Semi OT: Disney starts learning its lesson

[J Lee]

Over the past four years, as the folks and Disney started cutting back more and more on its traditional 2-D animation, before killing it off entirely in favore of The New Big Thing -- GCI -- the point was made over and over again that it wasn't the animation that was keeping people away from the theaters and bringing them it to see Pixar's GCI movies, it was the stories. Pixar's films had strong stores and characters the audiences cared about, while Disney's later 2-D films were shallow tales with characters no one could get into very much.

Now the reviews are out on Disney's first in-house CGI movie, "Chicken Little" and guess what? The critics are mostly saying that compared with Pixar, Disney's movie is a shallow story featuring characters no one cares about (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/moviereviews/story/362318p-308407c.html). Here's some more reviews from the Rotten Tomatoes website (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chicken_little/), where the movie received a 39 percent favorable rating.

Of course, if the ticket sales hold up after the initial weekend boxoffice, Disney won't care what the critics say. But hopefully, if the public feels like the reviewers do and stays away in droves, after one or two more bombs like think the post-Eisner Mouse Factory will figure out that what makes 2-D or 3-D animation viable it what the people involved do with it in terms of story and character, and not just some fancy new (and cheaper) process.

[mbaker]

If 'Chicken Little' dose ln fact lay an egg, maybe it'll be the wake up call they need to finally realize that a good story, and good characters will hold any kind of film together weather it's 2D, 3D, or even live action.

[Jack G.]

I've enjoyed GCI films like Toy Story. I also enjoyed the Wallace and Gromit films.

But I'm first and foremost a fan of hand drawn cartoons whether their in animation or in print.

I just find it mindlessly trendy to drop something older (traditional hand drawn animation) for the hot new thing (CGI animation). One new technique shouldn't replace the other. The whole thing depends on quality.

[Leviathan]

I agree with you on Chicken Little being bad, but there has never been a CGI-Animateed movie bomb in motion picture history (Well, There was Final Fantasy, but that's a horse of an entirely different color. It'll still turn in a considrerable Profit based on Worldwide Gross, merchandise, and DVD sales, mcuh to my chagrin

[Jon Cooke]

I agree with you on Chicken Little being bad, but there has never been a CGI-Animateed movie bomb in motion picture history

What about Disney's DINOSAUR movie?


-Jon

[Kaleido]

What about Disney's DINOSAUR movie?Doesn't count. It was a mix of live-action and CGI.

Besides, it was produced by Disney's since shut down TheSecretLab division, not Walt Disney Feature Animation.

By the way... (http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/) Looks like Iger won't have to pay as much for Pixar.

[mbaker]

I've enjoyed GCI films like Toy Story. I also enjoyed the Wallace and Gromit films.But I'm first and foremost a fan of hand drawn cartoons whether their in animation or in print. I just find it mindlessly trendy to drop something older (traditional hand drawn animation) for the hot new thing (CGI animation). One new technique shouldn't replace the other. The whole thing depends on quality.That's exactly what worries me about Hollywood's 'off with the old, on with the new' mentality these days. I don't want to live in a world without 2D animated features, and with 'Chicken Little' taking the top spot at the box office, we may get just that.

[Leviathan]

What about Disney's DINOSAUR movie?


-Jon

It wasn't a bomb in the financial sense because it amde around $230 million worldwide, msot liekly enough to at least break even.

[corey3rd]

It wasn't a bomb in the financial sense because it amde around $230 million worldwide, msot liekly enough to at least break even.

Dinosaur cost nearly $200 million to make. Remember that box office grosses do not equal the money that's returned to the studio. Plus you figure out how much cash Disney had to spend to promote this stinker and you see a giant cyber moneypit. So a Worldwide gross of $230 million might mean that the mouse saw half of that. People who run theaters have to make money.

[Leviathan]

After doing some research, it turns out my figure was wrong. According to Wikipedia Dinosaur made approx. $354,248,063 worldwide (most of that coming from overseas)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_%28movie%29

Like i said, no CGI-animated film, no matter how bad it is, will bomb at the box office, since the novelty of CGI Animated films is still in effect. This'll undoubtedly change when more studios release more animated film.

[Jack G.]

That's exactly what worries me about Hollywood's 'off with the old, on with the new' mentality these days. I don't want to live in a world without 2D animated features, and with 'Chicken Little' taking the top spot at the box office, we may get just that.
Yeah.:( When I heard about Disney closing their traditional animation units it was quite upsetting. For a long time, Disney was the only one carring the flag for animation, then the Simpsons and Cartoon Network happened and other studios started to do new animation.

It does concern me that's for sure.

But the Hollywood suits have been like lemmings for a long time. In the early to mid-seventies, Star Wars was turned down by every Hollywood studio including Disney. The studios thought it was too different to sell.:rolleyes: Finally 20th Century Fox took it on and it was huge. Then what happens? Paramount brings Star Trek out of mothballs and all the other studios do Sci-fi action films (Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Black Hole, etc...).

[corey3rd]

Dinosaur like Chicken Little found it's salvation in being barely 80 minutes long with 10 of that being credits. This way they could slam in extra screenings early on and grab the money fast before word gets out. That's the sad thought about Disney's CGI efforts - they can't even get a 70 minute script that works done.

[Tom41]

The Wallace and Gromit movie was not done using CGI (GCI?!), it was done using traditional claymation techniques - though there were a few computer effects added.

I've always believed that Disney has produced the best 2D animation, and when they went into 3D the quality took a nose-dive. Even the Disney/Pixar offerings pale in comparison to the old 2D cartoons. I'm not saying things like Toy Story were bad, it's just that the Disney animated feature works best in 2D - especially with classic characters like Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse.

Now, imagine a Mickey/Donald/Goofy cartoon in 3D rendered GCI :eek:

[mbaker]

Now, imagine a Mickey/Donald/Goofy cartoon in 3D rendered GCI :eek:Disney already did that. It was called 'Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas'. :shame:

[Dan Porceddu]

Dinosaur like Chicken Little found it's salvation in being barely 80 minutes long with 10 of that being credits. This way they could slam in extra screenings early on and grab the money fast before word gets out. That's the sad thought about Disney's CGI efforts - they can't even get a 70 minute script that works done.

I used to own the Dinosaur DVD (before selling it) and I can testify to that. The first ten minutes of the film are actually really stunning. It's when the characters start talking that the whole thing just falls apart. The photographed live-action backgrounds (which I thought were really well done) became more and more dull as the movie progressed, and the dinosaurs were impossible to feel any great emotional connection with. Halfway through it was basically becoming a rehash of morals from other Disney movies.

Too bad they didn't just release the opening scene as a short or something.

[Studio Toledo]

I used to own the Dinosaur DVD (before selling it) and I can testify to that. The first ten minutes of the film are actually really stunning. It's when the characters start talking that the whole thing just falls apart. The photographed live-action backgrounds (which I thought were really well done) became more and more dull as the movie progressed, and the dinosaurs were impossible to feel any great emotional connection with. Halfway through it was basically becoming a rehash of morals from other Disney movies.

Too bad they didn't just release the opening scene as a short or something.

Just the fact that they talked bugged me to no end!

The only time I ever saw this film was on the big screen of a drive-in theater, though I had to sit in the backseat while my sister and one of her ex-boyfriends were up front, and my head ached trying to watch the screen from the cramped quarters of the backseat, not to mention the crummy stereo system in the car that put most of the audio to come out of the back speakers, continously throbbing my very soul with those voices!

Well, that's my take on this film!

[Sultan]

when i saw Dinosaur, I literally fell asleep in the theater, 20 minutes through...

[Chow Hound]

Disney's Dinosaur is the only CGI dinosaur-themed movie/TV series that I don't have on DVD. Come to think of it, I think it may be the only dinosaur-themed movie/TV series that I don't have, CGI or otherwise. And I even have Dinosaur Planet and The Last Dinosaur (on VHS though). I couldn't believe someone made a dinosaur movie I didn't like; that must have taken quite an effort. It wasn't even bad enough to be good, like the other two I mentioned. The only good thing about it was the opening sequence, as Dan mentioned.

[John Pannozzi]

But the Hollywood suits have been like lemmings for a long time. In the early to mid-seventies, Star Wars was turned down by every Hollywood studio including Disney. The studios thought it was too different to sell.:rolleyes: Finally 20th Century Fox took it on and it was huge. Then what happens? Paramount brings Star Trek out of mothballs and all the other studios do Sci-fi action films (Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Black Hole, etc...).

Very good point, but I should point out that Star Trek: The Motion Picture was in the works before Star Wars came out.


But, back on topic:

RE: mbaker: I don't we'll be living in a world with 2-D animated films just yet. Remember that in Japan, 2-D animation is still king, and 3-D animation is very much a novelty.

[Kaleido]

Very good point, but I should point out that Star Trek: The Motion Picture was in the works before Star Wars came out....although Paramount had shown more interest in a followup television series, Star Trek: Phase II, which was only days away from production, before the success of Star Wars made it decide to go with the movie instead.

Also, Disney most certainly did not consider Dinosaur a success. It cancelled plans for a second movie produced by TheSecretLab and shut down the studio not long after Dinosaur was released.I don't we'll be living in a world with 2-D animated films just yet. Remember that in Japan, 2-D animation is still king, and 3-D animation is very much a novelty.Low-budget 2D will always be strong. Disney isn't about to stop producing low-budget sequels and movies based on TV series. The supply of extremely limited-animated cartoons from Japan is seemingly limitless. And a majority of cartoon TV series will not go 3D in the near future, no matter where they're produced.

The problem is the movie studios have virtually stopped producing Walt Disney Feature Animation-caliber 2D animation. Even what is considered big-budget, full animation in Japan (i.e. Studio Ghibli movies) tends to be limited compared to what was produced in the United States.

[mbaker]

Disney isn't about to stop producing low-budget sequels and movies based on TV series. What concerns me is that they'll limit 2D animation to video, and TV projects. It shouldn't be that way.

The problem is the movie studios have virtually stopped producing Walt Disney Feature Animation-caliber 2D animation. Even what is considered big-budget, full animation in Japan (i.e. Studio Ghibli movies) tends to be limited compared to what was produced in the United States.I couldn't agree more.

[trondmm]

Of course, if the ticket sales hold up after the initial weekend boxoffice, Disney won't care what the critics say. But hopefully, if the public feels like the reviewers do and stays away in droves, after one or two more bombs like think the post-Eisner Mouse Factory will figure out that what makes 2-D or 3-D animation viable it what the people involved do with it in terms of story and character, and not just some fancy new (and cheaper) process.

Well, Chicken Little will probably beat both Home on the Range and Brother Bear, and it beat Treasure Planet in its opening weekend alone. In fact, Chicken Little's opening weekend is the best Disney's had since The Lion King.

We'll have to wait a bit to see how well ticket sales keep up, of course, but so far, it seems like Chicken Little is a big success for Disney.

[jazzman78]

Regardless of what "Chicken Little" does in theaters - They will make their money back on it through the video sales - merchandising, cable & satalite rentals.

So really the theatrical release is only a small part of the business. I have not seen the film and I doubt if I ever will due to the poor choice in material.

So whatever Disney does or how bad it really they will always come out ahead.

"HELP THE SKY IS FALLING"

[J Lee]

Well, Chicken Little will probably beat both Home on the Range and Brother Bear, and it beat Treasure Planet in its opening weekend alone. In fact, Chicken Little's opening weekend is the best Disney's had since The Lion King.

We'll have to wait a bit to see how well ticket sales keep up, of course, but so far, it seems like Chicken Little is a big success for Disney.

This weekend will show what the word-of-mouth was on the movie, since Disney did major public releations/media buys/product tie-ins to promote the movie's debut (one thing that may show Disney is worried about the movie's "legs" is when the film opened -- the first weekend of Novemer. That gets it out into the marketplace before the big holday movies start showing up around Thanksgiving weekend. The mouseke-marketeers may be hoping they can get 2-3 good weekends out of the film by releasing it now, while it would have gotten swamped coming out during the holiday season, which is where you would expect Disney's first real CGI feature to debut).

[mbaker]

I'm starting to think that people are way too spoiled with CGI these days. They'll flock to anything that's rendered in pixiles reguardless of the quality.

[Duck Dodgers]

IMO , Micahel Barrier's commentaries are the worst ones . I hope that he will never do any commentary for the sets in the future . I would prefer more work from Jerry Beck or John K ( well ,it's funny to listen a guy who can't stop talikng about Bob Clampett even when he is eating ! :D ) .

[Jack G.]

...although Paramount had shown more interest in a followup television series, Star Trek: Phase II, which was only days away from production, before the success of Star Wars made it decide to go with the movie instead.
Yeah, I read something about that before. Some of the sets intended for that show went to the film instead.

Oh, I didn't mean to infer that Wallace & Gromit were CGI. I'm certainly aware that it was done with "clay".:D

IMO , Micahel Barrier's commentaries are the worst ones . I hope that he will never do any commentary for the sets in the future . I would prefer more work from Jerry Beck or John K ( well ,it's funny to listen a guy who can't stop talikng about Bob Clampett even when he is eating ! :D ) .
Mr. Barrier's commentaries sound like he's half asleep. While Mr. K's opinions are sometimes ridiculous at least he's not boring.

[speedy fast]

I'm starting to think that people are way too spoiled with CGI these days. They'll flock to anything that's rendered in pixiles reguardless of the quality.

I don't flock to anything that's computer animated. I am not interested in seeing Madagascar or Shark Tales. I work at a movie theatre, so I got to see parts of those movies, and I could have seen the whole things for free, but I didn't. Also, I think that both of those movies have annoying ending credit sequences.

I have seen the ending of Chicken Little and I really liked that ending, though I like the ending of the original Chicken Little short better.

[Speedy Boris]

I'm starting to think that people are way too spoiled with CGI these days. They'll flock to anything that's rendered in pixiles reguardless of the quality. I like CG animation and I avoided Madagascar and Shark Tale like the plague. So there ya go.

[Jack G.]

A good animated film, is a good animated film. I have no problem with watching CGI animation, or stop-motion. But I don't want to see traditional hand-drawn cartoons go the way of the do-do.

There was a fear that would happen back in the 70's and 80's (there weren't many young animators then), but some successful animated shows happened. Disney had a pretty good comeback and animation went on the upswing and was saved.

Bassically, we need a really big movie or TV show that's hand drawn and other studios will jump back on the bandwagon. That's all. The studios always go where they see other's making good money.