DVDizzy.com

Oh dear. I guess we may not see "Gnomeo and Juliet" or even "Meet the Robinsons"!

I was actually looking forward to MTR!

I guess the Pixar move has a lot of negatives than just billions of dollars.

Good; it's about time someone beat some sense into Disney.

*sarcasm* Because apparently, Disney can't make a good movie without the divine Pixar.

Good find, thanks for posting. As much as it should pain me to hear that someone is tinkering with Disney movies, I have a feeling this is some pretty good news. If John Lasseter and co. feel that a CGI film isn't up to Toy Story, Nemo, etc. standards, then they'd better make it better...it's their job now. Chicken Little was the first CGI film made, obviosuly. And that most likely means that Disney felt it was their best idea in development. Maybe not, but probably. A downwards slide, even from Chicken Little, is not in the interest of the studios one bit.

im looking forward to MTR.. im also happy that Pixar ppl are putting their input into it 2 cuz now it will be better

_________________

Hopefully the results are not as intrusive as Jeffery Katzenberg's interference with The Black Cauldron

I said "someone" not Pixar specifically. Pixar may've been the ones to do it, but I wouldn't been equally happy if someone else had. Disney are fully capable of making good movies on their own if they want, but recent history has proven they're more inclined to be lazy and make crap when left to their own devices. The only films of theirs I've actually liked over the past 12 or so years have been Lilo & Stitch, Fantasia/2000 and Tarzan. Atlantis and Hercules were mildy entertaining, but average in terms of story quality.

Hopefully, Pixar tries to force them to go back to traditional animation on some films as well.

IMDb News + Jim Hill Media = a match made in heaven!

That said, this was one of Disney's more-interesting sounding upcoming projects. But then, who remembers the Pixar commentary where it was mentioned that they would make a movie about lawn gnomes? Yes, I jest. But I wouldn't mind seeing this movie eventually reach us with guidance from Pixar. Too bad it sounds like that won't be happening now.

Well when you say "lazy and crap when left to their own devices" I'm not sure whether your referring to their "Animated Classics" made in the "past 12 years" or if your referring to their "cheapqueals. So I'll assume your talking about both and debate with both of those issues.

The IMDB message says "Not only have Pixar executives pulled the plug on sequels to their original movies that Walt Disney crews were working on..." I'm pretty sure they were just talking their sequels to the Pixar films like "Toy Story 3". Disney will still be making DTV sequels fot their animated classics, with or without Pixar, trust me.

As for "Animated Classics", well I've actually heard that some Disney animators were saying, "Meet the Robinsons" was going to be the best film to come from Disney in a long time, and since it's going to be a more "serious" effort as apposed to a "comedic" effort like "Home on the Range" or "Chicken Little", I think we should give Disney a chance with that one.

Now, while I have been a huge supporter of this Disney and Pixar deal from the start, I still think Disney should be judges of their own films while Pixar would be the judges of their(and maybe give each small ideas time to time). However Pixar seems to be wanting to rework these Disney projects which I personally find a little wrong.

As for Disney films in the past, well, I think we all have our own opinions. For example, "bombs" like "Treasure Planet" and "Brother Bear" rock my world. In fact, I would rank both of these films above "A Bug's Life" and "Finding Nemo"(heck I'd rank both of these above classics like "Peter Pan" and "101 Dalmatians" for examples, but that's another story). While the biggest grossing animated classic of the 21st century so far(Lilo and Stitch) I find to be incredibly overrated.

All in all, I'm trying to point out is, I don't think Pixar should interfere with Disney's projects just yet, lets give Disney a chance shall we?

Good riddance to bad rubbish, in my opinion.

I may be a Disney fan, but that doesn't blind me to the company's recent major decline in quality of filmmaking. Generic, uninspiring feature films, piss-poor cheapquels... need I go on? What the "Pixar overlords" are doing is purging the system of the crap that's developed there for over a decade. It may not be pretty now, but it's definitely for the better, says I.

As for Gnomeo & Juliet and Meet the Robinsons, I never cared for the concepts and was not looking forward to them. I'm personally glad to see them being scrapped or overhauled. It ain't like Pixar's got an infallible golden touch or anything, but they certainly have an ideal, superior creative mentality than the executive VP-of-VP-of-VP choked halls of the Disney studios.

_________________
Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late."

~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Well when you say "generic uninspiring feature films" which do you mean? I personally think their films in recent years are better than some "classics".

As for DTVs, Pixar is not going to "stop" them in anyway. Trust me. Even though Pixar didn't use "cheap" ways to make money, remember they only made 6 films in an entire decade!

As for "Meet the Robinsons", animators have been saying really good stuff about that though I've heard.

I was mostly just talking about animated classics, actually. The only DTV sequels I've ever seen are the Aladdin ones (and only then 'cuz Aladdin is one of my favourite classics) and Stitch: The Movie. In all other cases I just ignore DTVs entirely.



That might very well be true; and I'll be happy if it turns out to be so... but you can't really blame anyone for being skeptical of Disney's ability to self-mange after over a decade of mostly mediocre work, can you?



I see no problem with allowing Pixar input on Disney's stuff, though, they have yet to make a bad film and IMO anything they might have to say should at least be considered.



I was speaking only of what I interpret to be good quality movies, not box office revenue. For me, the only movies I can really count as "good" in the last decade or so are the ones I listed previously. After The Lion King, they didn't produce anything good 'til Hercules... then Tarzan, Fantasia/2000 and Lilo & Stitch. You may've found Lilo & Stitch overrated but IMO it was entertaining, heartwarming and tends to really draw you into the story well. What alot of people may not've liked about it, though, was the rather unconventional (for Disney) story.



As I said before, they've had years and years of chances, and only managed to produce a handful of good films. They should be willing to accept help until they learn how not take the easy road.



6 a decade is about on a par with what Disney produces when they're in one of their "excellent periods".

In CGI? No they can't. Did you SEE Chicken Little? It made Shark Tale look like Citizen Kane, and that film was lame.

_________________
Cheers,
JM

Well, you gotta understand, times were different back then.

The main reason for the "golden age" of Disney were mainly the brilliant team work of Michael Eisner, Frank Wells and Jeffery Katzenberg. Then Frank Wells died and Katzenberg ended up getting overly greedy and eventually left while Eisner suffered from health problems(he obviously survived and remains healthy to this day(duh) but IMO, that can explain some of his "less-than-great" ideas). So while I don't disagree with you that "Pocahontas" and "Hunchback" were bad films, I hated them too and rank them as two of my least favorites, you've got to know that Disney was having a hard time back then.

Then with Hercules they started to get back on track and then later starting producing great films like "Mulan" and "Tarzan" but at this same point in time, audiences were warming up to CG movies, which eventually lead to the "if it ain't made by a computer, no animated films" as we somewhat see today.

So since this is a very serious effort, I still think we should give Disney this chance, despite some not so great efforts.



I don't disagree with that, but judging by the article, it seems Pixar's "guidance" is bigger than just some ideas that should be considered.



Well okay, but couldn't Treasure Planet and Brother Bear be thrown in the "good quality movies" mix? After all the first got decent reviews while the latter got decent Box office. They even got Oscar nominations. So they couldn't be that "bad".



And as I said before, different times back then.



But Disney still created much more than that. I mean consider the "Golden Age" of Disney(1988-1994, just to pick one) they made 5 successful
animated films(I'm including Roger Rabbit), several successful t.v. shows, and a lot of theme park ideas and revamps, I could go on.

What did Pixar do besides movies?(and the Pixar merchandise was done by Disney, so that doesn't count)

Well, I think CL DID have good intentions, but I think with the success of the craptacular Shrek 2, they decided to add a lot of "Shrek-like" humor.

I enjoyed CL though. It was definetely not Disney's best work, but it had a lot of features that I really liked.

And saying Shark Tale was better is a HUGE stretch IMO!

Well this thread seems to be a pretty heated debeat. Honestly I am not sure how I feel about the whole subject. I do think it is wrong of Pixar to come in and cancle projects that were already in the making. However I do think it is pointless for Disney now being partners with pixar have computer animeated films one Disney and One Pixar. I think that instead of getting upset with Diseny should start thinking out of the box. So if MTR is such a great idea still run with, but dare to be different and do something about it. I know its wrong of Pixar people to be so demanding , but in a way its a kick in the butt to do something brilliantly different and new and I think Disney needs that because the potential for great things is there. And yeah I think it would be cool for 2-D animation to return other than in sequals. And I do think the samrt idea would be to go back and make both one pixar movie and one great 2-d animation story. I never did understand the reasoning behind getting rid of the 2-d department. It was never that the animation bad. It was more the stories. Okay but I am done rambaling. And hopefully my thoughts dont offended anyone.

_________________
Disney... Laughter is timeless. Imagination has no age. And dreams are Forever

Maybe they want revenge for being Disney's b**tch for like, 10 years, lol. Finally they can call some shots, and they want to let Disney know, "don't screw with us again, buddy".



Maybe Brother Bear... maybe... in some respects (I did enjoy those "Canadian" moose, after all). Going by mere technical aspects of animation is no longer sufficient though; even the crap Disney produces can be well animated (and usually is, though often lacking some of the grandeur felt in their absolute best work). However, I suppose this one had something resembling a decent plot. For me, though, nature-oriented films usually have to be jaw-droppingly good for me to maintain interest. Otherwise, they just seem too cliched in their message/etc. This is just for animated naturey films mind you, as live-action ones are usually worth it just for the animal photography, eg. Two Brothers (though that was a pretty cute movie, anyway).

Treasure Planet just didn't work for me, though. It seemed pointless to me, devoid of much in the way of plot or character development. It was nice and flashy, though, in terms of animation. But that alone can't make me like, or appreciate it on any but the most shallow standards.

First of all, this was part of the original deal that Disney settled when it bought Pixar. John Lasseter and several others from Pixar were to become overseers for both Disney and Pixar films. They're just doing the job that they were given. And, not to start the whole "almighty Pixar" conversation again, but you've got to admit they know a little more than Disney right now as far as story goes.

Now, I knew right from the beginning that this would mean a somewhat rocky period for Disney the next few years. All the retooling and cutting of movies currently in production is bound to cause some discomfort. But as the time goes by and the Pixar folk are there for the "birth" of new ideas, and therefore giving input right from the beginning, I'm sure we'll see improvement in Disney's animated films a few years down the road. Once Disney gets pointed back in the right direction, they'll take off from there!



You mean aside from short films, commercials, and their RenderMan software? Pixar was still a relatively new business when they made their first few films. I'd say they did as well as can be expected.

Well I know that, but that I didn't think it'd be A) This major or B) This soon nor should it be imo.



I was talking about entertainment media though.

The short films were an addition with the movies, people didn't pay extra to see "Boundin'". Who actually pays to see commercials? Commercials are, well commercials.

As for "RenderMan" software, well you got me there. But still, just one type of software doesn't make Pixar a huge company.

I'm not denying Pixar was successful. They obviously were. I'm just saying there is no way you can compare Pixar's success with Disney's earlier success. Disney would obviously win as it's a much bigger company. And as much as some of us hate to admit it, those "cheap ways" make money.

I don't think Pixar can force anything on Disney. I think Disney is taking sound advice by listening to Pixar. They'd be stupid not to. No matter what legacy your name carries, if it's been thrased around for the past six years, you would have to be crazy to not take advice from someone who has a perfect track record. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Pixar has just that - a perfect track record when audience feedback, box-office receipts, and critical reception are all positive. Just because one person likes every film that has been labeled "bad" by Disney is not argument enough to say that Disney needs to maintain a hands-off approach. Disney has lost its mojo and it needs to find it quickly. They have yet to have a bonafide hit outside of Lilo & Sitch. (Brother Bear barely made back its production cost.) They have yet to win an in-house Oscar for the category they pioneered (which definately says something about their general standing with industry at large, since the award is only open to voters in the field of animation). I personally don't feel like going through each movie and analyzing their context in the Disney canon, but no on can argue that when considering the three areas mentioned - audience reception, critical reception, and box-office returns - Disney is in need of a serious rehaul. I congratulate Pixar on all their successes, because they respect the craft of filmmaking and refuse to ghetto-ize their movies as "children's films." Even if Cars fails, I will still march in their support. They would have to have at least six failures in a six-year period for me to begin questioning them, you know, kind of like the roster Disney has right now?

_________________
The Top 10 Films of 2005:
1) Brokeback Mountain 2) The Squid and the Whale 3) Me And You And Everyone We Know 4) The New World 5) A History of Violence 6) Match Point 7) Munich 8.) Crash 9) Wallace and Gromit 10) Pride & Prejudice