Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID511080.asp" target="_blank">1/3/07 Jim on Film: A Great, Big, Beautiful Tom</a>
Originally Posted By actingforanimators An intelligent and passionate editorial Jim. You make several very good points, including the argument for a more effective and integrated approach to marketing. But as regards the experience of past management and taking a wait and see attitude as far as John Lasseter's management of Feature Animation, I can't fully agree. When you state >>David Stainton came on, and while he didn’t have a track record of lay-offs and stifling creativity, he did lack anything in terms of a background that would suggest the ability to successfully manage a creative enterprise such as animation<< this is not entirely accurate. Stainton was previously directing the very successful development of Disney Television Animation, and he was the primary champion for "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", a film concept he pitched for production. From many people's perspective, David Stainton's coming on board held the promise of leadership with an understanding of the creative process and responsible management. That this did not materialize, and that he oversaw the dismantling of traditional animation in Florida and ultimately in Burbank proved a grave disappointment to many artists within the division who had championed his arrival. In the end, David Stainton was little more than a well-heeled Lieutenant for a CEO who had lost his own vision for Disney and animation in particular - Michael Eisner. When writing about Lasseter's actions as regards dismissing Chris Sanders from "American Dog" you state >>I have no knowledge of Sanders’ vision for American Dog, but John Lasseter, a man with the artistry and knowledge, did. I have a feeling that Lasseter’s decisions were not based on gut instinct, personal conflict with the director, or his notions on the marketability of the idea to the Walmart crowd but on his own knowledge and love of Disney and Disney animation, storytelling, and good film-making<< I'd hold that is partly not true, at least as I'm understanding it from artists closer to the matter. John wanted Chris to take notes on a property that Chris conceived and wrote, as he did "Lilo & Stitch". (Remember, Stitch was entirely Sanders’ creation, and arguably the most successful Disney franchise in half a century) When Chris didn't respond to the notes in a fashion John felt appropriate, and refused to take on a co-director, John elected to remove Chris from the project as Director. Yes, that is John's prerogative as dictated by the terms of the agreement Chris made when he sold the story to Disney and it became their property. But where is the respect for the original inent of the creator - Chris Sanders? American Dog is not something John Lasseter dreamed up, it's Chris Sander's story. Period. I dare say if John Lasseter had had "Toy Story" taken away from him when it was in production with Disney he'd have reacted rather poorly, at best (and he was rather vocal when Toy Story 2 went into production, and visibly proactive when he chose to shut down production on Toy Story 3.) What’s good for the goose…..The lack of respect shown to the originator here, in spite of purpose, appears to be driven by a personal conflict and, to me and to others with whom I've spoken, a short-sighted act that has a lot of people puzzled as to "how to please John." Creativity doesn't flourish too well when it's about pleasing the guy in charge as opposed to realizing the best for the project. Lasseter's action negated Sanders' role as the creative force behind “American Dog.†This is, to my way of thinking, very short-sighted management. That said, John is branding Feature Animation with his personal vision, something akin to Walt's long-held way of reminding everyone that there was no creative ownership other than his. This is part of the business that anyone working within it should be aware of if they intend staying in the industry. I don’t know that there’s anything wrong with this, save for the ill will it has generated on many occasions over the history of Hollywood, and in this particular case within WDFA. The sense is that this is Lasseter's show and nobody' else's. Okay, so business is business, but he is now perceived as playing favorites with his Pixar family and ruling with an iron fist. This act has stifled the sense of support and security this creative team had expected from his coming on board (particularly a team that had a long history of providing creative support and creative contributions to their Pixar colleagues over the past ten years.) Like Walt, Lasseter clearly has his favorites. That may be good, that may be bad, but Chris Sanders deserved more respect than he was shown. Finally, as for “dudsâ€, in my own opinion ( Box office numbers not withstanding) "Cars" came precariously close to being the first flat-liner out of the Pixar gate. John Lasseter is a visionary director and producer, but he is not Walt Disney, and from the perspective a number of long-time creative leads at WDFA, the runner has stumbled rather badly and is recovering awkwardly.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Nice story Jim. Based on your comments, I went back and looked at the previews for 'Meet the Robinsons' and 'Ratatouille' I find both movie [again, based entirely on previews] to be rather 'been there done that.' The character design in 'Robinsons' looks a lot like 'The Incredibles' and I can't really figure out what's going on. 'Ratatouille' -- I remember seeing this same preview in theaters and thinking "yeah, I remember the chef chasing Sebastian in 'The Little Mermaid'" Sure, it's just one scene, but it seems to have something in common with 'Flushed Away' too. On the other hand, I also watched the preview for 'Happily N'Ever After' and actually laughed out loud a couple of times. True, it's another fractured fairy tale, [from the Producers of 'Shrek' and 'Shrek 2'], but the style was different enough as to catch my eye. Plus, the heroine with short hair, cute! I'm anxiously awaiting the next 'big thing' in animation -- computer animated movies are starting to look awfully similar to themselves.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Finally, as for “dudsâ€, in my own opinion ( Box office numbers not withstanding) "Cars" came precariously close to being the first flat-liner out of the Pixar gate.> I agree, actingforanimators. My wife and 12yr old daughter all came out of 'Cars' last summer saying 'huh?'
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm anxiously awaiting the next 'big thing' in animation -- computer animated movies are starting to look awfully similar to themselves.<< I agree with this. However, I was thinking this during the 'Happily Never After' trailer. To me it's more wisecracking critters and jabs at fairy tales. That's been done an awful lot, and this sort of thing is getting pretty generic. In fact, it's almost time for a computer animated film that spoofs films that spoof fairy tales, kind of a CGI 'Scream' sort of thing. 'Monster House' surprised me completely in that it actually told an engaging story with some likeable characters that weren't cuddly. >>The original trailer, which is now on all the DVD releases, also lacks interest in humor and storytelling. The comedic timing is either off in the film or off in the trailer, such as in the “help me find my teeth line,†which comes off as unsuccessfully trying to be funny rather than actually making the audience the laugh (which may not speak accurately of the film). The only funny bit—the woman with the caffeine patches—is marred by the awareness that the joke would have had much better timing in traditional animation when the caricatured response of the woman would have been much more lively and extreme. While the average audience member wouldn’t be able to tell why the joke isn’t funnier, they will not laugh as much as they otherwise would.<< Well said. I have no real idea what 'Meet the Robinsons' is about, other than it reminds me somehow of Jimmy Neutron at this point.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I hear what you're saying about 'Happily N'Ever After' Kar2oonMan -- it is more of the same. But for a studio other than Disney, my expectations aren't as high. When Disney and Pixar start making movies that look like the competition, you have to wonder.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<arguably the most successful Disney franchise in half a century>> I argue that. Sure Stitch is a popular character, but it seems to me that there is a lot more Stitch merchandise than there are Stitch fans. If you go to the Disney outlets there always seems to be a large amount of Stitch stuff, and while Stitch is a staple in the Disney lineup, I don't think he's a huge franchise in of himself. Certainly the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean films would be comparable, right? And for Ratatouille looking similar, I'm not sure to what. The character design really doesn't remind me of anyone particular, and the concept of a sewer rat wanting to become a chef seems fairly novel to me. Nobody seemed to complain when Disney was dragging up such overmade stories as Beauty and the Beast, 1001 Arabian Nights and The Little Mermaid. In the end I think what's most important is the effort made in telling a great story. If the story is similar to what's been told before, well, I can say that about just about anything.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic Oh, and wouldn't you consider Ariel, Belle and Jasmine to be huge influences on the comeback of the Disney Princess, which is (I believe) the highest division of Disney products right now?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <And for Ratatouille looking similar, I'm not sure to what.> Really? Ratatouille looks similar to other computer animated movies that feature talking animals. Similar to 'Over the Hedge.' Similar to 'Open Season.' Similar to 'Flushed Away' [which featured rodents in a foreign country as I recall].
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>the concept of a sewer rat wanting to become a chef seems fairly novel to me<< Ever heard of Chuck E. Cheese? ; )
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Ratatouille looks similar to . . . 'Flushed Away'<< <a href="http://www.philippeduvin.com/images/ratatouille.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.philippeduvin.com/i mages/ratatouille.jpg</a> <a href="http://www.teenfi.com/images/flushed_away.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.teenfi.com/images/f lushed_away.jpg</a> You're kidding, right?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA You guys sure do micro-manage your animated movies. I feel like I'm solving a proof in Mr. Boyer's Geometry class. 'Flushed Away' and 'Ratatouille' both feature rodents as they're star character, do they not? That both movies feature rodents as they're star character is a similiarity. Therefore, 'Flushed Away' and 'Ratatouille' are similar. And if you don't agree that they're similar, maybe you'd agree that 'Ratatouille' doesn't look all that interesting. To me, it doesn't.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I expect Ratatouille to be a flop. There's only room for one rodent in the Disney studio empire.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Therefore, 'Flushed Away' and 'Ratatouille' are similar.<< Having not seen either, I think there are some clear similarities in the subject matter, based only on the trailers. Like Antz and a bug's life. Shrek and Happily N'ever After. Shark Tale and Finding Nemo. Madagascar and The Wild. It's got to drive the folks involved with these movies, that take years of work, to discover there is ANOTHER lion escapes the zoo story, or insect story or fish story by a rival studio going to be released around the same time as the one you're pouring your heart and soul into. And it must be a pain constantly telling people what you do at cocktail parties, and then have to correct them with, "No, no, not the ones with the gangster sharks. I worked on the one with the clownfish and the sharks. 'Fish are friends, not food." Remember? Yeah! That one."
Originally Posted By mawnck >>'Flushed Away' and 'Ratatouille' both feature rodents as they're star character, do they not? That both movies feature rodents as they're star character is a similiarity. Therefore, 'Flushed Away' and 'Ratatouille' are similar.<< The Plague Dogs and Lady and the Tramp both feature dogs as their star character. Therefore The Plague Dogs and Lady and the Tramp are similar. Both theories are equally silly.
Originally Posted By Indigo <<I expect Ratatouille to be a flop. There's only room for one rodent in the Disney studio empire.>> This is what scares me most for Ratatouille. Hopefully the Pixar name will be played up here, not the Disney one. That should provide some separation. Also I don't know how you can say Flushed Away and Ratatouille have the same look. FA was designed to replicate the very unique look of Aardman's stop motion films. Rat-a-too-ee is going after that enhanced realism that Pixar has taken to creating in their films. One rat had no fur to speak of, the other has every hair and wisker animated. Oy.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Whatever -- how's this? Ratatouille is the most unique looking animated movie I've ever seen. The characters are totally original [mice? Wow! never seen that before], and the storyline is unlike anything I've heard of -- an American mouse in Paris. I'm so excited for Ratatouille!! The most unique animated movie in the world!
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I will give Ratatouille the benefit that it's more unique than Shrek 3.
