Disney and Pixar

[Walt's Frozen Head]

Disney doesn't make good stuff anymore?

That's exactly what I said.

I believe that there is a difference between making something and buying it. I believe that the differences between making something yourself and buying it from whoever will sell it to you the cheapest are the very kinds of things that pay off in the long term, in business.

Disney didn't "make" PotC a good movie any more than they "made" Pearl Harbor a bad one. Disney bought a couple lottery tickets from the same convenience store and did better on one than on the other. Pearl Harbor's relative lack of success bore no effect on Pirates' relative success... and Pirates' relative success will have no bearing on how fares the next multi-million dollar lottery ticket.

Michael Eisner's Disney is not abouting creating products, it is about buying lottery tickets. Creating products was the heart and soul and skeleton of the Disney Company... at least the one that succeeded.

 

[DisneyKidds]

Disney bought a couple lottery tickets from the same convenience store and did better on one than on the other.

All I can do here is quote you once again and say........................

Your understatement borders on disingenuousness.

Despite what you may think about some in the organization, or the motivations or lineage or history behind the making of a movie, fact of the matter is that there were indeed some people at some level who took the concept and worked hard to make it a success. To dismiss that so that you can say Disney's success comes from nothing more than a random throw of the dart by an inept Ei$ner does many people an injustice. It amazes me how Disney gets all the blame for the flops and mistakes, but none of the credit for the successes.

 

[Another Voice]

From my point of view, Eisner simply gave up Disney's ability to control its own destiny and now he's paying the price.

Eisner handed over CGI animation to Pixar and killed off Disney's inhouse abilities. Now he's beholden to the whim of Steve Jobs and is left scrambling to buy moives on the open market to counter Pixar's growing dominance in the field Disney started. Eisner is playing catch-up to the company he shoved out in first place.

Eisner has given over live action to Bruckheimer (and a deal that makes Jobs weap with envy). The lottery ticket metaphor is very accurate - Eisner signs over big bucks to Bruckheimer and hopes to buy a winner. Pearl and Bad Company were big time stinkers; they hit it with Pirates - and now Einser's gone back and thrown all that money into two new tickets, King Arthut and National Treasures. Eisner has little control over the films, and even less control over Bruckehimer (you'll notice that his 'CSI' shows aren't on ABC).

In the short term it's cheaper to buy stuff on the open market - you get to fire all those people that made products, all those expensive creative types, make someone take all the risk. But that kind of short-term thinking comes at a price.

And if you're a company that basis its reputation on "quality" it's very dangerous. You've gone from a position that says "we produce good products" to "we're a better shopper than the next guy". Sometimes what's out on the market just isn't any good and "quality" does not mean best-available.

Yes, Eisner did make a better short term deal by getting Toy Story 2 "for free". But in the long term he ticked off the very people that hold the keys to Disney's future success. If someone wants to argue that Brother Bear is going to got gorss Finding Nemo than perhaps you can say Disney is better off without Pixar - but I don't think even the anyone really beleives that.

 

[DisneyKidds]

But in the long term he ticked off the very people that hold the keys to Disney's future success.

But hasn't one of the points been that so long as someone other than Disney is holding that key long term success, or success like Disney had in the past, is a pipe dream?

Not that Disney is better off without Pixar, but if this provides some kind of springboard to Disney grabbing hold of their own keys this change could be some help in the long term..........maybe?........hopefully? If all Disney does is head to the mall then the troubles may continue.

 

[crusader]

Eisner is playing catch-up to the company he shoved out in first place.

Sure he is. The question is - how far behind is disney really? Pixar's been developing CGI for close to 20 yrs and has spent the past 12 or so working with the mouse. There is a shared amount of capability between the two players. Meanwhile, the competition (ie Dreamworks) has already demonstrated proven success with a comparable product.

If the claim is - Disney lacks the in-house resources - I agree. This is exactly where the company's animation division needs to concentrate its' efforts. But they do know how to make these types of features - and certainly have the capability.

I wouldn't be so quick to solely blame Ei$ner as the reason Disney failed to successfully renegotiate the joint venture when TS2 came about. Realistically, when Job$ pitched Ei$ner they undoubtedly took it a few steps further and began drafting up some language. That's where the greed came in. Job$ wanted more - sooner and probably wasn't committing to very much on the back end. The deal was destined to fail. Pixar wasn't in it for the long haul and didn't really want to be in it for the duration of the existing contract.

Disney managed to reap the benefits of a young talented company and helped build their success by assisting them financially and reputably in launching their products. It may have run its' course which means now they have to go back to doing what they know best - within their own company. And believe me, this had better be a solid implemented plan of action or Wall Street won't buy it.

 

[Another Voice]

That's the bind Eisner has put The Company in - they are no longer able to create their own product and are unable to form stable relationships with people who can create product for Disney to market.

Eisner could have gone in two directions. He had The Secret Lab and Feature Animation - all the ingredients to build a tremendous in-house organization that would have been tops in the field.

Or he could have coziest up to Pixar and locked them into a good and long term relationship. They could have become partners; each company contributing to the success of the joint prodjects.

Either way would have worked. But either way would have required effort and investment. Once again, the easiest path was choosen to the detriment of the company.

It's the same as scheduling your one hit show four nights a week instead of creating new shows. It's the same a copying rides from park to park to park rather than creating unique destinations. It's the same as filling the stores with mounds of the few items that are selling rather than trying to recapture the customers that left.

Business rarely rewards the lazy.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

You think he's dedicated to creativity.

Actually, I think his business decisions have consistently shown that he will choose a creative and innovative path rather than the commodities mover path.

I evaluate future production, positively and negatively, based on what people have produced in the past.

Jobs is just an advanced version of an Eisner clone.

Their respective histories suggest this is simply not the case. Jobs has consistently been associated with technical and aesthetic innovation, Eisner has consistently been associated with lowering creative standards and commoditizing ancient creativity.

All I can do is look at what the guys have done before and guess that they'll behave pretty much the same way in the future. Based on that, Eisner is a businessman that sacrifices his own company's creativity and innovation in the hopes of making money, Jobs is a businessman that invests in his own company's creativity and innovation in the hopes of making money.

I do not feel all businessmen are clones... I feel their approaches to business are as distinct as fingerprints and retina scans.

Compare Jobs to Wells, or Roy, or Walt, and we can talk about the differing levels of the individual's "commitment to creativity" because there's the evidence of history that all those individuals will draw some line as being a minimal creative investment.

Michael Eisner has not shown any evidence that there is sone minimal line he will draw. All his decisions suggest that we should expect less, in Disney's future products, than we are getting now.

However, it's simply lazy arguing to find a problem and blame it on Eisner everytime.

What you call "lazy," I call "consistent." It may offer one more exercise to spin Eisner's latest buffoonery into being the fault of Jobs, or Walt, or terrorists, or War, or Katzenberg, or Pressler, or whoever earns Car #1 Acceptable-Target-O-The-Day t-shirt, but I prefer the logical consistency of saying "buying instead of creating is bad business" up front and following up with "buying instead of creating was bad business" in hindsight.

 

[crusader]

That's the bind Eisner has put The Company in - they are no longer able to create their own product and are unable to form stable relationships with people who can create product for Disney to market.

A very disconcerting situation, indeed. What was the plan here? They had to have seen this coming. If you're correct and it was grab what you can now - handle the loss later then that was extremely shortsighted. If it was more along the lines of: "hey we have several fires to put out and this is the least of our problems" then that was a potentially grave mistake as well.

I am curious about the extent of the initial investment in the secret lab? If it gained the ability to create this product years ago, why wouldn't a newer innovative technological system be accessible today?

Gaining the trust and commitment of qualified talent is predominantly one of the biggest obstacles they have. Fortunately, re-invention in Hollywood is the golden principle and Disney has quite a history in that department. They probably could bring in the right people - provided they were willing to make the necessary investment.

 

[d-r]

Oh come on, scoop. You are saying that this argument is inconsistent? Don't you see the consistency? All you have to do is say "I hate Eisner, so everything he does must be bad, so everything Disney does must be bad" and you have the key to all the consistency you need. It really is that simple.

 

[Another Voice]

Actually the "lottery ticket" metaphor holds up very well.

You have to buy the movie before it's even made, so you are buying blind. You're also betting that the movie is something the public is going to want to see, and see when you put it in the theaters. The odds of making a good moive times the odds the public is going to accept it - most casinos on Vegas would shy away from offer those kinds of bets.

I too think it would have been better for Disney to make their own movies. Eisner was unwilling to do that and so they shipped all the CGI work off to Pixar. To offset the "quality" issues, Disney did try to insert themselves into the creative process. If you can't make it yourself, you can at least supervise and add your input in a sort of grey area between "creator" and "buyer".

But here too things went sour. The suggestions that Disney tried to force on Pixar were not well recieved (you'll hear constant complaints that Disney demanded the early films follow the Beauty/Aladdin musical formulas). Added to that the rancor over TS2 and Disney was very much on the outside looking in.

On the flip side of the contract, Disney has to distribute Pixar's product. If Pixar turns out a stinker (as Disney was chorterling happened with Nemo) then Disney is stuck with a lemon. They don't even have the buyer's option of walking away from the deal.

The Pixar affair is the end result of a long string of short sighted decisions. Neither Disney or Pixar expected to end up here and remain in a state of denial. Pixar fears going it along, Disney sees the only creative element of their hollow empire declaring their independence.

 

[AKemel]

PIXAR is a company. It owns buildings, chairs, and computers. It owns rights to the movies it has made in the PAST. It also owns contracts of the creative people who will make movies in the FUTURE.
When signing a new contract, will that contract include those creative people? I would be very surprised if those creative people at PIXAR are not considering leaving the company and starting something on their own.
PIXAR want more from Disney, so why shouldn’t those creative people at PIXAR want more from PIXAR.

In my opinion, a smart move would be to negotiate with those creative people .

 

[Another Voice]

"I would be very surprised if those creative people at PIXAR are not considering leaving the company and starting something on their own."

"Those people" did exactly that when the created Pixar - they left Disney and others to start "something of their own".

It's their company - why would they want to leave it? And why would they ever consider going back to Disney after watching what's happened to Disney Feature Animation?


P.S. - Rumor is Disney dangled both money and power in front of Lassiter to come back. He told them he's wants to make good movies, not 'Robin Hood, Part 5'.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

It's just that I find it inconsistent to complain that Disney is outsourcing creative--but then to make an exception for Pixar.

It was only you who suggested Pixar was to be given a pass.

I said at the time I thought counting on Pixar for "Disney" movies was a bad idea, long-term. More recently, I've said that I thought PotC was just as bad a business decision as Pearl Harbor... because there was zero difference in "Disney business as usual" among the two. The fact that one made money and the other didn't had _nothing_ to do with Disney's process of acquiring it.

I have consistently make the conversation about the decisions made while building a business... not about which lottery ticket paid off the best.

Buying Nemo was and is exactly as good for Disney's creativity, it's life-blood, as was buying Pokemon. Hell, if I was going to bother to change my tune in hind-sight, I'd get to say it was even worse... once you count the bad blood between Disney and a company that seems to be the industry leading producer of CGI animated features.

I have been consistently in favor of Disney building Disney's creative talent and capacity... and the deal with Pixar did not build that talent or capacity, and worse, even provided a distraction/cover story while that talent and capacity was actively decimated.

There were good movies made, that made money. But Disney's creative heart is in significantly worse shape post-Pixar than pre-Pixar... assuming it hasn't already been sold on eBay.

And that perfectly fine. Heck, I agree

I just don't understand why you won't stop there... why you make up statements to take a stand against.

I didn't write this post to argue with you: As far as I can tell, you agree with what I've actually said. I only posted because I feel you responded to a statement no one ever made, and wanted it to be clear that at least I never made it.

 

[crusader]

More recently, I've said that I thought PotC was just as bad a business decision as Pearl Harbor... because there was zero difference in "Disney business as usual" among the two.

I happen to respectfully disagree with this. To say Disney has lost the creative edge vital to its' core business is ok if you are referring to the migration of great talent in the animation division. But I get the distinct impression this comment is being applied to everything the company sells.

The motion picture division is not lacking in talent or creativity. Disney is a producer of motion pictures - which means they hire people to make movies. If the movie lacked talent and creativity it would not fare well beyond the opening weekend at the box office. Pirates of the Caribbean is a great movie because of the effort put forth to produce it. There is a tremendous amount of creativity alive in that film. Disney may have hired Bruckheimer to make sure it was a success - but that's exactly what they are supposed to do. What is it in your opinion that would have been the proper course of action here?

I don't slight you for your opinion of ME, but I do think the premise that Pixar's dominance is particularly his fault is one theory that obviously cannot be applied to Lasseter, given he left the company prior to the CEO's arrival.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

In your view, do you view a Disney/Pixar divorce as being a long-term good move (if Disney were to replace it with its own CG department like the Secret Lab was--remember this is all just a hypothetical of course) even though it would cause short term financial harm to Disney?

In general, I absolutely agree with you: particularly for a company like Disney whose foundation was a singular approach to creation, the more and better you can do it in house, the more solid your brand following and the more stable your customer base.

Of course, we've already seen what Eisner's Disney can do with a world-class CGI facility. I was upset about The Secret Lab because it was unceremoniously and short-sightedly padlocked, not because one movie underacheived at the box office. So while in general I'd think a Disney-type company rolling-their-own would be a better business decision than buying off-the-shelf (for the reasons you specify), I'm not convinced that would be true for Eisner's Disney today and tomorrow. I mean, as you say, I just don't think it would ever cross his mind to attack the problem that way... and in my experience, people often struggle doing things they never wanted to do in the first place.

But then, at some level, that's just agreeing with you that it really doesn't matter at this point... that's a side-effect of my believing the deed was done years ago and what we're seeing now is just the logical playing out of the tune Eisner selected, way back then.

I don't like your term "short term financial harm." I think it carries a negative connation; peculiar, I feel, as it appears to be used as a synomyn for "investing in your own business," which is a positive thing in most contexts I'm aware of.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I don't slight you for your opinion of ME, but I do think the premise that Pixar's dominance is particularly his fault is one theory that obviously cannot be applied to Lasseter, given he left the company prior to the CEO's arrival.

"Pixar's dominance" is largely the "fault," if that's what you want to call it, of Lasseter and Jobs and the creative company they built... and doesn't have anything to do with Eisner, at all.

The fact that Disney has no CGI studio of their own and appears to have stopped dealing with the industy-leading CGI studio at a time when CGI animation seems to be all the rage... it is that Disney animation problem that is the direct result of Michael Eisner's business philosophy, approach to creativity, and business decisions.

The problem is Eisner made less of Disney, not more of Pixar.

 

[Walt's Frozen Head]

I still don't understand why you won't give Jobs any credit for playing the part of Roy or Frank well enough to keep Pixar (and Apple) an economically viable creative entity.

It seems to me that one of the things we've been able to agree on in the past is that pure creative drive is no more practical a philosophy to a creative business than pure profit motive... that the real Magic was located, in a practical way, in the person that drew the line between the two as far as what got created and what got pocketed.

By no means do I paint Steve Jobs as a creative _visionary_ (I state the obvious when I say Woz and Lasseter largely filled that vacancy in Jobs' business plans), but as a creative _businessman_, I think Jobs has done a remarkable job of making money off of continued creative innovation.

I think it's important that Jobs has consistently had folks manning the "Creative Visionary" office during his tenures... as opposed to Eisner, who I believe first turned that office into a revolving door, and then boarded it up, entirely, with the business decisions he made.

It's because of the creative and innovative history of Jobs' businesses that I suggest he might have been a better CEO of Disney than Eisner, five or ten years ago. I do not believe Jobs would actively campaign to reduce his company's creativity and innovation, as Eisner clearly has.

I find your evaluation troublesome, because if Jobs' is "just as bad" as Eisner, I don't think "good" stands a chance in hell in the real world.

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by thedscoop
To me, that's the essential reason why I call Jobs nothing more than an advanced version of Eisner: He's just using a different means to get to the same ends.

I don't really care what Jobs motivations are. His companies' make great products consequently I believe he is entitled to reap a benefit from the success of his companies. On the other hand, Eisner produces crap and takes every cent he can get out of the Disney.

By the way, the first 3 or so years Jobs was running Apple (when he came back in the mid 90's) he only made $1 per year. I am sure he received other compensation, but if he was just in it for the money he would have demanded the world to come back

 

[MelissathePooh]

So I will ask again as I did on an entire thread a while ago...

Who do y'all think Pixar will actually go with if not Disney?

BTW - has the/any official announcement be made yet of a split?

 

[mrtoadslastride]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Dangerous thinking once you consider that The Lion King, Little Mermaid, Wilderness Lodge, Tower of Terror, and Splash Mountain among other things were made on Eisner's watch.

Under Eisner's watch there have been some positives, but when you look at the whole product I don't think you can compare Eisner's successes with Jobs'. Name 3 Jobs failures as big as California Adventure, Treasure Planet, and the disasterous state Disneyland is currently in (not to mention DisneyLand Paris, The Decades Resort, DinoRama, Pearl Harbor, Atlantis, Animal Kingdom).

If you are saying that only the "ends" matter and the "means" used is irrelevant then I'm sure I'll once again find myself in rare agreement with Mr. Head and Mr. Voice on the same thread.

The point I was trying to make is that all CEO's are out to make as much money for the company (and for themselves) as possible. I think Disney's next CEO will be primarily concerned with making as much money for the company and himself as possible. Consequently, I can accept someone who makes a ton of money, but still produces a great product. Jobs at least seems to understand that people will pay big money for a quality one of a kind product.

Corporate history is full of this prank. 1 buck in salary and another million in options. Now, I'm not saying that happened exactly here with Jobs, but the guy wasn't living on a buck a year for three years.

At the time Jobs was living off of Pixar money and the money Apple gave him for Next. However, if money was all he was after he would taken the million dollar salary plus the options.