DVDizzy Forum

Disney's Divinity wrote:Stop exaggerating any opinion that disagrees with yours. You'd think we were all in politics. Honestly, the depths you go to excuse any and everything this corporation does is crazy to me. And while that may not be a big deal when it concerns greenlighting sequel after sequel or putting their focus on 3D, trying to write the whole "This is a business" excuse for how they treat their employees (the few that are left among the 2D artists now) is offensive.

Seriously. Just because Disney CAN do something to earn themselves a few extra $$$ doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

SWillie! wrote:Is he the horrible, evil mastermind that some of you are so damn determined to make him out to be?

Stop exaggerating any opinion that disagrees with yours. You'd think we were all in politics. Honestly, the depths you go to excuse any and everything this corporation does is crazy to me. And while that may not be a big deal when it concerns greenlighting sequel after sequel or putting their focus on 3D, trying to write the whole "This is a business" excuse for how they treat their employees (the few that are left among the 2D artists now) is offensive.

I really don't think I'm exaggerating. Every time Lasseter is brought up, it always seems to turn into "he is, by himself, the sole reason anything negative with the company is happening." Am I one of the fanboys that kisses the ground the man walks on? No. But there's gotta be some middle ground here.

I'm not trying to excuse the negative aspects of the company - as I said, I don't defend the decision to let these guys go. As I said before, I think it's really shitty that Disney doesn't care enough to let them work a few more years and then leave of their own accord, as most of them probably would. But, putting aside emotion, no matter how offensive it is, it IS a business. And sometimes shitty things happen in business.

Kyle wrote:Jedi, wade, you two toss around the word coward like a bunch of cowboys in some cliche western. This isnt the wild west. You don't have a full understanding of the situation, stop pretending like you do. We have but a narrow view of these public figures, and there seems to be more positive word of mouth going for him than not. He could very well be fighting tooth and nail to get handrawn going again, maybe he's not. We just don't know.

Fine. He's a chicken****.

All the raging and butthurt generated in this thread to the point of retardation, is giving me a delicious boner. Stay Classy UD.

Super Aurora wrote:All the raging and butthurt generated in this thread to the point of retardation, is giving me a delicious boner. Stay Classy UD.

Look, if you want me to be a better person, then I suggest you stop scolding at me and stop calling me a retard and have patience with me. I'm having a hard time to understand this situation and I really miss hand drawn movies. So please stop mean to me and cut some slack.

SWillie! wrote:But, putting aside emotion, no matter how offensive it is, it IS a business. And sometimes shitty things happen in business.

To me, you're not just putting aside emotion, your putting aside workers' rights. I don't care if it is a business--that is not an excuse, so stop using it as one.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

SWillie! wrote:But, putting aside emotion, no matter how offensive it is, it IS a business. And sometimes shitty things happen in business.

To me, you're not just putting aside emotion, your putting aside workers' rights. I don't care if it is a business--that is not an excuse, so stop using it as one.

In a perfect world, I'd absolutely agree. I want to agree. Keep in mind that *I'm* not the one using it as an excuse - Disney is. It's not a good excuse, most of the time it isn't a fair excuse. It most certainly isn't a morally sound excuse. But unfortunately, it is an excuse that is commonly used in businesses everywhere.

I think we all know that is a common business excuse, but I don’t understand why their excuses for their own behavior are something we should sweep under the carpet and ignore. I’m just creeped out because, if a person had done something awful, you’d go on and on about how we have every right to hate them (see the DavidKawena thread), but for some reason corporations are above your moral ground.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I think we all know that is a common business excuse, but I don’t understand why their excuses for their own behavior are something we should sweep under the carpet and ignore. I’m just creeped out because, if a person had done something awful, you’d go on and on about how we have every right to hate them (see the DavidKawena thread), but for some reason corporations are above your moral ground.

That's a fair point, but... creeped out? Come on.

I'm not saying we should sweep under the carpet or ignore anything. I'm saying we should be able to look at the bigger picture and understand that it isn't any one person's fault that things like this happen. So pointing fingers doesn't get us anywhere. That's why I do feel there's a difference between corporations and individuals. Individuals should be accountable for their actions, while in a business setting, there isn't any individual to hold accountable. They are people doing their jobs - and for that matter, doing their job well, unfortunately. (Again, put aside emotion for that last point)

(Also, just to clarify - I don't believe I ever said I *hate* anyone. Just that I got negative vibes.)

"I was just doing my job." Yes, I am creeped out.

Disney's Divinity wrote:"I was just doing my job." Yes, I am creeped out.

Do we have different definitions for creeped out? I don't understand what you mean. The movie Saw creeps me out.

Sotiris wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:Lasseter is the last person who would want to abandon but management has turned off the lights long ago. Disney consumer products is calling the shots at WDAS and PIXAR these days.

Can we please stop pretending that Lasseter has no say in anything and every decision is imposed on him? Yes, he may have to report to Horn and Iger but he holds a very powerful position within the company. If he truly wanted to make another hand-drawn feature, he would have. He could have at least given hand-drawn animation another chance after The Princess and the Frog and not write it off completely right away (and no, I'm not counting Winnie the Pooh).

No I'm not going to stop pretending because there is nothing to pretend. Yes, he holds a powerful creative position. But I refuse to believe he set about this job 7 years ago to start making movies like Planes, Monsters, U, Winnie the Pooh and Finding Dory. His creative freedom is restricted to making sure these films are good. And with that, he's done a great job. Cars 2 was his only misfire in the last 7 years. That's impressive considering he has produced around 13 films since then, not including his responsibilities at DisneyToon and imagineering.

But what gets the green light at either Disney or PIXAR these days has everything to do with merchandise and $$$, nothing more, nothing less. Does anyone really think he has the power to green light a hand drawn film today? There is nothing to suggest that he has that power other than perception of what his role supposedly is. The team that made TPATF are his friends. They have been for years. If you believe he has the power to green light a hand drawn film but chooses not to, that means he's turned into some sort of cartoon villain. Which is too ridiculous for me to believe. All the evidence suggests his hands are tied.

I hate myself for getting dragged into this discussion so I will exit this and the forum for a while. It's the same thing over and over and over.

SWillie! wrote:And you, Sotiris, know better than Tom because he hasn't been at Disney since 2000? Obviously is in very close touch with all of his friends there. He knows better than anyone that has so far spoken on this whole debacle.

I didn't say I know better. I simply stated the impression I got from his journal entry. He didn't say that people working there confided in him or anything to that effect. He spoke in very general and vague terms. Saying that he's "obviously in very close touch" is very presumptuous of you. You can't know how close he is or even if he has talked about the matter with anyone at WDAS. He certainly didn't say that he did.

SWillie! wrote:Was it maybe partly his fault? Probably. Was it entirely his doing? Is he the horrible, evil mastermind that some of you are so damn determined to make him out to be? For god's sake, no!

I never said such a thing. I was only saying - like you are - that he at least shares part of the blame. Some people just want to absolve him completely by saying it's all Disney's doing and that he's a mere puppet following orders. That it's Disney who's forcing him to continue with the DTV spin-offs/sequels, it's Disney who made him release Planes in theaters, it's Disney who made him produce sequels to Pixar films etc etc. They are acting as if he has no power or say in anything. I think you'll agree that's not the case.

SWillie! wrote:Do you just ignore the story of John being the one fighting to keep them around for so long while they sat there and didn't do any *actual* production work? All those guys were probably making 150-200,000 dollars a year to develop ideas, and not actually contribute to an actual product.

I doubt that he fought to keep anyone there. If he did he would have given them something more substantial to work on. I don't mean just features. They could have worked on shorts and TV specials. Why wasn't Prep & Landing, a low-risk project, 2D animated? Why weren't there more 2D shorts?

And 2D animators didn't just develop ideas and pitches. They did work on actual product albeit in a less significant degree. Some of them worked as vis dev artists and characters designers, some produced 2D tests to help the CG animators, some corrected CG animation by drawing over it, like Glen Keane was doing on Tangled, others worked in the Special Projects division of the studio. It may not seem much but they weren't getting paid for doing nothing as a lot of people are saying on various blogs. And it's certainly not their fault they weren't given anything better to work on.

SWillie! wrote:That's why I do feel there's a difference between corporations and individuals. Individuals should be accountable for their actions, while in a business setting, there isn't any individual to hold accountable. They are people doing their jobs - and for that matter, doing their job well, unfortunately.

I find your reasoning highly problematic. Just because a company is run by a group of people instead of a single individual, doesn't not mean they should not be held accountable for their actions. I would even argue that corporations must be more severely penalised than an individual since their impact is far greater.

What one does for a living has direct implications to one's character. You cannot distance yourself from your actions, rationalizing it as merely performing your job. If your job entails doing something illegal or morally reprehensible then you share part of the blame. You become a willing accomplice and you need to be held accountable for that.

PatrickvD wrote:Yes, he holds a powerful creative position.

He also performs an executive role. His position is not just a creative one.

PatrickvD wrote:But I refuse to believe he set about this job 7 years ago to start making movies like Planes, Monsters, U, Winnie the Pooh and Finding Dory.

Why not? Lasseter has repeatedly said that he's not against sequels; only bad ones. Why would you assume that if it's a sequel, then it must be Disney's doing?

PatrickvD wrote:All the evidence suggests his hands are tied.

There is no evidence to support either argument, really. The truth is none of us know the extent of his power and influence within the company. We can only speculate.

PatrickvD wrote:If you believe he has the power to green light a hand drawn film but chooses not to, that means he's turned into some sort of cartoon villain. Which is too ridiculous for me to believe.

I do believe that he could have greenlit another hand-drawn film especially if the film was to be produced with a reduced budget. And yet I don't think he's a "cartoon villain" or villain at all for that matter. He simply did what he deemed best for the studio's profitability and for his career. And to be fair, any other executive would probably have done the same.

TsWade2 wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:All the raging and butthurt generated in this thread to the point of retardation, is giving me a delicious boner. Stay Classy UD.

Look, if you want me to be a better person, then I suggest you stop scolding at me and stop calling me a retard and have patience with me. I'm having a hard time to understand this situation and I really miss hand drawn movies. So please stop mean to me and cut some slack.

Then stop acting like a 5-year-old, and be mature. It's not to be rude to you, we just want you to be mature. We know that hand-drawn is dead, but please, if everything goes wrong, don't rage, okay?

No. No! If hand-drawn WERE dead, they'd have let go of ALL their 2D animators, called off that Internship that's taking place this Summer and they certainly wouldn't have even made TPatF, Pooh or Paperman in the first place.

Do you all just have your heads up your asses or something?!

You guys act like 2-D animation(Disney that is) is your life support to keep you alive, and if it is taken away, you'd die.

And you guys are acting like hand-drawn is done just because Iger said they had no hand-drawn films in the pipeline right now (which for some reason translates to you as "We're done with 2D forever." ) and the company laid off some- some- of their hand-drawn animators when they still have some left.

Hell, if it were done for good, we'd have heard about it by now. Do they have any 2D films in the works right now? No. Are ALL of their 2D animators (new and old) gone from the company? No! If 2D were dead, would Disney have even bothered making Princess and the Frog, Winnie the Pooh OR Paperman?! Fuck no!

What strikes me as odd about the firings of Nik Ranieri, Ruben Aquino and Brian Ferguson is that they know how to computer animate and were major supervising animators on Meet the Robinsons, Bolt and Chicken Little. What's the incentive to let those three go? On the other hand, Mark Henn is still at the studio and like them, he has done both CG and hand-drawn animation.

Super Aurora wrote:You guys act like 2-D animation(Disney that is) is your life support to keep you alive, and if it is taken away, you'd die.

Thank you! Exactly my point.

estefan wrote:What strikes me as odd about the firings of Nik Ranieri, Ruben Aquino and Brian Ferguson is that they know how to computer animate and were major supervising animators on Meet the Robinsons, Bolt and Chicken Little. What's the incentive to let those three go? On the other hand, Mark Henn is still at the studio and like them, he has done both CG and hand-drawn animation.

The incentive is money. These guys were making more money than the younger artists - in some cases probably multiple times more. So, the money crunchers would rather hire younger people that can do the same thing (as far as they are concerned) for less money. This decision was based solely on money, not on medium.