| (no subject) |
[Jan. 25th, 2006|03:32 pm] |
I love animation. I like cartoon network, and not just Adult Swim (In fact, Adult Swim has let all of their hipness go to their head, and now I'm over them. I'm also over staying up late, so that might have something to do with it, but honestly, it's not what it used to be). The Powerpuff Girls, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, and Camp Lazlo. Of course, to get to those I usually have to suffer through Ed, Edd, and Eddie, Codename: Kids Next Door, Teen Titans, or The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. Nonetheless, I love animation, and though it may occasionally seem childish, it has also led me to things like The Second Renaissance Part I and II, which are arguably the most thought provoking and provocative animation ever created.
And since I love animation, I also love Pixar, leader in contemporary American animation, and co-title holder of best world wide, the other half belonging to Hayao Miyazaki and his Studio Ghibli (another Disney affiliated animation house, but we'll get to that). What sets Pixar apart from other American animation houses like Dreamworks and Blue Sky (producers of Shrek and Ice Age respectively) is the holistic quality of their films. Pixar is notorious for the quality of their stories, almost to the point of naseum, as well as their obsessive focus on pushing the envelope in graphics. Their affiliation with Disney had become, to some, ironic, as they became known as the company that out-Disney'd Disney.
Well, not anymore, not really. As of yesterday Walt Disney Co. purchased Pixar Animation Studios for what amounts to 6.5 billion dollars, or roughly what the US spends every ten minutes in Iraq. I'll admit, I was surprised. I first heard about the deal on Sunday during a bike ride, and I dismissed it out of hand. There's no way, I said, that Pixar would want to be that closely affiliated with Disney. Sure they could mend fences and renew their distribution deal, but let themselves be purchased outright by the bungling behemoths that ruined Miramax and almost let them slip away the first time, the people who haven't made a movie worth watching since Lilo and Stitch? So you can see how close my finger is to Pixar's pulse. So you can imagine that I'm a might disappointed.
Why? All prognoses are good, according to the Motley Fool, who says, "Pixar's creative mastery has been confined to theatrical animation and software development. Now it will be able to leverage that strength with key executive appointments to help invigorate everything from theme park ride development and Disney's own animation studio. If you think that Pixar and Disney together won't be worth more than their value as separate entities, you're missing out on this deal as the poster child for synergy." "Confined" is an interesting word to use for a company who has as much free range to do what they want as anyone in the industry does. What he means is focused, what he means is driven, what he means is not-distracted-by-questionable-financial-ventures-like-some-other-industry-giants-now-reduced-to-buying-quality-instead-of-producing-it. If Pixar was confined, then it was the confines that made it great.
I believe it is limitation, artificial or otherwise, that makes an artist, or an animation studio great, and Pixar's self-imposed limitations of maniacal attention to stories that deserve their graphics, and graphics that deserve their stories were what made them great. And it's possible that those things will continue to make them great. I believe that if Disney has a single ounce of sense left in their mousey little heads they won't touch Pixar. They won't ruffle the feathers of the goose laying golden eggs. They'll just leave well enough alone. But I don't believe that there's much sense left at Disney; all artistic passion has been replaced by business acumen, and we all know how exciting it is to watch a film written by accountants. Instead Disney will tear into Pixar like an unmedicated 12 year old with ADHD into a box of cracker jacks, so desperate for the prize that he spills the candy all over the floor. Not only will all of Pixar's characters and likenesses be Disney-fied (read turned into rides and cheaper plastic toys), but their movies will be too. Next thing you know it's Toy Story 3 and a half, with David Schwimmer in the role of Woody.
So why would Pixar allow itself, literally, to be bought? I have a theory. I theorize that Steve Jobs didn't really care about Pixar the way he cares about Apple. Although he was chairman and CEO of Pixar, I don't believe Jobs did much, except have the foresight to invest in a couple of guys with a passion the second time they asked him. His baby is Apple, and he would do anything, even humble himself before Bill Gates, to see Apple survive. I think that the sale of Pixar to Disney is a shrewd move for Apple at the cost of Pixar, moving Jobs one spot closer to the mouse, and the digital rights to the entire Disney library. I don't think that's the only reason. The Disney media empire is vast, and Jobs knows it. So while my theories aren't as clear as some, they're quite similar.
It's hard to deal with this disappointment with any optimism. I'm terribly afraid that Disney will infect Pixar rather than Pixar infusing Disney. Things just don't work that way in my experience. But maybe the 500 miles of central California and the insular nature of Pixar will be enough to insulate them from systematic exploitation at the hands of the people who brought you such blockbusters as The Lion King 1½ and Chicken Little, as well as George Lopez, Freddie, and Crumbs (Never heard of them? Me neither, but they lead the ABC webpage). So here let us mark the high point, or perhaps in June with the release of Cars, and say that this is the place where we began the downward trudge into the miasma of mediocrity.
A. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
epymetheus's journal