Pixar dumps Disney

[geerlingguy]

Re: an alternate idea...

Originally posted by suzerain
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.

I do believe that digital projection will be the tendancy of theaters in some time, but not in the next decade (at least). I read an article in a magazine (either TIME or MIT's Technology) stating that digital projection, especially for movie-quality images, is in its infancy, and will remain so for at least ten years.

Right now, it would take days to 'download' a movie over the Internet to a theater, and it would require quite a few Xserve RAIDS to hold the data. In addition, the BEST resolution of any digital projector (even the ones that cost over $25,000) is WAY lower than that which is required to reach the quality of film. I think that this will change as new projection technologies emerge, but the current ways we have of projecting a digital image are lackluster at best.

Most movie junkies like the graininess and optical qualities of film (much like those who use both film and digital picture cameras), and (like picture cameras) the conversion to digital will be slow and arduous — consumers will cry for digital quickly, while professionals will wait for a while for the market to mature.

In brief, Pixar would be foolish to place its money on digital projection to pull it through in less than twenty years.

p.s. If, in ten years, theaters are using digital projection, I allow suzerain to call me and pester me about this post .

 

[skidoo]

Bad move

This is a bad move by Pixar
I know that the first arrangements between Pixar and Disney were rocky, but I believe that the "branding" that Pixar is exposed too in association with Disney will definately mean that they will miss out quite a bit at the box office. Unless they team with another big player, Pixar may see a downturn in stock.
Lets wait and see, eh?

 

[iChan]

Re: Looking back at all this

the seven-picture deal does not include sequels.

Originally posted by Sol
Pixar should produce two quickie-sequels to Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc or Finding Nemo to fullfill their seven-picture deal with Disney. Since Disney intends to make their own sequels based on Pixar characters it would be folly for The Incredibles and Cars to become Disney properties.

Having said that, it is propably too late and those unreleased films belong to Disney for good. Pixar will have to start from scratch and watching Disney exploit their creations cannot be good for the talent.

This whole saga would surelly make a good book or movie ten years from now. Mark Bowden could write it, Will Ferrell could play Michael Eisner and Tom Cruise could play Steve Jobs.

 

[geerlingguy]

Re: dislike of Disney

Originally posted by mccoma
There are quite a few people who dislike Disney because of their various attempts to get legislation passed that would make the DMCA look reasonable.

For me, it is not a Pixar / Jobs thing, it is "I hope new management shows up that deals with new technology in a non-outlaw way".

Witness Divx (DVD competitor not encoder) and "disposable" DVDs as examples of Disney goodness.

Ah, yes. Divx: the dumbest video technology I've ever used. I remember buying an RCA DVD player with Divx on clearance for $300 six years ago. I had to set up an account and have my DVD player plugged in to the phone line when I wanted to watch my movie, then throw away the disc after three days (how sad).

Fortunately, in the end I bought about 25 Divx discs for $1 a piece at Circuit City as they were discontinued, and the Divx people let the player play them unconditionally.

Unfortunately, my DVD player that played Divx stopped working about a month later. Now we have a nice Sony player.

What a story.

 

[agreenster]

Huh. I honestly thought they would work it out.

I bet we will continue to see more success form our good pal Pixar, with or without Disney. Its sad to see Disney fall apart. I grew up in the Alladin/Lion King/ Beauty and the Beast era, and its sad to see them die.

Without Pixar, they are nothing.

I think it will be interesting to see what kind of films they will do following Cars. Same style, or something fresh?

I heard its something about a French Rat...Coincidence?

 

[iChan]

in what way does pixar have the muscle to distribute their filsm "easlily"[sic]??

Pixar are only a content company.

I am not saying they won't be able to do it, but it won't be easy.

the thing is, Pixar have none of the contacts or infrastructure there right now to it themselves. which is why they are searching for a new partner.

I am so sick of people making these ill-judged comments...

you can't be blind to facts and looks at anything Steve Jobs touches with rose-tinted glasses all the time.

Originally posted by Kingsnapped
To the younger macrumor rats out there, imagine the days where we'll be showing our kids old picures of us at disney world/land and telling them how they used to be a monster corperation.

Really..really.. dumb of Disney. Pixar has the muscle to distribute their films easlily without them now, and maybe even shoot for more markets.

 

[iChan]

The distributor usually gets top billing. they are basically the publisher if you are talking about the publishing industry or the record label in the music industry.

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
The thing is Pixar has made a big enough name for itself, I don't know why they need Disney or anyone else. Distribution/logistics might be the issue, though - and I just hope who ever they make a deal with gets second billing....I never did like seeing Disney's name first in all the movies.

D

 

[iChan]

Re: Re: Looking back at all this

you are free to put your money anywhere you please. But does dreamworks really want to distribute movies for a company if they will be seeing very little RoI if they themselves are producing massively top-notch CG animated moveis themselves? that are on par or surpass anything that Pixar has done (Shrek).

I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely. I'd wouldn't mind seeing it myself.

Originally posted by iAlan
I didn't think sequels were to be counted in the original agreement. Please correct me if I am wrong on this point

My money is Pixar going with Dreamworks, don't know why, just a thought...

 

[agreenster]

Ungh

I just noticed the bottom of the article said that DISNEY is going to make Toy Story 3. Ungh.

One of the things that really pissed Pixar off was that Disney pushed so hard for TS2 and 3. Pixar wasnt too hip on the idea of TS2, but did it anyway. They gave a solid no for 3.

Yuck. Disney is really going to f*ck that one up.

 

[Vector]

Originally posted by iChan
in what way does pixar have the muscle to distribute their filsm "easlily"[sic]??

Pixar has the capital to build a distribution setup now. I doubt that pixar would try to distribute their films even though they could. They simply don't have the background or knowledge needed to distribute a major movie. While they could, i do not think that they could do as good of a job at distribution as disney, at least not initially. Disney is very good at distribution and advertising. I think that pixar will go with another large distributor who has the knowledge and experience in distributing films and simply try to get a more lucrative deal.

 

[Vector]

Originally posted by agreenster
I just noticed the bottom of the article said that DISNEY is going to make Toy Story 3. Ungh.

One of the things that really pissed Pixar off was that Disney pushed so hard for TS2 and 3. Pixar wasnt too hip on the idea of TS2, but did it anyway. They gave a solid no for 3.

I realize disney has the right to make sequels, but do they have to give pixar the first chance at making it and then go somewhere else if pixar declines? I wonder if pixar didn't end up making it if the same people (allen and hanks) would reprise their roles.

 

[agreenster]

My guess is that Pixar will go with WB.

To those who are saying Dreamworks, you're crazy. Pixar is Dreamworks/PDI's competition. (Shrek, Antz, A Shark Tale (coming soon))

Again, there is the possibility that this is a negotiation tactic by Pixar to get Disney to offer a better deal....

 

[agreenster]

Originally posted by Vector
I realize disney has the right to make sequels, but do they have to give pixar the first chance at making it and then go somewhere else if pixar declines? I wonder if pixar didn't end up making it if the same people (allan and hanks) would reprise their roles.

Yeah, they have the first shot at it, but they have been very firm in the past about not doing a third.

 

[danielfe]

i believe it was pixar,not disney that turned down the final offer becuase it was pixar that wanted more money, not disney

 

[splashman]

Dreamworks + Pixar

Originally posted by iChan
you are free to put your money anywhere you please. But does dreamworks really want to distribute movies for a company if they will be seeing very little RoI if they themselves are producing massively top-notch CG animated moveis themselves? that are on par or surpass anything that Pixar has done (Shrek).

I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely. I'd wouldn't mind seeing it myself.

Two things.

One, RoI? What investment? If Pixar pays them an agreeable amount to distribute, what does Dreamworks have to lose? If you're worried about the competition factor, given that Pixar currently makes one flick per year, and Dreamworks about the same (animated), don't you think they can work out a staggered release schedule? Besides, if I were at Dreamworks, I'd love to put my name on Pixar flicks. It can only help their brand-building.

Two, Shrek surpasses Pixar? Please! Shrek was cute, and a decent story, but neither the story nor the animation were up to Pixar's standards. Based on the reactions of my nieces and nephews, I'd say one of the reasons it was a hit was because of all the potty humor. Locations were done nicely, but if you look close at the character animation (especially the supporting and extra characters), you'll see it's nothing special. Also, Eddie Murphy drives me crazy.

That's my opinion.

 

[splashman]

Originally posted by Vector
I realize disney has the right to make sequels, but do they have to give pixar the first chance at making it and then go somewhere else if pixar declines? I wonder if pixar didn't end up making it if the same people (allen and hanks) would reprise their roles.

No, Pixar won't be doing any sequels. And I hope (oh please oh please oh please) the original actors will refuse to work with Disney. When people see TS3 or Bug's Life 9 or whatever, the changed voices will only reinforce what should be obvious -- it's a cheap Disney knockoff.

That being said, I hope the actors don't have any kind of contractual obligation to work on additional films for Disney.

 

[Powerbook G5]

The new Shrek movie seems like a sell out from the trailer I've seen of it. I just don't see how it could possibly surpass Pixar, at least they have quality and intelligence that surpasses dirty humor. They seem to have more of the old Disney charm that their older animations had that the new Disney movies seem to be lacking, as well.

 

[Daschund]

Re: Re: Keep it clean, dude.

Originally posted by wilco
Uh oh, Splashman has spoken. Who cares what is becoming your biggest pet peeve?

I think you should read the original post better. It's not Splashman's biggest pet peeve, it's Arn's biggest pet peeve. Now I want to see you go and tell Arn what you just told Splashman! LOL

Daschund

 

[BernerdJBean]

Re: Re: Keep it clean, dude.

Originally posted by wilco
Uh oh, Splashman has spoken. Who cares what is becoming your biggest pet peeve?

Uh, that's Arn's biggest pet peeve, Wilco [or should I say, "banned"?]. Insolence towards authority never seems pays well, perhaps you should seek another occupation.

First post, whee!
B.J. Schaefer

 

[wilco]

Re: Re: Re: Keep it clean, dude.

Originally posted by Daschund
I think you should read the original post better.

Thanks. I've adjusted my post accordingly.

 

[coumerelli]

Originally posted by Sonofhaig
Eisner is an idiot. I believe he had made some nasty comments about Jobs not long ago. Eisner is bringing Disney down. There was some news last month about the last remaining Disney on the board stepping down and asking Eisner to step down. Disney was a leeching off Pixar. Let Pixar go it alone or find another studio. When you watch Nemo or Toy Story or A Bugs Life.... Pixar comes to mind (jumping lamp), NOT Disney. Good job Mike! You'll be gone soon. I saw an article about the possibility of Apple buying Disney??

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/technology/apple/index.htm

actually it's a story that reads, "Pixar is splitting up with Disney. Does that open the door for Steve Jobs to fold Pixar into Apple?" - so no, disney isn't about to be swallowed by Apple, but it's conceivable that Pixar could be.

 

[solvs]

I'm suprised no one has said this:

<sarcasm>That's it, Pixar is doomed. After all, they have less than 2% of the market share. You heard it hear first. Unless John Dvorak or CNET already said it. I dunno, haven't noticed. <sarcasm>

I'll bet Walt is spinning in his cryo-pod.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Car

ITR 81

I wonder what Car is about???

Well imagine yourself as a lil' boy whom is playing with HotWheel cars (as I always did) and that even though in your mind they come alive, well the movie does the rest to your "reality with imagination".

I've actually been dreaming this up for years but that's not my forté.

My 5 yr old son and I are going to see this movie when it does come out; 05?

I just hope that he still loves cars then, really need that memorable bond that is seperate from the whole family with him. Yes having fun with your old man when your young preserves a smile on your face when you have fun with your own son.

 

[chuladi]

I remember reading about Shark's Tale and the writer mentioned that Dreamworks' Katzenberg gets more top notch talent to lend their voices to their animated films than Pixar. True. Even though it seems like they go tit for tat with movie concepts (with Dreamworks always coming behind), Pixar makes better movies, they tell better stories, but Dreamworks always ends up with an all star list of actors. Have you SEEN who's in Shark's Tale?

I say this to point out Pixar's ability (or lack thereof) to attract actors to give their voices to their films once they part with Disney. While they don't necessarily NEED known voices in their movies, they certainly do help.

And no studio can tie in toys and other attractions like Disney. I definitely do think huge revenues in merchandising will be lost if Pixar does not work with Disney.

Each side loses. Pixar makes good movies, the stories are so good, so involving. Disney hasn't had that magic since Lion King (athough I DID like Emperor's New Groove, but it wasn't classic Disney). It makes you wonder if they know how to do it or if they just got lucky sometimes.

Lilo & Stitch was a MAJOR disappointment. It got over only because some people will faithfully take their children to a Disney release becuase they know it won't have edgy adult humor the way Dreamworks' and others "children's" movies do (like Antz).

The other problem Disney has is that cartoons are losing their footing in the theatres. People love 3D animation. It brings so much more depth to the characters that you just can't get with 2D.

 

[artisan002]

Originally posted by chuladi
I remember reading about Shark's Tale and the writer mentioned that Dreamworks' Katzenberg gets more top notch talent to lend their voices to their animated films than Pixar. True. Even though it seems like they go tit for tat with movie concepts (with Dreamworks always coming behind), Pixar makes better movies, they tell better stories, but Dreamworks always ends up with an all star list of actors. Have you SEEN who's in Shark's Tale?

I say this to point out Pixar's ability (or lack thereof) to attract actors to give their voices to their films once they part with Disney. While they don't necessarily NEED known voices in their movies, they certainly do help.

Well, I've not seen their lineup. Honestly, I don't care to. I see the way Pixar handles their character voicing [versus the way Dreamworks handles it] as similar to the "content over quality" argument. Actually more like Soviet military tactics versus Western. One uses allot of really big guns and besieges the target; though the target was hit, not every shot was landed on the mark. Overkill, of a sort... Meanwhile the other uses more well crafted/complicated weapons, some being unconventional, and makes a more precise hit with fewer misses, per assault. It's an old and revered Hollywood tactic to blind you with star studded casting. It's assumed to guarantee a hit, generally, by order of fan loyalty. I notice it's a tactic that is used when a movie house is somehow committed to a script that is not expected to survive on it's own or under pressure of competition.

Originally posted by chuladi
And no studio can tie in toys and other attractions like Disney. I definitely do think huge revenues in merchandising will be lost if Pixar does not work with Disney.

I don't know. I think Lucasfilm seems to do a pretty good job of it. In fact, I think it always has... Merchandising will be more a matter of a hit-makers power of attraction. Disney, if you notice, has specific allied channels they work with. It's not usually a matter of companies appealing to them to get in on merchandising. Any other movie house does differently than that. Their success cannot be measured comparatively, however. There is no actual competition against Disney. So, we are at a loss to make a reliable prediction to this end. Personally, I think Pixar will be fine.

Originally posted by chuladi
Each side loses. Pixar makes good movies, the stories are so good, so involving. Disney hasn't had that magic since Lion King (athough I DID like Emperor's New Groove, but it wasn't classic Disney). It makes you wonder if they know how to do it or if they just got lucky sometimes.

Well, Disney --I feel-- has it's hands in too many activities for the way it manages itself. To that end, I think it will be a touch and go issue with them, until they reorganize to something smarter. I seem to notice they're either hiring as many new writers as they're losing or they're buying scripts from the outside, now.

Originally posted by chuladi
Lilo & Stitch was a MAJOR disappointment. It got over only because some people will faithfully take their children to a Disney release becuase they know it won't have edgy adult humor the way Dreamworks' and others "children's" movies do (like Antz).

Now, keep in mind that is nothing more than a personal opinion. One's own sense of taste is not a fact beyond itself. For my part, I enjoyed it immensely. I also found it interesting as it is the first Disney animated flick to depict it's main characters as products of a broken home and how they might cope with the issue.

Originally posted by chuladi
The other problem Disney has is that cartoons are losing their footing in the theatres. People love 3D animation. It brings so much more depth to the characters that you just can't get with 2D.

Well, I don't know about that. There have been more animated features in circulation, this past 10 years than in the 15 or so years prior. And Disney has been the outlet of several of them. Plus, how does your statement hold against the rather constant output of 2d animation from so many Japanese houses? Or is Japan, somehow, not a relevant part of the equation?