Rumor, eh? Couldn't possibly be spinning by Ei$ner, eh?
First, rolling over contracts to get a new deal done is nothing new. Happens all the time in the world of sports and entertainment.
This is a common practice in Hollywood when a studio seeks to secure a new, longer term deal with a valued partner.
Yes, you could and should at the very least partly blame Ei$ner for not getting it done. But let's not stop there.
Not only did your favorite executive NOT get the deal done, he tried to strong arm Pixar. Not once but twice, first with the Dinosaur movie (and there, I have no problem with Disney doing CGI, really I don't, but they way it was done was dispicable first to PDI and then to Disney's bottom line), and then second by spreading a bad movie, bad result rumor about Finding Nemo.
"Several weeks before last year's release of 'Finding Nemo,' Walt Disney Company Chairman Michael Eisner told his board not to expect a blockbuster and suggested that such a fate might not be all that bad. Although Pixar Animation Studio was high on its film, Eisner said that he was not impressed by early cuts he had seen, according to people who were familiar with the matter. 'Should the movie falter,' Eisner said, 'Disney could gain negotiating leverage to expand its partnership with the high flying animation company. Pixar, Eisner concluded, may be headed for a reality check. "
La Times, 2003.
Nice, Cou$in Mikey. John Lassiter, your supposed friend. A guy who worshiped Uncle Walt. A guy who had a dream that he could make CGI movies with the same touch of warmth and humor that he saw in all of the classic Disney movies. And this is what you do? Tell people that the movie isn't impressive? I know you think that you're the Central Park version of "The Art Of The Deal," but that was petty, crappy, and below even the nadir of your worst ethical moves.
But let's get off of Ei$ner for a second (even though it is so much easier to criticize him than DB makes it out to be). Is DB right that I'm just making up this rumor about Ei$ner putting the screws to Job$ on the second deal?
Pixar and Disney had a five-film co-production deal and with Pixar's string of successes, the company looked to renegotiate a new deal that would give it a bigger cut of the box-office take. However, Disney argued that as a sequel Toy Story 2 should not count as one of the five films in the deal. This issue became a particularly sore spot for Pixar, leading to a fallout between Pixar CEO Steve Jobs and Disney CEO Michael Eisner, concluding in Pixar's 2004 announcement that it would not extend its deal with Disney and would instead seek other distribution partners.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Toy_Story_2Ah, but that's just industry speak? Job$ has already admitted that DB's right and I'm wrong, right? In this day and age of ironclad agreements, no one EVER disputes contract language. No one ever goes to court because one party thought language in an agreement meant one thing, and another party thought something else. Nah! (Boy, if that were true, I'd be out of a job!).
Sequels do not count because back in 1997 when Disney and Pixar originally signed this new deal, it was assumed that any and all sequels that would be done to earlier Pixar productions would be done on the cheap (like all those direct-to-video film sequels to their traditionally animated fare).
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/020930.php
Exactly. Contrary to DB's information, EVERYONE thought that the contract meant that sequels were supposed to be DTV type stuff...things that wouldn't qualify. And how do we know that? BECAUSE TS2 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DTV, remember? It wasn't supposed to go the theaters. It was only after it started in production and people realized that this story was even better than the first one (IMO), that it could be a big hit in the theaters.
Our second work-in-progress is Toy Story II, a made for home video sequel to Toy Story, with Tom Hanks and Tim Allen reprising their roles as Woody and Buzz. In creating Toy Story II, we have the enormous head start of being able to draw from our "digital back lot"; the rich library of computer models, sets, textures, surface appearances and motion sequences that we created for the original Toy Story production. We only recently announced Toy Story II, but weve been working on it since last summer. We are really excited about bringing new adventures of Woody and Buzz to audiences in our studios first made for home video sequel, scheduled for release in the fall of 1998
http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/investors/annualreports/1996/index.html
Hence, they ramped up production, and went back to Disney, saying, this is a big one, and its gonna count. And Mike said, "No, no, no, I don't look long term, I've got shareholders to worry about, and my penthouse on Central Park needs new fixtures."
And little tiny Pixar had to bow.
Per the new Disney agreement, Toy Story 2 will now be treated under the same terms as our other theatrical releases, except that it will not count as one of the pictures in our five picture deal. This is because when we negotiated the new agreement, we acceded to Disney's position of wanting five original casts of characters for their theme parks, which sequels do not provide. The fact that we were so easily able to accommodate the major change from a direct to video to a theatrical sequel speaks to the depth, scope and enduring nature of this important agreement, as well as to the close working relationship between Pixar and Disney.
Steve's original comments from his letter to shareholders. But note Job$ says, "TS2 will now be treated..." I thought DB said it was just rumors? Nope, Ei$ner, modus operandi intact, strong-armed Pixar, and the little company agreed, mainly (I think) because they knew that they couldn't prove without an expensive lawsuit (that I'll admit they may not have won), and they could still get 50% of a ton of money from a great project (except that which Disney screws...err...except the accounting thingamajigs that goes on anytime a management company accounts to its artist)
So obviously, DB's right, the issue is settled, hunky dorky, and TS3 is a done deal...meaning it would not have counted toward the five picture deal (had it been done when Disney wanted it inbetween Finding Nemo and The Incredibles.
NOT-SO-SIMPLE ARITHMETIC. Insiders tell me the interpretation of parts of that second deal is the crux of the companies' current issue. After Toy Story 2, Disney started pushing to make a third installment starring Woody, Buzz Lightyear, and crew. Would it count against the three films that Pixar still owes Disney under the 1997 deal? (A Bug's Life and Monsters, Inc. are the first two.) Disney doesn't want Toy Story 3, if there is one, to count against the five-picture deal, insiders say, while Pixar will only make the film if it does.
Yep, it's been a 'rumor' since 2001...says Business Week. But didn't you tell us that was all fixed because the language is so clear in the contract? If it was fixed for #2, why is it still an issue for #3?
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2001/nf20010928_5607.htm
But DB, if I were the ONLY one who thought all this, then maybe I would think I'm just a crazy old Car #3er (NOT CAR 4--get it right!) mouthing off at that guy we love to blame for everything bad in the world of Disney. But see, I'm not. Alex Stroup from Mouseplanet had this to say:
There is nothing wrong with trying to get everything you can, for as little as possible. It only makes sense. At times, Disney has reaped some incredible rewards from this - for example, early in his tenure, Eisner's emphasis on budget turned Disney's live- action studio into a cash cow - but they have also suffered severe consequences. When Disney has twisted an arm to hard, they have damaged some very fruitful relationships. There are actors, producers, and directors who won't work with a Disney studio because of perceived slights in the past. Many feel that manhandling by Disney has soured the relationship with George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and the Henson family to bad effect.
Scroll down the entire article at
http://www.mouseplanet.com/notebook/rn011025.htm to read how everyone thought that sequels were not going to count, because they thought that Disney's idea of sequels was DTV stuff. Funny thing, DB, is that Pixar was right. DISNEY"S IDEA OF SEQUELS IS DTV JUNK--you know like Peter Pan II, Bambi II, Cinderella II, Aladdin II, Aladdin III, all those movies that are enjoyable for a time or two, but really don't make a dent anywhere in your collective conscience or will last any time in theannals of animated feature history, except when people try to analyze why the company made so many wrong moves.
Boy, it sucks when the facts stand in the way of a good story, eh?
The real issue is whether or not Disney should make the deal with Pixar, not whether or not Disney is in this sorry position because Ei$ner consistently tried to screw the company. (It should be recognized as about as close to fact as two guys talking on computers a million miles away from the Northern Carlifornia boardroom where Job$ hotlines Ei$ner each week--let's face it, you know that I can't provide you with the tapes that proves I'm right, but at least the circumstantial evidence--overwhelming, mind you--suggests that Ei$ner got what he wanted but at a price we will have to pay).
Is Pixar willing to go it along, finance their pictures themselves, and pay various studios distribution fees? Maybe, but they lose direct control over the characters they've already created. Unlike Walt, who created Oswald and dumped him when he had to, Pixar is SEVEN pictures into the deal--that's a lot of history to walk away from.
All I'm saying, is that had Ei$ner played this as an honorable man, he'd have a deal with Pixar in place. No, not at the 50/50 terms he had, but who in his right mind thinks that after Pixar's string of hits that the contract should remain that way anyway?
Finally, if Ei$ner had put as much effort into saving traditional animation as he has into screwing Pixar, we'd all be anxiously awaiting the studios next masterpiece. Are you happy about that, DB, that Ei$ner himself has basically killed Disney's history of producing 2d masterpieces? If you are, I suggest you re-read that Brad Bird quote I used to have until Mr. Boo hogtied me.
Whew. My fingers are tired.
