The NY Times recently printed a great op-ed piece explaining some of the factors behind the recent buyout of Pixar by Disney.
Pixar’s chiefs would probably be the first to admit, it isn’t C.G.I.
itself that has made their films so wildly successful. Rather, it is
the narrative craft with which those films were made. If anything,
technology can be a detriment — as Walt Disney discovered when, in the
1950’s, he championed a system to Xerox the animators’ drawings
directly onto the transparent cel, only to discover that the result had
less warmth and realism than the old horse-and-buggy technique of
having the drawings individually inked and painted onto the cel by
hand. While Pixar’s films are invariably clever and often brilliant,
C.G.I. animation can be cold and mechanical, less anima than anemia.
Btw, this deal isn’t done yet. It faces regulatory approval. In fact Disney and Pixar just extended their current distribution agreement to include Ratatouille.
[ disney, pixar, ratatouille, film, movie, animation, computer+animation ]
What could there be to possibly regulate with this deal? Is someone worried that Disney will now have a monopoly on good animation?
Comments are closed.