PDA

View Full Version : PIXAR and DISNEY - The Deal is Done!


headengine
01-29-2004, 08:54 PM
source: cnn

Pixar ends Disney distribution deal

Studio headed by Steve Jobs says it will seek other distributors for its films starting in 2006.


"After ten months of trying to strike a deal with Disney, we're moving on," Pixar CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. "We've had a great run together -- one of the most successful in Hollywood history -- and it's a shame that Disney won't be participating in Pixar's future successes."

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/29/news/companies/pixar_disney/


Disney response: source Disney corporate Press

DISNEY AND PIXAR END TALKS


BURBANK, Calif. January 29, 2004 - Pixar has elected to conclude its discussions to extend a successful long-term partnership with The Walt Disney Company (NYSE DIS) following the delivery of two more animated features, "The Incredibles" expected in 2004 and "Cars" expected in 2005.

"We have had a fantastic partnership with Pixar and wish Steve Jobs and the wonderfully creative team there, led by John Lasseter, much success in the future," said Michael Eisner, Disney chairman and CEO. "Although we would have enjoyed continuing our successful collaboration under mutually acceptable terms, Pixar understandably has chosen to go its own way to grow as an independent company."

Tom Staggs, Disney senior executive vice president and chief financial officer, said Disney management could not accept Pixar's final offer because it would have cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars it is already entitled to under the existing agreement, while not providing sufficient incremental returns on new collaborations to justify the changes to the existing deal.

In addition to Pixar's delivery of two more feature films, under the current agreement, Disney maintains the rights to develop and produce sequels to all films created through this partnership, including direct to video presentations, television series and specials; and to exploit all characters and content throughout Disney's theme park and consumer products units, thereby allowing Disney to continue to nurture and grow these successful franchises while benefiting Disney shareholders into the foreseeable future. Disney also owns the entire Disney/Pixar film library, which includes "Toy Story," "Toy Story 2,", "A Bug's Life," "Monster's Inc.," and "Finding Nemo," in addition to the two pictures yet to be completed."

In addition to Pixar, the Walt Disney Studios has relationships with other emerging animation producing partners including Vanguard Films, currently producing "Valiant," and San Francisco-based Complete Pandemonium, producing "The Wild" in conjunction with CORE Technologies of Toronto.

Walt Disney Feature Animation will release "Home on the Range" on April 2, featuring songs performed by Tim McGraw, Bonnie Raitt and k.d. lang. Currently in production is "Chicken Little," the Studio's first all-CG effort, which is scheduled for release in Summer 2005. For Summer 2006 and beyond, Walt Disney Feature Animation is producing a series of 3D motion pictures: "A Day With Wilbur Robinson," based on the beloved William Joyce book; "American Dog," directed by Chris Sanders ("Lilo and Stitch"); "Rapunzel Unbraided," directed by legendary Disney animator Glen Keane; and "Toy Story 3". These movies are all anticipated to break new ground in CG movie-making. The Studio has an additional 20 animated features in active development.


Toy Story 3? First offical mention of development....
:eek:

Dirtystimpy
01-29-2004, 09:08 PM
"Disney also has the right to finance and produce sequels to the films if Pixar declines to co-finance and produce them under the current agreement. "

i hope that doesn't happen

yog
01-29-2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Dirtystimpy
"Disney also has the right to finance and produce sequels to the films if Pixar declines to co-finance and produce them under the current agreement. "

i hope that doesn't happen

It's bound to, it's one of the few remaining chances Disney has of making any money from future animation projects.

kilikili
01-29-2004, 09:13 PM
Looks like it made the Drudge Report....

-Kilikili

FloydBishop
01-29-2004, 09:34 PM
:bounce:

Good for you guys!!

:beer:

pearson
01-29-2004, 09:34 PM
Lol! Disney's been screwing Pixar all these years and even after all that they're still not willing to play fair...More stupidity from the mouse. Goes right along with their decision to close down the secret lab two years ago...only to suddenly announce they are moving to all 3D...lol

And the decision makers keep rolling in the green... [sigh]...I could use a good roll in some green...I can make dumb decisions, just as well as they can, if I try. :cool:

FClub_TDurden
01-29-2004, 09:36 PM
Damn....poor Disney...now there out in the cold with nothing and have to compete with Pixar and there cg movies instead of working together...

disney is screwed...good job Staiton and Eisner.....there gunna be entering the full cg market as an unproven 4th best...good luck to them:wip:

monotypic
01-29-2004, 09:53 PM
:applause:

malducin
01-29-2004, 10:03 PM
Good for Pixar. Too bad they couldn't find a way to buy back all their properties (kinda what Lucas did with Star Wars).

Leo73
01-29-2004, 10:06 PM
Way to go Pixar. Its about time they stopped carrying Disney.

heavyness
01-29-2004, 10:58 PM
rock n' roll!

i'm glad Pixar is away from Disney. this will give them more freedom, make them happier, more money, which in turn will produce better movies. but does this mean Pixar can't make a sequel to any of the movies that are out now unless Disney is involved? now i'll looking forward to a PG-13 rated Pixar movie, something for the older kids...

very, very, very bad news for the mouse. even if they were cranking out great animations like they use to, this still would hurt them.

"Now it's time to say goodbye
To all our company..."

SheepFactory
01-29-2004, 11:21 PM
Wow! Eisner is on a roll , I wonder what he'll do next? I wont be surprised if Disney starts shooting porn movies in the future. They are clearly not interested in animation.


I hope pixar gets a nice new deal with another company that doesnt limit them.

Kieguy
01-29-2004, 11:31 PM
DOUBLE WOW. I just happened to catch the news on maccentral.com...

I wonder, the Toy Story 3 deal could have been the straw that broke the camel's back....?

Unbelievable. Next headline: Eisner hires Sam from The Apprentice to be his 2nd-in-command....

Dearmad
01-30-2004, 12:02 AM
You know... I seriously doubt Tom Hanks would work with Disney on a Toy Story 3. I also think Randy Newman, and a lot of the other non animation talent will just not be gung ho to go with Disney... The "feel" of Pixar is just so much more intimate and sincere than Disney; I think that matters.

Dr Dardis
01-30-2004, 01:00 AM
Yeah, I second that Dearmad

Disney looks to stick to their tired formula. hell, they seem to care more about who is singing on the soundtrack! Bonni Raitt? thats sold me, yehaaaw :). Beats phil collins I suppose...

At least Pixar won't have to stick to the Disney branding agreement, you know the "must have, can't have" agreement.

still, I hope this doesn't get in the way of brad birds movie, being the last Pixar/Disney outing. Very much looking forward to that one....

if the sky doesn't fall on our heads before then of course ;)

The Doc.

Array
01-30-2004, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Sheep Factory
Wow! Eisner is on a roll , I wonder what he'll do next? I wont be surprised if Disney starts shooting porn movies in the future. They are clearly not interested in animation.


I hope pixar gets a nice new deal with another company that doesnt limit them.

Doesn't Disney own The Playboy Channel?

Anyhow.....WOW what a dumb move on Disney's behalf. "If we cant make the amount of money we want to then we might as well not make ANY at all!". The stock holders are going to have anurisms over this one. Again....WOW :surprised

I'm also surprised how much Disney has been screwing Pixar all of these years. I feel bad for Pixar because of the inevitable bastardization of such beloved movies as Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc. But hopefully, Pixar has been holding out on some KILLER concepts that they didnt want Disney to get their hands on.

Best of luck to Steve Jobbs and all of the hard working and talented people at Pixar.

StefanA
01-30-2004, 01:19 AM
Great move by Mr Jobs! I can see only good things comming out of this. Isner tries also to comment that Disney has their own 3D department, which again states that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

The sucess for the pixar movies has nothing to do with them being made in 3D.
Several other companys has also made 3D movies that hasn't become box office hits. And how Dinosaurs turned out I don't think he shouldn't count too much from his own company... especially since they have fired 70% of their staff stince 1997.

my $0.02

stefan andersson
P.S. Isner can crawl under that rock he came from

pomru
01-30-2004, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by Dr Dardis
still, I hope this doesn't get in the way of brad birds movie, being the last Pixar/Disney outing. Very much looking forward to that one....
Eh? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought John Lasseter's Cars, starring Paul Newman, will be the last Pixar/Disney movie...

JamesKo
01-30-2004, 01:31 AM
I'm happy for Pixar also. Good move and now they can grow as independent company. But we shouldnt underestimate Disney. They have a great legacy in 2d animation. They also have lots of money to hire great artists and staffs. Yes, Dinasour was awfull, but somewhere in that company is a team who created Beauty an the Beast and the Lionking. And we know they will now try very hard to get back to the top of the animation area.

SheepFactory
01-30-2004, 01:33 AM
yes cars is the last one.

tatiana
01-30-2004, 01:42 AM
You know... I seriously doubt Tom Hanks would work with Disney on a Toy Story 3. I also think Randy Newman, and a lot of the other non animation talent will just not be gung ho to go with Disney...

More likely any further sequels (TS 3, etc.) would be direct to video or have limited and somewhat un-advertised theater release then go to video....kinda like "Teacher's Pet" don't ya think? And probably not the same voice talent just like Dearmad posted.

t

commy
01-30-2004, 01:52 AM
i wouldnt care for any pixar sequels anyways nothings ever grabbed me as needing a sequel or wanting it sure ts2 was better than ts1 but it never HAD to be made so i cant see any huge losses on that front i just hope pixar can un kidify slightly i find their work a bit too cutesy tho im liking the look of incredibles (what ive seen of it anyways) im sure disney will plod along fine tho there too big not to, wether what they churn out is any good is a different question but then the staple audiance is kids and kids watch anything so im sure disney will live to regret its decision. Personaly i couldnt see pixar really wanting to extend the deal anyways and disney was never gonna give them the freedom they want. its gaurented someone is gonna offer pixar the dream ticket they want :)

nice 1 pixar

johnny_riptide
01-30-2004, 01:59 AM
Look at it this way, with Pixar not having to split half of the loot with Disney, Pixar only needs to sell half as many tickets and DVD's to make the same profit. Pixar's movies aren't going to be any less enjoyable with Disney gone and so Pixar's ticket sales probably aren't taking a dive any time soon. The way I see it is Pixar's profits will nearly double now that they got out from under the Disney. On top of that Pixar has no debt.

Note to self: Buy a few more shares of PIXR.

Kirt
01-30-2004, 02:31 AM
Starts buying stock in Pixar films ...

Way to go Pixar! :applause:
Nice knowing you Mickey Mouse.

RobW720
01-30-2004, 02:31 AM
I dont believe that Disney has any hand in the success of Pixars films. Great story, characters, animation and... well just everything about them is golden and they did it on their own. Disney just distributed it and slapped their logo on it.

Bad movie by disney. If brother bear is the calabur of writing and creativity that disney has to offer, they could have the best 3d and it wouldnt matter.

Lomax
01-30-2004, 02:56 AM
The thing I can't get out of my head:
since there's no chance of Pixar striking a new deal with Disney, what's to stop Disney from sabotaging the releases of The Incredibles and Cars?
Sure both companies would lose money, but I'm sure Eisner wouldn't miss an oppurtunity to blame on Pixar, just to tarnish their record.

Anyway, that's enough paranoia for tonight...

Array
01-30-2004, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Lomax
The thing I can't get out of my head:
since there's no chance of Pixar striking a new deal with Disney, what's to stop Disney from sabotaging the releases of The Incredibles and Cars?
Sure both companies would lose money, but I'm sure Eisner wouldn't miss an oppurtunity to blame on Pixar, just to tarnish their record.

Anyway, that's enough paranoia for tonight...

Because Disney owns the rights to both movies and will get to milk them for all theyre worth once they have their succesful run in the theaters and as DVD releases.

Crazzy Legs
01-30-2004, 04:05 AM
I can just imagine Disney creating crappy sequals for the Pixar shows they way they do for their old successful shows. Like Alladin 2 and Lion King 2 and Little Mermaid 2. Didn't one of those actually have a third installment. Boy won't that look pathetic on Disneys behalf. "Hey kids, bug your parents to buy our crappy video because its a sequal to a good movie." Toy Story 3: "Straight to DVD and VHS"
that will be a Disney DVD I will pass up.
Milk money.
Honestly though, I pray Disney turns around. Its a real shame to see something like Disney loose so much respect. The people who brought us Fantasia! Now look where they are. They could employ a lot of talent and help families out by rehiring the ones they fired and get to town on quality work.

RockinAkin
01-30-2004, 04:06 AM
And with this news, Disney has officially died.

First they fire all of their classic animators, and now loose their partnership with PIXAR - the only thing that was keeping their feature films division above the water.

Great job Eisner... :thumbsup: :rolleyes:

Good luck to PIXAR - the new next generation Disney as it was meant to be.

FloydBishop
01-30-2004, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by Kirt
Starts buying stock in Pixar films ...

Way to go Pixar! :applause:
Nice knowing you Mickey Mouse.

The time to buy was a few years back. One of my professors in college bought a TON of the stuff for like $14 a share when they first went public.

In After Hours trading today, Pixar's stock (symbol: PIXR) was around $65 dollars a share.

Pretty sweet... especially for the employees with stock options.

daraand
01-30-2004, 04:23 AM
Lomax: Disney doesnt have much in the creatie area to control Pixar - but maybe they do who knwos but from reading animator perspectives from here, and other ites over time it seems Pixar is on their own with Disney just providing the distribution.

Distribution is Disney's money, Pirates of the Carribean, Haunted Mansion (which blew), and the Holes (which is an awesome story and bad movie).

Disney has things in their vaults. Unforetunately like most precious resources they're being depleted.

In march? they vote to renew Eisner's license. Lets hope it isn't, he's out by 2006, Roy saves the company and Pixar is back:D

Ahh we can dream can't we?

TheGreenGiant
01-30-2004, 06:13 AM
Didn't expect this but all the best to both Disney and Pixar. Disney always has their non-animation arm to fall back on and well, Pixar can only go from Strength to strength.

Power!

js33
01-30-2004, 06:45 AM
All I want to know is who made the deal that gave Disney all the rights to the 6 pictures produced under the contract? What kind of ****ed up deal was that? Why should Disney get any of that for being the distributor?

Cheers,
JS

Array
01-30-2004, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by js33
All I want to know is who made the deal that gave Disney all the rights to the 6 pictures produced under the contract? What kind of ****ed up deal was that? Why should Disney get any of that for being the distributor?

Cheers,
JS

Ummm...well Pixar wasnt really a HUGE name before 'Toy Story'. Granted they did those kickass Listerine and Life Savers commercials, but who was going to trust a company that has never made ANY full length features to make the FIRST EVER full length CG movie?

The contract worked out for them pretty well up to this point it seems. Look at how huge Pixar is now. It's a household name just like Disney is.

HippyDrome
01-30-2004, 07:33 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by agentJ
[B]Lomax: Disney doesnt have much in the creatie area to control Pixar - but maybe they do who knwos but from reading animator perspectives from here, and other ites over time it seems Pixar is on their own with Disney just providing the distribution.

Disney is a 50/50 partner with Pixar and has a 50% say (if they choose to step in) in the creative process. They both put the money up for the
films and Disney does the distribution. Pixar is the creator, but both side have to agree on all content that goes into the film. If there is a sticking point
on something, a compromise has to be made that both sides agree on..

Pixar and Disney were co-producers of such films as "Toy Story" and its sequel, "Toy Story 2." They also co-produced "Monsters Inc." and "A Bug's Life," and most recently "Finding Nemo," By Dwight Oestricher, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=808&ncid=808&e=6&u=/dowjones/20040130/bs_dowjones/200401291955001877

cheers hippydrome

js33
01-30-2004, 07:35 AM
I didn't know they did the Listerene and Lifesavers commercials. Cool. I remember those well.

Yeah but Pixar should have been forward looking enough to retain the rights to their own work. Why should Disney get that?
They didn't do any of the work. Actually WHAT DID Disney do? Except try to screw them out of all their work?

Cheers,
JS

TheGreenGiant
01-30-2004, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by tatiana
More likely any further sequels (TS 3, etc.) would be direct to video or have limited and somewhat un-advertised theater release then go to video....kinda like "Teacher's Pet" don't ya think? And probably not the same voice talent just like Dearmad posted.

t

Well, toystory 2 was originally scheduled for D2Video but it was the quality of the storytelling and animation that made them push it onto the silverscreen. I hope Pixar doesn't become too direct to video. Disney did that and I reckon that tarnished their image a bit

Array
01-30-2004, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by js33
I didn't know they did the Listerene and Lifesavers commercials. Cool. I remember those well.

Yeah but Pixar should have been forward looking enough to retain the rights to their own work. Why should Disney get that?
They didn't do any of the work. Actually WHAT DID Disney do? Except try to screw them out of all their work?

Cheers,
JS

Disney used their marketting behemoth to it's full potential. You get Monster's Inc plush toys, Finding Nemo bed sheets, Bug's Life Mcdonald's toys, video games, ice shows, images on Coke and Pepsi products, etc etc etc etc. It helped both companies make a TON of money.

Anyhow, about their commercials, here's a comprehensive list of all of the awards Pixar has accumulated over the years:

http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/press/awards.html

Here's some images/descriptions of some of Pixar's commercial work for anyone who is interested:

http://www.magicalears.com/films/animation/CurrentDisney/Commercials.php

quid
01-30-2004, 09:11 AM
It would be very interesting to know the actual split for Disney and Pixar like how much did Pixar make in $ for Nemo and how much did Disney make? Although Pixar must have been making good money to grow in the manner it has, I bet Disney was sticking it to them and wasn’t willing to budge (Disney with all of the bad press it got about its use of third world sweat shops, made little changes in its practices. Wait it did buy up a bunch of news networks and then canned anybody who previously reported anything ill about Disney--that ought to improve their image some…:hmm: ). I hope that Pixar becomes even more successful and just makes the Disney board fume and demand that Eisner finally steps down so a new sociopath can take his place.

js33
01-30-2004, 09:29 AM
It doesn't matter what Disney does now.

Without Pixar they will sink like a rock. :buttrock:

Bye Eisner. You ****ed up for the last time. :applause:

You go Steve. Kick their ass. :beer:

Cheers,
JS

Ac0rN
01-30-2004, 10:24 AM
This is such bullsh!t , lol,. Disney will survive!!! and Pixar will burn a horribel death in hell :cool: . Pixar can go to hell , lalalalalalalaaa.... That Steve Jobs can suck my ---->*

SkullboX
01-30-2004, 10:27 AM
Hopefully this will mean just the end of Eisner, and not Disney's excuse for an animation studio they have left. Eisner has pissed off the shareholders a lot lately, and this is yet another thing they don't like at all. Disney has done some great things for animation and I'm sure there are plenty of people left to restore that part of Disney.

And I hope Pixar can keep their credibility by continue making good movies and don't fall back on cash-ins either. They've hada good run overall, but once the novelty of their 3D visualisation and storytelling wears out they're going to have to be able to adjust to the public, something Disney has proven to miserably failed in.

I hope it's best for both companies... no doubt Pixar will be doing good for a while, Disney might be able to rid itself of Eisner sooner.

Pibre3d
01-30-2004, 10:36 AM
It just hurts me to see Disney make a big fall like this. It also hurts me that for a lot of people think it's apparently cool to say that Disney sucks and thay don't mind if the company is gone. I admit that Disney hasn't done much good the last years. But i get the feeling that people forget to make the difference between Disney as whole and the current Disney. I would be a shame if a legacy like this would be lost. May I remind you that Disney has meant more to animation then any other company. And on even more fields of the entertainment industry. It might be even so that this whole forum shouldn't exist without Disney. Disney isn't dead, it's just terribly ill and just hope it will restore to full glory once again. Please check out http://www.savedisney.com

Ac0rN
01-30-2004, 10:46 AM
Please check out http://www.savedisney.com

yeah , or visit this one http://www.legacyanimation.net/ ;)

s_ridenour
01-30-2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by JamesKo
I'm happy for Pixar also. Good move and now they can grow as independent company. But we shouldnt underestimate Disney. They have a great legacy in 2d animation. They also have lots of money to hire great artists and staffs. Yes, Dinasour was awfull, but somewhere in that company is a team who created Beauty an the Beast and the Lionking. And we know they will now try very hard to get back to the top of the animation area.

Most, if not all, of the creative talent behind films like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King left Disney years ago. Most of Disney's 2D animators have been fired, and their 2D animation division is Officially Closed. Disney's reign as the king of 2D animation ended years ago.

???
01-30-2004, 10:57 AM
How about (the incredibles) ?

js33
01-30-2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Ac0rN
This is such bullsh!t , lol,. Disney will survive!!! and Pixar will burn a horribel death in hell :cool: . Pixar can go to hell , lalalalalalalaaa.... That Steve Jobs can suck my ---->*

Well Disney would already be dead if it wasn't for Pixar these last 8 years. Disney may have a chance to survive IF they FIRE that ass Eisner and put Roy Disney in charge and give Pixar most of the profits AND ownship of all content like they should have gotten anyway. Disney should have only ever have received a distribution fee and maybe a bit of the marketing and merchandising. Where the hell did they get off taking 50% PLUS another 13% distribution fee. :D

Cheers,
JS

Ac0rN
01-30-2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by js33
Well Disney would already be dead if it wasn't for Pixar these last 8 years. Disney may have a chance to survive IF they FIRE that ass Eisner and put Roy Disney in charge and give Pixar all the profits AND ownship of all content like they should have gotten anyway. Disney should have only ever received a distribution fee and maybe a bit of the marketing and merchandising. Where the hell did they get off taking 50% PLUS another 13% distribution fee. :D

Cheers,
JS

As I see it , Disney should have never go thogether with pixar. Its their own fault but dont worry, Disney will comeback BIG TIME with 2d hand drawn animation :)

CHRiTTeR
01-30-2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by SkullboX
Hopefully this will mean just the end of Eisner, and not Disney's excuse for an animation studio they have left. Eisner has pissed off the shareholders a lot lately, and this is yet another thing they don't like at all. Disney has done some great things for animation and I'm sure there are plenty of people left to restore that part of Disney.

And I hope Pixar can keep their credibility by continue making good movies and don't fall back on cash-ins either. They've hada good run overall, but once the novelty of their 3D visualisation and storytelling wears out they're going to have to be able to adjust to the public, something Disney has proven to miserably failed in.

I hope it's best for both companies... no doubt Pixar will be doing good for a while, Disney might be able to rid itself of Eisner sooner.


Disney has lost a lot of its *magic* thanks to its urge for money. Now that they lost a lot of that money income, let's hope the magic returns.

And as for Pixar, no doubt they will do good! :thumbsup:

js33
01-30-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Ac0rN
As I see it , Disney should have never go thogether with pixar. Its their own fault but dont worry, Disney will comeback BIG TIME with 2d hand drawn animation :)

You really believe that?

Then why did they just fire all their 2D animators and close down the Florida studio?

2D is dead and Disney knows it. Why do you think they are going to try their hand at 3D now?

The only problem is that Disney has the rights to make sequels based on the first 7 films and that could hurt Pixar because you know Disney's 3D won't be as good as Pixars.

But everyone will know who to boycott and who to support by then. :applause:

Cheers,
JS

daviddrbal
01-30-2004, 11:37 AM
Well, what do we know. Someone said that Pixar will go to hell, other that Disney will die .... whatever now they all have chance show themself.

I think there is no doubt that Pixar had done great job and find new producers will be quiet easy for them.

Disney has a name for generations. But is it anough?

Sit back and relax .... somehow it happens, but I'm sure it will not change our lives. :bowdown: :bowdown:

Ac0rN
01-30-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by js33
You really believe that?

Then why did they just fire all their 2D animators and close down the Florida studio?

2D is dead and Disney knows it. Why do you think they are going to try their hand at 3D now?

The only problem is that Disney has the rights to make sequels based on the first 7 films and that could hurt Pixar because you know Disney's 3D won't be as good as Pixars.

But everyone will know who to boycott and who to support by then. :applause:

Cheers,
JS

Oh man , I hope to se the faces of all 3d artists when they will begin fireing 3d animatiors at pixar :D

js33
01-30-2004, 11:45 AM
If anything anyone working at Disney will try to go work for Pixar. :buttrock:

After all who wants to go down with the Disney ship? :shrug:

Disney is DEAD. Long live PIXAR. :buttrock:

Cheers,
JS

insseuv
01-30-2004, 11:45 AM
great news, disney s***s... :beer: :applause: :thumbsup:

Ac0rN
01-30-2004, 11:45 AM
btw , I heard that pixar is opening a 2d animation department wich is a good thing :)

Tommy Lee
01-30-2004, 11:50 AM
Good news to me!!!!!:beer:

I hope Pixar will produce some serious features.

Cheerz

Tommy Lee

js33
01-30-2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Ac0rN
btw , I heard that pixar is opening a 2d animation department wich is a good thing :)

Well it seems you are correct. Hmmm so I guess Pixar is going to kick Disney's ass in 3D and in 2D. :wip:

I found this post on another forum.

Cheers,
JS

Pixar going 2D
"I am a Disney Employee. Recently all of our 2D animation staff were told they their department was being shutdown. All the staff were trained in the new 3D tools, those who did not make the grade got an invitation to leave. Most of the staff were given several weeks off pending the official cut.

Shortly before the Thanksgiving holiday
Pixar and Dreamworks staff setup temporary office space here in Orlando; they dissected the phone list of the animation department, and called anyone who was getting laid off in for an interview. Its looks as if they got the pick of the crop, as some really fine people were being let go.

Last week, a friend who was interview let me know that she had a) accepted a position with Pixar, and b) that Pixar would shortly be announcing that they were opening a 2D studio.

I would not be the least bit surprised by this news, or the Pixar / Disney deal NOT getting re-signed.

To set the record straight for a previous poster, Pixar will be release 2 more films under the Disney banner. The Incredibles and Cars, both of which are currently In Production. If you are keeping count, the sequels do not count per the original contract."

LucentDreams
01-30-2004, 12:23 PM
official response a few of us recieved after the nemo presentation at siggraph, from an apple employee none the less was that Pixar would consider a traditionaly animated film if there was enough pixar employess interested in directing and producing (directing the various departments and such) That was sparked after someone asked during the presentation if they'd ever do one, and Dylan Brown was the only one to respond saying he was a 3d guy he did 3D, and that most the animators at pixar weren't as concerned with the medium as they were witht the story.

Fasty
01-30-2004, 12:29 PM
Yeah! rampant, ridiculous speculation is fun! :bounce:

Anyway I know what 2D is lacking these days: Pink Elephants.

P_T
01-30-2004, 12:33 PM
2D is dead and Disney knows it.

2D ain't dead otherwise Spirited Away and other anime wouldn't be so well received in the western world.

I don't understand why 2D and 3D has to live separately. 2D and 3D managed live in harmony in Japanese entertainment industry. :thumbsup:

well if major 2D studios in the west all shut down then look forward to the next generation of children that will grow up on anime :applause: (i imagine that statement would generate a resounding "NOOOOO..." amongst anime haters LOL :p)

rebeldreams
01-30-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Ac0rN
Oh man , I hope to se the faces of all 3d artists when they will begin fireing 3d animatiors at pixar :D

Wow, what did Pixar do to you? Turn you down for a job? LOL! No, but seriously, I don't see either Pixar or Disney going anywhere anytime soon. Disney has an enormous amount of momentum, simply because.. well, it's Disney.. On the other hand, Pixar is big and getting bigger. People don't go to see Finding Nemo because it's got the Disney label on it; Pixar is known by poeple who haven't got the faintest clue about CG. All they care about it characters and story, just as it should be.

My wild, useless speculation? Pixar team up with Warner or Fox (nice deal for them, since they don't have to build their own animation studios, after losing them in the late 90s/early 00s) and they have the name and distribution to handle it.

Disney.. carry on as normal. Put out some good movies, some bad ones, mk profits and continue to get up the sort of noses who hate Micro$uck, for pretty much the same reasons.

Just my $0.02

Claymation
01-30-2004, 12:44 PM
I don't think the sequals will hurt pixar. Everyone knows that those horrible direct to video sequals disney does suck. How many people actually cared about lion king 2 or 1 1/2... 1 1/2 you got to be kidding me. if kids like it what next...Lionking 1 2/3... 1 3/4... hell they could go on for ever

Anyway It will be great to see what is coming down the pipes at Pixar since they can take the kid gloves off. You guys realize that 2006 means they must already be producing the movie. It takes them 2-3 years to do these movies.

Only good thing to come out of this is that Disney is going to be helping alot of small studios grow which means more 3D jobs for us.


Jay

Cman
01-30-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Dirtystimpy
"Disney also has the right to finance and produce sequels to the films if Pixar declines to co-finance and produce them under the current agreement. "

i hope that doesn't happen

Seems that's the reason Pixar wanted out. Disney basically had total control over what Pixar made, indefinitely.

Obviously it was a great deal for Pixar when they made it, but now that they're successful they want more control in the future. Seems reasonable to me.

kausss
01-30-2004, 01:06 PM
I say: ABOUT TIME!! :beer:

clockwerkz
01-30-2004, 01:07 PM
I see the situation with Disney much like I do with football. In football, when you have a team that starts stagnating and always falls under expectation, the owner usually cans the coach, or makes some huge moves in the upper management. I think it's time Disney had that type of revitalization.
Personally, I'm not worried about Disney's future. Yeah maybe they shouldn't have trashed the 2d animation, but they'll be fine. They've been through this ordeal in the past, and they'll see through it again. Just look at the late 80s and the early 90s.
Pixar does have an incredible record going for them, but they can't make blockbuster hits forever. I think the grit of a company is determined when they hit their first flop. I'd hate to ever see that happen, but if it does, that'll be a big step in maturing.


cW

flipnap
01-30-2004, 01:08 PM
I cant even really refer to Disney as "Disney" because its not. All this talk about Disney coming back isnt realyl possible because the company that was the magic of Disney is now a burned out shell of a company, and Eisner and crew are holding the matches. Its the same way the new star wars arent really "star wars". Whether the new prequels are good or not isnt in debate. They dont have harrison, mark, and carrie. It's a shame that Disney went down but it happened a long time ago. And as far as 2D VS. 3D, there will always be a place for both. In about two years from now when the flood gates open and 9 out of 10 CG flicks are poo, itll wear thin.. Pixar will prolly still be on top (and probably still making G films) and the rest will blow away.. The audience will get bored of seeing CG and start seeing 2d again.. Its all a cycle..

VagabondDead
01-30-2004, 01:53 PM
Perhaps somewhat irrelevant, but I find it interesting. Here in Japan, most people refer to Pixar's films as Disney, and don't even mention or think about Pixar. When I've mentioned "Pixar's this or that" they always say, "Oh, I love Disney!" While it's completely based on speculation, I would guess that, in Japan, Disney will do fine and Pixar will be quickly forgotten.

Josh

Of course, I hope I'm wrong .. I don't particularly like Disney at all ..

flipnap
01-30-2004, 02:00 PM
Yeah, True.. I remember when TS2 came out, and some star was being interviewed, and was asked about what he thought (I guess Tom hanks was his friend or something) and the guys was like "Yeah, wow.. those guys at disney did it again. They really are a bunch of talented guys!" Some people just dont know.. Just how Disney likes it..

rebeldreams
01-30-2004, 02:00 PM
Hmm, I suppose it's a cultural thing; Disney's a brand, and it's something the Japanese (and others) would identify with primarily. In Europe, the feeling I get is that it's Pixar first and Disney second, if at all.

On the question of 2D-v-3D, it *could* be a cycle, although 3D hasn't been around long enough to show that for certain. As thechnology improves, and 3D has the potential to be indistiguishable from the real thing, a certain degree of fatigue might set in; there may even come a point where people stop worrying about whether something is "real" or CG. However, the market for animated 3D "cartoon" style work will, I think, carry on pretty much unabated. After all, 2D fatigue didn't really set in for 70 years or so, although the market contracted a lot as the audience became pickier.

Yes, I'm one of those dreaful conciliatory "there's room for both" types; I honestly believe that both will continue. 3D will be able to do things that 2D cannot, but a really beautiful 2D movie can transport you in a way that even the best 3D does not, I feel (this is no criticism of 3D, BTW). I am STILL moved by the Animatrix episode "Beyond"... although that had 3D elements, it was primarily 2D.

SkullboX
01-30-2004, 02:15 PM
Well for one thing it looks like Disney is waking up to some degree and seems to invest in the japanese animation feature film industry, which is in my opinion a good thing.

I'm not particularly a fan of the standard animated japanese series there are some incredibly talented animation studio's in japan that prosperously create traditionally animated feature films. They ventured down with ghibli and released princess mononoke (which flopped due to bad marketing) and spirited away (which won an oscar) and they're now 'co-creating' (I don't know what part they play, fat chance they just pump money into it) Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence.

Whether or not you like japanese animation it shows they've at least woken up from they standard formulas and started trying out other things. Perhaps they can at least learn from them there are different ways to tell a story and that not every aniamted movie has to be suitable for 3-year-olds...

Ac0rN
01-30-2004, 02:25 PM
The audience will get bored of seeing CG and start seeing 2d again.. Its all a cycle..

Word !

Nicodemus
01-30-2004, 02:38 PM
The whole 2d/3d thing is an old argument. It is all about quality...if success was based on a film being 3D then FInal Fantasy would have been a smash hit.

If you have a crap story then no matter what medium it is in people are not going to want to see it. Supposedly 2d should have killed off any use for claymation.....course I don't see the guys at Aardman Animation (Wallace and Gromit, Chicken Run) giving up and declaring the end of all things.

The audience at large is not impressed with 3d over 2d....they just want to be entertained and could care less which way we chose to tell them the story, just that it is a good story.

As for the whole Pixar and Disney thing. Good luck to Pixar, love 'em, love their work....I expect we will see great things from them. Hopefully Disney can find its way back to being the great studio it once was.

~L~

draconix
01-30-2004, 02:53 PM
I say good for Pixar. I'm looking forward to what they can produce with content control more firmly in their own hands. As for Disney, hopefully they'll wake up. I'd hate to see them go under (although that's not happening anytime soon.) 2D at Pixar... sounds interesting.

Miss Hippo
01-30-2004, 03:03 PM
HA! this happend for the best....i knew it. sooner or later this was going to take place.
Way to go Pixar!....all the way:bounce:
I mean the whole time Disney was using pixar and sucking out all the fame...by slapping their logo on the animation features. i hope and wish that Pixar does better than before and shows Disney that Pixar can be independant!
Can't wait to see what Pixar comes up with in 2006!

all my support to Steve Jobs!

mindstate7
01-30-2004, 03:39 PM
way to go disney. Nice work on not making money.

Succesful partnerships like this are few and far between. Too bad about the break up. PIXAR WILL RULE THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

SheepFactory
01-30-2004, 03:42 PM
For those who said "the audience will be bored of seeing 3d etc" get a damn clue. You think Pixar is successful because of the 3d medium? they can animate their films in stop motion or 2d and still make the same money , its because their stories are great and the talent who works there are the best.


Acorn stop your trolling , its clear you are a ex-2d animator who got laid off or whatever but neither 2d nor 3d is going anywhere so chill out.

mindstate7
01-30-2004, 04:04 PM
heh:p

rebeldreams
01-30-2004, 04:11 PM
Acorn stop your trolling , its clear you are a ex-2d animator who got laid off or whatever but neither 2d nor 3d is going anywhere so chill out. [/B]

Hear hear!

Anyway, FWIW, I think this is good news; it actually adds diversity to the 3D scene, which, since we are all either working CG professionals or would like to be, can only be good news for us!

alivegy
01-30-2004, 04:18 PM
Anyone else have the sinking feeling that disney is going to over-saturate the market with a bunch of really crappy 3D features and ruin it for everyone like they did 2D?

ostov
01-30-2004, 04:38 PM
So what have Disney done else from selling the movies?
We will probly see micky mouse and all his friend in 3d soon, but it will not be as cool as all the pixar charaters...

nobrain
01-30-2004, 04:40 PM
This is great news!
Pixar, just might diversify their demo a bit, since not distributing under disney, they can produce films to target an older audience, with all the talent these guys have, it would be great to see full blown action movie in cg. No doubt these guys can measure up.

way to go pixar! You were disney's "golden egg" goose for too long.

nobrain
01-30-2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Nicodemus
The whole 2d/3d thing is an old argument. It is all about quality...if success was based on a film being 3D then FInal Fantasy would have been a smash hit.

If you have a crap story then no matter what medium it is in people are not going to want to see it. Supposedly 2d should have killed off any use for claymation.....course I don't see the guys at Aardman Animation (Wallace and Gromit, Chicken Run) giving up and declaring the end of all things.

The audience at large is not impressed with 3d over 2d....they just want to be entertained and could care less which way we chose to tell them the story, just that it is a good story.


~L~

so true, I've seen flash animations that were more entertaining than some 30 mil budget movies.

tatiana
01-30-2004, 04:45 PM
Anyone else have the sinking feeling that disney is going to over-saturate the market with a bunch of really crappy 3D features and ruin it for everyone like they did 2D?

Nah, don't see that happening. While some of their current business strategy seems to make little sense, oversaturating the market with poor quality 3D movies simply for a brief period of profit would not increase their consumer base nor would it keep their current ones happy. The Disney brand would definitely suffer. And besides, most of their consumers (moms and the little ones) aren't aware that Pixar and Disney are two different companies. They think it's all Disney, so it's all good.

I'm also sure Disney has been working hard in the past couple of years to establish relationships with smaller 3D studios in the hope to find Pixar, the sequel. :)


t

iconboy
01-30-2004, 04:46 PM
hey all,

just my 2 cents...

disney really didnt have a choice here, what were they gunna let pixar push them around? lose hundreds of millions just to squeeze a couple more out of pixar? nope- this was gunna end eventually- it was a dream and disney was gunna wake up from it quite fast.

And where is Pixar at? without their ability to make any sequels they are back to square one, i mean people will still recognize the name and remember the old franchises, but dammnn- hahah i know pixar will be ok

yuck though... i DO NOT want toi see Toy Story made by non pixar poeople! :(

flipnap
01-30-2004, 04:53 PM
I can tell ya though, I will miss hearing the little diddy that plays during the disney castle thing.. I always identify that little song with "here comes the goodness" ..

medula
01-30-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Sheep Factory
For those who said "the audience will be bored of seeing 3d etc" get a damn clue. You think Pixar is successful because of the 3d medium? they can animate their films in stop motion or 2d and still make the same money , its because their stories are great and the talent who works there are the best.

Right on the mark. You said it best.

Bonedaddy
01-30-2004, 05:02 PM
The reason you have all this 2d/3d is dead/dying crap is mostly because of fads. Producers in the industry are looking for what makes money. Pixar does amazing work and makes money. So THE PRODUCERS start the proclamations that "2d is dead," yadda yadda, to find something to blame, even though the producers were the ones that killed it. Back when 2d was very popular (Beauty and the Beast, Lion King), a million studios hopped on that bandwagon, released a glut of crappy films, and it all bombed. Everyone had to stop and reassess what they're doing. But instead of reassessing their priorities to create good films, 3d came along, and they could blame it all on the medium.
Now, I could buy into the "3d will die" argument if every 3d film released in the next 5 years is crappy. But I have major faith in Pixar. Whoever they've got on their business end has either got a good heart or a good leash. There will be a lot of crappy movies hitting, and some studios may stop making 3d flicks, but when the dust settles, Pixar will be on top.

At least, such is my prediction...

HapZungLam
01-30-2004, 05:05 PM
in fact, i think it is a good news.

cgwolf
01-30-2004, 05:13 PM
Too bad for Disney - They have lost all creativity and imagination in the 2D field of animation, had made terrible corporate ventures and now have lost their brightest spark...Pixar. And to top it off they want to compete with Pixar....Walt is probably dizzy from all the turning in his grave.

BTW Disney does make porn...do you guys remember the cover art from films like Little Mermaid?

Searcher
01-30-2004, 05:22 PM
Yap, I hope the producers will recognises that it is not the medium that is important but how the medium carries the story.

Hopeful there will be many more great movies that touches the heart from Pixar and Disney.

smileyPotato
01-30-2004, 05:23 PM
i'm sure people have brought this up already, but to those that say 'thank god disney's gone, they've always stopped pixar from being a great company' or whatever, bottom line is this: pixar would be in no way as large or talented without the use of disney during its earlier years of distribution. It is a shame that they get sequels and rights to five films, which has happened over a 10 year period (toy story 95 to cars 05), but that's how it goes. And also Pixar uses the same cheesy formula to make movies as Disney uses regardless if they are attached to them or not, it's what sells. Basically don't be so quick to shame disney.

And as for the success of Pixar after they're free of Disney? I think the movie Cars will put them both out of business, it sounds like a terrible idea and worse movie.

SkullboX
01-30-2004, 05:23 PM
While it's certainly true no visual style in either 2D or 3D will be able to save a bad story, but saying there is no difference in popularity between different media is bullshit.

Pixar's succes didn't skyrocket because of the supposedly better storytelling. It's better than Disney's, and the formula seems to go more towards slap stick humor based storytelling but the difference isn't that immense. Yes they're better at what they do, but denying the novelty of 3D pixar used is just as stupid as saying any great story will come out great regardless of the medium.

People are - thank god for us CG artists - very visually oriented, they want to look at something pretty, and they don't want to look at the same thing over an over again. Disney changes style, pixar changes styles, but the change in style from Disney to Pixar certainly did contribute to pixar's popularity. It's not a 2D/3D thing, it's the novelty of the medium taht contributed a lot to pixar's initial success.

The reason they stuck around and remained popular was because they're masters at telling a funny story and keep showing off refreshing stuff. I'm sure some of you will remember that Toy Story always apppeared in the media as the 'first fully 3D/computer animated movie' when it came out...

neonhomer
01-30-2004, 05:33 PM
I have a comment and a question:

I think Warner should pick up Pixar for the distribution. Looney Tunes: BIA was a flop and they have nothing else coming out. Blue Sky was bought by Fox a while ago so i doubt they would be interested.

Does anyone here know what happens to all of the 3d assest created for the pixar films? Since disney owns the rights do they get them or does pixar keep them?

feeesh
01-30-2004, 05:37 PM
Good for Pixar. Disney was screwing them taking money for nothing while continuing to try and caompare witht heir own pathetic attempts at nw animated features while at the same time treating their veteran animators and studios like crap. Disney is clueless in the enimation world nowadays and were holding Pixar back, if anything. More power to Pixar and I wish them the best in the future. i have no doubt they will double their success so far as an independent company.

-Jason

<ack, sorry for all the typos, typing quickly while at work............:hmm: >

Pin_pal
01-30-2004, 05:49 PM
I really hope they don’t make Toy Story 3. Leave the classics alone! Besides, it would be such a pile of crap without Pixar.

ryguy
01-30-2004, 05:58 PM
I wont be surprised if Disney starts shooting porn movies in the future. They are clearly not interested in animation.

Disney owns a company called Vivid, which is a company that produces adult videos. I heard it was on the 8th floor of one of the office buildings Disney owns.

~Ryan

chalbers
01-30-2004, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Floyd Bishop
Pretty sweet... especially for the employees with stock options.

Oh yes !!! :-)

Apoclypse
01-30-2004, 06:16 PM
Disney started to suck when they got rid of the singing.:D

PIXAR will do good but what I really want is for Mental Images to start their own studio that would rock.

Dinsey would be really smart to start mixing japanese and american animators together ( despite cultural differences and language barriers, but they have the money to hire translators). They should also start to hire japanese directors who have new and fresh ideas.

Disney sucks now and their 3d department will fail ( dinosuar was pretty but it still sucked). Those dinosuars should have been singing. And I was all ready for a nice rendition of "Dino Pals Forever" too, with stomping dinos and dancing t-rex's and everything.

neonhomer
01-30-2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by ryguy
Disney owns a company called Vivid, which is a company that produces adult videos. I heard it was on the 8th floor of one of the office buildings Disney owns. Here's a list of what disney owns. I don't see a Vivid anywhere but that's not to say it couldn't be owned by a sub-company, etc.

And to everyone who keeps saying disney is going to die, look the list and decide if losing the animation department will truely kill the overall company.
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/disney.asp

pearson
01-30-2004, 06:38 PM
I hope that Pixar doesn't lose sight of what has made them great. I don't know exactly how much Disney's input has changed their stories (Monsters Inc is completely different than the animatic pitch they put on the DVD), but their success is directly dependent on great characters in great stories.

I've heard several people say they want Pixar's movies to "grow up" and become more adult oriented. I think that would be a mistake. I can get all that stuff from every other movie out there, plus every TV show...I'm sure some will think differently, but I think that's the reason I didn't like Shrek as much...Even Antz, which I loved, I can't watch repeatedly like I can Finding Nemo or Monsters Inc. :shrug:

MCronin
01-30-2004, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by ryguy
Disney owns a company called Vivid, which is a company that produces adult videos. I heard it was on the 8th floor of one of the office buildings Disney owns.

~Ryan

You are getting things confused. Vivd Entertainment Group is wholely owned privately. It comes down to one guy basicly and I think his name is Bill Asher. What you are thinking of is companies Like AT&T and GM who have indirectly made large sums of money off of Vivid

Originally posted by ostov
So what have Disney done else from selling the movies?
We will probly see micky mouse and all his friend in 3d soon, but it will not be as cool as all the pixar charaters...

I for one would love to see Mickey in 3D. That's part of what Roy Disney is so fired up about. They have all these great IP's that the company has get let atrophy over the years. They should at least be doing new shorts with these characters.

I really don't understand what you guys have against Disney. they've been through many highs and lows. They had a great streak in the late 80's-early 90's and the stuff they have been producing lately isn't bad... just not terribly successful. Things look bad right now for Disney from the outside, but there's no reason to kick them because they seem to be down. They've got 2 more features coming from Pixar which means 2-3 years for Disney to get their act together and produce some good animated features of their own. Disney is going to come out of this just fine. If anything Pixar may end up in a tough spot because no other company can compete with Disney currently as far as marketing goes, save *maybe* Sony. I really don't want to see Pixar end up with WB or Fox. They both are terrible marketers. I'm actually kind of sad to see this happen because Disney and Pixar just go together like bread and butter. Good luck to both companies.

Wesball
01-30-2004, 07:09 PM
I met with the VP of Disney feature animation a few months ago. He told me then that Pixar was leaving, so its obviously not anything unexpected to people at Disney.

He told me that home on the range will be their last 2D animated project. After that, everything will go to 3D. So you'll get to see a 3D Mickey soon enough.

Also, I don't understand why poeple are pointing all the fingers at Disney.

Pixar already had an insane deal with Disney... not sure... but i think they were the only people ever to have it so good with a major studio...

We all know Pixar can live on, but I'm curious who will even give them the deal they wanted from Disney... Something like 100% of the profits with a small distribution fee... I don't know if anyone other than money maching Disney can even afford Pixar.

Perhaps Pixar demanded so much simply becuase it wanted to move on period. Chances are, there wasn't anything Disney could do to keep Pixar.

Anyway, just my opinions.

BTW... as far as formula goes, there isn't a "Disney" formula... its simply a storytelling formula created from 100 years of filmmaking. Everyone uses it becuase it works. Live action included.

Ohyeah... and Vivid isn't at Disney. I live a few blocks away from the big Vivid Building in LA.

Rye
01-30-2004, 07:19 PM
:applause:

pearson
01-30-2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Wesball
Pixar already had an insane deal with Disney...

"Insane" is right. If I understand correctly, Pixar walks away and owns nothing! Nothing at all! They thought up the characters, stories, did all the work and got only 30% of the profit and half the credit, plus Disney owned everything! All Disney had to do was marketing and distribution, and yet they got 70% of the profit.

And the fact that Disney wouldn't count Toy Story 2 as one of the movies under the contract was really greedy of them. That alone was so money grubbing...Big black eye on Disney in my book. When the goose keeps laying golden eggs, you don't strangle it, sheesh.

MajinPunisher
01-30-2004, 07:43 PM
I am damn happy that Pixar is sluffing off Disney. Good riddens.

Also, does anyone know of anyone here that has gone onboard with Disney? Since they just fired some 200 odd traditional animators in the push to go CG, I figure a lot of us CG-ers have gone over there? Anybody?

Also, any scoop on this Pixar work called "Cars"?

-MajinPunisher

Array
01-30-2004, 07:47 PM
Ha, I'm surprised to see that BOTH Disney and Pixar stocks went up today. I was expecting Disney to lose money:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=5d&s=PIXR&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=DIS

Wesball
01-30-2004, 07:55 PM
I guess being big fans makes one an expert on the inside details of the business side of Disney/Pixar. :)

I have to say, I'm literally laughing at some of the comments on this thread. Its just plain ignorance at its best.

Trust me when I say Disney didn't "just distribute" Pixar's films. Do you really think a behemoth like Disney would just sit back and let another company (with a great record, yes) decide the final product and them just stamp the Disney label on it? I don't think so.

On top of that... how the hell can anyone say Pixar was keeping Disney afloat? Last time I checked Disney didn't put out only Pixar films...

And another bit of info for you people against Direct to Video releases... believe it or not, the Disney TV animation department makes more money than the Disney Feature Aniation... last time i spoke with people over there they mentioned it was something like 3 times more profitible! (but don't quote me on that number, I just remember being amazed when I was told.)

So anyway, I'm getting all frustrated with everyone's comments who obviously don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Edit:
Sorry. This doesn't apply to everyone on this thread. Just the ones who obviously don't know anything.

Kevin Grand
01-30-2004, 07:59 PM
Pixar would make Beautiful music with Dreamworks I think. :beer:

Wesball
01-30-2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by MajinPunisher
I am damn happy that Pixar is sluffing off Disney. Good riddens.

Also, does anyone know of anyone here that has gone onboard with Disney? Since they just fired some 200 odd traditional animators in the push to go CG, I figure a lot of us CG-ers have gone over there? Anybody?

Also, any scoop on this Pixar work called "Cars"?

-MajinPunisher

I've been over at the story development a while back. I got a look at some of their future projects... which look awesome. Also I'm working with the writers of Chicken Little (on a seperate project outside of Disney). That should be interesting... its been in the works for a long time, so I'm assuming they're trying to get it just right. So if they haven't already brought people over, they definately will be.

fabmedia
01-30-2004, 08:30 PM
Well I must say "It's typical".

Here you have a huge conglomerate that eats up and spits out everything it can get it's hands onto. Everything that Disney has put out over the last 10 years has been crap. They don't break new ground and their only real hits have been with their partnership with Pixar.

What really makes me mad is that everything is played to death, done with poor quality, and is overly priced. It's unfortunate that Disney has become so "profit" hungry.

BUT REALLY GETS MY GOAT is that Disney is filing a law suit to stop Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. Isn't that insane???? MM is a cultural icon, but somehow, Disney has to make some $$$ from everything that is "theirs"...

A

tatiana
01-30-2004, 09:01 PM
BUT REALLY GETS MY GOAT is that Disney is filing a law suit to stop Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. Isn't that insane???? MM is a cultural icon, but somehow, Disney has to make some $$$ from everything that is "theirs"...

While you might consider Mickey as a cultural icon, the Disney marketing department has incorporated it, from the beginning, as a major part of the Disney visual brand. Makes perfect sense that they'd want to keep it from becoming public domain because it could be used inappropriately. And yet still be identified with the Disney company - a bonus for anyone wanting to get some of the Disney market share and have their product be identified with Disney, even when it's not.

t

feeesh
01-30-2004, 09:19 PM
So does this mean Disney will own Finding Nemo and MOnster's Inc?!? ARRRGH! All they will do is ruin a good thing by making crappy hack job sequels like they've done for every other disney movie in history.

fabmedia
01-30-2004, 09:29 PM
Tatiana.

You make a really good point here. But what is at stake here is not Disney or misuse of Mickey. Mickey Mouse is an artistic work. What is happening is privatising of our culture by large companies. And for artists such as ourselves that is very, very bad. It is important for our culture to progress, and one of the ways that this happens is through a stock of public domaiin works to which we borrow from.

Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (1591) was taken from Arthur Brooke's poem Romeus and Juliet (1562), and most of Shakespeare's historical plays would have infringed Holingshead's Chronicles of England (1573)

Cultural giants borrow, and so do the corporate guys. I just find it funny that most of Disney's "greatest films" are based on 19th century public domain works. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and The Jungle Book (which if memory serves me right, it was released exactly one year after Kipling's copyrights expired).

So really... Disney is saying one thing and doing another. I'm not a US citizen, but I think the US Constitution is based on exclusive rights for limited periods of time.

Cheers!
Arlen

PS This is kind of funny... http://reason.com/links/links011703.shtml

Originally posted by tatiana
While you might consider Mickey as a cultural icon, the Disney marketing department has incorporated it, from the beginning, as a major part of the Disney visual brand. Makes perfect sense that they'd want to keep it from becoming public domain because it could be used inappropriately. And yet still be identified with the Disney company - a bonus for anyone wanting to get some of the Disney market share and have their product be identified with Disney, even when it's not.

t

tatiana
01-30-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by fabmedia
...You make a really good point here. But what is at stake here is not Disney or misuse of Mickey. Mickey Mouse is an artistic work. What is happening is privatising of our culture by large companies. And for artists such as ourselves that is very, very bad. It is important for our culture to progress, and one of the ways that this happens is through a stock of public domaiin works to which we borrow from....Cultural giants borrow, and so do the corporate guys....
So really... Disney is saying one thing and doing another. I'm not a US citizen, but I think the US Constitution is based on exclusive rights for limited periods of time.
[/B]

hey fabmedia,

Yeah, as I remember it, the artistic work protection was originally for the lifetime of the individual artist (hence the 50 or 70 years...we're all living longer these days)...and now businesses would appreciate the same protection for their own image assets: the "lifetime" protection. So, as long as the Disney corporation is alive and kicking, they want all of their assets protected.

I see nothing wrong with borrowing the creative concept of a talking mouse - but it doesn't have to look like Mickey. Because of the way this image (Mickey) has been used for most of its lifetime, it is, at least to the advertising/marketing and so to in some respects, the consumer world, more of a logo rather than just a painting. There is a bit of a difference there. It's a brand now, not only a work of art.

And what's wrong with originality? Why do we have to borrow ideas? :D

And back to Disney/Pixar...that's something they'll also be needing to do once they're finished with their contract with Disney: come up with a Pixar marketing effort to get themselves recognized as separate from Disney (maybe) to the regular consumer....

ha! I remember that article...a good friend of mine sent it to me once before as he knows my interest in animation (and Disney, too).

t

ArtisticVisions
01-30-2004, 10:33 PM
Not going to get into a huge discusion over this, I just wanted to say it's about time and I wish Pixar the best of luck in the future.

fabmedia
01-30-2004, 10:45 PM
Ya I hear you and what you're saying. I'm a graphic designer and illustrator so branding and marketing is almost a way of life here. But when it really comes down to it, I don't know anyone that is true a creative genius. What I mean by that it is very hard to find someone who hasn't been inspired by something that they've seen, read, touched or heard (add tasted too). We're so over whelmed and over burdened with stimulation, it's becoming very hard to discern what is 100% original.

My biggest cause for concern about Disney and other Disney-like corporations is that they have the rights to protect their interests, but abuse the interests of others. For instance, if an artist died 70 years ago yesterday, and his/her family was receiving royalties (small or large) for reprints of his/her work, then all of a sudden, "Disney-corp" comes along the 70 years +1 day and creates a work of reprints of this artist, then that family, the rightful heirs get nothing. To me that is strictly unfair. And that is where the Mickey Mouse Copyright Law falls apart.

Ths is a topic that can really go in any direction and definitely needs to be looked as seriously. It shouldn't be something that a corporation forces through the beaurocrasy. It should be voted into legislation via a referendum, because what's at stake are peoples rights.

A

mushroomgod
01-30-2004, 10:46 PM
I read in Empire (uk film mag) today that Disney have reported there lagest ever profit, I dident read the whole thing but it said that disney and its other companys had made over 3 billion last year.

I dont like disney that much (thay make good books and ideas into bad singing suger coated books and ideas)..But you have to admit that there not going anywhere for a long long time.

Jensen
01-30-2004, 10:55 PM
What I find funny is almost everybody in this thread has suddenly become an expert of the affairs of Disney and Pixar, or backing up Pixar because it is the 'underdog' who is fighting the power in this situation. But the way I see this is like a football team. The team owner buy's the new guy because he may have potential. Then he gets good, and starts making tons of plays for the team. Suddenly he feels like he's worth more, because he's done a lot for the team. And whenever I see some stuck up bastard asking for a better contract or else they're going to sign with another team, I just want to sock them in their face.

BRODSKY
01-30-2004, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by FClub_TDurden
Damn....poor Disney...now there out in the cold with nothing and have to compete with Pixar and there cg movies instead of working together...

disney is screwed...good job Staiton and Eisner.....there gunna be entering the full cg market as an unproven 4th best...good luck to them:wip:

hey Fclub....why do you hate Disney so much. You make it sound like they are munsuned out in the middle of no where. Disney doesn't have to prove anything to anyone....when the gen pop thinks animation they think Disney....when people think of pixar films they think of Disney.

can't we all just get along

don't hate the playa hate the game

Pixelmaestro
01-30-2004, 11:18 PM
Disney 49 Billion

Pixar 3.85 Billion
P/E Ration is around 65 (Very high)
Income per employee is listed as 195,000
Net income per employee is 85,000 (lots of profit)

From Reuters:

"Disney`s Eisner faces challenges without Pixar

January 30, 2004 18:49:30 (ET)


By Peter Henderson

LOS ANGELES, Jan 30 (Reuters) - A day after ending talks for a new deal with Pixar Animation Studios Inc.(PIXR,Trade), Walt Disney Co.(DIS,Trade) Chief Executive Michael Eisner faced twin challenges of rebuilding the company's faltering animation division and fending off a sharpened attack on his leadership.

Disney rejected an offer to extend beyond 2005 the lucrative partnership that has produced $2.5 billion of box office receipts in movies from "Toy Story" to "Finding Nemo."

Disney characterized that decision as simple business math, saying that renewing the lucrative deal on Pixar's terms would have cost it hundreds of millions of dollars.

While some analysts agreed, Eisner also faced criticism for having mismanaged one of the most profitable tie-ups in the history of Hollywood and letting Pixar go its own way.

"He made them feel like second-class citizens when they were producing the best product in the country," said Stanley Gold, a former board member allied with ex-director Roy Disney who is campaigning for Eisner's ouster.

"It was no way to manage talent," added Gold, who is campaigning for shareholders to vote against Eisner and three other board members up for reelection at the March 3 shareholder meeting in a symbolic protest.

"Potentially more could have been done to retain some sort of relationship with Pixar that was profitable," said Fitch ratings agency analyst Randy Alvarado, who said Disney's credit outlook was shakier without Pixar when the deal expires in 2006.

Disney stands to lose more than just box office revenue, since the home of Mickey Mouse has built its business around popular characters, said Fulcrum Global Partners analyst Richard Greenfield.

"Disney unlike any other media company uses its movie studio to feed the theme parks, feed the consumer products division," he said.

'EISNER WILL BE VINDICATED'

But short-term, analysts said, Disney would benefit, since it was not going to give away any of its profit from the two films left in the current Pixar deal, which had been part of the renegotiation.

"Eisner had no other choice in my opinion," said Schwab SoundView analyst Jordan Rohan who estimates Disney would have forgone up to $1 billion in pretax profit over four years.

"If my financial projections are correct... then Eisner will be vindicated, the company will be back and Roy Disney will find it hard to effect any change," he said.

Eisner's second problem is the state of Disney's own animation unit, an industry pioneer which has seen its staff slashed and its focus changed to computer animation from its hand-drawn specialty.

Its last mega-hit was "The Lion King" in 1994, although it has had some successes since, like 2002's "Lilo and Stitch."

"A lot of people are criticizing them for emptying out their brain trust. Disney seems to be letting a lot of people go and those people are moving on to other companies," said Ryan Ball, editor of Animation Magazine.

Disney says it can make sequels to Pixar films from its current deal and has "Toy Story 3" in development. It will put out its own first completely computer-animated movie, "Chicken Little" in the summer of 2005.

Lowell Singer, an analyst at SG Cowen, said Pixar had more than just technology.

"Disney has a long way to go to get to the level of performance that Pixar has achieved. There is no guarantee they will ever get there," he said.

However, investors might forgive that if Disney's profits continue to rise, he added. "If the company continues to perform well, the market is going to care a lot less that this relationship will end," he said.

Icestar
01-30-2004, 11:27 PM
Sorry buddy, when i think of pixar movies i think of pixar not disney, even my best friend who isn't in the 3d industry says to me, boy those "pixar" movies sure kick ass. My sister even says pixar not disney. Anyhow i really hope disney just dies or gets new management, i dont want eisner crap infecting the japanese anime market. A lot of you might say how can you say that about disney. I can because if you're in love with eisner then you have serious problems.

BazyBen
01-31-2004, 12:01 AM
pixar would probably be nothing today without disney.
keep that in mind before you drag disney´s name through the mud...

Digital Backlot
01-31-2004, 12:21 AM
Has anyone been to a Disney store in the last few years? It looked alot like Pixarland. I could hardly find any Disney feature toys (not that I was looking)

Simply put... Pixar does'nt need Disney, this is not rocket science... it's obvious.

Disney long ago, was a place of innovations in animation, now it's all washed up. Shame on you Eisner, you blind, bottom line, melon farming, bean counter!

What happened to the Disney magic? the great acting? the story, the music? and why do Disney films look **at best** like Saturday morning cartoons with all of the races recognized (Atlantis) They're so politically correct that they're a washout of poorly built stereotypes where we've learned nothing, dreamed nothing, and have come away from Disneyland and Disney products feeling like I we just ate a styrofoam cup for lunch and overpayed for it!

Pixar, no luck needed, it's pure skill and talent.

I'm sure Disney will make sequels (poorly) those cheap asses and it'll only prove that Pixar is by far the top of the crop. They'll just come up with a hundred more kick ass stories and tell them artfully.

Quick Eisner, buy up another TV station so you can survive!

HippyDrome
01-31-2004, 12:23 AM
Odd thing to say Mr. Cook...... when they just let a bunch of vet's go.


In a recent interview with The Associated Press, Disney studio chairman Dick Cook said attracting and nurturing creative animation talent is a priority.

"There is a group of kids graduating today from CalArts or from UCLA or USC that are bigger, better, faster, smarter than the current group," Cook said. "They have the ability to know what the masters have done before them, and they're better than they are. Attracting that kind of talent, for us, is one of the great priorities."

http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstories_story_030172701.html

flipnap
01-31-2004, 01:21 AM
before you drag disney´s name through the mud...

Already been done. You can thank Eisner for that.

LucentDreams
01-31-2004, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by BazyBen
pixar would probably be nothing today without disney.
keep that in mind before you drag disney´s name through the mud...

seems to me most the smart posters have been pulling eisner through the mud moreso then disney itself, we know its not the company name that is the problem but some of the men running it currently.

As for being nothing without disney, criticly acclaimed commercials and shorts made pixar a name before it did comeout with toystory, and yes disney handled the marketing, but seriously how hard would it have been for any company to market the first all cg animated film, look how much talk reboot had for being the first cg animated weekly series.

Tughan
01-31-2004, 01:53 AM
I wonder what will Disney be doing after all these years. It's not that 2D is dead or we don't want to see Mickey Mouse anymore.

It's like... you always order pizza, or go out a restaurant to eat. And one day, you decide to "I gave enough money to that restaurant, from now on I'll cook my own meal"

I wish that Disney didn't forget how to cook. :D

BigSky
01-31-2004, 01:56 AM
You'd have to wonder what Eisner is watching...the paint peel? the grass grow greener on the other side? Certainly not the vast amount of failures he's greenlighting at the Mouse.
I'd've loved to have been a fly on the wall at the Jobs, et al Jan29 meeting...what were their demands?
Jobs:"and we want all all employees to have shoeshine boys.."
Katz"yea, and uhh, climbing walls in their offices.."
Jobs"he he and, ohh, I dunno...sharks with friggin lazer beams attached to their heads.."
Katz"Plus umm, squgillions of dollars in a big swimming pool."

And Eisner is there, picking his teeth and dreaming of the good 'ol days when people actually cared about 2 hapless heros being called to an adventure to save a little dogs mother from...etc, etc"

Good Luck Pixar!:thumbsup:

skyfinch
01-31-2004, 03:21 AM
I hope Finding Nemo 2 involves a murderous uncle lion, and a bunch of one-legged old lemurs, who's mission in life is to seek out some sort of magical stink fruit. I don't know about Pixar, but when it comes to talking animals, Disney is like the King Kong of Hollywood.


Run, Pixar...run far, far away, and never look back.

William b. Hand
01-31-2004, 04:05 AM
Eisner or No,
Disney will be forced to hire upstart CG artists to try and fill the void... So, maybe this'll give some of the very people who haunt these forums the opportunity to do something they love for a living!

PIXAR's gonna continue to rock out, and the door will be opened that much wider to healthy competition. Even if the future offspring of the TOY STORY (and other PIXAR) Series are illegitimate, and remind us of injustices inflicted by certain current a*holes, remember to judge these films based on their own merits (Who knows... they might end up being fantastic.).

CG is a blossoming new field in entertainment, and this break-up won't impede it's progress in any way. It's just not gonna stop kicking-ass. :applause:

BillB
01-31-2004, 08:08 AM
Don't for one second underestimate Disney's role in the partnership. Disney did/do one thing very well - marketing. Wanna get your toys in McD's? Not with Disney? Forget it. Look at what Warners managed to do with Iron Giant. Or did Iron Giant pass meekly because it was 2D, and no one wants 2D?

Story isn't everything. Hopefully Pixar learned enough from the partnership that they can give whoever they sign with some pointers :)

And I'm not sure it's *all* about story. There've been some great 2D, claymation and 3D films from other studios the last few years, and Pixar left them all in it's dust at the box office. I think people do love the combination of 3D and good storytelling at the moment. And why not? I sat there watching my Nemo DVD the other day, and I thought "given the option, would I rather see this story in 2d, claymation or Pixar's gorgeous 3d?"
Though I love all three mediums, it was easy choice.

hobbes17r
01-31-2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by HippyDrome
"There is a group of kids graduating today from CalArts or from UCLA or USC that are bigger, better, faster, smarter than the current group," Cook said. "They have the ability to know what the masters have done before them, and they're better than they are. Attracting that kind of talent, for us, is one of the great priorities."
[/B]

Not too odd though, Hippydrome, considering Disney's priorities at the moment: This quote is only eye-catching because the word "cheaper" is conspicuously missing :)

As a new studio Disney's 3D division will have the benefit of scooping up a lot of hard-working, cheap talent from the oversupply coming out of schools to help push out shots, and creating a fresh 3D pipeline for a medium which has evolved so swiftly will surely benefit production efficiency as well in the short term. Of course, it will be the veteran filmmakers who hold the show together, and this quote certainly doesn't seem to indicate a great deal of care for those folks...

P_T
01-31-2004, 09:35 AM
Pixar sued Exluna (maker of that old, great and free renderman compliant renderer BMRT), forcing them to stop developing and distributing it as the settlement. Then Pixar got a bad deal from Disney and sorta got screwed over with Toy Story 2. Sounds like karma to me hehehe...

oh well... all the best to both of them. If they both succeed that means we get to see more great movies. And even if Pixar animation studio struggles for some unlikely reason, they'll still have their Renderman to keep them going. :)

Nemoid
01-31-2004, 11:31 AM
PIXAR rocks !

They made great movies recently, thing wich can't be said for Disney recent products.
Disney was great in the past, when Walt was still alive. he was always pushing things more and more to go beyond what his staff did, product after product. He took great risks, with products like Fantasia.
PIXAR pushed greatly on technology developing and keeping the good work also from the story POV and animation quality.

I hope PIXAR becomes more and more strong, making products very different from Disney style more and more both in storytelling and character design.

Mr_Smee
01-31-2004, 12:26 PM
Yeah because they will be cheaper!

Good way to cut your payroll. Fire all the veterans and hire new grads.

Originally posted by HippyDrome
Odd thing to say Mr. Cook...... when they just let a bunch of vet's go.


In a recent interview with The Associated Press, Disney studio chairman Dick Cook said attracting and nurturing creative animation talent is a priority.

"There is a group of kids graduating today from CalArts or from UCLA or USC that are bigger, better, faster, smarter than the current group," Cook said. "They have the ability to know what the masters have done before them, and they're better than they are. Attracting that kind of talent, for us, is one of the great priorities."

http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstories_story_030172701.html

daraand
01-31-2004, 01:00 PM
Disney's name does not deserve to be dragged around.
Sure it is getting beat right now and people are driving it straight through the ground but there are tons of guys there, still working, still animating, because its their passion and frankly, there are few animation jobs as it is for these types. I can't eve imagien what the WFDAF guys have to do now. Legacy can only offer so much and Pixar is being looked at now for a possible 2D venue. Japan is too far (but possible...) and the two other companies Disney has inveested are just start ups in Vancouver and SF (I think hte other is in SF).

These guys are animating with just as much magic as the rest. Sure its not refined and tasty like some of the greats who were let go but still theyre trying, even vainly so.

I say hurrah and good luck, hopefully DIsney would totally eliminate their animation arm. As for the rest, well yes it does seem like Disney deserves a smack but don't be too rash to deal some damage without thinking of who else you might be hurting.

ArtisticVisions
01-31-2004, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Tughan
I wonder what will Disney be doing after all these years. It's not that 2D is dead or we don't want to see Mickey Mouse anymore.
Well according to Eisner statement made a couple of months ago, 2D and cell animation is truely dead and 3D animation is the future; as far as I'm concerned, however, that statement was absolute bull****.
I think Disney's true problem hasn't really been their film making skills (although you do have to admit that they've slumped in quality over the past few years), but it's been their leader/leaders.

jeremybirn
01-31-2004, 05:56 PM
I always read jim hill media for the "inside disney" perspective on these issues:

http://www.jimhillmedia.com/

-jeremy

Tughan
01-31-2004, 06:46 PM
Well... thats interesting. :)

Joe2003
02-02-2004, 04:08 AM
I know most of you want to take a shit on Disney while defending Pixar to the hilt. But here's the deal.

Strictly from a business point of view, why did Pixar suddenly want to change the arrangements of a contract that they signed with Disney. The previous contract they signed was to deliver two more films with Disney. Those two films are "The Incredibles" and "Cars"! Disney has already spent a great deal of money on both of these films and Pixar suddenly in mid-production wants to renegotiate the contract and substantially reduce Disney's share of the profits. That's bad form, pure and simple. Honor your contract Pixar, which is binding. The fact that Disney funds half the production costs of your films, and is working under a binding contract that you signed and agreed to, is grounds enough for Disney to not give in.

From Variety:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears the most nettlesome area in Disney-Pixar negotiations was the toon studio's demand that the Mouse dramatically rein in existing terms on two pics in the current co-prod pact -- "The Incredibles," set for release in November, and "Cars," a holiday 2005 title.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Disney is right. If they'd given in having already spent a great deal of money, they will lose a ton of money.

It also appears Disney was willing to negotiate a new contract with Pixar that including the two films already under contract.

Again, from Variety:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A top exec at Disney, speaking anonymously, said Mouse negotiators were prepared to wrap the '04 and '05 titles into any new contract with Pixar and was similarly resigned to allowing Pixar 100% of all future distributors' B.O. in exchange for funding production entirely. (The partners' current pact splits production costs evenly.)

Indeed, Disney's press release on the cessation of talks seemed to place an emphasis on the demands regarding "Incredibles" and "Cars." The release attributed an analysis of the collapse to Mouse's chief financial officer Tom Staggs, though it did not quote him directly.

"Tom Staggs ... said Disney management could not accept Pixar's final offer because it would have cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars it is already entitled to under the existing agreement, while not providing sufficient incremental returns on new collaborations to justify the changes to the existing deal."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Assuming that's true, then Disney was fair in it's dealing. Of course, we have no idea about copyrights. Pixar should have honored the contract it agreed to and signed first. Then try to sign a new deal with Disney under your terms. Hell, they were willing to give all of the profits, if you foot the entire bill for the production costs. It seems Pixar doesn't want that. Why not, it gives you control over your property. If you pay for, it's yours. Just ask George Lucas. I guess they were afraid if they paid all production and marketing costs, then they would also take the brunt of any potentional losses.

So before you piss on Disney for being the idiot, I don't see anything Disney did wrong. That is if the above is true. It certainly appears so.

The bottom line. Honor your contract Pixar. Then strike a new deal under your terms.

Tughan
02-02-2004, 12:42 PM
Well personally I'm not blaming Disney, neither Pixar. But I think Disney is the superior here, and should've keep Pixar, not to let them go away. It'll be a big loss for Pixar, and a bigger loss for Disney. And a WHOLE BIG loss for animation world. That's why Disney is the one to blame. Because Mickey Mouse supposed to be smart one. :)

rebeldreams
02-02-2004, 01:24 PM
Not to piss on Disney here (sorry joe2003 :D ) but Steve jobs has been upset about the terms of the agreement for quite some time. Back in 2002, I read some articles about Jobs' dissatisfaction with Disney WRT Toy Story 2 (I'm sure you all recall it.. not a great move on The Mouse's part to decide that a whole theater release with attendant bells and whistles that earned Disney a shedload of money didn't count towards the total of movies Pixar produced!

Jobs said way back then that Cars would be the last movie he produced with Disney, so it's not exactly a shock to me. I think Pixar might be looking to go semi-independent, and cast around solely for a distribution deal this time - they've made their name (and, yes, money) with The Mouse, and now they're big enough in the scheme of things to support themselves.

This is not about Disney-v-Pixar, though; I contracted for Henson a few years ago, and their agreement with Disney was basically the best I had ever heard of - they basically have complete creative freedom, and just use the Disney banner.. that said, Henson was an established (and incredibly successful) company when they came to Disney, and they weren't exactly cap-in-hand, so they could dictate terms perhaps a little better than Pixar were able to.

By the looks of things, the "restrictions" that Disney imposed on Pixar weren't that great, and this is mainly a tussle over the freedom that Jobs believes (rightly or wrongly) that he and Pixar are owed with regards to actually owning their own work. It's horses for courses, really - if you can live with it, then sign, if not then don't. I am fairly comfortable with the idea that, as a humble freelancer, I didn't technically "own" anything that I produced for Henson, but if you are a film maker of that sort of caliber, one can see how Pixar might feel a little hard-done-by, given the success of their properties.. oops! Sorry, Disney's properties.

Kieguy
02-02-2004, 04:31 PM
hope these haven't been posted here already, no time to check...but they're fresh stories (Feb. 2).


Clash of egos behind Disney-Pixar split
(from the LA Times)
http://www.sunspot.net/technology/bal-pixar0202,0,7208832.story?coll=bal-technology-headlines

Roy story II: Pixar split may be the beginning
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/02/DDGTN4M0441.DTL

wowdermonkey
02-02-2004, 04:50 PM
Has anyone else noticed the great timing of this event? On March 3rd, there is a Disney board of directors re-election for Isner. I think the timing of this little announcement might have been intentional to cast enough doubt on Isner in the eyes of the share holders to get him out. I hope it works!

neonhomer
02-02-2004, 05:18 PM
Ron Diamond, co-founder of the Animation World Network (AWN.com)
...did Jobs create this crisis at a moment when Roy Disney was exerting maximum pressure on the board to dump Eisner and put him in charge?

"There's a huge amount of sympathy for Roy. I wouldn't be surprised if Roy is successful. If Eisner goes out and Roy comes in, I think there is an extremely good chance that (Disney) could go back to Pixar and get them back.'
So all this drama could be just to oust Eisner?

And then Disney and Pixar would come back together. I think that would be awesome.

Pixelmaestro
02-02-2004, 05:27 PM
Pixar is honoring the Contract. Both Parties are in a position to bargain and tear up the old contract during the renegotiation of a new contract. A contract is binding, but it can also be replaced by a new one.

It has been said that Disney would lose several hundred million dollars in a new deal. Probably true!, but they also made a billion dollars on the old deal. The money helped float Disney during some very lean years. Including a hundred million dollar payout to one former employee, just one example. Eisner has also made Hundreds of million dollars in stock options.

Pixar has created Brands that will continue to make Disney millions of dollars in future, even after the old contract expires.

The two companies have been at the negotiating table for quite some time, and Pixar has left the table to show that they are not happy with the terms of the new proposals. It sounds like the provided Disney with an ample amount of time to reach a new contract. A year is long enough, and if there is a stalemate, it is time to find a new partner so Pixar can plan on the future.

Disney is known as a company that pays invoices late. They are a pain to deal with if you are a large company or a small one.

FClub_TDurden
02-02-2004, 06:01 PM
More Disney screw-ups as posted on JimHillMedia....


"And speaking of stupid screw-ups ... can someone please take David Stainton's keyboard away? The President of Walt Disney Feature Animation has -- for the second time in four days -- sent out an e-mail that both angered and embarrassed studio staffers. What's this one say? Take a gander for yourself:

Dear Colleagues,

Word is just in that Pixar and disney have ended their talks and that there will be no new agreement (please see the attached press release). Given Pixar's demands, this is good news for the company. It is also a great vote of confidence for feature animation--confidence in our talent, our slate, and our future. you all are awesome and ready for your close-up!

best,

david

Is it just me ... or is this e-mail make David look kind of doofy? I mean, here is this truly awful thing that's just happened to the Walt Disney Corporation and Stainton sends out this note which states that "this is good news for the company."

Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it? If David Stainton had been on the Titantic after it had struck the iceberg, would he have then turned to his fellow passengers and said: "Isn't this a wonderful opportunity to practice our synchronized swimming?"

Speaking of the Titanic, I have to share this joke that's supposedly making the rounds in Tinsel Town today:

Q: What's the difference between Michael Eisner and the Titanic?
A: Well, at least the Titanic had a band.:wip:

Tughan
02-02-2004, 06:20 PM
Also... Titanic was a ship :D

fabmedia
02-02-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Joe2003


Actually that's not true. Pixar is about to start a new project and in order for them to do so, they needed to know if Disney was willing to continue their relationship. Pixar made a lot off concessions over the their contract and agreements with Disney. I think it's only fair that Pixar demands more considering what they were not entitled to in the past. So in short Pixar did honour it's agreement in full. Their new project is a new contract.



Originally posted by Joe2003
[B]Disney is right. If they'd given in having already spent a great deal of money, they will lose a ton of money.

Disney reaps a greater reward. They have the rights to create rides and market all products concerning the past and the two unreleased movies. No in the long term, that's a hell of a lot of cash.



Arlen

Gentle Fury
02-03-2004, 02:57 AM
It is true, Disney's animation division over the past few years has been all about Pixar, and they are what has kept them in animation........but look at their film industry!!! Disney produced 2 of the highest grossing films of the year! Worst thing that will happen is they will stop making animated features (not likely) or they will assimilate another aspiring animation company to bring in the $$$ (more likely).

Diz aint goin nowhere.....like it or not.

I cant wait to see what Pixar starts doing without having to bow to Disneys whims though..............With as big a Miazaki fan as Lasseter is im sure we'll see at least one Pixar movie with a darker more adult feel to it......I cant wait!

daskog
04-03-2005, 12:23 AM
to be honest i loved all the Classic's when i was a kid..but Disney has to realise they can't sell old stuff forever!!! im just so sick of all the movies

alexyork
04-03-2005, 12:26 AM
edit: this reminds me.. i need to go buy Snow White for my cousin tomorrow. thx for the reminder! :)

davpunk
04-03-2005, 06:58 AM
LOL. WOrd. Well nothing lasts forever. Disney was and always will be the pioneers of feature animation. They were the best but That was ages, ago and now its time to pass on the torch. Disney hasnt always made the best decisions, and they have definitely had management issues, and the people who I know or known, havent had the best experiences with them. Truly unfortunate.

Pixar doesnt need them anymore, theyve proved themselves. They paid their dues, now is there time to shine. Stepping stones.

As for 3d dying out. I really doubt that. Especially with the realization of style. You can do a CG feature and stylize it. It doesnt have to be all lame primitive like. So I think we will see much more of that. 2d will have its place, but its production will probably be mainly overseas...of course with the assistance of Disney sending our work over there is really nice for the US talent too. (sarcasm)

Who knows what the future will hold. But Pixars fame might not last either, if theyre gunna do a movie that bombs...it will be Cars.

Charkins
04-03-2005, 07:06 AM
As if it hasn't already been said enough...

Good for Pixar. They started small with Disney, and with their help (as little as it was) were able to get strong. Now they are moving up...

WhiteRabbitObj
04-03-2005, 07:18 AM
As if it hasn't already been said enough...

Good for Pixar. They started small with Disney, and with their help (as little as it was) were able to get strong. Now they are moving up...

"Small" eh? And "little as it was" eh? I guess funding and distribution for a company that had no feature production experience, and was deep in the red and about to be cut loose by Jobs is not really much help huh? Not to mention Disney's invaluable contributions to the Toy Story script, which included a total rewrite of the Woody character so that the audiences didn't think he was a dick for disliking Buzz.

I haven't really read any of this thread, especially since it's a year old, but these uninformed opinions really irk me.

Shaderhacker
04-03-2005, 05:22 PM
I haven't really read any of this thread, especially since it's a year old, but these uninformed opinions really irk me.

Of course.. But that's because the comments are made by Pixar-fanboys who don't really know what's going on between these 2 companies. Things will soon change after Disney gets their first couple of CG features out to the theatres.

-M

argyre
04-03-2005, 09:04 PM
Pixar needs to be on there own anyway. Disney is just holding Pixar's true and full potential.

Disney, on the other hand, needs to develop there own 3D animation detachment.

My 2 cents.

BillB
04-03-2005, 09:13 PM
Of course.. But that's because the comments are made by Pixar-fanboys who don't really know what's going on between these 2 companies. Things will soon change after Disney gets their first couple of CG features out to the theatres.

-M

Can you give us some insight into what has changed there at Disney in their story and design departments & processes since their last run of features that should give us hope?

Shaderhacker
04-03-2005, 10:20 PM
Can you give us some insight into what has changed there at Disney in their story and design departments & processes since their last run of features that should give us hope?

I don't know. Why ask me? I've only seen a few things and have talked to some of my friends that work there. I've seen every 3D animated film out there and I've worked at quite a few places to know when I see something (even as small as a trailer), I can tell if it looks promising.

-M

worker_bee
04-04-2005, 04:27 PM
I don't know. Why ask me? I've only seen a few things and have talked to some of my friends that work there. I've seen every 3D animated film out there and I've worked at quite a few places to know when I see something (even as small as a trailer), I can tell if it looks promising.

-M

Thats how it all starts there...then the suits get into the story and F it up....ask your friends there how the suits are F'n up The Wild up at CORE which is now over a year behind schedule because of Disney story changes. Same old same old.

pongball
04-04-2005, 04:29 PM
Who the heck is reviving these old threads anyway? Stop doing that, it's kind of annoying!

allenatl
04-04-2005, 04:40 PM
Old threads keep getting revived probably because of that "Similar Threads" feature at the bottom of the page. People go to something in the list without realizing that they are very old threads and post a reply. I've almost done it myself but happened to notice the date of the first post.

daskog
04-04-2005, 04:41 PM
edit: this reminds me.. i need to go buy Snow White for my cousin tomorrow. thx for the reminder! :)

well sure for kids Disney is still a winner...maby i just forgot that am not a kid anymore :P

L.Rawlins
04-04-2005, 04:59 PM
I don't know whether it was the cause of 'revival' but the original post was updated.

Shaderhacker
04-04-2005, 06:37 PM
Thats how it all starts there...then the suits get into the story and F it up....ask your friends there how the suits are F'n up The Wild up at CORE which is now over a year behind schedule because of Disney story changes. Same old same old.

I could care less about stuff that Disney only distributes (other than Pixar). I am only concerned about what they make at their own Feature Animation building.

Valiant, "The Wild", etc.. aren't films that are coming from Disney's own talent, so I don't consider it Disney property (just like I don't consider films created by Pixar Disney property).

-M

CGTalk Moderation
04-04-2005, 06:37 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.