posted
Is anyone reading Curtis this week? Instead of the usual jokes about rap music, public smoking, and sibling strife, the strip is an incredibly obese, ugly, strangely fey ex-Disney animator go on an extended rant about how Pixar destroyed Disney animation and makes utter crap.
Not only is this extremely untrue (It was the suits who fired the 2D animators, it happened before the Pixar merger), but it's also portraying 2D animators in an incredibly unflattering light. So they're psychotic, ranting gorillas, eh?
What's up with Curtis? Were they unable to get a sweet motion picture deal like Over the Hedge? Did John Lasseter spit in Ray Billingsley's milk? It's puzzling.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't find today's, and I'm not a regular Curtis reader, but it could be possible that the jokes are satirical and not a rant...
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it...none of them have any punchlines. It's just a big, fat, ugly guy with a ponytail harassing a random kid. Unless that's supposed to be the joke?
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not only is this extremely untrue (It was the suits who fired the 2D animators, it happened before the Pixar merger)
The comic says the firing happened "when Disney teamed up with Pixar." That happened years before the merger. Nor does it say who fired him ("they" could mean Disney or Pixar, and I read it most naturally as meaning "Disney"), so the fact that it was the suits doesn't make what he said untrue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason Disney ended up canning their entire 2D animation thing was essentially because it was failing utterly.
And we're talking a straight-up total failure. Failure at the top. Failure at the middle. Failure at the bottom. Failure in the marketing departments. Failure in budgeting. Failure in the creative process. faaaail. Disney's executives set the whole thing in motion by capitulating to a "let's determine our next disney animated classic by conceiving and writing it by committee!" concept, and the animation teams hastened the inevitable result of this process by getting too stylized (Tarzan, Hercules, Emperor's New Groove).
Disney was churning out several 'meh' projects at once while Pixar stuck to a good creative process and focused on making one really good thing at a time, pretty much.
When the end of disney traditional animation was heralded by Treasure Planet losing a little over a hundred million dollars, it's a little lame to go out and claim that Pixar destroyed them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and yet, maybe a bit silly to conclude that 2d animation just ain't where it's at because look how awesome digital is! rather than diagnosing the actual reasons for the failure of 2d at disney and fixing them, instead of ditching the entire concept.
Smart and funny writing have as much to do with Pixar's success as their technology does.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The comic says the firing happened "when Disney teamed up with Pixar." That happened years before the merger. Nor does it say who fired him ("they" could mean Disney or Pixar, and I read it most naturally as meaning "Disney"), so the fact that it was the suits doesn't make what he said untrue.
The first film of the Disney/Pixar deal came out in 1995. Disney didn't make the decision to fire its 2D animators until 2002-2003, some years later. From 1996-2002 The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Fantasia 2000, The Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Lilo & Stitch, and Treasure Planet were released, all 2D. It was partially the 2D Treasure Planet being such a trememdous flop (box office wise, anyway) that lead to the decision to burn off the remaining 2D films already in production then cease doing them.
John Lasseter has since greenlit The Princess and the Frog, Disney's first 2D animated feature since the all-but-forgotten Home on the Range.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: I don't see the failures..
They didn't make back the money used to create and promote them.
Box office success doesn't mean a good movie, but it does mean a movie that made the studio a profit.
It's interesting to note that some of Disney's most profitable 2D hits were those the studio itself saw as mere potboilers, intended to make some quick money off the clueless Disney fans while they prepped their premium films. Contrast how The Lion King (Which Eisner and Katzenberg saw as a mere "Talking Stuffed Animal" flick) did compared to Pocahontas (Which they thought was Oscar-bait, but didn't do nearly so well.)
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: and yet, maybe a bit silly to conclude that 2d animation just ain't where it's at because look how awesome digital is! rather than diagnosing the actual reasons for the failure of 2d at disney and fixing them, instead of ditching the entire concept.
Smart and funny writing have as much to do with Pixar's success as their technology does.
2D animation could be just as fantastic as Pixar's stuff is. It's true. I would not claim otherwise.
Disney can't make that happen, though. I would have liked it myself if they were at the time even remotely capable (the top brass, especially) of self-diagnosis and self-correction.
Pixar's now a disney gig, but with a caveat: The Disney internal structure is disallowed from interfering with the Pixar creative structure and development system. They are men with checkbooks, held at arm's length.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: I don't see the failures..
FAILURE TYPE #1: Disney writers with cred (Gary Trousdale, etc) start with a workable concept, and then the Disney executives and creative direction teams mince the project down to pablum by trying to 'broaden its appeal.'
EXAMPLE: Atlantis: The Lost Empire became profoundly micromanaged and meddled with in order to assure wider profitability. The end result is a movie that had far too much crammed into it, including a contrived 'kids love 'em!' character. End result? Owen Glieberman nails it by stating that the movie had "formulaic character" and was "the essence of craft without dream." Astute observers can note the parts and sequences where the original concept of the movie was essentially untouched, before the movie hurries along at a too-fast pace to a too-contrived action sequence quota.
FAILURE TYPE #2: The right hand doesn't know what the marketing division is doing.
EXAMPLE: Treasure Planet. This was not a bad movie. It was okay stuff. And yet, despite spending over a hundred and forty million dollars on this creative venture, Disney utterly fails to properly market the film. It threw the movie into theaters after months of failing to get anything workable out of its advertising offices. The end result was a Bay of Pigs style business disaster where Treasure Planet charges to the box office, doomed without backup. I saw this on opening day because a friend took me to see it. I did not know it was opening day. Sure didn't look like it with all of six people in that theater. I did not know what this movie was. I was completely unaware of its existence. Treasure Planet also exhibited levels of failure type #1 that kept it from being a much better movie: "The prologue of the film originally featured an adult Jim Hawkins narrating the story of Captain Flint in first person,[4][10] but it was considered by the crew to be too "dark" and lacked character involvement.[4] The crew also intended for the film to include a sequence showing Jim working on his solar surfer and interacting with an alien child, which was intended to show Jim's more sensitive side and as a homage to The Catcher in the Rye.[11] Because of the intention to begin the film with a sequence with Jim solar surfing, the sequence had to be cut."
FAILURE TYPE #3: Generic potpourri fail. Throwing out dumb ideas. Making movies without any real inspiration. Fail.
posted
Yeah. The Treasure Planet teaser focused almost exclusively on Jim's X-TREME SPORTZ scene, leaving no real hint who he was or what the film was about.
And don't get me started on what Disney's misguided attempts to exploit Stitch's unexpected popularity have lead to.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A few years ago, the Disney animation studio had a few bombs, and then Pixar was thinking about leaving, after Cars.
Steve Jobs was wined and dined, Pixar stayed, and part of the deal was that John Lasseter (director of Toy Story, among other things) would be the creative director at Disney. The creative director, over everything.
There was, at that time, a craptastic "princess" project in the works where the various princesses in the Disney vault would get straight to video movies in order to move merchandise. Tinker Bell was up first.
John Lasseter looked at the script, the plans, and the animation and declared that it all stank, written by committee with no soul and no story. He ordered revisions.
The team, unbelievably, continued with their previous plan while reporting that the revisions were being made. Lasseter found out and fired everyone. Ending the project, for then, and closing the 2D animation studio at Disney.
After several years of work, the project has been revived under Lasseter, hopefully this time with a little more soul and little less cynical money-grabbing.
Lots of drama, very exciting, several people got caught in the crossfire, but no one is guaranteed a job for life and it's hard to argue with someone who only wanted to make the movies better and has a proven track record for doing it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Yeah. The Treasure Planet teaser focused almost exclusively on Jim's X-TREME SPORTZ scene, leaving no real hint who he was or what the film was about.
And don't get me started on what Disney's misguided attempts to exploit Stitch's unexpected popularity have lead to.
What has it lead to? *just wants to see the ranting*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The team, unbelievably, continued with their previous plan while reporting that the revisions were being made. Lasseter found out and fired everyone. Ending the project, for then, and closing the 2D animation studio at Disney.
To be more specific, the Studio Lasseter shut down and revamped was the one that created Disney's direct-to-DVD stuff...the Tinkerbell/Disney Fairies project was always planned to be CGI, something that he also objected to, being a fan of the 2D Peter Pan. They were making characters that were way off-model with the original art...he wanted them to stick as close to the 2D design as possible.
posted
That reminds me...sometimes my kids watch the Disney Channel and they now have these CGI versions of Mickey, Donald, Goofy....they're completely abhorrent. They look like possessed plastic toys, not like the classic characters. Zero personality. They inhabit these bland, spartan worlds of primary colors and smooth surfaces. It's really disappointing. At least the stuff on Noggin has some personality to it.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure how to read this sentence. Are you saying there were no failures, or that you didn't see Brother Bear and Home on the Range?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I rather liked Brother Bear.
It's easy to like much in the same way it's easy to like a quarter pounder with cheese. Built on formula and mass appeal!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really liked Brother Bear for a couple of reasons, the foremost probably being that the story is about brotherly love. The stupid sequel is an example of a Disney failure.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I'm concerned, Pixar will NOT hire anybody who does NOT know how to animate in 2D. They don't want someone who doesn't understand how a character moves and acts, that's why if you apply for a job with them they require you to have 2d sequences as the major part of your portfolio.
As for the fired animators...Disney fired them because they seem to believe that 3D brings in the cash. You just have to look at the horrible piece of crap that Chicken Little turned out to be to realize how wrong they were. I'm looking forward to Bolt, though.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
