Originally Posted By mawnck File this firmly under "rumor-mongering," courtesy of "a source wishing to remain anonymous" at animated-views.com . No further details. Link is here: <a href="http://animated-views.com/2006/chris-sanders-no-longer-on-american-dog/" target="_blank">http://animated-views.com/2006 /chris-sanders-no-longer-on-american-dog/</a> Sanders was the creator of American Dog. As well as a previous flick that was pretty good, called Lilo and Stitch. I shan't comment, since it's just a rumor at the moment. Other than to say I hope it isn't true.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Haven't heard, but should know by tomorrow or Tuesday for sure. It's weird, because the word throughout WDFA for quite a while has been that this movie's story reel was incredibly funny, and very strong.
Originally Posted By hopemax There is a little more info at <a href="http://www.cartoonbrew.com" target="_blank">http://www.cartoonbrew.com</a> And there are a couple people confirming on Animation Nation's message boards.
Originally Posted By mawnck From cartoonbrew.com: >>UPDATE: An individual who knows a lot about the situation wrote to take issue with the statement that Chris Sanders felt "relief" at being taken off AMERICAN DOG. Sanders had apparently been informed before last Wednesday that he was no longer going to be the director, and according to this source, was deeply disappointed, hurt and angered. The source also writes, "Chris felt like his heart had been ripped out, and he didn't expect if from someone (Lasseter) who always talks about a director-driven studio model. This was totally Chris' project from the start, he was pouring himself into it, and now he's fired."<< Wow. Just . . . wow.
Originally Posted By leemac I can only echo that final sentence mawnck. Chris was a huge talent. You only need to look at his art direction of I Just Can't Wait to be King in The Lion King to realize his potential. His contribution to numerous screenplays over the years also hides his creative input into WDFA. American Dog was the one feature in the current slate that I was genuinely excited about. It looked amazing. I could have sworn that his buddy Dean DeBlois was producing/co-directing but he isn't attached to the project in imdb.com I've had my doubts about Lasseter's fingerprints on WDFA since the get-go and the more I hear the more I don't like. Maybe I'm totally wrong but this is a big misstep IMHO and coupled with the decision to choose Newman over Menken/Slater for The Frog Princess and I'm far from impressed. I've also heard from several people recently that Lasseter tried very hard to force Glen to drop his CG Rapunzel to start again (rather than the "you can do it anyway you want" story). Chris is a true Disney legend. He has a great artistic soul and a wit that is almost unparalleled at WDFA. I'm just gobsmacked that Lasseter opted to curb him. Plus I believe he is a "consultant" so no doubt that cost them the earth. Maybe actingforanimators has some more (reliable?) info.
Originally Posted By mapleservo That is pretty stunning. I really liked the look of the film from the stills I've seen. One of the reasons I've always felt Pixar has been successful is that it allowed people to tell their OWN stories (albeit with lots and lots of help) instead of buying ideas, and finding someone else to interpret them. It has to mean a stronger personal investment in the product. I hope there's something missing from this story, as right now it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I seem to remember Dean Dubois was developing a live action movie "The Banshee and Fin Magee" aound the time Sanders was getting going on American Dog, but I thought that was shelved a while back.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>I could have sworn that his buddy Dean DeBlois was producing/co-directing but he isn't attached to the project in imdb.com<<< DeBlois was, to my knowledge, never attached to American Dog. He's developing a project for Disney, and he's also got his fingers in projects for other studios. What's happened to Chris is very symptomatic of what's going on all over town over the last couple of years. A number of directors are separated from their projects, either officially or in such a way as to basically castrate their vision, while letting them save their credit. This is by no means a Disney thing. There's a very big release from another studio coming in a few months, where this has happened as well. Given the huge internal buzz on DOG, this is a sad turn of events. But my suspicion is, this has more to do with a clash of personalities, than with the quality or tone of the storytelling established by Sanders and his team. Remember that when Chris was directing LILO AND STITCH, he did it 3,000 miles from Burbank oversight, and with the express guarantee that there'd be no outside screenwriter assigned to his project. As such, he was able to direct a feature with less executive meddling than just about any project Disney's produced since the mid-80's. Now he IS in Company HQ, and the tone out here is very different from what it was in Florida a decade ago. A real shame.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Well, hey, everyone seems to feel that John Lassiter has the Midas touch -- maybe Lassiter is correct in changing these movies, or replacing directors, or moving them in a different direction. Isn't that what he's here for?
Originally Posted By TheRedhead Well, "Cars" shows that his Midas Touch needs a little work. That film can't hold a candle to "Lilo and Stitch." Does anyone remember that article that came out after the Pixar buyout? It had quotes from animators talking about how great it all was, with Chris Sanders talking about how John Lasseter's arrival was like somebody finally opening a window. Guess he got pushed. What pisses me off the most is that Chris Sanders did what WDFA hadn't been able to do since Lion King: produce a film that was a box office hit AND produce characters that would feed all the other arms of the company (merchandise, tv, theme parks). And like BOT said, he did it because he was away from the meddling. He was free to work his own vision, from storyboards to teaser trailers. So first they meddle, and then they boot him. This is how the company rewards him? It's insulting and bad business.
Originally Posted By mawnck From animation director Mark Meyerson ( <a href="http://mayersononanimation.blogspot.com/2006/12/chris-sanders-removed-from-american.html" target="_blank">http://mayersononanimation.blo gspot.com/2006/12/chris-sanders-removed-from-american.html</a> ) >>This is the second time that Pixar's management has replaced a director who originated a story. Jan Pinkava was taken off Ratatouille, which is now being directed by Brad Bird. I do not expect Pixar to make any public statements about this, but I think they should. If they don't, Pixar's reputation within the business may be seriously damaged. Those already working for Pixar will think twice about offering ideas to the company. Those aspiring to work for Pixar may think twice about applying. . . . I'm betting that all over the world today animators are looking at Chris Sanders and thinking twice about working for big studios.<< Jim Hill (whose credibility with me has admittedly taken a nosedive recently) has an article in which he tries to put a positive spin on the news, saying that American Dog is being sacrificed in a move to make WDFA all hand-drawn and PIXAR all CGI. If so, all that stuff I took back during the Randy Newman fuss, I hereby reinstate. That's called letting marketing take precedence over art. I'm agin it, and I sure did think Lasseter and Catmull were too. Glad you're here, BOT. Hey, AFA - care to chime in?
Originally Posted By TheRedhead Sigh. I read Jim Hill's article, though I swore I'd advoid him. Anywho. I don't get why WDFA going all 2-d would mean Chris Sanders would have to go. So their re-tooling the film to make it 2-d...do they not know of Chris Sanders' rather extensive background in 2-d? I'm baffled.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror I don't agree with Meyerson's assessment... There's almost nobody in the animation industry who WOULDN'T want to work at Pixar... despite their more recent wrinklings. It's the Lamborghini of animation studios. Beyond that, it truly doesn't "matter" at this point, if Pixar gets any new blood for a while. Their braintrust is so rich, deep, diverse and confident, that they have no need to widen the net. If Meyerson's assessment were true, NOBODY and I mean nobody, would want to get into Dreamworks Animation, because THAT place is truly a purgatorial type of workplace. Second-guessing is the status quo there, and there's NO job security. And yet, skilled artists and writers still clamor to get in.
Originally Posted By idleBrain "I've had my doubts about Lasseter's fingerprints on WDFA since the get-go and the more I hear the more I don't like." Why? Because Lasseter just proved that ANYONE is expendable at Disney? Which also includes some of your friends in Glendale? John's new mantra: NO ONE IS UNTOUCHABLE. I wonder how many 'untouchable' Imagineering executives are now breaking out into cold sweats?
Originally Posted By leemac <<Why? Because Lasseter just proved that ANYONE is expendable at Disney? Which also includes some of your friends in Glendale? John's new mantra: NO ONE IS UNTOUCHABLE.>> No because I had believed that quality will out. I'm not convinced Lasseter believes that. Sanders is a genius. Living under the specter of fear that you are always expendable isn't the way to run any organization and certainly not one whose projects have long gestation periods. Now it just sounds like John and his gang. Plain wrong. <<Which also includes some of your friends in Glendale?>> Nope because I know they are all talented people capable of playing the game.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Oy. How do you chime in on something like this....? *sigh* I'm getting conflicting stories and trying to straighten out the facts from the speculation. (John Lasseter and Ed Catmul have a very powerful parental warning out on speaking up about any internal affairs - a vastly different kind of parental warning than the Eisner/Schumacher/cum Stainton era mind you - but one that has a lot of people very afraid of making any comments right now.) All I can say is that I'm going to go with the old "if you hear it once, it's an opinion, if you hear it twice, it's a rumor, and if you hear it three times then investigate it." Based on that, it looks pretty much like a clash of personal styles and a serious case of loyalty to Pixar before Disney. Nobody has said anything about Lasseter ever having appeared to express any doubt about the project at any stage, but everal people from Burbank and from Emeryville have said that on more than one occasion he was outspoken about his dislike of "Lilo & Stitch"...which I find a little hard to believe, but again...more than a half dozen unprompted comments to this effect. The one thing that I can say makes the most sense to me is this: I have heard the following basic take in several iterations, and it sounds very plausible to me personally - Lasseter wanted Sanders to have a co-director (I heard Docter more than once and I heard two another names that I prefer not to mention because I can’t confirm any of this) and at every turn Chris Sanders refused. One person said that Chris had agreed at one point if it could be a certain person (again…I will not say who, call me out for being obtuse if you want, but I will not put any non-named players in jeopardy) but Lasseter supposedly nixed that choice. It was also pointed out to me on many occasions that Chris Sanders had an excellent counter-point in Dean DeBloise (who is NOT on "American Dog" and never was. People seem to have them attached at the hip, which isn't the case) and I've heard from many principal players on "Lilo & Stitch" that Dean provided the ideal balance to Chris. This too seems very plausible to me. So, is this the scenario that lead to this decision? I do not know for certain, and I doubt I ever will, but it makes the most sense of everything I’ve been told. Far beyond this, however, is something that has been nagging me for almost two years, and it’s a growing fear of mine. This is purely speculative on my part, and I want to say that again - PURELY SPECULATIVE ON MY PART, but I sincerely believe that John Lasseter is facing a great deal of self doubt since the passing of Joe Ranft. His behavior is similar in many ways to what Eisner exhibited after the passing of Frank Wells. He is second-guessing himself, he has become more isolated in his decision making, and he does not appear to be making strong connections to any of the story team at Disney. The only presence that seems to influence him is Brad Bird. Brad is a gifted artist and director, but frankly not what I would call the most popular guy in either house. He can be very prickly, opinionated, and territorial. Brad is an auteur, behaves as one in every sense of the word (you can't say he doesn't have the right) but there are a lot of things that go along with that behavior that aren’t always...nice. Regardless, this decision is internal. It stings and it isn’t popular, clearly. I seriously doubt it will be deciphered intelligently or fully for many a decade (if ever). I suspect the simple truth is that there's really only room for so many uber-talents in one place, and it's John's shop now and popular or not he's going to run it his way. I personally believe that if John Lasseter thinks that there's a Pixar director better suited to any project, then he'd change out that person – be it Chris Sanders or anyone else - for Stanton or Docter or Bird or Unkrich or another Pixar native. Loyalty is thicker than talent in Hollywood, no matter who you are. I’ll let others speculate on whether that’s wrong or right. My own two cents is that this was a terrible mistake, made in haste and made from a place of doubt and not wisdom or temperance. It doesn’t make John Lasseter a bad person or a bad producer, but it does eliminate any question of perfect track record and unquestionable ability to make the right choice every time. Then again, “Cars†did that for me, so….
Originally Posted By leemac <<I personally believe that if John Lasseter thinks that there's a Pixar director better suited to any project, then he'd change out that person – be it Chris Sanders or anyone else - for Stanton or Docter or Bird or Unkrich or another Pixar native. Loyalty is thicker than talent in Hollywood, no matter who you are. I’ll let others speculate on whether that’s wrong or right. >> That breaks my heart. I had long suspected that to be true but had hoped that Lasseter would be different. The only bright side I see is that he can't do this to WDI as none of his clique are capable of building an attraction and they are wise to stay out of it. AFA that was an amazing post. It cuts me to the core and I can honestly say that is the worst news I've heard out of the Mouse House in years. It just goes to show you that Hollywood is still Hollywood even if you are in Emeryville.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Why? Because Lasseter just proved that ANYONE is expendable at Disney? Which also includes some of your friends in Glendale? John's new mantra: NO ONE IS UNTOUCHABLE.>> <<No because I had believed that quality will out. I'm not convinced Lasseter believes that. Sanders is a genius. >> Oh gawd ... c'mon, Lee. Some of us are really trying to see your 'unique' take on things at the Mouse House and now you go all drama queen on us and WORSE quote a famous Waltism when you've made it clear that you feel that businessmen like Michael Eisner are more important factors to the development of the 'Disney brand.' I think you need to calm down a brit. And calling Chris a genius? You wouldn't even call Walt Disney himself one. Doncha think that maybe you're a bit too close to the guy? Don't get me wrong, I feel he is very talented and I was surprised (but not shocked) by his getting the boot. But a genius? Well, I guess we all have our own definitions. <<Living under the specter of fear that you are always expendable isn't the way to run any organization and certainly not one whose projects have long gestation periods. Now it just sounds like John and his gang. Plain wrong.>> Totally amazed you would say such a thing when FA and WDI have been run in such a manner for over a decade now. It looks like Bob Iger realizes change is needed and he has picked the very talented (note: I didn't use the word genius here either) in John Lasseter to get to work on housecleaning. Yeah, I bet some people are scared now and justifiably so. But in a year when FA is totally revamped with a plan LED by creatives and NOT MBAs, I'd guess that the 'tudes amongst those still employed will be much happier and they won't be living in fear. <<Which also includes some of your friends in Glendale?>> <<Nope because I know they are all talented people capable of playing the game. >> That's just the problem with Disney as company (and FA and WDI as divisions) ... it shouldn't be a political game. I have the feeling Bob understands this enough to be very deserving of his CEO of the Year award. It's taken quite a while, but I think the BS as usual attitude is going to be as passe as simulator rides in theme parks within 18 months ... in every division of TWDC.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I'm not expert here, but is it possible that 'American Dog' wasn't working properly? Yes, even though some have viewed it, and 'the buzz' is good within the industry, isn't it possible that in John Lassiter's opinion, the movie isn't what it could/should be? Also, isn't it possible that a director can get too close to his own project, and therefore, inflexible? Anytime a new leader comes in, there are bound to be personnel changes. I've said it before, but I'd rather Disney produce one really, really good movie every three years, than a so-so movie every year. Chris Sanders wouldn't be the first person to leave Disney in a huff -- he'd join a list of people including Art Babbit, Ub Iwerks, Fritz Freling, Hugh Harman, Walt Kelly, Virgil Partch, Preston Blair, Don Bluth, Gary Goldman, Tim Burton, Tom Hignite -- plus, all the other no-so-name-famous people who were shown the door over the past few years. It's always interesting to me how people work for a company, and get bent out of shape when the company has certain expectations of how it wants to do business. Be it making widgets or making cartoons -- if you're unhappy with the way things are going, go out and make it happen on your own terms.
Originally Posted By mawnck Yet another take on the whole mess now at <a href="http://www.o-meon.com/pages/business_of_show/bos_12-21-06.html" target="_blank">http://www.o-meon.com/pages/bu siness_of_show/bos_12-21-06.html</a> The spin here is that Sanders was not adapting to the Pixar method of story development (IE accepting "input" from Lasseter/Catmull). The 2D/3D thing had little to do with it. I reiterate my original "wow".
