Pixar Ending Talks With Disney

[General Grizz]

Originally posted by Snapper Bean
No offense but I don't see what this has to do with Eisner v. Roy Disney at all. I think that is just fantasizing. This is a business negotiation. Jobs isn't going to give Roy Disney a better price than he gives Eisner.

May or may not be true. If secret convo sessions with Roy have been going on, this could make or break Eisner's future at Disney.

 

[prisoner]

Originally posted by CTXRover
I think you nailed it. The more I get to hear of what Disney was about to lose *if* they actually signed the new contract Pixar wanted, the more I can see why stockholders could see it as a positive thing to let Pixar go. But, Eisner's failure to reach some type of an agreement here and in a number of other areas, including the famous "brain-drain" that has occured at all levels of the Disney company for years, this event just might be that ignition needed to get more stockholders to ask questions and start demanding answers or his resignation.

And I think you're making an excellent point here.

Eisner was in a no-win situation. He had two choices:

1. Keep the fairly assured short-term profits and the long-term franchise, at the risk of a long-term highly-profitable (so far) relationship.
2. Keep the long-term relationship, the likely long-term income from that relationship, at the risk of the franchises from that relationship and some short-term profits.
   [/list=1]
   
   He chose the former. The question will be how people perceive this - as a short-term grab, or as a long-term strategic plan.

 

[prisoner]

Originally posted by prisoner
He chose the former. The question will be how people perceive this - as a short-term grab, or as a long-term strategic plan.

Heh... and without knowing it, I was quoting Roy. From his and Stanley's statement on this:

While we expect that the tail of the relationship will continue to provide short-term earnings gains, the loss of this relationship, we believe, will result in the loss of long-term value for the company and its shareholders.

 

[PhotoDave219]

forgive the utter speculation but I gotta think that in Roy's statement that there's somethign to read into that last sentence.... something along the lines that If Roy was in charge, Pixar would be back. Just the way its phrased, I can only say that - under other circumstances - I believe we would still be working together on some wonderful new projects.

 

[prisoner]

Originally posted by CTXRover
Disney still has some of its greatest animators working on films. They've let a lot more go, but they aren't talent dead over there. I actually thought Brother Bear was better than Nemo, obviously I was in a minority though.

Was this meant to agree or disagree with me?:animwink:

You do realize that most of the Brother Bear team were fired, don't you?

 

[General Grizz]

After the Bell: Pixar Up, Disney Down

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040129/bs_nm/markets_stocks_afterthebell_dc_2

 

[wdwmaniac]

I think both sides will be hurt by this break up but I think PIXAR in the long run will be hit the hardest.

Toy Story was a FIRST. Now Dreamworks, Disney and Blue Sky can make CGI movies too.

PIXAR might seem like the winner but by 2007 when the first PIXAR (non-disney) can be released how many other 3-d Movies?
Last year: only Nemo
This year: Sherk 2, Sharkslayer, and the Incredibles.
Next Year: Cars, Robots, Valiant, Over the Hedge, Madagascar, and A I think another CGI Disney movie.

So this is no long a market just for PIXAR. What kind of competition did Nemo have none.
So if one of PIXAR's movie bombs the studio will lose the money. Also they will need to sign all new contracts with toys, clothes, etc.
They will need to redefine there company away from Disney which could be very hard.
Also Disney hasn't put anything up against Disney/PIXAR releases. (Incredibles got sharktales moved) Dreamworks and Disney could both put up movie against PIXAR.
Lastly Disney's name still sells kids movie's not WB or anyother brand.
But I still think that both sides could and should work something out.

 

[dxwwf3]

Originally posted by wdwmaniac
I think both sides will be hurt by this break up but I think PIXAR in the long run will be hit the hardest.

Toy Story was a FIRST. Now Dreamworks, Disney and Blue Sky can make CGI movies too.

PIXAR might seem like the winner but by 2007 when the first PIXAR (non-disney) can be released how many other 3-d Movies?
Last year: only Nemo
This year: Sherk 2, Sharkslayer, and the Incredibles.
Next Year: Cars, Robots, Valiant, Over the Hedge, Madagascar, and A I think another CGI Disney movie.

So this is no long a market just for PIXAR. What kind of competition did Nemo have none.
So if one of PIXAR's movie bombs the studio will lose the money. Also they will need to sign all new contracts with toys, clothes, etc.
They will need to redefine there company away from Disney which could be very hard.
Also Disney hasn't put anything up against Disney/PIXAR releases. (Incredibles got sharktales moved) Dreamworks and Disney could both put up movie against PIXAR.
Lastly Disney's name still sells kids movie's not WB or anyother brand.
But I still think that both sides could and should work something out.

Wonderful Post! I just get a very cocky vibe from all of this Pixar talk. And I really don't think that Pixar can keep up this pace without Disney's marketing and backing.

 

[JLW11Hi]

Originally posted by dxwwf3
Wonderful Post! I just get a very cocky vibe from all of this Pixar talk.

Maybe because they have yet to make a failure at the box office!

I am simply asking, what exactly is it that is going to hurt Pixar in this split?

Lastly Disney's name still sells kids movie's not WB or anyother brand.

I disagree. I think Pixar's name will sell their movies just fine. People do recognize that little hoping desk lamp over the company's logo before each film.

They will need to redefine there company away from Disney which could be very hard

If Disney is supposedly the brand name that sells "kid's" movies, how could the connection between Pixar and Disney be a bad thing? People are going to continue to think Pixar is Disney, and will still go, because they know that the CGI Pixar fliks are always good.

Also they will need to sign all new contracts with toys, clothes, etc.

Pixar can't make toys now, or something? Is it that hard to sign contracts with toy manufacturers? (I'm really asking here, I have no idea!)

So this is no long a market just for PIXAR. What kind of competition did Nemo have none.

The new batch of CGI films was comming regardless of the split between Disney and Pixar....and seeing as these films always seem to do good, I don't see why the compitition will hurt Pixar much.

Sorry if I'm comming of harsh...I'm just trying to put things comming from my perspective in here....

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by prisoner
Was this meant to agree or disagree with me?:animwink:

You do realize that most of the Brother Bear team were fired, don't you?

Reading back at what I wrote, I can honestly say I don't know what I was trying to say :lol:. Yes, I did know BB was made at the Florida studio and yes I do know that studio is gone. I guess I was just trying to say that the animators at Disney animation still can make good films, they just have to get their act together again. I hope that pulling all of them back under one roof like Walt himself had it and the way it was when they reached their height in the 90's that they can bring Disney animation back again in full force. Now that Pixar is gone, they'll have to. I don't know this for sure and I wasn't thinking it in the post you quoted, but weren't the animators who were in charge of overseeing BB given contract extensions anyways? Did they move to Burbank or not...I don't know.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by wdwmaniac

Also Disney hasn't put anything up against Disney/PIXAR releases. (Incredibles got sharktales moved) Dreamworks and Disney could both put up movie against PIXAR.

I think this is a very good point. Up to now, Disney has "nurtured" the release of Pixar films by keeping their own animation out of the way when they released Pixar films. True they did the standoff with Dreamworks' Sharklayer (different topic...but why do DW films have themes done by Pixar....Bug's Life and Antz, Shrek and Monsters (both were Monster movies, but this one is a stretch), Nemo and Sharklayer...oh well) and won, but that was against a DISNEY-PIXAR film. I guess the question now is, will Disney have the guts to go face-to-face with a Pixar film in 2006? Pixar never had that competition before. As many have said, even without the Disney name, many will associate Pixar movies with Disney and think its a Disney movie. But what if now Disney decides to release their own movie at the same time as a Pixar film? Who would come out on top would depend on a number of factors, including what the movie looks like and what it is about, but it might also show whose name is more recognizable in family entertainment (and even though times can change, I think it is pretty safe that the Disney name is).

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by General Grizz
After the Bell: Pixar Up, Disney Down

Which proves what exactly?.. besides the fact that a bunch of people with money suddenly have the willies. There is nothing at all surprising about this considering that an announcement was just made that Disney will not be renewing a contract with the company responsible for producing the highest grossing movie of the year just like there won’t be anything surprising about seeing Disney’s stock go up for a while if the Incredibles has a good opening weekend...

This isn’t something that is going to affect Disney’s earnings for at least another two years. At that point, if Disney doesn’t have their act together with their own in-house 3D, then have cause for real alarm.

In the mean time, be glad that Disney isn’t forsaking their own products to act as a servant to another company by releasing Pixar movies at the prime movie times of the year for a distribution fee of as little as 7-8% instead of movies that will continue to carry the Disney brand.
Clearly Pixar doesn’t like things the way they are and Disney doesn’t want the deal Pixar was willing to make. It doesn’t mean that either company is wrong – just that their interests aren’t mutually beneficial.

 

[wdwmaniac]

"Maybe because they have yet to make a failure at the box office!

I am simply asking, what exactly is it that is going to hurt Pixar in this split? "

Yet....Think about Disney's early 1990's run..the Little Mermaid, the Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast. Who thought it would end then? And then we saw Treasure Planet.

"I disagree. I think Pixar's name will sell their movies just fine. People do recognize that little hoping desk lamp over the company's logo before each film. "

But ask many of the people watching these movies who made them? Most will say Disney.

"If Disney is supposedly the brand name that sells "kid's" movies, how could the connection between Pixar and Disney be a bad thing? People are going to continue to think Pixar is Disney, and will still go, because they know that the CGI Pixar fliks are always good."

But I think Steve Jobs will want to make a Brand idenity of his own. Because in the long run people will notice there not Disney espically with all the News Channels boosting this. And a New Deal will probably have hte other Studio Name very prominate.

"Pixar can't make toys now, or something? Is it that hard to sign contracts with toy manufacturers? (I'm really asking here, I have no idea!)"

They can make sign toy agreements but Disney did all the work for them before. They had all the Disney Contracts with the store like Wal-Mart and Target. Disney already has healthy relations with Hasbro and Mattle.

"The new batch of CGI films was comming regardless of the split between Disney and Pixar....and seeing as these films always seem to do good, I don't see why the compitition will hurt Pixar much."Originally posted by JLW11Hi

Also Disney hasn't put anything up against Disney/PIXAR releases. (Incredibles got sharktales moved) Dreamworks and Disney could both put up movie against PIXAR. So with Disney, Vanguard, Sony, Lucas, Pixar, Dreamworks, and Blue Skys are all now in the market. They all seemed to stay away when Disney/PIXAR released a film but now Disney and Dreamworks might go out for a kill.

 

[wdwmaniac]

Originally posted by General Grizz
After the Bell: Pixar Up, Disney Down

Also Disney is very diversified. They have there theme parks, moives, TV, merchandise, books, records, sports, etc. Look at Treasure Planet and Disney stock it went down but it can rebound.
Now imagine if PIXAR's movie bombed. What else do they have to back up on?
So I really don't think it matters if PIXAR is up Disney is down.

 

[Blair]

Well, it's official sports fans... Eisner is already beginning to take the massive fallout from this disaster:

From the New York Times

The timing of Pixar's announcement creates a public relations nightmare for Mr. Eisner, who has been under pressure to turn around Disney's fortunes. This week, two former directors — Stanley Gold and Roy Disney, the nephew of the company's co-founder — called on shareholders to oust Mr. Eisner at Disney's annual meeting in March. Mr. Gold and Mr. Disney have complained that Disney's formerly renowned animation division has faltered under Mr. Eisner. They released a statement on Thursday saying that Mr. Eisner had mismanaged the relationship with Pixar.

Already the news of the failed talks created a flurry of interest from competitors including Warner Brothers Studios, which said it would be interested in distributing Pixar films.

Wall Street analysts are set to meet with Disney executives in Florida in two weeks,when Mr. Eisner will face tough questions about Disney's future in animation. Its own films have not had nearly the success of those produced by Pixar and Disney has effectively closed its Florida film animation operations.

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

The collapsed talks will probably put pressure on Mr. Eisner to shore up his relationships with other partners, including cable companies that are warring with Disney over rates charged for its programming and with Harvey Weinstein, co-founder of Miramax Films, who has been dueling with Mr. Eisner over his division's profits.

"It is impossible to know how bad this is for Disney," said Richard Greenfield, a managing director at Fulcrum Global Partners, which has a sell recommendation on Disney stock. But given Pixar's success, it will hurt Disney, he said. "You have to venture a guess from a creative standpoint the company is at risk," he said.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Pixar's move stunned Disney executives and Wall Street analysts who believed a deal eventually would be hammered out. The collapse of the talks came as particularly bad news for Disney Chairman Michael Eisner. He has been under intense pressure from investors to shore up Disney's fortunes and continue the partnership with the animation company behind last year's biggest hit, "Finding Nemo."

The breakup also is certain to fuel the feud between Eisner and former Disney board member Roy Disney, who resigned last month and called for the chairman's ouster. Among other things, Disney said Eisner was bungling the Pixar negotiations. Industry insiders said Eisner was turning them into a war of egos with Pixar's equally strong-willed CEO.

Oh and for those speculating that Roy Disney had a hand in this... here's a BIG CLUE:

For some in the Pixar family, a split with Disney would have significance beyond dollars and cents. Pixar's creative guru, director John Lasseter, is a former Disney animator. Roy Disney said it was Lasseter who told him about the collapse of negotiations during a phone call Thursday from Pixar's headquarters.

"He feels as awful as I do about this," Disney said. "He said he's a Disney man, as are so many of the guys up there. Disney blood flows through their veins."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pixar30jan30,1,5247400.story?coll=la-home-headlines

:lol:

 

[wdwmaniac]

Quote Blair
Well, it's official sports fans... Eisner is already beginning to take the massive fallout from this disaster:

What about Disney?
Robert A. Iger, the president of Disney, said that Pixar's latest offer would have cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars that the company was already entitled to under the existing agreement and that the terms sought by Mr. Jobs for future projects did not justify a deal.

"The debate we had was how much value could we afford to give up," he said in an interview. "At some point we had to say it was not good for shareholders."

NYTimes

Is it really worth lossing millions just to tag the Disney name on something? Maybe Disney can prove it's self again. It may have lost something good but may have saved it's self from destruction. Disney-Pixar created the CGI movie which ended 2-D animation. So maybe in the long run Disney will get back to basics someday because I think that 2-D and CGI can co-exist and Disney will be Disney- Not Pixar's movie with Disney's name slapped on it.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by wdwmaniac
Is it really worth lossing millions just to tag the Disney name on something?

As much as I really wanted Pixar to stay with Disney, I actually think Disney did the right thing in not accepting Pixar's offers and demands.

Pixar was basically asking Disney to give up all their rights they have now (and will continue to have) to all of Pixar's first seven movies, from Toy Story to Cars. From an AP article:

A person familiar with the talks said negotiations broke down because Pixar wanted to reclaim the copyrights to the five films it has produced with Disney so far, plus the two left in the deal. Such an accommodation would have presumably revoked Disney's right to make sequels and potentially denied the company millions of dollars in future profits.

Pixar also wanted to pay Disney a flat distribution fee on all future films, including "The Incredibles" and "Cars." Disney was willing to adjust its compensation on the two remaining films, but would not agree to return the copyrights, said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

If that was the case, why would Disney sign a new deal? They would be giving up an enormous amount in exchange to basically keep their name with Pixar. If you ask me, Pixar just wanted to much. Apparently Disney was willing to go for a simple distribution fee (around 75 million per movie)for all FUTURE movies made from Pixar, which is exactly what Pixar will be getting now with a different studio anyway. Pixar "left" because Disney wouldn't give up the rights they already have to Pixar's first 7 movies...which is apparently a Hollywood "no-no" to ask for. Disney was even willing to give up their current stake of Cars and Incredibles, but understandably didn't want to give up their copyrights to the first films made.

Seriously, who thinks it would have made sense to sign a new deal with Pixar with what they were asking for? I would have loved to see the Disney-Pixar names stay together, but really how much blame can we place on Eisner and Disney after hearing what that "final" offer from Pixar was. Its really more of Pixar's loss by not staying. With a new studio, they still aren't going to get anything back from their first 7 movies and they will be getting what Disney was willing to do for all future Pixar films, including modifying their split of profits from Cars and Incredibles (something another studio can't do). From an AP article:

For Pixar, the break from Disney will allow it to keep more profit from future films while increasing the risks should those movies underperform.

"The risk is all theirs now," said Peter Mirsky, a financial analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. "They wanted it, they got it. Plus, they've added a competitor in Disney."

Yet another article, this one from Business Week online, mentioning the loss this is for Pixar:

Pixar likely wouldn't come out better if it follows through and severs ties to the Magic Kingdom. Disney's marketing muscle, which includes its mammoth theme parks, the Disney Channel, and radio and TV stations, can't easily be duplicated, even by Warner. (Warner appears to be the front-runner for the new distributor)

Again, I ask the simple question, as I am really curious, what big benefit would Disney get from keeping Pixar with what Pixar wanted? Eisner should and could have worked harder to solidify the relationship and renogatiate a better deal, but I can't help to wonder if Pixar was doing too much of the demanding and too little of the giving.

 

[prisoner]

Lets look at this from a slightly different point of view.

Picture, if you will, an animation company that is turning out stellar work. In fact, its work is considered the best in the industry, even better than other, more established, studios. Out of necessity, when it was born, it partnered with one of these studios to get their work marketed, and since then both sides have come out of the situation quite handsomely.

But the actual animators aren't satisfied. They're putting the hard work in, after all, so they go to the big boss to renegotiate the deal. Maybe they're greedy, but maybe they actually deserve it. The big boss offers a pay cut to the studio, and points out that the animation studio doesn't even own the works they've created, including the star characters. Big boss can go hire his own staff and leverage the hard work of this animation company.

Sound like Pixar and Disney?

No. The big boss was Charles Mintz of Universal, the character was Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, and the animation studio was a fledgling Walt Disney Studios. We all know the rest. Walt created Mortimer Mouse and swore he would never let someone else own his work.

Pixar is just realizing the same thing. Can you blame them?
If you were Charles Mintz, what would you have done?
What would you have done then, knowing what you do now?

 

[wdwmaniac]

And PIXAR's first non-Disney movie is about a mouse.
Ratatouille 2007
Funny.

Does anyone know what the market Cost of Pixar is?

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by prisoner
Lets look at this from a slightly different point of view.

Picture, if you will, an animation company that is turning out stellar work. In fact, its work is considered the best in the industry, even better than other, more established, studios. Out of necessity, when it was born, it partnered with one of these studios to get their work marketed, and since then both sides have come out of the situation quite handsomely.

But the actual animators aren't satisfied. They're putting the hard work in, after all, so they go to the big boss to renegotiate the deal. Maybe they're greedy, but maybe they actually deserve it. The big boss offers a pay cut to the studio, and points out that the animation studio doesn't even own the works they've created, including the star characters. Big boss can go hire his own staff and leverage the hard work of this animation company.

Sound like Pixar and Disney?

No. The big boss was Charles Mintz of Universal, the character was Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, and the animation studio was a fledgling Walt Disney Studios. We all know the rest. Walt created Mortimer Mouse and swore he would never let someone else own his work.

Pixar is just realizing the same thing. Can you blame them?
If you were Charles Mintz, what would you have done?
What would you have done then, knowing what you do now?

That was a very nice analogy, but I still don't think it answers my question on why Disney would keep Pixar if they had to concede to their demands? Their is no doubt that like Walt, Pixar can leave its "big boss" and become extremely profitable and Disney will have to watch that. However, wasn't Disney willing to do this for them anyhow? Its sounds like they were going to agree to the distribution fee thing for future movies, so really Disney wasn't going to have much of a hold on Pixar's future either (I don't know how they were anticipating on determining copyright ownership of future movies...I'm still looking). It sounds like Disney certainly wouldn't have a stronger hold on future projects than a new distributor would. But Pixar wanted their "past" back too, which sounds like the real reason Disney wouldn't sign a deal and why Pixar left. Its a shame Pixar signed that type of contract to begin with, but they kind of had to...they were no ones then and without Disney they might have never been able to take off like they did....that is an arguement on its own. Why *should* Disney give all that up? Just to keep Pixar nearby and the Disney/Pixar names together? Sure, getting 75 million for simply distributing a movie is alot, but in return also have to give up the lucrative prospects that have already been created? Its sounds greedy for Disney, since Pixar made those characters, but it was also the contract Pixar signed to begin with. Apparently, going back and asking for such major contracts is a "no-no" in Hollywood, as I've said before. I immediately blamed the fallout of negotations on Disney and Eisner, but the more articles I read today, I I think Pixar just wanted too much. What will a new studio give them that Disney wouldn't, regarding future projects only (assuming press reports on negotiations are accurate and I am understanding correctly what was written )