The chances are that provided the present administration does not meddle to the point of making a mess of things, we are likely to see an impressive product. The odds are high, the chances are better than good, and the likelihood of a commercial success (without taking marketing efforts into account) for CHICKEN LITTLE is better than average. Here is a film that has a real chance. The women and men making this film deserve the opportunity to have that film judged on its own merits. Will the press and the public set aside the history - however it may turn out between now and next year - or will this film rise or fall based solely on how people feel about Disney vs Pixar? Too soon to tell. Clearly, however, not all is sunny ahead.

Success includes fostering a genuine trust in the people making the films. That trust on audiences’ part has to be more than the trust we put in press agents for the various “prize�? fighters duking it out in public. I think we’ll manage. But on the Eisner administration’s part, the artists under them have a far better chance of weathering the many tempests of late and surviving and thriving if authentic trust is placed in their know-how and their approach.

A healthy creative environment should include a system whereby films are produced with quality in mind, and the artists making those films have a real voice in what defines quality. This is feature film, not Saturday morning television. Again, it’s a very frustrating thing that Mr. Stainton has failed to step forward to account for his view on this. If we assume that he holds to the tenet of quality first, then the environment he’s fostering under this restructuring - a move that “brings everybody together under one roof�? - will be one where quality doesn’t have to compete with quantity. (Remember the complaint back in the late 70’s that animators were being told it was a waste of time to bother drawing pupils on eyes?)

CHICKEN LITTLE is not alone. Let’s not forget the many folks coming onto A DAY WITH WILBUR ROBINSON and RAPUNZEL UNBRAIDED. Disney in CG land all on their own may be wild uncharted territory, but so long as the creative integrity is valued and these pictures don’t fall prey to the pressures typically felt in low-quality production houses - where footage matters more than finesse and deadlines dictate everything - then the cadre of gifted people who remain at Walt Disney Feature Animation can easily produce some of the industry’s best work yet. Dindal is as good a writer as anyone at Pixar and his creative team as impressive, too. Glen Keane has trained an entire division of artists who stepped up to the plate and hit a home run with TARZAN, and batted one heck of a clean-up home-run with segments of FANTASIA 2000. He can do that again if he’s allowed. And CG or not CG, Will Finn’s excellent sense of story and outrageous sense of humor are well in tact and, despite some petty detractors who subscribe to the rat leaving a sinking ship approach to camaraderie, evident in HOME ON THE RANGE.

If, however, CHICKEN LITTLE or RAPUNZEL or WILBUR ROBINSON or any of the CG slate of pictures are pushed to be ready in order to downplay the speculation and make it to market before Pixar can plug their distribution hole, or even just to keep down costs, then surely they will suffer a sad fate. The extant team of artists are at the peak of their skills and fully capable of expressing their talent in a new medium. It is in the nature of great artists to strive to be better. If “faster cheaper�? can be kept at bay, then Disney has the talent to compete. But staying competitive means placing value on your remaining assets and letting them know that they can do it, and that the front office believes it as much if not more than the players do. Reviving the lowered spirits of a team that wonders “who’s out the door next?�? will require more than pep talks. It will require investing. Investing in the future of the newly refocused Disney Feature Animation while taking full advantage of proven approaches that can’t be found in business school textbooks. These artists can produce some surprisingly wonderful work if the company that can afford to give Michael Eisner a $5 Million bonus will afford them the resources and time to make the good movies they want to make. Mind you the phrase “good movies�? does not equate with cheaply produced albeit best selling direct to video sequels or jobbed-out-overseas television animation, and never will.

So while we’re making noise from without that we hope will affect what is happening within, I’d like to add a little encouragement to the din. In spite of the staggering loss of their many gifted colleagues, the talent still in Disney’s employ deserve to know that a lot of people believe in them. Their ranks include animators, designers, directors and story artists of note. Each and every one of whom still believes in the integrity of the Walt Disney name and none of whom should be considered down for the count. It would be ignorant and arrogant to forget the presence of Ruben Aquino, Chris Buck, Dean Deblois, Andreas Deja, Mark Dindal, Will Finn, Randy Fullmer, Don Hahn, Mark Henn, Alex Kuperschmidt, Duncan Marjoribanks, Nik Ranieri, John Ripa, Chris Sanders, Ellen Woodbury and others who have been there for a very long time, most since THE LITTLE MERMAID or before. It would be premature to shut the door and give up hope when the creators of Ariel, Beast, Lumier, Zazu, Hades, Ursula, Simba, Scar, Jafar, Tarzan, John Silver, Jim Hawkins, Hercules, Aladdin, Sebastian, Mulan, Shang, Meeko, Pocahontas, Ratcliff, Powhatan, Cogsworth, Kuzko, Lilo and Stitch are still at work.

From where I sit the sky is cracked, but not falling. It’s dark alright, and there is definitely something coming down, but it’s always darkest just before the dawn. And here I said I wasn’t going to editorialize.

Discuss It