Eisner's Thoughts on Pixar

[Sarangel]

From Reuters, By Peter Henderson

Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Michael Eisner on Wednesday said there was still a chance for a new film distribution deal with "Finding Nemo" creator Pixar Animation Studios Inc., but noted that the companies were not in talks.

"I will not believe it is over until it is over," he told investors at a conference hosted by Sanford Bernstein and monitored by Webcast.

He said that discussions, broken off in January by computer-animation king Pixar, had not reopened. "No. No," he said, when asked if talks had resumed.

"We can only make half the deal. I am just an eternal optimist," Eisner said.

Pixar would benefit from Disney's marketing machine and that the two companies would do well to work together to make sequels of previous hits, like "Monsters, Inc." and last year's "Finding Nemo," Eisner argued.

Disney distributes and owns rights to films Pixar creates under the current contract, which has two more movies, "The Incredibles" due out late this year and "Cars" next year.

Critics who want to oust Eisner have pointed to the end of the Pixar deal as evidence of Eisner's mismanagement, since Disney stands to lose a partner with an unparalleled box office track record at a time when its own animation department is languishing.

However, Eisner said that Pixar's offer was too expensive.

Pixar Chief Executive Steve Jobs in February said it was very unlikely that talks would resume with Disney, but Pixar also is not hurrying to find a new partner, and Jobs last month said the companies were working together productively on the launch of "The Incredibles" in November.

Eisner painted a grim future for traditional, hand-drawn animated fare, known as two dimensional, or 2-D, saying Disney would focus by itself and with others on computer animation, or 3-D. "The 2-D business is coming to an end, just like black and white came to an end," Eisner said.

The chief executive gave an upbeat report on most Disney businesses, saying sales of advertising for the fall season was "strong" for money-losing network ABC, which aims to make a profit next year, despite some Wall Street skepticism.

Attendance at theme parks had also rebounded as travel anxiety has faded, Eisner said, pointing in particular to international travelers, such as Europeans who were benefiting from the strength of the euro currency.

Eisner also reveled in Disney's successful rejection of a takeover bid by cable operator Comcast Corp. The fight showed investors the importance of content providers, such as Disney, compared with distributors, like Comcast.

"I don't think we learned any lessons," he said. "The supply and demand side is confirming what we've always known."

He also brushed away a question about whether Mel Karmazin, who is stepping down as president of Viacom Inc. could 'fit in' at Disney.

"If he's a 42-long, extra long, possibly," Eisner told his questioner, quickly adding, "I think we should move on."

 

[SnackyStacky]

"The 2-D business is coming to an end, just like black and white came to an end,"

I think those few words speak VOLUMES.

The only reason traditional hand-drawn animation is dying is because he single-handedly managed to fire all of his creative talent!!!

GRRRRRR!

 

[Phoebesaturn]

Pixar would benefit from Disney's marketing machine and that the two companies would do well to work together to make sequels of previous hits, like "Monsters, Inc." and last year's "Finding Nemo," Eisner argued.

Does this guy have a creative bone in his body?

 

[Tannerman]

Originally posted by thedscoop
somebody, anybody, in the whole wide world (short of anime') would surely be able to think up a few good stories worth telling in 2-D.

I think the trick is not so much thinking of the good stories to tell... it's more getting someone to produce them.

 

[raidermatt]

The thing that cannot be disputed is that a good story will improve the chances of success for any film, and Disney has struggled in this area.

Further, we all know its not as simple as just "thinking up a good story and hiring some talented animators."

If that were the case, Disney wouldn't have went decades with no sustained challenges to their animation dominance.

And even FURTHER, if it really is as simple as "2D is dead, long live 3D", then Disney's decision to kill its own 3D production after Dinosaur becomes an even bigger mistake than it already appeared.

So, they struggle in the story department, and lacked the vision to pursue the technological wave of the future.

The fight showed investors the importance of content providers, such as Disney, compared with distributors, like Comcast.

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement, when applied to the Disney/Pixar situation?

 

[All Aboard]

Scoop, nobody other than Disney has had much success with animated features, ever. So, to think that someone else could just pick up where Disney left off is a logic leap I'm not willing to take.

The hand drawn Disney Features of the 21st Century failed because the stories were lousy. The animation in Treasure Planet was top notch, the animation in Lilo was not. $38mill v. $140mil - the story made the difference.

Would Home on the Range have been a hit if it was all CGI? I highly doubt it. Did Sinbad flop because it was drawn? Can the success of the Shrek films be attributed to medium? I'm not buying it, I just cannot.

 

[WebmasterCricket]

It's not all about story either.

It's story telling.

Mike Myers said something to the effect recently that Antonio Banderas can tell a story about a sandwich and every one would drop what they are doing to listen about bread and mayonnaise just because he makes it sound so good.

Granted, it does begin with a good story, but you need the whole package from idea to curtain for real success.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by SnackyStacky
The only reason traditional hand-drawn animation is dying is because he single-handedly managed to fire all of his creative talent!!!

GRRRRRR!

Oh, I think that's giving Eisner WAY too much power here. I don't see Katzenberg or Jobs or any of the other animation names rushing out to hire those guys and make 2D, and I doubt that it's because of Michael. If anything, I'd expect them to do it to spite him, and even THAT doesn't happen because other people than Michael know that CGI is the deal these days. Even Roy Disney isn't out there touting the artistic merits of 2D animation, and you'd expect him to be one of the biggest champions.

CGI can't make a bad story better, but neither can 2D. And CGI won't make a good story worse. So if you have a good story, and CGI is cheaper, and CGI is more popular right now, and you're trying to make money, which way do you go?

Just because 2D is on its way out now doesn't mean it won't ever be back.

 

[All Aboard]

However, if 2-D was really a commercially-viable animation approach on a regular basis, then somebody...anybody...would surely have made one.

Why?!?!?!?

Like I said, for decades Disney was making commercially-viable (even highly successful) hand drawn animated features. And, only on rare occaision, did anyone else make one.

So, how's that different today? Why should "somebody, anybody" have made something remarkable.

Let's say that a batter hit 800 home runs in his career as a switch hitter, 400 from each side of the plate. No one else during his era did it. He retires and all the batters that have come close to hitting 800 home runs have been strictly lefties or righties. And all switch hitters are related to non-slugging, high average careers.

So, can you say that switch hitting for home runs is a thing of the past. Surely, someone else should have come along and done it.

Or, could it be that that one guy possessed a special talent at doing something very difficult - and it would take someone with that same special talent to do it again. And, oh the results would be wonderful.

 

[jarestel]

Originally posted by thedscoop
I'm just picturing in my head those old radio salesman who kept promising that t.v.'s were just a fad...

I know what your saying, however in addition to 3 tv sets, I also have 5 radios in my house ( as well as additional radios in the cars ). The emergence of one technology doesn't necessarily spell the death of another. A good film, whether 2D or 3D, will find an audience. ( I hope! )

 

[All Aboard]

If that was what really happened, then I think your scenario would be viable. However, all the recent classics were not made by one specially or uniquely talented individual.

But, by one company. One willing to risk what it took to make $100mill + budget animated features. The only one that ever got $100m + box offices out of hand drawn animated features. Nobody but the Walt Disney Company did it.

Yes, we're plugging through this decade with only one hit. I offer that it's due to the Walt Disney Company not making the committment to make it work, not the medium.

So, if the Walt Disney Company has been the only company to have any consistent, measured success with it - and they give up on it - it dies.

There are plenty more Little Mermaids, B&B, Lion Kings, Aladdins, Tarzans, and Lilo and Stitchs out there. It's just that some moron named Mike doesn't have the sense to realize it.

Prediction: Chicken Little is going to fail in an enormous way. And it will have nothing to do with the medium.

 

[crusader]

Again. Yes. We may get a great 2-D animation in the future but only as an occasional exception to the norm. Even today we'll get an occasional hit western or musical even though those two genres are quite expired

Exactly.

There's one reason and one reason only. Money is the only thing that talks in Hollywood.

Unless someone can prove that 3-D animated films aren't collectively making substantially more money at the box office over the traditional hand drawn pictures, I'm not buying any other argument.

"If he's a 42-long, extra long, possibly," Eisner told his questioner, quickly adding, "I think we should move on."

Do I detect a sense of humor?

 

[BRERALEX]

Prediction: Chicken Little is going to fail in an enormous way. And it will have nothing to do with the medium.

echo echo echo echo

im still gonna give it a chance but since so much has been so bad the last couple of times im going in with low expectations

 

[KNWVIKING]

..... but black & white movies didn't fade away because of a lack of good stories. B&W went away because a better medium was availible in color.

Will a great story be successfull in 2D, sure it will, but it will be just as successfull - and maybe moreso because of the clarity- in 3D.

I don't know why an industry such as animation needs to cling to 2D when a better technology is at hand. We don't expect or accept this in any other aspect of our daily lives, why now ?

 

[KNWVIKING]

oops.....double post.

 

[DC7800]

The lack of a major studio producing hand-drawn animation in the future doesn't mean the medium is dead - it means nobody will be filling that market. The success (or at least the hype) of CGI is built upon the success of Pixar (and Shrek, etc.), while during the same period traditional animation produced no real blockbusters. So what happens if Pixar someday releases a series of disappointing movies and somebody - anybody - has a series of even modest hits with traditional animation?

Traditional animation's fate appears gloomy largely because Eisner lacks any vision whatsoever for the medium (or much of anything else), and the list of other major animation studios is rather slim (efforts by Legacy Animation won't now carry the same weight as Dreamworks or Disney). Don't confuse Eisner's opinion on the subject for actual fact.

 

[All Aboard]

Will a great story be successfull in 2D, sure it will, but it will be just as successfull - and maybe moreso because of the clarity- in 3D.

I'm not buying the b&w v. color argument either. Mainly, because I don't think that CGI looks better for ALL animated features.

The successful CGI features have all had non-human, central characters. Toy Story, Monsters, Inc. A Bugs Life, Finding Nemo, Shrek and Ice Age centered around non-humans.

In fact, I think that the human characters in them looked horrible.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"In fact, I think that the human characters in them looked horrible."***

I've never really taken notice of what "humans" look like in CGI but I'll accept the fact that you don't like them. But CGI is still relatively new. When traditional animators add CGI skills to their portfolio, there is no reason to believe human charactors won't look more suitable to your traditional tastes.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Isn't the movie in McPhil a marriage of CGI & 2D ? Didn't Scoop report months ago that Disney wasn't happy with the human charactors & had 2D guys come in and soften them up ? If that's actually what happened, then I think you will be satisfied with CGI humans in the future.

 

[petula]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING


I don't know why an industry such as animation needs to cling to 2D when a better technology is at hand. We don't expect or accept this in any other aspect of our daily lives, why now ?

We accept it in art. People didn't stop painting when cameras were invented (well, I guess SOME might have. ). I see 2-D and 3-D as two different types of art. They're techniques, not technologies.

By the way, I keep wondering, when we talk about hand-drawn being dead, are we specifically talking about feature films? Because as far as TV series go, most of the Nickelodeon and PBS cartoons are hand-drawn, and they're not lacking an audience.