It's like a knife in the back ...

[Sarangel]

I couldn't find the original article on Yahoo! news anywhere. Do you have a link? Thanks.

The reason I quoted the whole story is that Yahoo! tends to remove articles after a couple of days. I haven't left anything out, if that helps.

Sarangel

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"I do know that he would have been the leader in CGI, not a follower. He wouldn't be looking to build a CGI department 10 years after its emergence,"***

Wasn't Disney actually one of the first to use CGI with Dinosaur, about 10 years ago ? They just let a boxoffice failure and saw he amazing potential of Pixar to do the work for them.

 

[raidermatt]

Wasn't Disney actually one of the first to use CGI with Dinosaur, about 10 years ago ? They just let a boxoffice failure and saw he amazing potential of Pixar to do the work for them.

No and yes.

Dinosaur was released in 2000, 5 years after Toy Story. Toy Story 2 was released in 1999. So they were nowhere near the first. (Though again, they were using computers in their "hand-drawn" films.)

Also, Dinosaur grossed $137 million domestically. Not really a failure, but I guess by Pixar standards, it was. Certainly HotR, BB, TP, Atlantis, and many others would love to have that total.

But yes, apparently the decision was that Pixar could do it better, so better to go that route. Reasonable short term decision, imho, and an awful long term decision, imho.

 

[grinningghost]

Originally posted by raidermatt


I do know that he would have been the leader in CGI, not a follower. He wouldn't be looking to build a CGI department 10 years after its emergence, and looking to make distribution deals with other companies who had beat him to the punch.

Exactly. Would Pixar even have been necessary had Walt been around? Probably not. Disney would have been the company with all the know-how to do their own CG - even if it initially took a toll on his bank account. That's just the kind of guy he was. Take a risk, be the pioneer, don't let anyone get ahead of you.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Would Pixar even have been necessary had Walt been around? Probably not. "***

I don't know.....I'll partner up with any company that will make me 2.5 - and still counting - billion dollars.

***"Disney would have been the company with all the know-how to do their own CG - even if it initially took a toll on his bank account."***

I thought it was all about the story, not the technique.

***"Take a risk, be the pioneer, don't let anyone get ahead of you."***

That's what I've said from the beginning... are we still arguing the same point ?

 

[raidermatt]

I don't know.....I'll partner up with any company that will make me 2.5 - and still counting - billion dollars.

Why would you do that if you could do it yourself and keep all of the money? That's what ghost is saying. If Disney had maintained its position as the best, regardless of the tools used, they would not have needed the Pixar deal. They would have been making their own blockbusters and not splitting the dough with anybody else.

I thought it was all about the story, not the technique.

Part of telling a story, including great ones, is picking the best techniques with which to tell it. Clearly CGI is a technique that works in some cases, therefore, Disney run Walt's way would have built their own CGI capability.

That's what I've said from the beginning... are we still arguing the same point ?

Not sure. Part of being a pioneer would have involved building the capability internally, not partnering with Pixar, and continuing to produce the best animated films in the industry, regardless of the techniques used. Yet you seem to be supporting partnering with Pixar. So I'm not sure.

 

[YoHo]

It's simple really, if Walt were around, Lassiter would be working for him. He's said as much.


It's too bad good old George had to fund his divorce by selling Pixar.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

I gotta agree with dancing bear, there is just as much "heart and soul" in any Pixar film as any Disney film. And I certainly have a stronger "emotional connection" to the Pixar and modern Disney films than any of the pre 1965 "Classics".

 

[grinningghost]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
I gotta agree with dancing bear, there is just as much "heart and soul" in any Pixar film as any Disney film. And I certainly have a stronger "emotional connection" to the Pixar and modern Disney films than any of the pre 1965 "Classics".

I guess it's like comparing oranges to apples. Maybe it can't be done.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Yet you seem to be supporting partnering with Pixar. So I'm not sure."***

Partnering with Pixar has nothing to do with my stated opinion that Walt would have embraced the world of CGI as he did with all the earlier technologies.

Partnering with Pixar just makes good sense. Even if 10 years ago Disney were cutting edge CGI and turning out great flicks, if Steve Jobs were to come to you and say "this is what we can do for you, this is what your percentage of the take will be and all it will cost is X" , wouldn't you jump on the deal ?

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by Sarangel
The reason I quoted the whole story is that Yahoo! tends to remove articles after a couple of days. I haven't left anything out, if that helps.

Sarangel

I didn't think you left anything out, I just couldn't find any mention of it anywhere in any OTHER news. And, with all the focus on Disney lately, you'd think a story like that would have been picked up somewhere. I was just wondering why Yahoo news was the only place to have it ... usually they source their stuff -- it's AP or AFP or Reuters or something.

Thanks

 

[exDS vet]

Originally posted by YoHo
Oliver and Company started the resurgence? I beg to differ.

This could start a whole new debate.

 

[YoHo]

Oliver & Company is the first illustration of why Micheal Eisner has no clue what works in animation. It was the failure of Oliver and company that allowed Katzenberg to get The Little Mermaid made well. I'm not saying O&C was a bad film, but it wasn't the resurgence. Heck, I like a lot of the post Walt pre Eisner Disney films, I think Robin Hood is one of their best, but that doesn't make it part of the resurgence.

 

[Sarangel]

I was just wondering why Yahoo news was the only place to have it ... usually they source their stuff -- it's AP or AFP or Reuters or something.

Allright, already... Sheesh. Here's the Link The source is Nikkei in Japan.

Sarangel

 

[WDSearcher]

Thank you! I like sending stuff like this to my Disney animation-crazed friend in Maine, but she ALWAYS asks me for a source.

 

[raidermatt]

Partnering with Pixar just makes good sense. Even if 10 years ago Disney were cutting edge CGI and turning out great flicks, if Steve Jobs were to come to you and say "this is what we can do for you, this is what your percentage of the take will be and all it will cost is X" , wouldn't you jump on the deal ?

Really, no.

If you can produce better core product for yourself than a vendor can, and quality is an integral part of your product, then you do it yourself, unless you simply cannot afford the investment.

Clearly Disney could afford the investment, they just chose to invest in other things.

In the hypothetical world where Disney still produced product of at least equal quality to their vendor, it might not have too many negative long term repercussions. But in the real world, where Disney is a distant second, its become a serious problem.

Also looking at things realistically, I think the reasons for going with Pixar, and the reasons for Disney's internal animation struggles are largely the same. In other words, while it might be hypothetically possible for them to produce top quality work while also buying it from Pixar, I don't think there was a chance in heck of it happening.

So now where are they?

-Faced with likely becoming the #2 animation studio in name, as well as in substance. For a company that relies so much on its brand value, this could be HUGE in the future.

-Faced with signing new agreements with unknown vendors.

-Faced with building it internally anyway.

 

[dcentity2000]

From the objective standpoint the last four hand drawn films (Brother Bear, Lilo & Stitch, etc) have at most been moderate successes whilst CG films such as Shrek and Finding Nemo have been anything but small. Since Pixar wanted more than Disney could give and Disney needs money, it seems almost inevitable that at some point a shift in focus would come about.



Rich::

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Really, no.

If you can produce better core product for yourself than a vendor can, and quality is an integral part of your product, then you do it yourself, unless you simply cannot afford the investment."***

I think you're under the impression I'm talking about giving up one, for the other. I'm not. I'm saying IF Disney had their own CGI unit turning out quality fliks, I see nothing wrong with them partnering up with Pixar, distributing Pixar fliks in addition to producing their OWN.

 

[raidermatt]

I'm saying IF Disney had their own CGI unit turning out quality fliks, I see nothing wrong with them partnering up with Pixar, distributing Pixar fliks in addition to producing their OWN.

The problem is it clouds vision. The vision that says they will produce quality, creative films, using the best tools available is quite different from one that sees itself as the distributor of other animation studios films. Very difficult to reconcile. One is product-focused, the other is focused on looking for what makes money.

As I said, maybe it is possible to do both, but Disney didn't, so we'll never know for sure.

Since Pixar wanted more than Disney could give and Disney needs money, it seems almost inevitable that at some point a shift in focus would come about.

Disney put itself in a no-win situation.

They either give up a lot to maintain the relationship, or they lose the top animation studio. (Think about this... when was the last time that the unquestioned leader in animation wasn't Disney?)

The biggest mistakes were not in which choice they made a few months ago... the biggest mistakes were the ones they made over the years leading up to the point they where they had to make that choice.

 

[CheekyMonkeysDad]

A note on Oliver & Company (not a big fan), I think the scene where the dogs are jumping on the cars is one of the first uses of CG in Disney. I actually thought this was a pretty good usage, it didn't shock you out of the movie. I thought the use in the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast was done for "Cool Factor" and brought me out of the movie at that point although otherwise that movie was top-notch.
As far as computer usage in animation in general, I consider 3D and 2D to be completely seperate genres. Obviously, if Disney went fully 3D like Pixar, Walt would roll over in his cryogenic stasis tube. I believe that using computers to expediate the coloring has been done for many years in 2D animation. The process now being expediated is the In-Betweening of frames from one key frame pose to the next. A master 2D animator will still be requiered. I believe Klasky-Chupo (Rugrats, Wild Thornberrys) have used this style of animation in their movies. Sometimes you see a combination where 3D models get "Flattened". This also brings me out of the moment. I most recently noticed this effect in the promo for the new SpongeBob movie.
In summary, computers can be used effectively to expediate labor intensive process, but I prefer them not to be used for "Gee whiz" factor. Also, the company can not reduce creative/design process or the methods of animation won't matter at all.
Disclaimer: I have checked 0 facts in my reply here, so I am sure to get corrections, but I stand by the general gist of my comments.