The Future of 2-D and CGI Animation, plus new projects confirmed

[Cybele]

I will admit I did laugh at much of Shrek but the Disney bashing just got OLD. I'm not a fanatic and I do think Eisner needs to take a really good look at himself and the decisions he has been making.

But it seemed like Shrek was trying to beat a dead horse after the 10th or 12th bad Disney joke. It is easier to parody and make fun of than it is to create something totaly original so that is why I wasn't as big a fan of Shrek as many were.

Like I said if they do a better story for Shrek 2 I will be happy to go see it.

 

[Another Voice]

Aye, the Pirate has returned…..

Actually, it was Pixar that struck the deal with Disney. The Mouse wanted some software which Pixar had developed (Disney thought the software would let them lay-off all the “in-betweeners” they had). In lieu of some cash, Pixar asked for (and got) a distribution deal from The Mouse. At the time the deal was signed, Disney thought of it as a rather small deal – Eisner was dumping hundreds of millions into developing The Secret Lab and buying other CGI animation companies. There were more than a few boardroom jokes about Disney’s mighty dinosaurs stomping all over those little Pixar toys. Had they but known…

The success of Pixar movies is due Mr. Lassister and the others Pixar. Disney is simply the retailer. I seriously doubt anyone runs down and hugs the cashier at the local supermarket because of all the hard work that goes into making Oreo Cookies. It’s the same deal here. Eisner deserves no credit.

As for Pixar’s going it alone – that was the conventional wisdom right up until both ‘Shrek’ and ‘Ice Age’ trounced Disney at the box office. The era of brand-name animation is over, and it’s going to make Pixar fantastically wealthy.

 

[raidermatt]

So we're back to the old question of whether the top guy deserves any credit for decisions that turn out well...

Clearly Pixar needed Disney or they wouldn't have asked for the licensing deal. Pixar knew (or at least believed) that they could gross more money with the Disney name than without it. If they were wrong, that was a costly mistake.

Until the licensing deal runs out, they are Disney films. What happens at that point is another issue...

As for Pixar’s going it alone – that was the conventional wisdom right up until both ‘Shrek’ and ‘Ice Age’ trounced Disney at the box office.

A little confused on this point, AV. Are you saying that Pixar is more likely to re-up with Disney because Disney will have no choice but to pay more than was thought a year ago? I ask because the next phrase leads me to believe Pixar would be foolish to re-sign with Disney because you're saying that people will go to any animated film that is good, regardless of whether it has the Disney name on it.

The era of brand-name animation is over, and it’s going to make Pixar fantastically wealthy.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with this point anyway, but not for the reason you might think. The era of brand-name animation is not over, because it never really existed. Disney used to dominate animation mostly because it produced the best films hands down, and their reputation gave them an added boost. Now, there are multiple challengers, and while Disney still has a brand advantage, we are learning that the name alone never really was the main reason for their success. The Disney name probably added 5-10% to a box office total in the past, and is still probably in the 5% range. When they produced films that were 5x better than anything else out there, it was easy to get sucked into believing there was no way to top the Disney name. But now, they no longer are producing films that are judged to be better than everyone else.

This is really the first legitimate challenge to their reign, and it will be interesting to see how they respond over the next couple of years.

With two new Disney (not Pixar) films on the way this year, and the Dreamworks 2d release coming in a couple of weeks, the box office will tell us soon enough.

 

[Bob O]

Cybele- Sorry i didnt mean to diminsh the past greatness of disney animation. i was speaking of their current animated releases. Who think emperor's new groove/mulan as example's are going to be thought of as classics while the new Pixar creations IMHO will have far more longevity and the possibility of being considered classic's.
raidermatt so are we too believe that the new Star Wars film and the old star wars film's are Fox films?????? Well fox is the distributor just as disney is for Pixar but nobody would claim the new Star Wars is a fox production and not a George Lucas production. So to call them disney films is a joke and a insult to the creators of the fine films Pixar has produced with no creative in put at all from Disney. They have never been disney films and arent!! Distributing a movie has nothing in the least to do with the creativity of the movies!! Why else did disney try to buy off lassetter to revive their failing animated empire???
And i hope their 2 new releases do well but does anybody think they will do better box office than Toy Story/Monsters/Bugs Life???

 

[raidermatt]

Yes, Star Wars is a Fox film.

I never said Disney created the films, but just like Disney is responsible for any crud that any of their contractors put out, they are also responsible for anything good that comes out as well.

Yes it would be better for them if they had created it themselves, but people still think of Woody and Buzz as Disney characters, not Pixar characters. They carry the Disney name.

If the agreement were expiring tomorrow, Disney would be foolish to not try to extend the deal, regardless of how big a hit L&S or TP turn out to be.

 

[Bob O]

Nobody at all thinks of Star Wars as a fox film!!!! It is thought of as a George Lucas film and the media isnt going all out to interview fox executives, they are trying to get a interview with the creator-George Lucas!! Lucas chose fox to distribute the film but that is all their involvement is in the film as he wanted from the beginning total control and Pixar will do the same once free of their contract so disney cant take credit for the hard work of others!!
And no Buzz/Woody arent disney characters, they are Pixar's!!! Now barbie was in one of the films as was Mr Potato head so are they now also Disney Characters, as are all the characters who were in roger rabbit now disney characters????
Disney wants people to believe they are their characters because they have shown a recent inability to produce their own!!

 

[JeffJewell]

Star Wars is a Fox film

Instead of giving credit to a human being who birthed a dream, you would give credit to a faceless corporation that wrote a check. Talk about looking at the wrong end of the miracle.

Nothing personal, Matt, but reading your posts breaks my heart.

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

I apologize if I wasn’t clear.

The conventional wisdom was that Pixar had to sign up with Disney, because only “Disney” animated films would work at the box office. That’s more a result of Walt’s fifty years of efforts than Michael’s ten, but that’s quibbling. And in a lot of ways it was proven as bad movies from other studios (‘Swan Princess’, ‘The Road to El Dorado’) tanked, as well as a few very good ones (‘Iron Giant’). And everybody knows about the test Warners did with one of their movie: the same movie with the DISNEY® brand on it tested three times as high as the same movie with the Warners label. Gee, even Michael Jordan’s turn at the Roger Rabbit movie failed, and that was a “Hollywood Sure Thing”.

Fortunately, Mr. Katzenburg didn’t agree. After a few faltering starts, he was able to produce ‘Shrek’, a movie that succeeded at the box office in spite of its brand name. For the first time, there was an animated movie that was seen by the public and the industry as being “as good as” a Disney film. All it takes is one to break the habit and now audiences are flocking to see others: ‘Ice Age’, ‘Jimmy Neutron’, and maybe ‘Spirit’. Before it would have been impossible for Pixar to “go it alone” because of the Disney-brand issue. Now that the market is freed and Pixar has a very strong brand of its own, they will not have any trouble getting either financing or distribution.

On the flip side, the Disney brand itself has been seriously weakened over the last seven years. It was widely held that Disney got stuck in a creative rut, more interested in making movies with high merchandising potential than movies that an audience really wanted to see. The audience felt burned by lackluster films like ‘Pocahontas’, ‘Mulan’ and ‘Hercules’. The brand got cheapened. Even Disney understands the damage. Count the number of times someone says “this isn’t a typical Disney movie” when they talk about ‘Atlantis’ and ‘Lilo and Stitch’.

The end result is now “a level playing field” in terms of audience’s expectations. The competitors – Dreamworks, Fox, Pixar – make movies that are just as good as Disney’s. In fact, The Mouse had a difficult time getting ‘Lilo’ booked into theaters. All those screens that used to be reserved for “the sure thing” have been given to the other guys.

Now about this whole issue about trying to shoehorn credit over to ME: taking credit for a movie that isn’t yours is a long Hollywood tradition. Many argue that a certain executive’s career really got started when he stole credit for ‘Flash Dance’. Since habits linger, he’s been going around ordering people to pat him on the back for his “good job”. The people who need to know about who-gets-what over Pixar know the real story. If fandom wants to believe something different, I think there’s very little anyone can do except present the arguments.

The problem is that a certain tall, balding executive has a really bad problem with believing his own press. It was that certainty about one’s own “genius” that caused The Secret Lab to be shut, all the animators to be fired, “can’t miss films” to be pushed through incomplete and staking the entire studio’s reputation on cheap sequels drawn to sub-TV standards. And it was a certainty in the power of The Brand that caused him to overplay his hand and drive away Pixar.

More mistakes are bound to follow.

 

[YoHo]

Just to Clarify, with the Soul exception of Star Wars the original, George Lucas paid for the other four out of Pocket. Fox did nothing but Slap a Fanfare and Logo on them and run to the bank. There is very little Valid compairison there.

As I've said before, I doubt very much that traditional Animation is dead unless Disney and Dreamworks decide to kill it. It is foolish and cynical to think that the entire movie going public is a bunch of mindless drone who care only about the latest technology.

 

[Cybele]

Hey folks!
I'm back and there are some really good points out there.
Thanks Bob O for clarifying your earlier comments.

I think, for the most part, we all agree that animation can easily remain a mix of both CGI and hand drawn with a strong market for both styles as well as a mix of the two.
Pixar can definately survive on it's own once its deal with Disney is through. The big deal is that even when/if they do they will more than likely still need to distribute it through another company. Pixar is a local company where I live (Oakland, California) and most of there efforts are spent on the animation/story process so I would think they may continue with Disney as a distrubutor or possibly go to another but they get a lot of press through Disney so we will see.

I disagree with the person who posted Mulan was a subpar film. It did very well and was even welcomed by the Chinese who's tale it originally was. It was very well animated and beautifully told and was a big success for Disney. It was an excellent story away from the norm of fairy tales where object of true love is the major plot point (Mermaid, Aladdin, B&B plus many of the classics.)
Also we should remember at this point the only major CGI film had been Toy Story.

Hercules had its problems but it also had some good points but it definitly was not as high a quality as Mulan, Little Mermaid, B&B and Aladdin. I just found ENG very funny a much more light hearted film than they had done in a while. I know about all the changes they did etc, but as a whole it got some very positive reviews from the press.
Cheers everyone!

 

[Bob O]

I dont think traditional animation is dead but i think the younger generations coming up wont have the same emotional attachment as some of us might have.
It still comes down to the quailty of the story but i think with kids now a days if all things are equal they will perfer the computer graphics over hand drawn. Of course the true test will be to have a excellant movie of each version out in the marketplace at the same time and see what the public pefers and how they vote with their pocketbooks. You can do alot of things with computer graphics that cant be repeated with handdrawn animation or it will be too costly to the bean counters!

 

[raidermatt]

I've already said that Disney did not create the Pixar films. I thought the tie-in that Fox did not create Star Wars was clear, but obviously it wasn't.

I am not at all trying to give creative credit for these movies to Disney or Fox.

With respect to Pixar, the simple fact is that Disney owns the licensing to the characters, uses them in the parks, and has their name all over the films. To at least 95% of the public, they are first and foremost Disney characters and films. Those who know the essence of the business deal know that Pixar deserves most of the credit. But since most don't, and furthermore don't care, the characters are known as Disney characters.

If this makes anyone sad, don't blame me. I am merely the messenger.

And Disney still deserves credit for the business part of the deal, as it has been very lucrative for them. Maybe they stumbled into it having no clue how successful it would be for them, but its not like that is an uncommon occurence in show business.

Now, should Pixar blow Disney off after the deal runs out, Disney will have problems in that they haven't been able to compete with what Pixar can put out. In some ways, its similar to the Millionaire situation at ABC. Millionaire masked the creative weaknesses in the rest of ABC's lineup, just as Pixar is masking the weaknesses in Disney Animation. The Pixar situation is actually worse in that Pixar will become a competitor with Disney, instead of fading into oblivion like Millionaire.

However, Disney still has time on the animation front, especially with two films coming in the next 6 months. Also, the Disney/Pixar deal has three more films in it, and a lot can happen during that time.

As for Star Wars, the tie between Fox and Star Wars is not as strong with the public as Toy Story and Disney. But even so, while most people know that George Lucas is responsible, most also know that Fox has its name on the film and probably think they are more involved than just being a distributor.

Regardless, while the reality of the Lasseter to Lucas analogy may be accurate, it doesn't hold up in the public's view. Disney is associated with the Pixar films far more than Fox is with Star Wars. If Lasseter/Pixar gain the levels of fame that Lucas has, maybe the public perception would be different. But that's just not the case with the Toy Story/Monsters/Bugs characters.

 

[Another Voice]

You might want to do a quick review of all the press concerning ‘Monsters, Inc.’. It think the message about it being a Pixar movie is coming through very loud and very clear to public. And by the time the final three movies are released, people will certainly understand what’s going on. Pixar has EVERY incentive in the world to make sure there is a distinct identity for their films and they are already working hard at it.

It’s also very clear that the DISNEY® label on a film means almost nothing at the box office, even for animation. In a lot of ways this is a good development because films will now have to survive off their own merit. And Disney simply can’t shovel the stuff out confident in the power of Brand Marketing to cover-up bad filmmaking.

 

[Bob O]

I hope for disney's sake their films do good but im very skeptical!!!
Their is alot of competition this summer and at x-mas time so for disney's movies to stand out in the crowd they will have to be excellant movie's. If the movies arent excellant people may see the movie once but not mutiple times which is what makes a movie a big money maker!! Escepcially when their are several movies being released most weekends!!
A big hit would be to match the least successful of the Pixar movies and i dont see it happening!! But i hope im wrong and just being pesssmistic!!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Au contraire Bob, I think 'Lilo and Stitch' could be very big...Voice, what do you think? How's the buzzzzzzzzz?

 

[Bob O]

So then are we too assume that Lilo and Stitch will outdo Monsters Inc or Toy Story??? If a movie is going to be called VERY BIG arent we looking at least 200 million at the box office???
Will it out do Ice Age at least????

 

[Peter Pirate]

I'm no expert, but it'll probably be way less expensive than the Pixar movies, so profitability will come quicker, but I'd bet 150 is certainly possible. I'd really like Voice's opinion here...

 

[Bob O]

Im no expert on costs of movies but from what ive read their isnt a big difference in the costs of making a movie between cgi and hand drawn. Imsure somebody more knowlegdeable than i could help out with more details.

 

[Another Voice]

Most of the cost for a CGI movie has been spent in software development since the technology is changing so rapidly. And a lot of money also goes into “talent” like voices and the semi-obligatory but instantly-forgettable song that has to be inserted. Disney is notorious for their massive overhead on both CGI and traditional movies. ‘Ice Age’ only cost about $60 million and ‘Jimmy Neutron’ cost about $30 million because they used lesser priced talent and existing software. But ‘Peter Pan 2’ cost $15 million by using cheap talent and cheap animation factories. ‘Atlantis’ cost over $100 million mostly through bloat and overhead. But then again so did ‘Monsters’. There are too many factors involved to make a blanket statement about the cost of CGI compared to traditional.

‘Lilo’ was a film orphaned by Disney management and kept under constant pressure to be cheap. And I think that made it a much better film. Without the ability to simply throw money at a problem (a la ‘Atlantis’), the creators were forced to come up with imaginative solutions to problems. Just like Walt had to do. And without the corporate “help” on music selection, character/plush design, and a herd of managers involved in every decision, the film was actually made by film makers instead of MBA’s. The cost of a movie is much less important than the people behind the movie.

I’m not really sure how well ‘Lilo’ is going to do. As I’ve said, the Disney brand means nothing at the box office anymore and the movie is going to have to make it on its own merits. This summer is crowded with family films – not only ‘Spirit’ but ‘Stuart Little 2’ and ‘Men in Black 2’ are going to siphon off the box office. I’m also concerned that Disney is not doing a good job on selling this film to the media trednsetters: the newspaper and magazine articles, “upcoming hot summer movie” shows, and all the other publicity that generates a “buzz” in the general public. ‘Spirit’ seems way ahead here.

I also think this film is going to infuriate the “pretty princess” crowd that likes ‘Mulan’, ‘Pocahontas’ and ‘Emperor’. It really is a very different kind of movie for Disney. People who are expecting another soft and gentle flick are going to be really thrown for one. The “blow them up good” crowd from ‘Atlantis’ is going to be disappointed as well. Much more goes on in the film then just laser fights. The word of mouth on this one is going to make or kill this film and I don’t know how it’s going to cut right now.

 

[Peter Pirate]

OK so it seems L&S will probably have been less expensive to make than Monsters (which is what I thought). This will give Disney a much lower breakeven. Plus, they do not seem to be pushing this to death so PR costs will not be stratospheric as PH & Atlantis...Again, an earlier profit point.

Voice isn't sure where this film will go yet & I can respect that, but IMO indications would seem to be that this will be a very good movie for Disney...We can only hope that the way it was made & if successful will not fall on blind eyes (you listening Mike).