It's time for a vacation. If you've lived in New England, you know why. While the snow hasn't been to insane this year aside from the occasional blizzard, it is cold. The weather widget I have says it is currently around 18 degrees. I was just out mailing some packages and that seems about right, though it's worse with the added wind. I haven't been on vacation since my trip to Portland last September and Andrew hasn't been on one since July. So we're more than ready to take off for a while.
I don't think anyone will be surprised to hear that we're going to Disney World. We had a few other destinations in mind for a while, but due in no small part to the aforementioned cold, Orlando won out. Aside from the Disney factor, the nostalgia factor, and the fun factor, what I like about vacationing in Disney World is how easy it is. Once you actually get there, your biggest concern is usually the lines, and we're going at a somewhat off time in hopes of cutting down on those. You don't really have to worry about how you'll get to the next thing you want to see or whether there's anywhere to eat nearby or how you'll get back to your hotel at the end of the day. It's all laid out for you. This in contrast to our trip to the San Diego Comic Con last year. We did have fun and will try to go again this year, but that is NOT a relaxing vacation. Trust me, the worst lines in Disney World do not compare to simply trying to get around the convention floor at Comic Con. And after staying at a hotel some distance from the convention center, we found that we are not fond of San Diego's trolley system, which had a habit of getting stuck for long periods of time and taking forever to reach its destination.
So the reservations are made, the bunnysitter has been booked, and all that's left is to wait until it's time to go and get packing. If we end up with any good photos, I'll try to put them up at a later date along with a rundown of our trip. Until then, I just hope the weather here warms up just a smidge.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Animation Talk: Good News From Disney
Been a while since I wrote one of these. I figured when I did the first one that I would be putting the out quite frequently, but then I had other outlets for my animation related opinions. Now I'm limited to anyone I can get to listen to me and the blog. So I should probably get back to writing my animation thoughts here, where people can choose to read or ignore them, rather than making some unfortunate and handy soul listen to me rant.
Okay, I'm guessing most of you heard already that Disney has bought Pixar. The move is already the source of some debate: Did Disney pay too much? Should they have tried to continue building their own studio back up rather than buying the current animation king? Will Pixar's winning streak continue long enough for Disney to get its money's worth? But that's not what's on my mind right now. What I want to talk about today is some Disney related news that was reported here. I mention this largely because I haven't seen any confirmation of these events yet. So I don't know if it's all true or not. So take everything I say from here on with a big grain of salt.
In case you decided not to read the article, here's the scoop. When Disney bought Pixar, John Lasseter, probably the name most closely associated with Pixar, took on some pretty hefty new responsibilities. And according to this story, Lasseter is looking to make some changes over and Disney Feature Animation. Specifically, he's looking to take out the middleman. In the case of Disney Feature Animation, the middlemen are those business types who mostly do not have a creative bone in their body, but nonetheless think that they know how to make an animated film. They're the guys who want to play it safe, repeat the successes of the past, chock every film full of marketable characters, and generally keep the real creative people from doing what they do well. When the end product fails to make money, they're quick to place the blame on the creative people.
If this is true, it's really good news. Many animation fans and pundits have long cited the interference of business interests as the reason for Disney animation's generally poor performance over the past decade or so. And I think one of the reasons for Pixar's success is that nearly every one of their pictures has a major creative force behind it. A Pixar film is someone's vision, someone's baby. Many people contribute to the final product, but there's usually one guy whose job is to protect the integrity of the original idea. Books and toys and rides can come later; while the film is being made, the story is the important thing. If Disney can really start being a place that nurtures stories and ideas again, it could regain its place as the major force in animation.
The second item (it's not the second in the article, but it's the next one I want to do) is the only one that we seem to be a little more certain about. One of Lasseter's first moves in his new job at Disney was to stop production on Toy Story 3. This is also good news. I think the recent trend of Disney producing sequels to everything exemplifies what is wrong with the company's approach to animated films. In their rush to cash in on hot properties, they've turned the Disney films and characters from special events to omnipresent background noise. I can remember when the new Disney animated film was a really big event, something worth waiting for. Now, between sequels pushed in to theaters, sequels on DVD, and the regular dose of Winnie the Pooh, Disney films are a much more regular occurrence, to the point where it's become a little more mundane. Sequels do even further damage; a poor sequel can cheapen people's memory of the original. A series of bad sequels can cause the original to become lost in all the mediocrity as parents stop enjoying the movies with their kids and start using them as convenient babysitters. If there are too be sequels, they should be made by the original team if at all possible and only when there is a story idea that can live up to the original (see "Toy Story 2").
What isn't as certain is the other part to this story, which says that Lasseter may be keeping Circle 7 - the studio Disney set up to make "Toy Story 3" and possible future sequels to the Disney owned Pixar films - open. While he understandably didn't much like the idea of anyone else producing continuations of the movies he and his colleagues had made, he did reportedly like some of the work they were doing. So what might we see from Circle 7, if they do in fact remain open? That's not really clear yet. Maybe they'd provide extra manpower on feature films, maybe they'd do slightly lower level work like animation for TV or the parks. Right now, it's wide open.
Speaking of the Disney parks, Walt Disney Imagineering is another area where Lasseter will apparently now have some major sway. According to the article, he's using his clout to do two things with the department responsible for keeping the Happiest Places on Earth happy. One is to direct some much needed cash flow to Imagineering. The story for the past few decades has been that the imagineers have a lot of great ideas for rides and attractions, but the money to make them really work or even get the projects off the drawing board just isn't there. Enter big time fan of the Disney parks Lasseter, and a Disney company that apparently really wants to keep him happy, and somehow you end up with a promise of more money for Imagineering. So what's Lasseter's vision for the parks? Well, this is the one point where things get a little iffy. Supposedly, Lasseter wants to start putting rides into production at the same time as the movies that they're based on. So in theory, had this system been in place back in the 90s, you could have gone to see "Beauty and the Beast" in theaters, headed over to the nearest Disney park, and taken your place in line for the attraction based on the movie.
At first blush, it sounds good. Wouldn't it be great to be able to reap the benefits of a hit film while it's in theaters and fresh in the public consciousness by having a matching attraction right there the minute the audience has an appetite for it? To a degree, yes. But a lot of conditions have to be met for this idea to work. For one, the film needs to actually get made. This may not sound so tough, but more than one feature film in animation history was scrapped before making it to the screen. If a film in progress gets canned, then both the feature animation department and Imagineering would have wasted time and money on something that won't ever see the light of day (barring any clever repurposing of some concepts on Imagineering's part). And even when a film does get made, any number of scenes may be cut before the story is finalized. What if the big action sequence a film's tie-in ride is based around gets rewritten or dropped entirely? Finally, there's the problem of deciding which films merit rides. To keep things sane, we probably won't see an attraction for every "jungle Book 2" or "Pooh's Heffalump Movie" that comes along. But even some of the classic features may not really make great ride material. People may like "101 Dalmatians", but does that mean they'll want a ride based on it? In addition to films that don't quite lend themselves to becoming a theme park attraction, there are the films that just don't do very well. Fans have already been wondering what would have happened had this policy been in place for "Atlantis", "Treasure Planet", and "Home on the Range", among others. While some of these films have sequences that would have made great rides, people aren't going to line up if they didn't see the movie. A stage show, a parade, or a couple of costumes can be packed away if the film they come from fizzles. But if you build an attraction, that's going to be around for quite a while. So the question is, who's going to be the one to say: "I think this is a nice little film, but I'm not quite seeing blockbuster and there's really not much potential for a good ride."
All in all though, this is some pretty good news from parts of Disney that haven't had much good news as of late. It may be some time yet before we see the results of these policies, assuming the account of events is even accurate. But I am actually starting to feel hopeful that Disney might be on the road to recapturing its former glory.
Okay, I'm guessing most of you heard already that Disney has bought Pixar. The move is already the source of some debate: Did Disney pay too much? Should they have tried to continue building their own studio back up rather than buying the current animation king? Will Pixar's winning streak continue long enough for Disney to get its money's worth? But that's not what's on my mind right now. What I want to talk about today is some Disney related news that was reported here. I mention this largely because I haven't seen any confirmation of these events yet. So I don't know if it's all true or not. So take everything I say from here on with a big grain of salt.
In case you decided not to read the article, here's the scoop. When Disney bought Pixar, John Lasseter, probably the name most closely associated with Pixar, took on some pretty hefty new responsibilities. And according to this story, Lasseter is looking to make some changes over and Disney Feature Animation. Specifically, he's looking to take out the middleman. In the case of Disney Feature Animation, the middlemen are those business types who mostly do not have a creative bone in their body, but nonetheless think that they know how to make an animated film. They're the guys who want to play it safe, repeat the successes of the past, chock every film full of marketable characters, and generally keep the real creative people from doing what they do well. When the end product fails to make money, they're quick to place the blame on the creative people.
If this is true, it's really good news. Many animation fans and pundits have long cited the interference of business interests as the reason for Disney animation's generally poor performance over the past decade or so. And I think one of the reasons for Pixar's success is that nearly every one of their pictures has a major creative force behind it. A Pixar film is someone's vision, someone's baby. Many people contribute to the final product, but there's usually one guy whose job is to protect the integrity of the original idea. Books and toys and rides can come later; while the film is being made, the story is the important thing. If Disney can really start being a place that nurtures stories and ideas again, it could regain its place as the major force in animation.
The second item (it's not the second in the article, but it's the next one I want to do) is the only one that we seem to be a little more certain about. One of Lasseter's first moves in his new job at Disney was to stop production on Toy Story 3. This is also good news. I think the recent trend of Disney producing sequels to everything exemplifies what is wrong with the company's approach to animated films. In their rush to cash in on hot properties, they've turned the Disney films and characters from special events to omnipresent background noise. I can remember when the new Disney animated film was a really big event, something worth waiting for. Now, between sequels pushed in to theaters, sequels on DVD, and the regular dose of Winnie the Pooh, Disney films are a much more regular occurrence, to the point where it's become a little more mundane. Sequels do even further damage; a poor sequel can cheapen people's memory of the original. A series of bad sequels can cause the original to become lost in all the mediocrity as parents stop enjoying the movies with their kids and start using them as convenient babysitters. If there are too be sequels, they should be made by the original team if at all possible and only when there is a story idea that can live up to the original (see "Toy Story 2").
What isn't as certain is the other part to this story, which says that Lasseter may be keeping Circle 7 - the studio Disney set up to make "Toy Story 3" and possible future sequels to the Disney owned Pixar films - open. While he understandably didn't much like the idea of anyone else producing continuations of the movies he and his colleagues had made, he did reportedly like some of the work they were doing. So what might we see from Circle 7, if they do in fact remain open? That's not really clear yet. Maybe they'd provide extra manpower on feature films, maybe they'd do slightly lower level work like animation for TV or the parks. Right now, it's wide open.
Speaking of the Disney parks, Walt Disney Imagineering is another area where Lasseter will apparently now have some major sway. According to the article, he's using his clout to do two things with the department responsible for keeping the Happiest Places on Earth happy. One is to direct some much needed cash flow to Imagineering. The story for the past few decades has been that the imagineers have a lot of great ideas for rides and attractions, but the money to make them really work or even get the projects off the drawing board just isn't there. Enter big time fan of the Disney parks Lasseter, and a Disney company that apparently really wants to keep him happy, and somehow you end up with a promise of more money for Imagineering. So what's Lasseter's vision for the parks? Well, this is the one point where things get a little iffy. Supposedly, Lasseter wants to start putting rides into production at the same time as the movies that they're based on. So in theory, had this system been in place back in the 90s, you could have gone to see "Beauty and the Beast" in theaters, headed over to the nearest Disney park, and taken your place in line for the attraction based on the movie.
At first blush, it sounds good. Wouldn't it be great to be able to reap the benefits of a hit film while it's in theaters and fresh in the public consciousness by having a matching attraction right there the minute the audience has an appetite for it? To a degree, yes. But a lot of conditions have to be met for this idea to work. For one, the film needs to actually get made. This may not sound so tough, but more than one feature film in animation history was scrapped before making it to the screen. If a film in progress gets canned, then both the feature animation department and Imagineering would have wasted time and money on something that won't ever see the light of day (barring any clever repurposing of some concepts on Imagineering's part). And even when a film does get made, any number of scenes may be cut before the story is finalized. What if the big action sequence a film's tie-in ride is based around gets rewritten or dropped entirely? Finally, there's the problem of deciding which films merit rides. To keep things sane, we probably won't see an attraction for every "jungle Book 2" or "Pooh's Heffalump Movie" that comes along. But even some of the classic features may not really make great ride material. People may like "101 Dalmatians", but does that mean they'll want a ride based on it? In addition to films that don't quite lend themselves to becoming a theme park attraction, there are the films that just don't do very well. Fans have already been wondering what would have happened had this policy been in place for "Atlantis", "Treasure Planet", and "Home on the Range", among others. While some of these films have sequences that would have made great rides, people aren't going to line up if they didn't see the movie. A stage show, a parade, or a couple of costumes can be packed away if the film they come from fizzles. But if you build an attraction, that's going to be around for quite a while. So the question is, who's going to be the one to say: "I think this is a nice little film, but I'm not quite seeing blockbuster and there's really not much potential for a good ride."
All in all though, this is some pretty good news from parts of Disney that haven't had much good news as of late. It may be some time yet before we see the results of these policies, assuming the account of events is even accurate. But I am actually starting to feel hopeful that Disney might be on the road to recapturing its former glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)