Jim on Film: Disney Thermometer
Page 3 of 4
50 degrees
Walt Disney Feature Animation’s CGI animation—I am still going through
withdrawals as I ponder the current state of traditional animation at Disney. I’m
still holding out hope that it’s not gone forever, but in the meantime, I was
impressed by the technical side of Chicken Little. In the movie, there
isn’t the need for character animation that is particularly complex or
impressive . . . nothing to compare with the need for something as rich as a
Quasimodo, a Milo Thatch, or a Jim Hawkins. However, the animation that was
required felt like Disney animation, just done with computers. There was little
of the marionette feel I usually get during CGI animation, and the artistic
direction of the film was different from anything done by Pixar or DreamWorks.
If Disney is going to temporarily abandon the art form that brought me to love
the studio, at least the technical aspect is done the Disney way.
Valiant
(c) Vanguard / Disney
-5 degrees
Releasing other company’s films with the Disney name—Valiant turned out
not to hurt Disney a whole lot, but there are audiences who confused Valiant
as a true Disney product, as in produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation.
Vanguard’s negative reviews reflected badly on the Disney studio. After Home
on the Range and a slew of cheapquels, their reputation was quite on the
line when they decided to slap their name on Valiant, even though early
Internet reports would indicate that they knew the film was not particularly
good. Surely they had to release it, but how much better would it have been to
hide it under another studio division’s name rather than to allow the negative
reviews to rub off on their own animation division.
From the first article I read in Animation Magazine about Disney’s relationship with Pixar, it always struck me as a bad choice. Don’t get me wrong; Pixar’s track record more than proves itself, but by not releasing their own CGI films in the first place when they were the studio who was in the position to do it, they handed the Disney mantle to Pixar. Pixar got its head start because of the Disney name and even some creative input from Disney, and where would Disney be if they had started out exploring feature-length CGI animation independently?
John Musker and Ron Clements
-15 degrees with windchill
Letting Ron Clements and John Musker go—Not a whole lot has been said about Ron
Clements and John Musker’s departure from Disney, and I’m not particularly
knowledgeable about it myself; however, I do know that after directing The
Great Mouse Detective, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin,
Hercules, and Treasure Planet, Disney is pretty stupid to just let
them go.
After Treasure Planet under-performed at the box office, one analyst gave the Hollywood adage, “You’re only as strong as your last film.�? As many know—and many reviewers agreed—Treasure Planet was an excellent movie that came up on some tough competition opening weekend. People in management positions should to be able to know the difference between an artistic and a financial flop, which are two distinctly different concepts. And even if Treasure Planet was an artistic flop, which it wasn’t, it is short-sighted to dismiss such talent considering the vast history they had of bringing great success and profit brought to the studio.
I don’t know if leaving was what they really wanted or if they were not welcomed to develop additional properties, but considering their amazing track record—both artistically and financially—not to mention what they did for the studio through The Little Mermaid, executives at Disney should have done whatever they could to keep them creating for the company.