DVDizzy Forum

Wow, I had no idea Dinosaur's box office receitps were better than Chicken Littles. And that is even with comparing 2000 dollars to 2005.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/cha ... mation.htm

Dinosaurs just won by a little anyways Dinosaur was release during summer while Chicken Little was release during November.

I think that Chicken Little actually did better overall, however, as it didn't cost anywhere near as much as Dinosaur did.

I actually really did not fancy chicken little in any way shape or form, going by the trailers. However i forced myself to watch it yesterday, & i must admit, Dinosaurs was a great story line etc, but chicken little was just hilarious in some places. My teenaged kids were creased up laughing at the king kong sequence. Much better than i thought it would be, perhaps as in my case, they did not present it in the right light to make it popular enough.

Yep, and <i>Dinosaur</i> made $40 million more when worldwide intake (but not ticket inflation) is considered. <i>Dinosaur</i> may not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot more satisfying a movie than the hodgepoge that <i>Chicken Little</i> is.

Not that box office grosses ever fully reflect quality, of course. But it is nice for Pixar to have 5 of the 7 top grossing CG-animated films of all time. As those who are only now getting to the party have discovered (Warner, Sony, etc.), the days of any entry in the medium getting a guaranteed $150 M domestically are gone. Just 3 out of the 8/9 CGI films already released this year have crossed the $100 M mark. From this year's results, it looks like only Pixar films and sequels are the guaranteed smash hits among CG animation now, with standard DreamWorks output pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit too.

P.S. Mr. Toad, you'd have had this revelation about five months earlier had you read my Chicken Little DVD review....

You didn't expect to make a thread about Chicken Little without a post from me did ye?

I think the reason people don't consider Dinosaur successful is that the latest "Animated Classics" at Disney were still very successful(especially Tarzan) and add to the fact it was mostly CG, Disney was expecting it to gross just as much, if not more than TLK. Now while it did make a profit and was successful worldwide, it still was not as successful as Disney hoped, kinda like Cars. Now, I don't think anybody at Disney were expecting Chicken Little to pass TLK or Aladdin, but they were expecting a hit on the likes of Lilo and Stitch, and they got just that. Though it didn't make a profit domestically, worldwide, it made quite a lot, mostly when compared to Treasure Planet, Brother Bear and Home on the Range.

Luke wrote:<i>Dinosaur</i> may not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot more satisfying a movie than the hodgepoge that <i>Chicken Little</i> is.

[Captain Jack Sparrow voice] They'll be no going to this site with him on it after this.[/Captain Jack Sparrow voice]

Luke wrote:Not that box office grosses ever fully reflect quality, of course. But it is nice for Pixar to have 5 of the 7 top grossing CG-animated films of all time.

Not to be in the negative party(again) but as I said in the "Zemeckis, ImageMovers" thread, with so much advertisement, I really blame that for Cars not making much as expected. If the similar thing happens to Ratatoullie, plus add the fact of the jam-packed summer, I really can't imagine that film doing well, in fact, I can't see it grossing more than Chicken Little at all. If Pixar doesn't release advertisement after advertisement like they did with Cars, it COULD have a chance, but it'd have a tough battle to fight still.

From this year's results, it looks like only Pixar films and sequels are the guaranteed smash hits among CG animation now, with standard DreamWorks output pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit too.

I think it's time you meet the Robinsons.

Hello this is my 1st post. I would just like to say, I really enjoyed Chicken little. Fish made me laugh so much, especially the King kong scene. It was better than I expected.

Hello this is my 1st post. I would just like to say, I really enjoyed Chicken little. Fish made me laugh so much, especially the King kong scene. It was better than I expected.

Welcome to the forum! Glad to have you here!

I never really liked Dinosaur. When I saw it in the theaters, I nearly walked out. The only saving grace was the use of live-action backgrounds.
I never saw Chicken Little, so I can't compare the two just yet. It LOOKS cute & very cartoony. I can see a lot of squash & stretch, which I like.

Luke wrote:<i>Dinosaur</i> may not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot more satisfying a movie than the hodgepoge that <i>Chicken Little</i> is.

Yes, well, Dinosaur has an excellent soundtrack. Apart from that it has?...

* A plot that is so generic it quickly bores. Complain all you want about Chicken Little being a rip-off of Shrek, or just being pop-culture skits. But at least it doesn't send you to sleep.

* Characters who have little personality - either in their voicing, their looks (a strange combination of realism and cartoon, which just doesn't work - especially against the live action backplates) or animation.

* A technical demo without a thin plot. It could be argued Chicken Little is an animation demo with a thin plot. But I'd rather watch dynamic animation than technical showmanship.

Eh, <i>Dinosaur</i> at least has that technical prowess. As a collection of set pieces, it is quite stimulating emotionally and artistically (with some wonderful visuals being complemented by the sharp Newton Howard score you mention). Scripturally, yes, it's lacking and I feel that in some portions, it's lacking visually too (for lack of funds, timing, or whatever reason).

But I can't say I find any kind of prowess in <i>Chicken Little</i>, besides spunk, I guess. Characters made for one-liners, a pedestrian look that hardly justifies itself, and a mess of a story. Even the music is terribly uneven. I will agree, however, that the characters are easier to keep track of within a single viewing than <i>Dinosaur</i>, thanks to their names/designs.

I would say that perhaps I'm giving <i>Dinosaur</i> a bit of a fairer shake because the subject matter interests me, but then I'm a sucker for fairy tales, too, when they're told in a compelling manner.

I didn't think Dinosaurs was to bad, I enjoyed it when I first watched it, so did my parents. But I thought Chicken Littel was better and more entertaining than Dinosaurs.

In my mind Dinosaur was significantly better than Chicken Little. Both were ok, but Dinosaur had a much more satisfying story to back it up than Chicken Little, and much better animation to boot. Chicken Little was ok, but Dinosaur is definately the best Disney CGI* up to this point...

Dinosaur was a great film. The visuals were stunning. The score was fantastic. Yes, the plot might have floundered a bit, but when comparing its plot to Chicken Little, it is the best you've ever seen.

Chicken Little is a terrible film, the worst to ever come out of Disney's theatrical animation department. The film was, like Luke said, a hodgepodge of gigantic proportions. The animation is not up to par. The "pop culture" reminds me of some recent Dreamworks movies. Some members on this board shun those films for using pop culture, but then praise Chicken Little. The film's plot is straight-forward, leaving no surprises, leaving me bored at various occasions during the film.

I meant this to be more about the grosses(and my surprise) that even when you did not take inflation into account Dinosaur beat Chicken Little.

As for artistic - I thought Dinosaur was an excellent movie for the first and last third. Netty is right though - the middle third puts you straight to sleep.

Chicken Little was totally lacking in coesion. I actually just got around to finishing it and the second half was better than the first, which made little sense at all. The second half worked on some levels and including Batman and Kronk is always good. For the most part Chicken Little's first half was just a collection of pop culture references. However, unlike Shrek I didn't get a bunch of them, and others were not funny.

Dinosaur- While visual and score-wise, the film was absolutely amazing, story wise, is was completely bland. The characters were 1-dimensional(you really didn't like or dislike anybody), the voice acting wasn't anything to scream about,(not even the guy who voiced Daxter in the PS2 franchise helped ) and while I'm not the biggest Don Bluth fan, I have to agree that if it wasn't better animated and had a great score, I felt I might as well have watched "The Land Before Time".

I won't completely express my opinion on CL as I've already done so in other threads, but I will ask how on Earth is it a hodgepodge? If you watch the first 5 minutes, you know from the beginning it's going to be an energetic comedy, with some dramatic father/son elements. And frankly, every event in that movie leads up to to just that, but adding a sci-fi twist making it completely unpredictable. I honestly think "The Incredibles" is more of a hodgepodge. I mean first it ranges to superhero action film, to family struggling in an X-Men situation, to an animated "True Lies", to an animated "Spy Kids". That's much more of a hodgepodge than Chicken Little, but everyone likes "The Incredibles" so I guess it's okay.

I also don't understand that loads of amount of "pop-culture references" people say it has. I mean, so it's got 2 in the introduction, the one to Raiders of the Lost Ark, one to King Kong(and with the release of the remake, it was perfect timing) three to songs(though it's arguable if those are "pop-culture reference") nods to The Empire Strikes Back, War of the Worlds, and Star Trek(maybe), and the Mickey Mouse watch, and unless I'm missing something, THAT'S IT! That's about 10, and both Shreks and SharkTale have at least three times that amount. Also, many people here love Aladdin, but no one complains about the loads of amount of pop-culture references made by the Genie, much more than CL.

Now, I'm not saying "The Incredibles" or "Aladdin" are bad movies, nor am I saying CL is a better made film or forcing anyone to like those films more than CL, but I really don't think Chicken Little really deserves such hatred from everyone, and I think their harsh views on CL have flaws with their "critiquing" like I mentioned. I mean c'mon "worst to ever come out of Disney's theatrical animation department"? I think that's an exageration. I can name at least 25 "animated classics" I prefer Chicken Little to, including at least three of the ones that have/are getting "Platinum Editions".

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:I also don't understand that loads of amount of "pop-culture references" people say it has...........Also, many people here love Aladdin, but no one complains about the loads of amount of pop-culture references made by the Genie, much more than CL.

The storytelling technique of flooding a family movie with pop culture references is a hackneyed grab for audience laughs. In <i>Aladdin</i>'s day it had yet to become a cliche.

Finchx0rz wrote:

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:I also don't understand that loads of amount of "pop-culture references" people say it has...........Also, many people here love Aladdin, but no one complains about the loads of amount of pop-culture references made by the Genie, much more than CL.

The storytelling technique of flooding a family movie with pop culture references is a hackneyed grab for audience laughs. In <i>Aladdin</i>'s day it had yet to become a cliche.

Well, it may not be original, but I don't think its a cliche. It's just a natural progression - people making and watching these films/tv shows have grown up watching films/tv shows. It's only natural than some creators love to have playful riffs on what they grew up with.

People keep quoting Shrek (which actually didn't have many pop-culture references aside from jabs at Disney, it was mainly fairytale references) but the process was being done long before Shrek. Look at Animaniacs, Disney's own Bonkers, the dialogue in Buffy The Vampire Slayer, House of Mouse, the Simpsons, Family Guy etc.

Having them in Chicken Little is so much more than a "quick, let's copy Shrek, it will be so cool". Its a whole new(ish) method of storytelling, and I believe it would have found its way into a Disney film Shrek or no Shrek (it already had to an extent - the Genie in Aladdin is not the only example of pop-culture in Disney animated films pre Chicken Little)

I enjoyed Chicken Little. I could not make it through Dinosaur.

Also I hate Shrek, mainly because I thought it was pretty bland, but has a gigantic audience. Kinda like Spongebob. I'm probably opening up a can of worms with that one.

I also think Shrek's character designs lack charm.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:If you watch the first 5 minutes, you know from the beginning it's going to be an energetic comedy, with some dramatic father/son elements.

I agree. That's spot on. What you don't see though, is how contrived the drama is gonna play out (oh wait, nevermind. The whole father/son crap has you cringing from the start). Let me correct myself, you KNOW the drama is gonna be there just for the audience to feel sorry for the little chicken. You can actually feel a bad movie in progress. The humor ain't that promising or witty too, if I may say so myself.

Unlike Aladdin, which you so eagerly bring up, this movie has pop references in all the wrong places with the worst timing ever. Heck, the sci-fi elements never even felt right for a movie of this kind. Watching Chicken Little was the first time I've felt brain cells going to waste since Batman and Robin. Shrek, which you also bring up, was MADE to have references to pop culture. Heck, it was one huge parody of Disney. It FELT right. Chicken Little never settled on a tone and feeling. Is it slapstick? Is it purely for children? That would perfectly fine if they settled completely for that. Is it a father/son drama? Is this even a family movie? Does it want to have the Disney 'feeling'? You never know, because this movie keeps you guessing the whole way through.

I'm sorry, but to even see it being compared to Aladdin, or heck, even to Shrek, which started the whole animated-pop-culture-referencing fad seems almost intolerable to me. They are leagues apart, and always will be, because at the end of the day Chicken Little will never feel more than just a semi-formed movie. As for Dinosaur. Yes, the plot was horrible in some aspects, but at least it seemed ambitious. Chicken Little never seemed important or worthy of the Disney Classic status. Dinosaur pushed the envelope technically, and that's an achievment. Chicken Little just left you with a feeling of meh.

Knowing what kind of movie you're doing is key to its' success, and it was clear as day that Chicken Little's makers never knew what kind they were doing.

As Aladdin is my favorite Disney film, I agree Chicken Little can't hold a candle to it at all. I don't even own it on DVD, and I usually buy films I see in theaters when they're released on video, especially Disney films.