Chicken Little Box Office Estimate Thread

[CarnotaurDad]

There is a sense that Disney always churned out hits but, if I recall, there was a LONG stretch not that long ago of (IMO) below average movies. We just remember the Little Mermaid - Beauty and the Beast - Aladdin - Lion King run.

If you look at the animated features, between 1974 and 1989, they only released FIVE animated films: Rescuers, Fox and the Hound, Black Cauldron, Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company. I don't think many would argue that these were among the "classic" Disney releases of long ago (although personally, I liked Black Cauldron).

I'm not saying that Disney shouldn't release great films, it's just that they had a fairly amazing run from 1989 - 1994 that seems to cloud the realty, as well as what Pixar has accomplished recently.

At least between 1974 and 1989, IMHO, they were in worse shape than they are right now.

 

[BRERALEX]

Harry Potter is actually rated PG-13 and was originally at an "R" status before some changes and removals were made. My DH and I are in disagreement on whether or not our DS5 should see it!

I have this problem sometimes with what my 7yo can see. So I go see it first alone and if it is something he can handle then I take him with me for round 2.

HP midnight showing by me is already sold out in one theatre. HP is a monster and book 4 is one of the most celebrated.

 

[Another Voice]

It’s all about expectations.

For a long time now Disney, as a company, has justified every move they’ve made using the chant “Disney is business – Wall Street only cares about the next quarter”.

I mean Brother Bears' world wide take had to have been a big financial success, didn't it?

In that light, coming from periods with the box office totals from Aladdin and The Lion King – the returns from Brother Bear are disasterous. The move cost about the same to make, but takes in a fraction of what had been brought in before.

A 40 million opening is only OK? Please explain this to me.

Likewise, when Disney runs around and publically proclaims a movie will prove that they don’t need Pixar, the box office take is going to be judged against Pixar films. Yes, a forty million weekend is fine when compared to Jarhead and Saw 2 – but the last two Pixar flicks brought in twice as much.

What business claims cutting their revenue on a premier product line as a success?

As I wrote in my earlier posting – the success of Chicken Little isn’t being judged on the film’s own merit, or even if it’s a “blockbuster” or not. Through a long string of decisions, Disney found itself in a spot where the chicken was going to be put up Pixar. Perhaps it’s unfair to the move, perhaps it’s unfair to the company (it’s defientely most unfair to the audience) – but “Disney is a business”.

P.S. Robots opened with basically the same box office on its first weekend. And that film is widely consider to have underperformed.

 

[All Aboard]

At least between 1974 and 1989, IMHO, they were in worse shape than they are right now.

You've squarely hit upon my point. 1974 to 1989 is NOT where I'd like Disney Animated Features to end up. I'm in fear that they will "give up" with some new round of excuses. This was supposed to be their Renaissance, the third coming of Feature Animation, so to speak. The Little Meramaid of the 21st Century that would spark the next round of amazing features.

Again, Pirate, (and I cannot speak for Kidds, only myself) not EVERY feature must be a blockbuster, but THIS one needed to be. I'm really concerned that it may be the final nail in the coffin.

 

[crusader]

Well here's round one.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid={9CC04D2F-4D29-474E-98F7-7ADC0DDC1691}&siteid=google

not EVERY feature must be a blockbuster, but THIS one needed to be. I'm really concerned that it may be the final nail in the coffin

No it didn't. And despite the reviews it prevailed this weekend. Who doesn't know the state of affairs regarding animation these days? All Disney needed to prove was they don't need Pixar.

 

[YoHo]

You know they often say stocks rise on bad news.

 

[crusader]

Yeah?

And what do they say when they fall?

 

[YoHo]

um, they say it drops on good news. This is not something I pulled from betwixt my cheeks, it's an actual saying. Falls on good news rises on bad.

 

[All Aboard]

All Disney needed to prove was they don't need Pixar.

Here, you and I are really saying the exact same thing. Where we differ is that you believe that the box office for which Chicken Little is on pace accomplishes this. I don't believe it does.

 

[raidermatt]

First, Crusader, you know darned well its too early to start pointing at a half day of stock movement as any kind of proof of anything. Especially given the "modest" nature of the move.

All Disney needed to prove was they don't need Pixar.

Exactly, and as All Aboard said, this doesn't prove that. If it shows better legs than other pictures with similar openings, maybe it'll get something accomplished. If not, all Disney has proven is they can play 3rd fiddle to Pixar and Dreamworks.


Pete, I think you are putting the egg before the chicken, or chicken before the egg... whatever.

Its not the public putting those kinds of expectations on the movie. Its Disney themselves, as well as the analysts and investors. Its more than just a question of how many 10's of millions the movie will make. Its performance effects long term contracts and possibly even strategic acquisition decisions. There's a lot more involved.

That's without even getting into the idea of "settling" and all that it entails.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Perhaps it ('CL') needed to be (a blockbuster) but that's the problem, no movie should ever "need to be blockbuster"...That's just too much expectation. I'm not saying it isn't Disney's fault, for you know I agree with you about the handling of FA at Disney and I agree that Disney gets what it deserves if they run around touting this or that as the next HUGE this or that...You'd have think they'd have learned their lesson by now.

Back to 'Brother Bear', in comparison to Pixar's profit margin...This is a valid comparison if every movie has to top the next, but I know you don't believe this is why films should be made. Disney made a critically well received movie in 'Treasure Planet', it had flaws which kept it from being commercially accepted (as we've discussed). Shouldn't these creative film makers be given the leeway to make a quality first movie?

Back to Disney, the problem isn't 'Chicken Little', it's the way the Company looks at FA and whether 'CL' was a hit or not probably wouldn't solve that problem.

Disney needs to deal with Pixar as best they can. If a good arrangement can be worked out, fine, if not they should continue to rebuild the infratstructure they've demolished over the past 10 years. Hire quality people, give them generous budgets, encourage them to make quality movies and NOT judge them soley on the bottom line. The end.

 

[Onceaponatyme]

um, they say it drops on good news. This is not something I pulled from betwixt my cheeks, it's an actual saying. Falls on good news rises on bad.

The actual saying is: Buy on the bad news, sell on the good.

 

[DisneyKidds]

OK Landbar...Errr Mr. Kidds ...A 40 million opening is only OK? Please explain this to me. What is the percentage of releases each year that has a 40 million opening weekend? Sounds like you're believing the 'every movie MUST be a blockbuster' theory.

Every movie a blockbuster? No, not necessarily. However, I'd rather the bar be kept in the 1989 - 1994 realm rather than the world of Shark Tale.

If outperforming Robots and Shark Tale = Blockbuster film than I'd expect Disney, as the leader in animated features, to churn out more blockbusters.

But Disney isn't the leader in animated features anymore, are they? Really, Cap'n, you just bolster my point. CL is a respectable result, and Disney is now just one of several respectable companies playing in the same market.

Is it really unrealistic to have expected that Disney could have maintianed their lofty perch as king of animated features?

 

[airlarry!]

M. Pirate, I agree with you if you mean that we don't need The Lion King numbers everytime Disney releases a film. A, there's no way to predict those gargantuan numbers, and B, striving to be the top grossing movie isn't the same as striving to be the best made movie.

That's what troubles me when people say they are okay with Disney hitting a double. Doubles are nice in baseball; doubles are nice if you are putting out 30 movies a year, because 30 doubles means a lot of money.

Doubles for your tent-pole-animated-feature-we-don't-need-pixar-movie-release stinks.

No one should be surprised that I argue that Disney should never strive for doubles quality from their aniamted releases. This company was founded on creating the best animated features that hard work, guts, and sweat could make...and CL, while entertaining, isn't it.

People point to the lesser works by Disney over the 2nd golden age...but even the lesser works are still personal favorites for many Disney fans.

How many people will remember CL ten years from now? How many kids will grow up with nostalgic feelings over it? Can the company continue to promote this movie by using its soundtrack, characters, and mythos in a way that energizes the parks?

When Disney releases an animated feature, it should be the event. Doesn't mean it has to pull in LK numbers, but it should be an event, much like Pixar's recent offerings, that raises the bar in terms of story, animation, and creativity.

CL was nice, but just like Shark's Tale, Ice Age, Brother Bear, The Great Cow Movie, and all of the rest, it is not hard to believe that it will be forgotten. I don't want nice. I want memorable.

 

[YoHo]

Perhaps it ('CL') needed to be (a blockbuster) but that's the problem, no movie should ever "need to be blockbuster"...That's just too much expectation. I'm not saying it isn't Disney's fault, for you know I agree with you about the handling of FA at Disney and I agree that Disney gets what it deserves if they run around touting this or that as the next HUGE this or that...You'd have think they'd have learned their lesson by now.

Back to 'Brother Bear', in comparison to Pixar's profit margin...This is a valid comparison if every movie has to top the next, but I know you don't believe this is why films should be made. Disney made a critically well received movie in 'Treasure Planet', it had flaws which kept it from being commercially accepted (as we've discussed). Shouldn't these creative film makers be given the leeway to make a quality first movie?

Back to Disney, the problem isn't 'Chicken Little', it's the way the Company looks at FA and whether 'CL' was a hit or not probably wouldn't solve that problem.

Disney needs to deal with Pixar as best they can. If a good arrangement can be worked out, fine, if not they should continue to rebuild the infratstructure they've demolished over the past 10 years. Hire quality people, give them generous budgets, encourage them to make quality movies and NOT judge them soley on the bottom line. The end.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this, but it's about as meaningful as a discussion of the rumored new Monorail. Disney and most of Hollywood don't operate this way. They to a certain extent used to, but not in the giant corporate conglomerate world of today. They need sustained profits and low margin middling movies don't do this.

It's a flaw in the system and it's causing Hollywood a lot of problems. See Viacom.

The true issue is that Disney is more likely to shut down feature animation and just contract out to Pixar. Possibly even sell Repunzel et al to them. Iger may or may not be a good guy, but he comes from a broadcasting background, a distro background, not a content creation background.

CL's middling performance shows that there is no profit to be had in "making it yourself" Or at least, that's what the execs will see.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Larry, that is what I mean. I don't think they should ever strive for mediocrity but I don't think medicroity in and of itself is critical. Walt put out mediocre movies from time to time. The problem is the emphasis on quality. Rather than worry about tie ins, plush sales and the like, the artists should make their movie (succeed or failure) and the PR and marketing guys work around that, never the other way around.

As for the bar Mr. Kidds, it should always be high but the expectation to reach or exceed, especially based on the financial take, is the dangerous curve. ALso, I wouldn't dismiss the long term benefits of CL, the characters seem quite lovable.

Yoho, thanks for rendering my opinion meaningless. If it's your contention that Iger isn't capable or likely to do any of the things necessary to get FA back on the right track then there really is no room for any discussion about failure or success anyway, is there?

 

[raidermatt]

Striving and requiring are two different things, and I think we all understand that. In the ideal Disney world, they would most definitely NOT be happy about a "double".

On the other hand, they wouldn't be pushing back release dates and otherwise determining the future of their animated division based on that "double" either.

Yet, things are what they are, and that is how Disney operates. And yes, Pete, if you are saying that the fact that they operate in that manner is a significant reason why they have struggled to even produce doubles, then I agree.

I am curious to see how Pixar would react to a double. If Cars did "only" $150 mil, how would they react? Would their sky be falling? Certainly some would claim so, and some analysts and investors would be expressing deep concern. But would Pixar essentially stay the course? Try to learn from any mistakes they made, but still basically believe in their process?

Or would they let the inmates run the asylum, and start looking for excuses and making changes?

Interesting question.

 

[raidermatt]

If it's your contention that Iger isn't capable or likely to do any of the things necessary to get FA back on the right track then there really is no room for any discussion about failure or success anyway, is there?

I actually think the chances of this are slim and none.

But I continue to hope that either I'm wrong, or that something else will precipitate a change.

 

[YoHo]

Yoho, thanks for rendering my opinion meaningless. If it's your contention that Iger isn't capable or likely to do any of the things necessary to get FA back on the right track then there really is no room for any discussion about failure or success anyway, is there?

You're welcome. And you are correct, aside from feeling the need to point it out to people who may not be aware of what's at stake, I don't see much to discuss.
It's my contention that Iger while he himself may or may not be a bad guy simply doesn't understand or want to run a content creation company and that CL is the catalyst for pushing him towards his inclination.

My hope is that Disney get's divided between it's former content creation core plus parks and it's distribution arms much like Viacom is doing, but I have little faith that this will happen.
And it's as much because Iger has his job on the line. He doesn't have the luxury of telling Wall street or anyone else to piss off we're going to do this right. He needs success right now.

 

[DaveO]

Has there been any public or non-public poll that shows if people other than Wall Street and Disney fanatics distinguish between Pixar and WDFA? I know my wife and kids do not. I know lots of poeple who relate Nemo, Woody, Buzz, and Dash with Disney and not Pixar.

Taking the emotions and 'Walt' out of the discussion .... does it make a difference if Pixar is developing the films with Disney gaining the rights to the characters and a cut of the profits? Is this the best for the company? Would it be better for the company to slash WDFA and go back to Pixar roots and quitely deveolp a film without the presure ... like Toy Story. My guess is that with Pixar trying to ramp up production and push out more films thier quality will go down just like it has with Disney and churning out 3 movies a year.

Now do not get me wrong I do not want Disney to become a pure marketing shop .... but is it time to cut your losses and start from "scratch"? What I mean by start over .... retool WDFA, set expectations with Wall Street that there will be one feature every 2 years for the next X years, get the agreement with Pixar (without giving up the farm), do not let PR talk with WDFA. Sort of like what happened with Lilo and Stitch.

Thoughts .... ?

Dave