Originally Posted By mawnck >>Which film do you see winning, mawnck? Think Pirates has a chance?<< Wreck-It Ralph, and no. Not enough of the Academy general population will have seen Pirates. But, see post 38, which I endorse in every possible respect. Especially the last part. >>Katz must be spitting feathers that DWA got shut out entirely - especially considering it was up against two pretty poor movies in Brave and Frankenweenie.<< Well, Katz didn't make any particularly good movies this year. But I expect it's G-Kids who are the most shell-shocked this morning. Zero for four, and I thought two of those (The Painting and Zarafa) deserved nominations WAY more than ParaNorman and (yuck) Frankenweenie.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<From Jerry Beck at cartoonbrew: >>My condolences to Laika, Blue Sky, Illumination, Aardman and our friends at GKids for not making the cut. Don’t take it personally – The Hollywood Foreign Press Association is a phoney-baloney group of journalists, comprised of a small group of people nobody has ever heard of. ... ...I’m going to go out on a limb to predict that Frankenweenie will win. It’s the Tim Burton film. Everyone knows Tim Burton – especially international journalists. It’s not about which film is better, it’s about the big names<<>> My head pretty much exploded with Brave winning the GG. Too bad Andrews didn't say what he was really thinking: "Thank you, John Lasseter, for firing Brenda Chapman so I could be the one standing up here tonight." 8^P
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the voters - a small number to begin with - didn't all watch all the movies and voted for Pixar out of habit. I don't know anyone who saw both Brave and Wreck-it Ralph who preferred the former.
Originally Posted By leemac <<...I’m going to go out on a limb to predict that Frankenweenie will win.>> I didn't know that TIME Magazine had it in their Top 10 Movies of the Year. I was pretty shocked. <<My head pretty much exploded with Brave winning the GG.>> You and me both. Travesty.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>My head pretty much exploded with Brave winning the GG.<< I just thanked God it wasn't Frankenweenie.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Since the Golden Globes introduced the animated feature award seven years ago, Pixar has won the award six times. Pixar’s sole loss was last year when The Adventures of Tintin took home the prize over Cars 2.<< <a href="http://www.cartoonbrew.com/awards/brave-wins-golden-globe-76423.html" target="_blank">http://www.cartoonbrew.com/awa...423.html</a>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Interesting comments over at the Brew, from the link. One poster asked what the reasons were for Brenda's dismissal, wondering if it was political. Another poster made the usual "directors get fired all the time" excuse, citing Brad Bird's replacement of Jan Pinkava on Rat. (BTW... anyone know what Jan is doing these days or where he landed after Pixar?) I don't know how much of Brenda's story was changed by Andrews. It's my understanding that with Rat, Brad changed a significant chunk of the second act, at least half of the film, and that's why he gets most of the credit for how Rat turned out. Is that true? I don't know. But it would be interesting to learn the truth about both films. Lee... how much of Brenda's story was ditched by Andrews? You've seen all the various incarnations since production began. Was it a major overhaul? Or minor tweaking? If it was minor tweaking, then the award should have been shared by both directors.
Originally Posted By leemac <<(BTW... anyone know what Jan is doing these days or where he landed after Pixar?)>> He left Laika whilst ParaNorman was in post-production I believe - although I don't think he was involved in that feature. My understanding is that he is still up in Oregon (where Laika are based) and trying to get Little White Lie put together although I don't think he has any studio interested at present. I gather from someone who has read the treatment (it is about a boy and an unusual dog) that it should make a good feature. I liked Jan - a little too kooky for Pixar though.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Lee... how much of Brenda's story was ditched by Andrews?>> Very similar to the Rat. Virtually the entire second act was rewritten - especially from the chase sequence in the castle which I didn't see in the earliest treatments. Irrespective Brenda should have been asked to attend and I hope Pixar have the good grace to do that for the Academy Awards. She is still co-director and correctly listed as such (I gather DGA came down hard on Pixar over that classification). Lasseter and Catmull deliberately didn't invite her and she opted not to push the matter. Disgusting behavior but par the course for JL's leadership at Pixar. Brenda is still at Lucasfilm as a consultant - whether she survives the transition to Disney is another matter.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I thought Jan went to LAIKA but I wasn't sure. I hope Little White Lie gets picked up; sounds like an interesting idea. And yes, he wasn't exactly your typical Pixarian. But I've come to appreciate that as a very good thing! Thanks, Lee.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Very similar to the Rat. Virtually the entire second act was rewritten - especially from the chase sequence in the castle which I didn't see in the earliest treatments.>> Here's an article from last August I didn't find until today, that's a good read, about Brenda's firing: <a href="http://www.indiewire.com/article/heroines-of-cinema-brenda-chapman" target="_blank">http://www.indiewire.com/artic...-chapman</a> At the end, Brenda posted "thanks" to the author for what he wrote. She is such a class act! But the comment that caught my eye was this one from "J. Porter": "You can see the split in the film where Brenda was booted out and a man was put in her place as director. Brave started as a really interesting, really dark, and really feminist film that was both absorbing and entertaining. The second half of the film? ... not so much. In fact, the whole "bear" angle seemed like a quick way to "silence" and de-humanize women. And for those who cry out: "Jan Pinkava was fired from Ratatouille! It's not gender discrimination, blah, blah, blah..." Have you ever SEEN Pinkava's original idea for Ratatouille? Let me give you a hint about what it contained: a prominant female character. Pixar is sexist." Wow. I know that Remy's mother was axed from Brad's version of the film. Was that the "prominent female character"? Or did the original story focus on Colette and not Linguini? Given what happened on Brave, combined with the story changes on Rat, a solid argument can be made that the Pixar leadership really has a sexist attitude towards women in the workplace and on the screen. <<Lasseter and Catmull deliberately didn't invite her and she opted not to push the matter. Disgusting behavior but par the course for JL's leadership at Pixar.>> That cements it. This is John's and Dr Ed's sexism at work. I'd expect it from Catmull, given his background. But what's John's excuse? And why does Nancy tolerate it? Un-effn-believable.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Brave started as a really interesting, really dark, and really feminist film that was both absorbing and entertaining.<< Huh. I found the lead character to be bland and one-dimensional. Fantastic animation, of course, and her crazy hair was a technical wonder, but the whole film to me felt sort of hollow and by the numbers. First half included. Part of the problem for me is that I didn't get the sense that the mother and daughter had a history of being very close. And that much of the action seemed to happen in rather close quarters of the castle or nearby when they had the whole of ancient Scotland to play in, seems an odd choice as well.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Wow. I know that Remy's mother was axed from Brad's version of the film. Was that the "prominent female character"? Or did the original story focus on Colette and not Linguini?>> My memory is fuzzy but I don't remember Colette having a significant voice in the early versions. Remy's mother was really his muse in that respect - she helped him navigate his problems. I'm not sure I'd go as far as calling Pixar sexist - it has always been a boys' club and they have made few attempts to change that. Tia Kratter is one of the few senior creatives that I can think of at the studio. I think Docter and Stanton would definitely squirm at that assertion. I'm certain that JL won't care one iota. I hate the whole "Walt would be turning in his grave" empathy that some use all the time but I suspect Joe Ranft would be mortified at how Pixar treated Brenda - he was a huge fan.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Huh. I found the lead character to be bland and one-dimensional.>> Merida changed materially from start to finish. It isn't just a question of Andrews' butchering Act II. The changes he pushed through were throughout the feature as he de-feminized the entire feature. Merida became an incredibly unsympathetic character because of his meddling. She was a far more appealing character in Brenda and Irene Mecchi's original story treatment.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Joe Ranft would be mortified at how Pixar treated Brenda - he was a huge fan.>> If Joe were still alive, I doubt any of these firings would have happened. John always deferred to Joe's story sensibilities. In fact, Jan was fired after Joe died in August 2005, not before. Makes me wonder if Joe had any problems with Jan's original story, or if this was all on John who rushed in Brad to "fix" the film about 18 months before release. In any event, directors have been replaced three times since Joe died, for the last six films. That's pretty bad. And the directors who were replaced weren't on the A-list of the Pixar Brain Trust, either: Jan Pinkava, Brad Lewis, and Brenda. Makes me wonder how closely John pays attention to story development over the course of production, if at all.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Merida changed materially from start to finish. It isn't just a question of Andrews' butchering Act II. The changes he pushed through were throughout the feature as he de-feminized the entire feature. Merida became an incredibly unsympathetic character because of his meddling. She was a far more appealing character in Brenda and Irene Mecchi's original story treatment.> So tell us what made Merida so compelling in the original story treatment. I'm curious.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Makes me wonder how closely John pays attention to story development over the course of production, if at all.>> I really don't know. What I do know is that his schedule isn't as hectic as it was when he took over at Feature Animation. He definitely isn't at WDI as often as he used to be either. I've never had any confidence that he has ability to write - he has always relied on others to fulfil that role. How he is during the development of features though as the senior creative exec could be a different matter. I've always wondered how bad Cars 2 was for Brad to get the elbow (and I really didn't like the man at all - he thought he could do anything without recourse as he had JL's ear) - the final movie was pretty awful.
Originally Posted By leemac <<So tell us what made Merida so compelling in the original story treatment. I'm curious.>> She was a far more measured character. They spent time explaining her frustrations with the status quo and the friction with her parents which was offset by showing their happy times. My biggest complaint with Andrews' butchering of the movie is that they made Merida to just be the modern archetypal rich party girl - spoilt and entirely selfish. It is virtually impossible to have any empathy with a one-dimensional character like that (and I have to empathize in order to like a movie). Every major female character since TLM has had a balanced persona - Ariel was frustrated but loyal, Belle was not even sure what her place should be etc. Even Mulan who was arguably the strongest of them all understood tradition and the importance of family stature. Merida is so flat. To makes matters worst they had to portray her mother as the exact polar opposite to make their film work so you can't even sympathize with her plight. I hope I'm entirely wrong but I think Pixar has squashed their golden goose. The ability to make critical and commercial darlings seems to have passed. We have now had Cars 2, Brave and the next feature is National Lampoon's Monsters' University plus we have the sequel to Nemo in the works. My only hope is that Docter and Unkrich can stick to their creative guns on their original features.
Originally Posted By dagobert It's really sad what's currently going on at Pixar in terms of movies and how they treat some of their employees. I didn't know anything about those facts until I read it here. I wonder if everything turned out differently, if Disney wouldn't have purchased Pixar. By the way, thanks you for all the informations.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I hope I'm entirely wrong but I think Pixar has squashed their golden goose. The ability to make critical and commercial darlings seems to have passed.>> You're not wrong. There's been a steady stream of talent leaving for the past several years; the handwriting's been on the wall since shortly after the acquisition. Pixarians I know who've been there for over a decade, some since Richmond, will tell you that it's not the same company, not by a long shot. And some of them would leave as well, if they didn't have other obligations tying them to the Bay Area. Instead of Disney adopting Pixar's pre-acquisition work ethic, which was being touted by analysts during the acquisition, Disney has forced Pixar to adhere to theirs. The Pixar we came to know and love is basically no more. E-Ville is just an extension of the Burbank mindset. <<We have now had Cars 2, Brave and the next feature is National Lampoon's Monsters' University plus we have the sequel to Nemo in the works.>> And there's a rumor floating around that TS4 is going to be produced. Obviously DisXar wants to exsanguinate the Woody & Buzz cash cow, not just milk it dry. <<My only hope is that Docter and Unkrich can stick to their creative guns on their original features.>> I don't see why they can't. What's DisXar going to do? Threaten to fire them? Yeah, like they aren't worth hundreds of millions of dollars to where they could retire early or go teach animation somwhere or even go off and form their own studio. Truthfully, I wish they would start their own group. If they could find another guardian angel like Jobs somewhere in the Valley, and pool those resources with their own assets, they could do it. I'm sure there's some kind of non-compete clause they signed back in 2006 to prevent them from doing that for a spell, but how long would that last? Lee... could they do it? Could Docter, Peterson, and Unkrich go find some deep pockets and start their own studio at the 10-year mark in 2016? Or did agreeing to the DisXar mutation keep them from ever becoming independent film producers? I know what the sentiments are for DisXar now. And I also know how Pixarians feel about working with these three, as well as Teddy Newton. If those four individuals left and started their own studio, they wouldn't have to actively recruit. There'd be scores of creative types and production grunts begging them to tag along. And I suspect Burbank is well aware of that fact. It'll be interesting to see what happens at Pixar in 2016, when John's 10-year contract is up. If Pixar can't keep their production costs down while improving box office performance, Burbank will begin a massive slash and burn campaign in the rank and file. At that point, I would fully expect to see the remaining members of the Sacred Seven hit the road. Which, all things considered, would probably be a very good thing.
