lørdag 29. november 2025

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe" - The Successful, But Short-Lived Disney Adaptation of C.S. Lewis` Famous Universe

Hi folks! Welcome to my My Own Personal Nerdy Disney and Animation Scrutinizing Analysis blog. A blog where I'm analyzing several Disney films, Disney or Animation in general! These entries are just meant to be my analyses. Not reviews or statements. Just fun analyses! Though I'll make some personal remarks now and then, the content of these entries are meant to be depicted objectively. They're made for entertainment purpose only and the pictures/clips are copyright Disney or other companies. 

Make sure to leave a comment if you like this site! And if there's something you think could be improved, please let me know. But in a constructive way, please. And just a note; I'm not a Native English writer, so my incorrect grammar may be notable.

And finally; If you haven't seen the films, beware of spoilers! And the funny lines aren't meant to be nothing than funny. So I hope you won't find them offensive. If so, I apologize

 
 


 

 
 
 
 
 
C.S. (Clive Staples) Lewis` tales of the mythical and magical land of Narnia are well-known and iconic stories in litterature. Which began with an image of a faun with an umbrella and parcels in a snowy wood came to his mind when he was sixteen. But the story didn`t have any direction until Aslan came along, as Lewis had dreams about lions. However, regardless of it`s position, it`s very remarkable how there`s been so few adaptations of the story in Hollywood. With the exception of an animated special and a couple of series. However, my own personal introduction to the Narnia Universe was from the BBC`s series from 1988 (as I`ve never read the books as a child). But it`s still remarkable how there was never an full-length movie ever made. Well, at least until 2005. 
Released in December 2005,
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The 
Witch and The Wardrobe was a movie made by Walden Media, but distributed by Disney. And directed by Andrew Adamson, coming off the success of Shrek (his first live action gig). Narnia was both a critical and commercial success, grossing $291,710,957 Domestically and $745 million Worldwide. Having Tilda Swinton as Jadis, James McAvoy as Tumnus and Liam Neeson as Aslan. It was scored by Harry Gregson-Williams and having Imohep and Alanis Morissette singing the end credit songs. Despite how the Narnia franchise was unfortunately a short-lived one, the first movie still made it`s impact and was the fourth highest grossing film of 2005 (and even outgrossed Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Peter Jackson`s King Kong).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
Comparisons to The Lord of the Rings
 
Since Narnia was coming off the heels of the successful adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, a comparison between the movies was both superfluous, but also inevitable. As Peter  Jackson`s adapatations of the stories were grand, sumptuous and long epics. And both were shot in New Zealand (which was the first the location suggested) and it featured similar landscapes. However, the difference is that Narnia was made with a younger, sanitized audience in mind (cause the violence is mostly non-explicit and no blood is shown). But frankly, regardless of how the first Narnia movie was successful, it wasn`t essentially the big, cultural phenomenon that the Rings-saga was. 
And what could`ve been perceived as a synergy, An extended edition was released on on DVD (despite how the movie was just barely extended). It`s also a synergy how Tolkien and Lewis were actually friends and how both their original stories shared similar trademarks (despite how Tolkien disliked Narnia, as he disliked the blend of figures from different traditions. And found the "carelessly and superficially written" work less serious than his own mythology). Another synergy is how both directors, Peter Jackson and Andrew Adamson, are New Zealanders and friends. And Adamson sought Jackson's advice for Narnia. But another comparison for the Narnia Universe has actually been the world of Oz, for having a similar, fantastical Universe.
 

 

  

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Faithfulness of the Original Novel, Lucy and Tumnus` Relationship and Andrew Adamson`s Previous Works
 
Yes, it`s hard to stand 
on two legs :)
Regarding Narnia as a movie, it is remarkable how it`s actually a quite faithful adaptation to the first novel. Despite how it has some mandatory tweakings with some expansions, it is otherwise very faithful. But regarding the emotional strengths of the story, there`s no doubt that Lucy Pevensie`s relationship with Mr. Tumnus has gained the most praise by critics, audiences and even by the crew of Narnia themselves. But it`s not strange to see why, as their relationship is sweet and endearing enough. And therefore deserved to be expanded and praised. 
It was hard to stand
when it`s slippery due
to the ice :)

However, considering how Narnia was helmed by Adamson, who was making his first live action movie, some reviewers (at least in my native Norway) were comparing it to Shrek. For lacking the sharp wit and vitality of that franchise and actually being more subdued. And while it is a relevant comparison, it`s still perhaps not as comparable in the long run. For being different properties, as both serves different purposes. Despite how the photorealistic characters talking was a nitpick by test audiences and reviewers.
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The Reception of the Young Cast 
 
However, regarding the cast of Narnia, it was a deliberate choice that the director went for unknown childs. To not make it distracting for the audience (despite how most of them had already acted before, with the exception of Georgie Henley as Lucy). But frankly, regarding the reception of them, it`s no surprise how Henley was the one who gained most praise (at least by  Norwegian reviewers). She stole the show and was absolutely charming in her role. However, William Moseley was regarded by reviewers as being a little stiff and bland as Peter. 
And while it would be easy to label him as so, the truth is that he doesn`t have much to do (no offense to Moseley). But regarding Skandar Heynes as Edmund, there`s no doubt that he`s gotten the most challenging role. But frankly delivers a solid perfomance (and despite of him being a jerk, does have his arc). But Susan comes across as the fourth wheel, as Anna Poppelwell is given an unfortunate thankless role as the snappy and prissy Susan. However, it`s not to say that Poppelwell is wasted in her role, as she does comes across as likable overall. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
The Subliminal, Religious Content
 
However, to scrutinize the subliminal content of Narnia, there`s no doubt how the it has been scrutinized for religious content. As the Pevensies are labeled as children of Adam and Eve. And Aslan essentially has a similar purpose and arc to Jesus Christ: To serve as a guardian, who`s also being sacrificed and revived. And yes, there has been criticism of this. Despite how Lewis is of course the one who`s behind it. As he hoped the book would warm up religious reflexes and having children to accept faith when they met it later in lifeEven a version of the soundtrack was released with religious music. But Disney was deliberately promoting it to the religious. But the religious content has been met with both responses, as it enraged an evangelical publisher. 
But at least some Christian devices embraced it and promoted the movie, as the Christian radio station Premier, Methodists, a Kent parish, US born-agains, The Mission America Coalition, George Bush` brother, Jeb Bush. Even Walden Media, offered a 17-week Narnia Bible study for  kids (despite how it got protests) It has aroused protests from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. But Adamson himself says the movie's Christian themes are open to the audience to interpret.  Still, regardless of that staple, is it fair to call Narnia a conservative, Christian movie? No necessarily. Cause despite having it`s Christian allegories and references, it doesn`t come across as preachy, nor does it rub it in the faces.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Behind the Scenes Information
 
This gift made me feel like a 
child again :)

During the early 1990s, producers Frank Marshall and
Kathleen Kennedy were planning a film version. They couldn`t find a place in U.K. to shoot it in 1996. And their plans to set it in modern times made Douglas Gresham oppose the film. As the technology had to catch up. Perry Moore talked with the C. S. Lewis estate in 2000. On 7 December 2001, Walden Media got the rights to the franchise. Walden asked many directors to helm the films, including Rob Minkoff, John Boorman, and David Fincher. Guillermo del Toro turned it down to direct Pan's Labyrinth. On 1 March 2004, Disney signed to co-produce and finance all the Narnia films. As the success of Harry Potter made the crewconfident to set the movie in Britain. Cause when it was developed at Paramount, they wanted it to set it in the U.S.  
It was hard to hide my long 
beard with my jacket :)


Many directors expressed their interest. But when Moore was called by his agent, he was recommended Adamson. Adamson himself wanted to a smaller movie. But Adamson loved the story so much that he didn`t wanted another director to do it. Adamson wrote down all of his memories from the book and everything he loved about it as a child. And wrote a 20 page director`s note for everything he wanted to do. Adamson had envisioned the ending battle in his mind as a child. Adamson approved with Lewis` stepson, Doug Gresham, to expand some scenes. 2.500 kids auditioned and Adamson met 700 of them and workshopped with 400 of them. And narrowed them down to 120. However, the processs of casting them was delayed, as the crew were working on the script. William and Anna were the first to be found and Skandar and Georgie the last. And all were cast the same day, in order to work as a family.  
I just recently woke up, that`s
why I look like this :)
Swinton was the first choice for the Queen. But it was hard to avoid the cliche of making her like any other female villain, cackling and screeching. And also as Swinton gave her sophistication, as Adamson wanted her to be so and come across as ambiguous. But also how a cold nature scare children more. The actors who voiced the creatures were the last to be found. Aslan`s voice was the hardest to cast, for being supreme, but also vulnerable. The movie was shot chronologically, as the child actors would mature during the movie, but also to reflect their emotional journey. The beavers were the favorite characters of the test audience. But Adamson wanted them to be realistic and deliberately threw in the meta-comments of them talking, as it seemed distracting. The overall shooting took from eight months. To shoot in New Zealand was not easy, due to how it was too huge and they had to bring in snow. All four of the children had a parent with them during the shooting.  
I`m angry because they 
skinned me :)
Wētā Workshop head Richard Taylor felt Narnia had to be less dark and gritty than Middle-earth in Rings because it is a new world. Photography began in June 2004. The children were in New Zealand for six months. As for locations, it was also shot in U.K., Poland and Czech Republic. But the final battle was shot in Flock Hill, in South Island. Which was not a production friendly place to ship the crew. And yes, they were considering to have a real lion for Aslan. Weta created the characters and the costumes and digital props. The special effects were made by Rhythm and Hues (who were behind Babe), ILM, Digital Dream and SPI. Since reindeers couldn`t be brought to New Zealand for bovine desease, they had to create ones with animatronics and CGI. Real wolves were used in the set, along with CGI wolves. But when they were coming to hunt the beavers, they looked like they were happy, so their wagging tails were removed. The scene with the Pevensies having a confrontation with the wolves at the melting ice wasn`t in the book, but was added to have more jeopardy. And the crew sprayed water on the ice to make it unstable for the kids, so their performance was sharpened. And the water was warm, so the children loved it. Amy Lee from Evanescence wrote a song for the film, that wasn`t included in the soundtrack. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sequels
 
Since the original tales of Lewis included many stories, it was needless that Narnia was essentially going to receive sequels. However, the lasting of the Narnia-franchise was unfortunately a very short-lived one. As it barely lasted for five years and only two sequels were released. But what`s remarkable how only one was distributed by Disney and the other from 20th Century Fox. The first sequel, Prince Caspian was released in May 2008. But despite how it was mostly critically well recieved, it was still regarded by some to be inferior to it`s predecessor. And the audience responded in the same way. While it wasn`t a flop, it still grossed inferiorly to it`s predecessor ($141,621,490 Domestically and $419,665,568 Worldwide). Regarding my opinion about Caspian, the truth is that wasn`t a bad movie. It was a actually a good one. But it was hampered by it`s flaws: It was too rushed, the juggling between the storylines was not consistent, the characters were underdeveloped, the romance between Susan and Caspian was contrived and the ending song (Regina Spektors` The Call) felt jarringly out of place in a fantasy movie. 
Sure, Caspian had it`s moments (and frankly, Edmund was superior in that movie, as he came across as snarky in a appealing way), but compared to it`s predecessor, it was easy to look through it`s faults. As for the third sequel, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, it was released two years later. But due to budgetary disputes between Disney and Walden Media, Fox took over. The critics were essentially hostile with Voyage and the Box Office results were on par with Caspian ($104,386,950 Domestically and $415,686,217 Worldwide). As for my own opinion of Voyage, while it wasn`t as half-baked as Caspian, it was essentially cute and endearing enough on it`s own right. But compared to The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, it felt inferior as a whole. But both of the sequels took more liberties with the source material than Wardrobe did. And sure, it would be tempting to ponder why both of these sequels underperformed. And the truth is there are many reasons for it (the sake of timing, how the stories were meant for children). Orginally The Silver Chair was going to be adapted, but in the fall of 2011, Walden contract with the Lewis estate expired.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Epilogue
 
Since the lion is the king, I
must shine above others :)
At the end, 
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe is a successful adaptation of Lewis` enchanting and endearing Universe. It truly deserved it`s success in every single way. As for my personal opinion about the movie, I`ve always liked it a lot. I loved it when I first saw it theatrically and loved it ever since. I thought it was an enchanting, endearing and well-made adapation of the story. It`s visually splendid, the music was enchanting, the characters are engaging enough and manages to create a sense and magic and wonder. 
We were instructed to pose
awkwardly :)
True there are a couple of scenes that are superfluous, but they do come across as rather nitpicky and never sullies the movie. And frankly, I thought the movie was superior to my previous introduction to the Narnia-franchise, the BBC`s series. Cause it was superior as a whole. But while that being said, since this entry was meant to synergize it`s 20th Anniversary (yes, it`s hard to believe that for someone who was that age at that time that this movie is now that old), there`s nothing else to wish Narnia  
Happy 20th Anniversary and may you continue to have many more.






I wanted to show there are more lions than Simba and Mufasa :)




  
 
References: 
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe Two Disc Special Edition DVD
Starlog Magazine January 2006 

torsdag 30. oktober 2025

"Chicken Little" - The First CGI Feature from Disney`s New Post-Renaissance Era and the "Shrek"-Like Picture From Disney That Was a Critical Flop

Hi folks! Welcome to my My Own Personal Nerdy Disney and Animation Scrutinizing Analysis blog. A blog where I'm analyzing several Disney films, Disney or Animation in general! These entries are just meant to be my analyses. Not reviews or statements. Just fun analyses! Though I'll make some personal remarks now and then, the content of these entries are meant to be depicted objectively. They're made for entertainment purpose only and the pictures/clips are copyright Disney or other companies. 

Make sure to leave a comment if you like this site! And if there's something you think could be improved, please let me know. But in a constructive way, please. And just a note; I'm not a Native English writer, so my incorrect grammar may be notable.

And finally; If you haven't seen the films, beware of spoilers! And the funny lines aren't meant to be nothing than funny. So I hope you won't find them offensive. If so, I apologize

 
 
 
 
I know that it`s rude to show your ass. But I was instructed to do so :)

 
 
 
 
Through Disney`s long and ongoing history, there are some years that are significant for the studio`s history. In 1937, Disney pioneered with their first full-length animated movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (which despite wasn`t the first animated full-length feature ever made, was still significant enough on it`s own right). In 1995, Pixar made their contribution with the first full-length CGI picture ever made, Toy Story. And despite how that contribution was Pixar`s doing, it`s fair to say that Pixar is a part of Disney`s division, after all. And ten years later, Disney would essentially follow the norm that most animated studios were doing at the time and eventually drop hand drawn animation completely. 
And while it was something that dismayed the fans, as it was somewhat contradictory (and yes, there were rumors of how Disney fans were ready to tear their first CGI movie down for that reason). As Disney was the first American company who made a full-length Hand Drawn feature (despite how Disney resurged it briefly with The Princess and the Frog and Winnie the Pooh, before it quietly went back to the corner again). However, despite how Disney had already made an semi-CGI movie with Dinosaur five years earlier at the dawn of the new Millenium, the truth is that it only had CGI characters and Live Action background. So the first movie to actually have the (dis)honor to be Disney`s very first CGI movie was Chicken Little (despite how it was briefly considered to be a Hand Drawn and a blend of Hand Drawn and CGI at the beginning).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 


 
 
 
 
 

General Information of Chicken Little
 
Released in November 2005, Chicken Little was directed by the team of The Emperor`s New Groove, Mark Dindal and producer Randy Fullmer. The score was from John Debney. And starred Zach Braff, Joan Cusack, Dan Molina, Steve Zahn, Gary Marshall, Amy Sedaris, Mark Walton, Patrick Warbuton, Wallace Shawn and Don Knotts (his very last film). Dindal voiced Morkubine Porcupine (and the gymnastic teacher). Barenaked Ladies, Five for Fighting, Joss Stone, Patti LaBelle and The Cheetah Girls performed the songs. Peter del Vecho was the associate producer. Ian Gooding (AladdinThe Lion King, Mulan) and Dan Cooper (Tangled, Zootopia) were the art directors. Steve Goldberg (Big Hero 6Tarzan) was the visual effect supervisor. Eamonn Butler (Dinosaur) was the animation supervisor. Joe Moshier (The Emperor`s New Groove) was the character designer. 
Chris Williams, Don Hall, Dean Wellins, Nathan Greno and Byron Howard were additional story artists. Thomas Baker and Bob Walker were among the layout. Animators like Nik Ranieri, Tim Allen, Dale Baer, Lino Di Salvo, Brian Ferguson, Randy Haycock, Alex Kupersmidth, James Lopez, Michael Show, Marc Smith, Ellen Woodbury and Dick Zondag animated the characters. Mauro Maressa and Marlon West were the effect supervisors. Ellen Keneshea was among the editorial. Bobbi Page was the vocal conductor. Pam Coats, Jon Lucas and Irene Mecchi were among the helpers. Hi-Hat was the choreographer for the ending dance. Little was the first Disney feature to be released in 3D. Still, regardless of it`s badly critical reception, it still was a success, grossing $135,386,665 Domestically and  $314,432,837 Worldwide. It was going to be released on July 1, 2005. It`s teaser was on the Brother Bear DVD, over a year before it premiered. Little was dedicated to Joe Grant, who died before it`s release.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Disney and Non-Disney Elements of Chicken Little 
 
I`m (Buck) tricking you to go
to something that looks like
a party, but it`s not one :)
In reality, Chicken Little was continuation and a departure
from Disney. A continuation for being steeped in Disney`s trademarks, as it`s based on a well-known story and is also a story that the studio has adapted before (in 1943 with the short with the same title). And it`s been expanded and modernized to fit a modern audience. And takes place in a world of anthrophomorphic animals (despite how Disney has usually been tangible by having both anthrophomorphic and naturalistic animals in their movies, the truth is that Robin Hood is the closest cousin to have a World with only anthrophomorphic animals. As with it`s successor, Zootopia). It even has an protagonist who`s an outcast and a single parent dynamic (and yes, with a deseased mother. Who was originally a part of the story, but was scrapped to stress the conflict between Chicken Little and Buck Cluck). It even has a father/child conflict (with a father who`s mostly hated by the majority). And it also has a sweet, unsubstatinal romance between two friends. 
We were paid to pose like 
this :)
However, it`s somewhat a departure for being executed in a zippy, zangy and zany way that makes it feel like a Shrek-like movie. It`s almost an irony how that formula is regarded as anti-Disney, despite how Disney had previously introduced it with
Aladdin almost a decade priorly. But it was Shrek who solidified that formula and made it known for being non-Disney. And sure, since most American mainstream animated movies (with the exception of Pixar) at the time were capitilazing that formula after Shrek took over the World, it wasn`t strange that Disney jumped on the wagon and followed that formula, too. But with very little critical success. But since it was the very first official CGI made and ushered a new era, it`s remarkable how Little (like Home on the Range) was a lean, middle-of-the-road comedy that wasn`t particularly grand or epic. It was essentially a frivolous and reckless comedy that was the opposite of Disney`s ambitious epics.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 
 
 
 

The Staple and Reception of Chicken Little
 
Yes, it`s germ-free, despite 
being from birds :)
The staple of Chicken Little is not hard to see for any Disney fan. It`s regarded as one of the worst, if not the worst of the Disney canon. A staple that it shares with other black sheeps as The Black Cauldron 
and Home on the Range (sure, Brother Bear could`ve also been put into that category, but it still has it`s fanbase, regardless of that staple). Little was poorly critically received and rated lowly (despite how it still has it`s 75% fans on Google). Coming off from a half-decade of duds after another successful period (the Renaissance), Chicken Little was essentially the peak of the failures of the new Millenium. And frankly, I must say that I happen to agree with that staple.
Don`t ask us what we are :) 
We were designed to be 
something weird :)
Despite how Chicken Little actually has it`s perks and starts out as reasonably entertaining (and has good and compelling characters like Abby Mallard and Fish out of Water), it`s still bloody awful (sorry for using that expression) at it`s very worst. And it`s bad qualities doesn`t make up for the good qualities. And it rarely redeems itself. Unlike dud-movies like Cauldron and Range, which I actually do like despite their staples, Little is truly a movie that I dislike, regardless of it`s good parts. It`s almost a pity that it happened to be directed by the team who made the cherished and funny The Emperor`s New Groove (sorry to say). Which, despite isn`t flawless, is still is a superior movie and was essentially a good departure for Disney. For being a zippy, zangy and zany comedy with a sharp wit. But still executed in the right way.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
The Reasons for Why Chicken Little is Disliked   
 
In our World predators and
preys can get along :)

But why was Chicken Little 
shunned by reviewers and the general public? Well, there are many reasons for that: People disliked the jokes and found the characters mean spirited (especially the townspeople towards the titular character). Others disliked the lackluster animation and the poor plot structure. And the product placements. And yes, people disliked the Pop Culture references (which according to them were badly done) and how the movie was generally awkward and calculated as a whole.
I wanted to attract chipmunks.
Don`t ask me why :)
But as for what I thought were bad qualities of Chicken Little, the truth it starts out as good and actually enjoyable (and frankly, the Pop Culture references weren`t the worst part of the movie). But soon becomes incredibly mawkish and awkwardly blatant and boisterous. And many scenes (like the flashback scene) were so badly executed that it`s just too painful to watch them. Even Dindal himself stated afterwards that he would`ve preferred the earlier version of the movie than what it ended up being at last.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
How Disney Strayed Away From the Pop Culture Formula After This Movie
 
It`s hard to pose like
this with only fins :)

However, despite the calculated intentions of Chicken Little, we could eventually say that Disney still learned from the critical failure: To not capitalize the success and formula of what most animated studios were doing at the time. And simply following it`s own formula. After Little and the following The Wild (which also was an awkward and lackluster movie), Disney essentially went away from the blatant Shrek-formula and made movies that were essentially more subdued and sincere. Which was evident with Meet the Robinsons and Bolt, following the comeback with the Revival formula with The Princess and the Frog (which introduced the typical Disney formula back). So regardless of how Little was a departure from Disney and could`ve been a success, it`s admirable how they realized how they failed with capitilizing that formula and decided to turn away from it.
 
 
  
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Behind the Scenes Information
 
I wanted to show that a rooster
can have a hand :)
The origins of Chicken Little began as Disney wanting to make a story of many famous characters from fables and folk tales. Thomas Schumaker invited Dindal and Fullmer, who actually wanted to make a CGI feature. Originally Chicken Little was a female chicken voiced by Holly Hunter that went to summer camp to reduce her anxiety, as well to fix her relationship with her father. And she would uncover a nefarious plot that her camp counselor (in Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing) was planning against her hometown. And plumped the kids up to cook them for a big wolf feast. And she ends up saving the day. The reason for her gender was for it`s vulnerability and how she was less likely to be a hero. And how Dindal had two daughters himself. Hunter worked on this film for about eight months. Michael Eisner demanded that Chicken Little be changed into a male, for how short size was more difficult for a boy. But also due to the gender swapping gaining more viewers. Despite initial reluctance, Little became more action-oriented. 
Even a rooster can do cardio :)
Following a test screening, David Stainton disliked the original story. Despite how Fullmer liked the first version and thought it had charm. That's when Dindal thought back to an earlier version, where Little and a group of misfit animals lived on a farm in the middle of the country. While the prize animals went off to win their ribbons on a Country Fair, the rejected animals stayed behind. And they would encounter aliens and it would be their key to redemption. During the next three months. Dindal’s and other writers (six who went uncredited) crafted in half the time. But at the time the production window had narrowed to two years. Dindal focused on the emotional resonance with Little and Buck. It took 2½ years to get back to where they started. Forty actors competed for the title role. Zach Braff pitched his voice slightly to sound like a junior high kid. But the crew needed an older voice, with a an edge. And also for his ability to talk fast. Sean Hayes (Will & Grace) was to voice Ugly Duckling, but was rewritten to a female. As Abby Mallard, Jamie Donnelly, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sarah Jessica Parker, Jodie Foster, Laura Dern, Geena Davis, and Madonna were considered, but Joan Cusack won for her natural comedy. When Marshall voiced for Buck, he said that he didn't do voices and agreed to do a rooster that talked like him. Before Marshall, James Earl Jones, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Willem Dafoe were considered. But Marshall was cast for being good at angst.
We were instructed to wait 
obediently, so we could get
candy :)
The Hand Drawn animators were trained to do CGI with George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic. Some of the CGI crew had worked on Dinosaur. The background were inspired from Mary Blair's background designs. The look of the characters were based on cute and vulnerable porportions. Dindal wanted the animation to be like the old Goofy shorts. Ugly Duckling was made in order to not be fixated on beauty. Dan Molina made the voice of Fish out of a water bottle sound and did a voice that he did to his kids.  Since Little was the first CGI movie, the studio were asking what it`s demands of the movie would be. But they didn`t know, as they were figuring it out on a daily basis. And getting Knotts features in Turkey`s face was a challenge for his design, so they focused on the descriptive lines. To make defining jawline and a cheek ridge to allow the loose flesh in between. The crew thought they were never going to use the part from Raiders of the Lost Ark, but George Lucas agreed. Marshall and Braff recorded together, and became father and son. Chicken Little loosing his pants was the favorite part of gradeschool kids in previews.  
They designed me to look like
a clown, even as a fox :)
When the actors ran out of money for writers, it was good how the actors add-libbed the stuff. The moment where Fish does the King Kong-impersonation was recognized by kids. And originally the crew were considering to end the movie with the baseball sequence. But the studio said that they needed to expand the movie. And Braff is actually a good singer, but was forced to sing falsely for a kid. There were some suggestions that Fish should talk, but they were voted down. But he was a audience favorite. And regarding the final Mickey clock, the consumer products were afraid of not being able to get a third eye on Mickey. But Michael Eisner thought it was funny. Adam West voiced the Chicken Little as an action hero at the end. And Diana Ross was actually approached to use her version of Ain`t No Mountain High Enough. And the movie had the only time where Marshall sang.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 


Epilogue
 
I have a cool hairdo, right? :)
At the end, it`s really hard to conclude a movie like Chicken Little. A movie that is essentially perceived as lackluster as a whole and is perceived as Disney`s true Black Sheep. But is it truly worth the hate? In many ways, yes. Despite how it actually has it perks, Chicken Little is truly awful at it`s very worst. But there`s always a good side to a failure and it`s how Disney has learned by their mistake by realizing what they did wrong. And even a bad movie can essentially be perceived as significant by itself for those aforementioned reasons. 
Since I`m (Chicken Little) is
the leader, I needed to look
bigger than my buddies :)

However, it`s not to say that people who likes this movie are not allowed to like it. Cause for all it`s flaws, Chicken Little still has it`s redeemable sides. As it has a good, valuable moral (every day is a new day for success) and does have some genuinely enjoyable moments. It`s just a pity how those good moments and moral doesn`t make up for how truly awful the movie is as a whole. But since this entry is meant to synergize with it`s 20th Anniversary (yes, it`s hard to believe that it`s now that old), there`s nothing left to wish Chicken Little Happy 20th Anniversary and may you continue to have many more.
 
 
 
 
 
Yes, I`m the Men in Black-version of my species :)

 
 
 
 

References:
Chicken Little Blu Ray 
Chicken Little From Henhouse to Hollywood (Monique Peterson)