I'm sorry. I have to say this..

If anyone is reading this page, especially anyone from the Disney lot. haha, if for some random reason John Lassetter is in here. Let me please say this:

My name is Joe, I'm 16, and I've been a fan of Disney for the longest time, since I was very little. And well... Disney has not been doing very well for the past few couple of years. And well, lately, I'm extremely glad Mr. Lassetter & Mr. Catmull pulled the breaks... Maybe it should be time, for them to stop and reconsider.... Look at an even BIGGER PICTURE.

Around a few months back, I read that supposedly, a Director, story writer, etc. had say in a movie, it was THEIR vision. Not yours, lasseter, or eds. None of yours. I have to admit, I WAS EXTREMELY excited about American Dog. Lilo & Stitch is on my top list of Disney films. I love em. You seriously have to think about what your doing, the film had great potential.

As for Rapunzel. Glen Keane is a wonderful animator. His vision for Rapunzel was a new type of CG, while I understand that Pixar is supposed to be the uppermost in computer animation. Is it Glen's fault Pixar didn't think of making "Rapunzel" in such a glorious type of new CG its being made?

Seriously folks, I'm starting to get a little sick. What John & Ed are doing is basically doing whats best for Pixar. PIXAR, Meet the Robinsons, was well way into production, for it was not ceased, apparently. American Dog, was a wonderful film. I loved it. Wanted to see it, wanted to see what Sander's wonderful mind could create, such a great film it would have been I assume. He worked on freakin "The Lion King" for gosh sakes. I doubt even Lasseter can top The Lion King.

What I think this here is happenin. is John has been getting a little over his head. He's beginning to feel like a big shot. in the leagues of computer animation, while he has been, he's lettin it get to his head a little bit tooooo much. Let me just say, a Rapunzel, which was another than it was not meant to be, I wil not watch. I love Glen and know he can make great films. I could easily see Lasssetter taking "Rapunzel" and tagging pixar on it, just for the heck of it, shoot, he'd just say he's in charge.

John & Ed... Please, don't be bozo's, don't let Disney miss out on such great films, Pixar aint good for only one film a year anyway. And "Cars" was good, but you lost your grip on it, it was too long, and not entertaining enough. It basically sucked. Ratatouille though I have to say, shows great promise, I look forward to it.

The Pixar name proceeds with high glory. While Disney gets gipped of great movies.. Especially how beautiful Rapunzel was supposed to be...

I'm pissed

John isn't here, but I'll step in (and I'm out of high school):  One of my complaints with the momentary "auteur" rush for "Mark will save the company!..Chris will save the company!" is that you're putting a LOT of faith in one film.  One.  Single.   Film.   (And I liked TENG for what it was at the time, but thought Lilo & Stitch was six cute characters in search of a focused plot.)   And more imporantly, a story idea that's in the head of One.  Single.  Guy.  

That's a lot of money to put on one very shaky and untested roulette wheel, especially for John & Ed, who were faced with rebuilding the studio from the ground up.  Maybe "Dog" was as "sweet" and "lovable" as insiders claim it was, but I don't work at WDFA-- I'm one of the great unwashed that has to buy the tickets once it's released, and it STILL looks too danged weird and self-indulgent.  For J&E, the bigger-bigger-BIGGER picture dates back farther than "CGI or not CGI?", and all the way back to their first executive decision regarding "Gnomeo & Juliet" as a WDFA project--And that decision was, quote..."Why are we making this?"

And as to "Dog", well, good question:  Why -are- they making it?--Because anything that comes out of Chris Sanders' saintly genius head is golden and will save the company, regardless of story focus or early rushes?  I trust that John & Ed have seen more actual footage of this film than I have, and have, like "Meet the Robinsons", decided that a project needs an emotion rather than a "name" or a "deal", that someone else besides One Guy needs to figure out what the heck this story is about, and figure out fast.  Which is how most good Disney movies work in the first place.

And as for "directorial visions" vs. the group effort of the story department, go ahead, just off the top of your head, tell us who directed "Snow White".  No peeking at IMDb.

>>"And remember how Ed & John reportedly had a conversation with Glen Keane earlier this year about possibly doing "Rapunzel" as a traditionally animated feature? And how that master animator supposedly told the new ubermeisters of WDFA that he wanted to stick with CG? Well, I would imagine that -- after the first of the year -- Catmull, Lasseter & Keane are going to have another conversation. And if Glen knows what's good for him, he'll quickly agree to turn "Rapunzel" into a traditionally animated feature."<<

Or, what, they'll rough him up with brass knuckles? <lol> ;)  Seriously, what will likely happen is that Keane will make an in-house pitch for how well his hybrid "2-Digital" style works, and a compromise will be reached that wins out in favor of Keane.  

There doesn't seem to be as much "Disney vs. Pixar", now that it's all coming out of the same house--J&E don't want -future- CGI movies to be made in Eisner/Stainton's vision of "CGI for CGI's sake", if they're not strong in stories or visuals, but they're also not crazy about wasting money or production:  We were earlier speculating that John would eliminate Bowler Hat from "Robinsons" singlehandedly, and that didn't happen...What we got instead was a compromise that let them use the earlier film while improving the tone and strengthening the story.  (And from the new trailer, it seems to have worked.)

New director for "Dog"?--Possibly.  Computer storyboards in the trash and back to the drawing boards with pen and ink?--Not as likely (unless you're paranoid):  One of John's strengths demonstrated so far (and which the old admin. didn't have) has been listening to animators and seeing whether or not they really do have something to say.  And if they don't, a director can get replaced, or see his project booted down the schedule.  

Derek... you seemed even more passionate about this than Joe (if that's possible)!

Personally, I'm glad Disney is going back to traditional animation. I was pretty upset when they closed down Florida Feature Animation (the Studio tour has never been the same). I can't tell you how excited I am that Disney is getting back into Short Subjects; and the fact that American Dog has been essentially canned is even more exciting.  I prefer when Disney sticks with tried and true classics.  Sure, they have their Dumbo and Lilo & Stitch and Lion King type movies that make it big... but Disney's biggest smash hits have all been tales that have lasted the test of time.

Cinderella, Snow White, Beauty & the Beast, Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty... all undeniably HUGE! Also, undeniably similar. They all revolve around the central plot of a princess in trouble who is saved by her prince charming. I can't wait to see the direction they will go with Rapunzel and Frog Prince (and I actually liked the CG renders of Rapunzel... as much as I liked Matchstick Girl).

As far as one single guy making all of the artistic calls at Disney... that's not entirely new to this studio. Ever heard of Walt? Now, before I get royally flamed, I am in no way equating Chris Sanders to Walt Disney. I am simply pointing out that one person's artistic guidence can be a good thing. Not everything needs a committee.

And the director of Snow White was an uncredited David Hand (and I think he directed Bambi, too).

If John and Ed are truly halting American Dog, and forcing Keane to switch from his hybrid to 2D, and wasting all those production costs, just because Disney might step on Pixar's toes for a few years... well, then I think it's going to be some bumpy years. All that proves is that Pixar is and will continue to be number one in their minds. Of course, transitions are often rough times, but that is just a poor excuse: That Disney *has* to be 2D and Pixar *has* to be 3D. I can see a time where animators switch between the studios based on the project and it's medium. However, that time is far from soon.

This similarly goes in hand with what John is doing in Imagineering. His focus remains strictly on Pixar. It's a shortsighted move on his part. The only way he will ever be this saviour we have all been hoping for is if he can broaden his mindset. He know works for *Disney*. I just don't think he's currently going down the right path.

But, as with Imagineering, we have some more wait-and-see time ahead of us to truly understand what's going on at WDFA and what the repercussions in coming years will be.

I want to see Disney go back to traditional animation, but I don't think computer animation should be ignored, either. I do NOT want to see Rapunzel become a traditionally animated feature--the idea behind the animation in that movie was truely groundbreaking. Disney animation has always been about pushing the envelope of what's possible with animation and creating new technology and techniques while keeping the films artistically beautiful. Rapunzel's experiments with computer animation really continue that legacy that's been sadly missing in recent Disney films.

I don't know if Pixar really has that same legacy. Sure, they're VERY good at creating new ways to make computer animation exciting--but besides The Incredibles, their films don't have a *unique* artistry to them. They're far more technical than artistic (not that they aren't art, but they just don't have the same flair as Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or Lion King).

Just to reality-check, people:  J&E have not -ACTUALLY- gone yet to Keane and told him point-blank to change "Rapunzel" to traditional 2-D.  Nobody's yet said they have or would.  So far, that event has only happened in Jim's speculative imagination, because he believes that J&E want to play Oliver Cromwell and behead all non-Pixar WDFA CGI projects to bring in the new 2-D Age, period, end of story.  Which isn't quite getting the point:

J&E don't want to eliminate CGI, what they want to eliminate are - David Stainton - CGI WDFA pictures...You remember, the ones like Chicken Little and Robinsons v1.0, that were supposed to pull out their bag of Shrek tricks and develop WDFA as "more popular" than Pixar?  Well, in a word, glad that's over.  In fact, they're making it too clear they don't want David Stainton ANYTHING, and if you, like Sanders, are stuck working on a project David liked while he was there, you'd now better prove your story/artistic case, or you'd better run--The new Quality Sherriffs are in town.  With the sale now, there's almost no border left between Pixar and WDFA, as long as John's in charge of both and Steve Jobs still gets the money--It's just a question of preserving brand image, and John wants Pixar to do good CGI and Disney to tell good Disney stories, -especially- 2-D ones if possible but not exclusively.  They can show "Robinsons" in March and "Ratatouille" in summer; all that now matters is that audiences like both, aren't overglutted with product, and are perfectly aware of whose movies look like whose.

And if Keane proves he can do a Good Disney Movie even if it's on a computer (and looks pretty darn well like he can), J&E are going to be the first ones to tell him to do it.

B A D.. Lassater is yet again pushing every inch of good ideas and good projects out of WDFA.. I know it was a decision they HAD to make, but damn. They need to take some managerial classes. ".. morale to sink to an all-time low at WDFA", AGAIN?! AGAIN because of Lassater and Catmull. AGAIN?!

Off course, turning Disney to all traditional animation is a good thing, but please don't limit them to ONLY traditional. When a movies needs to be done in computer animation, it needs to be done in computer animation. And Pixar doesn't hold a monopoly on that, oh please no. They had some groundbreaking movies, they produced one of the best animated movies ever (Finding Nemo), but they are still VERY VERY SMALL when you compare them to WDFA. And WDFA didn't create that history thanks to limitations on how to experiment with animation. And that is exactly what Lassater has done now. Shut down any CGI experiment at WDFA.

He may be some legend regarding CGI, he's no God. And I think he doesn't know that yet... So if you're reading: YOU ARE NOT.

(Sorry, got a little too emotional about the whole deal, gehe.)

All of the text between the picture with the dog and pirate cat and the car spewing fireworks is just sad.  I've always had mixed feelings about Disney buying Pixar.  I admire John Lasseter.  I really do.  But, not too long ago, he wasn't even a member of the Disney team (besides using Disney as a distributor).  And now he's running some of the most "important" part of the company.  And he doesn't like how Disney is competing with Pixar.  So Disney is now not supposed to make CG movies.  I 100% prefer the look of traditionally animated films, so I'm not sad about that, but just the fact that he thinks that Pixar's movies can't compete with Disney's.  Which is a good fear- I'll take Disney over Pixar any day.  

Eisner shouldn't have said (it was Eisner, right?) that WDFA would be making exclusively CG movies.  That was just an unsmart business move.  Obviously, when that was said, no one could have expected the overabundance of CG films.  But, saying that Disney would never make a hand-drawn feature film again was just dumb, in my book.  I wish "Enchanted" was going to be a "real" girl going into an animated world, instead of vice-versa.  Sure, it'd take longer, but I think it'd be so much better, at least to watch.  I'd rather watch a Disney animated film than any live action film.

I know that some animation on "American Dog" has already been done (I saw a clip online over a year ago now I think).  I have no clue how far they have gotten (it could have even been just test footage, I don't know)...if the same animators are working on the film, I hope they don't get discouraged.  And will Chris Sanders ever trust (and work for) Disney again?  I hope so.  Why couldn't HE have stayed on board and re-worked the film?  Why put someone else on it?  That part makes no sense to me.

"And if Glen knows what's good for him, he'll quickly agree to turn "Rapunzel" into a traditionally animated feature."

Are you implying that if Mr. Keane doesn't agree to re-work "Rapunzel", then the Pixar gang will fire him (which they can't do, right?), or just stop production on "Rapunzel".  From the get-go, I wanted "Rapunzel" to be traditionally animated...I mean, it's a princess movie...it'll look kind of funny with Snow White, Cinderella, and all the girls, and Claire/Rapunzel/whoever, unless they would draw her picture traditionally on the packaging and in books, etc...  Poor Mr. Keane.  Glen Keane and Andreas Deja have been my favorite animators since I was 4 or 5, and I hate to see anyone mess with them.  I'm proud of Mr. Deja for working on "Bambi II"- he didn't want to rush into CG I guess.  

The kicker here is that Mr. Keane wanted "Rapunzel" to be traditionally animated, originally.  Then, he was forced to learn the CG tools, and then he spent so much time on it, and I guess liked the process, and decided to make the film CG.  And now, that Pixar gang wants him to change back.  What odacity they have to tell this master animator to re-work his film.  That just breaks my heart.

"We're heading in the wrong direction. Let's turn around""  They only said that because they don't want Disney competing with Pixar.  Not for any other reason.  So, they lied...they didn't think that they were heading in the wrong direction for any other reason than competition with Pixar... tisk, tisk.

Yay for the return of Disney traditional feature animation.  One concern I have-> Disney has a lot of competition (DreamWorks, Sony, Blue Sky, etc.), and, once they see that Disney's traditional features are successful, they'll start making some traditional features, too.  You know in the Maelstrom at Epcot, when the trolls say "Disappear, disappear!"?  I wish that would happen to the other studios.  Their quality just isn't anywhere near Disney's.  Even if they try to make traditional features, it won't be nearly as good, in story or artistry, then Disney's.

JoeHaro07 said: " He worked on freakin "The Lion King" for gosh sakes. I doubt even Lasseter can top The Lion King."  While I agree with what you're saying to a T, you could argue that Jeffrey Katzenberg worked on "The Lion King", and he's not all that and a bag of chips, even though Chris Sanders is.

DerekJ said: "it STILL looks too danged weird and self-indulgent."  One could argue that TENG is "weird".  Everyone can argue that L&S is "weird".  But in a good way.  I think that "American Dog" looked wonderful.

DerekJ also said: "..."Why are we making this?""

Well, to be perfectly honest, "American Dog" was first created at Disney, with nothing to do with anyone at Pixar, including Lasseter & Catmull.  So they should say "they" instead of "we"- they're not the ones making it, anyway.

Boy, this is turning into an "I hate Pixar almost as much as DreamWorks" day...but I still like their movies...

Original19 said: " was pretty upset when they closed down Florida Feature Animation (the Studio tour has never been the same)."  So true- me too.  

idealistic_deviant, I agree with all that you said.

DerekJ, I really don't agree with your last post.  "J&E don't want to eliminate CGI, what they want to eliminate are - David Stainton - CGI WDFA pictures"...exactly the problem- they want to eliminate the competition with WDFA CGI films.  What happens when Disney has a huge hit with a traditionally animated film, and Pixar's previous or following CG film doesn't do as well as that traditional Disney film?  Traditional Disney films will still be in competition with Pixar's CG films.  

"all that now matters is that audiences like both, aren't overglutted with product, and are perfectly aware of whose movies look like whose."  Well, Disney and Pixar aren't, unfortunately, the only animated filmmakers these days.  Lasseter & Catmull have no say in the overgluttedness of animated films, unless they're planning on buying out the competition.  My parents aren't obsessed with Disney by any means, but they know the difference between Disney films and non-Disney films, even if they don't know the other studios' names.  Many people still think that all animated films are Disney (well, they may be aware of Pixar).  I was at my friend's house yesterday, playing with her kids, and they asked me if I had seen the live-action "Peter Pan" movie- I said that I saw it with my friend and her nephew, since he wanted to go.  And I said it wasn't Disney (which they were shocked at)...some people just don't know.

empoor, I applaud you.  Yay for saying what you did!

Add me to the list of people who are getting a little weary of Jim employing his ever-sputtering second person readership to ask questions that he plans to answer.  Come on, Jim.  We're fairly intelligent people here.  Is it always necessary to give us "lines" that are one step above "Da-hurr, you mean they're gonna do the drawity kind of animating again?"

I'm not 100% certain that this news is quite the silver lining it's intended to be.  While I'd be really happy to see Disney go back to being a 2D studio, I'm a little concerned that this shift in production, if it does in fact happen, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  You want to start developing new ideas for 2D films?  Super.  You want to switch projects already in development to 2D?  Maybe not the best idea.  No matter what happens, transitioning the Disney studio back to 2D will take some time.  And if there are some good 3D animated films waiting in the wings while the transition is happening, why not just let them go through?  My initial impression is that Sanders was taken off "American Dog" because the film had story problems.  But this article makes it sound like "American Dog" was a perfectly good 3D film that just happened to come along when Lasseter and Catmull were deciding to go back to 2D.  If it works in 3D, make it in 3D.  If "Rapunzel" is as strong as we've been led to believe on this site, leave it be.  Yes, maybe the guys from Pixar do have bigger concerns than "one piddly little animated feature".  (I know that's Jim's characterization of their thinking and I don't think it's a good one.)  But if the Disney studio is going to turn around, there has to be a renewed focus on how each film can be the best it can be, not just the overall direction of the studio.

Also, this theory doesn't really explain why it was necessary to take Sanders off the project.  If "American Dog" was going along just fine except for its 3D format, why remove a perfectly good 2D director from his film?  I suspect that the switch to 2D is not the entire story of what's happening with "American Dog".  Things are seldom so simple.

If what Jim says is true, it seems that Ed and John are doing is falling into the same defective mindset that Eisner had at the end.  That audiences care whether a film is 2d traditional or 3d computer.  Audiences don't care.  They care about a good story.  

Sure, in the beginning, Toy Story wow'd us with it's amazing visuals, but the story was fantastic.  And some very good 3d visual work from other studios has gone unwatched at the box office, due to lousy stories.  

Why can't Disney and Pixar do the same work, good animation, and who cares if it's 2d or 3d.  Just because Pixar is great at it doesn't mean that Disney must be only 2d.  

Come on.  It's the story, stupid.

According to Jim Hill, Disney certainly is wishy-washy these days.

First they close feature animation. Then they outsource all 2-D and Direct 2 video sequels to other countries. Then they buy pixar. Then they start churning out the CG films.

Now theyve wised up and decided to bring back 2-D full time? And close Disney CG?

What about the new logo in front of pirates? Are we gonna go back to the synthesized blue screen castle? Throw computers out the window? What about traditionally animated films like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and The Beast. They both utilized CG for backgrounds and effects.

Have they remembered that will traditional animation each scene must be hand drawn and painted? And that, that takes a long time?

I just dont know who to believe anymore. I used to have trust in this site. But it seems that whenever Jim feels like it, he decides to take a piece of information hes heard and turn it into a feature article with too many elaborations and personal agendas.

I will believe it when i see it.

As for the CG vs 2-D argument.

Lets think for a minute. 2-D doesnt = greatness. Disney has had luck with a lot of their 2-d's becoming popular. And most of them hold a special place in my heart. Is it because theyre 2-d?

Nope. Its because the storytelling is good. Its because when i was 4 and saw the little mermaid. I wanted to be a mermaid so. bad. I wanted that handsome prince who overcame the obstacles to be with me. Thats what being an adult was gonna be! (nevermind the dissapointement that thats not what being an adult is)

I watched Pinocchio believing that If i wished on stars my dreams would come true. Watched Peter Pan knowing that if i could just fly, i could get to that second star and straight onto morning and id never have to grow up.

As an adult. I cry through 'When Somebody loved Me' in Toy Story 2. Because I did that with my dolls. Its heart wrenching.

People like movies they can identify with. If you grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons I bet you just loved the LOTR movies. (most) Men would love to be in a heist, or have to save the world and a beautiful girl. And get guns, and cool gadgets. Those movies appeal to men.

(most) Women want crazy, no holds bar romance, ala The Notebook.

People diferentiate from those pre-conceived notions but you get the idea.

Kids cant identify with the crap theyre churning out. I liked Lilo and Stitch. and I liked emporer but imo there was more for adults in those movies.

But Home on the Range? Sorry. I dont identify with cows any better then i identified with A Troll in Central Park (which i HATED as a kid)

Its doesnt matter if these movies are green screen, 2d, 3d, clay animation or CG. If the story is good, and relateable it will sell.

People want to be princesses, wizards, and pirates. Things that dont really exist anymore, that are unattaiable.

So to sum up... The 2D vs CG argument is dumb. Because the animation process doesnt matter. Its the story that makes you walk out of the theatre smiling or crying. Not the medium.

Totally agree, randman! The story is always the most important factor in the success of any type of movie (or television show/series).

(saw this comment after I posted my last one)

greenyskp: not everything you say is true. First off all, off course it is the story, but it is just one of the elements of a movie. The Lion King is CG? Oh, god, no. Every story needs a different approach, and that is why WDFA shouldn't be limited to only traditional animation.

You're right that the story is the most important factor, but it is just one side of a golden coin (Disney) or penny (other studios).

First off, this article is yet another ATTEMPT by hack jim hill to stir up a non-existant hornet's nest.  Shame on him.  No wonder he is so looked down upon both in the industry and in the animation community at large.  Shame.

Lilo Stitch HARDLY a "smash" compared to Disney films of the last 20 years.  It was mildly successful as a film; and a pleasant, if fluffy, surprise.  I, for one, liked most of it.

"Well, they don't really want Disney Feature Animation to be in the computer animation business as of 2008."  

This is just a lie.    A LIE.  Just the facts.

Disney and Pixar are not in "direct competition."  They are both owned by the Walt Disney company.  Any real or percieved conflict of interest regarding this would be snuffed out pronto by the board.  

Sanders wasn't relieved of directing American Dog because he wanted it to be cg.  It's been in development at Disney for a number of years, and just hasn't come together as a movie.  Frankly, it's been described by Disney employees as quite a mess.

That doesn't mean it can't be fixed.  Sanders knew Disney owned the project and could do anything they wanted with it.  He may be one of many talented folks at Disney, but he's also just another employee.

Once again, I want to say something... :)

Chris Sanders - Great guy, looks and sounds like a great guy. I myself want to become a story artist, and I wish he would someday teach me things he did to make great films, like Beauty & King. And yes you guys, I've done my research, I know that Sanders wasn't the only one to work on the story of these films. But the thing is, he's been there, and he's been amazing. He should be given some credit. And Personally, I would seriously hate seing a film from Dreamworks saying "From Director Chris Sanders," or "From the creator of Lilo & Stitch." I would seriously hate to see Sanders anywhere else but Disney, he seems to be a great match to work at Disney. 2D Animation is oh so very poised to make its return at Disney, come on Chris, I want to see ya as a new contender, become the next Ron & John Musker at Disney. You'd be perfect for it.

American Dog - While I'm sad to see it going away, you guys must be true. This did seem like a kind of troubled film. Not that it couldn't have been great. But if its one thing John seems to be good at, it is noticing a film in trouble, I mean look at what he did with Toy Story 2. I personally think John is a great guy, he seems very nice. What he does may not seem right to us, but he's doing it for the best of BOTH companies, May I remind you, he's in charge of Disney & Pixar, Disney ofcourse has more Brand Name than Pixar will probably EVER have. I will always put Disney in front of Pixar, but remember guys, for John it might be hard putting Disney in front of Pixar, we have to remember that.

Rapunzel - I Loooooovveeee the Rapunzel concept, gahhh I'm in love with it. Didn't it supposedly have that perfect almost completed act that John said was "possibly the best film opening he's ever seen." If so much work has been done on this film, they should SERIOUSLY let it be. It looks amazing, I love the whole 3D-2D hybrid idea. And am extremely excited with it. Glen looks like he's got a winner. John ofcourse can always look over creativity and story and all that good stuff. But the animation looks amazing, and it's already been retooled once, come on, lets let this awesomenessfulll film stay on its course, In 2009, I'll be in my second year of college, but nothing can stop me from the release of this wonderful movie. I'm very excited, and would be heartbroken, very heartbroken, if this film would be turned to traditional animation or halted.

Traditional Animation - You guys are 100% correct, Disney needs to be 2D, but it doesn't mean we should just discard the good films we have in the pipeline. American dog looked awesome, Chris Sanders is awesome, shooot, I hope I get to work with him someday. Meet the Robinsons, I have to admit, does look overrated. But Pixar did what it could, and they have no responsibility over it, but they do have responsibility over new films, if American Dog looked unstable, than good that they ended it(I still think Chris Sanders is great by the way.) Rapunzel on the other note, is too great to be discarded. This looks like it could actually be the pinnacle of Disney. The climax, of this century, ANOTHER NEW GROUNDBREAKING ANIMATION TECHNIQUE, Disney desperately needs this, something new, fresh. And Disney oh by golly deserves it, pixar is awesome, but it is no match for disney. Which might be lagging in creativity, but thats why we bought pixar, and looks like their doing the best they can. But Rapunzel, should NOT be taken from Disney. Disney needs it. And a princess movie with a twist, a traditional Disney princess movie in story terms with groundbreaking new system of making it, Something new for the Disney Princesses brand, which I'm not a fan of, and somethign new for Disney to fan on. An astonishing film, with great Directorial supervision, Glen Keane.

I'm 16, you guys. Dont' be too hard on me.

OH HELL NA, Chris Sanders is not JUST AN EMPLOYEE. Glen Keane is not JUST AN EMPLOYEE, John Lasseter is not JUST AN EMPLOYEE.... Understand that, there are some that overshadow others... Reality check please... That's life

Joe, I hear you, and agree with the most of your post. I'm *planning* to work for WDFA in the distant future (18 now, and either this year of next year leaving to L.A.) so I can really relate to you. But I most say, even IF American Dog was troubled, why "oust" Sanders? There has to be more concerning his departure from his own project. Maybe Sanders and Lassater can't work with each other, had a big fight, or else the movie had to be Hootwinked-bad for him to be fired of it.

"But Rapunzel, should NOT be taken from Disney. Disney needs it. And a princess movie with a twist, a traditional Disney princess movie in story terms with groundbreaking new system of making it, Something new for the Disney Princesses brand, which I'm not a fan of, and somethign new for Disney to fan on. An astonishing film, with great Directorial supervision, Glen Keane."

TOTALLY agree. Forget American Dog, Rapunzel is a fabolous movie, that will bring all the glory back to the Disney brand. It HAS to stay in production!

JoeHaro07 said: "but remember guys, for John it might be hard putting Disney in front of Pixar, we have to remember that."

That's understandable, but he shouldn't have taken the position at Disney.  He needs to be bias-free.

JoeHaro07 also said: "Didn't it supposedly have that perfect almost completed act that John said was "possibly the best film opening he's ever seen." If so much work has been done on this film, they should SERIOUSLY let it be."

The news isn't official, so hopefully "the best film opening" will stay how it is.

JoeHaro07: "But Pixar did what it could, and they have no responsibility over it, but they do have responsibility over new films, if American Dog looked unstable, than good that they ended it"

PIXAR did what it could?  You mean Mr. Lasseter & Mr. Catmull, right?  In this case, they're Disney, not Pixar.  If they did stuff to "Ratatouille", then you could say Pixar, but "American Dog" is Disney.  They need to separate their time between the two.  They're not always Pixar...now.

So, is 'American Dog' still on the table or has it been COMPLETELY canned? Or, is it still going to be made but in 2D rather than 3D and with a new director? I'm getting mixed answers here.

Be a shame to lose it, but I agree completely that 'Rapunzel' should remain how it is. This could be the gem Disney has been waiting for for the past decade.

Let's have a reality check for all of the members above who have yet to graduate high school.

This is about branding. GM owns 8 different name plates. They all make cars, BUT their brands MEAN something different. NO ONE would purchase a Saturn luxury car, or an economy Cadillac. The different brands MEAN something. When they try and blur the brands and do things to the brands that are the opposite of the branding, then GM gets into trouble.

WDFA and Pixar are two COMPLETELY different brands. They MEAN something different. Pixar is the undisputed leader in CGI, BUT right now the Disney animation brand doesn't MEAN anything. It's branding has been blurred. It USED to mean traditional, quality, (more often than not, storybook type) animation. Will (or should) Pixar make a "princess story"? Probably not. That is WDFA's brand. NOT Pixar's.

Now that puts Rapunzel in a strange place. It is a "princess story" made in CG. What will Disney do? What should they do? IF it has a CG look that is COMPLETELY different from Pixar, then maybe it could work under Disney's brand.

The proof of the branding of WDFA is, I have seen countless references (by people that should know better) of Prince of Egypt being a DISNEY movie, not Dreamworks.

John and Ed are trying to re-establish the brands. Kind of like what Iger and Dick Cook are trying to do on the live action side. Re-establish the Disney live action brand (family friendly, etc) at the expense of Miramax and Touchstone. Plus Disney branded movies do MUCH better than non-Disney branded movies. (check out boxofficemojo.com if you don't believe me)

"Plus Disney branded movies do MUCH better than non-Disney branded movies."

You are forgetting numerous elements of the success of movie. They do better because they've got bigger budgets, larger promotion campagnes, and they are more attractive to larger audiences. Disney movies are for the general public, Touchstone/Hollywood/Miramax movies are for more a more adult public, with more art house pictures. Please don't forget that.

jedited...first off, I have graduated high school, but just because someone is younger than you are doesn't make them stupid or not passionate about Disney (or whatever it is you're passionate about).

"Rapunzel" will have a look that is completely different from Pixar.  But, do Pixar films look COMPLETELY different from Dreamworks', Sony's, Blue Sky's, etc.?  Or did Disney's films look COMPLETELY different from Bluth's?  I mean, there are similarities in any genre of film...sure, they look different, but they are still animated films, and people still will confuse them.  That's why the story is so important.

I understand branding.  But, some people are just not educated in Disney history or in other companies' histories to realize that Disney isn't the only company producing animated films.  To them, any animated film is Disney.  Even if they know that other "brands" exist, they still call it "Disney".  Same with "Coke".  People know that Pepsi, RC Cola, etc., exist, but, at restaurants, many people still order a "Coke", no matter what brand is on the menu.

JoeHaro07, I know it's hard for some people to understand, but they ARE just employees in a big studio. The studio's history is full of talented people, each bringing something unique to the mix. That didn't stop them from being shown the door, for whatever reason was driving events at the time. Some of them stayed away, and some, like John and Ron, and Eric Goldberg came back. Life isn't all pixie dust under the Sorcerer's cap, it's still a business and these guys ARE still just employees.

I am sorry to hear about how American Dog was taken away from him, but Lassiter already did the same thing to the creator/director for Ratatouille, so it's not like he's playing favorites with either studio, he's just making some tough decisions. It looks like the previous regime left him with a mess to clean up and he's just working his way through it. Now, on the off chance that John Lassiter is reading this (right) I offer my usual sage (and usually dismissed) advice: True, American Dog doesn't look like a traditional Disney film, but it DOES look like a non-traditional PIXAR film, so why couldn't Pixar just adopt the Dog and release it as one of their own, while Disney focuses on being Disney, with Rapunzel, Frog Princess, and The Snow Queen (yes, bring that one back,too.) keep the magic stuff at Disney's--that's their identity, that's what the public expects from them and they deliver better than all the imitators out there. Buy back all the 2-D equipment and send the bill to Michael Eisner. Keep making hand drawn cartoons with Mickey, Donald and Goofy--another DuckTales movie(a good one this time)maybe? As to whether Rapuzel should be CG or hand drawn, well, it's all about the hair, isn't it? of COURSE it should be CG, but all the same, have the artists draw up a 2-D version to keep the folks in Consumer Products happy.

Pixar and Disney are in direct competition with their CG films....really?  Would they not only really be in direct competition if say...the films came out at the same time?

Dreamworks/PDI releases 2 films a year....from two different studios..under the same umbrella.....they don't seem to be competing......nice theory...but i'm not buying it....

BTW, Disney has dumped so much cash into getting Rapunzel to work in CG...have fun pulling the plug on that one....

To clarify: I meant have the artists draw up some 2-D POSES of Rapunzel for Consumer Products to use with their princess line. I in no way was suggesting that they make two FILMS.

 blackcauldron85 said:  >>"The kicker here is that Mr. Keane wanted "Rapunzel" to be traditionally animated, originally.  Then, he was forced to learn the CG tools, and then he spent so much time on it, and I guess liked the process, and decided to make the film CG.  And now, that Pixar gang wants him to change back.  What odacity they have to tell this master animator to re-work his film.  That just breaks my heart."<<

People...Last time.  Listen to me very carefully:  Pixar DID NOT go to Glen Keane and tell him to ink-and-paint Rapunzel or die....IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!  JIM - MADE THAT UP -!!!

That's not denial, that's saying "You're reading Jim speculation as if it's yesterday's/tomorrow's headlines"--Even he says "Three guesses what will happen", and as it turns out, it's a pretty wrong guess.  As Jim seems to have gone overboard on just what -kind- of CGI John and Ed have said they want to eliminate.

"B-but," (to coin the JHM phrase), you sputter/stammer/express with startedly imperfect diction, "they did have a meeting, didn't they?--They, like, asked him to, 'n stuff!"  Why, yes, they did, AaMoF.  What did they say at the meeting?...Well, there was this big news that they were hiring back old animators, and J&E went to Glen Keane and said "Hey, didja hear the news?--It's all over the studio:  We're going to do some traditional films again...You know that one you were working on?--If you still want to, it's okay, we don't want you to make any of that Chicken Little stuff!"  And Glen said, "Well, gosh, that's great...But here I've already spent a year trying to get computers to look traditional, and I think it looks great--Here, see?  It's neat, nobody's ever done this before!  I might as well finish, since I'm half started!"  And that.  Was that.  The same meeting, as Jim speculates, will likely happen again, the same issue will be discussed, and Glen will have more work to show for his point.  

After all, to say that John & Ed were -beyond- the point of persuasion, and going to pursue their "dream" at the expense of artists', well...that would be like BASHING Lasseter, wouldn't it?  ;)

I already stated they should have kept Disney with 2D and Pixar with 3D when Disney announced their CGI move.  Just like they have been doing from 1995-2004(ish).  They just NOW realize this?  Maybe the company or Eisner was more scared or money-hungry about the future than sticking with their company traditions and having more business sense then thinking of their next million dollar bonus... sorry, that may have not made any sense at all...

In any case, I do hope they do this.  It was a major mistake for Disney to go CG in the first place.  Then again, there was a shift in CEOs, Pixar is owned by Disney and not leaving, and John & Ed are more involved with Disney, they finally saw the light...

so yeah... HAPPY HOLIDAYS! :D

"And if Glen knows what's good for him, he'll quickly agree to turn "Rapunzel" into a traditionally animated feature."

If Lasseter so much as touches Rapunzel, I will not have a shred of respect for him. If this article is true, it shows more than ever how high on himself Lasseter is.

I said it before and I will say it again, WDFA is NOT about traditional animation. It is about having prince/princess-like roles, an over-the-top villain and a MUSICAL. Dick Cook knows that, Iger knows that......but does Lasseter or Catmull know that? Aparently not.

filmfreak: happy holidays.. not for Sanders, that is :(

I'm not one to wet my pants over WDFA going back to hand drawn.  I agree that if a movie works well in CG, then do it in CG.  If American Dog has potential to be a great movie, then make it.  

How long do people think they can keep up with this competing studios bit?  And if they want CG only done at Pixar, why couldn't American Dog just be shifted to the Pixar brand?

I'm sorry, I just don't see this as a great Christmas present.  I see it as Disney making a decision to buy Pixar and hiring John to run animation without any real idea how it was all going to work out.  I hope they manage to figure it out soon.

My God people, look at the upside and business side of this possible development -

Every studio is now making CG animated films - mostly about penguins, but good or bad (and mostly bad) and most of them follow the same blueprint - smart talking animals or inanimate objects or "another new twist" on a fairy tale.  The smart thing about this move, besides getting traditional 2-D animation back, is that we will finally have some differentiation in the animation field, and who better to bring back hand-drawn animation than Disney.  Instead of being an "also ran" in the CG animation field against PIXAR and DREAMWORKS and BLUESTUDIO and SONY and WHOEVER, bring back something old, but new.  As long as they focus on THE STORY AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT and not cheap fart and groin gags I think there is room and money to be made from this development.  So a few mediocre works get tossed now then later. AMERICAN DOG sounded like CARS but with a dog. Seen it. CHICKEN LITTLE, HOODWINKED and HAPPILY N'EVER AFTER are just SHREK rip offs. Let's get back to original stories and concepts. FROG PRINCESS actually sounds original and new and exciting.  And do we really need another CG penguin movie?  I, for one, am happy about this news. Now if we can get Iger to go for it, then that would be great. John and Ed, your my heroes!

Sorry to disappoint anyone's own personal reality, but no matter how talented Chris Sanders, Glen Keane, John Musker, John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, and Bob Iger may be, it is simply a fact that they are ONLY EMPLOYEES.  They may have various contracts, and the company may value one over the other, but it is a very simple fact.

"I said it before and I will say it again, WDFA is NOT about traditional animation. It is about having prince/princess-like roles, an over-the-top villain and a MUSICAL."

That is complete and utter HORSE SH*T, and one of the most idiotic statements I've read in a long time.  But thanks for the laugh.

Um yeah.....WDFA going back to 2D and only 2D....let me say it slowly...R-U-M-O-R...it started the day Ed and John took over and continues today.  Kinda like the rumor that the Fla studio would be reopening..and in the future cars will fly..rumor rumor what's that? oh its a rumor.  It's one of those things that if people say it enough it suddenly becomes a fact.

"And if Glen knows what's good for him, he'll quickly agree to turn "Rapunzel" into a traditionally animated feature."

yeah that's funny...hope you know what's good for you Glen, otherwise John might fire you....sometimes these articles read like a Ad-Libs, where a couple of psuedo facts are padded with a bunch of made up crap...let's see Disney just spent 7 billion dollars to aquire us and make me the head of all animation....I think the first thing I will do is cost the company hundreds of millions more..because I like drawn cartoons.... in magical unicorn land that might happen....but in the reality of business.....yeah no...

If "American Dog" has big story problems, then it's not exactly unique in the annals of recent Disney animation history is it? It seems that whenever there's a new Disney animated movie there are always "story problems"  of varying severity. Story problems have been blamed for the destruction of the 2d department in the first place. They obviously not been solved.

I for one would like to see the 2d animation department built from the ground up, with new talented people and less dead wood.  So it's time for major surgery. I applaud the Pixar folks for not stopping with half measures.

I am thrilled with the prospect of Disney going back to its roots.  I thought it was a bad idea 3 years ago when they announced the all CG plan.  I think that there are reasons that CG movies need to exist. BUT, I also think that we need to save and hold on to the ART of hand drawn animation.  Just like stop-motion, it is a dying art that needs to be saved! Who else, who better! than Walt Disney Feature Animations.  

Animation isnt all about pushing the bounderies. You could have two stick figures interacting and IF the story line is good, you will enjoy it.  The idea that there are elements within the company that see Disney's future in its past, makes me very very happy.  We have pixar and alot of others for CG. We NEED Disney to hang on to its roots and stay true to Walt's visions. Remember Walt? No matter how big a company Disney becomes, no matter how many people it employs, or monies made, Walt's vision must be memoralized. It must continue.

somepirateguy: what's your problem? If you don't like the things Jim writes about, than don't read them.. Maybe that's an idea?

I don't think that "American Dog" should go over to Pixar- it began as a Disney film.  There IS a difference between the two.  

Scoobuedrool said: "Sorry to disappoint anyone's own personal reality, but no matter how talented Chris Sanders, Glen Keane, John Musker, John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, and Bob Iger may be, it is simply a fact that they are ONLY EMPLOYEES."

Technically that is true, but that's the same as saying that The Beatles were only a band.   Technically true, as well.  But, to some people, these are there heroes, people who they admire and look up to.  I don't think of Glen Keane as just an employee.  I mean, he is an employee, but he's an amazing animator whom I've admired for a long time.  I bet you would say that the Nine Old Men were just employees.  Was Walt just an employee?  I mean, he was on the payroll and all.

Rufus3698 said: " Story problems have been blamed for the destruction of the 2d department in the first place. They obviously not been solved."  The 2D films haven't been the only animated films at Disney with story problems.  Just looking at "Chicken Little" and "Meet the Robinsons", you see that there have been story problems.  And, I know that the Pixar films had "stuff" worked out on them, too.  All movies are prone to story problems.

Lyndy62, I agree.  But I also agree with a post someone made yesterday (I want to say it was DerekJ, but I could be wrong)...From "The Black Cauldron" onward, Disney has utilized computer technology in its animated films.  I can't see them going back to hand-inking and such.  That'd be cool (I'd love to be in the ink-and-paint department), but I can't see it happening.  Even if 2D animation comes back, I'm sure that they'll utilize computer technology, even if the film is "hand-drawn".

Si, is 'American Dog 'still in the pipeline or has it been canned? As long as its still coming out I'm not really bothered about what animated format its in.

I think it's a little pathetic and very premature to jump on this decision so harshly since most of us have seen almost nothing from this film and the former DFA model was a proven recipe for disaster.  I trust that nothing we've read about this decision has been either correct or complete, so I'd hold off peeing myself until JL or Disney says something more official in a press release or an interview.

Rapunzel looks like a dog to me.  In fact, the image we most often see of Rapunzel herself is pretty homely and unoriginal.  That it's another Shrek-like Twisted Fairy Tale doesn't inspire much confidence either.  DFA used to set trends, not blindly follow others' work.  They got to this trend so late that that pile Hoodwinked will launch a sequel and Shrek 3 will be on DVD before Rapunzel lets down her hair in a pre-release teaser trailer.  

This American Dog project reminds me of Poochie D from that infamous Simpsons episode too much to clearly judge what little I've seen.  Animals with sunglasses in animation will being about a knee-jerk reaction in me, I guess.  I love Lilo and Stitch, but that's not a get out of development hell free card by any means.  

Also: last year everyone here was crying their eyes out about the end of 2D and now everyone's crying because a couple of bent nail 3D projects- greenlit or in development during the hated Eisner years-are getting straightened out by a pioneering visionary.  Better yet, the buzz is that these projects may become 2D films eventually!  What in the hell is all of the crying about?

Above, my use of the word"pathetic" sounds insulting to members who have commented here, and I certainly didn't mean it that way at all.  Apologies to any whose toes felt stepped on by that little comment.  

Actually, 'Rapunzel' has been re-tooled for the exact reason so as to prevent it from being another Shrek-style twisted fairy tale. Lassetter himself has expressed that it should return to its true fairy tale roots, and so that is what we will be getting sometime in 2009.

I'm happy for WDFA to return to 2D. What I'm not happy with is WDFA returning to 2D at the expense of good ideas that have potential, like Chris Sander's version of 'American Dog'.

The logic is weird. You think John Lasseter is somehow trying to hurt his productions rather than help them because he thinks the los angeles feature animation part of disney is somehow competing with the pixar part of disney even though he is managing both? You'd have to provide evidence for this claim, and yet all you offer is that directors have been changed around on one of the films they are trying to develop? Not very convincing to me!

"Technically that is true, but that's the same as saying that The Beatles were only a band.   Technically true, as well.  But, to some people, these are there heroes, people who they admire and look up to.  I don't think of Glen Keane as just an employee.  I mean, he is an employee, but he's an amazing animator whom I've admired for a long time.  I bet you would say that the Nine Old Men were just employees.  Was Walt just an employee?  I mean, he was on the payroll and all."

Totally understand what you're saying.  And believe it or not, I agree.  

But it does remain a fact that they're only employees.  And the Beatles were just a band.  A great band, but just a band.  One of many.   And Capitol could have dropped them any time they'd wanted for any reason.  

They don't call it show "business" for nothing.

(btw--I'm listening to Abbey Road as I type)

"I bet you would say that the Nine Old Men were just employees.  Was Walt just an employee? "

Walt was the OWNER and FOUNDER of the company.  And he owned a helluva lot of stock.  

And the nine old men were just employees.  And only 9 of MANY animators-some far more talented and far less political and scheming than the self-promoting 9 everyone refers to.  

Empoor: You completley missed what I was saying.

I was pointing out that traditional animation movies such as Little Mermaid, Beauty and The beast, lion king, hunchback ALL used CG.

We're on the same page.

I dont understand the hoopla honestly. EVERY studio produces differents sorts of movies. Live Action, Green Screen, CG, 2-D, 3D... all different mediums in which to tell a story.

Regardless of whether Home on the Range (for example) had been live action or CG or 2-D. it SUCKED. The story SUCKED.

Disney had a plethura of crappy movies that came out before the 'Disney Decade' got into full swing. The Great Mouse Detective? The Black Cauldron? While all movies I enjoy did HORRIBLY. Why? The stories just werent as good and relateable.

You can tell me I'm wrong all you want. But its the same reason I flat out refused to go see the new bond movie. Yeah yeah, hes goodlooking, but cars exploding, secret gadgets... eh. not so appealing to me. Your average 21 year old girl.

The same reason why I continue to try in VAIN to get my 7 year old cousin to watch Cars and she wants nothing to do with a "movie with no princesses in it"

If you dont relate to/have an interest in a movie. Why go see it? There are a few thousand of us who will go see it BECAUSE its Disney or BECAUSE its Pixar but thats not most consumers.

Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin etc. all good stories.

The name DISNEY is famous for CLASSICS that live in your heart.

Play Route 66 from Cars and I'll smile. Play When you Wish Upon a Star and I'll well up and cry.

There is a difference between churning movies to churn out movies to make money. And making a classic that will live in people. And thats the business that Disney needs to get back into.

And the 40-someodd comments and thousands of hits, just prove that Jim used this a publicity stunt and much like many other never-lived rumors. Im guessing that this wont come to realization and then Jim will shy away from answering our questions about how he was wrong. Dont beleive me? Check the archives.

Okay, I get you now. Sorry, got a little confused concerning your previous post on which I commented. I agree with you that Disney needs to get back into the business of making classics, in stead of money makers.

Well, I've got to say, maybe if they animated Home on the Range a little better I would like the movie more. The story isn't all that, but it ain't as bad as Hoodwinked or similar movies.

Off course Jim used it as a publicity stunt, but he, he made us think about the matter and look where we are now. A whole page of free advice for WDFA to read. Gehe.

Also Empoor:

<i>"You are forgetting numerous elements of the success of movie. They do better because they've got bigger budgets, larger promotion campagnes, and they are more attractive to larger audiences. Disney movies are for the general public, Touchstone/Hollywood/Miramax movies are for more a more adult public, with more art house pictures. Please don't forget that." </i>

Your generalizations suck. Big budgets do not = successful movies. Since you used SUCCESS instead of quality. I'll mention the Blair Witch Project. VERY Successful movie. Terrible quality.

Touchstone for adults huh?

What about Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Nightmare before Christmas, Ernest goes to Camp, Ernest Saves Christmas, The Dead Poets Society, Kazaam, and Ten Things I hate About you, just to name a few. I saw all those movies when i was under the age of 18. Some under the age of 14.

Hollywood only makes "adult movies" too? The Santa Clause? No kids saw that right?

And then Miramax. They make "adult films" Oh wait. i forgot about Tom and Jerry the movie, Air Bud: Golden Receiver,  Pokemon Heroes, Spy-Kids 3-D, and Finding Neverland.

Get your facts straight before throwing out generalizations.

Never said they would *always* do better with bigger budgets [..] audiences. I wasn't planning to publish my post to an Elsevier journal, so didn't take the effort to name every little exception in there. That was sooo totally irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

I said "a more adult public", not "adults". I think you get the big difference between Disney and the rest of the Walt Disney Co. studios too. I wasn't planning on going to name every exception in that comment, because I wasn't writing a scientific paper, or was I?! For Hollywood I was talking about the *new* Hollywood Pictures, focusing on mostly horror (and especially for you: sure, they produce more than only horror, that's why I said "mostly").

Miramax, you can't really say they were focusing on under-the-age-of-10-kids when they distributed Pulp Fiction. Off course they don't ONLY focus on a more adult public, I *never* said that. Who should get the facts straight, me or you...

My point was simply that every studio makes movies for everyone.

Its a parents choice whether a child should see it or not. Depending on language, violence, sex, etc.

Those parents cant control the fact that more kids wanted to see Shrek, (looootza dirty jokes in there, very 'non-disney') then wanted to see Cars.

Which leads back to what I was saying about relateability.

"I bet you would say that the Nine Old Men were just employees."

I'm sorry you guys didn't get the chance to talk to Ward Kimball. He would gladly tell you the story of when Walt fired him - then again he'd be glad to tell you any story - he was a character in the best sense of the word. Ward wasn't fired during the early years either - this was after Ward had gotten recognition for his Space programs on TV, Toot Whistle Plunk and Boom had come out - think it got an Oscar, and of course the characters he had animated, like Jiminy.

Coincidentally, like Chris Sanders, Ward was directing when he was fired. Ward's project was Babes in Toyland. Ward didn't see eye to eye with his boss (Walt) on the project, neither one backed down - poof  Ward's gone. So this isn't anything new. Walt had a long list of extremely talented animators that he had fired over the years for one reason or another - in the business world, talent does not guarantee you will keep your job.    Of course, Ward would return to the studio, and had to serve his penance by animating Ludwig VonDrake. So wouldn't be surprised if Chris returns at some point as well. Maybe in another ten years, we'll find out what really happened.

Charlie Barkin said: "I'm happy for WDFA to return to 2D. What I'm not happy with is WDFA returning to 2D at the expense of good ideas that have potential, like Chris Sander's version of 'American Dog'."

Perfect statement- it represents how I feel exactly.

curmudgeon, did you get the chance to talk to Ward Kimball?  If so, that is very awesome and I'm jealous.  

And, good point.  And, Ludwig Von Drake is cool.

"CHICKEN LITTLE, HOODWINKED and HAPPILY N'EVER AFTER are just SHREK rip offs."

I find it interesting that you started out your paragraph by saying " As long as they focus on THE STORY AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT" and then say this. How in the world are CL & HW like Shrek? CL is a story about a boy trying to gain his father's love and respect. HW is a detective/mystery movie. Neither are anything like Shrek.

"That is complete and utter HORSE SH*T, and one of the most idiotic statements I've read in a long time.  But thanks for the laugh."

Really, then why is it that the thing people (in general) remember most about Disney movies is the main character (usually a princess/prince-type person in his/her teens), the villain and the songs?

"In fact, the image we most often see of Rapunzel herself is pretty homely and unoriginal. "

Rapunzel unoriginal? Are you kidding me? The style of CG animation used on her is brand new and is designed to make it look almost traditional. It is a style no other animated film has used.

"That it's another Shrek-like Twisted Fairy Tale doesn't inspire much confidence either."

I believe it was reported awhile ago that Rapunzel's story was changed to be more of a "true" fairy tale.

"Also: last year everyone here was crying their eyes out about the end of 2D and now everyone's crying because a couple of bent nail 3D projects- greenlit or in development during the hated Eisner years-are getting straightened out by a pioneering visionary."

1) The oh-no-2D-is-gone was quite a few years ago (back when BB came out).

2) Again, Rapunzel is not a 'bent-nail' CG project. It was one most people were actually looking foward to

"What in the hell is all of the crying about?"

It's called differing opinions

empoor wrote: what's your problem? If you don't like the things Jim writes about, than don't read them.. Maybe that's an idea?

Maybe another idea would be not to worry ourselves what other posters think.  but since you mention it, i never said i dont like what Jim writes, in fact a like a lot of what he writes......what i dont like is when he packages speculations, gossip and rumor as if it were fact......and then claims to be a journalist.

somepirateguy: okay, can relate to that. But well, after a while you learn to see through all that, and I'm always saying that he does it because he wants to trigger everyone into a discussion (like the large one, consisting of all these comments).

I still can't wait to burn off all of the projects that Eisner's bean counting Disney set in motion.  Either to see them retooled into more original projects, see them completed and released to stand or fall on their own merits or, if something isn't coming together, I'd rather see the whole show shut down instead of seeing Disney continue to release weak, flawed films.  No one needs another Treasure Planet or another Atlantis.  Or another "The Wild".

When all of the films that are in production now are released, we'll probably hear more about the hubbub surrounding their creation.  It seems that Disney under Eisner is going to start playing things a little closer to the vest, the way Mighty Pixar handles things.  I'd welcome that change.

Rapunzel, in fact is only a film. But a good one in fact, I still think Disney deserves this one. We all have different opinions, but some are more right than others...

My opinions are(and will continue to be):

1) Lasseter back off "Rapunzel" and not try to change it, and let it stay on its course to become an awesome Disney film.

2) Lasseter works on not losing "American Dog." (Many of you said that he changed directors for "Ratatouille," he did indeed, but he made Pinkava, or whateve rhis name was, executive producer. He didn't just flat out fire him. "American Dog" sounded like an awesome film with great potential, what got me, I cared about it. But care more about the great director which is Chris Sanders.) I just don't want Disney to ruin their relationship with Sanders, Disney needs Sanders, he's cool.

3) Disney proceeds on their regular schedule, incorporating into the mix, the return to traditional animation. That's fine and dandy with me, makes me happy actually.

4) You guys leave me alone, I'm 16, which means I'm the type of kid that actually watches films on theater. Unlike you guys, who are probably 50 year old wackjobs living in your mom's garage. :)

I mourned the loss of traditional animation, and therefore traditional Disney, more than most.

But I'll say this - if I don't see some form of animated movie with that cat in the pirate eyepatch I will go on a murderous rampage in both LA and Orlando.

He's too perfect a physical character design to go to waste... and he's made for CGI.

MonsquitoControl, I'm sooo excited about the pirate kitty- he's so cute!  I wonder what he sounds like, though...!

And, JoeHaro07, that last statement was mean.  We know by now that you're 16...if you don't want to play with the big boys, then don't write anything.  You should be able to handle yourself.  I'm a 21 year old married college junior...so I'm not what you said, and I was even offended.  

Mickey Duck: 'The Wild' is NOT a WDFA movie.

...The idea that having both studios producing CG movies would involve them unhelpful competition or 'cannibalising' is plainly ridiculous - since when did it hurt the Weinsteins that both Miramax and Dimension films produced *live action* films? Is it a problem for Aardman that they've branched out into CG instead of only making stop-motion films? Is the new influence within Disney going to insist that Disney use only one brand for its Live Action films now?  

I think true animators will use whichever medium serves the story - I would've preferred to see Pixar branch out into hand-drawn and stop-motion before I saw WDFA suffer continued amputations.

Cynicism alert:  I think it sounds like the problem was not that they doubted the success of 'American Dog' and 'Rapunzel' but that they worried that they might be too successful (not just financially, but creatively - unlike, say, Cars, for example) and that this would create a rival creative power base within the company...

mkay this is what i am talking about: http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-12-19/

the net is a buzz about the "decision" to send Disney back to 2D...

speculation and rumor turning to fact....what a surprise....

I love how everyone is saying, "American Dog is great, John and Ed are stupid for canning it", or "Don't you dare touch Rapunzel, that story is awesome!" Have any of you actually seen either of these movies? I'm sure you haven't, because they haven't been made yet! They are not even finished writing the script! What you are reacting to is concept art, concept renderings, and the idea for a movie. There is a LONG way to go from concept to execution. Have any of you seen the story boards for these movies? In reality these movies could be complete crap and need a major amount of reworking to make them acceptable. Why don't you save your judgments until after you've heard all of the facts and seen the finished product. Jim Hill - this goes for you too.

jewalker: because we are all excited about the concept art. Never did we say we had all seen the completed movies. The concept art just looks soooooo good. Even if the script is 'booo', it's still better than e.g. Atlantis, because of the nice production design :D.. (now talking 'bout Rapunzel)

gobo-fraggle said:

>>"Cynicism alert:  I think it sounds like the problem was not that they doubted the success of 'American Dog' and 'Rapunzel' but that they worried that they might be too successful (not just financially, but creatively - unlike, say, Cars, for example) and that this would create a rival creative power base within the company.."<<

At the risk of quoting People Who Can't Be Quoted (well, I'm just imagining there are, Jim probably has some for real  :) ), consider for a moment:  "Dog" had been shut down at the concept stage--We saw nice looking concept art, and a preliminary storyboard, but no test footage, no announced cast, and no machinery already in the works to keep it from being shut down, except for Chris's "okay" say-so from the Last Guy.

Now consider that Rapunzel is near the same stage, and...it's been a year, shouldn't we have SEEN some new progress by now?  We've seen the exact same concept art and Glen's same test shots for the character over and over on every animation site, but again, no cast, finalized story or test footage of its existence.  Lasseter decided "Dog" wasn't moving fast enough, and apparently "Rapunzel" may get the same "So, how's work coming along so far?" queries--One, however, seemed expendable to push back and hand to someone else, and the other they're trying to salvage at all costs (but not too many).  Think that question came down to storyboards and marketability.

There's something about concept art that's very interesting -- that is, I've never seen concept art for any production that <i>didn't</i> look <i>really good</i>.  That said, it's not enough to base whether or not a feature-length movie is gonna be good on its preliminary designs and sketches.

<< Derek J:  We've seen the exact same concept art and Glen's same test shots for the character over and over . . . but again, no cast, finalized story or test footage . . . >>

That's something that's consistently bothered me about <i>Rapunzel</i> -- and to the some extent <i>American Dog</i>.  In spite of all the beautiful concept art for the Tinkerbell franchise, it's still facing story problems.

Something PIXAR has had that WDFA hasn't had is a real good sense of story and characters.  Chris Sanders is a talented artist, but that doesn't mean he's also a good storyteller.  Just take the example of Ward Kimball -- and to a certain extent Wolfgang Reitherman.  Or on the flipside, Walt Disney -- marginal animator, damn good storyteller.

As for the necessity of defining the brands, I agree with that.  Seeing as both are aimed at the General Audience, it's beneficial for them to each have their own distinctive "look".  (And it's ridiculous to assume WDFA will no longer use <i>some</i> CGI (as they have since <i>Great Mouse Detective</i>).

Success will go to whichever studio is the first to figure out ( be it Disney, MGM, Paramount, Dreamworks, etc. ), motion pictures are not about trends or generalizing the audience so much as telling good -- no, actually <i>great</i> -- stories in brilliant ways.

Gallopin' Gaucho said:>>:As for the necessity of defining the brands, I agree with that.  Seeing as both are aimed at the General Audience, it's beneficial for them to each have their own distinctive "look".  (And it's ridiculous to assume WDFA will no longer use <i>some</i> CGI (as they have since  Great Mouse Detective)."

I'm hoping Keane will have one argument up his sleeve about the 2-Digital style--Namely that he wants the Old Days back, and John wants the Brand Image of the Old Days back, but are they being realistic about it?...Some old-timers still blame "Eisner's fault" for the Katzenberg Formula, and if Rapunzel and Frog Princess were only 99% good and got a few bad reviews, out would come all the "Same old 90's Disney films" jokes out of the woodwork.  (Qv. AskMike's "Disney is all about Princesses!" comment...WTF??)

I can't speak for Keane's storyboards, and he may be running up costs by playing Rapunzel as an "experimental thesis", but  if Lasseter wants to save those costs with 2-D...a "traditional" Rapunzel just wouldn't be that interesting.  The one thing they have to agree on is that Disney Brand Image is about "Show Us the Fantasia"--Give us something  that other studios aren't doing, in story or visual, and then we'll know it isn't lazy ol' Dreamworks.  And since the entire studio is riding on the first new public example of Brand Image, it would be the better investment to dazzle us unwilling new audiences with what NEW visuals and a good story can do, before we argue about "what the old days were like"...If you can get it, John, you get what you pay for.

I say GOOD!!!! There really is no reason at all for WDFA to be producing CGI with Pixar around. Pixar has been born and raised on CG; WDFA on traditional animation. The teaming up of these two companies was perfect because now they could (hopefully) rule the realms of both these animation mediums. Let Pixar do its magic, and let WDFA do its.

I am sorry to see Sanders go because he is a mastermind that created both the movie and character of Stitch as well as worked on The Lion King. And to tell the truth I would have been fine with having American Dog be CG only because he was behind the picture. But you have to make sacrifices. I just wish he could have been assigned the task of making this movie into a traditional animation work and not be kicked off his own project.

Now I would be VERY sad if Rapunzel gets the CG axe. Supposedly the animators were working on creating a truly awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping CG film with very stylized animation and amazing detail. In fact I have been looking forward to this movie for a long time.

So because the animators are really trying to create a picture that pushes the boundaries of CG, unlike American Dog, I hope and believe that Lasseter will let Rapunzel slide.

DerekJ said: We saw nice looking concept art, and a preliminary storyboard, but no test footage,"

Actually, there was footage shown at SIGGRAPH last year or this year.  I saw a clip online where the dog was on a train.  It wasn't much, but it looked nice.

Gallopin' Gaucho said: "And it's ridiculous to assume WDFA will no longer use <i>some</i> CGI (as they have since <i>Great Mouse Detective</i>"

*cough* The Black Cauldron *cough*

DerekJ said: "a "traditional" Rapunzel just wouldn't be that interesting"

How do you figure?  #1, No other company is making traditionally animated Princess movies, as far as I know.  #2, a "traditional" Snow White/Cinderella/Sleeping Beauty/Little Mermaid/ B&tB/Aladdin all were interesting. As long as the story is interesting, the movie should be (we've seen the pretty pictures...even if "Rapunzel" is made in 2D, it'd still be pretty, I bet).

One of my biggest concerns about Disney only doing 2D and Pixar doing all the CGI films is that Disney films are different from Pixar films.  Even though I prefer the look of traditional animation, what if a WDFA film is in the works, and the people working on it feel that, in order to be a more effective movie, must be made in CGI?  I don't feel that they should, right now, say no more CGI films from Disney.  

I find it realy funny how your all saying that "Rapunzel" is in begining stages. It probably sucks, we haven't seen smack. Now, hmmm.... Let's see. Pixar! Have you seen anything other than "teaser trailer," damn good animation and test footage. now... Let's see.

John Lasseter. Extremely secretive guy who kept almost all Pixar films very secretive. Let's see? I wonder why we still have not seen anything other than "test footage" and pics of Rapunzel? I wonder whose in charge of Disney now? I'll let your brain do the rest.

And as for Rapunzel, it might only have that out. How do I know its a great film? Didn't JOhn Lasseter say that he saw an almost completed first act, and it was the strongest movie opening he's ever seen? Other than that..

I really have no idea why anyone would think Rapunzel was gonna be this beautiful film, with a great story. I simply have no clue... And the fact that Glen Keane has worked for Disney in some of the biggest princess movies they've made * cough * Beauty and the beast etc. * cough * I really have no idea where I got that Rapunzel might be this great film? I guess I shouldn't set my sights for Disney so high... Sorry Disney enthusiasts... lol ( Suck on that )

Psh. T H I N K

JoeHaro.. You crack me up :P

<<blackcauldron85 said:  *cough* The Black Cauldron *cough* >>

You're right.  Sorry, that's my mistake.  Black Cauldron was the first.  (Thanks for reminding me!)

<<blackcauldron85 said:  what if a WDFA film is in the works and the people working on it feel that, in order to be a more effective movie, must be made in CGI?  >>

I'm guessing the move the Disney brass would make is shift the project to Pixar, key staff/animators included.  If they cordone off the "brands", I don't think they'd have to cordone off the staff (outside of the buildings/places they're working).  You know how Walt suddenly had Marc Davis working at Imagineering on Disneyland and Xavier Atencio writing the POTC-ride script (even though he wasn't, at the time, a studio writer)?  I think the tie Pixar will have to Disney is more similar to Imagineering than Miramax/Touchstone/Hollywood.

<<JoeHaro07 said:  I find it really funny how your all saying that "Rapunzel" is in beginning stages.  It probably sucks, we haven't seen smack...  John Lasseter.  Extremely secretive guy... >>

Your points are well made.  But, with regards to RAPUNZEL, there's been no teaser trailer.  I'm not hinting RAPUNZEL sucks, I am hinting it may be struggling through development.  I have a huge amount of respect for Glen Keane.  But this is, if I'm not mistaken, his first time as a director.  I imagine he's going for perfection.  He wants it to be great.  Unfortunately, that could also mean he's going too slow.

<<linklewtt said:  I would be VERY sad if Rapunzel gets the CG axe. Supposedly the animators were working on creating a truly awe-inspiring, jaw-dropping CG film with very stylized animation and amazing detail. >>

This still remains speculation on JH's part.  Possible, but I doubt they'd overhaul the production if enough work's been done on it.  (Not unheard of though -- Walt had "Flowers and Trees" redone entirely in color).  It really depends on how far along RAPUNZEL is at this point.  I imagine the conversation JH hints at will be more of the standard -- "Show us where you're at" type meetings.  If it's still in early stages, it'd be plausible to rethink it "traditionally".  No matter how it's made, I find it hard to believe Keane will put out a lemon.

<<Derek J said:  I'm hoping Keane will have one argument up his sleeve about the 2-Digital style--Namely that he wants the Old Days back, and John wants the Brand Image of the Old Days back, but are they being realistic about it? >>

That's the immediate problem they run into with regards to "brands".  The generalization's out there that Disney's only successful when they've got princesses and songs running through their storyline.  But to me, the WDFA brand has been/should be like you say "Show us the Fantasia" -- dazzle the audience.  Entertaining as Pixar is, they're not, I dunno, magical as Disney is at its best.

Gallopin' Gaucho said: "(Thanks for reminding me!)"

No problem!

Gallopin' Gaucho also said: "Entertaining as Pixar is, they're not, I dunno, magical as Disney is at its best."

That's a perfect way to put that.  I've never been able to articulate that.  But I agree.

O-Meon has an article about Chris Sanders and "American Dog", and that gives some more insight into the situation.

It really isn't surprising that we haven't seen any more production art for American Dog or Rapunzel considering who runs the show now. Besides the teaser trailer that was released for Ratatouille, how much production art have you seen for that movie. Who can even name Pixar's next movie and state who the director is, let alone provide any production art (by the way, Pixar's next movie is W.A.L.-E, and I don't know who the director is). Pixar has a tradition of keeping these close to their chest so that they get judged by their final product. Disney has a tradition of sharing information early and often. I think both sides are having to adjust to the new partership as Disney tries to learn to work in the Pixar way, and Ed and John learn that it is hard to keep things secret in Hollywood.

A large part of me, in just the past week, wishes that there wasn't a partnership between Disney and Pixar.  As long as Disney got to keep the rights to the films and characters, at this point, I wouldn't have minded if they went their separate ways.  I enjoy the Pixar films, but not enough to have Disney films become Pixar films.

Nope, I disagree with you blackcaudron85, no one else was better for the part than lasseter and Ed, better than stainton. But anyway, we both have to recognize that Pixar films are kind of gigglish disney charm in em. and many people nowadays just consider pixar, disney. like did you see that new disney movie cars, people say that. And like yeah... Its all gonna change from now on. But heck, if Disney starts crankin out pixar films, no prob with me, i'd hate it, but its better than the full flat out failures they were producing a year earlier

I'm an animation student in Canada, and I have been following news about Pixar from JHM for awhile.  First of all, I just want to say that I think that people are getting just too antsy about this.  

Yes, american dog looked interesting.  But couldn't the same thing be done in 2d?  CG is a medium that can be used to create some mind boggling effects and push the boundaries of what is humanely possible.  But thats just it- HUMANELY possible.  CG is a medium that tries to emulate what life looks like, not what life FEELS like.  CG is cold and lifeless and is a very technical medium.  While I LOVE cg and what pixar does with it, its not a happy, touchy kind of medium.  PIXAR does a darn good job of making worlds that really draw you in (as mentioned before, Finding Nemo was amazing) but why is that? Why did finding nemo work? why did toy story work?

because there was NO way those movies could have been done the way they had been if they were in 2D.  These are movies specifically made for 3d.  Movies that would have a hard time working in 2d, due to their nature.  Though there has been a movie (pinocchio) that deals with a little wooden (boy) toy, toy story was great because you felt that you could almost touch the characters inside the movie.

Now, take Disney's 3d.  While I cannot argue with the fact that chicken little was cute and fluffy, it made my brain hurt.  These are animators used to working in 2d and it showed.  While some areas in the film kinda work (like the pig), others do not (like the ugly duckling).  Squash and stretch, one of the MAIN rules of animation, is used to an extreme in this movie, and it looks, well, odd.  You can see in their new movie, meet the robinson's, that this use of squash and stretch has been pulled back a lot.  

What I'm trying to say in a windy and quite odd way, is that Pixar makes CG movies.  They're good at what they do.  Although the medium that they use is not traditional, how they get there is.  Don't say anything about artistry; that company employs some amazing artists and the preproduction stuff for their movies are amazing.

In disney's case, I love the old 2D.  I watch it all the time (i'm a fan of the xeroxed technique they used in robin hood and sword in the stone and jungle book) and it doesn't get old.  They use(d) the same formula everytime, so you really could get in to the movies fast because you knew what to expect.  The stories were told in an interesting fashion, the art was amazing, and the quality of their work was unsurpassed.

I know in an old JHM forum topic that it was rumored that pixar was going to do a 2d movie, just to show disney that money could indeed be made from such a venture.  Now that Pixar is owned by disney, they might be using disney to bring back 2d.

SO WHAT.

Any sacrifice made to bring back 2d is worth it.  Its a medium that I am being schooled in, not 3d.  Its a touchy-feely type of work and what you can do with it surpasses 3d.  You don't have to be told about the world you are in, you don't really have to announce the 2d stories.  Disney's 2d is in a realm of its own.

As for glen keane, i don't think disney is going to be trying to piss him off anytime soon.  What actually happens with rapunzel is anyone's guess, but having glen fired would be the worst thing to ever happen to disney in recent years.  He's been a supervising animator on the little mermaid up thru the recent, bad CG animated disney stuff.

Anyway, my vote is for a return to 2D.

...I don't think i can stand another poorly done 3D animated movie, competing to be the best, when they are really all competing to see which movie is the least cookie-cuttered.

Kadi

JHM's most popular column finally emerges from its long winter's nap, as Jim Hill answers your questions about a cut scene from "The Rocketeer," Goofy's original voice as well as soliciting your opinion about this site's editorial direction

Jim Hill reviews this new hardcover from Disney Editions, which takes a detailed look at all of the dogs who have appeared in Disney animated shorts & features over the years