DVDizzy Forum

Sulley wrote:Could this mean the end of the "animated classics" as we know it? Maybe we'll have to start a list of non-Pixar CGI classics ( ), beginning with Dinosaur, and so on. I shudder to think.

Saddled with a huge traditional-animation flop--last year's $140 million Treasure Planet, which grossed a meager $38 million--and a hunch that kids now find hand-drawn animation uncool, Disney is rethinking the heart and soul of its business, according to Philly.com. Last month, Disney CEO Michael Eisner announced that the studio was developing an unprecedented eight computer-generated animation features. And these are wholly Disney affairs, not Disney-Pixar partnerships. The company, whose very name is synonymous with cartoon castles and ink-and-paint dwarves, is going digital. David Stainton, the animation division's new president, told a spring meeting of employees that he wanted the studio to make classic animated fairy tales again. But, he warned, Disney's 500-plus Burbank animators, down from well more than 1,500 staff members just a few years ago, would have to be retrained. "In the mid-'80s, friends of mine who were heavy into computers would say, 'You watch out, computers are coming to take over,' " recalls animator Tom Sito. "And we were like, 'Yeah, yeah, sure.' Little did we know." Sito, president emeritus of the Hollywood Animation Guild, calls the changes going on in animation revolutionary. "And the problem with revolutions is that there are casualties," he adds. "People don't like to think about that because we're so excited by change. But [there are] people who have had steady jobs for 25, 30 years that now, suddenly, don't have careers." Stainton, who has teams developing CG adaptations of Rapunzel and The Snow Queen, says the animation teams' resistance is understandable. "I'd be afraid, too, if I were in their position and I didn't really understand what the overall goals were for the company," he explains. "But our goals are really to make our artists ambidextrous... We're trying to build our CG capability now because that's what's new and that's what people are focusing on. But it doesn't mean that we are abandoning [traditional] 2-D animation. My very strong feeling is that we can actually bring great things to the CG world because of our legacy of 2-D animation.

indianajdp wrote:I'll fall back on my argument that if it's a compelling enough story than it won't matter that it's 2-D or CGI. But I am shocked that a 2-D film like Treasure PLanet cost $140 million to make...that's unreal.

Animated Movies wrote:The Orlando Weekly announced in December 2001 that Michael Eisner "ordered that new scenes be put into production [for Treasure Planet] and new dialogue be recorded to lighten up the pivotal character" Jim Hawkins. "That epic, animated adventure has been in production for more than four years now. But only after viewing the nearly completed cartoon this past October did Disney CEO Michael Eisner realize how dark and dour portions of the project had become. Eisner reportedly had big problems with the portrayal of one of the characters, Jim Hawkins, carried over from Stevenson's original novel. According to those who are now saddled with reworking the project at the last minute, Eisner found the animated version of Hawkins to be 'too mopey'. Stranger still, Eisner has insisted that the number of swords featured in the film be significantly reduced. And pirates -- whether they work in outer space or not -typically carry swords. But in this post-September 11 era, when even a box cutter can be viewed as a dangerous weapon, characters brandishing cutlasses in what is supposed to be a fun family film don't seem all that funny anymore. Which is why numerous Disney animators in Burbank spent most of December frantically reworking various scenes for Treasure Planet, removing every sword they could find."

Animated Movies wrote:An exciting prologue "with the battle of the ships," supervised by John Pomeroy, was supposedly "scrapped by the Disney suits for being too violent."

Animated Movies wrote:Long before its release, questions were being raised inside the studio about whether the film would take off with audiences. One of the biggest concerns centered on lead character Jim Hawkins. The troubled teenager seemed too harsh and brooding. Meanwhile, the second and third acts of the movie were thought to be flat and emotionless. Even Eisner, who had green-lighted the project, was said to be concerned about the characters and plot.

Fixes were suggested and made, including making the lead character more likable and sympathetic.

Animated Movies wrote:An insider reports that "this project is already in deep poo poo. People are running away from it like it's Anthrax. A lot of people on it that dont know what they are doing, but are good ass kissers and looking to scratch and claw their way to the top, crushing everyone else in the process.. politically crap galore.... They are crewing up for it constantly cause everyone is running from it.. it sounds like a nightmare.. too bad."

Animated Movies wrote:An insider reported in April 2003 that "the animation being done is said to be absolutely first rate. Storywise--apparently there's some difficulty. Well into production, they decided recently to change the main title character from a girl to a boy! To me, that's usually a sign that they're still groping for a story that works. Then again, I know from experience that all productions like these go through changes, often midway. We'll see how it turns out..."

Animated Movies wrote:Disney's chief of animation David Stainton revealed in an April 2003 interview that he had put two high-profile projects, Chicken Little and My Peoples, on hold because he said they needed more focus. "There's a point in every movie where the whole thing falls apart, that moment where you look at it and say, 'We have to retrench,' " Stainton said. "It was that time."

AnimationNation Re: Chicken Little wrote: Chicken Little and My Peoples are very much alive. Can you name one Disney film (hell, oneanimated film) in the last fifteen years that hasn't gone through some sort of painful rewrite process while in preproduction or even mid-production?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you saying that adding 30 million on every budget is the way animation has to be done Doug ? Are you actually saying this is necessary ? Alive is a relative term , relative to cost of production.

AnimationNation Re: Chicken Little wrote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toy Story 2 was stopped mid production and subjected to a major overhaul,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was stopped because it was planned as an inferior film from the beginning. A Cheapquil (that was something that Disney planned it to be if I remember). The joke is that Lasseter recognized that that was exactly what it was going to be and decided he couldn't live with it . It's called "having high standards". Something Walt had and something present management apparently Disney doesn't. What I am getting from you is you think that this is normal and I totally disagree. I think it is new to an industry where burning money is a sign of power as if some symbol corporate virility. In any other struggling company people who blow 30 million a picture through blatent indecision would be fired so fast their heads would spin. Disney, a company that is being held hostage by Eisner is fiscally irresponsible and most obviously out of control