Jim Hill has Steve Jobs Transcript; I thought Ei$ner didn't ruin the Pixar deal?

[airlarry!]

www.jimhillmedia.com

Wow. Read Steve's quote of alleged Ei$ner quotes right before Nemo was released.

Well, Mikey didn't like the film (for whatever reason) and then told the Board about it. Somehow it ended up being public. (Hmm, now Mikey wouldn't have floated rumors like that just to get a better deal from Pixar--naw....)

I thought I had an argument a ways back with someone that said that Pixar has been the bad guy in the deal, and that Ei$ner has only done what is necessary for the company. Want to rethink that position?

Also note that Steve says it is very common in the industry to renegotiate deals even while there is time left under the contract, yet make the films still under the old contract fall under the new, in an effort to continue the relationship.

Any thoughts?

 

[wtg2000]

Holy Cow! Does Jobs ever rip Disney in that piece. I mean, man oh man.

 

[WDSearcher]

Originally posted by airlarry!
I thought I had an argument a ways back with someone that said that Pixar has been the bad guy in the deal, and that Ei$ner has only done what is necessary for the company. Want to rethink that position?

Well ... if Jobs really wanted to stay a partner with Disney -- I mean, if he REALLY wanted to stay a partner -- why offer them a deal that is so one sided that it would be impossible for the company to accept? Sure, you want to give yourself some bargaining room, but you don't skew so far out that it becomes impossible for the other side to come to decent terms for themselves. I still think Jobs wanted to go out on his own -- he's said that over and over again -- and so he came up with a deal he knew Eisner wasn't going to take, and then walked away when, as expected, Eisner didn't take it. Then, because he has info from years ago when Michael went on record saying he didn't like Nemo, Jobs releases that later to "prove" how bad of a dealmaker Eisner is. It's one big ego against another.

The thing is ... Dick Cook was doing most of the dealing in the boardroom, and according to him, he called Pixar on the day they walked away and was told by the legal team that they were preparing another offer. Then, Cook gets back from lunch and has a message from Jobs saying that they're walking away. Who jacked who in that case?

Eisner may have been part of the reason, but Jobs didn't want to stay. He wanted his own shop, and he has for quite some time. The only way Disney could have stayed in the deal was to give Pixar everything they wanted. And that wasn't practical.

 

[DancingBear]

Don't try to rewrite history, Larry. In our previous exchange, I had to go to great lengths to clearly prove that, although Pixar/Jobs KNEW that theatrically-released sequels like Toy Story 2 were CLEARLY NOT COUNTED toward the minimum commitment under the Disney/Pixar Production Agreement, Pixar/Jobs created a dispute with Disney by arguing that Toy Story 2 should count toward the minimum.

So, Jobs has been trying since way back when to get out of the Disney relationship as soon as possible. Don't see anything in the self-serving statements of Jobs to counter the view that Jobs is just as greedy as Eisner.

I never argued that Disney shouldn't put the last two pictures in play in negotiations with Pixar, and in fact they did so.

Eisner's (clearly wrong) comments on Nemo, apparently made in an internal strategy conference and certainly not intended to get back to Jobs, don't change anything, they just give Jobs something more to crow about.

 

[airlarry!]

DB, I give you credit for recognizing that Ei$ner's comments, once again, have caught up to him and are biting him in the ****. Of course, we disagree as to whether or not Ei$ner intended these to be heard by Pixar.

Is it so hard to believe that Ei$ner would not want to publicly gloat if Pixar's movie falters in an effort to wring a better deal out of Jobs?

Read Ei$ner's own book and see how he would tell his European negotiators to cut a deal with the French on the opening of EuroDisneyland, and as soon as the government would agree to the concessions, he would make them go back with even more outrageous demands. He actually crowed about that in his book.

Now it may not have been you, but I know somebody has argued that Disney should not have rolled the new contract and folded in the remaining pictures, (just like what was done years ago) despite the fact that it is common in the industry to do so. Steve Jobs attests to this.

What was self-serving about the comments? I'm not saying I'm a fan of Steve Jobs here, I'm just curious as to which particular comments are so far from the truth as to be pointed out only for the benefit of his argument? Is it that the producer of the entertainment wants creative control over how its created content will be utilized? That's not greedy. Not after seeing what Disney did to Cinderella.

By the way, did you really prove that Pixar knew that TS2 would not count toward the deal? I thought we left off with the thought that it was a legitimate beef between the two houses whether or not TS2 should be part of the numbers or not, and Disney strong-armed Pixar as best as it could.

 

[Razor Roman]

Am I the only one wondering how John Lassetter feels about this whole thing? I'd love to hear what he has to say, but he strikes me as a bit too classy to say anything.

Then again, I'd also like to hear how Eric Goldberg felt about the comments made at Disney about Looney Tunes: Back In Action.