"Chicken Little" critical for Disney reputation

[Pat X]

Yikes, The Tomato Meter is REALLY, REALLY low for this movie. Even Ebert trashed it.

Either the critics are right, or they really hate Disney...makes me wonder why did Time Mag like it so much, calling it the most exhilirating movie in years, while all the others basically can't stand it?

Well, before Little Mermaid lauched the second golden era of Disney Animation, there was also the Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company. Those movies helped advance the talents and skills of the animators at the time. Hopefully, Chicken Little is the Great Mouse Detective of the 2000's.

This weekend should be interesting.

 

[FigmentJedi]

Should people honestly trust Ebert when he made truly crappy movies in the 70's and has a dismal view on the underated genre that is Kaiju Eiga? (giving the original uncut Godzilla film, perhaps one of the best anti war films, praised by nearly all the other critics, a terrible rating)
I'm not listening to that fat pompous sack of crap...

 

[crazycalf]

I thought it was really funny.

The critics just seem to be trying to find things so they can say it's not as good as pixar or dreamworks movies.

 

[FourFourSeven]

I'll take one, two, or even five negative reviews with a grain of salt. But between the low Tomatometer and the fact that review after review says the same thing (the story isn't there, the jokes are all pop-culture stuff a la Shrek only less funny, there's absolutely no "magic"), I'm not enthused...

It does seem like Disney, who used to be master of storytelling, has completely lost their focus. I was hoping Chicken Little would put them back on track, but from what the reviews are saying, it's not going to happen...

 

[KevinPage]

Well, this film was still micro managed to death under the Eisner regime, so that is never a good sign.

Hopefully after this one the animation department will be given a chance to do what they can do, not have some "suit" try to fix things.

I guess the brillance of management is to take credit for everything and the blame for nothing. I'm amazed that Disney of all companies, allowed middle management to determine stories in movies, see it FAIL over and over and over without making a change to MANAGEMENT. Nah, fire the animators, they did what we told them.

If people want to follow the Pixar model, you think it would be EASY. Hire talented people, let them create good quality and not worry about all the other nonsense (toys, marketing, etc.)

A quality product creates all those other good things by themselves, not being FORCED.

 

[Bravesfn1]

This does not look real good for Disney right now. The reviews have been absolutely terrible in general for this film. It could still do well at the box office though, however I am not really confident about that after reading some of the reviews. I predict they have a real flop on their hands. For those people who say the criticts hate Disney or have it out for Disney, what proof do you have for that? What criticts specifically have it out for Disney? Don't make general satements like that without providing evidence of specific biases against Disney by film criticts. I agree some criticts can be overly negative about movies, but there are some criticts that I trust and value their opinions. One is Roger Ebert and he gave "Chicken Little" a negative review at 2 1/2 stars.

 

[wannab@dis]

I personally don't put any credence in what critics say. Normally, if a critic doesn't like a movie, I'll like it. If they rave on it, then I'll hate it.

Several movies have been killed by negative reports by critics and yet the movies are not that bad. But, too many people can only follow the leader instead of thinking and deciding for themselves. Disney may do much better if they didn't allow critics to preview their movies and instead relied soley on their own marketing.

Also, has anyone noticed the fact that most of the reviews talk about "good" animation and "funny" movie, but it doesn't "live up to expectations"? Sounds like the opening of a new attraction. :brick:

 

[Bravesfn1]

I personally don't put any credence in what critics say. Normally, if a critic doesn't like a movie, I'll like it. If they rave on it, then I'll hate it.

Several movies have been killed by negative reports by critics and yet the movies are not that bad. But, too many people can only follow the leader instead of thinking and deciding for themselves. Disney may do much better if they didn't allow critics to preview their movies and instead relied soley on their own marketing.

Also, has anyone noticed the fact that most of the reviews talk about "good" animation and "funny" movie, but it doesn't "live up to expectations"? Sounds like the opening of a new attraction. :brick:

You are making general statements. What critics are you talking about? What movies are you talking about? If Disney did not screen the film for critics that would be a disaster. Take a look at recent films that were not screened for critics. A film studio will not let critics screen a film for a review because the studio knows that the film sucks, so they avoid a thrashing. Personally I want to know what otner people critics and non-critics think of a movie before I spend my $9 bucks on a film. I don't want to rely on the propoganda of the studio making the film.

 

[wannab@dis]

You are making general statements. What critics are you talking about? What movies are you talking about? If Disney did not screen the film for critics that would be a disaster. Take a look at recent films that were not screened for critics. A film studio will not let critics screen a film for a review because the studio knows that the film sucks, so they avoid a thrashing. Personally I want to know what otner people critics and non-critics think of a movie before I spend my $9 bucks on a film. I don't want to rely on the propoganda of the studio making the film.

If you are not sure of a movie, then turn to the sites that include consumer reviews instead of professional critics. All to often, their take does not equate to the general public.

 

[prberk]

Critics have been saying things were "Disneyfied" for most of the last century. Look up historical criticisms of the fairy tales that Disney animated after the initial success of "Snow White" (which most critics liked when it was new and exciting). Most original fairy tales were dark and truly grim (or should I say, "Grimm"). So, many literary critics over time saw Disney as bastardizing the story.

It was only after "Beauty and the Beast" and "Mermaid" that critics, perhaps a new generation that had been weened on Disney's versions of the other fairy tales, changed their tune. For most of the early '90s, the critics praised Disney animated features: great stories and wonderfully executed (and, yes, even date movies -- especially "Beauty and the Beast," which had a dual ad campaign, aimed at adults and children).

I think what happened was just that Disney became its own high-water mark. Nowhere to go, in critics' minds, but down. We can't forget that Disney itself bankrolled Pixar in the first place -- "Toy Story" was a new experiment, completely (100%) bankrolled by Disney. So, in a way, they are the ones who built the CGI monster that is so big these days.

Things ebb and flow. Disney wins in the long run if it sticks to good, "Disneyfied" stories, no matter which format.

 

[Bravesfn1]

If you are not sure of a movie, then turn to the sites that include consumer reviews instead of professional critics. All to often, their take does not equate to the general public.

Why turn to both sources? To tell the you the truth most of the time my opinions don't equate to general public. A lot of times the general public likes bad movies, one for example was The Dukes of Hazzard, which I thought suck. Popularity doesn't necessarily equate good. You obviously fail to grasp that concept.

 

[Pat X]

Here are the predicted opening weekend totals from Animated News:

How will the feature fare with viewers this weekend, though? Lee's Movie Info suggests a $25 million opening for Chicken Little, as Box Office Report predicts a $44 million start. Box Office Guru meets those forecasts somewhere in-between, guessing a $37 million debut for the chick flick. Box Office Mojo predicts $38.8 million.

 

[FourFourSeven]

A lot of people are arguing that "if critics like a movie, I don't, and vice-versa." They're also arguing that critics are unfair to Disney movies. Let's test those hypotheses. Here, in order from highest to lowest Tomato-meter rating, is every Disney animated movie from Great Mouse Detective to Chicken Little:

Beauty and the Beast - 93%
Lion King - 92%
LIttle Mermaid - 90%
Hercules - 90%
Mulan - 89%
Aladdin - 88%
Tarzan - 88%
Fantasia 2000 - 85%
Lilo and Stitch - 84%
Emperor's New Groove - 83%
Hunchback - 80%
Rescuers Down Under - 77%
Treasure Planet - 72%
Great Mouse Detective - 70%
Pocahontas - 59%
Home on the Range - 51%
Oliver and COmpany - 47%
Atlantis - 47%
Brother Bear - 40%
Chicken Little - 34%


A few things to note:
1) The average rating for Disney animated movies is 73% - pretty good. If you take out the recent movies, it grows to about 80% - staggeringly high for so many movies combined. So can we lay the "critics hate Disney" claim to rest?

2) Does anyone disagree that the "classics" are clustered near to top of the list, and the "not-so-classic" are near the bottom? So critics, as a whole, do a pretty good job of rating the Disney animated films... Can we also lay the "I like what critics don't like" to rest, too?

Okay, now that we've done that, note that Chicken Little is the WORST reviewed animated Disney movie in 20 years! Yikes...

 

[wannab@dis]

You obviously fail to grasp that concept.

You obviously fail to grasp that I said "personally". What about that do you not understand? However, if I feel that way then I bet there are others. I make up my own mind about a movie and don't give a hoot what the critics say is my point. You have determined to let others decide what you want to watch is your point.

I'm not arguing one way or the other concerning Chicken Little. It looks like a decent movie to me and I'll probably see it. If I like it, I'll buy the DVD. I rarely see movies on opening weekend, so if I put any credence in others' reviews, it will be consumer reviews and word of mouth, not some professional windbag.

 

[Dorindavar]

I agree that I usually dont take what critics say at all. They usually have no idea what they are talking about for what I like. However, it is not a good sign that none of them have liked Chicken Little. It will cause some people to not go to see it, and will hurt the Disney studio anyway.

 

[imagineer boy]

A lot of people are arguing that "if critics like a movie, I don't, and vice-versa." They're also arguing that critics are unfair to Disney movies. Let's test those hypotheses. Here, in order from highest to lowest Tomato-meter rating, is every Disney animated movie from Great Mouse Detective to Chicken Little:

Beauty and the Beast - 93%
Lion King - 92%
LIttle Mermaid - 90%
Hercules - 90%
Mulan - 89%
Aladdin - 88%
Tarzan - 88%
Fantasia 2000 - 85%
Lilo and Stitch - 84%
Emperor's New Groove - 83%
Hunchback - 80%
Rescuers Down Under - 77%
Treasure Planet - 72%
Great Mouse Detective - 70%
Pocahontas - 59%
Home on the Range - 51%
Oliver and COmpany - 47%
Atlantis - 47%
Brother Bear - 40%
Chicken Little - 34%


A few things to note:
1) The average rating for Disney animated movies is 73% - pretty good. If you take out the recent movies, it grows to about 80% - staggeringly high for so many movies combined. So can we lay the "critics hate Disney" claim to rest?

2) Does anyone disagree that the "classics" are clustered near to top of the list, and the "not-so-classic" are near the bottom? So critics, as a whole, do a pretty good job of rating the Disney animated films... Can we also lay the "I like what critics don't like" to rest, too?

Okay, now that we've done that, note that Chicken Little is the WORST reviewed animated Disney movie in 20 years! Yikes...

VERY good points! Excelent job!:wave:

 

[KevinPage]

Rotten Tomatoes wasn't around when all those movies came out. How many of their reviews are AFTER THE FACT?

Chicken Little faces a tough road from critics based on the media circus that has taken place at Disney the past few years.

Dreamworks Pictures, while not great either, don't face the skeptical eye nearly as much as this picture will.

As each Disney movie is released, it will be less of a big deal to critics and they can be more level headed and not emotional trying to prove a point.

Chicken Little is the 1st of what Disney hopes to reclaim their fame, naturally people are going to be more skeptical of it than Wilbur Robinson or Amerian Dog.

1st film sets the precident.

 

[FourFourSeven]

Rotten Tomatoes wasn't around when all those movies came out. How many of their reviews are AFTER THE FACT?

Very good point. I did a cursory check, some reviews were old reviews, but no doubt some are more "recent" reviews of classics, which may artificially bring up their rating.

That being said, I'm pretty confident that, in the days of Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and Lion King, praise was near unanimous - heck, Beauty and the Beast got nominated for Best Picture!

And regardless, Rotten Tomatoes has been around for all the recent releases, and Chicken Little is rated well below all of them. Are expectations higher for Disney's first CGI film? Yeah, probably. But still, a 34% rating ain't exactly good...

And, while I agree that some critics might have an agenda, or be trying to prove a point, I just can't imagine that would sway more than, say, 10% of critics. If we even say it sways 20% of critics from a "positive" to a "negative" review (something I doubt), the rating would still be only 54% - not exactly good...

For fun, here are ragings for CGI films I could think of:
Toy Story - 100% (!)
Toy Story 2 - 100%(!!)
Finding Nemo - 98%
Incredibles - 97%
Antz - 97% (okay, this surprised me - probably so high because CGI was so new)
Monsters, Inc - 95%
A Bug's Life - 91%
Shrek 2 - 89%
Shrek - 88%
Ice Age - 77%
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius - 76%
Dinosaur - 63%
Robots - 62%
Polar Express - 57%
Madagascar - 54%
Shark Tale - 35%
Chicken Little - 34%

I find it interesting that all six Pixar/Disney films are above both Shrek's.

 

[WDWBro]

Very good point. I did a cursory check, some reviews were old reviews, but no doubt some are more "recent" reviews of classics, which may artificially bring up their rating.

That being said, I'm pretty confident that, in the days of Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and Lion King, praise was near unanimous - heck, Beauty and the Beast got nominated for Best Picture!

And regardless, Rotten Tomatoes has been around for all the recent releases, and Chicken Little is rated well below all of them. Are expectations higher for Disney's first CGI film? Yeah, probably. But still, a 34% rating ain't exactly good...

And, while I agree that some critics might have an agenda, or be trying to prove a point, I just can't imagine that would sway more than, say, 10% of critics. If we even say it sways 20% of critics from a "positive" to a "negative" review (something I doubt), the rating would still be only 54% - not exactly good...

For fun, here are ragings for CGI films I could think of:
Toy Story - 100% (!)
Toy Story 2 - 100%(!!)
Finding Nemo - 98%
Incredibles - 97%
Antz - 97% (okay, this surprised me - probably so high because CGI was so new)
Monsters, Inc - 95%
A Bug's Life - 91%
Shrek 2 - 89%
Shrek - 88%
Ice Age - 77%
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius - 76%
Dinosaur - 63%
Robots - 62%
Polar Express - 57%
Madagascar - 54%
Shark Tale - 35%
Chicken Little - 34%

I find it interesting that all six Pixar/Disney films are above both Shrek's.

Robots has a twice as higher percentage as Chicken Little? Are you serious?! This is a good movie. Trust me. Go see it.

 

[CaliSurfer182]

So did anybody go and see the movie? I saw it, and I thought it was alright. The CGI was great and the movie flowed pretty well. Yes there were a lot of pop culture jabs, but that is the way the majority of movies now-a-days are made. I don't think it was meant as a timeless classic, but more as a comedic turn on an old child's bedtime story. The only thing that I had a problem with was that I felt it didn't have a strong Disney song. You know the type of song that grabs you into the story. But other than that I thought it was pretty good.