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

Pixar dumps Disney

How do you report to the shareholders about this?

Good lord, this has been an interestingly rough 10 ~ 12 months for Disney.

First, they fall under heavy lawsuit from the new owners to the Winnie the Pooh rights. Then Roy Disney and Samuel Gold leave the board of directors. Roy, in particular, starts exposing problems among the ranks. Their network property, ABC, is still trailing well behind the majors, and losing money, despite NFL coverage. Then, they lose Barbara Walters as a regular. And, now, they lose their most consistent hit-maker, Pixar.

Interesting, the timing of some of this, if kind of predictable: Roy and Gold leave in separate public displays, well timed, just ahead of the holiday (read merchandising) crunch. That was a real confidence shaker. Now, Pixar quits pressing negotiations after 10 months, and just ahead of the annual shareholders' meeting.

While all separate events, some of this seems just a bit more than planned. Granted, I think allot of this needed to come to a head, anyway. And in the same week that Eisner's pay raise goes public... Ouch! This is a punters festival, to be sure.

Based on what I've seen of matters similar, I think Pixar is poised to weather this better [overall] than Disney is. But, of course, Disney is a friggin' behemoth (film company conglomerate, amusement park powerhouse, boutique/niche market hotel company, travel company with a private island), while, Pixar is a software vendor cum movie house. To that end, comparisons of the two companies, on an industry basis, are ill conceived. However, monetarily, I think it can be done. Mainly on the basis of return on investment.

If Disney and Pixar were to put out movies that grossed equal amounts of capital, it would represent a greater profit for Pixar. In fact, for Disney, it could actually represent a loss. This is where the return on investment becomes the only important factor, I think. Pixar was one of the most economical contracts Disney has closed in the company's history. 50% of the gross profits for only the cost of legal fees and Buena Vista's distribution expenses. No animators of their own need be paid. No hardware or supplies of their own were exhausted to produce Pixar's films. This is the only way Disney could have made this venture profitable for themselves. And, let's face it. if you want to keep working, you have to make money in the most profitable way available. And this applies to both and all companies. Ethics aren't a part of the equation, technically.

So, now, not only is Disney short it's best RoI (Pixar), it's losing money to multiple lawsuits, a bigger paycheck for the guy who --more or less-- killed the deal with Pixar and increasing expenses with recovering at least one broadcast network, aging and/or structually unsound thrill rides and a contagious cruise line.

Meanwhile, Pixar is still [technically] secure with the distribution of it's next two movie releases. So, they have a bit of time to cull down to the most appropriate suiter and stand to make an equal or better deal from it.

It's not hard to see which CEO is going to more enjoy his annual shareholders meeting, in the coming months... ;)
 
Originally posted by chuladi

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.
Click to expand...

I HATE the horrible voice actor selections of PDI/Dreamworks... Antz, it was so freaking annoying having Woody "as close to incest as allowed by law" Allen's, and Sharon "quick, look at my crotch" Stone's voices distracting from the movie pulling the attention away from the story and to the fact that they got some highly over paid "star" to be in it.

It worked in Toy Story, the voice fit the characters, but it did take a moment to settle in to Hanks, voice... Just go with good no name voice actors and support the story, don't make a big deal that someone who is never seem is in the movie, its just distracting...


As for the up/down of this, I think it all comes down to how disney handles their ability to make sequels without pixar's involvment, they could run 3D animation into the ground just like they have with 2D, by way of their streaming out uninspired, "talent laden", politcally correct, borring flicks...

Edited to add...

And for pixar, I would be on them signing with Fox, given their close ties to Lucas Film, which is tied to Fox. Fox has been trying to compete with disney in animation for a long time and failed (Anatasia?) and they would likely see pixar as the perfect partner to make another stab at animation.
 
Family Film

This is a tough call. All of the Pixar films are very family !! This is where the Disney link is most important and will a new distributor bring that same family element to the table?

That said the Disney seems to be moving away from family ie Pirates of the Carribean.

Pixar wants to make new films with new characters and not sequels. In cartoons sequels have to be big and easy money . kids can identify with it easily more so than with quality. Toy Story 3 may be not nearly as good but bet on it being a hit.

Unless of course Disney really screws it up and takes the animation more adult!!
 
About time

I really hope disney fail and disappear off the face of the planet. Their movies are total ****e (not including pixar) as they seem to get a history storyline (pocahontas) and change it into a happy go lucky pile of drivel and give it an american accent.
 
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?
Click to expand...

This is irrelevant. Finding Nemo was the biggest animated film of all time, but other Pixar movies had bigger name voice talent (you don't get any bigger than Tom Hanks).

The important thing is the story itself. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked, (heavy sarcasm) that Dreamworks is working on a fish movie. This, after they did an ant movie a couple of years ago. They probably have a superhero and car movie in the works too, huh?
 
Pixar is beyond Disney. All the Pixar movies don't even have a disney feel to them. I bet if you went around and asked people what studio produced Monsters Inc. or any of the others they couldn't tell you.

I'd like to see the technology used for TV shows.
 
beyond the D?

Pixar is beyond Disney. All the Pixar movies don't even have a disney feel to them. I bet if you went around and asked people what studio produced Monsters Inc. or any of the others they couldn't tell you.
Click to expand...


if you ask people about brother bear vs. nemo maybe, but if you went and asked the animators that work at pixar, they would tell you how much disney has done for animation.

disney had the first synch sound,
the first feature length animation,
the first color,
the first computer graphics in a movie,
and they invented the storyboard,

stephen hawkings, knows more than any physicist in the 1800s, but as he said "if i see further than others it is because i stand on teh shoulders of giants"

pixar may be seeing more than disney right now, but they are on their shoulders. both are great companies. pixar will maintain is quality and disney will return to the innovation and memory making films that they built the industry with.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about how much people liked it or personal opinions of the movie itself. I'm talking about it's earnings. There was a lot of money spent on that movie, very expensive lenticular posters being marketed as instant collectibles. It did well, for an animated feature, but for the money that was spent to make and market it, well, it didn't quite live up to it's domestic box office expectations. When a studio puts $120 mil behind a movie, they are doing it because they expect a big movie. Disney has been trying to get another "lion king phenomenon" ever since. The closest it has come is with it's Pixar features, not with it's 2D animated movies.

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?
Click to expand...

Well Japanese anime movies have yet to make a big splash at the American box office. I can think of a few that have done well, but nowhere in the league as the movies Pixar produces. I was speaking in the context of large grossing movies (or even moderate) such as the Pixar movies and the ones Disney tries to make. 2D is falling off at the theatres (in terms of earnings).

I think Lucasfilm seems to do a pretty good job of it. In fact, I think it always has
Click to expand...

Only within the context of Star Wars. Star Wars is such a long standing legend that there is no way a company can NOT do well merchandising that franchise. Outside of that, what has Lucasfilm merchandised well?

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.
Click to expand...

Ha, but the question is, without Disney, and with possible animosity with Disney (which has some level of control or influence over many other movie studios) and Hollywood politics, how will it affect the talent Pixar is able to attract? No doubt many of the people that lent their voices to a Pixar film did so because of Disney and not because of Pixar. But now that things are changing, will there be political pressures that turn stars away from Pixar movies?

As much as Tom Hanks may or may not have been annoying in Toy Story, his voice is what encouraged more people to see it (hence his appearance in the upcoming Polar Express). I remember the marketing for that movie and Tom was a draw. And in some other movies as well, the actors are used in the marketing (John Goodman and Billy Crystal in Monster's Inc and while some actors are lesser known, they are good character actors and their voices work for that-- David Hyde Pierce in Bugs Life come to mind). Now while Pixar may not need A-list talent in their movies, their split with Disney does make you wonder how they will be able to attract talent at all, or better yet, who.

It's a fine line. While too many A-list voices can detract from a story, having none can sink a film. I'm racking my brain trying to think of American animated films, made within the last 10-15 years, that didn't have any recognizable voices, that did well at the box office. (please don't use Japanese anime as a comparison unless you know that they aren't using known Japanse actors as voices)

There was a time when Pixar had this field all to itself. Dreamworks made sucky movies and that was their only competition. Then came Shrek which was a huge hit and gave Dreamworks a little more confidence to make better movies (or so we hope). And then came Ice Age and even though it was no Toy Story, it worked and it was good. The competition is getting better. Pixar may not need a big studio, but remember their competition is backed by big studios and Pixar should have a big studio backer for pure advantage.
 
Disney must really me pressed for money, if they can't afford to hold on the the company who's been getting them their money (Pixar).

Bad news for Disney. Yesterday on NPR, I heard that Roy Disney wants Michael Eisener out of the CEO position. This you've all probably heard though.
 
Originally posted by chuladi
As much as Tom Hanks may or may not have been annoying in Toy Story, his voice is what encouraged more people to see it (hence his appearance in the upcoming Polar Express). I remember the marketing for that movie and Tom was a draw. And in some other movies as well, the actors are used in the marketing (John Goodman and Billy Crystal in Monster's Inc and while some actors are lesser known, they are good character actors and their voices work for that-- David Hyde Pierce in Bugs Life come to mind). Now while Pixar may not need A-list talent in their movies, their split with Disney does make you wonder how they will be able to attract talent at all, or better yet, who.
Click to expand...

They likely needed Disney's name to get Tom Hanks for Toy Story. Now they can get top talent with the Pixar name. They have the #1 animated movie of all time. That gives them clout. They have 5 major hits in 5 tries. That gives them clout. You note they highlighted the actors in the advertising in prior movies. I don't remember them doing that for Nemo. They have two more movies to go with Disney - if they do their job, come up with great stories and have two more hits, why do they still need the Disney name anymore? The disney name isn't going to attract more talent than the Pixar name, it's not going to sell more tickets than the Pixar name, it's not going to sell more DVDs than the Pixar name. The only thing Disney brings to the table is the disney stores and theme parks for extra merchandise sales. I don't think that's worth a 50% cut.
 
Pixar will suffer without Disney? Pooh.

Originally posted by chuladi
Ha, but the question is, without Disney, and with possible animosity with Disney (which has some level of control or influence over many other movie studios) and Hollywood politics, how will it affect the talent Pixar is able to attract? No doubt many of the people that lent their voices to a Pixar film did so because of Disney and not because of Pixar. But now that things are changing, will there be political pressures that turn stars away from Pixar movies?
Click to expand...

Sorry, bub. Just like the rest of us, actors' motivations for doing a particular project revolve around two things: money and prestige. Pixar has produced five blockbusters in a row, something which Disney hasn't done in decades, if ever. Half the actors in Hollywood are probably wetting their pants, waiting for a call from Pixar. In the animation world, Pixar is the new champ. Disney is an overweight, overpaid has-been.

As much as Tom Hanks may or may not have been annoying in Toy Story, his voice is what encouraged more people to see it (hence his appearance in the upcoming Polar Express). I remember the marketing for that movie and Tom was a draw. And in some other movies as well, the actors are used in the marketing (John Goodman and Billy Crystal in Monster's Inc and while some actors are lesser known, they are good character actors and their voices work for that-- David Hyde Pierce in Bugs Life come to mind).
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I've been a fan of Pixar's work from the beginning, and I've never ever seen a trailer or commercial or McDonald's toy or anything else that mentioned Tom Hanks, unless it were in fine print. And think about it -- before Toy Story, would any child below the age of 10 have known Hanks' name? No! My five-year-old still doesn't know Hanks' name, though she can quote most of his lines. So why would Disney promote Hanks or Goodman or anybody else? They wouldn't -- and they don't! Kids are the ones that drag their parents to the theater, not vice-versa. I know this from first-hand experience.

Bottom line: Pixar will continue to attract top voice talent based on their continued success. Pixar will continue to make gobs of money at the box office because they make the best movies. Disney will slip back into their self-made putrid pit of pedestrian production (how's that for alliteration?). It is true that many people currently associate Toy Story, et al, with Disney. But with all the DVD features on Pixar's production facilities, more and more people are realizing that Disney's role is limited to making the plush toys and McDonald's promotions. And any remaining confusion will be quickly resolved when Pixar's new distributor advertises their latest flick with the words, "From the creators of Toy Story, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo and Cars, comes . . ."
 
Originally posted by ITR 81
I can see them going with WB now or maybe something to do with GL again and 20th Century Fox.
Click to expand...
Though it's not film - Fox/News Corp now has a worldwide satellite/pay TV network. I wonder if Apple technologies motivates Steve's deal? It'd be nice to cut a deal for Apple technologies in News-corp set top boxes.
Originally posted by jydesign
I wonder if this may also have a relationship to Apple's own potential desire for creating an iTunes Store version of a movie distribution download model, tied to the eventual release of an a/v ipod device.
Click to expand...
Interesting, maybe it is about more freedom for novel new distribution methods.
Originally posted by suzerain
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.<snip>

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.
Click to expand...
Hmmm.. the Apple Cinema hub? hehe. Apple has a high speed downloading system (akamai), Xserves, RAID, all they need is a good projector.

....The Apple-Pixar digital distribution network....
Just wondering.
 
Pixar: the new master Disney: the new apprentice

Originally posted by danielfe
if you ask people about brother bear vs. nemo maybe, but if you went and asked the animators that work at pixar, they would tell you how much disney has done for animation.

disney had the first synch sound,
the first feature length animation,
the first color,
the first computer graphics in a movie,
and they invented the storyboard,

stephen hawkings, knows more than any physicist in the 1800s, but as he said "if i see further than others it is because i stand on teh shoulders of giants"

pixar may be seeing more than disney right now, but they are on their shoulders. both are great companies. pixar will maintain is quality and disney will return to the innovation and memory making films that they built the industry with.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that except the last paragraph.

True, Disney was once an innovator, and much of Pixar's talent either came from Disney or was inspired by Disney.

But the most recent of those innovations you mentioned is 17 years old (Great Mouse Detective -- first "computer graphics" -- which used a computer to generate wireframes for the clock-tower sequence; the frames were then hand-colored).

Since then, Disney's only "innovation" is in the area of producing lame sequels at an astonishing rate. They have successfully demonstrated that a great company can, through marketing alone, sustain a once-earned and no-longer-deserved reputation.

Pixar was perhaps founded on Disney's shoulders; now it's the other way around. Disney would do well to emulate Pixar, but it would take a major shake-up, including Eisner's ouster, to make that even a remote possibility.
 
ust like the rest of us, actors' motivations for doing a particular project revolve around two things: money and prestige. ...Half the actors in Hollywood are probably wetting their pants, waiting for a call from Pixar.
Click to expand...

You GOTTA be kidding. Actors do not wet their pants waiting to do animation. You are so overdoing it that it's not even funny. Name one actor that has more clout BECAUSE of the animation they have done. Please don't say Hanks, he got his clout from two back to back Oscars and high grossing MOVIES (like Forest Gump and Castaway). They don't get paid NEARLY AS MUCH for animation as they do for movies, so it's not always about the $$.

Whatever. People who are into computers and technology and stuff are more likely to know the name Pixar and the company behind it. For the general public, they know Disney. Disney is a bigger brand, a better known brand. Sure Pixar may have some clout to make movies, but if there are politics involved, Disney has far more power and more "influence" to discourage actors from being in Pixar movies, if they wish.

And any remaining confusion will be quickly resolved when Pixar's new distributor advertises their latest flick with the words, "From the creators of Toy Story, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo and Cars, comes . . ."
Click to expand...

Exactly, Pixar HAS to say it because their name isn't known widespread yet. Does Disney have to say that? No, they just say Disney. It speaks for itself.

What are you talking about? I've been a fan of Pixar's work from the beginning, and I've never ever seen a trailer or commercial or McDonald's toy or anything else that mentioned Tom Hanks, unless it were in fine print.
Click to expand...

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

showpid.cgi
 
Since then, Disney's only "innovation" is in the area of producing lame sequels at an astonishing rate. They have successfully demonstrated that a great company can, through marketing alone, sustain a once-earned and no-longer-deserved reputation.

Pixar was perhaps founded on Disney's shoulders; now it's the other way around. Disney would do well to emulate Pixar, but it would take a major shake-up, including Eisner's ouster, to make that even a remote possibility.
Click to expand...


The last technical innovation i meantioned was about 17 years ago, but Disney has put out good animations through the mid-90's. there was a time around 1980 when their animated movies (black couldron) didnt do so great, the ceo was "ousted" for Eisner. It may be a new person that makes the turnaround this time, or Eisner can do it again.

pixar and disney can both well stand on their own at this point, and while disney copying pixar may be better than what they have now, they will not make their return by copying but by innovating once again. If no one else, roy will make sure of it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sure for the first couple of movies, having DISNEY was a godsend, but I think that TOY STORY and A BUGS LIFE were so good, it really wouldn't have mattered.

Now, all Pixar has to say (to the people who have been living under a rock) is "From the makers of 'Finding Nemo', Pixar proudly presents ___________ " It is, afterall, the NUMERO UNO SELLING DVD of all time, animated or otherwise! People just need to be gently educated. I think most people have come think of PIXAR as synonymous with the best 3D ANIMATION STUDIOS ever.

Pixar and Disney today announced that "Finding Nemo" has sold 15 million DVDs in its first 14 days, making it the No.1 DVD of all time. In addition, the underwater cartoon has sold 20 million combined DVD/VHS units in the same time in the United States and Canadian market. Commenting on the accomplishment, Pixar and Apple CEO Steve Jobs said, "Pixar's creative team pours their hearts into creating the industry's best DVDs for our films, so this resounding success is especially gratifying. We're thrilled beyond words." Spider-Man was the previous top selling DVD with more than 12.6 million units sold. Pixar's own Monsters, Inc. now stands at No. 3 with 12 million copies sold to dates. http://www.macminute.com/2003/11/17/nemo
Click to expand...
 
Great Idea Holdout

I hope that over the last few years, Jobs and Pixar have been holding onto the best ideas and animation techniques, in the event that Disney decided to no meet their demands.
 
Re: 50% of box office profits

Originally posted by suzerain
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.
Click to expand...

Dude, what Pixar movies have you been watching? The kids don't get half the jokes :D
 
Originally posted by JGowan
I think most people have come think of PIXAR as synonymous with the best 3D ANIMATION STUDIOS ever. [/B]
Click to expand...

Most computer lovers do recognize PIXAR. Do you really think that the 5-10 years old that drags their parents to the theater to watch Finding Nemo know what PIXAR is? Do you really think that the average Joe that stays all weekend sitting on the coach watching NASCAR and NFL knows? I didn't think so... But they sure knows Disney...

People in this forum have to undestand that we, Mac users, Mac lovers, well informed people ARE NOT the majority. the couch potatoes are... And when it comes to marketing (be it the next PIXAR movie, the Pepsi giveaway or the iPod Mini), they will marked them for the rest of the world, not for us...

Daschund
 
Originally posted by biaachmonkie
I HATE the horrible voice actor selections of PDI/Dreamworks... Just go with good no name voice actors and support the story, don't make a big deal that someone who is never seem is in the movie, its just distracting...
Click to expand...

I see your point and I think it comes down to the voice and e/affect, no?
I don't like ellen degeneres, ok, but I thouht her voice work in nemo was much better (for me) than what's his name did the dad - admittedly - i think his voice fit the part - but it was too ovberbearing - trying not ot mix animal metaphors here -

Now Shrek, I thought Eddie Murphy did great - most effective voice -
And yes, I agree - go with a voice to fit the part, not a name, yes? Look at what was it recently with brad pit? Sinbad - ewww
 
Originally posted by pcharles
At the time he formed PIXAR, he was a former Apple Exec.
Click to expand...
Good point - I started working at NeXT not long after pixar went public and Steve was a billionaire (depended on time of day and market conditions..)
didn't see him around NeXT much after that...ok - he WAS trying to sell it to Apple...and today I am basically (still) doing my work on the bext computer I ever used - a NeXT box - albeit a REALLY FAST one.
 
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