Eisner = Mintz; Pixar = Walt?

[General Grizz]

Let's go back to 1928. . .

WAY back. . .

That's right. Before Mickey Mouse.

Walt had in his hands OSWALD, the Lucky Rabbit. Long story short, Mintz (Walt's tie distributer for Universal) stole the rabbit away, along with Walt's animators, and Walt was left by himself.

Well let's fastforward to now.

Eisner and Jobs signed a 5-film contract for Pixar after two film successes. Debate began when Toy Story 2 was dubbed "as not counting" because it was a sequel. Jobs replied by saying there will be no Toy Story 3.

Now that Eisner has announced Toy Story 3, Disney, only the distributer, has taken all of Pixar's characters, only to butcher them away.

Your thoughts?

 

[mkt]

Grizz...

sometimes, you put too much thought into this.

That being said... you may be onto something here :lol:

 

[Woody13]

I tend to equate Jobs with Mintz. Jobs agreed to a contract with Disney in which Pixar sold the full rights to the movie characters for Disney's exclusive use. Now, Jobs wants all those exclusive movie character rights back into the Pixar stable. And what does Disney get in return? Nothing. Sounds to me like Jobs is worse than Mintz!

I'm glad that Eisner is protecting the Disney content against evil doers such as Jobs. Or perhaps Eisner could give Jobs the exclusive rights to CBJ and all its characters.:lol:

 

[cloudboy]

It's obviously a power struggle going on between the two. Plan and simple. Either way, they are going to be combined. It's just a matter of Who (runs the show), not When.

 

[General Grizz]

It's pretty much fact that Eisner will ruin the characters and films that Jobs's company has succesfuly and creatively created.

It's a clear comparison.

 

[Woody13]

Originally posted by General Grizz
It's pretty much fact that Eisner will ruin the characters and films that Jobs's company has succesfuly and creatively created.

Do you think Eisner will make Woody the star in an upcoming Miramax flick?:lol:

 

[Shaman]

Interesting comparison....

But in a way I agree with Woody, Jobs signed the rights away; he did this because at the beginning he was using Disney to build the Pixar name....of coarse now its the other way around...Disney depends on Pixar...so what does Jobs want...the rights back...for whatever reasons. And I agree Grizz, one of them may very well be Jobs doesn't want Eisner ruining Pixar's work...

Jobs has more leverage than Eisner at this point, because he has proven that Pixar makes HITS...both are businessmen first...they aren't thinking about legacies, or traditions and the like....they want money and power...

I think a deal will be made in the end, to renew the partnership, with Jobs and Pixar being the victorious party...Eisner needs Pixar...I wouldn't be surprised if he gave partial rights back to Pixar, for the movies already made...to get a deal done...

 

[cloudboy]

But really, DOES Disney NEED Pixar? Is Disney so dried up of talent now that it can't create a good character? It can't do good animation? Relying on Pixar's movies is just like Disney relying on Universal to run their parks.

I think we may be forgetting what a feature really is and just getting casught up in the success of a few films. No matter how they were generated, what you are watching in the theater is 2D. It's a flat projection. Now, you can have something computer generated, or drawn. Typically computer generation is pretty high contrast, whereas traditional is a bit more "artistically". But there is no reason you can't do that by hand.

Plus, when watching things like Nemo or Beauty, are you really looking at it as a art piece, or as a story?

The thing that needs to change is that Disney needs to think a little outside the box and try something a little different for a setting/story line, and number two they need to think about the story first and the merchandising second.

 

[Shaman]

Originally posted by cloudboy
The thing that needs to change is that Disney needs to think a little outside the box and try something a little different for a setting/story line, and number two they need to think about the story first and the merchandising second.

The problem is management has lost site of the things that work...imagine what Lion King would have been like, if they would have focused less on the story and more on the merchandising?

Pixar has the vision, it sees what is and has always worked...Disney needs to be reminded of this...it needs a fresh breath of air...

 

[speck76]

I think part of WD feature animation's recent ploblems is that it spread itself too thin, and watered down its creativity and demand.

Back in the early 90's when the films like Aladdin, The Lions King, Beauty and the Beast were grossing tons of money and getting all types of awards, Disney was only releasing 1 film each year. Now, they are doing more films per year (BB, FN and HotR in the last year). Is this too much?

The more films that are in production at the same time, the more artists and screenwrites are needed for these films. While I am sure all Disney animators are great artists (much better than I am) a team is only as good as its weakest link. (the less animators/screenwriters needed higher the talent level can be)
There are only a few visionary writers and artists in this world.

Pixar, on the other hand, is releasing films every 18 months or so, which allows them to keep their focus on a few films at a time, instead of a ton of films that are in the pipeline.

 

[General Grizz]

You hit the target, speck.

Increased supply = less demand. Very, very simple.

 

[speck76]

Originally posted by General Grizz
You hit the target, speck.

Increased supply = less demand. Very, very simple.

To a point....read my supply/demand rant on the drink price reduction thread.

It is more like Incresed supply with neutral demand = more pictures making less money.