Commentary 03 Apr 2009 07:54 am
Banjo plucking
- Michael Barrier responded negatively to my comments on Don Bluth’s Banjo the Woodpile Cat. I thought to write a letter to Mike in comment, but decided it’d be more fun for me to post my response to his response here.
Let me break this down into two parts. The first addresses the funding of new animated projects.
- In my post, I said, “My only sadness is that the Bluth studio isn’t moving forward with more features . . . I wish he could engender the cash to continue on with the medium.”
To that, Mike said, “I couldn’t disagree more. Bluth is for me a white-bread Ralph Bakshi, someone who sucked up money that should have gone to other people, then used it to make terrible features that tanked at the box office and ultimately made it more difficult for good films to get made. If Bluth is finally on the sidelines, that’s cause for rejoicing. I hope he stays there.”
There’s an old saying within film circles: Any publicity is good publicity. That means getting a lashing from the critics is, in many ways, just as good as getting a rave. The idea is to get your name out there and to be noticed.
The same, in my mind, goes for animated films. The more the merrier. Just because a film or three fails doesn’t mean financing will dry up for everyone. Despite the obvious thought behind it, that’s a logic 
that has no real bearing on what happens within the film industry. There being a small number of animated features is what makes it more difficult. When a type of film is a rarity, it’s unlikely money people are going to trust another with their money. Make animated features commonplace, and it’s more likely money will come. As a matter of fact, another dozen features would make things easier.
Given the state of 2D feature animation today, a Bluth film would be a gem in comparison to what’s out there. Somehow I can’t pin my hopes on Bye-Bye Bin Laden, now showing at the South Beach Film Festival. Who knows? Maybe it’s good, but for some reason my expectations aren’t high. It’s obviously a flash film chock full of stupid jokes, but it’ll do nothing to advance the medium AT ALL. Don Bluth’s attempt to do full and high character animation will advance it – if only to develop new and trained animators.
After Titan AE, the Bluth studio closed, but Fox turned to others that they’d used to help finish the film. That studio became what is today Blue Sky, employing lots of cg animators doing markedly different work from those on the West coast. To me that was a positive (regardless of whether I like Bluth OR Blue Sky.) There’s another studio out there generating lots of money for animated films.
Does it help the medium? If you’re just talking about getting more animation funded, then yes it does. Maybe one of these films will be good.
The second point has to do with what furthers the medium as far as quality is concerned.
This is a tough one to respond to considering how negative I am toward most current animation.
As opposed to the days when Don Bluth made Anastasia and Disney did Treasure Planet, we’re now living in an age of cgi animation. The best Hollywood theatrical features are predominantly cg.
Madagascar 6, Toy Story 5, Shrek 12, and Ice Age 9 aren’t going to advance the medium any more than that original Toy Story did. That film showed executives who originally didn’t even invest in collateral marketing (no dolls, no Woody Big Macs, no coloring books), that they could make a bundle from this new medium. They’d made an error in not supporting that film and had to make amends. Once you had the characters rigged, how easy it would be to do follow up films. Why waste time drawing all those cows for Home on the Range. Nickelodeon jumped in with Barnyard‘s ugly cg cows that were horrible in the film and no better in the series. But hey, they made money. Isn’t that what it’s all about?
Sorry Mike, gone FOREVER are the days of Snow White and Dumbo. Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland are gone. Even 101 Dalmatians and Jungle Book are gone. Hell, even Hunchback of Notre Dame and Treasure Planet are gone.
Today’s features are Hoodwinked and Delgo, Roadside Romeo and Space Chimps, TMNT and Valiant. Had enough or should I mention Everyone’s Hero and Igor?
Happy Feet and Bolt were nominated for Oscars. So was Jimmy Neutron. The medium isn’t even medium any more; it’s in minor mode. Dreamworks is on automatic pilot with their rowdy movies; Disney is trying to find itself, and Pixar keeps thinking they’re pushing the envelope. I know, let’s put it in 3D so they can charge more and promote a higher opening gross!
If we’re just talking in the abstract, you’re right. The soft animation in the Bluth films is not good animation. But in reality is it any worse than the last half dozen 2D features you saw? Should someone who literally, like the “white bread Bakshi,” kept the medium alive in a fallow period of The Black Cauldron and Basil of Baker Street? We no longer have Milt Kahl, John Lounsbery or Frank Thomas. No Hal Ambro, John Sibley or a dozen other greats to animate the featurees. John Pomeroy and other younger animators are what we have today, and constructive criticism might help turn their styles a bit. Saying they shouldn’t work again is kind of crazy.
Independent animation may be the place to watch. The only hope isn’t in the development of the character movement but the development of the themes. The flash animated (meaning limited animation) Waltz with Bashir made headlines and a little money; the flash animated Sita Sings the Blues (which couldn’t even get a release) gathered the attention and showed what could be done with a story. Persepolis was a bit fuller animation, but the story was the film. No improvement in animation technique, but good words for animated films. Bill Plympton has been producing features for years. There’s some real and personal animation in there, even if I’m not the ideal audience for his films. And don’t forget The Triplettes of Belleville. They really tried something AND made some money for their low budget effort.
There’s hope, but not much. No studio is doing anything of note with 2D animation, and the medium isn’t growing except in the hearts of a handful. CG is in the early stages of developement, and who knows where they’ll land.
I was all over the place, and I don’t think I completely answered Mike’s thoughts. I do know I disagree with what he’s saying in his recent post. I usually agree with what he has to say. I agree with that review of Treasure Planet, for example. However when he tells me that someone with the background of Don Bluth shouldn’t be making more films I can’t agree. When he says The Polar Express is good, I have to disagree. All I can see is that it inspires lazy film makers like Robert Zemeckis to do more. Beowulf anybody? How about Jim Carrey in The Christmas Carol? Yet I won’t say Zemeckis should stop making movies, because I know he’ll get the ball rolling for a few more. Maybe one of them will be good.
Where’s Mr. Magoo when you need him?
on 03 Apr 2009 at 8:31 am 1.Steisha said …
Michael, I couldn’t agree with you more. I just attended a lecture with a discussion board of animators. One of the animators made a comment that reminded me of your thoughts above. A question was raised during the discussion of whether or not 2D animation will make a come back or not. He said something along the lines of, “It never went away. A lot of people made bad 2D films at the time that Toy Story came out. When Toy Story became a major success, people got in their heads that because of the way the films were made they didn’t do as well as Toy Story. That’s not true. They were just bad examples of story telling. It’s all about the story telling. Not the media.” That comment stuck with me, and I’ve been thinking about it for the last few days. It makes me think of all these 3D films that have been coming out, and how they are labeled by many with the term, “gimmick.” Could it be said that once Toy Story came out, many studios wanted to cash in on that “gimmick” and so cgi stayed? I’m not saying that I haven’t enjoyed cgi films, but I will admit that I do have a preference with 2D animation. We have seen many bad examples of story telling in animated films in general for a few years now, maybe more than just a few years. Whether they have been in 2D, cgi, or the new 3D craze. I hope in the future we will see animated films that thoroughly explore and experiment with whatever media they choose as an art, and not a gimmick to cash in on. I hope that we will see better forms of story telling. I hope…well I’ve begun to lose my train of thought as to where this comment was going, but I hope no one will bash what I have just said. It’s just my personal opinion. I’m no one important; just an art student with a big interest in animation. Also, Michael, I too would love to see Don Bluth make a comeback.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 9:18 am 2.Michael said …
Steisha, Who could criticize anything you’ve said? Studios wouldn’t have eliminated 2D from their agenda if there wasn’t money involved. That’s the reason for the new 3D craze. Bigger bucks.
Fortunately, with new media, 2D is thriving in the Independent films. Sita Sings the Blues and Waltz with Bashir were done with flash. Sita took one person to make the entire film, herself. Persepolis took a small crew and a low budget and Sylvain Chomet (Triplettes of Belleville) is making The Illusionist in Scotland with a modest budget.
If one of these hits, more will follow.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 10:17 am 3.Rudy Agresta said …
The only thing I really enjoyed in KUNG FOO PANDA were the title and end credits (I guess you know where I’m from)! All of the current CGI looks the same to me – with the same paltry attempt at comedy – and camera moves that make one nauseous. Plus, most shots are so full of, well, EVERYTHING, that you don’t know where to look. It makes a 3 ring circus look tame by comparison. Even a 3 ring circus places its main act in the center ring, with the 2 side rings subservient to it. You don’t have to use all of that technology just because its there. Nor do I enjoy noticing that there are 1 billion individual leaves on a far distant tree in the background. Ty Wong’s mood paintings for Bambi said a heck of a lot more with a few well planned brush strokes.
Oh well, on to Don Bluth. I agree with what you have said on the matter, Michael. I think Bluth’s best effort was SECRET OF NIHM. I am not a fan of any of his other pictures because I find the stories and pacing boring. I don’t mean to sound offensive, but I find them, in a word, sappy. Perhaps this was where Mike Barrier was coming from. Plus, I don’t care for Bluth’s sense of character design. Get rid of those fat lower lips on his animal characters for starters. On a positive note, Don Bluth has done his part to keep 2D alive, and for that I am grateful!
on 03 Apr 2009 at 10:49 am 4.Thad said …
I don’t agree that people who make shitty movies should keep getting money to make shitty movies. Not a single one of Bluth’s films is any good. If all we had to judge him by was NIMH, I would agree that he deserves another chance because that was a good first attempt. But what I (and Barrier) probably judge him on is the pile of artificial films he made over a span of nearly twenty years. isn’t that enough chances?
Who cares if the animation is so wonderful (FYI, it’s not) if everything else about the movie is horrible. If it sucks, it sucks. It doesn’t matter if it’s 2-D or CG.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 11:03 am 5.Stephen said …
This link to the Wall street Journal gives an over view of this topic and what the big studios are doing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123751033980990723.html
on 03 Apr 2009 at 11:19 am 6.Tim Hodge said …
Bluth has a reputation for being a savior or demon, depending on who is talking. He is a born leader with lots of charisma who can inspire people (animators and financial backers) to follow him through Hell to find a promised land. I heard him speak at the Kennedy Center in 1982 (an event hosted by the AFI just a few months before NIMH was released), and as a 19-year-old fledgling animator, I was ready to sign up then and there.
My portfolio wasn’t strong enough to get in at the time (thank goodness!). I never worked for Bluth, but have many friends who have. When I ask them about their time there, it’s like listening to a Nam vet having flashbacks of the war. They get the shakes as they recall stories of suffering through “Pebble and the Penguin” while not getting paid for weeks. Or how “Land Before Time” was actually being directed by Spielberg’s 3-year-old son, Max. If he didn’t understand something, it was cut from the picture.
I loved NIMH when it came out. It was such a fresh wind in feature animation. It had mood and atmosphere. But it was the summer of E.T. and all other family films got swallowed up. Especially films like NIMH, whose story meandered around, dodging plot holes like a drunken taxi driver. Yes, now I see NIMH for what it was: A noble attempt. It had its moments, but unfortunately, they didn’t learn from their mistakes.
My advice is this, if you don’t like what’s out there, raise the money and make your own film. After all, if these jokers can scrounge up a few million, why can’t we?
on 03 Apr 2009 at 11:32 am 7.Michael said …
Rudy, Your assessment of 2D-3D isn’t far from my own.
Tim, you reminded me that I was also in that Kennedy Center auditorium (with Mike Barrier) listening to Don Bluth preach his spiel about Secret of Nimh. It kept me enthused. (I say preach because that’s what the talk felt like – a sermon.)
on 03 Apr 2009 at 12:38 pm 8.Dan Caylor said …
Nice retort Michael.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 1:33 pm 9.Cameron said …
Wow, now people are attacking the guy for his religious beliefs. I knew this online debate was missing something…
I’m still not sure why Don Bluth should be blamed for Treasure Planet. It was just one long gargoyles movie with a helping of misguided “‘tude.” The damn Disney execs should be blamed.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 3:21 pm 10.Niffiwan said …
I haven’t studied the history of Bluth well enough to really have an opinion about him. I will just say that I like some of his films (notably “The Land Before Time”) and find others to be quite horrible (Titan A.E. goes into that last category).
However, I do find it strange that Michael champions the idea that makers of bad films should get money when it comes to Bluth, yet pours scorn on companies making a profit from films like “Barnyard”.
Also, I think that the shifting of focus in animated filmmaking from character movement to the development of themes is something to be celebrated. I view that as a move away from eye-candy and onto what really matters. Perhaps, what was once possible only in short films can now finally be done in features. I think that Norshteyn, when making “Tale of Tales”, was thinking about the quality of the technique least of all.
Regarding “No studio is doing anything of note with 2D animation”, do you mean only feature animation? I think that “The Secret of Kells” looks quite fantastic, personally. In short films, “Pilot Studio” is doing some very amazing things with flat plasticine animation:
http://rutube.ru/tracks/1605383.html?v=413e1609f4c0d642130a5ea79d2cd3ce
on 03 Apr 2009 at 3:50 pm 11.Michael said …
I don’t say that the people making all those bad features shouldn’t get their money. Nor do I say that the bad films shouldn’t get made. I quite explicitly said the opposite.
However, I am responding to Mike Barrier that the horrendous films like Barnyard are being made and don’t understand why bad films by Bluth shouldn’t be made. Make sense?
I am only discussing feature animation here. The short films being made are generally light years above the features.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 6:40 pm 12.Richard O'Connor said …
The distinction between you and Barrier, Michael, is point of view.
He is a critic and historian, from his perspective another Don Bluth film would be another spec of schmaltz he’d dutifully endure.
As a practitioner, you have an entirely different criterion for success and a wholly divergent need for Bluth to produce more work.
Aesthetically, I can’t disagree with Barrier (although Titan AE was a tolerable piece of fluff). Financially-speaking, I couldn’t disagree with your perspective either.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 7:22 pm 13.Michael said …
Of course, you’re right on the mark, as usual, Richard. I knew that going in but had to air my thoughts just the same.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 7:41 pm 14.Pete Emslie said …
Hi Michael,
My opinion of Don Bluth probably falls somewhere in between yours and Mike Barrier’s. I don’t have a high regard for his films in general, but I do admire much of the art talent on display, even if it does suffer from poor direction. Also, I think it’s only fair to acknowledge that without “The Secret of NIMH” and the film it begat, “An American Tail”, there would likely not have been the resurgence in animation over at Disney. I believe that the huge success of “An American Tail” in particular, though a film not without its flaws, provided the necessary catalyst to kick Disney’s butt into gear resulting in “The Little Mermaid” just a few years later.
I don’t believe that Don Bluth is a very good director, but I do admire his persistence and obvious love for the medium of drawn animation to keep on producing features for as long as he was able to. For his dedication to the artform alone, I believe he is worthy of our respect. And in this current flood of mediocre CG animated films we’ve been experiencing for a few years now, I even believe that a new effort by Don Bluth would be a welcome breath of fresh air.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 11:39 pm 15.Ricardo Cantoral said …
Mike hit the nail on the head really. Don Bluth really knows nothing about character or story. I honestly thinks he builds his films around special effects and musical numbers, he has never made a film entirely coherent. When I watch his films I just think about how many good artists would take advantage of the budgets he had.
on 03 Apr 2009 at 11:41 pm 16.Ricardo Cantoral said …
Micheal S,
Making that comparison is like saying if you rather prefer being punched in the gut kicked in the balls. Both results are painful and needless torture.
on 04 Apr 2009 at 7:49 pm 17.Someone said …
Wow, this looks like an orgy for people who are crying in their milk about the loss of hand drawn films. People forget that the reason Toy Story did so well was that it was something new. People had been fed “Teenage Love Story Musicals” for so long they associated hand drawn animation with that kind of story telling. Along comes this cartoony buddy picture that was well told. It was like a breath of fresh air. The characters didn’t look like Disney protagonists. There was no music, and yet it was still fun to watch.
Now they’re trying to resurrect 2D with The Frog Princes, but The Frog Princess looks a lot like old Disney films. Don’t get me wrong I own every one of Disney films on DVD. I love them. But I’ve already have them. I can watch them any time I want, why would I want it again? If they really want to resurrect 2D they should try something new. Even if you still want to make “Teenage Loves Story Musicals” at least tell it in a new way. Not just a different location and race. Use the medium of film making to tell a story.
Micheal you did hit on one important point, it’s all about financing. The reason why there was so many “Teenage Musical Love Stories” was that was the only film people would pony the money up for. CGI is facing the same problem. Now it’s edgy buddy pictures that are receiving the financing. That’s why you get so many of them. CGI is strangling itself in buddy pictures the same way 2D strangled itself in musicals.
But it seems to me that your only problem with CGI is that it’s not hand drawn. I haven’t seen any arguments about the content just the technique.
I do agree with you that the only real originality is coming form nonindependent films but that’s a non statement. It’s true even in live action. Again it’s all becouse of financing. It’s hard to get someone to fork over millions of dollers on a vision. It’s easy to get them to fork over millions on a brand. Even Pixar is using sequel films like Cars and Toy Story to tent pole their visionary films. It’s a standard practice, the goal is to keep making films, not put out one perfect visionary film and grumble when the world doesn’t recognize your genius.
True the artistry of the old world 2D films is gone forever. It will be missed. But nothing lives forever, it suffocated in the bile of films it started to produce in it’s later years. But life and death is cyclical, someone new will pick up the craft and create something new. Milt Kahl is gone but there’s someone else out there with that sort of ambition and talent, it just needs to be fostered and encouraged. Remember the 9 old men are famous for being a boys club and they kept their assistants as assistance. They actively prevented them become animators. It wasn’t until they were forced into it that they started to train people like Glen King. How many Glen Kings did they squash before they let someone show what they could do. So they weren’t saints of their craft. Maybe it’s time we remember that too.
on 05 Apr 2009 at 8:40 am 18.Michael said …
If cg films were equal to Toy Story, in story as well as in character, I would have no qualm nor fight with the medium. Since then I recognize the excellence of The Incredibles and, less so, Ratatouille. The rest of the films seem to be just trying to get the hair to move or the grass blades to wave or the undersea thing.
My point was that the executives took Toy Story as the only way forward and threw out the 2D baby with the bathwater. The non-singing stories that were done (trying to imitate Toy Story) in the last of the 2D productions was pathetic. They should have lost money.
I’m not crying over the demise of 2D. I’m still doing it and successful at filling the niche left us by Hollywood.
on 05 Apr 2009 at 9:18 am 19.David Nethery said …
“True the artistry of the old world 2D films is gone forever. “
Exactly the doom and gloom I heard coming into the industry as a student in the late 70′s/early 80′s .
However, I lived through some pretty good times in animation from 1985 starting with “An American Tail” (the first feature film I worked on ) through 2004 . In a short-sighted move under the former CEO , Disney shut down their traditional animation dept. in 2003/2004 .
Some people are acting like it happened 100 years ago.
Will the type of “boom times” from the late 80′s through the end of the 90′s happen again for hand-drawn animation ? Who knows? Probably not , but I don’t know . Nobody knows anything.
But to say “it’s gone forever” is a little premature.
on 05 Apr 2009 at 1:46 pm 20.NotMe said …
Glen King ?
Wasn’t he the lead animator on Chanticleer who took over when Freddie Moore retired in the 70′s to go teach at Cal Arts?
on 05 Apr 2009 at 4:04 pm 21.Michael said …
Obviously “Someone” meant Glen Keane. I didn’t feel that needed to be corrected.
“Not me” chose to be sarcastic about it.
Why both writers have to hide behind their nom de plumes, I can’t guess. Perhaps one of them is Glen Keane.
on 05 Apr 2009 at 9:18 pm 22.Ricardo Cantoral said …
I don’t care if it’s CGI or 2-D, just give me something that breaks out of a safe formula.
on 05 Apr 2009 at 10:52 pm 23.Jenny said …
I’d doubt Glen Keane would write a sniping anonymous post here or anywhere. He’s one of the most genuinely pleasant and thoughtful people in animation or out of it that I’ve met, not known for sarcasm. I know you were just being wry yourself, though, Michael…the anonymous stuff can get tiresome. Some of the “anon” comments on the union blog drive me nuts-can’t help it.
“NotMe”? Lame.
on 06 Apr 2009 at 4:36 pm 24.Dave Levy said …
Michael, I applaud you for calling out a bigotry when you hear it. Thad, I don’t know you, but I am in awe of your knowledge of historic animation and your appreciation of its largely unsung talents… but, why the baiting remarks, especially since you’re not a bigot?
Adding the confusion, on your blog you have a sign posted over a photo of Katzenberg that reads, “Say no to Jeffie’s Jewgold.” And, at the same time (in your latest post) you are calling Disney to task for using a large black model for a hippo in 1940′s Fantasia. What are you trying to tell us?
on 06 Apr 2009 at 6:55 pm 25.Koen De Koninck said …
I’m not a fan of Don Bluth either. But I’m glad he existed anyway. Everybody with such a motivation should get a chance to make art. I also believe he’s not a very good director. But he at least got out of his room and made movies . today, all we see is the same crap over and over. Barnyard, shrek 3 and Igor are nobody’s visions. They are crap that execs think will please brainless ten year olds. So: long live bluth and all his crappy directing, cause it’s a zillion times more personal, and from the heart then mostly everything else coming out today.
. We need a lot more people like Bluth, i think. People who say, f*ck you execs, I’m gonna do my own thing. Who cares his films weren’t animated Citizen Kanes…
I also believe 2D was and is still alive. Look at Secret of Kells (proud to say that I was a trainee on this gem. ) and Triplettes de Belleville. Directors Tomm Moore and Sylvain Chomet, just like Bluth, have a vision and bring that vision to the screen. And they are both working on new personal 2D features. And they will surely kick major 2D ass. I think it’s always so sad when I read those endless discussion about 2D or 3D. Just make good movies damnit
on 06 Apr 2009 at 7:32 pm 26.Ricardo Cantoral said …
“Everybody with such a motivation should get a chance to make art.”
That is a mentality that has been destroying the medium in my eyes. Not everyone is equal and not everyone should get a chance to make an animated feature film. Common sense dictates a person should recognize what are the basic principles of film making and Bluth never did. He knows technical razzle dazzle but that dosen’t make a film, it never does and never will.
on 06 Apr 2009 at 7:36 pm 27.Ricardo Cantoral said …
“Who cares his films weren’t animated Citizen Kanes…”
A common argument that is just an excuse for laziness. “We’re not making (insert classic film)”. That dosen’t mean you get to ignore what makes a film. Just aiming for “good” is not an unreasonable request and “good” just requires any basic skills. That is not subjective, that is fact.
on 06 Apr 2009 at 10:35 pm 28.Michael said …
Survival of the fittest, Ricardo. Fortunately, you’re not the sole arbiter of who gets to make a feature whether it’s good or bad. If Don Bluth, or you or I put together the money and want to do it, we can make a feature.
However, it’s damned hard work doing a film – any film. At least give the man credit for that and for making quite a few movies that kept the industry alive when it was on its last breath. That was even harder to do. And he did it, regardless of what you think of his work. He did more than talk – he walked his talk.
on 06 Apr 2009 at 10:52 pm 29.Ricardo Cantoral said …
I am talking about common sense here, not my own standards. You should learn how to do something before you do it.
“However, it’s damned hard work doing a film – any film. At least give the man credit for that and for making quite a few movies that kept the industry alive when it was on its last breath.”
Yeah I’ll give him credit for doing work. I won’t give him credit for doing any work that is good. I will especially not kiss his ass with “saving” the industry with marketable, fake Disney fluff.
on 07 Apr 2009 at 7:39 pm 30.Koen De Koninck said …
And I’m talking about doing work that’s personal is more important then trying to satisfy every 21 year old animation fanboy that’s out there. Bluth isn’t a clampett or a chuch jones. But he did the best HE could do. And because I think that directing an animated feature must be one of the hardest things to do in this planet, he did an OK job.
on 07 Apr 2009 at 9:34 pm 31.Ricardo Cantoral said …
“Bluth isn’t a clampett or a chuch jones.”
He isn’t even a Norm McCabe.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 5:15 am 32.Nate Birch said …
I unapologetically like Bluth’s first two films (NIMH and American Tail). I also have a soft spot for his wacky arcade games as well (oddly it’s video game fans that have come to regard him far more fondly these days, rather than animation fans).
As things wore on his films clearly just existed to give his animators something to do. Which is noble in it’s own way…but the movies themselves got pretty bad.
Regardless I’d welcome a new Bluth feature if for no other reason than he’s an actual director with a distinct voice and style. I’d take another Bluth movie, warts and all, over another by-committee CG movie with 5 names attached at director.
…and hey, he might make another NIMH. Stranger things have happened.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 10:39 am 33.Michael said …
There’s no reason to have to apologize for liking Bluth’s work. Some of it’s good; some of it’s not. Overall, I find the stories weak and the animation somewhat overdone. Regardless of what some of the younger people think, Nimh and American Tail did jump start Disney into considering the possiblities of financial gain from strong animated films. Spielberg also jumped into the ring with his own studio after American Tail, and that helped push things along.
For better or worse, animated features got bigger and fuller. These days, they’re smaller again, but the business is bigger.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 3:19 pm 34.Ricardo Cantoral said …
I get it now. No matter how bad the feature is, what is important is the industry survives. Thanks for educating us young whipper snappers Mike.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 3:28 pm 35.Michael said …
You’re welcome but your snide comments are not.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 3:40 pm 36.Ricardo Cantoral said …
I know, I am sorry but I couldn’t help it.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 6:38 pm 37.Floyd Norman said …
Wow! This has been entertaining.
I’ve never worked for Don Bluth, but I worked with Don at Disney in the fifties and in the seventies when we worked on “Robin Hood.” (talk about a bad film)
He was always a friend, and was nice enough to allow me to visit his studio on occasion to see what he was up to. Say what you will, the guy can really draw.
on 10 Apr 2009 at 12:33 am 38.scott Caple said …
hooboy…where does one start?….
Don’t see alot of posts here from any who worked for don, I don’t think.
Are they steering clear?
A bit ashamed, like me, that we fell for it all?
Well, I did. I drank the koolaid.
heard him talk at sheridan where I was teaching part time in 86 or 87. That would be post American Tail and Dragon’s Lair. he was recruiting for Ireland. I was swayed by the guy’s rhetoric. Went and did layout on All Dogs, supervised layout on that and Rock a Doodle, was in the Annex doing story, sort of, for Troll, Thumbelina and Penguin.
But he was the only game in town then, apart from disney and no one was getting into disney then ( Dick Williams, of course, in London, but others I talk to say the Williams phenom was waning by late 80s) I did my part for the Chipmunks feature (remote layouts). And American tail looked pretty good, I thought…
How many here have actually seen a Bluth drawing, I mean, a good one. I go out on a limb here – the guy could draw and design like anything, it had a personal style, was but there was very good design going on. The bad stuff is other people drawing the licks, he did have those, badly. I’m no animator, so can’t really comment on that, but you know how some designs are fun to draw, just fly off the end of the pencil, well, his were.
Going through a file cabinet in the hallway one day, i found all the layout work for Banjo and the video games…all done by Don personally, I was told-as good as anything I’ve ever seen, and that includes Dalmatians!
Working for him was different. it was complicated. it was very frustrating sometimes and rewarding at others. I wanted to kill him on a couple of occasions. We would work so hard to please the guy,for no praise, but I see now that was our problem, not his. Eventually like others, we left, although they gave me work for another year and a half in canada. But that’s another story.
I wish i could say he inspired me to do great things myself, but that didn’t really happen. But I would never have had the fantastic experience of living in Ireland, including having my child born there, or met a ton of interesting, talented people, all of whom are forever bonded (and branded!), had it not been for this guy who wanted to run a studio and bring animation to people.
on 10 Apr 2009 at 8:04 am 39.Michael said …
Wow, Scott. That was a great comment. I wanted to keep reading. It’s so conflicted. That’s a real love/hate relationship. It’s sort of the way I felt about some of the earlier films.
on 20 May 2009 at 1:11 am 40.Hah said …
Oh, Michael Barrier.
Maybe he’s just an aqquired taste, but he doesn’t really seem to offer up anything insightful, and he just comes off as needlessly abrasive. The best example is his review of Happy Feet which, love or loathe the film (which this place seems almost equally split on), is just bizarre.
on 22 Oct 2021 at 8:11 pm 41.frank said …
*hell.
on 22 Oct 2021 at 8:12 pm 42.frank said …
*hell