I do more than analyze box office returns. I'm also tramping around studios in the regular way. The end of last week found me at Disney Toons...
Disney's direct-to-video division has stopped work on more "Princess" featurettes, deciding they've got enough Princess inventory on the shelves to keep elementary school age girls happy.
But Tinkerbell proceeds apace, as does the trilogy of features designed to follow it as installments of the new "Fairies" franchise. The crews on these flicks have left their old digs in the Frank Wells Building on the Disney lot, and relocated in Glendale, where brand new cubicles were ready to receive them.
Posts
14 comments:
So how far along are they with the other fairy films? Will Lasseter have as much influence over those as he supposedly did on Tinkerbell?
Have you seen any final footage of Tink? I wonder if the story is much better with his involvement?
Its better.
eh better or BETTER?
Consensus is it's an improvement. For details, google "jim hill."
Jim tends to traffic in scuttlebutt.
ummm..... better.
do not google "jim hill." He's about as reliable as alberto "gonzo" gonzales, which means not at all. For a fanboy site, it's about as lame as they go.
ahh. com'on ... Jim Hill just tells it like it is.
He's a scurrilous windbag of mis-information--and if you believe anything he says, you obviously have no connection t o the film or animation business (where he's pretty much reviled).
its true, his information are inaccurate and often old.
If he reports on something and Disney changes it's mind or cancels a project doesn't mean he's wrong. Being as I work for Disney, I think I can say he's right about 60-70% of the time and most of the other time it's info that changed/canceled after he posted. No one is right all the time.
I would concur (60- 75%), Jim Hill has surprised me more than once with some very sensitive information that I would of never thought could of gotten out that quick.
"If he reports on something and Disney changes it's mind or cancels a project doesn't mean he's wrong."
Maybe he's lying. Maybe he's scattershot. Whatever he is, he's no journalist, and a TERRIBLE "writer."
The problem is that some of Jim Hill's facts are correct. But that's just his starting point. He uses those facts to create a mythology of his own imagination.
The narratives he weaves are almost uniformly uncharitable and assume tremendous rancor and nefarious shadow agendas on the part of the personalities involved. For example, he maintains that John Lasseter has a secret agenda to dump CG at WDAS.
His site thrives on negativity. He doesn't hesitate to invent it if he needs to.
"The problem is that some of Jim Hill's facts are correct."
Maybe that should read "The problem is that some of jim hill's gossip may or may not come true."
That's different than "facts," which he doesn't deal in.
or
"Some of dick cheney's buckshot hit his best friend."
Post a Comment