Bolt

Post by **Whippet Angel** » November 23rd, 2007, 12:42 am

Gah, my thoughts exactly Ben!
I also saw it and wondered if it's intentional...

Post by **EricJ** » November 23rd, 2007, 1:01 am

I've never really been a fan of Chris Sanders, and basically took DIsney's side when they kicked him out--

So knowing that they never wanted to make "American Dog", but are stuck with having to sell the reclaimed project to a real public now anyway, I applaud any attempt to make the "Bolt" version look like a "real" marketed Disney movie we would actually go to see...
It restores a little more sense of comfort.

Post by **Daniel** » November 23rd, 2007, 4:57 am

I like the poster, too! Aside from it looking Incredible-ish, there's something else, but I can't put my finger on it.

Btw, Bolt's original name was going to be Henry in American Dog. There you go, Vi.

Post by **CTind** » November 24th, 2007, 10:32 am

EricJ wrote:I've never really been a fan of Chris Sanders, and basically took DIsney's side when they kicked him out--

So knowing that they never wanted to make "American Dog", but are stuck with having to sell the reclaimed project to a real public now anyway, I applaud any attempt to make the "Bolt" version look like a "real" marketed Disney movie we would actually go to see...
It restores a little more sense of comfort.

Internet forums fascinate me. People can pass judgement on a person or film whether they know that person or have seen the film.

The question I ask is a simple one, EricJ. Do you know Chris Sanders? It's one thing if your simply not a fan of Chris' style or the films he's been a major contributor to (Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Mulan, Lilo etc.).

However, when you make a statement like "taking Disney's side when they kicked him out..." it goes beyond one's personal taste and becomes a lot more aggressive. The reason I ask if you know him, is because I think you should know someone or have worked with them, before you start making personal statements about them. And unless you were at Disney when Chris left, I don't think you or anyone is qualified to start "taking sides" about anything involving that production (American Dog/Bolt).

Disney certainly wasn't doing anything noble by continuing production on the film. They're trying to finish and sell a film that had considerable work done on it and had already been announced.

I'm not trying to flame, I just hate reading comments made where people declare judgement on a person, film or studio when there's a good chance they have know personal knowledge of something, other than reading gossip on the internet.

Post by **Ben** » November 24th, 2007, 1:16 pm

Good points, well made.

But let's not let this slide into a slanging match please.

Welcome to our boards CTind...you might note that while EricJ is always happy to put his views across, he's not always accompanied with the best information. Nevertheless, let's all play nice.

Thanks for your contribution...I hope you can engage conversation on a lighter topic in the near future!

Post by **EricJ** » November 24th, 2007, 4:39 pm

CTind wrote:
EricJ wrote:I've never really been a fan of Chris Sanders, and basically took DIsney's side when they kicked him out--

So knowing that they never wanted to make "American Dog", but are stuck with having to sell the reclaimed project to a real public now anyway, I applaud any attempt to make the "Bolt" version look like a "real" marketed Disney movie we would actually go to see...
It restores a little more sense of comfort.
The question I ask is a simple one, EricJ. Do you know Chris Sanders? It's one thing if your simply not a fan of Chris' style or the films he's been a major contributor to (Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, Mulan, Lilo etc.).

However, when you make a statement like "taking Disney's side when they kicked him out..." it goes beyond one's personal taste and becomes a lot more aggressive. The reason I ask if you know him, is because I think you should know someone or have worked with them, before you start making personal statements about them. And unless you were at Disney when Chris left, I don't think you or anyone is qualified to start "taking sides" about anything involving that production (American Dog/Bolt).

Disney certainly wasn't doing anything noble by continuing production on the film. They're trying to finish and sell a film that had considerable work done on it and had already been announced.

It just kept reminding me of the time Tim Burton used to work as a middle animator, and was fired from the studio because he spent all his "Black Cauldron" time drawing future "Nightmare Before Christmas" characters rather than working toward the Horned King minions he was paid to work on:
"Genius", maybe, but that's not the same as common sense and the ability to NOT be a diva and to Play Well With Others.

John Lasseter was reportedly facing long, long delays on both Sanders' work on "Dog" and Glen Keane's CGI-paint work on "Rapunzel"--
And yet Rapunzel kept its greenlight and Sanders' Dog was sent packing...Given what we've seen of Lasseter's instinct for a good, coherent, emotional story, I'm guessing HE knows something about Sanders' final product that we don't, and he saw fit to bail on it.

Accdg. to interviews, one of the reasons Sanders was so "disillusioned" over having his project pulled was that he had previously been used to David Stainton's managment style of "Hands off the Resident Geniuses, and let them do whatever strange genius things they want"...And wasn't prepared to discover that the new studio regime prefers a focus on good, clear storytelling than "quirky" self-indulgent pet-projects.
Which is how most of the problems of the Stainton "Chicken Little era" happened in the first place.

Any more professional animator could see the idea of working for the Larger Goal, but if Sanders thought "Dog" was his way or the highway, I can't help thinking the highway would've turned out to be more structured and less indulgent.
(And I repeat: Just what the heck WAS that weird cartoony little Stitch-experiment puppy doing in the otherwise realistic-drawn "Mulan" in the first place??

)

Post by **Meg** » November 24th, 2007, 5:32 pm

(And I repeat: Just what the heck WAS that weird cartoony little Stitch-experiment puppy doing in the otherwise realistic-drawn "Mulan" in the first place??)

I am a fangirl of Sander's art, but I'm going to have to agree with you there. I was thrown off at the dog's design even when I first saw it as an eight-year old.

Post by **CharlieBarkin** » November 24th, 2007, 5:43 pm

From what I've heard, "American Dog" was quirky and weird to the extreme. Whilst this quirkiness worked for "Lilo and Stitch", I doubt if it would have worked a second time, hence the major re-tooling. Whilst I don't doubt Sander's talent, I'm happy to give Lasseter the benefit of the doubt and reserve judgement until next November when the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Either way, I have big hopes for "Bolt".

Post by **EricJ** » November 24th, 2007, 6:01 pm

CharlieBarkin wrote:From what I've heard, "American Dog" was quirky and weird to the extreme. Whilst this quirkiness worked for "Lilo and Stitch", I doubt if it would have worked a second time, hence the major re-tooling.

Although I've finally seen L&S:Movie enough times to realize that there was some actual emotional depth to the characters (it didn't seem that way in the first theater viewing)...
It seemed like half of the '02 Mania for L&S came out of some symbolic frustration with 90's-Katz/Eisner Disney, and that the "Hip 2 be weird" story was going to fuel some kind of "revolution" in the entire animation industry--
And when the traditional-story Treasure Planet went down the same year with the worst theater scheduling in history, L&S "revolution" fans were quick to pile on every single fault and rally that it "deserved what it got", whether or not they'd even seen it in the theaters.

The L&S characters were appealing (if an acquired taste, preferably from the TV series), but think that if we had gotten Sanders' Second Quirky Pet-Project Movie, the fanboy reaction would've divided into those who claimed the movie could do no wrong on a name-worship basis, and others asking "What happened?--He was supposed to be a revolutionary genius!"

Post by **CTind** » November 24th, 2007, 10:13 pm

It just kept reminding me of the time Tim Burton used to work as a middle animator, and was fired from the studio because he spent all his "Black Cauldron" time drawing future "Nightmare Before Christmas" characters rather than working toward the Horned King minions he was paid to work on:
"Genius", maybe, but that's not the same as common sense and the ability to NOT be a diva and to Play Well With Others.

John Lasseter was reportedly facing long, long delays on both Sanders' work on "Dog" and Glen Keane's CGI-paint work on "Rapunzel"--
And yet Rapunzel kept its greenlight and Sanders' Dog was sent packing...Given what we've seen of Lasseter's instinct for a good, coherent, emotional story, I'm guessing HE knows something about Sanders' final product that we don't, and he saw fit to bail on it.

Accdg. to interviews, one of the reasons Sanders was so "disillusioned" over having his project pulled was that he had previously been used to David Stainton's managment style of "Hands off the Resident Geniuses, and let them do whatever strange genius things they want"...And wasn't prepared to discover that the new studio regime prefers a focus on good, clear storytelling than "quirky" self-indulgent pet-projects.
Which is how most of the problems of the Stainton "Chicken Little era" happened in the first place.

Any more professional animator could see the idea of working for the Larger Goal, but if Sanders thought "Dog" was his way or the highway, I can't help thinking the highway would've turned out to be more structured and less indulgent.
(And I repeat: Just what the heck WAS that weird cartoony little Stitch-experiment puppy doing in the otherwise realistic-drawn "Mulan" in the first place?? )

Ben, I apologize in advance, and I promise I'll make up for what I respectfully write below, with many postive discussions in the future:)

This is a forum; a place for discussion of all things animated. Sometimes it's fun to read and sometimes it's not, but at least it's always interesting. People tend to have strong opinions about things they are passionate about; and I believe that's a great thing.

However, when people use "reports" (usually just gossip) to make assumptions about people or the films they work on, it can be frustrating.

EricJ, I asked a simple question, do you know Chris Sanders? While I didn't get a straight answer, I can deduce from your response that you don't.

Your rebuttal made reference to "reports" of the goings on at Disney during production of AMERICAN DOG. These "reports", that turn up more and more on the internet are generally nothing more than heresay and gossip. When you actually work in the industry, they can be funny at times for their inaccuracies and sometimes they can be pretty dang infuriating.

When you mentioned the "reportedly long, long delays faced by Lasseter" on Rapunzel and American Dog; I can tell you that Rapunzel has been around since I visited Disney first in '97. At that time it was going to be hand drawn. My point is that no one "bailed" on that film in the 10 or more years it's been floating around the studio. It was given all the time it deserved to grow into what I hear is something really cool. However, I don't think it's fair to use it as a barometer of whether American Dog was good or not.

Also, I'm not sure where you read that David Stainton was a hands off executive or that Chris referred to "his managment style as Hands off the Resident Geniuses". I'm pretty sure you weren't reading a quote from Chris. It's actually something more akin to what Pixar boasts of. They always refer to themselves as a director's studio; and eventhough they have a "brain trust" to help make the best film possible, they insist it is ultimately up to the director to make the final decision. I believe this is the reason they've made such amazing and diverse films.

I have many friends at both Pixar and Disney. Some are currently working on BOLT. Some were actually in the room when Chris screened AMERICAN DOG for the first time. Everyone has a different version of what happened with that production. Eventhough, I've heard a lot of opinions on both sides, I prefer to stay quiet on the details as I wasn't there. I would rather not make an assumption about what was or could have been.

All I can really do is speak on the things I know first hand. I happen to know Chris and am currently working with him on his new film. I can tell you that he is an extremely fair and level headed director. He makes decisions quickly and, believe it or not, has not imposed his style on any of the artists during my six months on the production. He has strong opinions , but is certainly not a diva.

Those are the things I know for sure; the things I didn't read on a website or even hear from an "insider" friend.

All I can say is I look forward to seeing what the very talented crew at Disney does with BOLT and that Chris' next film will knock your socks off.

Post by **Christian** » November 25th, 2007, 3:21 am

These "reports", that turn up more and more on the internet are generally nothing more than heresay and gossip.

Wow, this is the second time I've seen somebody misspell "hearsay" in two days on two different message boards.

Back to the topic of the thread . . . What's wrong with a quirky independent style film from Disney every once in a while? I was looking forward to seeing how American Dog turned out. The whole future of the studio doesn't have to ride on it.

Post by **EricJ** » November 25th, 2007, 3:22 am

CTind wrote:
Also, I'm not sure where you read that David Stainton was a hands off executive or that Chris referred to "his managment style as Hands off the Resident Geniuses". I'm pretty sure you weren't reading a quote from Chris. It's actually something more akin to what Pixar boasts of. They always refer to themselves as a director's studio; and eventhough they have a "brain trust" to help make the best film possible, they insist it is ultimately up to the director to make the final decision. I believe this is the reason they've made such amazing and diverse films.

All I can really do is speak on the things I know first hand. I happen to know Chris and am currently working with him on his new film. I can tell you that he is an extremely fair and level headed director. He makes decisions quickly and, believe it or not, has not imposed his style on any of the artists during my six months on the production. He has strong opinions , but is certainly not a diva.
I've only heard nterviews on the usual industry sites right after the bad news occurred...And the message going out then was that Lasseter now wants studio projects to be in "the Pixar way", with stories collectively decided in group sessions, instead of Stainton-esque "pet projects"...And that Sanders hadn't been able to handle the culture-shock well without thinking that the higher-ups at the studio had "turned their back on him" by "claiming to defend creative directors" while taking away his story for other cooks to stir, and for telling him to get his story on the rails by certain deadline or see it axed.
Um, sorry Sanders feels that way, but most animation fans see the Pixar group-system as one of the better innovations at the new regime (and quick to point how it saved "Meet the Robinsons" from certain disaster), and that it was "twisted geniuses" under Stainton that gave us so many half-baked and/or cancelled projects in the first place.

All I can say is that Chris' next film will knock your socks off.

If it's the ex-Aardman caveman one he's doing for Dreamworks, it's already got a creative handicap against it.

But let us never accuse Katzenberg of not being a commando bargain-shopper, especially if he thinks he can light a match off of Disney's pants in the process. For all the good it may do him

Post by **Ben** » November 25th, 2007, 4:37 pm

CTind...s'ok... I am all for passionate posting as long as it is well informed and with points well made.

Not speaking about Chris - though I too agree with Christian and was seriously looking forward to seeing those wonderful designs in action - but as a personal point of view, and total conjecture as to why John Lasseter is "more hands off than usual" with Rapunzel is that he and Glen Keane go back a long, <I>long</I> way. I would imagine, years after making theor first forays into CG together, that Lasseter is very encouraged to see Keane embracing the computer and will leave him to his own devices (as much as possible). There's genuine friendship and respect between the two men, and this is undoubtedly an element in how one project was continued and another, "quirky one" was shelved/changed. John is still being tried on what Disney turn out over the next couple of years and he essentially can't go for "quirky" right now. Chris' project needed to be "mainstream" and I guess John wasn't feeling that from what he saw. Again, conjecture on my part.

EricJ wrote:If it's the ex-Aardman caveman one he's doing for Dreamworks, it's already got a creative handicap against it.

What does that even <I>mean</I>?

I understood that "Crood Awakening" went with Aardman to Sony?

Post by **Josh** » November 25th, 2007, 4:56 pm

As it turns out, Ben, Sanders is directing Crood Awakening for DreamWorks Animation. Apparently, when the company and Aardman went their separate ways, DreamWorks kept the rights to Crood. Here is the press release that was provided a while back: http://www.animated-news.com/2007/sande ... reamworks/.

Post by **chernabog** » November 26th, 2007, 7:38 am

This isn't particularly surprising but comingsoon.net has announced that Disney's Bolt will be released in Disney Digital 3D next November. http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=39541

Bolt

Do you know Chris?

Re: Do you know Chris?

Re: Do you know Chris?

Re: Do you know Chris?

Re: Do you know Chris?

Bolt in 3D