She didn’t co-direct The Lion King. That was Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff who helmed the film.

But, yes, The Prince of Egypt showed she had directing chops. I wonder why the switch up. I wonder if she will keep a co-directing credit like Jan Pinkava did on Ratatouille.

Like - 2 others like this comment

Brenda was head of story on THE LION KING, she didn’t direct it.
She was one of the directors of PRINCE OF EGYPT.

Lorna Cook was one of the directors on SPIRIT.

Like - 5 others like this comment

Oh, it’s director-driven alright. Driven out, driven crazy, driven to drink…

Like - 7 others like this comment

there was an article awhile back about how producer was one of the few places in Hollywood that women were close to well represented and are very successful in. Smarter people than me would probably be able to say why. I think its a good start but it doesn’t really address the issue of disparity in directing and writing jobs for men and women. Again, I think the problem is the entertainment industry at large not any one studio, but I think its fair for people to take their own favorite studios to task for it, especially places that produce high quality work.

Like - 3 others like this comment

Thanx. Almost forgot about that one. I guess I had 2D on the brain.

Like

Gender matters. I choose not to be selective in my application of that truism.
(lots of people today want to pick and choose when to tow that line)

Like

Boo wasn’t a female main character? Just funnin’… I guess you mean central character, as Jesse (especially in TS2) and Boo are absolutely main characters to me. Semantics I guess.

And true, not many Women directors, but loads of women producers. Your generic “overrun” comment makes it sound like women are still being stuck in Walt’s Ink & Paint dept. (reference intentional). Besides actually being pretty disparaging in the opposite direction. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination. While criticising someone else for being political. And your second comment shows YOU to have an agenda too – waiting to decide how disappointed you’ll be. Don’t prepare for eyerolling – none of us can ever actually know what it may have been like enough to compare it against the final version and it would be disingenuous to do so. To me Tangled just sounds like the newly clichéd post-princess post-fairy tale take. We’ll see.

Having said that, I agreed with everything you said at first until it all went sideways… it just seems like you’re having your cake and eating it too with your Gender matters/don’t spew politics we’re talking cartoons/quality matters more than who directs it/both perspectives stuff. You seem to play both sides here. Maybe I’ve got it wrong and you’re not criticising the men who “overrun” the place for women’s director numbers not being higher, but rallying women to increase their numbers in that field. I can’t tell. Are you in the industry?

Finally, you know what I love? Powerpuff girls. Ostensibly a “girls’ show” that has great, strong girl characters that appeal to boys as well. I’m not even going to get into the Barbie debate.

Like - 2 others like this comment

Karl Hungus, yes men and woman are different.
the differences can be appreciated, celebrated, and can enrich our lives.

But they are obviously not essential.

You do not marry someone because you want to celebrated the gender differences, you marry someone because you love that person.

This is obvious, people assume that you can understand this. This is why they conclude that you have homophobic views and intentions.

Like - 6 others like this comment

Matt, my concern is less for the sex of the director than for the impact the change might have on the film itself. I’m sorry if that wasn’t very clear. My “second” comment about being disappointed was actually my first, so it was more of my gut reaction, while my comments in this thread were a little more thought-out. I didn’t mean I was expecting to be disappointed, I meant I would wait to see the film before I formed an opinion about whether the director shakeup was a good or bad thing.

Did you read the Newsweek article that’s linked in the sidebar from a couple weeks ago? It’s pretty interesting, particularly the statistic that only 29% of characters in family films from the past 3 years were female. If that isn’t overrun, I don’t know what is, and that’s a statistic that could be made perfectly balanced without damaging the careers of any talented, deserving people. I know less about the people working in the industry itself, but I believe that the ratio is still pretty lopsided, and I know that women in all industries are still paid much less than men in the same jobs. Still!

I’m NOT advocating any sort of weird affirmative-action gender-ratio quota for studios. That’s not right. But I think that there is still a lingering perception from the ink-and-paint days that film and animation in particular are a sort of boys club, which subtly discourages girls and women for aiming high in the industry, and it’s reflected in the films that are being made. And I think a great Pixar film about a girl on an adventure could do a lot to change that. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE a lot of those films. It was going through my favorite movies, and realizing how few of them have more than a token female character or two, that really opened my eyes to this issue. I never used to care either.

Karl’s response was so utterly bizarre, like he was trying to trap me into his favorite political debate, that I didn’t think it merited an actual reply.

Oh, and I wouldn’t say I’m in the industry – I’m currently a student doing freelance illustration to help pay grocery bills, and I’ve had the opportunity to work on a couple television projects as an unpaid intern, but I don’t think that counts. :)

I hope that answers all your questions!

Like - 7 others like this comment

But they are different. So when there is a battle cry at Emerson University in Boston to make bathrooms “gender neutral” because specifying one sex or the other is uncomfortable to those who haven’t figured it out yet I’ll be happy that we agree. Or when the transgender ‘T’ of the ‘LBGT’ cause in our society gets snubbed because gender matters I’ll be happy that you agree with me. And color me surprised you started with the insults on your first post. Its adds so much to this complicated issue.

Like - 2 others like this comment

I’ll be astounded if it turns out they were trying to make Brave appeal more to boys. If demographic decisions were part of their creative process, Up’s lead would never have been a senior citizen.

Like - 2 others like this comment

Hey thanks Kecky for the reply. And I think in retrospect I came over a bit unintentionally harsh. Karl’s response did seem to change tone midstream to me too.

Like - 1 others like this comment

You’re joking, right?

1. No one brought up race.

2. Institutionalized prejudice has a very long and (un)glorious tradition in the US. If it didn’t, then the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the Constitution, as well as countless other state and federal laws, would have never needed to exist. I’m not saying that everything that happens relates back to prejudice, but it is certainly still a major problem in the world today that isn’t helped by ignoring it.

I think you were probably being facetious (at least, I hope you were), but for posterity’s sake I felt I needed to say something.

Like - 2 others like this comment

To answer your first question, and also for prosperity’s sake: Yes.

Like - 1 others like this comment

they dont call him the obvious for nothin’

Like - 2 others like this comment

Oh don’t worry, my calendar has been cleared for about a year. :D I’m sure I’ll have plenty more to say on the subject then!!!

Like - 3 others like this comment

“I’m curious, though; did Pixar make a big deal out of Chapman being their, or did the media?”

At Annecy 2009, they were quite proud of the fact that they had a female director, if only to emphasize “we make the movies that we want to see ourselves” motto.
They also talked a little about the fact that a female director brings different sensibilities to a production.
It was a Q&A though, so no official press release or anything.

I guess they like to pride themselves about how diversity and creativity rules their studio, but when it comes down to it, they’ve been making the same buddy picture over and over again. Pixar has become almost a genre on its own. I don’t know if it’s the “brain trust” to blame for sticking to the same, or perhaps it’s just audience expectations, but with the money involved in these productions, it’s very hard to break that mold that made them so successful in the first place.

This doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy their movies, though. But I don’t expect anything new or revolutionary from a Pixar movie.

That being said, I was curious what Brave would turn out like under the direction of Brenda Chapman.

Like - 3 others like this comment

All I meant is that among my peers and the ones I have worked with over the years, the ones who are still working have been tenacious, persistent, hard workers-whether male or female. It seems there are more men/guys/boys in the field, but I suspect it’s also due to the ratio of applicants.

Like

In response to your question “Obvious”, I’m talking about people working or wanting to work for the the major animation studios. But, you’re “Obvious”, so I assumed you knew what I meant.

Like

Other Dan,

It may be that the ratio of those working in positions where one is likely to be promoted to the director’s chair favors men, but you go too far when you say that the ratios are extreme enough regarding ‘men and women with the tenacity and desire to be directors’ to justify the extreme nature of the statistics in this instance.

I am citing your justification by claiming a lack of women “wanting to work for the the major animation studios,” as well as “It seems there are more men/guys/boys in the field, but I suspect it’s also due to the ratio of applicants.”

I seriously doubt the assertion that a lack of “wanting to work for the the major animation studios” is the result of the abysmal ratio of women directors, and I would also disagree with the applicants ratio argument as, even if it were the case, any statistics with a zero on one side are cause for analysis beyond the assumption of innocent happenstance.

That is not an assertion of malicious intent on the part of anyone, however, when circumstances or conditions show an unhealthy tendency they should be carefully examined.

P.S. You left off the “The!” It loses all its meaning without the “The!” “THE Obvious.”

Like - 1 others like this comment

Maybe I’m just tired. But, I’m not getting your point “The Obvious”-which is still an oxymoron.

I wasn’t singling out women directors when I surmised there are likely more men than woman applicants in the field of animation. I’m going to run that by a couple recruiter friends to confirm my assertion. It’s an observation at this point.

My point was that in my experience whether it’s a man or a woman, it’s the tenacious ones that seem to have the staying power. It has nothing to do with sex. I’ve known several people who have dropped out of the business. And, the main quality of those who stay with it is persistence.. It wasn’t a comment about Brenda Chapman or directors. It was a comment about this argument that men are holding women down. Personally, in my 11 yrs, I don’t see it. If anything, these days I see hot women being given greater opportunities than men. And, I suspect that’s no surprise.

Like - 1 others like this comment

Well, maybe you do but most people don’t. Really. When it comes down to it people want a great story told in an entertaining way.

I don’t care if its directed by a man, woman, child or whatever. I have no bias as far as art is concerned. Maybe a different ethnicity or background or female person can tell a different story. That’s great and if done well, I’ll see it.

But we don’t know what is happening behind the scenes of this one, most of us here do not know what happened to cause Ms. Chapman’s departure. Whatever the reason, I’m sure its not because of some kind of absurd ‘no girls allowed’ policy.

Like - 2 others like this comment

And nostalgia.

Like - 6 others like this comment

I don’t think there’ll ever be hope for Home on the Range.

Like - 7 others like this comment

Ouch!

Like

Yeah, Home on the Range will face a hard time getting some nostalgia.

But Treasure Planet rules.

Like - 4 others like this comment

So what? Mark Andrews can’t make a film with a strong female character? Are you guys all forgetting that Hayao Miyazaki is both a man and makes films ABOUT strong female characters and his films are embraced by a diverse demographic of both gender and race. However small that demographic is it is diverse. Honestly all of America couldn’t give less a care whether or not a man or a woman is directing an animated film, just us animators, animation enthusiasts and animation students no one else.

And I’ll be honest with one exception, Julie Taymor, I haven’t been blown away by most films directed by women and honestly neither has most of America, I mean how many people saw Lost in Translation, Surveillance, Marie-Antoinette, or even The Hurt Locker before it won Best Picture and then even after it won? None of these movies were box office hits, and even though I love Julie Taymor none of her movies were mega hits, Across the Universe is pretty much her biggest hit and that sits at cult status at best.

So you can’t say it’s a man’s game when the average American who doesn’t know or care about who’s directing what movie is the one who’s really dictating everything. If you want to change it you have to do more than change something as meaningless as who’s directing the next Pixar movie, because, honestly NO ONE CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like - 7 others like this comment

And we all know no man can create a strong female character. :rolleyes:

Like - 3 others like this comment

Personally, I’m not concerned with whether or not a male director can create a strong female character. The topic at hand is why a strong female director was taken off her project, which she was clearly qualified to direct.

“I haven’t been blown away by most films directed by women and honestly neither has most of America.” How many female directors can you list? It’s funny, I haven’t liked MOST of the films directed by men. Oh, and by that I just mean–I don’t like most of the films I see, period.

Winky face.

Like - 4 others like this comment

NC, I think it’s possible for a man to tell a great story about a strong, believable female protagonist and vice versa. To me, a big part of the creative process is about imagining what it’s like to experience the world through someone else’s eyes, even someone quite different than yourself. Mark Andrews may be a very nice guy, and may make a great film, albeit a different film than the one Brenda wanted to make, for better or worse. I have to say, I’ve seen some of the movies you listed and really liked them – I don’t necessarily equate box office with actual quality, as there are a lot of movies that have made a lot of money that I consider absolute garbage, aimed at the lowest common denominator, and vice-versa (some of my favorite movies were box office flops). For me, the biggest tragedy here is that Brenda, who came up with this project, which was, by all reports, deeply personal to her, invested years, a lot of blood, sweat, tears and herself, with the understanding that Pixar would make HER movie with HER in charge, and then pulled it away from her when it was too late for her to take it somewhere else, and will do what they will with it whether she likes it or not. I used to think, when I’d hear of directors being switched out on animated films, Man, I feel bad for the poor guy who got the boot – must be humiliating! – but it must have been the right thing to do, because look how much better the film turned out! Then I was on a film that was the brainchild of the director, something he developed for almost a decade, that the head of the company loved and quickly got into production. My friend, the director, was promised multiple times that the film would be made, with him in charge, but he still had it in his contract that he could take the film with him if he ever left the studio. Then the studio leadership changed, the champions of the film were removed, and the one guy who continued to promise that everything was fine, not to worry, kept the development going long enough to suddenly cancel the film, tell my friend that, should he leave, too much money had already been spent to let him have the project back, contract or no, and, when he left in frustration, quietly started the film up again with a different director. Maybe we’ll never know what happened with “Brave”, but I can never again assume that “it was all for the best”. Sounds to me like John Sanford was there and may have the most accurate bead on the situation, unless someone else in the know has a different perspective.

Like - 4 others like this comment

NC, you have made two mistakes (in my opinion at least) in your post. The first is that you associate box office success with quality. I really like nearly all the movies you mentioned. But maybe you should ask why you hadn’t heard of them before they one awards? The answer is they weren’t widely marketed, is that because the people in charge of marketing (the majority of which are men) didn’t see the value in it or didn’t think it would make money? Hard to say.

You may be right that the average American doesn’t care who directs a movie, but the average American also doesn’t choose who directs a movie. It’s frankly naive to think or try to argue that it isn’t a male dominated industry. In the 10 years I’ve been working as a professional I’ve seen no evidence that it isn’t. Male directors direct the movies they want to see, which is fine, it’s great, I like a lot of those movies too, but it’s just stupid to ignore half the population, both ethically and financially. This was a good year for proving that women are a big financial force to cater too with several movies, like the Twilight series raking in tons of cash from mostly female audiences. The next step is to make better quality movies that also appeal to women. Who could possibly know what women want? Wait… maybe women?! It’s not that men can’t, but would you interview a white suburban kid about life in South Central LA?

Like

First, we don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors at Pixar. Lasseter is EXTREMELY protective of his company and I think everyone here would agree that he wouldn’t have done this if he didn’t believe it was for the greater good of the production. Pixar has yet to make a flop, both critically and financially, and Lasseter has had to make tough decisions but they’ve consistently been good decisions. I’m sure he’s not happy over firing their first female director but there had to have been a reason other than misogyny. I mean has Lasseter ever done something that seemed out right prejudice? Really tell me because I’ll admit I have been out of the loop for a while. If Walt Disney were still alive though, I’d be more inclined to believe it.

What the real question here should be is what happened?

Everyone here seems to have this pie in the sky mentality that in the entertainment industry people give you a truck-load of money to make whatever you want with it and that’s your right.

No, you are given money by someone in the hopes you will make that person more money, it’s a trade-off. They loan you money, if you can’t make that money back then they’re not going to break your legs or force you to pay it back, but on the other hand they have a right to tell you to do what they want. This project was SOLD to Pixar meaning John Lasseter, not Brenda Chapman, owns it.

This is why I have always respected people who go the Bill Plympton route. You’ll gain much more respect and recognition among your peers and do what you want. No matter what studio you go to, Pixar or DreamWorks you’re going to have to make compromises. Male or Female (Shane Acker had a big beef with Tim Burton on 9 and went as far as to say that 9 was not his film).

If you want to make a personal film it’s nearly impossible to do it in the studio system.

Chris- It’s even more naive to think that the American people don’t decide anything when they purchase a ticket or any product for that matter. That’s how capatalism works, do you think Outsourcing would exist if we didn’t buy products made by children in a Third World Country?

Second, it’s stupid to try to make a gender driven movie. If you make a movie based purely on what boys want, it’s going to be Transformers, if you make a movie based purely on what girls want, it’s going to be Twilight.

A good story… A GREAT story is a balance of both sides. And I’ll bet you that’s probably where Lasseter and Brenda parted ways. Probably an imbalanced relationship from both sides. One probably wanted their team to be better represented and really in the end that’s all this argument really seems like to me.

Like - 2 others like this comment

Well, except for Bolt. And The Princess and the Frog. And that ’storks delivering babies’ short. But, yeah, other than those, he’s been pretty darned successful at making me cry over the fictional lives of toys and making Disney/Pixar tons of money.

Like - 4 others like this comment

J.M FTW.

Like - 2 others like this comment

How is what you just described not related to equality? “Making love to the entire world” so to speak?

Like

Sorry but,
I think AlteredEgo is exactly right. Look at the formulaic crap we see constantly.

“One man, with kung fu, must save the world”
“One man, with a gun, must save the world”

there are a billion of these movies, or teen movies, or romantic comedies (incidentally mostly directed by men)

add some people with unique viewpoints and we get movies like Precious, Sin Nombre, Persepolis, Waltz with Bashir etc. etc.

How is that marginalizing anything?

Like - 3 others like this comment

What is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to be funny? Do you know him in person,as your personal tone suggests? Even if you thought Floyd was bragging about his career (which I didn’t get from his comment), he’s earned it.

Like - 6 others like this comment

I agree with Mark. People like Floyd offer great insight because he’s part of the “old guard” of animation; he’s seen what once was and can apply his perspective to what’s happening now. Pretty invaluable, if you ask me.

Like - 1 others like this comment

Oh–and Andrews only co-directed that short. It was directed by someone named Andrew Jiminez.

Like

Oops, didn’t realize this was that John Sanford. I should have followed the link. Well that sucks to hear if she really was robbed. :(

Like - 2 others like this comment

Not to change the subject, but I just want to add to the reply above:

Not speaking at all for John but knowing the type of person he is from working with him, I would think he’d be one of the first to address the fact that both Mike Gabriel and Mike Giamo should of been able to continue to direct the original film ‘ Sweating Bullets ‘.

Like - 2 others like this comment

I agree with Mark.

Like - 2 others like this comment

Sigh. It’s as I suspected. This one hurts. I was really looking forward to seeing her vision.

Like

I agree with Mark & John. It’s in the nature of capital to be chicken-sh*t. I don’t know how many turns on the wheel of reincarnation that movie took from being the Mikes’ ghost story about a calf & a horse on a cattle drive to becoming “Home on the Range” or how many focus groups or how many opinions of how many executives.

It’s hard to get anything through the development process with a real feminine sensibility. The studios figure these features have to appeal to the broadest possible audience & while girls will go see a boy picture, boys will not go see a girl picture. Tomboys are good. Sissies are bad.

It’s as unfair as hell, but there it is.

Like - 2 others like this comment

I wish I knew the stories to which you refer. I’ve wondered about each of them.

Like

I think it was announced a while ago that Ratatouille co-producer brad lewis was replaced by John Lassiter as director on Cars 2.

Like

I believe I posted something earlier that was in jest playing off of being overly curious. But, I have been in touch with Mr. Norman on and off over the years. So I felt compelled to make a quip.

Your comment comes across as kind of fanboish. I don’t mean any offense in stating that. But, seriously. No one owes you or anyone hear any explanation for anything which happened. Either it happens or doesn’t.

I only point this out because there’s a certain type of person who reads sites like these and goes off and “reports” as if they are dishing inside scoops. You’re coming across like that. If you have no intention of being that dorky, cool. But, if you are, be courteous and ask for commenter’s permission and trust but verify; not everyone is a good source.

That said, Mr. Norman is a mighty fine guy. I just don’t like seeing him be bothered. That’s all.

Like

I’m sorry; I’m not doing this to dish out reports or anything of the sort. It’s just curiosity because I respect the artists and directors at the house of Pixar and have really been engrossed in their works. I also have been excited about Brave because the plot synopsis looked fantastic, and seeing Pixar tackle “human” stories, especially in a medieval setting where they haven’t ventured yet, would be great.

As a 3rd party, I have read Norman’s comments before, and he seems like a stand-up guy. I remember reading a comment a while back saying he loved how Brave was shaping up, which made me more excited. It’s not that I feel like I’m entitled to the information; it’s just that if you put yourself in my shoes, if I know what the reasoning behind this was, I’ll have a better idea of the direction the film will take. For example, I loved Ratatouille even though Bird was put in late in the project. Same with Toy Story 2. But given the responses to this story specifically, now I’m a bit nervous about the direction of the movie. I think it sounds like a great premise is all.

Like

Okay.
I apologize for assuming you were fishing for information without being upfront that you were going to post what you learned elsewhere.

Obviously, there are those who are posting this story else where. And that’s fine. But, it sucks when commenters posts get incorporated into a second hand story and they were not asked for permission nor was what they wrote verified.

That said, I gotta say this to anyone: Mr. Norman ain’t gonna express himself unless he is talking about what he knows. And, anyone how has any integrity would just interview him rather than scrape what he posted in this or any other site. Asking him to write a definitive account for what he knows is just asking way too much. If he felt like laying it out then he would do so without asking.

It is just courteous to let him know if what he wrote is being quoted or cited elsewhere. The same goes for anyone who posts anywhere. But, there are a lot of folks who comment who are just yakking out of their butts. You can usually tell they don’t know what they are talking about because they come across as too eager, too young and naive or whatever.

One last thing, Marco…okay, you’re a fan. You are looking forward to the film. Those things are great. But, man, don’t ruin it for yourself. It is way too easy for people who love something to love it so much that their expectations are never met. If they find out it could have been different then they blame those changes and revisions for ruining something they never ever saw.

Making movies is a process. A long process. Step back from it and wait like anyone else and you might enjoy them more. Or, you could hate them for reasons unrelated to knowing why it went wrong early on.

Like

I understand. I’m sure if he posted an account of everything he knew, people would post it everywhere else. I also feel you’re correct about expectations. I don’t mean the obvious ‘expectations not met’ reasoning you gave (and I’m thankful that hasn’t happened to me for Pixar’s latest works), but I do know many who read a lot of behind the scenes turmoil in movies, and when the final product comes out, they start finger-pointing. I’m usually one who doesn’t know about this kind of turmoil until well after the movie is complete, but sometimes it’s fascinating reading about shake-ups behind the scenes and then seeing a wonderful final product and wondering how they managed to pull it off.

Again, I’m not trying to yank any feathers here. I love lurking here because a lot of you are in the business, and therefore a lot of what is said is from people with much experience working with a whole assortment of people. It’s just a little upsetting to see people who really care about animation getting this angry.

Like

Good grief, some guys can’t take a joke and criticism about stupid names. Of course I know Tangled isn’t Pixar, I’m not that ignorant. However you can’t excuse that JL is managing Disney now. They are still responsible in some ways. All these single word movie title is stupid. I still think Tangled should be called Rapunzel.

And yeah, go google Up in the next 50 years and see if Pixar’s movie comes up as the result.

“Cars Bolt Up Tangled Newt”

Like - 2 others like this comment

Rapunzel is also a single word. And I’ll get back to you in 50 years, assuming I’m still using Google.

Like - 1 others like this comment

Rapunzel is a ‘name’, not a ‘word’. What school did you study at?

Like

A name is a word unless you’re from Pluto.

Like - 5 others like this comment

Sorry to jump in, but Dory and Jessie are still generic crazy female types. Heck aside from one to two shallow charm points they could be clones. A Bug’s Life, Finding Nemo, Toy Story, Wall-E, and Cars all star bumbling idiot heroes who go through the exact same character development. It’s like anime without the googly eyes.

Like - 3 others like this comment

Actually, in TS3 Jessie is, in fact, a clear love interest for Buzz Lightyear. And the trope ahem makes reference to does show up more often than just in Wall-E and Ratatouille. Flick and the princess in a Bug’s Life, Carl and Ellie in Up, and arguably Mrs. Incredible. Most likely the characters in Newt would have gone the same way, had it gone any further.

Like - 3 others like this comment

Jessie isn’t a main character in TS3. Obviously, I was referring to her role in TS2. It had nothing to do with romance, and she wasn’t any more crazy than other toys that have been in the series (especially considering how much time she’d spent trapped in a box). Plus, the love interest isn’t anything close to a key story point in TS3. Also, I only included A Bug’s Life, Wall-E, and Ratatouille because “ahem” specifically referred to bumbling, male lead meets assertive girl. Mr. Incredible is far from a “bumbling boy with a heart of gold”, and Helen isn’t really generic or assertive. Heck, Atta wasn’t much on an assertive type either so I probably should have left her out. She wasn’t quite as neurotic as Flik, but they both felt like screw-ups.

Like

I thought I responded to this yesterday. I’m sorry if it got lost or something.

Anyway, I’m “singling out” Pixar here because this is a Pixar thread.

Also, I’ve seen all of the Pixar movies, most of them multiple times. A lot of them I really enjoyed when they came out, particularly Finding Nemo, Monsters, Inc. and Toy Story (though it’s worth noting that I was a child for TS and a teenager for Nemo). Saying I deserve to give a second chance to a company as giant and ubiquitous as Pixar is like saying I owe McDonald’s a second chance. It’s been available to me and present for most of my life.

Thank you to Alissa and Helpful. You’re great.

Like

You know, I was waiting to reply to this with a chart, listing out the race, sex, basic personality traits, and opposite-sex foil for each Pixar protagonist (I’ve done it before, but I couldn’t find it since I’ve moved recently), but I don’t think it’s worth my time. Anyone who can observe can see the similarities and I do not owe you scientific proof simply because you opted not to pay attention.

Like - 2 others like this comment

ahem I have paid attention to Pixar movies. I guess I can’t make you back up your words, but you seem to be pretty harsh towards a company with your words, but you haven’t yet backed it up. There are definitely similarities with the Pixar protagonists. Look at any protagonist in any movie and you will be able find similarities between them. However, there are also very unique qualities to each of the Pixar characters. The character Carl from Pixar’s Up is a very grumpy who has lost touch with those around him. At the beginning of the movie he wants no relationship in his life, he just wants to be in his house, alone. Now go to the movie that was made just before Up. In Wall-E the movie had a main character who was longing for relationship. Wall-E has no way to have any relationship until Eva comes. The whole movie of Wall-E is about Wall-E trying to persue relationship. The basic plot of Up is Carl getting away from relationship.

You have different personalities for each of the main characters in Pixar. A character like Woody is completely different from a character like Buzz. You can find similarities between them, sure, but you can’t help but see their differences as well.

Your first comment was accusing someone of the lack of “critical thought”. Well you really don’t seem to be doing much better. Your “critical thought” seems to be lacking logic.

Like - 1 others like this comment

Hey John I am not bashing you for not supporting Pixar, I would appreciate it if you don’t bash those who are supporting Pixar. We might find that the creativity was extinguished in Brave, but for the time being I am going to trust Pixar based on what they have been to this point (that being, an extremely creative studio). I do not think anyone is under the impression that Pixar is a God, they make mistakes and are definitely not perfect.

Like - 6 others like this comment

You might not be saying that if enough movies actually had decent writing.=p

Like - 3 others like this comment

Mark, you don’t know what your talking about, really.

Have you ever read a script? More to the point have you ever written one. I doubt it. You clearly don’t understand the process a good screenwriter goes through. As BR says, those are not easily found, otherwise we’d see better material out there.

I should also add that “directors are a dime for five dozen”, I know you probably don’t not want to hear that.

But to some degree this whole thread and her replacement proves it to be so, doesn’t it.

Like - 1 others like this comment

Er, do you understand how feature animation works? The script rarely, if ever, comes first. In most studios it’s a much more collaborative and organic endeavor that heavily relies on the vision of the director and the creativity of the story artists.

Like - 1 others like this comment

Exactly – the ‘box’, the ‘formula’. I’m glad someone on here understands that. Disney do. Her firing is because out-of-the box is a risk they will not take. Not only for $ but guarantees.

Like - 2 others like this comment

Hey, I’m speculating. It’s like you read only the first sentence and forgot to read the rest.

Calm down and try to have some respect to fellow users. I know you may have a lot on your heart about this, but we’re not all rabid Pixar fanboys. I have no reason to believe they won’t deliver the goods like they did for their past 11 films. They are not universally adore for nothing, you know?

And you apparently know as much as we do about the “firing”, unless you come out and state otherwise.

These are honest questions : Have you seen the movie RECENTLY, not just a pitch? Have you talked to Brenda since the event? Have you talked to Mark Andrews and his stance on this?

In the end, most of us aren’t INSIDE Pixar when the movie is made, and the only judgment we can bring is how good the final product is, and that’s the only thing that matters. Whether or not it has become a dictatorial company and stopped being a “director’s studio” is none of our concern as viewers. That wouldn’t stop me from enjoying the movies they make. I feel terrible for Brenda Chapman, but maybe I shouldn’t. Maybe she doesn’t even feel bad about it.

I hope you won’t take this too personal, I’m trying to have a honest discussion about the project, not just an occasion to flame and stealthy troll Pixar.

Like - 9 others like this comment

Dude.
I actually *agree* with you, but it doesn’t do any good to flame the bejesus out of anyone who might not expect the worst from this news. Not all of us are plugged in, and for those of us who don’t get invited to screenings five years before a film’s release, we have to kind of put the story together piece by piece. Calling people idiots because they’re not insiders is counterproductive.

Like - 7 others like this comment

No offense. But it is just your opinion vs other opinions. (No, I didn’t see the film. Nor do I have any inside information. But, what you may or may not like isn’t necessarily what others are going to like.) It’s not always a conspiracy. Unless of course, you are tight with the execs that brought down the hammer.

Like - 1 others like this comment

Yeah I’m sorry If I came aggressively. I didn’t mean to say that the movie wasn’t good, but that there was a probability that the movie wasn’t good. I felt the same way when Newt was canceled.

I mean, they didn’t cancel Ratatouille or Up when they were met with troubles along the way. And, right now, which Pixar production hasn’t been troubled in some way or another?

I think it’s part of the process, how sad it really is.

Again, sorry if I came out blunt. I respect all of your opinions, and I’m sure some of you know much more about it than I do. I’m just your typical movie goer.

Like

EXACTLY

Like

Before the whole thing blew up about American Dog, there were whispers that Sanders has never been allowed to make the film he wanted, and that 80% of the story was changed. I haven’t heard of anyone who saw the film Chris Sanders wanted to do. What I was told is that American Dog never existed.

So I’m curious, who are you talking about ? Who exactly saw American Dog and deemed it an unmitigated disaster, and what exactly was wrong with it ? “Everyone” is such a far reaching word.

I wish we could see the “flawed” Pinkava version of Ratatouille, or the “quirky” Sanders version of Bolt, or the “unconventional” Chapman version of Brave. But we’ll never know.

Like - 4 others like this comment

Saw it and don’t agree at all. American Dog had an original voice and quirky, hilarious sequences. There was still time in the production cycle to find a through-line for the plot when it was axed.

Like - 3 others like this comment

It’s not exactly like “Bolt” had the most memorable or fantastic plot…the most memorable thing about “Bolt” to me was the cat character and her story arc.

I was really looking forward to “American Dog” given what I knew about Chris Sanders and his sense of humor and take on the world. I think it is all the more amazing that Disney let Lilo & Stitch develop the way it did, considering how “unconventional” it was compared not only to what came before, but what came after. Maybe “American Dog” wouldn’t have worked, but it sounds like the fault lay not so much in shortcomings on Chris’ part than the classic “too many cooks” dilemma, something Pixar is supposedly against.

For all I know, all the stuff that interlopers threw in that wasn’t working on “American Dog” got thrown out during the fix-it process, but it’s obvious that a lot of what Chris Sanders brought to it was thrown out too. Bolt the dog was probably the least interesting protagonist in an animated film since Will Smith’s fish in “Shark Tale.” And it wasn’t that Travolta was a bad voice actor, it was that most of the characters in the film just came off as kind of bland & didn’t resonate with me or anyone else I know who saw the film. At least Lightning McQueen was memorable and distinctive, even if he was a jerk…

Like

Ethan, what do you mean when you say “safe film”? How has Pixar shown that they are interested in “safe films”? We don’t know about Brave yet, but there have been several Pixar films where the directors went against typical Hollywood storytelling. Wall-E (a movie about a garbage robot), Up (a film where the main character is in his 70’s) and Ratatouille (A movie about rats) were not safe films that guaranteed money. The only “safe” part of Pixar to me is they seem to be wanting to create “family films”. They try hard to have their films appeal to a broad audience. This I feel has less to do with the need for money and more to do with Pixar’s belief in making films that they could bring their families to. Pixar has shown that there could be a lot of creativity with that limitation.

The two directorial changes were not playing it safe, they were made to create a better movie. There is a extreme amount of “risk” in the whole idea of changing a director mid way through a movie. Toy Story 2 has been hailed both publicly and critically as one of the greatest sequels ever made. Ratatouille won several awards, including the Academy award for Best Animated Feature. When Brad Bird was put onto Ratatouille he actually decided to go the less “safe” rout. Brad was the one who made the decision to make the rats actually look like rats, Pinkava tried to make the rats in Ratatouille look more like humans, shortening their tails and having them walk on two feet most of the time. Floyd Norman who worked on Toy Story 2, before John came in to direct the film, has admitted that John helped make the film better. I am sure you would agree that it is not a “safe” idea to change the whole story line nine months before the movie needed to be released. The Toy Story 2 directorial change was a defining moment in Pixar’s history, it told me that they put story first and were willing to sacrifice a lot to make their films Great.

The statement is based on what I know about John Lasseter and what I know of the results of his decisions so far. So far we have not been given much of a reason to doubt John. John has shown that he cares deeply about story and the Pixar studio. It is possible that the movies Ratatouille, Toy Story 2, and even Bolt could of been good if they stuck with their original director. However, I think it is undeniable that the movies have turned out to be quality films with the directorial changes.

Like - 2 others like this comment

Wow. This time you excluded Bolt and Brave from your statement about directorial changes. Way to avoid the actual subject of discussion with so many words, I wonder why you did that. You just said above you think they fired Chapman for the right reason and you are contradicting many people who are in a position to know exactly what happened.

I will trust directors and story artists who worked for years at disney and pixar over a blogger any day.

Like - 2 others like this comment

Ethan I was addressing your problems with my statement, “So far Pixar has done a lot of good with their directorial changes”. Sense in the statement I was addressing Pixar specifically and only the movies I have seen to their completion, both Bolt and Brave would not apply. We do not know the result of Brave yet. I personally think that Bolt turned out pretty good. The problem Ethan is that even though I can not judge if Chris Sanders final film would be better then the “Bolt” movie that came out, neither can you. Neither of us will know the Brenda Chapman Brave or the Christ Sanders American Dog. I however have trust in John, and have liked all the movies so far that have experienced a directors change, especially the Pixar ones.

Neither John Sanford or Floyd Norman work at Pixar at the moment. I do have my concerns especially from what Floyd Norman has said. I have come to respect Floyd’s voice for Disney animation and even though I think he is not working at Pixar, he does seem to have a solid inside connection with them. I could care less about John Sanford. He doesn’t seem to have any respect for those who are taking the side of Pixar (even though they have 11 great films to back their belief in Pixar up), so why should I have any respect for what he has to say?

I think we will have to see, I just am not going to call Pixar “safe” or “fear driven”, when they haven’t seemed to be those things so far. And I have not seen the result of their actions with Brave so yet.

Like

Okay. You’re not going to call Bolt “safe”? You quote Floyd Norman when it suits you, but I see you won’t quote him about Bolt. You only need to see the concepts of American Dog to see what happened. After that, talk to people who really know about it, all insiders so far confirmed what happened.

You got it right about one thing. You have seen only the final products, while others have seen the actual work of those fired directors, and have talked to them directly.

You want to use the “final product” argument ? Look at Dragons and see how it compares with Bolt. Better film, better box office, and they did hundreds of things which pixar would never do. If you want to use statistical conjectures, let’s talk about the directors, instead of the company name. Sander’s track record is speaking for itself. His films before were amazing, his film after was amazing. John Lasseter have lost his reputation the moment Dragon became a better critical and financial success than the “safe” Bolt.

It’s time we respect the writers/directors instead of the branding and house rules of a corporation. It’s not about which film would be bet

Like - 1 others like this comment

Okay. You’re not going to call Bolt “safe”? You quote Floyd Norman when it suits you, but I see you won’t quote him about Bolt. You only need to see the concepts of American Dog to see what happened. After that, talk to people who really know about it, all insiders so far confirmed what happened.

You got it right about one thing. You have seen only the final products, while others have seen the actual work of those fired directors, and have talked to them directly.

You want to use the “final product” argument ? Look at Dragons and see how it compares with Bolt. Better film, better box office, and they did hundreds of things which pixar would never do. If you want to use statistical conjectures, let’s talk about the directors, instead of the company name. Sander’s track record is speaking for itself. His films before were amazing, his film after was amazing. John Lasseter have lost his reputation the moment Dragon became a better critical and financial success than the “safe” Bolt.

It’s time we respect the writers/directors instead of the branding and house rules of a corporation. It’s not about which film would be better, it’s the lack of respect.

Like - 2 others like this comment

I have respect for people who know what they are talking about, Jacob.
That ain’t you. You’re talking out of your ass.

Like - 5 others like this comment

Ethan I am not the guy who is saying Pixar is perfect. I just think that John makes his decisions for creative reasons, not because he has given into fear of failure. It is great that Dreamworks let Chris Sanders create How To Train A Dragon, I thoroughly enjoyed that movie. However, Dreamworks has a worse reputation for being run by executives then Pixar. In fact, How to Train a Dragon is a perfect example. Orginally Dreamworks brought in Peter Hastings to make the movie, but mid way through production Chris Sanders and Dean Deibois were asked to take over as the directors and rework the feature. So they seemed to be doing exactly what you have a problem with, not letting the ORIGINAL directors vision be seen.

Please when you say that How To train Your Dragon, “did hundreds of things which pixar would never do”, give some examples. They may have done some things Pixar wouldn’t do but I think it has nothing to do with “risk”. Out of all the major animation studios I believe Pixar has been the riskiest by far. I have given examples of the risky films they and decisions they have made above.

I even admit has a curtain way of making movies, but in my opinion it has very little to do with fear and everything to do with what they want to be creatively known as. Pixar is known as a studio that makes movies that can be enjoyed by the whole family. Again, I see nothing wrong with this, you can create a lot of great stories with the requirements Pixar seems to have.

As someone who has ambitions on becoming a director, I sure hope that my studio or providers have respect in me as a writer and director. However, I hope they put the story above even me. I am not here to say that it is a fact that Pixar was right with their decisions to change directors for Brave. You are right that we might never know. However, as you are trusting those you know from inside the studio, I am trusting the leadership of Pixar animation studios, because to this point they have earned my trust.

Like

John, in case you have not noticed, I have never come out and told anyone that the Brenda Chapman change was no doubt for the better good. I just happen to have a basis to BELIEVE Pixar has good artistic driven reason when they decide to make a directorial change. I have explained the basis of my beliefs in all the posts above. Please explain to me how I am “talking out [my] ass”?

Like

You aren’t contradicting at all my statistical conjecture about Sanders’ track record, but merely changing the subject to Hastings’ situation like a red herring. You are also trying to turn this into a DW vs Pixar discussion, and you are making assumptions about my opinions erroneously. I’m not against changing directors, far from it, it happens at all studios. I’m against destroying years of a real film maker’s work (a person who is the creator, writer and director) for the wrong reasons, and refusing to give public explanations as if the decision is a mere internal production decision that nobody should care about.

I’ll follow your change of subject anyway, because it’s interesting. Peter Hastings experience was on great TV animated productions (animaniacs), for which he won several Emmy Awards. Now that it didn’t work on HTTYD, he became director and producer of a TV animated series for Dreamworks, something about a Panda doing Kung Fu in a generally awesome way. I doubt he’s really angry against Dreamworks, or suffered any lack of respect from them. He’s producing a whole TV series for them.

The approach of following the light hearted kid comedy of the book didn’t work as expected. These things happen, the director has never been blamed for it. The company never claimed they had “creative differences” with the director, nor the writer of the book. He wasn’t “fired unceremoniously”. Following the book exactly to make the film, simply didn’t work, and they rewrote everything to make a more serious and epic film instead of a light comedy.

Contrary to the Sanders and Chapman situations, you don’t need to speculate, or talk very privately to people in the know. Nobody fears losing their job for talking about it. Dreamworks have been very public in their explanations for scrapping the initial HTTYD orientation. We have all these informations relatively verifiable, many Dreamworks employees talk about it openly. There’s no secrecy, nor any vague statements about untold artistic reasons. There’s no talk of “creative differences” which is the term Lasseter used to describe his conflict with Chris Sanders.

Like

Okay Ethen, it seems that you are wanting to dictate where this conversation goes. I am getting tired of this. I have clearly explained why I trust Pixar in the directorial change. I have explained how, against your beliefs, Pixar has been a very gutsy film studio to this point.

It is not true that John has been extremely secretive about the reasons he made the directorial changes. John Lasseter has been quoted for saying that Chris Sanders American Dog was “too quirky for it’s own good”. John also has explained in interviews that he didn’t like the fact that Chris was treating the dog more like a human then a animal. The idea that the dog talks and walks on two legs didn’t seem right to John.

I see why John and Ed say that Pixar is a “director driven studio”, but I do agree that their claims are not completely true. Ed and John, I think, try to give their directors complete control when directing. The director has the final say on what goes into his or her movie and what stays out. I think that John and Ed really do want the film to come from the heart of their director. However, it is John and Ed who need to decide whether the film is working or not, whether the director is willing to listen to fellow artist, and whether or not the director has the respect of those working under him or her. If John and Ed do not think one of those things are happening, they have shown that they are willing to make the change. I don’t think we can know whether it is fair or not unless we were able to see the whole story of what went down.

So I think it comes down to who do you trust more? At the moment I have some huge doubts about Disney animation. But Pixar, even though part of Disney, has not shown that they make decisions based on how safe the story is or how much money the film would make in the box office. So far Pixar has seemed to put story above everything else. Because of the past examples of Pixar and what I know of the heads of Pixar, I am choosing to believe they are making the decisions for the right reasons on the upcoming movie Brave.

Like

It’s the SAME PERSON making the decision. You try to dissociate pixar from disney as if Lasseter is only managing pixar.

Like

“”John Lasseter has been quoted for saying that Chris Sanders American Dog was “too quirky for it’s own good””

Nope. He never said that publicly. It was only reported by someone unofficially.

Like

Ethan there are some HUGE differences about Disney animation and Pixar animation even though both are owned by the Disney company. First off Disney animation had several box office flops before John and Ed came in. You can’t just change the direction of a animation studio in a few months. Bolt however, was considered by many critics to be a step in the right direction for Disney animation. Also, it seems logical that Bob Iger would exert far more input and control over Disney animation then Pixar animation. Pixar has been a success with them just doing their own thing. It would be good business to just keep on letting them do their own thing. In Pixar’s last four films it seems obvious to me that Pixar has done their own thing. A different story with Disney animation however, they have never really been able to do their own thing like Pixar has, higher executives have always controlled Disney storytelling. I think it is safe to suspect that John needs to deal with far more input from the higher ups at Disney for Disney animation then Pixar.

To say that only one person is making decisions, I do not think is true, especially at Pixar. Pixar’s success has come from a whole group working together to create great movies. There is no reason for Pixar to drop that idea of teamwork. I am sure that more than just John had a voice in the Brave directorial change. Changing directors is not a easy or “safe” thing to do. But, so far PIXAR has had excellent results from their decisions to change directors.

Even if you want to say that Pixar is really just the same as Disney animation when it comes to who makes decisions. Bolt was not a bad film. And, one good movie and two excellent movies from directorial changes, is not a bad record.

Ethan, what do you want John to tell you about the directorial change in American Dog, to make you think he wasn’t trying to hide it? John changed directors and everybody in the animation world knew. John has said that it was a very hard decision. He explained some of the things he did not agree with when talking about what they changed when they made the movie Bolt. There was just as much explanation as there was for How to Train a Dragon. Just like Chris Sanders and Brenda Chapman, John Lasseter is a proven film director too. I do not think it is too far out to trust that he is making decisions for the right reasons.

Like

I am talking about the decision to fire those directors. This is not Bob Iger’s decision, it was confirmed to be Lasseter’s responsability in a previous CB article. Lasseter said in an interview it was because of “creative differences”.

“”John also has explained in interviews that he didn’t like the fact that Chris was treating the dog more like a human then a animal. The idea that the dog talks and walks on two legs didn’t seem right to John.”"

Oh great. That’s the public reason given, and you think that’s a perfectly good reason to fire the creator, writer and director of the film, and then change everything to be safe and fluffy. The animals were on two legs. He didn’t like it, so he fired him. However a blue ant that talks and walks on two legs acting like humans, that’s all fine. There’s no substance in that explanation. We have seen many concepts, and we heard from those who have seen the early work.

“”Ed and John, I think, try to give their directors complete control when directing. The director has the final say on what goes into his or her movie and what stays out. I think that John and Ed really do want the film to come from the heart of their director.”"

I think you failed to perceive that the reason given for Sanders’s firing is contradicting this. Is the director supposed to make a film that comes from the heart or is he supposed to do every little details Lasseter tells him to do ?

“”whether the director is willing to listen to fellow artist, and whether or not the director has the respect of those working under him or her.”"

Do you believe Sanders or Chapman were fired off their own project because they didn’t have the respect of the artists under them or were they unwilling to listen to them?

Like

Ethan, the thing is you are trying to make John look like a ugly dictator who has no consideration of the individual artists vision. The FACT is that has not been the case with John through out his career. John Lasseter was in charge when Brad Bird mixed things up and created The Incredibles. John has let Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, and Lee Uncrich create some marvelous films from their personal vision. This all is not to say that Brad, Pete, Andrew, or Lee did not need to listen to John and the rest of the Brain Trust. John did not try to control “every little detail” of their film, this is obvious based on how different and unique each of the directors films are. However, if John felt like the film was not working and the director was not willing to listen to his “fellow artists”, it is John’s responsibility to make a change.

If a Dog could walk on two legs and talk to humans, it would be much harder to establish that he had problems not being a superhero. I personally would have a hard time with buying into a normal dog being able to talk to human characters. A Bugs Life is based on entirely different principles. In film you establish principles, if the principles are not clear to the audience or don’t make sense, you have a BIG problem.

We really don’t know everything that went into the Brenda change or the Chris Sanders change. They do not need to explain everything to me, if the directors have problem with the lack of explanation, then let them take issue with it. The people talking on this blog are not the people who necessarily represent the majority of Pixar or Disney artists. For me they bring up a concern, it is not like I don’t listen to them. However, as I have said before I have reason to Trust John Lasseter and Pixar.

Like

You are once again assuming erroneously my opinions and my intentions. I am asking questions which expose contradictions into what you claimed to believe. You refuse to either clarify your statement, give a source, or acknowledge the contradictions.

I am into the pursuit of truth. You have the informations to verify what I said, and I can give you the source of every statement I said. I exposed the contradictions of your statements so you can make up your mind about them.

You seem to be into the affirmation of your beliefs, and you are refusing facts when they don’t fit into your beliefs, or you change the subject when you can’t affirm your belief. You have used the word fact to represent a statistical conjecture once again, but ironically, you refuse to acknowledge my statistical conjectures because it does not fit your established belief.

You could ask questions to some very knowledgeable people here, it would be more productive for you and for everyone else. Ask questions instead of affirming the same sentence over and over and over at the end of all your posts. We KNOW you trust Lasseter because of the interviews and all, you said that already 10 times.

Like

Ethan, your last couple comments seem to be directed at Jacob (especially judging from the last sentence of your latest post). However, nothing else you say in that comment seems at all connected to what Jacob has been saying. Yes Jacob has repeated himself. It seems to me that’s because you refuse to take what he has to say as an opinion based on just as much personal information as you have. I get that you feel Pixar is playing it safe, that their claim to be director driven is false (I guess 3 out of 11 director changes means that the directors can’t be creative and are instead mere puppets–go figure). I truly have enjoyed all but one of the Pixar films I have seen. I was extremely excited to see Brave because it would have been the first time a woman directed the main show. I have liked the other films I have heard Brenda had something to do with so I was expecting good things. At the same time, I have no reason to believe that Brave under a new director will not end up being a good film, a different film then it started out being–certainly. However, none of us will ever know which version would have been/will be better. Can you and Jacob please just agree to disagree? Because you, sir, are beginning to sound really silly.

Like - 1 others like this comment

Ethan, you are only pointing out the things that you have a problem with, you are not even acknowledging the evidence that I have given to why I trust John. The reason I KEEP on saying the SAME THING again and again and again, is because it does not seem to get acknowledgment. Its like you guys think I am CRAZY for trusting John Lasseter. However, I have given tons of examples to why I TRUST John. You have given me reasons why you don’t trust John Lasseter. One thing I have done that you have not done much of, is explain why I disagree with most of the examples you have given me.

You have claimed that it was ridiculous that John had problems with the dog in the movie American Dog being able to walk like a human and talk to humans. I explained how that would be a problem. You have claimed that John changes directors if they do not listen to his every little detail of a suggestion. I have explained how that has not been the case with Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, and Brad Bird. You have claimed that John makes decitions to create “safe” movies. I have explained how many of the movies John has produced were far from “safe”.

So if you think that what I am saying it not true, explain to be how a movie like The Incredibles was not really Brad Birds film? Explain to me how movies like Up, Wall-E, and Ratatouille were “Safe”? Explain to me how someone is supposed to buy into a dog who can supernaturally walk and talk but is sad because he doesn’t have superpowers?

I understand your concerns, I even share some of them. But, I won’t go down that path as far as you do yet.

Like

Sorry for all the quoting, there are many assessments directed at me which I need to answer.

“”you are only pointing out the things that you have a problem with, you are not even acknowledging the evidence that I have given to why I trust John.”"

Yes, I only speak of what I have a problem with, these posts are long enough, what’s the point of arguing about what I agree with? Making friends and influence people? I do fully understand that you trust John, that’s never been in question.

“”The reason I KEEP on saying the SAME THING again and again and again, is because it does not seem to get acknowledgment.”"

I acknowledge that you trust John, and I understand why you do. There.

“”You have claimed that it was ridiculous that John had problems with the dog”"

I never claimed it was ridiculous. I asked if you thought it was a good reason to fire someone with the track record of Sanders. You said Yes, so now I understand why you trust John.

“”You have claimed that John changes directors if they do not listen to his every little detail of a suggestion.”"

No, I asked you a question about the contradiction in how a director is supposed to react. You claimed to know why Lasseter fired Sanders. Lasseter himself said “creative differences” to be the reason he fired him. It contradicts your statement that Lasseter gives full control to those directors, and that the directors have the final say. Over the years I heard repeatedly from many different sources that Sanders has never been able to do anything he wanted on that film. This information was confirmed in a few posts here.

“”I have explained how that has not been the case with Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, and Brad Bird.”"

Which is irrelevant. I only spoke about Sanders and Chapman. I have no opinion about the situations of Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton, or Brad Bird. One thing is sure, they didn’t have any “creative differences” with Lasseter.

“”You have claimed that John makes decitions to create “safe” movies. I have explained how many of the movies John has produced were far from “safe”.”"

I never claimed his past films were all safe. I only spoke of Chris Sanders and Brenda Chapman films. But I’ll add to the list all the sequels we know of. Those sequels are safe. Bolt was very safe. Brave will most probably be safe.

“”explain to be how a movie like The Incredibles was not really Brad Birds film? Explain to me how movies like Up, Wall-E, and Ratatouille were “Safe”?”"

I never claimed those things. I only spoke about Chris Sanders and Brenda Chapman films.

“”Explain to me how someone is supposed to buy into a dog who can supernaturally walk and talk but is sad because he doesn’t have superpowers?”"

Talking and walking are not superpowers.

In the “suspension of disbelief” definition: “if a writer could infuse a human interest and a semblance of truth into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative.”

This can be addressed in the opening shot. As a filmmaker you have the first few minutes to introduce anything that you need the audience to believe in the created fantastic world, the elements which would be implausible in our reality. A talking Dog in an animated film is not “supernatural” unless voluntarily introduced as such, it only needs to be introduced correctly as the narrative requires. A car that speaks, or a rat with human intelligence and behavior are not supernatural either.

Like

Okay, it seems that we have developed a few misconceptions. I was never trying to claim that the only creative difference John had with American Dog was that the dog could walk and talk. I personally think that John was as open as any other executive about the reasons he made the change. I have no need for John to go public to bash Chris Sanders by describing every creative difference he had with his movie.

It is funny that all of Pete Docter’, Brad Birds, and Andrew Stanton’ movies are irrelevant. For the exact reason you brought up Chris Sanders (who is not the subject of this thread), I brought up Brad, Pete, Andrew, and Lee. The four directors are all examples of John letting the Directors vision rule. Also, most of these guys films were not considered conventional or “safe”. The reason I find these guys relevant is because they are perfect examples of John letting other director’s unsafe films come out to completion. If John really was making his demotion of Chris Sanders be for “safe” reasons, wouldn’t it seem logical that he would have made changes with Brad Bird’s Incredibles, Andrew Stanton’ Wall-E, and Pete Docter’ Up, as well? Please, explain how you know that these directors didn’t have any “creative differences” with Lasseter?

I know these things turn out to be pretty long, but I have a hard time with you just blurting out that all John’s sequels and Bolt are safe, and probably Brave will be safe as well. There is no explanation, just for some reason those movies were “safe”. We have seen unconventional stories from John, and conventional stories from John. Since we have seen both, it is reasonable to think that it has more to do with where John thinks the best story is, then whether the movie is safe or not.

I have a problem with your explanation on why believing that a talking and walking Dog would work. Who knows, maybe Chris Sanders could have pulled it off. However, in films you establish principles for the audience to buy into. You as a filmmaker want those principles to make some kind of logical sense. This is why bugs only talk to bugs in a bugs life, cars only talk to other cars in the movie Cars, and Rats can’t talk verbally to humans in Ratatouille. It is very hard for even kids to buy into a Dog who can talk and walk like a human, because that obviously doesn’t happen in real life. However, we can buy into a dog who has emotions and could think like Human as we see in Bolt. The actual “dog” characteristics make the whole story more plausible. It is why many kids are convinced even more so after watching Toy Story, that their toys are a live. Movies can have “suspension of belief”, but they need to be grounded in some kind of reality. This should especially be applied if the author is trying to convince us that the dog is sad because he doesn’t have any “superpowers”. We are not used to the dogs being able to supernaturally talk or walk, so it would be even harder to buy into him being sad because he doesn’t have superpowers. To humans, A DOG being able to talk and walk is a superpower.

Like

Man. I have to say something.

“It is very hard for even kids to buy into a Dog who can talk and walk like a human, because that obviously doesn’t happen in real life.”

Do we have to rationalize everything? If it’s funny and the character is charismatic, who cares? I think Lasseter likes Chuck Jones’ cartoons. Well, the Looney Tunes were full of animals that talked to human beings and acted like those.

What about Droopy Dog dating a human girl?

Or Bimbo dating human Betty Boop?

I loved all this stuff as a kid and I still love it now. But now, somebody would probably consider it too surreal or worse, some kind of bestiality, and they would never do it.

A universe where everything has the form of a car is a lot more hard to believe to me, and less enjoyable, though I still buy it, cause I like surreal things in cartoons.

Like

I agree with you, I at least as a kid bought into all those characters. But, Looney Toons much more then Disney was built on gags not emotion. To get emotionally involved with a character I think you need to find ways to bring the character back to reality and have them make sense to a higher point. It is the difference of feeling for the animals in Snow White compared to Bambi. Walt Disney and I think John Lasseter, know that even though animation has the power to do anything, they “suspend our belief” the best when they give us a real foundation to start from. Especially when they are trying to effect us emotionally with their material.

Like

“”Please, explain how you know that these directors didn’t have any “creative differences” with Lasseter?”"

I don’t know, I thought it was clear that I assume based on Lasseter’s given reason: Let’s suppose we accept that the main reason Lasseter fired Sanders was because he had “creative differences” (from the interview). I assume he didn’t have much creative differences with the other directors, because they were… not fired. It makes sense to me.

“”Movies can have “suspension of belief”, but they need to be grounded in some kind of reality.”"

I have no idea what a “suspension of belief” is, that doesn’t make any sense. Do you mean a suspended disbelief? It doesn’t have to be grounded in reality. It doesn’t have to be realistic. It doesn’t have to be plausible. It is inherently non-realistic because it’s a technique to introduce non-realistic elements… Those who have seen the early work on American Dog told us that the issue was fixable.

“”It is very hard for even kids to buy into a Dog who can talk and walk like a human, because that obviously doesn’t happen in real life.”"

Have you seen the Fantastic Mr. Fox? It’s among the most acclaimed animated films. Animals walking like humans, talking like humans, dressing like humans, living like humans with technology, interacting with humans, talking with humans, writing letters too. No problem, and it’s even an award winning screenplay. It’s once again the opening shot which makes the suspended disbelief happen. All the required elements are within the first few seconds.

The problem you have with American Dog is similar but it’s only a small fraction compared to Fantastic Fox. They could have solved it in the opening shot too, or many many other ways I guess.

Like

Okay Ethan, you can bash John about the Pixar movie Brave based on American Dog not being made and Bolt (in your opinion) being a mediocre/”safe” film. I am going to choose to trust John because of his career as a artist and his example of letting the majority of his directors create their own films, even though all the movies went through struggles. I think it is a bit neive to think that Andrew, Pete, Lee, and Brad didn’t have “creative differences”, you have no basis to that claim except for the fact that they weren’t fired from their projects.

Like

Where did I say Bolt was mediocre? Bolt was a fine film. It was safe too. These are not in opposition. Chris Williams is a good director, but I still wish I could have seen American Dog instead. I expect Brave to be safe, and probably good too. I also wish I could see The Bear And The Bow. My problem is with the firing of directors not the directors taking their place.

I am not “bashing” John, I am trying to put the pieces of the puzzle together to understand why those directors were fired. It’s not naive, considering I used your statements and Lasseter’s statements as a source. Which one is true, which one is false, it’s your choice. I’m only connecting them together. And expose the contradictions, and here it is:

Let’s put it this way: If I were a director at a studio and another director was fired because he had creative differences with the boss, I would avoid at all cost having creative differences with the boss. Because that’s what gets you fired.

Let’s put it another way: I work at a studio and both me and another director have creative differences with the boss. The boss only fires me, stating creative differences. The boss praises the other director. Is that fair ? Are you claiming that’s what happened ? What would be the reason for the firing since both had creative differences ?

Like

Sorry for accusing you of saying Bolt was mediocre. For some reason it feels that you are saying that because Bolt was “safe”, it means John took Chris out because he was too gutsy with the story he wanted. I think that had very little to do with it. John has shown that he is okay with risky films. Also Ed and John have expressed that taking off a director is the last resort. We will never know what was the final straw for Ed and John, when it came to Chris being demoted. Neither will we know exactly what happened with Brenda Chapman. In my opinion we don’t need to know every detail.

“Creative differences” can mean many things. Even though How To Train a Dragon did not specifically say that they made the directorial change because of “creative differences”, it is obvious they did. Even in the reasoning you gave me, you can see they had creative differences. Going more by the book did not work for Dreamworks (a creative difference), they chose to go another rout.

Here is a Video of Ed talking about their creative process. Based on the examples of their films, I believe Ed and John do their best to walk out what is said on this video.

http://caddellinsightgroup.com/blog2/2010/04/to-pixars-ed-catmull-managing-innovation-means-turning-process-control-on-its-head/

Like

Yes I agree, “creative differences” is vague. Let’s say only SOME creative differences will get you fired. But which ones are those? Which ones should be avoided so you don’t get fired? Is there ANY of those you can ignore? How can you tell which ones?

From the New York Times:
“Mr. Lasseter and directors from both Pixar and Disney attended two screenings of the movie and gave Mr. Sanders notes on how he might improve the story, Mr. Unkrich said. Mr. Sanders resisted the suggestions, Mr. Lasseter said. So in January he was replaced by another director.”

Look, they called them “suggestions”, it’s really funny. Two screenings. He didn’t do what the notes “suggested” to “improve” the film, so he was fired, and they restarted the film from scratch. I have no idea how you can possibly spin this into a “directors have the final say” or “Lasseter wants the film to come from the director’s heart”. It sounds like complete bullshit. It’s more like a design by committee.

Like

Ethen, you acting like starting from scratch or replacing a director is a easy thing. It is a big decision and very hard for a boss to make. I have not seen or ever read anything that would imply that John or Ed are dictators.

Yes, they will get rid of the director if necessary, as Ed explains very clearly in that link I posted. I have already explain to you how John and Ed saying that the company is a “director driven” studio, is slightly miss leading. The thing is I still believe John and Ed still want the films to come from the heart of the directors. You don’t get great movies like The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and Up, if the director doesn’t have the freedom to make gutsy decisions from their own hearts, that might go against John’s creative instincts and feelings. This is not to say that directors don’t need to listen to their fellow artists suggestions. The “Brain Trust” for Pixar, and the “Story Trust” for Disney consists of a group of experienced artists. If a directors movie is not working and he refuses to listen to criticism, then you most likely will get demoted or fired.

Like

He chose not to do some suggestions from two screenings, and you call that REFUSING to LISTEN to criticism. Would following all those notes make a better film? Who’s call is that? I believe the problem at disney IS the story trust.

The truth is, Sanders then went on to make a much better film than what the “Story Trust” forced on him. All eyes of the industry was on HTTYD to judge if the decision to fire him was reasonable. Sanders’ track record is now BETTER than if he followed the story trust suggestions. So ironically I think being fired could be the best move of his career.

They did a lot of what they wanted at DW despite the short schedule, and they never backtracked. There was no story trust in their way. Lasseter fired one of the best animation director in the world. The amazing quality and success of HTTYD suggests it was a big mistake. In all this ruckus, DW also gained Dean Deblois along the way and it’s obvious these two work amazingly well together. They indirectly gave Sanders to DW and by doing so they shot themselves in the foot.

Sanders decided to fight, he won. Period.

Like

Ethan I know you are a big Sanders fan and I have already admitted I thought HTTYD was a very good film. Because HTTYD was good does NOT mean American Dog was going to be good. Chris was with Dean Deblois on HTTYD, and I give Dean just as much credit as Chris. Chris and Dean work very well together. I think with Dean, Chris had someone he could trust, something that sadly did not seem to happen between him and John. The real problem is that we do NOT know exactly what happened. You are acting like Chris was fired from Disney because he did not listen to just a few suggestions. I do not believe that to be the case. Chris was demoted from American Dog and he chose to leave Disney. John and Ed have said it is a extremely hard decision to fire a director and they make that decision only as a last result (check out the link I posted).

I think you are saying American Dog would of been good because HTTYD was good. I am saying that I think John made the right decision based on the results of his decisions, as a whole, so far. As good of a track record as Chris has I believe John to have a better one. He has been one of the most creative artist in the history of animation. John also has many great directors still working for him. Based on the many diverse types of movies that have been made under John’s supervision, I think John is a pretty open man when it comes to how to tell a story.

I do not think there is anything you can say that would make me think that Dreamworks is less “safe” or less executive driven, then Disney/Pixar.

I think you have probably noticed that this conversation has gotten slightly repetitive. So we probably will have to just agree to disagree. However, I do want to think you Ethan for having this conversation with me. It is good for us to really think through the reasons to why we believe what we believe. This conversation has done done just that with me. It also helped me figure out how to express my beliefs more clearly. I think both of us would agree it is great to have a website where these kind of conversations could happen.

Like

Well, let’s agree to disagree then. I’ll go back to making jokes.

Like

Okay, making jokes didn’t work out very well, and I abandoned the idea, but thank you for waiting.

You don’t believe it, well, believe whatever you want, but it’s clearly stated in the NY Times quote I provided. You can also get other parts of the story from John Sanford and others.

I have no doubt that the small pixar group are giving each other creative control and allow risks within their own small group, but that doesn’t mean that they are giving any respect to any other directors. Let alone the “directors have the final say” bullshit. They want to start making many films per year, good luck finding directors.

It’s like they thought the “story trust” was better than Sanders and he should have done what they suggested to make a better film than they thought he was capable of. That is treating him like a first time director.

By firing Sanders they were shooting themselves in the foot. It doesn’t even matter anymore if American Dog would have been better than Bolt, but it’s not even the point, HTTYD being that great, it exposed that the decision was wrong, they gave great directors to Dreamworks on a silver platter. The awareness of what’s going on started with that event, and it exploded even more with Brenda Chapman.

Sanders ended up bet.
I expect Brenda Chapman to win too, no matter what she decides to do next..

Like - 3 others like this comment

American dog wasn’t “quirky.” It was unwatchable.

Like - 3 others like this comment

Very sad story, John. Neither Chris or much of his art were even in the Art of Bolt book.

With a little more faith, American Dog could’ve been a wonderful movie.

Like - 2 others like this comment

“American Dog” was my most anticipated movie in years.

I find it odd that the same person who cancelled it also greenlighted the unusual “Up”, which I loved, but I still find the concept and original designs of “AD” more intriguing. At the very least someone should print that material and make a book telling the story in the form of a novel or something.

Like

Hey John, I realized that commentaries and interviews are planned before hand. I also realize those kind of things are monitored. But from trying to dig deep into the good and the bad of the Pixar studio I think I have come up with at least “an idea” of what Pixar is like, or has been like sense the release of Toy Story 3. It is not like I just ignore people like Floyd Norman, Mark Walton, or even you. I have admitted that it does concern me. I just am not going to completely bash Pixar until I see the actual movie.

So far John Lasseter has backed up his words on those interviews and commentaries with action. So far I have liked and found meaning in the films that have gone through directorial changes. You say that Pixar is scared to death about failure and are making decisions based on that fear. But after watching recent Pixar movies like Up, Wall-E, and Ratatouille, I have a hard time believing you. All three of these films have many story elements that were considered risky in the Hollywood film business. A few examples would be a main protagonist who is 70+ years old in the movie Up, Ratatouille was a film almost entirely about rats, Wall-E was considered a kids movie but has an extremely little amount of duologue and is about a garbage robot.

It could be that all of this has changed and Pixar has been over run by the Disney heads who don’t care about art. Or maybe Pixar has gotten high off their success and are now afraid of failure so they are now making decisions like scared old woman. But, as crude as you have been towards me and other Pixar supporters, you do not have me convinced. We will see :)

Like - 1 others like this comment

You’re right, but I’ll admit that I can see the logic that some are using. After all, if someone has loved all the films, why should they care about how the sausage is made behind the scenes?

I certainly believe that something is rotten in Emeryville, but I can at least understand why someone who is generally pleased with the Pixar output would be willing to have a little more faith than the rest of us.

Like

I’m much more shocked by the lack of respect displayed by some of the people who HAVE worked at Pixar for anyone who isn’t actively agreeing with them.

Like - 3 others like this comment