Jobs vs. Ei$ner – an article

[DVC-Landbaron]

Well gang,

I found this little tidbit and immediately thought of our happy group. Have a pleasant read.

Pixar Article

Welcome back!! How’d you like it?

OK!! Let the dialogue begin!!!

 

[Planogirl]

Before you guys start discussing this one...

"Jobs retains the role at Pixar as big-picture visionary but eschews interfering with his creative geniuses, instead playing occasional troubleshooter."

I love this. I wish that some other big guns would follow this philosophy.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Planogirl - You are certainly no plain old girl!!

That line blew right past me. (and it may be enough to get the ball rolling!)

Anyone know Ei$ner's e-mail address? This is something he should read!!!!!

 

[gary]

Two things struck me more than the others:

The employees not only toil long hours but seem disinclined to leave. "This is a pretty special group, and we all know in an unspoken way that we may never have this again," Stanton says. "It's like finding the right chemistry for a great band."

“Most people feel Lasseter is the closest thing to Walt Disney that’s alive today,” says Jobs, who also calls him “a genius” and “the Steven Spielberg of animation.”

Those, and Planogirl's quote, say to me that Pixar has succeeded in nurturing its core talent, rather than driving it away. It sounds like Eisner should make a deal with Jobs not just to get Pixar for Disney's movies, but consider them for some creative content for their parks, as well. He (Eisner) can't seem to do the same job of keeping his talent together.

I think that, in the end, Pixar and Disney will continue some sort of relationship. I'd like to say that content is king, but I'm afraid that marketing muscle matters. The Pixar name has become well respected, but I'm sure that they can still make good use of Disney's marketeers and their distribution muscle.

My biggest fear is that Pixar and Disney will blow the relationship, because both Jobs and Eisner are said to be fairly arrogant.

Gary

 

[renknt]

With comments like this

> "But will Eisner be willing to woo Pixar to stay at Disney? He certainly dosen't see Jobs and >Lasseter going solo just yet. (Eisner's quote)"I expect that as long as I'm around, our >relationship will continue," he says. Then he balefully adds "John already has some Disney >blood in him; hopefully , we can find a way to inject some into Steve."


Is it just me or does Michael think he can inspire Steve jobs to keep working for him.the man is either really stupid or is living better through chemistry.


God what an arrogant jerk.



Michael W Young

 

[JeffJewell]

He (Eisner) can't seem to do the same job of keeping his talent together.

...between "can't" and "won't." Eisner has shown no interest in keeping his talent together. Indeed, there are many examples (both rumored and verifiable) of Eisner's open disdain for his Imagineers (I personally love the Splash Mountain anecdotage; it's both an interesting story about big business politics and a seeming root cause for his War on Imagineering) and his utter conviction that it is marketing that sells a product, not any qualities inherent to the product itself.

The difference between "can't" and "won't" is even more important on this board: saying Eisner "can't" do something is making a personal value judgement about the man. You may get busted for "Eisner-bashing" before I finish typing this. On the other hand, saying he "won't" do something is a comment based on his observable behavior, and (in this case, anyway) is solidly supported by available data.

My biggest fear is that Pixar and Disney will blow the relationship, because both Jobs and Eisner are said to be fairly arrogant.

They are, indeed. The problem (that you already identified) is that Jobs makes business decisions as though he can identify and appreciate talented creators, whereas Eisner's business decisions only make sense if you assume he cannot identify or will not appreciate that talent. If you believe the things he says (like the "Disney is a content company" interview), you're going to be very confused by his business decisions (like dropping $5 billion for a cable channel within about a fortnight of the publication of said interview).

There are two likely scenarios as to how this will play out. First, Eisner backs off his "I can get six movies out of my five movie contract" stance, sucks it up, and gives Jobs a better deal for the next batch of movies. That keeps Lasseter at Pixar and gets Disney a cut of some (very likely) excellent movies. The other option is that Eisner decides the Pixar name is a marketable commodity and makes Jobs an offer he can't refuse. That will ensure Lasseter bails out (very likely taking a chunk of associated creators with him) and that Disney will wholly own some (very likely) average movies, which no amount of marketing will save. The even worse part about this second scenario is the likelyhood that Eisner will pull a Dinosaur and fire the animators and lock the computer lab should "his" Pixar films fail to meet his expectations.

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

I'm sure AV, can correct me if I'm wrong, but the Reason Steve Jobs is so hands off, is because all he does there is warm a chair and collect checks. Pixar was formed under Lucasfilm Limited and It was Lucas's CEO skills that got the ball rolling NOT Jobs. Jobs took Charge when Lucas sold the company. That Article makes it sound like Jobs was in the mens room one day and thought up Pixar. Like he actually added value to the company.

Lets not forget that Jobs sold Apple out to the Satan of the computer world (Microsoft) With apologise to the Microsoft Employees that I know frequent the DIS.
Steve Jobs and Micheal Eisner, Two wrongs must make right, because logic says that with these two boneheads in charge both companies should be up in flames!

 

[gary]

Jeff,

I don't mean to be pedantic, but there's a big difference between the word "can't" and the idiom "can't seem to". Eisner "can't seem to" keep his team together. It doesn't mean that he can't, but as of today, he hasn't shown the ability or drive to. Maybe he can't, maybe he won't - both are value judgements, the former regarding ability, the latter regarding state of mind (i.e., intent, ego, etc.). I'm not making *any* judgement - maybe he can, maybe he can't, maybe he won't - but the data certainly says that "he can't seem to".

Also (YoHo), regarding Jobs "sitting around and picking up a paycheck" - I don't know about his function at Pixar, but at Apple, he has always been very hands-on - he had no problem going into someone's cubicle, looking at their work, and saying "that sucks - fix it". He's always let his talented people perform, but he's well known for pushing them rather hard. I seriously doubt that the leopard has changed his spots at Pixar, but it's possible.

Gary

 

[YoHo]

Well, he did help build the original Apple computer in that garage so many years ago, he DID NOT found Pixar in that garage. he has a fundimentally different level of involvment.

 

[gary]

but I don't think that Pixar was an animation studio when Jobs got it from Lucas. It was pretty much the RenderMan technology, enhanced for some 3-D special effects work, but not nearly the full-blown 3-D animation studio that it is today. He might not have built the original in his garage (actually, Woz built the original Apple, Jobs figured out that they could make a mint selling it) but he figured out how to use it, how to market it, and who should work on it. Actually, maybe that's not that different than what he did at Apple - the Apple II was Wozniak's, the Mac was Jobs'. But Jobs didn't design it, he just tried to figure out what people wanted from a computer, how to market it, and who should work on it. And, of course, walking into work areas and telling people that their work was "insanely great" or that it sucked.

Gary

 

[Another Voice]

Steve Jobs’ role at Pixar is to give the company credibility. Most of the “Hollywood types” are extremely anti-technology, both from a general political viewpoint and also because computers are radically changing every aspect of the industry (and they ALWAYS fear change). But at the same time they worship Apple because of the coolness factor that Jobs has been able to give his company. You’ll see iMac’s on desks all over town serving just as fashion statements. In a strange brain transplant kind of way, the feelings about Apple rubbed off onto Pixar after Jobs came on board – suddenly a technology company became a legitimate “cool” company and 3D animation lost some of its horror. Remember, we’re talking about the perceptions of Hollywood so the common rules of rational thought do not apply.

Steve Jobs himself has been described like a moth – he’s drawn to the light of fame wherever it may be. He spent a lot of time at Apple when the iMac was hot. When ‘Toy Story 2’ went through the roof, he spent more time at Pixar. He’s hovering around ‘Monsters, Inc.’ simply waiting for the first reviews to come in (so he can judge how bright the glow is going to get). He’s also an extremely competitive man and with, ah, an extremely well defined and well-defended concept of self worth (is that polite enough?). Just like the other guy in this mess.

Eisner is in an extremely deadly situation. His main argument for the Disney/Pixar team has been that Pixar needs Disney’s marketing muscle to be successful (as described in the article). Well, ‘Dinosaur’, ‘Pearl Harbor’, ‘Atlantis’ and ‘Scary Movie 2’ have put the lie to that one. Eisner also finds his own Animation group in full nuclear meltdown – most of the talent has left or is packing boxes, ‘Treasure Planet’ is shooting a new ending, ‘Lilo and Stitch’ has been delayed again, other films are stuck in development hell, and worst of all – The Midget and his friend the Orge just destroyed Disney's aura of invincibility in the eyes of Hollywood. Disney has the stench of a troubled company about them and even Bruckheimer has taken all his new projects to other studios. Eisner NEEDS Pixar like the man needs his Diet Coke every morning.

There are rumors of several offers from Disney to buy Pixar, including one offer to buy Apple Computer as part of the deal. By all accounts, John Lassiter has pledged to be out the door before the ink is dry on the sales contract and he will take almost all of the talent with him (in any sentence containing the words “Lassiter” and “Eisner”, it's rumored you’ll also find a variation of the word “despises”). Eisner will probably do whatever it takes keep Pixar in alliance. Steve Jobs will do whatever he can to tweak Eisner just for sport, John Lassiter will keep making great movies until someone funds a studio just for him, and Jeffery Katzenburg is standing off to the side with his checkbook ready to buy up the pieces.

Like I’ve said, it’s going to be an interesting year.

And speaking of interesting, here’s another rumor from lunch. I apologize for the E! style of writing, but there are lawyers present. It appears that the friends of a green monster are looking into buying certain assets of a certain movie studio (whose parks already have several rides based on one of the trio’s works). Extremely interesting times ahead…

 

[All Aboard]

Dreamworks thinking of buying Universal parks, eh? Very interesting.

 

[larworth]

OK, that last paragraph was enough to snare this fly. I think I will enjoy dreaming about this one over the weekend. Would there be a better scenario for a real theme park feud with each side saying "I'll show that twerp, wait til they get a load of this new attraction ".

Hey, we can still dream can't we.

 

[hopemax]

Hmm...I didn't interpret the last paragraph as Dreamworks getting into the theme park business. I just interepreted it as Dreamworks purchasing certain ownership rights. The ones I would expect are the ones that Spielberg did (Jurassic Park, ET, etc.) If I were Dreamworks and wanted a themepark I'd be interested in locking up those rights so I could open my own line of theme parks because I think that would work better publicity wise "it's an entire Dreamworks creation" instead of "didn't that used to be Universal?"