Pixar dumps Disney.

709709
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Pixar Ends Talks with Disney to continue their production/distribution arrangement today. Pixar says it will seek a new distribution partner in 2006 after fulfilling its current agreement with Disney. Stock was up for Pixar, down for Disney at market close today.

__________________



Good riddance I say. After Disney said Toy Story 2 'didn't count' as one of the films Pixar agreed to do under their agreement (because it was a sequel) I started to really question Disney's character.



Disney hasn't produced a worthwhile animated film since...well, I don't remember really. And most others probably don't either. Shareholders seem to agree.



I fear for 'Toy Story 3'.





[edit: fixed link]
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 50
    I'm an interested to see what pixar's future will be without disney, I think they will make some awesome stuff for sure.
  • Reply 2 of 50
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    What is their relationship really? I thought disney came up with the ideas and then Pixar created the movie, but it seems that from watching extras of stuff that pixar makes all that stuff. What does it mean that disney is their 'distributor'?
  • Reply 3 of 50
    Does this mean no more Toy Story movies? Not that more would be an intrinsically good thing, but the first one was great and the second one was better. I was kind of hoping we might see another some day. Oh well. Pixar has certainly proved itself over the last several years. I look forward to more good to come.
  • Reply 4 of 50
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    I think it is a stupid move. Even if Disney hasn't been the greatest at creating the animated movies, they are absolute experts at marketing the crap out of them and also helping turn certain characters into a "franchise."



    There have been movies that have come out and done about as well as Pixar movies with regard to box office revenue, but I don't see people demanding sequels or wearing the merchandise too often.



    Shrek was a very profitable movie and even has a sequel coming, but I don't see kids reading Shrek books or wearing Shrek t-shirts in my classroom.



    Disney brings a marketing might that cannot be matched. It would be like Microsoft coming up and offering you a 10th of MS Office profits for letting them toss in your application. Perhaps your product is better than the other applications. Perhaps it is a sixth of the office suite and you are only going to get a tenth of the profits. But who is is going to GIVE you 90+% marketshare of which you get a tenth.



    Not only that but of course now Disney is the competition and co-own some of the most successful Pixar properties. Disney has very good and then bad runs with their animated films. Not everyone may remember Brother Bear, but the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King (still the biggest grossing animated film of all time), etc. are all big hits. How successful will Pixar be when Disney finds its stride again and is COMPETING against Pixar.



    Disney has definately shown they can make good animated films. Pixar hasn?t shown they could ever market and merchandise on the level Disney could.



    This sounds like a lose/lose for Pixar.



    Nick
  • Reply 5 of 50
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    What is their relationship really? I thought disney came up with the ideas and then Pixar created the movie, but it seems that from watching extras of stuff that pixar makes all that stuff. What does it mean that disney is their 'distributor'?



    Pixar has the ideas and the talent, Disney has the marketing muscle. They split the profits, but Disney retains the rights for 'offshoots'...whether that be a sequel or hunks of shaped plastic in a Happy Meal.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by SledgeHammer

    Does this mean no more Toy Story movies?



    No. Disney has the rights to Toy Story and has stated that they have plans for TS3. Any Pixar involvement is at Disney's whim.
  • Reply 6 of 50
    disney posted it's biggest one day gain in a year today. i don't know, where do you see disney being down? (edit = oh i just read the second link, the first doesn't work, it was after the bell trades.)



    "lilo and stitch" was good, and a hit, not a "nemo" or "toy story" hit, but it surprised me.
  • Reply 7 of 50
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    What is their relationship really? I thought disney came up with the ideas and then Pixar created the movie, but it seems that from watching extras of stuff that pixar makes all that stuff. What does it mean that disney is their 'distributor'?



    Pixar does everything in house. What Disney brings to the situation is the amazing brand power, distribution network, and retail operation to peddle the toys and lunch boxes. Pixar wanted a deal like Lucas has with Fox. Lucas pays for everything and retains rights to everything. Fox gets a 5% cut for their distribution deal. Right now Disney and Pixar split all costs and profits 50/50. Obviously, Pixar having made the highest grossing animated film ever and highest grossing movie of 2003 feels that they can get a better deal from someone else. I would tend to agree. Disney owned the traditional 2-D animation market and all attempts by other studios, with the exception of Dreamworks SKG seeing as the K is Katzenberg who was the head of Disney's 2-D animation studio, have failed miserably. However the 3-D space is open to newcomers. Shrek, Ice Age, all Pixar's movies, have shown that there is no longer a strangle hold on the animation market like there used to be. As long as Pixar keeps making great films there will be a huge market for them. Hell, the "From the makers of Toy Story, Monsters Inc, and Finding Nemo" will be more important then the Big D.
  • Reply 8 of 50
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    What is their relationship really? I thought disney came up with the ideas and then Pixar created the movie, but it seems that from watching extras of stuff that pixar makes all that stuff. What does it mean that disney is their 'distributor'?



    yeah, what 709 said... in fact, lasseter (sp?) and his creative teams may be pixar's greatest asset, even more so than the technology behind it (well, okay, maybe not). while pixar has continued to generate new ideas with every movie, disney rehashes every old story, fable and fairy tale known to man, and dreamworks relies on fart jokes, bad puns and one-liners (see: shrek, antz).



    i think the thing that makes disney so mad is that, even though disney's the one running the promotion and advertising, the movie's have been known as "pixar's finding nemo" and "pixar's a bug's life" and pixar's monsters inc" (notice the conspicuous absence of the word DISNEY in there anywhere).
  • Reply 9 of 50
    gsxrboygsxrboy Posts: 565member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Disney has very good and then bad runs with their animated films. Not everyone may remember Brother Bear, but the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King (still the biggest grossing animated film of all time), etc. are all big hits. How successful will Pixar be when Disney finds its stride again and is COMPETING against Pixar.



    From the words I have read Disney has basically killed off its 2d production, all the big hits have just been rehashed story lines, Disney have had no new story lines in ages.. they are in an imagination backhole, they havent had a hit since those movies.. they want to push their own 3d stuff, yeah right ! they will do that better than Pixar? not a chance.. other rumors are that Pixar has been buying up all the equipment from Disneys 2d sell off, so if you think disney and Pixar might compete, if the rumors are tru about the 2d stuff, then you havent seen anything yet.. many many very talented but stroppy ex Disney laid off workers ready to draw like crazy for a new boss and make Disney pay for the way they have killed them and the animation art off..



    In the end no matter if its 2d or 3d its the stories that sell a movie, Pixar have the imagination and handle on stories and Disney do not.. Other distribution studio will be falling over themselves to sign up with Pixar.



    I think Pixar will only benefit from moving on. Storylines and characters sell.
  • Reply 10 of 50
    i just looked up "lilo and stitch" 145 million, plus a successful t.v. spinoff.

    brother bear 84 million? i didn't realize it did that much.



    plus they had "Pirates of the Caribbean."



    all in all disney's movie division did well, take away nemo and they still did ok.

    anyone selling stock based on an announcement of a partnership that garners at most one release a year (+DVD) is being shortsighted.



    the next pixar release "The Incredibles" doesn't look very "pixarish" and doesn't look to be a blockbuster, and although i think it looks funny, probably won't do nemo numbers. in fact i think the may be giving them something just to fill the commitment.
  • Reply 11 of 50
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gsxrboy

    .. other rumors are that Pixar has been buying up all the equipment from Disneys 2d sell off, so if you think disney and Pixar might compete, if the rumors are tru about the 2d stuff, then you havent seen anything yet..



    True, I completely forgot about Pixar starting it's own 2D division. It'll be interesting to see the fruits of that compared to anything Disney offers...even if they 'ramp up' again.



    I'll agree with trumptman that Disney's got the ultimate market muscle...much like Budweiser. Though as of late they've done nothing but 'low carb' attempts...that is, straight to video.
  • Reply 12 of 50
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    aw, come on, nick. i thought you were smarter than this...



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    I think it is a stupid move. Even if Disney hasn't been the greatest at creating the animated movies, they are absolute experts at marketing the crap out of them and also helping turn certain characters into a "franchise."



    if by "experts" you mean "juggernaut of media blitzing" or "the microsoft of cartoon-dom", then yeah. otherwise...



    Quote:



    There have been movies that have come out and done about as well as Pixar movies with regard to box office revenue, but I don't see people demanding sequels or wearing the merchandise too often.



    Shrek was a very profitable movie and even has a sequel coming, but I don't see kids reading Shrek books or wearing Shrek t-shirts in my classroom.




    i said it before, and i'll say it again, shrek may have been funny and enjoyable to a point, but it just didn't have the heart and the uniqueness that mosters inc did during the same year. still shocked it won the oscar.



    Quote:

    Disney brings a marketing might that cannot be matched. It would be like Microsoft coming up and offering you a 10th of MS Office profits for letting them toss in your application. Perhaps your product is better than the other applications. Perhaps it is a sixth of the office suite and you are only going to get a tenth of the profits. But who is is going to GIVE you 90+% marketshare of which you get a tenth.



    ah, so you DO get it. but, recall, steve cares about marketshare, but he cares more about being different. making a name for yourself, not for who you are, or what you do/make, but WHAT YOU ARE. the man can school ANYone on brand making.



    Quote:

    Not only that but of course now Disney is the competition and co-own some of the most successful Pixar properties. Disney has very good and then bad runs with their animated films. Not everyone may remember Brother Bear, but the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King (still the biggest grossing animated film of all time), etc. are all big hits. How successful will Pixar be when Disney finds its stride again and is COMPETING against Pixar.



    Disney has definately shown they can make good animated films. Pixar hasn?t shown they could ever market and merchandise on the level Disney could.




    again, disney has had a monopoly on animation for so long that people forget anything else that wasn't from their house. but why do we remember the greats? lion king? snow white? not because of the publicity, but the idea and story. i guarantee you pocahantas was the beginning of the end for disney, where they threw behind it as much money as any other film for marketing and, clunk, clunk, poca-what now?



    Quote:

    This sounds like a lose/lose for Pixar.



    sorry, nick, the best i will grant you is that it is a win/lose. maybe they won't have the money share or marketing and lunchboxes and such, but i think they'll earn as much if not more respect within the industry (and outside it too) without feeling like they are compromising anything to do it.



    edit: p.s. by the way, i do want to give disney credit for one 2d film recently... lilo and stitch. that really was a good movie, and very different than what disney was trying recently. of course, they've driven the entire idea into the ground now with straight-to-video garbage to capitalize as much as possible for money. but that's what i expect from monopolies who expect people to kowtow to their way of doing things just because they say so.
  • Reply 13 of 50
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    the next pixar release "The Incredibles" doesn't look very "pixarish" and doesn't look to be a blockbuster, and although i think it looks funny, probably won't do nemo numbers.



    Yeah, I thought the same thing after seeing the Nemo trailer. In fact, somebody here made a thread on how Nemo would bomb. I leaned toward agreeing...until I saw it. The rest, as they say, is history.
  • Reply 14 of 50
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 709

    Yeah, I thought the same thing after seeing the Nemo trailer. In fact, somebody here made a thread on how Nemo would bomb. I leaned toward agreeing...until I saw it. The rest, as they say, is history.



    709, you are beating the words out of my mouth by about, oh, 28 seconds by my watch.



  • Reply 15 of 50
    "The Incredibles" is by the guy who did "iron giant" (which i really liked.)

    but i get the distinct feeling that it was outsourced (meaning they are saving pixar ideas for after disney) by pixar to fulfill their contractual obligation.



    coincidentally, i just saw monster's inc. on ice today (don't ask, it was dreadful)
  • Reply 16 of 50
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rok

    yeah, what 709 said... in fact, lasseter (sp?) and his creative teams may be pixar's greatest asset, even more so than the technology behind it (well, okay, maybe not). while pixar has continued to generate new ideas with every movie, disney rehashes every old story, fable and fairy tale known to man, and dreamworks relies on fart jokes, bad puns and one-liners (see: shrek, antz).



    i think the thing that makes disney so mad is that, even though disney's the one running the promotion and advertising, the movie's have been known as "pixar's finding nemo" and "pixar's a bug's life" and pixar's monsters inc" (notice the conspicuous absence of the word DISNEY in there anywhere).




    Actually I think Disney is the one doing some interesting things to try to get out of their rut. Lilo and Stitch as a bit of a departure for them and Teacher's Pet looks very different from their typical stuff.



    Pixar actually is the one in a rut. The basically have one successful plot line which is the opposite buddies (usually cops in other movies)who go on a journey/solve a crime(problem outside of the cop movies). While I enjoy them, almost all of them have fit that mold. Toy Story I & II, Monsters Inc. , and Nemo all fit that exact mold. Bug's Life was a departure, but was probably their weakest film.



    So basically Pixar better hope they can generate success outside the Odd Couple motive.



    Nick
  • Reply 17 of 50
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 709

    True, I completely forgot about Pixar starting it's own 2D division. It'll be interesting to see the fruits of that compared to anything Disney offers...even if they 'ramp up' again.



    I'll agree with trumptman that Disney's got the ultimate market muscle...much like Budweiser. Though as of late they've done nothing but 'low carb' attempts...that is, straight to video.




    Straight to video.. you mean like Mary Kate and Ashley? I've heard they haven't made a dime off that stuff.







    Actually you show exactly how Disney is smarter than Jobs in this respect. They do first rate releases that grab a 100-200 in box office. They they will have second and third releases straight to video of sequels that add some serious heft to the bottom line for minimal money.



    Remember Disney isn't just Disney the movie company. Theme parks, and especially television. Hell they own ABC, the Disney channel, and ABCKids for goodness sakes. My elementary kids love Kim Possible and Recess for goodness sakes.



    As for all of you commenting on 2D. It doesn't exist any more. 2D is 3D just rendered differently.



    Nick
  • Reply 18 of 50
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Actually I think Disney is the one doing some interesting things to try to get out of their rut. Lilo and Stitch as a bit of a departure for them and Teacher's Pet looks very different from their typical stuff.



    What was 'Lilo and Stitch' if not an odd couple movie? OK, not as intimate a duo as Pixar films portray, but then again, I could only watch through the first 15 minutes without Stitch's annoying voice driving me insane.



    And if you mean 'interesting' as in 'buy the rights to an existing cartoon and lengthen it by 90 minutes', then yes, Disney is doing something interesting with 'Teacher's Pet'. Again, I got through half the trailer before I wanted to scratch my eardrums out, but whatever, Jar Jar Binks made Episode I a classic. Oh, wait....
  • Reply 19 of 50
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    As for all of you commenting on 2D. It doesn't exist any more. 2D is 3D just rendered differently.



    Absolutely true. And 2D is better for it.
  • Reply 20 of 50
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Actually you show exactly how Disney is smarter than Jobs in this respect. They do first rate releases that grab a 100-200 in box office. They they will have second and third releases straight to video of sequels that add some serious heft to the bottom line for minimal money.



    You might have skimmed over rok's above post, but to sum it up where Steve is concerned: smarter =/ smarter. Steve will consistently create the most mindblowing products...and marketshare be damned. He's doing a much better job at this with Pixar than at Apple.



    Kim Possible and Recess are also my two favorite Sat morning shows...and I'm in my mid-30s. \
Sign In or Register to comment.