“This is what comes from putting people — who have no idea how to actually create animation — in charge of the animation department.”
So said one unnamed Disney vet told me yesterday when I asked about the latest edict handed down by WDFA management. Which involves a pretty significant change to the studio’s decades-old feature animation production process.
It used to be that — when Disney was toying with the idea of turning a particular fairy tale or fable into a feature length cartoon — the studio would turn its development department loose on that story. Asking the artists who actually worked in that department to let their imaginations run free. Let them explore all the possiblities involved in a particular project.
This process would often take months, sometimes years. But — in the end — Disney’s development department would eventually map out the general beats of the story as well as come up with a distinctive look for that proposed picture. Then — and only then — would writers at the studio start creating dialogue for that film.
Disney’s decades-old procedure for developing an animated film got so engrained that — for a time in the late 1960s / early 1970s — WDFA only had one official screenwriter: Larry Clemmons, who is credited with writing the dialogue for “The Jungle Book,” “The Aristocats,” “Robin Hood” and “The Rescuers.”
Of course, when Michael Eisner came on board at Walt Disney Productions back in 1984, this procedure was modified. Following a rather infamous incident (When Eisner spent a Saturday at Feature Animation, as Ron Clements & John Musker pitched “Basil of Baker Street” to Disney’s new CEO. Much to his embarassment, Michael found that he couldn’t really follow the film’s story. Not because “Basil” had story problems. But — rather — because Eisner was used to working with scripts, not storyboards), Michael handed down a new rule: Before he would greenlit production of any new animated feature for the company, Eisner had to see a screenplay first.
At the time, this was just viewed as a small change in WDFA’s production process. The artistic development of each proposed project was still viewed as the most important part of the procedure. The stage where Disney’s development team determined whether a story actually had all the necessary elements (I.E. A colorful setting, memorable characters, a story arc that would emotionally involve an audience, etc. ) to be a success on the screen.
This decades-old process really came under fire in the late 1990s, right after “The Lion King” ‘s phemonenal success. When Disney management decided that releasing just one animated feature every year wasn’t enough. That WDFA would have to begin gearing up production, start churning out two brand-new animated features each year. One to be released during the summer months, the other to bow during the holiday season.
In order to meet this extremely ambitious production schedule, a number of WDFA projects that weren’t really ready to roll got greenlit anyway. With the hope that — as these films moved through the production pipeline — Disney’s animators would be able to identify each film’s individual story problems and then make the appropriate changes.
The only problem was … Disney Feature Animation poured tens of millions of dollars into producing films like “Kingdom of the Sun” and “Sweating Bullets,” only to have these films melt down right in the middle of production. Then WDFA would have to mount these extremely expensive rescue operations — spending even more millions to turn these troubled films into “The Emperor’s New Groove” and “Home on the Range.”
Even successful animated films like Disney’s 1999 release, “Tarzan,” racked up millions in unnecessary production expenses because that project was greenlit before all of that movie’s story problems were resolved. I know of one studio vet who spent an entire year — on full salary, mind you — playing solitaire on his WDFA office computer, waiting for Disney’s development team to sort out all of “Tarzan” ‘s story problems.
So what did WDFA management say when they were confronted with situations like “Tarzan,” “The Emperor’s New Groove” and “Home on the Range”? Films that racked up millions in unnecessary production costs all because they were greenlit before they were actually ready to enter the productioon pipeline? To a man, they’d say: “We got tricked by those guys in development. They’d create all these great looking pieces of pre-production artwork. Paintings & sketches that would suggest that — no matter how bad a proposed film’s story problems might be — that this project would still eventually be able to overcome all of its creative shortcomings.”
Which is why — earlier this year — a new edict came down at Disney Feature Animation. That — from here on in — WDFA staffers were not allowed to begin development on new animated films UNTIL studio execs had officially signed off on a script for that proposed feature.
This — according to studio insiders — is further evidence that the inmates have taken over the asylum. Said one 10-year-WDFA vet:
“First Disney decides to go totally CG because computer animation supposedly cost less than traditional animation. Then this script thing gets crammed down our throats. Again because this supposed is seen by the suits as a cost savings measure.
But what these execs don’t seem to understand is that feature animation is a visual medium. That just because these guys find a screenplay that they like and then have us produce it as a computer animated film doesn’t automatically mean that Disney’s going to have a hit film.
What really makes me crazy is that half of these idiots have no experience at producing live action films, let alone animation. But these are the guys who are now deciding what projects enter WDFA’s production pipeline. It’s enough to make you crazy.”
Mind you, this isn’t to say that everything that Feature Animation currently has in production is terrible. Far from it, folks. I keep hearing that “Chicken Little” is a very funny little film. And — based on the buzz that I’ve been hearing about “A Day with Wilbur Robinson” — WDFA may have its first really-for-real CG hit on its hands.
Dean Deblois (co-director of Disney Feature Animation’s 2002 smash, “Lilo & Stitch”) told me last month at Comic-Con that he’d never seen a story reel as strong as “Wilbur Robinson” ‘s is. That — if WDFA can just successfully translate that reel to the big screen — this film is going to be a blockbuster.
I’ve also been hearing pretty good things about Chris Sanders’ next movie, “American Dog.” Which is said to have some really witty design as well as a very solid story.
Oddily enough, the one WDFA project that I have been hearing some fairly alarming rumblings about is “Rapunzel Unbraided.” Disney’s all-important return to animated fairy tales.
People in the know at the studio are now saying that it may have been a mistake to pair a first time director (Glen Keane) and an untried producer (Phil Lofaro). Particularly given that Keane & Lofaro seem much more concerned with getting Rapunzel’s hair just right, with making sure that the princess’ skin tone is absolute perfect … rather than ironing out all of “Rapunzel Unbraided” ‘s story problems.
Which is kind of ironic, given WDFA’s new script-first, development-later policy. Under the studio’s new policy, a project like “Rapunzel Unbraided” would have never been greenlit in the first place. But now … This is the film that Disney Feature Animation hopes will eventually out-Shrek “Shrek.”
Maybe these WDFA vets are right. Maybe the inmates really have taken over the asylum.
Your thoughts?