The Future of Pixar

Sarangel

<font color=red><font color=navy>Rumor has it ...<
Joined
Jan 18, 2000
Messages
3,078
From the LA Times:
A Picture Deal's Life
By Claudia Eller and Richard Verrier, Times Staff Writers

The mood was jovial as Walt Disney Co. chief Michael Eisner and his guest, Pixar Animation Studios head Steve Jobs, watched Game 5 of the World Series from a luxury box at Pac Bell Park in San Francisco. Sitting side by side, the two men laughed together, bantering and talking baseball.
For the moment, it seemed, both were on the same team.

But behind the lighthearted atmosphere, away from the playing field, the two industry titans are locked in their own kind of Hollywood gamesmanship, with hundreds of millions of dollars riding on the outcome. "It's a question of who's going to blink first," said Merrill Lynch analyst Andrew Slabin.

During the last decade, Burbank-based Disney and Pixar have forged one of the industry's most successful partnerships. They have made a string of revolutionary computer-animated hits -- "Toy Story," "Toy Story 2," "A Bug's Life" and most recently "Monsters, Inc." Three more are coming under an agreement that gives both companies an even split of the profits.
The problem for Disney is that, along the way, Pixar has gone from rookie to superstar.

With an impeccable track record and a strong balance sheet of nearly $300 million in cash, Jobs has made it clear to Hollywood and Wall Street that he will begin entertaining offers from rival studios early next year and could potentially part ways with Disney. If he chooses to stay with Disney, he will push for a deal that would give Pixar all the profits and pay Disney only a distribution fee to release its movies, according to sources close to Jobs.

Either way, Disney's movie earnings could take a substantial hit, underscoring just how dependent the studio has become on Pixar in recent years.
Disney has reaped nearly $500 million in profits from the Pixar movies from 1998 to 2001, accounting for an estimated 45% of the studio's operating income in that period, according to a recent report by Prudential Securities.

Over that same time, Disney's own animation unit produced such box-office disappointments as "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" and "The Emperor's New Groove" and retrenched by slashing hundreds of jobs and salaries. It was only this summer that Disney scored with its own hit, "Lilo & Stitch."

Disney's relationship with Pixar, which is uncertain beyond 2005, has attracted increasing scrutiny as investors grow impatient with Disney's financial struggles, particularly at its ABC television network and theme parks. Eisner has been under heavy pressure from powerful board members and shareholders to boost Disney's stock price, which has been pummeled in the last two years. Disney shares were up 33 cents at $17.03 in New York Stock Exchange trading on Friday.

So far, Disney and Pixar are not negotiating, prompting some analysts to question whether Eisner is moving too slowly on an arrangement that is so vital to his company. "To lose [Pixar] would be a huge strategic blow and a financial blow for Disney," said Paul Kim, an analyst with Kaufman Bros.
Pixar's enviable success streak appears to give it the upper hand in negotiating any new deal. Under the current contract, Pixar produces the movies and Disney markets and distributes them. The two evenly share costs and profits. In addition, Disney gets a distribution fee that averages 12.5% of a movie's revenue.

Still, Pixar needs Disney, analysts say. Pixar would be hard-pressed to find another partner with the brand name, marketing muscle and global reach in family entertainment that has made Disney an industry leader in animation for decades. Nor does any other studio have the marketing prowess to cross-promote family movies in its theme parks, retail stores and cable and network television outlets. "If you go to another studio, you may not have those capabilities up and down the food chain," said Kim, of Kaufman Bros.

Pixar shareholders also may be cool to the idea of breaking up such a financially successful partnership. Emeryville, Calif.-based Pixar is expected to report strong third-quarter earnings Monday.
Not only did they report strong earnings, they upgraded next quarter's earnings this morning.
Despite Pixar's successful collaboration with Disney, their marriage has been clouded by an underlying friction that's existed for years between Eisner and Jobs, a factor that analysts suggest could complicate future negotiations. Both men declined to be interviewed.

The specter of divorce first emerged last year with a fight over the third installment of the lucrative "Toy Story" franchise. A clause in the contract says sequels don't count toward films Pixar must deliver, but Jobs has argued that Eisner should let "Toy Story 3" count as part of its five-picture deal. The dispute has left the project in limbo.

Tensions flared again this summer when Eisner offended Jobs over remarks he made in Washington about digital piracy by suggesting Apple was promoting the illicit practice with its slogan: "Rip. Mix. Burn."

The friction has since eased enough for Eisner to invite Jobs to the World Series. The chairman of Disney Studios, Richard Cook, insists the working relationship between the two companies "has never been better."
"We're committed to staying together," he said.

Still, without any negotiations in sight, some analysts believe that Disney could find itself at a disadvantage. The company, they say, needs to step up to the plate to swat away potential competitors. "You don't want to be in a position of countering someone else's offer," said Katherine Styponias, an analyst with Prudential Securities.

Jobs bought Pixar in 1986 for $10 million from director George Lucas and is its biggest stockholder, with a 60% stake. Disney has a minority interest, holding less than 5%.

In 1991, Jobs and Eisner formed their movie-making pact, one that has changed significantly since then. On their first release, "Toy Story," Pixar earned less than 15% of the profits. The 1995 hit comedy heralded its director, John Lasseter, as the next Walt Disney and established Pixar as the pioneer of the digital animation age.

Two years later, with its newly earned clout, Pixar negotiated its lucrative five-picture deal in which it became equal partners with Disney. The first film under the deal, "A Bug's Life," brought in $362 million worldwide, and the second, "Monsters, Inc.," $530 million.

Disney's profits could be greatly reduced if Jobs pursues a deal he favors, which is similar to the one Lucas has with 20th Century Fox. The filmmaker reaps all the profits from his lucrative "Star Wars" franchise and pays Fox an 8% to 10% distribution fee to release the movies.

Whatever happens, both sides are heavily posturing, making it known that success can be found outside their partnership.

Eisner has sent mixed signals about whether he would be willing to allow Disney to be relegated to a distributor's role. At a Sept. 13 meeting with investors and analysts in New York, the Disney chief praised Pixar creative chief Lasseter and said that "a Lucas-type deal" was possible. On other occasions, however, Eisner has insisted that Disney would not be a distribution channel for rent.

Eisner suggested Disney is prepared to develop its own sequels to the "Toy Story" and "Monsters" hits if Pixar were to go its own way -- a scenario that even Disney executives concede is improbable.
Thank Goodness. I can only imagine (with horror) what Disney would do to these two franchises.
Eisner also has touted Disney's recently struck deal with John Williams, one of the producers of "Shrek," to make computer-animated movies, although no one is suggesting it's a replacement for Pixar.
"The intended message was: 'If you think you've got us over a barrel, think again,' " Styponias said.

For his part, Jobs already has begun boasting to analysts that Pixar has many options when it comes to landing a future deal with another studio. Although he cannot begin negotiating with other studios until next spring, when Pixar delivers the undersea adventure "Finding Nemo" to Disney, he has let it be known that a number of suitors have expressed interest. Those include Sony Corp.'s Sony Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.'s MGM Studios, sources said.

As Jobs pushes for a Lucas-type distribution deal, analysts caution that such an arrangement is not without risk for Pixar given that its movies cost about $125 million each to produce and an estimated $80 million to market worldwide. One flop could be devastating to a company such as Pixar, which averages just one movie every 18 months and is not diversified like Disney.
"It's inevitable that Pixar is going to stub its toe," said Merrill Lynch's Slabin.

That may be hard for Jobs to fathom because Pixar's animated movies so far have totaled more than $2 billion in worldwide box-office receipts and hundreds of millions more in home video, DVD and merchandising sales. Although the future of the Disney-Pixar relationship remains uncertain, the turmoil has not affected the day-to-day workings of the partnership. Indeed, Pixar creative guru Lasseter, a former Disney animator, has helped foster close ties between the studios' top creators.

For now, the partners are focused on prepping "Finding Nemo," due in theaters in May, and boosting sales of their recently released "Monsters, Inc." DVD, which was heavily promoted during the World Series games. In TV spots that aired between innings, Mike and Sully, the animated stars of "Monsters," were featured playing baseball. The big question is whether their corporate parents are willing to play ball as well.
 
Very good article and comments!!
I think the onus is alot more on disney than Pixar as they have alot more to lose. A company like fox would have no problem distributing Pixar's movies and would love to stick it too disney.
Disnsey's animated films have been total flops in any comparsion to the movies which Pixar has released and disney will lose alot more money than Pixar if the deal collapses.
So it is time for eisner to get on his knees and grovel to keep the deal!!!
 
Originally posted by Bob O
Disnsey's animated films have been total flops in any comparsion to the movies which Pixar has released ...

I don't know that I'd consider "Lilo & Stitch" a flop at $145.2 million domestic, although it does pale in comparison to "Monsters, Inc."

Still ... "Aladdin" at $217.3 m came in higher than "Toy Story," which made $191.8. And "Tarzan" beat out both "Toy Story" and "Bug's Life" in worldwide numbers.

So Disney hasn't exactly been releasing total dreck.

:earsboy:
 
No L & S doesnt compare at all to Monsters and wont in dvd.vhs sales either!!!
And aladdin was a great movie but was released many years before Pixar released their first film so the comparison is apples to oranges!!
As for the tarazan numbers i would have too see proof before i would buy it!!
 

The key is world-wide numbers instead of domestic gross. Tarzan, at $435 million, did indeed beat Toy Story and Bugs Life (numbers 31, 51, and 53 respectively in all-time box office results). Here in the U.S., Toy Story beat Tarzan by almost exactly $20 million.

World-Wide results:
http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/i...orldwide&keyword=&links=amazon.com&popups=yes


(BEWARE more popups than you have ever imagined! :( )

Whatever Disney's perception may be, I just can't characterize Lilo & Stitch a complete flop at $145 million. Granted, it was not the success anyone had hoped for, but neither was it a complete failure. That said, Disney should indeed attempt to retain Pixar under beneficial terms, assuming it is not already a lost cause.
 
It must be noted that American comedies never do well internationally. Humor is rather culturally specific and most of the rest of the world simply doesn’t get (nor appreciate) our style of jokes. And the Pixar movies also base a lot of their humor on pop cultural references. Think about it – how funny would ‘Toy Story’ be if you had no concept about western children TV show toy tie-in from the 1950’s or had never seen a Mr. Potato Head? Or for an even better test – go watch a dubbed Japanese animated film and see how often and hard you laugh at the jokes (there were substanial changes made to even 'Spritied Away'). It’s no wonder the Pixar films have had a lukewarm reception outside of North America.

On the flip side, there is a movie like ‘Tarzan’ with limited dialog, a simplistic story and no references to anything outside of the film’s world. It was (very intentionally so) a story that could be easily dubbed into a lot of languages and understood by a lot of different cultures. In fact the entire aim of the Disney’s “round the world stories” like ‘Mulan’, ‘Empire of the Sun’, and several cancelled projects were to make films that appealed more to the international market than to North America (there’s more money out there).

Comparing international box office totals don’t tell you anything about the overall creativity or overall success between two studios. All it tells you is what kind of films they’re making.

Remember that both ‘Waterworld’ and ‘A.I.’ were HUGE hits in Japan…
 
"Comparing international box office totals don’t tell you anything about the overall creativity or overall success between two studios."

I would think international box offive plays a big part in the overall success of the studios. After all in the business world success is based on revenue, profits, and return on investment of which international box office is a huge part sometimes more than 50%. Your statement is ludicrious AV. I think you have been spending to much time riding Dumbo it has turned your brain to mush!! (joking of course)
 
/
Originally posted by Another Voice
Comparing international box office totals don’t tell you anything about the overall creativity or overall success between two studios. All it tells you is what kind of films they’re making.

True.

I was, however, responding to BobO's remark that "Disnsey's animated films have been total flops in any comparison to the movies which Pixar has released." I simply wanted to provide a comparison where they weren't.

:earsboy:
 
Originally posted by Bob O
No L & S doesnt compare at all to Monsters and wont in dvd.vhs sales either!!!
And aladdin was a great movie but was released many years before Pixar released their first film so the comparison is apples to oranges!!

"Many years?" Aladdin was released in 1992 (top grossing film released in that year); Toy Story in 1995 (top grossing film released in THAT year). So we're talking three years difference. Both were released in November, to catch pre-Christmas audiences. Both were released with virtually no competition in their particular marketplace, since DreamWorks didn't really ramp up until 1998 and nobody else was doing animated features.

So ... I think it's a fair comparison. Aladdin may not have done stunningly better -- but a $20 mill difference is nothing to sneeze at.

:earsboy:
 
The clear thought line in the argument is that Disney is “better” than Pixar because some of its movie make more money internationally. That would be like arguing that Coca Cola is a better company than Exxon because not a lot of people drink motor oil.

Pixar movies aren’t made for the international market, pure and simple. They are made by a bunch of post baby boomers up in Northern California to mostly appeal to themselves. Fortunately, their tastes happen to be shared by a lot of Americans and their movies are wildly successful (by the way, Walt operated in the same way). Recent Disney movies are carefully crafted to sell well in many markets. To do this they have sacrificed a large chunk of their domestic market to reap returns overseas.

As for the financial returns, it’s impossible to tell strictly from looking at the box office totals. Disney spends tremendous amounts of money hyping the films overseas and international distribution deals can be somewhat “interesting”. You can’t tell if Disney or Pixar is actually receiving more money back.

Well…..actually you can. Because of the arrangement, Disney has to pay all the advertising costs to release a Pixar film internationally but they split the profits 50-50. So in the end Pixar films do return a higher return than Disney films.
 
3 yrs is many years in the movie industry!!! When you factor in inflation/costs of the movies to be made and marketing costs that 20 mil. may in fact mean the moive made less money even with a higher total.
And if the numbers are true re Toy Story/Tarazan I think few would doubt which movie was the better product!!!! Or did i miss the tarazan sequel and calls for a third tarazan movie of are the tarzan characters so beloved they have their own meet and greets??
 
Bob O if you did miss Tarzan and Jane you are probably lucky :) but the TV show is pretty good considering, and don't forget Tarzan's Tree House and Tarzan Rocks! and yeah, I've seen a lot of turks at the meet and greets -

DR
 
I dont like the tarzan tree huse, i liked it better before the makeover!!! As for the movie i did see it but feel the quality wasnt as good as the few movies that preceded it.
I wouldnt equate turk to the stars of the movie, why no Jane/Tarzan. That would be like having no Woody/Buzz and instead having the Slinky or Mr Potatoe Head.
 
Originally posted by Another Voice
Because of the arrangement, Disney has to pay all the advertising costs to release a Pixar film internationally but they split the profits 50-50. So in the end Pixar films do return a higher return than Disney films.

I did not go to business school but as far as I know, "profit" is revenue minus expenses (i.e. advertising cost).

This means that expenses are reimbursed before profits are distributed… Bottom line: 50:50
 
Originally posted by Bob O
3 yrs is many years in the movie industry!!!

Yes ... it can be. But during that three years, no other animation studio came out as a front-runner. Toy Story didn't face any more competition in the marketplace than did Tarzan. If, during that three years, DreamWorks had released Shrek, then we're talking a huge difference. I still think the comparison is fair.

Originally posted by Bob O
I wouldnt equate turk to the stars of the movie, why no Jane/Tarzan.

But your original post didn't say "stars of the movie," it said "are the tarzan characters so beloved." So, based on that comment ... yes. The Tarzan characters ARE beloved and have their own meet and greets. You can meet Terk (who is generally mobbed every time he appears) in regular meet & greets at DAK, and both Tarzan and Jane can be seen at DAK and occasionally in Adventureland. They're just as popular as any of the "new classics" characters.

As for a third Tarzan movie -- sometimes there aren't sequels because the story ends. In the original, we get the basic Tarzan story. In the dtv sequel, Tarzan and Jane celebrate their first anniversary. Plus, we have their continuing adventures in a television show. So ... what would the third movie be about? To just continue the story doesn't work for the characters. The fact that there isn't a third movie has no bearing on the quality of the film. Snow White, Pinocchio, and Mary Poppins don't have sequels or dtv films out there either, but that doesn't mean the originals weren't good enough.

:earsboy:
 
Originally posted by WDSearcher
You can meet Terk (who is generally mobbed every time he appears)

SHE!
 
wdwSearcher-I have never seen Tarazan or Jane but have seen turk alot, i guess ive just missed them. I have seen turk who was never mobbed when i saw the character.
As for popularity do you think their lines would be as long as that of Buzz/Woody who have always had long lineswhen we saw them and left before they could get to everyone.
As for sequels im against most of them, but disney could easily make up some bs to justify another tarazan direct to video if they felt they could make a quick buck with little concern regarding the quality of the video.
 

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top