PDA

View Full Version : Did Disney buy Pixar mainly to get Steve Jobs?


MacBytes
Feb 8, 2006, 11:35 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Did Disney buy Pixar mainly to get Steve Jobs? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060208123530)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Chupa Chupa
Feb 8, 2006, 12:56 PM
I think Cringely has it backwards. Disney bought Pixar IN SPITE OF Steve Jobs, not BECAUSE OF Steve Jobs.

Look, Disney hasn't been able to make a successful feature length animation flick since, what, Snow White or something way back in the late 70s or early 80s. ALL of it's recent animation pics have been Pixar productions. Disney knows if Pixar gets into another studios hands Disney, as the world leader of animation is done. They'll have Sunday night football, Lost, and Desperate Housewives.

The fact is, buying Pixar is Iger's hail mary. It's a desperation move. If it works great for Disney. If it doesn't work, what happens? Iger gets fired and who takes his place? Steve Jobs. And even in the interim, I'm sure the last thing Iger really wanted was a super-ego maniac like Jobs to butt heads with in the board room.

So once again, and for the millionth time, Cringely has it all wrong.

Spock
Feb 8, 2006, 01:18 PM
? Iger gets fired and who takes his place? Steve Jobs. And even in the interim, I'm sure the last thing Iger really wanted was a super-ego maniac like Jobs to butt heads with in the board room.

So once again, and for the millionth time, Cringely has it all wrong.

This is very unlikely the chances of Steve taking over Disney are slim to none.

Analog Kid
Feb 8, 2006, 02:19 PM
If Disney bought Pixar for any one person, it's John Lasseter.

Chaszmyr
Feb 8, 2006, 02:26 PM
If Disney bought Pixar for any one person, it's John Lasseter.

But they didn't, because think about it. You can buy an employee for a whole lot less than you can buy a company.

Alex Cutter
Feb 8, 2006, 02:49 PM
Look, Disney hasn't been able to make a successful feature length animation flick since, what, Snow White or something way back in the late 70s or early 80s.

Really? What do you call CHICKEN LITTLE, which has already made close to $150 million before being released on home video?

So once again, and for the millionth time, Cringely has it all wrong.
He's not the only one. :rolleyes:

redAPPLE
Feb 8, 2006, 03:03 PM
it all boils down to power and money.

Disney hopes to make a lot of money.

SJ wants the power.

Marble
Feb 8, 2006, 03:24 PM
SJ wants the power.

But not, I think, as an end.

Squire
Feb 8, 2006, 03:50 PM
Really? What do you call CHICKEN LITTLE, which has already made close to $150 million before being released on home video?


Yeah, and The Lion King made nearly 800 million dollars worldwide. I think what the original poster meant to say was that Disney has had sporadic success with animated films lately (Chicken Little, of course, being the exception).

Squire

VanNess
Feb 8, 2006, 04:29 PM
I think this former Apple board member (http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2006/tc20060130_588611.htm) has a more sober take on Jobs' new role at Disney than Cringly.

bigandy
Feb 8, 2006, 05:28 PM
But they didn't, because think about it. You can buy an employee for a whole lot less than you can buy a company.

would you trust disney to be that clever, and realise? :rolleyes: ;)

Abstract
Feb 8, 2006, 05:33 PM
Disney bought Pixar so that they don't have to negotiate with Jobsy. Disney just says "Do this," and Pixar just does it now.

kineticpast
Feb 8, 2006, 07:59 PM
Look, Disney hasn't been able to make a successful feature length animation flick since, what, Snow White or something way back in the late 70s or early 80s.
Hehehe! Snow White was actually Disney's first feature-length animation (USA's first too) and came out a little before your estimate, 40 years earlier (1937 to be precise)! ;)

That said there have been plenty of successful Disney animations since the early '80s. The Lion King (1994) is the third highest grossing full-length animation, the only Pixar flick to beat it was Finding Nemo, number one position going to Shrek 2. Aladdin (1992) beats Toy Story 2; and Tarzan and Beauty and the Beast both top A Bug's Life and Toy Story. In fact all of the '90s Disney animations were really successful (at least financially, and that is really all that counts in business decisions like this). Even Lilo and Stitch (2002) did very well. Now throw in Chicken Little!

I think all their straight-to-video titles confuse a lot of people, they seem both numerous and unsuccessful, but I bet Disney is making a killing on them. The animation is often outsourced, therefore extremely cheap to produce and marketting is probably near non-existent. Their are probably thousands of parents buying these in supermarkets, especially when their kids spot their favourite characters on the covers.

tk421
Feb 8, 2006, 11:45 PM
Look, Disney hasn't been able to make a successful feature length animation flick since, what, Snow White or something way back in the late 70s or early 80s. ALL of it's recent animation pics have been Pixar productions. Disney knows if Pixar gets into another studios hands Disney, as the world leader of animation is done. They'll have Sunday night football, Lost, and Desperate Housewives.

The fact is, buying Pixar is Iger's hail mary. It's a desperation move. If it works great for Disney. If it doesn't work, what happens? Iger gets fired and who takes his place? Steve Jobs. And even in the interim, I'm sure the last thing Iger really wanted was a super-ego maniac like Jobs to butt heads with in the board room.

So once again, and for the millionth time, Cringely has it all wrong.

Man, you're way off! Disney has a long history of success going back to the days of the first "talkie" films. In more recent years (the 90's) they've had huge box office success coupled with the only animated film to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar (Beauty and the Beast).

Disney is still a huge company today, although they are in need of some creative changes. Pixar was seen as an easy way to make some of these changes.

I do think Cringely is wrong as far as Steve Jobs is concerned. As Analog Kid said, John Lasseter is as big an asset to Disney as Steve Jobs.

BOOMBA
Feb 9, 2006, 03:24 PM
Did Disney buy Pixar mainly to get Steve Jobs?

nope.

they wanted that Luxo short.