What do a chicken, a dinosaur, and a hundred-foot high wave all have in common? Filmgoers would have an easier time with this question than any ornithologist, paleontologist or oceanographer who might be looking for the answer: All three were premiere animated stars of the Summer 2000 box office. Filmgoers who are also animation aficionados, however, might be able to answer our riddle in more depth: None of the above were produced through the method of traditional cel animation. This fact alone makes the past year an interesting one for animated feature films, and in this month's column we will discover a few other facts that may hold clues as to how these films will be animated, produced, marketed and finally received by the public in the future. In doing so we will explore the "do's" and "dont's" of building a successful animated film based on some of the major offerings of the past year.

Let me begin by averring that animated features will always be with us. The tradition is a long one, and the public seems to support these features with enough dollars to make the effort lucrative. There are now enough skilled animators available to give any studio a decent shot at making a feature film, and we expect to see at least two or three quality efforts per year. In fact, it would be hard to imagine American cinema bereft of animated features; after all, it was this country that first exploited their mass appeal. The fact that the vast majority of animated features tend to fade well before reaching the $65 million mark in profits has not deterred any present or future efforts to give us more of them, and at present, broad-banding is not prevalent enough for Web technology to co-opt the form. Unless one counts on audiences to spend seventy-five hours downloading an entire feature film (or believes they will be content to view it in endless five-minute segments), we will continue to file into our local multiplexes to enjoy animated features, silo-sized soft drinks and cavernous tubs of popcorn.

And now, without trailers, commercials, or reminders to place trash in the proper receptacles, let's go to the movies and see what some recent features have to teach us. (All grosses are current through July 21, 2000 due to my deadline structure.)

Two lemurs, the elder Yar and his daughter Plio, from Dinosaur. © Walt Disney Pictures.

Dinosaur (Disney Studios)
Current gross: $133,051,394

What they did right: Paid attention to the fact that virtually every feature completely animated in CGI broke the hundred-mil mark. Took their time in developing a project that originally began in 1994. Did all the work in-house at the new TSL (The Secret Lab) digital studio to ensure quality and continuity. Recognized the selling potential of dinosaurs to a young audience, but shrewdly picked up on those adults who had their appetites to see "real" dinosaurs whetted by Jurassic Park. No Broadway numbers. Made over three million hours of computer time show on screen without detracting from character development. Developed tie-ins and ancillary products without the promotional overkill typical of early-nineties Disney.

What they didn't do right: Characters were fine but the script was a rehash of common Disney themes including a misfit hero with one or more missing parents, comic relief characters with anachronisitc speech, a sadistic and arrogant villain who falls to his death (Is this a prerequisite for every Disney villain of late? Do they audition by bungee jumping?), and an all-too familiar romantic subplot. However, one must realize that Dinosaur is very much a product of the Disney stable and would strongly bear its stamp. At least we'll probably be spared Dinosaurs on Ice.