Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the November 14th Jim on Film Column at <a href="News-ID180180.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID180180.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations All, I hope that the studio takes Jim's advice and hires a visionary to lead Disney Animation. I think Disney can find this person by: 1) Offering a lot of money to someone who runs a little company named Pixar. or 2) Promoting a certain someone who transformed an evil alien into a positive role model. Of course, it is very sad that Jim's choice, Howard Ashman, is no longer with us. Howard was a rare combination of genius and heart. MouseBear MouseBear
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I think Jim's sentiments are pretty much on target. However, I was disturbed with one inconsistency in the overall article. To start things off, Jim somewhat villainized Mr. Schumacher for the recent layoffs and cutbacks in Feature Animation. However, near the end of his piece he also faults Mr. Katzenberg for building the animation studios and staff to such a large size that layoffs were inevitable in an unfavorable economic environment. It seems to me somewhat of an oxymoron that one person could be blamed for cutting back when another is blamed for excess. I'm sure the true characterization is somewhere in the middle, and not near the extremes in excess or austerity that were described in the article.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators I can say for certain and without hesitation that Jim is 100% correct. Mr. Schumacher's villainy can not be overstated, nor can Mr. Katzenberg's insolent hubris. Feature Animation would truly have been far better off without either of them. You have to remember that Mr. Schumacher were Mr. Katzenberg's hires (Schumacher was hired under Peter Schneider’s tenure and groomed by Mr. Katzenberg as a “team.†Not unlike a team of assassins, frankly.) When Katzenberg departed Schneider and Schumacher – even less knowledgeable about animation than their former boss and not 1/10th as interested in the medium – were handed the reigns. Mr. Schumacher’s damage was only increased exponentially when he took full control on his own. This brings to mind Nikita Kruschev's assessment of Richard Nixon, of whom he said the American public should fear more and regard with greater loathing than Senator McCarthy, as the only thing worse than an idiot puppeteer with power is giving his even more idiotic puppets the same power. Until you've experienced Mr. Schumacher and/or Mr. Katzenberg first hand, you can not possibly, truly understand the horrible and oppressive and uncreative and loathsome environment fostered under their employ and control. Were it not for the shock-absorber of brilliant creative producers like Don Hahn, Don Ernst, Alice Dewey, Jim Pentecost, and Randy Fullmer bravely and diligently placing themselves between the executive incompetence and the creative brilliance of the directors and animators we’d never have seen films like Beauty & the Beast or Emperor’s New Groove or Lilo & Stitch, at least not from Disney. No, Jim is right on target and if anything he's too soft on Katzenberg and Schumacher. Sadly, I can not be so kind as he’s been.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Thanks for the additional insight, AFA. I guess my question now is who are the natural leaders among the artists that work for Feature Animation? It seems to me that there is a dearth of individuals who are either interested or have the mettle to take on some of the management challenges in Burbank while leaving some of their personal artistic endeavors behind. Who among the animators has what it takes to foster creativity and run a sound business? Or is there anyone? Unless someone amongst the animators is willing to give up their lucrative contract as an artist in order to right the ship so to speak, I see more of the same as far as the businesses are run.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators And you may well be right, to be perfectly honest, mrichmondj. I don't know that WDFA needs or would be under appropriate leadership from one artist, per se. (And don't assume anyone's contract is lucrative on the artistic side. This is 2002, not 1992. Things have changed a great deal.) The most gifted producers don't want the job for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the reporting relationship and the fact that the creative has taken a back seat to the greed. Not that a need for profit is any different than it was with Walt, but the balance was always one that permitted research and development to take place without concern or corner cutting. The chances are very strong that it will be an internal shift, probably indeed David Stanton. The current corporate structure favored by Eisner dictates that approach and it's tragic. As such, if left unchanged then WDFA won't see its next golden age until there is a change at the top that dismantles that corporate structure. Walt Disney Feature Animation would possibly do much better with a restructuring that dismantles the current “President†“Vice President†"Creative Executive" hierarchy and returns the creative control to divisions -- e.g. development should be the job of the great story artists like Chris Sanders and Roger Allers and Brenda Chapman, etc. Oddly enough, the unit's worst enemies came from a theatrical background and there the reparatory theatre practice of an artistic director and a managing director is an excellent model to consider. If only that hadn't become DICTATOR vs. director then the unit may have thrived vs barely survived. It also didn’t help that they hired a stable of Creative Executives who knew NOTHING about animation or the history of it at Disney’s. Development for TV or live action features is not comparable to development of animated features. That’s the work of a story department. Katzenberg created this absurd practice, Schneider enforced it, and Schumacher raised it to a level of absurd worship. From within those ranks at one time a long, long time ago I would have said Pam Coats could do the job, but I think her talent is rather seriously poisoned by her close association and allegiance to Schumacher. A sad mistake. She also moved up too quickly and never truly proved her passion for animation. Moving from a producer to A VP was all too swift, somehow. But then again…that’s how Tom got there, so ….*sigh* There is a slim possibility that John Williams the producer and creative head of Vanguard whom Disney just partnered with for several films may emerge as a viable choice. His creative instincts need to be tested further and his ability to deliver a lucrative franchise is almost a must. “Shrek†was for some a great achievement. For others of us it was a vulgar and opportunistic hit without heart. We’ll see what comes from Vanguard. But going back to the Artistic Director/Managing Director model - in the best theatre companies both directors have to have an astute business sense as well as genuine respect for and a keen understanding of the particular brand of story-telling. In an ideal world, if my feeble little head could solve this problem I would arrive at an answer that (although coming from some depth of pooled ignorance) would look like this: Put someone like Randy Fullmer or Don Hahn as the Managing Director of Feature Animation and Eric Goldberg or Ron Clements as the Artistic Director of Feature Animation, with Divisional Heads reporting to AD, and Producers reporting to MD -- Each Divisional Head and each Producer has a dotted line reporting relationships to the other post. Under them would be a Senior Artistic Management Team that included …oh, let’s say Brenda Chapman as Director of Story Development (overseeing story and character development and designers) Andy Gaskill as Director of Visual Development (encompassing all visual development, layout, and art direction) and Glen Keane as Director of Animation and Artist Development. The AD & MD would report to a President like Roy Disney or Don Ernst who would report to the CEO. Alas, I'm hardly in a position to even pretend to have influence or sufficient expertise to dictate this, but in a dream world...that's what I would say will work magic -- both artistic and monetary.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators P.S. - I agree with Kirby, John Lasseter would be crazy to leave Pixar, and I think he's so far out of this equation that it's foolish to consider him even in fantasy.
Originally Posted By arstogas Brad Bird would probably never be in the running, but he's been a producer on a hit show, he knows story and character, and personally is responsible for the best American non-Disney animated film of the last ten years, a film better than many of Disney's animated movies in the last tne years... Anyway, he knows many facets of the game, he's done well under tight budgets, and we're going to see great stuff from his first film at Pixar. If they think outside the company, they should give him a second look.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators DOH! Arstogas, great idea. Sadly or happily...depending on your North vs South allegiance here in CA...Brad is in line for increasing responsibility and participation in Lasseter's shop. And at heart, he's a director. The dilemma with folks like Brad and Don Hahn and that ilk is that they would lose the connection to the day to day hands on involvement in production that is key to nourishing them. (It's why Don Hahn has never taken on a larger role. He just doesn’t want to be that far away from the “front.â€) Still...great to dream
Originally Posted By arstogas Yeah, I figured Brad's going to be busy and very happy as a director/storyteller for many years to come. At least he's appreciated by the right people in the animation community, if not beancounters who look at what Iron Giant grossed... >>>(It's why Don Hahn has never taken on a larger role. He just doesn’t want to be that far away from the “front.â€)<<< I remember that Eric Goldberg was weary after his directing responsibilities on POCAHONTAS... these guys are happiest when they can express themselves as individualistically as possible, and though that's more the case in live-action filmmaking, directing for ANIMATION doesn't give you the same range of either expression or satisfaction. You have to manage so many diverse temperaments, ideas, contributions not your own, and though they might bear your stamp, it's still not the same thing as doing one whole scene yourself. The nature of directing so many performers with pencils is such that you must allow for some measure of compromise, even if it looks like a GREAT compromise, in order to keep the family under you happy and functioning in strong measure. Boy I just wandered down my own rabbit trail, didn't I? Carrot snacks, anyone?
