Eisner kills Toy Story 3 - Will Disney's stupid mistakes ever end?

[johare]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/orl-bizpixar24102401oct24.story?coll=orl%2Dbusiness%2D headlines

Yep, here's the company that we all need to 'give a break' because they are hurting financially while they continue to make one stupid mistake after another.

[JeffJewell]

...this particular item archives, rather than reports, stupidity: this has been the state of TS3 for several months, even years.

Jeff

[YoHo]

This is nothing new, just two blowhards blowing hard. The Irony is that Disney is 100% right here. the contract says they don't count, so they don't count.

Personally I would question whether a 3rd installment is a wise move anyway.

[johare]

The Irony is that Disney is 100% right here. the contract says they don't count, so they don't count. Disney may be 100% right legally, however they are also 100% stupid here.

Personally I would question whether a 3rd installment is a wise move anyway.Maybe you're right...everyone would much rather see an Emperor's New Groove 2 or a Atlantis 2. Disney can build on their own successful titles rather than rely on a TS3. After all, they can always cut park hours some more if they need more cash.

[YoHo]

You missunderstand. I don't like sequels. I have a hard time imagining their is another story to tell here. I think Toy Story 3 is a panic move and RUSHING to make it and essentially paying the price of wasting a movie would be the Stupid move.

This is one instance where either way I really don't care right now. I say wait till the other movies are done and released and then worry about Pixar. They aren't going ANYWHERE for at least the next 5-6 years.

Let Pixar make other movies and see if they can make all of them hits.

I'd just as soon Disney would stop making all these sequels.

To put it simply, Not pushing for TS3 is the SMART MOVE IMHO.

[johare]

We'll see...I think Pixar will have more bargain power if Monsters is very successful and Eisner wants them to do a Monster's 2. A fair deal might be for a Monsters 2 AND a Toy Story 3 to count as a single movie towards the contract.

[Captain Crook]

But I think Disney NEEDS to keep Pixar in the loop at all costs and I can't see how Eisner's bickering with Jobs is going to do that...That said, it sounds like Jobs is a bigger egomaniac than Mike & equally self absorbed, which WILL cause tension between the two...Those things being said, none of us really know Eisner nor Jobs so we're just speculating as to the outcome, and in fact to their relationship. As Yoho points out, the critical date is still a ways down the road, heck Pixar could falter before then (stranger things have happened). But While I agree with your opinion on the intrinsic value of sequels, Yoho, I do think the probable outcome of such a feature (should they be able to corral the same cast) would be very big, indeed...Which is why I think it (and Monsters II - if successsful) needs to be made for Disney.
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[Another Voice]

The relationship between Disney and Pixar has been dead for a while now. Equal parts arrogance, ego, and the decline of a once great company. It’s just hitting the press because of the upcoming release of ‘Monsters, Inc.’

‘Toy Story 3’ was being used as a bargaining issue about canceling the contract – the deal was that Pixar would have produced ‘TS3’ and ‘Finding Nemo’ and been released from the third film. Disney was actually looking at this idea until just about everything at Disney Animation exploded and imploded, and a rather large green gentleman proved to the world that animation without the “Disney” brand could make a pretty penny or two.

THAT was the key turning point in the whole story. What kept Pixar under Disney’s control was the feeling in Hollywood that only Disney had the marketing muscle to put out expensive animated films. Warner Bros, Fox, and others all tried and failed miserably (some with really good films too). After ‘Shrek’ and ‘Atlantis’, Disney couldn’t afford to be smug and everyone else saw an opening.

Eisner dropped that deal and is desperately clinging on to Pixar because Disney so desperately needs a hit. Pixar, in the mean time, has been courting a lot of other studios very publicly – studios that could throw a large check Michael’s way (has anyone seen George recently? Oh that’s right, he’s getting his trailer ready). There are also rumors that the deal could involve a certain ‘Toy Story’ animator/director/reason-for-Pixar’s-success doing another film. This film, by the way, would also be the third in a series and features all kinds of neat creatures (well, everyone except Jar Jar). An interesting little bit to throw into the deal.

Expect a lot of screaming and yelling in the press. But ‘Monsters’ and ‘Nemo’ are really looking like the end of the road. And before all the “AV, you’re an idiot” posts show up here, weren’t there a lot of posts on these boards that Disney DIDN’T need Pixar because it had the Secret Lab and ‘Atlantis’ was going to redefine animation as we knew it? And weren’t Michael and George soooo tight that the new ‘Star Tours’ film was just around the corner?

[Captain Crook]

AV, I don't think anyone here thinks you're an idiot, quite the contrary...And while I publicly disagree with a lot of your positions, well, that's my job isn't it?

As to those allegations, I don't really recall them but I know it wasn't me (this time) defending the status quo (maybe Peter said something;) )

But i have learned from you that nothing in Hollywood is static and just because a Disney / Pixar relationship is DEAD in the water now, doesn't mean it can't have life breathed back into it under certain circumstances, right?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[MickeyMoose15]

Toy Story 2 was a great idea but I agree with Disney because PIXAR wanting to do a Toy Story 3 is just greedy with them wanting more money and I support Disney's decision.

[Another Voice]

Sorry Captain, sir. Those comments weren’t directed at you. I always seem to get into trouble when I talk about Pixar, Lucas and Disney all within the same post. Some people REALLY want a new ‘Star Tours’ film and won’t let Hollywood reality get in the way of their dreams.

There are simply too many egos in the whole mess for the relationship to be put back together again. There might be enough lawyers in California to hold things together, but no one is betting on it. Eisner and Jobs despise each other since neither will admit to the other that they are the world’s second greatest business leader. Lassiter won’t work for Eisner because Lassiter is a smart man. Until either ‘Monsters’ or ‘Nemo’ prove themselves, Lassiter really is Pixar and that makes Steven play extra nice.

The saddest thing about the situation is that Disney can not win no matter what happens with ‘Monsters, Inc.’ If the film is a hit, the credit will go to Pixar and “show” that they can make films while Disney’s lost the touch (witness ‘Atlantis’ people will say). If ‘Monsters’ tanks, the blame will go to Disney’s marketing and its weakened brand. It’s not fair, but that’s Hollywood.


P.S. – Pixar has never wanted to make ‘Toy Story 3’, they have other movies they want to make. It’s all been Disney’s idea.

[DVC-Landbaron]

A man, age 72 and a woman age 70 finally decide to get married. They are looking for a house to buy. The real estate agent shows them their dream house. They LOVE it!! But they turn it down. Why? Too far away from the grammar school!!

Captain. That's you!;) … just because a Disney / Pixar relationship is DEAD in the water now, doesn't mean it can't have life breathed back into it under certain circumstances, right?Oh my Captain!! You really are precious!! Please never change. Your eternal optimism is truly overwhelming. You never allow your glass to empty at all, never mind reaching the half way point!! It is in overflow mode at all times!! ;)

AV. Again, thanks for the insight!!

[YoHo]

HEY, I think I might resemble AV's Remarks. :)

You Foul Hollywood spin doctor how dare you tempt me with the notion that certain director might step into George's shoes.
Now I can't decide who to root for. I'm a quivering puddle of confusion. Maybe I'll become a Star Trek Fan again. (The horrors)

Eh, Never mind, I'll just focus totally on Lord of the Rings for the next few months.

(Hey Landbaron I told My Fiancee that she wasn't allowed to se the movie until she read at least the Hobbit and Fellowship. She's making me read the first Harry potter book before we see that. Can't wait)


Oh, and his glass may never empty, but I suspect the good Captain is right nothing's ever set in stone in hollywood, BUT I wouldn't be surprised if it takes one of those Ego's getting fired to make it change.

[alice-d]

The reason why animated films are so profitable is because they are ageless and children are great repeat cutomers. Not only will children rewatch the same movie over and over. They fall in love and identify with the characters, so that a kids will watch the characters in sequels and animated series (like Alladin and Hercules on the Disney Channel). The more they see these characters in sequels and TV series the more kids want the action toys (so they can play being their heroes), and they want to go to the theme parks to see the characters in person. Disney has a failure like Atlantis and it just doesn't lose at the box office, it loses advetising in the TV show that is never produced and in the toys that are left on the shelves. (The Atlantis toys are knee deep in dust.) Toy Story 3 didn't have to be that big at the box office moderate success or even straight to video would do it gave Disney a chance to resale Toy Story toys. The Monster toys are already on the shelves, so are Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. I have to say that having had four brothers, ten nephews and a ten year old son that in all my years of toy shopping for boys the Lord of the Ring action figueres are the best I have ever seen (Harry Potter isn't bad either.)
I think Disney knows that the upcoming Christmas season is not just going to be bad because of the tourist trade, but that Disney is may lose at the box office (both HP and LOTR look to be smash hits) but also in the toy trade. This is one of the most competitive toy years, with X Box, Game Cube being two big ticket items eating up the diminishing number of cosumer dollars in a diminishing economy. I also have to wonder at Disney's decision on the theme park front to compete with itself. Disney theme parks in Japan and China make sense, but in Europe and South America? Hasn't Disney just discouraged the foriegn traveler from coming to its' US parks?

[YoHo]

LoTR toys are the best ever, because they have only one true cometitor and that is.............Star Wars toys. Trust me, those action figures weren't designed to be sold to children, they were designed to be sold to the likes of Landbaron and myself (well, I don't know that LB would be into it, but he's an unabashed fan of the books) They are designed for people that vacuum seal the entire package and hide them from the sun.

Come May we'll have a huge toy war.

[hopemax]

Hey Landbaron I told My Fiancee that she wasn't allowed to se the movie until she read at least the Hobbit and Fellowship

My husband wouldn't marry me until I read the Hobbit! In our first year together I think our biggest problems came as a result of me not reading the Hobbit. My birthday was in month 9...guess what I got...The Hobbit.

I have read the whole Ring Trilogy since then and am re-reading Fellowship now (just started it yesterday, in fact) so I am "prepared" for the period after my DH and FIL have seen the movie. Course the movie is coming out 2 days before my birthday, so I know what I'm doing to celebrate it :)

[DanG]

Several correctly state that the contract characterizes sequels as not counting. The contract also gives Pixar creative control and the ability to refuse to do sequels.

So Disney would be "right" under the contract only IF Pixar made and Disney released TS3. However, since Pixar already got screwed by Eisner with TS2 not counting against the contract, they will never make a TS3 under the existing contract. Instead, Disney will stumble and release a crappy rendition of TS to milk the franchise that will inevitably fail and end its successful run.

Disney also will reinforce for Pixar why they should go in a different direction for distribution once this contract is completed. It has become increasingly apparent that Pixar does not need Disney.

DanG

[Another Voice]

“Bad story, bad casting, bad marketing? Maybe. But quality and technically strong animation cells. Certainly!” - Wait a minute, who changed the subject to ‘Final Fantasy’???

I didn’t slam ‘Atlantis’ for anything technical. Hollywood perceives the film as a major box office flop (and they’re right). Besides – technical animation is the bodywork. The engine for an animated film, like ANY film, is the story. ‘Atlantis’ is all chromed out but has nothing under the hood.

There isn’t a single contract in town that can’t be purchased. Ms. Basinger just didn’t play the game the right way, neither did Ms. Goldberg and her dinosaur movie. But Mike Meyers, on the other hand, knows exactly what he’s doing with ‘Deiter’. Disney and Pixar will work out a deal when enough money changes hands (basically, Pixar will buy their freedom). In the meantime, Steve Jobs and Pixar don’t need Eisner anymore and they think they can cut much more lucrative deals elsewhere. Pixar will stay ONLY if Disney forks out a tremendous amount of money (a “bad conduct” premium for Eisner’s past actions).

[DVC-Landbaron]

Dworks came up with Shrek without Pixar and Disney can do the same.On what do you base this assumption? Dinosaur? The gutting of the animation (read: storytelling) division? Sure they can technically deliver a "Pixar"-like, computer generated, animation feature. But do they have the talent, internally, to create a good one?

[Another Voice]

No offense, but a gaggle of screeching lawyers won’t put a lot of love into Pixar’s heart when it comes to Disney. The whole relationship soured exactly because Lassiter, Jobs, et al feel that Disney is taking advantage of them and pushing Pixar around like the sweatshops that make Winnie the Pooh plush. Hollywood doesn’t work like corporate America; everything is still basically about personal relationships and carries all the baggage of egos & emotions that it implies. No one needs lawyers for a happy marriage – only for a divorce.

And Lord Baron is right – Disney’s attempt to “do it themselves” was ‘Dinosaur’. That particular chunk of iron not only killed itself, it took down Buena Vista Effects and started the whole mass extinction over at Feature Animation. Disney made it very clear before the release of ‘Dino’ that The Mouse had it in for Pixar. The nasty reason why Eisner got ‘Toy 2’ for free was that he told Pixar in no uncertain terms Disney would leave Pixar without a distributor and drive them into bankruptcy unless Buzz did EXACLTY what he was told. Not really very helpful when you want to build a long-term relationship.

Eighteen months later, and now it’s Disney that’s in the horrendous shape. No one is blaming Pixar for sticking right back at The Mouse. And notice that ‘Monster’ is going to hyping a trailer for a 20th Century Fox film instead of ‘Peter Pan 2’ – that’s just a little twist of the knife.

This mess is all on Eisner’s back. A once powerful and beneficial partnership has been destroyed by greed. Pixar will come out of this as a very strong motion picture producer with a strong brand and good distribution. Disney’s entire computer animation efforts right now is Eisner’s son playing with his iMac.

[DanG]

please identify for me the last successful Disney animated film not produced by Pixar? Then name the last Disney non-Pixar animated theatrical release that wasn't a pure formulaic connect the dots?

I'll hang up and wait for my answer.

Disney is approaching another valley in its animated film creativity. They could have made Shrek, but they didn't and they won't make the next one either.

DanG

[Captain Crook]

But Sccop, "it'll hurt them in the long term". Hogwash! The contract goes through 2004/2005...That's a lifetime.... ... By the time the contract is up, another viable external vendorwill be around...
Oh, how exact is that statement! Also, don't think just because Pixar is riding high that it has to continue. It doesn't. Things inexplicably fall apart all the time. Sure the odds are favorable that they will continue to succeed but they will not maintain a monopoly on this technique...

Why do we hold Disney to such a standard that we feel they should be benevolent not only to us the consumers, but to thier business contemporaries, as well? Should Eisner call Jobs and say "Hey Setve, it's Mike...You know, I'm sorry about all the bickering and you know we at Disney have really had more than our fair share of success so what say we do TS3 and count it as a contracted movie and to show we have no hard feelings we're going to give you a 60 -40 split...Perhaps you can repay the favor when our contract is up..." Yeah, that'd be good business.

:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[All Aboard]

DanG, Tarzan (1999).

[hopemax]

Why do we hold Disney to such a standard that we feel they should be benevolent not only to us the consumers, but to thier business contemporaries, as well?

I'm not, but I think if Disney wants Toy Story 3, it's going to cost them something. Is Pixar supposed to tell Disney, "We know you've been struggling, and even though you've bullied us around for years and we've been counting the days until our contract is complete, we'll set all that aside and work on something we really don't think we need to work on to make you happy?"

Toy Story 3 isn't guaranteed under the contract, right? So Pixar is still following the terms of the contact if they say "no," right? Pixar is just saying if you want our "no" to turn into a "yes" it's going to cost Disney something. And isn't that how the "game" is played?

[hopemax]

Forget the first half then, even though AV used language to give the impression that there was bullying.

Pixar is within it's contractual rights to say "No, we will not make Toy Story 3." Correct? That's playing buy the "rules," right?

So if Disney comes back again and says, "We want the two of us to make Toy Story 3." Is Pixar supposed to just say"Sure!" or is it unreasonable, since they are being asked to do something that they aren't contractual obligated to do, that they ask for something in return?

Disney wouldn't be in the wrong to turn down Pixar's price, but is Pixar in the wrong for making the counter-offer instead of just flat out saying "No."

[hopemax]

And my own addendeum...

The contract also says that sequels go direct-to-video, correct? But based on the successes of Toy Story 1 and 2, Disney would most likely prefer that #3 would also be a theatrical release, is that a logical assumption?

So at that point Disney would be asking for modifications to the original deal, right? So why should Pixar be forced to honor the original deal while Disney gets the theatrical release?

[JeffJewell]

...there's a subtlety to this deal that I have not yet seen widely reported.

The "sequels don't count" clause was a part of the first Disney/Pixar deal, but not the second (or revised, however you want to look at it) deal. Toy Story 2 was already in production, and Jobs actually has a leg to stand on when he says "giving" Disney TS2 under the terms of the old contract was something he did not have to do (in the original deal, the assumption was "sequel" would mean Direct-To-Video. Pixar thought (correctly) that TS2 was good enough for theatrical release, and agreed that was the TS2 would not "count" toward the number of films contracted for in exchange for the extra money they'd make from a theatrical release. It's the "making a film for theatrical realease while being paid for DTV" bit the Jobs refers to when he says Pixar has done that for Disney once already but has no intentions of doing it again).

Eisner is saying that because TS was produced under the first contract, no Toy Story sequels should ever count toward the number of movies contracted for.

Even if you believe Eisner is technically and legally correct about this, he's still a bonehead, because (as Hope points out) Pixar is under no obligation whatsoever to ever make TS3. Eisner can insist that he's right all he wants to and the result will be the same: no TS3.

If Eisner is so brilliant for this hard-ball deal-making, what does that make Jobs? It's Jobs who is clearly in the drivers seat as to whether Toy Story 3 will ever be made, and if so, under what conditions.

Jeff

[JeffJewell]

Disney is not trying to say that Pixar has to make TS3 AND not count it ...that is precisely what Disney is trying to say.

Pixar would be perfectly happy not to make TS3. Pixar is largely made up of creative types, and sequels are largely the idea of marketing types. Pixar has their Disney movie line-up already roughed out, and TS3 ain't a part of it.

Eisner is shooting off his mouth saying, oh yes, we _will_ get TS3, oh yes, it _will_ be Pixar who makes it, and oh no, it will _not_ count as one of the movies we've contracted for.

You may think that makes Eisner a brilliant businessman, but what it makes him is a CEO without TS3.

Jeff

PS: Yes, let's see the TS3 from the folks who brought you the blockbusters "Dinosaur" and "Atlantis." Oh, wait, those weren't blockbusters. On top of that, Eisner fired most of those folks.

[JeffJewell]

...but I'm afraid this disagreement has all the markings of being relatively minor and short-lived.Disney can make TS3 regardless of whether Pixar participates You're absolutely right about this. The certainty in my post wasn't from a "Disney must have Pixar in order to make TS3" position, it was from a "Disney knows Pixar's TS3 will kill at the box office, whereas Buzz Lightyear and Star Command on the big screen will make Atlantis look like Snow eff-ing White."Disney has made some pretty cruddy business moves lately. However, this is definitely not one of them I see what you mean now, you're right, the original deal was one of the smarter things Disney has done post-Wells.

I was tunnel-visioning on the topic again, and took your meaning to be that Eisner's current stance on TS3 was the good move. I was disagreeing with that part.

Good deal at the time or no, right now the only way we'll see a "real" (read: Pixar) TS3 is if Eisner publicly plays nice with Jobs. I know they both have egos, but Eisner's ego needs to be alerted to the fact that he needs Pixar a lot more than Pixar needs him.

Jeff

[JeffJewell]

if even WE can get along, who knows, maybe there is hope for Jobs and Eisner ...ah, but you seem to forget the millions of dollars suspended in the middle of that little relationship.

I mean, we'd surely both be banned for life if we'd been able to make money with kicking each other in our respective cyber-crotches...

Jeff

[Another Voice]

Okay, it’s taken up far too much time just keeping up this thread. So let me be brief:

This is Hollywood, not the real world. This is the place that continues to put Pauly Shore in movies. This place loves the Clintons. Do attempt to apply logic – or contract law – around here.

Contract disputes are about ego, not about the law. Jeffrey wanted to be President, Mikey said no. The lawsuit was revenge. Had Mikey said yes or if had given Jeffrey a large check up front, no one would have looked twice at the contract.

Disney bullied Pixar around when The Mouse had all the power. Mikey’s screwed that all up. Now Pixar has all the power and it’s payback time.

Contracts, right or wrong, good or bad, are irrelevant. What’s important was to keep the relationship strong and the product flowing. Mikey thought Pixar was disposable and bullied them over for short-term profit. ‘Dinosaur’ slammed into The Secret Lab and destroyed Mikey’s Ultimate Weapon of Global Domination. Like a bad cartoon villain, Mikey’s left with absolutely nothing but the box from Acme Industries. Ooops, Pixar’s not so disposable any more.

Internal Disney animation? Yes, I hold out great hope for it since they’ve eliminated 45% of the Animation Department, most of the key people are working for the competition, the industry considers Disney Animation to be washed up, the “new wave” of Disney animated film sank faster than its namesake, the next “new wave” film (‘Treasure Planet’) is rumored to be two years late and still doesn't have an ending, and their internal product all seems to have a ‘2’ after the title. Which one of those facts gives you confidence?

Good movies are not made on an assembly line. You cannot train anyone off the street to stand there and turn the screws all day and expect ‘The Lion King’ to roll out the back door of the plant. Good movies require talent and skill – and very, very few people in Hollywood have that (someone like Mr. Lassiter). Hollywood does turn out product on an assembly line; we call it “prime time television”. Judge for yourself the average quality of that programming.

The Mess is not about business decisions. It’s about egos and corporate chest thumping. Disney’s risk (which was very little compared to Pixar’s) was so overwhelmingly compensated for with ‘Toy Story’ and ‘A Bug’s Life’ that discretion would truly have been in order.

Bottom line, what’s the better deal: ‘TS3’, three films and then nothing. Or ‘TS3’, two films and another five picture contract?

[airlarry!]

This is the strangest thread. Every time I think I will finally agree with The Scoop on something, (like when he says that technically speaking, Disney is right about the details of the contract) I reread AnVo's post, and remember who is right.

You see, this whole thread reminds me of that time some brilliant CEO said "Oswald the Rabbit could be made by anybody and the public will love it and we will still be rich!" or "I want more Three Little Pigs, and I don't care if the artist is not really into making sequels."

Both of these decisions (yes, I am obviously truncating the story a bit but you get the drift) involve the creative talents of our lovable Uncle Walt. There were times in his life when others felt like *they* could get the same product without Uncle John's help.

ScooP:
Disney can make TS3 regardless of whether Pixar participates...sure, it would be nice to have Pixar, but Disney can acquire enough contract work to get this done: DTV or even theatrical. No, the final word about whether Pixar makes TS3 may be up to Jobs, but the final word whether it gets made at all is up to Disney...

Uh-hunh. No way. Let's just inject a little common sense here. Fox, Warner Brothers, even Dworks (pre-Shrek) bit the big fat donut hole when they tried to out-Disney Disney. Only one little guy and his admittedly now-big-time company were ever able to even come close to Disney's ability to craft a story and sell it to the people. Shrek? Hah. Double Hah. One movie does not a string of hits make. BUT UNCLE JOHN HAS DONE IT THREE TIMES IN A ROW. For that, I stand up and take notice, as you should, Scoop.

Oh, Cousin Mikey....I think you are about to pull an Oswald here if you let Uncle John get away. AnVo has already told us during other threads that Uncle John will never work directly for the Mouse...but that doesn't mean that the Board can't muzzle Mikey and patch things up with Pixar. Come on Mikey, give Uncle John et al the big fat contract they deserve, and sign 'em up for another 10 movies or so. Stick to sinking...err...fixing ABC like you did in the '70s.

Here is a mantra, Scoop, for you to repeat... "I want Toy Story not Dinosaur, I want Toy Story not Dinosaur..." And this has nothing to do with the talent still at Disney Feature Animation. We know that Wise and Troubador and the rest are talented...but at Pixar, Uncle John nutures and and cajoles and supports the talent...sort of the way a stern but friendly fellow did starting way back in '28....

[airlarry!]

Hmm...that came out a little harsh, Scoop. All I meant to say was that I think your analysis of the contract negotiation is dead on correct...but that you were missing the point that Disney could win the battle and lose big time in the war. The question is not can Disney play hardball with Pixar. The question is why would Disney want to play hardball with Pixar.

[Another Voice]

It’s the irony of the situation that both sides are right: Disney is correctly interrupting a contract that’s been very good for both parties, but they’ve sacrificed a potentially equally lucrative future in the process. I would feel better if Disney seemed a little more committed to animation and to retaining talent. Technology means nothing, it’s the talent to tell a compelling story that always makes the difference. There is no guarantee that Pixar won’t suffer a similar brain drain as Disney has had, and Pixar has yet to hit the big time without John Lassiter. But I’d rather stick with them then hope some game company can make a good movie (that plan worked so well with ‘Final Fantasy’).

‘Monsters, Inc.’ and next year’s ‘Finding Nemo’ will let us know if Pixar has a team or just one star player. ‘Ice Age’ from Fox will be out early next year. Dreamworks is readying ‘Shrek 2’ and a few other projects. Disney is stuck with absolutely nothing at the moment and ‘Atlantis’ has made some people question the future of traditional animation for theatrical movies (personally, I won’t go that far yet). With the tremendous lead time required for these films, Disney needs to move very quickly starting right now to replace Pixar.

The saddest moment for me in all this – the original draft for ‘Dinosaur’ would probably have been as much of a turning point for animation as ‘Snow White’ was back in the 1930’s. The combination of concept, story and technology (years ahead of anyone else at the time) was truly astounding. Disney could have established dominance in the field that would have been unchallenged for another 75 years. But shortsighted management doomed the project and then rushed to put out a mediocre mess. That’s getting to be a habit I fear…

[YoHo]

Well After a weekend back in Chi-town and the fading Wedding Hangover(ah being a groomsman, all you have to do is walk down the asile with some girl you don't know, shake hands, and drink heavily :)), I'm going to sift through my confused Nuerons and agree with AV here. This isn't new york, this is Hollywood. A town where one of the most stereotyped phrases is "getting in to bed together" that tends to imply that there's a bit more emotion involved here.
Disney may be interpreting the contract right, but Eisner's making himself look like a big fat moron in the eyes of his peers and that matters more then anything else (Of course, he doesn't think he has peers, but that's a different problem.)

[DancingBear]

Seems to me that the argument that Disney is shooting itself in the foot re TS3 only make sense if you assume that somehow an extended future with Pixar is/was possible.

It appears that Pixar wants to satisfy its 3-picture contract ASAP so it can shop itself around as a free agent. Pixar's unwillingness to do a longer-term deal with Disney may be partly based on the clash of egos, etc., but mostly it knows that it has something to sell NOW and it wants to hit the market while it's hot. (Query what happens if the next 3 are dogs?)

So Eisner is offered the chance to get three brand new pictures from a proven hitmaker, or get TS3 plus two new pics.

And you know that you could make TS3 without Pixar (based on other posts here).

Sure, the Pixar TS3 might be sure to be profitable, and sure, Pixar's TS3 might be better than the one Disney makes in-house or with another contractor, BUT, it seems like a no-brainer for Eisner (insert your joke here) to get 3 potentially blockbuster new franchises rather than the tail end of one franchise plus 2 new.