DVDizzy Forum

This is heartbreaking news. Considering that Pixar gets picked on for being too male dominated the news that they let go of their first and perhaps only female director is doing nothing to aid the cause.

But I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as this isn't the first time that Pixar has made drastic changes to their movies. Remember that Toy Story 3 had a forced production start and Ratatouille had a completely different story from the final version of the film.

So I'm not quite panicking yet.

Who knows, maybe Cars 2 might redeem the Cars franchise (doubtful, but surprises may happen).

What was Ratatouille's original story?

skyler888 wrote:What was Ratatouille's original story?

Well, the original title for it was "Rats". Directed by Jin Pakava, while the story still featured Remy it had a lot more characters, like his mother and several brothers and sisters.

They felt that the direction wasn't that good, so they added Brad Bird at the very last minute.

Note that Ratatouille later became an Oscar winning movie. So again, this isn't anything new at Pixar.

Last Minuit? I thought I heard it was about half way through the story process. last minuit would imply they started animation, ala Meet the robinson's or something.

But anyway, yeah, this isn't what I wanted to hear. I'm sure it'll be a great movie, but it would just suck that it didn't work out. And the whole leaving the studio altogether thing leaves me wondering what kind of bad blood there is between her and the rest of the brain trust.

Kyle wrote:Last Minuit? I thought I heard it was about half way through the story process. last minuit would imply they started animation, ala Meet the robinson's or something.

But anyway, yeah, this isn't hat I wanted to hear. I'm sure it'll be a great movie, but it would just suck that it didn't work out. And the whole leaving the studio altogether thing leaves me wondering what kind of bad blood there is between her and the rest of the brain trust.

We will have to see how Cars 2 does as well as Brave in terms of critical and commercial success. If either of them does poorly, then it might be the beginning of the end for Pixar (yes I am being dramatic, but they have to do something poor at one point).

Albert, you forgot that Pixar green lighted the Cars spin off DTV series ala Tinkerbell.

Mainly because I'd prefer if it were forgotten.

albert

Escapay wrote:Mainly because I'd prefer if it were forgotten.

albert

Either way, it's going to bite them in the butt if it fails badly.

Brenda Chapman was interviewed for the book Two Guys Named Joe. She talks about joining Pixar in 2003. This was published in August of this year.

"Ranft convinced her to join Pixar in spring 2003, where, he said, 'story is king.' 'It touched me,' she says, 'that he loved his craft and art so much and had found a place to nurture it. I think he knew I was pretty wounded from my experiences at the other studios, and he thought it was a good place to come and heal. He was very right.' Chapman worked nine months on Cars. Then she was asked to direct a feature based on her own idea (The Bear and the Bow) and for which Ranft would be executive producer. 'I'm very happy at Pixar and I owe that to Joe.'"

I would think it is one thing to be unseated from the Directors chair, but to quit too. But I could imagine her not wanting to see someone else helm her idea into a movie. Pixar seemed so right for her after having a bad time at Dreamworks (and I think Disney too.)

The cracks are appearing pretty bloody fast if you ask me.

Brain Trust is becoming like the Politburo.

Wait...so she came up with idea of the story...it's not based on an existing fairy tale, and she was fired from her own project?

Is there a detailed article about all this?

Wow dancingcrab nice banner.

Anyway, so...she's had bad times at other studios? So...this may indicate she is not the best person to work with? She's probably to unique and/or too stubborn.

But still, it's funny they're making a movie about girl power and this is like anti-girl power. Pixar makes old Disney with their Mary Blairs and Retta Scotts look pretty feminist...

This goes along with exactly what I think: All these men are making movies with girl's doing all this girl power stuff "feminist" stuff, but it's men controlling and deciding it, they're still hypocritical not letting many women actually do big, controlling, powerful stuff in their own work place. It seems the "girl power" stuff is just so girls and critics don't complain about their movies. And give them money.

Hopefully this isn't a sign of difficulties on Bear and the Bear, especially after the cancellation of Newt. It must be a daunting prospect for any new director there to try and make their mark creatively when they have had an unbroken series of successful films since 1995 so the pressure must always be intense. That being said, I didn't think Toy Story 3 would be as good as 1 & 2 and couldn't have been proven more wrong so I've learned not to doubt Pixar.

Hmm...from some of these posts I'm reading, I think you guys are being a little too hard on Pixar.

First off, we all know that Pixar is capable of making great movies. You guys are making sound as if Pixar doesnt make their next films up to the standards of Up or Toy Story 3 then it's the end of the world. Even their lower rated films like A Bug's Life and Cars are still being considered classics and are remembered in their own right. And Pixar still has most of its successful storytellers on board for their future films. Even if Cars 2 and Brave arent going to be perfect films, they're still gonna be sure-fire moneymakers and memorable films.

I wouldnt preach the end of a studio until the films start bombing at the box office. TS3 has become Pixar's first film to reach a billion worldwide so I dont think there's no real need to worry about anything for a while.

Could TS3 be considered Pixar's "Lion King"? Only the box office and critical results of future Pixar films can determine this.

Production issues doesnt always equal disaster.

I think the struggles might come if they decide to go overboard on sequels. There are rumours of two films to make a Finding Nemo trilogy while rumous of sequels to A Bug's Life and The Incredibles have been around for years. Right now, I have no doubts that Cars 2 and Monsters, Inc. 2 will be as good as the first films, as was the case with the Toy Story series, but my hope is that they decide to concentrate on new and original projects like The Bear and the Bow.

Disney Duster wrote: But still, it's funny they're making a movie about girl power and this is like anti-girl power. Pixar makes old Disney with their Mary Blairs and Retta Scotts look pretty feminist...

I'm thinking that Chapman wanted full creative control and didn't want to concede/compromise certain elements of the story to make it more accessible. Pixar is not only about story, but about collaboration -- groups of people make these films work, and not just one person. Maybe it's something else, and perhaps gender politics are what drove Chapman away from Pixar.

It could very well be a Ratatouille-style situation where Mark Andrews keeps the main story elements (but changes them around), characters and voice actors Chapman established and give her a co-directing credit as a consolation prize. This seems more logical.

But she didn't get co-director, she quit. Do you mean you think they offered it to her, then she quit?

And I did wonder if she was very hard to work with, if you read my post again. But I'm also wondering if they demanded she do things she really didn't have to do and they could have found a better compromise.

I just realized! Do you think one reason she quit was because of the change of the title?!

I don't think changing the title of the film would have been enough reason for her to quit. It was probably the same circumstances as Bolt; they looked at what had been done so far and didn't like it. To his credit, Lasseter seems to know what he wants from a film so if the director isn't willing to adapt their ideas or take on suggestions, the only course of action seems to be a change.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:I don't think changing the title of the film would have been enough reason for her to quit. It was probably the same circumstances as Bolt; they looked at what had been done so far and didn't like it. To his credit, Lasseter seems to know what he wants from a film so if the director isn't willing to adapt their ideas or take on suggestions, the only course of action seems to be a change.

Maybe they should change that attitude, because it doesn't really help attracting new people. If a director has a clear idea of what he/she wants, and Lasseter doesn't like it, they get more or less told to leave? It's hard to argue with Pixar's track record, but does anyone think that's odd? Even wrong?

It could be seen as wrong but I don't think it's odd. I think everyone at Pixar is under immense pressure to keep making films that will be as successful as Toy Story and Finding Nemo. Because of the prestige of Pixar, I don't think they would have any problem attracting talent now, obviously that might change if their fortunes decline. Lasseter earns a lot of money to make important decisions like this but he's put faith in a new director who has never directed a feature before so it's obviously a risk. But he is the boss and has a perfect track record at Pixar so his judgements and decisions are usually the right ones.

Disney Duster wrote:I just realized! Do you think one reason she quit was because of the change of the title?!

I wouldn't quit a movie I was in charge of just because of a name change. It has to be more than that, it'd seem childish if she quit over that.