DVDizzy Forum

Disney's Divinity wrote:It’s interesting to me that Lasseter often states that, “Story is king.” Clearly, that’s not the case. (Not that I ever believed it was, but it is interesting to me.)

It seems that Lasseter doesn't practice what he preaches about some other things as well:


1. Pixar and WDAS are director-driven studios.

John Lasseter wrote:In overseeing both Disney and Pixar Animation, each studio has a unique culture. A studio is not its building, it’s its people. They're both filmmaker-led studios.

Source: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... questions/

John Lasseter wrote:At Pixar it’s a filmmaker-driven studio, and I don't dictate. [...] I want the ideas to come from the hearts of the directors and the storytellers.

Source: http://social.entertainment.msn.com/mov ... 1f134823b2


2. It's about the story, not the medium / In defence of 2D animation

John Lasseter wrote:The computer is just the tool, in the same way that the pencil is, or, with live-action filmmaking, the way the camera is. You never hear of a live-action studio that has been making so-so films looking over at a studio that’s making great movies and going, 'Oh, we see the difference – we’re using a different camera.’

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... board.html

John Lasseter wrote:I love the medium. It was where I got my training. Never in the history of cinema has a medium entertained an audience. It's what you do with the medium. But for some reason, hand-drawn animation became the scapegoat for bad storytelling.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/02/2 ... K920100225

John Lasseter wrote:I never quite understood the feeling amongst animation studios that audiences today only wanted to see computer animation. It's never about the medium that a film is made in, it's about the story. It's about how good the movie is.

Source: http://www.moviemuser.co.uk/article/429 ... rview.aspx

John Lasseter wrote:At the Walt Disney Animation Studios, there is tremendous history and heritage. Of course it’s the studio that Walt Disney opened in 1923, and it’s never closed its doors. The studio has always made animation, and it really invented long-form animation. Hand-drawn animation is the heritage at that studio.

Source: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... questions/

John Lasseter wrote:Hand-drawn animation lives within the Walt Disney Animation Studios.

Source: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... questions/


Not anymore.

Sotiris wrote:November 2011

John Lasseter wrote:Hand-drawn animation lives within the Walt Disney Animation Studios.

Not anymore.

Maybe they still run the Winnie the Pooh trailers on the hallway TV screens.... IT LIVES!!

FlyingPiggy wrote:I just hate that format is being blamed and not the quality of the films, again. PATF wasn't a very good or very successful movie (for Disney) so what do they do? Kill traditional again, and let the directors (who at this point have 3 dubs in a row) make another film. Huh? [/i]

TP&TF made back its cost, with some small profit, while also setting the ground for large merchandise opportunities (from here until the end of the DP line). In regards to the film itself, I wonder how much the uppers leaned on M&C, considering how often the film seemed to change after every complaint of racism over concept art/details. The only real negative on Musker and Clement's records is Treasure Planet; there were some huge missteps there, which are surprising considering how much they wanted to do that film.

Regardless, they still were responsible for Mermaid and Aladdin, legitimate classics that Disney has a hard time recreating these days (although Aladdin does seem to be getting a bit of a cold shoulder from Disney these days). If WIR ends up doing less than expected, perhaps Tangled will be looked upon as much of a fluke as Lilo & Stitch--although I do expect WIR to do well; it has all the trademarks of what's current atm. I wonder--if M&C were to make a 3D film (or, rather, if they were forced to, similar to Frozen), if they would recapture that same financial success.

qindarka wrote: For goodness sake, not having hand-drawn films is somehow destroying the company?

Okay, fine, maybe I was a little hash. But its a pity that he doesn't seem interested in distributing handdrawn films, when that is Disney is all about. And it's not the audience fault, is Disney's own fault for not having proper release date for their latest, handdrawn films.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

qindarka wrote: For goodness sake, not having hand-drawn films is somehow destroying the company?

Okay, fine, maybe I was a little hash. But its a pity that he doesn't seem interested in distributing handdrawn films, when that is Disney is all about. And it's not the audience fault, is Disney's own fault for not having proper release date for their latest, handdrawn films.

I'm hardly an expert on these sort of things but I don't think you can pin the financial disappointment of Disney's last two hand-drawn films on the release date alone.

I'm not as shocked or distressed about this as I was back in 2004. Truth is, it had been a long way coming, we just didn't see or didn't want to see the writing on the wall.

I just hate the selective criteria some fans/apologetics have over this: in order for Disney to remain profitable, full-switch to CGI is understandable because it means moving forward from the constraints of the old-fashioned, rigid hand-drawn animation that supposedly has nothing new to offer (and why exactly should it? What's wrong with going against the grain, backwards? Live-action film-making has been pretty much the same ever since the late-'60s new wave*). But when there's news about the new mo-cap movie, 3D event, Disney Princess products, Disney Junior shows or lack of bonus features on home video media, everyone starts shaking their head and all understanding for Disney's business practices is suddenly gone. Why? CGI and Disney princesses are the two sides of the same coin. They are obvious responses to demands of today's shallow, consumerist, ADD-ridden society that only wants more and more. It's not just Disney, which at least tries to keep some semblance of artistic integrity in their works. You can see it everywhere in today's music, movies, TV, even books. And as a business, Disney obviously has to dance the way the audience, the ultimate consumer, plays to stay relevant. It's a vicious circle.

To be fair, they did brought it onto themselves, what with the DTVs and the babyfication of the brand. They are just now reaping what they sow in the '90s.

The less said about John Lasseter, the better. I've said it before, I wish Pixar tried their luck with a hand-drawn film, maybe he'd finally stop repeating his "'Story is king" mantra. Wouldn't Cars 2 and Brave flop if it were true?

* I'm talking about Hollywood films, since Disney is a US company. The rest of the world cinema has a variety of different styles and genres to offer.

I see it like this, the animation business will always develop and evolve.

The hand drawn classics will stand the test of time, as they are truly special and that's why people today still watch Snowwhite. How many other 1937 films are that popular on blu ray today in 2012?

We are lucky to have them. The fact that we live in a time now where computers are relatively new, and they are trying new things such as CGI is nice, does not mean people will never make another type of animation anymore. What will it be like in 100 years? 200 years? 300 years? There will always be new generations, new people, new ideas and new types of animation. But I do think that eventually people will want to achieve the real artistry and beauty. I don't think all the CGI films from the past 10 years will be so popular in 100 years. Just because the "new type of computers" we have today will never be as groundbreaking in a 100 years. It's not about the artistry, it's about the newest technology.

So I'm glad all the wonderful hand drawn films exist, and they will go down in hisory the way they are doing right now, and although we live in a time/generation now where filmmakers don't feel like putting time, money and effort in it, it might be completely different in a 100 years.

Mooky wrote:I'm not as shocked or distressed about this as I was back in 2004. Truth is, it had been a long way coming, we just didn't see or didn't want to see the writing on the wall.

I just hate the selective criteria some fans/apologetics have over this: in order for Disney to remain profitable, full-switch to CGI is understandable because it means moving forward from the constraints of the old-fashioned, rigid hand-drawn animation that supposedly has nothing new to offer (and why exactly should it? What's wrong with going against the grain, backwards? Live-action film-making has been pretty much the same ever since the late-'60s new wave*). But when there's news about the new mo-cap movie, 3D event, Disney Princess products, Disney Junior shows or lack of bonus features on home video media, everyone starts shaking their head and all understanding for Disney's business practices is suddenly gone. Why? CGI and Disney princesses are the two sides of the same coin. They are obvious responses to demands of today's shallow, consumerist, ADD-ridden society that only wants more and more. It's not just Disney, which at least tries to keep some semblance of artistic integrity in their works. You can see it everywhere in today's music, movies, TV, even books. And as a business, Disney obviously has to dance the way the audience, the ultimate consumer, plays to stay relevant. It's a vicious circle.

To be fair, they did brought it onto themselves, what with the DTVs and the babyfication of the brand. They are just now reaping what they sow in the '90s.

The less said about John Lasseter, the better. I've said it before, I wish Pixar tried their luck with a hand-drawn film, maybe he'd finally stop repeating his "'Story is king" mantra. Wouldn't Cars 2 and Brave flop if it were true?

* I'm talking about Hollywood films, since Disney is a US company. The rest of the world cinema has a variety of different styles and genres to offer.

So audience preference for CG animation is a sign of shallowness and consumerism? What condescending rubbish.

You aren't superior to any of them and your preference for hand-drawn over CGI is not a sign of better taste.

I don't think it's condescending to compare the complete turn to 3D to other business-motivated tactics like the Disney Princess line or to technology advancement ideas such as mo-cap, considering they are similar. If we all have to automatically be in Disney's corner for this decision, we should also applaud those. The DP line has been successful after all--obviously a sign of a superior, quality product and brand.

But I'm sure that because that doesn't agree with your opinion makes it rubbish and, of course, not the same at all.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I don't think it's condescending to compare the complete turn to 3D to other business-motivated tactics like the Disney Princess line or to technology advancement ideas such as mo-cap, considering they are similar. If we all have to automatically be in Disney's corner for this decision, we should also applaud those.

But I'm sure that because that doesn't agree with your opinion makes it rubbish and, of course, not the same at all.

Of course it's condescending to basically assert that today's audiences are all idiots. He was in no place to make that call. Regardless of what some may think, we are all common people here and no better than the average moviegoer. If we believe otherwise and cling to notions that we have more refined taste and that we are superior, I'm afraid that we would be misguided.

I also don't see how CG films can be compared to the Disney Princess line. The latter exists primarily for marketing. While the shift towards CG is motivated by profit, the films, or at least some of them do possess artistic merit. Hand-drawn animation is not intrinsically superior to CG.

qindarka wrote:Of course it's condescending to basically assert that today's audiences are all idiots. He was in no place to make that call. Regardless of what some may think, we are all common people here and no better than the average moviegoer. If we believe otherwise and cling to notions that we have more refined taste and that we are superior, I'm afraid that we would be misguided.

I also don't see how CG films can be compared to the Disney Princess line. The latter exists primarily for marketing. While the shift towards CG is motivated by profit, the films, or at least some of them do possess artistic merit. Hand-drawn animation is not intrinsically superior to CG.

I don't think it's at all condescending to say that the general population tends to go for what's most shallow--whether or not there is any actual artistic merit attached to what they go for often seems random. It's no different from accepting that current pop music is shallow, like it's always been, and that what's a hit generally has the same sound that happens to be popular at a particular time. The fact that the '90s Disney films were popular, for example, shows a similar shallowness considering they very often have such a similar formula up until around Atlantis and TENG, regardless of whether some of them actually were good/great films. To accept that does not make one arrogant or superior from a "common people" that they are a part of--it only makes them self-aware. Since the look of 3D happens to be more popular at this particular time, the decision to give up on the 2D medium is comparable to the DP line because the decision is made for the same business/profit-motivated reasons.

Nobody has said that one art form is "intrinsically superior" to another. There is such a thing as personal preferences, however, and it's not "uneducated," "stupid," or "condescending" to prefer one over another, or to point out that one medium is being overlooked because of what happens to be popular at the time (regardless of whether artistic merit can sometimes be found in what also happens to be popular).

Disney's Divinity wrote:

qindarka wrote:Of course it's condescending to basically assert that today's audiences are all idiots. He was in no place to make that call. Regardless of what some may think, we are all common people here and no better than the average moviegoer. If we believe otherwise and cling to notions that we have more refined taste and that we are superior, I'm afraid that we would be misguided.

I also don't see how CG films can be compared to the Disney Princess line. The latter exists primarily for marketing. While the shift towards CG is motivated by profit, the films, or at least some of them do possess artistic merit. Hand-drawn animation is not intrinsically superior to CG.

I don't think it's condescending that the general population tends to go for what's most shallow--whether or not there is any actually artistic merit attached to what they go for often seems random. It's no different from accepting that current pop music is shallow, like it's always been, and that what's a hit generally has the same sound that happens to be popular at a particular time. The fact that the '90s Disney films were popular, for example, shows a similar shallowness considering they very often have such a similar formula up until around Atlantis and TENG, regardless of whether some of them actually were good/great films. To accept that does not make one arrogant or superior from a "common people" that they are a part of--it only makes them self-aware. Since the look of 3D happens to be more popular at this particular time, the decision to give up on the 2D medium is comparable to the DP line because the decision is made for the same business/profit-motivated reasons.

Nobody has said that one art form is "intrinsically superior" to another. There is such a thing as personal preferences, however, and it's not "uneducated," "stupid," or "condescending" to prefer one over another, or to point out that one medium is being overlooked because of what happens to be a popular at the time (regardless of whether artistic merit can sometimes be found in what also happens to be popular).

Well, regardless of the stance I've been taking in this thread. I do actually slightly prefer hand-drawn animation and I would also prefer it if the current tastes of the audience were different that would allow for hand-drawn films to be made profitably. I am uncomfortable though with claiming that these preferences are a sign of shallowness. In the end, they are just movies, let the people enjoy what they will without passing judgement.

Regarding your point on 90s Disney, most of the films in that period were critically successful and I see no problem in the audience enjoying and supporting those films if the considered them to be good. Sure, they may not have been original but I don't think that liking them is somehow shallow.

Personally, I don't think audiences today dislike the traditional animated look. After all, isn't Phineas & Ferb the most popular show among young viewers right now? Other shows like The Legend of Korra, SpongeBob SquarePants and Gravity Falls also score high ratings. Not to mention the incredible success of The Lion King re-release.

Looking at the two hand-drawn films that Disney made, I think they're under-performed because of the marketing. Most boys aren't going to watch something with "princess" in the title (I think The Frog Prince would have been a better title and more logical, since Tiana is only a princess for about three minutes at the very end). And Winnie the Pooh's reputation has changed a lot in the last decade, as now most people see it as only aimed at preschoolers. While they try to mark it at college students, somebody had the stupid idea to release the same day as another film from a more popular franchise that demographic grew up on. The Disney execs must have been smoking something really strong, if they thought a Winnie the Pooh movie would make $60 million in 2011.

And why is all the blame going to John Lasseter? I don't think he's a messiah to animation, but he doesn't run the Walt Disney Company. He still has his superiors he needs to answer to, who have more power to dictate what gets produced. Bob Iger has the final say over every project that gets made at Disney, not to mention there's the boardroom executives and shareholders which he also has to appease. In a couple of years, Iger will drop down from being President and maybe the new boss will be more willing to greenlight a hand-drawn animated film.

regarding the "story is king" mantra, that's never actually been applied to the commercial success of a movie has it?

estefan wrote: In a couple of years, Iger will drop down from being President and maybe the new boss will be more willing to greenlight a hand-drawn animated film.

I hope your right.

Sotiris wrote:It seems that Lasseter doesn't practice what he preaches about some other things as well:

It seems to me that because of one post about how he has "shied away" from traditional animation, you are completely disregarding everything else that is happening at the studio.

Sotiris wrote:1. Pixar and WDAS are director-driven studios.

And are they not? In Steve's post, the same artist discussed that they were working on the three idea pitch that Lasseter has always stood behind. "Director-driven" does not mean "directors have the final say in every matter whatsoever."

Sotiris wrote:2. It's about the story, not the medium / In defence of 2D animation

And again, is it not? The fact that 2D is not supported by executives above him will not change the fact that he will always push the artists to develop the best story they possibly can.

You seem to be leading the bandwagon here of ignoring the fact that Lasseter has plenty of people above him to please, for the sole purpose of making him look bad.

John Lasseter wrote:Hand-drawn animation lives within the Walt Disney Animation Studios.

Sotiris wrote:Not anymore.

I'm sorry, it doesn't?? If asked today, Lasseter would say the same exact thing. Because hand drawn animation DOES live within Walt Disney Animation Studios. This was confirmed by the same person who started this whole debacle:

Steve Hulett wrote:Ron Clements and John Musker are developing a hand-drawn feature that, if what I've been shown holds up, will look one hell of a lot different from Show White.

The fact that it will "look different" has no bearing on this argument. Hand drawn animation is happening at WDAS as we speak. See Paperman in a few weeks for proof.

Again, you're all ignoring this hybrid. It doesn't matter that it's different. The fact is that hand drawn animation IS a big part of it. There are no completely traditional films happening because not enough artists want to do a completely traditional film! They want to see where this exciting new thing is going to lead!

ajmrowland wrote:regarding the "story is king" mantra, that's never actually been applied to the commercial success of a movie has it?

Actually, you're right. "Story is king" is in reference to the quality and integrity of a film, not the visuals. It seems most think that "Story is king" literally equals "the medium does not matter." It does not mean the same thing.

Qindarka, I don't believe my opinion is superior to anyone else's. I too like a bunch of movies and shows other people deem to be crap. But I don't think it's condescending or rubbish to call things by their right name: today's audiences ARE shallow when it comes to entertainment, and a large majority of them at that. How else do you explain Alvin and the Chipmunks, Madagascar and Transfomers movies making crapload of money, when they get shredded to pieces all the time by both critics and the audience? It's because of people who treat movies like fast food, enough to satisfy their current hunger for entertainment, until the next meal comes along.

Take a look at today's top watched movies and TV programs. Reality shows and action-packed adventures. Spin-offs, sequels, remakes. Flashy, colorful, eye-popping. Fast pace, short cuts everywhere, scenery is not given time to breathe. Bigger, larger, but not necessarily better. Pseudo-intellectuality or straight-up idiocy. No depth given to anything or anyone. And general audiences eat it up and ask for more, and complain if it strays away from the usual norm. If that doesn't point to ADD and shallowness, then I don't know what does. And if there are no shallow and ADD-infested audiences for those types of media, then how come they even exist?

CGI, or rather how it's being used, has the advantage (or disadvantage, depending on your stance) of being produced rather quickly and cheaply compared to its hand-drawn counterpart, and, most importantly, cleverly masquerading as live-action. As such, it's often the main ingredient of effects-heavy movies, and facilitates the use of 3D effect. It also mimics the reality perfectly well and, for some reason, people go nuts about realistic hair, fur, clouds, water, rocks or grass, especially if they pop at them (whatever happened to going to a park and seeing those things in person?). Hand-drawn animation just can't compete with things like that on a larger scale and since it's generally used for more serene stories, today's shallow audiences tend to view it as boring or obsolete, and by extent, studio views it as unprofitable.

And I never used the word or called anyone 'idiots', it was all you.

Divinity, thanks for your posts. I don't think I could have put it in words nearly as well or concisely as you did.

estefan wrote:And why is all the blame going to John Lasseter?

ajmrowland wrote:regarding the "story is king" mantra, that's never actually been applied to the commercial success of a movie has it?

John Lasseter is often blamed because he has an influential position in the company and yet he's all talk and no action. For someone who says he cares deeply about hand-drawn animation, he often comes off as either clueless or indifferent about it, and other than greenlighting PatF and WtP he has done zero for the medium in the years since. I remember those PatF vignettes that were coming out prior to its release, and he was interviewed about the film and hand-drawn animation, and you could see his heart wasn't really in it.

To add salt to injury, as an explanation for commercial failures of recent Disney films, he also said something like "hand-drawn was being used as a scapegoat for bad storytelling at Disney", which was pretty insulting considering Disney at that time made rather diverse films. True, at least two of them may have been abysmal by studio standards, but two of them were critics' darlings, and they were all different from each other, either by style or by theme, whereas Pixar was still stuck with making buddy movies.

^that's all true too, but he still has a boss. He's not *the boss*. Even Iger has to answer to some board of directors. Lasseter and Iger are the face of Disney's executives, but as inside any clockwork(or Lasseter, as you would say), the face and inner-workings are entirely different species.

I completely agree with everything SWillie! has said.

Mooky wrote:I remember those PatF vignettes that were coming out prior to its release, and he was interviewed about the film and hand-drawn animation, and you could see his heart wasn't really in it.

So why greenlight Princess and the Frog in the first place? Hand-drawn had already been pronounced dead at Disney by the Eisner regime so if his heart really isn't in hand-drawn animation, why go to the effort to bring it back when it would have been so much easier to leave things as they were? The fact is Lasseter and Ed Catmull gave hand-drawn animation a chance, they greenlit a film directed by two of WDAS' finest directors and assemble a collection of the best artists in the industry today and I think they created a great film that deserved a lot more success than it achieved but the figures don't lie. I'm not saying WDAS isn't blameless in this debate but in my mind the problem is that there seems to be a large percentage of today's film-going audience who, for some reason, have no interest in hand-drawn animation. I don't understand why that is and it isn't a true reflection of Princess and the Frog's quality but there is a stigma that has surrounded hand-drawn animation and it's one that the medium can't shake.

SWillie! wrote:Again, you're all ignoring this hybrid. It doesn't matter that it's different. The fact is that hand drawn animation IS a big part of it. There are no completely traditional films happening because not enough artists want to do a completely traditional film! They want to see where this exciting new thing is going to lead!

Exactly.