octa
writes, Just when we all thought Pixar was free of
Mickey’s clutches they walk right back into the
lion’s den:
This makes me sad :( I’m willing to give an
Eisnerless Disney a chance to win me over, mainly
because of the amount of pre-Eisner Disney material
they made that I love. I’d like to see that glory
return. If Pixar is willing to deal with them, then
something must have changed for the better inside the
company.
Can only be a good thing
I see a few key reasons why this will be good:
* Stevo is now the majority shareholder so with a little persuasion he can rule the roost. Look what he did with his direction of Pixar to see that he did well there.
* John Lasseter (sp) is the new Chief Creative Officer, should be a *very* good thing.
* Pixar’s creativity comes from the ground up, a stark contrast to Disney’s which was top-down. This should seriously improve their quality.
* Oh, yeah, Eisner is gone anyway.
It might take a few years for their current projects to get shoved out the door, but I look forward to what Disney releases in three+ years.
Damien
Re: Can only be a good thing
Right church, wrong pew. Jobs is the largest single shareholder, but does not
own a majority of the stock.
News Outlets Missing the Point
As usual, the mainstream media is not grasping the problem here. It isn’t Pixar’s animation that Disney needs, it’s their storytelling. Visually, there’s nothing wrong with Disney animation. Chicken Little looked just fine, it just had a weak story. Same goes for their hand-drawn (Home on the Range, Brother Bear) and hybrid (Treasure Planet) films. They are all beautiful to look at, but didn’t have a story to pull you in. On the flipslide, most (if not all) of Pixar’s big hits would have been just as big of hits if they were traditional animation (Brad Bird was once interviewed saying he had to be talked into doing The Incredibles as CG since he wanted a classic "old-school" look for the film).
And while I have no love for Eisner, you can’t lay ALL the blame on him. Keep in mind that one of the best (and arguably THE BEST) animated film in American history, Beauty and the Beast, was done under Eisner’s watch.
Here’s my prediction: The Disney/Pixar hybrid will produce 2 or 3 good films (including Toy Story 3 and possibly a Monsters Inc. sequel), then things will start to go to pot as the marketing beasts dig their claws in and the artists and writers bail out to flee to Blue Sky or form their own company. Disney will gut the rest of Pixar, keep the Renderman engine and offshore the bulk of the work to Japan or Korea.
Something not covered in the article: Does the agreement include a clause whereby John Lassiter gets to kick Steve Jobs in the nuts once a day? ‘Cause if I was JL, I’d be really, really pissed right now.
Wolfman’s got nards!
Why?
Damien
Re: Wolfman’s got nards!
Because Disney will crush any creativity Pixar may have in favor of "marketing" and "merchandise." Don’t delude yourself with the title "Director of Creativity" meaning something special.
Re: Wolfman’s got nards!
I was figuring Stevo would pull an Apple on it and put his people in positions of power, therefore be in a better position to fight the evil empire. I can’t see him giving up the creative freedom that Pixar has had all along, I see it invigorating the Disney teams as he removes their heads from their assets.
Damien
Re: Wolfman’s got nards!
Similar concerns were raised when Disney bought ESPN. My understanding is
that other than the occassional programming note, Disney largely practices
non-interference with them; I don’t see how the Pixar situation would be any
different.
Second, Pixar is populated by many folks who quit Disney because of their
marketing-centric attitude toward filmmaking. They’ll need to be very careful
about displaying such an attitude now, for fear of losing a good number of
Pixar employees.