Disney Countdown #50: Chicken Little (2005)

In 2001, Shrek became the movie that everyone and their mother wanted to imitate. With its unprecedented success at the box office, a sort of cult was spawned in which everyone wanted to be as quippy and smart as Shrek had been. This desire to emulate that style continued on for a long time—far longer than it really should have—and Disney was no exception to the rule. So in 2005, they released their first-ever fully CG picture entitled Chicken Little about a chicken who, after an initial embarrassment years prior to the start of the movie in which he is duped into thinking the sky is falling, finds himself a social outcast who only wishes to achieve the approval of his father and find his place in society. It's loosely based off of the fable "The Sky is Falling," but only bears vague resemblance to its predecessor--namely with the idea of the sky falling and the rhyming names, such as Foxy Loxy.

After Disney decided to shut their 2-D doors, solidified by the failure of Home on the Range at the box office, this movie was to be a hip, new, exciting edition to their cannon that would pull them out of the slump of mediocrity and into the spotlight once again.

Well…it pulled them out of mediocrity. Right into abject failure.

While I have to admit that my disdain for Home on the Range is more or less a personal preference, this movie received the same kind of vitriolic hatred that is reserved for things like Dragonball: Evolution, at least from the fans of Disney animation. It was a miserable disappointment in the box office, garnering only $135 million—not even enough to cover its $150 million budget. People seemed to look at this movie—and still do—with a blend of confusion, repulsion, and amazement. How could something that was supposed to be the start of a new era for Disney fall so flat?

There are legitimate reasons for the complaints. As I mentioned above, the itching to imitate Shrek became an ugly force, and with Disney doing a pretty crappy job in the last decade or so of bringing people in to see their movies, they more than likely assumed that a movie chock-full of pop-culture references and bizarre in-jokes would be their ticket to success.

And you know what, I will concede that there are few things in here that are funny and interesting. They did take advantage of the world that they employed, at least in terms of design. They took a lot of new steps in directions that they hadn’t previously gone. The problem is nothing in this movie really jives. The design of the characters, the backgrounds, the script…it all feels so strange and out-of-place that my initial reaction as a twelve year-old was “well…that was weird.”

But looking at this now, holy moly is this film a mess.

First of all, the plot in this movie, while creative on one hand, is convoluted and all over the place on the other. You’ve got Chicken Little who is convinced one day that the sky is falling and makes a complete mockery of himself but running around the town and trying to warn every one of their imminent doom. He eventually moves beyond that and lives a relatively normal life with his dad who seems to forget that his son exists (in typical Disney fashion, the mother is dead). Until, that is, the day it happens again—a piece of the sky falls down to earth and right where Chicken Little lives. Then, it’s up to him and his friends to figure out why, stop it from happening, and consequently save his town.

I say that it’s creative because they had a lot of things they could do with a storyline like this. Unfortunately, the way they chose to take it was a disaster. It’s one of those movies where you go into it thinking it’s one thing and then it ends up being another. Very much like Super 8—you think it’s a movie about a bunch of kids wanting to solve a mystery about a train accident that they caught on tape and then find out that it’s actually about aliens. Except, you know, it actually kind of worked in Super 8.

Here you’ve got a bunch of clichés, boring characters, and plot twists that don’t make any sense.

And speaking of characters, let’s talk about the animation. I really, really don’t like it. I didn’t even care for it at twelve years old. Since this was the first fully-CG feature that Disney worked on solo, I want to cut it some slack…but I just can’t. While the textures are great on some of the animals (mainly the ones with fur), the way they are drawn is just…gross. Everything is so weirdly proportioned, with giant heads that could never be supported by the bodies that carry them, Abby Mallard is one of the most appallingly hideous designs in the history of animation period, and Runt has a strange tendency to look like rubber. The fish out of water gag is kind of clever, but the fish is also the size of Chicken Little, despite the fact that he is a goldfish by design. And these aren’t the result of the computers that constructed the characters—that fault is on the artists and designers who decided “Yeah, let’s make every animal in this movie the exact same proportions even though one could be a dog and the other a sheep.” So I can’t cut it the slack I want to because the problems run far deeper than just the technology used to create the movie.

If you look at the backgrounds, there’s a very distinct cartoony feel to them: the buildings are curved and stylized, there are a lot of saturated earth tones, and you just never get the impression that this world is real. Yet they opted for a more realistic style for the animals that clashes with the backgrounds in a very bad way.

The writing for this movie tries so hard to be Shrek and it just isn’t. All of the pop-culture references, emphasis on Chicken Little’s traditional “nerdiness” is so over-done, and none of the characters are anything more than stock (with maybe exception of CL in a very shallow sense). The plot twist of the aliens is so…gah, just WEIRD. They’re not even very creative, although I guess they do a good job making the baby one look fluffy and…kind of cute.

In the end, I just feel like this movie is underdeveloped and tries too hard to be impressive that we lose any real charm or interest in what’s going on. Unless you really like Disney animation, chickens, or CGI, I’d personally skip this one.

Fun Facts

The original plans were to have the beginning of this film, telling the establishing story of Chicken Little and the acorn, in traditional ("hand-drawn") animation. Don Knotts, who supplied the voice of Turkey Lurkey, the town Mayor, recorded the voice track as the narrator for this sequence. The idea was abandoned and that part of the story was refashioned as a main part of the film and done in computer animation

Holly Hunter was considered for the role of Abby Mallard.

The first fully computer generated feature film produced in-house by Disney.

Editor Dan Molina performed the "voice" of Fish Out of Water by vocalizing through a tube into a water cooler tank full of water.

Michael J. Fox, Matthew Broderick and David Spade were considered for the role of Chicken Little.

Disney Countdown #51: Home on the Range (2004)

And we are kicking off this lovely little list with possibly one of my most hated Disney films if you exclude the abominations that were 99% of the Direct-to-DVD sequels.

First, a bit of history.

Home on the Range initially began as a project entitled Sweating Bullets, a film that was to be directed by Mike Gabriel and Mike Giaimo and set as a Western-style re-telling of the Pied Piper legend.  But after five long years of work on the project with very little decent material to show for it, the two directors were yanked by Disney execs and replaced with Will Finn and John Sanford. They took what material Gabriel and Giaimo had and promptly scrapped most of it, aiming instead for a more comical and light-hearted approach to the story. Originally the plot had consisted of a young bull trying to save his herd from a rustler; in Sanford and Finn’s hands, it turned into a comedy about three cows that chase after a rustler for the reward money in order to save their failing farm. This film was re-named Home on the Range, and after it became clear that all of the re-writing and deconstructing would prevent the film from making its original 2003 release date, it was swapped with Brother Bear and scheduled to come out 2 April, 2004.

This also happened to be the point in Disney history where long-time fans and devoted followers were suppressing their tears and trying to hold out hope for the future: after the relative failure of their 2-D animated films over the past several years, which seemed to only be getting worse since the end of the 90’s Renaissance, as well as the rise of CGI animation that started with Toy Story and led to things like Shrek being the movie to imitate, Disney announced that they would be closing the doors to their 2-D studios and instead focusing on CG films. And while I will argue until the day I die that this fall-out had much less to do with 2-D animation and more with the poorly-executed ideas for movies that were often boring at best and down-right terrible at worst, what’s done is done.

In light of this reality, Home on the Range was to be the last 2-D animated feature that the company would produce. It wasn’t until John Lasseter—who was appointed chief creative officer by CEO Bob Iger after Disney purchased Pixar out-right—took the helm and decided, in 2006, that Disney was not out of the 2-D race, and would be releasing a new film in 2009 that would go back to Disney’s fairytale roots. But we’ll get to that one later.

The unfortunate result of Disney closing up its 2-D studio doors was that this film absolutely reeked of indifference. In many ways, Home on the Range was just one last project that needed to be completed before they locked everything up and stuck a For Sale sign on the door. The release date itself, a spring one that fell in the midst of the semester for school systems across the country, was telling in and of itself. The last time a full-blown animated feature that had been released outside of the summer months or the Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday season was The Jungle Book in the fall of 1967 (The Many Adventures ofWinnie the Pooh was released in the spring of 1977, but even that was technically a package film consisting of three shorts that had been laying around the studio collecting dust for the past 10+ years). Audiences and critics received this film with the same level of indifference that the studio seemed to exude, and the film garnered only $103 million internationally—not even covering its reported $110 million budget. Less than half of that money came from the United States. Home on the Range became the final nail in the coffin of 2-D animation without even really trying.

I actually remember seeing this film in theatres, albeit vaguely. I was ten or eleven at the time that this came out, either ending my elementary school days or finishing the first round of torture that makes up middle school. I was the target audience for this movie. Even I, as someone who has an unabashed loved for puns and the occasional fart joke, found this film to be more or less forgettable. Nothing about this movie appealed to me, and maybe a lot of my disdain lies in personal preference rather than objective criticism. I’m not a Western fan by any stretch of the imagination, and even the bright colors and interesting backgrounds did very little to pique my interest even re-watching it ten years later.

The storyline itself isn’t that bad, at least on paper, and the creative team behind this movie get points for coming up with something that is so outrageous that it at least catches your attention. A cow named Maggie (Roseanne Barr—I refuse to make a joke about this) and her owner are forced to auction off their cattle ranch after it was robbed and left them with nothing. She is given to another farm, called A Little Piece of Heaven, which also happens to be in debt, owing the bank $750. So Maggie encourages the other two cows from Piece of Heaven, Grace (Judy Dench) and Mrs. Caloway (Jennifer Tilly), to go into town and conjure up some money by winning awards at the county fair. When they get there, however, the sheriff’s horse Buck (Cuba Gooding Jr.) tells them that they can’t be given any more time and have three days to get the money or the farm will be auctioned off. They then hear about a wanted criminal, Alameda Slim, whose capture comes with a reward of the most convenient $750. Maggie convinces Grace and Mrs. O to go out and try to capture the criminal, all the while in competition with a less-than-friendly “hero” Rico (Charles Dennis) who wants to snag him and get the reward money for himself.

My biggest problem with this movie is the very obvious lack of trying from almost every angle. That’s not to say this is a poorly drawn or animated movie, or that the voice actors don’t get the job done, but there’s just so much about this that feels like I’m watching nothing more than a high-quality Saturday morning cartoon. The characters are so unbelievably stock and uninteresting, the plot is outrageous but ultimately predictable (without any of the fun), and perhaps the worst sin that this movie commits is that it is clearly meant for children. And that’s where this gets under my skin more than anything else. While there have been flops in the past that express the same kind of laziness in storytelling, on the whole Disney is famous for producing movies that not only kids can enjoy, but also their parents that take them to see it. This has been augmented by their conglomeration with Pixar—who have mastered that art even further—so when you look at this film and realize that this was what was meant to end the 70+ year legacy of 2-D animation, wouldn’t you die a little inside?

When Walt first started the company way back yonder (pun intended), his first and foremost interest, after making good films that he himself would want to see, was to show the world that animation was more than just a kiddy thing—it was an art form. And so his first five movies were all painstakingly crafted to be just that (much to the chagrin of some of his animators who thought going out of the way to make things as realistic as possible was pointless).To me, this doesn’t cut it. When you have lines like this in your movie… 

Grace: You’ll have to excuse her, she’s just a little tense. 

Maggie: Tense. What’s her specialty, sour cream? 

…there’s a serious problem.

And speaking of puns, this movie is loaded with them. Now, I am one of those weirdos who actually think puns are hilarious given the right context. But this movie boasts some of the most unfunny, painful, and down-right asinine puns I have ever had the misfortune of hearing. Initially, there was maybe one or two that got a chuckle out of me, but as the film played out and they kept coming as a poor substitute for creative dialogue and clever humor, I began to feel parts of my soul cracking and falling off into the abyss of despair.

So are there any redeemable qualities to this movie? Well sure, I suppose. The animation DOES look polished, though the angular and flat style isn’t exactly my cup of tea, I do like the character designs of Mrs. O and Grace; their expressions and physical humor are one of the few things I didn’t cringe at when watching this. Alan Menken’s—you know, half of the dynamic duo that wrote music for most of Disney’s masterpieces in the Renaissance alongside Howard Ashman—music here is okay, if still a bit on the bland and childish side. I like the bright color pallet, especially how Jennifer Tilly’s cow pops against most of the purplish backgrounds. I think it says a bit about her character, and that was clever.

There’s also a scene here in which the rustler uses his yodeling skills to herd cattle (which is how he’s been doing it before the plot of the movie begins) and the ensuing scene of unabashed color and playfulness that has a fairly obvious throwback to “Pink Elephants on Parade” from Dumbo would have been interesting to me if I didn’t find the context of what was happening to be outright ludicrous. But the obnoxious color and synchronized movement of the cows is amusing, at least in the sense that you know the animators were having some fun crafting the scene.

At the end of the day, I can say with confidence that I will not be showing my future children this movie, and I am so very glad that Lasseter took the reins and decided to give 2-D animation another shot at success—because this sure as heck isn’t.

Fun Facts  

The final feature film to use Disney's CAPS (Computer Animation Production System) pipeline. The system - more than a simple software application, it encompassed a complex UNIX-based network of workstations and servers handling the creation, editing, storage, and workflow of multiple animated sequences - was dismantled when the animation unit was shuttered.

Alameda Slim is named after Wilf Carter also known as "Montana Slim". Carter was known as a Country Singer and Yodeler.

The second Disney film to star both Jennifer Tilly and Steve Buscemi, the other film being Pixar's Monsters, Inc. (2001).

Mexican singer/songwriter Ely Guerra was the voice of Grace in the dubbed Mexican version.

Batman: Under the Red Hood (And Above Many Other Films)

[Please be advised that the following review has SPOILERS GALORE. I can't talk about everything without them. Sorry in advance, but you have been warned.]

Let me preface this blog post with somewhat of a disclaimer.

My knowledge of comic books, characters, and mythology is appallingly limited. Even after growing up with a dad who read comics as a teenager (and, if my memory is correct, still has many retro ones squirreled away in a closet somewhere) and two brothers who made most of our family entertainment center on "masculine" films and video games, my only real knowledge of any superhero doesn't stem much beyond the films that were made of them. And depending on who you speak to, that might be nothing to sneeze at, either. The only superhero I would pretend to know anything at all about is Spiderman, and that only comes from hearing/reading reviews of the Tobey Maguire films and tuning into a podcast every now and then that explains some of the mythology behind what is supposed to be going on in the movies. Plus, apparently no one likes Tobey Maguire as Spiderman. Oh well.

Perhaps my initial disinterest in comics came from the fact that they follow so closely with their ancient counterpart: Greek Mythology. Now, I personally love learning about Greek Mythology whenever it pops up in my various courses or comes into play in a film or novel or whatever other medium can possibly cram the almost cliched (at this point, at least) characters and stories into their plot. However, GM is incredibly complex--the various Gods and Goddesses are often the authority over various different things, some overlapping, and have innumerable connections to each other that make for one hell of a headache whenever I try to put anything together. Not to mention that certain characters can appear in several different forms and or with different back stories depending on the version you're reading, that it's next to impossible figure to out who the hell is who and why they're important without the aid of an encyclopedia.

Comic books and their ensuing lore function in such a similar fashion that it's exhausting to just think about, never mind trying to read. Even bypassing the comics themselves and reading online synopses doesn't do much to help; everything is still complex and interconnected, which is interesting and engaging if you're a long-time fan, but not so much if you're an ignorant sap off the street such as I.

With that being said, those of you who are rabid and devoted fans of the Batman comics, their characters, and their lore, please keep in mind that everything I'm about to say regarding this piece is strictly from an outsider's perspective and not intended to be offensive or convoluted or whatever else you might feel this comes across. I have done a small amount of research to give myself some background, but that's about all I have the energy to do at the moment.

This happened to be my state of mind when I came across Batman: Under the Red Hood while watching a YouTube countdown list by WatchMojo.com (because I wouldn't be an prime example of today's youth without wasting valuable time reading and watching lists off the Internet). I've long since forgotten which video it was; all I remember was that one of the opening clips happened to be the beginning scene from this movie, in which the Joker takes a crow bar and beats the holy hell out of Robin for apparently no real reason, as that character is apt to do if Nolan's Joker tells me anything.