I finally get to sit here and write about the Disney move, Chicken Little. This is the first (unless you count Dinosaur, which I don't really) 3-D animation movie that Disney has put out not under Pixar. It is also the first movie after they decided to stop doing hand drawn animation (as you see me frown). Of all the negative issues that I had before I saw this movie, well, I actually saw it in the theater on it's opening day. My friend Colin and I were going to get tickets for the 3-D version of this movie, where you get a pair of cool 3-D glasses that look like Chicken Little's glasses but when we were eating dinner, I was thinking that the time that we bought our tickets for was not one of the 3-D versions. And by the time we realized it and went back to the movie theater (we bought our tickets from a machine by the way) the 3-D version was sold out. Booooo…. so we had to see it in it's regular format of just plain ol' 3-D animation without the 3-D glasses. And then I went out and rented it recently and watched it again. I think I liked it better the second time… but I still can't decide if it's buy worthy.
Anyway, the initial reaction to the movie was that the father figure was overkill. After him and Chicken Little had their "talk" he could not shut up about how much he supported his son, no matter how crazy it seemed. The other thing that I tried to do was figure out how many different references to other Disney movies they made. I only came up with 3. Obviously Lion King in the beginning, Mulan when he climbed to hit the walk button, and then Alice in Wonderland (which admittedly, I did not figure out on my own and only realized it after watching the special features) when he gets dumped with the drink after he wins the game.
Then came this thought. Aren't chickens GIRLS? Chicken Little is definitely a boy in this movie. It bothered me. Then after watching deleted or different versions of scenes in the special features of the DVD that it was originally a girl. That made me happy. Sort of. Then after watching the features about the movie, I found out that it was Michael Eisner who wanted it to be a boy. I believe the reason was because it's not unusual for girls to be small, but for a boy to be small (in the story, everyone in his class grew except him, he's supposed to be 12 or 13 years old) could be a bigger issue. As I sit here and role my eyes, yeah, it makes sense, but then why not in total Disney nature rename everybody? Change the story completely (yeah, they did do that here too, but they kept the title, typical) and not call it "Chicken" but maybe "Boy Little" or something… then that might refer to "Little Boy Blue"….hmm… okay, I guess they did stick to their usual Disney tactics, but still! Anyway, judge for yourself, go rent it if you like watching kids movies. Oh! Not a total spoiler, but there's also no true villain. Then again, Lilo and Stitch didn't have a true villain either and it was super cute and good. Eh. It was actually the father figure that truly bothered me (also, single parent, typical Disney).
Fish Out of Water