Good God Jim!

Just stop it with the Pixar bashing!

It is so clear you want this movie to fail!!!

I'll never post here again!

SuperGrover is right, Jim...this looks like another cut and paste piece from a "cars" article you did last year...you may not come right out and say it, but we know you're having mean thoughts about Pixar! Just scandalous!  

I saw that book. Its quite interesting, especially how Colette became a more important character than she was before.

Uhm.. How is this article bashing Pixar? Whiners.

Great article :) Looking forward to tomorrow!!

I have a feeling they might actually be Jim Basher Bashers, empoor...

Yes, thank you, oh wise Anonymouse! Thought it was obvious...next time I'll  put out a disclaimer...or a haha...or just assume I'm don't take these comment sections too seriously...seriously...

The first two posts are merely Jim Hill Bashers. Stop trolling here please. This is a thorough and informative site. If you don't like what you read, simply leave.

No ones asking you to stay.

DISCLAIMER: I make no secret that I'm a movie fan -- most all genres and types, including documentaries and some foreign films. And, since I've never been disappointed in a Pixar film like I have been in some Steven Spielberg productions -- it's fair to say that I'm a Pixar fan and a cheerleader for great art and animation. PERIOD.

No, this story by Jim isn't a hit piece ... but it's a story that offers an issue animation fans may want to ponder -- especially after seeing "Ratatouille."

Consider the addition of all those characters, the competing subplots and the time it would take away from the central story of Remy, and decide for yourself whether all that was necessary or needed.

It's unfortunate that we'll never see the film as Jan Pinkava envisioned it ... but that doesn't take anything away from his wildly inventive and original idea for this plucky "Little Chef." Pinkava deserves his story and co-director credit. I know he had established characters, sets and many of the assets that helped Brad Bird, the story team and the film's production.

Consider the film as the soup Remy has to come in and fix ... Brad Bird did a bit of slicing and dicing, "got fancy with the spices" and delivered a compelling, entertaining and hilarious tale that's quite satisfying.

Filmmaking -- especially as executed by the brain trust and artists at Pixar -- is collaborative. Ed Catmull, John Lasseter have said the best idea in the room should win. Shouldn't the entire team rally around it -- if there's a consensus that it is indeed the best idea? I mean, don't these creative collaborators all have the same goal -- to make something special and memorable?

I don't know Jan Pinkava -- enjoyed "Geri's Game" and his basic storyline for "Ratatouille" -- but there's a small part of me that feels sad for him and Chris "American Dog" Sanders for not embracing the lifelines they were offered before parting ways with Pixar/Disney.

Artists should be free to explore, experiment and fail ... but I also understand why those in charge don't want artists to fail when there are millions, hundreds of millions, at stake and there's time for a course correction.

I don't get it.  How is Jim bashing Pixar here?

I don't think it is bashing, so much as a few backhanded comments implying that PIXAR screwed up by bringing in Brad Bird and changing some of the original ideas/ concepts.

It's nothing glaringly specific. Just the tone of the article, to me, seems to be that the movie would have been better or something more than the "cute movie" Jim thinks it to be, had the original creative team been allowed to follow through start to finish.

Nice article, Jim. I just might check that book out. And the "might-have-been" aspect of it is most intriguing. One of the most interesting parts of the "Monsters Inc." DVD was that it featured the original rejected script for that film. What a disaster it would have been had the film gone in THAT direction! A lot of people who see a polished Disney movie have no idea of the creative struggles behind the scenes. Which, of course, is how it should be: it's the finished film counts. Thanks again for a great article, Jim. I'm looking forward to seeing Ratatouille this weekend.

I'm a huge Disney-Pixar fan who gets annoyed whenever somebody makes a dig at how much the merger with Pixar has ruined Disney (because really, the Pixar folk are just putting back Walt's old principles and defending the classic Disney tradition - whoever is against this shouldn't be working at Disney).  Some of Jim's articles do irk me when it seems he is the mouthpiece for some disgruntled Disney exec who does not like Pixar's growing influence (but I usually just think Jim's connected to the wrong insiders).

That said, I see nothing wrong with Jim's article today. No hidden swipes at Pixar, no digs that might be coming from a Disney suit.  I actually would like to read about that book as well, was interested to see how the movie was conceived at first.  Got me wanting to take a look at the book as well.

Those concepts seem somewhat terrible.

The design for the mother is awful, the fantasy sequence sounds terrible.

Of course, I'm basing my opinion on little information and those aspects could have been fantastic. But they sound awful to me.

I fully expect lots of analysis of the box office performance of this film, its comparion to the expectations, the reactions inside of Disney and the reactions on Wall Street. Those are my favorite parts of this site.

Dammit. I need to hurry and drop this legal career, get my MBA, and either be an analyst or a Disney suit myself, haha.

Gigglestock ...

It's been said that good filmmaking is a bit like making sausages ... consumers really don't know what went into it ... they simply want something that tastes good. That just seems appropriate in talking about "Ratatouille."

And, yes, I've heard John Lasseter & Co. talk about some of the struggles (especially with story) they've encountered in crafting every single Pixar production. Making a movie is easy -- look at YouTube -- but making something worthy of a worldwide market is an arduous challenge.

Just think at one point "Toy Story" was almost unwatchable, with a snarky and very unlikeable Woody. It was so bad -- in part because the artists at Pixar were following the notes given to them by Jeffrey Katzenberger and the suits at Disney -- that the plug was almost pulled. The people at Pixar rallied, made the movie THEY wanted to make -- a film that delighted critics and audiences alike and secured a place in cinematic history.

Yes, if you look at all the making of/art of books from Pixar's productions (I have 4 of them), watch the DVD bonus materials and follow the company through Web sites, blogs and mainstream media, you'll get a sense of this.

You might also learn about how some of these artists are constantly creating -- even away from work. They're illustrating and writing graphic novels or comic books, honing their craft and talents on things like sketchcrawl (Google it), creating animatics, even designing their own high-end collectible toys.

It's this drive and passion that fuels my admiration of Pixar -- in addition to finding the few I've met -- genuinely nice people.

Nice article, although "what might have been", only seems like a collection of the hundreds of conceptual drawings that precede the production of any animated feature of live action film. Animated movies go through an enormous evolutionary development of story, character and style  before going into the cost of full blown production.  This goes all the way back to Snow White, who once was invisioned as a blonde.....

Hey all. I have been brought to tears by a CD I recently purchased at Amazon.com. What does that have to do with animation you ask? Because it's the original "Firehouse Five Plus Two" that's why! All of their recordings have been recently re-released and are available at Amazon.com. I just received the Live at Disneyland CD that was originally released in 1962. What a joy it has been listening to this CD as Ward Kimball; Frank Thomas; Don Kinch; Danny Alguire; George Probert; Dick Roberts and Eddie Forrest live again, if only for a brief few moments. Hope you get a chance to check these out.

Here's a bit taken from an AP story about "Ratatouille"

Brad Bird rewrote the script and replaced Jan Pinkava as director. Pinkava, who later left Pixar, ended up with story and co-director credits on “Ratatouille.”

“Jan came up with a brilliant idea and was very excited about it, but in the end, it didn’t have the leadership to take it kind of through,” Lasseter said. “The last thing we want to do is replace the director, but to help make the movie better, if we have to, we will.”

While it’s always interesting to see every conceptual art piece left on an animation room floor, implying that such early-drawing-board art was the picture “as originally intended” is jumping to conclusions. Every movie has early concepts that are altered, enhanced, or scrapped. If the majority of Jan’s ideas were scrapped, perhaps they should’ve been better ideas. A rat mother of 200 kids sounds too silly. A “dream sequence filled with desserts” sounds too cliché. Simply calling the film “Rat!” is as uninspired of a title as…well, CARS. If these were all part of the “Ratatouille” Jan planned, well, Jan deserved to be canned like a tuna.

I am going to have to agree with EVILASH23's comments. The piece did come across to me as a small slam due to the tone of the piece. There seems to be an inference there that there was nothing the matter with Pinkava's version, but...OH no, we have to have Bird grace us with his presence or the film won't work. Maybe, that is not want was intended but that is how I took it.

There s no question that Bird is at the top of the craft right now. Why wouldn't Disney/Pixar go with the surer bet. Can't fault them. But, from my glance at the book there was nothing wrong with the Pinkava draft.

One more point. It is always nice to see documentation of the evolution of a work. Many movies, "Star Wars" comes to mind, have had dozens of drawings rendered as preliminary outlines that never last through to the final visualization.

Nice book and I hope the movie does well.

The Art of Ratatouille è un libro che illustra le caratteristiche chiave dello sviluppo artistico del prossimo film Pixar. Ciò potrebbe anche non essere così interessante per i profani, non fosse che permette di conoscere un po' più

Maybe it is not an article bashing pixar. But, it feels like it is a rewrite of a PixarBashing article. Like it was tone down.

At the end , it's nice to see an article reflect what the book is showing, altough it is only a one sided view of the book.

So why I keep coming back to this site? because looking beyond the Pixar bashing and the Jim bashing comments, it still gives me very good information and a fun reading time.

Users Bashing Jim For Bashing Pixar...

Heh. I didn't really see any Pixar bashing. Oh well. I thought it was a pretty good article.

Speaking of Jim getting bashed for writing a Pixar article, where's that story about Pinkava?

"Just think at one point "Toy Story" was almost unwatchable, with a snarky and very unlikeable Woody. It was so bad -- in part because the artists at Pixar were following the notes given to them by Jeffrey Katzenberger and the suits at Disney"

Umm, everything I've ever seen or read says the exact opposite.  That it was the input from Disney that helped get "Toy Story" on track and that Pixar wouldn't even have understood the requirements of a feature film without that input.  It was Disney that told Pixar the film wasn't working and that they would cancel it if it wasn't fixed.  Pixar rallied to fix what Disney told them was wrong, not to get away from the advice Disney gave them.

The key is that they were willing to take that advice and embrace it.  Move the film in a better direction, instead of doggedly sticking to their guns.  This is apparently the problem that occurred with "Ratatouille" and "American Dog"; filmmakers unwilling to bend to try and make their film better.