Comments on: Hollywood redefines “independence”; Rich people the world over clap politely and count their money http://www.lloydkaufman.com/news/2007/12/27/hollywood-redefines-independence-rich-people-the-world-over-clap-politely-and-count-their-money/ President & Co-Founder, Troma Entertainment | American film Director, Producer, and Documentarian Sun, 6 Jul 2008 05:31:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Hastor http://www.lloydkaufman.com/news/2007/12/27/hollywood-redefines-independence-rich-people-the-world-over-clap-politely-and-count-their-money/#comment-11111 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:15:50 +0000 http://www.lloydkaufman.com/news/2007/12/27/hollywood-redefines-independence-rich-people-the-world-over-clap-politely-and-count-their-money/#comment-11111 I agree that most of the big-budget CGI stuff coming out now is a bunch of crap. However, Pixar does have true artists, and their movies aren't the same. The last post just boiled them down to their basics like you could boil Troma down to "a bunch of fart jokes and blood over and over". I love Troma and don't believe that at all, but Pixar is about the only studio that does all of their animation themselves. They refuse to take shortcuts such as motion capturing or rotoscoping. They even refused to come back to Disney until Michael Eisner was gone, and then only because Disney owned their characters and they, and I quote, "didn't want the same people that made Return to Neverland touching their characters". CGI does take money, and I have no problem with big budget movies, if the budget is used wisely. I'm no fan of Disney as a company, but I must defend Pixar in being true computer animation that is a labor of love. If Disney didn't own their characters, they'd be with another studio by now. Now bashing Shrek 3 I'm all for. I'm also all for 2D and 3D animation co-existing in the world, they both allow for different visions, and can often be mixed well in the same work. Eisner had shut down all 2D animation at Disney, at least with him gone, 2D is being brought back. I assure you a Pixar movie has every bit of work put into it as a hand-drawn movie. Even in Toy Story 1, they wouldn't trace video of rain on a window. Instead they watched the video and wrote a program, then fine tuned it until it looked similar to the video. May seem like a waste of time, but now they have at least the start of a program when they want rain on something else. I couldn't be a bigger Troma fan, or disliker of Disney, but if you've seen interviews with the Pixar guys, they are the one 3D studio treating it as an art. They also get to make their own decisions, Disney doesn't get to tell them what to do. Thats why they are Disney/Pixar movies and not just Disney. Disney is simply the distributor, and sadly, makes money off them. Perhaps being into CGI and impressed by the animation alone, which is far superior to other CGI, makes me a bit biased. They do throw in a sappy song here and there and used *blech* Larry the Cable Guy as a voice, but overall I've been impressed with their work. Story-wise I'd say Toy Story 2 is their best. It was to be straight to video until some test animations were done and they realized the great story they had, so it was made on a feature budget instead. I defend art in general, and Pixar makes art, even if it has to be distributed in a crappy manner. It sucks that the path they found to get their art out there is part of the Hollywood machine, I wish it wasn't, but a lot of great artists have had their works released that way. Better than never seeing their art at all I say. But still fight the system, just make your targets things like Michael Bay movies that have no vision, he makes any cut a test audience or producer wants, he's a businessman. Or target things that ruin fond memories like the new Get Smart/Underdog/Alvin and the Chipmunks movies. There seems to be an ideal here that if the budget exceeds a certain amount, its crap. Troma's vision is considered too risky for people to sink large amounts of money into, though it is art if I ever saw it. There is art that is marketable as well too, and it shouldn't have its label as art removed because the artist got Disney to pay for it being made. The main point though is that things should be more diverse, less controlled by higher ups, more people's unique visions, more companies working to get them out that aren't part of some larger company, more people looking at more people's work and actually considering it despite the current market trends. The business behind it all is what really needs to change. Opinions on different movies are going to vary person-to-person. I always look at the director's name when deciding whether or not to see a movie, not the distributor (unless its Troma, and thats because it has a person's (Llloyd's) stamp of approval). I often avoid theatrical releases too because they will cut things out to save for the real "director's cut" DVD to sell even more copies. I just wait for the final cut. If I know a movie has been tampered with after leaving the director's hands, especially in a way they don't agree with, I'll avoid it outright until there is a director's cut released. The fact that Pixar doesn't allow Disney to make changes shows me that they care more about their vision than the box-office gross. Sure they have trends like a lost character trying to find its way home, but then Troma has trends like super heroes beating the fuck out of bad guys. The way they carry out these trends is different in every movie though, its about the movie, not the plot synopsis. People complain about all the Hollywood happy endings, but in any way I could currently imagine, I'd be pissed if Toxie got killed off and didn't come out on top. He may be a parody of happy endings at that, but still you want Toxie to kick ass and win, parody or not. Tromeo and Juliet is my personal choice for having an ending that shits on Hollywood cliches. I agree that most of the big-budget CGI stuff coming out now is a bunch of crap. However, Pixar does have true artists, and their movies aren’t the same. The last post just boiled them down to their basics like you could boil Troma down to “a bunch of fart jokes and blood over and over”. I love Troma and don’t believe that at all, but Pixar is about the only studio that does all of their animation themselves. They refuse to take shortcuts such as motion capturing or rotoscoping. They even refused to come back to Disney until Michael Eisner was gone, and then only because Disney owned their characters and they, and I quote, “didn’t want the same people that made Return to Neverland touching their characters”. CGI does take money, and I have no problem with big budget movies, if the budget is used wisely. I’m no fan of Disney as a company, but I must defend Pixar in being true computer animation that is a labor of love. If Disney didn’t own their characters, they’d be with another studio by now. Now bashing Shrek 3 I’m all for. I’m also all for 2D and 3D animation co-existing in the world, they both allow for different visions, and can often be mixed well in the same work. Eisner had shut down all 2D animation at Disney, at least with him gone, 2D is being brought back. I assure you a Pixar movie has every bit of work put into it as a hand-drawn movie. Even in Toy Story 1, they wouldn’t trace video of rain on a window. Instead they watched the video and wrote a program, then fine tuned it until it looked similar to the video. May seem like a waste of time, but now they have at least the start of a program when they want rain on something else. I couldn’t be a bigger Troma fan, or disliker of Disney, but if you’ve seen interviews with the Pixar guys, they are the one 3D studio treating it as an art. They also get to make their own decisions, Disney doesn’t get to tell them what to do. Thats why they are Disney/Pixar movies and not just Disney. Disney is simply the distributor, and sadly, makes money off them. Perhaps being into CGI and impressed by the animation alone, which is far superior to other CGI, makes me a bit biased. They do throw in a sappy song here and there and used *blech* Larry the Cable Guy as a voice, but overall I’ve been impressed with their work. Story-wise I’d say Toy Story 2 is their best. It was to be straight to video until some test animations were done and they realized the great story they had, so it was made on a feature budget instead. I defend art in general, and Pixar makes art, even if it has to be distributed in a crappy manner. It sucks that the path they found to get their art out there is part of the Hollywood machine, I wish it wasn’t, but a lot of great artists have had their works released that way. Better than never seeing their art at all I say. But still fight the system, just make your targets things like Michael Bay movies that have no vision, he makes any cut a test audience or producer wants, he’s a businessman. Or target things that ruin fond memories like the new Get Smart/Underdog/Alvin and the Chipmunks movies. There seems to be an ideal here that if the budget exceeds a certain amount, its crap. Troma’s vision is considered too risky for people to sink large amounts of money into, though it is art if I ever saw it. There is art that is marketable as well too, and it shouldn’t have its label as art removed because the artist got Disney to pay for it being made. The main point though is that things should be more diverse, less controlled by higher ups, more people’s unique visions, more companies working to get them out that aren’t part of some larger company, more people looking at more people’s work and actually considering it despite the current market trends. The business behind it all is what really needs to change. Opinions on different movies are going to vary person-to-person. I always look at the director’s name when deciding whether or not to see a movie, not the distributor (unless its Troma, and thats because it has a person’s (Llloyd’s) stamp of approval). I often avoid theatrical releases too because they will cut things out to save for the real “director’s cut” DVD to sell even more copies. I just wait for the final cut. If I know a movie has been tampered with after leaving the director’s hands, especially in a way they don’t agree with, I’ll avoid it outright until there is a director’s cut released. The fact that Pixar doesn’t allow Disney to make changes shows me that they care more about their vision than the box-office gross. Sure they have trends like a lost character trying to find its way home, but then Troma has trends like super heroes beating the fuck out of bad guys. The way they carry out these trends is different in every movie though, its about the movie, not the plot synopsis. People complain about all the Hollywood happy endings, but in any way I could currently imagine, I’d be pissed if Toxie got killed off and didn’t come out on top. He may be a parody of happy endings at that, but still you want Toxie to kick ass and win, parody or not. Tromeo and Juliet is my personal choice for having an ending that shits on Hollywood cliches.

]]> by: Matthew Corbin http://www.lloydkaufman.com/news/2007/12/27/hollywood-redefines-independence-rich-people-the-world-over-clap-politely-and-count-their-money/#comment-10325 Wed, 14 May 2008 05:30:59 +0000 http://www.lloydkaufman.com/news/2007/12/27/hollywood-redefines-independence-rich-people-the-world-over-clap-politely-and-count-their-money/#comment-10325 I can only hope your defense of Pixar is mean in irony. It is the same garbage rehashed over and over again since Toy Story. Take anything, object or animal, make them talk have some smarmy humor and really, there you have it, a typical Pixar movie. That CGI crap is slowly running real animators under the ground, legends like Miyazaki or Kricfalusi. I can only hope your defense of Pixar is mean in irony. It is the same garbage rehashed over and over again since Toy Story. Take anything, object or animal, make them talk have some smarmy humor and really, there you have it, a typical Pixar movie. That CGI crap is slowly running real animators under the ground, legends like Miyazaki or Kricfalusi.

]]> by: John Pannozzi http://www.lloydkaufman.com/news/2007/12/27/hollywood-redefines-independence-rich-people-the-world-over-clap-politely-and-count-their-money/#comment-7246 Thu, 31 Jan 2008 17:53:34 +0000 http://www.lloydkaufman.com/news/2007/12/27/hollywood-redefines-independence-rich-people-the-world-over-clap-politely-and-count-their-money/#comment-7246 "Skip the new animated Pixar Shitfest." That comment really offended me. You do know that despite being owned by Disney, Pixar is a very artistic driven-studio. On a similar note, I was also offened by the Toxic Crusaders chapter in Lloyd's first book, where it said all cartoons from the 80's onward were toy commercials. That may have been true for the '80s, but by the early '90s, the animation scene was changing. For example, Ren and Stimpy was anything but a toy commercial. It'd be interesting if Lloyd ever met John Kricfalusi (johnkstuff.blogspot.com), Ren & Stimpy's creator. “Skip the new animated Pixar Shitfest.”

That comment really offended me. You do know that despite being owned by Disney, Pixar is a very artistic driven-studio.

On a similar note, I was also offened by the Toxic Crusaders chapter in Lloyd’s first book, where it said all cartoons from the 80’s onward were toy commercials. That may have been true for the ’80s, but by the early ’90s, the animation scene was changing. For example, Ren and Stimpy was anything but a toy commercial. It’d be interesting if Lloyd ever met John Kricfalusi (johnkstuff.blogspot.com), Ren & Stimpy’s creator.

]]>