This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American / Animated This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article is supported by the Animated films task force. Disney Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Animation: American / Films Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Science Fiction Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Animals in media (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Animals in mediaWikipedia:WikiProject Animals in mediaTemplate:WikiProject Animals in mediaAnimals in media United States: Animation / Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The web site "http://www.the-real-story.com/" has copied the complete text of the Wikipedia articles Chicken Little and 50 Cent and has placed its own copyright notice places on the articles. There is no email address listed on the site, but a whois on the domain turns up "IQ-TESTING-ONLINE.COM@domainsbyproxy.com" as the administrative contact. I will send a Standard GFDL violation letter there. - Brian Kendig 16:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the news, selected theatres equipped with Dolby Digital Cinema system will show this movie in 3D. Any more info on what kind of technology is that? Kowloonese 06:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if Disney officially considers this one of The Animated Classics? As they don't even seem to differentiate between theatrical and direct-to-video titles anymore, I suspect the idea of certain theatrically-released traditional animation films being considered special is fading away. tregoweth 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; see my comments at Talk:List of Disney animated features. tregoweth 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.Chicken Little is NOT part of the Disney Canon.Instead it is the very first film of a new Canon. - R.G. 06:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So not only is the "forty-fifth" comment incorrect, but its mentioned twice in the first paragraph? Andrew.langmead 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the canon if using the definition in Disney_animated_features_canon as movies produced by Walt_Disney_Feature_Animation. That definition excludes the Disney Toon Studio-based direct-to-video (Bambi II, et al) and theatrical releases (The Tigger Movie, et al) as well as the Disney partner-produced (Valiant, The Wild, et al) and Pixar films. Chicken Little is simply a fully-CG animated film whereas WDFA films have contained digital animation for years, most notably since the Beauty and the Beast ballroom scene. So, it is part of the canon as will be all forthcoming CG and traditional films produced by WDFA. This will be made easier by the fact that the other films mentioned are being generally phased out by Lasseter leaving only WDFA and Pixar-produced theatrical releases. -- McJaje 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you seem to be implying that although Disney claims that they aren't keeping count anymore http://psc.disney.go.com/guestservices/8695.html#8695 since there is a commonly accepted definition that the fans will continue to keep their own count? (I guess I mean, Now that Disney has washed their hands of it, who is officiating the "official canon"?) and my bigger question beyond canonical status or not, why mention it twice in the first paragraph? Andrew.langmead 01:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is no need to have it listed twice. The first reference is the most correct, the 45th release from WDFA. The second is pointless although it would be nice to incorporate the Disney_animated_features_canon link into it the first. I'll give it a go. McJaje 20:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like that a lot better. A very good call, thanks for pointing it out. It is technically acurate now with the "canon" link specifically referring to WDFA productions and does not contradict the guest services quote you reference because it's no longer specifying the "Disney canon", only the WDFA canon. Sound reasonable? McJaje 20:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I much prefer the way it reads now Andrew.langmead 04:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The german voice of Mayor Turkey Lurkey is Christian Ude the mayor of Munich.--LaWa 12:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Little joins his school's Little League baseball team in an attempt to recover his reputation and his father's pride, he is unfairly made last and Foxy always got the winning pitch, even when he was on it umped him or something happened and Foxy caught it with newspapers amazed by her "miracle catchs", and by batting a home run on the last match, it appears he's well on his way. But that night back at home, he is hit on the head by a strange stop-sign-shaped object which he recognizes as a piece of the sky. He summons his friends to help figure it out.

(previous article revision[1])

Can anyone make sense of that passage? I can't. It's important to mention something of the baseball game in the plot summary, but having not seen the whole movie myself, I don't know what to replace it with.Stratadrake 00:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classifying the characters in this film as male and female, and comparing it with the original fable version, how similar are the 2 lists?? Georgia guy 00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rumor saying that just as Mickey Mouse has become a trademark or mascot of the traditional animated Disney films, Chicken Little is going to have the same role for the CGI movies from Disney. Is it just a rumor or is it true?

The peice of the sky that falls in the movie is clearly in the shape of a hexagon, yet on this page it is refered to as an octogon, and in the movie as "stop-sign" shaped.

Image:Chicken little poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a mark next to this assertion (in the, unfortunate, Trivia section of the main article) claiming this needs to be cited. It is actually stated in the DVD extras; they go so far in the extras as to show a short, apparently untextured rough render of the female version of the character in bed from before the concept was replaced with the male character. I don't know how to cite this, but anyone with the DVD can verify that it's true.

I, for my part, am sorry I know this, but I'm glad to help wikipedia out. :P 74.36.50.246 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the DVD extras today, and I can confirm you're saying the truth! Positron832 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Trivia section mentions that this film has no humans in it whatsoever. But isn't Harrison Ford briefly seen in the theatre during the opening scene?

Correct. I'm not sure this piece of trivia is all that meaningful anyway. "The fifth" Disney film with no humans hardly warrants any special notice. McJaje 13:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If not it should be moved to Chicken Little (film). TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence makes it sound like Chicken Little was the first CGI film not created by Pixar in all of history. That is incorrect. The sentence should read something like, "Chicken Little is the first 3D movie released/published/distributed by Disney which was not created by Pixar studios." I don't know how to massage this in to the first two sentences, so I'll leave the duty to someone who cares more about this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.236.252 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the introduction to fix this problem. Ordinary Person (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is still awkward. ("This was Disney's first fully computer animated film, as Pixar's films were distributed but not produced by Disney"). This implies that Disney did not produce any Pixar films, when they did provide production $$ to Pixar in the beginning. I'm sure the editor meant to imply that Disney did not physically work on the Pixar films, but the double-meaning of the film-production word "produce" in the sentence can be misleading. Any suggestions on how to work around that and make it better sounding? SpikeJones (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The first fully computer animated film ANIMATED and RELEASED by Disney Feature Animation (without the involvement of an outside studio, such as Pixar)" ?? Something like that? SWatsi (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does sound better, but there should be a way to phrase the sentence without the parenthesis.. SpikeJones (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't need the parenthesis, that really is just extra, extra explaination. I don't think it has to say that its NOT BY PIXAR if it already says WHO IT IS BY. Link Disney Feature Animation to the Animation studios page and that should also explain what is 'Disney Animation'? Just a thought. SWatsi (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When will there be a Chicken Little 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.67.81 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is something ultimately up to Walt Disney Animation Studios to decide, and this really isn't the forum to discuss it. --McDoobAU93 14:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an internet leak.

According to the article, it says that Chicken Little was released onto VHS and DVD on March 21, 2006. However, I highly doubt that this movie would've had a wide VHS release, as the format was beginning to be discontinued around that time. Home on the Range was the last Walt Disney Animation Studios film to have a standard VHS release when it had its home media release in September 2004. If Chicken Little did have a VHS release, it probably would be like Cars and be a Disney Movie Club exclusive and would be very rare. Believe me, I've done my research on VHS releases. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I removed VHS from the home media section of the article. The source describing its home media release never mentioned anything about a VHS release, only DVD. As I said above, if Chicken Little did have a VHS release (and I highly doubt it), it would of probably been like the Cars VHS and be a Disney Movie Club exclusive and would be very rare. It's a possibility that movie rental stores such as Blockbuster might of had demotapes of the movie that were not for sale for customers. Other countries might have released it onto video, but it would probably only be available for a very limited time. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to it's Reception info, it say's that Chicken Little currently has a 36% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Just recently now when I looked on there, it's now says it has a 37% approval rating now, the info needs to be update according to the rotten tomatoes source. 174.192.24.253 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Taketa (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicken Little (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160529192756/http://bvifinland.fi/uploads/text/ChickenLittle_ProdNotes.doc to http://www.bvifinland.fi/uploads/text/ChickenLittle_ProdNotes.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like cutting out the part with the Chicken Little: The True Story really feels like your messing with the plot information. Is there anyway to shorten the plot a little bit to keep it in? DrkWebber (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Runt (who a cowardly pig)" to "Runt (a cowardous pig)" 109.150.193.251 (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a typo in the plot summary's sentence: "Their ship have broken camo panels that fell and hit Chicke Little on the head". Can someone please add an "n" to the word "Chicken"? (ty) 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:7112:6FAD:151D:8BCE (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ternera (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]