How does everyone feel about Disney these days?

[Jpcase]

It seems rare for an animated film to present a character who dislikes the protagonist, but is all the same, a good guy.

You know, in hindsight, this comment of mine seems really stupid.

Of course there are tons of characters that meet this description. I guess that I was just stumbling around for a way to express my feelings that The Easter Bunny was a more nuanced marriage of "rough around the edges" and "genuinely kindhearted" than I was expecting.

Moving back to Disney - One of the reasons why the studio has frustrated me so much, is because I've mostly just heard the inflated buzz surrounding their recent films (e.g. that Frozen is their best film since The Lion King ) I used to follow animation a little more closely, but stopped a few years ago. It's been a lot of fun looking through some of the old posts here, reading a variety of opinions, and realizing things like, "hey, maybe I'm not the only person who liked Tangled more than Frozen after all!"

I'm definitely not as knowledgeable as most of you guys are, so I don't know how much I can contribute to any conversation. But I'm really glad that I discovered this site and hope to stick around for a while. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic and answering some of my questions!

I decided to take a closer look into Disney's upcoming releases, and have to say, I'm kind of excited (if admittedly, still doubtful about how good they'll turn out to be). Inside Out has a fantastic concept and I like Pete Docter a lot. Something is clearly off with Pixar these days - there's no way that they could make ten fantastic films in a row and then follow those up with three so-so films as a result of sheer coincidence. I don't know if it's a matter of their last three directors simply being less talented, or if it's a sign of executive meddling. If the former, then Docter shouldn't have a problem. If the latter, then hopefully Docter's past successes will convince people to give him some space to make the film that he wants to make.

Moana sounds like it could be amazing, though I'm really sad that it won't be hand-drawn. Has any official word ever come from Disney on whether that medium has a future in their studio? I always kind of assumed that they killed 2D off after Princess and the Frog underwhelmed at the box-office, but do you think that if Lasseter keeps churning out hits, he'll be given the freedom to take another "risk" on it?

And two new films by the directors of Tangled! That's hopeful.

I'm intrigued by the release dates. Does anyone know why they pushed Inside Out to next year, and why we aren't getting a new WDAS film until 2016? Crossing my fingers that it has something to do with them wanting to spend a little extra time on perfecting the next batch of releases.

[GeorgeC]

There are different eras that are good depending on your standards, there are other eras that are considered 'not so good' by hardcore Disney fans and animation historians.

Even when Walt Disney was alive, there were periods where while the film product was technically decent it wasn't classic, either. Unlike many of the other film studios during World War II, I don't think Disney produced much of anything classic feature wise during at least half the war and even the theatrical shorts (aside from occasionally excellent Donald Duck and Goofy shorts) weren't anywhere near as memorable as the WB Looney Tunes/Merrie Melodies shorts or MGM Tom & Jerry/Tex Avery shorts. There was definitely a creative malaise that sets in with the shorts during World War II.

This was one of the first creative lulls in the company's history... it happened probably because half the company's potential feature film box office was wiped out by the war (can't distribute films and collect money from them in territories overtaken by your enemy!) and the Company was involved in producing a lot of training and propaganda films for the American war effort -- with a lot of the overages in that film production covered by the Company (and not the US Government which did investigate a number of film producers, including Leon Schlesinger, for suspicious-looking overage charges on their film budgets). The Disney Company won many awards for its contribution to the War Effort but almost at the cost of its collapse due to all the debt that it accumulated... Full-length animated feature production as it was pre-War stopped during WWII in favor of cheaper anthology films. It wasn't until 1950 (Cinderella) that the 'old-style', single story animated feature was attempted again. Most of the animated feature films produced during the (early half of the) war era were box office flops (Pinocchio, Bambi, Fantasia; Dumbo was profitable only because it was produced faster and under a tighter budget than the other films) and only became profitable in later post-war theatrical re-releases and home video/cable sales.

There's no question that the experience of the Disney Company during World War II is what drove Walt to diversify the film product by going into live-action features, TV productions, and later the Disneyland amusement park which is what really saved the company in the 1950s. In the process, however, his attention got split among too many projects which is why the bulk of the post-War animated features were not as good as the pre-War/early War features... he wasn't available to review storyboards/storylines as often as he was before and a lot of that work was left increasingly to senior animation staff. The staff made some good calls, then again they made some not-so-great decisions, too. Say what you will about the amount of credit given to Walt Disney but by most accounts he was a darn good story editor/film producer when he was 'on his game' and could maintain his focus on projects. I don't think his company would have earned the number of Oscars that it did without exceptional creative leadership as well as very good film staff.

[Jpcase]

I've been thinking about an old post that I read here awhile ago, in which someone said that most of Pixar's films are like "Vanity Projects" - that is, that they're predominately driven by the vision of a single director. Also, a few months ago, I read an article about how Lasseter sought to change WDAS from an "executive-driven studio" to a "director-driven studio"; a studio where, instead of Lasseter handing assignments down to chosen directors, the directors would come up with ideas and then pitch those ideas to him - so more in line with Pixar's "Vanity Project" system, one could say.

However, looking at what's actually happened at WDAS under Lasseter, I can't help but wonder whether he's not-yet achieved the full realization of that transformation. Of course, on the first film that he really had control over at the studio, he fired the director (Chris Sanders on Bolt). Then, as I understand it, he asked Musker and Clements back to direct The Princess and the Frog - however emotionally attached the duo may be to the finished film, it doesn't sound like the project initially originated out of their own burning desire to make it. And Glen Keane had to step down and be replaced on Tangled. I'm not entirely sure how each respective directing team got involved with Winnie the Pooh, Wreck-It Ralph, or Frozen, but I doubt that Winnie the Pooh was anyone's "Vanity Project", and I know that the latter two had been lingering in development hell for years. Whether Lasseter offered the chance to make those films to their directors, or whether the directors approached him with their take on the story, I get the feeling that Ralph and Frozen were simply "next in the pipeline" and would have been made when they were, no matter who the directors might have wound up as.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's wondered whether Disney's current era could be considered a "New Renaissance". Anyone who's read my above posts can probably guess what my take on that question is. But when I think about Lasseter's intentions for WDAS vs. what's actually happened under his oversight, I feel hopeful that we might simply be at the end of a "Transitionary Era" for the studio. Obviously, any major change in a studio's internal culture would take time to affect - Lasseter has said that it took a few years before the Disney "Story Trust" really took off. And it looks like when he came in, he made it a priority to tie up all of the loose-end projects, before really making way for new ideas.

But when you look at the studio's upcoming slate of films, you see Zootopia, which has a single director and developed as an idea fairly recently. Then there's Moana which, in addition to originating with Musker and Clements themselves, sounds like it could be one of the studio's most ambitious projects in a while - both in its story and its visuals.

I'll be definitely be curious to see how those films turn out! Maybe they'll mark the real beginning of a "New Renaissance" for the studio, or at least, something different from what we've seen these past several years. Or I don't know; maybe not. But I can hope, right?

[ShyViolet]

Great post Jpcase. I agree with pretty much everything you said. I've also always felt that there was somewhat of a gap between Lassetter's claim that WDAS would be a "director-driven studio" under his watch and what actually happened. Your idea that we're in a "transition period" seems very accurate to me. Frozen, Tangled and Wreck-it Ralph were all great but yeah, there was a little something missing there. I'm also excited about Moana and can't wait to see what Clements and Musker have cooked up. (Hopefully Lassetter will trust them more this time.)

Also, one thing that hasn't really been talked about much lately is job security at WDAS. Like many other studios, animators are hired and let go on a permanent basis meaning they're only hired when there's work available. The strange thing is that Pixar does not have this system--long term employment is what's offered there to those lucky enough to be hired. I still don't understand why Lassetter hasn't carried over this system to WDAS.

Really hope the films will eventually become more "special" at Disney, the way it was so long ago. Who knows, maybe it will.

[Randall]

Given how long it takes films to be developed, I do think this is still early days for Lasseter's tenure at Disney. But yes, hopefully we start to see the fruits of his philosophy soon.

[EricJ]

However, looking at what's actually happened at WDAS under Lasseter, I can't help but wonder whether he's not-yet achieved the full realization of that transformation. Of course, on the first film that he really had control over at the studio, he fired the director (Chris Sanders on Bolt). Then, as I understand it, he asked Musker and Clements back to direct The Princess and the Frog - however emotionally attached the duo may be to the finished film, it doesn't sound like the project initially originated out of their own burning desire to make it. And Glen Keane had to step down and be replaced on Tangled. I'm not entirely sure how each respective directing team got involved with Winnie the Pooh, Wreck-It Ralph, or Frozen, but I doubt that Winnie the Pooh was anyone's "Vanity Project", and I know that the latter two had been lingering in development hell for years. Whether Lasseter offered the chance to make those films to their directors, or whether the directors approached him with their take on the story, I get the feeling that Ralph and Frozen were simply "next in the pipeline" and would have been made when they were, no matter who the directors might have wound up as.

Joe Jump, The Snow Queen, American Dog, Rapunzel and A Day With Wilbur Robinson were all lingering projects with failed storyboards, and yes, Lasseter's strength was actually hitching them to a horse and getting them made, even if not in the form the early storyboards had first imagined. (And in most cases, better.) Princess & the Frog had been lingering around since the Eisner era, hence its "We're not in favor of princesses, honestly!" overcompensating.

What Lasseter had was a sense of the studio's identity, and that came from story and characters, no matter what the project was--The trick was just finding some hook to the story where the audience had some actual emotional involvement for the character, which was certainly the stumbling block for the Stainton era to find the "gimmick" that could get it to complete story stage.
Come to think of it, getting the audience to actually care about the characters was Walt's old instinct, too.

[Bill1978]

I feel the main thing that Lasseter has bought to WDAS is the introduction to adding a twist to the plot where one character suddenly turns into the bad guy. This started over at Pixar with Toy Story 2 and I've noticed it has slowly crept into many of WDAS recent pics. Sometimes it works, sometimes it is jarring in its execution. But hey if it brings in the money why fix it I suppose.

[Jpcase]

Haha, he has done that a lot, hasn't he? If you ask me, it's well time that he retires that plot point, unless the story really, really calls for it - which the last two haven't.

[EricJ]

I feel the main thing that Lasseter has bought to WDAS is the introduction to adding a twist to the plot where one character suddenly turns into the bad guy. This started over at Pixar with Toy Story 2 and I've noticed it has slowly crept into many of WDAS recent pics. Sometimes it works, sometimes it is jarring in its execution.

If you mean...him, that was literally a last-minute script-doctoring for a movie that technically didn't have a villain, since the antagonist, for lack of a better word, turned out to be the most sympathetic character.

Again, look at Lasseter's first couple months on the job, fixing Meet the Robinsons:
Before his arrival, the studio was all ready to dump the movie as damaged goods, and had already scheduled it for the same April Slot of Death they used to dispose of Home on the Range. The studio screened the dinner scene, and realized nobody wanted to meet the Robinsons; under Stainton's Dreamwork-envy sense of humor, they were loud, disturbing lunatics.
The plot engine was originally going to be just the Bowler Hat Guy trying to steal the invention, and Lasseter's first impulse was to drop the BHG completely--He wasn't competent, he wasn't threatening, he wasn't in the original book, and there was no reason for him to hang around annoying the script.
But before he could have the chance to do a Bolt on the script, Lasseter consulted with Stephen J. Anderson, talked about Anderson's own ideas as an orphan himself, and said "tell that story". All of a sudden, in the new third act, the Robinsons were still loonies, but a family, the BHG was kept since he was no longer an unwanted surplus of humor, but Doris was added as--yep, you guessed it, the villain out of nowhere, and it needed one.

Movies aren't deals, they're stories, that's why Pixar and WDFA are outliving Dreamworks.

[Ben]

Since Eric seems to have been IN the story sessions at Disney while Robinsons was being made, perhaps he could explain how the film was more than half way through animation when JL came in to make any changes?

If there was any Disney movie where I didn't feel the exec producer credit was valid, it was Robinsons, although I can understand the addition as a benchmark of quality and wanting to get their frontman of their big purchase out there and known to be attached. It's interesting that the bigger attention grabber, Katzenberg, doesn't give himself an exec producer credit but JL now gets one on each film...I think it started as a way to make it clear Disney had brought Pixar people in, but has now become a standard credit.

[EricJ]

Since Eric seems to have been IN the story sessions at Disney while Robinsons was being made, perhaps he could explain how the film was more than half way through animation when JL came in to make any changes?

Oh, I wouldn't dream of selfishly taking credit for what Jim Hill worked so hard on, at the time the Lasseter changes were still up in the air--
March, 2006...YOU ARE THERE:
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... 6/770.aspx
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... /1760.aspx
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... /4775.aspx

(Y'know, I'd almost forgotten after nine years just how much I always hated Hill's obsessive use of "'But...but...', you sputter". )

[ShyViolet]

"Robinsons" was considered damaged goods before Lassetter came? Wasn't it one of the hoped-for hits that WDFA was preparing? Wasn't Anderson, (as well as Musker, Clements, Sanders, and Keane) considered one of the "special" artists at the studio that you don't interfere with? In other words, these guys were basically considered the Nine New Men before Lassetter came along and treated them like animation students. I know many people considered it a good thing when he threw Sanders off of his own project, but really, hasn't the time come to finally show these guys some respect and let them do what they want as ARTISTS?

[James]

"Robinsons" was considered damaged goods before Lassetter came? Wasn't it one of the hoped-for hits that WDFA was preparing? Wasn't Anderson, (as well as Musker, Clements, Sanders, and Keane) considered one of the "special" artists at the studio that you don't interfere with?...?

Maybe Disney didn't consider Robinsons damaged goods... before Lassetter came. Maybe it was on of Disney's hoped-for hits... before Lassetter came. Maybe Anderson, Musker, Clements, Sanders, and Keane were considered one of the "special" artists at the studio that you don't interfere with... before Lassetter came.

My point is Disney was basically wrong in every thing they were thinking and doing before Pixar came and changed things up. Just because Disney thought Robinsons was going to be great doesn't mean it was.

I'm going to go with what I can see. Disney before Lasseter/Pixar and Disney after...

(And let's be fair here. Pixar isn't afraid to completely change things up on their own films when they aren't working. The Disney people got the same treatment Pixar employees know to expect.)

[EricJ]

Maybe Disney didn't consider Robinsons damaged goods... before Lassetter came. Maybe it was on of Disney's hoped-for hits... before Lassetter came. Maybe Anderson, Musker, Clements, Sanders, and Keane were considered one of the "special" artists at the studio that you don't interfere with... before Lassetter came.

Read the articles: It was Anderson's hoped-for hit before STAINTON got his hands on it, and it shows. ("Peanut allergies", 'nuff said. )
As for Lasseter, this was literally only a few months after the '05 shakeup (Lasseter's people were still at the Pixar headquarters), nobody had the faintest idea what Lasseter or Iger were going to do with the company, and there were a lot of cynical post-Eisner guessing.

The second JHM article (I don't repost these for my health, you know!) is from March '06, with Lasseter fresh off the boat, the movie just going in for retooling, and everyone in the TAG Blog running around like chickens, and the third article is from August '06, after five months in office and after the retooling changes, and...you can sense the in-house tone had distinctly changed a bit, about the future hopes of the company and the Robinsons.

[Ben]

I would say JL had and has faith in Ron and John from pre-day one, hence his pulling them onto Disney Animation's studio leadership team, handing them the reigns on Princess And The Frog and letting them do what they want to do...yes, as artists...on Moana.