A LaugingPlace.com Editorial Series from RHETT WICKHAM

What an interesting few weeks it has been for any pop culture observer, with the slightly muted fanfare of Disney’s upcoming 50th Anniversary, the premier of the box-office sure-bet Shrek 2 and some relatively speculative reporting that Pixar just may make their way back to Disney’s side.

As nice as it is to praise the greatness of Pixar, and their many gifted and devoted artists and writers and technicians, the fact remains that Pixar isn’t Disney and never was. Disney and Pixar was and hopefully can be again a great business partnership where both parties win and audiences get the continued benefit of fine animated entertainment. Whether or not Pixar stays away or comes back in partnership with the Mouse House, to my mind it is more important to see them separately, and look at how they serve as models for animation production. If Disney is to recover from comparisons and be given a fair shot at producing work on their own in the digital age of animation, then I believe it can help to take a look at some of the essential differences between them and Pixar and how these hinder and aid the oldest continuing producer of animated feature films.

It’s no secret that Pixar is operating under a model that is much closer to how Disney operated under Walt, and whether back in partnership with them, or out on their own, Pixar’s structure will doubtless have an influence on Disney’s approach from here on. Or at least it should.

It is here that I believe that Disney will either rise or fall - be it by association or separation – as they observe a model that is hardly mystic and unattainable. So, this series of editorials will look at three major factors in the production of a successful animated product by way of observation, experience, and interviews.

We’ll start with a basic look at each house and how they’re poised to perform. Then, we’ll look closer at who wields the wands in these magic castles. This is possibly the most critical difference in that Pixar has had (and may continue to have) something that Disney doesn’t right now – a single strong creative visionary who has the undying respect and admiration of the creative staff, and who has been vocal, visible (another critical factor that shouldn’t be ignored) and whose talent and skill has not as of yet been meddled with endlessly by a Board or CEO. And finally, say what you will about story as the deciding factor (and I don’t think for a moment that Pixar holds a monopoly on great story talent) even when a studio is busting at the seams with great story talent, it is how that talent is channeled through the system that I believe matters most.

ARTISTS, ARTISTS, WHO’S GOT THE ARTISTS?
Pixar is a house of extraordinary artisans who pioneered the approach to digital personality animation. Change subjects and remove one adjective and we could be talking about Disney in the 1930’s and early 1940’s. Be that as it may, the Pixar hits were not made in a northern California vacuum, and were it not for the pioneers from Disney’s golden age as well as Disney Feature Animation’s inadvertent role as the “feeder school�? from which greatness was bred in the 1980’s and 1990’s, I personally doubt Pixar would have reached such heights – at least not so quickly. Disney finances were critical to Pixar, and they turned regularly to the talent pool at Disney to contribute during story, visual development and - by way of contractual agreement - Disney executives who had a strong voice in the creative production process. The input of Disney Feature Animation senior management has had and will continue to have strong influence on the films co-produced with Pixar (with the last of the films under the original agreement, CARS, still in production.)