What is the deal with all you Disney/Pixar Naysayers?

[d-r]

So your stance is Disney is going to generate the same ammount of revenue in a new Pixar deal than the current.

Not exactly - because the returns from the films are not guaranteed - we don't know how much the incredibles will make, for instance, and that is with the current deal, so will that generate the same amount of revenue as the past films have? who knows - I am saying that a deal like the Lucas-Fox deal isn't necessarily the best thing for Pixar, and I think they are more likely to dance with the one what brought them.

You don't think Disney can afford to lose Pixar, I don't think that Pixar can afford to lose Disney.

Now, don't get me wrong - Disney would have been better, in my eyes, in taking 1/2 of the 5 billion they spent for fox family and buying Job's stake in Pixar - but then, if you spent 2.5 billion or so for 3.6 million or so Pixar shares, you would have a long way to go to make it worth it - even if each film made 300 million clear profit it would take 8 movies. I wonder if there could be a more efficient way to get a piece of that action.

Keyser, thank you so much for your insight. That helps me think about it. I understand and agree about the artistic/creative side of it, I didn't mean to leave it out. I think that Pixar's greatest assets are its employees. I wonder what kind of contracts they have.

CWIPPERMAN - you are right, there will be regression to the mean if nothing else. My bet is next year will belong to Dreamworks - and everyone will think the sky is falling again, or still - and the incredibles will do numbers more like a bugs life. But who knows.

 

[HB2K]

The DISNEY name is what makes the movies so attractive to families.

Then why have the Disney produced movies not succeeded? If it's the brand name that makes the movies attractive, why have Jungle Book 2, Piglet, Treasure Planet, Atlantis, et al not succeeded? Why have NON Disney movies performed admirably in the mean time (Shrek, Ige Age)?

DR-

I wonder if there could be a more efficient way to get a piece of that action.

There is a more efficent way....you don't let your in house talent leave...you don't fold up shop after a single dud (Secret Lab)...the list goes on and on.

Pixar is a movie company, but if they gain control of their characters in the next deal....whomever it's with....that in and of itself will open all sorts of revenue streams. Character licenses for theme park rides & shows (i.e. Warner Bros)....merchandising rights for it's toys, happy meal trinkets, etc....and like you said DVD sales. It's more than just the box office....for both companies. If Pixar sets up a 10% distribution fee with Disney, that's only for the box office....what happens to the revenue Disney is currently realizing from merchandise sales, from DVD sales, etc.....

In the big picture, with a Lucas/Fox type deal....revenue streams will leave Disney and go to Pixar....and those streams will NEED to be replaced by WDC.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"Then why have the Disney produced movies not succeeded? If it's the brand name that makes the movies attractive, why have Jungle Book 2, Piglet, Treasure Planet, Atlantis, et al not succeeded" ***

Before you make comments like this, you may want to do a little research. JB2 grossed more then it cost. Atlantis didn't, but it was the number 3 top selling VHS tape in 2002 with 69 mil and about another 45 mil in DVD sales.Adding in an 84 mil box office, I'd say it made a few bucks. As a side note: For 2002 HP was number one in sales. The next 5 were all Disney flicks. The totals aren't in yet for TP.

 

[blackshirt]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate

I'm not saying Pixar is doomed to fail...Just bound to have a failure sooner or later and it sure would be inopportune to have it be the first flick after leaving the Mouse, IMO...Pixar must have enough reserves to cross that hurdle because when one movie bombs from a small studio like this, the pressure on that next one will be huge!

Actually , Pixar could afford numerous failues and still be very stable financially. Their last balance statement reported $112,000,000 in cash and receivables versus $41,000,000 in current liabilities. Most importantly, however, Pixar has accumulated almost half a billion in long term investments($443,000,000)(stocks, bonds,notes receivable,etc) which could be used to finance future pictures. They may not want to use these funds this way. Its always nice to spread the risk and use other peoples money. Some may ask about Pixar's debt. How would they finance that? Pixar has no debt. Zero. Nada. Whether or not Pixar remains with Disney is ENTIRELY up to them. They have more than enough resources to go it alone and find a distributer.( Funny how the marketing genius of Disney only works with Pixar films). The only question is how much risk is Pixar willing to take to justify the rewards that will come if they are successful.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Thanks for the Pixar info Blackshirt...But

Funny how the marketing genius of Disney only works with Pixar films.

Have you checked the 'Pirates of The Carribean' numbers lately? Or maybe The 'Spy Kids' Trilogy? Or how about The 'Lizzie McGuire Movie' ? Lilo and Stitch did well, no? 'Parent Trap?' 'Holes?' I think it's this type of blanket statement that makes me appear to be an Eisner defender...Plus it seems a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Note: I'm not trying to be dismissive, I just think both sides of the coin need proper evaluation...

 

[blackshirt]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
Thanks for the Pixar info Blackshirt...But
Have you checked the 'Pirates of The Carribean' numbers lately? Or maybe The 'Spy Kids' Trilogy? Or how about The 'Lizzie McGuire Movie' ? Lilo and Stitch did well, no? 'Parent Trap?' 'Holes?' I think it's this type of blanket statement that makes me appear to be an Eisner defender...Plus it seems a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Note: I'm not trying to be dismissive, I just think both sides of the coin need porper evaluation...

Sorry! My mistake for not being specific. I was referring more toward the animated movies of Disney which with with the exception of Lilo and Stitch have not done so well. My daughter loved Lizzie McGuire and thats a completely Disney creation, but Hillary has flown the coop. Pirates sounds great but didn't Disney downplay the "Disney" aspect of it?
Disney markets pictures extremely well. They just can't seem to make an animated movie that anyone wants to see. I don't think they have the talent anymore. Some say that no one wants to see the older style of animation anymore but I disagree. IMHO, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, and Alladdin would be hugely successful today. But what do we have to look forward to? Brother Bear? Forgive me if I fail to get excited.

 

[DancingBear]

Dinosaur's numbers (particularly with overseas) are not too far behind Bug's Life. Tarzan's numbers are almost identical with The Matrix, released in the same year. Has anyone else had a blockbuster conventional animation film in that time period? Prince of Egypt is way down the list (and well behind Lilo and Stitch).

Just because they haven't hit Lion King, or Shrek or Monsters Inc. numbers doesn't mean they've just lost it.

 

[d-r]

Dancing Bear, when I read HB2k's last post I was mentally preparing a post about Tarzan, Lilo and Stitch, Tiatan AE, Road to El Sinbad et al., but you had it covered just fine-

DR

 

[HB2K]

So on one hand you're saying Pixar's films are a success because of the Disney name attached to it, but on the other you say not every movie will be a success, brand name or not.

It's funny...all of Pixar's films to date have been successes. Not one failure. Disney has released COUNTLESS animated movies in that same timeframe with the same brand name which you all seem to think has magical box office powers, and has had limited successes.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[DisneyKidds]

If you are the type of person.................................................................

Now settle down there Mr. WIPPERMAN................................For starters you obviously haven't been around here long enough to know who I am. If you had been you'd know I'm with you and not against you, but that really doesn't matter.

Since you didn't seem to grasp the intended softening my "winkie" (you know, this thing.............) was intended to provide, let me clarify. For better or for worse, I have been around this site long enough to learn many things. Things about the history of Disney. Things about Disney pictures. Things about Disney parks. All sorts of things from all sorts of people. Above all of that, I have learned how to communicate more effectively in this medium. So, to be honest with you, I think you had some good points in your original post. I'd like to see those points discussed. I also know from past experience that the "DISNEY RULES" approach (be it true or not - and I think it to be true overall) is the most sure fire to have your post and your points completely ignored and disregarded by some of the people who contribute to this forum. That is what I don't want to see happen. Hence my (intended to be) lighthearted suggestion. Sorry it got your dander up.

So you can better know me, I AM NOT one of the cynical ones around these parts. If you think my comments about listening and learning are cynical....................well, so be it. However, just as you have good points, so do some of the "bashers". If you want to understand The Disney Company better it seems to me you have to listen to it all. That in no way has effected our Disney vacations and has not made me the person you alluded to. Of course, maybe you have no desire to explore The Disney Company outside of the bounds of the Florida theme parks. That is fine, but it is no reason to discount and ignore the opinions, and sometimes valid points, of those you label "bashers". Yikes - look at me defending the "bashers" I still argue with to this day. How in the heck did that happen . I appreciate your love for Disney. However, I also appreciate the love for Disney that many of those "bashers" have. They may express that love differently, but perhaps even more than you they want to see things improve so that we can still love the place in another 50 years. Sure, there may be a few arond here that don't care a lick about Disney and really do just want to bash, but that is a minority. Looks like you need to spend some more time to figure that out.

Boy, when Baron sees all those comments you threw at me he will be even more convinced I'm primmed for his shotgun seat .

 

[d-r]

countless? oh goodness. OK let's count them, here are the Disney releases from 1995 -

1995 - Toy Story ($191), Pocahontas ($142)
1996 - Hunchback of Notre Dame ($100)
1997 - Hercules ($99)
1998 -Mulan ($121), A Bug's Life ($162)
1999 - Tarzan ($171), Toy Story 2 ($245)
2000 - Fantasia 2K ($61), Dinosaur ($138), Emp. New Groove ($89)
2001 - Atlantis ($84), Monster's Inc. ($256)
2002 - Lilo and Stitch ($146), Treasure Planet ($38)
2003 - Nemo ($328+), Bear (?)

Gosh, 17 isn't really countless!

Now - this is only feature animation - by"countless" are you trying to say that you are comparing the TV animation (now "Disney Toons") productions with the feature animation productions?

Counting it both ways? it isn't a both ways. DISNEY has had some movies that were more succesful than others. There were no Pixar movies without Disney. There has only been one way. There are not two ways if one is talking only about Disney films.

Here are your non-disney movies, as best I can put them together. Again, only major features, I'm not including metropolis or American Pop etc. that would take all day, so this is just theatrical releases from Viacom-Paramount, WB, DW, Fox, Sony, as best I can remember them.

1995
1996 space jam WB ($90)
1997 Anastasia FOX ($58)
1998 Antz DW ($90), Prince of Egypt DW ($101), Rugrats PV($100), Quest for Camelot WB ($22)
1999 Iron Giant WB ($23), Pokemon WB ($86), South Park PV ($52)
2000 Chicken Run DW ($106), Road to El Dorado DW ($50), Rugrats Paris PV ($76), Titan AE FOX ($23), Pokemon 2000 WB ($43)
2001 Shrek DW ($267), Jimmy Neutron PV ($80), Final Fantasy S($32), Osmosis Jones WB ($13), Pokemon 3 WB ($17)
2002 Ice Age FOX ($176), Jonah Veggie Tales ($25), Spirit DW ($73), Wild Thornberry's PV ($40), Hey Arnold PV ($14)
2003 Sinbad DW ($26), Rugrats 3 PV ($39)

So there are your comparisons in terms of "both ways." 26 films to compare the 17 above to. Do you get it now?

Also, because I think it is the source of some of your confusion, I will go ahead list out all the feature lengths from disney tv animation (now Disney Toons) to clear that up. Comparing these to films from feature animation is like comparing apples to oranges, because they are aimed at making money on home video - I don't have the home video figures, but I think I remember that Cinderella 2 made $220M (could be off on that). Just as there are TV series from many of the feature films. And video games. And also shorter version direct to videos (e.g., pooh holidays, sing along songs, etc.)

1990 Ducktales: Treasure of Lost Lamp
1994 Aladdin 2: Return of Jafar
1995 A Goofy Movie
1996 Aladdin 3: the King of Theives
1996 Gargoyles the Movie
1997 Mighty Ducks the movie (animated feature based on mighty ducks animated tv series, not the live action)
1997 Pooh's Grand Adventure
1997 Beauty and The Beast enchanted Christmas
1997 Belle's Magical World
1998 Pocahontas 2: Journey to the New World
1998 Lion King 2: Simba's Pride
1999 Doug's 1st Movie *
1999 Mickey's Once Upon A Christmas
2000 The Tigger Movie
2000 An Extremely Goofy Movie
2000 Buzz Lightyear of Star Command: The Adventure Begins
2000 Little Mermaid 2, Return to the Sea
2001 Recess: School's Out *
2001 Lady & The Tramp 2: Scamp's Adventure
2002 Peter Pan 2: Return to Neverland*
2002 Hunchback of Notre Dame 2
2002 Cinderella 2
2002 House of Villains
2003 Jungle Book 2*
2003 Piglet's Big Movie*
2003 101 Dalmations 2
2003 Atlantis 2
Stitch

* I think that these are the only TV animation features that were released theatrically. Releasing them theatrically brought in some extra profit and extra promotion for the dvd release, but it doesn't make them Disney Feature Animation productions, now does it? They are still DisneyToons.

But, yes, I agree, Treasure Planet was a bomb.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"It's funny...all of Pixar's films to date have been successes. Not one failure. Disney has released COUNTLESS animated movies in that same timeframe ...... "***

Very good point. Pixar has been able to sit back and painstaking make 5 movies in 9 or so years, useing half of someone else's money to do so. I don't think Disney has had that luxury.

 

[DancingBear]

In addition to what D-R said--

I don't think it's trying to have it both ways. You can say that the Disney name has value (to Pixar, or on its own), even though not every Disney product is wildly successful. It's one of the strongest brands in the world. It carries with it a connotation of quality, family-friendly entertainment, built up over years, not based on any single product.

Would you say the McDonald's name has no value because the McRib was a lousy sandwich?

 

[DancingBear]

BTW, Piglet's Big Movie was in the top 10 for three weeks, and took in $23 million plus. That's Sinbad-like numbers.

Jungle Book 2 took in nearly $48 million.

 

[Planogirl]

Well, everyone can throw around numbers and gaze into their crystal balls until the cows come home. I still believe that two massive egos will have to be willing to sit down and negotiate fairly with each other before another deal can be reached. Only time will tell if this can happen.

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Now settle down there Mr. WIPPERMAN............I'm with you and not against you....

Mr Kidds,

Very sorry if I read you the wrong way. Obviously in my haste to show myself as a "Car 1" person - I made the spontaneous utterance "Disney Rules" - not realizing the possible reprocussions. I was a little shocked when it seemed like you focused on those two words - and ignored the remainder of my point about the topic. So..... I appologize to you if I read you the wrong way. (hell I've been here a year and a half and I'm becoming cynical already).

When referring to the "bashers", I think I can see your point. If I understand you correctly - you are saying that they "bash" because they care. They are only being so critical because they are concerned about the well being of the Mouse. I can understand that. And...... I can (somewhat ) respect that. But in my opinion - many of the folks around this board have let their anger/cynicism cloud the fact that there is nothing else out there in the world quite like Disney.

Honestly, the thing that set me off in the beginning was reading another thread that basically said that Disney would be practically belly-up right now if it wasn't for Pixar. And the general theme of some of the posts was that if you want to see where Disney actually was - you needed to subtract the money they get from their Pixar partnership.

To me, this is just plain silly. If Disney didn't have their relationship with Pixar - then don't people realize that they would be focusing more on their own projects. They would be doing their own CGI animation projects. But... why should they when they have Pixar to do the work for them.

I guess to me I just view many of the "old timers" around here as the type of person that would not only open the curtain to show that the Wizard of Oz was human - but would then take the time to point out that he was too short, was loosing his hair, and could stand to loose a few pounds.

So.... maybe in the future I will really open myself up and start a "Disney Rules" thread... so then the point of each topic will not get clouded by my passion for the Mouse.

 

[DancingBear]

From the glass half full department:

I think in the rush to look into the crystal ball toward the future of the Disney/Pixar relationship, we don't give enough credit to Disney for recognizing Pixar's potential and entering into the multi-picture deal early on. Wasn't that an incredibly savvy business decision? Perhaps these guys know a little bit about what they're doing after all.

I remember a while ago critical threads here when Eisner was holding Pixar's feet to the fire to fulfill their contractual obligations, when Pixar was asserting that Toy Story 2 should count toward their multi-picture obligation (even though the contract says sequels don't count). Some here seemed to think that Disney should just give up on the profits from the last potentially multi-hundred-million-dollar film just to get Pixar's goodwill. It didn't seem to me that Pixar was offering anything in return, and Eisner was making the right decision at that time, as well. I think that decision has also been vindicated, as it doesn't appear that Eisner's position at that time will materially affect the negotiations on whether to renegotiate and extend the current relationship.

 

[airlarry!]

Lamp says Mouse Does Not See the Light
Thurs Aug 21, 2003
by Annie Mation

Officials at Pixar Animation Studios (NYSE: PIXR) have announced that negotiations have halted between the company, which produces CGI animated features, through its proprietary RenderMan software, including recent hits, Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc., and The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS).

In a candid interview, Chairman and CEO Michael Eisner downplayed the move, citing that Disney is close to announcing its own new deal. "We have not signed the contracts yet, as I have been on a working vacation in Idaho, but we will soon be announcing the formation of a great new CGI production partnership to replace the one we are losing. My good friend, and talented producer, Jerry Bruckheimer, and Disney are forming Central Park Animation Studios, a CGI-production company that will produce independent animation efforts to rival any in the industry."

Eisner was pleased that the company could find a replacement for Pixar so soon, and assured investors that there will be no loss in time line for the animation releases.

"Jerry already has a film in production, tentatively tilted "Custer's Last Dance," which will be a fun-filled family CGI adventure about the last few hours of General Custer's life.

Bruckheimer could not be reached for comment, but a production assistant at Central Park Animation confirmed that "Custer's" is in the post-production phase. "Jerry has done a great job of lining up a winning script, co-written by eleven of Hollywood's great animation script-writers, and the voice talent is incredible, as Jerry was able to use Mr. Eisner's considerable contacts in the industry to get some of the brightest stars in entertainment to sign on," gushed Fawn Bland, public relations director for Central Park. "Martin Short plays the title role, and Gary Coleman plays his sidekick."

Seven new songs were written by Harvey Newman, a third cousin to Academy-award winning writer and composer, Randy Newman.

"It's another great Jerry production, there will be bombs and explosions and special effects and high adventure and comedy, and the Native Americans and soldiers will break out into song, just like in our recent masterpieces like 'Beauty and the Beast,'" said Eisner.

Eisner touted other benefits from severing the ties with Pixar. "The synergy this new production contract can create is exciting also, as we plan to explore the relationship between the Battle of Little Bighorn and the State of California in a unique new parade, called DanceDanceDance, for our signature park, Disney's California Adventure.

"There will be new documentaries for the ABC Family channel, and we've signed Poison to do the closing credits song, which of course we can market on our 500 plus member stations of Radio Disney."

John Lassiter, chief artist at Pixar, appeared at a news conference this morning, and assured fans and investors that it will continue to produce quality animation, but could not disguise his visible worry concerning the future of the company without Eisner's nuturing skills.

"This is a sad day for Pixar. I wish there were still a way we could be part of Disney, but somehow we will move on. Hopefully, we haven't run out of good ideas."

 

[DisneyKidds]

Had me going until "Custer's Last Dance" .......................................Shame on you Larry . Another well written piece though!

 

[Cricket2]

...and here I am hammering on the search engines to figure out what platform they were using.

There goes 10 minutes I'll never get back.