Chicken Little

Post by **Ben** » November 7th, 2005, 6:25 pm

Lion King is in at number 24.

Bear in mind also that Snow White has made up that figure over a number of re-issues, while Lion King's take is from its 1994 release.

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 7th, 2005, 8:39 pm

Here's an interesting post from an actual animator on this film:

(on Animation Nation)

http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ulti ... 1;t=010849

Post by **bullwinkle** » November 7th, 2005, 10:40 pm

i agree. people think pixar is like the god of movies. that is so lame.

Post by **Meg** » November 8th, 2005, 3:01 pm

bullwinkle wrote:i agree. people think pixar is like the god of movies. that is so lame.

Heh...you and isaac have the same writing style...

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 8th, 2005, 6:05 pm

i agree. people think pixar is like the god of movies. that is so lame

I think that when Cars comes out people will realize that they SO aren't....IMO there is a lot of artificiality to Pixar films that for some reason or other critics will just not acknowledge.

....did that come off too harsh?

Post by **isaac15** » November 8th, 2005, 7:25 pm

:cry:

Post by **Kaszubas** » November 8th, 2005, 7:32 pm

ShyViolet wrote:IMO there is a lot of artificiality to Pixar films that for some reason or other critics will just not acknowledge.

Well... yes, there are many artficial elements: talking toys, animals, monsters from the closet, comicbook alike superpowers, all those things artificially made using so called computers

I don't think they (critics) have to acknowledge that - it seem to be quite apparent

Besides there is so much heart to that "artificially" looking movies

Let's wait and see "Cars", then we all will be able to judge it. I hope it's gonna be very entertaining cute movie as I hope Chicken Little turn out to be (it opens here on friday so I can't verify my hopes yet).

Post by **Macaluso** » November 8th, 2005, 7:37 pm

My problem, is that movies seem to be taken so seriously anymore. People want perfection. They don't want a movie that's even "Fun" anymore.

Robots, for example, wasn't by any means a great movie. The storyline wasn't anything special. But it was a DAMN fun movie.

I've seen a lot of people not looking forward to cars. Even if it's not perfect, it would still be an awesoem movie. Even if it's just FUN.

I dun care if a movie is great, as long as it's fun and keeps me entertained.

Zathura, for example. Holy damn, I wanna see that.

Post by **Meg** » November 8th, 2005, 7:43 pm

Go Zathura!

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 8th, 2005, 9:04 pm

Well... yes, there are many artficial elements: talking toys, animals, monsters from the closet, comicbook alike superpowers, all those things artificially made using so called computers I don't think they (critics) have to acknowledge that - it seem to be quite apparent

Actually (and this is JUST my opinion) I meant artifical in terms of story and characters. I like Pixar but the characters have never grabbed me the way DW characters do...it seems like the plot in a Pixar film is on autopilot half the time, you know everything that is going to happen and that's just BORING. I'm sorry but Toy Story is PREDICTABLE, Bug's Life is PREDICTABLE, Finding Nemo is REALLY PREDICTABLE, and ditto Monsters Inc. I don't find them original at all. I enjoy them, but on an intellectual basis....not much there but fluff. Can you see John Lassetter making Shrek II or The Prince of Egypt? I didn't think so.

And just to make things clear....I do like Pixar so I don't mean to bash them. I just get tired of the perpetual love-in that's been going on in critical circles for years now, because it's just not warrented. They deserve praise, yes. But do they deserve to be anointed as Walt Disney reincarnated? No.

Post by **Kaszubas** » November 9th, 2005, 4:25 am

ShyViolet wrote:I'm sorry but Toy Story is PREDICTABLE, Bug's Life is PREDICTABLE, Finding Nemo is REALLY PREDICTABLE, and ditto Monsters Inc. I don't find them original at all. I enjoy them, but on an intellectual basis....not much there but fluff. Can you see John Lassetter making Shrek II or The Prince of Egypt? I didn't think so.

You're right, but I'm not sure that those are all negatives. They're not thrillers where predictability would ruin all expirience. I think critics know that intelectual basis isn't the most important criterion in case of family animated movie. I don't expect Bergman's or Kieslowski's kind of intelectual challenge from them (movies). I'm happy that not every animated movie novadays has to be a spoof movie with high amount of fart jokes. I liked Shrek 2 but most characters there where more like very funny figures than feeling persons. In Madagascar it's even more apparent. I'm also happy that not everything what Dreamworks has ever made is that kind of comedy (vide Prince of Egypt which was a little predictable, don't you think? ...and that predictability did't ruin show at all!) but I'm affraid that it (movie like "Prince") won't happen again soon because dreamworks found its "formula" to make movies. So lets appreciate that there is some variability in animation industry and some companies (directors) still want to make warm and a little naive movies which make us feel like a kids again

Post by **Ben** » November 9th, 2005, 8:52 am

Shrek 2...intellectual?

Post by **James** » November 9th, 2005, 9:31 am

DW is so unpredictable. You never know what product or pop culture reference that kids in 10 years won't understand will pop up next!

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » November 9th, 2005, 10:03 am

[quote="James"]DW is so unpredictable. You never know what product or pop culture reference that kids in 10 years won't understand will pop up next![/quote]

Bingo! That's one of my problems with DW films IN GENERAL. The writing in a DW feature is as full with off-color and unnecessary pop culture references in an 80-minute feature as a 22-minute episode of Family Guy!

To be fair, though, Pixar really is pretty much on autopilot with most of its features' story structures. They have the old "buddy road" plot formula down pat. With the exceptions of "A Bug's Life" and "The Incredibles," they've used this EXACT SAME FORMULA for every one of their films.

Really, as much as many people loved "The Incredibles," I think it speaks loads about the overall appreciation of that film when you consider it DIDN'T meet the DVD sales projections Pixar set. To me, that IS the most artificial Pixar film made to date. (Bird really doesn't do much for me in general...) Could be I read too many of the comics they swiped EVERY SINGLE IDEA used in that film from? I skipped "The Fantastic Four" movie because "The Incredibles" pretty much WAS an adaptation of that 1960s comic.

Post by **James** » November 9th, 2005, 1:39 pm

Overall, I was disappointed. While it was a fun little movie that definitely has a re-watchable factor that some other recent WDFA films did not have, I admit I was expecting something more than a Shrek re-hash. The in-jokes/pop culture jokes seemed forced, the emotional scenes contrived, and the story not that great. Humor and fun-factor are all the movie really had going for it. (I'm not commenting on the animation yet because I haven't seen the regular version yet.)

Anyone else seen it yet in Disney Digital 3D? I'll write about that experience later tonight!