Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney

[ce1ticmoon]

I think it's likely John Lasseter has changed along with his position. He carries a *huge* amount of responsibility these days compared to when his world began and ended with Pixar. Between his oversight of the two studios and the theme parks division, executing those responsibilities goes a lot further than catering to his own tastes, whims, and pet projects.

To add to what I already wrote (Just shut up already, right? ), I'm not saying he is the worst thing to happen to the studio, or even that he needs to necessarily be replaced. Quite the contrary; he clearly brought WDAS out of the dumps from its lowest point in 04-05, and we are now getting a string of consistently good to great films. I think Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, and perhaps even Winnie the Pooh are arguably some of the best films to come from the studio, period. And PATF and Frozen are good/great films as well. He has done good, that's for sure.

Still, when you look at something like Tangled, and Wreck-It Ralph, you also really wonder about what they could have been--the supposed "painterly" visuals they were developing for the former was something that never quite manifested, and when you think of the subject matter in the latter, there are so many places that they could have taken that visually. (Not that the visuals of either film were anything to sneeze at; both were quite impressive.) These were great films, but ultimately, they were a bit safe. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for "safe" films, and there is nothing wrong with that per se. Sometimes we crave the familiar, and if it's executed superbly, then I couldn't say much to criticize it. But I just feel like it'd be nice to have something a little more out-of-the-box once in a while.

Despite the fact that many (most?) of the films were misfires, I really enjoyed the supposed "dark ages" of the early 00s due to their willingness to try new things. Emperor's New Groove (I know this was a desperate retooling of a more classical approach), Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet--these were all very different from what we had come to expect from the studio, all the while embracing the Disney legacy. Sure, a couple of them had some pretty bad story problems that ultimately makes them lesser films than some of the better developed, "safe" films. Yet, I admire the ambition that went into creating those unique films.

I guess we don't know what the future holds, and I'm actually quite optimistic for Big Hero 6, but I just think Lasseter is playing it a bit safe. I'm sure a lot of it is out of his control and in the hands of the higher ups (I certainly don't blame him for what is perceived as the sequel frenzy coming from Pixar), but from the information we have at our disposal, I certainly don't think he is trying to push for more ambitious or unique projects.

Also, going back to the point about how much responsibility he has, that ultimately is not really a valid excuse. Taking on too many things is a detriment to everything he is involved with. I certainly don't place the blame on him for that situation, but it really just isn't the ideal situation. After all, history does tell us this, as we know that during Walt's time, the animated films began to fall by the wayside as Walt began to take on so many projects and shifted his focus to live-action films and the theme parks.

[TsWade2]

But will he ever give hand drawn animation a chance?

[Fflewduur]

Also, going back to the point about how much responsibility he has, that ultimately is not really a valid excuse.

I disagree—I think it’s the most valid excuse. He's worked his @** off to get where he is.

He’s a brilliant guy, he’s got a clear vision, he’s pursued high standards in art, technology, and storytelling his entire career. His first Disney job was as Jungle Cruise skipper, he got fired from the studio where he always dreamed of working, and now he answers directly to the company President and CEO. It’s easy to bag on someone in his position, but if there was some other single person who could bring to the table all that he does, that person would be sitting in his chair (or awfully close to it, or one very much like it).

I’m not going to argue the point about “safe” choices--it's true. Walt made them, too, after nearly running his studio into the ground. There were some interesting departures during the studio’s last downturn, but the overall drop-off in quality is undeniable, as are the financial consequences. He’s got a fine line to walk, with ultimate responsibility to a vast number of employees and stakeholders (and a legacy in feature filmmaking nearly 80 years old), and the quality of the studio’s output has markedly improved during his tenure—I think there’s an argument to be made that *Pixar* has suffered more than Disney since the acquisition and his new job titles. He’s the closest thing to another Walt Disney the company’s ever had (except that he’s actually an artist, animator, and director himself, none of which was true of Walt for the vast majority of Disney’s own career). It's much easier to speculate that someone else could do the job better than it is to posit a real-world replacement. Really, if there’s a better person for the job(s), who would that be?

But will he ever give hand drawn animation a chance?

He did, for a film that didn’t recoup its budget in its home market. I doubt there are many more enthusiastic or knowledgable supporters of hand-drawn animation on earth, but he's not betting the farm on it--and he's smart not to do so.

[TsWade2]

But will he ever give hand drawn animation a chance?

He did, for a film that didn’t recoup its budget in its home market. I doubt there are many more enthusiastic or knowledgable supporters of hand-drawn animation on earth, but he's not betting the farm on it--and he's smart not to do so.

Oh come on already! Disney has no right to give up hand drawn animation. If I was the CEO of Disney, I fire those executives and let Disney do more hand drawn animated movies than CGI animated movies. I don't know how I say this, but I wish Walt Disney is resurrected. This has to be the most depressing and hope killing thread in the history of DVDizzy forums.

[Musical Master]

He did, for a film that didn’t recoup its budget in its home market. I doubt there are many more enthusiastic or knowledgable supporters of hand-drawn animation on earth, but he's not betting the farm on it--and he's smart not to do so.

Oh come on already! Disney has no right to give up hand drawn animation. If I was the CEO of Disney, I fire those executives and let Disney do more hand drawn animated movies than CGI animated movies. I don't know how I say this, but I wish Walt Disney is resurrected. This has to be the most depressing and hope killing thread in the history of DVDizzy forums.

I know you love hand-drawn animation and you don't want it gone but good lord, you're more paranoid about it than Shadow was for his owner's safety in Homeward Bound.

[ce1ticmoon]

I disagree—I think it’s the most valid excuse. He's worked his @** off to get where he is.

As I said already, I'm not placing the blame on him in this particular instance. It's a valid excuse for him, perhaps, but not for the situation itself, which is what I was talking about in this case. I don't disagree that he's worked hard, or that he he's earned it, and I think I have actually already shown that I agree with a lot of the points you make here. (For instance, I already stated that I acknowledge that he has people to answer to and certain expectations to meet, and that he really was the best thing to happen to WDAS at the time that he came on board.)

But again, biting off more than one can chew is nearly always a detriment. Something will suffer. You say yourself that you think an argument can be made for Pixar having suffered. Perhaps its true that nobody else can bring to the table everything that he does. I won't argue that. But does he have to be the one to bring everything to the table? That is the question that I am posing here.

Admittedly, I can't say I have any specific ideas as to who I think could take over one of his positions. That's not my job. I agree it's easier said than done, and that it's easy to criticize in front of my keyboard, just sitting on the sidelines here. But that's just the way the world works. Critique often given from a position that assumes that something can be done just about perfectly, but we know that the reality is that nothing is perfect.

I guess I just can't help but think that if he stuck to one thing, instead of everything, that that one thing would flourish and really be something special. I mean, so someone else giving 100% of their attention and effort to one of his jobs can't to better than him giving 30% of his attention to said job? I mean sure, it's not a job for everyone, and I'm sure his 30% is better than many peoples' 100%. But there is no way that there is nobody out there, and I think I can still pose the question even if I can't name a specific person to take the job.

What if he suddenly dies? Then they'd really be in trouble... Basically just like what happened with Walt--at least in terms of the animation studio.

Personally, I think I've been adequately acknowledging that he deserves a lot of credit for everything he's done. It's true and I don't intend to discredit his accomplishments at all. Perhaps my tone came off as more negative than I intended. But I don't think that all of his achievements and successes automatically puts all of the choices he makes and the things he says above scrutiny or criticism. Admittedly, we often only get snippets of quotes and information out of context, but from what we can see, I can say with confidence that I wish there were things he had done differently. And at the very least, from what we know, it seems that he is unopen to a lot of things that are outside of his Cal Arts comfort zone. It is what it is. (Or seems how it seems.) As fans, I think we're allowed to express these feelings, even if we can't always specifically propose how something can be done better.

[Disney's Divinity]

I think Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, and perhaps even Winnie the Pooh are arguably some of the best films to come from the studio, period.

Although you're talking from a subjective point of view, objectively I don't think that's true and I actually like two of those.

In some ways, John Lasseter can't be blamed for being predictable/formulaic from a business point of view, since it's certainly lucrative, thankfully I don't watch films from that point of view and so I personally don't care for him or the majority of his films (and don't consider it a valid excuse). Not as a person, btw, since I don't know him personally. The closest I've come to disliking him personally was the Brenda Chapman business, and his general usurping directors at the drop of a hat issue.

[ce1ticmoon]

Although you're talking from a subjective point of view, objectively I don't think that's true and I actually like two of those.

Well, I don't think it's truly possible to make an entirely "objective" evaluation of films (or music or art...). Your opinion or "evaluation" will always be informed by your experiences, biases, and the importance you place on certain aspects of the filmmaking. Is story king? Characters? Cinematography? How important is the score? Is it important that the film was influential in some way, and paved the way for future films to come? Or does it simply need to be tightly written and well-animated, with a compelling personal journey for the protagonist(s)? Does it matter that it may or may not have accomplished everything it set out to do? Can it be one of the "best," even if it is severely flawed, so long as it is compelling and emotionally engaging, or does something revolutionary?

That's why I use the word "arguable." For instance, any "best of" list is arguable, even if it was put together "objectively." I won't say that you can't be objective at all. There are objectively bad films. (Well, at least, I think there are.) And you can certainly think a film you didn't particularly enjoy is an objectively well-made film. Still, since it's impossible that everyone will come to the same exact conclusion, there is no universal law or standard when it comes to these things.

And for the record, I don't think any of those would make the top ten if I compiled a list of my own. Top 20? Yeah, Tangled and WIR would probably make it. As for Pooh, it may or may not. (I've never actually tried to make a list, so I just don't know.) But I do think that they're films I think people can make a valid case for.

[Disney's Divinity]

I'll admit I'm very superficial and I couldn't see Wreck-It Ralph ranked alongside Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid, etc. just because of that Rihanna song. >>;

[MeerkatKombat]

I'll admit I'm very superficial and I couldn't see Wreck-It Ralph ranked alongside Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid, etc. just because of that Rihanna song. >>;

That song really brings me out of the film. It was a baffling addition and not much appreciated.

[disneyprincess11]

I'll admit I'm very superficial and I couldn't see Wreck-It Ralph ranked alongside Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid, etc. just because of that Rihanna song. >>;

I can handle it, but it was such a very cheap, Dreamworks-esqe move that Disney made

[Tristy]

I'll admit I'm very superficial and I couldn't see Wreck-It Ralph ranked alongside Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid, etc. just because of that Rihanna song. >>;

And some people on this forum gave Doug Walker a hard time for not accepting the Emperor's New Groove as being alongside Lion King and Sleeping Beauty because .... "David Spade as a llama!??!"

Not that I'm a big fan of the Rihanna song because yeah it is pretty cheap but still...

[Fflewduur]

...
As fans, I think we're allowed to express these feelings, even if we can't always specifically propose how something can be done better.

I'm not saying you're wrong at all, and I'm not suggesting you're responsible for having a ready suggestion for a replacement; I'm saying the people who *would be* responsible don't necessarily have any better ideas, either, because there simply may not be a better choice. I'm saying the *world* is what it is: an imperfect place. Lasseter is who he is and where he is, and that's a good thing overall. He's far better suited to his responsibilities than the overwhelming majority of folks who could be sitting in his chair. It may well come to a point where *he* doesn't want all of the responsibilities he's got, and then there will be a change. At least I think we can be reasonably comfortable he's more tied in to the prevailing company aesthetic and ethos than others who've held his something like his responsibilities in the relatively recent past--Katzenberg and Eisner all made major contributions to the company's success, and then...

These things are cyclical. Sometimes the studio's creativity and output go on a downward trend, and then they rebound. There's no magic formula, no perfection to be achieved. You can't please all of the people all of the time. No any one film is going to entirely satisfy everyone--*including* the creative team responsible for its existence--or manifest all of the possibilities inherent in its inception; there are just too many real-world constraints on actually getting a project completed. As they say in the theatre, "*Done* is *beautiful*." You celebrate success, acknowledge shortcomings, and move on to the next project (if you're successful enough to have that luxury). The studio's immediate past track record suggests things are moving in a good direction, even with compromises made and potential unfulfilled, and the next two films up at bat for both Disney animation and Pixar are more more outside-the-box than the past few films. As fans, we're better off than we have been for 25 or 30 years. It ain't everything everyone could hope for, but it never will be, and that's okay.

[ce1ticmoon]

I'm not saying you're wrong at all, and I'm not suggesting you're responsible for having a ready suggestion for a replacement; I'm saying the people who *would be* responsible don't necessarily have any better ideas, either, because there simply may not be a better choice. I'm saying the *world* is what it is: an imperfect place. Lasseter is who he is and where he is, and that's a good thing overall. He's far better suited to his responsibilities than the overwhelming majority of folks who could be sitting in his chair. It may well come to a point where *he* doesn't want all of the responsibilities he's got, and then there will be a change. At least I think we can be reasonably comfortable he's more tied in to the prevailing company aesthetic and ethos than others who've held his something like his responsibilities in the relatively recent past--Katzenberg and Eisner all made major contributions to the company's success, and then...

These things are cyclical. Sometimes the studio's creativity and output go on a downward trend, and then they rebound. There's no magic formula, no perfection to be achieved. You can't please all of the people all of the time. No any one film is going to entirely satisfy everyone--*including* the creative team responsible for its existence--or manifest all of the possibilities inherent in its inception; there are just too many real-world constraints on actually getting a project completed. As they say in the theatre, "*Done* is *beautiful*." You celebrate success, acknowledge shortcomings, and move on to the next project (if you're successful enough to have that luxury). The studio's immediate past track record suggests things are moving in a good direction, even with compromises made and potential unfulfilled, and the next two films up at bat for both Disney animation and Pixar are more more outside-the-box than the past few films. As fans, we're better off than we have been for 25 or 30 years. It ain't everything everyone could hope for, but it never will be, and that's okay.

Well, I can't say I disagree with anything you've said there. I guess we're on the same page after all. (Except for our stance on Lilo & Stitch versus PATF. )

I agree. In regards to the animation studio, we are in the best place since the end of the Renaissance (which I would argue actually ends with TLK) in terms of having a consistent streak of quality films, and we are better off than almost any given period of time since Walt's death.

I'm excited for projects like Big Hero 6 and Inside Out, and agree both seem to be a bit outside of the "usual" or "same-old." And again, I don't even dislike "inside-the-box," or think it's necessarily a bad thing. I certainly enjoy "populist" or "familiar" films, and I can't deny that the projects that Lasseter has overseen usually are a step ahead in presenting tight, cohesive stories, with a great balance of, well, everything. I just hope that the massive success with Frozen can lead to some more ventures into new territory rather than more Frozens (though I'm not saying I don't want any more fairy-tale musicals, because I do). Walt certainly would have done so, though I realize that Lasseter perhaps doesn't wield quite as much influence in such matters.

I'd also like to point out that, while I'm not ecstatic about Pixar's seeming sequel frenzy, I don't blame Lasseter at all for that. I'm in no way convinced that Pixar has stuck to its mantra that they'll only make sequels if and only if they come up with a great story that's worth telling, but I also don't think they've necessarily had a choice in the matter. At least Finding Dory seems to have a promising premise. And if Brad Bird will be helming The Incredibles 2, I have absolute faith in it.

I'll admit I'm very superficial and I couldn't see Wreck-It Ralph ranked alongside Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid, etc. just because of that Rihanna song. >>;

Eh, I wouldn't say that makes you "superficial." I can't say that I think the use of that Rihanna song was the best choice they could have made. (Major understatement here.) I still haven't warmed up to it completely. I can agree that it would take away from it feeling "classic," if that's even possible in the first place given the subject matter of the film. Still, I don't think it would prevent the film from being considered alongside the others you mention. Though there's no way it touches Pinocchio in my mind.

[Fflewduur]

Oh, I think Pixar's had a choice in the matter re: the sequel surge, but they've got to account for the market. Once upon a time there was only one studio regularly making animated features--that was a long, long time ago now, it seems. There's a lot of competition, and *successful* competition, and when others are making bank on cranking out Shrek-Madagascar-Despicable-Megamind-Panda-Dragon franchises, you've got to find a way to keep up. A follow-up to an established, well-received property is a much easier sell than a brand new idea and story. So I could say that I "blame" Pixar for getting pulled into the Battle of the Sequels, but that doesn't mean I'm mad at 'em (especially since I think Finding Dory and Incredibles 2 will end up being better films than Monsters U or Cars 2).

Wreck-It Ralph is a film based on video gaming, and especially the heyday of the arcade gaming--timelessness is off the table for that reason all by itself, regardless of Rihanna.
I only just saw the film a couple weeks ago, I confess. It didn't do much to draw me in on its theatrical release, and my entertainment/collection budget was pretty much nonexistent for about two years anyway...but it's a much better film than my first impression led me to believe, and easily among my favorites of the 21st century.

[ce1ticmoon]

Oh, I think Pixar's had a choice in the matter re: the sequel surge, but they've got to account for the market. Once upon a time there was only one studio regularly making animated features--that was a long, long time ago now, it seems. There's a lot of competition, and *successful* competition, and when others are making bank on cranking out Shrek-Madagascar-Despicable-Megamind-Panda-Dragon franchises, you've got to find a way to keep up. A follow-up to an established, well-received property is a much easier sell than a brand new idea and story. So I could say that I "blame" Pixar for getting pulled into the Battle of the Sequels, but that doesn't mean I'm mad at 'em (especially since I think Finding Dory and Incredibles 2 will end up being better films than Monsters U or Cars 2).

Megamind is a franchise? Since when? Just nitpicking and trying to give you a hard time here, lol. I don't think that one's happening though. But I certainly get your point.

I guess when I say that I don't think Pixar necessarily has a choice in regards to the sequels, I'm talking about Lasseter and the members of the Pixar Braintrust as creatives and as individuals, not "Pixar, subdivision of the Walt Disney Company." Did they, as artists, really think that their beloved creations needed sequels? Did they really come up with a story that they think warranted a sequel? Maybe in a couple of cases, yes, but I certainly don't think that's true for all cases. I understand that a sequel to a popular property is an easier sell and that the competition pretty much demands it. Again, it makes sense for Pixar as a business. If they stick to that supposed plan of having an original film every year and a sequel every other year, I don't think that's a bad plan.

[Musical Master]

I'll admit I'm very superficial and I couldn't see Wreck-It Ralph ranked alongside Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid, etc. just because of that Rihanna song. >>;

That song really brings me out of the film. It was a baffling addition and not much appreciated.

That song in the movie really was a big WTH moment that took all of us out of it for a while, why couldn't they use the song that Robert Lopez and Kristen Lopez wrote?

[Warm Regards]

That song really brings me out of the film. It was a baffling addition and not much appreciated.

That song in the movie really was a big WTH moment that took all of us out of it for a while, why couldn't they use the song that Robert Lopez and Kristen Lopez wrote?

First of all, what Lopez song?

Secondly, "Shut Up and Drive" was a really unfortunate song choice. Too many innuendos for what is supposed to be a touching RACECAR PRACTICE SCENE between Ralph and Vanellope.

[Musical Master]

First of all, what Lopez song?

Secondly, "Shut Up and Drive" was a really unfortunate song choice. Too many innuendos for what is supposed to be a touching RACECAR PRACTICE SCENE between Ralph and Vanellope.

Robert Lopez and his wife had written an original song for the movie but for reasons unknown, it was cut.

[disneyprincess11]

First of all, what Lopez song?

Secondly, "Shut Up and Drive" was a really unfortunate song choice. Too many innuendos for what is supposed to be a touching RACECAR PRACTICE SCENE between Ralph and Vanellope.

Robert Lopez and his wife had written an original song for the movie but for reasons unknown, it was cut.

Yeah, it was a song for King Candy and how he ruled Sugar Rush and why they race. It was cut because Rich Moore thought the song was too random for a non-musical movie.

What a shame! Of all of the Disney villains, King Candy is most likely the one to sing. I just hope they release a demo of it.