Disney Pixar Discussion

Post by **Wonderlicious** » September 10th, 2006, 7:28 pm

Okay, this post is a direct lift off what I wrote over at Ultimate Disney's Theme Park forum, but I'd be interested in what some of the people have to say over here (are you Disney theme park buffs?). It does have something to do with animated creations, after all. :p

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... /5563.aspx

Although this is the sometimes unreliable Jim Hill speaking, what if the name of Disney-MGM Studios does actually change to Disney-Pixar Studios? Are you for or against it? Personally, I am. I lobster love Pixar as much as I do Disney, but...

1. Like even John Lasseter has supposedly made aware, Disney may be going into Pixar overkill in their theme parks. There may soon be more attractions based on Disney and Pixar coproductions than attractions based on Disney films (both animated and live action, though Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Swiss Family Robinson and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids are pretty much the only Disney live action films with rides, and Roger Rabbit is half animated anyway).

2. Adding the name "Pixar" to the mix is restrictive and will clash with the classic Hollywood feel. They haven't been around for that long compared to Disney (or MGM, for that matter), and they haven't made any films outside of the animated ones to give them a true Hollywood feel. Plus, when people hear the name "Disney-Pixar", I don't think that they think of The Little Mermaid and A Bug's Life at the same time; they'll think of all the Pixar coproductions instead (or at least I would).

3. I think Disney-MGM is a cool combination for a theme park title, and if I had my way, it would always be called that.

Post by **ShyViolet** » September 10th, 2006, 7:35 pm

I agree. Disney is a classic institution and should reflect its founder....I don't mind them merging logos, but rename it? No way! I realize that it is a them park, not the actual name, but Pixar's style and mission statement is very specific and would overshadow the Disney legacy. Pixar should be respected for what it is, and merging the two names together would dilute both.

Plus, when people hear the name "Disney-Pixar", I don't think that they think of The Little Mermaid and A Bug's Life at the same time; they'll think of all the Pixar coproductions instead (or at least I would).

Exactly...the newer, more recently successful name would overshadow the Disney name.

MGM is a different story, the name of MGM doesn't have the same classic connotation of Disney. (no offense to Metro, Goldwyn or Mayor!

)
MGM is also a movie studio/corporation and I don't think anyone can pinpoint exactly what an "MGM" movie is. People just know MGM as a movie studio. So mixing it with Disney is O.K., because both retain their identity.

Also, if they're going to re-name it Disney-Pixar, they might as well go all the way and rename it Disney-Lassetter...because that's essentially what it conveys.

Post by **athena** » November 7th, 2006, 3:01 am

Feature interview with Dan Scanlon, (director of Pixar's latest short film "Mater and the Ghostlight" and story artist on "Cars"). Scanlon talks to Keyframe about working with and learning from John Lasseter and what it's like to come from a 2D background in a 3D dominated animation industry.

http://keyframeonline.com/Articles_and_News/#250

Post by **Ryan4Bryant** » November 29th, 2006, 1:35 am

Scanlon is a talented guy. I've seen some of his student films, which are very clever.

Post by **Ben** » November 29th, 2006, 10:10 am

I thought Lasseter was the credited director of Ghostlight...?

Post by **Lindsay** » March 4th, 2007, 2:36 pm

Hey!

Just fyi, there's a good article about Lasseter and his involvement at WDFA posted in the New York Times today; you can read it right here.

It's a bit of a puff piece, but there's some interesting tidbits, as well - like the Robinsons stuff, etc.

Post by **Jeroen** » March 4th, 2007, 4:14 pm

Thanks Lindsay, interesting stuff.

Post by **JV IS TIZ!!! PIXAR** » March 4th, 2007, 4:26 pm

Thanks for the info.!

Post by **Daniel** » March 4th, 2007, 4:35 pm

Interesting yes, but it sure was lengthy.

Yay, I really enjoyed the info about Robinsons. Can the ending really be that emotional? I sure hope so!

And welcome back to the boards, Lindsay!

Post by **Jeroen** » March 4th, 2007, 4:50 pm

I'm still not sure if John Lasseter is right about american dog.
Time will tell

Post by **Ben** » March 4th, 2007, 5:15 pm

JL next to a big picture of Lilo & Stitch. Love it. Manic smile too!

So...he wants "director driven movies", and told Anderson to "make your movie", so what's with the six-hours of notes and changing 60% of the movie?

"The first filmmaker to run Disney’s animation operations since Walt Disney died in 1966, he said he wants to reclaim the studio’s golden era." - So I guess Woolie Reitherman <I>wasn't</I> a filmmaker then, as his many detractors have pointed out.

Fun and exciting things: the proposed new animation building, the new Disney animation logo...

Post by **Jeroen** » March 4th, 2007, 5:52 pm

I know he's not so keen on the animated musical,
I just hope that in ten years or so he won't get in the way of a propable revival.
( if he's still over there in ten years )

Post by **Daniel** » March 4th, 2007, 6:38 pm

You said it, IF.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 5th, 2007, 1:32 am

I know he's not so keen on the animated musical,

I always knew he wasn't, not trying to sound arrogant or anything.

Hence their "no Happy Village/no songs/no romance" rule in Pixar films....and, if you want to take it further, axing Menken and adding Newman to Frog Princess.

"The first filmmaker to run Disney’s animation operations since Walt Disney died in 1966, he said he wants to reclaim the studio’s golden era." - So I guess Woolie Reitherman wasn't a filmmaker then, as his many detractors have pointed out. Sad

By "golden era" does that include 1984-1994?

I don't mean to bring this up or upset anyone but....I don't think it does.

Reason #1
The Broadway angle, which it definitely seems like he doesn't care for a whloe lot, only really started becoming a major factor during this period, from 1985 on, when Howard Ashman/Menken were hired, etc....animators were dubious at first about this move, since it involved shaking off a lot of the old traditions.

Reason #2:

Brad Bird's statement that he chose to go Simpsons in the late 80s, not Disney, because Feature Animation was making "beautiful, full animation of really lame ideas." (Or, as Bob Parr might have said "new ways to celebrate mediocrity.")

Post by **Jeroen** » March 5th, 2007, 1:45 am

I'm sooo angry that he got rid off Alan Menken because he didn't want disney to fall in its old habbits.

And who does he bring in? RANDY NEWMAN!!!!! I'm I the only one who sees the irony in this?
Like he's going to do better? Every score he makes sounds the same.

Disney Pixar Discussion

Disney-MGM Studios...sorry, Disney-Pixar Studios.

Interview with Pixar director, Dan Scanlon

John Lasseter article at NY Times...