Change for the better is a sign of creative leadership. Change for the sake of change is evidence of creative bankruptcy.
True, but that's not the case here. We haven't seen the end-product, so IMHO all we can say is that it is a good idea, for the reasons I mentioned earlier and based on the examples I've given earlier, and we'll just have to wait for the implementation to determine whether the idea was executed with merit or not. Even at that time, it wouldn't be the idea that would be good or bad, but simply the execution.
That is unless someone is willing to take up the banner and rail
against West Side Story, The Wiz, The Mists of Avalon, Pretty Woman, etc.
I don't know enough about the project to say what this change will be, but the negative impact you are missing is not with the story, its with the negative use of resources better utilized in creating new stories with new characters with new genders in them.
Sorry, but I see this as either evidence of a pre-conceived bias against, or simple naiveté. Pursuing use of an existing asset is not negative-by-nature. Good business requires
both new development and development based on existing assets. To treat
any existing asset as a sacred cow, that cannot be developed further in the interest of the enterprise, is simply bad management. The specific use itself can, of course, be scrutinized, but again, I haven't seen anyone pick up the banner and make the point as to why Pooh's stories, themselves, demand that the child in the stories
must be a boy -- what it is about a change in gender that totally destroys the original magic of the stories.
But thinking up new ideas is hard.
There is no question that Disney is heavily relying on Pixar for this, these days. It makes sense:
In the old days, Disney kept his creative talent under his oppressive thumb. The studio system was in full-force, and it was even more effective within the realm of animation as it was in the realm of live-action.
Now, the situation is 180° different: Jonas Ridderstrale and Kjell Nordström write, "Talent makes capital dance." Big business retains its advantage at implementation and distribution, and probably always will. However, the best environment for creative talent is in charge of their own destiny, in small think tanks. This is the case in every industry, and the exceptions are notable rather than common.
In the industry I work in now, the visionaries are either executives of large companies, executives of small companies, or private entrepreneurs. They
don't take jobs where they're some underling of an underling of an underling, in some massive hierarchy. They want autonomy -- control not only over their own destiny but also over what creative interests they pursue. These folks deliver such significant returns on their creative talent that they can insist on that autonomy, on that control. Furthermore, it appears very clear that many of the most creative people are more creative
with that autonomy than
without it.
I can understand why the company would make this mistake.
All I can say is that assuming it is a mistake makes it more difficult to objectively evaluate the decision.
while over at Pixar (which began as you know partly as a Disney funded project with ex-Disney employees)
For the reasons I mentioned above.
