Well. I think studios can get A-list director-blinded. That is, they may not feel good about what's going on, the process, but the guy is obviously some kind of incredible talent, if not an all-out genius and he certainly knows how to make profitable films, so in a way, they have to believe that he knows what he's doing. If Stanton also had final cut on marketing, which you can certainly get if you're enough of a big-shot (and it sounds like he did), then their hands can start to become tied. I am in no way exonerating the studio here - it was their call to make this film - and I really don't know what happened in the back and forth between them, but I do think there must have been an element of "well, he's made billions for Disney in the past... so..." That's happened with Cameron twice now, and it worked both times. The execs don't know how to make these things for themselves - they need directors - but they don't fully understand them, so when they come up against the big dogs, I really do think there's a sort of lip-biting tolerance that goes on because, despite everything, there's a chance of not just making a profit, but of absolutely nailing it, and that is what each and every one of them ultimately are striving for. Again, I don't know the true story here, but this is certainly in keeping with my experiences of the studio system so far.
As to the future, well, Stanton's more than proven his worth at Pixar and that environment is so collabortive that I'm sure no-one would have any problem with him going back to direct their Next Big Thing, which is certainly no bad gig for him. I think he's involved already in some kind of Monsters, Inc sequel and a possible Toy Story 4, both of which would make bags of money.
). Nothing wrong with that. Barsoom is not going to be everyone's cuppa.
