'Nemo' Nets Animated Film Record

[raidermatt]

I remember prior to the films release certain posters claiming that Disney was trying to intentional sink Nemo in order to put themselves in a better position to bargain with Pixar. Sure looked like that happened....

I honestly have no idea if that "rumor" was true or not, but the fact that the film succeeded is not proof that the rumor was not true. Its possible the rumor was false, its possible the strategy changed at some point, and its possible the rumor was true, and the film overcame.

I'm not sure who is in the financial shape to take them on.

Certainly I have no inside information, but there are are other major distributors who could handle this... If Fox can successfully distribute and market Ice Age and Star Wars, certainly they and others could handle Pixar.

Are you all saying that right now, the deal is Pixar and Disney split the production costs 50/50, Disney funds the distribution, and they split the profit 50/50; and that the scenario that would be like Lucas has with Fox that would be most advantageous to Pixar is that Pixar pay all the production costs, Disney takes care of the distrubtion, and Disney gets only 10% of the profit?

That's roughly my only somewhat educated understanding of the current deal.

As for what would be most advantagous to Pixar, there's a lot of variables. Certainly one is to simply assume more of the up front costs and keep more of the revenue. This of course would be advantagous to Pixar as long as their films were successful. Failures would hurt them more than the current deal would.

But other possibilities include Pixar retaining ownership rights, and then licensing the use of the movies/characters back to Disney (or someone else) for a fee.

But again, no matter what happens, Disney is going to see a negative move from the current situation. The only real questions are how much of a move and how it manifests itself.

My personal opinion is that they will do another deal because I still think that as long as both are willing partners, its a mutually beneficial relationship. Its just that Pixar has more options than Disney does, so Disney needs to be careful about "playing hardball" in this.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by d-r
Bob, people walk in to the Disney Store all the time and ask for that Disney-Pixar film "Ice Age." The general public is not as tuned it to who makes kiddie cartoons as disney fans are, imho.

Yes I've also heard people in McDonalds asking for a Whooper. So in your mind what label is more recognizable? The name of the company or the successful product?

Which would have more drawing power ?

"New Movie X from the people at Pixar the creators of Toy Story and Finding Nemo"

or "New movie X from Disney".

At this point Id say they both have the same weight.

 

[d-r]

Gosh Europa I really don't think so.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by d-r
Gosh Europa I really don't think so.

Ahh...so when someone says "Star Wars" you think 20 Century Fox. When someone says "Star Trek" you think Parramount. When someone says "Jurrasic Park" you think..Universal

Someone says Oreo Cookies you think Nabisco.

 

[raidermatt]

Honestly, I think both have some value IN THIS CASE.

Disney may have diminished its brand value in recent years, but there is still some value. Its also true that the marketing campaign for Nemo featured statements like "from the makers of Toy Story and Monsters Inc.", so clearly Disney realizes there is more value to using that approach as opposed to just "from Disney".

I guess the question is how much the Disney name really matters... Given the performance of a movie like Treasure Planet (and even Atlantis, JB2, Piglet, etc), which carried the Disney name, it would seem the appeal of the film is far more important than having "Disney" attached to it.

On the flip side, films like Ice Age and Shrek did well without the Disney name, so it would seem that the vast majority of Pixar's success is probably due to the appeal of the films themselves.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by EUROPA
Ahh...so when someone says "Star Wars" you think 20 Century Fox.
When someone says "Star Trek" you think Parramount. When someone says "Jurrasic Park" you think..Universal

Someone says Oreo Cookies you think Nabisco.

Nice examples, Europa. OK for me, Lucas first, fox second. Rodenberry (and well, I do think about UPN), Well, yeah, Universal - mostly from the park - and who was that guy, I read the book back in the 90's back in Auburn - Crichton?, and yeah, Nabisco sounds good. But then, Europa, I'm probably more of a sucker for those sort of things and details than a lot of folks... and think about this, honestly....when most people think "Toy Story" they think....say it with me now....starts with a "Dis" and ends with a "ny."

But, actually, Europa maybe you are like me and when you think "Toy Story" you think "Lasseter." Honestly, I don't think most people can say "Pixar" without saying "Disney" first.

And, also...Matt...come on now...let's break it down-

On the flip side, films like Ice Age and Shrek did well without the Disney name,

All right, remember that sarcasm thing you accused me of? Well, I'm having trouble sleeping so I'm afraid of falling into that same trap - try to read this with a smile on my face and not as being a jerk, if you'll give me that, and give me the benefit of the doubt that this is the best I can do right now when you bring up TWO movies in the whole history of the world, but anyway -

OK. Shrek did very well. Let's compare every other single Dreamworks feature, shall we? Also, I mentioned the international clout of Disney, in terms of let's compare Shrek to Monsters, Inc. international. Moreover, come on. Seriously. Let's compare Shrek at Kroger and Baskin Robin and a few years later at Universal Studios park to any Pixar film at the Disney theme parks, at the Disney store, in the Disney magazine, on the Disney channel. Please. Dreamworks barely has the wherewithal to distribute their own animated films, and I have to think they have worn out the good will with the theaters that Shrek built them (NOT that I don't think that 2004 animation box office won't belong to dreamworks, I think it will, I am talking about today).

Ice Age. A film that at least some of the public looked at the previews of and assumed it was Disney/Pixar because it was computer animated. It netted 176 million, less than EVERY Pixar movie except Bug's Life (163 million) when Kratzenburg was playing bait and switch with Antz. Oh but, wait. Bug's LIfe was in 1998, Ice Age in 2002, so if we look at inflation, well, never mind, huh. And that is not to say that Fox's release of the Blue Sky production was a one hit wonder, I happened to like Titan A.E.

Do you really think Fox? I don't, maybe it is just me.

For what its worth, though, I can't convince Melissa to let go of Sony. I really don't see it though, but again, IMHO.

 

[EUROPA]

d-r I conducted a little experiment today in the office. I ask 5 people the same sort of questions. These are average everyday people who go to the movies and had seen all of the movies or at least some of them in the multiple films cases. These people are not Disney Fans.

I asked about 5 product/Films and who produced or made them.


Jurassic Park films - 1 person got it correct (Universal)

James Bond films - 1 person got it correct ( Guessed MGM but I gave it to him)

Monsters Inc - 1 person got it correct Pixar. Nobody guessed Disney.

Star Wars - 1 person got it correct.

Oreo cookies - 2 people got it correct.


I know this is not scientific...but I do think that it shows exactly what I'm saying.

 

[eeyorefanatic]

I can see it now: "from the people who bought you the Country Bears and Little Mermaid 2"...