Second Disney Renaissance About This Page:

[Jciambor]

This decade has been pretty dry for Disney's box office take-ins for traditional animated films. However this all might change. John Lassater and much of Disney is trying to re-launch this department and in a very similar style to how they approached The Little Mermaid.

With The Princess and The Frog I believe the company is trying to renew its traditional animation departments credibility because for the last five years the animated box-office has been dominated by Computer Animation.

Do you think a second Disney renaissance coming I mean do you believe that this will mirror The Little Mermaid like they want it to? In my honest opinion this will probably be a box-office success because as I can recall this is the first Disney hand drawn feature since the Lion King to have so much publicity and marketing invested into it.

Though if Disney's Second Renaissance comes it wont be permanent . I have done research of the companies history to realize Disney goes in cycles its sometimes doing well sometimes in dire straits. Hopefully 1984 wont be repeated.

But what do you think? Do we have another renaissance on our hands?

[Bert & Sully]

Seems to have gotten buried. Let me think about it and get back to you.

[Dave Marx]

I consider Pixar to be the current renaissance, with Lasseter's current position as proof of that. The trick is whether he can reignite the creativity at Disney Feature Animation, a division so battered and shattered by a long series of shake-ups that it bears little resemblance to the organization that gave us the renaissance of the 1990s. This "mission" is a good part of why Disney acquired Pixar.

The Princess and the Frog team of John Musker and Ron Clements have a long history of success (and some failures) at Disney, including work on The Fox and the Hound, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective; and directing The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Hercules, and Treasure Planet. Their training stretches back to the Nine Old Men, contemporary with Lasseter, Brad Bird, and Tim Burton (among others). So, in a sense, what Lasseter is doing now is something of a class reunion. Let's hope it becomes a class act.

Meantime, while I have loads of respect for traditional 2-D animation, it's really not about the technology. It's all about story, as the folks at Pixar will be the first to say (and as Walt always knew). For a while now, 2-D animators have either had to relearn their art by transferring to 3-D, or work in television animation. It'll be great if we can have a situation where the artists can do their most expressive work, regardless of the technique (and that could be stop motion, 2-D, CG... whatever) and the production companies will support them with adequate budgets and the best scripts. After all, in "live" filmmaking (which uses more CG with every passing year) the director's technique only matters to the extent that it's affordable, and that the director knows how to tell a story and fill the theater.

Rather than count on "renaissance" or "Golden Age," I'd be much happier with a studio that can produce competent films year in and year out, with management and shareholders willing to put up with brief dry spells and bursts of absolute brilliance along the way. The current expectation of hitting every film out of the park is just humanly unreasonable. You need to give people room to fail every so often, or they'll never stretch and grow.

[happyhedgehogs]

While I love the hand-drawn art (possibly mostly for sentimental reasons...), I think it would be difficult for them to go back to that style after the computer animation of recent decades. I agree with Dave, though, that Pixar's work has brought back some of the magic of Disney movies, regardless of the medium in which they were created.

Interesting topic! I often wonder if you memorize your favorite books on your favorite topics, like my son does! It's always fun to hear him quote paragraphs from the things he has read!

[Jciambor]

Originally Posted by Dave Marx

I consider Pixar to be the current renaissance, with Lasseter's current position as proof of that. The trick is whether he can reignite the creativity at Disney Feature Animation, a division so battered and shattered by a long series of shake-ups that it bears little resemblance to the organization that gave us the renaissance of the 1990s. This "mission" is a good part of why Disney acquired Pixar.

The Princess and the Frog team of John Musker and Ron Clements have a long history of success (and some failures) at Disney, including work on The Fox and the Hound, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective; and directing The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Hercules, and Treasure Planet. Their training stretches back to the Nine Old Men, contemporary with Lasseter, Brad Bird, and Tim Burton (among others). So, in a sense, what Lasseter is doing now is something of a class reunion. Let's hope it becomes a class act.

Meantime, while I have loads of respect for traditional 2-D animation, it's really not about the technology. It's all about story, as the folks at Pixar will be the first to say (and as Walt always knew). For a while now, 2-D animators have either had to relearn their art by transferring to 3-D, or work in television animation. It'll be great if we can have a situation where the artists can do their most expressive work, regardless of the technique (and that could be stop motion, 2-D, CG... whatever) and the production companies will support them with adequate budgets and the best scripts. After all, in "live" filmmaking (which uses more CG with every passing year) the director's technique only matters to the extent that it's affordable, and that the director knows how to tell a story and fill the theater.

Rather than count on "renaissance" or "Golden Age," I'd be much happier with a studio that can produce competent films year in and year out, with management and shareholders willing to put up with brief dry spells and bursts of absolute brilliance along the way. The current expectation of hitting every film out of the park is just humanly unreasonable. You need to give people room to fail every so often, or they'll never stretch and grow.

Now that you mention it the acquisition of Pixar was one of Disney's attempts to resurrect their animation departments creative spark that waned by the beginning of the new millenium. As for the storyline I know from the industry that the storyline is the criteria to a good visual. So without decent writing or a good storyline your left with a pointless visual or an artist improvising a look for something that even if attractive doesn't serve a purpose.

I think that when it comes to Walt Disney in terms of good story lines he owes alot to Ted Sears who lead the story department in the 1930's 40's and 50's. Teds style has been the prime influence for to the story department at Disney since. Though we should also conclude that Disney changes their story department along with the changing times and culture but still using primary influences from the older artists at Disney and Teds initial story ideas.

Finally yes Disney will have more flops, its just the way the market will go in cycles. Disney has had dark periods and bright periods repeat themselves and that is the way its going to be for the rest of the companies history . I completely agree with you Dave that its not healthy for any animation company to be consistently successful or they don't change their formula to improve with the changing market. Disney probably has a hit with this film but along the way there will be more flops that will probably come out.

Disney should be happy to make mistakes and not hide them from the world that way they can learn from certain experiences and lessons from certain films.

[Dave Marx]

I'd also like to add that I think Hollywood's top brass seems to have overcome its attitude that CG animation is the only way to go. It's a natural progression. After Pixar's mega-hits and the success of the Shrek series over at DreamWorks, I'm sure the brass gave too much credit to the technology (and reviewers spent a lot of time analyzing the advances of the technology from film to film), and not nearly enough credit to great story, music, and character development (which are present in every successful animated film, regardless of the visual style). Now, CG has become a "natural" visual language (closer to mature 2D animation), so it's easier to see past the technology. Same thing happened with 2D animation. It took a long time before Disney (and other studios) learned to draw human characters that really came to life. They didn't quite have that down for Snow White, but they came close enough to wow the Hollywood establishment and prove the viability of feature-length animation. By Pinocchio folks were ready to accept the "reality" of human animated characters.

[Griffin]

I don't think people care to see the traditional cartoon anymore. Now that Pixar hits a homerun with each movie they make...It's kind of like a changing of the times. I don't mind though, as long as they keep making cool movies!

[Caldercup]

I don't know about that -- I care to see any movie that has a good story and an interesting visual style, be it live action, motion capture, or 3-D CGI.

But, for me, story is king and that's why I'm hoping Lasseter has a long, loooooong career.
Eileen

[Shell_of_the_South]

DS and I had a discussion yesteray on whether "The Princess and the Frog" will do well. He said that he doesn't think kids will watch traditional animation because they are so used to CGI. I say that it doesn't matter how it's animated - if it's a great story, they will come. But that's the difference of opinion of a 20 year old and a 29 year old (well, close to 29!)

I think P & F will do well. Based on the previews I've seen it's a stunning film. The villian seems to be larger than life, and a really bad villian always makes a good movie!

[Caldercup]

Originally Posted by Shell_of_the_South

I think P & F will do well. Based on the previews I've seen it's a stunning film. The villian seems to be larger than life, and a really bad villian always makes a good movie!

It's gotten glowing reviews from the critics -- saying that it's got great characters, a sweeping story that really holds together and a timeless appeal. I think Entertainment Weekly gave it an A (and they rarely do that.) Right now, RottenTomatoes.com has it at an 83% and that's an AMAZING score for them.

Originally Posted by Shell_of_the_South

that's the difference of opinion of a 20 year old and a 29 year old (well, close to 29!)

You go, girl.
Eileen

[bradk]

I'm not in LOVE with The Princess and the Frog, but I do believe it's the best film they produced since Beauty and the Beast (which used quite a bit of CG in it).

The real problem is that traditional hand-drawn animation here is a gimmick and my gripe is Disney is using it too much as a marketing point which is a bad sell considering Rapunzel will be 'the return to CG.'

As far as it looking like a cartoon and not appealing to kids, Phineas and Ferb and Spongebob aren't what's considered 'CG' and it seems to do just fine. Princess and the Frog has tracked well and the limited engagements in NYC and LA are selling out regularly, and for the most part, that's $50 per ticket. A family of 4 is paying $200 to see the movie. So it obviously has legs.

In regards to CG, CG is simply animation assisted by computers and it can look like anything from traditional hand drawn animation to Planet 51 to Toy Story to Nine to Photo-Realism. The issue is all about time and technology. 3D images need to be rendered by the processors and that takes a lot of power, especially when you factor in the environment and lighting, et al. Pixar revolutionized the process with its Renderman software and -- in a lot of ways has managed to stay towards the front in technology, but they're not at the forefront. Square pulled off some of the most advanced 'CG' almost a decade ago with Final Fantasy and only MoCap is beginning to reach that point.

for the graphics, it's all about how much time and money a studio is willing to put into the production. as with technology, a studio can more easily produce a film and get it out and have a built-in family market, so there's little incentive to go beyond that. as long as movies make money (and it's all about the DVD, not the theatrical release), they have no reason to stop. just as how Disney was pumping out direct to video sequels like it was going out of style until Lasseter put a stop to it.

Pixar (and Walt Disney for that matter) never cared how much money went into a project as long as they were satisfied with the result.

I was skeptical at first but I think Lasseter has done really good things for WDAS. Unfortunately WDAS is just a small sampling of what the company offers and its areas where Lasseter isn't concerned that one might worry.

But on the whole, I've also been impressed with Iger, although the recent shakeups will prove to be trying times. I find Iger to be a little melodramatic to be honest, but having seen him talk in person a couple of times, I do get the impression he's really into doing what he feels is best for the company and the 'Disney brand' (hold your uncomfortable coughs, please).

[Jciambor]

Originally Posted by Dave Marx

I'd also like to add that I think Hollywood's top brass seems to have overcome its attitude that CG animation is the only way to go. It's a natural progression. After Pixar's mega-hits and the success of the Shrek series over at DreamWorks, I'm sure the brass gave too much credit to the technology (and reviewers spent a lot of time analyzing the advances of the technology from film to film), and not nearly enough credit to great story, music, and character development (which are present in every successful animated film, regardless of the visual style). Now, CG has become a "natural" visual language (closer to mature 2D animation), so it's easier to see past the technology. Same thing happened with 2D animation. It took a long time before Disney (and other studios) learned to draw human characters that really came to life. They didn't quite have that down for Snow White, but they came close enough to wow the Hollywood establishment and prove the viability of feature-length animation. By Pinocchio folks were ready to accept the "reality" of human animated characters.

Hollywood's top brass never wants to take risks that will pay off in the long run. They stick with whats popular and then transition when someone gutsy enough makes a change and that person as of now seems to be John Lassater.

Also as for traditional animation I credit Grim Natwick as the person that perfected life like human animation. After all he designed and animated Snow White and some of the first believable human characters. He studied abroad in Vienna to take art study classes on the human anatomy in 1920 soon after wards he became one of the strongest animators of the Golden Age of Hollywood.

Also when you mention Pinnochio, film historians and even the nine magic old men have said the film is Disneys greatest technical acheivement. In part because everything went right and was executed flawlessly, its one of the few animated films with both a story and strong visuals and animation.

Studios usually have trouble trying to balance both so flaws are more apparent in most other animated films.

[bradk]

I'm not sure it's fair to say *everything* went right on Pinocchio. If I'm not mistaken, Walt halted production when it was halfway done, scratched it all and started over. going back to the parallels I drew between Disney and Lasseter

[Jciambor]

Originally Posted by bradk

I'm not sure it's fair to say *everything* went right on Pinocchio. If I'm not mistaken, Walt halted production when it was halfway done, scratched it all and started over. going back to the parallels I drew between Disney and Lasseter

It turned out as Disneys greatest technical achievement, after yes several production problems. I believe it to be their technical achievement because not only do the nine magic old men and film historians who have studied pretty much every Disney film have said that its Disney's greatest accomplishment. I myself watched the film to see if their claims (despite who they were) are accurate. After watching the film I can tell you I never messed with professional experts again.

[Jciambor]

By the way now that you mention about production being halted. I heard that there are concept drawings and animations that still survive from the canned version of it. Does anyone have links to those.