And since I first posted about Disney and The Princess and the Frog (formerly: The Frog Princess), they've already stumbled out of the gate. The film has been preemptively declared racist, which has sent Disney scrambling to make changes and clarify matters.
Disney, you've taken it upon yourselves to perform two important and noble things: place a black character as lead in an animated film and to set the story in New Orleans. So, I must beg of you, don't screw this up. Frankly, for the past decade or so, you've been lost. You've made hasty decisions, like placing all bets on computer animation, and lost your shirts when those bets didn't pan. You've forgot to to either tell compelling stories, or how to sell them to your audience. (How you managed to make the future look boring and staid instead of wondrous and inspiring in your Meet the Robinsons ad campaign, I will never figure out.) You've retreated into easy money by sequel-izing almost all of your old properties and releasing them straight to video. You've surrendered to Pixar, and allowed even the pretenders to Pixar to pass you up.
I'm glad you're trying again, and with hand-drawn animation. Ironically, the paucity of such releases will help you look fresh again. But you need to get this project right. Placing one of us, and New Orleans into such important leading roles has made it all the more imperative that you don't fail us here. And marking this as your return to classical animation means your reputation is on the line. Disney, unfortunately, I feel you lost your magic. Please prove me wrong.
I'm glad you're trying again, and with hand-drawn animation. Ironically, the paucity of such releases will help you look fresh again. But you need to get this project right. Placing one of us, and New Orleans into such important leading roles has made it all the more imperative that you don't fail us here. And marking this as your return to classical animation means your reputation is on the line. Disney, unfortunately, I feel you lost your magic. Please prove me wrong.
Disney to return to animating movies with pencils and paper. This reverses a decision made for an incredibly stupid reason -- which was "Our movies weren't doing well. It must be because they weren't computer animated." It took them numerous failures with computer animated movies to reconsider that reasoning.
Of course, we have to figure if they figured out what they need to do. "It doesn't matter what the technology is. It matters what the story is."
What's actually cool in this, is the story is going to take place in New Orleans and the lead will be a black character.
Of course, we have to figure if they figured out what they need to do. "It doesn't matter what the technology is. It matters what the story is."
What's actually cool in this, is the story is going to take place in New Orleans and the lead will be a black character.
Because he repeated tried to sell off Pixar's animation unit.
Too snarky? Yeah, it probably was. But still, it is a good reminder to know Jobs is not some white knight savior who has a passion for animation. He is a businessman just like everyone else.
That said, it is good that Lasseter is being given the position of running the Disney animation department.
Too snarky? Yeah, it probably was. But still, it is a good reminder to know Jobs is not some white knight savior who has a passion for animation. He is a businessman just like everyone else.
That said, it is good that Lasseter is being given the position of running the Disney animation department.
The girl in the Starbucks logo is a mermaid. She's wearing a crown, with a star, or possibly a starfish in the middle. Most interesting though, is that those two things near the inner border of the circle logo with the horizontally wavy lines are her fins. Really. Think of her as a gymnast, or a contortionist.
But wait, she has two fins? They're almost like legs then. But she's naked. That would mean she's...
Yes, if it wasn't for the green circle, Lady Starbucks would only be seen in the underwater version of Hustler. She's a very sexual being, but that's the norm for mythological women. But that's actually the least interesting thing about this logo.
Grab a cup of coffee, folks. I found a long, but interesting article on the history of mermaids, using the Starbucks logo as a launching pad. Remember Disney's The Little Mermaid? In service to the classic maiden sacrifices for a prince story, the Disney storymen managed to create the perfect inversion of the ancient predecessors to the mermaiden myths. Not unlike how Christianity inverted the many myths it replaced. But you all are just wondering why Lady Starbucks is spread-eagle. Heinz Insu Fenkl has the answer.
Found via Deadprogrammer's Cafe, via Meadowflower.
Like I said before, I don't trust Disney with the Pixar sequels. It appears no one else does, either.
In a comment on my previous post, I wrote that it'd be in Eisner's best interest to fight off the bid made by Comcast for Disney. I don't know telecommunications or economics, but I'd guess Eisner got himself into a little trap. The rumor that was swirling for the past several months (which I was unaware of) is that Eisner was trying to work a deal between Comcast and Disney. Something that would allow him to leave Disney with adolation and praise, which Eisner hasn't recieved in quite a while now.
However, it seems to have backfired, for now the shareholders now have a second way to push Eisner to the curb.
However, it seems to have backfired, for now the shareholders now have a second way to push Eisner to the curb.
Profile
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
sterlingnorth- Sterling Ambivalence
Syndicate
