Pixar Ending Talks With Disney

brian_gaudio · Jan 29, 2004

Just saw this on the news and web. Click Here for the article. Very sad.

Later

CTXRover · Jan 29, 2004

WOW!

Although I knew it was a possibility, I really thought they would end up staying together. Unless this is just a tactic by Pixar to get Disney to do what they want. But it doesn't sound like it. This is really BOTH Eisner's and Steve Jobs's fault and their failure to ever agree on the future. Both wanted too much from the other guy and no one would ever give. Its not just Disney's loss, its Pixar's loss too as they won't have everything Disney could provide them...such as theme park attractions that would only keep their characters living forever. Although I have to say that Pixar has gotten a little cocky if you ask me, as Steve Jobs is quoted as saying its a shame that Disney will no longer be involved in Pixar's successess, as if everything they do will strike gold. They've had enormous success, but they are bound to hit a bump. If you asked me back in the 90's during Disney's animation heyday that they would be where they are today, I would have laughed at you.

Not to mention, Pixar is NOT be the only computer animated film maker out there like they were when Disney actually supported and helped them get the recognition they needed to get where they are today. Now Disney, Fox, Dreamworks, some studio from George Lucas, etc. all have computer animated films coming out soon. Of course, Disney's insistence to go to all computer generated films too couldn't have set well with Pixar folks. Its such a shame that on one end of the negotiation was Eisner and the other end was someone just as stuck-up, Steve Jobs.

I guess we can wait to see if this is just a ploy or not (things like this happen all the time in negotations). The positive if it is true is that it really helps Roy's case to get Eisner out of there. Stockholders are bound to be in a fury over Eisner's incompetence to strike a deal. Who knows, maybe Eisner will be under such pressure to leave that someone new will come in and strike a new deal with Pixar before its too late...although unlikely

DonickCo · Jan 29, 2004

IXR - News) said on Thursday it had broken off talks with Walt Disney Co.(NYSE

IS - News) to extend their lucrative movie distribution deal that has resulted in such blockbusters as "Toy Story," "Monsters Inc." and "Finding Nemo." The computer animation pioneer said it said it would look for another studio partner and would begin talks with other companies to distribute its films starting in 2006.
The move was a blow to Disney, which reaped a financial and critical bonanza from the partnership and has struggled with its own strategy for animation. Their deal includes two more films in production.
"After 10 months of trying to strike a deal with Disney, we're moving on," said Pixar Chief Executive Steve Jobs.
"We've had a great run together -- one of the most successful in Hollywood history -- and it's a shame that Disney won't be participating in Pixar's future successes."
Disney was not immediately available for comment. Its stock fell quickly in after hours trade to $23.54 from $24.45 at the close on the New York Stock Exchange (News - Websites) .

</object>

mccaulej · Jan 29, 2004

Wow...that really is a shame. Too bad for Disney. Pixar is on a roll and I KNOW that they will continue to make great films regardless of Disney's distribution. They have created a name for themselves that is synonomous with quality productions. It's just a sad day for all of us who love them both and really wanted to see them "kiss" and make up. I wonder what John Lassetter thinks of all of this. I know that he is a huge fan of Disney (being that he was an animator for them and has always praised their work). It is probably hard for him to leave them.

dxwwf3 · Jan 29, 2004

As much as this is Disney's loss it is Pixar's loss that much more. If Pixar is with another company I won't care about the films anymore. I never miss a Disney/Pixar feature in the theater but now if I see the movie at all it will be rented on video. No Disney backing = much less interest from me. And I know alot of other people feel the same way.

CTXRover · Jan 29, 2004

Here is something interesting that I didn't know until now. If in fact Pixar isn't using it as a negotiating tactic, by "moving on" Pixar actually loses the rights to make sequels of Toy Story, Monsters, Bugs Life, Nemo, The Incredibles and Cars all to Disney. That means they basically are giving up the lucrative possibilities of sequels to Nemo (a sequel would be a sure-fire success) and the long rumored Toy Story 3 and the possible Monsters sequel. What a loss for Pixar.

Pixar wanted a deal where they get everything and Disney would only get a simple distribution fee (like George Lucas with his Star Wars films and Fox). Obviously Disney wouldn't want that...and personally, I can see why...it wouldn't make sense to strike a deal like that. Of course, Disney (Eisner) wanted to keep its sizeable share of profits with a new deal and probably wouldn't budge very far. It was once rumored that a deal where Disney would get 25% and Pixar 75% was going to happen. I guess not. This is truly sad.

prisoner · Jan 29, 2004

Originally posted by CTXRover

Its not just Disney's loss, its Pixar's loss too as they won't have everything Disney could provide them...such as theme park attractions that would only keep their characters living forever.

Besides this, what can Disney offer? Merchandising? Disney has been on a slump on this. Theme parks to keep them alive forever? DVD does that better nowadays. Marketing with McDonalds? Any fast food chain will snap up the toys at a pretty penny.

I think Jobs correctly assessed that Disney wasn't offering anything of significant value.

Originally posted by CTXRover
Although I have to say that Pixar has gotten a little cocky if you ask me, as Steve Jobs is quoted as saying its a shame that Disney will no longer be involved in Pixar's successess, as if everything they do will strike gold. They've had enormous success, but they are bound to hit a bump. If you asked me back in the 90's during Disney's animation heyday that they would be where they are today, I would have laughed at you.

True, they've gotten cocky. But so has Disney. And Pixar has something Disney doesn't have - Disney's staff.

Yes, they're sure to hit a bump. I'm sure Disney was hoping Nemo was that bump or they'd be able to continue talks until The Incredibles was that bump. But Jobs knows about success and failure - he hasn't always produced hits in his companies, and I'm sure he knows how to weather a storm.

Originally posted by CTXRover
Not to mention, now Pixar will not be the only computer animated film maker out there like they were when Disney actually supported and helped them get the recognition they needed to get where they are today.

I think you're a bit off base on a couple of points here. Pixar was never the only computer animated film maker. They were one of the earliest, but not the only one even then. They may have produced the first feature length film, but they weren't the only ones to do so.

Disney partnered with them because they were already the best. The best short stories and the best animation. That might have elevated their status, not to mention given them the cash they needed, but the recognition they got on their own.

The question is really - why is Pixar doing so well? Is it the animation style? Or is that they know how to tell stories? I think it is ultimately the latter. They learned how to tell stories from the best - Lassiter and others left Disney, remember.

Originally posted by CTXRover
Now Disney, Fox, Dreamworks, some studio from George Lucas,
etc. all have computer animated films coming out.

Lucas is starting another animation studio? Thats kinda funny considering he is the one who sold Pixar to Jobs.

And so what if there are others doing it? Remember, there were other animation studios, even in Walt's time. Recently there have even been other animated features. Disney still stands out from them. I expect Pixar will still stand out as well.

And remember - part of that is Disney's fault. Disney let their animators go, the other studios were just smart enough to hire them.

Originally posted by CTXRover
Of course, Disney's insistence to go to all computer generated films too couldn't have set well with Pixar folks. Its such a shame that on one end of the negotiation was Eisner and the other end was someone just as stuck-up, Steve Jobs.

I agree with you here. It didn't help that Eisner had insulted Jobs publicly in the past, even tho they claim to have made up since.

Originally posted by CTXRover
I guess we can wait to see if this is just a ploy or not (things like this happen all the time in negotations). Pixar won't be representated in theme park attractions anymore either.

Well, the current characters will, of course. And who knows who might license the characters for their theme park in the future.
:animwink:

CTXRover · Jan 29, 2004

Originally posted by dxwwf3
As much as this is Disney's loss it is Pixar's loss that much more. If Pixar is with another company I won't care about the films anymore. I never miss a Disney/Pixar feature in the theater but now if I see the movie at all it will be rented on video. No Disney backing = much less interest from me. And I know alot of other people feel the same way.

You know, I think you are right. They are still A LOT, and I mean A LOT, of people who went to see Pixar's movies because it had the Disney name. Pixar has made a name for itself, yes, but most people are naive and still think they are all Disney toons. I can bet you that when people hear "Nemo" they think Disney before Pixar. Without that Disney name, Pixar might not do as well....they are bound to find out. The movies will be just as good...but we will all see how much influence that "Disney" name had.

As much as I want to blame Eisner for this, I can't help to think how much this is Steve Jobs's fault too. He is just as $$$-hungry as Eisner. Pixar has lost a lot by not finding some kind of an agreement. Afterall, now Disney has the rights to their biggest movies to do whatever they want with them...and Pixar doesn't have a say (this was a contractural agreement that Pixar wanted changed in the new contract also ...but alas, it ain't happening)

jrriddle · Jan 29, 2004

I've got to say, I am genuinely shocked.
I really thought Eisner would buckle and give in.
Maybe the new Computer Animated Disney stuff is coming along really well. Maybe they are thinking they don't need Pixar anymore.
I wonder if this will work in Roy's favor?

dxwwf3 · Jan 29, 2004

Originally posted by CTXRover
You know, I think you are right. They are still A LOT, and I mean A LOT, of people who went to see Pixar's movies because it had the Disney name. Pixar has made a name for itself, yes, but most people are naive and still think they are all Disney toons. I can bet you that when people hear "Nemo" they think Disney before Pixar.

I think you hit the nail right on the head there. You ask any moviegoer what company made Toy Story or Finding Nemo and I'll guarantee you that 99% of them are going to say Disney. And those ARE Disney characters as far as I'm concerned. And sure Pixar has made a name for itself but when you take the animation giant, Disney, out of their name we'll see how eager people are to see the films. When you think of quality animation you think of Disney (no matter what is happening now) and with Shrek being the lone exception, when any other studio makes a family animated feature most people expect a subpar movie at best. And yet ANOTHER thing who else markets like Disney? NOBODY. Maybe Pixar will change their mind but if they don't I hope they enjoy losing my business.

mkt · Jan 29, 2004

no need to simlulpost this...

g_gresham3 · Jan 29, 2004

Has Roy Disney been spotted at Pixar's studio? Naw, that would be too obvious. I'll be they have been meeting at some obscure eatery somewhere.

What if Roy was able to tell stockholders, "Dump Michael, and my friends at Pixar will sign a new deal." That's leverage. And it would be a win-win for everyone [except Michael].

prisoner · Jan 29, 2004

Originally posted by dxwwf3
As much as this is Disney's loss it is Pixar's loss that much more. If Pixar is with another company I won't care about the films anymore. I never miss a Disney/Pixar feature in the theater but now if I see the movie at all it will be rented on video. No Disney backing = much less interest from me. And I know alot of other people feel the same way.

I'm sure you're right, but I think you're discounting a couple of things.

A lot of people think Shrek was made by Disney.

A lot of people think Islands of Adventure is at Walt Disney World.

And when Pixar releases a film that says "From the people who brought you Finding Nemo and Toy Story..." people will think its another Disney film.

People forget Disney is the name of a company - so many associate it with the product, and if someone else produces that product without Disney's name, a lot of people won't notice.

CTXRover · Jan 29, 2004

Originally posted by prisoner
Besides this, what can Disney offer? Merchandising? Disney has been on a slump on this. Theme parks to keep them alive forever? DVD does that better nowadays. Marketing with McDonalds? Any fast food chain will snap up the toys at a pretty penny.

I think Jobs correctly assessed that Disney wasn't offering anything of significant value.

I personally think that is wrong...but that is my opinion and in 2006 and beyond will shall know. Name recognition still plays a major role here. How many "normal" people you talk to call Nemo a Pixar film? Everyone I know calls it a "Disney" film. Sure there are people out there who recognize it as a Pixar film...but not a lot. Of course, the question is how much does a name mean? In addition to theme parks, merchandising and name recognition, Disney also provided unparalleled advertising with through specials and such on the Disney Channel, ABC Family, ABC, and other channels they own. The only other studios that can give that are Paramount (CBS) and Fox. I sincerely doubt they will join with GE (NBC and Universal), as Universal already has a semi-working deal with Dreamworks.

Originally posted by prisoner
True, they've gotten cocky. But so has Disney. And Pixar has something Disney doesn't have - Disney's staff.

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.

Originally posted by prisoner think you're a bit off base on a couple of points here. Pixar was never the only computer animated film maker. They were one of the earliest, but not the only one even then. They may have produced the first feature length film, but they weren't the only ones to do so.

Pixar was the ones to get the ball rolling though. What I mean is they were one-of-a-kind, which helped them stand out. Of course they are still bound to stand out if their stories continue to be great...I still believe story is more important than medium...but now that medium that has made people take notice of Pixar films (even ordinary people remark about the "look" of their films vs traditional....I think its sad...but its true) will be everywhere. Take Dreamworks for instance. Virtually every one of their films failed...except for Shrek...even Dreamworks has attributed its success to the medium (which I think is a shame). In upcoming years, there will be a lot of films that "look" Pixar-ish. You've said yourself a lot of people think even Shrek was made by Disney. Once the market gets "flooded" with this type of animation (and yes, George Lucas re-started a computer animation studio....mostly because he realized the mistake he made in giving up Pixar) and there are bound to be duds and there are bound to be hits. The question is, will the public be smart enough to distinguish *just* Pixar from the crowd.

Sherm00 · Jan 29, 2004

steve jobs is the one that screwed up apple and is the reason apples sales are 1/10000 of all computer parts sold. I think he will do it with pixar also, though they have the right technicial know how, they need a good name for distribution, if they don't they will only come up short.

cherrynegra · Jan 29, 2004

Well, I believe I had posted earlier this year when the court decision regarding the rights over Pooh had come out against Disney, that Disney would be in even more shaky ground if the talks with Pixar breaks down. Now what I feared has come to pass. I personally believe that Disney should have renewed contracts in Pixar's favor. I've read many an article where different financial analysyts supported that idea. It would also not surprise me with the recent closing of the 2D animation studios that Disney feels it too can put out CGI movies like Pixar and is throwing money into producing those types of movies. Sigh, all I can say is things are really a mess now.

dxwwf3 · Jan 29, 2004

Originally posted by prisoner
I'm sure you're right, but I think you're discounting a couple of things.

A lot of people think Shrek was made by Disney.

A lot of people think Islands of Adventure is at Walt Disney World.

And when Pixar releases a film that says "From the people who brought you Finding Nemo and Toy Story..." people will think its another Disney film.

People forget Disney is the name of a company - so many associate it with the product, and if someone else produces that product without Disney's name, a lot of people won't notice.

I guess you do have a point there. It is easy to overestimate the public's intelligence about stuff like this.

But alot of people do somehow pick out that if an animated feature is being released and it is not made by Disney (Shrek is of course the exception) it is not going to be worth spending money on. I thought Antz was a pretty decent movie but, big shock, it didn't do so hot.

CTXRover · Jan 29, 2004

Originally posted by prisoner

And when Pixar releases a film that says "From the people who brought you Finding Nemo and Toy Story..." people will think its another Disney film.

The question is ...will they be allowed? I imagine they will, but under the current contract that now stands, Disney kind of OWNS those movies, characters and anything they want to do with them in the future (such as sequels, etc.) If Pixar was able to get the deal they wanted, that might have changed (and yet another reason Eisner and folks probably weren't too keen on Pixar's demands). I don't know what the contract says...but how much will Pixar be allowed to say that is a good quesiton. I guess it is all in the wording since things like that are done all the time. Its just a shame that the people that brought us it won't have much say in what is done with it. [EDIT: I don't have any idea of the current contractural terms....it seems if Pixar *wants* to be involved in sequels they will....but Disney can do it on their own if they want)

I do think Pixar has made a name for themselves and in a way they deserve to be known as "Pixar" films and not Disney films. I just think both companies lost a lot by not finding an agreement. I think we all know the HUGE loss and blow this is to Disney and I was just trying to bring to light the fact that it is an equally big loss for Pixar. As financial analyst once said, why mess with something that works? Unfortunately, it all came down to who gets to keep the $$$.

g_gresham3 · Jan 29, 2004

I think Pixar knows they will do fine without Disney, because people remember the movies, not the distributor.

Just look at how well Shrek did, financially [and artistically]. I had seen Antz, which I thought was pretty weak, but I reluctantly took my nephews to see Shrek when it was first released. And it's one of my favorite animated features now. Ice Age also did good business, even though it came from Blue Sky. Seems I remember reading that people would come up to Roy Disney and complement him on the good job he did with Ice Age, assuming it was a Disney picture.

I've already switched from a Disney fan to a Pixar fan.

CTXRover · Jan 29, 2004

Disney and Eisner's response to loss of Pixar

For its part, Disney criticized what it called Pixar's "final offer." Disney said a deal would have "cost Disney hundreds of millions of dollars it is already entitled to under the existing agreement, while not providing sufficient incremental returns on new collaborations to justify the changes to the existing deal."

"We have had a fantastic partnership with Pixar and wish Steve Jobs and the wonderfully creative team there, led by John Lasseter, much success in the future," said CEO Michael Eisner. "Although we would have enjoyed continuing our successful collaboration under mutually acceptable terms, Pixar understandably has chosen to go its own way to grow as an independent company."

Disney will retain the rights to distribute Pixar's first seven films, with Pixar continuing to receive its current share of the profits in perpetuity. Disney will have the rights to solely finance and produce sequels to the films if Pixar declines to co-finance and produce them under the terms of the current agreement, Pixar says.

Pixar Ending Talks With Disney

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Disney's Favorite Scumbag™

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member