Chicken Little: Ridiculous Campaign

[tirian]

If you haven't read the latest "Disney Insider" e-newsletter, read it here...

http://disney.go.com/inside/issues/stories/v050524.html

...and notice how many times it repeatedly points out that it's CGI! This is one of the most ridiculous bits of advertising I've ever read. Is the fact that it's a computer-generated film supposed to impress us?

The constant attention to the Almighty Computer Animation obviously reveals the Disney animation studios' skewed philosophy: "If it's CGI, the audiences will come!" Disney seems to be taking pains to stress that "Chicken Little" is not merely a modern Disney film, but a CGI Disney film, as if hand-drawn animation is the reason that nearly all their more recent animated features were nothing more than a collection of cookie-cutter plots with social messages thrown in for good measure.

Don't get me wrong; I'm looking forward to "Chicken Little." But new animation techniques don't replace a good storyline...and whether or not "Chicken" has that remains to be seen. Even if "Chicken" is successful, if the films that follow it are serious, pop-music-infused, socio-ecological animated films like Disney made during the late 90s and early 2000s, audiences won't care whether the films are CGI or not.

Yes, "Chicken" looks like the storyline is hilarious, and it'll probably be a hit for that reason alone. But good grief, Disney: stop advertising "Chicken" like it's the greatest animated film ever made just because it's CGI. Haven't you ever heard of Pixar?

 

[wannab@dis]

I think you read that whole article wrong. It's not saying the movie is good because it's CG, it's just saying this is the first movie that Disney has done that is 100% CG and it's still has a "Disney" feel.

"The biggest satisfaction to me is that the creative tradition of Disney got brought along into the CG world. People who have seen the movie say, 'Wow, this is computer-animated, but it really looks like a Disney movie!'" Randy smiles.

Go back and read the article again and think of it in terms of someone really glad to be part of the first Disney CG movie with experience in all types of animation. I think you'll see that the article is about Randy Fullmer being proud of the movie.

 

[tirian]

Actually, I thought about that before I started this thread.





I'm sorry; I should have been more specific. I was only using this article as an example of how Disney is marketing the film. My previous post was based not only on the "Insider" article, but also on the other press releases Disney has made.

The point isn't about hand-drawn vs. CGI; it's that Disney is marketing the film as if a CGI film is spectacular, especially since they've already done this ("Dinosaur") and the general public considers the Disney/Pixar movies synonymous.

P.S. It's also pretty funny how the article indirectly stresses that the traditional animators still have jobs.

 

[General Grizz]

Just on a side note, I really liked this quote:

"While its logic seems to be that it's better to chase the new leaders than champion a fading platform, the truth is that Disney's animation shortcomings were not the result of a waning popularity for hand-drawn animation. Those injuries were self-inflicted; Home on the Range made on computers would still have been a dud. As soon as Disney realizes this, its path to prosperity will not only become clear -- it will be vaguely familiar."

—Rick Aristotle Munarriz, the Motley Fool

 

[tirian]

Good quote!

My point exactly.

 

[prberk]

Once again, Griz, I agree with you (and with you, tirian). That quote nails it.

I can understand tirian's concerns. The marketing people sometimes can try too hard. Obviously, CGI is popular and they want people who are attracted for that reason to give Disney a new try; but in saying it too often, they risk looking desparate and backfiring by sending a message that their older, non-CGI work was somehow bad just because it was traditional.

I think the biggest threat to Disney is cheap sequels and half-hearted crap like "Pooh's Heffalump Movie" being marketed as features. Even a good MBA or "brand manager" should recognize the damage to the "brand" that such crap does when marketed as equivalent to masterpieces (i.e., a "feature film" just like the original!)..

Marketing should focus on selling a story and "art" that we can believe in, CGI or not.

 

[KevinPage]

As much as some of use don't want to really admit, the general public perception HAS changed. People ARE more interested in CGI films than hand drawn. That doesn't excuse the quality or lack of in recent Disney movies.

But I think Disney wants people to realize that THEY are doing a CGI movie, that this is something different. People may be thinking, "oh ANOTHER Disney animated movie, the past few weren't good".

This way it alerts people that Disney is doing something different and will maybe pique their interest. Simple marketing strategy.

I know I am MORE interested in Chicken Little since it is a CGI film. Granted I'm not the typical movie goer, but knowing Disney is trying somethnig new has me more interested than I'd normally be. A good movie is a good movie regardless, but if CL was hand drawn I'd still be interested, but since it looks good & it's somethnig NEW for Disney I'm more interested.

Also remember, people love Shrek(for some reason) & all the Pixar films. So the mentality to the "average movie goer" is that CGI films are something they enjoy and hand drawn hasn't entertained them recently. Yeah we know the real reason for that. But people just think they enjoyed a bunch of these CGI movies and they didn't enjoy the hand drawn ones, so they will naturally gravitate towards that. Human nature I'm afraid. I'm aware of that and I get sucked into it too