Pixar Ending Talks With Disney

[CTXRover]

Here is a somewhat ironic, yet inaccurate headline I just heard on TV regarding this whole Pixar/Disney issue. The story started off saying: "Disney loses Nemo".

What is ironic (and correct) is that by NOT signing the new deal that Pixar demanded, Disney actually KEEPS Nemo and Pixar is the one who loses him. Had Disney signed the "final offer" Pixar gave them, Disney would have kept Pixar (basically only to 'control' the competition: there was actually little to negative financial gain in keeping Pixar under that offer), but LOST Nemo in return. The problem is, can Disney actually DO anything productive with Nemo without Pixar.

 

[Blair]

1) Everyone decries how Pixar wanted to keep the rights to their work, when frankly, it makes sense that they demanded it. Would you trust your work in that company with Eisner in charge? Look at what Eisner has done to classic Disney films, he has churned out bad straight-to-video sequels and marketed them into the ground. Wouldn't their work would be kept safer with them than a division that raided it's own vault and hired bargain basement animators to make imitations and knock offs as quickly as possible.

2) Eisner wouldn't have been at such a gunpoint to give in to Pixar's demands if he hadn't continued to destroy their own internal animation division and rely on an outside source for artistic inspiration. Eisner doomed their own fate by shutting down 2D artists at the company while Pixar instantly realized the failure of his artistic vision and lept at the opportunity:

Dec 1, 2003
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=16604

3) Ultimately Pixar realized their creations were much safer in the hands of people who still care about creativity and not in the hands of Eisner micromanaging the art to death in order to maximize the bottom line. Their decision reflects that.

 

[General Grizz]

OT: Is that Chicken Little in your avatar, CTX???

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by Blair
1) Everyone decries how Pixar wanted to keep the rights to their work, when frankly, it makes sense that they demanded it. Would you trust your work in that company with Eisner in charge? Look at what Eisner has done to classic Disney films, he has churned out bad straight-to-video sequels and marketed them into the ground. Wouldn't their work would be kept safer with them than a division that raided it's own vault and hired bargain basement animators to make imitations and knock offs as quickly as possible.

I completely understand why and sympathize with Pixar wanting their work back. I too feel that they "deserve" it since they made it. But, unfortunately for them, they signed that original contract too and they knowingly gave up those rights. Really, they had too. They were an unknown company and if Disney didn't take "advantage" of it, another company would have and it is quite possible that if Disney didn't nurture them the way they did, we might not even be having discussions about Pixar's amazing success. But now to demand that back is a little late after you've had another company take the risk for you and help finance and distribute your films and watch them become enormous successes. It is more than possible their films could have flopped leaving Disney in a big-time hole. Again, I feel sorry for Pixar that they got themselves into this situation, but they knew what they were signing back then. Its the way of the business world, unfortunately, and for Disney going back on that agreement just wouldn't have made any sense. Disney is a company and companies are out there to make $$, nobody can dispute that, and unfortunately I guess that means as a company you can't always do the "right" thing morally, you have to do the "right" thing for the company, and that usually means what makes it the most $$ (whether this is right to do is another debate)

I don't think Eisner should be blamed for his inability to sign a new deal, directly, since the deal given to him was really unfavorable for Disney and was my main point in my above posts. The deal to keep Pixar around just wasn't worth it. What he should be blamed for though and held accountable for is his inability to maintain and foster the once spectacular relationship that Disney had with Pixar that an agreement on how to handle said copyrights wouldn't have been such a cut-throat fight. That is really the MAIN problem with Eisner. His inability to recognize and keep successful and talented people around him and within the company...resulting in the famous "brain drain" at Disney. Like Roy said, I too think if it were under different circumstances (Eisner no longer involved) this deal would have worked out much better for both of the companies in that the events leading up to the negotiations would have let them go much more care-free.

Originally posted by Blair
(3) Ultimately Pixar realized their creations were much safer in the hands of people who still care about creativity and not in the hands of Eisner micromanaging the art to death in order to maximize the bottom line. Their decision reflects that.

I think their decision to leave Disney has little to do with this as they left because they couldn't get what they wanted. They have said before they would have prefered to stay with Disney.. Disney was willing to sign an agreement for that would have given Pixar basically all profit (and rights) to all future Pixar movies/projects. Pixar though wanted all of their "original" creations as well back. Disney didn't want to do that and I think this makes business sense on Disney's side(...see above).

By leaving Disney now, Pixar is actually "giving" Disney their original creations. With Pixar out of the picture, Disney can do whatever they want with the characters from Toy Story to Cars. Disney's own animation facility announced today that they are already currently working on Toy Story 3...WITHOUT Pixar (possibly to get Pixar to reconsider its decision???). Don't you think if Pixar was interested in their characters that much that they would have tried harder on their end also to make a deal happen? I can't believe that if they were still "partners" that Disney would make Toy Story 3 on their own without Pixar's help. It seems like it really came back to Pixar wanting its stuff back because now they see the potential profit it can make them and not who controlled the characters. As leaving Disney severs them from said characters even further.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by General Grizz
OT: Is that Chicken Little in your avatar, CTX???

Yes it is. I thought it (he/she?? I don't know :lol: ) looked kind of cute

 

[Blair]

Originally posted by CTXRover
By leaving Disney now, Pixar is actually "giving" Disney their original creations.

Right, but they are thinking long term still.

With Pixar out of the picture, Disney can do whatever they want with the characters from Toy Story to Cars. Disney's own animation facility announced today that they are already currently working on Toy Story 3...WITHOUT Pixar (possibly to get Pixar to reconsider its decision???).

Yes, and that was a wretched and artless move on Disney's part surely proving that Pixar was right in getting away from them as soon as possible. I mean they didn't even wait 48 hours before announcing they were planning to exploit Pixar's creations without consulting them. Not exactly a sign of a studio with creativity and imagination pumping through it's corporate halls.

Also:

Wall Street, having watched one of Hollywood's great melodramas come to a bitter ending, gave Pixar Animation Studios a thumbs up Friday and Walt Disney Co. a thumbs down.

Pixar's shares rose 3.4%, closing up $2.19 at $66.39 on Nasdaq. In contrast, Disney shares dipped 1.8%, ending the day down 45 cents at $24 on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

[MrPromey]

Originally posted by Blair

Yes, and that was a wretched and artless move on Disney's part surely proving that Pixar was right in getting away from them as soon as possible. I mean they didn't even wait 48 hours before announcing they were planning to exploit Pixar's creations without consulting them. Not exactly a sign of a studio with creativity and imagination pumping through it's corporate halls.

Also:

Sort of like the person negotinating for Diseny returning a call from Jobs to have an assistant say “We’re out” just before going public with the announcement.

I think the Disney announcement was more of a stop-gap attempt on the anticipated stock market reaction. Clearly, it didn’t do a whole lot but I think that is more of what this was about.

It isn’t such a bad deal for Pixar because they’ll still get 8% of whatever Disney makes on Toy Story 3 and they wont’ have to lift a finger to get it…


The Oswald analogy back there is nice too but you’re forgetting two things: Pixar in the early 90s was nothing like Disney back in the days of Oswald. Steve Jobs didn’t have his brother who’s business experience amounted to working as a bank teller running the business side of his studio. He had professional advisors and a legal team scrutinizing everything they agreed to with Disney the first time and after the success of Toy Story, Disney even agreed to break the current contract in return for one that was considerably more favorable for Pixar even though they were under no obligation to do so. Pixar with their team of lawyers for a second time, agreed to a contract that allowed Disney to retain the rights. So it isn’t like they didn’t know what they were doing or like they were really taken advantage of.

Unlike the Oswald example, their relationship with Disney is the sole reason for their success today and their ability to voluntarily walk away from Disney as a studio capable of financing their own films…

This whole thing is about money. THE whole thing is about MONEY. It isn’t about right or wrong for Disney OR Pixar. It is about cash. Both companies are publicly traded and both are obligated to their stock holders to act in the best financial interest they can.

Mainstream Hollywood isn’t about art. It is about money and both Disney and Pixar are about as mainstream as it gets. Like Mr. Jobs's other company, they try to foster an internal mood and an outside image of being about something more than a vehicle to make money but I highly doubt that the MIT graduates that they have working there on cartoons would still be around if they weren’t making good money to do it. I somehow dobut the stock holder would be either.

 

[CTXRover]

Originally posted by Blair
Right, but they are thinking long term still.

Yes, and that was a wretched and artless move on Disney's part surely proving that Pixar was right in getting away from them as soon as possible. I mean they didn't even wait 48 hours before announcing they were planning to exploit Pixar's creations without consulting them. Not exactly a sign of a studio with creativity and imagination pumping through it's corporate halls.

Also:

I still don't really understand the long term benefits of leaving Disney on Pixar's side. It sounded like Disney was willing to give them the deal they will end up getting from another studio for their future/long term projects anyway, as well as a bigger chunk in the short-term for the two upcoming films they owe Disney. I am sure there is A LOT more than what is known to us, but it seems like Pixar left only because they couldn't get what they wanted, which involved the deal for the future films PLUS changing the contract they originally signed and agreed to so they could get the copyrights to the first seven films back. In other words, Disney wouldn't budge on that issue and so Pixar just decided to pick up and leave. I know there is alot of tension and bad-blood that Eisner caused between Pixar and Disney and I really think that is another main reason why Pixar ultimately left too.

I think Pixar did an equally artless and wretched move with the way they handled cutting off the talks. Did you know Disney had NO idea this was coming? They learned it about it the same way we did...through a public press release. Doesn't seem like the honorable way to sever ties with the company that fostered you from a virtual no one to the 'talk of the town'. It probably wasn't the best thing to do to announce Toy Story 3 so fast either. It was a little distasteful, especially considering they haven't talked to ANY of the actors who supplied the voices yet. But I think it was a way to try and manage the major blow Pixar dealt them. They were trying to bring light to the fact that they still own those characters. So many places make it sound like Disney lost them by Pixar "walking away".

Also in the press release that mentions Toy Story 3, they also present the films and projects they are working on that does show they aren't devoid of ideas over there...including Chicken Little, Rapunzel unbraided (from Glen Keane), American Dog (from Lilo and Stitch's Chris Sanders), A Day in the Life of Wilbur Robinson as well as mentioning they have 20 other films in active development. The press release that mentoned Toy Story 3 had to let shareholders know what exactly it means now that Pixar is leaving...it isn't distasteful or wrong to recognize that Disney still owns all the characters....its just the facts.

 

[Blair]

From yesterday...

"We will truly miss working with ________ Cook and his terrific distribution and marketing teams," Jobs said, referring to the chairman of Walt Disney Studios. "And you would be hard pressed to find anyone who loves the original spirit of Disney more than John Lasseter, Ed Catmull or myself. But after almost a year, it's time to move on."

Pixar Animation Studios chief Steve Jobs on Wednesday explained his company's decision to split with The Walt Disney Co., blasting Disney as weak creatively and unwilling to compromise on a new agreement," Gary Gentile reports for Associated Press. "In a conference call with analysts to discuss Pixar's earnings, Jobs took a slap at Disney's recent animated films."

"'The truth is there has been little creative collaboration with Disney for years,' Jobs said. 'You can compare the creative quality (of Pixar films) with the creative quality of Disney's last three films and judge each company's creative ability yourselves,'" Gentile reports. Jobs criticized Disney's last two animated efforts, this year's 'Brother Bear' and last year's 'Treasure Planet,' as 'flops. No amount of marketing will turn a dud into a hit,' Jobs said," Gentile reports.

"Jobs said it is unlikely Pixar would ever agree to make a sequel of the five films co-produced by Disney and said he would not want to see Disney exercise its right to make sequels on its own. 'We feel sick about Disney doing sequels,' Jobs said. 'If you look at the quality of their sequels, such as 'Lion King 1 1/2' and (the Peter Pan sequel 'Return to Neverland'), it's pretty embarrassing,'" Gentile reports.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/7875937.htm