Chicken Little Box Office Estimate Thread

[Sarangel]

He needs success right now.

The problem with this is that Feature Animation, and to a lesser extent the parks, aren't a "right now" kind of fix. Anything that Iger could do to affect change for Chicken Little would have to have been done 3-4 years ago - with a similar timeline for anything he does now. There's just too much inertia to turn on a dime.

I recall hearing (and I don't know if it's true or how it would have been different) that Little Mermaid was started while Card Walker was still running things. Eisner, of course, gets credit for it, since it opened on his watch. It's just how things run.

Sarangel

 

[crusader]

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.

Always the killjoy. Now that's not really keeping with the spirit of our little movie is it?

Have you seen it? just curious based on your comments.

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.

I believe it sends a pretty clear message. Disney has been repeatedly crucified over the past decade for the management of FA and cutting the deal with Pixar in the first place. So despite no real talent to speak of, as we've heard over and over, and no state of the art production department, and poor reviews, a movie named, "chicken little" manages to bring in 40 mil.

What do you think the message is?

I can tell you it isn't that Disney needs 12% of whatever Pixar produces down the road.

 

[YoHo]

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

I don't know of any polls scientific or otherwise, but Pixar certainly is opperating in this manner and if they don't have solid numbers backing that up, then they're certifiably crazy.

 

[freakylick]

Disney has been repeatedly crucified over the past decade for the management of FA and cutting the deal with Pixar in the first place. So despite no real talent to speak of, as we've heard over and over, and no state of the art production department, and poor reviews, a movie named, "chicken little" manages to bring in 40 mil.

What do you think the message is?

That they can slash themselves down to bone and still make a mediocre movie that makes good money primarily based on marketing and the WD logo.

 

[raidermatt]

Dave, what you are talking about is brand recognition, and Jobs has talked about the growth of Pixar's name. Through negotiation/lawsuits, they have also gained greater billing for their products. Look at one of the early VHS copies of Toy Story and you have to hunt to find Pixar on the box.

Not so anymore. In fact, we're even getting "based on a Disney presentation of a Pixar Animation Studios Film" whenever Disney mentions Astro Blasters.

Most telling of all, Pixar's films generate a buzz that results in huge openings, while Disney's do not. So clearly a lot of people are making the differentiation on some level.

Regardless, if Pixar maintains its performance and goes elsewhere, while Disney maintains its current performance, certainly there won't be many who don't figure it out then.

Always the killjoy. Now that's not really keeping with the spirit of our little movie is it?

Have you seen it? just curious based on your comments.

Sorry to throw water on your firestorm of sensationalism.

No, I haven't seen it. Of course, I haven't made a single comment about the movie itself. Only about its performance and the relative significance of that performance.

Besides, I figured out long ago that my personal taste is best kept in check when it comes to gauging the success of animated films.

What do you think the message is?

That Disney threw everything it had into this film and looks like it will end up the equivalent of Shark Tale performance-wise.

When you are in negotiations with a prolific home run hitter, you don't gain much by showing him your punch and judy hitter can get a gapper here and there.

 

[airlarry!]

What do you think the message is?

That kids in America think "Woah!" is funnier than anything Roseanne Barr had to say in those horrible commercials for The Great Cow Caper.

Chicken Little was not the best animated feature that WDFA has ever produced, but at the very least, the ad campaign was more than a slight bit better than for Cowsingers of Moo Mesa.



And back to Mr. Pirate's postings, I think we are close to seeing eye-to-eye, don't you? We both hate mediocrity, but want Disney to produce something, anything we can be proud of. That's fair. But I worry that we are arguing over smoke rings here. Hand-drawn animation is shut down, and it remains to be seen if Disney will release much else, especially if this release can't even beat Madagascar.

 

[All Aboard]

What do you think the message is?

That WDFA was cut to the core, yet put itself on the line by having to put out a mega-hit to show them Pixar boys, failed to do so, and now has less negotiating power as a result.

This is a list of all the animate features of the 21st Century that have had a domestic box office greater than $100 million:

Shrek 2, Dreamworks, $437 million
Finding Nemo, Pixar, 340
Shrek, Dreamworks, 268
The Incredibles, Pixar, 261
Monsters, Inc., Pixar, 256
Madagascar, Dreamworks, 193
Ice Age, Fox, 176
Shark Tale, Dreamworks, 161
Chicken Little, Disney, 160 (estimated)
Lilo & Stitch, Disney, 146
Robots, Fox, 128
Chicken Run, Dreamworks, 106

This doesn't scream, "Hey, look what we can do!"

Crusader, I think we'll just end up going back and forth about our perception of these results and what they mean to the big picture. Clearly, we disagree.

 

[Peter Pirate]

But still numbers can be deceiving and not entirely all telling. We've discussed the success of 'Little Mermaid' have we not? No doubt it was the precursor of things to come from Disney and earned critical acclaim and belated fan appeal but were its numbers good? 32Million first weekend? Right? 111Million domestic? Right? Now certainly the inflated value from 1989 to 2005 is substantial but is it all that? Perhaps you number crunchers can extrapolate that for us.

CL gives us a respectable 40Million start (hey it'll easily be 8 or 9 for the psat 5 years) and it's not good enough. But (my contention) it could easily be good enough to be the start of the new interest in FA from the Disney Company if they were so inclined and not so caught up in the 'blockbuster' syndrome.

 

[YoHo]

What cost $111000000 in 1989 would cost $173019098.91 in 2005.

at 173 million, only the Pixar and Dreamworks movies would be better (Ice age would be about the same.)

Surprisingly, assuming the National association of theater owners indicates that ticket prices have tracked pretty well vs. inflation. So, that's a fairly accurate number.

The issue of course is that what constitutes success in 1989 doesn't map too well to 2005.

 

[raidermatt]

According to Box Office Mojo, the original run for Mermaid grossed $84 million. There was another $27 mil in a re-release.

Not sure what the opening weekend was, but it couldn't have been $32 mil could it?

Anyway, yes, since Disney is a very recognized brand, it is always either fighting against or reaping the benefits of how the public perceives the brand. Right now, when it comes to animated films, the public doesn't "trust" the brand. At least not to the extent that it trusts Pixar, or that it used to trust Disney. Hence a Pixar release is almost guaranteed a big opening, while Disney is almost guaranteed

I think we covered this in this thread or another, but that is a similar situation to that which faced Mermaid. Mermaid didn't do huge box office, but it laid the groundwork for the restoring of the brand.

CL COULD do the same sort of thing, but based on the reviews (which I know, are not everything), that seems unlikely at this point. If the film shows strong "legs" then that might be an indication of it being "Mermaid-like". (Since when to Mermaids have legs?)

The question when Disney puts out a decent effort is are they really building towards even greater success in the future, or was it simply one of the better efforts their broken process produces. You know, something from the top of the bell curve, similar to the way Home on the Range was from the bottom of the curve.

There are 2 questions:

1- How decent an effort is CL?
2- Will they follow it up well, like they did post-Mermaid, or will they follow-up flat, like they did post Lilo&Stitch? (Assuming they do in fact follow it up at all.)

 

[Peter Pirate]

No, it appears LM i's opening was only 6,051,914 for, which should make its opening much more comparable to Chicken Little, huh Yoho? (numbers, oh those numbers).

My take is that CL is a pretty good movie getting hurt by Disney's recent rep (deserved) but will show some shelf life. The question is, is Iger truly going to be another numbers guy as All Aboard, AV and Yoho are predicting (Matt, I'm not sure whether you're saying this or not, at this point) and clamp down on future FA because CL wasn't a blockbuster or will they put real effort into Repunzel (see other thread) and move forward.

 

[crusader]

That they can slash themselves down to bone and still make a mediocre movie that makes good money primarily based on marketing and the WD logo.

Nah. I'll ask you the same question - have you seen it?

The marketing for this film was terrible. The reviews were average. Neither do this film any justice. The movie was done very well.

That WDFA was cut to the core, yet put itself on the line by having to put out a mega-hit to show them Pixar boys, failed to do so, and now has less negotiating power as a result.

Yes and no. WDFA was cut to the core but didn't have to produce a mega hit to prove anything in 2005. All Disney needed to do was exactly what it has. Produce a good quality film in house. If they're smart, they would insure they didn't bat 1000 right off the bench. I agree with that strategy.

Like I've said, the message is pretty clear. Given no resources they're right in this game. Now they can rebuild their internal production facility while their sweetheart deal comes to a close. Pixar has enough to worry about. It takes an obscene amount of money, power and a healthy library of film to survive this racket. For the past several years, each time a competitor's film has been released, they have been steadily losing negotiating power.

 

[Another Voice]

and clamp down on future FA because CL wasn't a blockbuster or will they put real effort into Repunzel (see other thread) and move forward.

Well – You already have your answer. Here’s the blurb from yesterday’s Studio Briefing – a Hollywood based clip news service:

How Much Meat on This 'Chicken'?

Analysts generally agreed that the solid performance of Chicken Little indicated that Disney could turn out successful computer-animated fare on its own, particularly when it didn't have to share the profits with Pixar. Nevertheless, they noted, Chicken Little's weekend gross was eclipsed by other CGI features from Pixar and DreamWorks animation.

Jim Hill, who follows the fortunes of Disney animation on his website JimHillMedia.com, pointed out that Chicken Little took in only $1.2 million more than the opening of Disney's 2000 feature Dinosaur, which played on 400 fewer screens when the average ticket price was $5.48 vs. the current $6.40, which, said Hill, "is not exactly what I'd call a decisive victory." Hill also pointed out that Chicken Little averaged just $10,970 per theater, slightly less than the hand-drawn animated films Tarzan and Lilo and Stitch.

Meanwhile, today's (Monday) Wall Street Journal reported that Disney has decided to slow down production of some of its planned animated features and will have no new release in 2007. Citing people familiar with the situation, the newspaper said that Disney will not release American Dog until the summer of 2008. Meet the Robinsons remains set for a release in December 2006, but Rapunzel Unbraided, originally scheduled for release in 2008, will now be delayed until the summer of 2009.

So, according to the Wall Street Journal, Disney is already “delaying” its entire slate of CGI films by at least a year. If you listen to the buzz about town, it’s likely that you will never see either Rapunzel or American Dog. And Robinsons may be much like Home on the Range; too much money’s already been spent so you might as well finish it.

Despite lots of wishful thinking that Disney “didn't have to produce a mega hit to prove anything in 2005”, Disney had to. They’ve gone from a position of releasing event Feature Animation or Pixar films the routinely topped $250 to a state now where they’re best effort ends up somewhere between Robots and Madagascar.

The problem falls onto Iger desk – how do you fill in that massive gap in revenue?

 

[crusader]

Where's the WSJ article?

They have cars in 2006. If they wait til 2008 for the next film don't we want that? What happened to all the support for the Pixar formula for success ergo the old Disney formula for success?

Man if I had a quarter for every abandoned ship. ABC........................Theme park attendance..............................Motion Pictures................................ Merchandise .....................................and now (drumroll please)...................................... Feature Animation.

 

[crusader]

By the way, where's Toy Story 3 ?

 

[crusader]

Round 2

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051108_834836.htm

If I find anything on Hollywood playing games with these release dates I'll link it.

 

[raidermatt]

So, we've found industry analysts who disagree about how much leverage Disney has gained, if any. How shocking.

Round 2? That's just more talking head stuff that goes on between rounds. Pixar has been hammering away with sledghammer hooks for years, and Disney just landed a nice jab.

This thing was over long ago.

They have cars in 2006. If they wait til 2008 for the next film don't we want that? What happened to all the support for the Pixar formula for success ergo the old Disney formula for success?

The only "formula" supported around here is to focus on storytelling.

There have been questions raised regarding whether its possible for a company to produce a film a year while maintaining a focus on storytelling, but certainly the viewpoint on that is not unanimous.

The Pixar "formula" is to tell good stories in an appealing way. They are planning to do that more frequently. We'll see if they succeed, but Disney slowing down their internal productions can't logically be viewed as evidence of anything positive. At BEST, its neutral.

Man if I had a quarter for every abandoned ship. ABC........................Theme park attendance..............................Motion Pictures................................ Merchandise .....................................and now (drumroll please)...................................... Feature Animation.

You'd have a $1.25.

So if they run a ship into an iceberg, you want to celebrate them managing to get it limping along again? It's nice that they've managed not to Titanic this thing to the bottom of the Atlantic, but I'm afraid guests and investors alike need a little more before they are going to put Disney where it could/should be.

 

[freakylick]

Nah. I'll ask you the same question - have you seen it?

Sorry to disappoint, but I did see it (as I posted earlier in this thread)...In fact, I saw it in 3-D.

The marketing for this film was terrible. The reviews were average. Neither do this film any justice. The movie was done very well.

I am not sure what was so terrible about the marketing for this film, but I will respect your opinion. Actually, I think reviews were negative, maybe a little too negative. But I still feel that this was a mediocre film. Aside from the 3-D visuals and a few like-able characters that saved the film, the movie had a weak story and relied too much on pop-music. Of course, that's all just my opinion which is worth less than $.02

Fortunately for Disney, those like-able characters are what keep the kids attention, so that may be enough to give it some legs.

 

[raidermatt]

No, it appears LM i's opening was only 6,051,914 for, which should make its opening much more comparable to Chicken Little, huh Yoho? (numbers, oh those numbers).

But Pete, the huge difference here is how a movie's opening equates to its final numbers. In Mermaid's time, a film's future wasn't largely determined by its opening weekend. Hence, if Mojo's numbers are right, Mermaid did about 14 times its opening in total box office.

Things don't work that way anymore for major releases. That's why comparing openings from way back when doesn't get us very far. Lion King is another example. Forget inflation... CL opened at roughly the same dollar level, but for CL to match LK's total take, it would have to grow some steroid driven legs that would make Ahnuld proud, and that just doesn't happen much anymore.

 

[raidermatt]

The marketing for this film was terrible.

By the way, if Disney's marketing was really the problem, wouldn't that hurt Disney's leverage in negotiations with Pixar? After all, Disney's formidable marketing machine is supposed to be something Pixar "needs". If Disney can't market their own film, how can they add anymore value to somebody else's? (I don't share the view that Marketing is to blame, but if we want to go down that path...)