BW online pixar disney article

[DisneyKidds]

You can debate whether or not Disney's name actually HURT certain films, but when it comes to the Pixar deal, what's relevant is whether or not it HELPS, and how much.

Agreed. IMHO, Disney name still carries a lot of weight and helps a lot. But it can't help every film, and never really did as the history of Disney films shows that some have been more successful than others - way back to the beginning.

You probably view the Kidds clan as one of the most blinded by the brand groups out there. Go on, you can admit it . But that really isn't the case, as evidenced by the fact that Atlantis and Treasure Planet didn't do a thing for us, we knew they would be duds, and had no desire to see them as the subject matter and or approach of each was all wrong for a Disney film. Monsters, Inc, on the other hand, held a lot of interest for us, and that was primarily due to the fact that it was a Disney film more in line with the types of animated features we expect from Disney. I could care less whether Pixar or some other cgi studio actually did the animation work. Did Pixar develop the story line? Did they develop the characters? No. Those are the most important things IMHO.

Ask most people and they will likely identify Monsters, Inc. with Disney much more often than with Pixar, or even a combination of Disney and Pixar.

The fundamental question is why did Disney allow themselves to be put into the position of needing an outside studio in order to make consistently appealing animated/cgi films?

There is no doubt that Disney has let their animation division fall apart, and made a mistake in not developing in house cgi capabilities. That is very unfortunate. However, if Disney had consistently made the right choices about story lines I think they could have continued to make consistently appealing traditionally animated films - if they chose not to let the medium fall by the wayside. Unfortunately they appear to be letting the medium go and have let what little talent they had left get away. That will most certainly hurt the Disney rep for animated films as time goes by - but as of today I think that name still carries weight.

 

[DisneyKidds]

No, the business is run on opinions no matter which part of one’s anatomy they appear.

Agreed. I am not disputing that the misinformed and inaccurate conclusions drawn by all the Hollywood blowhards is a primary driver in the film business. That is why Hollywood is so screwed up .

 

[Cricket2]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
but as of today I think that name still carries weight.

YES!

...and not the kind of weight that two guys named "Mugsy" and "Tony" let harden around your feet to take you to "sleep with the fishes" ethier

JC

 

[HB2K]

This day and age, it doesn't matter if the Disney name is on the marquee of your animated film. If it's a quality movie with a good story, people will pay for it. Case in points are Shrek & Ice Age.

Pixar does not need Disney behind them. Would they be where they are today if they didn't enter into the deal with Disney?

Maybe, maybe not.

The quality of the movies would still be there since it's my understanding that Disney had NOTHING to do with the story or the actual animation. They literally slapped their name on the movie ala a distributor.

It doesn't matter to me who distributes the matrix. I'll watch it cause it's a good movie. It doesn't matter to me who is distributing LOR, people are going to see it because it's a good movie. It doesn't matter to me who is distributing Star Wars. I'll see it because it should be a good movie

On the flip side, it doesn't matter what name is on 101 Dalmations 2, I won't see it because it's a poor movie. It doesn't matter what name is on Bad Company...I stay away cause it's a bad movie.

I'm sure you get the picture....

 

[HB2K]

Did Pixar develop the story line? Did they develop the characters? No. Those are the most important things IMHO.

To my understanding, Disney had ZERO creative input to any of the Pixar films. They were dreamt up, created & animated within Pixar. Disney's only involvement was putting their name on it and advertising the film.

Anyone back me up or correct me?

 

[raidermatt]

Did Pixar develop the story line? Did they develop the characters? No. Those are the most important things IMHO.

I thought Pixar did these things as well...

 

[HB2K]

I thought Pixar did these things as well...

Does this change your opinion of the Disney / Pixar game of who needs who more?

Is marketing & supposed brand name recognition more important than the product itself?

Or has Pixar's hopping lamp made it's way into people's heads that they can see the forest through the trees?

And do you think Disney is the only company who can market & lend brand name credibility to a company?

 

[DisneyKidds]

I thought Pixar did these things as well...

Well, I guess they did . You know what, Disney is just a bunch of hacks . Here is a question related to Monsters, Inc. Would John Goodman and Billy Crystal have done the voices for Monsters if it weren't a Disney picture? Likewise Hanks and Allen in Toy Story. Face it, if Disney attracted such talent to these films there is no way you could discount the value of Disney in the creative result and overall product of these films.

 

[HB2K]

Well, I guess they did . You know what, Disney is just a bunch of hacks . Here is a question related to Monsters, Inc. Would John Goodman and Billy Crystal have done the voices for Monsters if it weren't a Disney picture? Likewise Hanks and Allen in Toy Story. Face it, if Disney attracted such talent to these films there is no way you could discount the value of Disney in the creative result and overall product of these films

Here's a few names who starred in NON disney animation

Shrek:

* Mike Myers
* Cameron Diaz
* Eddie Murphy
* John Lithgow

Ice Age:
* Ray Romano
* Dennis Leary
* John Leguizamo

Also of note, the name above did a lot of promotion for their films. I don't recall Goodman & Crystal out stumping for Monsters.

So what's next DisneyKidds?

 

[HB2K]

Face it, if Disney attracted such talent to these films there is no way you could discount the value of Disney in the creative result and overall product of these films.

If it was the Disney name which compelled Allen, Hanks, et al. to provide the voice talent for these films, why are Allen & Hanks stumping publicly for a TS3 when Disney is so against it?

It's time for you to face it....

Disney did nothing but slap their name on a PIXAR product (which they had ZERO to do with) and marketed it.

Period.

 

[raidermatt]

Well, I guess they did . You know what, Disney is just a bunch of hacks .

Good, now we can move on... Next thread...



Seriously, it depends on how you define hack. Let's just say that there ability in this area has been somewhat suspect recently, and Pixar is 4 for 4.

Here is a question related to Monsters, Inc. Would John Goodman and Billy Crystal have done the voices for Monsters if it weren't a Disney picture? Likewise Hanks and Allen in Toy Story. Face it, if Disney attracted such talent to these films there is no way you could discount the value of Disney in the creative result and overall product of these films.

There is definitely some merit to what you are saying. I remember sombody, either from Pixar or an analyst, saying that THIS is what Disney can do. They can get Billy Crystal to voice your cartoon.

But the question becomes, how long before stars like these are willing to work with Pixar, regardless of whether or not Disney is involved? Eventually, the cream rises to the top, and if Pixar continues to produce the best films, it won't matter who distributes them, Pixar will have the 'pull'. Who knows, they may have enough of it now...

Certainly Disney does provide better marketing and cross-promotional opportunities than other distributors can. Disney still is the best option for Pixar, and Pixar is still the best external option for Disney.

But again, content ultimately rules, and Disney is turning its back on content in favor of distribution. I just can't see this as a good long-term decision, regardless of whether Pixar and Disney sign a new deal.

 

[HB2K]

There is definitely some merit to what you are saying. I remember sombody, either from Pixar or an analyst, saying that THIS is what Disney can do. They can get Billy Crystal to voice your cartoon.

But the question becomes, how long before stars like these are willing to work with Pixar, regardless of whether or not Disney is involved? Eventually, the cream rises to the top, and if Pixar continues to produce the best films, it won't matter who distributes them, Pixar will have the 'pull'. Who knows, they may have enough of it now...

And if you have Dreamworks as your distributor, you can have Mike Myers voice your movie.

I think people are taking pixar for real. They've got a charismatic leader in Jobs, they've got an impecable track record and they show no signs of stopping.

 

[raidermatt]

I think people are taking pixar for real. They've got a charismatic leader in Jobs, they've got an impecable track record and they show no signs of stopping.

I agree, and you maybe right that Pixar, with the help of another major distributor, could get Tom Hanks, Mike Myers, Billy Crystal, et al.

Still, Disney remains the best choice, provided Pixar gets a bigger chunk of the pie. Not just a bigger box office %, but more of the down the road merchandising stuff.

Pixar will probably have to shoulder more of the risk than they do now, but I doubt they will have a real problem with that, within reason.

Bottom line, Pixar is either going to get a much more lucrative deal from Disney than they have now, or they will be able to go elsewhere and get a better deal than they have now.

Disney's options are to retain the Pixar relationship while surrendering more of the profits, or lose Pixar completely.

Pretty clear who is in the better position...