Disney's upcoming animated film Big Hero 6 - Trailer 1 (1 Viewer)

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3biFxZIJOQ&html5=1[/media]

Looking forward to this one. Disney looks like they have re-taken the mantle from Pixar.

Edwin-S said:

[Looking forward to this one. Disney looks like they have re-taken the mantle from Pixar.

Click to expand...

With John Lasseter overseeing both, Disney IS Pixar now, just that Pixar's been stuck for the last few years with legal-obligation sequels, and looney paranoid-feminist directors they had to send back to Dreamworks.
There's not much difference between the two studios, except that Pixar would have put a LOT more plot into Frozen.

Well, you were making some good points until you had to stoop to insulting Brenda Chapman as a "looney paranoid-feminist director". I'm not privy to anything that went on between her and Lasseter; however, to say she is a "looney feminist" because she didn't agree with the direction that Lasseter took "BRAVE" in and also disliked how Disney modified the character to fit in with their "Princess" line of toys is really uncalled for.

If a male director had come out and lambasted Lasseter and Disney for ruining his film and meddling with his lead character, he probably would have been lauded as some sort of "auteur" that had the balls to speak out against corporate meddling with his vision. A woman does it and she is a "looney paranoid-feminist".

Maybe Chapman's version of "BRAVE" would have been no better than what resulted but, then again, maybe it would have been much better. Unfortunately, we'll never know because of Lasseter's meddling. All I know is that what I saw in "BRAVE" wasn't all that great due to Lasseter sticking his honk into the works.

Frankly, I think the man needs to go. He is becoming a liability, not an asset. He wants his "storytelling formula" applied to every Disney and Pixar film. In other words, every Pixar and Disney film has to be a John Lasseter film, whether he is directing it or not. As soon as any director deviates from his "vision" of what makes a "proper" Pixar or Disney film, they end up being fired.

Edwin-S said:

If a male director had come out and lambasted Lasseter and Disney for ruining his film and meddling with his lead character, he probably would have been lauded as some sort of "auteur" that had the balls to speak out against corporate meddling with his vision.A woman does it and she is a "looney paranoid-feminist".

Click to expand...

And if it'd been "Meet the Robinsons"'s Stephen Anderson, he might've even gone along with it for the good of the film:
(He certainly couldn't have blamed any "male domination" for his own first-draft script being too faulty to film.)

Lasseter wanted to "meddle" half the problems out of the story, period, but he worked with Anderson trying to find some emotional center to the story (which it barely had at the time), and they not only both came out with a better one, they also got a better third act, and helped usher in the new tone of the studio.
Gee, sort of helps when you actually listen to people.

Edwin-S said:

Maybe Chapman's version of "BRAVE" would have been no better than what resulted but, then again, maybe it would have been much better. Unfortunately, we'll never know because of Lasseter's meddling. All I know is that what I saw in "BRAVE" wasn't all that great due to Lasseter sticking his honk into the works.

Frankly, I think the man needs to go. He is becoming a liability, not an asset. He wants his "storytelling formula" applied to every Disney and Pixar film. In other words, every Pixar and Disney film has to be a John Lasseter film, whether he is directing it or not. As soon as any director deviates from his "vision" of what makes a "proper" Pixar or Disney film, they end up being fired.

Click to expand...

Basically, Chapman wanted to make "her", and we do mean "HER", film. Welcome to Pixar, Brenda, where everyone's got an idea, nobody's a diva, and nobody makes movies as "presents" for their daughter, when a pony would be cheaper.
Brenda's mother-daughter story was so straightforward and threadbare (no pun intended, regarding the climax), you can see what the story Brain Trust had to put in just to make it a never-a-dull-twist real Pixar story. (Let's see, I'm guessing the funny witch, funny characters for the other chieftains, a lot more of the Triplet gags, and the lost-prince twist as an actual Pixar climax, were added post-Brenda. Given the rest of the story, it sort of looks like it.)
Things tend to be done a little bit more by improvement-upon-improvement committee than at Dreamworks, which's why, for those who've had a chance to see Bolt, Wreck-It Ralph, Tangled and Robinsons reclaimed out of failed storyboards, the WDFA movies have been so much better lately.

("But it was so unfair to her, all the things they put INTO it!" Yeah, funny how when you put extra meat and vegetables into plain water, you get yummier soup.)

Well, you seem to have sources of information that I'm not privy to. Your use of the word "we" suggests that you have a connection in some way to Pixar. I can't really speak about the idea that she wanted to make the film as a "present" to her daughter other than to say that I vaguely remember other directors of Pixar flicks state that they were making their films for their children as well and no one gave them grief for it. If she did say that, I'm pretty sure that it would have been meant in the figurative, not the literal sense. Also, I find the statement that her mother-daughter story was threadbare suspect. She would have had to approach the Pixar "Braintrust" with the concept to begin with. If it was as threadbare as you claim it was then I can't see that they ever would have given her the greenlight and put her in charge bringing the film to fruition in the first place. Obviously, the idea had to have had a lot more going for it for them to give her a budget and a directorship.

As for "BOLT", the film was okay but I would have rather seen what Sanders would have done with "American Dog". From what I have read, Lasseter didn't like "Lilo and Stitch" because he didn't consider it the type of film Disney animation would do. If that is true, it would be par for the course that the one really original film that Disney Animation managed to do is the one that Lasseter disliked. Frankly, Lasseter and this "braintrust" sound like control freaks. It's either their way or the highway. There has to be something else going on considering the number of directors that keep being fired off their pictures at Pixar and Disney. I do not believe all of the people being canned off their pictures could be incompetent at film making.

Edwin-S said:

If it was as threadbare as you claim it was then I can't see that they ever would have given her the greenlight and put her in charge bringing the film to fruition in the first place. Obviously, the idea had to have had a lot more going for it for them to give her a budget and a directorship.

Click to expand...

It did: Back then, she still had name value as "The director of Prince of Egypt", and the last time they'd hired the cult-of-fandom director of a legendary 90's third-party animation sleeper to do a Pixar movie, it'd worked out rather well....Who ever imagined this one would turn out to be a one-hit wonder?
(Of course, there was also still that mess with Mark Dindal's Disney gig, but that was the previous regime's fault.)

Edwin-S said:

As for "BOLT", the film was okay but I would have rather seen what Sanders would have done with "American Dog". From what I have read, Lasseter didn't like "Lilo and Stitch" because he didn't consider it the type of film Disney animation would do.

Click to expand...

Really? I'd have thought he would've disliked it because the story was a narrative mess, with no clear character focus of protagonist or antagonist.
But then, of course, he wasn't head of the studio back then, which's how we got "wacky" Chicken Little.

Possibly the one phrase that will forever define the Stainton->Lasseter crossover is the first week in the studio, Lasseter and the other new heads were asked to look at footage for "Gnomeo & Juliet", and as he tells it, "We looked at each other for a moment and said, '...Why are we making this?'"
Clear answers to that question have stayed in mind on every project at both studios ever since. If that's "control freakdom", it's EXACTLY what every animator groaned that Walt had.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about "Lilo & Stitch". I don't think the film was a narrative mess at all. The supposed lack of a single protagonist or antagonist was what makes the film different in my book. All of the characters had elements of the protagonist and antagonist at different points in the film, just like real people. There was no clear "black hat" or "white hat" which is what made the film good in my book.

I really don't have the hate on for "Chicken Little" or the "CARS" franchise that other people have. I don't consider "CL" a top tier Disney film, but I don't think it was the Anti-Christ like a lot of people like to think it is. I got more laughs out that film than some of the committee driven films that Pixar has put out. The same goes for "PLANES". I think more than half the hate for that film comes from people who couldn't even bother to look at it first, before going off on it. It instantly derives hate simply because it is an expansion of the CARS universe.

I think Ralph Bakshi is a uniformly shitty story teller. So far, I have found his films to be terrible, but at least I have sat and subjected myself to his sorry ass story telling before coming to the conclusion that he is for the most part an awful film maker.

I do like how the two posters here can have such strong disagreements and still have a civil and respectful discussion. That's what I like about the HTF.

A balloon man cuddling a cat? That's going to be interesting. I hope this is good.

Johnny Angell said:

I do like how the two posters here can have such strong disagreements and still have a civil and respectful discussion. That's what I like about the HTF.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the VERY SAME THING as I was reading this give and take earlier today, Johnny. I am so glad you verbailzed it here.

Good work, gentlemen.

As to the trailer...unlike many Disney trailers from the past few years...this one really makes me want to see this picture. It looks original (for one surprise)...and interesting.

As for the policeman at the desk, I kept wishing--for some reason--that he was voiced by Richard Kind. Something about his facial expressions. The guy who voiced him was fine, mind you. I just kept getting reminded of Richard Kind.

Japanese trailer. They emphasize drama, while maintaining some humour.

Edwin-S said:

Japanese trailer. They emphasize drama, while maintaining some humour.

Click to expand...

While the US TV spots, meanwhile, still think it's cute that Baymax kicks the soccer ball around.
(But then, the Japanese trailers were trailering the plot to Frozen while we were still doing Olaf gags.)

But then, that's also one of the "Lasseter touches" that makes a WDFA look like a Pixar (and Brave doesn't):By holding back, a Lasseter movie is never quite what you expect it to be from the trailer. There's always some surprise plot twist of pathos pulled out of nowhere, which is....an old Walt trick.
(Whereas Dreamworks tends to put all its cards on the table and say "But guys, Will Ferrell is voicing the character, you can't tell us that's not funny!")

I'm looking forward to this, based on the little previews I've seen.

Ejanss said:

While the US TV spots, meanwhile, still think it's cute that Baymax kicks the soccer ball around.
(But then, the Japanese trailers were trailering the plot to Frozen while we were still doing Olaf gags.)

But then, that's also one of the "Lasseter touches" that makes a WDFA look like a Pixar (and Brave doesn't):By holding back, a Lasseter movie is never quite what you expect it to be from the trailer. There's always some surprise plot twist of pathos pulled out of nowhere, which is....an old Walt trick.
(Whereas Dreamworks tends to put all its cards on the table and say "But guys, Will Ferrell is voicing the character, you can't tell us that's not funny!")

Click to expand...

Doing good trailers is a weakness at Dreamworks. Look at "HTTYD2", where the plot twist regarding his mother was given away right in the trailer. Telegraphing almost all the major plot points in a trailer is not a smart move. It doesn't stop me from going to see the film, but I think it does make a lot people think twice about spending 15 bucks to see a film that was pretty well given away in the trailer.

Still I think it can be a weakness at Disney/Pixar too. Sometimes Disney/Pixar trailers are so bland that it makes a person wonder if he or she wants to go see the film.

Edwin-S said:

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about "Lilo & Stitch". I don't think the film was a narrative mess at all. The supposed lack of a single protagonist or antagonist was what makes the film different in my book. All of the characters had elements of the protagonist and antagonist at different points in the film, just like real people. There was no clear "black hat" or "white hat" which is what made the film good in my book.

Click to expand...

(No, meant that Sanders was too unprofessionally close to his own story, we the audience sat there thinking "Who the heck are we intended to root for?--The big sister to get a job? If so, why doesn't she just haul off and slap that loony lil' brat that's ruining it for her!"
The TV series eventually straightened out the focus, and we all later realized, "Ohh, the girl was the main character! Okay, that makes a little more sense.")

Edwin-S said:

Doing good trailers is a weakness at Dreamworks. Look at "HTTYD2", where the plot twist regarding his mother was given away right in the trailer. Telegraphing almost all the major plot points in a trailer is not a smart move. It doesn't stop me from going to see the film, but I think it does make a lot people think twice about spending 15 bucks to see a film that was pretty well given away in the trailer.

Click to expand...

Lucky bum--You actually saw a HTTYD2 trailer that showed the genuine plot, and wasn't that Wingsuiting-through-the-clouds sneak-peek for the 59th time? Do you have any idea how long I was searching trying to find one?
(Which is the problem with Dreamworks, where they believe the name is so popular, they don't HAVE to tell you the plot--Like it matters, since you'll love it again anyway! Here's Po, to stare you into seeing Kung Fu Panda 2!)

Edwin-S said:

Still I think it can be a weakness at Disney/Pixar too. Sometimes Disney/Pixar trailers are so bland that it makes a person wonder if he or she wants to go see the film.

Click to expand...

They literally do that to frustrate Dreamworks--Yep, those old Antz suspicions die hard. Go ahead, Jeffrey, just try and find something in the Up and Ratatouille trailers to rip off and beat to the starting gate! Not as easy as Madagascar vs. The Wild, is it?
Which has the same effect on the audience, in that every--yes, EVERY--Pixar teaser in history has been met by the audience with "Is that what this movie's about? That looks lame!" And then, of course, that little last-minute climactic or heart-tugging plot twist they didn't bother to tell you about, and all of a sudden you're dragging your own friends into seeing it, just to convince them...
The only times Pixar ever told us the plot was for the sequels--TS3, Monsters U, Cars 2--since, well, didn't matter by that point, Dreamworks already knew what those were about.

Edwin-S said:

Well, you were making some good points until you had to stoop to insulting Brenda Chapman as a "looney paranoid-feminist director". I'm not privy to anything that went on between her and Lasseter; however, to say she is a "looney feminist" because she didn't agree with the direction that Lasseter took "BRAVE" in and also disliked how Disney modified the character to fit in with their "Princess" line of toys is really uncalled for.

If a male director had come out and lambasted Lasseter and Disney for ruining his film and meddling with his lead character, he probably would have been lauded as some sort of "auteur" that had the balls to speak out against corporate meddling with his vision. A woman does it and she is a "looney paranoid-feminist".

Maybe Chapman's version of "BRAVE" would have been no better than what resulted but, then again, maybe it would have been much better. Unfortunately, we'll never know because of Lasseter's meddling. All I know is that what I saw in "BRAVE" wasn't all that great due to Lasseter sticking his honk into the works.

Frankly, I think the man needs to go. He is becoming a liability, not an asset. He wants his "storytelling formula" applied to every Disney and Pixar film. In other words, every Pixar and Disney film has to be a John Lasseter film, whether he is directing it or not. As soon as any director deviates from his "vision" of what makes a "proper" Pixar or Disney film, they end up being fired.

Click to expand...

That "storytelling formula" is just a watered-down mash-up of Joseph Campbell, what survives of Aristotle's "Poetics," and the same "Act II must start on page 26 or you're a bad writer" poison every screenwriting seminar hack has been feeding us since the year one. It has served its purpose, but it has made mainstream American theatrical filmmaking into one of the most rigid, creatively stultifying artistic media we have. Imagine if books were required to be no more than 120 pages long.

As for "looney paranoid feminism," that casually offensive (in more ways than one) remark reminds me of what I've been wanting to ask for awhile: did Irene Mecchi, the Disney writer who decided it sent a good message to kids to have Miss Hannigan locked in a mental hospital in the first of what I'm sure will be a long line of Annie remakes (they were already on thin ice, but they crossed the line with that climax), come on board to Brave before or after Brenda Chapman's departure? And what has any of this got to do with Big Hero 6?

I can answer that last question. Absolutely nothing. I thought the use of the term "looney paranoid feminist" to describe Chapman was unreasonable and posted why I thought it was unreasonable. Her experience at Pixar was not a positive one and she spoke out about it. She also had a strong view about Disney meddling with the appearance of Merida for purposes of making her fit in better with the Disney appearance formula being applied to their Princess line of toys. For that she got labeled a looney paranoid feminist which I felt was uncalled for. Like I stated in my original post, I doubt any male director would have been called a looney paranoid for complaining about studio meddling in his film.

As a result, both myself and Ejanns ended up going off topic in our opposing views on the matter.

Edwin-S said:

As a result, both myself and Ejanns ended up going off topic in our opposing views on the matter.

Click to expand...

It happens.

My concern is how Disney will react if it doesn't make as much money as Frozen. It could be a perfectly good movie and get high scores on Rotten Tomatoes and even show a profit. But if it's not a Frozen-sized one, how will they react?

Edwin-S said:

I can answer that last question. Absolutely nothing. I thought the use of the term "looney paranoid feminist" to describe Chapman was unreasonable and posted why I thought it was unreasonable. Her experience at Pixar was not a positive one and she spoke out about it. She also had a strong view about Disney meddling with the appearance of Merida for purposes of making her fit in better with the Disney appearance formula being applied to their Princess line of toys. For that she got labeled a looney paranoid feminist which I felt was uncalled for.

Click to expand...

Ohhh, I see the misunderstanding--Thanks:
You objected because you thought I was calling Chapman a "looney paranoid feminist" for how she acted after the movie was released, and objecting to the marketing image (which turned out to be just a marketing image, as 2D images of 3D characters often have to be different for books and toys).
No, no, no--I was referring to Chapman being a "looney paranoid feminist" before the movie was released, refusing to work with the studio story Brain Trust, being fired for Artistic Differences, and then running to the press crying that "the glass ceiling of Male Hollywood" had "conspired" to throw her out, when in fact she was being fired for her story needing a LOT more script-doctoring than her "mother-daughter" diva-act was willing to concede on for the good of the picture.

...Misreading like that happens all the time.

MatthewA said:

My concern is how Disney will react if it doesn't make as much money as Frozen. It could be a perfectly good movie and get high scores on Rotten Tomatoes and even show a profit. But if it's not a Frozen-sized one, how will they react?

Click to expand...

Lord, let it not be the way they reacted to Incredibles and Cars 1, when they "failed to reach the numbers" of Finding Nemo.
(Whose wild, frenzied neurotic-grownup-audience mania at the time, like Frozen's, wasn't 100% based on the movie itself, and therefore not necessarily a reliable bar to judge future performance by.)

As for "looney paranoid feminism," that casually offensive (in more ways than one) remark reminds me of what I've been wanting to ask for awhile: did Irene Mecchi, the Disney writer who decided it sent a good message to kids to have Miss Hannigan locked in a mental hospital in the first of what I'm sure will be a long line of Annie remakes (they were already on thin ice, but they crossed the line with that climax), come on board to Brave before or after Brenda Chapman's departure? And what has any of this got to do with Big Hero 6

Click to expand...

About as much as has to do with Irene Mecchi...Wanna throw in an "Evil Mary Poppins", there, for old times sake?


I was just answering the basic question: "Q: Why is Disney making so much better movies than Pixar lately?"
And the correct answers were: A) "Pixar's had its hands tied in legally obligated sequels from the Eisner era for the last few projects", and B) "They thought the Prince of Egypt directrix would be their next Brad Bird breakout director, and...HOO BOY!! No, really, are we still blaming Brave on the studio, and not on some loose cannon they couldn't damage-control in time?"
Ie., that they're both good studios right now, just that one's had a few less monkeys on its back for the last three years. But they should both be up to speed from here on in, thanks to the "Evil meddler who should be kicked out for being mean".

(You should read some of the posts on the Animation Guild Blog, where there's a regular cabal of animators Fox-News spinning every Dreamworks movie as a "smash hit", "critically received", and "an ambitious new take at a successful audience franchise", and every Disney and Pixar movie as a "disaster", in the hopes the studio will be persuaded to kick out that mean hardworking tyrant John Lasseter, and bring in that nice Jeffrey Katzenberg, who's so much easier to work for....And they call the parks "Fantasyland". )

Brain Trust = rule by committee of the same kind that almost killed this studio before. Even so, Brave was not an isolated incident in terms of directors getting fired.

Ejanss said:

About as much as has to do with Irene Mecchi...Wanna throw in an "Evil M--y P-----s", there, for old times sake?

Click to expand...

Mecchi was the only woman credited as writer other than Chapman. But since you mentioned it, not even Mr. Banks crossed this line:

If so, why doesn't she just haul off and slap that loony lil' brat that's ruining it for her!"

Click to expand...