Disney's* First non-Pixar CGI Film

[Another Voice]

Little noticed in all the flurry recently was a counter flurry of frantic press releases meant to show Wall Street that Eisner still has plans for The Walt Disney Company.

Among these was a major announcement about Disney's* first non-Pixar CGI film, Valiant.

The asterisk is because it's not really a Disney film, the movie is being created by Vanguard Animation primarily in the U.K. All Disney did was buy the rights to distribute the film in the United States (the European and other international rights are owned by someone else). So basically this "Disney" movie is simply prepackaged goods Disney is going to retail to you in the local thearters a year from now.

What, you were expecting Disney to make a movie?

Anyway, the entire press release can be found here .

LOS ANGELES, December 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Ewan McGregor, star of Moulin Rouge and Star Wars, will voice the title character in Vanguard Animation's CG animated feature film VALIANT. The animated comedy tells the story of a lowly wood pigeon named Valiant, who overcomes his small size to become a hero in Great Britain's Royal Air Force Homing Pigeon Service during World War II. The RHPS advanced the Allied cause by flying vital messages about enemy movements across the English Channel, while evading brutal attacks by the enemy's Falcon brigade.

Sexy Beast star, Academy Award-winner Sir Ben Kingsley, will voice General Keyserlingk, the feared German falcon leader. Other actors lending their voices include Academy Award-winner Jim Broadbent (Moulin Rouge, Bridget Jones's Diary), Rupert Everett (An Ideal Husband, My Best Friend's Wedding), Hugh Laurie (Stuart Little), John Hurt (Harry Potter, Elephant Man), and Ricky Gervais, star of the BBC comedy hit series The Office.

VALIANT, which will be completed in December 2004, is currently in production, with a staff of 95, at Vanguard Animation's recently completed CG studio built at Ealing Studios in London, as well as continuing at its Los Angeles and New York offices. Disney is distributing the picture in North America, and Odyssey Entertainment in the UK is handling international distribution. Disney holds worldwide merchandising, soundtrack, and video game rights as well. Vanguard Animation is a division of Vanguard Films. IDT Corporation, a subsidiary of IDT Entertainment, Inc., a multinational carrier, telephone, and technology company, has a significant investment in Vanguard Animation.

 

[raidermatt]

Disney is distributing the picture in North America, and Odyssey Entertainment in the UK is handling international distribution. Disney holds worldwide merchandising, soundtrack, and video game rights as well.

I remember this being one of the deals Disney had made. Not sure if AV or anyone else has the answers, but a few questions...

Who will own the film itself? In other words, is this like the Pixar deal, in which Disney can make sequels at will, if it chooses?

Is this a one time deal, or has Disney signed a multi-film deal?

Thanks.

 

[HB2K]

Or more importantly who owns the intellectual property rights to the characters in these movies....i.e. can Disney exploit them in the same manner that they exploit the Pixar characters in the Disney Stores, Theme Parks, etc?

 

[Cricket2]

This is a few months old but...

http://www.vanguardanimation.com/Variety1.html


Looks like a multi-film deal.

JC

 

[Peter Pirate]

Good questions to a good post...But the point is this film WILL NOT truly be a 'Disney film' just like (I don't) consider Pixar films to be 'Disney' films. They (Pixar films) are great and it's great to have them associated with Disney but I fear L&S, BB & Home On The Range may be the last of the true Disney (animated) films...Is that about right Voice?

 

[raidermatt]

Thanks Mr. Cricket, and yes, Mr. Pirate, I agree with your assessment of the big picture. And unless something has changed over the last few days, I'd say AV's response is yes, it looks like this is where things are going.

The Pixar arrangement looks great until you view it for what it really is... an oursourcing agreeement for creation of core product. Deals like the Vanguard deal, and the slashing and possible elimination of in-house animation are just the natural progressions.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Matt, I think the Pixar association IS great but we MUST look at the details and realize what niche it should fit into the 'Disney family' of products.

As an addition, filling the coffers with little risk or input, I'm all for it. As a substitute to making real Disney movies I agree that this isn't acceptable and will be noted by loyalties in the future...Meaning big long term problems.

 

[raidermatt]

But its pretty clear Disney doesn't view it as a niche, as evidenced by the shutdown of there own CGI, the signing of other deals, and the rumors (at least) of a shutdown of Florida animation.

The "you can't get a little bit pregnant" analogy doesn't always fit, but I think in this case it does.

Your core product is your core product. If you have a philosophy that says you don't need to create it yourself, there's nothing to stop that philosophy from proliferating.

Disney does not need Pixar to fill a niche, they need Pixar because Pixar has consistently shown the ability to do things that Disney no longer has the ability and/or desire to do.

 

[anotherboardnposter]

"Valiant" Disney's first non-Pixar CGI film?

What's "Dinosaur", chopped liver?

Sincerely,

John "anotherboardnposter" Kilduff

 

[Lesley]

Well, Dinosaur comes off our video shelf about as often as chopped liver enters our home....(ie. never)

 

[Planecrazy4dis]

IMHO I feel that "Disney's Dinosaur" was a beautiful CGI film done by Disney and "Treasure Planet" is one of the best films that mixes CGI and traditional animation. As far as colaborating with other CGI companies, I think they could do just fine on their own.

 

[DisneyFanGuy]

From a technical standpoint, Disney still has the muscle to be an industry leader. Dinosaur, TP, etc demonstrate that well. Nobody except Pixar is even in the same league from what I have seen. What was missing from many of Disney's recent animated efforts, however, was the complete and total sense of story, and of how to appeal to the widest audience possible.

That's what wins in the end, and that is what John Lassiter, Jim Henson, Walt Disney, and others had that is missing in Disney's current efforts. Disney's best recent efforts have been built around one person's vision with a wonderful technical team supporting. Lilo and Stitch comes to mind. Those are few and far between.

The trouble is, that anytime someone seems to step up with that kind of talent...........Disney has shown them the door. There are a few exceptions, but, for me, the heart has left the company. Disney needs to attract, maintain, and motivate talent. The art of creativity needs a home there before I can really love the brand again.

 

[Lesley]

Well said, Disney Fan Guy.

 

[Planecrazy4dis]

Has anyone seen BIONICLE: MASK OF LIGHT yet? I haven't, but I've noticed the DVD at Costco. I don't remember seeing the movie trailer. Did it go straight to video/DVD? It appears that Disney did the CGI. I'm curious to find out how good it came out.

Since we're on the subject of Disney's anamation alliances, what is the relationship between Disney and Studio Chible Films who created MIYAZAKI'S SPIRITED AWAY?

 

[Another Voice]

BIONICLE: MASK OF LIGHT is only being distributed by Disney (through Buena Vista in the U.S. and Miramax in the rest of the world). The means Disney's involvement is making sure the DVD's get pressed and shipped to the right stores. A series of other companies are listed as the ones that actually made the film.

It's a similar situation with Spirited Away. Disney purchased the distribution rights for North America, but with a clause that let dubbed the voices with Big Time American Stars (because Hollywood assumes Americans are too stupid to read subtitles).

On the earlier question about Dinosaur being Disney's real non-Pixar CGI film. With the way the term "CGI" is generally understood, Dinosaur isn't really a CGI film. It's a hybrid of CGI and "real" photograph and "real" special effects. It falls into a region of "CGI as special effects" more than "an animated film created solely on computers". Yes, it's technical but a lot of people in both the CGI-Animation world and the CGI-Effects world argue about such things.

As I understand it, a lot of people in animation feel using "real" photography is a cheat for the hard stuff – water, fire, complex jungles & forests, etc. Watch the additional material on the Finding Nemo DVD and you'll see how long and hard Pixar worked to get "underwater" animated properly. From the effects side, Dinosaur is considered an extension of the CGI Character work started on Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park in placing photorealistic effects in "real world" shots. Dinosaur is really only mentioned because it lacked people (people on screen reacting to an effect makes the effect look "more real") and because of the all the behind-the-scenes turmoil that caused Disney to slaughter one of the pioneering companies in the world of computer generated imaginary.

Certainly in the way the public has come to see the "CGI" genre it's in terms of films like Toy Story, Shrek and Ice Age – everything obviously done on a computer. In fact, in terms of how many computers were used in production it's a fair bet that there's more CGI in Treasure Planet than in Dinosaur – but the public clearly saw (those that bothered to show up) Treasure as a "hand drawn" animated film. Genre classification, like everything else in Hollywood, is subject to interpretation.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by Another Voice
It's a similar situation with Spirited Away. Disney purchased the distribution rights for North America, but with a clause that let dubbed the voices with Big Time American Stars (because Hollywood assumes Americans are too stupid to read subtitles).

AV, do you feel the same way about the redubbing of Finding Nemo into several languages? Does Hollywood also consider Germans too stupid to read subtitles?

 

[Planecrazy4dis]

Thanks Another Voice for the informative info about CGI. I have to finish watching my Finding Nemo DVD & I'll check out how they made it. CGI is a facinating subject.

 

[Another Voice]

"Does Hollywood also consider Germans too stupid to read subtitles?"

You're asking about the logic used by people in Hollywood and you expect an intelligent answer?

In general the belief is that Americans will not accept subtitled or dubbed movies. Subtitles "make the audience work too hard" (and no, I am not being funny or making it up) and that Americans equate dubbing with movies on late night local television where a guy in a giant rubber lizard suit stomps on tiny models of various Asian cities.

You ever notice that when a character holds up a note that says: Give the money to the tall guy in the suit standing by Goofy that the character will read the lines out loud even though the text of the note is twenty feet high on the screen?

Yup, Hollywood assumes you're not going to read the note and you'll miss an important story point.

An advantage of subtitling is that it keeps the original actor's performance intact. Although you may not understand the words, the inflections and tones come through. Dubbing wipes away, dialog is changed to fit mouth movements better and often large parts of the soundtracks are lost as well - If the sound was recorded on the set in a single track than all the background sound will be lost as well.

The controversy with Spirited Away was that Disney decided not to release a subtitled version, only the dubbed version. Everyone agreed that you can't subtitle a children's movie, and everyone is in agreement that Disney did a good job with the new soundtrack. But a lot of people (especially the heavy duty film fan types) wanted the real movie as well to enjoy. Disney's answer was basically, "no one wants to watch a subtitled" movie. As far as I know, only the dubbed version is for sale legally.


Naturally, using subtitles has issues as well. People can generally understand spoken speech much faster than they can read it. A lot of dialog may get lost or truncated in the process. I remember watching a screening of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon when it first came out. A good portion of the audience apparently understood Mandarin (I think that was the dialect used) and based on their laughter, a lot of the good lines never made it into the English subtitles.

On the flip side, Hollywood Conventional Wisdom says that European audiences are much more sophisticated than Americans (especially those Americans that live outside of Manhattan Island or West L.A.). They are able to handle subtitles with ease. That's contradicted because most films going to Europe are dubbed and dubbing is practiced much more as an art there than it is here.

 

[Mr D]

My impression of movies that are released by Disney such as Spirited Away and Bionicle is not all that bad, myself I greatly enjoyed both, but therin lies the problem of morality if such term can exist in todays modern business dealings. Disney or rather the true creative works of Disney paid animators did NOT actually create these fine films, instead they USE the name of "Disney" on the DVD or other media to sell the product. To me its piracy or in a minor sense decieving the public. No doubt this is an Eisner POV that he can do anything with the Disney name on it. He has shown the world he needs not have creative minds under the roof of Disney, he can instead sell anything from others and slap the Disney name on it and the public automatically buys it.

Whats next?

Disney computers?

Disney motors?

a .44magnum Disney Eagle?