 6 and 12 and primarily boys.

But then, aren't most of the Princess Films marketed at girls between the ages of 6-12?

It's getting harder and harder to get boys into the cinema to see animation, and I honestly don't think a Princess based film will do it these days. Peer expectations and pressure are different now to what they were even like in the early 90s. These days young boys do want adventure, guns and explosions... even in their animated films. Disney saw the appeal of animation was changing and decided to address a declining market. It may of been the wrong decision, but at least they tried.

And then there's Cars, which I still have unwatched on DVD after 3 or 4 weeks (the Australian 2 disc release). I honestly cannot drum up much enthusiasm for this film, and always find something else to put on instead. Admittedly, that lack of enthusiasm is based on the trailers to a large extent (none of them "gelled" with me) but its also because of the subjects of the film. I have next to no interest in cars (the vehicles) what-so-ever. I can't even recognise most makes and models on the roads around me. I couldn't imagine a film with characters any more unappealing (to me). I suspect a lot of the female audience, especially the 5-10 year girls will feel the same as me. I can't even imagine how Cars got greenlit in the first place - it is after all potentially alienating a large percentage of the family film audience.

slave2moonlight wrote:Okay, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that, ha. Personally, it looked like an attempt by Disney to forcibly make a hit computer animated film by taking all sorts of ideas from computer animated films that came before it and combining it into one movie with all this stuff that they think people like. Kids love aliens! Adults love jokes about psychology! Oy. I will give them credit for Fish. Fish was funny. There were some good ideas here and there. The visuals were obviously top drawer, too, though the only character designs I liked were Chicken Little and Fish. Still, it tried too hard to be a crowd pleaser and came out more like a mess. But that's just my take on it.

Oddly, although I do like Chicken Little a lot, I thought Fish was one of the weakest aspects. Ho hum, everyone's different.

I see Chicken Little as a contiunation of The Emperors New Groove another film with pop-culture references, forth-wall breaking asides to the audience, and an incredibly surreal plot. Both were written and directed by Mark Dindal, and *gasp* New Groove was released before Shrek.

IMDB lists the following "Movie Connection" for New Groove.
* The Wizard of Oz (1939)
* Pinocchio (1940)
* Song of the South (1946)
* North by Northwest (1959)
* The Sword in the Stone (1963)
* "Batman" (1966)
* "Saturday Night Live" (1975)
* Superman (1978)
* The Blues Brothers (1980)
* Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
* Titanic (1997)
Spoofs
* The Wizard of Oz (1939)
* The Fly (1958)
* The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
* Riverdance: The Show (1995)
* Tarzan (1999)

While it lists the following for "Chicken Little"
* Star Wars (1977)
* Saturday Night Fever (1977)
* Alien (1979)
* Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
* "The Simpsons" (1989)
* "Beverly Hills, 90210" (1990)
* Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Spoofs:
* King Kong (1933)
* Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
* E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
* Scarface (1983)
* The Lion King (1994)
* "Friends" (1994)
* Independence Day (1996)
* The Princess Diaries (2001)
* Signs (2002)
* The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
* War of the Worlds (2005)

It's not 100% scientific, but it shows "pop-culture" referencing was in Disney films long before Shrek, and when the writer/creator of New Groove made his follow-up film, it was in the same style as his own film, not Shrek. Just as some people think its lazy to copy other films, I think its lazy to simply label a film as a copy without looking into it in more detail. (This isn't a dig at you or anyone else on this forum S2M, I'm making a dig at the "critics" who can write vast essays on the career and styles of directors like Steven Speilberg or David Lynch, but because the film they are reviewing is "only animation for kids" don't bother to look the history of the film's creators to spot consistant themes and styles)

This of course totally ignores if you think the film was good or bad, which is a matter of opinion.

Personally I like Chicken Little. I like the characters, I like the voice cast. I like how its the first time we see proper "rubber banding" in CGI animation. And I like (most) of the pop-culture references.

2099net wrote:

But then, aren't most of the Princess Films marketed at girls between the ages of 6-12?

It's getting harder and harder to get boys into the cinema to see animation, and I honestly don't think a Princess based film will do it these days. Peer expectations and pressure are different now to what they were even like in the early 90s. These days young boys do want adventure, guns and explosions... even in their animated films. Disney saw the appeal of animation was changing and decided to address a declining market. It may of been the wrong decision, but at least they tried.

And then there's Cars, which I still have unwatched on DVD after 3 or 4 weeks (the Australian 2 disc release). I honestly cannot drum up much enthusiasm for this film, and always find something else to put on instead. Admittedly, that lack of enthusiasm is based on the trailers to a large extent (none of them "gelled" with me) but its also because of the subjects of the film. I have next to no interest in cars (the vehicles) what-so-ever. I can't even recognise most makes and models on the roads around me. I couldn't imagine a film with characters any more unappealing (to me). I suspect a lot of the female audience, especially the 5-10 year girls will feel the same as me. I can't even imagine how Cars got greenlit in the first place - it is after all potentially alienating a large percentage of the family film audience.

I'm not a market alalyzer, but for whatever reason it seems like Princess films always draw big numbers. The audience is primarily girls as you said, but there is the whole adventure factor that each one has that gets boys interested and there is the comedic secondary cast that appeals to almost everyone universally. I remember thinking the Beast was so cool when I was 7 and "Beauty and the Beast" came out and laughing hysterically at Cogsworth. Times have changed, but even in these times 2 films about a teenage geek becoming a princess can gross over $100 million domestically which means that more than just girls are seeing these films, implying the whole family is somehow drawn to them. As for "Cars," it was the number 1 animated film of the year, so your personal disinterest in motorized vehicles aside, it does have universal appeal. You should really give it a chance because it's really a character story. It doesn't matter what car is what model. There are a few jokes pertaining to that, such as the 40's army Jeep Sarge thinking the 60's VW Bus is completely off his rocker, but those kind of jokes can be picked up by anyone who can identify those two cars with the era. It really is a funny movie with a good story and while interest in cars often gets placed more among males, I think the stereotype is wrong because I don't know a girl yet who hasn't seen my dad's Mustang and didn't know what it was and didn't want a ride, but then again, I'm from Wisconsin and we eat people... (joke. Dommer anyone?)

I did not like the part of the hypno cows, because I felt it was a concept that has been done before. If they wanted to portray dancing cows they could have done it in many ways, instead they tried to copy the "be my guest scene" from "Beaty and the Beast". It has the same zoom out where suddenly there are a million cows, instead of plates in BatB. They also flash colour! I just didnt like the technique. I do like the pink elephant scene from Dumbo! It scared me as a kid but the scene is great if I look back on it.

Chicken Little appealed very little to me but I dont know if it has anything to do with me not knowing the backstory to Chicken Little. I never grew up with the Chicken Little stories, so I dont know if that is a factor. I liked how they marketed the film though, with Chicken singing that East European song, oeyahee, oeyahaa. I liked the animation I must say, but the story just didnt click with me.

Same with Cars, I thought it was alright and nothing special. I Know there are some Nemo haters on this forum, but that movie stays on the top of my list when it comes to Pixar films. The Film is actually funny with minimal pop-culture references! Shark Tale was horrible!!!

I really think that Disney might have attempted to sacrifice Treasure Planet to make a valid point in the company that 2D was a dead road. Also they could have pushed it back as stated before, in a period where Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Santa Claus 2 AND Pokemon: The Movie. There was no reason to release this feature at that time, as Disney is staying clear of Christmas times ussualy if they do not have a Christmas type movie.

The Merman wrote: I really think that Disney might have attempted to sacrifice Treasure Planet to make a valid point in the company that 2D was a dead road. Also they could have pushed it back as stated before, in a period where Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Santa Claus 2 AND Pokemon: The Movie. There was no reason to release this feature at that time, as Disney is staying clear of Christmas times ussualy if they do not have a Christmas type movie.

As I understood it, they couldn't because they were under contract with McDonalds (or evil McDonands I should say, because they alone are responsible for 101% of the world's suffering) to deliver a new animated film at that time so McDonalds could make some evil Happy Meal toys.

2099net wrote: I see Chicken Little as a contiunation of The Emperors New Groove another film with pop-culture references, forth-wall breaking asides to the audience, and an incredibly surreal plot. Both were written and directed by Mark Dindal, and *gasp* New Groove was released before Shrek.

IMDB lists the following "Movie Connection" for New Groove.
* The Wizard of Oz (1939)
* Pinocchio (1940)
* Song of the South (1946)
* North by Northwest (1959)
* The Sword in the Stone (1963)
* "Batman" (1966)
* "Saturday Night Live" (1975)
* Superman (1978)
* The Blues Brothers (1980)
* Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
* Titanic (1997)
Spoofs
* The Wizard of Oz (1939)
* The Fly (1958)
* The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
* Riverdance: The Show (1995)
* Tarzan (1999)

While it lists the following for "Chicken Little"
* Star Wars (1977)
* Saturday Night Fever (1977)
* Alien (1979)
* Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
* "The Simpsons" (1989)
* "Beverly Hills, 90210" (1990)
* Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Spoofs:
* King Kong (1933)
* Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
* E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
* Scarface (1983)
* The Lion King (1994)
* "Friends" (1994)
* Independence Day (1996)
* The Princess Diaries (2001)
* Signs (2002)
* The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
* War of the Worlds (2005)

It's not 100% scientific, but it shows "pop-culture" referencing was in Disney films long before Shrek, and when the writer/creator of New Groove made his follow-up film, it was in the same style as his own film, not Shrek. Just as some people think its lazy to copy other films, I think its lazy to simply label a film as a copy without looking into it in more detail. (This isn't a dig at you or anyone else on this forum S2M, I'm making a dig at the "critics" who can write vast essays on the career and styles of directors like Steven Speilberg or David Lynch, but because the film they are reviewing is "only animation for kids" don't bother to look the history of the film's creators to spot consistant themes and styles)

This of course totally ignores if you think the film was good or bad, which is a matter of opinion.

Personally I like Chicken Little. I like the characters, I like the voice cast. I like how its the first time we see proper "rubber banding" in CGI animation. And I like (most) of the pop-culture references.

Some of those Emperor's New Groove references sound like stretches, especially since I just saw the film again a week or so ago. Of course, it's possible that, as I said before, the pop culture references seemed a lot less subtle in Chicken Little (a la Shrek). No, I'm not saying there aren't blatant pop culture references in Emperor's New Groove, the Riverdancing for example, but most of them aren't as blunt as that one, and none as extreme as, say, including a clip from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Though, I confess that it was one of the highpoints of Chicken Little. No, I could never see Chicken Little as a continuation of Emperor's New Groove, because even with the asides to the audience, I felt Emperor's New Groove was a lot more subtle than Chicken Little, even if it wasn't very subtle compared to other films. It's not hard to believe that filmmakers who already like using "modern humor"/pop-culture referencing, one of the easiest ways to make a comedy aside from toilet humor, might take a cue from more successful films when making their next film. I get the impression that films like Shrek gave the folks behind Chicken Little the idea of being even more extreme with their gags than they were in Emperor's New Groove. Plus, as we learn from the filmmakers in the audio commentary of Emperor's New Groove, part of the humor in the pop culture references in that film was that you totally don't expect pop culture references in a film about an Incan Emperor. That makes them a lot funnier.

However, like I said when I was talking about copying Dreamworks, and of course, speaking largely of Shrek, I was referring more to other areas, like the songs used, which STRONGLY reminded me of Shrek, not Emperor's New Groove. Even the scenes in which they were used reminded me of Shrek. These, in my opinion, were majorly weak points that really hurt the film, because they literally screamed "Shrek!" to me. I honestly don't know how anyone could argue that there wasn't some copying from Shrek and PIXAR in Chicken Little with a straight face. The film seems so desperate in its attempt to be considered the next Shrek or Finding Nemo.

As I understood it, they couldn't because they were under contract with McDonalds (or evil McDonands I should say, because they alone are responsible for 101% of the world's suffering) to deliver a new animated film at that time so McDonalds could make some evil Happy Meal toys.

You mihgt have a valid point! McDonald is 101% evil. And Disney might have been under a contract to release this film at a certain time. I never thought about the contract with McDo, i am so happy that they are terminating the contract.

Interesting about McDonalds(which could be part of the case) but I have to say the trailers are what mostly made Treasure Planet fail. The “teaser trailer” really didn't show much (if anything) of the story. All they really showed was Jim flying on his solar surfer which people thought looked ridiculous, even I was kind a “eh” about it. And they hardly showed the second trailer that explained the story, so I really believe those are what disinterested people sadly. Had they made better trailers, I believe Treasure Planet could’ve done much better.

Of course, it also didn’t help to release it in such a jam-packed end of the year, but there’s really hardly anything Disney could’ve done about that.

slave2moonlight wrote:

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:Sounds like every single other Pixar film(with the excpetion of "The Incredibles") now doesn't it?

Uh, no, not really. I can see you're blinded by love though, and that's cool. It's all good.

Well Chicken Little aside, while Netty and I have already said it other threads, Pixar tends to keep the same formula. They're buddy comedies and they feel the same as there's one buddy(Woody, Sully, Marlin, Lightning McQueen) who is the "normal/straight" one who is also the main character who's trying to solve the plot, while the other(Buzz, Mike, Dory and to some extent Mater) as wacky sidekicks mostly used as comic relief. And they also go to "worlds" they're not familiar with; toys going to outside of the room, monsters exploring the human world, a cowardly fish explores the dangerous depth of the ocean, McQueen goes to a world away from racing. And that' just the tip of the iceberg of Pixar’s similarities.

Now in the end, it shouldn’t really matter how original a film is as long as the film entertains you(which most Pixar films do), but if critics(and sadly even a few fans) keep knocking Disney by everything they do and say "they need to be more like Pixar", it's only fair to point out these quite obvious(imo) similarities. While HOTR and Chicken Little aren't flawless(CL being as close to perfection as possible though ) I think they should at least get credits due, especially story as they're quite original concepts and differ Disney from their past works than any of the Pixar films have done.

slave2moonlight wrote:
Ha, well, okay, but I don't think all father and son relationships, even in films, are the same. There wasn't even a father/son relationship in Treasure Planet. It was about Jim's desire to have one and John filling that void for him, and the difficulties involved with that (him being a bad guy and all). Very different. Of course, the father/son thing in Chicken Little wasn't the same as in Nemo, but it was still about a real father who had lost his wife and was struggling with his relationship with his son as a single dad, not to mention with having some confidence in the boy. The fact that it came so soon after the big hit "Finding Nemo" makes it really feel like a copycat idea. The fact that it feels forced and contrived makes it seem inferior and possibly unnecessary, and all the more "copied." And, I'm sure there were a lot of other things I found that reminded me of PIXAR, but I have purposely not watched it in quite some time.

Well the one thing I don't like about Nemo is that you never feel for the relationship. You never really felt like these characters went through relatable relationships, mainly because they're seperated for most of the film, and frankly couldn’t care for them. Chicken Little basically feels he's "lost" in a sense that he achieve his father's appreciation, while Buck just wants Chicken Little to live well after a big mistake and not to be embarrassed by his son. The father/son relationship may be more comical, but these characters felt like characters in real life you cared for and I felt more emotion in this than in Nemo which did nothing for me.

slave2moonlight wrote:However, like I said when I was talking about copying Dreamworks, and of course, speaking largely of Shrek, I was referring more to other areas, like the songs used, which STRONGLY reminded me of Shrek, not Emperor's New Groove. Even the scenes in which they were used reminded me of Shrek. These, in my opinion, were majorly weak points that really hurt the film, because they literally screamed "Shrek!" to me. I honestly don't know how anyone could argue that there wasn't some copying from Shrek and PIXAR in Chicken Little with a straight face. The film seems so desperate in its attempt to be considered the next Shrek or Finding Nemo.

Well, not really. The song at the end and references to songs like Spice Girls were really to develop character for Runt-Of-The-Litter. And the others; “One Little Slip”, “Stir It Up”, “All I Know” and “It's The End Of The World As We Know It” were really put it to get you into the mood of the film. To me, it worked wonderfully, as I liked the songs and the scenes they were in; it worked much better than Shrek imo. In fact, I don’t see how it’s much different then the use of music in Toy Story or Tarzan. As for the soundtrack itself, subtract the craptacular Cheetah Girls and it’s actually a pretty good soundtrack.

And for your last statement about ripping off Nemo or Shrek, well I really don’t think it’s much different from people who claim “Antz” or “SharkTale” were rip-offs of A Bug’s Life and Finding Nemo which I don’t buy either.

Chicken Little had a really cool sci-fi twist which no computer animated film before Chicken Little had. The story also went through many story drafts, heck, just watch that short(sadly a bit fluffy ) 18 minute documentary on the DVDs, and you’ll see the filmmakers said they wanted to be respectful for the first film from Disney of a new medium, so they based a lot of characters’ movements/designs and jokes from old Mickey/Donald/Goofy shorts, so that should put an end to the whole “rip-off” argument.

I agree with Netty and think it is somewhat of a continuation of the Emperor’s New Groove, as I believe ENG helped somewhat inspire other companies, including Dreamworks, so Chicken Little was simply continuing Mark Dindal’s style of humor, just maybe a little more direct as people wanted a definite style.

Even if they did get somewhat inspired by competition, well, pretty much everyone in the entertainment business does that anyway. I mean, you can’t deny a large part of the reason Narina was made was because of the success of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. Superman and Batman already had movies, so technically didn’t “need” to be made, but Warner Brother made new “originals” just so they could compete with Marvel. So it’s not just Chicken Little that would have done that if it did do it.

Overall, to say Chicken Little is a rip-off of Shrek or Finding Nemo I feel is wrong. I think it’s clear there are quite a few differences and that Chicken Little deserves to at least be considered original, especially since people keep saying Pixar is original when they seem to follow the same formula most of the time.

I do not think that Chicken Little is a rip off, it just didnt appeal to me as a movie. Pixar does have a lot of the same formula, except for The Incredible. That is why I think it is received so good.

BTW does anyone know why in Brother Bear 2 they used the voice of Patrick Dempsey instaed of Pheonix from the first movie. It just seems a bit strange seeing as Pheonix isnt dead. I mean they ussualy only change the voices if the actors are dead...