Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the June 13th Jim On Film column at <a href="News-ID180070.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID180070.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I will be there opening weekend. The "death" of traditional animation has been predicted almost as often as Broadway's, the big Studios', and the TV Networks'. As one of the great moguls of the past used to say... "Nothing a few big hits won't cure."
Originally Posted By Santa Monica I always watch Disney Animated Features at least twice. The last traditional I saw more than twice was Lion King (4 times). I saw Toy Story 2 (3 times). I will probably see L&S [at least] twice opening weekend.
Originally Posted By DisneyDude81 im gonna watch alot more than twice! it looks like a movie i wanna get a shot of more than once lol
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Jim, I applaud you and can guarantee you that I’ll be the first to enlist in the cause and join you in battle. My suspicion is that it will fly high to success, though I personally think it will break $200M at the box office domestically with or without us. Here’s my reasoning: First, I have the advantage of having see it in story-reel and in a final cut as recently as several weeks back. And on the basis of those screenings I think the film delivers on it’s promise. It is moving, funny, charming and vastly entertaining and unique. Second, this film’s marketing has been appropriate for what it is and who it’s for. Third, the studio has invested an appropriate amount into marketing the film across the board thusfar. The last two points were not true for either “Emperor’s New Groove” or “Atlantis: The Lost Empire.” The studio itself made a decision early on to pull back on what it invested in marketing for either of those films, and I personally think they so screwed up the approach to marketing them that neither film ultimately reached it’s widest and most enthusiastic audience, which was there. New Groove is a perfect example. I’ll go out on a Chesire limb and say that the vast majority of people who chose not to see it in theatres did so because they had no clue what it was about. Similarly, as large a number of people who were either encouraged to or independently elected to see it on video/dvd were caught by surprise and loved the film. The majority of them I’d call very enthusiastic and excited “Groove” converts, in fact. That’s evidence of a studio that doesn’t know how to market its own product. But “Lilo & Stitch” is the antithesis of that. I want to emphasize that every film should be judged on its own, and not compared to one another. Films - like paintings and books or any artistic or fine craft endeavor - are unique and should be approached as unique from other films. (That’s my subtle way of saying I think that many films - “Atlantis” for example, got a bad rap and very much deserve and need to be in the Disney cannon, and succeeds as truly unique and exciting films….send complaints to me on that one separate from this thread, please.) But no matter what, “Lilo & Stitch” needs to be allowed to live or die on its own merit. And it will. If by some bizarre turn the film fails to deliver an attractive return, then the message it will send is simply that audiences want “something other than.” And there’s no changing that trend until it’s played out. The studio can’t afford to ignore their target market’s message back. Because this time the marketing has been appropriate, enthusiastic and at a level the film deserves then I don’t think it can be argued that the box office will be anything other than an accurate reflection of what audiences want to see. If the message is “not this, please” then I think it will cause them to invest less at this stage in features like “Lilo & Stitch” in every way, including the way in which the film is crafted. But what I doubt very seriously is that the industry will abandon so-called traditional animation altogether. Mind you as recently as two months ago I thought they would. But I now honestly believe that Tom Schumacher has no intention of turning Disney Feature Animation into a CGI-only house. And I think the slow down has made sense. Animaton, like it or not, is changing. All art changes. That’s as it should be. And I think we have to let it change in order for there to be anything authentic about it, rather than induced. Personally, I’d prefer it to favor an approach more in keeping with “Lilo & Stitch.” But I suspect what it can (hopefully will) be is far more exciting than anything I imagine. The slow down is very, very bad for artists. That’s a sad effect of the shift. But it may (and I think will) prove to be very very good for the industry in the long run. It may give studios and producers a chance to be less knee-jerk and formulaic and more thoughtful and creative. Up until very recently I too was sounding the death knell for animation, but now I think I was wrong. What I do believe is dead is what may well have been the most gifted repertory company in Hollywood. The Disney approach to animation that was preserved primarily through nurturing and passing along traditions that were taught by masters, absorbed and acted upon by the pupils, and brought to a higher level once the pupils had achieved personal mastery over a period of time. Time. Not jobs, but time. And now that’s gone. It started with the founders and pioneers that were typified by “the Nine Old Men”, but shared by many more than just those nine. They passed it on in the 70’s to a generation who crafted the films Jeffrey Katzenberg wishes he could take credit for, but in the end can’t, and they in turn passed it on to a generation that didn’t have a chance to come into their own before being broken up and sent off with a pink slip. That concerns me a great deal. Be that as it may, I return to what I said before: “Lilo & Stitch” will rise or fall on its own merit. And in the end animation will always have to answer to its audience regardless of whether artist elect water-colors over mapping programs or pencils over pixels. So, Jim, I don’t think it will end with Stitch, -- or with “Bears” for that matter. But either way I’ll be there, and I’ll be back for similar in 2005, 2006, and on and on, God willing and the creek don’t rise. LOL AFA
Originally Posted By John_CM Is there any doubt that Lilo & Stitch ISN'T going to be a hit? Almost every kid that sees the dolls and merchandise at the park is all excited about it.. and adults too.. It's got good positive buzz. Emperor's New Groove and Atlantis didn't have this kind of buzz and they didn't do all that well, but Monsters Inc did and it was a huge success. I dont think it has to do with traditional vs computer animation, it has to do with whether the film has that mass appeal (oh and it has to be good too!)
Originally Posted By Dlmusic I have to say that my outlook on the movie has changed somewhat from when I first saw the trailer. I still don't think L&S has a chance at $200 million, in fact I doubt it will beat Ice Age ($170 million). It does look like it will have a chance of doing over $100 million and maybe as much as $150 million. IMO, the best marketing so far has been the merchandise. It was only when the merchandise came out that I started to see excitement from regular people about the movie. I hope it's the hit Disney's been waiting for, especially since it looks better than the recent animated films.
Originally Posted By arstogas You can't drive five blocks in Los Angeles without seeing a bus or billboard advertising the movie... I know we're one of the top ten markets, and it's not like that elsewhere, but the saturation level would seem to indicate that they've got their heads back on in the marketing department. And AFA, glad to see you've converted (a bit, heh heh). As mentioned before, the slow down was strategic, and should be seen as marking a return to more carefully crafted animated motion pictures. I'm sorry that some talented animators will now be designing greeting cards, but they'll survive.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Actually, Arstogas, I'm in the same church, just a different denomination *wink* I don't think we can't settle for believing that animators who are "designing greeting cards" will survive. I think we need to get OUR heads back on as an industry and find a way to encourage, finance, support and sustain more animation production in this town and not depend on the giants to capture the fleeting knowledge of two generations, or wait for someone else to begin rebuilding a repertory company of personality animators. Up for lunch? AFA
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>I think we need to get OUR heads back on as an industry and find a way to encourage, finance, support and sustain more animation production in this town <<< Somebody has to ATTEND those movies. Even when they were being made WELL, people weren't going. I still bleed for IRON GIANT, the best Disney animated movie Disney never made... That was the fault, basically, of one woman working for Warner Brothers, but the fact remains a truly GREAT film didn't even find a sleeper audience. I think there's reasonable evidence over the last fifteen years that the public isn't going to rush to more than one or two animated films a year. You can't force them to, and the price of animated films has engorged to the point where you NEED a pretty strong response. I have several animator friends who have adjusted well. They'd rather be drawing fuzzy bunnies, but they are remarkably resilient, and find other venues for their skills. You notice that children's books look better than ever...
Originally Posted By actingforanimators The animators and animation artists who were illustrating books while they were also working on features - like Jimmy Pickering, for instance - are the same ones who we now see in print more frequently. There is hardly a plethora of new illustrators from the feature animation industry flooding the shelves. A half-dozen at best. I don't think resilience need be applauded if promise is being lost. It seems a fairly dispassionate resignation to say that we need not worry since some "have adjusted well." The vast majority of younger artists who could have brought(and still may bring) a fresh vision to animation are morphing consumer products by way of pixels at Rhythm and Hues et al as part of nothing more than an assembly line. Some would never have found any better than that at Disney as a given percentage will never aspire to anything more than journeyman status, at best. But to reduce the ideology of the remainder to "rather be drawing fuzzy bunnies" is the rhetoric of production executives who trashed the system in the service of stockholders. I don't believe you truly are that detached, Arsotgas. As for Iron Giant, it did find a sleeper audience, mostly in the home release market, and yes, it was the victim of transitional leadership without requisite vision or appropriate experience. So I don't think it's a useful example of why audiences won't go to more than one or two animated films a year. I think engorged production costs can be managed without sacrificing quality of marketability. Films like Lilo and Iron Giant cut those costs greatly, and are only the most extreme examples of what good fiscal management without abandoning the critical elements of quality can achieve. It seems too glib to my way of thinking to ascribe box office failure to believing that "the public isn't going to rush to more than one or two animated films a year." The past two years alone show otherwise. No, they may not mob the box office and give back $250M for every film, but they don't do that for live action either. Are we to expect Hollywood in general to stop making more than the three or four films a year that break that figure? Failure to reach blockbuster status is not reasonable evidence of the idea that more animated films can't be made and find success in the market. Audience development has to be a part of the strategic approach to marketing any product. Without it then surely any film venture will fail -- animated or otherwise. If live action feature films can nurture a healthy indi market, why can't animation? AFA
Originally Posted By arstogas >>>There is hardly a plethora of new illustrators from the feature animation industry flooding the shelves. A half-dozen at best. I don't think resilience need be applauded if promise is being lost. It seems a fairly dispassionate resignation to say that we need not worry since some "have adjusted well." <<< You expended quite a bit of energy to counter what was obviously a bit of gallows humor... The success of ICE AGE and MONSTERS INC within a similar time frame notwithstanding... The public seems to interpret these films as a different animal from traditionally hand-drawn animated films. This is a subjective observation, but ask around... there is almost an inherent prejudice by a good bit of the adult (15 and up) audience in America, suspicious of animated film. We've been trying for EONS to overcome this. Walt tried with some of his best work. There are just some folks who curmudgeonly say "nope. it's a cartoon." and they stay at home... they won't even rent it. >>>If live action feature films can nurture a healthy indi market...<< Because actually indi films are very old... they have existed in one form or another, the current division only more pronounced today because of costs and the way the studio system operates. The distribution arrangement has changed over the years and now it's an acquisition game. There's almost NO independent distribution going on... and what is occurring is not very successful. I DO think traditional animation as we enjoy it will continue, and will be appreciated. But the phenomenon that occurred through the 80's to now was unique... a sad eventuality is that so many promising, talented artists, were channelled into a boom market, and were allowed to flourish. The market won't support that now, but like some kind of cultural socialist, you seem to want to artificially create conditions that WILL, simply to support (what is, granted, a noble cause) the preservation of the legacy these artists carry on. But what I think you're missing, or forgetting, is that this legacy CANNOT be lost; it is preserved in so many venues... books, artwork, volumes of material easily accessible and referenced. The one-on-one of previous artists who are mostly dying out, well, you're not going to get that... people die. The ones who benefitted from their mentorship - the best of them will carry on and teach others. But this is a small group anyway. The truly most talented animators will always find work. There is a lesser tier which shifts around anyway, always has... the problem is that the last two decades offered lots of promise and delivered, at the end, broken hearts. And I can tell you as a producer that the OTHER reason animation won't erupt as a healthy independent market, is because INVESTORS have way too much evidence that animated efforts don't return money to their investors, unless they're released by one of the big two. And when you get down to it, the generation of money (it may be cynical, it may be cold and detached, but it's TRUTH) is what drives any segment of the motion picture industry.
Originally Posted By ni_teach I Just saw Lilo & Stitch today 5/15/02 (press preview) and it was great. It's unlike any other Disney film; it was funny, touching and exciting. However, whoever designed the ad campaign should be shot! “The one in every family” does not do justice to this film.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators I got the condescension, but gallows humor? Sorry, coverage didn't underscore that part for me. ;-) >>I DO think traditional animation as we enjoy it will continue, and will be appreciated.<< Didn't say it wouldn't >>But the phenomenon that occurred through the 80's to now was unique<< Really? So what was up in the mid 1950's? >>a sad eventuality is that so many promising, talented artists, were channeled into a boom market, and were allowed to flourish.<< Eventual only because we all banked on one player. That's always a bad idea. >>The market won't support that now, but like some kind of cultural socialist, you seem to want to artificially create conditions that WILL, simply to support (what is, granted, a noble cause) the preservation of the legacy these artists carry on.<< Hardly, though I'll happily take on the mantle of "cultural socialist". How do you conclude I want to artificially create conditions, or that it's solely so that the legacy can carry on? By attempting to develop and deliver a diverse quality product on any scale, and delivering it to a proven healthy market? That's a bad idea and a lofty one? Show me any segment - animation, live action, adult films - that isn't grown primarily through the delivery of quality product from diverse sources of all sizes – large and small. You make it sound like the alternative is to believe in an altruistic capitalism that will guarantee the work is good and only as plentiful as the demand - no more no less. And the big two have it all covered – every last inch, so why bother. If as you say, and I agree, the generation of money is what drives a commercial industry then isn't it cold and cynical to relate market growth to the direct effect of investors as opposed to consumers? Granted their critical to the equation, but to place them at the top of the pyramid is serving over any creative commercial venture (and that would include many durable goods as well) to some privileged, mystical panel of figures who all have an MBA somewhere in their CV. (Lord knows MBA's are very good at ensuring that commercial film makers and the pooled-ignorance of prognosticating bank VPs come to blows at some point during almost every production.) Next you’ll tell me that directors and screenwriters might as well not even go beyond a treatment if they can't pitch it so that investors can envision the trailer. Sound like a healthy way to develop your product? >>But what I think you're missing, or forgetting, is that this legacy CANNOT be lost; it is preserved in so many venues... books, artwork, volumes of material easily accessible and referenced. The one-on-one of previous artists who are mostly dying out, well, you're not going to get that... people die.<< Yes, and the people who live carry on. To use your example - book illustration is not how I think this legacy can carry on. >>The ones who benefited from their mentorship - the best of them will carry on and teach others. But this is a small group anyway<< It’s a substantially larger group than you imply. And I honor history and I honor the desire to chronicle that history. But history is living, not remembering. And don’t make it sound as I’ve turned a sound practice of mentorship combined with a dynamic creative development of new stories into some passionately worded but unattainable platitudes. I don't think that “the legacy” is all to be found in books or lecture notes. I'm talking about a practical approach to keeping the art and the craft WORKING, on the job. And that includes animators, directors and producers. Individuals do not carry enough knowledge to sustain the same kind of advancement of animation as companies of people. No matter who the individual or where they go. Producers, like directors and artists, have the same responsibility for advancing the knowledge and bringing each generation along to a place where they can surpass the last. I’m not standing in overalls and a bandanna carrying a sign that says “UNITE!” or selling my “creative socialist” concept of some cartoon commune. I’m just wondering why the f we can’t get it together to do something other than job-hop and hope for a rebound. The industry can not be expected to sustain its health or stretch its creative muscle strictly in ten year bursts, or strictly at Disney or DreamWorks. Nor can we expect that comparable work experience is found at CalArts or SVA or CAD or NYU. Do you think discarding a proven model for developing the best workforce and the best product is a good idea? Revamping the model, or refining it would make sense. But trashing it altogether? If you want to talk about investor trepidations, only the most severely chromosomally damaged investor would think that taking a "brain trust" and scattering them to the four winds was a great way to continue bringing a better product to market. Great investors, the kind that have the patience for a return and don’t live and die by some Anderson School – Dot.Com instant return philosophy, are smart enough to know that you gather as much of that group as possible and put them to work in a healthier environment, starting small and giving them plenty of room for failure and risk taking. Pixar would not exist otherwise. I don't buy it, Arstogas. If you have become the kind of producer that listens solely to investors who are in it for the turn-around and are risk averse, then you should be wise enough to stop producing and let the investors make the movies. Somehow you strike me as much less sycophantic or egotistical. Unless you're just worn out, worn down, and insist on believing that only the big six can give you the career you deserve, and that any less would be a waste of your talent, and that an Oscar or an Emmy are the proof that you’ve made it. I doubt that you operate like that as a creative executive. I truly do. No, I think the market is there. I think the public is hungry. I think smart investors know that it’s not about looking for the next $400M movie. I think there’s plenty of “bathwater babies” out there ripe for the picking and its time somebody other than digital houses and Hallmark assembled them in one place. And it’s time that the youngest of them stopped sitting around waiting for Disney or DreamWorks or Warners or Nick/KC to hire them back for an 18 month gig every two years. You can argue against that or you can have lunch. Which would you prefer? Yours in believing that new things can be built – AFA,Cultural Socialist
Originally Posted By arstogas Wow, AFA, you really attributed a lot of presumptions upon me that I never even INFERRED... >>>How do you conclude I want to artificially create conditions, or that it's solely so that the legacy can carry on?<<< Well, you tend to speak in terms of "we must create these conditions" - and my immediate response is "well, that's very nice, but how do you force people to attend movies they're not interested in? How do you overcome innate bias toward animated films, which does indeed exist for a lot of people. It's a stupid bias, but it's widespread. >>By attempting to develop and deliver a diverse quality product on any scale, and delivering it to a proven healthy market? That's a bad idea and a lofty one? << Not at all, but who's going to fund it? You're not. There's a finite source of financing in the world, especially right now in the United States. The money for American independent film (and a lot of studio co-financing) is coming from OUTSIDE the USA... Japan and until recently, Germany, mostly. And financiers are REALLY skittish about animation. >>>Show me any segment - animation, live action, adult films - that isn't grown primarily through the delivery of quality product from diverse sources of all sizes – large and small. <<< Agreed. But we haven't had enough diversity in animation where budget is concerned. I think 50 million, though a low figure compared to most Disney figures, and about what IRON GIANT cost, is still TOO much to spend on an animated feature. And so do a lot of people who are backing motion picture budgets. >>>You make it sound like the alternative is to believe in an altruistic capitalism that will guarantee the work is good and only as plentiful as the demand - no more no less. And the big two have it all covered – every last inch, so why bother. <<< HUH? I thought that's what YOU were espousing... more or less. >>>If as you say, and I agree, the generation of money is what drives a commercial industry then isn't it cold and cynical to relate market growth to the direct effect of investors as opposed to consumers? Granted their critical to the equation, but to place them at the top of the pyramid is serving over any creative commercial venture (and that would include many durable goods as well) to some privileged, mystical panel of figures who all have an MBA somewhere in their CV. (Lord knows MBA's are very good at ensuring that commercial film makers and the pooled-ignorance of prognosticating bank VPs come to blows at some point during almost every production.)<<< I don't like it, I don't like it at ALL, but unfortunately, cold and cynical though it may seem, it IS the folks who hold the money who determine what will get funded. For every animated movie that makes MONEY, there are too many flops that make the rumor circuit. I've RAISED money for independent films... and we're raising money now for a big animated project. The lack of interest in animation in general among international and domestic financiers is just universal, and it's sad. >>Next you’ll tell me that directors and screenwriters might as well not even go beyond a treatment if they can't pitch it so that investors can envision the trailer. Sound like a healthy way to develop your product? <<< That's a silly thing to assume. It's not even a good analogy. You seem to ignore that fact that there is a VERY finite circle of companies that CAN finance a viable animated picture, and most of them DON'T want to try right now... they've pulled back. And without that money, there's no salaries for those animators. I hate it... I'd LOVE a booming animation industry. But there's a perceived cost/profit situation now, and there's a lot of cold feet. >>>Do you think discarding a proven model for developing the best workforce and the best product is a good idea? Revamping the model, or refining it would make sense. But trashing it altogether? If you want to talk about investor trepidations, only the most severely chromosomally damaged investor would think that taking a "brain trust" and scattering them to the four winds was a great way to continue bringing a better product to market. Great investors, the kind that have the patience for a return and don’t live and die by some Anderson School – Dot.Com instant return philosophy, are smart enough to know that you gather as much of that group as possible and put them to work in a healthier environment, starting small and giving them plenty of room for failure and risk taking. Pixar would not exist otherwise.<< Investors like to KNOW their industry. Entertainment, storytelling, is not like a product you're going to clone millions of times. It's an unknown, and it's simplistic to lump all investors together when all businesses are not alike. It's a much more subjective arena, filmmaking, and it requires WITHOUT EXCEPTION in history, an investor willing to go HIGH RISK. This is not like where you can do market surveys with people and say "would you buy a vaccuum cleaner that is GUARANTEED to extend the life of your carpet by double?" You can't do that with filmmaking. The product isn't there, isn't proveable, until it's DONE. Remember what Walt said? Dreams don't offer enough collateral for bankers. No, the answer is nothing of what either of us have mentioned thus far. The answer is for a few key animation producers to gather the strength of will to BUILD a company or integrate their influence into other companies, old or startup, where they can exert decision making force to put more animated films on each company's particular slate. I think we'll see a lull for some time, but this has to be driven by two things in one entity: People who LOVE animation and know how to do it well, who ALSO have their hands on MONEY. We're working to do just that... cynical as I might sound. But our money has to come from somewhere, and this will take some time. And again... the book illustration thing was a throwaway remark, meant to be grimly amusing at best. It's kind of ridiculous to assume I meant that hundreds of out of work draftspeople are producing new children's books. Speaking of which, have you seen any of Glen Keane's raccoon books?
Originally Posted By arstogas Well, I meant to be brief by example, and I failed. I apologize. Let's make these shorter... I think we're testing the patience of a lot of folks who find the discussion kind of -- esoteric.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Arstogas, Sorry, not ignoring you just away all day on business. I don't mean to heap assumptions on you. Sorry if you thought so. I don't agree that the circle of investors able to finance animation is as small(although yes, finite de facto)as you say, so I just have to accept that we don't see it the same way. But I spend a lot of time raising a lot of money from places people just won't or don't go because, frankly, they don't like talking about money. Perhaps budgets haven't been diverse enough. But K/C certainly isn't spending $50M on features. And PanII (oy) was approx. $37M. That's a wide range by any standard. Gosh, I thought I WAS rather obviously stating that "a few key animation producers gather the strength of will to BUILD a company or integrate their influence into other companies, old or startup, where they can exert decision making force to put more animated films on each company's particular slate" albeit in my words. How did that get lost? Someone in London actually showed me some of Glen's illustrations for those books. Though I've not seen the books proper anywhere here in the U.S. As far as brevity goes, sadly that's why I surrender to editors when I write. To do otherwise would be a busman's holiday. And I don't think our exchange is so esoteric. Other folks are always welcome to jump in. But you may be right that some, including we, are tired of it. Always willing to talk outside of this forum. The email is in the profile and the columns. AFA P.S. (Don't assume my lack of intent or ability to put my money where my mouth is.)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And I don't think our exchange is so esoteric. Other folks are always welcome to jump in. But you may be right that some, including we, are tired of it.<< I've been enjoying this exchange. In some threads, a short blast across the bow suffices for dialogue. But in this thread, I've been enjoying reading both sides. Not testing my patience at all so far, and I'm not tired of it, either. I agree that "the more the merrier" when it comes to studios creating animated films. I think one of the reasons some adults stay away from Disney animated films is because they feel they have fallen into a predictable pattern (it isn't true, but I think that's the perception among some who don't patronize Disney animated films). It frustrates me no end that some people who hadn't seen an animated film in years went in droves to see Shrek and think it is the funniest thing ever. The same audience would have enjoyed Emperor's New Groove or Hercules as well (if not more), but for many reasons, didn't see them. Part of it is how saturated the world has become in all things Disney (hard for us Disney fans to believe, I know, but for most people there is a limit) -- I wish there was a little more restraint sometimes in the "synergy" stuff, but I also understand the more "stuff" that sells, even beyond the box office, is a major reason why the animated film gets made in the first place. By the way, arstogas or AFA (or anyone who knows the answer) what does a film like Lilo or Spirit cost to make these days? Is it a LOT more than the average live action summer movie (say Men In Black II or Spider-Man)?
