Disney Pixar Discussion

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » February 15th, 2005, 11:35 pm

Yeah,

I don't think Eisner gets out of Burbank and in touch with people who DON'T kiss his @ss all the time. The people working for him generally only tell him what he wants to hear and feed his ego.

This is a not surprising comment from Eisner. He's been fairly clueless about what makes good animation all along -- a trait he shares in common with Jeffrey Katzenberg, another fellow who's fooled himself into thinking he's the next Walt Disney.

If Eisner even knew who the hardcore animation crowd were, maybe he could have asked them how well the "better-looking" human figures in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and the rotocrapped Polar Express were received!

The responses I've read about both films' "realistic-looking humans" was almost unanimously negative. Not even close to 50/50 split there. The words eerie, scary, waxlike, mannequin, and unappealing are in a lot of people's responses as to why the visuals of those films didn't work for them. Sure, Final Fantasy: TSW and PE had some story problems too, but it doesn't help matters when people notice that the animation isn't coming off well for some reason! Could it be the character design -- maybe!

Post by **Christian** » February 15th, 2005, 11:45 pm

Pixar has released six movies so far, Disney has released hundreds upon hundreds. Obviously people are going to find some Disney movies they don't like. And of the three that Jobs mentioned I know there are some people who swear by them. Jobs doesn't want any distributor other than Disney but he wants to take advantage of the public's hatred of Eisner to try to wrangle out a deal that is good as possible for himself and as bad as possible for Disney. He knows full well he has Eisner in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position. With the deal that Jobs wanted it would've been financially pointless for Disney to stay in it, so if Eisner did agree to it then the alternative is that stockholders would be screaming, "Michael Eisner is a spineless wimp who sold his soul to Pixar! What about our shareholder value?!" Then when Eisner doesn't cave the public screams, "Is he not aware of what a precious gem he's throwing away?!" And it is likely that anybody who was the Disney CEO would be stuck between the same rock and the same hard place. It may end up being that Michael Eisner did the right thing by walking away from the bargaining table. Now he just sits back and watches Jobs squirm (even though he tries to disguise it by lashing out like a playground brat) until Jobs simmers down and is ready to strike a more reasonable deal.

We have an exactly similar situation going on here with our local cable company. ESPN is starting to charge them outrageous prices so the cable company is getting all these complaints: "You b******s!! If you cancel my ESPN you don't even want to know what sort of revenge I will exact!!!" The viewers never think for a second that maybe the blame lies firmly at the feet of the bloated ego of ESPN (a fact that ESPN takes advantage of because they know the viewer is likely to get mad at the entity easier to contact: their local cable carrier) . . . which is run by Disney . . . so I guess everybody is greedy . . . but at the same time I don't consider ESPN to be a core property of Disney. It's a business venture, not an artistic venture. The Pixar deal is an artistic venture and Jobs is keeping it secret that he really doesn't want another distributor but is hoping for a new CEO who will kiss up to him and do his bidding. And before anybody starts, yes, I do know all the bad things Eisner has done and am just as disgusted by them as every other right-thinking person.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » February 16th, 2005, 12:48 am

I agree with you, Christian.

(I'm posting asides in "( )". You can ignore these if you want to make reading my response easier.)

That's totally been my line of thinking with Jobs all along, too.

He doesn't want to really re-up with another company because Pixar likely won't get the marketing and distribution strength from another company that Disney already has. I'm not so sure Jobs could really negotiate another better deal with another company at this point, either.

(And yes, I totally agree that Jobs is at least as arrogant as Eisner and Katzenberg. Naive animation fans don't seem to realize the battle of egos that's happening here. To think of things in terms of who's the good guy and the bad guy in this case is flying against reality.)

If we're to understand the rumors correctly, Disney may have had good reasons to balk at some of Jobs' demands. Equally, if other rumors are true, Pixar may be having a harder time than we're led to believe in finding another corporate partner to give it a sweetheart deal.

(This leads to another interesting point... If Eisner really is such a good moneyman, why the hell is he flushing so much money down the drain starting, dismantling, and restarting animation production facilities? This isn't Disney's first time at CGI film production and they blew through well over $100 million in start-up for Dinosaur and lost that on top of the budget for Dinosaur which is rumored to be MUCH higher than the officially stated figures. Can anybody honestly believe it's NOT costing Disney tens of millions of dollars now to recover a capacity they threw away years ago?)

If this is just about CGI and fads, then there's really no logical reason for another Hollywood studio to negotiate with Pixar. Sony and Fox already have their own CGI animation studios or existing deals with other CGI studios. Why negotiate another hassle with Pixar?

The general public is ignorant exactly where Pixar and Disney end and it's practically all the same to them! (And on that note, I'm not surprised that so many people are STILL dim and aren't aware that Disney closed down 2D animation production. People just don't listen or read the news anymore!)

In the long run, my own gut feeling is that Pixar would be better doing what Disney did in the 1950s -- setting up its own distribution and marketing arm rather than relying on another company. This may be far easier said than done now considering how few companies really control theatrical distribution and marketing worldwide. For yet another studio to enter into this arena -- and Pixar is beans next to Disney, Time-Warner, and all the other 50-plus-year studios -- could be suicide even with the string of successes Pixar has already had.

As profitable as Pixar has been, it just may not really have enough capital and clout yet to strike out on its own. Especially with their budgets averaging $100 million per film.

Disney, Time-Warner, and the other major studios have other divisions that can absorb losses when their films tank at the box office. Is Pixar really strong enough at this point in time to survive 2 or 3 failures in a row when and if that time comes WITHOUT a corporate partner?

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » March 13th, 2005, 7:34 am

Here's the link http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge ... e=20050313

Read it and weep...

I think the Board is making a terrible mistake.

Post by **PatrickvD** » March 13th, 2005, 9:28 am

ugh, they might as well keep Eisner

Post by **askmike1** » March 13th, 2005, 10:24 am

Although I'd much rather see Michael Eisner continue to lead the company, I look foward to see what Bob Iger will do. Give him a chance people, don't assume what he will do (because we all know what happens when you assume). For all we know, he could be the best thing to happen to the company or the worst. Let's just wait and see.

Post by **Josh** » March 13th, 2005, 2:11 pm

Thanks for the news, George.

Post by **Josh** » March 13th, 2005, 3:15 pm

It's official: Iger is Disney's next CEO.

Post by **Kinoo** » March 13th, 2005, 3:27 pm

it's official then,

well, when the last classic will be released on DVD, i'll be done with Disney, i just CAN'T get excited anymore by sequels all year long, sequels to Pixar movies WIHTOUT Pixar...

True Disney spirit today lies in the past or in studios such as Pixar... not anymore in the corporation that on Walt's name.

I'm sad today.

Post by **Ben** » March 13th, 2005, 4:44 pm

Oh...

My only hope is that, after putting up with Eisner for so long, that Iger bids goodbye to him and starts afresh.

Of course, that probably won't happen, and all we'll get is the continued rounds of musical chairs at the once great Walt Disney Company.

Post by **PatrickvD** » March 14th, 2005, 9:14 am

I sure hope Iger shows some guts and rids the Company of Eisner's ugly footprints. start fresh. If he doesn't, I have faith Roy will continue to pressure these morons. I say we remove them the old fashioned way, with torches and pitchforks

Post by **Josh** » March 14th, 2005, 4:19 pm

Maybe some good will come from Iger being the CEO! It could save the relationship between Weinsteins and Disney: http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-03-14/#4. This could be great news, because, like Katzenberg's exit, the Weinsteins leaving would only create more competition for Disney.

Post by **askmike1** » March 14th, 2005, 6:31 pm

Mickey A wrote:Maybe some good will come from Iger being the CEO! It could save the relationship between Weinsteins and Disney: http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-03-14/#4. This could be great news, because, like Katzenberg's exit, the Weinsteins leaving would only create more competition for Disney.

I don't think this will be a problem because Disney doesn't have a division that will do the same things the Weinsteins do. Miramaz will be an art-house studio so it's films aren't competative. No other Disney arm does those kind of films.

Post by **Josh** » March 14th, 2005, 6:40 pm

In my opinion, Miramax is mostly about competition, considering the Oscars and other major movie awards.

Post by **askmike1** » March 14th, 2005, 6:42 pm

If you're talking Oscar-wise, they yeah, Harvey & Bob will be competition. But on any other level (including Box OFfice) the brothers will not affect Disney
.

Disney Pixar Discussion

Bad Disney News: Iger may be in as new Disney CEO...