Disney Pixar Discussion

[Bambi]

He just got a plum new role at Disney!?

no! i said too bad that he retaired from board directors

[ShyViolet]

no! i said too bad that he retaired from board directors

I know a lot of people feel this way but when he was on the board he basically approved everything Eisner did and was noted for being the person who spoke up the least during meetings.

Well, maybe he'll be more vocal now. Though I have to say I doubt it.

[Bambi]

Well, maybe he'll be more vocal now. Though I have to say I doubt it.

Me too

[ShyViolet]

AnimationNation took down their endorsement of Roy on the home page. But they're still pretty pro-Roy. I guess it's because the campaign is officially "over" although maybe this is the long-awaited "Round Two" Gold and Disney have been talking about for a year now.

I don't know but I have a sneaking suspicion that about 18 months from now Roy will resign again, launch a campaign against Iger, and leave Disney for good. I don't want to sound pessimistic but I really can't see Roy and Iger working together. I think Roy still despises Iger as well as everyone else on the board (they all supported Eisner, after all). He hates them but he'll tolerate them for a while, make nice with the press, and then in 2007 or 2008 he'll set the dogs loose. If you look at the history of this man's actions, (and I mean really dig deep) with Ron Miller, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, Michael Eisner AND Bob Iger, you'll see he has a very passive-aggressive streak. He'll hang back in the shadows for a while, but when he gets mad, he's not to be messed with.

That's my opinon.

[ShyViolet]

Other than Cars and Ratopolis, what films DO they have in the pipeline anyway? (Pixar)

We're hearing a lot about Disney future projects but other than Cars I really haven't seen much about Pixar's future. Is it because of their uncertain "relationship" with the Disney studio?

[Christian]

Yes.

[Phil]

If you look at the history of this man's actions, (and I mean really dig deep) with Ron Miller, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Ovitz, Michael Eisner AND Bob Iger, you'll see he has a very passive-aggressive streak. He'll hang back in the shadows for a while, but when he gets mad, he's not to be messed with.

I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the situation, either, but my interpretation is a little different than Violet's.

It seems to me that with each new administration, Roy has tried to work with them. He's given them time to prove themselves. If he disagrees with something, he at first works quietly within the system to change it. It's only after that method has failed that he goes public with drastic action.

As opposed to Violet's passive-agressive analysis, I see Roy as someone with a lot of patience, giving new people the opportunity to prove themselves. In the end, though, no one can match up to his father and uncle.

[ShyViolet]

If he disagrees with something, he at first works quietly within the system to change it.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious or anything, (sorry if I come off this way) but what exactly are you basing this on? Other than "writing letters" or complaining to Eisner about how Katzenberg made the animators come in on a Sunday, when has Roy "worked quietly" for something? What exactly has he done? And if he did actually "do" stuff while on the inside, why hasn't he been more vocal about it? He was out of the company for almost two years and completely free to talk about it. Why didn't he?
The way I hear it half the time WDFA was falling to its ruin he was out in some yacht race or his castle in Ireland. (What about the anniversery last July? Oh, right...he had a yacht race planned.)

As opposed to Violet's passive-agressive analysis, I see Roy as someone with a lot of patience, giving new people the opportunity to prove themselves.

That's a nice thought but...is there actual proof of this? So many people give Roy the benefit of the doubt and assign him motives which, weighing his actual actions, seem very much in doubt. You don't know what's in this guy's mind, you only have what he SAYS. What about what he's actually done? If rhetoric were everything, Eisner would still be at Disney.

[Phil]

I'll admit again that I don't have any firsthand knowledge and that my opinions are just that, opinions and not facts. (As are yours, Violet )

Other than "writing letters" or complaining to Eisner about how Katzenberg made the animators come in on a Sunday, when has Roy "worked quietly" for something?

I find it hard to believe that with the passion Roy seems to have, he can turn it off and on like a faucet. So my assumption is that when he isn't venting his frustration publicly, he's still working... quietly. And the reason we don't hear about it is because... it's done quietly.

And if he did actually "do" stuff while on the inside, why hasn't he been more vocal about it? He was out of the company for almost two years and completely free to talk about it. Why didn't he?

Why does he need to? I don't go around talking about disagreements I've had with my boss.

So many people give Roy the benefit of the doubt and assign him motives which, weighing his actual actions, seem very much in doubt.

I guess that's the difference. Not knowing Roy personally, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and you're not. And we each interpret his actions differently.

You don't know what's in this guy's mind...

And neither do you...

[GeorgeC]

Most smaller studios are probably going to have at least 3-6 movies in development.

We're only hearing about the last movie Pixar has with Disney because that's how they want to play things now. That doesn't mean there isn't a crew involved in pre-production/story development for another film.

Of course, if discussions with Disney fail for the final time, Pixar really will be up the creek without a distribution partner. How will an itty-bitty company like Pixar manage to get films out WITHOUT a major distribution partner? (IE, anybody seen a Will Vinton or Bill Plympton feature lately at their megaplex?)

I'd really hate to see how they're going to manage distribution without a major partner. Pixar is peanuts compared to WB, Paramount, Fox, Universal, or Disney, and I think it'd be pretty clear they'd either have to sell out to a certain extent to get distribution. I don't think Pixar will get a sweetheart distribution deal. It's a bit late in the day for that.

Disney really should have bought out Pixar years ago when they could have had that studio for a steal. Right now, ironically enough, Pixar is probably TOO expensive for most other studios now and the fact that Pixar is focused solely on feature animation probably hurts them, too.

There's a limited market for feature animation in the US and that's been the case forever. Only 2 companies have ever been consistently successful at feature animation and one of those companies has bowed out for the time being until fall...

We're already seeing Pixar's major competitor, DreamWorks, attempting to sell out to another company (Universal) because it simply does not have the resources and film library to compete successfully in a market that largely locks out small studios like DreamWorks -- and Pixar -- without major distribution partners.

[Ben]

Two things...

If Disney HAD bought Pixar, we would not have had films such as Toy STory 2, Finding Nemo or The Incredibles.

Disney's Pixar would have been as "micro-managed" as any other aspect of the company, and creativity zapped.

Second...Pixar up the creek? PLEASE! They know they are in a good position with Disney and can get good terms, if not everything they want, from the Mouse.

BUT...all those other companies you listed would bend over backwards to get into a partnership with the worlds most successful producers (artistically and commercially) of animated films, currently.

And since when have Vinton or Plympton delievered a film that would have been capable of turning the kind of bank that Pixar makes on their films?

If the Mouse plays too hard, and the Lamp walks, they'll shack up shop with one of five or six other players. They may have to mark down their price, but sell out or be stuck up a creek...not gonna happen.

[Brandon Neeld]

In all honesty, I'm willing to bet that Pixar and Disney stay together. I'll eat my Incredibles movie poster and send you all the video if they don't. I think both companies know it's just jockying to see who will get better terms in the deal. As for what Pixar has coming down the pipeline - besides the aforementioned I know Brad Bird has at least two more ideas rolling around in his head and has shown interest in staying with the company long term. Of course I'm sure they're also saving room for a sequel of two.

Back on topic to the rankings though, I think we could be about to enter a strange world in which we have Pixar dominating the medium, Blue Sky at a distant second, and no one else even on the map. I honestly feel DreamWorks (all of its divisions) is unraveling at the seems. If something doesn't change soon they will end up selling out and fading away under the trade name of a company that has no real interest in animation other than capitalizing on the company's previous successes. Assuming the Disney/Pixar uncivil union holds up you can bet Pixar will flourish and at the expense of Disney's CG department. Circle 7 will become Disney's step child and it won't be a Cinderella story. Does Sony even count as animation at this point??? I'm gonna have to see more before I give them a shot. Blue Sky though does have a shot. Fox isn't Disney but I still wouldn't mind having their cash. With Blue Sky improving like it has and giving animators a bit more freedom than DreamWorks, I doubt they're far away from being an industry powerhouse. Besides - if worse comes to worse they can always fall back on Scrat the movie.

[GeorgeC]

[quote="Ben"]

BUT...all those other companies you listed would bend over backwards to get into a partnership with the worlds most successful producers (artistically and commercially) of animated films, currently.

[/quote]


If that's the case, then why HAVEN'T the other studios signed up with Pixar?

Eisner's not the only guy with a major ego problem, either. From what I hear from both the computer AND studio worlds, it's a not-so-little-known fact that Jobs has as big an ego as Eisner does.

And yes, companies can fall or rise on the fortunes of one product line.

Does anybody honestly believe Apple ISN'T getting by on the sales of i-Pod any more than Pixar is subsisting on ticket and DVD sales of its films?

You're being a bit too naive here, Ben. It only takes a few missteps for a company as relatively small as Pixar to go bye-bye.

Disney has a ton of backlog of TV and movie vaults, theme parks, and many cable ventures to fall back on. What does Pixar have other than a half-dozen films and around a dozen shorts? That's not a big film library.

Look what's happened to DreamWorks. Like them or hate them, they've decided to cash in chips and sell off to NBC/Universal ASAP. They're just not a big company and they've hemorrhaged a lot of money. Just not long ago, DreamWorks has come under investigation for allegedly inflating video sales and box office expectations. Heck, Wal-Mart, the BIGGEST buyer of videos in the US, had to drastically mark down tens of thousands of copies of Shrek 2 and Shark Tale because DreamWorks won't take the videotapes back!

Pixar has had similar setbacks, too. Whether it's public weariness of superhero films, the shine beginning to dull on the CGI fad, people not responding as warmly to a Brad Bird film -- or a combination of all three --, The Incredibles DIDN'T do as incredibly well (pun intended) as Pixar had hoped. The same charges have been filed against Pixar (but so far no legal action that I'm aware of) as were against DreamWorks.

I really have to wonder who's got who by the balls here. As great a content producer as Pixar MAY be, it doesn't do them a lick of good IF they don't have distribution AND if the only asset they have is content creation, period. Tough time to be a small company, for sure.

[Ben]

If that's the case, then why HAVEN'T the other studios signed up with Pixar?

I'm sure it's not because the other sturios don't want to George.

But Jobs knows he can get a much better deal staying put with the Mouse, so he's in no eager rush to sign with anyone right now.

And if you can't see that, then it is you who are naive (but in a nice way)

[GeorgeC]

Nah, I think Jobs quoted a price that was TOO BIG for the other studios to swallow. There's also the point that at least two other potential suitors (Fox and Sony) already have their own computer animation divisions or existing contracts with other companies.

Whether you accept Fox or Sony's animation aspirations as being serious, the point is that they already have existing contracts with other companies. Also, it hasn't been proven at any point in the past that the North American market can really sustain more than 2-3 animated features a year tops. So far, it's only managed to have around 2 big winners a year. More than that being released, you definitely have films that haven't done well. It may sound ridiculous to some, but the North American market may not be capable of supporting a half-dozen or more animated features a year. Especially if the writing continues to be as crummy as it traditionally has been.

Disney overpaid on both ABC and The Family Channel. It may be that the people at the House of Mouse still haven't learned their lesson. The price of gutting their own animation facility and getting Pixar back on-board is going to be ridiculous.

Nobody really has an idea yet of exactly what the cost is of killing off the Disney Feature Animation Studios yet, but I think we'll see it in the next 10 years when somebody in management gets the big idea in their head to really re-start the DFA division. It'll be interesting to see how much money was squandered by shutting it down in the first place!

(I really don't buy Circle 7 as being a viable animation studio until after we see what happens with Chicken Little this fall. I still think that film and ESPECIALLY Toy Story 3 are bargaining chips with Pixar.)

I still think Pixar is due for a real bomb, a film that's undeniably going to be a BIG tax write-off for that company. The Incredibles WASN'T a bomb but it definitely was not as big a hit as predicted by some financial and entertainment quarters. It has, however, gotten notices for less-than-predicted sales on DVD, today. I don't know that the video situation for The Incredibles is as bad as it is for Shrek 2 and Sharktale.


There's a bit more about the situation between small studios and the big majors here http://www.slate.com/id/2124078/

There's no question Pixar is NOT as secure as some people might think...