The Reporter reflects it well.
... [T]hough undeniably strong, the $68.7 million rung up by the Disney-branded movie [Tangled]during its first five days also serves to underscore some internecine rivalry among the studio's movie animators. And unless "Tangled" continues to outpace expectations during the length of its theatrical run, its Burbank animators will continue to struggle with the knotty problem of competing with their corporate kin at Pixar. ...
Maybe I'm starry-eyed, but I don't think there's a problem at all. The Mouse has two animation studios, and it will work both brands, alternating Disney releases with Pixar releases. Seems much more like a plus than a minus to me.
And because there are two facilities, Disney doesn't need to have deep development going on in both places. (Two animated releases per year appears to be the norm at the present time. Jeffrey K., like John Lasseter an heir to the Disney legacy, is shooting for an ambitious three features per year.)
I think the Pixar team has now proven it can make magic in Burbank, but that the wand it wields isn't flawless. It's become clearer as time rolls on that hand-drawn features aren't the box office powerhouses they were two decades ago, and that if they continue to be made the budgets will be smaller. (Corporate Disney isn't the House of Medici.)
Still in all, I've had few doubts about the creative chops of Disney Animation's newest management team. What's troubling to me is the attitude toward long-time staff. Outside of a chosen few, employees with years of service are let go at the first gap in the production pipeline. Running Walt Disney Animation Studios like a visual effects house, where animators and tech directors are brought in for a nine-month gig and then laid off, obviously "works." But I keep thinking, naive dreamer that I am, that there's got to be a better way.
Posts
30 comments:
Running a feature animation studio like an fx house is a very bad idea. If more fx houses could do what the experienced storytellers Disney Feature animation has at it's disposal can do, more of them would be doing it.
Tangled is an excellent film, skillfully made. The marketing was questionable (and certainly off the mark), but projected cost to return ratio is doubtful to be met.
If the new Tron film isn't a hit (and it may not), Disney's film division will have some serious re-evaluating to do.
I think the Pixar team has now proven it can make magic in Burbank, but that the wand it wields isn't flawless.
Yeah, yeah, we know: "Just watch, it can't hold out forever, law of averages, they're going to make their first flop ANY MINUTE NOW..." :)
(Why, because they're "supposed" to?--What was that about Hollywood cynicism?)
But definitely sounds like the sort of outsider-press article that automatically believes Disney and Pixar are grinding them out of the same sausage line--
Fact is, Iger and Lasseter seem to be a little TOO oversensitive about making sure that the Lamp and Steamboat Willie retain their religious namebrand division of CGI and 2-D, and that Pixar keeps its own elf-cookie-tree story factory separate from outside influence.
Yeah, yeah, "Tangled, Robinsons and Bolt were in 3-D", but Tangled, Robinsons and Bolt were the last unfinished refugees of Eisner's Folly, and take a sigh of relief that's now officially history. And it was only Keane's idea that stopped Tangled from being a 2-D film in the first place, after the massacre died down.
If I had my pick, I'd rather work at Disney right now than the sequel machine, ie: Pixar.
But it'll take years (and a few more releases) before the press starts reporting that story...
Will Tangled be able to actually make a profit? It cost a hell of a lot, from what I've read.
I'm delighted that both Pixar and Disney are doing good work. But, let's face it. Both companies are money making machines for the big corporation.
And, as we all know, corporations can never make enough money. That means no third Golden Age is in store for the artists.
Tangled will never really make a profit, but that's not what is important. It's important that it be perceived as a hit. Which, so far, is the case.
But, as Floyd pointed out, don't expect to see animators benefit other than from the continued production of CG films from Disney. There's not even any guarantees about 2D yet. What you can be guaranteed is there will not be any bidding wars or signing bonuses for talent this time around.
But the current brand division set itself up just because they were getting so many reactionary dopes like the Hollywood reporter: "Look, Disney's doing CGI, they wanna be Pixar!"
No, they don't: They're trying to clean up the last three projects from Eisner's psychotic paranoia, and decided at the last minute they liked the WDFA name that was originally supposed to "compete".
As it is now, the guys in charge believe that confusing the house brands is about the WORST thing that could potentially happen to the studio, and are intent on making sure that doesn't happen: Pixar states its policy that it will not do musicals and keep its stories mostly original, and WDFA will stay away from CGI in the future and concentrate on ink-and-paint. (Yes, they will, smartypants. :) )
There may be hits or flops, but the boardroom is determined that the public will at least be aware which part of the studio they came from.
ahh, the fevered dreams of fans.
Write much fan-fiction...?
I simply want the artists to be employed. Is that too much to ask, Mickey?
Ha-ha! It suuuuure is, Floyd! Ha-ha-ha-ha! Won't see ya real soon!
WDFA will stay away from CGI in the future and concentrate on ink-and-paint. (Yes, they will, smartypants. :) )
There are currently both CGI and hand-drawn features (also featurettes) on the boards at WDAS.
But it certainly is pretty to think that the Burbank facility will only do ink-and-paint.
Dream on.
"And, as we all know, corporations can never make enough money. That means no third Golden Age is in store for the artists."
Wait. So the Disney Corporation didn't want to make money during the second Golden Age, Floyd?
I think there's every reason to have a third Golden Age and we just may have seen the beginning of it.
You misconstrued what Floyd was saying, I believe.
He was discussing as others have, that you've ignored, that there will be no golden age for the artists. No bidding wars, no 'nice' salaries, no signing bonuses, no long-term contracts (or jobs for that matter).
that means more to us then whether Disney or Pixar manage to turn a hefty profit or go back to 2D or CG or 3D or 4D...
Is it just me, but does the whole "two animated films a year" seem to favor quantity over quality? Wasn't that what Lasseter was against in the first place, too many movies? Doesn't this sound a whole lot like the age of the Cheapqual?
"Two animated films a year" means one from WDAS and one from Pixar. That doesn't seem like too much to me.
Exactly. yahweh got my point.
The corporation has always wanted to make money and always will. In the last Golden Age the artists worked their butts off, but at least they were compensated by higher salaries and bonuses.
Do you honestly believe you're gonna share the wealth in the next Golden Age?
Is it just me, but does the whole "two animated films a year" seem to favor quantity over quality?
It's just you.
"It's important that it be perceived as a hit."
Not to stockholders it isn't. It's far more important that it makes TONS of MONEY. That's all that matters. It's a public company.
"no 'nice' salaries, no signing bonuses, no long-term contracts"
Tell that to Catmull and Lasseter---they've got all of these things. So do the directors at Pixar.
Yerah and Catmull and JL have helped eliminate those things for everyone else.
What is the projected total run for tangled?
Is it to be 150, 160 mil ? it should definitely beat megamind. Which is a fun film as well actually.
Unless Tangled has incredible legs, it projects out to between $170-205 million.
I'm wondering when you're going to post the new dreamworks slate just announced?
any guesses.. Madagascar 3 and 4, Kung Fu Panda 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and How To Train Your Dragon 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Think I'm kidding?
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=72107
If tangled makes 150 - 170 that is pretty good for a disney film considering what they have done over the past several years.
All forecasts seem to be pointing at just shy of 200 (domestic, worldwide forecasts 500)
It's early yet, but the estimates for this weekend look BAAAD. a 60+% drop and not taking the number 1 spot again.
It was never going to be a huge hit or make it's money back, but this is shocking if the estimates are true.
Blah blah
After this current weekend, the Disney managers will be thrilled if Tangled makes it to $160 million. Does this mean the word of mouth was terrible?
Yes, typically it does mean that word of mouth is bad, but I've seen nothing but good reaction to Tangled. I guess it could mean despite the good reaction no one was telling anyone to go see it...? or no one felt compelled to go see it despite good word of mouth...? Or more likley is that everyone who saw it last week constituted the entire audience that exhisted for a princess film these days and the film just didn't have any legs.
This is very unusual.
Uh, how about movies just don't make as much in November-December?
(And that during the snow/school season, $200M is the new $300M?
Have to adjust your scales accordingly every year.)
Post a Comment