WALL-E

[ShyViolet]

TAG comments here:


http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... execs.html

How can anyone claim Pixar doesn't deserve the lead role at Disney animation?

If you're basing the future success of the Pixarified Disney ONLY on Ratatouille and Pixar's past (as well as current) hits--and I will admit that they have a more or less perfect track record--then maybe they are the right people to run Disney or at least steer it along.

My only concern is that there's other factors involved here. I won't go over all of them again, but will mention two things:



Virtually no Brain Trust-backed trailers/TV spots for Meet the Robinsons, and...


American Bolt.

I'm sure Chris struggled for years with unreasonable executives over this film, (and I'm sure there were many of them who tried to screw it up) but he didn't get fired until John Lassetter came.

[James]

I'm sure Chris struggled for years with unreasonable executives over this film, (and I'm sure there were many of them who tried to screw it up) but he didn't get fired until John Lassetter came.

Jan Pinkava did the same with Ratatouille. The same guys that replaced Chris replaced Jan. Based on the RT reviews for Ratatouille so far it does not look like they made a mistake. Why automatically assume they did with Bolt?

(BTW - Ratatouille officially got its first bad review! What's funny is the guy says he doesn't like any of Brad Bird's film and can't understand why anyone does! So a bad Ratatouille review coming from a guy bashing The Iron Giant and The Incredibles I think we can safely ignore!)

[bawpcwpn]

what a nicompoop. People like him should be put out to pasture.

[ShyViolet]

Well, I definetely don't agree with him on Incredibles or IG. I'm sure Ratatouille is a highly enjoyable and superbly crafted film. But it's nice to at least see one dissenting opinion.


I see your point on Jan James, but there they just replaced the director....not canceled the entire film and re-made it as "Remy's Paris Adventure" or something.

Plus Jan is not officially of the Brain Trust, so I'm not sure if it was originally his project or not. With Chris, he wrote the story and did all the concept art. It was his baby from the beginning.

I mean what if (not that I'm saying this should have happened) Disney was so unhappy with the how Toy Story was coming along that they fired Lassetter (who had never directed an entire feature before) and put one of their own guys on it, like Musker/Clements, Wise or Trousdale? Well, it was Lassetter's baby, so he should have been given the chance to make it work, which he was, and it did.

Chris Sanders (who was directing his second feature) should have been given that same chance.

[James]

Well, I definetely don't agree with him on Incredibles or IG. I'm sure Ratatouille is a highly enjoyable and superbly crafted film. But it's nice to at least see one dissenting opinion.

Dissent for dissent's sake. Is that what you do around here?;)

I see your point on Jan James, but there they just replaced the director....not canceled the entire film and re-made it as "Remy's Paris Adventure" or something.


Plus Jan is not officially of the Brain Trust, so I'm not sure if it was originally his project or not. With Chris, he wrote the story and did all the concept art. It was his baby from the beginning.

It was Jan's baby from the beginning. And from what I've read Bird rewrote the entire script himself after taking over so the situations are pretty similar.

I mean what if (not that I'm saying this should have happened) Disney was so unhappy with the how Toy Story was coming along that they fired Lassetter (who had never directed an entire feature before) and put one of their own guys on it, like Musker/Clements, Wise or Trousdale? Well, it was Lassetter's baby, so he should have been given the chance to make it work, which he was, and it did.

That would be foolish because of my original point! The current (previous technically now that Pixar is in place) has not proven themselves. Their track record is bad. Creative executives made decisions rather than a proven story team (such as a certain brain trust).

The reason I am saying we should trust these guys is they have proven themselves - time and time again! The Disney guys did not!

Chris Sanders (who was directing his second feature) should have been given that same chance.

No, this is Hollywood not the Boy Scouts! If a picture is failing you have to fix it. And you have to have the right people fix it.

My original point is still that Pixar has a track record of doing things the right way. Disney has lost that in the past several years. Therefore to revive Disney it makes sense to trust the guys who know what they're doing - a lot of whom grew up at Disney!

[Daniel]

2 points, James.
0 points, Vi.

J/k

[ShyViolet]

The reason I am saying we should trust these guys is they have proven themselves - time and time again! The Disney guys did not!

OK, I'll just say one more thing about this: Which Disney guys do you mean? 'Cause if you're just talking about clueless execs, then yeah.

But Chris Sanders is an artist and HAS proven himself--and more than once. Lilo and Stich, c'mon! Even without the good reviews, (which it got in abundance) it made a nice bundle of money, in theaters and DVD. Plus, in case anyone forgot, Sander's breathtaking artistry was a big reason of why Lion King was such an amazing film!
Clements, Musker and Keane are also all amazing directors--I'd trust them in a second. They proved themselves long ago in the Disney Renaissance.

If we're willing to give Lassetter the benefit of the doubt, why not these guys??


I admit that I don't know a lot here and that there is the chance that Sanders and Keane were completely wrong and Lassetter was 100% right.
But I have a hard time believing it, based on A.) The positive track record of the Disney animators B.) Lassetter's silence when it comes to promoting or talking up anything without a lamp in front of it and C.) The plot of Bolt, which, unlike before, we already know.


I guess what I just can't understand is what there could have been to dislike SO MUCH in Sanders' ideas that he needed to be fired....and in favor of Bolt??


Just doesn't make sense to me is all.

[Ben]

James=Disney/Pixar.

Vi=PDI/DreamWorks.





Seriously you guys, take a break! I love good animation, period. And I'm really hoping that Rat does well this summer, whoever made it, because it seriously looks like the most original thing to have come along in quite a few months (years?) and doesn't have a 3 in the title.

I agree with James on Jim's reaction, and some of what the TAG bloggers note. With him it's always doom and gloom.

Vi makes some interesting points too, but I must stand up and say that the change of Toy Story's direction was Disney's idea, and Pixar went along with that, but Lasseter was never under threat of being removed. He did what he was told, just as others must do as they are told now that he's the boss. When they have gone out and made six features that make a bundle each, then they'll be the bosses and others will have to do what <I>they</I> are told.

Hollywood=swings and roundabouts.

BUT...James' figures are all well and good, but he cuts out five years of Disney's films. Toy Story debuted in 1995, but James only counts the grosses from Disney's 2000 fare onwards. Is that really fair? Yep, I'll agree that grosses had started to downturn from Pocahontas onwards, but that's still a few dollars that's missing in that equation.

Pixar's total comes to around $1.7bn in your estimates. Now, even if we don't include documentaries, video sequels or even those were released to theaters (Doug, Return To Never-Land, Teacher's Pet), we can add in the 1995-2006 period (going on shaky IMDB figures):

A Goofy Movie = 35.1
Pocahontas = 141.6 + 67.8 in rentals = 209.4
James And The Giant Peach = 28.9
Hunchback = 100.1 + 46.9 in rentals = 147
Hercules = 99.1 + 43.6 in rentals = 142.7
Mulan = 120.6 + 66.3 in rentals = 186.9
Tarzan = 171.1
Dinosaur = 137.7
The Wild = 37.4


These are US domestic figures, not worldwide grosses. That's still an additional $1.1bn, which, added to the other total, matches the Pixar total.

Yep, of course, they had to release more films in the same period to make that equation, and, yes, some of them were duds. But this must be asked: which "side" produced the most original and daring work?

I'm sure to open a can of worms here, but essentially, Pixar has been making the same "buddies movie" over and over, while Disney has balletic wales, aliens, musicals, thrillers, action movies, stop-motion. Which studio took more chances while everyone else moved over to the "safe" confines of audience-guaranteed CGI revenues?

Now, I am a Pixar nut, despite my dislike for the way they have been depicted as the savior of not just Disney but animation in general. I love Monsters, Nemo and especially Toy Story 2, which is still probably, for me, the best CGI feature yet made.

But I've got to say that I could sit through the 1995-2006 Disney movies, even the interesting failures, more times than the Pixar ones.

[Meg]

I'm sure to open a can of worms here, but essentially, Pixar has been making the same "buddies movie" over and over, while Disney has balletic wales, aliens, musicals, thrillers, action movies, stop-motion.

True, but don't forget Disney had a horrible habit of using formula as well.

"Hero wants something, villain tries to prevent hero from getting what they want with the help of funny sidekicks, hero falls in love, hero defeats villain with help of funny sidekicks." Heck, even the songs followed a formula - Theme song, "I want" song, villain song, 'fun' song, love song.

Anyway, instead of turning this into yet another Disney vs Pixar vs Dreamworks vs whatever thread, can we please talk about Wall - E?

[James]

BUT...James' figures are all well and good, but he cuts out five years of Disney's films. Toy Story debuted in 1995, but James only counts the grosses from Disney's 2000 fare onwards. Is that really fair? Yep, I'll agree that grosses had started to downturn from Pocahontas onwards, but that's still a few dollars that's missing in that equation.

I actually added them originally, but then decided it didn't look fair to go by years, so went by number of films. (It was supposed to be an even number of films but I accidentally left Fantasia on!)

These are US domestic figures, not worldwide grosses. That's still an additional $1.1bn, which, added to the other total, matches the Pixar total.

Yep, of course, they had to release more films in the same period to make that equation, and, yes, some of them were duds.

And some weren't actually made by Disney...

I notice you didn't try to refute the critical numbers or awards either!

I'm sure to open a can of worms here, but essentially, Pixar has been making the same "buddies movie" over and over, while Disney has balletic wales, aliens, musicals, thrillers, action movies, stop-motion.

I love this argument! This loose definition everyone has of a buddy movie could be applied to just about everything!

<TT>The Prince of Egypt - buddy film with Moses and Ramses
The Road to El Dorado - buddy movie with Tulio and Miguel
Titan AE - buddy movie with Cale and Akima
The Emperor's New Groove - buddy movie with Kuzco and Pacha
Shrek - buddy movie with Shrek and Donkey
Ice Age - buddy movie with Manny and Sid and Diego
Lilo and Stitch - buddy movie with Lilo and Stitch
Treasure Planet - buddy movie with Jim and John
Sinbad - buddy movie with Sinbad and Marina
Brother Bear - buddy movie with Kenai and Koda
Home on the Range - buddy movie with Maggie and Mrs. Caloway and Grace
Shrek 2 - buddy movie with Shrek and Donkey and Puss
Shark Tale - buddy movie with Oscar and Lenny
The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie - buddy movie with SpongeBob and Patrick
Robots - buddy movie with Rodney and Fender
Madagascar - buddy movie with Alex and Marty
Wallace & Gromit - buddy movie with Wallace and Gromit
Chicken Little - buddy movie with Chicken and Ugly and Fish and Runt
Ice Age 2 - buddy movie with Manny and Sid and Diego
The Wild - buddy movie with Samson and Benny and Bridget and Nigel
Over the Hedge - buddy movie with RJ and Verne
Monster House - buddy movie with DJ and Chowder and Jenny
The Ant Bully - buddy movie with Hova and Lucas
Everyone's Hero - buddy movie with Jake and Screwie and Darlin'
Open Season - buddy movie with Boog and Elliot
Flushed Away - buddy movie with Roddy and Rita
Arthur and the Invisibles - buddy movie with Arhtur and Selenia
Meet the Robinsons - buddy movie with Lewis and Wilber
Shrek 3 - buddy movie with Shrek and Donkey and Puss and Arthur
Surf's Up - buddy movie with Cody and Geek</TT>

Which studio took more chances while everyone else moved over to the "safe" confines of audience-guaranteed CGI revenues?

First off, can you really give Disney credit for taking so long to move to CG when it was only their lack of skill that caused the delay not their lack of desire? And second, Pixar took a pretty big risk at the time too back in 1995. Everyone moved to copy them, they did not move to copy anyone else.

[James]

BTW - this isn't a Pixar DreamWorks argument - this is basically a Pixar Disney argument! And my point is not to bash Disney but to promote the unpopular argument that DIsney did the right thing in the Pixar merger. It has been a long time since Pixar was "depicted as the savior of not just Disney but animation in general". Everyone seems to have forgotten how bad things were just a few years ago and now they're complaining because there has been some change! We must have gotten comfortable in that rut!

[ShyViolet]

BTW - this isn't a Pixar DreamWorks argument - this is basically a Pixar Disney argument!

True James, and I was very careful not to say that other "D" word, , but in a weird, abstract way it still is a DW/Pixar argument since DreamWorks (I'll admit) has closely modeled many of their films on the Disney template. (yes, I admit it!!! )

I actually added them originally, but then decided it didn't look fair to go by years, so went by number of films. (It was supposed to be an even number of films but I accidentally left Fantasia on!)

But everyone knows how bad it was for the animators in those post- 2000 years. The executives did not let the artists do what they really wanted to and thus the films suffered. So even though those films are more recent....I don't think they're a fair example of what post-1984 WDFA can do. You have to take into consideration their entire track record, starting from The Great Mouse Detective.

(It's kinda like saying: "I've never like Disney films. I mean look at The Rescuers, Fox and the Hound, and Robin Hood. They s****d!!" (not that they did, just an example)

I think the fact that they (the artists) managed to produce those pretty decent (if perhaps not mind-blowing) films that followed Pocahontas is pretty amazing in itself, considering with what they had to put up with.


But anyway....agree to disagree.

[James]

But everyone knows how bad it was for the animators in those post- 2000 years. The executives did not let the artists do what they really wanted to and thus the films suffered. So even though those films are more recent....I don't think they're a fair example of what post-1984 WDFA can do. You have to take into consideration their entire track record, starting from The Great Mouse Detective.

But we're not talking post-1984 Disney. We're talking about the two decades later Pixar Disney merge and why Pixar has taken the lead rather than Disney Animation. If this were 1984-1994 then sure Disney people would have a legitimate gripe about Pixar being given the reins.

And as you have said it was bad for the animators and writers because the executives were meddling too much. Well now we have animators and writers in charge! According to that TAG blog the writers and animators are happy about this - it is the production people and executives who are not. And we can add to that unhappy list fans and bloggers who don't like the veil of secrecy Pixar has instituted that doesn't let them in on every detail of a film's creation. I'd rather be kept in the dark and end up with a really good film than know about about every little problem (think Chicken Little when Disney was in charge) and end up with a bad film.

[Ben]

"I actually added them originally, but then decided it didn't look fair to go by years"

- But as has been stated (I think) above, these were not the most flattering of years for Disney. True, you picked the competing years, but it would be fun to compare Disney's topflight tariff with Pixar's.

And, as we all know, the money a film makes has no indication on how good that film is! Isn't <I>Shrek 3</I> great?



"And some weren't actually made by Disney..."

- One, "The Wild", was animated out of house, but Disney has taken sole authorship of it and counts it as an in house feature, so I included it.



"I notice you didn't try to refute the critical numbers or awards either!"

- Y'know...I didn't have the time to go through like you did, and couldn't be bothered. As with the money aspect, awards don't necessarily mean the right things.

Then again, I thought that "new/next Walt Disney" John Lasseter has an unattainable goal to match the original Walt Disney's 65 or so Oscars, so thought the whole thing was futile anyway.



"loose definition everyone has of a buddy movie"

- Yes, a loose definition, which makes most of your resulting list redundant. Prince Of Egypt is not a buddy movie. Most of the list you provided feature standard character relationships - ANY and ALL films do this, or people wouldn't talk to each other!

The definition of a "buddy movie" is usually the result of just two characters - usually an "Odd Couple" double act - on some sort of journey, either physical or symbolic, though usually a quest that takes them out on the road. They bicker, they fight, they get into a scrape that brings them together, they bond, they end up - if not friends - then in grudging admiration of each other.

Apply that to many on your list and it doesn't work in this commonly accepted way. Apply it to the majority of Pixar movies, and it works perfectly. What doesn't help the Pixars is the same old-same old chintzy dialogue...the overly friendly gentle mocking.



"can you really give Disney credit for taking so long to move to CG"

- Really, I think this was more a case of, "hey, we have Pixar doing CG features and they rule at that". Why compete with them? Disney was actually capable of doing CGI has early as 1992, as anyone who saw "Off His Rockers" will tell you. Why that charming, amazing cartoon wasn't featured on the front of "Toy Story" instead of the Roger Rabbit cartoon in 1995 can only be put down to not wanting to steal Pixar's thunder with a consummate bit of CGI animation before the main feature started. Dinosaur only came about as a film that started in stop-motion in the late 1980s with Paul Verhoeven. When Jurassic Park came out, the need to switch it to CGI was more a reaction to what audiences might think if the film didn't look as good as that and took a step "back" in technique.

Disney continued to let Pixar create their CG features for them as there really wasn't any point to compete. With a tradigital feature from WDFA, a CG one from Pixar, and the occasional spin-off or other in house CG film coming out per year, there was no reason to jump into CGI until the threat of Pixar leaving and the changes in the marketplace demanded it.



"Pixar took a pretty big risk at the time too back in 1995"

- Yep, with Disney's money, experience and heavy marketing blitz. Don't forget that it took Disney nearly ten years to persuade THEM to make a CG feature, and that it was Disney taking the risk in putting out something that could have fallen flat.



"my point is not to bash Disney but to promote the unpopular argument that Disney did the right thing in the Pixar merger"

- Yep...I TOTALLY agree that they did the right thing. At the end of the day, Pixar is a "Disney splinter group" that then made a deal to continue operating as such while having the spare room back at "home" to go crash out in when needed. Now they're back at home for good...Disney has given them more than the spare room and fixed up the garage for them. The only thing is, there were other brothers and sisters in that garage first and now some of those had to leave for space, and some got moved to the spare room. And Disney spent a LOT of money fixing up that garage.

Change is good, change is GREAT, but Disney is Disney and Pixar is Pixar. It seems ludicrous to me now that Disney is now "Disney/Pixar" and Pixar is off making in-roads to live-action pictures!

Disney needs good animation management...not to become Pixar II, and Pixar needs to focus on what it does best, and if it's directors want to make live-action, then they hop across to Walt Disney or Touchstone Pictures.



"It has been a long time since Pixar was 'depicted as the savior of not just Disney but animation in general'"

- Actually, in something I read, just last week.



"I'd rather be kept in the dark and end up with a really good film"

- Yep. I like the odd peek at official, ready to be released material, but the great joy in seeing many films is just not knowing too much about it.

[James]

But as has been stated (I think) above, these were not the most flattering of years for Disney. True, you picked the competing years, but it would be fun to compare Disney's topflight tariff with Pixar's.

But that is the point. If we're debating who should take the lead at the combined Disney/Pixar we have to compare the competing years not look to decades past to compare the best of the past.

And, as we all know, the money a film makes has no indication on how good that film is! ... As with the money aspect, awards don't necessarily mean the right things.

So money doesn't matter, critics, don't matter, awards don't matter! Is there any criteria I can use to compare the two?

Yes, a loose definition, which makes most of your resulting list redundant. Prince Of Egypt is not a buddy movie. Most of the list you provided feature standard character relationships - ANY and ALL films do this, or people wouldn't talk to each other!

The definition of a "buddy movie" is usually the result of just two characters - usually an "Odd Couple" double act - on some sort of journey, either physical or symbolic, though usually a quest that takes them out on the road. They bicker, they fight, they get into a scrape that brings them together, they bond, they end up - if not friends - then in grudging admiration of each other.

Apply that to many on your list and it doesn't work in this commonly accepted way. Apply it to the majority of Pixar movies, and it works perfectly.

I was hoping someone would take the bait and give me a definition!

Let's apply that then. At Pixar:

<tt>Toy Story 1 - Definite buddy movie
A Bug's Life - Definitely not
Toy Story 2 - Not with your definition
Monster's Inc - two buddies but that is the only similarity - not a buddy movie
Finding Nemo - Definite buddy movie
The Incredibles - definitely not.
Cars? McQueen takes a journey on his own, Mater is around. But the rest doesn't really fit your definition.
Ratatouille - Doesn't seem like one from the previews</tt>

My point about "loose definitions" was that unless you take it at its very loosest - two buddies in a movie - it does not apply to most Pixar films as always claimed.

The rest of the list? Most still seem to match your defintion MUCH BETTER than any of the other Pixar movies!

<tt>The Road to El Dorado - two buddies on actual journey
Titan AE - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
The Emperor's New Groove - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Shrek - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Ice Age - three people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Lilo and Stitch - odd couple on symbolic journey who end up family
Treasure Planet - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Sinbad - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Brother Bear - two people on actual journey who end up friends
Home on the Range - three people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Shrek 2 - two buddies on actual journey with someone they don't like who end up friends
Shark Tale - two people on symbolic journey who don't like each other but end up friends
The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie - two buddies on actual journey
Madagascar - two buddies on actual journey
Ice Age 2 - three buddies on actual journey with someone they don't like but end up friends
The Wild - four buddies on actual journey
Over the Hedge - two people on symbolic journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Everyone's Hero - three people on actual journey two of which don't like each other but end up friends
Open Season - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Flushed Away - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Arthur and the Invisibles - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Meet the Robinsons - two people on actual journey who don't like each other but end up friends
Shrek 3 - three buddies on actual journey with someone who doesn't like them but end up friends</tt>

My only point with this list is this "buddy movie" thing that Pixar has been labeled with seems to be a way for people to find SOMETHING to complain about with Pixar since there is really so little. Buddy movies are an animation staple as this clearly shows, and Pixar is unfairly singled out.