Pixar Dumps Disney

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-29 10:52pm

Isolder74 wrote:Toy Story, Bugs Life, Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo. These all belong to PIXAR. If they Drop Disney Disney has to give up the rights. That was part of the agreement. Lucas never gave up onership of this former branch of ILM. They just agreed to let Disney market the movies for them because PIXAR was not an established name. Now they are. Disney will have to learn the hard way that they have to play nice with their cash cows that they do not actually own.

Of course this would explain the sudden rush of PIXAR films on the Disney Channel

Doesn't Monsters Inc also belong to PIXAR?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2004-01-29 10:56pm

yes it does

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-01-29 11:34pm

Is that a death kneel i hear?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-30 01:43am

I thought Lucas sold Pixar to Steve Jobs?

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-01-30 02:49am

No, I thought Steve Jobs started Pixar?

Anyways, good thing that the company responsible for extending copyright terms to an unreasonable amount of time is getting a bit hurt, however slight(or major).

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-30 02:56am

Hmm, now that I think about it, how rich is Disney? They're a big company, they could conceivably buy the next up and coming computer animation firm. They may not be as big and good as Pixar, but that just means making a bit less in the box office.

They should have the money. They just need to find the talent.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2004-01-30 03:58am

Well I know Disney movies have of recently been unentertaining but I gotta admit this "Miracle" movie should be purty good. Lets thump the Russkies again!

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-30 04:11am

neoolong wrote:Hmm, now that I think about it, how rich is Disney? They're a big company, they could conceivably buy the next up and coming computer animation firm. They may not be as big and good as Pixar, but that just means making a bit less in the box office.

They should have the money. They just need to find the talent.

2002 revenues were $22 billion.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2004-01-30 06:31am

hmn, I liked most Disney films, seeing I watched all off them, they may have gone down in quality, but they are not 'bad' just worse then before.

OT: hows brother bear?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-01-30 07:24am

I love Disney films especialy Toy Story and Lion King. The recent disney films havent been particularly good though except Finding Nemo.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-30 11:13am

The last purely Disney animated movie that I liked was Hercules. Mythology (screwed up as it was), making fun of being a celebrity and heroism. It was fun.

I've heard Lilo & Stich is good but haven't seen it.

I've also been tempted to try that Atlantis one but haven't felt like renting it yet. I have a few rental cards from Christmas I'll have to try some of these.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-30 11:23am

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
neoolong wrote:Hmm, now that I think about it, how rich is Disney? They're a big company, they could conceivably buy the next up and coming computer animation firm. They may not be as big and good as Pixar, but that just means making a bit less in the box office.

They should have the money. They just need to find the talent.
2002 revenues were $22 billion.

See, they've got the money to just buy people.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-01-30 01:41pm

neoolong wrote:Hmm, now that I think about it, how rich is Disney? They're a big company, they could conceivably buy the next up and coming computer animation firm. They may not be as big and good as Pixar, but that just means making a bit less in the box office.

They should have the money. They just need to find the talent.

If finding talent was easy you wouldnt find the abundance of mediocrity (to downright mismanagement/incompetence) that currently exists both in the movie industry and on television. Disney made a big mistake in losing a proven winner.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-01-30 01:53pm

Tsyroc wrote:I've also been tempted to try that Atlantis one but haven't felt like renting it yet. I have a few rental cards from Christmas I'll have to try some of these.

Atlantis was a piece of shit. You'd have thought it would have been good purely on the strength of the animation and the style, and the fact that it had Michael J. Fox, but it wasn't. It wasn't a movie, it as just a collection of scenes.

The last good Disney movie I've seen was Mulan, and Pirates of the Carribean was okay if you count that as being a Disney movie.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-30 02:50pm

Let's see, Disney movies I've seen recently...

Brother Bear? Pretty Generic Disney Stuff.
Atlantis? Terrible, utterly terrible.
Lilo and Stitch? Horrible. I HATED that movie.

Not to inspiring. The last Disney movie I really enjoyed was Aladdin. Plus, I liked alot of the songs in Mulan. "I'll Make a Man Out of You" is truely excellent. So is "A Girl Worth Fighting For". I didn't care for the story, though. The story of the real Mulan is much more interesting.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-01-30 02:59pm

Master of Ossus wrote: Atlantis was a piece of shit. You'd have thought it would have been good purely on the strength of the animation and the style, and the fact that it had Michael J. Fox, but it wasn't. It wasn't a movie, it as just a collection of scenes.

The last good Disney movie I've seen was Mulan, and Pirates of the Carribean was okay if you count that as being a Disney movie.

I think I'll skp Atlantis then. It was mainly the design (very 20,000 Leagues Under the Seaish) that got my interest.

I liked Pirates of the Carribean although I found some of the "Jerry Bruckheimer" action movie music distracting a couple of times. There were a couple of parts where I could have sworn the music was the same I heard in Bad Boys.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-30 03:24pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
neoolong wrote:Hmm, now that I think about it, how rich is Disney? They're a big company, they could conceivably buy the next up and coming computer animation firm. They may not be as big and good as Pixar, but that just means making a bit less in the box office.

They should have the money. They just need to find the talent.
If finding talent was easy you wouldnt find the abundance of mediocrity (to downright mismanagement/incompetence) that currently exists both in the movie industry and on television. Disney made a big mistake in losing a proven winner.

They don't have to find anyone really really good. Just someone that turns a profit.

Besides, there is talent out there. You just have to find it. Fathom Studios for instance.

Disney made a mistake in letting them go, however, this may benefit consumers in that it could lead to competition in the film industry, between Pixar, which like you said is a proven winner, and whatever comes next for Disney.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2004-01-30 07:35pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I thought Lucas sold Pixar to Steve Jobs?

For $10 million in 1987, according to Pixar homepage.
http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/history/1986.html

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-30 08:00pm

I'm hardly a fan of Eisner or his gutting of Disney, but in this case it seems that he was correct in letting Pixar go. I did some research and it turns out that Pixar wanted to give Disney a flat distribution fee for future movies. Obviously this would be totally unacceptable to Disney, I mean what's the point of having Pixar if they aren't willing to contribute to Disney's bottom line? No profit sharing at all? Hardly a smart business decision and frankly I think that Pixar was being completely unreasonable in suggesting such an arrangement.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-01-30 08:11pm

Disney has been in serious trouble for quite a while. Look at the slurry of "sequels" they've been pumping out lately, they're simply horrendous cash-ins on old beloved titles. Occasionally they got lucky, but most of their output in that past 5 years has sucked.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-30 09:37pm

The Kernel wrote:I'm hardly a fan of Eisner or his gutting of Disney, but in this case it seems that he was correct in letting Pixar go. I did some research and it turns out that Pixar wanted to give Disney a flat distribution fee for future movies. Obviously this would be totally unacceptable to Disney, I mean what's the point of having Pixar if they aren't willing to contribute to Disney's bottom line? No profit sharing at all? Hardly a smart business decision and frankly I think that Pixar was being completely unreasonable in suggesting such an arrangement.

Does that mean that Disney just gets money to distribute the films?

What else does Disney really do for Pixar films anyway?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-30 10:58pm

neoolong wrote: Does that mean that Disney just gets money to distribute the films?

What else does Disney really do for Pixar films anyway?

They do distribution, advertising and funding and I believe there was some production cooperation during past films. Pixar of course no longer needs Disney, but they do need a studio to distribute their films and none of the big studios would ever accept a flat deal, even though Pixar is more than capable of self-finacing at this point.

I know it doesn't sound like Disney does much anymore for Pixar, but this is the nature of the movie industry. The distributers take a big chunk of the proceeds and in return they put their name behind the film and make sure it gets advertised and in theatres (and is often involved in financing the films). This may sound like bullshit, but it's how it works.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2004-01-31 12:44am

Yes, but once a subsidiary like Pixar had the ability to leave, it's not suprising that it would do so.

Pixar asking for a deal Disney wouldn't take isn't too suprising on that train of though.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-02-01 02:19pm

NY Times Article

One film executive suggested that Mr. Jobs could now be considered a candidate to run Disney if indeed Mr. Eisner ever left.

But Disney can begin creating sequels to all of Pixar's films, something it could not do under its current arrangement and is almost certain to exploit.

Does that mean we're going to start getting a bunch of direct to video knock-offs of the Pixar movies? How exactly is Disney going to do the computer animation if Pixar isn't involved?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-02-01 02:36pm

Tsyroc wrote:NY Times Article

One film executive suggested that Mr. Jobs could now be considered a candidate to run Disney if indeed Mr. Eisner ever left.

But Disney can begin creating sequels to all of Pixar's films, something it could not do under its current arrangement and is almost certain to exploit.

Does that mean we're going to start getting a bunch of direct to video knock-offs of the Pixar movies? How exactly is Disney going to do the computer animation if Pixar isn't involved?

Hire another one?