Disney and Pixar in conversations again

[Master Yoda]

The big stickler for me is #2. Under no circumstance do I want Disney making sequels of Pixar films. The thought of that irks the heck out of me. Yeah I can choose to boycott the films, BUT it still tarnishes the images of the original (Lucas did that to himself, didn't need anyone else ) Disney making toys, theme park attractions to past movies is not a problem, but to take other people's material (while legal) shows how sickening you've become.

After chicken little isn't the next project for Disney CGI Toy Story 3?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Disney making toys, theme park attractions to past movies is not a problem, but to take other people's material (while legal) shows how sickening you've become.

Um, it *is* Disney's material. That's why a contract was written in the first place and that's why you see the little "Copyright Disney/Pixar" after any material from the movies.

Would you also suggest that Disney not use the Muppets? Pooh?

 

[KevinPage]

After chicken little isn't the next project for Disney CGI Toy Story 3?

American Dog, A Day with Wilbur Robinson and I think Rapunzel will all be out before TS3, they haven't even storyboarded TS3 all that much from what has been reported, let alone attempt to animate it.

 

[KevinPage]

Um, it *is* Disney's material. That's why a contract was written in the first place and that's why you see the little "Copyright Disney/Pixar" after any material from the movies.

Would you also suggest that Disney not use the Muppets? Pooh?

Things like Peter Pan, Pinnochio, etc. were public domain, so anyone could use them. Besides, Disney made versions of those that have eclipsed the originals, so people assume they ARE Disney creations. (much in the same vein as Pooh, but Diney expanded upon it greatly)

Pixar is 100% responsible for the creation of their films in terms of story, characters, dialogue, etc. For another company to decide to continue the franchise without ANY of the original creators is WRONG from an ethical point of view, even though it's legal as per the contract signed.

I'm not going to get into a battle of sementics here, but Pixar is NOT a theme park operator, so Disney creating attractions is fine. But if Pixar doesn't want sequels to their films and Disney does it themselves, that is lame. Yeah they'll make money & legally allowed to, but it will further damage their credibility in the eyes of their most loyal fans.

P.S. - Johnny Carson has a WRITING credit for the Tonight Show theme, yet he didn't write ANYTHING. Paul Anka wrote the song, but Carson bullied him into a 50/50 contract, since Anka had no power back then. So yeah, the contract allows Carson to make money off the song, but is that really ethical when he didn't do jack for it?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Yeah, um, OK. Like I said, it is, in part, Disney's material. Those responsible for coming up with the material agreed to a contract and that contract gave Disney partial rights to the property. How is that "unethical?" It isn't.

The whole argument that it's OK to use the property in one way but not another is absurd. One is ethical and the other not? OoooooookkkkkkkkK.

 

[KevinPage]

Yeah, um, OK. Like I said, it is, in part, Disney's material. Those responsible for coming up with the material agreed to a contract and that contract gave Disney partial rights to the property. How is that "unethical?" It isn't.

The whole argument that it's OK to use the property in one way but not another is absurd. One is ethical and the other not? OoooooookkkkkkkkK.

If you care to read my posts, I know it's LEGAL. Pixar does not make theme park attractions, they make MOVIES. So yes it is DIFFERENT.

Disney can LEGALLY make Pixar sequels, but any sane person that likes the originals is sickened at the thought of Disney doing it themselves, especially without their approval (which is not LEGALLY needed).

You obviously dislike Pixar so you feel the need to take Disney's side on the matter. But it's not a matter of taking sides, as opposed to stating an OPENLY obvious issue that most people recognize.

 

[Shaman]

Pixar animation isn't all that. It's decent but I think Shrek and Shrek 2 were better from a technology point. they were more detailed, better animation etc. Cars looks like yesterdays 3d technology that can be reproduced on an XBOX. I think Steve jobs is very arrogant and likes to play things his way. Apple right now isn't where the technology is at. It is also proven that AMD dual core opteron server will outperform macs when it comes to rendering. so I think Disney would be better off cutting a deal with AMD to get there own equipment and hire some new talent then sticking with pixar. however if the do get back with pixar I would like to see some more graphic creativity then the same graphic level year after year.

I disagree...they're pretty much the same, but I'd give the edge to the Pixar films...

Disney could do without Pixar, but from a business standpoint if you can have a possible powerful competitor be a business partner instead...its always a good thing. They shouldn't give up too much though.

Looking at trailers of Chicken Little, I'm not impressed...yet...with Disney's full CGI venture...but maybe the movie isn't bad, just the trailers...