Pixar dumps Disney

[maclamb]

Re: beyond the D?

Originally posted by danielfe
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.

or not. I personally would like to see disney rise above the easy corp BS that they seem to fall / have fallen prey to - ME from my "sources" is to blame for everything from the lack paint on railings in Disneyland to - well you name it - or the shareholders will.
So, yes, I'd liek to see Disney reclaim what is an easy and obvius heritage for them .
But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

 

[splashman]

Disney=lame

Originally posted by chuladi
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 $$.

I didn't say the actors get more clout. I said the actors like doing animations. They make good money for a small amount of work (compared to making a major pic). They can work the V/O schedule in between other projects. And they earn tons of good will and name recognition from parents. Eddie Murphy was quoted as saying he became his kids' hero overnight when they saw Shrek.

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.

Both the kids and parents will recognize the hopping lamp, and even a 1st-year marketing student could design an effective ad campaign that would tie Pixar's previous movies to their future releases. We just disagree on this -- I say Pixar won't suffer one iota from losing Disney. And they will keep a lot more of their well-earned bucks.

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.

Again, we just disagree. What is Disney going to do -- threaten an actor with being blacklisted from Toy Story 6? Disney has power, true, but there are limits as to what that will actually get them.

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.

My point was that Pixar can easily overcome whatever lack of name recognition they have by invoking their past successes, which everyone -- kids and parents -- will instantly recognize. All Disney can do is invoke the Lion King talisman and pray nobody remembers the 20 lame movies since then.

Disney's brand is not what it once was. And Pixar's star is rising.

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

That's fine print, dude. Hanks' and Allen's names take up 5% of the poster; the other 95% is Buzz and Woody. This means they are marketing 5% to parents, 95% to kids. Which was my original point.

 

[splashman]

Hopping lamp

Originally posted by Daschund
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...

My daughter mimics the hopping lamp sound effects when the Pixar logo comes up. You're telling me she (and her parents) won't recognize the logo on a new movie just because Disney didn't distribute it? Get real.

 

[Belly-laughs]

Originally posted by Nermal
We're finally rid of Disney's ridiculously slow international releases!

Example: Finding Nemo's release dates.

There´s a simple reason for those late release dates; language. In most countries movies need to be dubbed into the native tongue before a release, especially movies for kids as they don´t read sub-titels. And that, of course, takes time.

You could argue that the UK, Autralia and other English speaking countries should have it sooner but that´s probably a regional dilemma where they don´t want to release it before the other countries in that market region have their translations done. And for what I know the Aussies may even dub certain movies too.

I´ve seen the A-Team in French (still running on French TV I would imagine), it´s weird stuff. You can´t imagine what Mr. T sounds like...

Still, go Pixar!

 

[GregA]

Originally posted by Belly-laughs
There´s a simple reason for those late release dates; language. <snip>

And for what I know the Aussies may even dub certain movies too.

hehehe
Why on earth would we do that?!
hehehehehe


At one stage people didn't care about a late release... a movie arrived when it arrived. I mean, what's the financial insentive to get a simultaneous release? It's only in the last few years with the net that people have really been demanding quicker releases. It wasn't long ago when if we got a movie 2 months after the US release that seemed pretty quick.

I wondered actually if they sent out all the movie reels to the cinemas, and then when they'd done their run they got onsold to Australia etc.

Edit: New Zealand can be 2-4 months different to Australia too.

 

[vanmonkey]

Re: Re: not good

Originally posted by rdowns
I'm far from knowledgable about Disney-Pixar history and I think many who post are too. Seems to me we have Disney as the evil Microsoft because a deal with Pixar, the understudy for Apple fell apart.

I don't think there's any other company that can distribute movies, advertise in other owned assets, do toy deals with McDonalds and Burger King etc.

Not trying to start a fight here, but the more time I spend here (and I love the site), the more I see this Apple can do no wrong, anything against them is a jihad.

I'd just like to run everyone's memory back to the 20th anaversity of Star wars, and how there was a stormtrooper in every taco bell in the world. The Phantom mennis when everywhere you looked there was a pepsi can with anican on it.... and so foth

If Disney can do it, so can Fox, so can Anyone willing to put the money into it right?

I think, what we'ree all missing is the fact that Pixar will go on. They'll continue to make films that are fantastic, and somebody else will have their little logo at the head of the fims. That's all really. And when I was a projectionist, I made it a habbit to cut those logos right off. You won't believe how cool it was to see A Bug' Life start with nothing but the Pixar Lamp logo at the head! It's was like they were thier own studio! Waaaa Hooooo!!

 

[vanmonkey]

Re: Re: an alternate idea...

Originally posted by geerlingguy
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 .

I saw both Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo in DPL, and they looked fine. I've seen other films in digital and they don't stand up to film in any way (Attack of the Clones and Once Upon A Time In Mexico are two examples which were shot digitaly). Pixar is fine to go with the digital projection thing for their product. And by they way, they don't stream the films to the theaters, they get delivered on 14 to 20 DVD discs which are then copied into a ginormous hard drive. The films are still shipped, it's just a whole lot less weight (films way upwards of 80 pounds).

 

[Powerbook G5]

Damn, at 80 lbs a piece, I bet that could be a lot of money saved in just shipping costs alone.