Ei$ner to STEP DOWN !!!!!

[DisneyKidds]

I'll throw my hat in with Matt on this one. Just as Walt was the first to use multi-plane cameras in the animation process, so too should the Disney of the 90's been the first to identify the latest emerging technologies in animation. Disney should never have put themselves in the position of having to catch up with anybody......no matter how successfull they were at traditional bread and butter animation. That smacks of resting on your laurels and failing to remain the leader in the animation field. There is no reason why Pixar should have been able to invest in and pursue technologies that Disney didn't even have on the radar screen. True, by the time Pixar had demonstrated the virtues of GCI animation there may not have been many choices for Disney (but that could be argued).........but it never should have gotten to that point. I think that is what Matt is saying.

Of course, this is also true........

Face it ... no one thought computer animation was a particularly cool or lucrative thing until Pixar made it so. Just as no one thought animation at all was a cool or lucrative thing until Disney made it so. If Disney had jumped into CGI when Pixar did, they'd have been roundly criticized for taking this warm, beautiful art of hand-drawn animation and trying to do it on a computer.

Yes, it would have been a fine line to walk. However, this very quote highlights the fact that Pixar was in fact the "Disney" of the 90's. That is sad, because it is all animation, and Disney should never have been second to anybody in any form of animation, for any reason. Period. I don't care how successful The Little Mermaid was, there is no reason Disney shouldn't have been the one winning all those technological awards starting back in 1991.

 

[KNWVIKING]

DK, I'm not a Disney history buff by any stretch of the imagination but I can't imagine Walt never borrowed technology or partnered with companies that had a better mouse trap when it suited him to do so. The multi plane camara is a great example of Disney being a trend setter in the industry, but I have to believe there were other such technologies developed by others that Walt used.

I don't know enough about the developement of CGI back in the early '90s to know why decisions were made the way they were, but it seems to me that part of the process included a certain amount of doubt that CGI would be a success. IMO there was no risk being taken with Walt developing the multiplane camara because the desired result was going to be so much better then what was currently availible. I don't know that ME could draw that same conclusion 10-12 years ago.

 

[raidermatt]

Comeon Matt! Dreamworks handed handdrawn animation a pink slip when Sinbad fell flat on its' face. So they too shut down a tradition.
What is it they ramped up? A sequel to Shrek is hardly a trendsetter. You give them far too much credit here.

I'm talking about Disney shutting down its CGI after Dinosaur, while Dreamworks produced the first Shrek, then another, and is set to release their third CGI film.

This is a separate discussion from whether traditional animation should be shut down.

Your arguing that because Disney chose to stick with what they were exceptional at - animation, and partner with the leading high-tech special effects and computer artistry industry giants the likes of Lucas and Jobs they failed to sufficiently invest in a trend?

Yes.

Kidds has it right. Disney didn't rest on their laurels through their many years of success and innovation, and their is no reason to excuse it now.

The irony that so many continue to miss despite my repeated attempts to point it out is that the only reason we are here discussing this company is because they weren't complacent and always strove to be in the forefront of their industry.

So in other words, they should have purchased the equivalent of these two core businesses and staffed thousands of developers and high tech experts in- house to satisfy your standard. Why? Because a 10 plus year highly reputable and very successful joint venture with the best in the business is too weak an option according to your theories.

If that's what it would have taken (which is a gross overstatement), then yes, they should have.

As successful as the 10 year venture has been, it would have been more successful for Disney to remain the leader in animation and keep ALL of the profits for themselves. Further, they wouldn't find themselves in the position they are in today... forced to either let the best in the business walk or make a less profitable deal for the future.

There is nothing theoretical about this, other than whether Disney had the creative ability to remain on top.

And once again, if they did not or do not, that is another failure on their part.

Walt didn't invent tv, but he saw the potential it had. ME didn't invent CGI, but he saw the potential in Pixar.

Inventing television wasn't part of Disney's core business, while producing animated films is.

He saw the potential in Pixar, which again, is better than not even doing that much. But he allowed Disney to fall further and further behind until they are now fighting to be the #2 animated film producer, and can't even sniff #1.

Disney is not the Disney we know when its not creating its own content. Distributing the work of others and simply slapping the Disney name on it isn't what Disney was all about. Its simply a way to milk the value of the brand.

I really can't figure out why Disney fans would so staunchly defend this shift.

 

[DisneyKidds]

You are right Vike, and I'm not saying it would have been an easy decision to pursue CGI back when Pixar did.......but not everything Walt tried worked either. Granted, Pixar had a lot less to lose if it didn't pan out........and, yes, I know it was a different day and age, but you still need decision makers who can make the right calls, even if they aren't the safe ones.

While Disney back then was making the apparently safe choice by not investing a ton of money in an unproven animation technique, how many billions of losses were being embarked upon as Eisner ramped up his media mogul status? Disney might have been better served investing more in what they did best (animation in any and all forms) than expanding to become something they never were in the first place. Sure, this is where the "Disney neded to expand to keep from being taken over" argument comes out, but if Disney was as successful as Pixar was in develeloping the CGI technologies that just might have kept the wolves at bay.

It's all about choices. I love Disney as it is today (not that it couldn't be better) and think it is still a strong company and a leader in many ways (not that it couldn't be stronger), but that doesn't mean every decision up to this point has been the right one. Investing heavily in animation back in the 90's, beyond the safe traditional hand drawn features, would have been a better choice IMHO.

 

[WDSearcher]

Disney didn't rest on their laurels through their many years of success and innovation, and their is no reason to excuse it now. The irony that so many continue to miss despite my repeated attempts to point it out is that the only reason we are here discussing this company is because they weren't complacent and always strove to be in the forefront of their industry.

Three words : The Miller Years. A time in Disney history where the company did indeed rest on its laurels and during which success and innovation were a bit harder to come by and the door was wide open for other companies to challenge.

As successful as the 10 year venture has been, it would have been more successful for Disney to remain the leader in animation and keep ALL of the profits for themselves. Further, they wouldn't find themselves in the position they are in today... forced to either let the best in the business walk or make a less profitable deal for the future.

That's assuming that the technical innovation would have kept them the leader in animation. Hand-drawn or CGI, it's still about the story, right? As we've said before, a bad story is a bad story whether it's drawn by hand or computer. If Walt had introduced his multi-plane camera with a lesser film than Snow White, would it have been seen as the innovation it was?

 

[crusader]

There is no reason why Pixar should have been able to invest in and pursue technologies that Disney didn't even have on the radar screen.

Sure there is - one big reason. Pixar was merely a small production enterprise operating within two main industries - special effects and software development. They were pure R & D in animation production with unlimited resources and highly specialized experts - who happen to be the absolute best in their field to develop a new capability.

Disney would have had to have done the same here. They needed the equivalent of a Lucas and a Jobs to develop this level of artform.

Pixar was never on the market to be owned by an existing animation producer. So Disney did the one thing they could. They ventured with the same software developers and special effects geniuses and worked alongside an exceptional artist to move animation into the 21st century.

This isn't simply a comparison to the development of a new camera design here. Jobs needed Lasseter. Lasseter needed Lucas. Pixar needed Disney. All separate financially owned giant empires merged for a common goal. It works because it utilizes a magnitude of resource no single component can provide on its' own.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Good and interesting debate guys. I'm (as usual) with crusader on this. It's just too simplistic, in my eyes, to say Disney should never have faltered in the 'creative areas'...Sometimes things just happen. How could Disney be assured their investment in this new tech was worth it? How could they be sure that they could catch and do it better than Pixar? Could they ever defend such expenditures to stockholders on such untested tech if it failed? Sometimes the other guy is just going to be better...Or first.

The other nagging point is that ME is not Walt and neither was Roy, Roy Jr., Card, Ron, Iger, Jobs or Lassiter. This doesn't mean another innovative soul like Walt won't someday make huge noises in these areas, but I don't believe it can be scripted and likely it will appear in the form of a fledgling upstart (like Pixar was) over a corporate conglomerate with much to lose...

It would have been GREAT had Disney bought Pixar outright but in the final analysis, Disney via Paxar, has continued the great tradition of Disney familiy entertainment, which is still great...

 

[dcentity2000]

To clarify on the CGI front:

Pixar was headed by Steve Jobs who had bought it off of George Lucas cheap, Lucas needing the money for a costly divorce. This is the same Steve Jobs whose reign over companies saw the creation of the Apple II, the original Macintosh (the first viable graphical user interface), the NExT cube (a technilogical triumph), the iMac (most successful and acclaimed computer ever), the iPod, the iTunes music store (owning 80% of the market share) and Mac OS X, a system so slick and acclaimed that the user base has soared, now taking a reasonable chunk out of the Windows empire. In short, the man has done technical wonders and of course would be well placed to nurture Pixar.

I'd just like to mention that I am actually a little concerned over the strength of prima facie hatred that is being displayed towards Eisner. None of you know him personally or have been by his side for any length of time, yet he is defamed and blamed perpetually for Disney's slump in power. It is practically irrational and quite upsetting to see - point blank, the man has seemingly done wonders for Disney in his time and also made some unpopular decisions. Whether these decisions were right or wrong is not a subject which you or I could debate upon as quite frankly, we don't have the slightest notion of what the situations were; we are like scientists observing a distant planet through a telescope and then passing comments about it's environment. Just remember that the man is regarded with respect by the commercial world and has himself triumphed in his own life - he is now very rich and has survived a massive vote of no confidence without having to resign in disgrace; instead he is stepping down in two years when he may have planned to anyway. In other words, he beat those who plotted against him and with a thin smile knows that he cannot now be touched - he's going and with good grace, at least as far as we can see. He is a clever man! Ruthless, maybe, but he's won so many times - perhaps the decisions he made were unpopular, but at the time they may well have been right; remember, Michael Eisner had a lot of equity tied up to Disney's survival, both financial and perceptual. He had a real motive to make that company function well. His victories may extend further than you could possibly imagine, further than you would care to; he is a powerful entity to deal with and I suspect one who wouldn't sabotage a company with poor judgement if he stood to lose as a consequence. Could he have judged wrong over whether he stood to lose? Possible, but a bit unlikely - there was lots of liquid equity in it for him and you cannot tall me that the man has not championed this world compared to the rest of us.

So just be careful with the sour comments - you may be shooting the innocent.



Rich::

 

[crusader]

But he allowed Disney to fall further and further behind until they are now fighting to be the #2 animated film producer, and can't even sniff #1.

He allowed Disney? Who hogtied Lasseter in the first place?

Ok I get the premise of this remark but it's a clever play on words. Walt Disney Pictures produced all of Pixar's films because "they" provided the financial backing.

So you really can't make this claim until Pixar competes head to head against Disney, Fox and Dreamworks and emerges with the lions share of the market. Last time I checked they held 0 market share. That puts them dead last - worldwide.

So in truth, who is #1?

Sure, Pixar has been "making" these films for Disney instead of Disney making them for themselves. And I too wish they had spun Lasseter into his own subsidiary and joint ventured with Lucas Films and Apple to build this empire but it's certainly not Eisner who lost that oppportunity here.

Let's keep this in perspective.

And thanks to DCentity2000 for those very sound remarks. I appreciated the read.