PDA

View Full Version : Jobs Jabs at Eisner, Disney Again


worker_bee
02-12-2005, 09:14 AM
Jobs, the chief executive of both Pixar Animation Studios and Apple Computer Inc., was asked about a dig Eisner took at Pixar last week at an investor conference at Walt Disney World in Florida. Responding to a question about the Burbank entertainment giant's own digital efforts, Eisner described as "pretty pathetic" the computerized human characters created by Pixar, compared with the ones Disney itself is working on with veteran animator Glen Keane, director of the studio's forthcoming film "Rapunzel Unbraided."

Jobs said sarcastically: "Our films don't stack up to 'Atlantis,' 'Emperor's New Groove' or 'Treasure Planet.' "

All three were hand-drawn Disney disappointments.

In the conference call, Jobs kept the focus on Disney. He repeatedly asserted that Pixar ó with $850 million in cash and no debt ó was ready for a life outside the Magic Kingdom should Pixar and Disney fail to resuscitate their partnership.


Jobs sprinkled his comments with several references to the "post-Disney era," noting that Pixar currently had eight new directors busy at work on non-Disney projects, the first of which will be released in theaters in the summer of 2007.

He also reaffirmed Pixar's seemingly immovable position that the company would "not actively participate" in any sequels to its movies that are made by Disney, including "Toy Story 3" and future installments to "Monsters, Inc." and "Finding Nemo."

Jobs also mentioned Pixar's next release, "Cars," due out in June 2006. He called it "the seventh and final film we will likely make for Disney."


http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009860

MaDSheeP
02-12-2005, 03:24 PM
I can't believe Eisner is still around after such a vote of no confidence...

Story is King, Yay Pixar =)

t-man152
02-12-2005, 04:53 PM
I heard of Toy Story 3 but I didnt know that they were making another Monsters inc and another Finding Nemo

what is it going to be? Finding Nemo 2:Nemo gets lost again

richcz3
02-12-2005, 05:56 PM
Most business partnerships are are symbiotic. Both need each other until one or both feel they can accomplish the others task on their own. It's clear that Disneys marketing and distribution channels are the best and Pixars animations are the best. Upon their next releases both camps will have the opportunity to prove they are right.

Crazzy Legs
02-12-2005, 06:36 PM
in responce to richcz3:
Most large distribution companies would be willing to put a lot of money on the line for Pixar. So Pixars distribution probobly won't be hurt that much if they go with another company.

KolbyJukes
02-12-2005, 06:45 PM
Eisner described as "pretty pathetic" the computerized human characters created by Pixar, compared with the ones Disney itself is working on with veteran animator Glen Keane, director of the studio's forthcoming film "Rapunzel Unbraided."

wow...big talk. Hope he can actually back it up.

FloydBishop
02-12-2005, 07:02 PM
in responce to richcz3:
Most large distribution companies would be willing to put a lot of money on the line for Pixar. So Pixars distribution probobly won't be hurt that much if they go with another company.

A lot of money maybe, but not the amount Pixar is asking, else they would have already made a deal with someone.

I wouldn't be suprised if Pixar hires away all of the Disney distribution people they've been working with over the years and starts their own distribution arm.

It would be expensive, but they've got some change laying around after the "Incredibles" I'm sure.

JDex
02-12-2005, 07:08 PM
A lot of money maybe, but not the amount Pixar is asking, else they would have already made a deal with someone.

A bird in the hand and all that, of course Pixar is in a rare lucritive position, so it is not unthinkable that they are waiting for a time to decide who to work with as the numbers may improve as some of the films in development post-Cars get to the point where they can show a bit off to the distributors and up the ante.

Does anyone else think Eisner is in need of a good old fashioned smack? I swear that man has some very strange perspectives.

Neil
02-12-2005, 09:18 PM
It's weird to think that their next movie is coming out in 2006. It seems so far away right now. I know Pixar has been on a total hot streak, but I curiously wonder if it's gonna last. We all know that at some point their streak will end. It's inevitable.
If they are prepared to break with Disney after the 2006 movie, their next solo one would be 2008ish. Will the public's tastes change by then? Just speculating. ;)

Beamtracer
02-12-2005, 09:21 PM
What kind of arrogant person is Eisner, to describe Pixar's famous animated characters as "pretty pathetic". These are the characters the world has come to love, as proved by their enormous success at the box office. What arrogance does Eisner display?

FUG1T1VE
02-13-2005, 12:28 AM
Pixar currently had eight new directors busy at work on non-Disney projects, the first of which will be released in theaters in the summer of 2007.

anyone know who they are?

L.Rawlins
02-13-2005, 01:28 AM
Yeah?... well if they are quite so 'pathetic' why is it that Disney are creating innumerable sequels to Pixar produce?!

What an ass.

I really hope Pixar shy away from re-establishing connections with Disney after the current contract ends. They are a dominant leader in CG film and are well respected for creating wonderful, imaginative films within their own branding.

They should stand up and shine in their own light. (The Luxo light... if you will. :D ) Instead of in the shadow of that money hungry mouse house.

It would be nice to see a studio have the balls to do it.

In response of the Eisner comments... I think the countdown here says it best... http://www.rebuildthekingdom.com/

allseeingi
02-13-2005, 02:40 AM
...and similarly:

http://www.savedisney.com

leigh
02-13-2005, 08:23 PM
Hey guys, while I agree that the statement made by Eisner was silly, what a lot of you are not realising is that it was a boast:

Eisner described as "pretty pathetic" the computerized human characters created by Pixar, COMPARED WITH the ones Disney itself is working on

He isn't saying they're out-and-out pathetic, he's implying that Disney is working on something so great that it makes the Pixar ones look pathetic.

There is a difference between insulting someone and making a (however wild) boast.

;)

Para
02-13-2005, 08:34 PM
He also reaffirmed Pixar's seemingly immovable position that the company would "not actively participate" in any sequels to its movies that are made by Disney, including "Toy Story 3" and future installments to "Monsters, Inc." and "Finding Nemo."

The Incredibles wasn't mentioned...time to wake up the conspiracy theorists! :p

Beamtracer
02-14-2005, 12:09 AM
Maybe Eisner was trying to say that Disney is going to create some ultra realistic human character by using some super 3D rendering technology which he thinks will make it so much better than Pixar's.

Then again, I don't think Pixar's human characters (eg The Incredibles) were ever aimed at being photo realistic humans. They were always stylized.

Photo: Michael Eisner
http://www.nypost.com/photos/bizlede021105.jpg

The New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/business/39656.htm) claims that Eisner is suffering from "Nemo-phobia". It says Eisner once disparaged Pixar's "Finding Nemo" before it became one of the most successful animated films of all times.

Quote from Michael Eisner in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/business/39656.htm):
"Yesterday, we saw for the second time the new Pixar movie 'Finding Nemo' that comes out next May," Eisner wrote in a memo to Disney's board. "This will be a reality check for those guys. It's OK, but nowhere near as good as their previous films.

"Of course, they think it's great," Eisner added. "Trust me, it's not, but it will open."

Does he really have any idea at all about what kind of movies the public want to see? It's hard to believe that this is the person who is running Disney these days. Eisner is obviously tormented with jealousy, poor guy!

allseeingi
02-14-2005, 12:56 AM
It could be jealousy, I think it's more likely he's suffering from ICouldn'tTellAGoodFilmIfItSlappedMeInTheFaceWithAWetFish-itis. This would explain the "success" of more recent Disney only attempts at animated features.

darktding
02-14-2005, 01:01 AM
I can't believe Eisner is still around after such a vote of no confidence...

Story is King, Yay Pixar =)


welcome to the real world! Democracy is a farce!

But people have to remeber, it is basic law; a company will reach its peak and at one point it will have its worse low so when it does happen to pixar, wonder what the situation will turn out...

Artbot
02-14-2005, 07:28 PM
Okay, I know this isn't about Eisner, but rumor has it that the "Insuricare" boss character (voiced by Wallace Shawn) from The Incredibles is modeled after Jeffrey Katzenberg, only with hair. Apparently they added the hair because it looked too much like him. I don't think I've ever heard of a character based on Eisner in a Pixar movie. Is there one?

L.Rawlins
02-14-2005, 08:02 PM
Mr Incredibles overweight flatulence.

Haha. :thumbsup:

Borjis
02-14-2005, 08:07 PM
Eisner looks like a sasquatch.

There haven't been any of those in a pixar movie yet, has there?

DaJuice
02-14-2005, 08:36 PM
Okay, I know this isn't about Eisner, but rumor has it that the "Insuricare" boss character (voiced by Wallace Shawn) from The Incredibles is modeled after Jeffrey Katzenberg, only with hair.

You know, I thought he kind of looked a bit like Stephen King. :p

Shaderhacker
02-15-2005, 01:18 AM
Also keep in mind that because people have ill-feelings about Eisner doesn't mean they should take it out on Walt Disney as a whole.

Also, based on current reports, Rapunzel *does* look better than anything that has come out so far (characters included)..:)

-M

worker_bee
02-15-2005, 02:46 AM
When does Rapunzel come out? 2008?

Matt Leishman
02-15-2005, 03:06 AM
i agree shaderhacker. Eisner may be a total knucklehead, but it isn't a reason to take it out on the fantastic artists and engineers working on their films. I've seen stuff for rapunzel and wilbur robinson ... get ready for something great is all i can say.

Beamtracer
02-15-2005, 03:52 AM
Eisner may be a total knucklehead, but it isn't a reason to take it out on the fantastic artists and engineers working on their films.
Who's trying to "take it out on the fantastic artists and engineers" of the Disney company? I just read through every post in this thread trying to find which one you're referring to that is attacking the artists and engineers. There are none. They only attack Eisner.

Eisner is the one who made that arrogant remark attacking Pixar characters as "pathetic" when compared to Disney ones. As a result, now Eisner is copping it from the CG artists on this forum.

tevih
02-15-2005, 04:50 AM
Eisner looks like a sasquatch.

There haven't been any of those in a pixar movie yet, has there?

Yes, actually, there has! :D Monsters Inc. When Sulley went to the freezing north pole :)

ThreeDeityMike
02-15-2005, 05:23 AM
It's sad that Disney has become what it is. ..and yeah, Eisner looks like a sasquach

JuGGerNauTT
02-15-2005, 12:35 PM
I'm sorry guys but this doesn't help anyone in the industry :(. We are mere viewers in a chicken fight, between two multi-billioners who know nothing about animation and all they care is their share of the cake.

Don't they know that by throwing dirt on certain feature animation films, they directly insult the artists who gave their very souls to create them?

I admit I don't like Mr.Eisner either.... His bad policy led many great artists leave their studios and greatly damaging the animation world as a whole.

Let's not forget that Pixar really is Disney. Afterall almost all the animators in there come from Disney or most of them being trained at CalArts..... John Lasseter himself is a "Second Golden Age" Disney Artist.

Wouldn't it be ideal if all the differences were thrown away and Pixar / Disney work together? Imagine what animation we will witness then? Disney still has great artists which can give so much if they weren't daily bombarded by old pests like Eisner. Make love not war. ;)

Shaderhacker
02-16-2005, 07:58 PM
Who's trying to "take it out on the fantastic artists and engineers" of the Disney company? I just read through every post in this thread trying to find which one you're referring to that is attacking the artists and engineers. There are none. They only attack Eisner.

Eisner is the one who made that arrogant remark attacking Pixar characters as "pathetic" when compared to Disney ones. As a result, now Eisner is copping it from the CG artists on this forum.

Well, it's not that they are jabbing artists/engineers specifically. Its just the comments, "Eisner is a bucket-head, I hope Disney falls..." kind of "jabbing" that I'm talking about. Eisner is one man. While he has great influence over Disney's projects, ultimately it's what the artists put into the movies that counts.

-M

JDex
02-16-2005, 08:14 PM
Well, it's not that they are jabbing artists/engineers specifically. Its just the comments, "Eisner is a bucket-head, I hope Disney falls..." kind of "jabbing" that I'm talking about. Eisner is one man. While he has great influence over Disney's projects, ultimately it's what the artists put into the movies that counts.

-M

I disagree... if Disney continues to found projects on aweful ideas and stories... then there is nothing that the artists can do to redeem it.

Shaderhacker
02-17-2005, 11:07 PM
I disagree... if Disney continues to found projects on aweful ideas and stories... then there is nothing that the artists can do to redeem it.

True, but basically Disney isn't on a thin line where if they don't make a movie with a really really good story, they'll go out of business.. so...

-M

Mojo Rizen
02-18-2005, 04:27 PM
Time will tell how both side do. Interesting thing about Pixar is they are not sequel happy, from what I can tell at least. They are also smaller, where Disney has multiple avenues of business, theme parks, TV, movies, etc.

As Disney is much bigger and need more to support themselves they have to keep putting out revenue generating products.

Pixar has been growing and growing, but so far have stayed focused on Movies, and their advertising background, I donít know how much advertising work they still do. As they grow can they keep the right people in place, stick to a good business plan and stay focused on what they have been doing.

Itís the idea of getting to big, that could be a challenge in the future. Two of the biggest things to kill a person or company are greed and ego. Keep those in check and it can help your vision stay clear and on the right track.

Beamtracer
02-20-2005, 09:24 PM
As Disney is much bigger and need more to support themselves they have to keep putting out revenue generating products.
That assumes that making sequels would generate more revenue than making original stuff. I tend to believe that making a movie based on an original idea has the potential to make more money, provided that original idea is good.

Trouble is, Toy Story has already had a sequel, but Disney wants to flesh it out even more by making Toy Story 3 and 4. Then they'll make Finding Nemo 2 and 3 etc.

Disney is even rehashing its own stuff, with Peter Pan 3D etc.

pearson
02-24-2005, 04:13 AM
Interesting thing about Pixar is they are not sequel happy, from what I can tell at least.

Keep in mind that their contract with Disney stipulated that sequels didn't count against the contract. From what I've heard Pixar made TS2 because they believed that when the Disney suits saw that it wasn't the direct-to-video sequel crap that Disney is so used to doing, the suits would let it count against the contract. Instead, Disney said "thanks for all the money", but still wouldn't let it count towards the contract. Classic case of killing the goose for the greed of the golden eggs. Once they realized they had a gold mine, they could have afforded to be more equitable. Instead they ended up losing Pixar.

The point being that Pixar decided to work to get out of their contract with the devil...er, Disney, and not make any more sequels. So it seems that Pixar is willing to revisit a story and make a sequel, if the story is good enough.

I think we can feel confident Pixar won't degrade a franchise with lame sequels the way some other studios do.

veljko-lemonade
02-24-2005, 08:48 AM
I see some pretty big words and votes of confidence aimed at Pixar-
I think the same words could have been said for disney a few years back, and look at them now...i have a nagging sensation that they are all out there to get the profit, and it seems that Jobs just has more bussines sence the disney, nothing else..

allseeingi
02-24-2005, 11:57 AM
Every company is out for a profit, or there would be no point in being in business. But I think you were inferring a big profit so I'll take it to mean that. I think it's to do with ethos. Currently at Pixar they seem to have an ethos of "We're going to keep working until it's great, not just good" whereas the ethos of Disney seems to be "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's leave it at that." I'm not saying anything against the artists at Disney, I'm confident they put their all into their work. But I believe this ethos comes from the top tier management and filters down.

Pixar are lucky in that their management allow their artists to throw work out of the window if they don't think it comes up to scratch and can think of something better (going back to the ethos). They are trusted because they've come up trumps so far. However, sometime in the future Pixar will make a film that flops and it may be for no good reason at all. Then things may change. But I hope that time is far away.

Disney's management are more like "I don't care, just get it done!" and thus no risks are taken. What's unfortunate is that they (their management) are looking at the growing direct to DVD sales and going "Look, that's where we're selling. Make more things for that market." So we get more and more cheap DVD sequels. However, one day (once Eisner's left) they'll release a film at the cinema that they didn't invest much in and didn't take much control over. This film will rake it in at the box office. Then Disney will follow that example and begin to make more great films (If they had brought Pixar in house from the start we'd already be celebrating Disney's resurgence). I hope that this time is not far away.

The whole world goes in cycle's, that's just the way it is.

Gentle Fury
02-24-2005, 02:32 PM
I see some pretty big words and votes of confidence aimed at Pixar-
I think the same words could have been said for disney a few years back, and look at them now...i have a nagging sensation that they are all out there to get the profit, and it seems that Jobs just has more bussines sence the disney, nothing else..

I can't think of when that was true....I've personally never been a disney fan.....course I can't stand musicals, and it really annoyed the hell out of me that that was what they were all about.....highly exagerated animation and songs after every scene. The only disney movie I ever liked was Aladdin.....I was able to see past the horrible musical moments because the story was ok.

Ever seen 2 pixar movies look alike? Nope, they change their style with ever movie! Disney only tried out some new styles in the past few years. The sad thing is, Disney has ALWAYS had some amazing artists at their disposal.....ever seen the concept art for The Hunchback of Notre Dame??? OMG, it's amazing! It was so dark and ominous....the final movie....this silly, happy sugar coated piece of trash, and of course....a musical. sad waste of talent.

I seriously can't wait to see a Pixar release with no disney intervention. Judging by the route The Incredibles took, I'm guessing they will release at least one animated Drama, for adults.....and perhaps they will be able to break the academy mold and actually get nominated for best picture.....instead of animated picture.

As far as Diz is concerned.......Repunzel: Unbraded???? Just the title is horrible.....did they get dreamworks to start writing for them? Of course keeping with tradition, instead of coming up with something original they will cash in on a public domain fairy tale. I don't care how amazing the animation is.....if the story sucks the movie will fail, just as most of their films since Katzenburg left has.

BTW in other news.....Disney is so horrible they have now pushed out Harvey and Bob Weinstien from there own company!! Miramax, started by Harvey and Bob (named after their parents Mirium and Maxwell Weinstein) is losing their founders to bulls**t politics. One more mistake from disney.....with Bob and Harvey gone, they will lose a LOT of good movies, as there are a lot of filmmakers that will go whereever they go. I don't know the whole story, but I'm sure the whole Farenheit 911 ordeal was the last straw....and I don't blame them at all!

veljko-lemonade
02-24-2005, 04:07 PM
as there are a lot of filmmakers that will go whereever they go. I don't know the whole story, but I'm sure the whole Farenheit 911 ordeal was the last straw....and I don't blame them at all!

could you elaborate on this please?
The Moore documentary had something to do with it?

MadMax
02-24-2005, 04:32 PM
wow...big talk. Hope he can actually back it up.



To put it bluntly, Eisner is talking a lot of smack.

at the moment, Disney is in a panic with no idea how to pull their a$$ out.

crazy3dman
02-24-2005, 05:08 PM
Ever seen 2 pixar movies look alike? Nope, they change their style with ever movie! Disney only tried out some new styles in the past few years.

Sorry to take things a little off topic, but when I take a look at some of the Disney classics, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, 101 Dalmations, Winnie the Pooh, Jungle Book, there were definitely different styles to each of those movies.

More on topic
could you elaborate on this please?

The Moore documentary had something to do with it?
I think Disney had first crack at distributing it, and they turned it down. Isn't that right?

Xevious
02-24-2005, 06:06 PM
Disney can compete with Pixar if they do two things:
1. Write better plots for animated movies.
2. Get rid of those god-awful musical numbers that are prevalent in those Disney films.

Its not the animation thats going to save Disney its the story-telling.

heney
02-24-2005, 07:18 PM
OK, so we've got a war on our hands. There are a couple of factors that really haven't been discussed yet. Pixar movies so far have been considered Disney movies by the general public. I found that to be obsurd at first, but when I talk to anyone who's not industry savy on this topic, they just dont follow because they hear Finding Nemo and they think Disney did it, they hear Toy Story they think Disney did it. This is a huge obstacle that Pixar needs to overcome, because I guarantee when these Disney CG features start pouring out the first line of each trailer will be "From the people who brought you Toy Story, and Finding Nemo" just like Dreamworks did with Sharktale..."From the studio who brought you Shrek" yeah that's true in the sense that you distributed it but what about PDI. If Pixar can seperate their name from the idea that Disney has made all of their amazing features, then they have a chance.

Secondly, Pixar needs not only to continue its streak, but step it up a notch or two as they have done in the past. Let's be honest though, Cars just doesnt have what the Incredibles had. Although I trust John Lasseter as a storyteller, he's got me pretty worried with this one. The look and feel, seem to make this film exclusively little kiddie, and a world inhabited by cars makes this exclusively little boy. During this crucial time, Pixar needs another Nemo (financially) another Incredibles, another Monsters Inc, another film that pushes CG animation to a new level, and Cars just doesnt seem to do that.

As so many have said "Only time will tell." It will be really exciting to see how all of this works out. Im personally rooting for Pixar to become their own superpower in animation, taking on marketing, and even 2d. They just do things right, they support their artists creativity more than any other studio, and they deserve all of the praise that Disney has gotten for their acheivements. We'll see though.

Capel
02-24-2005, 11:51 PM
I disagree... if Disney continues to found projects on aweful ideas and stories... then there is nothing that the artists can do to redeem it.

...but this is true for every studio. the "artists" have absolutely no say story-wise at any studio. I think this is a position most of us are going to find ourselves in, where even though the film we're working on is bad, we still animated, model, texture, rig, whatever the very best we can. In the end, the story may be bad, but at least it won't be accompanied by bad visuals.

Gentle Fury
02-25-2005, 12:20 AM
could you elaborate on this please?
The Moore documentary had something to do with it?

Disney wouldn't allow Miramax to release Farenheit 911, saying it was too political and they didn't want to tarnish their image.....aka.....They didn't wanna piss off Jeb (disney world in FL). Harvey and Bob ended up distributing it themselves, saying it was too important a film to be shelved due to disneys political affiliations.....like I said, I don't know the whole story, but I'm sure that was a contributing factor to the break.

SecretWeapon
02-25-2005, 12:26 AM
Hey guys, while I agree that the statement made by Eisner was silly, what a lot of you are not realising is that it was a boast:

Eisner described as "pretty pathetic" the computerized human characters created by Pixar, COMPARED WITH the ones Disney itself is working on

He isn't saying they're out-and-out pathetic, he's implying that Disney is working on something so great that it makes the Pixar ones look pathetic.

There is a difference between insulting someone and making a (however wild) boast.

;)

I got to see clips of the new disney stuff (rapunzel, american dog, a day with wilbur robinson) at a presentation they did at SCAD a few weeks ago, and while the stuff I saw was surely visually sound and competent, I saw nothing mindblowing or groundbreaking.

None of the subjects of their upcoming movies got me too fired up.

Apoclypse
02-25-2005, 12:54 AM
This makes no sense, since we all know that PIXAR for the most part stylizes all their stuff to look a certain way. And another thing, what a makes a character human either by looks or just ..um.. character is how they are is animated, written, and executed (FF:TSW is a great example of this not happening) so they just might make the characters more realistic but that doesn't mean that they will be better.

PIXAR has been growing as an animation house and as artist to the point where they are no longer tied to their proprietary renderer (PRman) exclusively and are willing to consider alternatives and the best tool for the job. The Incredibles clearly show their growth as a studio. This is what is different about PIXAR and disney, the ability to change, to grow, to try new things even when the formula s successful. Disney does not do that and the only reason we see any change from them is due to the formula failing. Instead of stepping back and really analyizing the publics rejection, they just kept churning out brick after brick to recoup money that they already spent if atleast of a percentage of the original cost. So tradition had it that a disney movie came out ebry summer and the kids would pester there parents to go see these movies and to buy the toys and other crap they wanted to shove down their throats. Now disney has competition. Not only from PIXAR itself but Dreamworks and now FOX ( Blue Sky). Where before no one could touch on disneys quality, now you have various studios producing incredible animation lawded by young upstart companies full of artists whoes only wish as kids was to work at disney. These companies not only are the equivalent of disney when they started, most of these are the innovators of most all the techniques that we use in cg today. So like disney they are inventing techniques and tools in-order to achieve the goal of telling a story. Disneu hasn't done this in years and infact have been producing movies at much lower budgets and thus lower quality leaving innovation and artistry behind in favor of making a quick buck.

JDex
02-25-2005, 02:37 AM
...but this is true for every studio. the "artists" have absolutely no say story-wise at any studio. I think this is a position most of us are going to find ourselves in, where even though the film we're working on is bad, we still animated, model, texture, rig, whatever the very best we can. In the end, the story may be bad, but at least it won't be accompanied by bad visuals.

And like you claimed in the other thread of this vein...

well no kidding!!! ... Thanks for stating the obvious.

I think you have this impression that I am picking on Disney... but that is not the case... we have both happened to be discussing these fundamentally differing philosophies within Disney threads... if this was a thread about how Pixar is making lousy stories and how that will impact the short-term/long-term prospects for our industry then we would be having the very same conversation.

Eisner is a perfect example of what has happened to the movie industry... he is damn good at generating short-term gains for the corporation(s) he helms... he is also damn good at jeapordising the long-term viability of those corporations by making drastic changes to the core "foundations" that have made the current position possible.

We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether every inherantly bad animated movie made (regardless of who by) does damage to the value (and thus future) of the small animated film industry... but you always take the position of "I'm an artist, I want to work. I don't care what I work on." While I take the position of "I'm an artist, I want to work. I'll work on what's available, but I'd prefer to work on something I'll be proud of... because that is probably going to mean that me and my fellow artists will have more jobs to work on in the future."

PS: Thanks for not typing in LOTS OF CAPS and writing something that seems emotional! AND NOT THOUGHT OUT.

It makes it much more pleasant to converse with you, regardless of whether we agree...

Shaderhacker
02-25-2005, 06:25 PM
We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether every inherantly bad animated movie made (regardless of who by) does damage to the value (and thus future) of the small animated film industry... but you always take the position of "I'm an artist, I want to work. I don't care what I work on." While I take the position of "I'm an artist, I want to work. I'll work on what's available, but I'd prefer to work on something I'll be proud of... because that is probably going to mean that me and my fellow artists will have more jobs to work on in the future."

Unfortunately, we very rarely get to work on something we prefer (some of us are lucky though). If that were the case, then the smaller shops would be non-existant since everyone would want to go to the bigger shops (i.e. Pixar, ILM, Sony, etc..)

So what is the consensus? That Pixar is the only company so far that has made really good CG features that you'd prefer to work on? No other CG feature was appealing to you (like Shrek, Polar, SharkTale or Ice Age) that you'd consider it an original and innovative piece "proud to work on"?

-M

JDex
02-25-2005, 06:38 PM
Again... you think it's all about Pixar vs. Disney.

It's about a small industry that most of the post-pubecent viewing public looks at as a novelty producing a few good films, and alot of movies that never would have been greenlighted with out the "Super-cool new technology" to drive it. Shrek 1 was beautiful and pretty well written (although it really rellied heavily on current Pop-culture gags, which isn't necessarily a negative)... Shrek 2 was even more beautiful, but was much less engaging and far less interesting in my eyes... Sharks Tale was beautiful but not really a story that people will want to watch a second time... Polar Express is an amazing story, that was packaged, wrapped and soaked in "The future of movie making" hype... and while the environment work was phenomenal... the execution and believeablity of the characters was difficult to endure. Ice Age on the other hand... IMHO was every bit as good on all levels as the best Pixar has offered... why, it had a good, well executed story, with fun, engaging, intersting characters driven by wonderful voice acting and great character animation.

Please take the Disney taste off of it... at least off of my point. I am speaking of the status of the industry... Jobs and Eisner are just two major players whose actions and words have a direct and distinct impact on the industry... I have alot of issues with Jobs too, but not on this topic.

Shaderhacker
02-25-2005, 07:04 PM
Again... you think it's all about Pixar vs. Disney.

It's about a small industry that most of the post-pubecent viewing public looks at as a novelty producing a few good films, and alot of movies that never would have been greenlighted with out the "Super-cool new technology" to drive it. Shrek 1 was beautiful and pretty well written (although it really rellied heavily on current Pop-culture gags, which isn't necessarily a negative)... Shrek 2 was even more beautiful, but was much less engaging and far less interesting in my eyes... Sharks Tale was beautiful but not really a story that people will want to watch a second time... Polar Express is an amazing story, that was packaged, wrapped and soaked in "The future of movie making" hype... and while the environment work was phenomenal... the execution and believeablity of the characters was difficult to endure. Ice Age on the other hand... IMHO was every bit as good on all levels as the best Pixar has offered... why, it had a good, well executed story, with fun, engaging, intersting characters driven by wonderful voice acting and great character animation.

Please take the Disney taste off of it... at least off of my point. I am speaking of the status of the industry... Jobs and Eisner are just two major players whose actions and words have a direct and distinct impact on the industry... I have alot of issues with Jobs too, but not on this topic.

I think it's only because some people are slamming Disney with making sequels, but not any of the other studios (which the main players are both making sequels). I think some bitter tastes is also going towards the relationship that Disney had with Pixar is now null and void. People think, "The nerve of DIsney to make a sequel to a Pixar film!!" But all in all, that was an agreement. Yes, Pixar made the film, but that's not thinking in business terms.

From what you describe, basically you are saying that only one movie out of all you mentioned is on Pixar's level. And some would argue with you that Ice Age was too trivial and simple a movie. The story isn't something totally unique at all. And some would argue that they hated the artistic style of the movie. I said all that to say that there are a lot of people here that really blow up Pixar's movies because they have mass appeal. But if you really look at it without the glasses, you'll see that some of the other CG movies are about as fun as any of the Pixar movies. I, personally, don't think that Incredibles was the best that Pixar put out (I'm still a Toy Story fan).

-M

rakmaya
02-25-2005, 07:39 PM
From a business point of view Eisner is thinking if he can get his hands on a Development studio such as Pixar or Squaresoft????? But people like him are stupid enough to realize the complexities of running a studio. When Pixar started producing movies, Disney probably got weighed with the money pixar asks for. Because a named Development Studio such as Pixar can always find very good distributers. In US, Disney has many strong competetors and Pixar can and will use the opportunity given.

If Eisner is thinking of making a better deal with any of the Asian studios, he is utterly mistaken with the fact that the market in Asia is always set with long-term goals in mind unlike people like him. If in fact Disney where to start its own, Eisner will soon find himself in a very difficult position (in terms of expense and management).

The Incredibles is the first animated movie that has been traslated to many other languages in Asia ans is the only animated feature film to gain such a large attention abroad. Does Eisner thinks he can do all that and more right when he splits from Pixar? It takes many years of trust, name and hands in other areas of business to achieve the name that development studios hold. I still can't believe Disney is doing something as stupid as he thinks.

CGTalk Moderation
02-25-2006, 08:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.