I find one thing interesting, aside from box office grosses: (and yeah, RT numbers don't mean THAT much, but then box office grosses aren't always e=mc squared either
)
Meet the Robinsons: 66% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes
Cars: 76% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes.
Both films had their strenghts and weaknesses. But I find it interesting that the scores are so close compared to other years, like, let's say:
Incredibles: 97% or whatever it was, and Chicken Little: 37% (ouch
)
But wait!! Many point to Treasure Planet as the "huge disaster" that sunk WDFA and was a signpost to all the bad films they'd put out afterwards...I checked it on RT, and lo and behold....Treasure Planet is 72%.....only four points below Cars, which was 76%.
IMHO, a lot of the bad reviews for films like CL and overwhelmingly good reviews for Incredibles and Nemo had to do (somewhat) with their respective qualities (although this is arguable in the case of CL, which I very much enjoyed, although I can see some of the critic's quibbles) but also on the period in which they came out....2003--2005 were the years in which Pixar Could Do No Wrong, and Walt Disney animation was going down the tubes, supposadely.
I think now, after Cars, which was a decent film but perhaps not the Citizen Kane that critics were expecting after Incredibles, critic's viewpoints have eased up a bit on Disney and non-Pixar films in general.
I think, now that CGI is much more established, they're a lot more objective, at least relatively.
All in all, while Chicken Little was not a perfect film, I definetely think it deserved higher than 37%.....probably more along the lines of what Treasure Planet got...72% or something.....Treasure Planet was pre-Nemo remember, before it became uber-fashionable to trash Disney and anyone who wasn't Pixar.
Just my thoughts.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
