Christopher Robin replaced??

[raidermatt]

Careful Voice. Follow the men - not the machine.

Given that, I'm not sure I understand the applicability to the Walt Disney Company.

True. But acquiring an entire media network and television division did not dilute the scope of Walt Disney Productions. This isn't a situation where you have the same pie being divided in a different fashion.

But the point is that the various businesses need to be run differently, and that unrealistic demands have been placed on the various businesses at different times in an effort to combine them into one steady growth curve.

By not being willing to do what Walt did - which includes not being willing to take on the risk - they imprisoned themselves just long enough for two decades to pass and the competition to beat them.

Granted, they made a debateable choice, but you're overstating their plight. Nobody has "beaten" them. Yes, their choice has left them in a place where they are having to negotiate for what they might have already had if they had taken a different path, but beaten? Particularly beaten as a result of their choice? No.

No assets other than cash? Again, that overstates the problem. They do have other assets, in addition to plenty of cash to finance their work for some time if needed. But beyond that, let's be real. Their position as the top animation studio in the industry is going to get them a very sweet distribution deal on their future films, and possibly even get them more rights to their past work.

They have what distributors, and in particular Disney, needs and my guess is they will be in a much more secure place once the next deal is done.

But that's not really the point of the comparison. You're pointing out possible issues with the early stages of the Pixar business model, much of which has to do with how they chose to establish themselves. That's not really applicable to Disney at this point.

 

[Bstanley]

It's much worse. Pixar clearly demonstrates the ability to make great animated works of art. But that's where it ends.

No, they have also demonstrated the ability to make and manage money. Pixar has more than $1B in the bank, $0 debt, and their single biggest expense is paying Uncle Sam...at the rate they spend money they could operate just as they are now for the next 20 years without ever releasing another successful movie.

Now - let's see by a show of hands - Who thinks PIXAR will make another successful film? Who thinks PIXAR will be able to strike a more favorable distribution deal with their next partner? Who think PIXAR will have MORE cash a year from now?

Good storytellers supported by a minimal corporate structure appear to beat good storytellers limited by an overruling corporate structure any day.

 

[airlarry!]

I'm curious to know who M. Crusader thinks 'beat' Pixar? I keep thinking more and more that AV is right--the deal Lassiter has with Pixar almost ensures that people are afraid to take them over, because it ain't that easy to have five hit movies in a row.

I was thinking also that if you take out the sequels, no one--I mean no one--has had the incredible run that Pixar has had with its offerings.

While Disney is concentrating on the next cheaply produced overseas rehashing of the same story just with a different gender, Pixar is doing it the Disney way--putting young animators to work on shorts created by up and coming story tellers, pushing the envelope in technology, and devoting years to creating new stories and new characters, all resulting in blockbuster hits.

But you know what? I don't care about the money. Its the fact that I'd rather sit through the Incredibles over and over...but Madagascar was forgettable the very first time it played that proves M. Bicker is incorrect here. Just look at what M. Bird went through to get the Incredibles made...do you think that there will be such harddriven work and sweat and arguments and successes to produce A Day With Kristy Robinette?

By not being willing to do what Walt did - which includes not being willing to take on the risk - they imprisoned themselves just long enough for two decades to pass and the competition to beat them.

 

[Bstanley]

Until Stevie J. decides to take the money and run nobody is going to take over PIXAR.

 

[DrTomorrow]

Wait, are you trying to suggest that the Hulk was some sort of commercial success?

Are you nuts?

Goodness no. That's my point. Something that was neither inspirational nor great still raked in over $100,000,000. Not sure that the viewing public can be considered discriminating....

 

[YoHo]

In that case, I'd reply that $100 million doesn't mean skwat now adays.

 

[crusader]

No, they have also demonstrated the ability to make and manage money. Pixar has more than $1B in the bank, $0 debt, and their single biggest expense is paying Uncle Sam...at the rate they spend money they could operate just as they are now for the next 20 years without ever releasing another successful movie.

Yes. They prove they have what it takes to make money. However, they're ripe for a takeover, because they don't have anything beyond that. DreamWorks sold for a reason. Spielberg's been ten steps ahead of Jobs and has gained a strong competitive advantage over their market. He made all the right moves and has been winning ever since the announcement Pixar made a few years ago regarding the Disney deal.

btw.........considering it takes at least 150m to produce a Pixar flick, I think your 20 yr formula is a bit weighted. I only see a decade of survival with 1 bil.

I'm curious to know who M. Crusader thinks 'beat' Pixar?

Let's see -

Who's two movies made the equivalent of Pixar's past three movies?

Who's last movie made 100 mil more it's opening weekend than Pixar's best movie to date?

Who's latest movie managed to rake in more money than it's predecessor while it's competition's made less?

and finally,

Who built an enormous franchise with it's characters?

cha ching! cha ching! cha ching!

And the winner is????????????????

(hmmm............you think it had to do with the music?)

Why? Because despite how many may feel about their preferred choice in an animation company over here, it's an undeniable fact that more people lined up to see a DreamWorks production. That means, the general public has an entirely different preference.

 

[DancingBear]

Huh?

--Spielberg wasn't running Dreamworks Animation.

--Dreamworks Animation wasn't sold, Dreamworks SKG was.

--Jobs controls Pixar, so it ain't ripe for takeover.

--If being ripe for takeover is a bad thing, why is Dreamworks SKG being sold evidence of a good thing?

--Dreamworks Animation has a market cap of $2.6 billion.

--Pixar has a market cap of $6.5 billion.

--Pixar has a market cap of $6.5 billion.

--Pixar has a market cap of $6.5 billion.

Sorry, I just find that last figure astounding.

 

[DancingBear]

btw.........considering it takes at least 150m to produce a Pixar flick, I think your 20 yr formula is a bit weighted. I only see a decade of survival with 1 bil.

But Pixar also continues to receive income from sales of its DVDs and merchandising. And it almost has Cars in the can, largely at Disney expense.

 

[YoHo]

Yeah, Dreamworks Animation is a seperate Company form Dreamworks SKG and Spielberg has nothing to do with it. It's all Katzenberg and they weren't a part of the Sale.

And given the disappointing numbers in Shrek 2 DVD sales and the fact that every other movie they've made besides those 2 has been a clunker, I think your premise is not just faulty but laughably incorrect.

 

[crusader]

Spielberg wasn't running Dreamworks Animation.

Who said he was? (not that it makes his involvement any less material)

You completely missed the inference.

(Six degrees of seperation, my friend)

here -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/b...g=B_Studio_Deal_Played_Like_a_Drama_cn=121205 .

 

[crusader]

It's all Katzenberg and they weren't a part of the Sale.

Really -

read my link above and then help me understand how the Katz and/or the Animation company isn't tied to this deal.

And given the disappointing numbers in Shrek 2 DVD sales

What source are you using? (I mean, did you even bother to check this out?)

Shrek 2's dvd sales est at 360 mil. That's 20% higher than Nemo's.

I find that hardly laughable.

 

[raidermatt]

Really - read my link above and then help me understand how the Katz and/or the Animation company isn't tied to this deal.

There's a tie, but it does nothing to support your contention that Dreamworks is "beating" Pixar.

What source are you using? (I mean, did you even bother to check this out?)

Shrek 2's dvd sales est at 360 mil. That's 20% higher than Nemo's.

Dreamworks stock fell when they announced DVD sales of Shrek were falling 5 million short of forecasts. You're right though, they weren't laughing about it. So, yes, they were disappointing and the source is Dreamworks.

It is all relative though.

Who's latest movie managed to rake in more money than it's predecessor while it's competition's made less?

DW's next to last movie was Shark Tale, which made $160 million. Pixar's next to last was Finding Nemo, which made $339 million. Despite the relative improvement and drop off you reference, Pixar's latest effort still outgrossed DW's by nearly $70 million.

Not exactly compelling evidence for your arguement.

Who's two movies made the equivalent of Pixar's past three movies?

Not Dreamworks. Even their two highest, which are not their two most recent, do not out gross Pixar's past three.

Pixar's last two, Incredibles and Nemo, outgross DW's last two, Madagascar and Shark Tale.

Interestingly, globally, Shrek and Shrek 2 didn't even outgross Pixar's last 2 movies.

Who's last movie made 100 mil more it's opening weekend than Pixar's best movie to date?

DW's last movie was Madagascar. Before I actually bother to look up the numbers, do you want to rephrase?

Who built an enormous franchise with it's characters?

That's awfully subjective. Given the final page on Pixar's ownership of its prior creations is not yet written, it's probably not wise to write off the Toy Story franchise, which clearly you must be doing.

 

[YoHo]

Cursader, you do some research.

DreamWorks Has a "Nightmare Day"
12 July 2005 (StudioBriefing)
DreamWorks' decision to spin off its animation division last October is not turning out the way the company had expected. On Monday, shares in the company fell 13.2 percent after it lowered its earnings estimates and acknowledged that it had been hit with six class action lawsuits alleging that it had inflated earnings projections, spiking a surge in the value of the company's stock, and later engaged in insider trading before it lowered its projections. "It was a nightmare day for DreamWorks," New York Daily News business writer Phyllis Furman commented in her column today (Tuesday). DreamWorks has maintained that the original projections, based primarily on its expectations for the hit movie Shrek 2, seemed sound when they were issued and were based on initial sales of the DVDs. It said it had no idea why demand for DVDs suddenly vanished resulting in millions of returns. Shares in the company, which were trading at a high of $42.60 last December have fallen to $22.80 at midmorning trading today (Tuesday). Analysts have observed that retailers are now no longer willing to stock DVD releases after their first few weeks on the shelves when sales slow. DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg said during a conference call on Monday: "There is a tremendous amount of product in the marketplace. It's obviously much more crowded than it has been before. We don't know if this is a short-term issue or if some larger shift is going on."

 

[Bstanley]

Yes. They prove they have what it takes to make money. However, they're ripe for a takeover, because they don't have anything beyond that.

And that day will certainly come as a BIG surprise to Stevie J who owns 50.5% of the stock.

DreamWorks sold for a reason. Spielberg's been ten steps ahead of Jobs and has gained a strong competitive advantage over their market.

Are you actually serious with this? The only competitive advantage Dreamworks had was knowing how to con Paul Allen out of money...

btw.........considering it takes at least 150m to produce a Pixar flick, I think your 20 yr formula is a bit weighted. I only see a decade of survival with 1 bil.

Well I suppose if Disney refused to continue to pay Pixar their 50% of the sales of things like plush and DVDs that might be true - but the Big ME is gone so I expect Disney to act financially responsibly these days.

Now - as to the rest of your post - I have to admit, I don't know. I do know it WASN'T Dreamworks Animation. According to the August 5th 'Studio Briefing' worldwide sales of Finding Nemo (40M) outpaced Shrek 2 - contrary to what Dreamworks Animation claimed - which might be why Dreamworks Animation is being investigated by the SEC and have had to 'restate' Shrek 2 sales at less than 35 million units - and many of those ended up in the $2.88 bin at WalMart because Dreamworks Animation refused to accept them back - a move I am sure has endeared them to the Walton family (info from the May 31st 'Studio Briefing') and will make it easier to get shelf space in the future.

And the winner is????????????????

Show of hands? The street is certainly showing who they think the winner is.

 

[DancingBear]

Give it up Crusader. You said Spielberg was the one running circles around Jobs. How was he doing that if Spielberg isn't even running DA?

Jobs' 50.5% interest in Pixar is worth $650 million more than the entire market cap of DA. So how exactly has DA "gained a strong competitive advantage over their market"?

Edited to add:

Pixar is trading at $54.95, near its 52-week high of $58.23.

DA is trading at $25, much closer to its 52-week low of $22.45 (and far down from its 52-week high of $41.32).

Doesn't anybody on the internet ever just admit they were wrong?

 

[YoHo]

Doesn't anybody on the internet ever just admit they were wrong?

If you admit you're wrong, you lose.

I'm not sure what you lose. I'm not sure how you win, but nobody wants to be a loser.

 

[All Aboard]

Oy, the numbers bouncing around. Crusader, are you referring to Shrek and Shrek 2 as "Dreamworks last two movies"? ren't you forgetting a couple? Here's the comparison of the last 4 for each (inflation adjusted):

Shrek 2 450
Madagascar 193
Shark Tale 161
Shrek 297
Dreamworks Average 275

The Incredibles 269
Finding Nemo 362
Monsters, Inc. 284
Toy Story 2 286
Pixar Average 300

 

[crusader]

I never said "last two". I asked who's two movies beat Pixar's last three?

and yes, I was referring to the Shrek series.

But keeping in the spirit of what you're averaging - Take a good hard look.

275 for mediocre vs 300 for the best.

That's the true nature of this beast.

Give it up Crusader. You said Spielberg was the one running circles around Jobs. How was he doing that if Spielberg isn't even running DA?

Seriously? OK I'll bite.

Let me see if I understand you. By spinning off a subsidiary to position it to go public and cashing out when it does, but leaving one of the principals on to remain as CEO.........meanwhile all four principals still retaining their equity interests in the parent put that on the market for sale (so they can legally get paid twice) - somehow equates to true, distinct independence in the world of business?

Speilberg was always in the drivers seat and DA was always in play for a distribution deal.

He beat Jobs to the table, cut his distribution deal and removed a big player from the game for Pixar.

And that day will certainly come as a BIG surprise to Stevie J who owns 50.5% of the stock

He'll sell before then.

 

[DancingBear]

But keeping in the spirit of what you're averaging - Take a good hard look.

275 for mediocre vs 300 for the best.

That's the true nature of this beast.

Some people never give up. AllAboard was being generous to you by only counting forward from Shrek, thereby omitting:

Road to El Dorado: $51 million
Prince of Egypt: $101 million

Let me see if I understand you. By spinning off a subsidiary to position it to go public and cashing out when it does, but leaving one of the principals on to remain as CEO.........meanwhile all four principals still retaining their equity interests in the parent put that on the market for sale (so they can legally get paid twice) - somehow equates to true, distinct independence in the world of business?

Speilberg was always in the drivers seat and DA was always in play for a distribution deal.

He beat Jobs to the table, cut his distribution deal and removed a big player from the game for Pixar.

Wrong on so many levels. Nobody's getting paid twice. They went public with some assets and then sold other assets. Jobs isn't competing in the live action game, so it's hardly relevant to Pixar, anyway. (Or should we throw in Jobs' Apple holdings?)

Spielberg's not a businessman, he's a director. Geffen's the brains behind the operation.

Jobs bought into Pixar for, what, $10 million? And now his stake is worth $3.25 billion? He took his company public and not only remained as CEO but still owns over half of the company.

So Dreamworks took Paramount off the table as a distributor (and thereby freed up Universal) for Pixar films. So what?