Disney/Pixar no more

[airlarry!]

Actually, Viking, if that is the reason behind the optimism, I actually see nothing wrong with your idea.

There is nothing wrong with hoping that this divorce shakes up the board, tweaks Ei$ner's nose, and that together they all realize how important animation is as a driver for creativity and output, and that the 'synergy' so vauntd by Ei$ner is nothing more than....writers create stories, artists draw the characters, and imagineers make the wonderful attractions we all love. That's true synergy.

However, deep down inside, you know (but please don't spoil your cover by posting this) that this is not a good portent, that this smells like Roy is a lot smarter than Ei$ner thinks he is, and that he knows that when Ei$ner has to begin whispering to the street to expect lower earnings due to a termination of this contract, that the Street is going to be very, very, very suspicious of his hold on the future.

Ei$ner has made three big errors here. Not getting Pixar/Lassiter in the fold a long time ago (not seeing the future, which is what a truly succesful and enlightened CEO does);

Not spending the money to really invest in some killer attractions (or even lands/parks) for the Pixar folks under a long term deal (what better way to keep Jobs happy then to have a whole section of the park done right--not that crap at DCA); and

Not getting this contract renewed, using Roy's close relationship with John Lassiter to work out a new deal.

If we are going to let Mikey play the role of Hollywood Mogul, (and we all know he is playing it), then you have to pin the downfall of this deal on Mr. Playmaker himself. From Disney's perspective, I mean.

 

[crusader]

Originally posted by raidermatt
After all, I could say that its strange that people who praised the venture now think its a positive that its ending (probably).

That wouldn't be me. I viewed this venture as nothing more than a company in need of a name making a deal with a big partner to establish a name and sell a product which both sides stood to make alot of money on.

Is it a positive now that it may be over? Of course not. Both sides stand to lose in the short term .

And Disney will now compete against Pixar in animation along with Dreamworks and anybody else out there looking to cash in.

Hey by the way, I was waiting for you to drop the old "short term positives don't equate to long term success" talking points somewhere in this discussion.

YoHo -

No need for debate. Just answer me this: Would Nemo have done as well?

when Ei$ner has to begin whispering to the street to expect lower earnings due to a termination of this contract, that the Street is going to be very, very, very suspicious of his hold on the future.

Not really. Pixar experienced a similar dip with wallstreet. It isn't that big of a surprise and the only thing that will matter to the street regarding ME is how well the company performs each year.

 

[YoHo]

Would Nemo have done as well if it had been TA?
I don't know, the storytelling elements are very different for these two types of animation. I think if it had been written to the strengths of Traditional animation without sacrificing the story, then yes, I think it could have.

Of course, can ask the reverse. Do you honestly think that Brother Bear a movie that Did fairly well given it's limited publicity would have done remarkably better as CGI?

I don't think so, people have been talking about Nemo for almost a year previous to its release. not so with BB.


Of course as far
Wall Street is concerned, yeah, Pixar saw a dip in after hours, but as of today, while Dis is down .45 at 23.72, Pixar is up 2.19 to 66.39. I think mor epeople have confidence in them.

 

[manning]

Pixar stock up 3.41 percent, Disney down 1.84 percent today.

 

[crusader]

That bounce Pixar had today was nothing more than a recovery from Thurs when they initially opened at $66.00 prior to this little press release and dropped $2/share that day.

That isn't what I'd call investor confidence.

Disney does appear to be slower in rebounding which could very well be the Roy factor but given this latest article

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/technology/disney_without_pixar/

I'll be curious to see what happens in the next few days.

Don't underestimate the power of the soundbite.

YoHo

Thank you for that honest answer to my question. By storytelling elements I will assume you are referring to the process - not the development.

I look at the presentation as the key distinguishing characteristic between these two styles.

You bring up a good question about Brother Bear. I don't know if it would have fared any better with CGI. If the imagery was as compelling as Nemo on screen during the promos, it may have brought more people in the door who wanted to see the movie to begin with, but for some reason passed on it.

I attribute the loss of appeal to timing, content and style. Most of us had already had our fill with Nemo and were being inundated with new releases on video for the holidays. So it made sense to wait for the DVD on this one.

And I disagree that it was not heavily promoted. Brother Bear was marketed out the wazoo.

 

[Planogirl]

How can anyone say that this situation isn't bad? Whether Disney needs it's nose tweaked or not, the whole point is that Disney shouldn't need its nose tweaked. Disney was always the leader! But now Pixar has to tweak Disney's nose to get the company going again?

I see Pixar making quality products with heart, products that the old Disney would have applauded. Now it's OK if Pixar walks away because Disney will somehow start making great animated movies as a result?

I hope that this is true but I just don't see it.

 

[mickey1010]

The situation that Disney is in is definitely unfortunate or "bad".

Looking at the whole picture and trying to be optimistic about Disney, I am glad to see this coming from Pixar. Since I know nothing about what is really occurring as opposed to what is shared with the general public (me!), my opinions are purely based on speculation.

The way I look at is ME's Disney is heading down a one-way street. At this stage in the journey and with ME at the wheel, there is no reverse, hence no return to the Disney of old. (I hate the good ol' days reference...but for lack of a better term, so be it!) If Pixar and Disney had signed a deal, that would have provided ME with more fuel for his tank to continue down that one way street. The "magic" we all hold near and dear to our heart would also continue to slowly fade until the real Disney is nothing more than a wonderful memory from our youth.

Back to reality though and we see Pixar giving Disney the proverbial one finger salute which, while on the surface may not be good for Disney in the short-term (read: NOT GOOD FOR Eisner), could, in essence, be good in the long term since it deals quite a blow to Eisner.

If it is a big enough hit to make any difference in the "Oust Eisner" campaign, remains to be seen. If it isn't, hopefully something else will come along to assist. If it is, then good on ya Mr. Jobs, the regime is weakening and maybe, just maybe, Disney can be turned around and headed in the right direction.

 

[KNWVIKING]

Originally posted by raidermatt
After all, I could say that its strange that people who praised the venture now think its a positive that its ending (probably).

But comparing the original deal to the rumored new deal is comparing apples and oranges. The original was very profitable for Disney, both in the short & long term. The new deal is nothing even close to the old.

***"But now Pixar has to tweak Disney's nose to get the company going again?"***

I don't care who does the tweaking as long as it gets Disney back on track.

***"I hope that this is true but I just don't see it."***
hen
Well, I think everyone would agree that if dropping Pixar gets Disney back on track, then regardless of how it happened it's a good thing. Did it happen because of ME's masterfull vision or his total ineptness doesn't really matter if you're a true Disney fan.

 

[hopemax]

I don't care who does the tweaking as long as it gets Disney back on track.

Aside from blind faith, why do you believe "back on track" could actually happen? Have you seen anything in ME's history that says he's the least bit interested in animation? If it wasn't for Jeffrey Kazenberg and Roy the animation department would have been history back in the 1980's. More recently he shut down the Secret Lab rather than figure out why Dinosaur went wrong. Now he's commited to 3-D/CGI?

I suppose the best possibility is that he's embarrassed into keeping animation open, but that doesn't guarantee that the quality of product will return. Did you see this little tidbit on Jim Hill?

I mean, look at what the 'Chicken Little' production crew has just been through. First Eisner insisted that the film's title character has to be changed into a girl so that she'll be more sympathetic to movie goers that way. So they go and rework the entire movie, show to Michael again ... Only to have him go 'I changed my mind again. Let's turn Chicken Little back into a boy.'

How much time and money is wasted with stuff like this? Time that they'll probably need later when the inevitable story issues surface. Will they be given the time they need to solve them, or will the release date be locked in stone and the film rushed out prematurely like the TA films have been?

The talent may still exist in FA to put together a good movie. But is that even enough? Charlie Mintz hired all of Walt's artists, save one, during the Disney Bros/Universal fallout, but where is Oswald now? You also need strong leadership, strong understanding by that leadership, and a strong commitment from that leadership.

I'd love to have the faith that this will work out for the best, but does Michael Eisner deserve my faith?

 

[HaleyB]

This is cutting off the nose to spite the face. Even if ME had to give away the farm to keep Pixar on board he should have. But he didn't need to, Pixar was only asking for their due. Pixar makes great movies that make money every time. Pixar has brought a whole new generation of Disney fans into the fold. Any profit is better than none. How will this serve the stockholders? Now there will be more compitition for movie goer money (and if I have a Pixar and another maker film to pick between Pixar gets my money every time, they don't make bombs). So great.
Maybe Disney will cancel its support service contracts with Apple too. That would be real smart.

 

[DEE DEE]

ME is really on a roll chasing his Disney Fans away! I read on SaveDisney that he wants to produce McGees OZ with Jerry Bruckheimer.On the order of American McGees Alice which is a dark, twisted tale.He will be making a trilogy of these movies.So ME would rather use the Disney money on this venture instead of with Jackson in LOTR or Pixar.How weird!!

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by HaleyB
Even if ME had to give away the farm to keep Pixar on board he should have.

This is horrible business advice. Neither company should have had to "give away the farm." Pixar's offer was no more realistic than anything Disney was offering. So it's not like Pixar was out there saying, "Here ... really ... let's work together and find a compromise." It was more along the lines of, "Give us everything back, fold the next two movies into this deal, and pay us a licensing fee for everything Pixar you already have in the parks, regardless of how much money you already paid in development, marketing and distribution." It's been pretty well documented that Jobs has an ego the same size as ME's, so it's not like it wasn't a fair fight.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Yet more is going on here than Pixar -- the computer-animation studio controlled by Apple (AAPL ) Chairman Steve Jobs -- seemingly walking away from Disney (DIS ) in a huff. Indeed, as folks close to the negotiations say, it has more to do with Jobs attempting to rewrite the rules of Pixar's contract and reclaim movies that Disney helped to finance. Such a move is a no-no in Hollywood and, as Disney put it in a press statement, would cost the studio "hundreds of millions of dollars it already is entitled to under the existing contract."

"It seems Jobs wanted to turn that deal on its head, pushing for an agreement like the one his friend George Lucas enjoys with Fox (NWS ) for his Star Wars franchise. Lucas pays most of the costs of making films, and Fox gets about a 12% franchise fee. Disney, according to sources, was mulling a similar deal with Pixar when Jobs came up with some new demands: namely, that Disney return to Pixar the rights to a pair of films it has yet to deliver -- The Incredibles, due later this year, and Cars in 2005.

Such an arrangement would have cut Disney out of any sequels to the two films, which it has already helped to pay for. On top of that, Jobs is said to have insisted that Disney's rights to the next four films be limited to five years. This would mean Disney could put them out on DVD and on its Disney Channel but, again, have no right to make sequels. Even George Lucas doesn't have it so good."


Sounds like a deal any Disney CEO should eagerly sign.

 

[Bob O]

Pixar should get the same type of deal that George Lucas gets with fox. Disney would get a distribution feed and that its. If i was Pixar i wouldnt sign for any other deal, they dont need disney, but disney badly needs Pixar . Disney has made much money off Pixar and hasnt treated the company with the respect it deserves for the great work the company has created.

 

[HauntedMansionFan]

I see it as a negative for both sides. Disney is losing the Pixar money making machine, Pixar's creative movies, and their technology with CGI. But Pixar is losing out on the deal also. They won't have the Disney marketing and release strategies that Disney can muster up. Going to a different studio Pixar? Name another studio that has marketed and released a number of animated films to great success like Disney has. They both need each other, plain and simple, Disney needs Pixar's movies and technology/Pixar needs the Disney name and marketing.

 

[mudhen]

While I agree that there is no way
Disney should sign the deal as is,
let's not forget that it's Eisner who
let it get to this point in the first
place. The original deal was crap for
Pixar in the first place. I can't believe
Disney would expect Pixar to sign another
one even close to it. Granted, what Pixar
proposed was at the "other" end of the
crazy scale.

The root of the problem.....well, let's see,
why is there no update to Star Tours....Lucas
won't deal with Eisner. Why no updated Indiana
Jones rides.....Spielberg won't deal with
Eisner. Eisner has created this anti-Disney
auora with his lack of vision and greed.
I have a feeling we haven't hit rock bottom
yet, and we won't until Eisner leaves and
the next guy/gal in has to pick up the pieces.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Pixar should get the same type of deal that George Lucas gets with fox. Disney would get a distribution feed and that its. If i was Pixar i wouldnt sign for any other deal, they dont need disney, but disney badly needs Pixar . Disney has made much money off Pixar and hasnt treated the company with the respect it deserves for the great work the company has created."***

Actually, Disney/ME was considering a similar deal. Then Jobs went and demanded much more.

Where did Disney/ME disrespect Pixar ??? By disrespect, do you mean making them honor the original contract as it was written ?

 

[crusader]

From what I've been able to determine, the distribution deal Lucas has with Fox is a flat fee of 7% of sales with no ownership or merchandising rights beyond that which is unbelievable.

This is a thorn in the industry. Here's a great article from the past which gives us an insight into how intricate this little arrangement became and why we don't find much disclosure on it.

http://www.canoe.ca/JamStarWars/apr08_hype.html

Pixar does not have the same level of control to bring to the table. They are looking for this now but lack ownership of their most successful work to date. That means, they are literally starting the negotiation with only new projects and a good bit of cash.

Is this going to be enough to produce another hit? Probably and with a decent distribution agreement, they can mitigate the one area they lack experience in - releasing a picture. But why would Hollywood want to repeat history and breed another giant they can't control?