My conclusion at the time was that finalizing the story before production began was still a worthy goal--we just hadn't achieved it yet. As we continued to make films, however, I came to believe that my goal was not just impractical but naive. By insisting on the importance of getting our ducks in a row early, we had come perilously close to embracing a fallacy. Making the process better, easier, and cheaper is an important aspiration, something we continually work on--but it is not the goal. Making something great is the goal. I see this over and over again in other companies: A subversion takes place in which streamlining the process or increasing production supplants the ultimate goal, with each person or group thinking they're doing the right thing--when, in fact, they have strayed off course. When efficiency or consistency of workflow are not balanced by other equally strong countervailing forces, the result is that new ideas--our ugly babies--aren't afforded the attention and protection they need to shine and mature. They are abandoned or never conceived of in the first place. Emphasis is placed on doing safer projects that mimic proven money-makers just to keep something--anything!--moving through the pipeline (see The Lion King 1 1/2, a direct-to-video effort that came out in 2004, six years after The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride). This kind of thinking yields predictable, unoriginal fare because it prevents the kind of organic ferment that fuels true inspiration. But it does feed the Beast.