Pixar execs "yank" Gnomeo and Juliet!

[Karushifa]

He apologized because he seriously thought he had made a disaster. He didn't like the movie himself.

I don't recall hearing about Walt publicly apologizing when Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty made lackluster runs in the box office (although after the latter I think he implored his crew to streamline the feature animation process so that it wouldn't take over 5 years for one to get made). Even if audiences found those movies to be a bit bland, they were still good achievements for Disney.

As for Fantasia...while it may seem a classic now (and rightfully so), we have to remember just how tumultuous its initial release was. Walt took a lot of gambles with experimentation in both new methods of animation and in the movie-going process. Some were successes (e.g. stereophonic sound), while others were failures (Smell-o-Vision). It also bothered him that not enough modern music (in the '30s) was used...I think the most contemporary piece was the Rite of Spring, which was over 20 years old in 1940. In addition, music purists (including Leopold Stokowski and, eventually, Igor Stravinsky) waged complaints about how certain pieces were being paired with what they felt were inappropriate animated themes. Finally, the movie was just too damn long, especially for a compilation, and Deems Taylor's little interludes still sound a bit like a college lecture on music theory.

It's no wonder that Disney's next animated feature, Dumbo, was fairly slim on both ambitious animation and running time.

[Prince Eric]

He apologized because he seriously thought he had made a disaster. He didn't like the movie himself.

I don't recall hearing about Walt publicly apologizing when Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty made lackluster runs in the box office (although after the latter I think he implored his crew to streamline the feature animation process so that it wouldn't take over 5 years for one to get made). Even if audiences found those movies to be a bit bland, they were still good achievements for Disney.

That's because he didn't.

Walt did not apologize because of Fantasia being a box-office bomb. He seriously thought he had creative an artistic failure, which history would later prove wrong.

[Karushifa]

That's because he didn't.

Walt did not apologize because of Fantasia being a box-office bomb. He seriously thought he had creative an artistic failure, which history would later prove wrong.

Ummm...I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was actually reinforcing your point, and trying to add that I don't think Walt ever apologized if a film was merely a financial failure, because as long as he made what he thought was a quality film, he was happy. And as I said, if you had read the rest of my post, there was backlash towards Fantasia that perhaps led Walt to doubt how well the film was made and whether his experimentation was justified.

[Prince Eric]

Ummm...I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was actually reinforcing your point, and trying to add that I don't think Walt ever apologized if a film was merely a financial failure, because as long as he made what he thought was a quality film, he was happy. And as I said, if you had read the rest of my post, there was backlash towards Fantasia that perhaps led Walt to doubt how well the film was made and whether his experimentation was justified.

Actually, I wasn't disagreeing with you either. Walt knew from the time of release that he didn't like what he saw. When he was accepting his honorary Oscar, he really wanted to just give it back.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

He apologized because he seriously thought he had made a disaster. He didn't like the movie himself.

People can have personal opinions, but that doesn't make their beloved traditionally animated Disney movies good ones.

Well, define a disaster?

Again, as you said, the reason Pixar films were successes are because:

1. Audience's reaction
2. Critic's reaction
3. Box office scores

Fantasia failed on all three categories, and Walt probably thought it had problems near the end and worried about it, and when if finally bombed, he then was convinced there was something wrong with it.

So no, I wasn't really wrong on anything there, again.

I didn't want to turn this into a "newer Disney films debate". That wasn't my point when I started this thread. BUT, I feel Disney should still be given a chance, after all, artists aren't getting laid off as you said, and because you can't judge their ability on just "Chicken Little".

P.S. Dinosaur was not made by WDFA, so it doesn't count.

[Karushifa]

P.S. Dinosaur was not made by WDFA, so it doesn't count.

It was made in-house at Disney Studios, though, thus distinguishing it from outsourced pictures like "Valiant" and "The Wild".

Even if Disney used an animation studio that was completely separate from main WDFA, Dinosaur was still entirely Disney's baby. So it counts at least in my book.

[Prince Eric]

P.S. Dinosaur was not made by WDFA, so it doesn't count.

It was made in-house at Disney Studios, though, thus distinguishing it from outsourced pictures like "Valiant" and "The Wild".

Even if Disney used an animation studio that was completely separate from main WDFA, Dinosaur was still entirely Disney's baby. So it counts at least in my book.

Exactly, Dinosaur should count for something! (It's actually a bright spot in the post-90's musical Disney canon in my opinion.)

Timon/Pumba fan, you're wrong so much that I'll go ahead and just say you're right.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Timon/Pumba fan, you're wrong so much that I'll go ahead and just say you're right.

I hope you're just confusing "wrong" with different opinions or different point of views!

I'm never wrong(except for a very few times on Wednesdays and nights I get less than 7 hours of sleep).

[2099net]

P.S. Dinosaur was not made by WDFA, so it doesn't count.

It was made in-house at Disney Studios, though, thus distinguishing it from outsourced pictures like "Valiant" and "The Wild".

Even if Disney used an animation studio that was completely separate from main WDFA, Dinosaur was still entirely Disney's baby. So it counts at least in my book.

I don't know about The Wild, but Valiant isn't exactly "outsourced". You make it sound like an overseas call centre or something.

It's just a film that happened to be made and selected to be distributed by Disney in the US. They had no financial or creative control, and if you view a non-US print, Disney or Disney employees aren't mentioned anywhere in the credits.

Studios licence complete, finished and printed films for distribution all the time. Until fairly recently, its how 90%+ of Disney's Miramax films were selected and released. Miramax started not as a film production company, but a film distribution company. It's only within the past three years of so that they switched from the bulk of their releases being independently filmed movies to the bulk of their movies being funded and produced by Miramax.

[Karushifa]

I don't know about The Wild, but Valiant isn't exactly "outsourced". You make it sound like an overseas call centre or something.

It's just a film that happened to be made and selected to be distributed by Disney in the US. They had no financial or creative control, and if you view a non-US print, Disney or Disney employees aren't mentioned anywhere in the credits.

Studios licence complete, finished and printed films for distribution all the time. Until fairly recently, its how 90%+ of Disney's Miramax films were selected and released. Miramax started not as a film production company, but a film distribution company. It's only within the past three years of so that they switched from the bulk of their releases being independently filmed movies to the bulk of their movies being funded and produced by Miramax.

Alright, alright, so perhaps the word "outsourced" is not the right one to use. Still, it's out of frustration that many Disney fans use this term because thus far, the animated films that Disney has distributed but not made are not exactly encouraging to those who want to see a Disney renaissance.

So Valiant et al. are akin to Ice Age, which is distributed by Fox, but made by Blue Sky Studios. The point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between films that Disney distributes but does not make and Dinosaur, which Disney DID make. It feels like "outsourcing" because Disney is fully capable of animating their own films and yet still releases other people's work. Now this approach is not always bad, because thanks to Disney, North American audiences have access to Studio Ghibli's works, but when Disney slaps its banner on not-so-good films apparently for the purpose of keeping up with Dreamworks in the CGI race, eyebrows are inevitably raised. It just seems sort of strange for a mega-company whose bread-and-butter is memorable, quality animation.

[2099net]

So Valiant et al. are akin to Ice Age, which is distributed by Fox, but made by Blue Sky Studios.

No, not exactly. Because Fox owns Blue Sky 100%, just like Dreamworks Animation (not to be confused with Dreamworks SKG) owns PDI now.

It's not even like Aardman making Wallace and Gromit or Flushed Away for Dreamworks Animation, because Dreamworks Animation had some creative control and financial input into the Dreamworks Animation distributed Aardman films.

I would say it would be like Fox distributing the upcoming Simpsons movie, but I'm not quite sure about that - ever notice how although it's made my Gracie Films, all Simpsons merchandise is copyright to 20th Century Fox?

I guess the best examples are the Bluth films, which were distributed by various studios until Fox bought out the studio for itself.

[Prince Eric]

So Valiant et al. are akin to Ice Age, which is distributed by Fox, but made by Blue Sky Studios.

No, not exactly. Because Fox owns Blue Sky 100%, just like Dreamworks Animation (not to be confused with Dreamworks SKG) owns PDI now.

It's not even like Aardman making Wallace and Gromit or Flushed Away for Dreamworks Animation, because Dreamworks Animation had some creative control and financial input into the Dreamworks Animation distributed Aardman films.

I would say it would be like Fox distributing the upcoming Simpsons movie, but I'm not quite sure about that - ever notice how although it's made my Gracie Films, all Simpsons merchandise is copyright to 20th Century Fox?

I guess the best examples are the Bluth films, which were distributed by various studios until Fox bought out the studio for itself.

I don't think he really cares about any of that and it doesn't really contradict his arguement. Dinosaur was pretty much made by Disney, whereas the films he has mentioned are not.

[Karushifa]

I don't think he really cares about any of that and it doesn't really contradict his arguement. Dinosaur was pretty much made by Disney, whereas the films he has mentioned are not.

As long as we're correcting one another, "he's" a she, by the way. It's sort of hard to make that kind of thing known from the get-go but I thought this was as good a time as any to maybe mention it.

No biggie, though. I used a Lady Eboshi screen name AND avatar once and people STILL thought I was a guy. So whaddyagonnado

Anyways, yeah, Dinosaur is more Disney than Vailant and The Wild. And I have wondered what they did with all that equipment they invested in just to make the movie...at least we still have a cool ride inspired by it.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I don't think he really cares about any of that and it doesn't really contradict his arguement. Dinosaur was pretty much made by Disney, whereas the films he has mentioned are not.

Actually, Karushifa asked about the Blue Sky/Fox relationship.

Also, why are we even bringing Dinosaur into this? We're talking about animated classics(or also known as animated films made at WDFA). Dinosaur WASN'T made at WDFA, so it doesn't count.

I really do believe if Brother Bear was in CG animation, it would've doubled it's domestic gross. Same with Treasure Planet.

So yes, Prince Eric, I still believe the growth of CG films helped fail those movies!

Anyway, the point is, the same point I tried to make 3 pages ago, GIVE DISNEY A CHANCE!

[Karushifa]

I don't think he really cares about any of that and it doesn't really contradict his arguement. Dinosaur was pretty much made by Disney, whereas the films he has mentioned are not.

Actually, Karushifa asked about the Blue Sky/Fox relationship.

Also, why are we even bringing Dinosaur into this? We're talking about animated classics(or also known as animated films made at WDFA). Dinosaur WASN'T made at WDFA, so it doesn't count.

I really do believe if Brother Bear was in CG animation, it would've doubled it's domestic gross. Same with Treasure Planet.

So yes, Prince Eric, I still believe the growth of CG films helped fail those movies!

Anyway, the point is, the same point I tried to make 3 pages ago, GIVE DISNEY A CHANCE!

Sigh...okay, folks. I know full well that Dinosaur was NOT made by WDFA, HOWEVER the point I was trying to make by bringing it up was that I do think that in terms of ALL CGI film attempts made by Disney (as opposed to having some other studio make them...including Pixar), Chicken Little appears to be an improvement over Dinosaur, definitely in plot (since Dinosaur felt to me at least like a "remake" of The Land Before Time) and perhaps even in style, if you liked the more cartoony style of Chicken Little. T/PF, this means that I am AGREEING with you that Chicken Little needs to be put in a better perspective than it was. I still don't think it's quite up to par with the types of films that Disney is capable of making, but I still think it's a step in the right direction.

I'm sorry that some of you have gotten hung up on semantics over who exactly made what, but from where I see it, two films MADE by the same company are fair game for comparison, since it was the same set of marketing and administration folks who greenlighted the films. And I'm trying to say that the one that people keep defending on this board - Chicken Little - DOES deserve some compliments! I mean, I could be wrong, but isn't that what a lot of other people have been trying to say too?

[quiden]

I, for one, am very excited about the prospects of what a Pixar influence will do for Disney. I recently heard a recording where Milt Kahl said that one of the problems with Disney (this was back in the 70s) was that "Walt had to go and die." Meaning that all of his heart and inspiration was gone from the directing of their features. Milt was lamenting the quality of the movie "The Rescuers" that he was currently working on.

If there's one thing that can be said about Pixar, it's that they have Heart! They believe in telling moving stories and that seems to be the motivation behind the movies they produce.

I agree with others who have said that they like the recent Disney movies too, though. I enjoyed and was moved by Brother Bear, for example. But one problem that I saw with that was that I thought the inspiration for the movie itself was for them to do something that featured bear mountain imagery so they could connect it to the bear mountain at California adventure park.

I feel that way about Pirates of the Carribean and The Haunted Mansion. It's like there was a void in their worlds because they had two rides that weren't actually based on some feature they had done.

So, in my opinion, the stories became forced as vehicles to promote properties that they already had instead of developing new and unique stories.

again, I'm really looking forward to see the next project from Disney that has direct influence from Pixar execs.

[Prince Eric]

Anyway, the point is, the same point I tried to make 3 pages ago, GIVE DISNEY A CHANCE!

And the question I have asked since page 3 is this: Why after six years of mediocrity should we?

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

And the question I have asked since page 3 is this: Why after six years of mediocrity should we?

1. Becuase some people would argue that all of their films HAVEN'T been mediocre.

2. Because you can't compare the upcoming films by most of what they did in the past.

3. Do you really think Pixar is going to make "perfect"(though I would aruge they aren't THAT amazing) films as they have done in the past? Especially since Pixar has ALOT on their hands now.

[Prince Eric]

And the question I have asked since page 3 is this: Why after six years of mediocrity should we?

1. Becuase some people would argue that all of their films HAVEN'T been mediocre.

2. Because you can't compare the upcoming films by most of what they did in the past.

3. Do you really think Pixar is going to make "perfect"(though I would aruge they aren't THAT amazing) films as they have done in the past? Especially since Pixar has ALOT on their hands now.

1.) Then the taste of such people is questionable.

2.) The mere notion of that is absurd - track records are perfectly reasonable tools for predicting future quality.

3.) Like I said, they have yet to have a "failure" and when they do, it will take about six or seven in a row (again, like Disney) for me to question them.

[Karushifa]

1.) Then the taste of such people is questionable.

2.) The mere notion of that is absurd - track records are perfectly reasonable tools for predicting future quality.

3.) Like I said, they have yet to have a "failure" and when they do, it will take about six or seven in a row (again, like Disney) for me to question them.

1) It's perfectly alright for people to feel differently about the same films, but that doesn't preclude putting such films in the proper perspective. I mean, I really like The Rescuers, for example, but even I am willing to admit that it's not exactly one of Disney's best films. It's a decent film from a turbulent period of Disney animation, one that required a major management shakeup (Ron Miller's ousting) and increased involvement of fresh animation talent to overcome. It may be that we have the same sort of situation now.

2) I agree that you most certainly should be able to predict the quality of future films based on past ones. How else are you supposed to make management decisions? This is something that every business should do, and I don't see what's so strange about it. At best, Disney's track record in the past few years has been somewhat inconsistent - note I didn't outright say "bad". I do like some of the films post-Lion King...Mulan, Fantasia 2000, The Emperor's New Groove, and Lilo & Stitch especially. But in the past five years, only the latter has been one that I truly admire. I wouldn't say that Brother Bear or Treasure Planet are terrible, but I feel like I SHOULD care more about them, I just don't.

3) It's not so much Pixar that I put my trust in as some of the individuals associated with Pixar, in particular Brad Bird and John Lasseter. At least Bird made an excellent film (The Iron Giant) well before he got involved with Pixar, so you can't really characterize him as just another Pixar drone. I'm not sure how much he would be involved with Disney iin the future, but If he were to propose another film for Disney at some point then I would watch with much interest, not because of some association with a red hot studio, but because I know he is capable of doing great things.

Same thing with John Lasseter. This guy just LOVES animation. I mean, it's his whole life, practically, and that can only be a good thing. I'm not saying non one else cares on the level that he does, but I hesitate to think that he would advocate some concept dumping in WDFA simply for the purpose of flexing Pixar's muscles. I might expect something like that from the likes of Eisner, but then again, that's why Disney said sayonara to that guy.

(P.S.: My dream Disney movie crew? John Lasseter presents a Brad Bird film with principal animation by Paul and Gaetan Brizzi...yeah, remember those guys? )