The Hot Blog

Completely agree. I really hope there's an audience for this. It'll be interesting to see how hard Oprah pushes it.

If Snow White came out today, little people would be protesting it for insensitivity.

Shit, don't even mention Dumbo.

Maybe it's just nostalgia, but I'm really looking forward to this one. I saw a brief featurette with Keith David in the recording booth, and he seemed to be absolutely tearing it up. I just wish that Disney were offering their two-week LA engagement in some other form other than their $30 movie+exhibits package at the studio. I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but the reason much of the media is out to get this movie is that it's 'issues' make for a better story. It's sexier to write about Disney's return to 2D being a 'risky' story about poor black people in New Orleans, more sensational to write about how racist it appears to be (more or less sight unseen). Simply acknowledging that Disney is making another 2D cartoon that looks awfully fun (and, oh yeah, it's their first black princess lead) doesn't allow one to fill column inches. Even if the movie turns out to be great and/or is a smash hit, we'll still get the 'is it racist?' pieces from entertainment and/or political pundits.

I'm looking forward to it as well! It'll be nice to see the 2D animation again.

I was thinking cynically earlier and the thought occurred to me that one of the reasons why the Disney higher-ups would have greenlit The Princess and the Frog must have been because they realized that, if Disney went all-computer animated-all the time, they'd be destroying the audience for their library titles.

Right?

Wrong. If you watch your Three-Disc Wall-E DVD (two-disc BD). You will have an opportunity to watch documentary about Pixar. Which ends with one of the founders of Pixar overseeing Disney Animation studios, and stating how much everyone at Pixar loves 2-D. They love it so much, that they are going to start to do shorts and feature link films again. Which they did.

So, really, Pixar runs the show now, and they love some 2-D. There's your answer. Have a pleasant day.

Good god. Those types are horrible. Once again I ask my god of open top button; "AN EDIT FUNCTION! MY MR. BEAN BOXSET FOR AN EDIT FUNCTION!"

Can somebody who knows about how things work in the real business world instead of the sentimentalized nerd fantasy world help me out on this one?

IO is correct. Disney closed down all of their 2D studios six or seven years ago, publicly stating that they were getting out of it because "kids want 3D." The real problem wasn't that kids hated 2D, though. The real problem was that Disney was making some crap movies following the success of Lion King, and audiences were staying away from them, preferring the quality pics coming out of Pixar and the crasser 'all ages' comedies like Shrek. Fast forward five years to John Lasseter being promoted (as part of the Steve Jobs package), and one of the first things out of Lasseter's mouth was, "In keeping with Walt's original vision for the company, Disney is going to start making 2D animated films again."
As hard as it seems to believe, they really are attempting to 'resurrect' Disney 2D features for all the right reasons.

I was already aware of that Lasseter story, and I still don't believe that there wasn't ANY calculation in the decision. Are 2-D movies cheaper to produce, perhaps?

just watched all three discs of the 'snow white' blu-ray set and am really impressed, however......
my eyes can't unwatch that trailer for 'santa buddies' and it still hurts.......be warned....

Jeff, maybe the fact that there hasn't been any decent traditionally animated movies IS the calculation. Why not try something that has worked big time in the past and see if it works still?

Although I think Lasseter really is one of those guys who does what he wants. Sure there are commercial considerations, but in the end he got to where he is in order to do what he wants. Wouldn't you want to make the kinds of movies you always admired when you have the chance?

Sure, but the flip side of that coin is that he didn't get to where he is without an innate understanding of both what will be artistically successful and what will be financially successful.

Wasn't "Lilo & Stitch" a big hit for them in 2003? And "Tarzan" was only 1999. What others have they had to? Sure, "Home on the Range" was dire, but its not like their batting average is incredibly bad.

Exactly. And Jeff, this is why they greenlit The Frog Prince instead of something like Triplets Of Belleville. They're getting to do what they want animation-wise, but still stay in the protective umbrella of what has worked huge in the past.

Yes...which is why every Pixar movie sticks to what is a fairly safe formula, content-wise, too.

I wouldn't say UP was a safe formula. Unless you're just referring to the rating.

LYT: I was driving on PCH today and saw a car with an "LYTRules.com" bumper sticker on it. Was that you or is your fan club that large? Either way, thought it was pretty cool.

The storyline of Up was unusual, but it also wasn't; gruff man learns to love? That's a pretty time-worn sentimental story concept.

dietcock -- I was on PCH today, so it was probably me. Though I know for a fact that at least two other cars on this coast have that sticker.

Jeff - gruff man learns to love? He knew how to love from moment one, then lost his wife. I wouldn't say he "learned to love" the fat kid...but he did learn to accept that his life wasn't over.

I cannot imagine any other studio green-lighting a movie about an old man who ties a bunch of balloons to his house, flies to South America, and finds his childhood idol who then tries to kill him...except from a studio that has earned so much clout and goodwill that they can do anything they want.

You don't see many animation companies doing a variety of types of movies like Pixar. I haven't seen up, but Toy Story was basically like a kid's movie, although made exceptionally well. You got an action movie, The Incredibles, where they basically kill tons of bad guys onscreen.Then Wall-E, and I don't think you can say that's a safe formula...45 minutes following what's basically a box with no dialogue? That's a risk most studios would not take, animated or otherwise.

Lilo & Stitch, though, was a back-burner project made on the cheap in the Florida studio, far away from the interference of the Disney suits. And predictably, when its surprising success showed up "traditional" Disney fare, the studio was rewarded by being shuttered, its artists moved back to California, and the successful director put under such tight control he was eventually thrown off his own movie.

Way to go Team Disney.

"And predictably, when its surprising success showed up "traditional" Disney fare, the studio was rewarded by being shuttered, its artists moved back to California, and the successful director put under such tight control he was eventually thrown off his own movie."

Not that I'm some sort of Disney flunkie but:

1) All animation studios were shuttered and returned to Burbank. It's not like FL was singled out because they were producing successful film.

2) Chris Sanders' American Dog was a trainwreck. If anything, the suits were too lenient with him and allowed his vision to spin out of control. Lasseter was horrified when he came on board and immediately ixnayed the project and rebooted.

3) Bolt sucked, just to get that out of the way.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: