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

[DancingBear]

How does Disney fill the void if they lose Pixar? How about trying to hire away some of Pixar's talent? Wonder if there are any contractual restrictions against Disney doing this?

 

[hopemax]

hopemax: Very astute - So who plays Oswald this time around - Woody or Buzz?

Actually, I think the character of Oswald will be played by Stitch. If Chris Sanders and Dean Dubois were free to do whatever they wanted with Stitch, I think he could be the next Donald Duck. I'm afraid Disney is going to overmarket the little guy, saddle him with poor projects and people are going to become sick of him.

 

[Peter Pirate]

...he could be the next Donald Duck.

But Hope, Walt hated Donald Duck...So would this be a good thing? Careful now, some folks could have a philsophical problem with this!

Hope, what leads you to think Disney is overusing/misusing Stitch? He hasn't appeared too overexposed in my visits to the Parks...

 

[hopemax]

Walt *hated* Donald, since when? I would imagine a statement like that would be findable on the internet, so far I'm not finding anything. Source?

And I'm not saying that Disney is currently overusing/misusing Stitch, but lets see what happens over the next 3 years. We can revisit after Aug 26th when Stitch! The Movie is released. We can discuss whether it's in the same vein as Cinderella 2, Jungle Book 2, or were they able to invent new situations that relive the fun of the movie without seeming like they are retreading old ground.

 

[HB2K]

Viking....I still haven't seen your explaination of how Disney is going to make up for the lost Pixar revenue....

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by KNWVIKING
Pixar has been around since '94- right ? And in 9 years they have made a total of 5 films - or is it 6 ? And during this timeline Disney has provided half the production costs- correct ? During this same time, how many movies has Disney put out ?

I guess I'm just mystified why everyone stands so in awe of Pixar. Hard to imagine Disney ever survived without them. The entire Disney empire has only survived this last decade because of 5 films.

This is what I've learned about Pixar. When he was a boy, John Lassiter decided he wanted to be an animater, so he wrote to the Disney studios and asked them how to become one. They sent him a letter back telling him to study. He went to the Cal Polly program that Walt Disney had such a hand in. He then went to work for the Disney studios, he worked on Mickey's Christmas Carol. Then he was working for the Disney studios on the Fox and the Hound, and a couple of his buddies were working on Tron. He saw the stuff they were doing, and it clicked - wow, this is where the future is. Not so much the visuals of Tron itself, but the technique. He left Disney in 1984, and joined George Lucas's special effects computer group, which later became Pixar. Steve Jobs bought the computer effects dept. of Lucasfilm in 1986, for $10 million, and Pixar was established. They produced the short Luxo, Jr. that year. In 87 Luxo, Jr. won the oscar for animated short, and Red's Dream was produced. In 88, Pixar produced Tin Toy. In 1989 they produced Nick Nack, and their first commerical, for minute maid. This was also the year that the "Renderman" software was developed. In 1991 Pixar made 15 commercials, but they also realized that they could do more than shorts and commercials. Expanding from the Toy story line of "Tin Toy," they made a short (just a few seconds, really) test of two toys, that were to become Buzz and Woody (you can see this short on the ultimate toy box disc 3), and took it to Disney and pitched the film. Disney liked it, and agreed to a joint venture for three films. I know that a lot of you think that Disney basically just buys Pixar films and distributes them, but if you look at things like the making of documentarys of Toy Story, Bug's Life, etc., you'll see that Disney people had a lot of input into things like story, etc. It seems much more like a creative partnership to me than many here think, but that is just my impression. They continued with shorts and commercials, and in 1995 Toy Story was released, the first cgi feature and the top box office of 1995, and Pixar went public. Remember that this was during the gold rush of IPOs - Pixar offered 6,900,000 shares at $22 per, beating Netscape as the largest IPO of the year. 1996 was Pixar's last year of creating commissioned commercials. in 1997, Disney and Pixar entered a new agreement to produce 5 films, wich superseded the original three picture deal, Pixar moved in to their new headquarters, and expanded to 375 employees. 1998 broght us a Bug's Life - y'all know the story from here.

Some other things I'd say. On a previous thread I asked about the distributorship agreements. It seemed to me that people agreed that the Disney-Pixar deal was that Disney would pay 50% of the production costs, all of the distribution costs, then split the profit 50-50. The "Lucas-Fox" deal is that Fox pays all the distribution costs, and Fox gets 10% of the profit. This is my understanding of what I've picked up on here, but I'm not sure that it is correct or that everyone agrees about this?

Also, and this is just my impression, not as anyone who is an animator. I think I've realized how very different the process of creating taditional animation and creating cgi animation really is. It isn't just that you have computers assisting in the drawing, or that you can create "effects." It seems to me, just from watching documentaries about both and reading about both, I may be wrong, that there is much more fundamental difference. In tradional animation, and I'm simplifying here, animators draw a background, and each frame of a character is drawn. So that tiny variations in the drawings from one frame to the next create the impression of movement. In cgi, three dimensional models of characters are made, and then scanned in to the computer using a pen to input data from several points on the model, so that the computer creates an image of the "character." "Sets" are made in three deminsional space, the background area. Then the characters are basically driven around this space. Well, acted around this space. Think of how you drive the marine around in a three d world in doom. It isn't the same technique as drawing each frame and then putting them together. This has led Pixar to have another great resource, after producing five movies. This is the "digital backlot." All of the things they have created can be pulled back up and used again. That is why it is easy for the Pizza Planet truck to drive by the Dentist's Office in Finding Nemo, or for Boo's mobile to hang in the office. Another example is the "set" for the video game that opens Toy Story 2 - Buzz is on another planet - the set is really the dried up creak bed from a Bug's Life, with different color and shadow.

Now, I've simplified that a lot. In traditional animation, an animator draws the character, it goes to paint, it goes to inbetweeners, etc. In cgi, there is a rough draft, then a series of iterations that add in special effects, lighting and shadow, etc. But what I'm getting at is the basic process is different, and that Pixar has a treasure of stuff in their "backlot" - more than anyone else, I'd think. Also, don't forget their software. Also, it should be much more economical to make a sequal (Shrek 2, etc.) than an original - you have the sets (Toy Story 2 used all new sets since Andy's family moved, Al's toy barn and apt., the airport, etc. were all new places) and the characters. Now you just act them. So, the resources at Pixar are a little more than just the people and their creativity.

DR

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by HB2K
Viking....I still haven't seen your explaination of how Disney is going to make up for the lost Pixar revenue....

Funny, I still haven't seen that Disney lost it -

 

[HB2K]

Funny, I still haven't seen that Disney lost it -

So you feel that Pixar will reup with Disney at the same contract terms (a 50/50 split)?

Even if Disney keeps Pixar (and I'm still saying that's a HUGE if), the terms will be radically different (in Pixar's favor), thus creating a loss of revenue. I hope you're not trying to insinuate that the current deal will continue into the future.

KWVIKING claimed that Disney could fill the revenue void left by Pixar's renegotiation. I'm still asking how.

 

[Peter Pirate]

Hope, calling my integrity into question, eh? Just kidding. If you'll look at "Disney's World" by Leonard Mosley, pages 171 & 297 will give enough info for starters although I know I read it elsewhere as well...Walt was never a fan of Doanald Duck.

HBK, you think it's a 'HUGE if' that a deal can be made yet most of Wall Street reports still seems to think it will...Do you have info?

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by HB2K
So you feel that Pixar will reup with Disney at the same contract terms (a 50/50 split)?

Why, do you not think they will? Honestly, hb2k, I've learned not to put a lot of faith in your prognasticationabilty -

Even if Disney keeps Pixar (and I'm still saying that's a HUGE if), the terms will be radically different (in Pixar's favor), thus creating a loss of revenue. I hope you're not trying to insinuate that the current deal will continue into the future.

KWVIKING claimed that Disney could fill the revenue void left by Pixar's renegotiation. I'm still asking how.

why don't you answer me this, so I will know if we are talking about the same thing- it seems to me that people were talking about the Lucas-Fox deal, so is this the correct understanding?

Some other things I'd say. On a previous thread I asked about the distributorship agreements. It seemed to me that people agreed that the Disney-Pixar deal was that Disney would pay 50% of the production costs, all of the distribution costs, then split the profit 50-50. The "Lucas-Fox" deal is that Fox pays all the distribution costs, and Fox gets 10% of the profit. This is my understanding of what I've picked up on here, but I'm not sure that it is correct or that everyone agrees about this?

If you won't answer that, I really can't say.

 

[HB2K]

DR-

The current Pixar / Disney deal as I understand it from our discussions on these boards:

Disney and Pixar split any movie profits 50/50 with Pixar assuming production costs and Disney assuming marketing costs. Disney also retains the sequel & character use rights.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's also been well discussed, to the point of consensus if I'm not mistaken, that the new deal Pixar is looking for is similar to the lucas deal with fox (Disney would distribute the films for a fixed, small percentage of the profits).

This is a DRASTIC change from the existing deal and will leave Disney with a revenue void....which according to Viking will be easily replaced. I'm still asking how will it be replaced???

Honestly I don't see how you're arguing that Disney is going to have the same deal with Pixar at the conclusion of the existing agreement. I don't think I've seen anyone argue that (including Ei$ner), but apparently you want to spar on it....so there's my understanding. Please correct me where I'm wrong.

 

[HB2K]

No I have no AV type connections, I'm just making my assumption based on the public apathy Ei$ner has displayed when discussing the whole Pixar situation.

There is no sense of urgency in any of his statements regarding Pixar. I've seen how they've handled things in the past, and I know how headstrong Steve Jobs is (especially when he feels he's got a marketable product). It isn't a good mix.

But hey, opinions (& Prognostications) are like a certain orafice....everyone's got one. We'll see what happens.

 

[KNWVIKING]

****"Viking....I still haven't seen your explaination of how Disney is going to make up for the lost Pixar revenue...."***

If you look toward the top of this page you'll see a quick reply to your earlier post.

 

[d-r]

I'm not arguing semantics, I am arguing why you think Pixar would find such a deal more favorable than the current one, and I have to be sure that I understand the two in order to compare - that's why I want to be sure I understand the alternatives that you all believe in.

So, let's do the math, shall we.

The distribution costs are a wash, since Disney pays them under both scenarios.

Let's say that our film costs $100 million to make.

Now, let's say that our film grosses $300 million. First, the theater owners take some cut - AV tells us it is typically 50%, so if you buy that now you have $150 million in profit (the percentage of the split doesn't really matter, the trend in the math would ultimately be similar).

In the current scenario, Disney puts up $50 million dollars, and takes home $75 million. So they are $25 million ahead.

Under the Lucas-Fox scenario, Disney puts up nothing, and takes home $15 million. Not bad for no risk.

Now let's say that the film makes 200 million. The theaters take the 50% cut, leaving over 100 million.

In the current scenario, Disney put in $50 million, and takes home $50 million. Scratch.

In the Lucas-Fox scenario, Disney puts in 0 and takes home $10 million. Nice. Pixar puts in $100 million, and takes home $90 million. Ouch. Negative ($10 million).

Why on earth would Pixar push for such a "lucrative" deal when they currently have Disney accepting over 50% of the risk of a film? Another reason that Pixar wouldn't go out of this relationship is that no other studio can be as effective as Disney in distributing those films - IMHO of course. Y'all can putter around that Sony or WB could carry the rock if you want to, but if I was Pixar I wouldn't try out a new tailback if I had a heisman candidate already in the back field - would you?

Frankly, the "deal" will be much more complicated than the Lucas-Fox deal, and will have to do with DVD sales and rentals, character use, and so on. The money here is in DVD. I don't think that the "deal" will be the same as has been for the first 5 films, but I don't think it will be the "deal" suggested here, and I don't think it will bring the sky down.

 

[d-r]

Originally posted by HB2K

There is no sense of urgency in any of his statements regarding Pixar.

hb2k....you know, instead of wasting our time here talking about this, do you want to play this game I heard about called Poker? I am not sure if I understand everything about how to play it, but I think I have enough of a gist of it to try my best -

 

[HB2K]

Viking-

So you feel ABC will generate the revenue that will be lost from the current Disney favored Pixar deal? Please explain how a fourth place network with seemingly no buzz will do this?

DR-

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

That's an interesting stance....one I don't think I've seen here. I'll take a look at your last post and get back to you...

but one quick thing....

A) I don't think the Disney brand is what you think it is. Why aren't the soley Disney branded films succeeding if the Disney brand is the "heisman" you say it is?

B) It's foolish to play poker with your MVP. It's a lot better to make them feel wanted & important. But I guess it's all in your viewpoint and we're at that fork in the road where we agree to disagree. I don't think Disney can afford to lose Pixar. You feel they can.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by d-r
Now, I've simplified that a lot. In traditional animation, an animator draws the character, it goes to paint, it goes to inbetweeners, etc. In cgi, there is a rough draft, then a series of iterations that add in special effects, lighting and shadow, etc. But what I'm getting at is the basic process is different, and that Pixar has a treasure of stuff in their "backlot" - more than anyone else, I'd think. Also, don't forget their software. Also, it should be much more economical to make a sequal (Shrek 2, etc.) than an original - you have the sets (Toy Story 2 used all new sets since Andy's family moved, Al's toy barn and apt., the airport, etc. were all new places) and the characters. Now you just act them. So, the resources at Pixar are a little more than just the people and their creativity.

DR

Interesting thoughts. I know the current deal gives Disney control of all sequels to the Pixar movies made for Disney. Does that mean (a) Disney has any rights to Pixar's digital "backlot" itself; and/or (b) Pixar won't be able to use any of that backlot ever again, if it doesn't re-up with Disney?

 

[Keyser]

d-r,

To follow up on your comments of CG vs. traditional animation, you're basically correct - the differences are a lot deeper than just using computers to help draw. To make a couple of points, though, the 3D models created for graphics applications are not always scanned in from real-world models, and even when they are, there is a lot that has to be done to them before they are used in the movie. Also, although a lot of models can be reused fairly easily, modeling techniques change over time (e.g. the characters from Toy Story 2 were modeled differently than those in Toy Story 1), which can limit shelf-life of the older models. Also, Pixar's software development has given them an edge over other animation companies that just use others' software (including Renderman).

The one other thing I want to mention, though, is that what makes the movies "good" even from a technical viewpoint (not from a story viewpoint) has much more to do with the artistic input of the CG animators than it does the technical tools. I'm a computer graphics researcher, and I couldn't come close to producing the results that many animators do regularly. So, while the CG animation process is indeed very different from traditional animation, I think you could easily argue that the thing that makes each one "good" is the same - artistic insight and ability.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"So you feel ABC will generate the revenue that will be lost from the current Disney favored Pixar deal? Please explain how a fourth place network with seemingly no buzz will do this?"***

Well, based on a statement made by ME, the gap between 4th place & 1st is less then a percentage point- so while 4th may sound bad, in actuallity it sounds like all four networks are pretty much equally inept. Couple that with reports from various financial institutions that believe ABC will turn a sizeable profit this year or next leads me to believe Disney won't be paupers after the 7th film is completed.

Another thing to remember is that we're not talking about an eminate loss of income. There are till two more films to be delivered and if I'm not mistaken Disney will still own the marketing rights to all 7 flicks regardless of future negotiations.

And like others have stated,Pixar could be one bad film away from disaster. Disney took a hard hit from TP but seems to have rebounded nicely. Can a company that makes one flick every 1-2 years rebound the same way ?

 

[CWIPPERMAN]

A point I have yet to see made anywhere around here is this. Everyone focuses on how if Pixar spilts, then they open themselves up to failure. The point keeps getting made that Disney will loose all of this potential revenue if Pixar leaves. But NOBODY is giving any thought to what happens if Disney and Pixar do re-sign - and Pixar starts churning out stinkers. They are batting 1000% right now. They have generated billions of dollars in revenue (from tickets & merchandise). How long can the streak continue.

From what I understand - when Pixar puts up their "50%" for each movie - they are basically draining the bank of all of their cash. So... if Disney re-signs with them - and they have a dud or two.... you know they will come running to Uncle Mike for a little help. It wouldn't take much for Pixar to become the next ABC Family for Disney.

I'm just stuck.... I just can't see why everyone is making this Disney/Pixar deal such a boon for Disney. The DISNEY name is what makes the movies so attractive to families. When they do the trailers for the movies - one of the first lines is "Walt Disney Pictures presents.....".

MR KIDDS
Regarding my "DISNEY RULES" statement. Damn.... you're cynical. I'm not doing anything but expressing my love for what Disney stands for. I am very much a "Car 1" person. This may sound weird - but I've probably seen a total of 10 Disney movies in my life. I've never seen the "classics" (Snow White, Cinderella, Bambi). I don't own tons of Disney merchandise. I don't check their stock every day. But I do spend several hours each week checking out this site - and several other "Disney" sites reading about the company. I have read practically every archived article on Jimhillmedia.com. I read miceage.com, and mouseplanet.com articles when they are posted. I check up on Disney on screamscape.com, intercot.com, and several others. And I rarely visit Deb's site anymore (www.wdwig.com) because I have most of it memorized. No I don't visit Disney World every year (yet.... but last year was my first "adult" trip, I'm going in 3 weeks, and already making plans to go again next year). I don't live or die with the rise or fall of Disney stock. But what I do is appreciate what a great place WDW is. I DO appreciate how important a place like WDW is for folks like me. I work my a$$ off 51 weeks a year so that I can spend 1 week at WDW. I will never stay at the Grand Floridian. I will never dine at the Brown Derby. I have gone without many things over the past few months - just so that I can afford to go to WDW. And..... so I'm not going to let something like who is the CEO of Disney destroy the image I have of WDW in my head. There are way too many folks that spend a good portion of their days cruising Disney "FAN" sites (like this one) - yet do nothing but spout everything that is wrong with the company. I have been around here long enough to know who many of you are. This isn't my first day on "The Dis". I read this site for 4 months before I joined. I can't comprehend how so many of you can let decisions made by the corporate office destroy your whole image of the company. If you are the type of person that is going to spend your vacation counting the number of french fries in your order - then you need to re-evaluate your choice of vacation destination. Hell.... you might as well save your money and stay home. Some of you profess to love Disney so much - yet you seem clouded by your hatred for the "corporate" side - that you hang on every press release or execuitive decision.

Listen... I am BY NO MEANS a "Eisner" appologist. I am sure he makes mistakes. He IS human after all. But for crying out loud..... let's throw you at the helm of a multi-billion dollar company and see how you do.

I'm sorry..... I know I will now catch the wrath of many of you old-timers around here for expressing myself. But some of you need to wake up and smell the coffee. You need to remember what the whole concept of Disney WORLD is about. It is about creating a place where one you step foot on the property - you forget every thing else that is going on at home.

Sure... there are things that need improvement. When I came back last year - I was quite pi$$ed about the bus service during my trip. But I sure as hell didn't let it ruin my whole vacation. I just can't imagine what it must be like getting on an airplane to fly to Orlando - all the while worrying about what Eisner is going to do that day. I don't see how any of you can enjoy WDW.

(ducks and prepares for barrage of "You're an Eisner appologist" comments)