On the (Chicken Wire) Fence: Was Disney’s Chicken Little Really that Bad an Egg?

It’s now a whole decade since Disney hatched what is arguably their most resented animated feature film, Chicken Little. With a slew of pop culture references, characters based solely on hyperbolic, one-dimensional stereotypes, and a plot that meanders and ultimately peters out during its final moments, Disney’s 46^th animated feature left a lot to be desired. For many who grew up with the Renaissance era of the 1990s, this film ironically represented a major step backwards, despite being their first to be entirely computer animated. But is it really all that bad?

During the mid-2000s, it was noticeable that the sky wasn’t the only thing falling – the quality of the average Disney flick had plundered to new depths with the lazily-constructed Home on the Range (2004). While the soundtrack and the voice acting remained top notch, the animation and the narrative were both comparably inferior in relation to previous efforts of the last decade. It’s not that bad, but as the film to (at least temporarily) maintain the title of the last traditionally animated feature in the pipeline, it failed to impress for obvious reasons. And that’s probably why it initially garnered a lot of hatred. Likewise, Chicken Little was expected to herald a new age of animation and, well, to put it nicely, the chicken merely made it to the middle of the road and no further, resulting in a flick that received mixed to negative responses upon release.

Now, to some extent, this is understandable. Not all of the characters are very likeable. Buck Cluck, Chicken Little’s neglectful father, is presented as being just that – neglectful – with little to no redeeming qualities whatsoever. That said, in actuality, characters such as this do exist in real life, and his character is at the very least believable. His failure to appreciate his son derives from his embarrassment over his son’s allegedly delusional behaviour in the past – and his success as a baseball star would naturally imply he, himself, has been raised with a pressured mentality to ‘win or lose’, and as such he perceives his son to be inferior, as he simply doesn’t ‘match up’ to the standards that were expected of him. It’s harsh, yes, but believable, and even heart-breaking. There are also a fair few gags throughout the film that fall flat on their face – some of which are frankly cringe-worthy (the fat jokes about Runt and Chicken Little’s incoherent babbling spring to mind), but otherwise I see nothing overly flawed or offensive about the script itself. What ultimately disappoints is the narrative.

Unlike other reviewers seem to have noted, I actually quite like the ‘alien invasion’ twist. Some argue that it disturbs the movie’s flow. Up until about halfway, the ‘sky is falling’ aspect is presented as more of a sub-plot, but the emergence of an alien invasion halfway through the feature corroborates Chicken Little’s alarm at having found a ‘piece of the sky’, and therefore adds to the cathartic turmoil of the protagonist to form a more profound association with his father (being as his incredulity is based solely on his son’s having previously been ridiculed as delusional). What I personally find disappointing is the film’s conclusion. It’s feeble and lazy and ultimately renders the entirety of the ‘alien invasion’ aspect – heck, even the entire film – completely pointless. Until the final scenes, the film’s not that bad. It’s nothing special, but its conclusion is one of the most anticlimactic (not to mention stupid) that I’ve ever seen.

So maybe Disney’s first CG film is not all it was cracked up to be, but it’s not nearly as bad as you’d think after having read review after review berating it. The pop culture references are painfully obvious, and the film maintains a somewhat cynical undertone through the presentation of Buck Cluck. But that’s about the worst of it. The plot just about makes sense, though its meandering and conclusion make it horrifically unmemorable. However, while I’m willing to admit that it’s most definitely one of Disney’s worst efforts, you could still do a whole lot worse.

Zootopia Teaser: Are Disney Onto Another Winner?

As many of you are aware, Disney have released a surprise teaser trailer for their upcoming feature film Zootopia. The 55^th feature in their canon is expected to premiere in March 2016, and the trailer gives little away concerning the plot. The main ‘original’ aspect of the movie that the teaser highlights is the fact that, while humans do not exist in this world, all the animals are anthropomorphised, fully clothed and civilised. But really, this seems a rather peculiar thing to have to acknowledge in advance of its screening, as the animated genre is already broadly familiar with this concept, and Disney features are, themselves, no stranger to it; just look at Robin Hood (1973) and Chicken Little (2005). Cartoons have even utilised anthropomorphism since the days of rubber hose animation in the ‘20s and ‘30s. In any case, the teaser succeeds in emanating a semblance of originality, in that it implies that animals have evolved beyond their basic natural instincts and collectively developed into a civilised society (coincidentally very much like our own…).

Okay, so although the tagline claims it’s ‘like nothing you’ve seen be-fur’ (which is quite possibly one of the worst taglines I have ever heard), the concept behind it sounds a little derivative, but the character designs look smooth and quirky, and it conveys a strangely sincere undertone akin to that of an American crime drama – wherefrom, no doubt, many of the laughs will derive. The others are likely to revolve around the double act comprised by the fox-bunny partnership – comedy deriving from the pairing of oppositional counterparts representing yet another common trope in cinema. Regardless, while it indisputably covers old ground in these respects, it might yet make a compelling film, as long as it maintains a solid, gripping and impactful narrative, and the characters have chemistry. Without these factors, however, the film may prove little more than a fur-gettable (sorry) affair.

Check out the teaser trailer below:

Happy Birthday Felix!

Hi guys! 'i don't have a nose' is now officially a year old! Many thanks for all your support, shares, likes, views and whatnot (words cannot express my gratitude). I'm ecstatic to say the blog is still going strong. Keep updated by following me on Twitter: @felixidhan

I'll keep you posted!

Thank you, each!

Michael

(and Felix)



Cartoon Catharsis: Have Pixar Become Emotionally Manipulative?

Everyone loves a good Pixar movie. And we sure have a lot to choose from. But their winning streak irrefutably came to an abrupt end in 2011, having peaked with the release of Up (2009), an unexpected and rather adult tearjerker in the guise of a light, airy and colourful kids’ film. Indeed, the company’s focus had diverted from their films’ outstanding graphics to basic, raw emotion; a diversion that indisputably (at least initially) stood them in good stead. Their following feature, 2010’s Toy Story 3, followed suit, although some might argue that it perhaps relies a little too heavily on the characters’ former development and its emotional impact on the audience, rather than the narrative. In any case, it proved a solid movie. Now, with Inside Out (2015), Pixar once again seem to have audiences getting all emotional. But is this really a sign of solid storytelling, or is it just emotionally manipulative?

Admittedly, with the likes of Up and Toy Story 3, the ‘sad’ moments were justified by the narrative, albeit somewhat differently, respectively. Up’s narrative was thematically rather mature, and quite rightly touched the hearts of millions worldwide whether it was intentional or not – and this is ultimately why it works so well; it’s not in any way forced. Now, with Toy Story 3, there were bound to be tears shed by some. As the conclusion to a 15-year-old franchise, with millions having grown up with the plastic cast of characters, a bittersweet ending was expectedly on the cards. But I have to say, as powerful as I believe the film to be, its ending (which sees the ‘passing of the baton’ from Andy to Bonnie) is somewhat forced, in the sense that it almost demands an emotional response. And consequently, from me, they didn’t get one. For most, however, the scene *worked*, but it wasn’t handled nearly as subtly as in Up, perhaps because we all expected to be bawling by the film’s ending.

What’s more, since achieving this pinnacle, their narratives have declined in quality somewhat. Just look at the sprawling mess that is Cars 2 (2011) and the bland and forgettable Brave (2012), whose only major appeal is her setting. Finally, with the release of these two films back-to-back, the recently crowned masters of storytelling had fallen from their pedestal. Moreover, Pixar also attempted to invoke something of an emotional response by a heart-to-heart between Mike and Sulley towards the end of Monsters University (2013). While some have argued that the scene provides a slapstick, fun, comedy movie with some gravitas, in light of their preceding features, it just conveys itself as all too contrived, especially considering the bland and altogether rather slow-moving plot it accompanies.

Now, I’m not saying that Inside Out does not deserve to maintain any emotional impact – for one thing, I can’t as I haven’t yet seen it, and I certainly don’t doubt Pixar’s ability to convey a gripping, complex and ultimately interesting narrative. But it does concern me that, while we know for a fact that Pixar are arguably the best storytellers when it comes to animated film (just look at Wall-E (2008), for goodness’ sake), their focus on inciting an emotional response is a little too great, and on this occasion it once again sounds somewhat contrived. Promoted cleverly as a ‘major emotion picture’ in its slogan, Pixar’s most recent outing essentially demands that you yourself become heavily, emotionally invested in the characters. Is this slogan merely a pun, or is it indicating that Pixar know we’re going to be reaching for a box of tissues by its conclusion? In any case, although the majority of their features in their canon so far have been narratively sound and complex, I can’t help but wonder whether their attempting to be cathartic is becoming all too laboured.

Check out this new clip from Inside Out:

A Hairy Concept?: ‘Tangled’ Gets a TV Spin-Off



Oh dear. Disney does it again. A new animated series based on Disney’s 50^th feature Tangled (2010) is due to air on Disney Channel in 2017, with stars of the film Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi expected to reprise their respective roles as Rapunzel and Flynn Rider (aka: Eugene Fitzherbert). Needless to say, upon receiving this news, Rapunzel’s hair isn’t the only thing that’s been let down.



'Tangled', Disney 2010

To begin with, Disney hardly have a good track record when it comes to movie spin-offs. Throughout the ‘90s and noughties, DisneyToon Studios and Walt Disney Television Animation produced a series of frankly painful sequels, prequels, midquels and television spin-offs that often threatened to tarnish the very name of Disney. While some direct-to-video productions weren’t quite so pitiful (The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride (1998) and The Lion King 1½ (2004) spring to mind), and some TV spin-offs weren’t as terrible as they could have been (The Legend of Tarzan was only a little bit terrible…), they were all nonetheless inferior to their original source bases by a substantially wide margin.

Now, sequels, I can *usually* bear (aside from The Hunchback of Notre Dame II (2002) – that is unequivocally an affront to animation, period), and I can tolerate them in the sense that, should they be far inferior to the original, they at least do nothing to disturb the plot of the original – you can quite easily pretend the events of the sequel never occurred. But any midquel is almost always a complete atrocity. Taking place sometime during the events of the film, a midquel has the potential, like no other spin-off, to defecate all over what was previously your favourite movie.

A good case in point would be The Fox and the Hound 2 (2006), in which young Copper is tempted to join a band of singing dogs. Did Disney release this thinking it was an essential accompaniment to the original story? No, of course not. It’s nothing to do with the original story. The original (1981), based on the novel by Daniel P. Mannix, is a commentary on the preservation of friendships of alternative backgrounds in spite of the heavily dissuasive pressures of society. The sequel fails to regard the film’s arching moral narrative and sentiment, and consequently delivers something rather obscure and outlandish merely for the sake of profit.

My point in highlighting this is that a TV show based on Tangled, while hardly in danger of diminishing the gravitas of the original as a full-length sequel would, will logically nonetheless assume the role of a ‘midquel’, as Rapunzel’s hair (which was (SPOILER) cut at the film’s climax) is essentially what makes her character interesting. However, with members of the original team at the helm, including composer Alan Menken and lyricist Glenn Slater, this cash cow may yet surprise us. But one thing is certain: with Disney’s track record with spin-offs, their status as avant-garde groundbreakers in animation is hanging by a hair.

Fantasia Reimagined: Disney’s Live Action Remake Announced

Today I read that Disney are working on a live action adaptation of the Night on Bald Mountain sequence from Fantasia (1940). The original sequence, scored by Modest Mussorgsky and arranged for the production by Leopold Stokowski, sees a giant, menacing, winged devil figure (Chernabog) resurrect the dead, in one of the darkest pieces of animation ever produced by the studio. Upon hearing the sonorous peal of church bells, and a choral rendition of Franz Schubert’s Ave Maria, the evil souls retire to their graves as the devil solemnly recoils, and the darkness is overcome by heavenly light. The sequence is perceived by many casual viewers and animation fanatics alike to bear artistic merit in its visual conveyance of the power of solidarity in worship, and the triumph of good over evil. Now, initially I did not consider a live action adaptation to be a bad idea, especially considering its potential visual impact. But then I thought, perhaps it risks sacrificing the symbolism and succinctness of what is essentially a piece of art, and what is regarded as one of the most memorable, dramatic and impressive animated sequences of the 20^th Century.

Now, let’s not jump to conclusions. There’s no knowing precisely what they plan to do, creatively, in order to extend its narrative to that of a full-length feature. What’s more, Disney’s animated canon is no stranger to live action regeneration, and they’ve previously succeeded in terms of box office revenue. In 2010, Tim Burton’s re-imagining of Alice in Wonderland hit the big screen and, while it attributed its primary source basis as the Lewis Carroll novel and bore no specific ties to the animated original from 1951, it nonetheless conveyed itself as something of a darker, 21^st Century modification, despite representing something of a sequel to the original story. In 2014, Angelina Jolie starred as Sleeping Beauty’s (1959) iconic villain, the nefarious Maleficent, and just this year, Cinderella (1950) has been retold in the form of a live action movie. In light of these successes at the box office, Disney have also given the green light to a number of other productions with animated predecessors – Beauty and the Beast (1991), Mulan (1998), and even Winnie the Pooh (1977, 2011). However, while I’m certainly not going to doubt the production value of these features, I do question the overall quality, for it does seem rather lazy to keep regurgitating old ideas.

Yet I have to admit this concept is an interesting one, and certainly not something I saw coming. Night on Bald Mountain is one of the closest representations of animated ‘horror’ that I’ve seen – the imagery is just sublime. If they were to produce a live action version, it could be, visually, incredible. But let’s not forget it’s Disney we’re talking about here. This potential might only be realised should Disney not make the mistake of turning this sequence into a vocal performance, let alone (God forbid) a musical. Should they spoil this nightmarish, harrowing portrayal of the contrasting entities of good and evil with a saccharine, wise-cracking, show tune-singing Chernabog, then I might just give up on Disney once and for all.

Making (Pre)History: Pixar Unveils ‘The Good Dinosaur’ Teaser:

Having recently been inundated with news of further sequels from Pixar, it seemed as though their continual outflux of originality had gone the way of the dinosaurs. But does their latest output herald a year of change for the company?

Pixar have released the first teaser trailer for The Good Dinosaur (2015), to be released later this year. As with all teaser trailers, it’s humorous and a fairly innovative concept. The trailer posits what would happen if the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs bypassed Earth, and the dinosaurs remained, and evolved. Aside from this, it gives very little away concerning its plot, but one thing is certain: it looks interesting, at least visually, and strikingly different from anything else that preceded it. Perhaps Pixar are finally returning to form? Maybe it’s a little too early to say.

The fact of the matter is that a disturbingly large quantity of sequels remain in the pipeline. For the last five years, Pixar seem to have embraced their established franchises and played it safe. That said, this should not in any way hinder creativity and originality otherwise, outside of these franchises. But people’s collective disappointment in the company’s output, invoked by their unfortunate bout of sequelitis, was likely exacerbated by the weak and underdeveloped Brave (2012), which saw an original concept accompanied by a mediocre and frankly unoriginal storyline. Indeed, it seemed the curtain had fallen on Pixar’s seemingly irrepressible winning streak.

Yet this year, Pixar seem to be re-emerging as the front runners of original storytelling. The cynical of us had our doubts initially – admittedly I’m one of them – but it seems as though they’re getting back on track. Although The Good Dinosaur suffered problems behind the scenes (such as Peter Sohn taking over the directorial role from Bob Peterson in summer 2013*, not to mention a substantially delayed release), the concept nonetheless has promise. What with the release of their long-awaited comeback with the wholly original Inside Out this month, it seems that 2015 might well be the year Pixar bite back.

Watch the teaser below:

 

*Sources:

LA Times: ‘Pixar Animation yanks director Bob Peterson off ‘The Good Dinosaur’’; http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-pixar-director-20130831-story.html

Vanquishing the Villain: The Taming of the… Mouse?

I have to admit, with all the hype, Disney’s Frozen (2013) left me wanting more. Judging by the appraisals it’s received worldwide, I’m afraid I appear to be of the minority here. I know very few people who share my own, dissenting opinion. But in actuality, Frozen is altogether rather weak. Sure, the soundtrack is decent enough, and the voiceover work and animation is top notch. But that’s about it. After Elsa’s ‘Let It Go’ sequence, the film just kind of fizzles out. It doesn’t exactly go downhill – there’s just no build-up, no climax, no real sense of threat. A substantial part of the problem is that the film ultimately lacks a compelling villain. Prince Hans’ turning on Anna is a surprise, yes, but barely makes any logical sense; why did he not turn ‘evil’ earlier on when he was left in charge of the kingdom? In addition, he’s simply too… ordinary, to be memorable.

But I digress. This isn’t just about Frozen. I’ve noticed, in recent years, that the animated Disney film, for the most part, has degraded itself in some respects, at least where international, family-oriented releases are concerned. Hans’ defeat is, frankly, one of the most pitiful I’ve ever seen. And this film was perceived to be empowering for girls and young women?! His demise is akin to that of a slapstick sitcom character. What happened to the powerful deaths of the Disney villains of old? What about Scar in The Lion King (1994), perishing in the flames beneath Pride Rock as ravenous hyenas devour him? Or how about Clayton in Tarzan (1999), left suspended by his throat from a tree vine, comprising a makeshift noose? I’m not even going to discuss Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)! These villains, too, though arguably more ‘pantomime’ and stereotyped in their demeanour, maintain a certain menacing brood throughout their respective features; a certain charismatic villainy, and one which is noticeably absent from recent flicks. Compare them with the likes of King Candy from Wreck-It Ralph (2012). Though a damn good film with a surprisingly intricate and compelling plot, he’s not nearly as menacing, and his demise, though clever, is, by comparison, notably subdued. Even the best villain of the recent CG era, Mother Gothel from Tangled (2010), falls to her death in a rather clichéd and forgettable culmination.

But why does the animated feature appear far tamer than it used to? Some might argue that CG conveys far more realism than the average hand-drawn picture. Frankly I disagree. Though computer animation does indeed maintain a certain amount of realism, the hand-drawn, though noticeably artificial, is most often compelling enough to draw you in in the same respect. What’s more, visual improvements and technical aspects do not have any substantial effect on the design and demeanour of a villain – that emanates from expression, both vocal and visual, and can be accomplished via either medium. The trouble with recent villains is that they’re too ‘soft’, in manner and appearance. Again, why is this? Well, the truth is, their target audience is a young one – an unfortunate reality to my dismay. This is quite easily noticeable in Frozen. Traditionally (and stereotypically) speaking, little girls like princesses, and if there’s one thing Disney has that appeals to young audiences, it’s princesses. Frozen notably has two of them. Already, before the plot fell into place, Disney probably knew this film would be a box office smash, merely for this reason. And because of that reason, a compelling villain isn’t a necessity. In fact, if they wish to appeal to young girls specifically, it’s probably a good idea to refrain from including one altogether – which is precisely what they did.

Now, I’m not disrespecting Disney for this decision. It is, after all, a company that, like all companies, exists to make a profit. But you have to admit it would be refreshing to witness a solid, more universal Disney picture that appeals to a broader audience – one such as the likes of the ‘90s Renaissance batch. Of course, the likes of Frozen do not pertain *solely* to kids, and they’re not terribly low in quality, but they’re noticeably less intense and, as a result, less captivating for a more mature audience. It appears Disney’s strategy is working, else they wouldn’t be working on sequels to these features, not to mention that Frozen remains inexplicably popular. In fact, this was probably a somewhat sensible and ‘safe’ move following their unsuccessful string of more ‘mature’ films of the early noughties. Consequently, however, the world’s most famous mouse has been tamed, perhaps irredeemably, for the sake of profit. Which, don’t get me wrong, is good for them. But, though I can’t speak for everybody else here, it’s not so good for me.