Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Pixar dumps Disney

50% of box office profits

I can't find the source to attribute this, but I read a few days ago that Pixar made up 50% of Disney's box office revenue over the past 3-4 years.

Now, that's only box office revenue (they make money from DVDs, theme parks, sports teams, TV, etc.), but still, it's significant.

Someone here said Michael Eisner is what's wrong with Disney. That's complete bull****. This is a completely fascist company, and has been for years...I have many friends who worked at ABC in New York, and the stories I have been told are disgusting.

When the started the hockey franchise, they were trying to get the hockey players to get haircuts because Disney had an internal policy that men couldn't have "asymmetrical" haircuts.

Sure, that may be a minor thing, but it is an indicator of the kind of weird manipulation and control that goes on inside their company. Walt Disney himself worked as a confidential FBI informant, ratting out potential "Commies" inside Hollywood during the '40s and '50s.

They are scumbags. One of the most disgusting companies ever to grace the earth. Sure, they made a couple of movies that weren't bad, but they really just figured out how to manipulate young minds into giving them money again and again for the same crap.

Now, in a few years, I might say the same about Pixar, but I'm glad they're going their own way. Maybe out from under Disney's kid-friendly fascism, they'll experiment with making some films for adult audiences? You know, like Final Fantasy, except with a decent plot.
 
Originally posted by kryten2000
It was 3d and computer animation that saved Disney in the first place. Going back to the days before tron, look at the crap that the studio was putting out.Bad live action movies and rehased animation.I wish success to both but Disney really needs to get over the mentality that nothing will work with out them.
Click to expand...

I'd argue otherwise. The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermade, just to name a few, were Disney created traditional animation films that were huge. Disney didn't NEED Pixar, but it didn't hurt to have them on board.

As for the brainswashing, money pouring, Disney informent post, all I have to say is one less person waiting infront of me. You know, many people think of Apple as the same way you guys think of Disney, right? Trust me, if Eisner wasn't arround, we wouldn't be in this trouble now.

Oh well, people will never change their minds, so I'll just retire from this thread.
 
Pixar's next hit?

Anyone else notice this preview on Apple's site?

It seems that "Boundin'" has no affiliation with Disney whatsoever, and I remember seeing this on Apple's Hot News page on the 27th... before this announcement was made public.

The first I heard of this was this morning from CNN.

As far as my opinion... I believe that Disney has not produced a good movie since the early/mid 90s. By good movie, I mean one that their prime audience (families, especially with younger children) has cherished and passed down from generation to generation; like the Lion King, the Little Mermaid, Tron, etc... I hope Eisner leaves soon!
 
Why is everyone so anti-disney?

I never realized there was so much hatred for Disney.

Is it because Steve Jobs is aligned with Pixar and now Pixar and Disney are on the outs?
 
yes - this is yet another blow to Eisner.

Pixar doesn't need Disney anymore, but Disney sure needs Pixar. How many non-Pixar blockbusters has Disney had in the past 5 years? Also, Steve couldn't have been too happy when Disney did things like ship a CD-ROM video game for one of the Pixar movies that was PC only (I forget which movie).

One interesting thing is how important has Steve Jobs become to the entertainment industry. Pixar has had 5 consecutive blockbusters including the top animated movie of all time that became the biggest selling DVD of all time, Apple has iTunes music store, the iPod, etc.
 
Originally posted by the_mole1314
I'd argue otherwise. The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermade, just to name a few, were Disney created traditional animation films that were huge. Disney didn't NEED Pixar, but it didn't hurt to have them on board.
Click to expand...

The classic disney films and the lion king films have provided a good deal of revenue for disney, but disney has failed to create any large grossing animated films since the lion king. you can only re-release all of those classics from the 'vault' so much, and they are going to produce smaller returns each time as market saturation grows. disney has been making most of its profits off of pixars movies and the rights to produce products based on them since toy story. Once the contract is up with the production of cars in 2005, disneys profit stream will be mostly lost unless they use the clause that allows them to produce sequels.
 
Before everyone goes counting their chickens on the end of the Pixar/Disney relationship, there is a school of thought that is very suspicious of the timing of this whole talks/announcement thing.

Taken in relationship with the ongoing board struggle between Eisner and Roy Disney.

There is a general board meeting in a few weeks, and it would not come as an enormous shock to find Eisner hung out to dry, and all of a sudden the Pixar/Disney deal back on with much more favourable terms for Pixar.

We'll see.
 
Disney wanted Pixar

I'll bet if it had been up to only Disney's board (with Roy or without him) some kinda deal would have been reached to keep Pixar, if for no other reason than saving face and keeping up Disney's stock price.

This feels as much a personal clash (Eisner vs Jobs) as a corporate one.

Of course I'm on Pixar's side but I do think Disney had the very best _international_ distribution and name. Disney loses more but Pixar also loses something.
 
I agree with 512ke.
This is all about personality.
Disney needs (and WANTS) Pixar.
Jobs wants rid of Eisner.

Am I being extremely suspicious, but there seems to be an answer that to that conundrum.

Eisner out. Jobs in.

Ha.
 
Michael Eisner (head of Disney) is an ass wipe. Good move on pixar's part. Disney has a bad history in screwing with thier friends at Miramax and Pixar.
 
Secret of Nimh?

Wasn't Secret of Nimh disney?
That was the best and LAST disney feature I thought was worth a lick of salt.
Lion king? Meh. Beauty and the Beast? Meh. Toy story? Meh.
The CGI in TS was great, dont get me wrong. But Secret of Nimh, had a great story line, mystery, adventure, etc..
Fantastic feature.
IMO anyway.
 
Originally posted by alandail
...
Pixar doesn't need Disney anymore, but Disney sure needs Pixar. How many non-Pixar blockbusters has Disney had in the past 5 years? ...
Click to expand...

Well, doesn't Disney also own Touchstone, Miramax, Buena Vista, etc.

So, they have had plenty of non-Pixar hits.

And if you were just talking strictly animated. They have had Brother Bear, Lion King, Tarzan, Jungle Book 2, etc.

Plus, they have all those re-releases like Alice in Wonderland, Dumbo, Sleeping Beauty, etc.

So, I really doubt that Disney is going to tank just because of Pixar. Hurt them? Yes. But kill them? No.
 
an alternate idea...

To those who are saying that perhaps Jobs is doing this to make Eisner look bad, and will announce another deal later under a new CEO. Hey, that's plausible, and maybe right.

But I'll offer an alternate take:

I have an acquaintance who works as a VP for a company which is converting cinemas to digital. In fact, their company has bought a chain, and is in the process of converting the entire chain of theaters to digital projection systems.

The interesting thing about digital projection systems (for my part), is that since the movies are essentially just streamed to the theater, and stored locally, there's no need for a physical film to be delivered to every single theater location.

This has interesting ramifications, especially in the industry where I work (documentary film), because it means theaters wilkl no longer be restricted to showing the same few movies all day long. Like, they could show films old people might be interested in in the daytgime while young people are at work, and show different things for the after-work crowd. In short, theater programming can be more diverse and varied, like cable TV.

However, the other obvious ramification of this is that, just like with the major record labels, it makes the distribution mechanism obsolete. Jobs said as much in an interview recently...that the RIAA was built on an outdated business model, and that they needed to accept the new reality of the situation.

Further, if you think about it, going to film is expensive and silly for a company like Pixar, whose films are created digitally.

So, perhaps he feels that since they have had a string of massively successful hits, they can self-distribute while the industry, in the meantime, slowly converts itself to a digital viewing platform.

In other words, maybe he has concluded that Disney is (or will be) an unnecessary expense, since in 5-10 years, he will likely just beam the Pixar movies to subscribing local theaters worldwide.

Anyway, just something else to chew on.
 
Originally posted by Dave the Great
Well, doesn't Disney also own Touchstone, Miramax, Buena Vista, etc.

So, they have had plenty of non-Pixar hits.

And if you were just talking strictly animated. They have had Brother Bear, Lion King, Tarzan, Jungle Book 2, etc.
Click to expand...

I was talking strictly as Disney releases. Disney targets a specific audience not targeted by their other studios. And of the movies you listed, only Lion King was a blockbuster and it predates disney's Pixar movies.
 
Originally posted by jholzner
Couldn't it also be said that Disney dumped Pixar?
Click to expand...

Disney needs pixar far more than pixar needs disney. pixar originally went to disney because they could distribute and produce the movies when pixar didn't have enough money. pixar now has the capital to produce the movies themselves and can find another distributor. the only reason that disney would dump pixar is if pixar was making outrageous demands. even if pixar was being demanding, disney would likely keep nogotiations open. pixar has proven that they can provide a high grossing product and they deserve a better contract that compensates them more.

besides, in the press release oixar said the ended the nogotiations.

on another note, roy says its bad for disney: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040129/media_pixar_roydisney_1.html
 
...then jobs will renegotiate with the new ceo(annointed by roy?) who will be brought back in and be the "hero".
Click to expand...

Or what if the hero is Jobs. Steve - the Disney CEO. :) Would be sweet!

Anyone else notice this preview on Apple's site?
Click to expand...

Boundin' is Pixar's new short. Disney has no affiliation with Pixar's shorts.

I wonder what Cars is about???
Click to expand...

Maybe, uh, Cars? :D Here's a link.
 
Wow, every Disney animated film has sucked since the Lion King... with only the Pixar films being worth while... is Disney really closing their 2-D animation studio like someone posted above?
 
I have a longtime friend who works in the animation department of Disney all his life.

In fact I have been in the "underground highway" than runs under "Main street" quite a few times.

Disney creates a alternate "universe" sort of like the Steve Jobs "reality distortion effect" that focuses on one thing. The dreamworld of children that is Disney.

Image is everything, that's why there are strict rules for appearance etc., nothing different than your average everyday corporation.

Disney is a big operation and the bigger the operation, the more conformity is required to make it work.

Now the E.P.C.O.T. (E-? Prototype Community of Tomorrow) project was supposed to be Walt Disney's ultimate dream, a self contained city. That's why he bought all that land in Florida.

It was supposed to have mono-rails and all that.

When he died, the board decided not to do the self contained city project and instead made EPCOT, which nothing but a bunch of small tastes of different parts of the world. Food and some shops.

They bring people from these different countries to work in these areas on work visas.

Calling Disney racist and fascist is nothing but ABC ultra-left wing propaganda from people who live in NY and have no idea of the day to day operations of Disney. (Or used by someone who doesn't know the difference between fascism and corporate uniformity, guess folks at ABC can wear toga's and not get scolded right?)

After all Eisner is jewish.

Now I am disappointed with the way Eisner is running Disney into the ground, they are more focused on making money than they are continuing the dream that is Disney.

(A lot of the rides are old and need updating desperately, too much "side" commercialism as well in the park, plus the food prices are outrageous and the cafeteria's blow, only Coke, nothing else to drink etc.)

(I do like the Wilderness Lodge, you take the boat constantly to get everywhere, very laid back)

Disney Co. has created entire towns in their image, complete with houses and stores. Corporate towns that are god awful uniform and sterile, Mickey Mouse Lane, Donald Duck Ave, etc.

Not for me, I like a little uniqueness and a opportunity to improve, but others like that I guess.

To each his own.

Now what I hear is that Eisner pulled a fast one on Steve Jobs, the deal was five movies and Eisner, after the successes of Pixars sequels, said that those sequels "Didn't count"

Well naturally SJ told him to drop dead.

And that's the story.
 
Re: Secret of Nimh?

Originally posted by X86BSD
Wasn't Secret of Nimh disney?
That was the best and LAST disney feature I thought was worth a lick of salt.
Lion king? Meh. Beauty and the Beast? Meh. Toy story? Meh.
The CGI in TS was great, dont get me wrong. But Secret of Nimh, had a great story line, mystery, adventure, etc..
Fantastic feature.
IMO anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, Secret of Nimh is soooo not a Disney Flick.
In fact, it's the same story, Don Bluth and animation co., are all ex-disney guys who couldn't take it anymore and busted out to form their own animation studio.
Didn't you knowtice that the rats in Nimh keep serious, stab with swords, bleed, and never break into song!??

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0089940/bio
 
Don't underestimate Disney

Speaking as a former Cast Member, I think we have the danger of underestimating Disney.

They are a HUGE influential company. Whether they have produced a "hit" in the last several years is less the point (though I'll argue that they haven't all been complete failures... Lilo and Stitch was very successful).

Disney is incredibly influential. WB, Universal, Fox, etc.. will have to work twice as hard to give Pixar half as much advertising as Disney did. I'm not convinced Disney needed Pixar as much as Pixar needed Disney. Nor am I convinced that if Disney never had the Pixar deal in the first place, would Pixar be so well known as they are now (or that Disney wouldn't have focused more of an effort to produce better animation in that time period, since no other option would have existed).

Things are certainly different now (Pixar is in the drivers' seat and rightfully so)... but they're where they are in large part because of Disney's ability to spread the Toy Story and Monsters Inc. names across its multi-billion-dollar world assets.

I don't feel bad for Michael Eisner at all and I support Roy Disney's position 100%. But I do believe that for the betterment of Pixar, Eisner is who needs to go, not Disney Inc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back