Pixar Ending Talks With Disney

[General Grizz]

Heck yeah. The greatest "Disney" films I've seen since '95 were...Pixar films.

Good for Pixar. I mean, having to deal with Disney? Ugh...it's good to have a fresh clean start.

Best case scenario, Roy can get a deal with Pixar. . . and the removal Eisner and his Board.

If not, well, sorry, Eisner. You lose, and I have no pity for you or your group of money-blinded managers.

 

[Blair]

So OBJECTIVELY: Does this mean that Eisner will be in deep trouble with stockholders?


The articles already mentioning their stock dropping... Surely he didn't plan this or think this through... he shut down his 2-D animation core and planned on switching completely to 3-D and then lost the studio that has created all their recent CG masterpieces. Can stockholders accept this and let him stay in the company???

They didn't just lose a deal with Pixar, they lost future classics, iconic characters, theme park rides and shows, box office revenue, DVD releases, and hundreds of other things that they already lost by shuttering their Orlando studio.

 

[CTXRover]

It looks like Wall Street didn't find it good news for either company. After the announcement, BOTH Disney and Pixar fell by $1.45.

 

[PhotoDave219]

IMO, this is Steve Jobs throwing his weight behind Disney.

Start of Pure Speculation */

It will leak soon that Jobs will bring Pixar back to Disney IF Eisner leaves. This will get wall street's attention and all those fund managers will vote for no confidence, and somehow Disney & Gold will end up putting someone they want in charge. Jobs will either sign a new agreement or sell out to Disney OR.... will end up as the new CEO of Disney. Now thats a powerplay.....

*/End Spec

 

[General Grizz]

Originally posted by PhotoDave219
IMO, this is Steve Jobs throwing his weight behind Disney.

Start of Pure Speculation */

It will leak soon that Jobs will bring Pixar back to Disney IF Eisner leaves. This will get wall street's attention and all those fund managers will vote for no confidence, and somehow Disney & Gold will end up putting someone they want in charge. Jobs will either sign a new agreement or sell out to Disney OR.... will end up as the new CEO of Disney. Now thats a powerplay.....

*/End Spec

How great this could be.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by Blair
So OBJECTIVELY: Does this mean that Eisner will be in deep trouble with stockholders?


The articles already mentioning their stock dropping... Surely he didn't plan this or think this through... he shut down his 2-D animation core and planned on switching completely to 3-D and then lost the studio that has created all their recent CG masterpieces. Can stockholders accept this and let him stay in the company???

They didn't just lose a deal with Pixar, they lost future classics, iconic characters, theme park rides and shows, box office revenue, DVD releases, and hundreds of other things that they already lost by shuttering their Orlando studio.

You know that is a VERY good question. Personally, I don't know. What was at stake here was whether Disney wanted to retain its rights to the 7 movies already under the contract, including its 50% share of the Incredibles and Cars and its rights and holdings to all characters from Toy Story through Cars for use in attractions and sequels etc but LOSE a long-term deal with Pixar. Or LOSE their strong-hold on Pixar's first seven movies but be with Pixar for a long-time.

This is a telling statement and quite true, from Disney today about Pixar's "final offer": "(It 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." Basically it comes down to what Disney would lose under a new contract did not add up, financially, to what they would gain. What Pixar wanted would make Disney almost non-existent in the profit and use of their future movies and the possible loss of Disney's holdings on the characters from Toy Story, Nemo, Monsters, etc.

The stockholders wanted a new deal....if it made sense financially for Disney. From what I know of what Pixar wanted, the new deal would not be financially smart. On one hand, stockholders must be pleased on the lucrative prospects Disney retains with Pixar's films from Toy Story through Cars...but on the other...now Pixar is "free" to take their goods elsewhere.

 

[prisoner]

Originally posted by Sherm00
steve jobs is the one that screwed up apple and is the reason apples sales are 1/10000 of all computer parts sold.

Can you provide a source for this?

Jobs left Apple in 1985. Apple tanked shortly afterwards and struggled upwards over the next few years based on the Mac. Then, the CEOs banked on opening the Mac and releasing the Newton, and their stock fell again.

Jobs returned in 1997 and its stock went up. It did take a correction but has since been performing fairly strongly.

Yes, Apple currently has 3% of the computer market. Not exactly the 0.01% tho. And they have 30% of the portable music market.

Originally posted by Sherm00
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.

I think they have more strength than we're giving them credit for. Jobs is not a one-trick pony, and he has demonstrated he can navigate changes in the marketplace. He does have connections with various distribution channels. The partnership with Disney taught them many things - not just animation.

On the other hand, Disney came away from Pixar with relatively little except a LOT of past profits.

He's not perfect, and neither is Pixar. I do expect them to have failures in their future. But I also think they'll come through those problems.

 

[Snapper Bean]

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.

With all due respect not nearly enough feel like you do to make a difference. I'm a Disney fan but in this negotiation Disney needed Pixar way more than Pixar needed Disney. Nemo was the #1 movie in 2003, Brother Bear was #29 I think.

Snapper Bean

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by PhotoDave219
IMO, this is Steve Jobs throwing his weight behind Disney.

Start of Pure Speculation */

It will leak soon that Jobs will bring Pixar back to Disney IF Eisner leaves. This will get wall street's attention and all those fund managers will vote for no confidence, and somehow Disney & Gold will end up putting someone they want in charge. Jobs will either sign a new agreement or sell out to Disney OR.... will end up as the new CEO of Disney. Now thats a powerplay.....

*/End Spec

That would be great :sohappy: I don't know if it will happen or not. Roy has supposedly been around Pixar's studios lately, so who knows what is going on. One thing is for sure, Eisner will get some serious blame for this and it can only help Roy and his quest to remove Eisner. That is if stockholders believe that Disney really needed Pixar. If reports are correct about the negotations, it makes it sound that the new contract had Disney getting barely nothing profit-wise from all future Pixar projects while also probably losing the ability to make sequels to their first 7 films in-house at Disney if they wanted to without Pixar. Would it have been smarter to keep Pixar with Disney or would not signing a new contract be smarter as Disney would be entitiled to keep their "future" 50% profit from Cars and Incredibles and the possibility of sequels from all 7 films.

 

[g_gresham3]

I don't think Jobs is the active force at Pixar -- he's more like management. The guru of the creative guys seems to be John Lasseter, and lots of people consider him a Walt-type figure.

It's just amazing to me that of their major releases, Pixar hasn't had a bomb yet. Surely they will have one eventually, but their success rate compared with anyone else is pretty darn good. Much better than the recent Disney releases. And even Walt had a Fantasia here and there.

I should really be working...

 

[cherrynegra]

Originally posted by Snapper Bean
With all due respect not nearly enough feel like you do to make a difference. I'm a Disney fan but in this negotiation Disney needed Pixar way more than Pixar needed Disney. Nemo was the #1 movie in 2003, Brother Bear was #29 I think.

Snapper Bean

I agree Snapper Bean. This was totally Disney's to lose. You can chalk up Pixar for leaving for a whole host of reasons, but the fact still remains that they're leaving. Disney has completely depended on Pixar's products to bring people into the Disney fold. Pixar could have gone with any studio but chose Disney. Now with 2d animation gone at the House of the Mouse and Pixar leaving, what Disney does after 2006 will be very interesting to see.

 

[prisoner]

Originally posted by Blair
So OBJECTIVELY: Does this mean that Eisner will be in deep trouble with stockholders?

A tough question.

I don't think it will in isolation, but if people start putting it in context with other recent activities (or if Roy is able to make this point), some major shareholders will start asking questions.

Some of it will depend on how Disney does at the Oscars, which will happen just before the Annual Meeting. This issue may be partially forgotten by then, especially if Disney rides high on some well placed victories. On the other hand, they're in a no-win situation in the animated category. All three of the nominees can be spun against Disney.

I think it will also depend on Pixar's next movie. If The Incredibles doesn't do well, Eisner can claim that he was right.

But I don't think that Jobs engineered this in colaboration with Roy. If they had - Jobs would have announced this right after the Oscars and just before the shareholder's meeting. Then Eisner would have had a riot on his hands. (On the other hand - most people will vote by proxy, and that will happen soon.)

 

[Snapper Bean]

Originally posted by PhotoDave219
IMO, this is Steve Jobs throwing his weight behind Disney.

Start of Pure Speculation */

It will leak soon that Jobs will bring Pixar back to Disney IF Eisner leaves. This will get wall street's attention and all those fund managers will vote for no confidence, and somehow Disney & Gold will end up putting someone they want in charge. Jobs will either sign a new agreement or sell out to Disney OR.... will end up as the new CEO of Disney. Now thats a powerplay.....

*/End Spec

Jobs is representing Pixar and their shareholders. He'll support the removal of Eisner only if he gets the deal he wants from the new Disney Board. His only concern is the contract.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Exactly my point. And a deal (long term) in place with the Roy if eisner goes would make Pixar & Disney stock go up a lot.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by prisoner

On the other hand, Disney came away from Pixar with relatively little except a LOT of past profits.

Pixar had a lot more to gain by leaving, granted all their films continue to be successes. But by Disney not signing the deal Pixar wanted, Disney gets to keep 50% of the profits to both The Incredibles and Cars while also the potential profit from sequels to any of Pixar's first 7 films. With a new deal, Disney would have lost that 50% profit from Incredibles and Cars and (possibly) the rights to make sequels to those first 7 films in exchange for a simple distribution fee for all future Pixar films.

Pixar obviously deserved more of the profit from their films, but Pixar lost a lot too, both in the short-term (with Incredibles and Cars) and in the long-term (potential sequels to their first 7 movies). But in return, after 2006, they will get to keep all of their profits from their movies, which is a very smart long-term strategy.

 

[prisoner]

Originally posted by CTXRover
Roy has supposedly been around Pixar's studios lately, so who knows what is going on.

I can just see it now. Roy joins Pixar's board, and Disney gets an injunction against him from using his last name.

(Don't laugh. There is precident .)

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by prisoner
A tough question.

I don't think it will in isolation, but if people start putting it in context with other recent activities (or if Roy is able to make this point), some major shareholders will start asking questions.

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.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Well, look at it this way - Would Pixar really have walked away from the table without other options already set in stone.

Its simple - Pixar has either a deal in place with Roy in the enventuality Eisner goes OR they have a deal with some other studio, like dreamworks.

Disney has a couple of choices..... Lose Eisner and get back Pixar, Start their own Computer Animation studio, or Crap a brick knowing that Pixar might go to dreamworks.

 

[JLW11Hi]

Ok, here's a question....

...what exactly did Disney have to do with Pixar in the first place? Besides being a distributor, and being able to market the films through merchandise and stuff? I mean, did Disney give them extra money or something for making the films?

The way I've been seeing it, Disney has had nothing to do with the creation of the films themselves. Its as if they are just there to put the Disney logo at the front of the movies and money off of them.

Why does Pixar even need a partner? If there is a reason, I would like to know, because in my opinion, Pixar has made a great name for themselves. Even more than Disney ever has.

Think about it, so far, each movie they have made has been a success. I personally liked every one of them. Toy Story, Bugs Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc, and Finding Nemo. That makes 5 wins in a row, with their latest film being the most successful yet.

Now everyone keeps saying "well, they are bound to make a failrue somewhere" just because Disney did. I guess we will just have to wait and see if that is the case. Because from the looks of things, Pixar hasn't lost any of its talent so far, and they apparently know where to look for animators with the goods. I personally think Pixar knows what they are doing, and doubt that they will have any failures in the near future.

So then I hear "with out the Disney name, Pixar will do worse, because people know the Disney name stands for quality, and tehy don't know Pixar as well". I disagree with this. I think people know what Pixar is. They recognize that little lamp jumping around the companie's logo, and that tells them its going to be good. To be honest, people are going to probably continue to think that Pixar is Disney for quite a while. And by the time that the two companies are completely separated, the public will know Pixar's name just as well as Disney's.

 

[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.