Disney and Pixar finished

[crbrown24]

The USA Today is reporting that Pixar is dissolving its relationship with Disney and it will be completely separated by 2006. Pixar is trying to strike a deal with other studios who will give them full ownership of their productions. Disney is saying the new deal would have cost them millions of dollars. Roy Disney is quoted as saying he is very disappointed and not surprised at all with Pixars decision.

 

[Jedi Osborn]

man, I'll be curious to see what other people think about this, but I can't see how Disney could let them go.

 

[imagineer99]

I think that Disney has just lost all ties to a successful animation franchise...

Maybe, this means that Disney's traditional animation is making a comeback. Bring back Florida Animation!

 

[PeterAlt]

My new theory!

I have a feeling the announcement about Pixar was orgestrated as part of Roy Disney's take-over plan. Imagine if Pixar merged with Legacy Animation and DreamWorks. That combined company would be a creative powerhouse! Now imagine a sweet deal Roy could propose to the Board of Directors... remove Eisner and (whoever Roy would have lined up as Eisner's replacement) would come with a free merger of the creative powerhouses of Pixar, Legacy, and DreamWorks. What board member or stockholder in their right mind would turn that down?

 

[MrDisney16]

I've got a feeling Eisner will counter this by creating his own CGI Animation studio. Possibly putting it in Orlando explaining why they closed the traditional one. Only time will tell.

 

[JBSLJames]

That is too bad. My sister-in-laws brother used to work at Pixar (worked on potato head in the TS movies) and is now working at Lucas Animation (not sure on abbreviation). He worked on HULK. I know, that to sign with Disney (back when he left Pixar) would have required signing over all his creative rights, meaning anything he did would be Disneys and not his and that he couldn't leave and go to a competitor within a certain time period.

If Disney wants to keep this type of animation and restore the family film atmosphere, they could approach Big Idea on a partnership. That group has done some great things with little to no notice from Hollywood.

 

[GaryT977]

Basically from what I read, the deal fell through because Disney would not give Pixar the copyrights to the movies Pixar has made under the current agreement. For example, Disney has the rights to make a sequel to Finding Nemo, not Pixar.

To me, this is highly obnoxious. Disney did not create these movies, they marketed and profited from them. Why should they have the copyrights?

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Originally posted by GaryT977
Basically from what I read, the deal fell through because Disney would not give Pixar the copyrights to the movies Pixar has made under the current agreement. For example, Disney has the rights to make a sequel to Finding Nemo, not Pixar.

To me, this is highly obnoxious. Disney did not create these movies, they marketed and profited from them. Why should they have the copyrights?

HEY, now!

You just take your logic and fairness right back from where you got 'em, young man.

 

[imagineer99]

Originally posted by MrDisney16
I've got a feeling Eisner will counter this by creating his own CGI Animation studio. Possibly putting it in Orlando explaining why they closed the traditional one. Only time will tell.

Don't they already have a CGI Animation Studio? After all, Disney made Dinosaur (Pixar didn't).

 

[Dizknee_Phreek]

i think it's horrible that this alliance is over as well. but i have mixed feelings on why it ended. Pixar does indeed deserve credit for the films they made with Disney, but i don't think they deserve ALL the credit. after all, they are Disney's movies as well. and think about it, if Disney gave ALL the copyrights to Pixar NOW, what would happen later on if the alliance went sour? would that have meant Disney would lose all rights to the characters? would that have meant no more Buzz and Woody in the parks? would LS have to give up their newly installed Finding Nemo characters?
i don't know all the legalities of the situation, and i'm not saying all that would really happen. really, i'm just wondering out loud. my guess is yes, Disney would probably have to give up everything had they given all the copyrights to Pixar and had the relationship went sour later on....but then again, maybe they wouldn't have to give up anything.
but right now this whole thing could go one of two ways...it could be the worst thing for Disney and/or Pixar, or it could work out for the best for both companies. we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[swrdfghtr]

Originally posted by GaryT977
Basically from what I read, the deal fell through because Disney would not give Pixar the copyrights to the movies Pixar has made under the current agreement. For example, Disney has the rights to make a sequel to Finding Nemo, not Pixar.

To me, this is highly obnoxious. Disney did not create these movies, they marketed and profited from them. Why should they have the copyrights?

You know, we Disney fans really do have to stop thinking of the company as pure greed. They didn't turn Pixar down because Eisner just wanted to hog the copyright. It's just that, without ownership, Pixar isn't any GOOD to Disney. Under Pixar's proposed deal, Disney would get about 20 million in distribution fees per film. That's it. They wouldn't have long-term use of the characters, meaning no attractions, television series, merchandising and marketing, and other "synergy" uses.

Disney just didn't see any point in signing the contract.

Yes, I know Pixar has produced Disney's biggest (and only recent) hits. That's great, and we can assume Pixar will continue to produce hits. But if Disney makes no money off of those hits, and has no use of the hits in other aspects of the business, why bother? If Disney gets no money, no attractions, and no long-term use from the properties... well, why would they sign the deal?

The deal also would have taken The Impossibles and Cars (Disney's last two Pixar films) and put them under the new contract. By walking way, Disney keeps their half of an estimated $250+ million box office revenue, and gets full rights to the characters for other uses.

Everyone's always complaining at Disney in these forums that they're not leveraging "synergy" enough by opening (for example) park attractions based on the films. To date, "Monsters, Inc." is the only Pixar film that hasn't been "synergized," in fact. And had Disney signed Pixar's contract, "Nemo" would have been the LAST film to be "synergized" (as it is now being brought into Living Seas at Epcot).

Look at this from the bigger, long-term business picture. Disney probably figures, "hey, it's been a great run. Mabe this'll help jump-start our own 3D animation division. Either way, we're not gonna make big bux on Pixar anymore, so we'll take a swing on our own."

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by GaryT977
To me, this is highly obnoxious. Disney did not create these movies, they marketed and profited from them. Why should they have the copyrights?

Um, because that was the agreement that Pixar signed a SECOND TIME when Disney voluntarily ended a previous contract for one with financial terms more favorable to Pixar….

The way you put it, it sounds like Eisner took a janitor from Pixar into an office full of Disney lawyers and a few ex-marines to put the fear of god into him to sing over all the rights or something…

Steve Jobs isn’t exactly a hick from the back woods and it isn’t like Pixar doesn’t have their own team of lawyers and advisors. They didn’t get hoodwinked. They made a decision based on money and security and now that they are big enough to have the security on their own they want to go back in time for more money. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

And actually, when you get right down to it, unless Pixar offers stock options, those people who actually worked on it, the people that worked to (how did you say?) “Create these movies” would be no closer to owning it if the rights belonged to Pixar.

The whole thing is about money. Disney and Pixar are both publicly traded companies. The only thing that the vast majority of the “owners” care about is money – not art or bragging rights or sentiment.

BTW, it isn’t as if deals like the one Pixar and Disney have are all that unusual in Hollywood. :drevil:

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by GaryT977
Basically from what I read, the deal fell through because Disney would not give Pixar the copyrights to the movies Pixar has made under the current agreement. For example, Disney has the rights to make a sequel to Finding Nemo, not Pixar.

To me, this is highly obnoxious. Disney did not create these movies, they marketed and profited from them. Why should they have the copyrights?

As Mr. Promey said, Pixar willingly and knowingly signed the contract only a few years ago that gave Disney all those copyrights. After Disney took the risk of taking an unknown studio and helped to turn them into the biggest thing in Hollywood,Pixar wants to change the contract they agreed to and signed in the first place. It wasn't a loophole in the contract that Pixar didn't realize. According to Hollywood experts, its actually more 'obnoxious' and a real 'no-no' to request such contractural changes after seeing the results. People make it sound like Disney was so greedy for wanting to keep those copyrights (of which was the main reason Pixar eventually decided to leave), but it IS Disney's under the contract Pixar signed to. If they didn't like it then, why didn't they go to some other distributor than take Disney's deal. They weren't forced into signing anything.

 

[NowInc]

Originally posted by MrDisney16
I've got a feeling Eisner will counter this by creating his own CGI Animation studio. Possibly putting it in Orlando explaining why they closed the traditional one. Only time will tell.

Nope. Disney has its own digital animation department, and its MUCH smaller than you think. ( i should know). They wont invest the money into re-opening the FL studio. They closed it for a reason, and it wasnt to "make room"..trust me on this.