... and sometimes directors go, as Pixar producer Katherine Sarafian tells us:
At Pixar, every decision that is made is about what the film needs and I think Mark [Andrews] and I have both been surprised at how much has been made of it [Brenda Chapman's departure], because really it happens to much in the industry and particularly in animation. Director changes happen all of the time, it’s kind of part of the creative process much like the loss of… It’s definitely a higher stakes issue, but I can’t quite compare it to the loss of snow or loss of a story sequence, but the idea that we are constantly changing the process and evolving it, but these changes do happen and creative differences do arise and it was no different here.
When company management wants to go west, and the director wants to go east, management finds a different employee who's willing to go west.
Which is the way it's always been, to a greater or lesser degree. What I've found a wee bit annoying is the older Disney/Pixar meme: "We support the director's vision."
It might be pretty to think so, except it's never been the full reality. (Happily, the company is moving away from that mantra, as evidenced above.) But Brenda's exit wasn't a huge surprise. Joe Ranft was the driving force in getting Ms. Chapman up to Pixar in the first place, and when Joe died she lost a major ally and champion. As Brenda related at a TAG forum five-plus years ago:
Pixar is something of a "boy's club", and little thought seems to have been given to female characters, even when it would have fit naturally. For example, why couldn't the Slinky or the T-Rex in Toy Story have been women?...
Brenda's business card at the time read: "Token female Pixar story person".
You want women animation directors, try DreamWorks Animation. Everywhere else? Not so much.
Posts
31 comments:
Why doesn't she mention the third director, Steve Purcell?
Why doesn't she mention the third director, Steve Purcell?
Is there an echo in here?
... in here ...
... in here ...
... in here ...
It said it didn't catch--and when I entered the new word code, it doubled up. Glitch with the program your end.
...on your end...
...on your end...
...on your end...
Hell, hotel transylvania at Sony is on directors 7 & 7, and the cost is approaching $200 million.
7 or 8...
"Joe Ranft was the driving force in getting Ms. Chapman up to Pixar in the first place, and when Joe died she lost a major ally and champion."
And Pixar lost the ability to tell an interesting story.
Nothing new here. This happens to all of the Hollywood studios. Management always meddles.
But what pisses me off about Pixar is the constant proclamation that they're a "director-driven studio" which is obviously utter rubbish.
Is it just some PR thing or have they started believing their own lies?
They're a bunch of hypocrites. The worst thing is no one has criticized them about it. I've never read an interview or an article about Pixar that refers to the real working conditions there. It's always the same narrative: "free cereal!", "scooters!", "parties!", "toys!", "magic!"
Mr. Lasseter, how about instead of free cereal, you offer your employees free lunch? Instead of parties, you abolish unpaid overtime? Instead of games, you enforce realistic deadlines so the artists there don't work themselves to death?
Pixar should unionize. Why haven't they by now? They're being stupid. They're losing a lot of added benefits because they are not union.
... The worst thing is no one has criticized them about it.
Done it here.
I've got no problem with replacing directors, by the way. It happens.
But, as you say, when the (repeated) proclamation is 'The director's the boss" ... "We're a director-driven studio" and that clearly isn't the case, it tends to make one ... uh ... cynical?
Well, here's a perfect example of a producer spinning it for you.
"At Pixar, every decision that is made is about what the film needs and I think Mark [Andrews] and I have both been surprised at how much has been made of it [Brenda Chapman's departure], because really it happens to much in the industry and particularly in animation."
The big deal is .... it's your first new female director! and it very much is a boys club - the same boys over and over again.
Why would anyone want to direct an animated film fron the beginning? Seems like VERY few directors make it to the end - at all the studios.
Pixar has NEVER been a "director driven studio." They are a profit driven studio like ALL the rest.
Sure, Pixar is director-driven. They drove Jan Pinkava right out the door.
jester says:No me importa lo que ustedes dicen, todavía me encantan.
I just hope Brenda is given another chance to direct. But I fear that, realistically, John Lasseter's ego is going to drive her out, the same way Glen Keane was orphaned from his own movie.
Jeffrey keeps looking better and better.
I think there's a misconception with the term "director driven." It doesn't mean a director can do whatever they want a ruin a film. As long as they maintain the trust of the team and their bosses, and the screenings are going well, yes, they have full creative control. But I know some of you (as well as I) have been on films, where after years of languishing, that deadline looms and it's better for the studio that the director is no longer the director
Fanboys cry. Competitor studios rumor monger. Steve Hulett posts something on the TAG blog. CartoonBrew goes apeshit. But the majority of the artists and filmmakers breathe a sigh of relief when, despite their fond feelings for the director, new leadership is announced.
Jeffrey keeps looking better and better.
Dreamsworks doesn't have a much better track record honestly. Neither the beloved Kung-Fu Panda nor How to Train Your Dragon were released with their original directors attached. Hell, Mark Dindal got kicked off Me an My Shadow not too long ago.
It's a business. This stuff happens in live-action all the time too.
Nice try, but you just described the opposite of "director driven". If it were director driven then the films wouldn't be "languishing" because it would have been the director's vision that was green lighted. Instead you've described a studio that hires a director to make the film the producers want. When the producers butt heads with the directors than the whole studio suffers. Maybe Pixar should make better decisions about which films they green light and which directors they want to hire to fullfill the producer's vision.
But the difference is Jeffrey never lies about it being a director driven studio. Everyone knows it's a Jeffrey driven studio. It's his sandbox and his people just get to play in it.
Now if Lasseter wants to say the same thing and stop playing noble filmmaker I doubt anyone will have a problem with him or Pixar. Then again kicking someone off their own project seems to be an issue Jeffrey's never had and Johnny seems to do quite often.
If it were director driven then the films wouldn't be "languishing" because it would have been the director's vision that was green lighted.
Thats either naive or willfully ignorant.
Sometimes, despite their best intentions and a great idea, directors take their films down a path to unwatchability. Filmmaking is tough, and some directors fail.
Studios like money. They want to make money using the least amount possible. The last thing they want to do is derail a film for no good reason.
A film being greenlit doesnt mean all the kinks are worked out. You know that. And sometimes, those kinks arent solved by the director even after years of attempts.
Honestly, as a studio leader, what would YOU do?
One could argue up until Ratatouille that Pixar films were "director driven" because each movie was created and pitched by the eventual director. Of course, other than Brad Bird, the pitchers were also a part of the "brain trust".
Unfortunately for Jan Pinkava, his story had the added pressure of being the first "non-Disney" movie (the Disney partnership ended with Cars and Pixar wanted to prove they didn't "need Disney" to be successful) Sadly, the studio execs decided Jan's original story wasn't strong enough to succeed as a Pixar solo brand. Brad Bird was brought in, the story was updated, and ironically Disney bought Pixar six months later.
Ever since then, if a story is greenlit at Pixar the pitcher has to prove they can helm it, otherwise they call in someone with more experience. That's business.
Didn't the original director of HTTYD leave the project because his wife died? A very different situation from Jan Pinkava's or Chapman's. If true.
I don't think Ratatouille was a very good movie. A fun quirky idea told with bland story telling. When I found out that Pixar had kicked the original creator and director the shabby story telling made sense. Jan Pinkava was going places Pixar wasn't comfortable with, so he was replaces by a good old boy who would play it safe. Like they wanted.
Same thing with Bolt.
What is looks like is JL is taking peoples movies away from them when the movies aren't of his taste. The problem is the man hasn't got good taste.
That's why Brave's change in director upsrt me and why I'm worried about the movie.
I don't think Ratatouille was a very good movie
I stopped reading after that
I don't have a problem with directors being replaced on projects. Sometimes it's indeed for the betterment of the movie, other times it's studio politics. Either way, there's nothing you can really do about that.
If you want creative freedom you need to go to go to an art house studio or create the project on your own.
Lasseter, just needs to stop lying that Pixar is a "director-driven studio" and stop pretending that he's "one of the guys" and not an "executive".
The day I start a company as successful and meaningful as Pixar, is the day I start lobbing stones at John and Ed's management style.
Mark Dindal got kicked off Me an My Shadow not too long ago.
My information is that Mark left when Jeffrey and company didn't want to make the film Mark wanted to make.
Might be a bit of semantics, but Mark stepped away. He wasn't booted.
Might be a bit of semantics, but Mark stepped away. He wasn't booted.
Ah, my mistake.
Hopefully Mark will get a chance to direct another feature. He deserves it.
"unwatchable"
That describes American dog to a tee.
“The day I start a company as successful and meaningful as Pixar, is the day I start lobbing stones at John and Ed's management style.”
“JL is taking peoples movies away from them when the movies aren't of his taste.”
“Sometimes it's indeed for the betterment of the movie, other times it's studio politics.”
I think their primary success had a lot more to do with a man named $teve Job$ & on riding the cusp of a new [and the next big] production method & medium than it had to do with anything else. John & Ed, while very smart & talented guys in their own right, are still just human beings, liable to thousands of triumphs & follies that can occur along the path of life.
I think it’s wrong to have one person, in this case John Hawaiian-Shirt Lasseter, as the sole arbiter of taste on all Disney & Pixar projects & all its creative affiliations. Not because there’s anything wrong with his sense of taste, but because no one person is the arbiter of taste, the audience is the only arbiter of taste. If anything, John is hopefully an arbiter of quality control, high standards & asking more of people, the same way Steve “A**h*le Boss” Jobs was said to have been in demanding the utmost from everyone on everything. I’d rather have someone ask me for the moon & the stars than asking me to just sand their floors, take out their garbage or trim their hedge. Quality can be & mean many different things, but it is not Taste, but sometimes some folks find the two difficult to discern.
Also... @Anonymou April 16, 2012 7:21:00 PM could you elaborate more on aspects of American Dog, before John came to Disney & Chris Sanders walked the project changed to Bolt? I'd love to know more, if you really do know anything about it.
@Anonymous April 16, 2012 1:01:00 PM
Peter Hastings wasn't the original director of HTTYD. He replaced Lorna Cook & David Soren. Peter was replaced by Chris & Dean.
So it goes.
Post a Comment