Chicken Little

[Above_the_Rim]

I heard Disney is expecting BIG things from this movie, do they really think it can do any better than Madagascar? Is Disney seriously expecting this movie to do as good as Shrek or even The Lion King, and if it doesn't pass the 200 million mark are they going to consider it a failure? I know that Pocahontas, and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Mulan all made over 100 million but Disney wasn't satisfied with their success. So that's why they stopped doing musicals, and well their movies did even worse. I think Chicken Little might make it past 100 million, but I definately dont think it'll make 200 million. And so if it doesn't recapture the success of their films in the early 90's, are they going to call it a failure?

 

[All Aboard]

I'm guessing the film will make something in the $90m to $110m range, which is short of what it needs to be considered a "success". Hopefully, that will at least go a little way towards stopping some of the thinking that believes that the reason other, more recent, Disney films have failed was because they were hand drawn, rather than based on computer animation. I still firmly believe there is a place in the market for both types of films. Lilo and Stitch proved that. When a delightful story is told, people want to watch. And, the water color look and feel of L&S suited the story perfectly.

 

[rocketriter]

A film's success doesn't depend on hand-drawn vs. computer-animated, except to the extent that one costs more than the other and sets the bar to profitability higher. People go to movies to experience great stories. That's what will determine whether Chicken Little is a success. Look what happened to March of the Penguins which, on paper, sounds like a total dud. But people absolutely love the story it tells.

 

[All Aboard]

Rocketriter, agreed. However, there are plenty of decision makers at Disney that do not agree.

 

[raidermatt]

This one is pretty interesting. Around $100 million sounds about right, but of course that's just my guess. I personally think it sounds like a dud, but I also know my personal tastes don't always match up with the masses.

I agree that $100 million would not be considered a success by Disney. This is especially true if we accept the notion that Disney is trying to gain leverage in its Pixar negotiations (or any other negotiations for that matter). I can't see how anything less than $150 million would have any impact at all in that context.

Another interesting twist is how this will relate to Disney's future efforts. There's a school of thought that says if CL flops, Disney will scrap its future internal productions. That seems to make sense, especially given how they've already cutback to one studio.

Of course the inverse to that is if CL hits a certain level of "success", then internal feature animation will forge ahead.

When you factor in that Valiant, a product of the "other" distribution deal, was a dud, it complicates things further.

Maybe I'm naive, but I can't see Disney shutting down internal animation without an agreement with Pixar. Some say an agreement will be reached, but as is always the case, we won't know for sure until it happens.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I think that if a deal with Pixar is reached, internal animation is in serious trouble. In this scenario, I think CL would need to bring in AT LEAST $100 million, and maybe quite a bit more to save the department.

As I said, its interesting.

PS- In my mind, its a given that "CGI vs. hand drawn", in and of itself, has very little impact on a film's popularity these days. I think there was some of that as CGI was ramping up, but now, it seems to make little difference.

But I agree with Greg that there are those within Disney (and in other companies as well) that try to pin a film's take at least partially on the medium. After all, for them, its a lot better than admitting they just failed at making a good movie.

 

[Above_the_Rim]

A film's success doesn't depend on hand-drawn vs. computer-animated, except to the extent that one costs more than the other and sets the bar to profitability higher. People go to movies to experience great stories. That's what will determine whether Chicken Little is a success. Look what happened to March of the Penguins which, on paper, sounds like a total dud. But people absolutely love the story it tells.

I just wanted to see if I understood you correct, did you say hand drawn animation costs more but the potential profit is higher than computer animation potential profit ? I'd have to say I agree, but I'm not sure if that's what you said

 

[rocketriter]

Thanks for asking. I meant that the cost of hand-drawn is somewhat higher than the cost of computer-generated. That means a hand-drawn film has to earn more at the box office to make the same profit as a computer-generated film; if the two earn the same gross, then the profit potential of the hand-drawn is actually less than the computer-generated. That's why animation studios around the world are switching to computer-generated: it costs less to make, so more of the ticket dollar can go to profits.

 

[Razor Roman]

everything I've read (Jim Hill, etc...) suggests Disney is hoping for about $100 million.

From everything I hear, the film is realatively modest, a character based comedy , not a huge spectacle or something designed to appeal to teens who give movies repeat business, and it's not bound to become a cultural phenomenon like The Lion King or Toy Story, and it's not loaded with big marketable names like Shrek or Madagascar or Shark Tale, though it will probably be better than all of them. (And I LOVED Shrek when it came out, but it very quickly lost any repeatability value)

It's directed by Mark Dindal who seems to do exceedingly well with "Looney Tunes" and "Rocky & Bullwinkle" style cartoon humor, which I think he did very well with "Emperor's New Groove" an undermarketed movie that came very close to doing $100 million, and would have if Disney hadn't lost faith in it and marketed it poorly.

I was also expecting to be sick of Chicken Little by now, with all the marketing allegedly planned. Admittedly, I just got married and don't even have time to watch TV, but I haven't felt innundated like I did 10 years ago when Lion King, Hunchback, and Hercules were being marketed.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

In the article "Can Mickey Find His Mojo?" (Time Magazine, Sept, 26, 2005), Richard Corliss wrote:

Disney surely has a winner in its debut [CGI] effort, Mark Dindal's Chicken Little, which opens Nov. 4. It's one of the funniest, most charming and most exhilarating movies in years. And it's a genuine Disney cartoon, with a storytelling sense and graphic precision worthy of the old animation masters.​

That's a very positive preview review. If Chicken Little is really that good, the movie could do far more than $100 million. Chicken Little has the opportunity to capture families looking for Disney family fare, as well as teen and young adult movie goers looking for good, silly fun.

I thought Chicken Little looked awful in the teaser. It still didn't look great to me in the trailer. But if it's as good as Richard Corliss says it is, I definitely want to see it.

 

[SoCalKDG]

For what its worth, Chicken Little is selling for $98(equates to 98 million in first four weeks of release) on the Hollywood Stock Exchange.

We all have to remember not to be narrow minded in judging the film by U.S. box office numbers only. Falling short at 90 Mil. but pulling in another 120 Mil worldwide will equate to a success, yes? Combine with the chance to make another 75-100 Mil on video means the real number that is needed to be looked at is all three, with 250-300 Mil being the goal, IMHO.

On a personal front, I'll be buying three tickets(wife, daughter, and myself). My daughter can't wait for this movie to come out(she's almost 4).

 

[BlueHue]

Regardless of how much this movie makes I am committed to giving it a fair chance. I was pretty wishy-washy on the whole thing at first, but that wasn't me in give-a-fair-chance mode. That was so-many-Disney-movies-have-flopped-lately-so-this-one-probably-will-too mode. I am going into it with an open mind and a desire somewhere in the back of my heart to like it. AND, it helped alot to convince me when I realized Zach Braff (from t.v. show Scrubs and movie Garden State) was CL's voice. I love that guy.

 

[Golter]

Chicken Little will do $200 million+, take it to the bank. IMO, CG will outperform a Tradionally drawn film of the same story quality. Its still a new medium and its still appealling in and of itself.