Chicken Little Makers 'Quit' Disney - Page 2

Kevy Baby · 03-31-2006, 08:24 AM

$135,289,768 through March 26 according to Box Office Mojo

Gemini Cricket · 03-31-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

$135,289,768 through March 26 according to Box Office Mojo

I see. I wonder how much they spent on advertising. It seems like they did a lot of it. $135 isn't bad but it's not great, either...

scaeagles · 03-31-2006, 08:40 AM

While I am amazed that the piece of crap movie that it was made that much, in the current Hollywood climate, that's actually pretty good, isn't it?

Gemini Cricket · 03-31-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

While I am amazed that the piece of crap movie that it was made that much, in the current Hollywood climate, that's actually pretty good, isn't it?

Yep. Movies seem to struggle to get to the 100 million mark nowadays. I'm pretty certain they were trying to hit 'Lion King' numbers. That seems like an uphill trek...

innerSpaceman · 03-31-2006, 11:33 AM

Wouldn't use of a computer to produce the look of something hand-drawn be prohibitively more expensive than just, well, drawing it?

Ghoulish Delight · 03-31-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Wouldn't use of a computer to produce the look of something hand-drawn be prohibitively more expensive than just, well, drawing it?

Not if you don't have to hand draw every single cell, but rather produce charcter deisgns that LOOK hand drawn, but are actually animated by softwared.

innerSpaceman · 03-31-2006, 05:43 PM

Yeah, that's what I thought someone would say. But the highly-paid animators do only "key" drawings, and the vast majority of actual drawings are done by grunt-work "in-betweeners."

Eh. whatever.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-31-2006, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yeah, that's what I thought someone would say. But the highly-paid animators do only "key" drawings, and the vast majority of actual drawings are done by grunt-work "in-betweeners."

Eh. whatever.

Yes, but there are still a time and flexibility factors involved. You'd have the same setup of the lead artists doing the key frames, while fresh-out-of-Cal Arts flunkies serve the role of the 'tweeners. But while certainly those flunkies are probably more well paid than traditional in-betweeners, they can produce results in a fraction of the time. And equally as importantly, produce alternate results in equally small fractions.

03-31-2006, 08:24 AM	#1
Kevy Baby Chowder Head Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Yes Posts: 18,500	$135,289,768 through March 26 according to Box Office Mojo __________________ The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot verify their validity. - Abraham Lincoln
	Submit to Quotes

03-31-2006, 08:40 AM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	While I am amazed that the piece of crap movie that it was made that much, in the current Hollywood climate, that's actually pretty good, isn't it?
	Submit to Quotes

03-31-2006, 11:33 AM	#5
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Wouldn't use of a computer to produce the look of something hand-drawn be prohibitively more expensive than just, well, drawing it?
	Submit to Quotes

03-31-2006, 05:43 PM	#7
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yeah, that's what I thought someone would say. But the highly-paid animators do only "key" drawings, and the vast majority of actual drawings are done by grunt-work "in-betweeners." Eh. whatever.
	Submit to Quotes