Chicken Little Through Three Weeks

[Peter Pirate]

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

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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 ?