God.. First, lettings Sanders leave Disney is a very serious mistake Lasseter made, and he is going to regret it. Here you have an unique and original artist who proved himself with Lilo & Stitch, and now he is joining the long list of great people who left Disney because of bad (or worse) management decisions.

"And John Lasseter was just making the changes that he felt were necessary in order to insure that "American Dog" would ultimately be a success at the box office."

Second, what? So, making "American Dog" look like "Toy Story" is going to be an insurance that it will do good at the box office? I hate the new story, I think it's just dull. I must admit, the first story wasn't the most original story either, but it was at least exciting. How many times have we seen New York in a movie already? Why not just go for the American Southwest? So what if Cars was set in the Southwest, it's not the same story, not the same characters, not the same problems. End of discussion.

I think they're making a big mistake here. "American Dog" could have brought WDFA back to the top of the game, and now "Hollywood Dog" (or whatever this bomb is going to be called) will just be 'some animated film.' I still won't believe they just let Chris Sanders leave...

PLEASE!!! Iger, look at what's happening at the animation division! Please send Cat-Lass back to Emeryville, and appoint someone else as Disney Animation president. Quick.

Related: I was just thinking. I guess John Lasseter still keeps his office at Pixar in Emeryville, doesn't he? I don't think he's always at his office at the Team Disney Building (I'm refusing to call it The M. D. E. Building) in Burbank, and he's obviously not always at the Animation Building in Burbank... So where's the objectivity that he needs to manage Disney and Pixar? (This is the same for Catmull, but I think the change is higher that Catmull is at Burbank more than Lasseter.)

While the new version doesn't sound that great, the original one didn't sound the slightest bit appealing either.  And after Cars, I'm really not interested in seeing another animated film set in a "route 66" type environment.

I find it odd that they're keeping this movie basically just to honor contracts, but they're changing everything about it, the characters, setting, plot, even the title.  I doubt there's much "cgi prep work" that will still be useful.  Why not just cancel it and offer licensors another movie in its place?

Well if John didn't care for Lilo and Stitch that pretty much sums it up right there; I found it quirky..YES...fun YES...different YES.  This new version of American Dog sounds very much the "same" as other CG films....particularly..as mentioned... Toy Story.

Which version would be better..Sanders version or this new one?...hard to say obviously...which sounds more fun and interesting...I will go with Sander's.  The image of the cat with the eye patch always made me smile....oh how I will miss you....

Incidently on my list of Pixar films, Bug's Life and Cars are at the bottom......not cracking on Lasseter...I'm just mentioning....

I am verging of horrified by this complete overhaul of American Dog. The film does indeed sound far too similar to the Buzz Lightyear arc in Toy Story and I'm really struggling to see how this film can possibly be changed so drastically for 2008.

Lasseter is a fantastic director (A Bug's Life remains my fave Pixar film and will probably never be toppled) but I get the feeling that he's letting his position and his personal ideas get in the way of what is best for the company. He may not have been a big fan of Lilo & Stitch but it was one of the biggest Disney films in years and recieved great reviews. So how exactly is Lasseter ensuring box office success by removing the one guy who has been able to turn a substantial profit for Disney animation.

It just seems that Lasseter has been in his comfortable Pixar home for far too long and now he's threatened by anything which appears different.

"It just seems that Lasseter has been in his comfortable Pixar home for far too long and now he's threatened by anything which appears different."

That says it all!

That's a shame that Sanders is likely to be leaving Disney.  I hope he gets snapped up quickly by Dreamworks and Warner and is allowed to make his own movie and that it makes so much money that Lasseter's foot goes swiftly into his own mouth.  Shameful behavior on Lasseter's part.  He should concentrate on the parks and the attractions that he is spearheading and let the animators do their thing.  Especially the ones who have proven hits and success.  

I'm devastated... Chris Sanders was one of the most creative persons in that studio and American Dog was a brilliantly pensived story with real originality and edge! I stress on WAS because it's no more. Now it's the next by-the-rules Pixar flick.

I've never thought I'd be saying that, but it's the first time I seriously doubt Disney's new "creative" leadership :-(

Reality Check time.

Lilo and Stitch in 2002 made $145.7 mil domestic, $127.3 international, with a total of $273 mil

Toy Story 1 in 1995 (seven YEARS earlier) made $191.7 domestic, $170.1 international, with a total of $361.9 mil

Toy Story 2 in 1999 (three YEARS earlier) made $245.8 domestic, $239.1 international, with a total of $485 mil

In addition, Lilo and Stitch the DISNEY picture is MUCH less Disney than the two PIXAR pictures. L&S is irreverent, quirky, disrespectful and belongs at Nickelodeon or Dreamworks, NOT Disney. (My 4 year old son, has seen both TS and TS2, but I will not let him see L&S).

For all you "Walt would have NEVER done.....", don't seem to mind when WDFA makes movies that make Walt roll over in his grave. I'm just asking for consistency!

Personally I am a big fan of The Emperor's New Groove. Wasn't it completely revamped as well? If Chris Williams was involved with that rework, then I have full confidence that this rework will be successful also. I'm looking forward to this movie!

To everyone who says that "Lilo and Stitch was sooooooo successful". Another Reality Check.

1. Tarzan - $448

2. Pocahontos - $346

3. Hunchback - $325

4. Mulan  -  $304

5. Lilo & Stitch - $273

6. Hercules - $252

7. Brother Bear - $250

8. Atlantis -  $186

9. Emperor's New Groove - $169

10. Treasure Planet  - $109

(all figures in the millions and worldwide grosses)

Not alot to crow about. Did it do better than Treasure Planet? Yes, but so did the Peanuts Christmas special. Lilo and Stitch didn't do that well compared to much better animated features. AND I am not including anything before 1995!

Not everyone's talking about success in money terms, you know............

While I am saddened by the loss of Chris Sanders and what he brought to the table, I'm not ready to label John Lassiter as either 'threatened' or 'too comfortable'. I too will miss seeing the quirky and interesting movie that was going to be made and am not excited by this *new* (cough cough) version. But let's stop with the armchair qaurterbacking shall we? Just because someone else, with a great track record behind him, defines how to make a succesfull movie diferently than we would, doesn't mean he's lost his marbles. There is a reason he has a job that allows him to make these decisions and we only get to gripe about it on the internet. While there might be some folks out there who could possibly do things better I am POSITIVE that there are millions of people who would do it worse. I'll ride with Lassiter's high's and low's over Eisner's/Pressler's/ Hariss's ANY DAY.

But the cat with the eyepatch needs to stay!!!!

PS - I'm tired of people throwing $$ numbers around when talking about the success/failure of a movie. I think we should always talk about  movies using the following titles:

Expectational Success/Failure: Did it meet or beat expectations

Artistic Success/Failure: Did it either break new ground, did it find an audience, will it stand the test of time, etc,...

Financial Success/Failure: Did it make more $$ than it cost to produce and market

I also propose that we NEVER gauge a movie based off of the movie that came before it UNLESS we are comparing a sequel to the original or a remake to the original.

Just my 2 cents.

Lilo and Stitch was okay, but I always felt it didn't really belong under the Disney label. It was definitely more suited for Nick or Dreamworks (as jedited already said). Personally, I think people way overvalued Sanders. L&S just looked good when compared to the rest of the bombs Disney was making at the time.

As far as the revamped story being too much like Toy Story ... try this on for size.

According to Jim, the original plotline was, "Henry, a famous TV dog, finds himself stranded in the Nevada desert. Out in the world for the first time, Henry's tidy life of scripted triumph has come to an end, and his 2,000 mile trek through the real world is just beginning."

Now try this:

"Lightning McQueen, a famous race car, finds himself stranded in the Nevada desert. Out in the world for the first time, Lightning's tidy life of triumph has come to an end, and exposure to the real world is just beginning."

Come on, it's the same plot. It's been re-used 1,000 times in different formats. It's no better or worse than the new story (which sounds more Disney-like and appealing to me).

The Pixar guys have made seven of the most profitable, popular films in history. They've CERTAINLY created the most appealing, enduring characters to come out of animation in the last 10 years. What's Disney done in the same time period?

I'll tell you ... el zippo. They've got ONE, marginally successful film in that time and they've over-exposed the characters and driven whatver minor appeal they once had out of them in doing so.

I'll trust Lasseter to do the right thing 100 times in a row before I'd trust a WDFA guy ...

NOW WDFA is stealing from the company's own direct-to video sequels!!!

Not only do certain character arcs sound a lot like Buzz's from Toy Story, BUT...

The plot itself is now extremely similar to the direct-to-video feature "101 Dalmatians II: Patch's London Adventure", wherein a TV dog, ThunderBOLT, gets lost from his show's set and has to face the fact that he is not quite as super as the character he plays on his TV show.

So much for originality...

perrybw: good point, haven't even thought of that movie when I first read the new plot. That's just cheap..

But considering what a documented failure CARS was, I wonder if  Lassiter is the best man to fix this dog.

Go John Go !!!!

While everybody argues the merits of two unmade movies, go ahead and have at it.  I still remember seeing L&S in a theater, with a 7 year old constantly asking "what's going on?" or "why are they doing that?" The movie needed a lot of editing and could have been simplified with a 15 second opening narrative explanation, then get into Lilo's world and stay put. 90% of the intergalactic mumbo-jumbo could be gone and you'd have a much stronger story.  One of the stronger parts of L&S is the ending - the montage of all the fun things L&S did together - and you leave the theater smiling.

One thing I think people are getting confused about - Stitch is a unique character that many people fell in love with. He was one of the first characters out of WDFA in a long time that I thought could support additional stories. Many of us are very fond of his character, his personality quirks, and how he will react when put in various situations.

Having said that, fire up the VCR or DVD and check out Snow White again. The storyline is cut to the bone. Hardly anything that does not move the story forward. Now look at Toy Story, you'll probably find the same thing- very little excess. Pop in L&S and you'll see all sorts of stuff that can go away, from characters to entire scenes.      Stitch is a great character - he wasn't in a great movie.

There has been a lot of that from WDFA recently - great characters in so-so movies. Long John Silver, half-traditional half-computer animated, great character trapped in Treasure Planet. The McKenzie Brothers moose trapped in Brother Bear. From what I can see, Lassetter's trying to get great characters in great movies. That, coupled with his animation track record being stronger than anyone posting on the net, I'll support Lassetter all the way.

I can't help but wonder if the plot would be improved if Bolt remained oblivious to his lack of superpowers right up to the very end of the film - never having that "reality check" that Buzz gets in Toy Story.

Still, I have to say, having seen both Lilo & Stitch and Mulan - I'll take the writer from Mulan any day of the week.

I´m definitely starting to think that Lasseter isn´t  bringing any good to the WDFA department.

First, we have Pixar making the same movie year after year with a "glorious" last movie that interested nobody but North American people and car fans. And Lasseter, of course. (Who the hell in the rest of the world cares about Route 66?)

And second, Lasseter starts making great moves like removing Chris Sanders from the direction of American Dog just to crap another Pixar clone plot.

Let´s just wait to see what happens with Rapunzel.

I´ll end up pointing at the different prizes and nominations the song in Cars is receiving, quite surprising when all the people I know hate that song, as well as the one included in Toy story 2 involving the cowgirl.

Is there anybody in Disney/Pixar alive enough to tell me why these things happen? Did anybody trully believe that including such laments would increase the soundtrack sales?

An epic adventure, a science fiction movie, a real drama, pleeeeease. Try something different.

it's hard to not gauge a movie based on money figures...because for the simple fact that the more money that a movie makes means the more people that watched it which more than likely means that more people liked the movie (yes, you have other factors that could figure in; marketing, economy, other movies out at the time), but, my point is, is that titanic didn't make the most money because it had the best marketing...it made the most money because people liked the movie and want and saw it a couple of times in theatres, and they told others about it and they went and saw it in theatres.

i'm glad they are retooling american dog with lasseter leading the way.  i haven't been a huge fan of disney's films as of late and am a fan of pixar's films.  it seems as though with chicken little they tried to make it a funny film, which it was, but to me there was just something missing from the story, and i feel that with pixar's films they seem to hit the nail on the head with their storyline.

i did not think of buzz lightyear's storyline when i was reading through this plot, so it wasn't that obvious to me.  you can take a lot of films and draw similiarities between them, but, that doesn't mean they are similiar movies...i'm not worried with this plot.

thanks for the info, jim.

I really liked those original character designs.  Quirky but cuddly.  Especially the cat with the pirate patch.  That character alone would have sold a ton of stuffed animals.  Oh, well.  It's not all about the merchandising, is it?

As for the revised storyline, I'll reserve judgement.  It does seem very reminiscent of Buzz's journey.  I hadn't thought of that.

Does anyone agree that Bolt sounds awfully like Thunderbolt from 101 Dalmatians?  Both are german shepherd tv stars, a la Rin Tin Tin.  The dvd sequel 101 Dalmatians 2 actually focused on Thunderbolt and his quest to prove himself a true hero (and not just a tv personality) with some help from Patch (one of the 101 puppies).

Hey, I LIKED the intergalactic mumbo-jumbo in "Lilo and Stitch". It's my favorite part of the movie. And L & S is far more a Disney film than "Emperor's New Groove". That had distinct Looney Tune/Tex Avery overtones. I've never been that crazy about it. Or about "Mulan", either. The goddamn dragon got on my nerves.

Well, the original design of the American Dog is pretty awful. The head looks like it belongs to a moose, not a dog. As for the revamped story...yeah, definitely a bit too Buzz Lightyear. I do like the little girl subplot though. And the cat and the hamster sound funny. All I can say is I hope the movie is better than it sounds, which it might very well be; who knows how many rewrites the thing will go through before it hits the big screen...

"So that giant radioactive rabbit & the cat with the eye patch who previously appeared in this picture? They're gone."

No!!!!!  I loved that cat!  I really wanted a plush of him.  And a plush of the rabbit, too.

That actually sounds like a really, really neat story.  I love Mr. Mittens already...that's funny!  

"Like jumping off a bridge onto a train that's moving at high speed."

SIGGRAPH, a couple years ago, had footage of the American Dog on a train.  But the old version of the dog.

I'm minoring in film, and my teacher this semester recently said that there are an infinite number of stories, but only a handful of themes.  Obviously, stories often have the same themes, but they are different enough to make an interesting story.

I was wary of any changes to this film. I'll miss Chris Sanders, and the cat and rabbit.  I liked what I read about the new version of the story.  It's kind of similar to the old story (a threesome of animal friends go on a journey).  

I'm kind of disappointed. Out of all the projects i've seen on jim's site over the years this one has caught my interest the most. Mostly because of the quirky character designs.

I don't know what movie a lot of commenters saw but lilo and stitch was one of the most heartwarming Disney films I've ever seen.

All that said WDWacky is right. The sanders plot is way too similar to the story for Cars. It would be like having a movie about teddy bears that come to life come out from Disney two years after toy story. (bad example but you get the point). I'll be disappointed to see the character design for the dog change, but the new story has enough to interest me. Especially the hamster who won't leave his ball.

By the way Jim, you have any info on the Nicolas Cage/ Sorcerer's Apprentice story?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/02/12/showbuzz/index.html#1

Another reality check - Lilo & Stitch was not in CG. No matter how many times Lasetter argues it, there is a reason why there is a surge of cg movies lately - They make money! Kids go and see it because it looks pretty and if you honestly believe the whole ridiculous idea that it's 'story' that counts you're deluding yourself. Monsters Inc, would never have been anywhere near as successful if it had been traditionally animated.

And the fact is that while Lilo & Stitch did not perform as well as the films in the 90's, that is not the point I was making. I was stating that out of Disney's recent 2D offerings, Lilo & Stitch was the most profitable.

Speaking of the number 2 movie of 2006 (domestic), Cars...looks like it may end up at number 3.  Night at the Museum is still going strong and getting closer every week.

Hmmm, I don't think so. Night will definitely be the #3 movie, but Cars has $ 244 and Fox's Night is now at $ 232.. Don't think it will make that last $ 14 million anymore. Total gross: Night $ 4 million above Cars.

Frankenollie said:

"Another reality check - Lilo & Stitch was not in CG. No matter how many times Lasetter argues it, there is a reason why there is a surge of cg movies lately - They make money! Kids go and see it because it looks pretty and if you honestly believe the whole ridiculous idea that it's 'story' that counts you're deluding yourself. Monsters Inc, would never have been anywhere near as successful if it had been traditionally animated."

I routinely take my neice and nephew (12 and 7) out to movies with their friends and whenever we choose the movie I have NEVER heard them ask, "Gee, what's the newest computer animated film out right now?" Nor have I heard them say "Gee, that movie was great! Just imagine the train wreck that would have been if it was traditionally animated." Not once have they turned their nose up at a traditionally animated film in favor of a digitally animated one.

You know what they do say? Things like, "I want to see the movie with the funny monsters in it." Or "Let's watch the movie about Ants." Or "That car race was awesome!"

Sadly it is the adults that bicker about traditional vs computer. The kids want a funny movie... the girls want cute characters and the boys want some action. They don't compare plots to other movies, they don't care who directed it, nor does it cross their mind how much money it made or how much some idiot in a suit WANTS it to make.

And I couldn't agree more with blackcauldron... few themes, many stories. EVERY movie deals with at least one of the 7 deadly sins. Does that mean that every movie is just a rip off of the one before it? While the changes don't thrill me right now either, give it a chance before we rip it apart... much could change between now and then. Maybe we will get the eye patch cat back after all? :o)

Hmm. I just came accross this. And Let me say. I am dissapointed. In both, John Lasseter, Chris Sanders, and the very actual people who write on this blog.

The truth is, we have to be realistic;

Lilo & Stitch was a good movie, but it was flawed. I myself didn't enjoy how Pleakly had "homosexual" tendencies. It was definitely an odd Disney film. But I liked it alot.

Chris Sanders, a good guy. It seems like, well truth be told. I did overvalue Chris, while Lilo & Stitch was a very entertaining movie, it wasn't amazing. Unlike Cars, A Bug's Life, & the two Toy Story movies, which were very well made, I have to admit(dang it).

American Dog is an amazing title. I love it. and as for "Hollywood Dog?" It just doesn't sound very good. And I don't like the new story very well. But I'm sure, with the writer of Mulan now. I trust him he'll take that story and make it good.

Chris Williams is a good guy. Disney is promoting him, well, Lasseter is, and that's good, he deserves that. And as for chris Sanders, I heard the only reason he got a chance to make Lilo & Stitch was because an exec had a crush on him. But who knows... Rumors. He was good. But I do take the writer of Mulan more seriously than the director of lilo & stitch.

Now all of you, relax and calm down. The trek to turn Disney a better studio wasn't going to be easy. And as for what this article says. I trust Jim, and I respect him for doing his job. But truth be told, wasn't he the one who informed us the "Bowler Hat Guy" would be axed from "Meet the Robinsons?" Yeah, don't take EVERYTHING seriously that you see in this site. I mean, I love the site, I love controversy. But hey, It might not be true. It might change between the time of release as well. And your right, I love the idea of Mr. Mittens. haha. It sounds good.

Lilo and Stitch was a horrible, horrible movie.  My wife and I and our kids hated that movie when it was out.  I don't know any other of Chris's work, but based on Lilo...good move dumping him.

I'm still not sold on this new movie.  Need to see a trailer and how it all looks together, but something towards traditional Pixar is a good move.

People discussing Lilo & Stitches Box Office performance need to remember the context of its release. Everyone was trumpetting the death of traditional animation. It was considered passe. No one wanted to deal with it.

Lilo & Stitch still managed to be successful, and it shocked many people.

I loved it - in fact it's among my favorite Disney movies. It had more heart than most, it wasn't nearly as predictable, and it was an attempt to break the all-too-familiar Disney mold. A successful attempt.

Again, I know Lasseter has a great track record, but Cars was a misfire from many levels, both with casting too-familiar voices (Shark's Tale, anyone?) to going with poor character design.

American Dog looked fantastic. The cat with the eyepatch was reason enough to see it. The dog looked great, too.

Sounds like it's becoming very generic. Of course, that's just from reading the text, and The Emperor's New Groove is another off-beat favorite of mine, but this just sounds like it's lost a lot of luster.

I was fine with Sanders leaving the film, and pretty much accepted it meant he was leaving the company. He will likely rebound, as Bird did when The Iron Giant failed commercially (massive, massive, massive failure.) But now it seems that a project with a great deal of potential is becoming a cookie-cutter, like much of the Disney line-up is beginning to appear.

"I myself didn't enjoy how Pleakly had "homosexual" tendencies."

No offense, but that's one of the most baffling lines I've read on JHM...

haha, thats funny, i just didn't like how they made pleakly act gay. I just didn't. he's a guy who acted like a girl. didn't like it at all. even though i do realize that most of the people working in animation are gay. but oh well. that's life. didn't liek it though, just proves that lilo and stitch had a crapload of unecessary stuff in it. alot of you were right, there is alot of unecessary stuff in it. now if you'll excuse me, i'll quit fighting with 40 year old nerds and go do my ap homework. goodnight

I've always been on the fence with Chris Sanders myself...I enjoyed "Lilo and Stitch" very much until the final chase scene with the two space ships...I thought that was the point when the movie just lost the audience completely. I can see why Lassetter would want to retool the movie to meet expectations and get away from any quirky repeats of "Lilo and Stitch" and WDFA's recent CGI bombs, but I too have my doubts about the direction the movie's moving in, what with the main character's new and very familiar name and the familiar story arc everyone has already brought up. It's extremely hard to think of new themes for a movie since they've all been done before, so all we can hope is that they at least tell it in an interesting and original way.

I wasn't too wild about the original "American Dog" premise (although I'm with those people who support the cat with the eye patch and the different character designs ((except for the moose-dog and robotic rabbit idea))). To me it sounded like a Sanders pet project and everything about it didn't seem all that original, either...and because I'm not entirely wild about the new premise (except for the little girl and Mr. Mittens concepts), I'm going to try to reserve passing a lot of judgement on the film until I see it. Although I gotta say that I'm excepting a very clunky film if they're still planning on showcasing it as early as '08. Maybe they really should have just cancelled it...

"By the way Jim, you have any info on the Nicolas Cage/ Sorcerer's Apprentice story?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/02/12/showbuzz/index.html#1"

Oh, man, I haven't had a Disney purist reaction that big in a long time. No. No. NOOOOOOO. There are so many things wrong with that in my opinion: Nicolas Cage is a very dry actor who seems to have difficulty adding dimension and personality to any of his parts. He plays the same guy every single time. Next, one of Walt Disney's quintessential masterpieces is "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." Why would WDC feel the need to produce another version, and of all things, a LIVE ACTION version? As the article mentions, "The Sorcercer's Apprentice" originated from a poem and not WDFA, but trying to pull away from the original animated segment would be too messy and confusing, especially if you're going to set it in contemporary New York (*Sarcasm* Ohhh, so original!) and if you're going to try to pay homage to the original cartoon through a few "witty" nods to the audience (which I'm betting they will). The silver stars and crescent moon on a blue conic hat paired with a red robe has become as iconic as the mouse who originally donned them...it's just awkward to think of WDC trying to promote a film that deviates so much from one of its already heavily promoted milestones. I would rather see an extension of Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice in some fantasy setting joined by his usual supporting cast as opposed to Mr. Cage and Walt Disney Pictures trying reinvent one of Walt Disney's most iconic, monumental images...

Sorry for the freak-out purist reaction; no one else was saying anything and I just had to offer my two cents. Come to think of it, I haven't left a comment on JHM in a few months or so...

Oh, and for the record, my older brother came out of the closet when I was in elementary school. Growing up I got a lot of exposure to the gay world and to a lot of torture from homophobes on my brother's behalf. So as a teenager when I saw "Lilo and Stitch" I got a major kick of of Pleakly's "tendancies." I feel that homosexuals, feminine males, or whatever you want to categorize Pleakly as, should be allowed to appear in films (inlcuding Disney films) because they actually exist, have feelings, and deserve a proper place in our world and our media (and make up a great and talented portion of the Disney company). For all we know there was no Pleakly agenda to begin with, just a run-on gags...

Sounds like Lasseter is trying to turn AD into yetanotherpixarfilm. Sounds like some bad rehash of TS1. So far as helm of animation, I have yet to see Lasseter to one good/positive thing. He says he wants to revive WDFA, yet he's already forced multiple very-liked animators out and he's thisclose to driving Glen Keane out. And if he so much as touches Rapunzel, he will be in the dog house with many people. He has to learn that WDFA should NOT under any circumstance be Pixar.

It sucks that Sanders is gone. "Lilo & Stitch" was great!

I disagree with the folks who think Lilo & Stitch wasn't a very good movie. It may not have made as much money as some Disney animation, but I think they are forgetting that it was released after Eisner had reduced the Disney animation brand from "Must See!" to "Must avoid!".

I was looking forward to "American Dog", not the least because it was quirky. I picked up Sander's sketchbook at SDCC this year and some of the work was amazing. I expect Sanders, if he gets another chance could be another Tim Burton, only better with more heart.

Lasseter turning AD into another TS may well be an indication that he is going to be heavy handed in his stewardship of the Disney animation francise. I can only hope that it is for the best, but his actions here are not a hopeful sign.

"I want to see the movie with the funny monsters in it." Or "Let's watch the movie about Ants." Or "That car race was awesome!"

Exactly, you've proved my point. Very little thought goes into animation these days because cg draws kids more than traditional animation. If it really was about the medium then why is it that all other studios failed to compete with Disney with traditional animation but they're all so suddenly successful with cg? What, they've suddenly learnt to make great films simply because they're using a mouse instead of a pencil? CG is a lazy, money making medium for virtually every studio out there and as long as cg looks pretty for the children and continues to work only within the 'comedy' genre then we're gonna have a glut of cgi'd crap for many years to come.

"...then we're gonna have a glut of cgi'd crap for many years to come."

Unfortunately..

I agree with you, but I also think the Disney brand is less powerful now then it was before the CGI waterfall. A decade or so ago, my parents didn't even bother to buy my sister and me videos of animated films from other studios other then Disney. Yesterday my mother wanted to buy "Shrek" for the daughter of my sister, and I said to her "Well, that isn't Disney, you know?".. She said: "So? Not everything Disney puts out is that great.." .. A long time ago she wouldn't have said that.. Damn you, Eisner!! Thank you for ruining my mothers opinion.. (:P)

This sounds an awful lot like "101 Dalmatians - Patch's London Adventure" where Patch helps "Thunderbolt" (and vice versa), a German Shepherd who wants to be a real hero.

While I enjoyed Lilo & Stitch, my wife dislikes it. My kids like Stitch more from the TV show and the direct-to-video movies, because they always ask why Stitch is so mean in the original.

But, L&S's box office was slightly inflated by the barrage of marketing for the movie, lest we forget. Everyone knew who Stitch was before the movie was released, he was all over the place being forced down our throats.

Brother Bear was actually a better movie, in my opinion, but Disney gave up on marketing that one (Saturday release, limited ads, etc).

AS for the story arc being like TS, sure, but almost every good movie has a similar arc, where somwhere near the end of the second act, the main character realizes that something about himself is lacking, or different, that then resolves to be able to live with that "change" and excel at wh he is during the third act.

The idea that they are ripping off one of the cheap sequels is ridiculous. (101 dalts)

Someone has got to raise a red flag and say, "hey john, we've done this already..."

Unless they can't stand the guy and are letting him burn.... which may be a possibility.  You think Lasseter has ever even seen "101 dalmatians 2" ???

Oh, this is my first post on the site btw, been lurking here for years....

'So as a teenager when I saw "Lilo and Stitch" I got a major kick of of Pleakly's "tendancies." '

That's ridiculous, and I don't care who you know who is gay.  The plot point was that Jumba and Pleakly dressed like a tourist couple and Pleakly got the dress and wig.  And he liked the dress - being an alien with three legs, I would imagine it was a better fit.  Feel free to fill us in on any of his other "tendencies".

Anyhoo,... yawn.  Another "creature lost in a new environment" - Madagascar, Wild Life, Cars, etc...

Good lord, "jedited" and "JoeHaro07", are you serious? I came here to read discussion over the changes to American Dog, not hear about people's bizarre homophobic reactions to "Lilo & Stitch". Pleakley likes wearing a wig; so does Jumba. They're aliens without hair, so putting on a wig is a new experience for them. It's not "homosexual".

As as to the success/failure of "Lilo & Stitch", it's one thing to look at numbers, and another to look at how successful a movie is in the long term. L&S was artistically successful, bred three sequels and a TV show, two theme park rides, and one of the most popular new Disney characters in decades. Look at how much Stitch merchandise moves out the door at the theme parks and tell me it wasn't successful!

It's interesting seeing the anti-L&S comments here -- mostly parents saying that the film was "disrespectful" and "rude". My parents refuse to watch it for the same reasons. I've no idea what they're talking about, personally.

Not to be overly picky, orljustin, but I think you meant "The Wild", not "Wild Life", which WDFA had been working on but got scrapped years ago.

And, I think that L&S is a wonderful movie.  Memorable story and characters.  Neat settings.  Great artistry.

Gobo, really? I won't say my parents loved it, but they certainly enjoyed it. They did thought the movie was very 'hip and young.' And that's exactly what the movie was, a fresh approach to the animated films of Disney.

Somebody said here (too many to read them all again) that L&S didn't fit into the whole range of Disney films. Well, I'm just pondering here, but: Rescuers Down Under (the first film does fit in), Emperor's New Groove, Chicken Little?? Especially Chicken Little, I enjoyed the movie much, I thought it had a special kind of humor, but if I didn't know it was a WDFA movie, would I have ever guessed it?! Certainly not.

"Restructuring this film to suit Lasseter's story sensibilities (Who -- it should be noted here -- supposedly wasn't all that fond of Sander's directorial debut, "Lilo & Stitch"). "

Ouch. Completely disregarding the fact that Lilo & Stitch was Disney's last major triumph in hand-drawn animation.

"But all of that changes one night when Bolt's handler accidentally leaves the door open to this pampered pooch's cage. Bolt wanders out into the night ... And then (for reasons that are too hard to explain here) winds up getting sealed inside of this UPS / Fed Ex-type package that's being shipped overnight to New York City.

Bolt is finally able to bust out of that box once it arrives in NYC. Far from the world that he knows, this heroic canine now decides to use his super powers to get back home. "

Not that the outline is bad, but damn, don't you think they can use another secondary setting besides New York City? They already used it twice before in their animated films, and they're using it again for Enchanted. Why not Boston? Buffalo? Washington, DC? Albany?

"Okay. I know. A lot of you animation fans out there must already be thinking that Bolt's story arc in "American Dog" sounds an awful lot like what Buzz Lightyear went through in the first "Toy Story" film."

Actually, someone else said the outline was similar to that 101 Dalmatians sequel. If so, at least the story is being restructured into something people might be willing to pay good $$ for.

"Now I know -- particularly for all you Chris Sanders fans out there (Who were actively looking forward to seeing a new Disney animated film that would feature Chris' truly unique character design & story sense) -- that it must be disappointing to hear about all of the changes that are being made to this movie. To learn that virtually nothing that we've seen so far will wind up appearing in the finished version of this film."

His loss is especially disappointing, because of the story contributions he made during Disney's last high period. There were no openings in the up-and-coming shorts department? :-(

"   Frankenollie said:

"I want to see the movie with the funny monsters in it." Or "Let's watch the movie about Ants." Or "That car race was awesome!"

Exactly, you've proved my point."

Actually I disproved it. The kids don't care how it was animated, they care about the characters first and everything else is a distant second. I actually called my neice and nephew this morning just to check. I asked them to name for me any cg animated film. My nephew (7) said, "What? Ummm... I don't know. You mean like a cartoon?" And then silence over the phone. So then he hands the phone to his sister (12) and I ask the same question. She says,"I dunno. Wasn't the monkey fake in King Kong? Why do you want to know?" Do you still think CG is the draw? I certainly don't. Not for one minute. I can garauntee with about 95% accuracy that how it's made never enters into a kids head. Kids want characters they enjoy and a fun story. Don't put adult values and priorities on to kids, it doesn't work that way.

It might matter to you. I rarely matters to me. And it doesn't matter to kids. Heck, I'd be willing to say that the quality of the commercials & marketing have more to do with how successful a movie will be to kids than how it was drawn. That and word of mouth. But the medium? Nope.

Euh, did you actually explain what CG is to your niece and nephew? Or what the difference between traditional and computer animation is? 'Cause if they don't know that, then such a reaction is obvious.

Empoor - Yes, they are aware of what cg is. With me being an animation fan (of all kinds- I'm not biased one way or the other. They both have certain strengths and weaknesses IMHO), it would be impossible for them not to know.

And for further emphasis: I teach high school drama, so I deal with teenagers on a daily basis. These teenagers are rather artistically minded too. My infatuation with all things Disney is no secret and we have had many conversations about the Disney movies (and animation in general). And yes, cg (which they know what it is too) vs traditional has been a topic of discussion. If I had to break down a class of 30 kids, here is how I would do it.

6 kids probably have little to no idea, or even care to know, what cg is. Once the conversation is done, if they even listened in the first place, would forget about it moments after.

3 kids are awestruck by cg. These are your techies and your hard core video gamers. They can talk your ear off about anything technical. However, 1 of these kids probably doesn't even like anything related to Disney.

4 kids wouldn't be caught dead seeing a 'cartoon'.

The rest of the kids are probably ambivelant at best. Some movies they've seen they couldn't even tell you which way it was animated. When I tell them it was cg they reply, "Oh. Cool." and the same reaction for traditional animation too.

Personally, the only time I have seen them get really, really interested in the way a movie was made was when talking about Nightmare before Xmas. They think that is awesome!

The only time these kids actively participate in conversations regarding movies are about characters, plot, who was the cutest, who could win in a fight, the biggest explosion, etc,... NOT cg vs. traditional.

Good explanation :)

"The only time these kids actively participate in conversations regarding movies are about characters, plot, who was the cutest, who could win in a fight, the biggest explosion, etc,... NOT cg vs. traditional."

I recognize this in my own environment. I only know maybe two people max. who want to discuss that topic, and they're all big animation fans like all of us. Everybody else is bored to death (or has no clue) when cg vs. trad. comes along.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. I suppose I'll just list my thoughts...

a) WHY DID THE CAT WITH THE EYE-PATCH HAVE TO GO?!?! WHYYYY?!?!

b) I didn't really get that the new "American Dog" arc was like the Buzz Lightyear one (however, I might just have not made the connection...). But I do think that while the Buzz Lightyear arc was a subplot, this movie could be interesting by focusing the whole story on the "Thinks he has powers that he doesn't" idea.

c) I wish that the dog never figured out that he didn't have super-powers. Or that the other animals tried to protect it from finding out that it didn't have powers. I don't know, wishful thinking I guess but I think that could have been a cute twist.

d) I agree that New York City is so over-used in CG nowadays. Why, instead of there or the Southwest, couldn't it be put in just the south? Or the midwest? There are a lot more places out there than just New York City to get lost in.

e) Lilo and Stitch was okay. Not as funny as The Emperor's New Groove (which I absolutely love), but not horrible either. I liked Stitch (he reminded me a whole lot of my cat, so maybe that's why), and it made me get all teary at one point. So,  okay movie but I'm not about to start a protest because Sanders was replaced.

f) But I WILL start a protest about the cat with an eye-patch being taken out! Aarg!!! Whyy?!

I've visited Pixar studios and talked with people who work there.  There is a reason that Pixar films are not discussed before they are released.  Pixar has had a lot of failures.  They haven't been shown publiclly.  Pixar has cancelled and restarted countless movies before they were released to the public.  Toy Story 2 is a prime example.  Imagine if the internet was as vicious in the years leading up to Toy Story 2 as it is today?  Many fans would have thought that Pixar's "A" team was trampling all over the "B" team to correct the story flaws.

We don't know what American Dog was really like.  We don't have the story reels.  There is a big difference between idea, script, design, and the story reels.  99% of all animation films fail in the story reel process.

As for the cat with the eye patch... this is another example of why you don't talk about animated movies before they are released.  The character might be working  in the design process, but not the story process.  The character could have been rolled into another character.  

Look at any of "The Art of... (Monsters inc, finding nemo, incredibles, cars, robots, Meet the Robinsons, etc)" books.  There are lots of character design concepts that were thrown out during production.  What if they original villian in the Incredibles was leaked and fans were complaining that he was cut?

TikiBird, I would agree that Pixar/Disney shouldn't be held to keep fans happy who read about an awesome-looking pirate cat from an unreleased in-development movie. But when Disney displays the character art and designs publicly at the Animation Tour at Disney-MGM Studios, they can't be surprised when people want to see the terrific-looking characters they've been promised.

TikiBird: I don't think it matters whether people complain or not about who was or wasn't in the movie from character sketches. Nobody in the studios care whether we are upset that Eye-Patch Cat was cut. If the original Incredibles villain was leaked and then cut, and people complained guess what would happen? A big fat nothing.

It's just disappointing when you see such a neat(/cute) design, that seems like it has such potential for an interesting character, only to have it cut out.

Nobody's saying that they're not going to see the movie now that Eye-Patch Cat was cut, just that it was in interesting and eye-catching design, and we're sad to see it go.

"Disney displays the character art and designs publicly at the Animation Tour at Disney-MGM Studios, they can't be surprised when people want to see the terrific-looking characters they've been promised."

~Yes, The original design was released at trade shows, but that was before John Lasseter took over.  Pixar/Steve Jobs/John Lasseter like to keep their cards close before showing them to the world.  

In the future, I wouldn't expect to see too much pre-production art work revealed.

Wall-e was revealed because that was the final look.  I was at the Disney/MGM studios recently and all the American Dog/Repunzel artwork has been removed.  Only Meet the Robinsons and Ratatouille art work were shown on the walls of the animation building.  Waiting in the Pixar wings, from the Cinderlla DVD, is Pete Docter's next animated film.  If you watch the Mary Blair feature on the Cinderella DVD, he talks about using her art work as inspiration for his next feature.  We know neither the title nor the plot.  I wouldn't expect to know until after Wall-e is in the theatres.

Trust me... things at Disney Feature Animation will become a lot more secretive.

"'So as a teenager when I saw "Lilo and Stitch" I got a major kick of of Pleakly's "tendancies." '

That's ridiculous, and I don't care who you know who is gay.  The plot point was that Jumba and Pleakly dressed like a tourist couple and Pleakly got the dress and wig.  And he liked the dress - being an alien with three legs, I would imagine it was a better fit.  Feel free to fill us in on any of his other "tendencies"."

I wasn't the one who started the whole "Pleakly is gay" conversation, nor was I stating that he's absolutely homosexual. I put "tendencies" in quotations to mean that I was merely using a word that had already been put into the conversation to describe his mannerisms. I meant it to be open-ended, and I'm sorry if I've offended you. It's very true Pleakly was just trying to play the role, but I do think that the writers of the show and the sequels have been putting a lot of emphasis into his human disguise for certain non-concidental reasons. Again, I'm sincerely sorry if I've offended you somehow...

This conversation has become rather length (and somewhat tangental at times), so I haven't been able to read the whole thing.  So I'm not sure if anyone actually has put out the "Walt would never..." argument in regards to the revamped story and the letting go of Chris Sanders.  If anyone is pulling out that old chestnut, I would point out Walt's cutting of the fully animated "Music in Your Soup" sequence from "Snow White".  According to one of my college professors, the lead animator on the sequence spent over a year on it and left the studio for a time in protest of his work being relegated to the cutting room floor.  (I'm not having much luck checking the internet for his name, but I seem to recall he was a fairly big name guy.)  So never let it be said that Walt would never let a major talent go.

I share the concern that the character arc in the new "American Dog" bears a little too much similarity to Buzz Lightyear's path from delusion to acceptance of life as a toy.  But I also agree that the original plot seemed far too similar to "Cars".  And given that the Pixar trip down Route 66 was so recent, I think audiences would get more of a feeling of deja vu from the Sanders plot than from the new version.

Due to the large number of comments once again, I don't know if anyone has pointed out what I think is the most interesting thing about the summart of the new plot:

"He actually thinks that he's a super hero. More importantly, that Penny really is a little girl who loves him. Rather than some actress who's just been hired to play a part."

It's this second part that could really set "American Dog" apart from "Toy Story".  Buzz's devotion to his Star Command mission ranged from silly to annoying.  But you didn't really feel like it mattered.  You never felt sorry for him until you saw him realizing the truth and reacting to the fact that he wasn't a Space Ranger.  But Bolt's delusion isn't just that he's a super hero.  He has a partner, a little girl who he genuinely believes loves him.  So maybe you're going to feel for Bolt in a way that you didn't for Buzz, because his journey is about trying to get back to a little girl he loves, but who we know does not feel that way about him.  Maybe Bolt's point of crisis isn't so much the realization that he can;t fly, but something like seeing "Penny" on TV discussing the ups and down's of working with a canine actor.  Whereas Buzz comes to see that being a toy can be great because there's a kid who thinks he's amazing, Bolt has to deal with the fact that the kid he believed loved him really doesn't.

Of course the supporting characters are going to provide some variety as well.  I doubt the cat and hamster characters are going to react to Bolt in the same way Woody reacted to Buzz's arrival.  What I'm saying is, we've really only got the bare outline of a story here.  There are a lot of possibilities in the parts left undescribed.

Hmmm, your post made me think, MalDragon. Okay, I'm agreeing that the little-girl-subplot is going to be promising, and what will set American/Hollywood/Anywhere Dog from other movies with the same theme. I'll even go as far as saying that it improves the new story above the level of the old story.

But I'm still skeptical about the whole setting around the movie, and the main character. A hamster that never leaves his ball? So.. He's just going to be seen moving across the screen in a glass/plastic ball? I doesn't attract me. Mr. Kittens, looks nice, but the kat with the eye-patch was genius! Kittens is just another movie cat to me.. And my feelings about the setting are the same as my feelings for Kittens.. Another movie (partly) set in New York? Gee, original.

Quick personal opinion about this: I loved everything I saw about the original American Dog. I thought it sounded awesome and looked beautiful (with the exception of John Travolta providing a voice). Plus, I'm a huge fan of Chris Sanders, and it is mind-boggling to me that he may be leaving the studio. That makes me cringe. I'll reserve my judgement on the reimagined movie until after it comes out. For all we know, it could be awesome.

Having gotten that out of the way, I feel like I oughta point out a couple of things I've read here:

"And as for Chris Sanders, I heard the only reason he got a chance to make Lilo & Stitch was because an exec had a crush on him. But who knows... Rumors."

What? Where on earth did you hear this? You really should provide some kind of backup for this ridiculous statement. Frankly, this is one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

"even though i do realize that most of the people working in animation are gay."

Again, what the hell are you basing this on?

"anybody gay in other disney movies? Ok, except from that weird barber guy in Freaky Friday, lol. But yeah, they don't belong in movies. maybe their own branded movies! they could watch those, and love each other all they want, i just don't wanna see it."

Honestly, if this is your opinion, then I'm awfully glad you're not in the position to make movies. I'm sorry that gay people make you so uncomfortable that you go looking for "tendencies" in ALIEN CARTOON CHARACTERS (of which you haven't been able to identify aside from wearing wigs, surely the gayest thing in the world). And if I were a jerk, I'd point out that a lot of Disney movies feature main characters who fight to overcome similar idiotic prejudices that I'm reading in your posts (Quisimodo and Mulan spring to mind). But hey, I'm not a jerk.

Sorry to call you out on this, JoeHaro07, but I feel like it had to be said.

Whoops. That should be "Quasimodo", not "Quisimodo".

I'm thinking this reminds me of Brother Bear...which was cute, but not a summer blockbluster.  Also, Penny fighting crime...makes me think of Inspector Gadget.  Finally, I felt Lilo and Stitch were much more lovable and longer lasting than Mulan and Emperor's New Groove.

"A few years ago being "gay" was considered a disorder on the national list of disorders."

Seriously?! Well, I live in the Netherlands, and we're kinda the most liberal country when it comes to gay topics, so never realized that it was a disorder in the US once.. :P

Hmmm, I'm trying to remember if Pleakly had the same character traits in one of the "sequel" L&S movies (or was he in both?!).. Damn, now I'll have to watch them both again, 'cause else I'll just keep wondering..

(Me 50 year old? Hahaha, give me a break ;-) )

Didn't anyone care that Cars was a rip-off of Doc Hollywood?  Exact same story.  Why would Lasseter care if American Dog was too close to another story.  I like Pixar but I hope they don't win an Oscar(TM) for a carbon copy of someone else's idea.

Well, they're not nominated in any of the Screenplay categories, so they are in their right to win an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature..... But you're right, it was a clear rip-off (or an obvious adaption without mentioning the source) of Doc Hollywood. Only the NASCAR setting is different. (And the fact that it's animated.)

But I have to give Lasseter some slack (maybe the first time I've ever done that) for the "American Dog sounds much like a Toy Story element" deal. It's not completely similar (the little girl is a very different twist to the story for example), and I don't think it was intentional or inspired by Buzz Lightyear.

"Quasimodo was ugly, not gay. Mulan was misunderstood, not gay. Gay is gay."

Ah, I see. So it's not okay to be bigoted against people who are ugly or misunderstood, but it's perfectly fine to be bigoted against people who are gay. Interesting.

"A few years ago being "gay" was considered a disorder on the national list of disorders."

I wouldn't call it "a few years". It was more than 30 years ago that homosexuality was removed from the list of psychiatric illnesses by the American Psychological Association. Kind of like when psychologists realized that phrenology wasn't actually a science, or when puritans stopped drowning suspected witches.

Oh, and you didn't address any of the points I brought up before. Even if you're just posting this stuff to see who responds, you still oughta be able to back up your claims. (Also, for the record, I'm nowhere near 50 either. In fact, given the fact that you have high school AP homework, I'm really only a handful of years older'n you.)

craigdvc said:

"Didn't anyone care that Cars was a rip-off of Doc Hollywood?  Exact same story.  Why would Lasseter care if American Dog was too close to another story.  I like Pixar but I hope they don't win an Oscar(TM) for a carbon copy of someone else's idea."

Yep, that's very true. I suppose there're only so many "fish out of water" stories you can tell before they start to seem pretty similar.

WDWacky said:

I'll tell you ... el zippo. They've got ONE, marginally successful film in that time and they've over-exposed the characters and driven whatver minor appeal they once had out of them in doing so.

True that.  Every time I've been to WDW in the last few years, I've been saddened by the trampling of Stich into the ground.  "We had a success, we have to keep making money off of it!"  Grr.

And tangentally, it agravates me so much that someone baiting for responses could inspire so much ire in me.  It's terrifiying that someone who obviously considers themselves smart (I bet you more than half the people on this site took AP or Advanced classes, so I'd get off my high horse if I were you - the question is did you get 5's on all 5 tests you took?  When you get there, then we can talk on the same level) could be so prejudiced and ignorant.  To say that gays shouldn't be in movies is one, ludicrious, since many gays are drawn to the performing arts, theatre and entertainment, and two, so prejudiced that it scares me for the future and society.  How could one have the arguement that Jews or Blacks or Women or anyone can have access, but not homosexuals?  You may be trying to get people to argue instead of doing your AP homework, but it doesn't make you smarter or better informed.  It makes you a biggot.

The only redeeming quality of Lilo & Stitch was all the Elvis music. I saw it, and while I didn't dislike it, it is a really bizarre movie. it doesn't doesn't 'fit,' you know.

JoeHaro, you seem like a really great guy. The world needs more high school students who have already made up their mind about what's right and wrong in the world. And more people with that wonderful spiritual arrogance: "i have religious values. unlike some people." The "fighting with 40 year old nerds" line was pretty good too. Classy.

Isn't it strange how so many people are comparing the 2 stories for this movie, as if they've seen them both. I have to agree with an interview I read on IGN (with a movie producer, can't remember who though) that there is WAY too much information about movies circulating before they're ever made. Authors don't release the first chapter of a book until they finish the whole thing, and new shows don't let the public sit in on rehearsals. Yet in the movie realm, everyone's nitpicking casting decisions and story changes years (literal years here) before the movie will ever be released.

it's stupid. just let hollywood make movies, and then decide which ones get your ten bucks.

"it's stupid. just let hollywood make movies, and then decide which ones get your ten bucks."

Where is the fun in that.. Boring! :P

I applaud Disney on letting Sanders go. Lilo and Stitch was the most un-Disney Disney film ever. It belongs at Dreamworks or at some other place that makes lousy movies with cheap laughs.

I did like Sander's character design for American Dog...but it is probably best to save the story first and think character design later.

Just a clarification... Some people are trashing L&S but praising Mulan. I met Chris Sanders at A Disney Animation Event he was generally praised for his significant contributions to the story of Mulan. He also was the art director for the "I Just can't wait to be King" segment of Lion King. He has unique talents.

But people how can we trash a film before it's release. Don't we sound like Eisner trashing Nemo predicting its failure prematurily. Everyone relax and wait and see what is produced. Most Disney classics are basic story lines that are molded into "classics" with the artistry of the colaborative team of animators, background artisits and composers etc.

"L&S is irreverent, quirky, disrespectful and belongs at Nickelodeon or Dreamworks, NOT Disney."

And Mulan with all those cross dressing jokes wasn't... what about Aladdin and the Genie's gay jokes... or the fact that Ariel was practically naked in one scene...?  

Do we just forget these jokes or movies because they were more successful financially? I knew money had power - but i didn't think dollars and cents actually caused memory loss too...  

Sure the characters may say 'butt' a few times... but in this day and age who doesn't?  Lilo and Stitch was a beautiful movie, with great animation (Lilo by Deja was magnificent along with beautiful hula dancing and effects).  Mulan ("Disney") was a let down with a boring, typical story line and crass humor (sure, Sanders may have had a part to play in Mulan's Story, but the issue here isn't Sanders really is it? - It is Lasseter knocking down any little bit of originality in Disney and spitting it out on the editing room floor).  If any thing Lilo and Stitch was refreshing in bringing once again to the big screen 2D animation with heart, rather than Warner Bros. style slapstick such as the Emperors New Groove.

The characters of Lilo and Nani are perhaps the most realistic portrayal of sisters in many years... and I should know - I have three! During my first viewing of the film we stared at each other in disbelief - was disney spying on my family!  L&S deals with so many issues on a deeper level - death of family (however without being so blatent to show it on screen such as in Lion King) through the emotional aftermath left behind.  Bullying. Hawaiin Culture. Broken Families and their rebuilding.

Lilo and Stitch is exactly the style of story that Walt would have told - the difficulties of family life wrapped around a cute furry alien... :)

Jim Hill talks about the numerous problems that this new animated feature currently faces. Chief among these is John Lasseter's allegedly desire to assign a co-director to work with first time helmer Keane and/or replace Keane entirely in order to get

Jim Hill talks about the numerous problems that this new animated feature currently faces. Chief among these is John Lasseter's allegedly desire to assign a co-director to work with first time helmer Keane and/or replace Keane entirely in order to get

"In addition, Lilo and Stitch the DISNEY picture is MUCH less Disney than the two PIXAR pictures. L&S is irreverent, quirky, disrespectful and belongs at Nickelodeon or Dreamworks, NOT Disney. (My 4 year old son, has seen both TS and TS2, but I will not let him see L&S)."

LOL.Reality check for you-it's pretty stupid to compare Pixar films to Disney's offerings. And btw(Im sure you're not going to read this anyway),you forgot that L&S was the last succesful 2-D film in this decade AND the last succesful 2-D opening since The Lion King.  Point nullified.

You must be one crazy parent not letting your son see this movie. Mediocre my *** L&S is a truly touching movie,it ranks in my top 5 list of favorite animated movies. Now back on topic I'm sad to see Chris Sanders leave,this may be a decision that Disney is going to regret.

There is currently a movie in release called "Firehouse Dog" .

I haven't seen it , but here is how it is described on YahooMovies site:  

"Rex, Hollywood's top-grossing canine, is known for his extreme athletic abilities and diva-like demeanor. His perks package, rivaling that of any A-list celebrity, Rex's luck--and Hollywood high life--runs out while shooting a commercial; an aerial stunt goes awry, leading Rex's handlers to presume he's dead. But Rex is merely lost--alone, filthy and unrecognizable in an unfamiliar city."

Does this sound uncomfortably similar to  "American Dog"/"Bolt" ?    

It's a shame Sanders quit/got booted. But hopefully this film will still try to get some more of Sanders' wonderful humor. I must say it was quite a shock seeing that new image of the trio, but not in an upsetting way. That cat still looks like a great character.

But, I'm confused. Wasn't a dog who thinks his TV powers are real part of the plot of the original story of American Dog (and dicovering he doesn't have powers midway)? Not much of a change, but maybe I read one of your old articles wrong. I'll have to reread that one.

I at least hope they design some wonderful caricature-like humans for this film, like the ones seen in the concept art. Is this film's design still being inspired by Edward Hopper?