Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Pass The Popcorn topic #523385

Subject: "Why can't Disney Animation Studios be more like Pixar?" Previous topic | Next topic
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 08:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"Why can't Disney Animation Studios be more like Pixar?"


  

          

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

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.

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

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?

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

Maybe it's that they're also-rans and latecomers to CGI, and their hand-drawn tradition is considered "outdated".

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

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.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
I think they're too worried about profit.
Jun 21st 2010
1
RE: I think they're too worried about profit.
Jun 21st 2010
3
      I meant 2D, but that still serves my point.
Jun 21st 2010
6
           I think the good solution is to let the 2D team make cheaper films
Jun 21st 2010
8
                Really? Interesting.
Jun 21st 2010
13
                     about 90% of the cleanup animation, "ink & paint", and
Jun 21st 2010
15
Emeryville circa 2010 is the ghetto? LOL.
Jun 21st 2010
2
I was half-joking. They are located in the inner city though
Jun 21st 2010
4
i was gonna say. what tripped me out though...
Jun 24th 2010
31
      see: hidden city cafe in monsters inc/pt richmond
Jun 25th 2010
35
why can't EVERY studio be more like Pixar?
Jun 21st 2010
5
RE: Why can't Disney Animation Studios be more like Pixar?
Jun 21st 2010
7
RE: Why can't Disney Animation Studios be more like Pixar?
Jun 21st 2010
9
      RE: Why can't Disney Animation Studios be more like Pixar?
Jun 21st 2010
10
           if it has to be relegated to "art house" status, then let it.
Jun 21st 2010
11
                I'd guess this is it too, but why hasn't Pixar fallen into the same trap...
Jun 21st 2010
12
Anyone see the Pixar Doc on CNBC?
Jun 21st 2010
14
saw it on ondemand a while back
Jun 22nd 2010
16
we're talking about the animation studios.
Jun 22nd 2010
17
      Im talking about that as well. But it applies universally.
Jun 22nd 2010
18
           RE: Im talking about that as well. But it applies universally.
Jun 22nd 2010
19
I just taped it. Looking forward to watching it.
Jun 22nd 2010
20
Is that the Leslie Iwerks documentary?
Jun 22nd 2010
22
I only caught the last 10 minutes or so
Jun 22nd 2010
24
      It's on the bonus features disk for WALL-E:
Jun 22nd 2010
25
I think its because of less output
Jun 22nd 2010
21
RE: I think its because of less output
Jun 22nd 2010
23
OK, let me get focused for a sec and take the toung out of my cheek.
Jun 23rd 2010
26
I'm gonna swipe this for relevance and...
Jun 23rd 2010
27
Oh, that dude. Yeah, I read that yesterday.
Jun 23rd 2010
28
Dude.... MEET THE ROBINSONS was awesome.
Jun 24th 2010
32
Interesting read. Thanks
Jun 23rd 2010
29
personally, i just want more great hand-drawn classic fairy tales
Jun 24th 2010
30
Gimmie a movie in the vein of Aladdin
Jun 24th 2010
33
Howard Ashman's dead, JB.
Jun 24th 2010
34

Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
86639 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 09:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "I think they're too worried about profit."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Can you imagine someone pitching Up to the Disney Animated Studios? "It's about an octogenarian..." "PASS! Next?"

Can you imagine someone pitching WALL-E to the Disney Animated Studios? "It begins after the end of the world at the hands of a corporation..." "PASS! Next?"

It's clear that Pixar's FIRST priority is storytelling. It's very commercial, yes... but their films are primarily about intelligence and wit.

I mean, look at Disney's reaction to the splendid Princess and the Frog. They changed their title of the next film from Rapunzel to Tangled, because they clearly thought having "Princess" in the title hurt the box office... despite the fact that since the turn of the century, Princess and the Frog made more at the box office than any Disney Animated Film since Lilo and Stitch... and it did it during the peak of an economic recession.

They're not big picture, at all, and they're surprisingly out of touch with what Disney used to be about. They don't care that they made a good film... they care about the amount of money they make from it. We talked about this a bit in regard to their decision to make a new Winnie the Pooh film-- even if it makes no money at the B.O., its merchandise will bring the company a profit.

I had the concern that Pixar might be turning that direction with the announcements of Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 (Cars 2 being absolutely motivated by the enormous popularity of the merchandise)... but Toy Story 3 was so good that it immediately leads me to assume that they will have a strong intelligent story for Cars 2.

Look at the points you made. Disney Animation Studios has unions, salaries, and a lavish facility. Pixar is content with what they have, because they know window dressing and monetary concerns distract a studio from what truly matters-- the story.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 10:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "RE: I think they're too worried about profit."
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

>Can you imagine someone pitching Up to the Disney Animated
>Studios? "It's about an octogenarian..." "PASS! Next?"
>
>Can you imagine someone pitching WALL-E to the Disney Animated
>Studios? "It begins after the end of the world at the hands of
>a corporation..." "PASS! Next?"
>
>It's clear that Pixar's FIRST priority is storytelling. It's
>very commercial, yes... but their films are primarily about
>intelligence and wit.
>
>I mean, look at Disney's reaction to the splendid Princess and
>the Frog. They changed their title of the next film from
>Rapunzel to Tangled, because they clearly thought having
>"Princess" in the title hurt the box office... despite the
>fact that since the turn of the century, Princess and the Frog
>made more at the box office than any Disney Animated Film
>since Lilo and Stitch... and it did it during the peak of an
>economic recession.

Those aren't the numbers I have. I have "The Princess and the Frog" making $104.4 mil in US and $267 mil worldwide, which is less than Bolt and Chicken Little, which both made more here and abroad.

It's made more than any Disney *2D* film since Lilo & Stitch, but that's not saying much when the films in question are "Treasure Planet", "Brother Bear", and "Home on the Range".

I still think changing the name of "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" is the wrong way to go about it. The film's lack of financial success is less due to anything wrong with it or its title and more due to being released a week before Avatar and two weeks before Alvin 2. Katzenberg was smart enough to move "How to Train Your Dragon" - which was supposed to come out at about the same time as "The Princess and the Frog" - to March.

>
>They're not big picture, at all, and they're surprisingly out
>of touch with what Disney used to be about. They don't care
>that they made a good film... they care about the amount of
>money they make from it. We talked about this a bit in regard
>to their decision to make a new Winnie the Pooh film-- even if
>it makes no money at the B.O., its merchandise will bring the
>company a profit.

This is true, but the problem is the merchandising money is going into a separate division of the corporation than the ticket sales, so you have a drop/hit in profits on one side for a rise on the other. While it's all going to the same company, there still would be a negative effect on what movies are made, how many movies are made, and who in Studio Entertainment gets to keep a job.

>
>I had the concern that Pixar might be turning that direction
>with the announcements of Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 (Cars 2 being
>absolutely motivated by the enormous popularity of the
>merchandise)... but Toy Story 3 was so good that it
>immediately leads me to assume that they will have a strong
>intelligent story for Cars 2.
>
>Look at the points you made. Disney Animation Studios has
>unions, salaries, and a lavish facility. Pixar is content with
>what they have, because they know window dressing and monetary
>concerns distract a studio from what truly matters-- the
>story.
>

True.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
86639 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 11:28 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "I meant 2D, but that still serves my point."
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

Princess and the Frog was better received critically than Bolt or Chicken Little, and showed an increase in profit in 2D animated film, but Disney only sees that the CGI animated films make more in general, so they kibosh "traditional Disney animation" for what *may* make more money.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 12:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "I think the good solution is to let the 2D team make cheaper films"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

and give them a little more creative freedom and latitude. Everything doesn't have to break the bank cost-wise, and 2D animation can be cheaper than 3D ("Princess and the Frog" costs at least $50 mil less than the 3D Disney films and $70 mil less to make than any given recent Pixar film)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
buckshot defunct
Member since May 02nd 2003
26345 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 04:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "Really? Interesting."
In response to Reply # 8


  

          

> ("Princess and the Frog"
>costs at least $50 mil less than the 3D Disney films and $70
>mil less to make than any given recent Pixar film)

And it looked fantastic, I thought.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 11:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "about 90% of the cleanup animation, "ink & paint", and"
In response to Reply # 13
Mon Jun-21-10 11:02 PM by Nukkapedia

  

          

compositing (read: the grunt work) was outsourced to other studios in Florida, Canada, and Brazil.

Disney no longer hires a full 2D animation staff anymore. But even when they did, $100 mil was considered somewhat expensive for a 2D Disney film ("Princess and the Frog" cost $105 mil) . The idea that CGI is cheaper and easier is a fallacy.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Castro
Charter member
50725 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 10:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "Emeryville circa 2010 is the ghetto? LOL."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

------------------
One Hundred.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 10:26 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "I was half-joking. They are located in the inner city though"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

while Disney Animation is in Burbank, across the way from the original Disney studio.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
selppataei
Charter member
2012 posts
Thu Jun-24-10 01:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "i was gonna say. what tripped me out though..."
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

...was that they started out in pt. richmond! which, if you think about it, makes sense as it is something of a upper-middle-class enclave. but it's still a trip to think they were doing their thing just outside of the triangle.

____________________________________________________________
http://proc.bandcamp.com
http://twitter.com/grandproc

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
dba_BAD
Charter member
14873 posts
Fri Jun-25-10 01:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "see: hidden city cafe in monsters inc/pt richmond"
In response to Reply # 31


          

n/m

__

fairweather

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Selah
Member since Jun 05th 2002
16484 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 11:13 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "why can't EVERY studio be more like Pixar?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

my thought:

Pixar shoots for quality over cash, and even though it works it's not easy

Methinks most other studios (and the others in the machine) believe that movies are more disposable entertainment than art, so the focus is on how much money can be made, not "the impact" the product has

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

rick
Charter member
3696 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 12:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "RE: Why can't Disney Animation Studios be more like Pixar?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

>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

pretend to be cats don't seem to know they limitations
exact replication and false representation

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 12:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "RE: Why can't Disney Animation Studios be more like Pixar?"
In response to Reply # 7


  

          


>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.

You'd be surprised how much of a hand management had (has?) in animated filmmaking at Disney. There's a documentary called "Dream On Silly Dreamer". Buy it or rent the DVD, and watch not just the feature, but the bonus interviews. After "The Lion King" made a mint, Disney Animation management got _very_ top heavy and took over aspects of story development that they shouldn't have, hoping to make each picture as commercial and marketable as possible.

>
>>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).

DreamWorks? I actually think the folks at Sony Animation are better animators and technicians than the DreamWorks folks, who seem incapable of animating convincing humanoids.

And it's not just about the technical skill. I'm specifically talking about having all of that experience to know how to put a picture together, storycraft, what works and what doesn't, the core values of storytelling that Walt Disney adhered to and Pixar adopted; Lasseter of course having come up through Disney in the early 1980s).


>
>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.

I'm not specifically talking about the specific technical process of character animation. I'm talking about the essentials of filmmaking. Even so, computer animation adheres to many of the same principles as classical animation, and the way Pixar's Marionette software is set up, you don't need to be a computer genius to operate it. An awful lot of their staff are ex-Disney people.

>
>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.
>

Actually, why Pixar is non-union is a head scratcher. They're the only major studio in the American animated feature industry that isn't.

>
>>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?

Just the animation studio. This isn't a post about the live action studio, the parks, the toys, ABC, ESPN, and all of that.

>
>>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.

Not even the staff at Pixar would say such a thing.

>
>>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?

No. The Disney staff. When they made "Toy Story", they made it under the management of Disney Animation and with a few Disney story people/editors/etc. working at/with Pixar on the film.

>
>>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

They're not isolated from the bureaucracy though.

They're kept across the street though because that was the only room left. They ran the animation staff out of the animation buildings on the main lot when Eisner came in, and moved them to warehouses in Glendale.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
rick
Charter member
3696 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 03:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "RE: Why can't Disney Animation Studios be more like Pixar?"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

>Not even the staff at Pixar would say such a thing.

ha, some friends of mine who worked at pixar said that very thing. they were being facetious, btu i could hear a lot of truth in it.

i honestly agree with them slightly. while hand drawn animation can be beautiful and i hope it never goes away, there is SO much potential in CG that i think it's going to be really hard for hand drawn to compete in teh marketplace, there may be some artsy films that drop once in a while, but all teh box office money is going to the big CG studios.

pretend to be cats don't seem to know they limitations
exact replication and false representation

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 04:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "if it has to be relegated to "art house" status, then let it."
In response to Reply # 10
Mon Jun-21-10 04:03 PM by Nukkapedia

  

          

Disney's biggest mistake was trying to push its fragile animated films past success into the realm of "we need a blockbuster every time".

And for all the "possibilities" of computer animation, they still have issues creating humanoid characters that don't look like puppets. Pixar is the only studio I've seen consistently pull it off.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
buckshot defunct
Member since May 02nd 2003
26345 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 04:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "I'd guess this is it too, but why hasn't Pixar fallen into the same trap..."
In response to Reply # 11
Mon Jun-21-10 04:56 PM by buckshot defunct

  

          

It's not like Pixar hasn't had hits. They might not be the institution that Disney is, but certainly they've experienced enough success to ruin themselves with it, right? I keep expecting it to happen. Cars felt like the beginning of the end to me, but then they came back from that stronger than ever. Certainly, Toy Story 3 sounded like a cash grab but now I'm hearing it's a masterpiece as well. Da fug?

>>Disney's biggest mistake was trying to push its fragile animated films past success into the realm of "we need a blockbuster every time".

This goes both ways though, because at some point the audience started expecting this as well. For the longest time their movies were seen as events. A new Disney feature meant topping the box office AND the Billboard charts AND selling Happy Meals etc etc With Pixar the only 'event' I expect is a good ass story. That's my only expectation with them. Even if Disney is able to give me that, if their film doesn't become an absolute critical and commercial sensation, part of me is gonna perceive it as a 'flop'. Same way you couldn't help but compare MJ's post-Thriller albums to Thriller, Disney features will always be held to an Aladdin/Lion King standard for me. As ridiculous as that may seem.

And you know, I feel like Disney has tried to step outside the box a couple of times (or at least stuck a foot out Hokey Pokey style) and even if the movies were good, the reception just wasn't there. I loved Emporer's New Groove for example, but I think most would agree that for some reason, it didn't 'work'

I think to put it simply, Pixar just isn't as afraid of failure

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

gusto
Charter member
26878 posts
Mon Jun-21-10 10:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "Anyone see the Pixar Doc on CNBC?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

was from 2007 but they repeating it now. pretty good.

..|.,

If you still don't know what Jade Typhoon is, click here:
http://jadetyphoon.blogspot.com/ (WS)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
lexx3001
Charter member
9211 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 01:23 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
16. "saw it on ondemand a while back"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

pretty much answers the question in this post. They were hungry and operated as a slim skeleton crew. They seemed to be able to hold on to their ideals. When Disney is bloated and money-hungry to no end. Really shows how innovation always trumps the giant corps.

Stay strong

Lexx

iamlexx.com
newvintagegroup.com
aim: lexx3001

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 08:14 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "we're talking about the animation studios."
In response to Reply # 16


  

          

Especially since Pixar is owned by that "giant corp".

At this point, I'm fairly certain Pixar is bigger than Disney Animation. And they're run by Ed Catmull and John Lasseter from Pixar.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
lexx3001
Charter member
9211 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 08:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
18. "Im talking about that as well. But it applies universally."
In response to Reply # 17


  

          

Pixar might be big, but Pixar doesn't have 200 projects going at once. Pixar's approach, at least based on the documentary and personal observation, is very lean in theory which seems to work well. They do movies. One or 2 at a time. Thats it. Disney has so many projects and ventures, from their own theme parks to television to all these other things. It seems that at Disney authority and direction trickles down through so many people that it takes effort just to get the right people onboard and agree on a project, never mind make projects you want to see made.

Stay strong

Lexx

iamlexx.com
newvintagegroup.com
aim: lexx3001

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 09:01 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "RE: Im talking about that as well. But it applies universally."
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

>Pixar might be big, but Pixar doesn't have 200 projects going
>at once. Pixar's approach, at least based on the documentary
>and personal observation, is very lean in theory which seems
>to work well.

Pixar has three films currently in various stages of production, never mind whatever shorts they're doing. That's slightly above an average production schedule for an animation studio. Disney Animation also has three films in production. No film studio in the world has 200 projects going on at the same time.

They do movies. One or 2 at a time. Thats it.
>Disney has so many projects and ventures, from their own theme
>parks to television to all these other things.

Again, we're talking about the animation studio. Remember that Pixar is a subsidiary of Disney just like Disney Animation, and has been since January of 2006. While Lasseter is also Principal Creative Advisor for the Parks, that's an entirely different sector of the company. Any television output also has nothing to do with the Disney Animation studio

It seems that
>at Disney authority and direction trickles down through so
>many people that it takes effort just to get the right people
>onboard and agree on a project, never mind make projects you
>want to see made.

Now this part is (was) true. After the 2006 merger, steps were taken to try to make Disney Animation more Pixar-like and do away with the executive-heavy upper echelon staff. From what I'm seeing, it appears more that Pixar is being made more Disney Animation like what with having sequels they didn't really want to make foisted upon them. That any of these films (Toy Story 3 is one of them) turn out good shows just how good Pixar is at what they do.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
86639 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 09:19 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "I just taped it. Looking forward to watching it."
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 11:36 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "Is that the Leslie Iwerks documentary?"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059955/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
buckshot defunct
Member since May 02nd 2003
26345 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 11:47 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "I only caught the last 10 minutes or so"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

Which pretty much focused solely on the Disney deal. It kind of felt like a commercial for Pixar/Disney - I think I heard the word 'assets' half a dozen times. But - I loved seeing inside the Pixar building and I'd still like to catch the rest of the doc sometime.

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 12:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "It's on the bonus features disk for WALL-E:"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/WALL-E_Bonus_Material/70108713?trkid=1480286&lnkce=mdp-mlink

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Buddy_Gilapagos
Charter member
49335 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 10:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "I think its because of less output"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

the funny thing from the CNBC special was that Disney was more than happy to put out a cheapy Toy Story 2 direct to video movie and Lassiter and company said hold up wait, and re-wrote the whole thing. Pixar can afford to be qaulity over qauntity, disney and its shareholders can not be.

**********

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Tue Jun-22-10 11:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "RE: I think its because of less output"
In response to Reply # 21


  

          

>the funny thing from the CNBC special was that Disney was
>more than happy to put out a cheapy Toy Story 2 direct to
>video movie and Lassiter and company said hold up wait, and
>re-wrote the whole thing.

Disney was more than happy to put out a cheapy Toy Story 2 direct to video and Pixar was at least complacent enough to make it. When Disney liked what they saw, they decided to bump it up to a not-cheapy theatrical release.

Then, when the film ran into serious story problems, Pixar convinced Disney to let them start over from scratch, have Lasseter direct, and rush a revised TS2 through production to meet the same deadline.

Pixar can afford to be qaulity over
>qauntity, disney and its shareholders can not be.
>

Aren't they the same shareholders that also own Pixar?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Wed Jun-23-10 10:16 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "OK, let me get focused for a sec and take the toung out of my cheek."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I was snarking about Pixar being located "in the middle of the ghetto" and the Hat Building's hat being an antenna that attracts bad ideas.

In all seriousness, I know that, comparing circa 2003 Disney Animation culture to 2003 Pixar culture, there's a world of difference that explains the discrepancy between the two studios' output. Pixar was founded and run by a lot of right-brained creative people who made films more or less to entertain themselves and their own families. There (allegedly) is none of the extreme amounts of focus testing done on Disney Animation films.

Meanwhile, Disney in 2003 was stuffed with "creative executives": MBAs more interested in franchises, marketability, and "corporate synergy" than making good films. Add to that the splitting of the best artists who worked on their modern "classics" across multiple projects, and massive overhead requiring films to be pushed into production prematurely, and the excessive amounts of focus testing. As a result, a lot of Disney animated films from the late 1990s/early 2000s look and feel as calculated as anything ever made in Hollywood. And they're not very good films at all.

But that was in 2003.

In 2010, Ed Catmull and John Lasseter - those "right brained artists" I'd mentioned from Pixar - have been in charge of both studios for the last four years. They've had the time and ability to make Disney Animation more Pixar-like, and let the artists do more of what they want, haven't they? Or is corporate still requiring them to play by different rules? Or does Lasseter play favorites, and is letting Disney Animation slowly kill itself off?

It has nothing to do with the Disney corporation also being involved in parks, TV, etc. - like most large corporations, all of those divisions operate almost independently of each other. We're talking solely about the two animation studios.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

KwesiAkoKennedy
Charter member
3770 posts
Wed Jun-23-10 12:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "I'm gonna swipe this for relevance and..."
In response to Reply # 0
Wed Jun-23-10 12:30 PM by KwesiAkoKennedy

  

          

...the author's gotten cold feet already and deleted from his blog as reported here:

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/matt-williames-on-working-at-disney.html

"So I suppose I should start this post by explaining the unposted "Disney Experience" post I discussed a few months back. I wrote about 3 versions of the post and just never found the balance of honesty and tact that I wanted. I either said too much that was unnecessary, or not enough to give a true flavor of my experience at the studio. That being said I'll try to sum it up this way. I believe any studio should be at least these three things (but particularly Disney):

- A place with amazing films that challenge and inspire their artists.
- An environment of camaraderie (with the crew) where people are challenged and inspired to grow.
- An environment of active education and study.

Bluntly, Disney fails on all 3 counts. The thing I want to get clear is the thing I miss about Disney is the people... there are some wonderful/amazing people there whom I miss very much.
But that being said it is the general set up and direction of the studio that I take issue with.

On the first count "A place with amazing films that challenge and inspire their artists", this is fairly straight forward to me. Frog was an ill-conceived film and a lot of us knew it. The entire concept with the film was to go back to the past. That is suicide. And it obviously was at the box office. I believe there is too much talent at Disney to be waisted on such silliness.

The second point, "An environment of camaraderie (with the crew) where people are challenged and inspired to grow."
This is also fairly straight forward. This does tend to come down to the individual attitude of the crew member for which I am not necessarily attacking. I more take issue with the "Star animator" mentality that Disney is so good at pushing. If you don't know what I mean how often do you hear about Dale Oliver? Dale was Frank Thomas' assistant for a long time, and honestly he made Frank look VERY good without getting any credit himself. Find some of Franks original ruffs, they are nothing to marvel at. Look at what Dale did with them... amazing assistant work. But you never hear about him. Disney has the horribly destructive idea that there are a few "star" animators and everyone else is not as good and should be in a support role next to them. Translation? If they think you are not of star calibre then you get crap shots. Frankly, how dare they assume what you are capable of particularly when they have never given you a chance to show what you can do. This I think was one of the more difficult things to deal with at Disney.

And lastly "An environment of active education and study". Honestly to their credit there are several classes to take and things they "encourage" you to be apart of. But honestly when people around you are getting fired for not going fast enough then you don't exactly feel welcome to take the time necessary to invest in these classes. I could see being apart of these things if you were single and living at the studio, as many of the artists do, but refuse to sell my life and deprive my family of a father and husband for the sake of an ill-conceived film that will ultimately be forgotten someday.

This may sound harsh, but this was simply my experience at the studio and if you couldn't tell I was highly disappointed. Since I have been gone I have felt more artistically fulfilled then I ever did at Disney... I have seen way more of my family, worked
on far more personal films and in general just grown much faster as an artist. I only write this review of my time at the studio, not to bash them out of spite, but to speak up! So few people say what they really think, and that is partly why Disney continues down the road that they are on. Disney needs to hear from people that have been apart of their "family"... there is strength in numbers and frankly, people with much harsher (and truthful) things to say than I have just now. I sincerely hope Disney discovers the value of people and how they treat them along with finally making a film worth making.

Now onto other more inspiring things! I have always been scared of my sketchbook. I've always felt the pressure to make every page perfect. Why do I do this to myself. Something I have been rediscovering is that art isn't have perfection, it's about ho
nesty. It's about saying something and evoking that emotion in the viewer, or listener, or reader, or whatever. Blogs tend to be ego-centric and I hate that part about them. I share these pages from my sketchbook with you now not to get 100 comments telling me how "amazing I am" and how you "hope you can draw that well someday". I share them with you because they are my raw, unrefined feelings and I want to encourage others to not be overly concerned with gaining other peoples praise (as natural as that desire is). Could I draw these better if I layed down another sheet of paper and refined it? Will there be people who see these and immediate click to another blog? Sure... but that's not the point, the point is expressing your feelings about what you are drawing in an unadulterated way. So, I posted full pages of my sketchbooks... full of the good, the bad, and the ugly."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=ZPE&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fhanddrawnnomadzone.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F06%2Fsketchbook-revival.html&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Wed Jun-23-10 12:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
28. "Oh, that dude. Yeah, I read that yesterday."
In response to Reply # 27
Wed Jun-23-10 12:43 PM by Nukkapedia

  

          

I was supposed to add it in here too, but forgot. Thanks for bringing me over.

My thing, though, about the "'Princess and the Frog' is stuck in the past" criticism...true though it may be, approximately 80% of the people who complain to me about the state of Disney animated films tell me they wished Disney was still doing things "just like they were in the early 1990s"...which, I suppose, to really do, you'd have to raise Howard Ashman from the dead.

The company's previous attempts at trying something new seem to have been unsuccessful and/or have been ignored by the public. Case in point: no one ever seems to talk about "Chicken Little", "meet the Robinsons", or "Bolt"...I suppose primarily because they have zero appeal to anyone over the age of 8, but also - possibly - because they're, well, un-Disneylike.

I think their key thing they need to figure out is what makes a Disney film a Disney film?

-It's not fairy tales: Walt himself only made three fairy tale films. -It's not musicals: A lot of the Disney films have songs, but in a non-Broadway type of style.
-It's also not cross-marketing and "corporate synergy".

It seems to me that what made Disney Disney when Disney WAS Disney (about 1932 to about 1962) was a sincere approach to innovation in filmmaking and storytelling, an unpretentious style of storytelling and filmmaking presentation that didn't speak down to children or up to adults, and the ability to make films so many people could relate to by the staff putting a lot of themselves and their personalities into the films.

Disney didn't focus-test his films. He didn't do sneak peeks or previews, and no outside Hollywood folks ever really were allowed inside the creative processes until Alfred Werker directed "The Reluctant Dragon" in 1941 (which, it is claimed, is how Disney-style storyboarding became a part of live-action film production). They just made the best movies they could make, and not all of them were hits at the time. Fantasia, Pinocchio, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, and Sleeping Beauty were all flops of some significant magnitude. Each of those films flopped, I think, because they were released at the wrong time (Bambi), weren't what audiences at the time were ready for (Fantasia, Alice), or simply just cost too much (Pinocchio, Sleeping Beauty)

Pixar is run and operated a lot like the old Disney studio, except they seem to have learned from the old Disney studio's mistakes and not repeated them.

Now why can't the very studio they're emulating do now what they did then? Do they need their own "Walt" who doesn't fly via commuter plane back & forth from the Bay Area every week?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
CaptNish
Member since Mar 09th 2004
14495 posts
Thu Jun-24-10 01:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
32. "Dude.... MEET THE ROBINSONS was awesome."
In response to Reply # 28


  

          

.

_
Yo! That’s My Jawn: The Podcast - Available Now!
http://linktr.ee/yothatsmyjawn

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
buckshot defunct
Member since May 02nd 2003
26345 posts
Wed Jun-23-10 01:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "Interesting read. Thanks"
In response to Reply # 27
Wed Jun-23-10 01:25 PM by buckshot defunct

  

          

I'm not sure that 'Frog' was ill-conceived or silly... I thought it was pretty good actually. And you could argue that Pixar was 'going back to the past' with their Toy Story sequels, but those movies still managed to succeed in every sense of the word. So I don't see anything inherently wrong with Disney trying to do a fairy tale story or re-capture some of that old magic. 'Frog' did kind of give me the sense that the studio was given a laundry list of notes to hit, so the movie did lack a certain spark, but there were some high points as well.

I feel like Disney is always looking to the past these days, be it 70 years ago or 7. Too concerned with catching up than innovating. I'm saying that without any real insight whatsoever, just a casual animation fan.

And as for that whole 'education' angle, I've heard some really cool things about the Pixar crew, like going out at 5 in the morning to study landscape drawings on some 'just because' shit. It takes a special kind of person to have that level of devotion to their art and it seems like Pixar has managed to staff themselves exclusively with those special types of people. And not just that, they've provided an environment where those people can grow, be challenged, and, you know, make movies that BANK

-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Jon
Charter member
18687 posts
Thu Jun-24-10 07:40 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "personally, i just want more great hand-drawn classic fairy tales"
In response to Reply # 0
Thu Jun-24-10 07:45 AM by Jon

          

a lot of people, while agreeing on the desire for more hand-drawn films, lament the fairy tale tradition of Disney, but i think it's a rich one and valuable to the culture.

a lot of fantastic old classic tales out there that should be kept alive.

pixar people are great at coming up with real original and memorable stories of their own. i want Disney to go back to animating the public domain. there's a need for both imo.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

jetblack
Member since Nov 14th 2004
44802 posts
Thu Jun-24-10 08:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
33. "Gimmie a movie in the vein of Aladdin"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Disney..I know you can do it.

---
Stoicism and chill.
---
Stay +.
---

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Nukkapedia
Member since Apr 16th 2006
35461 posts
Thu Jun-24-10 09:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "Howard Ashman's dead, JB."
In response to Reply # 33
Thu Jun-24-10 10:17 PM by Nukkapedia

  

          

.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Lobby Pass The Popcorn topic #523385 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com