I was at Disney Feature (aka "Walt Disney Animation Studios") yesterday. Wreck-It Ralph is going full bore, with a couple of supes telling me that there will be more hires in the near future. Another artist has a pretty strong idea about the next picture going into production after Ralph, but he informs me nothing has been officially greenlit yet. And of course, I won't reveal it here. (Besides, I've been inaccurate in some recent posts. Acch!)
More than one person said that the company plan is to get one animated feature out of each division (WDAS/Pixar) every year. My hope, as always, is that Disney ends up with a continuity of employment that gets it away from the "hire, layoff, hire" syndrome that it's followed of late.
I saw some interesting stuff now in work inside the Hat Building. Though the studio isn't totally walking away from hand-drawn features, there doesn't appear to be any features on the map that will look like the old-style, hand-drawn specimens we enjoyed in our youth. Executives look at theatrical grosses and draw their conclusions. And their conclusions are, based on all evidence, that c.g. style features are where audiences' enthusiasms are now centered ...
Meanwhile, at DreamWorks Animation, a number of laid-off staffers have returned to the campus, now that the work-flow has ticked up. (This isn't yet reflected in the chart below, as work status slips for December are now being processed.)
If you're wondering, feature employment at signator studios totals about half of employed TAG members.
Posts
33 comments:
> Wreck-It Ralph
Please, oh please, let there be some kind of story with this one!
dear Steve, do you know something about "Frozen"?
I read it on UltimateDisney...
Oh, no ... really ?
Rapunzel becomes "Tangled" so now The Snow Queen is "Frozen" ?
Bleh ... so lame.
I suppose the geniuses inside the pointy hat are probably correct. The tepid response to the re-release of "The Lion King" proves their point.
...Oh wait!
dear Steve, do you know something about "Frozen"?
Dear Yuppi:
Yes, I do.
Best Wishes,
Steve Hulett
Great answer!
Say what you want Floyd, but Tangled did great at the box office. Would it have done as good or better had it been named Rapunzel?
Or worse?
Point is, it wasn't that dumb of a decision.
Would "Basil of Baker Street" have done better if it had been renamed, "The Great Mouse Detective?"
Oh, that's right, it was. And, of course - it didn't.
Oh God, the next great TAG comment section drama. I got the popcorn all ready.
I think we can all agree that the titles don't really have anything to do with the film. At all. Doesn't make them either better or worse. it's annoying but that's it. Leave it to marketing.
Sort of like how the horrible Disney posters they had from the 60s-70s for all their releases had no bearing on the films, either.
Peter del Vecho in an interview he gave at the "Winnie the Pooh" premiere said that after "Wreck-It Ralph" we'll get "King of the Elves".
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJWTX8TCaTA
So unless something has changed since then...
Steve, is Ron & John's movie still on? And still hand-drawn?
Will Madonna be singing "Frozen" at the end credits too? :-)
There is a thriller titled "Frozen" coming to theaters February 2012. Wouldn't there be any audience confusion with Disney using the same title? Isn't the release window between the two movies too small?
Um... Floyd didn't say anything about "Tangled" or its renaming. That was someone else.
But why bother with facts in a rush to argue, especially when they're there for everyone else to see?
Um... Pretty sure he was responding to the previous poster's comment about the renaming of Frozen, like Tangled.
It wasnt obvious? Besides, Floyd has made his opinion on the subject very clear in the past.
And STILL no one cares what he says.
I keep hearing rumors about a Mickey Mouse feature in the works. Wouldn't that HAVE to be hand-drawn, at least partially, for it to work at all?
(Never mind Mickey Mouse Playhouse. The CG model of Mickey in that show is cute and all, but the public thinks of Mickey in 2D, mostly because that's how he appears on merchandising. A completely CG Mouse movie wouldn't appeal to the public at all IMO).
And Floyd, your crack about Lion King is spot-on. Its success made Robert-"Let's-buy-Marvel-and-Avatar-because-our-own-stuff-won't-cut-it-anymore"-Iger look pretty goddamn stupid.
First time I heard "Frozen" I thought, ah, they're just having a laugh internally. They wouldn't REALLY call it that - would they?
I prefer to believe that this is the case.
Just like I prefer to believe that the success from "Tangled" came from the fact that it was a great, fun and lovely film that had fantastic word of mouth.
The dumber you assume your audience is, the dumber they probably will be.
Steve, is Ron & John's movie still on? And still hand-drawn?
Still in development. With hand-drawn elements.
I've seen tests of what it might look like. Nice stuff.
If the lion king was released today as a brand new film, I wonder how successful it would be?
It would be very successful. A good film is a good film. you simply have to make them, and not let marketing drive the process. That's Disney's problem today.
By the way, the stuff I've already seen on Ron and John's new film look very impressive. Bravo!
"not let marketing drive the process.
That's Disney's problem today."
what marketing decisions today are you talking about?
Steve, when you say "hand-drawn elements", does that mean that the main characters will be hand-drawn or some of the environment?
"Steve, when you say "hand-drawn elements", does that mean that the main characters will be hand-drawn or some of the environment?"
Hopefully it will be the former. There actually HASN'T been any major confirmation about that yet, but we'll see.
If Disney's all about rereleasing their 2D animated features in 3D, then why can't they try a cel-animated film IN 3D? It could work both ways.
"It would be very successful. A good film is a good film. you simply have to make them, and not let marketing drive the process. That's Disney's problem today."
I'm not one of those "let's jump all over Floyd" guys, but Floyd, you know that's not even remotely true. A lot of very good films do badly whether they're well marketed or not. A lot of it has to do with timing and it's anyone's guess if LK would be successful today, tomorrow or even 5 years after it was initially released.
You might have less trouble with some of these snarky kids if you made less sweeping hyperbolic statements like that.
To quote William Goldman again, "Nobody knows anything," there is really no guarantee of a hit film. Nobody including Walt Disney could guarantee that.
That said, all we can do as film makers is make the best film we possibly can. However, when marketing injects its nose into the process that really mucks things up.
I'm not offering any sure fire solutions here and I don't have all the answers. What I would like is more decisive leadership, and less concern with "what will sell." Because nobody - including marketing - knows that anyway.
Is it so hard to figure out that 2D animation was and is the very core business of the WDAS? No doubt that 2D features should be in the pipeline. CGI films are all looking alike anyway. I think it makes sense to use a mix of 2D and CGI just being careful nto avoid the Top cat floating effect. CGI just cant achieve the warmth you get from 2D. Although a good and compelling story is king.
Is it so hard to figure out that 2D animation was and is the very core business of the WDAS?
Wrong. The core of WDAS is animation, regardless of the medium.
No doubt that 2D features should be in the pipeline.
There are.
CGI films are all looking alike anyway.
Wrong. You think Horton Hears a Who looks like Tangled?
I think it makes sense to use a mix of 2D and CGI just being careful nto avoid the Top cat floating effect.
Wait til you see what Disney's doing next. (see Steve's comments above if you dont believe me)
CGI just cant achieve the warmth you get from 2D.
Never say can't. Besides, I think it's been proven before (Tangled)
WDAS has been known over the years for its classic family oriented 2D animated films. I think its fine to produce 3D movies such as the successful Tangled but the traditional 2D films shouldnt be abandoned. New film ideas/concepts should be in the works exploring mixed techniques as other studios are doing. If you ask me what WDAS is known and famous worldwide for: 2D Animation ( core business ). The successful re-release of the LK is a proof that 2D is well and alive in peoples`s minds, just give them a good film and a good story.
Uh, CG is starting to look alike. Monster v aliens looks like despicable me which looks like Megamind which looks like up....
'Wrong. You think Horton Hears a Who looks like Tangled?'
No movie is more generic looking than 'Tangled', and the point is the stylistic difference between
3d animated movies is minimal compared to stylistic differences between 2d movies.
'Wrong. The core of WDAS is animation, regardless of the medium.
The core of WDAS is profit! They chose 3d over, say, stop motion or paint on glass, because of the promise of $ coming from the 'new' medium. If there was another medium coming up,the Disney execs would switch again...
'Never say can't. Besides, I think it's been proven before (Tangled)
again puting tangled in a pedestal for no apparent reason. that film was hard to get through...
Tangled 3D is fine although it is not as charming as the classics Snow White, Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty. 3D sometimes gets too busy with textures, details etc as opposed to 2D where you can more easily direct the eye of the viewer to where you want. Lets not forget that it was important to have Glen K animate a lot of stuff in 2D as reference for the 3D animators in Tangled. I think PATF was a great film too and a good move and in the right direction although the story could be a little simpler and not so scary for little girls.
Post a Comment