...this is not a challenge to the notion of advancing the art by using a different tool, nor is it a call to stop the studio from re-introducing the stories and characters in a new fashion. Such an argument on any of our parts would be foolishly conservative and ignorant, turning a blind eye to how great works can be reinterpreted time and again, or how any single subject in nature or in literature has been painted or rendered by countless artists over the ages. That argument would also - as you properly note - ignore the philosophy of the company's founder.
And Im not opposed to CG animation. A new film, or even a new interpretation of an old story, in CG is a terrific thing when done well. But to argue in favor of this Franken-plan of Eisners because CG is the best way to appeal to current audiences is terribly short sighted. Its like saying that any classic work that we want to introduce to younger audiences must be in the medium that is currently most appealing to them. What are we to do when we introduce the great works of fiction to children, put them in Leap-Frog versions or turn them into video games? Thats absurd, dont you think?
This is not an attempt to stop the advancement of thinking or stay the use of technology in service to art; instead, the clear call to action here is to stop the studio from a very costly act of lazy arrogance, by literally making the same film over again because they think CG is better than the original medium and in this approach believe that the performances can be repeated, the look enhanced, and the quality matched or even improved upon. To argue in favor of that is on par with arguing that a sculptural 3-D version of the Mona Lisa is better than the original because it's more exciting and more advanced. Were the originator of the painting himself alive to make that choice, and daVinci fully participated in the re-creation of the painting in another medium then I'd have no quarrel. But the master craftsmen and artists whose collective efforts resulted in these films have no say in this endeavor. The essence of the characters that we have come to love is greater than simply their design and their coloring, or even just their voices. These characters, as they exist in these films, move as they do and are acted against the scenery we see as a result of choices specific to that finished work. Animation is truly unique among all art forms in that it is the collective vision of a group of people who come together to cement the story they want to tell as they want to tell it. Even theatre - a tradition that I was trained in - changes from night to night. Animated films are finished works - some great, some flawed, some classic. Like all works, regardless of the critical opinion, they are artistic products deserving of respect. To merely copy one in near exactness for commercial gain is less than cloning it - it's turning it into an expensive doormat for the sake of following the fashion of the day, hoping it will result in acclaim.
Financial gain is good, and I want my Disney stock to go up and I want the company to prosper, but not at the expense of the founders' vision and not in lieu of expanding the brand with new characters in new films that challenge today's artists. If they want to re-make Peter Pan or any other of the classic titles, then let them design new characters, new songs, cast new voices, and write new versions of the stories in an attempt to improve. I will not stand here like some crazy zealot attempting to define the Disney version of anything as definitive. In fact, I prefer several other versions of stories that have been rendered by the studio. But copying a work is not re-creating a work - it's incestuous forgery.
