Christopher Robin replaced??

[YoHo]

WE need a smilie eating Popcorn to signify sitting back and watching the action.

Also, according to All Aboard's numbers, Nemo outperformed Shrek by a significant amount.

 

[YoHo]

Also, let's not forget spirit at 73 million.


Toy Story at 192 million and
A Bug's life at 162.


Hmmmmm.

 

[Bstanley]

Geffen's the brains behind the operation.

That's generous. But I guess since he's walking around with way, WAY more dead presidents than I am he should get some kudos.

so they can legally get paid twice

So far the only people that have made money on Dreamworks/Dreamworks Animation are the ones that didn't have any skin in the game (Geffen and Spielberg), Paul Allen put $625M into Dreamworks more than 10 years ago - he just recouped a whopping $245M from Paramount. But wait you say - doesn't he own a big hairy piece of Dreamworks Animation, well yes he does...but according to the AP Business Wire the return of all those Shrek 2 DVDs from Wal-Mart put a halt to his hopes of enough money for a new yacht:

Difficulties at DreamWorks Animation over income shortfalls caused its stock price to falter and forced it to cancel plans for a secondary offering that would have raised the money to repay Allen. AP Business Wire Dec. 11

 

[raidermatt]

I asked who's two movies beat Pixar's last three?

and yes, I was referring to the Shrek series.

Your point is about the success of the studio, not one singular franchise. Besides, Shrek and Shrek 2 don't beat Pixar's last three, inflation adjusted or no.

And again, globally, they don't beat Pixar's last TWO.

275 for mediocre vs 300 for the best.

Your arbitrary lines ignore the fact that Dreamworks has not been able to even reach $200 million with a non-Shrek movie. If 275 is mediocre, every non-Shrek movie they've made is somewhere between dung and mud, including their last 2. This despite following the ultra-successful Shrek 2.


Who cares if they get paid twice, except them and their heirs? We're talking about business models and which COMPANY is the industry leader, not who can best manipulate the system for their own personal gain. (Even though your numbers fall short in that area as well...)

 

[crusader]

Matt,

Mediocre was used in reference to quality, not the number size. I consider a DreamWorks picture lacking. Yet, after 20 yrs, their top films now average almost equally at the box office in comparison with the best producer out there. That's a big continual problem in Hollywood.

Also, according to All Aboard's numbers, Nemo outperformed Shrek by a significant amount.

Yes it did. But Shrek built a remarkable franchise which gives them the ability to outperform Nemo in the long run. Pixar hasn't managed to do that since their first picture.

We're talking about business models and which COMPANY is the industry leader, not who can best manipulate the system for their own personal gain.

You can talk business models 'til the cows come home and throw out all kinds of numbers and power point presentations and formulas to defend a company's worth - all very impressive of course to a market analyst.

I'm talking about the art of the deal - the game. You know, the business PLAN!!! and yes, it is loaded with schemes, manipulations, and powerplays all crafted to milk the system. That's how the real Hollywood operates.

(follow the man..............not the machine)

Theories and hypotheticals are great to toss around, but practice is far far more relevant.

DreamWorks cashed out when the timing was perfect. Jobs can hold on all he wants. If Cars doesn't produce then what? Care to guess what happens to all your valuable numbers? Dip Dip Dip

Clock's ticking. They need a deal.

btw - last time I checked something was only worth what someone was willing to pay for it. You can value it any way you want - that's a wall street tactic complete with a healthy graveyard for all of us to visit and reflect upon.

They went public with some assets and then sold other assets.

Well that's a mighty big 'sum'.

 

[brunoflipper]

 

[DancingBear]

btw - last time I checked something was only worth what someone was willing to pay for it.

Uh, yeah. That's why the fact that Pixar's market cap matters.

 

[WallStreet10]

Uh, yeah. That's why the fact that Pixar's market cap matters.

Don't get too excited about Market Cap and share price.

EPS & P/E are more important.

Also look at tangible assets that are held - real brick & mortar assets.

 

[SnackyStacky]

There was a thread a few days ago, where a lot of people got very upset about it.

I think it is a great idea. I gave the example in another thread of West Side Story, Jerome Robbins' retelling of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. There are many other examples where retellings that have substantial differences to the original, but effectively capture the original.

While I don't have an opinion one way or the other - this seems like a pretty flawed analogy.

Retelling the story is one thing - but this is more along the lines of changing Juliet into a man - thereby REALLY changing the premise.

They're altering the characters within the story itself - not re-telling the story in a new way.

 

[DancingBear]

Don't get too excited about Market Cap and share price.

EPS & P/E are more important.

Also look at tangible assets that are held - real brick & mortar assets.

I've said before I think anyone would be crazy to pay the price for Pixar. Lasseter's the only one under contract, and they don't control the valuable characters they've created.

But DA doesn't have any brick and mortar assets either. And we were talking about the relative values between DA and Pixar.

And if we're only talking about "real brick & mortar assets," then what did Paramount pay $1.6 billion for in acquiring Dreamworks SKG?

As Crusader says, the value is what someone's willing to pay. And again, that's why market cap matters--folks are out there right now paying more for a piece of Pixar than they are for a piece of DA.

P:E doesn't mean anything in this context. You may argue that Pixar's 37.33 P:E is too high for you (and its EPS of 1.44 is too low) and makes it something you wouldn't want to invest in, but that just means your valuation is less than the market's.

 

[WallStreet10]

I've said before I think anyone would be crazy to pay the price for Pixar. Lasseter's the only one under contract, and they don't control the valuable characters they've created.

But DA doesn't have any brick and mortar assets either. And we were talking about the relative values between DA and Pixar.

And if we're only talking about "real brick & mortar assets," then what did Paramount pay $1.6 billion for in acquiring Dreamworks SKG?

As Crusader says, the value is what someone's willing to pay. And again, that's why market cap matters--folks are out there right now paying more for a piece of Pixar than they are for a piece of DA.

P:E doesn't mean anything in this context. You may argue that Pixar's 37.33 P:E is too high for you (and its EPS of 1.44 is too low) and makes it something you wouldn't want to invest in, but that just means your valuation is less than the market's.

I agree with all above. It just boths me when share price is put on a pedistal when it suits the needs of the debate. Is Pixar kicking Disney's butt with FA - absolutely. But when $55.00 worth of Pix gets me $1.44 and the same Dis investment earns $2.70, where should my money be.

 

[Another Voice]

But when $55.00 worth of Pix gets me $1.44 and the same Dis investment earns $2.70, where should my money be.

There are whispers about Hollywood that Iger is getting ready to tell you the answer.

 

[YoHo]

Because I'm bored, here are the world wide numbers not adjusted for inflation according to boxofficemojo.com

Toy Story
$361,958,736

Toy Story 2
$485,015,179

A Bug's Life
$363,398,565

Monster's Inc
$525,366,597

Finding Nemo
$864,625,978

The Incredibles
$631,436,092

Avg:
$538,633,525




Prince of Egypt
$218,613,188

Road to El Dorado
$76,432,727

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron
$122,563,539

Shrek
$484,409,218

Shrek 2
$920,665,658

Shark Tale
$363,530,196

Madagascar
$525,659,004

Avg
$387,410,504

 

[raidermatt]

But when $55.00 worth of Pix gets me $1.44 and the same Dis investment earns $2.70, where should my money be.

With a name like "WallStreet10 "I'm sure you know there are other factors to consider in evaluating an investment.

Crusader's one point that does hold up is that Pixar is more exposed at this point because they don't have a deal. If Cars were to flop before a sale or distribution deal is made, it would most certainly damage their leverage.

Yes, Pixar is far more expensive than Dreamworks, but that's because investors understand the very points that many have been making here. Dreamworks is still essentially a one trick pony. They've got one franchise, and a few nicely profitable films. And even that one franchise is a franchise essentially based on pop culture references, not endearing and enduring characters. Let's face it, we aren't talking a James Bond, or even Lion King type of franchise at this point.

Pixar has proven they can succeed at the highest levels without relying on a single franchise. In short, they are the better bet to succeed going forward. Hence, the premium in their stock price. They will command a higher purchase price or better distribution deal because of that fact.

Sure, as admitted, they have some exposure if something isn't done before Cars, but as we all know, great reward does not come without some risk. Pixar's track record indicates that in this case, the potential reward is well worth the risk.

 

[WallStreet10]

Pixar's greatest asset right now is its cash reserve.

But it also has some glaring weakness'.

It's made seven movies that it doesn't own the rights too.

It's revenue stream from merchandise is solely dependant on what Disney markets and sells.

John Lassiter - while a tremendous asset to any company he works for - cannot be calculated into a companies tangible value. JL could walk away. JL could suddenly die. You don't spend billions banking on the returns one man could potentially produce. Millions - Yes. Billions - No.

Dreamworks on the otherhand own their own library and Shrek will be a profitable franchise for many, many years.

 

[YoHo]

Pixar's greatest asset right now is its cash reserve.

But it also has some glaring weakness'.

It's made seven movies that it doesn't own the rights too.

It's revenue stream from merchandise is solely dependant on what Disney markets and sells.

John Lassiter - while a tremendous asset to any company he works for - cannot be calculated into a companies tangible value. JL could walk away. JL could suddenly die. You don't spend billions banking on the returns one man could potentially produce. Millions - Yes. Billions - No.

Dreamworks on the otherhand own their own library and Shrek will be a profitable franchise for many, many years.

Wait, since when can one claim that a franchise that generates lawsuits and massive attempts to return product will be profitable for years? That doesn't add up.

 

[raidermatt]

The level of Shrek's future profitability is debateable, but since that's closer to 100% conjecture than even we like to get into, I'll leave it at that.

Yes, the cash and Lasseter are the primary tangible assets. Yes, Lasseter could walk, but not without some kind of concssions being made. The point has been made that Disney would be crazy (or plain stupid) to pay full price for Pixar if Lasseter isn't coming along, but that apparently his contract does not give him an out in a change of control.

Which makes everything negotiable, of course.

Disney would also be getting the right to keep all of the revenue it now has to pay to Pixar, and they would no longer worry about producing sequels, ie creating "franchises". We'd have sequels coming out of every hole imaginable.

If Disney either feels that they would be buying a company that is a good bet to produce quality content (which it desparately needs) in the future, or that the true value of Pixar is in the brand name and the talent is interchangeable (as some have suggested), then they can easily make a case for making the move.

We also have to consider the alternatives:

1- A new distribution deal that will almost certainly result in Disney relinquishing some of the rights associated with those current assets, as well as Disney taking a smaller cut of future profits.

2- Pixar makes its deal with somebody else, either a purchase or a distribution deal, or it goes it alone. The point being, Disney is left to scramble for the kind of content it needs.

The drawbacks from these alternatives demand a purchase attempt at least be considered, assuming that Jobs is open to the idea.

 

[Aintdisablast]

I am not familiar enough with JL's rift with Disney but I find it hard to believe a person could hate "the company". There must be an element within the company that JL hates. If that element was Eisner, the fact that Eisner appears to be totally gone from Disney may soften any resistance to a Pixar buyout by Disney.

Is there more to the JL vs Disney story then just Eisner ?

 

[raidermatt]

I don't know the details personally either. But its been suggested that while the rift isn't with "the company" it does apply to what the company does, and what its about.

In other words, he may not have anything personal against Iger, but its still essentially the same operation. An operation that views making movies in the same way it did under Eisner, so it still might not be something he wants to go anywhere near.

That, and he probably has the clout to secure the resources to strike out on his own, which he probably views as a more personally satisfying option.

 

[YoHo]

The only way I see him working for Disney is if he:
A: has the desire to "Fix" Disney for some reason. Some attachment to Walt and the company AND
B: He knows he'll get the control needed to do that fixing. I don't see B happening at all.