“Really? But I thought that you hated the Walt Disney Company …”

Jim Hill

18 years ago

Something rather telling happened to me earlier this month while I was attending SIGGRAPH 2006.

I was standing in the main hall at Boston’s Convention & Exhibition Center, admiring all of the cool “Meet the Robinsons” concept art that was on display at the Disney Feature Animation booth. And I had just finished jotting down a few notes when I noticed that a WDFA staffer was standing at my elbow.

This woman said: “Are you Jim Hill?” I had to admit that I was. The two of us then had a brief but very pleasant conversation about this upcoming Stephen J. Anderson film. But — as I mentioned how much I was looking forward to seeing “Meet the Robinsons” — this WDFA staffer seemed genuinely taken aback.

“Really?,” she said. “But I thought that you hated the Walt Disney Company.”

*sigh*

Given some of the articles that I’ve posted on this website, I guess that I shouldn’t be all that surprised that a Disney Feature Animation staffer might think this. I mean, judging by what’s sometimes been said about me over in JHM’s TalkBack section, it’s clear that a number of this site’s readers also think the very same thing.

So let me blunt here, folks: I don’t hate the Mouse. All I’m trying to do with the stories that I post on this website is report the Disney-related news as I see it.

And when I say “news,” I don’t mean that “Happy HAPPY HAPPY” news that you’ll find on most other Disneyana websites. Where those webmasters just post the press releases that various arms of the Disney corporate empire send them.

Me? I’m not a big fan of press releases. Why For? Well, they tend to gloss over actual information. You know? The really juicy stuff.

Take — for example — all the “Cars” -related releases that Disney’s PR department has issued over the past few months. To hear the Mouse’s flaks tell this tale, virtually everyone on the planet has been thrilled with the way that this new John Lasseter film has been performing.

Of course, if you’ve been reading the articles that I’ve been posting over here on JHM, then you know that a number of people in the investment community have already expressed dissatisfaction with “Cars” performance. Which I think is an important Disney-related story.

Speaking of those stories … A number of JHM readers (based strictly on my coverage on this one issue) have now decided that “… Jim must really hate ‘Cars.’ ”

Well, if you think that, you’re wrong.

I mean, if that were really the case, if I did actually hate “Cars” … Then why (for the love of Chrysler) would I have seen this John Lasseter film three times over the past three months? With the last performance that I attended being one where my daughter & I went to see “Cars” while it was actually being screened at our local drive-in theater? That’s kind of odd behavior for someone who supposedly has it in for this particular Pixar production, don’t you think?

Well, the truth of the matter is that I actually like “Cars” quite a bit. Being a baby boomer who grew up in a small town that nearly caved in on itself once Maynard’s main employer (I.E. Digital Equipment Corporation) suddenly hit the skids … Well, let’s just say that that part of this movie’s message really resonated with me.

So does that mean that “Cars” is now my favorite Pixar movie? To be honest, no. If I had to list my absolute favorite films that this animation studio has produced over the past 10 years, I’m thinking that I’d have an awfully hard time choosing between “Monsters, Inc.,” “Toy Story 2” and “The Incredibles.” Those three movies set the skillful-storytelling bar awfully high.

“Cars”? As entertaining as this John Lasseter film may be, it still feels like lesser Pixar to me. Sort of like “A Bug’s Life.” Which has lots of wonderful characters & some truly engaging moments, but still somehow missed the mark. For me, anyway.

Come to think of it, I think that “Cars” ultimately gets tripped up by the very same thing that did in “A Bug’s Life.” Given that — 30 minutes into the picture — this whole new set of characters suddenly comes on screen. Which means that, in essence, the film’s story has to start all over again. As we now have to get to know this entirely new set of characters.

Anywho … When I say “lesser Pixar,” that’s sort of like complaining that your brand-new solid-gold watch is only 18 karat, rather than 24 karat. Gold’s gold, right? And Pixar’s still the very best at what they do. Which is creating these hyper-detailed, densely entertaining animated features.

(Though — that said — were you to ask me which of this summer’s feature-length cartoons was my absolute favorite, I’d have to say that it was Dreamworks Animation’s “Over the Hedge.” That Bonnie Arnold production was honestly tighter, funnier and more heartfelt [for me, anyway] than John Lasseter’s latest opus. If you haven’t yet seen “OTH,” make sure to check this Tim Johnson & Karey Kirkpatrick film out once it arrives on DVD on October 17th. Anyhow …)

“But if that’s how you really feel about ‘Cars’ in general and Pixar in particular,” you ask,”Then why have you written all of these stories about how this film has been under-performing at the box office? Articles that have suggested that — just because ‘Cars’ didn’t meet the investment community’s initial expectations — that Pixar may soon slip off its pedestal?”

Because (my personal feelings aside) that’s where the real story is. Not that Pixar made another movie that made lots of money. But — rather — that “Cars” wasn’t the “Finding Nemo” -sized hit that everyone had been hoping for. Given that the Walt Disney Company just paid $7.4 billion for Pixar Animation Studios … The mere fact that the first film that was released after this acquisition was completed failed to meet Wall Street’s expectations … Well, that’s news, people.

Now please note that I didn’t say “happy news.” Just plain-old news-news.

This (I fear) may be the main problem that some JHM readers have been having with my more recent articles. These people … Well, they like all of the stories that they read on the Web about the Walt Disney Company to be happy & upbeat. To read a piece that’s not positive about the Mouse … That somehow takes some of the magic out of the Magic Kingdom for these folks.

Don’t get me wrong. I get that the Walt Disney Company founded its fortune on telling tales that prominently feature fantasy, where dreams really do come true. Which — given that most people don’t have nearly enough magic in their lives … Well, this is why so many folks have warm & fuzzy feelings about this particular Fortune 500 company.

But me? While I may occasionally visit the Magic Kingdom, I still live in the real world. Where seriously over-paying for Pixar Animation Studios may wind up costing Disney’s new CEO plenty.

I mean, let’s remember that — back in November of 2003, when Roy E. Disney resigned from the Walt Disney Company — that this was one of the main charges that Walt’s nephew made against Michael Eisner. That Disney’s old CEO had seriously over-paid News Corp (by as much as a billion dollars, some say) when Disney bought Fox Family Channel back in July of 2001 for $5.3 billion.

Now Disneyana fans — many of whom are still caught up in the artificial exuberance that initially surrounded the Pixar acquisition — may be willing to overlook an under-performing motion picture here or a billion dollar over-payment there. But Wall Street will not. And if Pixar’s next picture — “Ratatouille” — also fails to meet initial box office projections … Well, that $7.4 billion price tag may come back to haunt Bob Iger.

To be fair, in the other article that I’ve posted on JHM today, I suggest that “Cars” under-performance at the box office this past summer may actually be a symptom of a much larger problem. That most of the other CG films that have been released in the past six months have also failed to meet their initial financial projections. Thanks — in large part — to the fact that moviegoers appear to be growing bored with computer animation. Which is why Disney’s recent decision to revive its traditional animation unit is now looking like a really smart move.

Photo courtesy of Google Images

Mind you, we’re not talking about WDFA as it used to be back in 2001 or 2003 (I.E. Way before the lay-offs). But — rather — traditional animation as it was back in 1984. Where a very small team (We’re talking about only 100 artists & technicians) worked ridiculously long hours in order to churn out each new animated feature.

And given that over 2000 people used to work for WDFA back in its heyday … Well, there’s not going to be a whole lot of room in this particular lifeboat. So it’s going to be really interesting to see who gets invited back to work on these new traditionally animated features. More importantly, who doesn’t.

You see? That’s the sort of thing that I’m talking about. Where most Disneyana fans would have had a very upbeat reaction to this particular story (I.E. “Disney’s reviving its traditional animation unit? Hurray!), I opted to go the other way (I.E. “Yeah, but there won’t be a whole lot of job openings at this new version of Disney’s traditional animation unit. So who exactly is the Mouse going to hire to make these movies?”).

Hmmmn … Maybe the people who always complain about my articles are right. Maybe I am unnecessarily negative. But the way I see it … Where other people see simplicity, I see complexity. Which is why I’m not a big fan of press releases. I don’t like easy answers. Explanations that seem too neat & tidy.

Beyond that … I don’t really know what to tell you folks. Other than to say — if you need for the stories that you read about the Mouse to always be “Happy HAPPY HAPPY” … This probably isn’t the website for you.

If — on the other hand — you can handle the occasional controversial article, one that asks you to accept something other than what Disney’s press releases are telling you … You’ll probably find a few things that you’ll enjoy reading here at JHM.

Unless — of course — I decide to write another article about “Cars.” If that were to happen … Well, look for all sorts of Hell to break loose over in JHM’s TalkBack section again.

I think that that pretty much covers it for today … Oh, wait. Some JHM readers wanted to know what I thought about “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.”

To be honest, I didn’t enjoy this one as much as I did “Curse of the Black Pearl.” I felt that this Gore Verbinski film was a bit on the flabby side, running at least a half hour too long. With so many huge action sequences piled right on top of one another that — after a while — it just felt like over-kill.

But — that said — “Dead Man’s Chest” was still a pretty fun night out at the movies for me. Thanks — in large part — to Johnny Depp‘s performance as Capt. Jack Sparrow. And Bill Nighy really added to the fun with his scenery-chewing turn as Davy Jones. (FYI: JHM will be doing a story in the next week or so that talks about the amazing technology that ILM used to turn this acclaimed British actor into a tentacle-faced ghoul. So keep an eye out for that particular article).

Anyway … If you were to ask me what my favorite part of “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” was, I’d honestly have to say that it was the last 30 seconds of the film. Where Geoffrey Rush makes one of the great entrances in movie history.

That’s why (I think) so many people are eager to see “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” now. Not because they really want to learn what became of Capt. Jack Sparrow once he got swallowed by the Kraken. But — rather — to see what Capt. Barbossa is going to do next.

You know, now that I think of it, even though I’ve already seen “Dead Man’s Chest” twice, I may have to go back and see this Jerry Bruckheimer production again sometime soon. If only to see if the rumors that I’ve been hearing are true. That — if you’re watching really closely — you can actually spy Barbossa’s boots on Tia Dalma’s bed. As that undead monkey is racing around her shack in the swamp.

Anyway … Here’s hoping that the above article finally answers some of the questions that a few JHM readers have been asking over the past few weeks. Hopefully this piece will give you a better understanding of why I write what I write, how I really feel about Pixar, etc.

Okay … Enough with this self-indulgent crap. Now — if you’ll excuse me — I have to get back to my real job. Which is writing new Disney-related articles that (I’m sure) some of you will vehemently disagree with.

Your thoughts?