Meet The Robinsons

Post by **Daniel** » October 11th, 2006, 3:23 pm

Ben wrote:Which is why Lasseter is not the next Walt Disney...

There had to be a not huh Ben?

I agree though he's no Walt

Ben wrote: And that Hill article...what FILLER!! That was perhaps the lamest excuse to fill a column. Anyone with a half decent DVD collection would know all that.

Oh good, I thought I was just not interested. It was rather boring indeed, made me sleepy

.

And its true!! I did know all that

Post by **chernabog** » October 11th, 2006, 3:51 pm

Is it really hard to believe that maybe there are some issues with their next three that need to be hammered out now that a proven story team is looking over their shoulders?

The question is are these issues significant enough to need changes or is Lasseter simply wanting to Pixar-ise Disney films? If Disney takes on too many ideas of the Pixar staff then what's to stop them rom becoming a carbon copy of that company?

Post by **Dacey** » October 11th, 2006, 4:49 pm

James wrote: I'm afraid I'd have to go with the track record here over rumors of "quirkiness". It's no secret that Disney has had MAJOR story problems with just about every single film they have released this decade. Is it really hard to believe that maybe there are some issues with their next three that need to be hammered out now that a proven story team is looking over their shoulders?

Yes, but as I said when Disney first bought the company, I don't want Pixar to run over every single film the Mouse House has in production. Sure, JL can throw in his two cents on stuff like Bowler Hat Man, but wanting to delete the character entirely? That just didn't seem right.

Disney's story team is talented enough to solve their own problems. I hope that John can realize this.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 11th, 2006, 8:44 pm

Why would they want to build Pixar in WFDA's image? As far as I've seen for the last 8 years animation fans have done nothing but complain about the way WDFA has been run.

Build Pixar....you mean Pixar AND Disney, right?

This is WDFA, not Emeryville part 2.
Anyway, I didn't mean the "bad" Disney of late, but the classic, 90's heyday Disney. It was a big place, but they kicked a**. Why do they want to make it an entrenched, insular animator's clubhouse the way Pixar is now? Unless you think that's how ALL animation houses should be run....personally I don't.
I think that's how you get dug in and wind up with similar movies again and again.

It would seem irresponsible to not let Pixar take the lead in melding the two divisions together.

Yeah, but that's NOT what they're doing. At least in my eyes. I haven't seen any "melding" going on since Lassetter took over--have you?

They're keeping themselves stashed away in Emeryville while cleaning house in Glendale (and possibly moving the remaining guys to Emery? My theory anyway). If they truly wanted to "meld" with Diz, why aren't they sending some of there guys over to Disney Feature, to possibly integrate some Disney culture (the good kind) into their little Pixar world?

Shouldn't there be a kind of "foreign exchange student" program, the way there was when PDI and DreamWorks merged?

Unless you have some ulterior motive. You're not wanting Disney/Pixar to fail and let some other studio be the top dog in animation, are you Vi?

No.

Actually that's the last thing I want. I want DW to join Disney/Pixar so all their talents can be combined and they can make a VARIETY of films under the Disney name, not just "buddy-buddy potential soft bouncy toy with googly eyes" part twelve.

It's no secret that Disney has had MAJOR story problems with just about every single film they have released this decade. Is it really hard to believe that maybe there are some issues with their next three that need to be hammered out now that a proven story team is looking over their shoulders?

Yeah but weren't there, um, reports that Robinsons and American Dog were actually turning out to be good films?

Also, what about Lilo and Stitch? That was a quirky film (in animation I think quirky means "different" "deeper", or "challenging".) I mean, this little girl has emotional problems, misbehaves in school and mouths off to her sister and teachers.

Can you imagine if Pixar came when this film was in production? A creepy little alien? A lonely and outcast girl with...issues? Ask yourself, do you really think that they'd let that go? That they wouldn't have labled it as "weird", or yes, "quirky"? You really think that they wouldn't have hesitated to turn Lilo into a Boo clone and sent her to Stitch's planet for some wacky highjinks and life lessons? Because that's what it seems to me that they're doing to American Dog.

I can just imagine Lassetter reading the Lilo script: "Little Hawaiin girl with behavior problems makes friends with creepy alien science project....?" Then the first story conference:

"Why are we making this film?"

"Well, we're not."

proven story team

Well...that's a matter of opinon. Anyway, as we've seen, Cars has kind of cast some doubt on that old chestnut.

Yes, but as I said when Disney first bought the company, I don't want Pixar to run over every single film the Mouse House has in production. Sure, JL can throw in his two cents on stuff like Bowler Hat Man, but wanting to delete the character entirely? That just didn't seem right.

Disney's story team is talented enough to solve their own problems. I hope that John can realize this.

Agree with every word said here.

Disclaimer: The post you have just read is merely the opinon of the poster, and in no way meant to offend.

Post by **Meg** » October 11th, 2006, 9:10 pm

Unless you think that's how ALL animation houses should be run....personally I don't.

So instead of having creative freedom, execs should be breathing down everyone's neck all the time? I disagree with ya there. As an artist myself, I LOVE the atmosphere Pixar has, and really hope to have the chance to work somewhere like that someday. I think the way they work has a lot to do with the fact that EVERY Pixar film to date has done very well. It’s too bad more studios don’t take a closer look at how they actually make their movies then at the topics of the movies.

Sure, JL can throw in his two cents on stuff like Bowler Hat Man, but wanting to delete the character entirely? That just didn't seem right.

Was that actually confirmed? The only place I heard about it was from Jim Hill, and we all know how reliable HE can be.

So...Meet the Robinsons! Looks like a good movie!

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 11th, 2006, 9:19 pm

Code: Select all

So instead of having creative freedom, execs should be breathing down everyone's neck all the time? I disagree with ya there.

I know what you mean. It does seem like a fun place. I definetely think artists should have freedom...(I like to write and sometimes I do draw) And hey, more power to them--I like the casual, laid back atmosphere that they seem to have there--it gets the creative juices flowing. The problem is, I DON'T think that's the kind of environment that's always there, just what they show us on DVDs from time to time.

What I should have said was that Pixar is small, cliquey and insular....it seems like John, Lee, Andrew and Ed have a lot of control and would be less willing to let an artist/writer run with they type of story that goes against the kind of films they make. Like, what if an artist said: "Why don't we make something that's a little more serious this time, maybe put some scary stuff in....?" I really don't know how that would fly with the Pixar guys.

But that's just me...

Post by **chernabog** » October 12th, 2006, 2:51 am

Like, what if an artist said: "Why don't we make something that's a little more serious this time, maybe put some scary stuff in....?" I really don't know how that would fly with the Pixar guys.

To be honest though, when has any cg film done this? All cg films seem capable of is 'comedy', nothing more. I think Disney wil be the ones to change this... Meet The Robinsons looks way more epic than most cg films and it's helped significantly by the fact that it uses HUMAN characters. American Dog could have a strong emotional element if Stitch is anything to go by, and as for Rapunzel.... Well, I see a complete change in the way cg films are viewed after that.

I don't want to be criticising Lasetter because I do think he is an incredible talent and does genuinely love Disney. Is he the new Walt Disney? Frankly, no. Nobody could ever compare to him, but he is the closest thing we have. I just hope that over the next few years we can see a clear distinction between Disney and Pixar films.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 12th, 2006, 3:35 am

To be honest though, when has any cg film done this? All cg films seem capable of is 'comedy', nothing more.

Incredibles did to an extent stretch the limits of the CGI comedy genre. It did have some tense moments, although it could have gone further.

Post by **Dacey** » October 12th, 2006, 5:32 pm

Was that actually confirmed? The only place I heard about it was from Jim Hill, and we all know how reliable HE can be.

Yeah, I think it was from Jim Hill. And yeah, you could be right.

Chances are Jim just blew up the facts and pushed the "Panic Button" as he so often does.

Still, wasn't it reported from somewhere else as well?

Post by **James** » October 12th, 2006, 5:41 pm

ShyViolet wrote:
It's no secret that Disney has had MAJOR story problems with just about every single film they have released this decade. Is it really hard to believe that maybe there are some issues with their next three that need to be hammered out now that a proven story team is looking over their shoulders?
Also, what about Lilo and Stitch? That was a quirky film (in animation I think quirky means "different" "deeper", or "challenging".) I mean, this little girl has emotional problems, misbehaves in school and mouths off to her sister and teachers.

Note my exact words: "just about every single film they have released this decade". There was one big hit this decade and that is why I qualified my statement.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 13th, 2006, 4:31 am

Note my exact words: "just about every single film they have released this decade". There was one big hit this decade and that is why I qualified my statement.

I know what you mean. Still, what about Emperor's New Groove? Chicken Little? Those films did reasonably well at the box office ( or at least on DVD/video) and have their fans. They have "quirky" humor too...especially Groove.

Somehow I don't think Pixar would have liked Groove as a "quirky" comedy (which was quite funny) OR the epic/broadway song/coming-of-age film it was SUPPOSED to be in the first place. And that yes, they probably would have killed that project too. (kind of why the fact that Mark and Randy left as soon as said team walked into the studio never surprised me much.)

Ditto for Atlantis and yessssss Treasure Planet. Like I said, maybe those films have their "issues" but they also have positive qualities and quite a number of fans as well. (as someone might want to tell Steve Jobs, who dissed both Groove and Planet when sparring with Eisner two years ago in the press--yeah, he was doing it to show Eisner up, but I still don't think it was very nice. He could have taken the high road and just said "We believe that Pixar films like Incredibles are a work of art which doesn't necessarily need "realism" and wish Disney well in whatever ventures they're plannning.") NOOOOO, he had to be a jerk, because he's Steve Jobs and can do whatever he wants. Someone should tell him that there's this thing some people have...it's called integrity.

Anyway to get back to Pixar....maybe Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Atlantis, Chicken Little and Emperor's New Groove have things that could be improved, but they're decent, well-made films with quite a few "quirky" ideas that would not, I repeat would not, have survived the Pixar cut had John and company gotten to Diz earlier. Treasure Planet in space? A "witty" (read; quirky) modern update of Chicken Little? A David Spade comedy? (Or I'll even go out on a limb and list "Cats Don't Dance" even though it's not Disney, because it's also kind of a Dindal-ish"quirky" film with some adult ideas, dark components, and a "different" type of feel. Exactly what Pixar loves, right?) And Brother Bear? An
epic-y type of film with an environmentalist message? Yes, John and Ed would have said: "Brilliant! Stick with it!"

I think they would have done more than just make "suggestions" or "improvements" on these films. They would either have edited them and inserted random cuteness until the films would have been completely unrecognizable, or, as in the case of Empereor's New Groove/Kingdom of the Sun, they would have killed this project in EITHER stage it was in. I truly believe that they would have.

But then if you believe that these were all basically bad ideas inspired by executive meddling and should have been killed anway, well, that's another story.

So let's go back earlier....to say, Mulan. They wouldn't have liked it. Too different. Too weird. Too "quirky". Tarzan? Too live-action. Too "quirky". Hercules? Old Greek Tale with pop/blues chorus? Same. Pocahontas? Same. Beauty and the Beast? They would have taken one look at the fairy tale in its original form and said "Too dark" and that would've been that. Aladdin? With the relatively exotic material it would have been too far removed from what they do--too "quirky." Little Mermaid? Story too sad, even with possible changes to original (unhappy) fairy tale. Too much scary stuff and intense stuff like Ursela's bargain and Ariel's losing her voice. Next. Oliver and Company. What, dogs with Oliver Twist? Bette Middler? Billy Joel? A scary villain who almost strangles someone with his limo car window going up? A little girl getting kidnapped, guard dogs threatening her, subway chase with the villain getting his head cut off? Not in this lifetime, baby.

Oh, but what about Brad Bird? you ask. He believes in doing different types of stories. HE would have supported them. Uh, yeah. May I remind everyone that in WIRED interview done around 2004, Brad called everything that was being done at Disney in the late 80s/early 90s to be "beautiful, full animation of really lame ideas" which was why he opted to go for Simpsons, not WDFA. No help there, unfortunately.

No, what Pixar does is safe, cute little kiddie stuff that's usually quite entertaining and sure looks good. Like....the Great Mouse Detective. And they'd have stopped pushing the envelope at that. Trust me, if it had been John and Ed, not Jeffrey, who'd taken over WDFA in 1985, we would NEVER have seen the films we did. I challenge anyone to deny this point.

Here's something Ed Catmull said in that same WIRED story:

"I used to say for years that story was the most important thing to us," says Catmull. "Then I realized that all the other studios were saying the same thing. They say that and then they go and produce c**p. What you say doesn't mean a damn thing. It's what you do that matters."

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, based on Pixar's mission statement, I don't think what they would have done with Disney, had they been given that power earlier, would have been anything like what we ended up seeing.

Post by **James** » October 13th, 2006, 8:28 am

ShyViolet wrote:No, what Pixar does is safe, cute little kiddie stuff that's usually quite entertaining and sure looks good. Like....the Great Mouse Detective. And they'd have stopped pushing the envelope at that. Trust me, if it had been John and Ed, not Jeffrey, who'd taken over WDFA in 1985, we would NEVER have seen the films we did. I challenge anyone to deny this point.

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, based on Pixar's mission statement, I don't think what they would have done with Disney, had they been given that power earlier, would have been anything like what we ended up seeing.

Oh my gosh! First off, we're going back to the years when Disney was really good? If that were still the case Lasseter and Co. wouldn't NEED to come in and help fix things! Second, we're re-imaging good Disney films if Pixar had done them? That can cut both ways. Imagine a DW version of Beauty and the Beast or The Lion King! That's enough to give you nightmares!

You can (naively I think) pigeonhole Pixar as "safe, cute little kiddie stuff that doesn't push the envelope". But doing the exact opposite (as DW thinks they do) doesn't mean you make good films either.

I'm done! Pixar is bad, Disney is good (even when they're bad), and DW is the best. There can't be any nuanced debate or conversation without it ultimately coming back to this tired old theme that has become so rote here. The point is Disney has not been the Disney of old for some time and something has to be done. Let's just bring back David Stantion (or whatever his name was) and take his ideas and suggestions over FRICKIN' JOHN LASSETER!!!

OK, I'm better now.

Post by **Ben** » October 13th, 2006, 6:24 pm

Vi...you brought that on yourself.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 14th, 2006, 2:27 am

Oh my gosh! First off, we're going back to the years when Disney was really good?

Well why shouldn't we? Isn't that what Disney wants to re-create? Those good years? In my mind it's completely relevant to hypothesize this, aren't the Lion King/Beauty and the Beast/Oliver and Company what people WANT to see again? Well, at least I do....I thought most people did, too.

If that were still the case Lasseter and Co. wouldn't NEED to come in and help fix things!

No but...theoretically anything is possible. Suppose Lassetter never left the Diz in the early '80s to work for Lucasfilm, stayed on at Walt Disney feature and eventually got promoted to head of feature animation. It could have gone that way. And say Roy never brought Eisner and Katzenberg in, and John pretty much had his way with the films. Do you really, really think that the WDFA films like Mermaid and Oliver would have come out with the qualities we ended up seeing? Or come out at all?

Second, we're re-imaging good Disney films if Pixar had done them?

Well, yeah, of course we are. Isn't it the Pixar braintrust that's just been put in charge of WDFA? That's relevant to the discussion....secondly, I don't know what DW would have done with Disney films, but DW has never run Disney animation, nor are they running it now. We're talking about PIXAR here. PIXAR, not DW. Pixar's got the power at WDFA, John L has, Ed C, and the others. And people want to see them make the Golden Era Renaissance type films. Isn't that what people want? So why is it not relevent to hyposthesize how they would have actually approached these projects had they been at Disney Feature 15 years ago?

But doing the exact opposite (as DW thinks they do) doesn't mean you make good films either.

Maybe, maybe not...but that's a whole different discussion!

Let me repeat: Pixar's got the reins here, so that's why they're being judged.

The point is Disney has not been the Disney of old for some time and something has to be done.

Quite true, but how do you know that the Pixar guys are the ones who should be doing it?

(O.K...I know I'm tempting fate here, I know I've already committed and spoken many heresies and blasphemed no end, but have John Lassetter or Ed Catmull et al. EVER said said ANYTHING positive about any Renaissance era film? In a public forum of any sort? Yes, they say, "We love Disney films," but which ones precisely? The Lion King, or 101 Dalmations? Aladdin, or Dumbo? If anyone can dig up something for me that has John L saying something like "I loved Beauty and the Beast!" I thought it was excellent and very well-done," MAYBE I would change my mind about them. Maybe. But I'll only believe it when I see it.

)

These are just my opinions, and I respect yours. Let's not argue about it anymore.

I guess only time will tell if Pixar and Disney are a good match.

Vi...you brought that on yourself.

Yeah...I know.

(On another topic:

For the record, I only chose the new signature you see below because I find that part in the movie hilarious!

)

Post by **Josh** » October 14th, 2006, 3:42 am

ShyViolet wrote:(O.K...I know I'm tempting fate here, I know I've already committed and spoken many heresies and blasphemed no end, but have John Lassetter or Ed Catmull et al. EVER said said ANYTHING positive about any Renaissance era film? In a public forum of any sort? Yes, they say, "We love Disney films," but which ones precisely? The Lion King, or 101 Dalmations? Aladdin, or Dumbo? If anyone can dig up something for me that has John L saying something like "I loved Beauty and the Beast!" I thought it was excellent and very well-done," MAYBE I would change my mind about them. Maybe. But I'll only believe it when I see it. )

Perhaps this is what you're looking for:

CGCHAR wrote:Once Cars is released, one of the themes in Lasseter’s life will be reviving Disney animation. He credits the studio with bringing animation back to what it was originally - a medium for adults as well as kids - with Who Framed Roger Rabbit? and The Little Mermaid, but concedes it became “a little formulaic” after Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King.