Perhaps a non-Eisner voice can bring them back to the table, but it will need to be a good deal.
Pixar is a moneymaker. Disney is a money loser.
Pixar will need an attractive offer to keep them with Disney.
Posted by Mr J Vagabond (Member # 8017) on :
Yeah, i don't know about Pixar, but if it was me i wouldn't want to be pulled back in to the sinking ship that is Disney. Frankly I think the whole situation was best stated in an interview with Robin Williams on IGN, where he said something to the effect of, Disney droping the pixar deal is like Apple going "F--- the Ipod, we don't need that little thing! We'll go forth with the mini-mac."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Pixar is a moneymaker. Disney is a money loser.
You may not agree with his artistic priorities, but Eisner has done very well, money-wise, for Disney.
quote:In 2005, Disney was one of the richest companies in America. Its enterprise value—Wall street's favored measure of an entertainment company—had increased 32-fold since 1984 and stood at $69 billion. Its tax-free cash flow had increased 29 times, to $2.9 billion. Its film library had grown to 900 features, which were licensed on TV and sold on video and DVD, and its home-entertainment division accounted for nearly one-third of the revenues of the entire industry. Its share price, reflecting this robust health, had risen to $28.25.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I stand corrected at that point.
But still, what profit was Pixar making off of the service Disney was doing for them?
Didn't they have to split the profits with Disney?
Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
Well, yes, but the same is true for any distributor you choose. The advantage Pixar has now is that they have some money in the bank, so they don't need to be paid in advance for their films. (I'm just assuming, based on nothing but my own understanding of media contracts, that they were payed advances for some of their other films, and the contract with Disney gave Disney a proportionately larger portion of the profits because of this.) If Pixar can afford to make its own movies without being paid in advance, then that means they are now in a position to get much better deals on royalties and the like, especially since they now have a reputation large enough that every distributor (especially of note here would be Dreamworks) will take them seriously.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Haha! Disney comes crawling back with their tail between their legs!
*rubs hands together eagerly*
They are nothing without Pixar! Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Or Miyazaki for that matter... But look how they treat him? Hardly any promotion for his excellent movies. Disney is going down and knows it...
(still, I do love various Disney movies)
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
I don't know how the economics work here, and I will cheerfully admit that this is all gut feeling and may be entirely off. With that said, I'd think what Disney brings to the table is a lot more capital. Disney can afford to absorb the occasional flop; it's questionable whether Pixar could on its own. And no matter how good the latter is, nobody's streak lasts forever.
(Also, I don't quite get the whole Disney-is-going-down thing. New animated films, even new motion pictures in general, are a small part of the overall Disney empire. Pixar is a tiny speck in comparison. What Pixar has to offer has more to do with prestige--upholding Disney's rep as animated innovators--than anything else, I'd think.)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Just make them STOP making remakes of all their old movies. Enough is enough!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The following is my opinion. Take it or leave it.
The more time goes on, the more I dislike Disney and the way they do things. As far as I'm concerned, the only reason why they continue to make so much money is that they have duped all of the world into thinking that your childhood isn't complete unless you watch all their movies and go to their theme parks.
Yes, they used to be the best at what they do. But they just aren't any more. They don't even seem to be trying anymore. All their most brilliant movies are done by OTHER COMPANIES.
But they don't get it. They are still completely full of themselves, touting themselves as God's gift to the Family and Rosy Childhoods everywhere. The attitude ticks me off big time.
I remember long ago when I still believed that Disney was the end-all-be-all of animated magic, I considered working at a Disney Store. But their attitude really turned me off. They expected you to "worship" them in all their various forms. If you didn't just think they were the best thing in the world, they wouldn't even look at you. That was when I started realizing that while I have deeply loved some of their animated films, they just weren't worthy of my adoration.
Pixar is refreshing, creative, new, funny, everything that Disney may have once been. But Disney holds too tightly to its past image. Pixar is also on a major roll. Maybe they won't be able to keep it up. But even at it's most brilliant, Disney has never measured up to Pixar's magnificence.
Yeah, Miyazaki, same story as Pixar. Eventually, people will recognize the source of genius for what it is. Well, I can hope anyway.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
What Pixar and Disney used to have can never be redone, I don't think. Pixar was this unheard-of company who needed Disney to help make Toy Story successful. Now they have consistently made great animated films and they don't need Disney's protection.
I don't think Disney's anywhere near going down. Disney movies are still bad but people still see them with their kids. Even if the movie biz dries up they have television, Broadway, theme parks, and just about everything else to fall back on.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
If Pixar does one thing, it outta be this: Don't give Disney the rights to sequels of their movies.
Ugh. Disney sequels.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)