airlarry!
Did you know some ferns date back to Prehistoric t
- Joined
- May 30, 2000
- Messages
- 959
Let me get this straight. You are now arguing, herr DB, that Steve really tried to break the contract because he realized he was sitting on a gold mine and didn't want to share. Let's review:
On February 24, 1997, Job$ signs the deal.
June 1997, Job$ tells the shareholders TS2 is a video sequel.
By November 1997, Pixar requested that TS2 be treated as part of the five.
In June of 1998, even before A Bugs Life came out, Stevie reported to his shareholders that Pixar was capitulating to Ei$ner's demands to keep it out of the five.
What was the preciptious event that DB intimates? What lightning strike hit Job$ and made him realize literally only a few months after inking the deal that he was sitting on a gold mine? There is none. The argument that Job$ woke up in November of 1997, and suddenly had an epiphany about the true value of his company is malarkey. Puhlease.
Which makes more sense, the above version, or the scenario where Disney's independent rep and the heads of the story team at Pixar jointly realized they had a great story on their hands, and ramped up production. And that Job$ then realized that Ei$ner was going to hold Pixar to this little "clause," in an 'unintended' manner. Version Two, please, with a side order of vindication, but hold the hubris.
Oh and thanks for the contract link. You did notice that whole sections of Section 15 have been excised for privacy reasons, and trying to put it back together is more than a bit confusing. But the gist of the contract is clear. Section 15 says derivative works can be video or theatrical, and that theatrical does not get included in the five.
Aha! says crusader. Oho! says DB. The argument ends. Oh really? Crusader, you are forgetting that definition of the argument is the key. The argument between me and DB is whether or not Ei$ner jerked Pixar around by using a technical "loophole" or "clause" unintended by the parties to be used in that manner to squeeze one more film out of Pixar. HOW DOES THIS LANGUAGE PROVE DB'S POINT? It doesn't, because it does not address what the parties believed to be theatrical works are. It is clear, however, from Job$ statements before and after the scrum, that at least Pixar never envisioned being asked to make TS2 (contract or no contract) and pushing off their independence for at least two years for nothing.
Remember, I don't have to disprove that Job$ wanted out of the contract; that's a given. I don't have to prove that the contract was crystal clear in my favor; all I have to prove that Ei$ner was at fault in the bad blood between them, by holding them to this language, when the circumstances of the industry was changing before their eyes.
Crusader, I know that theatrical releases can come from and be determined to be derivative works. That's not the point. The question is was the application of this story, TS2, as a theatrical release intended by the parties to be a derivative work that is not counted in the five. Forget DB's arguments just for a second, and remember the history. Steve told you in the annual report that as far as Pixar knew there had been only ONE ever animated theatrical sequel, and that was Disney's own Rescuers Down Under.
Remember that this was the time of Aladdin II and III, with Little Mermaid under development, and Ei$ner throwing out ideas (that eventually were followed) to Sequalize every single animated property in the library and show them in the theaters quickly to generate profits. So as Pixar signed the contract, they knew that Disney may give them the option to make cheaper to produce, less labor intensive derivative works that could be released into theaters. What better way to cut a new animator's teeth, then to stick him with the software and sets that were already prepared, whip out a new story, and presto gizmo, instant video, big dollars (from a profit standpoint).
I can't say it any clearer. Neither Pixar nor Disney intended that a fully developed, fully staffed, fully invested sequel to Toy Story (made with better standards than the original, and costing Pixar the manpower and resources to work on Picture 4, delaying that picture by up to two years) would be out of the five picture deal.
What Job$ was asking for was fair, could be read under the contract as proper, and Ei$ner's pigheaded decision to use this contractual set of tweezers to pluck another free film was short-sighted. It was also, as DB has ignored even though I've posted over and over about it, part of Ei$ner's modus operandi. Why question Job$'s motivations, when Ei$ner's history is laid bare for all to read in his dealings with 90% of Hollywood?
Even assuming you are right, that Pixar knew or should have known that TS2 was out of the five, was it the right thing to do? Did Ei$ner do right by Pixar, and eventually, by his own shareholders? When you are not making widgets, and are relying on artists to produce creative output, should you really twist their arm that hard? Should you really leave bruises, lacerations, and broken bones?
Nope. And if you think he did, why don't you tell me all about it the next time we ride Star Tours 2.0 together. Or maybe you can have Robin Williams write a chapter in his autobiography detailing how much of a prince Ei$ner is when it comes to contracts...
As an anecdote, here in Job$'s own words, is the key reason ramped-up production was the reason why it should have been counted:
Toy Story 2 began life as a direct to home video sequel. Let me tell you why. After the success of Toy Story, it was clear that audiences wanted to see more of Woody and Buzz on the big screen. But most of the team that created and produced Toy Story were already working on our next feature, A Bug's Life. Even with a handful of Toy Story veterans in key positions, we thought it would be almost impossible to recruit a second crew as talented and experienced as the original Toy Story one. So we decided to make a sequel that would be measured by a gentler yardstick--a direct to home video sequel. This was our plan when I reported to you last year. But we were wrong. We underestimated Pixar's gravitational pull--it has become one of the hottest places to work in our industry--and by the fall we had pulled together an incredible team to make Toy Story 2. With a world-class crew in place, the only remaining question was "Is the story good enough?" That question was answered when Pixar and Disney viewed the complete story on "reels" last November. The decision was clear and unanimous: to expand Toy Story 2 into a full theatrical feature for release during the 1999 holiday season.
On February 24, 1997, Job$ signs the deal.
June 1997, Job$ tells the shareholders TS2 is a video sequel.
By November 1997, Pixar requested that TS2 be treated as part of the five.
In June of 1998, even before A Bugs Life came out, Stevie reported to his shareholders that Pixar was capitulating to Ei$ner's demands to keep it out of the five.
What was the preciptious event that DB intimates? What lightning strike hit Job$ and made him realize literally only a few months after inking the deal that he was sitting on a gold mine? There is none. The argument that Job$ woke up in November of 1997, and suddenly had an epiphany about the true value of his company is malarkey. Puhlease.
Which makes more sense, the above version, or the scenario where Disney's independent rep and the heads of the story team at Pixar jointly realized they had a great story on their hands, and ramped up production. And that Job$ then realized that Ei$ner was going to hold Pixar to this little "clause," in an 'unintended' manner. Version Two, please, with a side order of vindication, but hold the hubris.
Oh and thanks for the contract link. You did notice that whole sections of Section 15 have been excised for privacy reasons, and trying to put it back together is more than a bit confusing. But the gist of the contract is clear. Section 15 says derivative works can be video or theatrical, and that theatrical does not get included in the five.
Aha! says crusader. Oho! says DB. The argument ends. Oh really? Crusader, you are forgetting that definition of the argument is the key. The argument between me and DB is whether or not Ei$ner jerked Pixar around by using a technical "loophole" or "clause" unintended by the parties to be used in that manner to squeeze one more film out of Pixar. HOW DOES THIS LANGUAGE PROVE DB'S POINT? It doesn't, because it does not address what the parties believed to be theatrical works are. It is clear, however, from Job$ statements before and after the scrum, that at least Pixar never envisioned being asked to make TS2 (contract or no contract) and pushing off their independence for at least two years for nothing.
Remember, I don't have to disprove that Job$ wanted out of the contract; that's a given. I don't have to prove that the contract was crystal clear in my favor; all I have to prove that Ei$ner was at fault in the bad blood between them, by holding them to this language, when the circumstances of the industry was changing before their eyes.
Crusader, I know that theatrical releases can come from and be determined to be derivative works. That's not the point. The question is was the application of this story, TS2, as a theatrical release intended by the parties to be a derivative work that is not counted in the five. Forget DB's arguments just for a second, and remember the history. Steve told you in the annual report that as far as Pixar knew there had been only ONE ever animated theatrical sequel, and that was Disney's own Rescuers Down Under.
Remember that this was the time of Aladdin II and III, with Little Mermaid under development, and Ei$ner throwing out ideas (that eventually were followed) to Sequalize every single animated property in the library and show them in the theaters quickly to generate profits. So as Pixar signed the contract, they knew that Disney may give them the option to make cheaper to produce, less labor intensive derivative works that could be released into theaters. What better way to cut a new animator's teeth, then to stick him with the software and sets that were already prepared, whip out a new story, and presto gizmo, instant video, big dollars (from a profit standpoint).
I can't say it any clearer. Neither Pixar nor Disney intended that a fully developed, fully staffed, fully invested sequel to Toy Story (made with better standards than the original, and costing Pixar the manpower and resources to work on Picture 4, delaying that picture by up to two years) would be out of the five picture deal.
What Job$ was asking for was fair, could be read under the contract as proper, and Ei$ner's pigheaded decision to use this contractual set of tweezers to pluck another free film was short-sighted. It was also, as DB has ignored even though I've posted over and over about it, part of Ei$ner's modus operandi. Why question Job$'s motivations, when Ei$ner's history is laid bare for all to read in his dealings with 90% of Hollywood?
Even assuming you are right, that Pixar knew or should have known that TS2 was out of the five, was it the right thing to do? Did Ei$ner do right by Pixar, and eventually, by his own shareholders? When you are not making widgets, and are relying on artists to produce creative output, should you really twist their arm that hard? Should you really leave bruises, lacerations, and broken bones?
Nope. And if you think he did, why don't you tell me all about it the next time we ride Star Tours 2.0 together. Or maybe you can have Robin Williams write a chapter in his autobiography detailing how much of a prince Ei$ner is when it comes to contracts...
As an anecdote, here in Job$'s own words, is the key reason ramped-up production was the reason why it should have been counted:
Toy Story 2 began life as a direct to home video sequel. Let me tell you why. After the success of Toy Story, it was clear that audiences wanted to see more of Woody and Buzz on the big screen. But most of the team that created and produced Toy Story were already working on our next feature, A Bug's Life. Even with a handful of Toy Story veterans in key positions, we thought it would be almost impossible to recruit a second crew as talented and experienced as the original Toy Story one. So we decided to make a sequel that would be measured by a gentler yardstick--a direct to home video sequel. This was our plan when I reported to you last year. But we were wrong. We underestimated Pixar's gravitational pull--it has become one of the hottest places to work in our industry--and by the fall we had pulled together an incredible team to make Toy Story 2. With a world-class crew in place, the only remaining question was "Is the story good enough?" That question was answered when Pixar and Disney viewed the complete story on "reels" last November. The decision was clear and unanimous: to expand Toy Story 2 into a full theatrical feature for release during the 1999 holiday season.
