I've been trekking to cartoon studios again after two days off.
At Starz Media-Film Roman, The Simpsons crew tells me there is still streamlining going on, that artists are still being laid off. (I walked into a room and was surprised to find an empty desk. The artist still there told me "Oh yeah, X? He was laid off Friday, and he wasn't given any recall date."
(This is a guy who's been with the series a long time. Gracie-Fox-Starz are cutting and slashing these days. Costs are all in the 21st season ...)
Meanwhile at Walt Disney Animation Studio, a lead animator told me that he's seen semi-finished footage from Winnie the Pooh:
"The character animation looks really good, very 1967. And the art direction is different than in the other featurettes, more like the actual Hundred Acre wood ..."
So why a hand-drawn feature with the well-worn A. A. Milne characters? The Wall Street Journal provides answers:
... The Disney studio, which is to unveil its production slate this spring, is backing away from one-off comedies like "When in Rome" and "Confessions of a Shopaholic," according to people familiar with the studio's new gameplan.
In their place, Disney plans to focus on films that are essentially brands—like a planned Muppets movie—that can be exploited across its network of theme parks, videogames and commercial products. The recent success with "Alice in Wonderland" has given a new team of executives who run the studio confidence in their approach ...
See, it's well and good to want fresh, new and original, but conglomerates don't think in those terms. They think in terms of: "What's going to make us the most Moo Lah?"
If some nice person with a lot of leverage (such as ... oh ... James Cameron*?) wants to do a fresher project, the company will of course humor him because that person has juice.
* Regarding James C., a Disney artist told me a story about the "roast" of Mr. Cameron at the recent Visual Effects Society Awards banquet. One of the speakers there said of the director: "James isn't necessarily the most lovable guy. So-and-so said he wouldn't be able to warm up to him if they were cremated together and buried in the same coffin ..." Hmm.
Posts
26 comments:
i am so sorry to hear this. I was hoping Disney would be making MORE original movies, more risky projects.
Man oh man, Iger is going to run that studio into the ground. Once all their brands are milked dry, they'll have nothing but tired old franchises.
Wait until Rich Ross gets his paws into the animation department, which is apparently happening as we speak. Hilary Duff animated? That little Jon Benet wanna be Miley Cyrus animated? The "Disney-channel-fication" of Disney feature animation is coming. How sad.
Let's all stay in our comfort zone ,be happy being mediocre,and of course use tried and true recycled ideas that will surely make a buck like it has before.. NOT!
I'm NOT surprised at all.
I feel sorry for all the poor, poor aspiring artists out there who have big dreams of working there (Disney Feature) someday that IF and when they get there.....they're in for a BIG let down.
This is what happens when GREED takes over.
And Disney could care less about them.
What a sad, pathetic ending to it all.
They're not saying that they are no longer going to do original content. Confessions of a Shopaholic wasn't original. What they are saying is that they are only going to do movies that can be leveraged across all of their business units. It's not like we're going to see When In Rome themed rides at Disneyland, or Old Dogs merchandise on the shelves of the Disney Store. Movies are a crap shoot as it is already; might as well try to recoup as much money as possible by maximizing your business opportunities.
Justin - I understand, but given that criteria, would they ever greenlight something like Ratatouille or Up again? Sure they can put those as merchandise, but those aren't exactly merchandise-friendly movies... So they can put them on plates and cups. They can just as easily put "When in Rome" on plates if it was a huge hit at the box office.
It just sounds like a bad idea when one of the questions asked at a creative film brain storming session will be, "yes, but can we make a ride for this or put a plush toy of it on the shelves?"
Disney (thankfully) doesn't greenlight Pixar films. Pixar does.
What about the rest of the Starz building? Hasbro is supposed to be moving in there soon with the new GI Joe and Transformers crew.
**Man oh man, Iger is going to run that studio into the ground. Once all their brands are milked dry, they'll have nothing but tired old franchises.**
Muppets, as a brand, was milked dry decades ago. Their last theatrical movie was a huge flop, and their recent TV specials have been ratings disappointments. Iger's letting a litte Youtube success overwhelm any good sense he has. And since anyone can create a Youtube success - remember that cat wearing the loud shirt that "played" the piano? - the Muppets' online presence doesn't mean very much.
Never thought I'd say this, but Iger's worse than Eisner. And as for Ross...gahhh. A horrible choice. Disney's in a very precarious position right now...
"The recent success with "Alice in Wonderland" has given a new team of executives who run the studio confidence in their approach ..."
Alice In Wonderland is a brand? Since when?
No, Alice in Wonderland is a story. Something Disney used to care about.
Johnny Depp is a brand...
When will the union paper be posted online again? Its been months!
What about the rest of the Starz building? Hasbro is supposed to be moving in there soon with the new GI Joe and Transformers crew.
Hasbro is moving in to the second and (I'm told) the first floor.
Remodeling is going on now. Hopefully they'll be moved in by April.
It never ceases to amaze me that artists are shocked - SHOCKED - when companies behave like money-making entities.
The recent supreme court decision notwithstanding, companies are not people. They exist solely to make money by offering products and services. And they offer what they believe the public will buy.
" Hopefully they'll be moved in by April."
don't hold your breath
yes, but the eternal f***ing problem is that studios have no idea what the public will buy. they manufacture demand with dollars, that's what they do, that's what they are extremely good at. a true hit with the public happens IN SPITE of the demand studios are busy creating. good shows and movies are what happens when studios are busy making plans for other things.
Muppets, as a brand, was milked dry decades ago. Their last theatrical movie was a huge flop, and their recent TV specials have been ratings disappointments. Iger's letting a litte Youtube success overwhelm any good sense he has.
Also, getting the Muppets was Eisner's white whale, not Iger's--
The deal finally went through just before Eisner's departure, and the Iger company found themselves stuck with something they didn't really know why Mikey liked in the first place.
There's a general sense of desperation to find some way to recoup the expense--even using them as stooges to promote Disney Channel stars didn't work--and from the recent marketing, seems the current public ONLY remembers them from a cameo on a house-building show. Naturally, they'd rather have a movie to sell, but they'll take whatever "modern" associations with the characters they can get, and the music-videos look a little despserate.
Disney (thankfully) doesn't greenlight Pixar films. Pixar does.
So Pixar all of a sudden decided to release Toy Story 3, Cars 2, and very likely Monster's Inc. 2 on their own?
Not defending them because you're right, I think in the end they do greenlight the films they want to produce... I just think there was some nudging from the top here.
Cars 2 definitely seems nudged from the top. (Whether the park promotion, or "avenging" the first movie's unfair box-office smear-campaigning, most theories point back to Bob.)
And as for TS3 and Monsters, seriously, are we going to be here till June having to repost stories about the Circle Seven saga? I can see how imaginary "greedy sequel-obsessed Pixar" whines are seductive enough to keep angry threads going, but for those who did their History homework, it Just Ain't So.
Circle Seven?
Eisner simply built a "movie set" in hopes of scaring Pixar.
It worked...Even scared some of Disney's board. ;)
(Although it was the scripts that were scarier--I've heard the faux-Monsters was good, but I've seen synopses of the Buzz-recalled TS script, and I was scared, too.)
Well, bring on the Disney - Pixar sequels they are sure to make cash!!
looks like disney won't be getting any sequels from Novato.....
http://www.thewrap.com/article/disney-shutter-imagemovers-digital-15221
put this in a post, Steve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnNaQWBUhv0
Joe Ranft would have been 50 tomorrow.
put this in a post, Steve.
Clearly I did.
As luck would have it, I talked to John and Ron back in the mid-week, and John told me he was going to be putting the tribute to Joe up.
You got to a computer to report it before I did.
Post a Comment