Disney General - The saddest fandom on Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter KO 864
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Which is Better

  • Chicken Little

    Votes: 433 27.4%

  • Hunchback 2

    Votes: 57 3.6%

  • A slow death

    Votes: 1,088 68.9%
  • Total voters
    1,578
There's a lot of behind-the-scenes drama about Lasseter being confrontational with different directors and replacing them with more subservient ones. It happened with Chris Sanders, with Glen Keane and Brenda Chapman.

Apparently the original version of Tangled was supposed to be more darker and realistic than the final product, and it was supposed to be directed by Glen Keane (famous animator of Ariel, the Beast and Aladdin). More historically accurate and faithful of the original fairy tale, with a genuine socially awkward Rapunzel and a big "gentle giant" guy to be her prince rather than the Dreamworks-esque Flynn. What was supposed to be revolutionary about the film was the animation technique, instead of being typical CGI it would be a mix of Deep Canvas and oleo paintings, to resemble a "moving painting" so to say. But apparently the budget was rising pretty high and Lasseter and Keane got into a lot of fights about the production, so Keane left Disney and Lassie put the two Zootopia guys to finish it, in a year it got changed into the final product, which while decent, it's really different then what was previously established. A lot more thought was put into the merchandising and what could sell or not. The ambitious moving painting technique was gone in favor of typical CGI, the prince was given a snarky Dreamworksy attitude to appeal to audiences (Dreamworks was super popular back then), and Rapunzel's adorableness and "Barbieness" was pronounced more, to sell more dolls. The film got rid of the dark aesthetic for something brighter and more appealing to little girls.

Brenda Chapman was supposed to direct Brave and make it more of a adventure high epic in Scotland with an emphasis on a mother-daughter relationship. A lot of those initial elements eventually found themselves back in the final product, but apparently Lasseter also fought with her and eventually replaced her with a complacent director.
 
Last edited:
Kari Kamiya said:
I remember a few of the Winnie the Pooh films being released in theaters, but then they stopped around the time 2D films were basically killed in the theatrical market because of the over-saturation.
Click to expand...
There was a sudden interest in Pooh that resulted in a number of features released in the early 2000's often based around a single character like Tigger, Piglet and then the Heffalump.
 
friedshrimp said:
It's said Lasseter really disliked Lilo and Stitch and its creator, to the point that he made Chris Sanders (Lilo's director) forced to leave the studios after he demanded the project Sanders was working in turn from a Hitchock-like light thriller to a basic animal comedy (Bolt). Sanders was so pissed off about it that he left for Dreamworks to make the Dragon movies, where he was allowed more creative control I guess.
Click to expand...
Lasseter's excuse for Bolt being scrapped and thoroughly re-written was that it was too "quirky", but I think there's something else about early Bolt and Lilo and Stitch that he doesn't like. If early Bolt was anything like Lilo and Stitch then it probably wasn't quirky, because I wouldn't describe Lilo and Stitch as such either. Unique, different, and beautifully drawn and animated are more like it, which may be the real reason right there. Pixar movies like to look like they're different at a first glance with their setting, but ultimately aren't when you look at the plot. Maybe Lasseter is genuinely jealous that Chris Sanders is more talented and willing to take risks.

But at least he got to make Lilo and Stitch. Making that must've been Sander's fairy tale dream come true ending.

Kari Kamiya said:
Same question as above, but I totally believe he didn't like Sanders. Sanders honestly seems like the kind of guy who's hard to work with (being a perfectionist), but he pumps out good quality.
Click to expand...
It would be one thing if Sanders is a complete asshole (which he could be for all I know) and Lilo and Stitch was one of the worst movies ever released by the studio. But not only is it beloved, but Sanders worked on all of the best animated movies they made in the 90's. I don't think it's a coincidence the weakest movies are the ones he didn't have a hand in while the best ones he did. One more potential reason for Lasseter to be jealous.

friedshrimp said:
The last film of his in the canon is Ralph Breaks the Internet, according to sources it's the last film that has Lasseter's personal touches or approvals before he was MeToo-ed.
Click to expand...
And it shows. I think he was completely uninvolved with the production of Wreck-It Ralph to focus completely on Frozen. Much like The Lion King, Wreck-It Ralph was probably meant to be just something to help fill in the gap before Frozen was released. They didn't even give it a Thanksgiving release date, which shows how little they expected of it (though start of November isn't nearly as bad as putting it up against Deathly Hallows Part 2). And then it was such a runaway success that it warranted a sequel, and Lasseter was itching to put his fingerprints all over it this time to "improve" it.
 
Been reading Disney War. I didn't realize how controversial Eisner and Katzenberg were, especially Eisner.

Would the equivalent of Eisner be....say that Cartoon Network CEO who thought we needed live action shit?
 
But who's been the better CEO, Eisner or Iger, at least in terms of vision?
 
Eisner and Katzenberg did do good at the start, since they originally brought the Renaissance and updated the Parks to make them more attractive to current audiences. They came in around the time Disney was really in the dark, and the studios needed fresh blood to adapt itself to modern times. The Black Cauldron's failure still haunts Disney to this day.

I'll take Eisner starting good but then going bad over Iger's stale-but-decent run since he started. Plus, the fact that his reign he's been more focused on acquiring properties than actually giving good Disney products says a lot.
 
Kari Kamiya said:
But who's been the better CEO, Eisner or Iger, at least in terms of vision?
Click to expand...

It was under Eisner's reign that Disney revitalized itself, admittedly, with its TV animation division and the Disney Renaissance - but you have to wonder how much of it was his. After Frank Wells died in a plane crash things started going to shit, and fast.
 
Kari Kamiya said:
But who's been the better CEO, Eisner or Iger, at least in terms of vision?
Click to expand...
Regardless of what people thought of him, Eisner hands down. He gave us tons of amazing movies, theme parks/attractions, enough magic to last a lifetime.

I can't say the same thing about Iger, unless you count buying out every other company and giving their existing catalog of animated classics unnecessary live-action remakes accomplishments.
 
MalWart said:
Regardless of what people thought of him, Eisner hands down. He gave us tons of amazing movies, theme parks/attractions, enough magic to last a lifetime.

I can't say the same thing about Iger, unless you count buying out every other company and giving their existing catalog of animated classics unnecessary live-action remakes accomplishments.
Click to expand...
That is all Iger's legacy is.
 
jellycar said:
Been reading Disney War. I didn't realize how controversial Eisner and Katzenberg were, especially Eisner.

Would the equivalent of Eisner be....say that Cartoon Network CEO who thought we needed live action shit?
Click to expand...
Worth noting that Lord Farquaad's appearance in Shrek was inspired by Eisner, and with Katzenberg overseeing production after leaving Disney under less-than-amicable terms, a lot of people see Shrek as a giant middle finger towards Disney specifically.
 
Baldur's Gait said:
Worth noting that Lord Farquaad's appearance in Shrek was inspired by Eisner, and with Katzenberg overseeing production after leaving Disney under less-than-amicable terms, a lot of people see Shrek as a giant middle finger towards Disney specifically.
Click to expand...

It’s hard not to when it’s pretty obviously what they were doing.
 
Meh. Eisner happened to be there while rides happened. Dude was way more into the stupid post-modern hotels and shit. Which I'll admit has paid off long-term as the hotels bring in a ton of money between the hotel revenue and the customers being stuck on the property, but it's not a cool ride and the food everywhere went to shit with the dining plan.

Who's to blame for the dining plan? Basically ten Hitlers right there.
 
Baldur's Gait said:
Worth noting that Lord Farquaad's appearance in Shrek was inspired by Eisner, and with Katzenberg overseeing production after leaving Disney under less-than-amicable terms, a lot of people see Shrek as a giant middle finger towards Disney specifically.
Click to expand...
I'd believe it, especially when you take into account the fact that Farquaad's name is just a funny pronunciation of Fuckwad.
 
Godzilla@1989 said:
I still can’t believe Disney partially owns Braveheart now.
Click to expand...
Isabella of France the newest Disney Princess. She usurped the throne, had her husband murdered (possibly via hot poker to the rectum) and was eventually overthrown by her own (likely bastard) son. Oh and also invaded Scotland at one point IIRC. What a rolemodel for young girls!
 
Your Weird Fetish said:
Isabella of France the newest Disney Princess. She usurped the throne, had her husband murdered (possibly via hot poker to the rectum) and was eventually overthrown by her own (likely bastard) son. Oh and also invaded Scotland at one point IIRC. What a rolemodel for young girls!
Click to expand...
I can’t Mel Gibson not feeling happy about it.
 
XYZpdq said:
Meh. Eisner happened to be there while rides happened. Dude was way more into the stupid post-modern hotels and shit. Which I'll admit has paid off long-term as the hotels bring in a ton of money between the hotel revenue and the customers being stuck on the property, but it's not a cool ride and the food everywhere went to shit with the dining plan.

Who's to blame for the dining plan? Basically ten Hitlers right there.
Click to expand...

At least Iger has brought a ton of new rides to Disney World amongst the various new hotels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom