Pixar execs "yank" Gnomeo and Juliet!

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

2.) The mere notion of that is absurd - track records are perfectly reasonable tools for predicting future quality.

Okay, I'll give you the other two, but I don't know why that point was "absurd".

Can you honestly compare "Treasure Planet" to "Chicken Little"?

These two movies are part of the "current dark age" but aside from that, they're almost completely different.

Meet The Robinsons, from the looks of it, shaping up nicely. Sure there have been films in the past 10 years that I didn't like at all(Pocahontas, The Hunchback, Atlantis), but yet I still admit these were part of a dark time for Disney and they shouldn't be used against this or Gnomeo and Juliet.

3) It's not so much Pixar that I put my trust in as some of the individuals associated with Pixar, in particular Brad Bird and John Lasseter.

While I do agree with you and really admire both Bird and Lasseter, I'm pretty sure they won't make pure gold for the rest of their film carrears.

I mean everybody who had a "golden touch" like Pixar has to fall sometime. This even happened to our beloved Disney(though, I would argue that there have been a lot of great films after The Lion King, but there have been a few films I admit not liking).

Also, Steve Jobs became the biggest shareholder at Disney!

Now, I respect Jobs as a buissness man for Apple, I really think a person like him would somewhat bring downfall to the company.

Disney has always been a company where "creative talent were in charge". Jobs is just a guy who loves money and will throw out even "cheapquels" to get it.

Yes, Michael Eisner had problems that I didn't like, but will Jobs on the Disney board really be a "big help"?

[Karushifa]

While I do agree with you and really admire both Bird and Lasseter, I'm pretty sure they won't make pure gold for the rest of their film carrears.

I mean everybody who had a "golden touch" like Pixar has to fall sometime. This even happened to our beloved Disney(though, I would argue that there have been a lot of great films after The Lion King, but there have been a few films I admit not liking).

Also, Steve Jobs became the biggest shareholder at Disney!

Now, I respect Jobs as a buissness man for Apple, I really think a person like him would somewhat bring downfall to the company.

Disney has always been a company where "creative talent were in charge". Jobs is just a guy who loves money and will throw out even "cheapquels" to get it.

Yes, Michael Eisner had problems that I didn't like, but will Jobs on the Disney board really be a "big help"?

First with Bird and Lasseter...you seem to be seeing them with the same doom-colored glasses that some people here seem to be viewing the current "dark age" that WDFA is in. I can't see exactly what will happen in the future. No one really can. Will this Pixar/Disney deal work or will it fail? All I can really do is hope for it to succeed, and I don't think that Lasseter and Bird are infallible. But I trust them to at least try to do the right thing. That's different from hailing them as saviors and claiming they can do no wrong. If one keeps sitting around waiting for the Big Pixar Screw-up Crash & Burn to happen, then they aren't going to be very happy for the next several years. Sure, bad things may happen. But good things may happen too, and I feel that with the people in charge right now, there is a good possibility of this.

As for Jobs...I wouldn't worry for the near future. For one, he's not in exactly the position that Eisner was in...that's Iger's job. And if the aim of Apple is to make ol' Steve tons of money, I gotta admit that they like to go about it in some creative ways. Disney is already a huge business with lots of different cash cows to fall back on, so anyone with half a clue isn't going to over-manage WDFA into the ground for the sake of making a few extra million on box office and merchandising. Hell, they've already shelved Toy Story 3, and probably mercifully so, so there's at least a small indication that the new guard might not be all about franchise-milking. One big problem with Eisner was that he was stubborn as hell, and couldn't really see how his management was worsening over his tenure. I would hope that the next few years at least will be a probationary period for the new folks in upper management, and that neither Jobs nor Iger will be allowed to make the same kind of mistakes that have turned a fair number of folks off to Disney recently. You never know, of course, but all you can do is hope for the best.

[Prince Eric]

I think what you're missing Timon/Pumba Fan is the perception of what constitutes a Disney dark age. It is believed that that there are three Disney "golden ages": the first consisting of the original five, the second encompassing the 50's and early 60's films, and then third, the long line of Disney musicals in the 90's. No one I know or have read has ever considered Pocahontas the beginning of a supposed "dark age." While the films following The Lion King were not as successful financially, they were still very much a part of mainstream culture. Tarzan is usually considered the end of the third Disney golden age, and everything afterward consititues the third Disney Dark Age. So...you're perception of my opinion of Disney is skewed, because I only criticize the films of THIS decade. Those titles alone are enough to make me cringe. I don't know why you think people who criticize Disney today are constantly "comparing." A good film is a good film regardless of genre. When I, and others, say that Treasure Planet and Chicken Little are not as good as Aladdin or The Lion King, we're not talking genre or concept or whatever you're thinking. Simply put, Aladdin and The Lion King are what you call GOOD MOVIES. Treasure Planet and Chicken Little are not. Oh, and the last two do have things in common: they're bad.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

No one I know or have read has ever considered Pocahontas the beginning of a supposed "dark age." While the films following The Lion King were not as successful financially, they were still very much a part of mainstream culture. Tarzan is usually considered the end of the third Disney golden age, and everything afterward consititues the third Disney Dark Age.

Actually, I've heard several people claim "The Lion King" was the last great animated Disney film. (With an exception like Lilo and Stitch or Mulan)

So...you're perception of my opinion of Disney is skewed, because I only criticize the films of THIS decade. Those titles alone are enough to make me cringe.

But, with the exception of Home on the Range and Atlantis, all of the movie I'm defending DO have a positive factor in either box office scores, audience feed back or critics feedback.

I don't know why you think people who criticize Disney today are constantly "comparing." A good film is a good film regardless of genre.

Well, some people compare "Home on the Range" to "Beauty and the Beast".

Well, now that is unfair!

I remember reading a thread last year that had someone saying Disney should make "Broadway musicals" again. But a lot of the recent films would look MUCH worse with "Broadyway style songs".

So in other words, yeah, people do compare films regardless of their genre, which is unfair.

When I, and others, say that Treasure Planet and Chicken Little are not as good as Aladdin or The Lion King, we're not talking genre or concept or whatever you're thinking. Simply put, Aladdin and The Lion King are what you call GOOD MOVIES. Treasure Planet and Chicken Little are not. Oh, and the last two do have things in common: they're bad.

While I agree, Chicken Little and Treasure Planet AREN'T as good as the other two movies you mentioned, I don't think you can really compare the four of them at all.

IMO, Treasure Planet and Chickne Little are really good films on their own. Decent reviews for the first and decent B.O. scores for the latter prove some people agree with me.

All in all, I still say Meet the Robinsons can turn out well without Pixar. With decent feedback so far, and a more "serious" effort, I say Disney can have a chance at greatness.

[Prince Eric]

There's no point in discussing anything with you Timon/Pumba Fan, because you repeat everything I respond to. "I don't think you can compare the four." Didn't I just say no one is comparing anything? Man, you're exasperating.

[Escapay]

Man, you're exasperating.

I'd take an exasperating poster over a smug poster any day of the week, but that's just me.

Escapay

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

"I don't think you can compare the four." Didn't I just say no one is comparing anything? Man, you're exasperating.

But the thing is, a lot of people(mainly nay-sayers to the recent films) ARE comparing them.

[Prince Eric]

"I don't think you can compare the four." Didn't I just say no one is comparing anything? Man, you're exasperating.

But the thing is, a lot of people(mainly nay-sayers to the recent films) ARE comparing them.

Yeah, and I'm telling YOU that when people say Chicken Little is not as good as Beauty and the Beast, that is NOT a comparison. They are merely stating what is a good film, based on merits.

[Wonderlicious]

Man, you're exasperating.

I'd take an exasperating poster over a smug poster any day of the week, but that's just me.

Escapay

No, it's not just you. I prefer the "inferior" to the "elite" as well...

[ichabod]

No, it's not just you. I prefer the "inferior" to the "elite" as well...

I think that last line calls for a Married...With Kids style 'whooooooooo'

[2099net]

Yeah, and I'm telling YOU that when people say Chicken Little is not as good as Beauty and the Beast, that is NOT a comparison. They are merely stating what is a good film, based on merits.

How can you say that? The very constuct "not as good as" is a comparison, and the two films are named as clear as day. If a more general "not as good as other films" comment was intended, people could have phrased their wording much better.

Chicken Little is a totally different film genre. Just because they are both animated doesn't mean that they are the same. Comparisons between Chicken Little and Beauty and the Beast are unfair.

As most people will know, I'm not a big Shrek fan, but Chicken Little shares more in common with those films than most of Disney's past films. And as a comparison to Shrek I think Chicken Little is much better.

Personally, I felt Chicken Little dipped when the alien parents were introduced (but I know some critics thought these were the best part of the movie, showing that you can't please everybody all of the time).

Yes, it has pop culture references and tunes (although unlike Luke's review I don't think these were choosen on a marketing whim - Wannabe, I Will Survive and Runt's "Strisend" album comment actually describes something about his character in the only way Disney would be able to in a "family" film... and I'll leave it at that), it has a good number of genre film spoofs, just as clever or more so than Shrek's and it clearly has a better, more talented voice cast than Shrek, despite the fact they're not all "big" Hollywood names and aren't being paid sixty-five gazillion dollars to do the voice work.

The story is random, but when watching such films, the story isn't important. Monty Python films have the smallest strands of a narrative plot, and Airplane/Naked Gun films use a single event as a plot strand. Yet, despite not having a solid, densely plotted through "arc", Chicken Little still manages to stir the emotions. So there is good filmmaking in there.

So Chicken Little has, for me at least the following:

* Great voice work from the majority of the cast
* with a good, free flowing, improvised feel (which I assume most of the dialogue was)
* excellent hyperactive animation in CGI without attempting to model "reality" like so many CGI films do getting bogged down with physics and lighting
* a more realistic father/son relationship then the one in Nemo (there, I've said it)
* a wonderfully likeable lead character who deserves to be as big a Disney icon as Stitch has become
* lots of nerdy sci-fi jokes and references for my inner geek
* I think, over all, it had a "British" sense of humour. I have a feeling it may have played better over here than in America.

Sadly it also has

* poor CGI environments (for the most part). I never felt they belonged 100% with the characters
* a somewhat frantic, yet episodic storyline, with no real knock-down climax (also applies to Nemo though, if you remove the "frantic")
* perhaps too many verbal and not enough visual gags
* the lack of the Pixar name on the titles.

It's not a perfect film, it has faults, but it's unfair to compare it to something like Beauty and the Beast (Which incidently, I feel has big faults of its own - created exclusively for Disney's version of the story). It's a different film genre, following different "rules", with different aims.

But, look at all my (personal) plus points. Most of them aren't something the majority will enjoy, but are aimed to a minority. Is that Chicken Little's biggest fault? Despite claims of being created to a solid, marketable formula, in reality it only appeals to a smaller-subsection of the audience?

After all, doesn't the public demand "technical" realism with their CGI movies? How many go and see Christopher Guest's excellent improvised movies? How many "get" British humour and wit? And how many viewers will admit to being geeks (and admitting to being a geek, just like Chicken Little, makes the main character of the film more appealing)?

[Karushifa]

As most people will know, I'm not a big Shrek fan, but Chicken Little shares more in common with those films than most of Disney's past films. And as a comparison to Shrek I think Chicken Little is much better.

I agree, and actually my main fear with CL was that Disney was going to try to steal some of Shrek's thunder, and end up making a cheesy second-or-third rate knock-off of a movie that wasn't so good to being with, much like the producers of Shark Tale and Madagascar tried to do. As it turned out, they did a more admirable job than the lesser Dreamworks knock-offs, at least. And, I know you don't like Finding Nemo, but I personally think that Shrek was WAAAAAAY more overrated than Nemo was, in the sense that Nemo is not considered to be a "landmark" Pixar film as much as Toy Story and The Incredibles are, whereas Shrek is an 800-pound gorilla accompanied by its increasingly insipid 500-pound gorilla sequels, making it an overwhelming juggernaut of the CGI film world.

...it clearly has a better, more talented voice cast than Shrek, despite the fact they're not all "big" Hollywood names and aren't being paid sixty-five gazillion dollars to do the voice work.

I'm glad at least Disney got the clue that big names do not always equate quality voice work. Both they and Pixar have been much better at picking actors apporpriate to the roles, not necessarily the ones that will look best on the lobby posters.

* a more realistic father/son relationship then the one in Nemo (there, I've said it)

Yes, because most kids today aren't burdened with the trauma of having had their mother and siblings eaten by a barracuda

* a wonderfully likeable lead character who deserves to be as big a Disney icon as Stitch has become

Hey, Chicken Little made it into the latest Kingdom Hearts game, so someone at Disney must like him

It's not a perfect film, it has faults, but it's unfair to compare it to something like Beauty and the Beast (Which incidentally, I feel has big faults of its own - created exclusively for Disney's version of the story). It's a different film genre, following different "rules", with different aims.

In my case, it's not so much that I resent Chicken Little for NOT being Beauty and the Beast, as much as it is looking at other CGI films by different studios, which I find to be bland and insipid (and, sorry kids, this applies to both Ice Age movies for me) and hoping that Disney, when it does something in CGI, wil try not to copy such lackluster films, but set the tone for the industry as they have with 2-D films. So, in that sense, I want them to exercise the same type of methodology that lead them to make the films that they are famous for, but not necessarily make the same kids of films all the time, if that makes any sense.

[Prince Eric]

...a lot!

Well maybe your "plus" points are really plus points at all. For one, the voice work was jarring. I didn't by Zach Braff's performance for a single minute. The father-son relationship has got to be the most overused in children's entertainment, for that matter. The "improvised" feel just came off as sloppy filmmaking, as if the creators didn't have enough thought to make a concretely sound production. I don't think there was any "British" humor at all, more like really lame humor: not once did I laugh, except for the closing musical number. Like I said before, I don't know if I liked that last scene because it was actually good, or because it signaled the end of a very bad movie. If they weren't trying to "model" reality, why were the junkets so focused on animation and how real the feathers on Chicken Little's body moved - again, something else I didn't buy. So you liked the movie because you're a geek, nerd, whatever. What about the rest of us who are neither? The last time I checked, a great movie was supposed to transcend niche audiences, but that's just my understanding.

I don't see how my saying I don't like Chicken Little and I love Beauty and the Beast is a comparison. Any body who's never seen movies before can tell they are different genres (big revelation there, thanks). That still doesn't mean I can't say I like one better than the other. If that's the case, one would not be able to "rank" animated classics, or formulate a Top 10 list every year because of the varied genres in the industry. You can make an intelligent ranking of movies without saying "this one should have been like this one." Judging the two movies on what they were, Beauty and the Beast rates at like, a 10, while Chicken Little ranks at number 2 - even for a geeky movie with "British"-esque humor. There you go. Even judging them with different criteria leads to the same result - Chicken Little is an awful movie.

[2099net]

The last time I checked, a great movie was supposed to transcend niche audiences, but that's just my understanding.

Maybe they are, but this year's Oscar® nominations had the smallest box office takings for many a year. How many people went to see them? Or went to see other films you or critics champion this year and last... Bride and Prejudice, Mrs Henderson Presents..., Born into Brothels, Capote, North Country, Match Point...

Some of these are undoubtably made for a niche audience. How many people are interested in a crusty old British theater? How many people are insterested in Truman Capote? How many people want to watch a film about the McCathy "witchhunt" for entertainment.

Yes, all those films may inspire or engross people who aren't interested, but they also probably won't. To engage an audience, you have to have more than good acting or a good script, you need to find a common ground. That's why such films are as those I mentioned above are rarely financial hits, and those that are are generally unexpected.

Even Wallace and Gromit played to a niche audience (in America) and attained fraction of Chicken Little's takings. And yes, there are lots of Americans I've spoke to or read posts on various internet forums, who don't "get" Wallace and Gromit at all, or find that funny.

[Prince Eric]

The last time I checked, a great movie was supposed to transcend niche audiences, but that's just my understanding.

Maybe they are, but this year's Oscar® nominations had the smallest box office takings for many a year. How many people went to see them? Or went to see other films you or critics champion this year and last... Bride and Prejudice, Mrs Henderson Presents..., Born into Brothels, Capote, North Country, Match Point...

Some of these are undoubtably made for a niche audience. How many people are interested in a crusty old British theater? How many people are insterested in Truman Capote? How many people want to watch a film about the McCathy "witchhunt" for entertainment.

Yes, all those films may inspire or engross people who aren't interested, but they also probably won't. To engage an audience, you have to have more than good acting or a good script, you need to find a common ground. That's why such films are as those I mentioned above are rarely financial hits, and those that are are generally unexpected.

Even Wallace and Gromit played to a niche audience (in America) and attained fraction of Chicken Little's takings. And yes, there are lots of Americans I've spoke to or read posts on various internet forums, who don't "get" Wallace and Gromit at all, or find that funny.

You're still forgetting my main thesis - that Chicken Little sucks. Obviously I'm not talking about box-office. I'm saying a movie cannot pander to one person for it to be great. Obviously, you liked it for whatever reaons, but your arguements don't clear up any of my problems with the movie. Also, critics adored all those movies, but hated Chicken Little. I'll break it down for you with a personal example...

Critics hated Memoirs of a Geisha. I really liked it, being that I am fond of all things Asian (part of my area of concentration for university studies). However, first and foremost as a movie, I can see its many failings. So no, I don't think it's a good movie, but I like it due to personanl bias. You're trying to make your own tastes lift the movie above what it really is. Yes, movie grading is subjective, blah blah blah, but you're vision of Chicken Little is skewed and highly personal, which is why many here are not buying it.

[2099net]

I've never said Chicken Little is "perfect". I've only said its had unfair critisisms compared to other animated movies, mainly because (I assume) it's a Disney film.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

You're still forgetting my main thesis - that Chicken Little sucks. Obviously I'm not talking about box-office. I'm saying a movie cannot pander to one person for it to be great. Obviously, you liked it for whatever reaons, but your arguements don't clear up any of my problems with the movie. Also, critics adored all those movies, but hated Chicken Little. I'll break it down for you with a personal example...

Critics hated Memoirs of a Geisha. I really liked it, being that I am fond of all things Asian (part of my area of concentration for university studies). However, first and foremost as a movie, I can see its many failings. So no, I don't think it's a good movie, but I like it due to personanl bias. You're trying to make your own tastes lift the movie above what it really is. Yes, movie grading is subjective, blah blah blah, but you're vision of Chicken Little is skewed and highly personal, which is why many here are not buying it.

Yeah, critics also hated, Fantasia, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life, Star Wars, Braveheart... need I go on?

Critics will never make a final on what is a good movie and what is not. NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL. Alot of critics said Chicken Little was unoriginal, so were Shrek and Finding Nemo, critics loved those.

I agree with Netty, Chicken Little was a much more believeable character than Nemo, and the relationship was as well.

Voice acting unbelieveable? HARDLY! I thought the voices were perfect. The jokes may not have made you laugh, but I found a lot amusing about it.

Overall, Chicken Little may have its problems, but it also has alot of humor and heart.

Just because you don't like it Prince Eric, doesn't mean we're wrong. In fact, I think it's better than the movie your user name comes from.

Anyway, can't we just wait until Meet the Robinsons to judge Disney? I mean, it actually has good hype with an interesting story. More so than a couple of Pixar's.

[Prince Eric]

Yeah, critics also hated, Fantasia, Citizen Kane, The Wizard of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life, Star Wars, Braveheart... need I go on?

Critics will never make a final on what is a good movie and what is not. NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL. Alot of critics said Chicken Little was unoriginal, so were Shrek and Finding Nemo, critics loved those.

I agree with Netty, Chicken Little was a much more believeable character than Nemo, and the relationship was as well.

Voice acting unbelieveable? HARDLY! I thought the voices were perfect. The jokes may not have made you laugh, but I found a lot amusing about it.

Overall, Chicken Little may have its problems, but it also has alot of humor and heart.

Just because you don't like it Prince Eric, doesn't mean we're wrong. In fact, I think it's better than the movie your user name comes from.

Anyway, can't we just wait until Meet the Robinsons to judge Disney? I mean, it actually has good hype with an interesting story. More so than a couple of Pixar's.

Again, what school of movie history did you go to? Critics never hated any of the movies you just mentioned.

Shrek and Finding Nemo were original, that's all I'll say on that, because I'm confident in my own assessment of originality. The voice acting was grating too, period. By the way, I never said you guys were wrong, I'm merely pointing out misunderstandings in your arguements. I could care less if you like Chicken Little more than The Little Mermaid. It's really your loss, not mine.

I'm not condemning Meet the Robinsons, but I don't think there's anything wrong with Pixar flexing its creative genius to lend Disney a hand. That's what artists do, afterall.

[Karushifa]

Does anyone remember back in the old days when Disney artists worked on an animated adaptation of "Chanticleer"? And they labored intensively over these beautiful concept drawings and story ideas? And thought it would make a great movie? And they pitched it to Walt, and he hated it and shelved the whole deal? And then Don Bluth did his own adaptation of the story years later called "Rock-a-Doodle"? And it bombed?

Not really advocating one side or another here...just thought I'd bring that story up

[Prince Eric]

Does anyone remember back in the old days when Disney artists worked on an animated adaptation of "Chanticleer"? And they labored intensively over these beautiful concept drawings and story ideas? And thought it would make a great movie? And they pitched it to Walt, and he hated it and shelved the whole deal? And then Don Bluth did his own adaptation of the story years later called "Rock-a-Doodle"? And it bombed?

Not really advocating one side or another here...just thought I'd bring that story up

Thank you for this analogy. Just because something looks great on paper, doesn't mean it will translate well to the screen. Albeit, different talent was involved with the Don Bluth version, but that still shows that Walt, the superior talent, had a keen eye for what could be done with an animated story...and what could not be done.