Chicken Little Through Three Weeks

[All Aboard]

After its third weekend in release, Chicken Little stands at $99million. When we were discussing where CL would end (both in dollars and how that compared to other animated releases in the last 5-6 years, we were looking at about $165 million. Which was right above Shark Tale and behind Madagascar.

With more data to play with, let's see how the film now stacks up. Ignoring Shrek 2 (which opened on a Wednesday) Here are the 17 day box office takes:

Finding Nemo - $191m
The Incredibles - $178m
Monsters, Inc. - $156m
Shrek - $148m
Madagascar - $128m
Shark Tale - $119m
Ice Age - $117m
Lilo & Stitch - $103m
Chicken Little - $99m
Robots - $87m

The average % of total box office for these films through day 17 was 65%. Shrek and Finding Nemo proved to have the strongest legs beyond weekend 3, still having about 45% of their box office yet to come. Shark Tale and Lilo and Stitch faded most quickly, burning through 74% and 71% of their total take through week 3.

Assuming Chicken Little falls somewhere in the middle and is at the 65% mark right now, the film will end its domestic run at $153 mill. Just ahead of Lilo and a notch up on Robots. But, behind all of the others. And, perhaps most importantly, behind every film made by Pixar - even those from 8-10 years ago when inflation wasn't on their side.

[All Aboard]

Speaking of inflation, let's have a little fun with the consumer price index. Below are all of the animated features that I could think of over the past 15 years or so. I've left out the "should have been direct to video" movies like the Tigger Movie, etc. All are adjusted using CPI. None include any re-release or IMAX dollars.

I had forgotten all about Polar Express in the "last five years analysis" It finished with $163 million.

Shrek 2 $450m
Lion King 410
Finding Nemo 362
Aladdin 300
Shrek 297
Toy Story II 286
Monsters, Inc. 284
The Incredibles 269
Toy Story 237
Beauty and the Beast 208
Tarzan 199
A Bugs Life 195
Madagascar 193
Ice Age 191
Pocahontas 181
The Little Mermaid 171
Polar Express 168
Shark Tale 161
Lilo & Stitch 158
Chicken Little 153
Mulan 144
Robots 128
Hunchback of Notre Dame 124
Prince of Egypt 121
Hercules 120
Chicken Run 119
The Emporer's New Groove 100
Atlantis 93
Brother Bear 90
Jimmy Neutron 90
Spongebob Squarepants 88
Spirit 79
Anastasia 70
Wallace & Grommit 58
Road to El Dorado 57
Corpse Bride 53
Home on the Range 50
Treasure Planet 41
Sinbad 28
Valiant 19

So, All Aboard, what the heck is your point? Well, my point is that Chicken Little's box office reception is pretty much average. Nothing stellar, nothing to give anyone the impression that Disney has put itself "back on the map" with this feature.

Not only has the public's response been lukewarm, but the critical response was horrible. The average critical rating was the worst Disney has received.

[SoCalKDG]

So, All Aboard, what the heck is your point? Well, my point is that Chicken Little's box office reception is pretty much average. Nothing stellar, nothing to give anyone the impression that Disney has put itself "back on the map" with this feature.If Disney looks at this movie as its first attempt, with room for improvement, then this movie did well. If it thinks this is their best effort, its as good as its going to get, then this movie did poorly.

Going to buy Polar Express this week. Madagascar and Shark Tale weren't as enjoyable for my family as CL was. Ice Age and the Pixars except Bugs Life were better than CL.

[Planogirl]

Interesting list. Assuming that the coming holiday movies don't completely blow CL out of the theaters, it does appear that it will finish somewhere in the middle.

Incidently, I hate seeing Spirit and Treasure Planet so low on the list.

[crusader]

First, I think ignoring Shrek 2 renders the exercise void.

Second, you should analyze the worldwide box office.

Third, you should assess the Disney/Pixar comparison net of the production budgets and take it a step further - project the distribution deal revenues for Disney down the road vs the in-house production income to determine which is a more profitable driving force for the company.

And finally, you should stop trying to necessitate the reasoning for why this movie needs to be more than it does. It doesn't.

btw - its' capped over 100 mil right now and continues to manage to make money despite the reviews and the competition at the box office. It's a very good family movie. The numbers prove that.

[All Aboard]

First, I think ignoring Shrek 2 renders the exercise void.

Ok, fine - Shrek 2's take through the third weekend in release was $315 million, pushing Chicken Little down another notch on the list. I was ignoring Shrek 2 because of its unfair advantage, not that including it would have helped Chicken Little's position.

Third, you should assess the Disney/Pixar comparison net of the production budgets and take it a step further - project the distribution deal revenues for Disney down the road vs the in-house production income to determine which is a more profitable driving force for the company.

So what you are saying is that Disney cannot make profitable movies any longer, so becoming a distribution company is the way to go.

And finally, you should stop trying to necessitate the reasoning for why this movie needs to be more than it does.

Thanks for the advice.

[markP]

Sorry but these numbers prove and mean absolutely nothing. If you go by your “week 3 totals” you’re showing that Shark Take (now there’s a bad movie) deserves to be on any list with Disney, and it doesn’t show that it went up again Harry Potter on week 3. I think the point you’re missing for what will put Disney “back on the map” is was it worthy of Walt Disney? I haven’t seen it yet, but I hear it does. After some of the stinkers they put out over the past couple of years they need to get that fan base back, which will take a few movies. As they continue to create quality movies, those numbers will start to grow again. And who the heck cares what a critics have to say about any movie, it’s one person’s opinion. The question is, did you like it?

[YoHo]

Who's telling you it's worthy of Walt Disney? Whoever it is should be shot, cause they are clearly nuts. Good or bad, this ain't no Cinderella.

[crusader]

So what you are saying is that Disney cannot make profitable movies any longer, so becoming a distribution company is the way to go.

Sorry didn't mean to jump on you. It was early.

But no, I'm not saying this at all. I'm saying that given Pixar is negotiating a distribution deal, Disney can use CL's profitability as a basis to barter with. Why should they sign a deal for 10-12% of a 700 mil gross (which is more around 500 mil net) when they have proven they can easily make that with a low budget unfavorably reviewed wholesome in-house film. Imagine what they're capable of with an even greater investment in themselves.

[markP]

Boy, that's kinda vicious don't you think... shot? And you're a Disney fan? I'd say thoughts like that are not very Disney like.

I'm actually reading a lot of it on this board.

[All Aboard]

The question is, did you like it?

No, I thought it was awful. Just as bad as Home on the Range or Oliver and Company. Making a run at the worst Disney Animated Feature ever produced.

Sorry but these numbers prove and mean absolutely nothing.

Just keeping score, just watching the scoreboard.

In an article from Monday, Jim Hill claims that Disney set the bar at Shark Tale's numbers in order for them to consider it successful. Don't know if that's true or not.

And you're a Disney fan? I'd say thoughts like that are not very Disney like.

YoHo might not mind me speaking for him, he can tell me to jump in the Bay if he does. I know that YoHo is a huge fan of Disney and its history. And what is "Disney-like" anyhow? Ever see the early Mickey Mouse shorts? Pretty nasty little guy. Walt was known to be a rough character himself behind closed doors. Are we supposed to emulate Prince Charming? Would that make us Disney-like?

Follow this link to see how the Disney you see today isn't exactly as it was originally presented: Link to POV (http://www.disneypov.com/issue08/censorship.html)

[SoCalKDG]

Who's telling you it's worthy of Walt Disney? Whoever it is should be shot, cause they are clearly nuts. Good or bad, this ain't no Cinderella.Interesting you just used this movie for comparison since we watched both Cindi and CL on the same weekend. My question is this. If I say Cinderella is better, my wife doesn't care for either, and my 4 year old daughter likes CL better, who is right and who is wrong. Can we discount any persons opinion of a movie just because it doesn't agree with yours or mine?

[All Aboard]

55 years from now if Disney releases Chicken Little on whatever media there is then... How many copies do you think they will sell?

[markP]

Just as bad as Home on the Range or Oliver and Company. Making a run at the worst Disney Animated Feature ever produced.
This may not be the best movie ever made, but I find it hard to believe it’s as bad as you think. That’s your opinion and you’re certainly entitled to it, just keep in mind that while you’re saying this, over 100 million dollars says different (up against Potter in week 3). Looks like about 19 million under Shark Tale at the same point, but what was it up against… Ladder 49 (same opening day), The Forgotten, Sky Captain… oh, and let’s not forget Mr. 3000. The following weeks are just as bad for it’s competition so how could ST not do well? In my opinion if it were a quality movie, it would have done much better, don’t you think?

55 years from now if Disney releases Chicken Little on whatever media there is then... How many copies do you think they will sell?
Like I said before, I haven’t seen the movie, but I’m pretty sure none of us can predict how it would do 55 years down the road. But my guess is that as long as there are kids, it will do just fine.


Happy Thanksgiving and eat lots… I’m off to Dinner today then off to Disney tomorrow (OKW)! Woohoo!!!!!!! I’ll let you know how the CL merchandise is doing in WDW. :)

[Above_the_Rim]

If Disney looks at this movie as its first attempt, with room for improvement, then this movie did well. If it thinks this is their best effort, its as good as its going to get, then this movie did poorly.

Going to buy Polar Express this week. Madagascar and Shark Tale weren't as enjoyable for my family as CL was. Ice Age and the Pixars except Bugs Life were better than CL.
Let's be glad Walt Disney didn't go into Snow White with that "first attempt" exscuse

[YoHo]

Interesting you just used this movie for comparison since we watched both Cindi and CL on the same weekend. My question is this. If I say Cinderella is better, my wife doesn't care for either, and my 4 year old daughter likes CL better, who is right and who is wrong. Can we discount any persons opinion of a movie just because it doesn't agree with yours or mine?


Take a glance and Cindy's recent DVD numbers Niether of our opinions means anything, Look at it from cold hard numbers and with an eye for cinematic excellence. Cinderella is a good movie. Chicken little is not.

[kydisneyfans]

Will the upcoming Christmas holiday help these numbers even more? It seems like there are no choices other than CL for a family with younger children to see. Are there any animated movies being released between now and Christmas?

Harry Potter is fine for the older crowd, but not apporpriate for families with children 4 and 5 years old.

[CarnotaurDad]

I think the upcoming holidays will help. As far as I know, there aren't any other good, family movies coming out between now and Christmas. Maybe Narnia, but that skews a little older.

[raidermatt]

I don't quite follow the "first try" line of thinking. Its actually their 2nd "CGI" effort, but even that doesn't have much to do with this. They've had plenty of experience telling stories through animation, so I can't see inexperience as any kind of mitigating factor on Disney's side.

Christmas will help a bit, but it has also already benefited from Thanksgiving weekend. AA's projections are probably fairly close.

If I say Cinderella is better, my wife doesn't care for either, and my 4 year old daughter likes CL better, who is right and who is wrong. Can we discount any persons opinion of a movie just because it doesn't agree with yours or mine?

That's why you have to look at this objectively. A 3 person sample size means absolutely nothing, in the context of this discussion. Nobody is discounting the opinion of your daughter anymore than they are discounting any other individual's opinion.

Its one thing to call this a "success", based on expectations having to do with distribution negotiations with Pixar. I don't agree, but certainly there's room for discussion.

Saying that CL is the type of movie that will still be making Disney millions of dollars 50+ years from now is quite another matter altogether. While it is certainly doing better for the company than Home on the Range, Oliver and Company or Treasure Planet, I can't see any evidence that its going to do anywhere near as well for the company as Cinderella, Pinocchio or Beauty and the Beast.

[Above_the_Rim]

I think the upcoming holidays will help. As far as I know, there aren't any other good, family movies coming out between now and Christmas. Maybe Narnia, but that skews a little older.
I highly disagree with that, that's like saying Thanksgiving helped out Wallace and Gromit. Right now in the daily box offices CL is down to spot #7, and when some more movies come out this upcoming weekend it'll probably be pretty low in the top 10 in a spot that doesn't make much money. Anyways my basic point is that when Christmas comes around this movie will not be in the top 10 anymore and so Christmas probably won't be able to boost it much.

But anyways I don't think this movie did that good, it's starting to slow down now and will finish with less than 140 million (this is being generous.) Was it a failure? No, not at all. This movie made more than The Emperor's new Groove and some of those others, but when you look at all the publicity and advertising it got it's all relative. Remember even in the late 90's Disney was making more money than this from their movies (excluding Hercules) yet they werent satisfied with those, and that is without even considering inflation. I think this movie proved Roy Disney right though, that it is truly about the story

[Peter Pirate]

$127,5 thus far. Still looking good for Disney to me, what do the number crunchers say?

pirate:

[Another Voice]

I'd say that 38 days into release, The Incredibles had pulled in $233 million and Disney was trying to spin that as a disappointing box office number.

Basically it's going to be Mr. Iger calling Mr. Jobs and not the other way around. The goal was to replace Pixar, not just to do better than Brother Bear - and the little chicken has fallen far, far short of the goal.

Plus, now that Paramount has purchased the distribution rights to Dreamworks Animation, Disney will be facing a super charged competitor. Paramount will be able to "synergize" those films through channels like Nickelodeon, MTV and CBS. They'll be able to out market Disney each and every time. These two events are going to make for a lot of interesting fireworks.

Of course, Disney could make good movies again, but getting Smash Mouth to write a song is so much easier than coming up with a plot.

[Peter Pirate]

Thanks Voice. I don't doubt any of your post but I find it so odd that a little film like CL, which will undoubtedly make 150M domestic and will certainly be very profitable will not be judged on its merit, only the fact that it was over hyped or had so much riding on it when in the fianl analysis it was just an animated movie that many people liked but wasn't Lion King...How do the guys who made CL feel? Are they somehow failures because CL didn't do Nemo numbers and let Disney down?
pirate:

[Above_the_Rim]

Chicken Little will not make 150 million domestically, maybe not even 140 million

[raidermatt]

Its all relative, Pete. You know that.

There's two ways of looking at this. The first is what it means to the company, in the big picture.

Disney making a nice little movie that does nice box office is nice. But we are talking about the "giants" of the industry butting heads here. Nice little successes don't give the Disney "synergy" machine the fuel it needs.

Sure, there will probably be a dtv sequel or two, maybe a short run syndicated animated tv show. CL will be at the meet and greets every so often in the parks.

But that's a far cry from what Disney wants/needs, and what films like The Lion King, Mermaid, Aladdin, Toy Story, Monsters, etc. can do for that machine. Sure, if this were the low end of what Disney's films were doing, it might be fine. Like you said, not every film can be The Lion King.

But this is pretty much the high point as far as Disney's more recent efforts go, while others are doing better.

The film is what it is, and for those who like it, they will be free to do so forever when it comes out on DVD. Its not like it will be shoved under the carpet never to be seen again. But like I said, its all relative, and its hard to look at this and say that this is anywhere near what the company would have called a success going in, given the goals they set for it.

But that of course brings us back to what is probably the crux of the entire problem. Is the system Disney is employing to create its animated films even capable of consistently creating top notch product? Are the goals it sets not just realistic, but conducive to creating the best films in the industry?

Certainly its not too much to ask for an animated film studio with the experience and resources Disney has to produce films that succeed at the highest levels. But maybe its as simple as some have said... If you set out to make a film that will show your rivals what you can do, and gross at least $200 million, your chances of doing just that are much less than if you simply set out to tell a great story.

The second way of looking at it is related to the questions you asked:

I find it so odd that a little film like CL...will not be judged on its merit... How do the guys who made CL feel? Are they somehow failures because CL didn't do Nemo numbers and let Disney down?

Again, relative. As far as the public is concerned, they have spoken for the most part. As a whole, they don't hate it, and they don't love it. They judge it for what it is, as you say they should. Its ok. Nothing more, nothing less.

How do the creators feel? Good question. Probably depends on what their goals were, right? Did they set out to tell a great story that they hoped the public would love? Or did they set out to achieve the same goals set forth by the company?

[Another Voice]

… will not be judged on its merit…
That’s the big problem with today’s Big Business Hollywood. Films are assembly line products now – they’re not movies. It’s more important to hit the release date and the quarterly projections than it really is to create a money making movie. It’s also the reason so many sequels and remakes are being produced. If a studio boss is ordered to turn in $250 million in box office for the quarter, odds are they’re going to turn to a “proven” product like The Dukes of Hazard one the basis it’s less of a risk.

You can see a lot of that in Chicken Little as well. Disney has known since the project began that the financial success of this movie was more important than the artistic success. The gender of Chicken Little himself flop several times – once on orders from Michael Eisner himself well into the actual animation process – to make sure they covered the right marketing demographics. They went for hip & edgy because Shrek had done well instead of Disney’s more traditional (and financial successful) approach.

The public sees through that. Redoing what someone else already has done isn’t interesting and that tends to be reflected at the box office.

How do the guys who made CL feel? Are they somehow failures because CL didn't do Nemo numbers and let Disney down?
Been there myself, and it’s not a fun place. You reach a new low of self esteem when even your own mother can’t come up with something kind to say about a movie you’ve spent the last two years working on.

I haven’t talked to anyone directly related with Chicken, but the sense I get is everyone knew this one had missed long before the movie opened. Too much executive interference, too much style instead of substance, too much formula combined with way too little storytelling. People just kinda felt it.

I also get the feeling the people in Animation feel let down by Disney, rather than that they let the suits down. It’s ultimately up to the studio and the production company to get the movie put together. Disney was more interested in making sure the movie hit the theaters when the Happy Meals were ready when they should have said “folks, this ain’t working – we got to fix this before we get going again”. There are a lot of great bits throughout Chicken Little and I couldn’t point the finger at anyone and yell “it’s their fault”. It’s just all the little flaws and problems compounded each other to where the movie overall suffered.

In the end, the people in Animation want to make great movies. They don’t want to used as pawns in corporate reindeer games. But they weren’t allowed to do their best work. There’s nothing more thrilling than watching an audience respond to something you’ve put up on the screen. And there’s nothing more gut wrenching than knowing what you’ve done isn’t the best you can do.

[Peter Pirate]

Thank you very much Mr. Voice. That was interesting.
pirate:

[Aintdisablast]

I haven't seen CL, doubt I ever will.

It sounds like the story missed the mark.

How was the CGI/artistic side of the movie ?

What I'm getting at is, if Disney can get the story portion right, mechanically can they produce a movie equal too or greater then Pixar ? Or is Pixar's CGI department still ahead of what Disney just demonstrated ?