BOLT (formerly American Dog) Discussion

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
Timon/Pumbaa fan
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3675
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:45 pm

Post by Timon/Pumbaa fan »

Wow.

Reading that really makes me want Meet the Robinsons to break all possible records out there while Ratatoullie to be the biggest flop ever seen.

I may want 2D animation to come back, but not it this is how it's going to come back.
Mr. Toad
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4360
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Post by Mr. Toad »

I would not trust Jim Hill on this one. He has an extreme bias against Disney management. He twists the truth so often he just cant be trusted to right a balanced article.
Disneyland Trips - 07/77, 07/80, 07/83, 05/92, 05/96, 05/97, 06/00, 11/00, 02/02, 06/02, 11/02, 04/06, 01/07, 07/07, 11/07,11/08, 07/09

Disneyworld Trips - 01/05

Disney Cruise - 01/05

Six Flags DK - 03/09, 05/09. 06/09, 07/09
goofystitch
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Walt Disney World

Post by goofystitch »

I hate how the information in the article is presented. It's like "This is what is happening, but nobody knows and Iger might not want this." It's almost like a bad story from the Inquierer. I would think that if Chris Sanders was kicked off the project, it would be for something more serious than just not wanting to re-imagine the film in 2D. And also, there are pictures of American Dog and Rapunzel. Are these just CG renderings? Because I thought that I read somewhere on here that Lassater watched what had been animated of Rapunzel and said it was the best opening to an animated movie he'd ever seen. Doesn't that imply that it has already been put into animation? Throwing that away and starting over with pencil and paper would be really stupid from a business standpoint. And wasn't animation from American Dog displayed at some animation convention not to long ago? I'm talking actual animation implying that American Dog has also been put into animation already?
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Chris Sanders was good for Disney...this move was bad

Post by Disney Duster »

UMMMMM...Disney, didn't Chris Sanders practically make an entire movie that is very popular and is among people's favorite Disney films and gave birth to a character that is seen all over the place, from stores to the theme parks, even more popular than the film he premiered in, making tons of money fro the company in merchandise, not to mention three actually good direct-to-video sequels and a television series?

You know, STICH AND LILO & STITCH?!
Image
Dottie
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2576
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:51 pm
Location: The Pie-Hole
Contact:

Post by Dottie »

If it is really true that Sanders was fired I guess it would be bad for the movie. Becuause of him Disney had its last great 2D success, a movie, as Disney Duster said that is appreciated by almost everyone and that was actually so successful Disney was able to make a whole lot of money with the merchandise. Sanders showed everyone that he is the guy to make a successful movie and American Dog was his baby. It was his project, and it would be very unfair to fire him from his very own project.

It'd be good to go back to 2D Animation and I guess I'd like Rapunzel more to be in 2D since it seems to be a very classic fairy tale and in my opinion the classic animation style might fit it better. But that's just my opinion. I was amazed at how good the designs for Rapunzel looked, but I can't imagine these designs in CG. To me it'd make more sense to make it look a bit like BatB that has beautiful backgrounds and stuff as well.
Image
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

ichabod wrote:Jim Hill provides a rather interesting read regarding this subject:

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... n-dog.aspx

Even though Mr Hill's comments aren't always the most reliable, I have to say I have drawn the same conclusions a while back. Let's face it, the CG animation for Rapunzel looks 20 times better than anything Pixar have done and I think Mr Hill's comments about the worried Pixar people are spot on.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love Disney to return to traditional animation, but not like this. If Disney were to do return to 2D full time because they felt it was best for the film, then fine. But to return to 2D just because Lasseter doesn't want CG competition? No. I said from the beginning I was against the Pixar deal.
I don't think you get what Lasseter is trying to do. Right now, Disney animation has no fase, no image whatsoever. What is a Disney animated feature? Just ask that question to anyone. Surely people know what a Disney animated feature used to be, but nowadays?

Pixar on the other hand, has a very clear image. When you go see a Pixar film, you know what you're in for. It simply looks like Lasseter is slowly turning Disney back into what it used to be in order for there to be no confusion over the type of films they make.

Wich will lead to Box Office succes and critical acclaim. This really has nothing to do with Lasseter being afraid of some sort of competition. It just makes no sense having two studios making similair movies. The whole point of the Disney Pixar merger was to ensure Pixar to keep doing what they're doing and to get Disney back on track.


As for the Rapunzel looking 20 times better than anything Pixar has done.... I hope you are joking. First, there has been no animation seen of this by anyone outside the walls of Disney animation. Just a few pictures, that hardly showed anything. You may dislike Pixar, but their track record is undeniably strong and their best has yet to be matched by another studio.

Box Office may not automaticaaly reflect quality, but 7 times in a row does.
Timon/Pumbaa fan
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3675
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:45 pm

Post by Timon/Pumbaa fan »

PatrickvD wrote:I don't think you get what Lasseter is trying to do. Right now, Disney animation has no fase, no image whatsoever. What is a Disney animated feature? Just ask that question to anyone. Surely people know what a Disney animated feature used to be, but nowadays?

Pixar on the other hand, has a very clear image. When you go see a Pixar film, you know what you're in for. It simply looks like Lasseter is slowly turning Disney back into what it used to be in order for there to be no confusion over the type of films they make.

Wich will lead to Box Office succes and critical acclaim. This really has nothing to do with Lasseter being afraid of some sort of competition. It just makes no sense having two studios making similair movies. The whole point of the Disney Pixar merger was to ensure Pixar to keep doing what they're doing and to get Disney back on track.
So in other words, you're admitting that Pixar creates the same formula for all their films that everyone's use to, and now you want Disney to create one formula to use for all of their films?

What about Brother Bear? It had a very "Disney feel" to it, and it was knocked by critics because of it. It also didn't get as much box office as Nemo despite being a 100 times better film.

I don't think there's ever a way Disney can get "Box Office succes and critical acclaim." At least not anymore. If they create a original film it gets criticised, if they create a film similar to ones in the past they get criticised.

Must I remind you Chris Sanders is responsible for the most successful animated film at Disney since Tarzan, Lilo and Stitch, and Stitich has got to be just as much if not much more profitable than any character from "The Fab Four" and Pixar? Why wouldn't Lasseter not have faith if he's so divine and knows how to get success?

If Lasseter thinks the only way he can get successful at Disney is to create a princess story with 0 character development and Randy Newman music with the same story elements used over and over or use any type of formula over and over again without much difference, then Disney probably wouldn't have been unsuccessful without Pixar as insiders have thought.
ichabod
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4676
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 8:29 am
Location: The place where they didn't build EuroDisney
Contact:

Post by ichabod »

PatrickvD wrote:I don't think you get what Lasseter is trying to do.
Oh I get what Lasseter is trying to do!
Right now, Disney animation has no fase, no image whatsoever. What is a Disney animated feature? Just ask that question to anyone. Surely people know what a Disney animated feature used to be, but nowadays?
Which is exactly how it should be. People should not be able to define a Disney film. It should be cute and cuddly Lilo and Stitch, wackyness of Chicken Little or grand scale adventure like Atlantis, Disney should hit all bases and should not have "an image". As has been mentioned Brother Bear was slayed by the critics, mostly not because it was bad but because it was too "Disney".
Pixar on the other hand, has a very clear image. When you go see a Pixar film, you know what you're in for.
You've got that right
It simply looks like Lasseter is slowly turning Disney back into what it used to be in order for there to be no confusion over the type of films they make.
Again, why go back and recreate the past? Why try and recreate films of the past just so all Disney films are "the same"?
Which will lead to Box Office succes and critical acclaim.
On what planet?
This really has nothing to do with Lasseter being afraid of some sort of competition. It just makes no sense having two studios making similair movies. The whole point of the Disney Pixar merger was to ensure Pixar to keep doing what they're doing and to get Disney back on track.
No the whole point was the Disney films were flopping and they needed at least some successful animated film with their name tied to the them.
As for the Rapunzel looking 20 times better than anything Pixar has done.... I hope you are joking. First, there has been no animation seen of this by anyone outside the walls of Disney animation. Just a few pictures, that hardly showed anything.
Quite frankly if a CGI pre production still looks this good:
Image

or this:

Image
I feel very content to say that Rapunzel looks 20 times better than anything Pixar has done, and I feel that if it was to go ahead it would look 20 times better.
You may dislike Pixar
Who said I dislike Pixar?
but their track record is undeniably strong and their best has yet to be matched by another studio.
In terms of story? There's are dozens which are better.

In terms of CGI backgrounds? It pains me to say it as I do hate them so, but Dreamworks has got Pixar beat in terms of backgrounds.

In terms of character animation? Well fair enough, they haven't been beat. Yet! ;)
Box Office may not automatically reflect quality
That's for damn sure!

but 7 times in a row does.[/quote]

7 what, films with the same plot and characters? ;)
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

I strongly disagree with everything you say lol. I guess we should agree to disagree, but I can't resist it so a few things.

Disney needs an image. obviously. From Atlantis to Chicken Little, it's all been one major identity crisis. If Disney doesn't know what they're making (and sometimes it became painfully obvious they didn't have a clue) then the audience won't care. I'm not saying all Disney flicks should be a clichéd-sappy-let's-have-the-mom-die-at-the-end-film. The focus should be on that something Atlantis, Chicken Little and Treasure Planet lacked. I'm not saying they shouldn't make adventurous films., but an audience has to be able to identify it as Disney. If they can't do that, they won't be there.

And sorry for assuming you disliked Pixar, but you seem awfully negative towards Lasseter and the Pixar merger. It's all very simple. Disney has done nothing in animtion the last few years but lose money. Pixar has a golden track record so they're obviously doing something right. So let's cut him and Pixar some slack.

7 movies with the same plot? Obvious similairties yes. Good films? Without a doubt.

An unmatched $3 billion worldwide represents an audience no other studio has ever conjured up. The goal is to get that audience back with Disney as well. And first they have to figure out who they are and what it is they should be doing. If CGI doesn't fit in that picture, then so be it.

oh and as for Pixar's animation, nobody has even come close to this in any department in my opinion. The detail in Pixar productions is incredible.

See Pixar gets everything "right". Dreamworks may have nice photorealistic backgrounds, but they're cold and empty. The inviting warmth and inventiveness in the backgrounds in Cars is far superior. The richness of the Island backgrounds in the Incredibles. the inviting water in Finding Nemo? Their animation is so rich on so many levels. I'm not saying Dreamworks is all bad, but they go for a complete different approach, wich in my opinion doesn't always work the way it should.

As for Rapunzel... like I said, nobody has seen anything in motion. And 20 times better than Pixar still sounds like a joke. Obviously your opinion, so there's no point arguing about it.
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

these made me laugh. I have to admit you have a sense of humor in a way.
It simply looks like Lasseter is slowly turning Disney back into what it used to be in order for there to be no confusion over the type of films they make.
Again, why go back and recreate the past? Why try and recreate films of the past just so all Disney films are "the same"?
because the ones they're making now aren't that great. In fact, some of them suck and nobody cares about them. :wink:
Which will lead to Box Office succes and critical acclaim.
On what planet?
well.... this one. strangely enough, last time I check Disney films aren't doing big business on other planets.
Super Leviathan
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:16 pm

Post by Super Leviathan »

I really have nothing to add to this discussion (although I generally agree with Patrick), but i just want to chime in on one of the Rapunzel pictures Ichabod posted.
ichabod wrote: Image
I feel very content to say that Rapunzel looks 20 times better than anything Pixar has done, and I feel that if it was to go ahead it would look 20 times better.
The face of Rapunzel in this pic easily looks a THOUSAND times better than the human faces in the Polar Express, Monster House, and a Scanner Darkly (and in the Case of Monster House, Rapunzel's hair actually looks like HAIR). Yet critics like Whatshisface Lipton and Mick LaSalle were talking abhout how CGi and Hand-Drawn human faces are inferior to rotoscoped and mo-capped ones.
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Rapunzel-Things Have Changed

Post by Disney Duster »

PatrickvD wrote:As for Rapunzel... like I said, nobody has seen anything in motion. And 20 times better than Pixar still sounds like a joke. Obviously your opinion, so there's no point arguing about it.
Oh, but you are quite wrong there. We have seen the animation in motion. This link will show you how beautiful the hair looks, far better than any hair I've seen in any CGI film. Be patient, it takes time to load, but it's worth it.

The funny thing is, PatrickvD, you supported Rapunzel so heartily when you started this thread. In fact, in that thread, even Timon/Pumbaa fan liked the looks of it, with his quote:
Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:Wow! This character looks charming and original. So far Disney is doing an alright job with the CG animation. :)
So...it seems things have changed!
Image
Timon/Pumbaa fan
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3675
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:45 pm

Post by Timon/Pumbaa fan »

PatrickvD wrote:Disney needs an image. obviously. From Atlantis to Chicken Little, it's all been one major identity crisis. If Disney doesn't know what they're making (and sometimes it became painfully obvious they didn't have a clue) then the audience won't care.
I'm OK with everything you said until you said "If Disney doesn't know what they're making then the audience won't care." I think you have that a little mixed up.

I somewhat agree, Disney is in an idenity crisis when it comes to finding a success as big as Pixar, BUT Disney wants customers/audiences to be happy. If the customers/audiences don't know what they want, then Disney doesn't know what to give them. So Disney tries their hardest and but audiences don't care because they DON'T KNOW whether they want it or not.
I'm not saying all Disney flicks should be a clichéd-sappy-let's-have-the-mom-die-at-the-end-film. The focus should be on that something Atlantis, Chicken Little and Treasure Planet lacked. I'm not saying they shouldn't make adventurous films., but an audience has to be able to identify it as Disney. If they can't do that, they won't be there.
Well, it can be argued The Incredibles is very far from Disney, and I definitely feel if Disney had made the exact same movie, audiences wouldn't be able to identify it with Disney and it would've flopped.

Also, you still ignore how the most successful Disney film of the 21st century, Lilo and Stitch, was popular because of how "different" it was from Disney with those teasers of Stitch "ruining" other Disney's animated classics. And you also ignore how Brother Bear was criticised BECAUSE IT WAS "TOO SIMILAR" TO DISNEY.
And sorry for assuming you disliked Pixar, but you seem awfully negative towards Lasseter and the Pixar merger. It's all very simple. Disney has done nothing in animtion the last few years but lose money. Pixar has a golden track record so they're obviously doing something right. So let's cut him and Pixar some slack.
Well isn't a big part of their success was that they were just a small studio away from Hollywood that tried to avoid executives at all costs. Now that Disney has bought Pixar and Pixar is now a playing a huge part in one of the largest companies in the world, isn't their whole point of the company sort of distroyed?

Also Disney has not lost money from everything they've made animation wise. Remember, those "cheapquels"(:roll:) make A LOT of money, Lilo and Stitch I can't stress enough in this thread was a huge success, Brother Bear and Chicken Little were both successful, when worldwide grosses included. Even ENG has become a cult classic and has made back it's profit from home video sales.
7 movies with the same plot? Obvious similairties yes. Good films? Without a doubt.
Well Brother Bear has some similarities with other projects, and I strongly believe it's a good film.
An unmatched $3 billion worldwide represents an audience no other studio has ever conjured up. The goal is to get that audience back with Disney as well. And first they have to figure out who they are and what it is they should be doing. If CGI doesn't fit in that picture, then so be it.
Well, if we include live-action, theme parks, merchandising etc. I'm pretty sure Disney has made MUCH MORE than 3 billion dollars. As for Disney finding out who they are, well, once again BLAME AUDIENCES, not Disney. Sheesh!
oh and as for Pixar's animation, nobody has even come close to this in any department in my opinion. The detail in Pixar productions is incredible.
Well this is just an opinion so I can't argue much, but have you seen Over the Hedge? Backgrounds, it's in the same league as Pixar, and comparing it to Cars, the characters and character animation is also MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH better in OTH, but I'm not sure whether the animation was much better, or it's just easier to relate to those cute furry animals over those pieces of metal but either way, Pixar isn't the only company with great animation.

I also(*big surprise*) love the animation for Chicken Little. It's got such an inviting original world with movements that feel lifted right out of a classic Mickey cartoon, I think it just has sort of a "Disney feel" the Pixar films just don't have.
PatrickvD wrote: because the ones they're making now aren't that great. In fact, some of them suck and nobody cares about them. :wink:

But it's quite obvious that it isn't most audiences don't care because they're bad, they don't care because THEY AREN'T EVEN GIVEN A CHANCE!!!!!!!

And do we need to prove box office scores don't always reflect quality?
well.... this one. strangely enough, last time I check Disney films aren't doing big business on other planets.
The point ichabod was trying to make thought was that NO MATTER WHAT Disney does, they can't get both "Box Office succes and critical acclaim." It's seems to be just not possible, and I doubt even Pixar can change that.
User avatar
2099net
Signature Collection
Posts: 9421
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by 2099net »

OK, I'm at my parents for Xmas, so I don't have much time, but there's one thing I must address: The Concept of a Disney identity.

Why the hell do we need an "Identity" for anything. Does Spielberg have an identity? No, he's made a whole range of films from child-friendly adventure to adult thrillers, to historical biographies. Many of the great directors, such as the late Robert Wise did any type of film from Horror (the Haunting), to Musicals (The Sound of Music) to Sci-Fi (Star Trek: The Motion Picture)

Do any of the studios have an "Identity"? Universal does all sorts of films, from the low-brow American Pie films to high-brow films like Brokeback Mountain or Hollywoodland. They may have been associated with Horror in the 1930s, but even they they turned out films as diverse as Showboat, All's Quiet on the Western Front and W.C. Fields comedies.

A company doesn't need an "Identity" - its just another reason for audiences to continue in their brainless, apathetic state. Pandering to an audience my not result in "dumbed-down" films, but it certainly results in artistically challanged films, as creators try to fit their ideas into a corporate identity template. Despite The Incredibles "homaging" 60's Marvel comics, see how fresh, alive and - yes - even daring it seems, compared to Pixars' next film Cars which went back to many of the same Pixar ideas and story-concepts.

If the only way for a studio to be successful is to churn out a series of somewhat identical films like sausages (even if they all high quality, Butcher's Choice sausages rather then low quality "A-hole, lips and lids" sausages) then they've failed.

And if the audience car't be bothered to get off their big-fat asses and actually do some research into the films they're going to pay money to see, or actually expect something different to entertain them, then they don't deserve anything more than endless Shreks and American Pie films, voiced by or starring nothing more than endless American Idol rejects, non-talented "tween" stars and rappers. (Because, hey, at least they've got name recognition)
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
User avatar
Jens
Special Edition
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:14 pm

Post by Jens »

You are totally right 2099net, but that's just the way it works nowadays. We (the Disney fans) are not the target audience and we do not bring in the money! The audience ARE those brainless people!

But anyway, I think most here are not getting the point Patrick is trying to say... I think he's trying to say that Disney should be trying to make something out of their enormous talent and put it into fresh films, BUT they should have a specific pattern... dare I say... image. Like in the old days! They should be able to produce any KIND of film, but they should stay in that same pattern. Their films can be daring, like Lilo & Stitch was, but it has to have that Disney feel to it. That's the feeling that it really is a Disney film and has something magical to it, thus creating an image.

Even if you don't think many studios have an image (and I'm talking about ANIMATION studios right here, Live Action studios shouldn't be compared to Animation studios), then you are wrong. Dreamworks clearly has an image of basing themself on modern culture in their films, and that's maybe an image that Disney was trying to take over with let's say... Chicken Little.

I agree with most points ichabod, PatrickvD ,2099net, etc. have said, but I disagree on some points too, but I don't want to turn this topic into an endless rant... Everyone has their own definition on how Disney should produce their animated films, and let's keep it that way ;)
The Disney Database - All the Disney magic in 1 site!
User avatar
Jules
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4573
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:20 am
Gender: Male
Location: Malta, Europe

Post by Jules »

Listen guys...let's forget this identity stuff... What breaks my heart is the possibility of John scrapping the work done so far on Rapunzel. Yes, I know, it's already been said, but I feel terrible. I have to log on onto the internet everyday and make sure that Rapunzel will proceed in its beautiful CGI...and YES! It does appear to be 20 times better than Pixar stuff. I just hope this is not Pixar getting "envious" so to speak...of Disney.

Dammit...I'm down in the dumps. :(
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Rapunzel getting transformed?

Post by Disney Duster »

Julian Carter wrote:Listen guys...let's forget this identity stuff... What breaks my heart is the possibility of John scrapping the work done so far on Rapunzel. Yes, I know, it's already been said, but I feel terrible. I have to log on onto the internet everyday and make sure that Rapunzel will proceed in its beautiful CGI...and YES! It does appear to be 20 times better than Pixar stuff. I just hope this is not Pixar getting "envious" so to speak...of Disney.

Dammit...I'm down in the dumps. :(
Yes, even though I once wanted Rapunzel to be traditionally animated, this new CGI is a combination of hand-drawn and computer, so it's already kind of traditional animation. Anyway, it doesn't matter, the movie was planned for CGI. Some things are better done in one medium than another. Certain shots, certain movements, certain designs. In fact, that seems to be why Glen combined the two, to make things once only possible traditional now possible in CGI. Anyway, it's beautiful and should not be changed!

NO REASON to be in the dumps! Remember that Jim Hill was only predicting that Lasseter and the rest would ask Glen to make Rapunzel traditional. It's not even a rumor, but a prediction from one single man! And if that doesn't make you feel better, know that your snowed-in Maleficent avatar is GENIUS.
Image
User avatar
disneyboy20022
Signature Collection
Posts: 6867
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm

Allow Me to shed some more info on the Subject...

Post by disneyboy20022 »


NO REASON to be in the dumps! Remember that Jim Hill was only predicting that Lasseter and the rest would ask Glen to make Rapunzel traditional. It's not even a rumor, but a prediction from one single man! And if that doesn't make you feel better, know that your snowed-in Maleficent avatar is GENIUS
Well Read this story about Tinker Bell:
The Los Angeles Times confirms a Jim Hill Media report published Monday, which speculated that Disney's direct-to-video spinoff Tinker Bell may be experiencing some story problems. According to the Times, Pixar executives John Lasseter and Ed Catmull decided that the project's script remains in need of "substantial work." In addition, there is some concern that Tinker Bell lacks appeal for older girls. Thus, the film may not see a release until at least 2008. Thanks to "ShyViolet" at the Animated News & Views Forum for the heads up on this news.
Now what is Tinker Bell the new movie?

A: An Elf
B: A CGI ANIMATED FILM
C: A LIve Action Film
D: A Claymation Film

If you picked answer B: A CGI ANIMATED FILM Your right. If you picked somthing else well then I suggest you need to do a Lot more research on this site www.ultimatedisney.com

What was Jim Hill's Point of it the other day. Couldn't it take 2 years to make Tinker Bell the movie into a Hand Drawn animation film or until 2008 as the article suggests....

Also to stay on Subject here
12/22/2006: "Disney politics"

Industry observer Chuck Oberleitner's latest editorial sheds some more light on the recent removal of WDFA director Chris Sanders from his pet project, American Dog. "In animation, story is everything. At Pixar, story is practically a religion . . . "
http://www.animated-news.com/archives/00005898.html

http://www.o-meon.com/pages/business_of ... 21-06.html
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below

http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm

American Dog

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

Maybe it has been mentioned already, but there are some rumors about American Dog. Like that Chris Sanders is no longerthe director, and it will be 2D instead of CGI. Is this correct, and if it is, why all these changes?
PixarFan2006
Signature Collection
Posts: 6166
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:44 am
Location: Michigan

Post by PixarFan2006 »

I am pretty sure that these are just rumors and they may not be true. The movie does not come out for a while.
Post Reply