>Both companies have the same management team. And Lassseter
>"allegedly" fired all of the do-nothing creative executives?

management doesnt have that big a hand with filmmaking. marketing and distribution are the only things they really share, and all that shit is after the fact. im guessing you're talking about the actual creative stuff. i know lasster is teh head of both studios now, but even a guy as bright as him cant just lift disney out of patterns tehyve spent decades developing.

>Some of the folks at Disney are veterans trained by the
>masters who worked on all of Walt's films. Some of the
>Walt-era people are still milling about.

i worked at disney studios last summer, and there are a lot of lifers there (people who have worked there there whole life). dick cook, was the chairman of the studio the past several years before getting fired last year, actually worked at the parks as his first job. in general, the company like to boast that they have very little turnover.

but doesnt this argue with your original point? pixar obviously use a very technical, advanced software suite that they develop in house to accomplish a level of filmmaking that is unmatched (i would say the only thing close is dreamworks).

what i mean is, if disney employees are trained in this classical filmmkaing, how can they compete with pixar, a firm that got started for real in 86 when jobs bought it from lucas and was built for the sole purpose of making great animated films.

disney have traditionaly been all about the hand drawn, classical animation. i think theyre most advanced animation technically ahs been bolt, which i didnt see but heard was outstanding.

>Shoot, they even get paid more than Pixar. And they have union
>benefits.

why do you think this? im pretty sure they dont.

>And their campus isn't located in the middle of the ghetto.
>
>What is wrong? Is it that the people at Pixar are just more
>talented? Is it the Pixar Hawaiian shirts and segues? Is it
>Disney's pressure to live up to a legacy they haven't lived up
>to since 1994?

niether the emeryville nor the burbank locations are in the ghetto. i think most people would vastly prefer emeryville to burbank (there are some bad areas around eemryville, but its much more corporate right where pixar is, and theyre ina fortified complex that would rival any 5 star resort (ie soccer feilds, amazing buildings, swimming pools, bball courts, volleyball courts, etc.)

>Maybe it's their inability to diversify. They tried in the
>early 2000s; didn't go too well for them.

do you mean diversify in terms of the disney corporation? or just the studio? disney make a ton of live action films in addition to the animation. or are you talking about the "synergy" b/w the parks, toys, tv, web, games, etc.? obviously having to be connected to all these different business units might hang on the filmmkaing efforts of the studio, btu it also helps out a lot (potc).

>Maybe it's that they're also-rans and latecomers to CGI, and
>their hand-drawn tradition is considered "outdated".

yup, handdrawn can be beautiful (a la the triplets of belleville), but for the most part, that shit sours compared to the animation of pixar.

>Maybe, just maybe, the Pixar folks really are more talented?
>But who taught them _how_ to make animated movies?

art school? filmmaking school? the best and most highly sought after 3D computer programmers int he world?

>Personally, I think it's the stupid Sorceror's Apprentice hat
>on the Animation building.
>
>http://www.latinoreview.com/images/user/DisneyAnimationBuilding.JPG
>
>I think it's a lightning rod for uncreative ideas.

not that it's necessarily germaine, but their office is kept across the street from the main studio so they they can be isolated from the business and liev action production of the rest of disney. we weren't even allwoed in there when i worked there.

rick