Lasseter Brings back the animated short to Disney?

[ichabod]

Murmurings are afoot around the internet Ed Catmull and John Lasseter are attempting to bring back the theatrical animated short to Disney.

Rumours suggest that 2 shorts will go into production, one to debut before "Meet the Robinsons" and the other to debut before "Pirates of the Caribbean: World's End"

Will they be traditionally animated or CGI? Or will they feature Mickey and the Gang? Who knows!?

Well call me cynical, but it seems odd to me that these shorts will go into production for theatrical exhibition when "The Little Match Girl" after god knows how much time and work is being shoved on a DVD as a bonus feature.

Anyway shorts are being pitched: <a href="http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... >Animation Guild Blog</a>

[2099net]

This is the only way I can see Disney ever doing full-length 2D features again. Sadly, they need to build up the studio, just as Walt did before Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Doing shorts is an ideal was to train new people up, or even get older, established hands back "in the groove". Besides, its not the animators Disney has to worry about, but the various talented people who provide support for the animators.

However, if CAPS really has been junked, I wonder how the finished shorts will be filmed and what they will look like. Could Pixar be developing a CAPS2? (They developed the first)

[Wonderlicious]

I heard that Ron Clements and John Musker were working on a traditionally animated animated short, and that Andreas Deja was going to direct a short in some of the Animated News headlines over the past year. There's some more information...

[AwallaceUNC]

This is really encouraging if it's true. Anytime I've been in a theater with an animated short before it, audiences have responded well. We already sit through 10 minutes of commercials before ever getting to trailers... why not something as entertaining as an animated short? I think people are as ready for the return as ever and kids in particular will like it. (On the other hand, the lengthy commercials could make them impatient for a short). This is just the kind of thing I've expected from Lasseter joining up with Disney and I hope it's followed through (and that, as suggested by Netty, they use this to begin revitalizing traditional animation).

-Aaron

[Escapay]

I don't know. The idea of bringing back the theatrical short is okay, but like Aaron said, some theatergoers are already impatient after the commercials. I doubt an extra short (no matter how entertaining) along with trailers will placate them until the movie actually starts.

I mean, as much as other people loved "Boundin' " on The Incredibles, I found it incredibly boring and wished they'd just go straight to the movie.

Escapay

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Like Netty, I still don't believe Full-Length 2D animated films can ever return in the next several years. However, it'll be cool to see Disney do some 2D animated shorts. Though, at first, I still think most of the shorts will be in CG.

It'll be interesting if they'll star the Fab 3(Mickey, Donald and Goofy) or be seperate stories like the Pixar shorts, or Disney Rarities.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I'd be surprised to see Disney start "history" all over again - after all, the "American theatrical animated short" was a phenomenon of past decades, on its way out 50 years ago and pretty much gone 40 years ago - not just at Disney, but all over the studios.

But it could be a pleasant surprise.

[dvdjunkie]

Shorts before the main feature aren't totally dead. Here in Wichita they showed a Warner Bros. Road Runner/Coyote cartoon before the movie "Poseidon" and then again before the showing of "X Men The Last Stand". Just wondering if Warner Bros. is pushing the shorts to see what the reaction of the public is in theaters. Could be Lassiter is seeing this and wants Disney to get back into the swing of things with a short schedule.

I find that interesting shorts like the WB cartoons, and, especially "Boundin' ", "Geri's Game" and the like are a bonus. Of course, it goes back to that age thing when I remember going to the movies you got to see a couple of cartoons, a serial chapter, and sometimes a 3 Stooges two-reeler before the main feature, and it all cost less than a buck.

I think if the theater people want you back into the theaters, people like Disney and Warner Bros. are going to make that effort to bring back the shorts before the main feature as an enticement for you spend that extra buck or two for a first-run movie.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

That is a good point, I guess - in a time when there seems to be a problem getting people into the theaters.

For those of us who aren't old enough to remember this sort of thing, several of Warner's DVDs of classic movies include a reconstructed "Warner Night at the Movies" program - presented by our friend Leonard Maltin. Recommended!

[Kram Nebuer]

Shorts before the main feature aren't totally dead. Here in Wichita they showed a Warner Bros. Road Runner/Coyote cartoon before the movie "Poseidon" and then again before the showing of "X Men The Last Stand". Just wondering if Warner Bros. is pushing the shorts to see what the reaction of the public is in theaters. Could be Lassiter is seeing this and wants Disney to get back into the swing of things with a short schedule.

You're lucky based on what you've said before about your awesome theaters in your area. There's an old fashioned theater in a small town right next to our township and it still shows old shorts before movies. I think there are a few other ones, but the main theaters don't do this at all.

Anyhow, I'd love to see a Disney short at the theaters! I really wanted to see A Kid in King Arthur's Court back then just to see "Runaway Brain." I think while some people will want to get on with the movie, others may see the movie just for the short! This happened with Disney's Mickey Mouse shorts way back then.

I think if the theater people want you back into the theaters, people like Disney and Warner Bros. are going to make that effort to bring back the shorts before the main feature as an enticement for you spend that extra buck or two for a first-run movie.

Do you mean that movie ticket prices will be raised because of the short? That sounds logical, but YIKES I don't know if my wallet can take it!

[Loomis]

Not sure if this has been posted before or not:

Lasseter has last laugh at Disney's expense

Given his reverence for the past, can it be long before Lasseter restores the company's defunct 2-D animation division?

"First of all, 2-D animation became the scapegoat for bad storytelling at a number of studios, Disney included. It's wrong to conclude that people don't want to watch it anymore. That's like saying live-action movies should be ended after a couple of duds at the box office," he said. "When has technology ever directly equated to box office? It's ridiculous. People want to watch good movies, period."

So his answer to the possibility of classic 2-D at Disney is a qualified yes.

"We don't have any firm plans. But if there's one studio that should be making 2-D, it's Disney," he said.

[MovieMatt]

This is just my opinion, but I personally think that it is only a matter of time until Disney brings back a few 2D shorts and a few full-length major 2D pictures. There is no denying both Disney's roots and Lasseter's love for animation in general. Just look at his admiration for Miyazaki. I think that CGI animation is where the majority of animated films will be from now on, however I do think that 2D animation can be very successful given the right animators and story.

I think it'd be terrific to see some 2D animated shorts appear again. A whole generation has gone by and never seen animated shorts in the theater. I see no problem with adding 2D shorts, especially ones with Mickey or Donald. There's no reason if done with time and care, they couldn't be extremely entertaining and funny and hopefully reenergize 2D animation in America.

[Jules]

What I don't understand is that Lasseter seems to be saying that Disney was a BAD company from the eighties onwards.

But wasn't it the studio which gave us 'The Little Mermaid', 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'The Lion King? Three movies, which frankly, Pixar has never come close to topping...nor any other studio for that matter.

Can't Lasseter appreciate that? He paints Disney as a bunch of morons who think of nothing but money.

[Elladorine]

I hate to say it but Disney's gone downhill in recent years, but on the bright side Lasseter is just the person that can turn things around.

As for the short subjects, commercials need to be pulled out of theaters entirely. They don't belong with the previews, end of discussion. But I don't see it happening unless people start complaining enough.

I believe that cartoon shorts are generally well accepted and appreciated in the theaters these days. Kids are the likely targets to get bored, but if the shorts subject is done well, there's no time for them to get bored now, is there?

[Lars Vermundsberget]

What I don't understand is that Lasseter seems to be saying that Disney was a BAD company from the eighties onwards.

But wasn't it the studio which gave us 'The Little Mermaid', 'Beauty and the Beast' and 'The Lion King? Three movies, which frankly, Pixar has never come close to topping...nor any other studio for that matter.

Can't Lasseter appreciate that? He paints Disney as a bunch of morons who think of nothing but money.

The titles you mention here, first and foremost, were the good ones from that era - and that should be appreciated. But I think it could be argued that most of what came after is part of a downward trend.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

The titles you mention here, first and foremost, were the good ones from that era - and that should be appreciated. But I think it could be argued that most of what came after is part of a downward trend.

So you consider Monsters Inc, A Bug's Life and The Incredibles to be better than Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, Hercules, Tarzan and Notre Dame?

[Jules]

So you consider Monsters Inc, A Bug's Life and The Incredibles to be better than Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, Hercules, Tarzan and Notre Dame?

No I don't.

This is what I don't understand. Why on earth are "Pocahontas", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", "Hercules", "Mulan", "Tarzan" and whatever came after considered even in some cases bad movies? "Pocahontas" and "Hunchback" in particular?

They may not be as prestigious as their predecessors, but what on earth!? They're not only good, they're still excellent!

Why does "Hunchback" have such a bad reputation? I simply love the movie! Roger Ebert gave "Hunchback" 4 STARS, and said it was the best Disney film since "Beauty and the Beast", even better than "The Lion King"!

I JUST DON'T GET IT! Just because the bar lowered by maybe a microscopic notch doesn't mean the movies are bad.

I'm not anti-Pixar but I do take on Timon/Pumbaa fan's side. I prefer the Disney Classics than the Pixar films. I don't know why. I just find them warmer, funnier, and on top of all, more Disneyish.

These are Roger Ebert's ratings for the following films:

The Little Mermaid: ****

Beauty and the Beast: ****

Aladdin: ***

The Lion King: ***1/2

Pocahontas: ***

The Hunchback of Notre Dame: ****

Hercules: ***1/2

Mulan: ***1/2

Tarzan: ****

Fantasia 2000: ***

Emperor's New Groove: ***

Atlantis: The Lost Empire: ***1/2

Lilo and Stitch: ***1/2

Treasure Planet: **1/2 (I strongly disagree but what can I say?)

Brother Bear: ***

Home on the Range: **1/2

Chicken Little: **1/2

As you can see, all Disney's movies after "Lion King", with the exception of "Treasure Planet", "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little", earned more than respectable ratings! In most cases they had equal or even better ratings.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

The titles you mention here, first and foremost, were the good ones from that era - and that should be appreciated. But I think it could be argued that most of what came after is part of a downward trend.

So you consider Monsters Inc, A Bug's Life and The Incredibles to be better than Aladdin, Pocahontas, Mulan, Hercules, Tarzan and Notre Dame?

Those are your words, not mine. I don't think I've seen Monsters and Bug's Life. I think The Incredibles was quite good, but difficult to compare to Disney's "traditionally" animated features.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

Those are your words, not mine. I don't think I've seen Monsters and Bug's Life. I think The Incredibles was quite good, but difficult to compare to Disney's "traditionally" animated features.

Of course they are my words! I made the question...duh!!!
Let me change the question, then.
Do you believe that Aladdin,Pocahontas,Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan are bad movies???

P.S.I don't put words in your mouth, I'M JUST ASKING, for heaven's sake!!!!!!

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Those are your words, not mine. I don't think I've seen Monsters and Bug's Life. I think The Incredibles was quite good, but difficult to compare to Disney's "traditionally" animated features.

Of course they are my words! I made the question...duh!!!
Let me change the question, then.
Do you believe that Aladdin,Pocahontas,Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan and Tarzan are bad movies???

P.S.I don't put words in your mouth, I'M JUST ASKING, for heaven's sake!!!!!!

Careful with that temper, please - no point in duh'ing and shouting.

But, seriously, no, I don't consider those titles bad movies. Even though I guess I didn't mention Aladdin specifically, I don't include that particular one in the "downward trend", either, since it came out too early for that... Most of the other ones, seen one by one, are also good, IMO. However, I usually don't speak in terms of "entirely good" or "entirely bad" - but rather of the harder-to-detect shades of grey (and I may also be more or less wrong).

As for the so called "downward trend" I seem to detect: When does a "downward trend" start? Answer: Immediately after the top. This means that Pocahontas and Hunchback can still be very good, which I think they both are in their special way, and at the same time part of a "downward trend". If there'd only been "greatness" after those two, I would not have seen any reason to put the blame of the further somewhat negative development on them.

Fantasia 2000, although in itself quite far from flawless, was IMO an exception because of the "courage" it showed - the willingness to try to do something unusual, something Walt could have done, the "attempt at art". I appeciate the "vision" and the "concept" of Fantasia (2000). Apart from this, there were aspects of the other animated features from this period that pointed towards the mediocrity that would be achieved by 2004.

But, of course, there are good things to say about all of Disney's animated features - there were good people working on them, and it shows.