-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Monsters Inc sets record!
- Thread starter JAY-ROD
- Start date
disney and pixar
i know disney and pixar made toy story 1 and 2 and bugs life and now monsters inc.
my question is what kind of business relationship do they have with this movie?
does disney and pixar get a percentage of sales i.e. disney 60 pixar 40 percent? or how is this deal set up?
i know disney and pixar made toy story 1 and 2 and bugs life and now monsters inc.
my question is what kind of business relationship do they have with this movie?
does disney and pixar get a percentage of sales i.e. disney 60 pixar 40 percent? or how is this deal set up?
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Re: disney and pixar
I went through this a few months back for someone else. If I remember correctly, Disney and Pixar are tied to a 5 movie deal starting with A Bugs Life. under the contract, Disney and Pixar split profits from the film and merchandising 50/50 with Disney retaining the right to use the film and the likeness of it's characters in it's theme parks without additional payment to Pixar. The original Toy Story was the first film created between the two companies and was done as a one shot deal before the 5 movie contract. I believe that Disney got a better share of the profits from that movie. They also have 100% ownership of the brand meaning that while Pixar can't go off on their own and make Toy Story 3, Disney can. Right now this is a bit of a hot bed between Disney and Pixar. Because of language in the original contract for Toy Story, Toy Story 2 was made under the same terms and did not count towards the 5 total films. Both Disney and Pixar would like to make a Toy Story 3 but they can't seem to come to an agreement on the terms. Disney says that as a sequel, it would clearly be part of the original Toy Story contract. Steve Jobs says that they have already given Disney a "freebie" with Toy Story 2 and that if a third one is to be made it would be under a new contract. It is rumored that this has gone beyond negotiations to the point of heated arguments between the two sides (Steve Jobs is not exactly known for his cool headedness)... With the current success of Monsters Inc., it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. It is a good movie, which Pixar can pretty much take full credit for but on the other hand, for the past year, Disney has been promoting the hell out of it. While I'm sure both sides are happy with the final results, I'm guessing that behind closed doors both Disney and Pixar are patting themselves on the back for this movie which means more bloated egos at the negotiating table... They still have 3 more movies to make together (all of which are in various stages of production) before Pixar can go out and do feature films without Disney. Some people such as myself and Steve, had hoped that Disney would acquire Pixar before the contract ran out but if things keep up like they are between the two sides and if the movies continue to do well, Pixar may decide that after 3 more movies, the don't need a company like Disney. Only time will tell, though.
I went through this a few months back for someone else. If I remember correctly, Disney and Pixar are tied to a 5 movie deal starting with A Bugs Life. under the contract, Disney and Pixar split profits from the film and merchandising 50/50 with Disney retaining the right to use the film and the likeness of it's characters in it's theme parks without additional payment to Pixar. The original Toy Story was the first film created between the two companies and was done as a one shot deal before the 5 movie contract. I believe that Disney got a better share of the profits from that movie. They also have 100% ownership of the brand meaning that while Pixar can't go off on their own and make Toy Story 3, Disney can. Right now this is a bit of a hot bed between Disney and Pixar. Because of language in the original contract for Toy Story, Toy Story 2 was made under the same terms and did not count towards the 5 total films. Both Disney and Pixar would like to make a Toy Story 3 but they can't seem to come to an agreement on the terms. Disney says that as a sequel, it would clearly be part of the original Toy Story contract. Steve Jobs says that they have already given Disney a "freebie" with Toy Story 2 and that if a third one is to be made it would be under a new contract. It is rumored that this has gone beyond negotiations to the point of heated arguments between the two sides (Steve Jobs is not exactly known for his cool headedness)... With the current success of Monsters Inc., it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. It is a good movie, which Pixar can pretty much take full credit for but on the other hand, for the past year, Disney has been promoting the hell out of it. While I'm sure both sides are happy with the final results, I'm guessing that behind closed doors both Disney and Pixar are patting themselves on the back for this movie which means more bloated egos at the negotiating table... They still have 3 more movies to make together (all of which are in various stages of production) before Pixar can go out and do feature films without Disney. Some people such as myself and Steve, had hoped that Disney would acquire Pixar before the contract ran out but if things keep up like they are between the two sides and if the movies continue to do well, Pixar may decide that after 3 more movies, the don't need a company like Disney. Only time will tell, though.
dopey
New Member
it would be too bad if the relationship ended. it seems to be a great team.
anyway, my son and i thought "monsters" was absolutely fabulous. the chase scene on the closet doors zipping around on conveyor belts was visually stunning and clever (i felt as if i was on a roller coaster). the abominable snowman was a riot. and the little girl was cute.
too, the birds on a wire short before the feature was laugh-out-loud funny.
"monsters" just blows "shrek" to pieces. "shrek" had a couple of funny moments, but it was nowhere near as good. you just forget that sully, mike and all the others are computer-generated characters and get swept up in the story. nothing seems forced and the in-jokes aren't in your face.
the only thing about "monsters" that i thought could be better was the ending. it wasn't bad. i just think it could have been better. i'll leave it at that because i don't want to ruin it for anyone.
anyway, my son and i thought "monsters" was absolutely fabulous. the chase scene on the closet doors zipping around on conveyor belts was visually stunning and clever (i felt as if i was on a roller coaster). the abominable snowman was a riot. and the little girl was cute.
too, the birds on a wire short before the feature was laugh-out-loud funny.
"monsters" just blows "shrek" to pieces. "shrek" had a couple of funny moments, but it was nowhere near as good. you just forget that sully, mike and all the others are computer-generated characters and get swept up in the story. nothing seems forced and the in-jokes aren't in your face.
the only thing about "monsters" that i thought could be better was the ending. it wasn't bad. i just think it could have been better. i'll leave it at that because i don't want to ruin it for anyone.
Fantasia Fan
New Member
Very good summary Mr. P.
My take on the situation is that Pixar has some bargaining power but their most well known characters still belong to Disney. A Bug's Life was a great movie but I believe it didn't fare as well at the box office as Toy Story 1 let alone Toy Story 2. We can only wait to see how Monsters, Inc. ends up at the box office with a certain wizard casting his spell in a couple of weeks.
I think the wild card in the whole equation is one John Lassiter. He is a master storyteller and just watching him on the DVD special editions of his movies shows you that this guy loves making movies for kids. One of the complaints I have read about Monsters, Inc. is that the story isn't as fully evolved as the Toy Story movies. I will say that I enjoyed the sight gag quotient in MI but it probably could have benefited by a little extra guidance by John L. Mr. Lassiter is a former employee who got his start with Disney. If it comes down to a last ditch effort by Disney to keep Pixar as part of their team and buying them doesn't seem feasible, it would be prudent on Disney's part to get rid of Thomas Schumacher and insert John Lassiter as head of feature animation. Katzenberg may be patting himself on the back over Shrek but my opinion is that Lassiter would be a juggernaut if he were to take over as head of feature animation at Disney, even better if Pixar was on board. That would certainly up the stakes. Don Bluth may have made some memorable motion pictures on his own but he could probably be remembered a lot more if he had Disney's marketing weapon behind him.
The one thing you never read about when you see movie opening figures stats is what type of tickets were being purchased. I wouldn't be half surprised if there was a greater number of child tickets seeing Monsters, Inc. in proportion to Shrek and that Shrek made a lot of its money on adult tickets. It would speak volumes if youth tickets were at least 40% of the tickets sold and it still made 63 million. Another thing to remember is the inflation factor. Shrek actually has made more money than Toy Story 2 but I wonder what it would be with dollar adjustment.
Sorry to take up so much space
My take on the situation is that Pixar has some bargaining power but their most well known characters still belong to Disney. A Bug's Life was a great movie but I believe it didn't fare as well at the box office as Toy Story 1 let alone Toy Story 2. We can only wait to see how Monsters, Inc. ends up at the box office with a certain wizard casting his spell in a couple of weeks.
I think the wild card in the whole equation is one John Lassiter. He is a master storyteller and just watching him on the DVD special editions of his movies shows you that this guy loves making movies for kids. One of the complaints I have read about Monsters, Inc. is that the story isn't as fully evolved as the Toy Story movies. I will say that I enjoyed the sight gag quotient in MI but it probably could have benefited by a little extra guidance by John L. Mr. Lassiter is a former employee who got his start with Disney. If it comes down to a last ditch effort by Disney to keep Pixar as part of their team and buying them doesn't seem feasible, it would be prudent on Disney's part to get rid of Thomas Schumacher and insert John Lassiter as head of feature animation. Katzenberg may be patting himself on the back over Shrek but my opinion is that Lassiter would be a juggernaut if he were to take over as head of feature animation at Disney, even better if Pixar was on board. That would certainly up the stakes. Don Bluth may have made some memorable motion pictures on his own but he could probably be remembered a lot more if he had Disney's marketing weapon behind him.
The one thing you never read about when you see movie opening figures stats is what type of tickets were being purchased. I wouldn't be half surprised if there was a greater number of child tickets seeing Monsters, Inc. in proportion to Shrek and that Shrek made a lot of its money on adult tickets. It would speak volumes if youth tickets were at least 40% of the tickets sold and it still made 63 million. Another thing to remember is the inflation factor. Shrek actually has made more money than Toy Story 2 but I wonder what it would be with dollar adjustment.
Sorry to take up so much space
