Disney to buy Pixar?

[All Aboard]

Dumbo, Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch, Bambi?

I know I'll be wrong on at least one of these, but here's a few more...

Fantasia, Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmations, The Aristocats, The Rescuers, The Fox and the Hound, The Lion King.

 

[Onceuponatime]

Weren't Bambi & Dumbo based on books Walt had read ?

 

[YoHo]

Matt, I agree about the intangibles, I was just talking physical assets. Of course, we don't really know what Disney's intentions are with regard to feature animation really. we have hints and rumors. It could be that this is a move to revitalize the entire project and "The Disney Way of Eisner" is not going to be imposed at all.

As for your last sentence, I agree. It's true I don't care who creates the magic...Except that this is a Disney board talking about Disney and It's fortunes.Whether or not it's the one behind the magic is of great importance.

 

[Onceuponatime]

Didn't LK = Simba the White Lion ?

 

[raidermatt]

I think I understand what you are getting at, Onceuponatime, though there are exceptions as YoHo noted. But I don't think it really matters, in and of itself. Its been proven time and time again that a story does not have to be original for it to be well-told. That's really just a starting point. What matters is where it goes from there.

 

[raidermatt]

Didn't LK = Simba the White Lion ?

I could be wrong, but I *think* the courts determined otherwise, for what that's worth. Or maybe it was settled... I'm sure somebody around here knows.

 

[YoHo]

Weren't Bambi & Dumbo based on books Walt had read ?

I do not believe so.

 

[Jason71]

I know I'll be wrong on at least one of these, but here's a few more...

Fantasia, Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmations, The Aristocats, The Rescuers, The Fox and the Hound, The Lion King.

Two I know for sure...

Rescuers was definitely a book first (a series of them, actually).

Dumbo was, of all things, a comic strip on the back/side of a cereal box.

At the time of its release, Disney tried to pass Lion King off as an homage to Hamlet, but as has been mentioned, it arguably has more similarities to Kimba the White Lion (there's a website somewhere that lays this case out nicely,but I can't remember where it is).

 

[Another Voice]

… but I cannot think of a single FA that wasn't based on someone else's work. Is there any ?

Dumbo, I think, was an original story developed in house. Interestingly, this was probably the most difficult and crucial film that Walt ever made – and financial one of his most successful. Bambi was based on a novel by Felix Salter. And The Lion King, well, what the courts say and what the truth is can sometimes differ…

The good news is this creative talent can be cultivated and bred fairly easily BUT the commitment to the job has to be deeper than declaring success or failure based on a first wekends take.

This is where we disagree. Creative talent cannot be “cultivated and bred fairly easily” – that’s why no one else has been successful. The long list of attempts and failures – from Dreamworks to PDI to Disney’s own Vanguard Studios is proof that it’s extremely difficult. If Disney is to lose Pixar – the only people that seem to have “gotten it” – that’s every indication Disney will fail at replacing them.

That’s why Wall Street is pressuring Iger to re-sign Pixar. If the analysts had any faith in Disney’s ability to make or purchase replacement films, they’d be pressuring Disney to dump Pixar and keep 100% of the profits.

But as long as someone IS making good animated features at least we know someone IS minding the store…

And that’s the end fear, isn’t it. There’s nothing that says anyone will make good animated features at all. Eisner’s belief all along was that animation was fit for only Saturday morning cartoons and three year old mentalities. A generation of Disney and Pixar animators had worked extremely hard to prove him wrong.

Sad thing is neither Eisner nor his successor have given up their belief yet.


P.S.

Dumbo was, of all things, a comic strip on the back/side of a cereal box.

I have a fuzzy recollection (most likely wrong), that the comic strip was part of the promotion for the film. There's a story the goes around Disney's lot that the premeir of Dumbo was going to be celebrated with a cover on Time magazine.

But the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was put there instead.

As the movie opened across the country over the next year (film distribution was very different back then), Disney had be innovative at marketing.

 

[Bstanley]

Legally it was determined that Lion King did not infringe Kimba's copyright, but according to some folks that doesn't really mean much.

Bambi was loosely based on a book that one of the animators showed to Walt. Dumbo was also loosely based on a book - the trick here is that although these basic story outlines came from books the final screenplays deviated from the books quite a bit.


PS. Jim Hill has a nice article about Dumbo's Author and a desciption of a 'Roll a Book',

 

[Peter Pirate]

Do you really think it's the lack of talent that has failed these companies attempt to cash in on the animated market? It seems to me it's the atmosphere created soley for short term gain, every film must be a hit, 'find the formula' policy making that has stymied the creativity.

 

[Onceuponatime]

From "The Big Little Book ...."

"One day Walt came across.... an illustratedtale by Helen Aberson......"

I'm not trying to disparage past work. I just think it may be telling that the highest grossing FA in the last 10 years or so - with a few exceptions of course - have been from original stories, not old tales.

 

[RyMickey]

I'm not trying to disparage past work. I just think it may be telling that the highest grossing FA in the last 10 years or so - with a few exceptions of course - have been from original stories, not old tales.

In general, I'd agree with you. Pixar's gang has created a world of their own based on their own creative concepts. However, the biggest animated movie of the past several years has been Shrek (wow, it hurts to say that) which was based on a book (I'm sure very loosely).

 

[Onceuponatime]

How could Shrek be based on a book ? Shrek was released long before "Camp" was published.

 

[Sarangel]

Dumbo, Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch, Bambi?

Fantasia, Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmations, The Aristocats, The Rescuers, The Fox and the Hound, The Lion King.

Bambi, as already noted, was from a book by Felix Salter, 101 Dalmations was from a book by Dodie Smith, The Rescuers was by Margery Sharp. The rest are likely original, or derivitive as in the case of the Lion King.

Interestingly, the smash hits from Disney have been classic fariy tales.

 

[Another Voice]

It seems to me it's the atmosphere created soley for short term gain, every film must be a hit, 'find the formula' policy making that has stymied the creativity.

It’s both.

Truly talented people are few and far between. Even the best have to practice their craft for years before they really excel. And even if you find them, the environment they work in can wipe all their hard work.

That was the situation that Disney fell into. The same people who had quietly turned out a string of hits from Mermaid to Lion King suddenly found themselves working for new people that thought the release date was more important than the quality of the movie, and that it was more important for characters fill out the Happy Meal box rather than have a purpose in the story. And it’s also hard to create original work (which is what the public wants) when the boss is demanding “more of the same” to minimize risk.

I’ve said for a long time that you can not base a large corporation around film making. The risks involved are incompatible with a corporation’s desire to show 5% increases each and every quarter.

 

[airlarry!]

(As an aside, I distinctly recall Disney's ad campaign for The Lion King. Disney marketed TLK as its first original story. Every other film before it was based upon a book or story or legend.)

I know evidence seems to show that I am wrong considering the success of Pixar's movies and TLK, but I don't think its solely the fact that they are original stories that matter. Lilo & Stitch was an original story, and didn't do TLK or Pixar-type numbers (but that's another story...a long story about how Ei$ner didn't....ouch!....err....ahem...let's move along...)

It seems to me more obvious that the blood, sweat, and tears that were shed during the production of the 2nd generation of classic Disney movies, along with the same hard work that has gone into the Pixar movies is the more important barometer. (Anybody watch the behind-the-scenes for The Incredibles? Brad comes off as a taskmaster that pushed and pushed for the perfect, perfect shot or story idea or joke or sequence. And it worked.)

Not a perfect barometer, because Dindal and Ron 'n John and others have worked hard at their recent efforts. Sometimes the bad rap that the company's recent issues pulls down the entire weight of the film release, don't you think?

Anyway, Pixar has the opposite mojo. They've got a rep that these are quality movies that the kids will like but that will play like big tent pole summer movies for mom and dad too. That's a good combination.

But who can foretell the future, and what will be hot and what won't?

Not I.

I'm still waiting for my parachute pants to come back into style.

(And another side, extrapolating the fact that every original story film does big business, therefore ergo, non-original stories are not cool any longer, seems to me kind of like those guys who have proven that global warming is directly related to the dwindling amount of pirates sailing the seven seas.)

 

[raidermatt]

Like I said earlier, I don't think whether its an "original" story or not has much of anything to do with it, in and of itself. If existing stories are chosen simply because the filmmakers are trying to be safe, or take advantage of "what works", then that's another story (pun intended).

If the recent results point to original stories doing better, its only because remakes are being chosen for the wrong reasons.


And yes, momentum is a very real thing if the brand is a recognized one. That is both the curse and blessing of being Disney, and now Pixar.

The Little Mermaid did well, but wasn't really and overwhelming success at the box office. But that was more a factor of it following a string of less than steller releases. It was well-received and gave Disney some momentum going forward. Pocahontas, on the other hand, did VERY well at the box office, though there are very few who would say it was better than Mermaid. Why? Because it followed a string of hits and the Disney brand was seen as strong again to the public.

As others have noted, Pixar enjoys the same advantage now. A subpar effort from them will still do well at the box office because it has a large built in audience that trusts the Pixar name, just as Disney once had.

Disney is fighting the other end of that stick right now. Even if CL is good, it won't do as well as it would if it had followed The Lion King, for example. Its got a weight around its neck before it even opens.

Poor decisions often have far reaching consequences.

 

[Onceuponatime]

Disney is fighting the other end of that stick right now. Even if CL is good, it won't do as well as it would if it had followed The Lion King, for example. Its got a weight around its neck before it even opens.

Thank you. That's exactly the point I was trying make with my earlier post.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Even I have no exception to that comment Matt, good post.