DVDizzy.com

Because what does John Lasseter know about making movies anyway?

Okay, okay...

This might not even come to anything. No official announcement has been made, and it could very well just cause Disney to up their game a bit and get a few more films into development. Equally, I believe that Dreamworks has attempted to lure Glen Keane away before (along with Ron and John); it could just be a case of post-success threat more than anything else.

Anyway...

_________________
-Joe

Blog | Deviantart

This idea that John Lasseter is some sort of dictator who will fire anyone who disagrees with him seems slightly ridiculous. He is paid to make decisions like these and what does he have to show for it : a string of huge critical and commercial successes, multiple awards and a reputation as a creative genius. When has his instinct ever proved to be wrong?

To be fair to Lasseter and Disney, Glen Keane was not removed from Tangled because of any kind of creative differences unlike Chris Sanders and Brenda Chapman. Keane has himself said in several interviews that he stepped down due to "non life-threatening health issues" so I can't see how his situation can be compared to that of Sanders and Chapman. Glen has been at Disney for a long time and, if he really does want to leave, then so be it. It just seems strange that whenever somebody leaves Disney there's usually an assumption that there is a sinister or controversial reason behind it when in actuality it is something that is not uncommon in at other studios the film industry where it usually passes without notice.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

I also found out the supervisor animator for Belle, James Baxter also left for DW and Roger Allers left Disney too.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif

I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that if the director of a Pixar film wants something in the film whether its a story point, or a gag or a piece of dialogue or whatever and Lasseter doesn't, it's a pretty safe bet that Lasseter will win. He's doing a lot of micro-managing and I think it's hypocritical they call themselves a "director-driven" studio when in fact the director has no real power.



While Glen's situation might be different, it was noted back then that Lasseter reportedly was not happy with Rapunzel's direction which was said to be more dark and mature. That's why he assigned Dean Wellins as a co-director. If Glen did not suffer that heart attack (which is safe to assume was caused by all the stress and anxiety about the film), I believe they would still remove Glen from the director's seat eventually. Glen's health problem, while it wasn't an excuse (Glen really did have a heart attack and could not go to work for six months), it was certainly an opportunity they graped to remove him as a director.

_________________

You thought what good times are Disney's 1984-1994
Not just done a movie called "Waking Sleeping Beauty"
That these good times are the years they worked,
Because let me tell you specifically what makes good movies plates,
These mainly people, amazing people who understand the mind of one of the other connected to work as one.
Where's amazing times:
Eric Goldberg, Glen Keane, Lisa Keene, Andreas Deja, Mark Henn ....
That's why successful people are the years Matt and everyone was half-hearted dissent similar ideas
These great talents, it seems clear aim to create exciting movies.

Glen Keane and now feel it is not the same as before, the three take over the world
Most young people that all this top three dimensional modeling, painting and artistic intent "real Disney"
If all due respect to John Lasseter Pixar determine who was directing and production rules for three dimensions.
They do it great

Glen Keane and give people the good times to run the Disney
Talk where they truly belong

I don't agree with that when Glen Keane has said that he voluntarily stepped down. How is that Lasseter and Disney grasping an opportunity to get rid of him?

It just seems to me that when Michael Eisner was in charge of Disney, everybody loved Lasseter but since Lasseter has rejoined Disney, a lot of people seem to have this impression that he is some kind of ego-maniac who has to have control over every little, minute detail. Calling him a micro-manager is fine but wasn't Walt Disney notorious amongst his employees for being a micro-manager? If and when one of Lasseter's ideas comes back to bite him on the ass and flop, criticise him but I personally think that he has done a brilliant job at Disney considering the state of the company, particularly animation, when he joined.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

It's not exactly "voluntarily" since he got sick and couldn't work for six months. He had to step down. I'm just speculating based on the buzz back then that if he hadn't they would find a way to remove him as a director eventually. Of course, no one knows for sure.



Yes because Walt despite assigning directors they were still considered his movies. The directors' role was to execute Walt's vision and not their own and everyone in the studio knew that. No one outside the studio even knew the names of the directors. The movies are known, even today, just as Walt's films. Even Floyd Norman has said so in one of his blog posts.

However, Lasseter keeps proclaiming that Pixar is a "director-driven" studio when clearly that's not the case. It's hypocritical and he basically says that to promote a specific "image" of his studio.

_________________

I just think a lot of people here are jumping the gun; Glen Keane has not joined Dreamworks as of yet and there is nothing to suggest he will apart from internet blogs. I do think that Glen's long service means that he should be allowed to leave if he really does want to; whether he goes to Dreamworks or not, he is a Disney legend and that won't change now.

I'm not disagreeing with everything you say Sotiris, you probably know more about this than I do and I am slightly biased here as I am a massive fan of Lasseter and think that he's the best thing that's happened to Disney animation for a long time. I just believe that people have expected too much of Lasseter in too short of a time. If Glen Keane does leave, then it will be the end of an era at Disney. That being said, I also hope that a new generation of animators will soon begin to make an impact at Disney and prove that animation at the studio has a bright future.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

A generation, exactly? Generation of three beetle and mechanical figures?
Who deletes the classical art simply delete the entire company
Some people are born to it and it belongs to them
Glen simply belongs to Disney for me
Glen Disney take it just like a cut / separated (mother baby "pass")
I'm not exaggerating
Simple we assume that nothing was decided yet and we are fed by rumors

Look, I've never said that the Pixar films are not good or even that the Disney films under his regime are not good. I've enjoyed almost all of them. Certainly, Lasseter has helped Disney emerge from the dark late Eisner years (and especially of the David Stainton years at the studio) but I do have some issues with his managing style and especially how Disney and recently Pixar are treating their employees.

_________________

Then they never read the film credits.

I may be wrong, but when was the last time Lasseter said "director-driven"? Because I haven't actually read that in a long time... like probably a couple years. So it seems to me that since Pixar has opened up with more directors and stories and whatnot, Lasseter has realized that it isn't just the four or five of the "Braintrust" that are making movies there anymore. So he has to step in.

Think of it this way: if you were John Lasseter, would you want your company to be putting anything out that you didn't agree with? Or would you make changes as you see fit? While in a perfect world he would let everyone make their own movie, that just simply isn't realistic.

This is just one more way that he is the modern day Walt Disney. It's true that the directors were much less known in Walt's day, and that they were all perceived to be Walt's films. But even today, the average movie-goer doesn't have a clue who Brad Bird, Lee Unkrich, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton, or even John Lasseter himself, are. All they know is "Pixar" made this movie. So it's really not so different at all from Walt's films. All the general public knew back then was that "Disney" made this movie, even though it could have been Woolie Reitherman, Hamilton Luske, Wilfred Jackson, etc... or in some cases Walt himself.

Basically what I'm saying is that Lasseter is doing the best job he can to put out quality films while still retaining what he feels "Pixar" should be. With it being his company and all, I think that's fair, and I think he's doing a great job. It's already been said: the day Pixar starts putting out flops is the day criticism against Lasseter will seem viable. But until then, all the decisions he's made thus far have produced some of the best animated films of all time. That's hard to argue against.

You think the average movie goer actually reads the credits?

All of Walt's films had credits at the start of each film. How the hell could they ignore them?

I know you weren't saying that and I didn't mean to suggest that I think you are. My view is simply that Lasseter is the boss; when Bob Iger wanted someone to revitalise Disney animation he turned to Lasseter and invested a lot of faith in him. In any profession, if you disagree with your boss or have some type of falling out with them, then there is going to be a risk that you might lose your job. Lasseter knows what it's like to be fired, as he was himself quite abruptly by Disney in the 1980's, and I doubt he takes any enjoyment in removing a director from their film. That being said, he is within his rights as the chief creative officer to do so, especially if he feels that it serves the best interests of the film.

_________________
We're not going to Guam, are we?

Well, there's a lot to it. You feel that one is better than the other, you have more loyalty to one than the other. You think that one, which has it's onw identity, has the identity that most fits what you want to do.

Dreamworks and Disney are just so different, and they should be, because otherwise their would be no point in having to different studios. Disney has an identity that feels, well, magical, and Glen Keane seemed to have that magic in him and fit with it. Him leaving seems like something magical leaving.

Sure this is all about feelings over facts, but when you come right down to it, the reason we love things, like movies, is because of such feelings.

_________________

And why not? With him, Dreamworks might actually make good movies. It's not like a lot of other talented Disney animators didnt go to Dreamworks before.

*looks at framed pic of Will Finn on his desk*

Anyway, this still doesnt bode well for Disney, but what about Pixar. *everything* I've seen about Pixar says it's a rather relaxed work environment, but Dreamworks pays better. I'd still like to be able to choose.

_________________

You have to look at it from the perspective of the general public. They don't CARE who made the movie. Sure, they might see the credits, and maybe even unconsciously read them. But they certainly don't remember them after the movie starts. That's probably a BIG reason why studios started putting credits at the end. The average person just doesn't care. You're looking at it from the perspective of someone like you and me, who care about movies and watch them for more than just pure entertainment. We see things that other people don't when it comes to movies.

Seriously, ask around. Ask people, "hey, when you go see a movie, do you actually read the opening credits? And do you remember the names afterward?"

If you really think the average person came out of The Jungle Book in 1967 saying "wow, that guy Wolfgang Reitherman did a great job!" you're crazy. People knew it simply as a "Disney movie". Nothing further.

I can see that, but I was looking for a more legal/ business reason of this.

Like what prevents them from doing what I gave example of.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif