John Lasseter can't shut up about Hayao Miyazaki. He appears on every Disney DVD release of Studio Ghibli films and introduces them as if he must plead with American audiences to actually watch the movie once they purchase it. He has also hosted a series of broadcasts of Ghibli films on Turner Classic Movies. His passionate efforts to bring Ghibli films to America have resulted in faithful releases, above average dubs and an opportunity for millions of Americans to experience the works of Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata.Lasseter can't shut up about Ghibli, and I can't stop listening.
Some Pixar employees have looked to Ghibli for guidance. I've read that when they feel stuck on a particular movie, they'll pop in a Ghibli film for inspiration. Pixar has benefited greatly from the wisdom of Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli.
Disney, too, can learn from Ghibli.
Studio Ghibli is an organization with principles, and they actually stick to them. Disney received much applause for killing the practice of releasing awful direct-to-video sequels. Miyazaki never did sequels in the first place.
While there have certainly been great sequels, most are rehashes, suggesting a dearth of creativity. What does Cars 2 have to offer the world besides profits to shareholders? Is Pixar selling its soul to do great films that don't lend themselves well to merchandising, such as Wall-E and Ratatouille?
Disney is receiving much praise for bringing back 2D-animated features. Some animation fans are hoping that The Princess and the Frog may usher in a new era of Disney animation. 2D animation never died. Studio Ghibli was doing 2D all this time. Where were you?
But this update is not about movies. It's about theme parks.
The Walt Disney Company once boasted that they replace all of the light bulbs on Disneyland's Main Street when they reach 80 percent of their lifespan. Today they shine until they burn out. Is it too much to ask Disney to live up to their own principles?When Lasseter became the Principal Creative Adviser at Imagineering and an overall head honcho at Disney, I hoped that he would bring some of these principles and ideals he learned from Ghibli to Disney theme parks. Instead, valuable real estate has been gobbled up by all manner of Pixar franchises, from Cars to Toy Story. There was even a concept in the works for a Wall-E attraction according to the usual rumor mills, which leads me to ask if anyone at Disney actually watched the movie.
Were movie tie-ins what made Lasseter fall in love with Disneyland in the first place? While Disneyland has always had rides based on Disney films, I'd wager that his affinity for the park would have more to do with the great original works of WED like Pirates and Mansion that made Disneyland what it is today. Who knows, he would never talk to a fan like me. If I could I would ask him, can Disneyland not be a launching ground for original works instead of a dumping ground for every movie tie-in ride Disney wants to infest the parks with?
In this 1991 interview Hayao Miyzaki speaks about creativity.
We live in an age when it is cheaper to buy the rights to movies than to make them. Rather than suffer all the problems of making movies, it often seems more expedient to buy them from abroad. In fact, movie producers in Japan have the impression they can buy what they want as easily as if from a vending machine. People often come to me and say point-blank: "Make a film for us as you can see fit. We'll pay whatever you ask." I think Japan today is in an age unsuited to creativity.It is much easier and cheaper to take an established world, such as Toy Story, and fit it into a themed environment, than to make one entirely from scratch. It's also cheaper to transplant that attraction (especially if you don't care where it goes or if its location even makes sense) into other Disney theme parks than to create a new one entirely from scratch.
The result is that there are fewer opportunities for artists to create. Walt's famous quote, "Disneyland will never be complete as long as there is imagination left in the world." is used to defend awful projects such as the addition of characters and a USA scene to It's a Small World.Why not use that quote to combat the proliferation of cloned attractions at Disney theme parks? While cloned attractions may be good for Disney's bottom line, it's not good for the artistry of its theme parks. This one-size-fits-all mentality to attractions is the result of a drought of creativity and imagination.
Rattling around in some young artist's brain is the next Pirates of the Caribbean, Tiki Room or Horizons. If Imagineering's only job is to figure out how to plop Woody, Stitch or Nemo into Disney theme parks and then copy-paste them all over the world, then what business does it have calling itself a creative organization? Money can't buy creativity. The power structure at Imagineering and Disney itself must be adjusted so that original ideas may come to fruition, even if they come from the most unlikely of sources.
Another blog will suggest that Imagineers be Disney. I've got another suggestion. Be Ghibli. Be like Ghibli and be proud. After all, this is an organization that respects its works enough to maintain a museum celebrating them. They don't go back and insert Totoros into Nausicaa. Disney is an organization that is only now figuring out where to put The Disney Gallery, a collection of works that showcase Disneyland art, past and present, when it should have never been displaced in the first place, especially for a soulless marketing campaign.
Be Ghibli. It worked for Pixar. It can work for Disney theme parks.
To watch Lasseter freak out over Miyazaki's visit to Pixar watch this video.
12 comments:
John Lasseter is annoying as hell but that does not stop me from appreciating his films.
Same here, underage gymnast.
Though I enjoy the films of Brad Bird a lot more!
I love Miyazaki!
His films are amazing.
Disney needs to infuse the new characters (re: Pixar) into the parks and they need to make money for the shareholders. How they do it is what concerns us as Disney enthusiasts and fans.
I wonder when the parks became so sacrosanct that we couldn't except changes. Maybe when they were throwing out the babies with the bathwater in order to capitalize on current trends (don't even mention American Idol).
I do enjoy the new attractions and it only makes me value the older ones even more.
Thanks for sharing the information!
"Disney needs to infuse the new characters (re: Pixar) into the parks and they need to make money for the shareholders."
But how much is too much? I would argue that Disneyland is what it is because of original works that aren't specifically based on an existing franchise.
Do we only concern ourselves with how much profit the company makes and forget the artistry of it all? When did WED become unprofitable?
"Maybe when they were throwing out the babies with the bathwater in order to capitalize on current trends (don't even mention American Idol)."
I wonder if American Idol is even a current trend anymore. Aren't people tired of that show?
I find it interesting that given the portfolio of animated films that Disney had under his belt (maybe 20-25 films) when Disneyland was created in the 50's, he still chose to have one land to encompass them as rides- Fantasyland.
Pixar has 9 films out and the current Disney management deems them worthy of not only having their own rides but multiple lands based off of a single film. Not mention they are just slapped in wherever need be with no consideration to location (except Nemo, but there wasn't much choice there.)
I don't mind the sprinkling in of current popular Pixar films, Nemo is a great and appropriate addition, but we are way beyond sprinkling. Face it they are throwing Pixar branding at DCA like life preservers.
I freely admit that I'm not a big fan of Pixar. Sure, I get a chuckle out of them here and there and towards the beginning they were fairly original. But after a while, one gets tired of stories about non-human things that are funny because they're like humans and a sense of humour that always involves sarcasm and a pause before the delivery of the punchline. To make it worse, every other company in the world has tried to use that formua, making CGI animation a more stolid and rigid genre than ever did Disney make traditional animation in the West. One needs only to compare Pixar's first 10 feature films with Disney's first 10, or Ghibli's first 10, to see where the creativity and exploration lay.
No no, I get it... one movie is about anthropomorphic toys that are funny and sarcastic while another movie is about anthropomorphic cars that are funny and sarcastic... it's totally different...
Pixar in the parks bothers me even more because, for one, Disney has nothing to do with the production of Pixar films. I suppose the same argument could be made for Lucasfilm, but it wouldn't bother me to have the Temple of the Forbidden Eye stand on its own without the licence. If it's just films that Disney has distributed, where is the Totoro ride in Fantasyland?
Secondly, the Disney parks come with a thesis statement: "Here you leave today and enter the world of yesterday, tomorrow and fantasy." Pixar, however, is trademark stamped with a very "today" mentality... popular toys of the 60's, racecars, superheroes, humanity's accumulated trash, escaping urbanization in a flying house... Pixar rides are throwing today in our faces.
That all said, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of copy-pasted and of movie-themed rides. I'm taking a trip to Japan in November, that will definitely involve a trip to the Studio Ghibli Museum and to Disneysea, but not to Disneyland. For time considerations, Disneyland jsut wasn't compelling enough as it's practically a carbon copy of the American parks (vs. Paris, which is substantially different, and which I did go to). But then Disneysea has a Tower of Terror and an Indiana Jones, and then whole lands based on Aladdin, Little Mermaid and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. The last one is why I'm going at all. Perhaps the verdict is that if the films are legitimate classics (Bugs Land?!), then it makes it alright? I dunno'.
Anyways, thanks for letting me vent ^_~
"Anyways, thanks for letting me vent ^_~"
That's what the Internet is for!
"But then Disneysea has a Tower of Terror and an Indiana Jones, and then whole lands based on Aladdin, Little Mermaid and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea."
I have a certain tolerance for carbon copies. It's not like, if I ran a theme park, I would completely forbid them.
Some of the attractions you mention are not complete carbon copies. Tower of Terror is not based on the Twilight Zone in DisneySea. It has a completely new storyline, exterior and pre-show. It's similar in the sense that you drop and go through the show scenes in the same way you do at DCA.
Indiana Jones is close to a carbon copy, but they made subtle improvements like a completely different queue, a completely new scene, and minor improvements to the dart room.
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea is a complete rework of the "submarine ride" concept. You'll see what I mean when you experience it.
I wouldn't say that the Arabian Coast is entirely based on Aladdin. Only one attraction directly is. The other major attraction in that land is completely original.
The Little Mermaid land has off-the-shelf kiddy rides, sure. But it's environment manages to be compelling enough to walk through for people of all ages, and the stage show in there is just great. Imagine putting a major stage show in Toontown. That's what it's like.
And you have to experience Pooh's Hunny Hunt at TDL. Buy the "starlight" pass or whatever they call it, which allows you entry after a certain time for a discounted price.
They've taken the awful Pooh rides in the US and pumped them so full of steroids that even someone who completely hates Pooh like me would enjoy it.
Agreed with your comments on Pixar.
"What does Cars 2 have to offer the world besides profits to shareholders?"
How about utter joy for young boys all across America. Is that too much to ask, dear Spokker?
It's not my favorite, but kids(particularly boys) absolutely love it and I don't in any way diminish that...
I really like the name of your blog, btw. It sounds like one devoted to the perspective of the Soviets on their views toward decadent American culture... Hehe.
"How about utter joy for young boys all across America."
I'm sure that's the first thing on Disney/Pixar's mind when they greenlighted Cars 2.
"It's not my favorite, but kids(particularly boys) absolutely love it and I don't in any way diminish that..."
I do. There's a stereotype that kids will watch anything you put in front of them. Unfortunately that stereotype is very true and Disney exploits it magnificently.
"It sounds like one devoted to the perspective of the Soviets on their views toward decadent American culture..."
Dig up Walt and he can testify against me in front of the House House Un-American Activities Committee.
Keep it up and we'll start a new Black List, with you on the list Spokker
Y'know, it never actually occurred to me that in spite of there not being 1-day parkhoppers in Japan, we could just buy a separate starlight pass if we exhaust Disneysea by 4 or 5 pm.
Thanks! ^_^
"we could just buy a separate starlight pass if we exhaust Disneysea by 4 or 5 pm"
I don't know how many days you're staying at the resort but make sure you see BraviSEAmo at least once. Also, give the park a once over at night just to see everything through a different perspective.
But yeah, getting the Starlight pass (it's different on weekdays and weekends) to see Honey Hunt and the Monsters Inc ride, if it's open by the time of your visit, is probably worth it. And then tour the park to see subtle differences between it and other parks (but it does really feel like the Magic Kingdom, but clean!).
Post a Comment