Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Mid July Linkages

A few animation-related reading bits.

Winnie the Pooh Rescuing WDAS? ...

Our Fine Entertainment Conglomerates Chasing the BOY Demographic.

Restoring Winsor McCay's "The Flying House" (1921-2011)

Perusing Alfred Hitchcock's Animated Cookbook

Watching a Day in the Life of John Lasseter (in only 25 minutes!)

Knowing The Five Best "Batman" Episodes

Disney owes Russia Taxes.

And so on and so forth.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Salon article about Disney and Pixar (the first linked above) is terrible. Full of inaccuracies (can't even cite Tangled's worldwide gross correctly) with an irritating know-it-all tone passing off assumptions that are way off the mark.

Anonymous said...

Meet the Robinsons and Bolt have "sub-standard" animation!? Does Mr O'Hehir know what he's talking about?

John said...

That last link to 'Disney Owes Taxes' alerted by Anti-Virus software and shows on Google as a potential threat. Click at your own risk.

Anonymous said...

I think it's true that the animation in 'Meet the Robinsons' is sub-par.

Anonymous said...

Considering how Winnie the Pooh did in foreign markets (i.e. underwhelmingly), chances are probably not particularly good that Pooh will break out in a big way stateside. Especially since it will be buried by Potter in its opening weekend; how many people who aren't in animation or Disney fans even know it's coming out soon?

Anonymous said...

The Salon article , while trying to be positive about resurrecting hand-drawn animation at Disney, is so riddled with inaccuracies that it undermines any good the writer may have intended.

He makes it sound as if all of Disney's hand-drawn movies of the late 90's/early 2000's were box-office flops and that the main reason they failed at the box-office was because of Pixar's success with CG animation.

First of all: not all of Disney's hand-drawn movies from the late 90's/early 2000's flopped. Second, all though there is no doubt that Pixar's great success with CG aniamted features had some effect on toppling hand-drawn from it's place as the primary form of feature animation, the failures of many (not all) of Disney's hand-drawn features in the late 90's/early 2000's should be laid at the feet of the executive leadership who A.) greenlit projects that shouldn't have been greenlit in the first place, and B.) those same execs (who had no particular talent for film making) meddled creatively with said projects to the point where they were just a mess that no one could really save (and in the process of their meddling made the budgets spiral out of control so that most of those movies had no way to be profitable during their theatrical run) . Blame Peter, Tom , or David (and their various toadies infecting all strata of the studio), or ultimately Michael , not John Lasseter and Pixar, for the mishandling of Walt Disney Feature Animation and running it on to the rocks during that time period.

Anonymous said...

"chances are probably not particularly good that Pooh will break out in a big way stateside. Especially since it will be buried by Potter in its opening weekend"

Yeah, WTF ??? "Buried" is the correct word. Opening against the mighty Potter juggernaut is just idiotic. (unless someone intends for the Pooh movie to quietly fail, then it makes perfect sense)

Steven Kaplan said...

John -

I've clicked the Moscow Times link a few times myself and have experience no spike in my Virus Protection services. I think the link is ok and the publication is legitimate.

But, I'll not blame you for erring on the side of caution.

Anonymous said...

Or maybe, just MAYBE, kids 8 and under will see POOH, not Potter.

Are 4-6 year olds really ready for Deathly Hallows part 2?

Anonymous said...

Hmm. Never thought too much about Lasster "the man" other than that he runs Pixar. Anyone know what his personality's like? (That Lasseter video above was removed when I tried to see it). Really I just want the short verson: is he a cool guy or a jerk?

Anonymous said...

He's cool

rufus said...

Considering that many films get pirated out of Russia, I would argue that Disney has a claim to lost profits due to Russia's negligence in dealing with piracy.

wow, I'm actually defending Disney...who knew!

rufus.

rufus said...

ehr, make that, the Russian Goverment's negligence.

r

Steve Hulett said...

J.L. was fine when I knew him in the eighties at Disney. Can't imagine that he's all that different now. I hear varying reports from staffers who know him and work with him at Disney, also a few from Pixar.

He's a high-placed exec now. The dynamics under which he's working would be way different now than they were thirty years ago.

Flynn Lives Ryder said...

Yeah, opening Tangled against Harry Potter was disastrous. It got buried too.

Didn't it?

Anonymous said...

Bolt opened against the first Twilight as well. Not sure who is making these decisions.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, opening Tangled against Harry Potter was disastrous. It got buried too.

Didn't it?


That's the thing everyone wants to forget. If a movie you like doesn't do well, it's because of bad marketing or some other blockbuster the same weekend. And if another movie opens with questionable marketing, and against a real blockbuster, and still does well, then everyone forgets about that fact (like Tangled).

Almost every good opening weekend (summer, holidays) has two major films opening. Sometimes there are three major films. Finding the 'perfect' weekend, especially when a studio has to schedule these things so far in advance, is rarely possible.

Oh, and I will promise you that, at the time the release date was picked for Bolt, no one in Hollywood suspected Twilight would be the blockbuster it was. It's only in retrospect that these things are suddenly, blindingly clear.

Derrick said...

"Tangled" was lucky.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11506354

Anonymous said...

No, Tangled was GOOD. That's why it was a hit. Duh..

Derrick said...

Wrong... Tangled was VERY GOOD, but, come on... it was Harry Potter.

Anonymous said...

Maybe. But Tangled HAS outsold Harry Potter in dvd sales in 2011

Anonymous said...

Oh, and I will promise you that, at the time the release date was picked for Bolt, no one in Hollywood suspected Twilight would be the blockbuster it was. It's only in retrospect that these things are suddenly, blindingly clear.<\quote>

Except that I remember being in a meeting in which the artists were telling Marketing that Twighlight would be huge. Marketing's response was that Bolt would have a different audience from Twighlight and it wasn't a big deal. My point is that shouldn't Marketing know... The Market?

Anonymous said...

Except that I remember being in a meeting in which the artists were telling Marketing that Twighlight would be huge.

Two problems with this. One, artists are regularly wrong about these things. I know we remember all the times we were right, but I've been in this game long enough to know that most of my fellow artists don't know what they're talking about when it comes to marketing and release dates.

Two, marketing people NEVER listen to artists. Maybe it's related to one above, maybe it's just their arrogance. Marketing is much more an instinct and an art than it is a science. It always seems so clear and easy in retrospect, but no one does it well consistently.

Site Meter