Who would team up with Pixar, if not Disney.

Originally posted by DancingBear
Perhaps Star Wars Ep III would still be a huge movie, but it might not reach its potential in areas like international revenues and merchandising. Shrek was a very successful movie, but Monsters Inc. was more successful, and, from what I've read here and elsewhere, Disney's international distribution capabilities are given large credit for the discrepancy.


Lets look at the top ten films worldwide (Gross) Frist Number is worldwide the second is Domestic. Seems like all of those companies were able to swing some pretty big overseas numbes and none of the top ten are Disney.

Titanic
Fox/P. $1,835.4 $600.8

2
Harry Potter / Sorcerer's Stone
WB
$975.8 $317.6

3
The Phantom Menace
Fox
$925.6 $431.1


4
Jurassic Park
Uni.
$920.1 $357.1


5
The Two Towers
NL
$918.7 $339.7


6
Harry Potter / Chamber of Secrets
WB
$869.4 $262.0


7
The Fellowship of the Ring
NL
$862.2 $313.4


8
Spider-Man
Sony
$821.7 $403.7


9
Independence Day
Fox
$813.2 $306.2


10
Star Wars
Fox
$798.0 $461.0
 
You didn't highlight this, which I found interesting:

Good point DancingBear. It wasn't intentional. I did try to dissect the most relevant aspects of the disclosures in the above post and hope people take the time to read the filing as well.

One thing I didn't note regarding the agreement was Pixar's right to equitable name brand association with their projects. This is very important to a company trying to make inroads into an established industry. What it tells me is that Pixar always intended on branching away from the co-venture structure but in the interim needed the partnership to get there.

Where are they now is the real question. $300 mil or so in cash and equivalents isn't enough to fly solo. Nemo probably will certainly give them an added shot in the arm but I still say it is risky. I don't doubt that Jobs wants to have independence and footing so a break would probably be inevitable.

But, not owning the rights to their current work is a problem in terms of future revenue. They basically have to start from scratch to develop in-house projects which hopefully prove successful enough to establish a sustaining economic resource.

What I read was that they were working simultaneously on projects within the company which means they are distributing their resources on both internal and external ventures. This way, they will be ready to spotlight their own work on schedule without having to deplete everything they have accumulated in the process.

Not a bad idea.
 
In the alltime worldwide grosses there is not a Disney film in the top ten, but there is 3 in the top 20 (Lion King, The Sixth Sense, and Armageddon). Nemo will more than likely make it to that list by years end. Giving Disney roughly 20% of the top 20 or so films of all time. Not too bad.
 
I'll even go one further and say that if Nemo makes it to 40th, Disney will have 10 of the top 40. No other studio can claim that.
 

To the earlier poster - Pixar can't go it alone because they have no means/experience/capability to distribute, market or merchandise their products. They are the creative end. Aside from that - most studios would have a difficult time sustaining themselves on 1 movie a year. Even with a track record like Pixar - success is not guaranteed.

Europa - I can see where one would think Universal would be a logical choice, but given their position currently (Vivendi), they can't even find a buyer for themselves - I doubt they would be able to make a contract offer lucrative enough for Pixar.

Even though many studios have distributed mega million dollar films, marketing and merchandising are very different for a family animated movie than a LOTR or Spiderman or even Harry Potter. These 3 films in particular were coming straighout of literature, be it classic or comic. Nemo, for instance, as well as any other Pixar story - brand new - any audience for these movies has come from the distributing/marketing ability and name connection of Disney and quality of the film itself. Disney has an outlet system that the other studios don't. Dreamworks isn't exactly known for their great plush or movie toys. Whether you believe plush(and the variety of other marketing avenues Disney has available) can have an effect on success of a movie - indirect as it may be its certainly there.
 
Originally posted by MelissathePooh
Europa - I can see where one would think Universal would be a logical choice, but given their position currently (Vivendi), they can't even find a buyer for themselves - I doubt they would be able to make a contract offer lucrative enough for Pixar.

I never said that Universal would be a good choice for Pixar in the same way that Disney currently is. Only that it is one avenue to market the films. (Universal Parks). If Pixar retains the rights to their upcoming movies they could be distributed by one company and have theme park rights go to another.

All of the other movie houses have the same marketing options available to them.
 
I don't know of many that have their own magazine, television station, radio statio, retail store and not many have themeparks.
 
Originally posted by MelissathePooh
I don't know of many that have their own magazine, television station, radio statio, retail store and not many have themeparks.

So your claming that you never saw an article on LOTR? Harry Potter? Never saw a commercial for either? Never heard anything on the Radio? Never saw any items for sale in stores for either of these movies? Of course you have because that is what a company needs to do to market a movie. They all do the same thing. Sans an attraction tie in. Other then a couple of character wondering around the park and a kiddies land I'm having trouble figuring out just exactly Disney has taken advantage of this huge asset for the Pixar movies. You guys act is if the other companies are falling all over themselves, bumping into wals and are lucky to get a movie produced, marketed and seen by the customer.
 
Planogirl, I don't see MGM having the capital, or the experience, in distributing a huge budget animated release. If it weren't for James Bond, would MGM still be in business?
The ONLY reason that I brought up MGM is because they were in the hunt for Universal until recently. They made the largest bid so far in fact so they were willing to finance this purchase at least.

I like Melissa's idea of Sony though. They are huge and have bucks to burn. As for Disney having all of the tools while the others don't, no one seems to be keeping in mind the egos at work here. Can these two hugs egos ever come to an agreement?

By the way Golter, I show Armageddon at only 50th on the all time list. Were you thinking of Fox' Independence Day by any chance? Actually, I'm only seeing 7 movies from Disney in the top 40 so I might be looking at something different.
 
I'm certainly not saying that they can't market movies, just that Disney has particular experience with family films, animated films and a built in name for those type of products.

Universal would have pretty tough time finding the finances to handle Pixar, but maybe they are better off then Vivendi themselves???

Few other studios have had the success with animated films that Disney has - some have come close, but 1 or 2 isn't much compared to a history of success. Thrown in the fact that CGI is different on its own, I don't think Pixar would be anywhere near the success that it is without Disney. A success I am sure, but far from what it is now.
 
Ok, I know this is a dumb question, and there is an answer to this, but I just don't know what it is. Why exactly is it that Pixar needs a partner? Why can't they go it alone? I mean apart from the risk... is that it?

This is a good question, and the risk is part of it - but let's put that off for a second. First, though, there is a pragmatic side to it, and I don't see how a small company that releases one (or less) film per year could maintain the structure to distribute and market the film, particularly when it is a multi-million dollar animated film. Beyond working with 3,500 US theaters (I know that there are conglomerates that would reduce the number of contracts with theaters that you need, but you would still have to make a distribute what, may 7,000 prints of the film across the country), but also working with major sources of promotion (like McDonalds. Or Baskin Robbins), merchandising and distribution there, stuff like that. Then through in the international part, with contracts with theaters around the world. It just isn't something that I think a small company could do, nor do I think it would be financial worth it to hire people capable of doing it and setting up this sort of structure for one film a year. Even if you are willing to believe that any of the major companies could and would distribute multi-million dollard animated films regularly and successfully, I don't think that Pixar could do it alone (at this time).

The second part is the risk, which is the part I haven't gotten and have been trying to get at and get my mind around. I asked before about what the deal was, and thinks so much, Crusader for posting that. Let me recap it and sum it to make sure that I understand. The current deal between Pixar and Disney is:

Pixar and Disney share 50% of the production costs.
Disney pays all the distribution and marketing.
Disney gets a set fee for distribution.
Pixar and Disney split the remaining profit 50%.
Disney retains "ownership" of the characters for future sequals, theme parks, etc.

Is that about right?

And the idea that has been presented here, often, if I understand it right, is that it would be beneficial to Pixar to negotiate a new partnership, modeled after the "Lucas and Fox" deal, in which:

Pixar would shoulder 100% of the production cost
Disney would pay all the distriubtion and marketing
Disney would get a fee for distribution, and 10% of the profit.
The "ownership" may be renegotiated.

Is that right? I just want to see if I am understanding this-

DR
 
Here's a pretty good article on what transpired earlier this year. I believe the biggest players will be Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros.

d-r when I come across the specifics regarding Lucasfilm's deal I'll let you know if there are any missing components to the agreement terms you have outlined.

Lucasfilm Ltd is privately held and has two equally dynamic agreements concerning StarWars. The first is the distribution through Fox and the second is the licensing with Hasbro. If Pixar was considering a similar arrangement, they would have to structure something which incorporates both avenues as well.

That is why I believe Warner Bros makes the most sense in going head to head against Disney here.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2003/02/06/BU14654.DTL
Disney rivals court Pixar
Emeryville animation studio looking for new distributor

Benny Evangelista, Kelly Zito, Chronicle Staff Writers Thursday, February 6, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




chart attached

As Pixar Animation Studios puts the finishing touches on its latest movie,

"Finding Nemo," the Emeryville firm apparently is having little trouble attracting potential suitors that want to replace its longtime partner, the Walt Disney Co.

Analysts say Pixar, which is free to sign a new deal as soon as "Finding Nemo" is delivered to Disney in March or April, has been contacted by all of Disney's major Hollywood competitors.

Speculation began to heat up last week after a delegation of top executives from Disney's longtime cartoon rival, Warner Bros., visited Pixar's sprawling Park Street campus. Analysts say other potential partners include Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Sony Picture Corp.

"I think they're in discussions with everybody," said Jeffrey Logsdon, an analyst with Gerard Klauer Mattison. "There's a lot of guys who want to take the girl to the prom."

Pixar, which is due to report fourth-quarter earnings today, declined to comment on reports that Steve Jobs, Pixar's chief executive officer, has begun preliminary talks to find a new film distribution partner to replace Disney or was preparing for a visit from officials from Twentieth Century Fox. A Disney spokeswoman also declined to comment.

Barbara Brogliatti, spokeswoman for the studios that have produced Looney Tunes cartoon characters for decades, confirmed that Warner Bros. President Alan Horn and a few other studio executives visited Pixar last week, but "the nature of that visit is something between us and Pixar," she said.

Disney has distributed and marketed the four successful, computer-animated films produced by Pixar -- "Toy Story," "A Bug's Life," "Toy Story 2" and "Monsters, Inc."

"Finding Nemo," scheduled for release in theaters May 30, is the latest in a five-picture deal that is scheduled to end in 2005.

Both Jobs , who also serves as the charismatic CEO of Apple Computer Inc., and Disney CEO Michael Eisner have stated their admiration for their long- standing working relationship.

Disney's powerful marketing and distribution channels appear to have helped boost Pixar's reputation, as their co-productions tallied more than $1 billion worldwide.

But the relationship has been tested by a division of revenue that has left Pixar complaining it is not getting its fair share on deals. For example, Pixar receives no money for the use of Pixar characters at Disney theme parks. Pixar officials say they want a more favorable split in any new deal with Disney or another entertainment company.

Pixar's run of successful films puts the firm "in a dramatically stronger position than they were when they signed the original Disney deal," said analyst Lowell Singer of SG Cowan Securities Corp.

The Pixar-Disney relationship began in 1986, when Pixar provided technology to help Disney duplicate traditional animation film cels. Pixar was formed that year, when George Lucas sold Lucasfilm Ltd's computer graphics division to Jobs for $10 million.

The small staff quickly gained fame for its computer-generated shorts, including "Luxo Jr.," which received an Academy Award nomination for best animated short in 1987.

In 1991, Pixar, which by then had largely shed its technology focus, and Disney paired up with the intention of making three feature-length, animated films.

After the success of 1995's "Toy Story," which earned $358 million worldwide, Pixar and Disney went back to the table in 1997 to hammer out a new agreement.

Under that five-picture pact, Pixar and Disney would split costs and profit after Disney earned back what it spent on marketing and earned a distribution fee equal to 10 to 15 percent of total film proceeds, including merchandising rights.

As a result, Pixar ends up with about 40 to 45 percent of profit while Disney gets 55 to 60 percent, an imbalance some industry watchers say has spread ******* at Pixar.

Pixar still must deliver three pictures to Disney. But the agreement lets Pixar enter discussions with other studios after it delivers "Finding Nemo."

The Pixar-Disney relationship also has proven rocky at times because of the strong personalities at the top.

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times last year, Jobs said that, like any longtime partners, Pixar and Disney have had the usual ups and downs. When asked about his relationship with Eisner, Jobs replied, "Let's talk about that next year."

According to earlier published reports, the tension mounted shortly after the release of "Toy Story 2" in 1999. Disney, pushing for a possible third installment in the "Toy Story" series, said that film would not count as part of the five-movie agreement.

Pixar, hoping to get out of its current contract, reportedly insisted "Toy Story 3" be considered one of the five. "Toy Story 3" has not been made.

After "Finding Nemo," Pixar and Disney are scheduled to release "The Incredibles," about a family of undercover superheroes, in 2004, and "Cars," the story of a group of classic cars that travel along Route 66.

Analyst Singer said although there are inherent advantages for Pixar to remain with Disney, both Fox and Warner Bros. also are "capable of delivering worldwide distribution to Pixar."

Pixar stock rose 6 cents to close at $55.61 on the Nasdaq Stock Market Wednesday. Disney was unchanged at $16.90 on the New York Stock Exchange.
 












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 DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom