It's starting....

[raidermatt]

Yes, obviously signing the 5 picture deal was better for Disney than having Pixar sign with somebody else.

However, Disney Animation was built by doing what was necessary to create the best content THEMSELVES, not merely buy somebody else's.

Pixar has proven that they were able and/or willing to attract and retain the talent that Disney was not.

Consequently, 1/2 the profits from the 5 films do not go to Disney, and any subsequent deal will see less money going into Disney's coffers.

Its not that it was a "bad" business deal, its that it was inconsistent with the business model upon which Disney was built. To draw the analogy once again, people are fans of 'Star Wars', not Fox.

Even if you think people still associate the Pixar films with Disney more than Pixar, that can't last forever.

 

[raidermatt]

BTW Matt, I liked the "Caddyshack" quote much better...

Fair enough... I just like to change it up once in awhile, and thought The Steve Miller Band worthy of my tag

 

[ThAnswr]

>>>Mr. ThAnswr, sir...my new friend Dancing Bear already said what I would have, practically verbatim...<<<

Mr. Peter Pirate, sir..... my insightful new friend HB2K almost read my mind with this........."Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while".....although I was thinking more along the lines of a blind pig and an acorn.

Btw, while I do appreciate the "Mr. ThAnswr, sir" (so respectful), it's really Ms. ThAnswr, m'am.

 

[Peter Pirate]

I humby apologize for not considering the Ms. factor...Hey, I had a 50-50 shot and blew it! Welcome to my world!!!

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

it's really Ms. ThAnswr, m'am.

Ah!! Even through the cold keybaord and the unfeeling monitor, after just a few of ThAnswr's posts I just KNEW I was...

IN LOVE!!!

Way to post ThAnswr!! Keep the Pirate off balance!! And as always, you're right on the money!!!

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by HB2K
....Honestly that's all any company is made of....

Not WalMart, or McDonalds, or for that matter, The Walt Disney Company. They all have lots of other assets. My point is (as Pixar's 10-K readily acknowledges), Pixar has to consider that if it does not re-up with Disney, Disney will undoubtedly become another direct CGI competitor for Pixar.

I agree. I doubt he could find such talent since

A) He has had it in house and let it go
B) With the manner that the talent was let go, there are going to be hard feelings which might come into play.

Definitely agree that Eisner doesn't seem to show any knack for identifying and cultivating creative film talent. Maybe he could get Michael Graves to become an animator?

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by raidermatt ...Disney Animation was built by doing what was necessary to create the best content THEMSELVES, not merely buy somebody else's.

But the studio system is dead, and the Pixar deal was really the way most of Hollywood seems to work these days. Remember even after Toy Story people wondered whether the public would really accept CGI animation.

Of course, Disney's competitors now have in-house CGI production, but (1) many of them got into the game after CGI was proven (e.g., Fox's acquisition of Blue Sky), and (2) Katzenberg probably just did it because he had all of Geffen's money to play with, and he just HAD to make Antz!

...To draw the analogy once again, people are fans of 'Star Wars', not Fox.

Even if you think people still associate the Pixar films with Disney more than Pixar, that can't last forever.[/B]

Fox, as a movie studio, doesn't have any real brand identity. Disney does, in the family entertainment market. Just like MGM was associated with great musicals. I'm not saying Pixar can't stand alone, but that there certainly is some value to Pixar to continue to be associated with Disney.

Which is not to say it's a done deal by any means. I wonder if the distribution fee will be where the real battle is done. If I were Eisner, I might go at it this way: "Look, Steve, you own 56% of Pixar, while I've got all sorts of folks to answer to. I know we need to sweeten the pot, but I've got to save some face here. So, let's keep the distribution fee a little higher than the George Lucas deal (because that's the figure everyone will focus on), but (1) we'll include Incredibles and Cars in the new deal, (2) we'll increase Pixar's share of merchandising and such, and (3) we'll pay Pixar something with respect to things like theme park use of the characters."

 

[CasualObserver]

Originally posted by DancingBear
[If I were Eisner, I might go at it this way: "Look, Steve, you own 56% of Pixar, while I've got all sorts of folks to answer to. I know we need to sweeten the pot, but I've got to save some face here. So, let's keep the distribution fee a little higher than the George Lucas deal (because that's the figure everyone will focus on), but (1) we'll include Incredibles and Cars in the new deal, (2) we'll increase Pixar's share of merchandising and such, and (3) we'll pay Pixar something with respect to things like theme park use of the characters." [/B]

Dancing Bear, I was just starting to think you had it in you as an Eisner apologist/disciple and then you pull this? Wow.

Eisner really doesn't have anyone to answer to. The board is in his pocket, he's the third largest stockholder (probably going to be the second after Roy completes his 7.5M share sale), he's shown that if anyone on the board tries to oust him he can dispose of them. Eisner rules Disney like Lord Farquat rules Duloc.

Also, Eisner has made statements in interviews that he is not about to give in on the original contract. If he wouldn't give in on TS2, why would he now give in on Incredibles and Cars? It doesn't make sense.

If it's a distribution only deal, Disney has no rights to a share of merchandising or use of characters (unless you are referring to the current stable of characters and merchandise).

Finally, Eisner has never shown the desire to give in to anyone. He has always been about doing everything on his terms or he walks. Now you are painting a picture of Eisner begging Jobs to help him save face? Doesn't sound like the Eisner that has been running Disney.

Bear, I'm shocked. I'm stunned. I'm flabergasted. Come on, pull some SEC documents out of the dust for me. This line of thought is just weak, at best.

Sign me,
Amazed and Confused Casual Observer.

 

[DancingBear]

Sorry to confuse you. Maybe I can clarify.

I don't think Eisner would actually say this out loud, but that this type of thinking may be going on in the Disney camp. Despite his amazing ability to dominate the board, Eisner has to be a bit sensitive to all of the rumblings, and to the company's poor performance over the last 5 years or so. He has seemed to recently put more focus into the theme parks, for example. Keeping Pixar would be a feather in his cap, if he can do it in a manner that makes him look like he didn't give away the farm.

(After all, Lord Farquat did get himself eaten).

It wouldn't be just "giving in" on the last two pictures, it would be rolling them into a new multi-picture deal--I don't think Eisner would hesitate to do this, if the deal as a whole was to his liking.

And I don't think Disney would ever do a distribution-only deal. First, the merchandising and exploitation capability is one of the big reasons for Pixar to re-up with Disney (gotta get in those McDonald's kid's meals). Second, the character infusion is one of the major benefits to Disney, can't see them giving up control of "Derivative Works" or the rights to use the characters in the parks and sell the character stuff.

Have I restored your faith at all?

BTW, now that Jobs has planted this story about Pixar's name recognition, I wonder if we'll see a story about how Disney has had some talks with some other CGI company (or individual known experts in the field), and such. Do you have any doubt that if Disney loses Pixar, that within a week Disney would be announcing its fantastic enhancement of its CGI capabilities and new creative staff?

 

[raidermatt]

But the studio system is dead, and the Pixar deal was really the way most of Hollywood seems to work these days. Remember even after Toy Story people wondered whether the public would really accept CGI animation.

Animation is a different animal, and the problem (or at least one of the problems) is Disney is treating it like the rest...

The "people" that wondered were obviously wrong, and even Disney knew it, as they themselves got into the CGI business. They of course abandoned it after 1 feature film...

Fox, as a movie studio, doesn't have any real brand identity. Disney does, in the family entertainment market.

The point is that if Disney runs itself as a distributor, they will eventually lose that brand identity. Its already started.

You're just throwing more of the "this is how everybody else does it, so its ok if Disney does it" line of thinking.

Did Disney become DISNEY by playing follow the leader? Hint: No.

How can they remain DISNEY following that strategy? Hint: They can't. It takes time, but if you run your company like everyone else, you can expect to do no better than anyone else. There's nothing "evil" about such a strategy. But the entire reason we are on a Disney site is because Disney did things differently. I can't figure out why we would try to justify abandoning that strategy.

On top of the philosophical problems, Eisner also failed to see where the industry was going, and even when it became clear to everyone, he has failed to truly invest in it. This just makes matters worse.

Do you have any doubt that if Disney loses Pixar, that within a week Disney would be announcing its fantastic enhancement of its CGI capabilities and new creative staff?

Well, they've already proclaimed that they have the ability to create such feature films, though recently Eisner has admitted they lack a critical element....Lasseter.

Further, Disney's response to potentially losing Pixar has been to dismantle its CGI program, and you don't re-build that in a week. Besides, if Eisner couldn't attract and retain the talent before, why would he be able to do it now?

Disney has taken one tangible step to protect itself against Pixar leaving... that's to sign another deal with another outside production company...

Surprisingly, Pixar doesn't seem to be quaking in their boots over this development.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Suprisingly, Pixar desn't seem to be quaking in their boots over this development.

And how would we know even if they were? Perhaps the reason they haven't officially scuttled the Disney relationship already is because they ARE concerned about such a development.

Disney already established and disbanded their own CGI, which in my opinion, was a mistake (the disbanding). The only flick made was Dinosaur and I don't believe anyone scoffed at it from a technical standpoint, did they? So it would seem the creativity IS the missing element. Which brings us to Lasseter. Now his rep certainly is growing and he is contractually tied up with Pixar but would it be difficult to assume that there could be a few underlings to Lasseter, who know the biz, who maybe could feel a bit slighted by Johns publicity or overshadowed by his success? Some artists that may be ripe for the picking, so to speak? In the creative field new talent is better than old talent for obvious reasons. Disney jumping back into CGI just doesn't seem that farfetched...

 

[raidermatt]

And how would we know even if they were? Perhaps the reason they haven't officially scuttled the Disney relationship already is because they ARE concerned about such a development.

If they were truly concerned, they'd be anxious to make a deal.

I agree that creativity is the main missing element, but its not as simple as just saying "ok, lets get creative now". The same problems exist now that have resulted in Disney not having, or retaining, that talent in the past. While Eisner is not the only problem, it does start with him.

Disney jumping back into CGI just doesn't seem that farfetched...

Its not like they got out when there were big questions about CGI. Dinosaur was released after Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Antz, Small Soldiers, and Toy Story 2. While everybody else was ramping up to get into it, Disney closed their doors.

What has changed to make you think they would reverse course now? Further, even if they did, they still have the same problems with attracting and retaining the creative talent necessary to compete.

The fact that all you can do is really speculate about Disney getting "back into" the CGI content business is truly indicative of how the company has changed.

 

[Peter Pirate]

If they were truly concerned they'd be anxious to make a deal.

Who says they aren't? (Pixar) probably believes, like all of us, that Disney would prefer the status quo. It'd be pretty stupid for Jobs to show his cards, no? Further all we really know of the negotiations is what we read. Do you think we're hearing it all? Do you think this is being negotiated in the press?

Sure the same creative problems may exist but if circumstances change you're telling you think Disney will just sit and take it? See I don't understand this thinking. I know you don't like Eisner and have little (no) confidence in his abilities. But really, to think he'll just sit on his thumbs?

Disney closed their doors (on CGI) after a box office flop and with complete expectations that the ball would be carried by the Pixar relationship for years to come (which it has). This was also about the time of the infamous and highly noted corporate cutbacks, was it not?

The fact that all you can do is really speculate ...

Was this meant as Peter Pirate "speculating" or as all of us in general? Because you can certainly offer nothing more than speculation either...Note: If that last comment sounded sharp it wasn't intended to be...

 

[crusader]

Too late! You were caught before that little icon qualifier my friend. This PC stuff is for the birds.

Does anybody really believe Pixar doesn't have an identity crisis on their hands? Even though they have been granted equitable billing on their films, they cannot prove Disney didn't have something to do with the success of these releases.

The reason is very simple: Disney handled the publicity, utilizing the full weight of its' resources capable of tarketing an established worldwide consumer base through extensive marketing channels already in place and operational to launch a widespread promotional campaign.

Pixar ain't got this and everybody knows it!

Why do you think Jobs is trying to substantiate branding? Because he cannot prove the success is attributable to his company irrespective of the joint venture. The two partners are commingled which makes independence very difficult to establish when negotiating any deal involving future control.

 

[raidermatt]

The only thing that would be making Pixar truly anxious right now would be if there were no other serious options for them besides Disney. I have no idea what kinds of discussions they have had with others, so while I believe they have other options, its possible they do not.

Disney inking an unproven company that hasn't put out a film yet is simply not going to make Pixar anxious. Pixar knew that would happen anyway, and they also know Disney might jump back in themselves if Pixar went elsewhere. Disney's previous CGI efforts didn't cause Pixar any problems, so logic dictates Pixar wouldn't all that worried about future efforts.

Pixar believes they know how to consistently make successful films, and their people believe Disney no longer does. (which is part of the reason they don't work for Disney in the first place, and why Lasseter's response to Disney's offers was to sign a long term deal with Pixar.)

Disney closed their doors (on CGI) after a box office flop and with complete expectations that the ball would be carried by the Pixar relationship for years to come (which it has).

Yes, a short-sighted decision. Even a new deal will be worse than the status quo for Disney. Disney felt 1/2 of Pixar's profits (for 5 films) were better than all of their own.

Again, quite a philosophy shift.

Was this meant as Peter Pirate "speculating" or as all of us in general? Because you can certainly offer nothing more than speculation either...

Eisner's track record for making short-sighted, and sometimes just downright bad, decisions is not speculative at all. Nor is the comments from people like Lasseter with regard to how Disney makes films these days. Nor is the relative success of Pixar films with the Disney name vs. Disney films with the Disney name.

Once again, I'm not saying Pixar will bolt. What I am saying is that Disney IS spiraling down the path of becoming a middle-man, and nothing more. Decades of brand-building are slowly being destroyed, because its the safest route to take in the short term.

Until we see TANGIBLE evidence that this philosophy is changing, there is no logical reason to think it will change.

Does anybody really believe Pixar doesn't have an identity crisis on their hands?

I don't believe that at all. I'm sure they believe they know what the true value of their brand name is. That doesn't mean they truly believe what they publically say, but certainly they are not going through any kind of crisis.

Its undeniable that the value of their name has grown. The only question is how much.

Its also undeniable that ANY deal they make with ANYONE is going to be more lucrative for them than the current Disney deal (provided they continue to produce hits of course...).

Hundreds of other companies would give their left n...uh...arm to be in a crisis like that.


The value that the Disney name alone carries is evidenced by movies like Treasure Planet, Atlantis, and Piglet's Big Movie.

You can no longer just slap the Disney name on a movie and pencil in a box office success.

Yes, all else being equal, Disney is probably still the best route for Pixar. But, as we all should have learned by now, all else is never equal.

The point with regard to Disney is that they are going to experience a decrease in benefit from the relationship no matter what happens... again its only a matter of how much.

And rest assured that if a new deal is inked, the Pixar name will become much more prominent, allowing them to grow their name further.

(Its probably important to note that Disney's marketing for Nemo relied heavily on emphasizing "from the makers of Monsters and Toy Story")

 

[crusader]

(Its probably important to note that Disney's marketing for Nemo relied heavily on emphasizing "from the makers of Monsters and Toy Story")

Nah -

What I heard over and over again was "Walt Disney Pictures presents a Pixar Animated Film"

In other words, "hey check out what my little brother made" - not bad!

 

[airlarry!]

Now I feel stupid.

All of these years I've secretly envied the talents of the crew from Pixar, and the success that they have had with their releases under the Disney banner.

I didn't realize how easy it is to be A Major Animation Player.

What I'll do, is start a small CGI company. Write up some story, with songs from Some Big Name Singer, and then I'll convince Disney to market it for me for 1/2 the profits. Heck, there has got to be some talented underlings at Pixar just waiting to jump in bed with a company with Disney's fingers all over it.

With the Disney name stamped on it, and Cou$in Ei$ner promoting it through his vaunted $ynergy $trategy, I'll be rich and famous in a year or two.

Who needs talent? Who needs story? Who need creativity? WHO NEEDS JOHN LASSITER?!? He's old stuff now anyway, and we need new, fresh, exciting blood).

With Disney The Brand marketing our schlep...err...presenting our art through its massive promotional channels, we'll be mouse-clicking all the way to the bank.

Hmm.

Come on people. You don't have to be in Car #3 to agree that Pixar has come the closest to Walt's vision of any current animation producer today, even counting Disney's present team.

 

[Peter Pirate]

This PC stuff is for the birds.

I wasn't being PC...I'm just a nice guy...

This is an interesting discussion because I don't beleive we're really all that far off with each other. Some semantics and a leaning here, a perception there...

Airlarry, I don't recall anyone disparaging Pixar or what they've accomplished in the least...It's really quite indisputable. The only question is whether they're capable of doing it better without Disney...Again, it'll be a dollars & cents decision, IMO.

 

[ThAnswr]

>>>>Ah!! Even through the cold keybaord and the unfeeling monitor, after just a few of ThAnswr's posts I just KNEW I was...

IN LOVE!!!<<<<<

Oh my!

 

[Another Voice]

From this week's trades:

"Shadedbox is teaming with Walt Disney Feature Animation to develop the CG-animated feature LET'S GET FRANCIS. Shadedbox is attached to direct the film, which is based on a script it is also developing. The project is set during the holiday season and revolves around two hamster brothers, Joe and Francis, who vie for the attention of customers inside a pet store in a bustling mall. When a little girl decides that Joe must be hers, Francis runs away in a jealous fit, prompting the ragtag crew of loyal pets to embark on an impossible mission to save their friend.".

Gee, I guess Finding Francis was kinda taken already. Maybe they should have gone with Pet Story 2.


In the coming weeks you will see a nice semi-organized (because Disney can't really get their act together) campaign to prove to Wall Street that "Disney doesn't need Pixar". It's a very deliberate attempt to convince the Street not to trash the stock when the deal goes south and/or gain what little leverage Disney has left with Pixar these days.

Considering Disney's fabled brand name hasn't been able to sell a Disney movie for a looong time (notice the wonders The Brand did for Piglet – it made less than the uber-bomb Sinbad let along TP et al) and that Disney spent most of this Spring bad mouthing Nemo to everyone about town and to distributors – there's no sense that Disney is of any use to the guys up north.

Call them stupid, call them ungrateful, heave your snow globes at them and tell us how much you really didn't like Nemo (although you said you did it had the right kind of sticker on them) – but one thing is clear:

Pixar can make movies, Disney can't.

Disney is only able to buy their stuff from others. They've gone from a creative enterprise filled with imagination and joy - and now they're WalMart.