Disney, Pixar to go separate ways (1 Viewer)

[Casey Trowbridg]

Robert, I saw that link yesterday, and my response to that was pretty much the same. I.E. Interesting...

I will be watching to see how this 1 plays out.

Oh and Regarding post number 72 from Ernest, very informative and well put.

 

[Pete-D]

Well I think it might be a good deal for both Pixar and Disney.

Now that Disney doesn't have Pixar to lean on, it probably will cause a serious re-vamping of the company as a whole.

Pixar could sign with Time-Warner, that would be interesting... (Pixar animated Superman or Batman?).

 

[gregstaten]

As an Apple (and Steve Jobs) watcher since the late 70's, I really think that Steve has some big motives behind this move. How big? Something tells me that he's gunning for the CEO job at Disney.

There's no question that Eisner has a massive ego, but anyone that's sat through his keynotes knows that Steve has a massive, even monstrous, ego of his own. Plus, I've heard first-hand stories of Steve's ego from quite a few ex-Apple (and current) employees I know.

I'm guessing that Steve *is* working with Roy Disney and that they think that this can be the knockout punch to kill Eisner. Now, if the board votes no confidence on Eisner and forces him to step down, they'll need another CEO. I don't see either Roy Disney or Stanley Gold wanting the CEO job. Logic would dictate that they'd have their candidate lined up. My bets is that Steve approached them with the idea and, as he's a genius as laying out a plan (they don't call it the Job Reality Distortion Field for nothing), they bought in.

Of course, if this all goes down according to plan the big question is what happens to Apple. Sure, Steve could simultaneously be the CEO of Apple and Pixar as Pixar mostly takes care of itself. But I can't see him able to keep his position at Apple *and* Disney. Disney's a bigger playground so off he goes to Disney. Apple has survived without Steve, but it is hard to argue the fact that it only really thrived when Steve was at the helm.

Who knows? Maybe Steve's fallen completely in love with Hollywood and is ready to move on.

The more I think about this, the more it makes sense.

-greg

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

Does anyone else feal the same way as I do? That as great as Pixar is, Disney should get back to cell animation?

It amazes me how stupid Eisner is. With him at the helm Dinsey releases a couple of real stinkers that happen to use hand-drawn animation, and instead of concluding the obvious, that being that people didn't take to the movies because the movies sucked, he concludes that cell animation must be dead. Considering Eisner's past successes I can only conlude that he is losing his mind.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

Anyone who has ever read any history of the computer industry, back to the days when PC companies litterally operated out of garages, knows all about Steve Jobs ego.

However the man deserves a lot of credit. Apple was as good as dead before he returned to the company. He knew something other PC makers hadn't realized: PC had become as commonplace as TVs, and it was about time to say goodbye to the geeky grey box.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Well, count me among those that believe that if the story is good or if the characters are relatable, it doesn't matter if its CGI or hand drawn or whatever, and I think of Disney's recent releases Lilo and Stitch can be an example of that.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Lilo and Stitch outgrossed Minority Report. Emperor's New Groove outgrossed Kill Bill. Atlantis outgrossed Fight Club. And while Treasure Planet was a painful box office flop, it sold very well on home video and DVD. It was one of the 50 top-selling titles of the year.

It's not the medium, it's the writing and the storytelling.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Err, you mean their own money that they earned off of earlier Pixar productions?

Come on, a lot of the animation division income, and future capital, came from Pixar.

Had Pixar had it's own startup capital (a giant if I realize) then they would already be the new Disney.

After all, how did Disney get to be Disney. They sure as hell weren't jack squat in 1920. Create a character phenom, build a quality team/studio, reinvent animated film...all things Pixar just did. The only difference is that they had to sell their soul to Disney to get started while Walt didn't.

I will admit that this is the nature of the beast and that Pixar gained a lot from the relationship. After all, initially all their work was a financial gamble.

But looking to change the terms once you realize that you got the short end of the stick is nothing new. I think at the time Pixar thought they had negotiated a fair deal.


Besides they are honoring their contract. What they were doing was using what power they had to try to leverage a change to that contract, but Disney would still have to agree to it, which they didn't.

So what then. Pixar had the power to say "we will walk" and they knew that it was worth something, especially while Michael is fighting other fires, so they tried to use that power to get something done.

It's certainly no different that the power Disney used to get them to sign their work away in the first place, the power of money and market control. Nobody was around trying to make Disney use good faith in the original deal instead of relying on their market power, so why should anyone expect Pixar to do any different now. They learned from the best.

And to be honest, its a lot easier to negotiate in good faith with people who inspire such faith. No one has ever accussed Eisner of having that quality.


There is no hard and fast rule that says Disney must always be Disney, that they always will be king. Things change which is exactly why Disney exists now and didn't 100 years ago. In 1900 there were a lot of companies selling products for kids, one of them was even number one, but none of them were Disney. Disney took a new technology and created an empire. Maybe Pixar is doing the same. It's not like Disney became what it is today overnight.

Where could Pixar end up in 20 years? I bet Jobs and Lassiter think about that every day, and the answer is probably very different if they remain under Disney's control.

 

[Edwin-S]

Walt Disney had to do just what Pixar did. Or have people forgotten how he lost control of his Oswald the Rabbit character to the distributor of the films?

IIRC, the loss of Oswald was one of the main reasons why he created his own distribution company.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Do you suppose PIXAR would have the hutzpa to start their own distribution wing?

I'd love to see PIXAR hire the cast off 2D talent of Disney and DreamWorks and start a rejuvenation of hand drawn cell animation (do a one-two punch to Katzenberg too since he also sees 2D as a dead art form-- like Eisner he mistakenly thinks it's the technology wow-factor that gets butts in the seats and not the quality of the story). Make it more of an art form (as it is) than technology (like Dreamwork's weird-ass looking CGI hybrid Sinbad with seemingly computer assisted hand-drawn characters besides fully 3D effects).

Lilo and Stitch showed that if you went back to more traditional styles of animation, and the story was catchy, then the audience would come.

Dan

 

[Ernest Rister]

How did everyone get brainwashed into calling hand-drawn character animation "2-D animation"? When you refer to hand-drawn animation as "2-D", it sounds like you're referring to a old version of animation software - not an unique and specialized art form.

"There is no hard and fast rule that says Disney must always be Disney, that they always will be king. Things change which is exactly why Disney exists now and didn't 100 years ago."

Animation itself didn't exist 100 years ago. Walt Disney was three years old 100 years ago.

"In 1900 there were a lot of companies selling products for kids, one of them was even number one, but none of them were Disney."

And Disney was NEVER a company that made products for children. As Walt once snapped in England, when accused of scaring children with Snow White, "[Snow White] is not a children's film. We don't make movies for children."

That's one of the things that bugs me about the current Disney regime. They sell movies like Bambi and Pinocchio and Fantasia as "children's films", when they are actually wildly inappropriate for very young audiences. After Snow White, Walt tried to expand the boundaries of animation -- he tried to change the paradigm with which animation was viewed.

It's so hard for modern audiences to look at films like Pinocchio and Fantasia and Bambi and The Three Caballeros the way audience members in the early 40's would have seen them. These weren't "kids movies". They were the visual f/x events of their day, and while Walt depended on large audiences to make his films profitable, they were not dumbed down mass market commerical properties. They were fierce statements of ability -- almost as if Disney had a giant chip on his shoulder, demanding that his art form be taken seriously.

Walt was pushed to the brink of insolvency in the War years, and it was a long time before Disney animation began to hit their stride again in the late 40's. Disney's films were always highly proessional, but the bold audacious spirit that tackled Fantasia and [/i]Bambi[/i] was muted in favor of professional competency. Still, while Walt tackled mainstream subject matter in his late career, he still never made "children's films". He made "family films" -- like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Darby o'Gill and the Little People, Cinderella, Old Yeller, Sleeping Beauty, The True Life Adventures, etc. These aren't "children's films". They are films that can be enjoyed by audiences of all ages.

"Disney took a new technology and created an empire. Maybe Pixar is doing the same. It's not like Disney became what it is today overnight."

The only beef I have with Pixar is that I have yet to see them truly try and push animation into new territories. Their films are highly traditional -- where is Pixar's Pinocchio? Fantasia? Bambi? Three Caballeros? Films that pushed the boundaries of what a film could be?

Maybe now that they are on their own, we'll see them try to stretch a bit. In a way, I think people are wrong to compare Toy Story to Snow White. I think Toy Story is more aptly compared to Steamboat Willie. God only knows what animation is going to look like ten years from now.

"Animation is the art form of the 20th Century. I really believe that."
-- Ollie Johnston

 

[Edwin-S]

Well said. I've always maintained that Disney's films -animated and live action- were not made specifically for children. They were made for general audiences. People seem to have forgotten what that designation signifies. Nowadays, people automatically think a "G-rated" picture is childish.

I also feel there is a distinction between an animated film and an animated cartoon. IMO, an animated cartoon is a six to seven minute short in which the main thrust is sight gags and slapstick with a minimal of actual story-telling. An animated film develops plot, characters, and thematic elements just like any live action film does.



This is exactly the same thing I was trying to state in another thread, when I posted that Finding Nemo doesn't deserve to win the best animated film Oscar; although, apparently, it sounds like they have a lock on it. Pixar is doing nothing to expand American animated narrative beyond its present moribund state. All of their innovations have been on the technical side, but they are still telling the same old stories with the same old motifs. Quest films with cute characters and expected denouments....including the standard cliched "fake death" scene. Disney has used most of these devices at one point or another. When Disney makes an animated film with these types of "traditional" techniques they are accused of turning out "formulaic crap." Pixar dresses the same stuff up with CGI and are suddenly praised for "pushing animation to new levels." What a joke.

People may have been upset by Stainton declaring that Pixar is basically copying Disney, but his statement is not entirely untrue. Except for Toy Story and Toy Story 2 Pixar has increasingly been copying the Disney model. They are beginning to be more Disney than Disney.

 

[Richard Paul]

Before people start accusing Pixar of being like Disney you should know what Disney has been doing to Pixar. The production of Toy Story was actually stopped by Disney because Woody wasn't nice enough. And in Monsters Inc. Disney had Pixar tone down the scariness of the monsters even though it would have still gotten a G rating. These are only two events that we found out about and I wouldn't be surprised if there were hundreds more we never will know about.

Pixar didn't decide to become like Disney so much as it has been forced to. Disney has been controlling what could be in Pixar’s films so it should hardly be surprising that Pixar seems similar to Disney. I can't predict that Pixar will push boundaries without Disney, but I can say for certain that Pixar will never be allowed to with Disney.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yes, but Disney has long since been "just animation". Theme parks, children's toy stores, TV shows, etc are all part of Disney and have been for decades, even during Walt's tenure. Walt's dream went beyond animation and treating it like that's all they do is crazy.

That was my whole point. Disney stock is where it is because it is NOT just animation. What they are as a business force was not just due to animation currently.

HOW they got to be Disney was animation. And my point was that animation was a new technology that they made the most of...just like Pixar.


And just so we are clear, animation existed BEFORE 1904, even existing before regular films did...per the Disney Behind the Studio DVD tin even.

Beyond that there were plenty of people painting on film frames before 1900, colorization was being done by several companies and this often included the movement of the painted colors around the screen, such as animated fire coming out of the barrels of guns in "The Great Train Robbery".


I thought my point was clear though, which was that there was a time that we could call pre-Disney. Then Walt did some stuff, then he did some more stuff. MUCH of that was business decisions, some of it was artistic decisions. He was a great artistic vision AND a great businessman who understood what he wanted to do with his artistic vision.

But he wasn't the first nor the only to do animation, yet somehow his company came to be king, and that includes in the area of entertaining children, whether you want to admit it or not. I saw the rides WALT APPROVED at Disneyland/world, many of which couldn't even accomodate anyone but children and all of which catered to them.

But before Disney children were getting their toys, entertainment, etc from SOME OTHER SOURCE. That company (whomever it was) became the old guard once Disney moved in. So why does it seem so impossible to imagine that life will continue to function as it always has and that changes will occur?

This may not be the time, but I will 100% assure you that there will be a time in the future when the Disney Co. no longer exists. How and why, I don't know, maybe when the sun explodes or maybe in 50 years, but it will happen. I think its wrong to simply assume that nothing can or will affect Disney's status as untouchable king. When you are at the top you still have to keep earning it, just as companies in 1930 found out as Disney moved onto the scene.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Yes, but Disney has long since been "just animation". Theme parks, children's toy stores, TV shows, etc are all part of Disney and have been for decades, even during Walt's tenure."

Um...what exactly is your point? That merchandising based on Disney creative commodities (Consumer Products) existed in Walt's era? Of course it did. In fact, it was the merchandise profits of Mickey Mouse that allowed Walt Disney to take animation from Steamboat Willie to Flowers and Trees to The Three Little Pigs to The Country Cousin to The old Mill to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Thing is, Walt learned a lesson in the 1930's. Even though the country was in a depression if you present the public with a product created by people at the top of their game, the mass public will come out and support you. When he started making features, he took this somewhat arrogant attitude with him in an attempt to once again push the boundaries of animation into new frontiers. Because of the collapse of the foreign market thanks to the Axis powers, many of these bold dreams foundered at the box office. Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi all failed to recoup their inital costs at the box office, and yet world animation historians routinely select these films -- along with Snow White and Dumbo -- among the best animated films ever made.

It was the merchandising profits that made these highly-esteemed "flops" possible in the first place.

"Walt's dream went beyond animation and treating it like that's all they do is crazy."

Who is saying that all Disney does is animation? The core of the comapny is it's intellectual creative properties. It always has been, it always will be. The creative wing drives profits into it's other wings.

"That was my whole point. Disney stock is where it is because it is NOT just animation. What they are as a business force was not just due to animation currently."

Disney stock is where it's at because Disney Animation has been run into the ground by corporate ass-clowns who think Tarzan would make more money if Rosie O'Donnell and a bunch of other animals get to sing a pointless song, or if the dinosaurs in their $200 million CGI flop spoke in American slang, or if an entire film was made precisely for teenage males even though teenage males are the most resistant audience of Disney animation (a little something called Treasure Planet). Disney stock is where it's at because Disney Animation has been ILL-MANAGED.

"And just so we are clear, animation existed BEFORE 1904, even existing before regular films did...per the Disney Behind the Studio DVD tin even."

Yeah - I own the same DVD. I'm not talking about picture wheels and Zoetropes. I'm talking about CHARACTER ANIMATION. Chuck Jones said true Character Animation didn't exist until the release of The Three Little Pigs in 1933, which sent shock waves throughthe animation industry. The story of Disney Animation is the march towards a new form of animated acting...not realism, but a stylized believable reality. The motion of the characters suggest an inner life, an inner thought process. Disney brought many of the basic rules of realism in acting to animation. In a way, Disney's contribution was to bring a form of "method acting" to animation. Actors call moments where the internal thught process informs the action of the character on stage "unit beats". Watch Bambi trying to figure out Snow for the first time, and you'll see "unit beats" galore. Realistic acting and an internal monologue were brought to animated expression by Disney. That's his great and everlasting contribution. That, in fact, was the Disney revolution. Everything since, including the work of Pixar and the CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park all the way up to the CGI monsters of the Lord of the Rings films owes an incredible debt to the labors of Walt Disney and his animators. They codified and explored and refined the animated performance, and Walt INSISTED they pass their discoveries on to others.

I recently heard an ILM employee talking about "plussing" a performance of Yoda in Star Wars Episode II. You know who invented that term - "plussing"?

Walt Disney.

"Beyond that there were plenty of people painting on film frames before 1900, colorization was being done by several companies and this often included the movement of the painted colors around the screen, such as animated fire coming out of the barrels of guns in "The Great Train Robbery."

Thank you for the film lesson -- though I think my film professors at UT did a better job teaching me those facts 15 years ago.

"I thought my point was clear though, which was that there was a time that we could call pre-Disney."

Yeah, just like we can say there was a time pre-Edison.

"Then Walt did some stuff, then he did some more stuff."

Yeah. Some stuff. He brought Ising, Freling, Harman, and Iwerks to Hollywood. He produced the first sound cartoon. The first three-strip technicolor cartoon. The first seven-reel feature cartoon. The first film with multi-channel sound, including a surround track. Made "Feature animation" a viable american art form.

You know. Some stuff.

All this stuff before 1941, and he wasn't done yet...

"MUCH of that was business decisions, some of it was artistic decisions. He was a great artistic vision AND a great businessman who understood what he wanted to do with his artistic vision."

No -- he was a creative machine who was partners with a financial genius named Roy Disney, who loved his little brother and moved heaven and earth to make his dreams come true. Roy was the businessman - Walt always gets the credit for being this incredible businessman, when people don't realize that without Roy, Walt would have been known as the eccentric nutcase that went belly-up after Steamboat Willie.

"But he wasn't the first nor the only to do animation"

Oh, gee...really?

"yet somehow his company came to be king, and that includes in the area of entertaining children, whether you want to admit it or not."

He was the "Pixar" of his day -- he made films for mass FAMILY audiences. Adults AND Children flocked to this films. He became angry when people tried to suggest he was making inferior "children's films". He said that his most important auidence member was actually a free-thinking American adult, because if he could convince that adult to want to see his film, that adult would also bring his kids, if the film was not objectionable. Like George Lucas and John Lassiter, the Disney brothers built their empire on appealing to a mass family audience. Disney did not make "kiddie films". He became angry when anyone suggested that he did. He made films everyone could enjoy.

"I saw the rides WALT APPROVED at Disneyland/world, many of which couldn't even accomodate anyone but children and all of which catered to them."

Oh? Walt Disney approved rides at Walt Disney World? I guess he approved those rides from beyond the grave, since he died on Tuesday, December 16th, 1967, and Walt Disney World didn't open until October 1st, 1971. The most Walt Disney ever saw of Walt Disney World was giant mass of Central Florida swamp land.

As for Disneyland - Name a single ride that existed in 1955 that exists in the year you visited that "could not accomodate anyone but children". NAME IT.

I call out your honor. I "double dog dare you".

"But before Disney children were getting their toys, entertainment, etc from SOME OTHER SOURCE. That company (whomever it was) became the old guard once Disney moved in. So why does it seem so impossible to imagine that life will continue to function as it always has and that changes will occur?"

Are you seriously arguing that the Walt Disney Company was at one time the primary source for childrens' toys and entertainment? I don't think Disney has ever had a lock on that designation. Their high point was probably the Davy Crockett Craze, but even that - as Disney himself admitted - was a fluke.

"This may not be the time, but I will 100% assure you that there will be a time in the future when the Disney Co. no longer exists. How and why, I don't know, maybe when the sun explodes or maybe in 50 years, but it will happen. I think its wrong to simply assume that nothing can or will affect Disney's status as untouchable king."

Who argued that Disney was the untouchable king? From the perspective of American Character Animation, they have been the Standard-Bearer since 1933. From a business standpoint, it makes sense for the company to endeavour to retain that title. No one is assuming nothing will ever supercede Disney. I think it is wrong for Disney corporate whores to ever let that happen.

"When you are at the top you still have to keep earning it, just as companies in 1930 found out as Disney moved onto the scene."

Right. Making the Cheapquels was a bastardization of the Disney brand name. Disney fans look at Cinderella II and they start to shake like Treebeard gazing at Isengard in The Two Towers...The Disney Executives should know better than to burn down their own forest!

Peace out.

ER3

 

[Jerome Grate]

I think Pixar has enough clout to start some place else. I always think that Disney in some form or fashion takes far more from those who contribute than they should. Look at Gargoyles and what happened with the creator of Gargoyles. Now did Pixar get any thing from all the merchandising and theme park characters, we'll never know but it's clear Pixar wasn't happy with Disney.

I also think this can be a grand opportunity for Pixar to venture in to other creative ideas. I mean watching the opening scene on Toy Story 2 was absolutely fascinating and imagine a movie with that kind of action. It's clear Disney wouldn't do it, Pixar now has the opportunity to do some real work for the older audiences. There are so many ideas out there waiting for a story board, now the chances of these ideas are in a better position (I think) of being created.

 

[Sean Laughter]

Hehe, I like this little tidbit from an article at jim hill media:



http://www.jimhillmedia.com/legacy/i...m~contentFrame

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

~Edwin

 

[Ernest Rister]

"I mean watching the opening scene on Toy Story 2 was absolutely fascinating and imagine a movie with that kind of action."

Toy Story 2 *was* a movie. You meant "a live-action movie".

"It's clear Disney wouldn't do it..."

Well, Pixar is made up of former Disney talent. In a way, Pixar is like "Modern Disney unleashed". John Lassiter did his first CGI work for Disney in the early 1980's. Disney paid for all that early CGI experimentation before Lassiter struck out on his own post-Tron, teaming with George Lucas to create Pixar. Pixar consulted on Disney's CGI work in their 80's films and was even credited for their experitise on Rescuers Down Under in 1990. Beause Lassiter has a Disney Character Animation background, his films reflect Walt's sensibilities in a new technological construct.

"Pixar now has the opportunity to do some real work for the older audiences."

Finding Nemo has a resonance with parents that their children - God bless them - can't even comprehend.

I remember Disney's brave Hunchback of Notre Dame, a gorgeous film hamstrung by idiot executives forcing stupid Lion King-esque comedy relief into the movie in the form of the "wise-cracking" Gargoyles. Lots of sexual innuendo ("I know what you're imagining!") and tons of violence. While it was the highest-grossing film of the year in France, it was not a huge hit in American theaters, although it grossed almost three times as much as Fight Club. It is one of Disney's most "adult" films -- not because of the sex and the violence, but because the story involves racial hatred leading to ethnic genocide.

Can you imagine what Disney animation would be like today if Hunchback had been a smash? Animation buffs ask the same question about Fantasia...if Fantasia had been a hit in 1940, it would have changed the face of American animation forever.

But I'm digressing...back to this adult business and Pixar.

If you ask me, Pixar's films are actually more in the Warner Brothers vein than they are in the classic Disney traditions. Like the masters at Termite Terrace, most of Pixar's jokes are pitched at adults. How can I best put this...? Pixar is more like "One Froggy Evening" than "Fantasia", more Chuck Jones than they are Uncle Walt, even though they emulate the Disney animation technique, more than they do the Warner Brothers production values. Does that make sense? Pixar has borrowed the best of both worlds...Chuck Jones wry adult wit and Disney's production values. Robert Zemeckis did the same thing in 1988 with Who Framed Roger Rabbit (and threw in a healthy dash of Tex Avery in the process) and Disney's John Musker and Ron Clements also combined Warner Bros. humour with Disney production values for Aladdin in 1992.

That's really the key for modern audiences with animation, isn't it? The "Disney standard" for animation and music, mixed with the intelligence of the Warner Brothers' Chuck Jones shorts. If you can pull that off, you've got a hit.

So what in the world has been going on at Disney since Aladdin went over $200 million? They unlock the key to the modern Grail with Roger Rabbit and Aladdin, and then they follow up those breakthroughs with Hunchback, Pocahontas, Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Fantasia/2000, Mulan, Brother Bear etc. Don't they get it? Emperor's New Groove by all rights should have been a flop. Bad title, incredibly goofy concept, and David Spade in a leading role. You know what? It opened small and continued to play and play and play based on sensational word of mouth. Disney had scheduled the video release four months after the theatrical release. The movie was still in the theaters in Austin because it was still making money when the film hit video! Eisner had no faith in it.

And it was a video smash, and it remains a Disney favorite. Why is New Groove so loved?

It combined Disney production values and Warner Brothers humour.

What will it take to make the Disney execs "get it"? It's not complicated.

Pixar certainly "got it". And they ran all the way to the bank in the process. And modern Disney sits and stares at Pixar and DreamWorks' Shrek and Fox's Ice Age with awe. "Durrr - How did they do that?"

The answer is right in front of everyone's face.
You combine the adult wit and humour of Warner Bros. with the high-quality production values of Disney. Bam! Box office gold.

You pump out great-looking politically correct pablum made for kids (or worse, p.c. pablum made for teens, like Treasure Planet), you've got serious issues. It proves you don't understand the marketplace. It proves you're only good for producing anti-smoking ads, not works of entertainment.

Anyway, havng said that, I think people are kidding themselves if they think a post-Disney Pixar should suddenly start pumping out animation with tons of sex and violence. Why fix what isn't broken? True, I'd love to see Pixar forego profit and make something like a Fantasia or a Three Caballeros, but I'm not going to trade another film with the heart and intelligence of Finding Nemo just to satisfy my own desire to see experimental animation from Pixar.

 

[Jerome Grate]

Well, I have no evidence, and I am basically speculating that this occured. But it doesn't change my belief, granted Disney has the complete rights over the characters that was developed under them but based on distribution decisions, artists leaving Disney (remembered it occuring during the Mulan era) allows me to believe that the handling of the company is much to be desired.