Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Pixar Drops Disney To Find a New Studio Partner

Posted by CowboyNeal on Thu Jan 29, 2004 08:08 PM
from the parting-ways dept.
da_anarchist writes "After much speculation, Pixar has announced that it will end its distribution agreement with Disney. This comes after much bitterness at Pixar over the terms of their current deal with Disney, where Disney took a sizable (and some would say unfair) portion of the $2.5 billion in revenue generated by Pixar's films. Pixar is best known as the studio behind the Toy Story series and the more recent movie Finding Nemo."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:09PM (#8130177)
    Then why isn't it iPixar?
  • Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:10PM (#8130182) Homepage Journal
    I've always felt rather 'ugh' about Pixar's association with Disney and feel this is a good move.

    Disney may have been good, long ago, but after the success of Toy Story I don't think Pixar needed Disney for distribution. Worse, I've felt, is a Disney influence on characters in the films, certain attitudes and stereotypes which are pretty tired and one reason Disney's animated offerings don't impress.

    Sadly, this will also mean any sequels to the Disney-associated films will be done by Disney, which as I've said, employs some pretty tired ideas about character development. Hopefully the well at Pixar is far from dry and fresh new ideas continue to emerge.

    • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jobugeek (466084) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:12PM (#8130209) Homepage
      I'm not sure I agree with you. Having the Disney name on it means it automatically becomes a must see for a lot of kids(people). Granted the well-made movie helped it, but don't underestimate the value of the Disney name
      • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jeffkjo1 (663413) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:18PM (#8130267) Homepage
        The Disney name is important, but I think you've seen a marked decline in the quality of Disney films the past several years, and it has hurt their bottom line. Disney is in a position that IBM found itself in years ago, and Coca-Cola found itself in when Pepsi came on the market.

        How to respond to competition. Disney used ot be the only game in town when it came to animated features, and that just isn't the case anymore. They're definitely hurting.

        It's gotta be bad there for Roy Disney to just pack up his bags and leave.
        • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Informative)

          by Syre (234917) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:56PM (#8131012)
          > Disney is in a position that IBM found itself in years ago, and Coca-Cola found itself in when Pepsi came on the market.

          Back in 1903, you mean? That's when the Pepsi-Cola name was trademarked.

          Or are you referring to their big "Nickel Nickel" radio ad campaign of 1940?

        • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

          by chez69 (135760) on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:55PM (#8131430) Homepage Journal
          Yeah isn't it funny how all of the "great" Disney movies were nothing more than remakes of old stories, legends, etc that are in the public domain, and yet they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent their own works from ever going into the public domain?

          But thats a whole nother' thread...

          Anyways, I'm sure one could easily argue that sometimes people benafit from pirating. I'm sure if college kids didn't rampantly pirate MS Office and Windows, Microsoft wouldn't have the market share that it currently does, and these same kids wouldn't be "locked" into Office and other such software as adults.

          Heck, in college I had a cracked version of Warcraft II that I played all the time. I loved that game so much what did I do later on? I bought StarCraft and WarCraft III.
      • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

        by afidel (530433) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:28PM (#8130366)
        Actually most people I know are more impressed by seeing the name Pixar on a film than seeing that Disney is distributing it. All Pixar has to do to get people in door is say "From the makers of Toy Story and Finding Nemo" and it will be an automatic must see for people with kids in their target age bracket. Hell I would probably own their films even if I didn't have a three year old.
        • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Interesting)

          by gozar (39392) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:45PM (#8130508) Homepage

          But will they be able to say From the makers of Toy Story and Finding Nemo or does Disney have a clause stating they don't have the rights to those title?

          • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Informative)

            by leerpm (570963) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:09PM (#8130667)
            No, you can't copyright facts like that. It would be as if James Cameron had to get permission from the studios to say 'from the director of Titanic', on any films he did thereafter.
              • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Informative)

                by fenix down (206580) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:31PM (#8130810)
                Then they just need to say "from the makers of Toy Story(TM) and Finding Nemo(TM) *Toy Story and Finding Nemo are registered trademarks of the Walt Disney Corporation".

                It's the title of a movie, you can't control how people refer to your products. George Lucas has a trademark on everything from Alderaan to wookie but he still can't sue Kevin Smith for having his characters talk about Star Wars.
            • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Tassach (137772) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:41PM (#8130882)
              Hopefully Jobs et all didn't give up the whole farm
              I think Steve Jobs is a whole hell of a lot smarter than Michael Eisner. Jobs & crew knew exactly what they were doing when they climbed into bed with The Mouse. They used Disney's marketing machine to build their own brand name. Now they don't need Disney anymore -- now Disney needs Pixar a whole lot more than Pixar needs Disney.
      • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

        by furiousgeorge (30912) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:28PM (#8130367)
        "Having the Disney name on it means it automatically becomes a must see for a lot of kids(people)."

        You mean like "Atlantis" or "Emperors New Groove" or "Dinosaur" or "Treasure Planet" (biggest flop of the last 10 years). Lilo & Stitch was a moderate success, and the first real one they've had in 10 years.

        Disney was must-see 50 years ago (their hayday) or 15 years ago (Lion King, Beauty & The Beast etc). Now they are only producing steaming piles of shite and don't have a new idea among them.

        I mean - Cinderella2? PeterPan2 LionKing2 Aladdin2&3.

        For christs sakes.
        • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Informative)

          by gfxguy (98788) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:49PM (#8130534)
          Actually, Atlantis was pretty good. Haven't seen Emperor's New Groove" because I hate David Spade. Haven't seen Dinosaur, but the previews looked like great animation.

          I did bring my kids to see Treasure Planet and Lilo & Stitch. L&S was great because it was supposed to be a low budget summer release that would tide us over until Treasure Planet, yet ended up being a really well done movie, whereas Treasure Planet was a butchered classic that they tried to soupe up with expensive CG. It wasn't *bad*, it just wasn't particularly notable.

          Lilo and Stitch has become a Disney classic, at least to us, and must have been a pretty good success seeing as how it got a spin off series and a lot more merchandising than Treasure Planet.

          And you missed another flop, though - Brother Bear, not to mention some of the stupid live action films they've done (like "Country Bear").

          I don't know what the hell they're thinking with all the sequels, though, it really is pathetic.
          • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Informative)

            by Slarty (11126) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:30PM (#8130801) Homepage
            I hate David Spade too, and yet to me, New Groove is one of the best things to come out of Disney in a looooooong time. Give it a shot, you might be surprised. It's not traditional Disney though; the characters don't randomly break into song, there's no romance, and way more slapstick humor. I dig it. :-)

            The rest of the stuff they're putting out does seem pretty dumb though. Atlantis was OK. Treasure Planet blew.
          • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Interesting)

            by CaptainCarrot (84625) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:48PM (#8130947)
            Yeah, what Slarty says. I despise Spade, but he's actually tolerable in The Emperor's New Groove. You don't actually see his face, and the movie's all about his character's utter humiliation. It's pretty enjoyable.

            This was something of a bastard stepchild at the Disney studios. It started out following the standard Disney formula but took a different turn somewhere along the road and became something extremely enjoyable. I think it flopped because Disney plumb didn't know what to do with it, and they were already pouring all their resources into promoting Treasure Planet (ugh) which came out around the same time.

            Think an hour-and-a-half of classic Loony Toons, and that's pretty much The Emperor's New Groove.

        • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

          by liquidpele (663430) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:18PM (#8130726) Homepage Journal
          Sorry, but I really liked lilo and stitch, and finding nemo. I think Disney's main problem has been running out of stories from other cultures to feed off of. Cinderella, little mermaid, hunchback? come on!

          Now they are trying to write their own damn stories, with some failures and some success. Give them a break, at least they are being creative now!

          As for Pixar, they have done a wonderful job, and if Disney didn't give them fat bonuses, I'd be leaving too. I wouldn't be suprised if Pixar just did movies on a 1-movie contract basis now, so they can work with anybody. The thing is though, the animated movie maker pool is small, so they will probably still work with disney, just not "partner" with them...
        • by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:26PM (#8131242)


          > I mean - Cinderella2? PeterPan2 LionKing2 Aladdin2&3.

          If you think those are bad, wait until they start making prequels!

        • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:49PM (#8131385) Homepage
          Has anyone noticed their latest upcoming cheapquel?

          The Lion King 1 1/2

          Yep! One and a half. 1.5.

          What's next, Sleeping Beauty 1.666666666... ? How about The Little Mermaid 2 + (3pi * x^2)y + 1 ?

          Or maybe they can start numbering them like Linux kernels...

          "Hey, wanna go see Mulan 2.4.24? I heard they fixed some of the animation bugs..."

          But I digress. }:)

          -Z
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:32PM (#8130815)
        They can ride on their past success, actually. No need to ride on Disney. Take the higher grossing films in their ads and you have something like:

        'From the people who brought you Toy Story, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo comes a story about [insert heartfelt adjectives] in the [big/distant/unknown] [insert populace reference]. Pixar in conjunction with [insert pushover distro company] brings you [insert title; three words max; prefer two].'

        Throw in the merchandising that was setup nine months before the first press release...and you're good to go!
        • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Interesting)

          by M. Silver (141590) <silver&phoenyx,net> on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:45PM (#8131363) Homepage Journal
          I wouldn't be surprised if kids knew the name Pixar anyway

          I'm (reasonably) sure he doesn't know the name, but my three-year-old certainly recognizes Luxor Jr. hopping out during the credits, and has made the connection between Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo as a result. So yeah, I'd expect kids old enough to read probably know the name.

          (Then again, my son's the offspring of two geeks, so he may have gotten the reading-the-credits gene a little stronger than the average...)

    • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:5, Insightful)

      by edsel (73916) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:28PM (#8130368)
      One thing that distinguishes Pixar from Disney is the originality of Pixar's story-lines. John Lassiter is at least as creative as ol' Walt was in his hay-day.
      I find it sadly ironic that Disney was one of the studios pushing congress to extend copyright protection ("The Mickey Mouse Protection Act") while nearly all of their films used material plundered from the public domain. Hans Christian Anderson, Bros. Grimm., Dafoe, etc....
      Toy Story and Finding Nemo are among the very few Disney offerings that aren't blatant rip-offs of off-copyright "classics". And Disney didn't produce them.
  • by rewt66 (738525) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:11PM (#8130193)
    ...distribute.
  • by thecampbeln (457432) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:11PM (#8130199) Homepage
    As was mentioned a week-ish ago, Disney has closed it's 2D animation studio(s), and now without Pixar as their partner, is Disney out of the animation game? Or does Disney they have their own in-house CGI studio? And if they do, why did they need Pixar in the first place?

    Either way, go Pixar!

    • Licensing! (Score:5, Funny)

      by StefanJ (88986) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:22PM (#8130303) Homepage Journal
      By the end of the year, 90% of Disney's revenue will come from licensing its characters to junk food restaurants, manufacturers of lunch boxes and backpacks, and makers of disposable training pants.

      It will use its last bit of influence to convince Congress to make image piracy punishable by death or five years janatorial duties in the Disney[world|land] Outlet Malls.

      Stefan
      • by ziggles (246540) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:53PM (#8130996) Homepage
        "All of the latest block-buster releases that have held the Disney name were made by Pixar."

        Pirates of the Caribbean was made by Pixar? huh. Learn something new every day. :P

        I think people tend to forget Disney has it's fingers in a helluva lot more than animation. Pixar is a great asset, but they won't be dead without it (unfortunately).
  • by mesach (191869) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:13PM (#8130219)
    I don't believe they will have a hard time finding a new partner, I think that what they did was the best stuff disney has done in a long time. So What does disney have up its sleves now? I seems that the upper management are making poor decisions(something had to prompt Walt's son to leave), marketing is making poor decisions(disposable dvd's), they are shutting down animation studios left and right. What is thier current future focus?

    They have to do something to pay for Eisners new Bel Air Home thats just down the street from his current one.
  • Save Disney (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:14PM (#8130231)
    Help Save Disney [savedisney.com] from Eisner, who has turned the company from setting trends to following the current trend of the time. He fires the animators who have made the company great simply because it will increase their short term profit. They have completely abandoned the principles Walt Disney used in running the company. If you own Disney shares, support Roy Disney, the surviving member of the Disney family.
    • Re:Save Disney (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gkuz (706134) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:27PM (#8130358)
      the principles Walt Disney used in running the company

      What principle? Exploiting the workers? What's little-known is that in the "golden age" of 1940's and 1950's hand-drawn animation, the overwhelming majority of the work was done by Walt (and his managers) slave-driving minimum-wage immigrants, largely post-WWII European displaced persons, who were lucky just to have a job and a roof. If Walt were alive today, he'd fill the studios with Guatemalans and pay them just as little as legally possible.

      • Re:Save Disney (Score:5, Informative)

        by rgmoore (133276) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:38PM (#8130451) Homepage
        If Walt were alive today, he'd fill the studios with Guatemalans and pay them just as little as legally possible.

        Nah, he'd just subcontract the inbetween work to cheaper studios in Korea and China. That's what most of the Japanese studios have been doing for the past 10 years or so. Just take a look at the credits for any recent theatrical Anime and you'll see a lot of non-Japanese names and studios listed in the credits.

        • Re:Save Disney (Score:5, Informative)

          by tealover (187148) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:40PM (#8130878)
          All animated shows you see on television in the U.S. (Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, etc.) have been farmed out to S. Korea or other countries for years. Principle animation is done stateside and the rest is "fleshed" out.

          Animation is a tough career to pursue.
  • by darth_silliarse (681945) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:17PM (#8130255) Homepage
    I'm a father of two great kids and a part-time Linux geek to boot. Pixar's films have given myself and both of my children hours of enjoyment - the youngest (2 3/4) is in love with Woody and Buzz, found Bruce the shark a frightening (and probably life changing!) image at the cinema, thought Mike and Sully were as cute as teddy bears, and literally danced on the spot when A Bugs Life kicked into life on our DVD player... all I have to say to the guys at Pixar is a huge THANK YOU for making my childrens lives so the much happier for the hours they have enjoyed your films :)

    ...and fsck Disney!
  • Being Steve Jobs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DwarfGoanna (447841) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:18PM (#8130269)
    I know it's a little indulgent, but it's hard not to run Apple or Pixar news through the filter of Steve's personality. Considering this news, the splash iPod and iTunes Music Store have made, and the fact that Jobs has said before that he would "milk the Mac for all it's worth and get busy on the Next Big Thing", am I the only one that thinks Apple is aiming for Sony-esque entertainment/tech dominance?


    I know, I know...too flaky, mod away. =)

  • by forkazoo (138186) <wrosecrans@noSPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:19PM (#8130276) Homepage
    Pixar hooked up with Disney in 'ancient times.' When Toy Story was still just an idea, nobody had *ever* made a 3D animated feature. Pixar knew they could do it, but they didn't have the marketing muscle. So, They signed a contract with disney to deliver, IIRC, five features. Disney had a sweet ride, but Pixar was never really very happy with the contract. Watch, for example, Brother Bear. Now, go watch any Pixar film. You will notice that there is a lot more interesting, grown up humor in the Pixar movies. This isn't to say that Pixer will strike out and target adult audiences with violent-anime-esque features from now on, or anything, but Pixar is going to have a lot of room to flex its creative muscles, and basically do whatever it wants. Huzzah! I simply can't wait to see what they come up with over the next five years. It ought to be grand.

    Disney, meanwhile, decided to scrap all 2D animation recently. They did this because, apparently, they think Pixar's success is because they work in 3D. While this may have had a lot to do with the buzz behind TS1, it just ain't the case. The reason Pixar movies make mad money is because they are good movies. Finding Nemo could have been made with a dull pencil on notebook paper, and those guys still would have made something worth seeing!
    • by Alomex (148003) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:45PM (#8130921) Homepage
      Pixar knew they could do it, but they didn't have the marketing muscle.

      This is BS. The Toy story porject was floundering after three years in production and not getting any closer to a decent product. The problem was that pixar focused on the animation and ignored the script.

      Disney sent a bunch of professionals who threw away well over half of the rendered images and rewrote the script.

  • Blame Eisner! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El (94934) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:22PM (#8130306)
    The only good things Disney has done lately were the Pixar movies and Fantasia 2000, which was driven mainly by Roy Disney. Now both these creative sources are gone, they are running out of out-of-copyright stories to rip off, and everybody thinks Eisner is an ass. The only think they can do now is churn out cheap marketing-driven shlock; the age of considering Disney as "art" is over. (Incidentally, I've always maintained that Disney and Microsoft had simular business models: "steal other peoples ideas, then jealously guard them as your own.")
        • Re:Blame Eisner! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Fancia (710007) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:20PM (#8130747)
          Further than that, even. Simba was originally white, and has been referred to at least once by Disney employees as Kimba. Furthermore, one of the Disney animators apparently wore a home-made Kimba/Leo costume to a Disney party and one of the voice actors originally thought that he was being cast in a remake of the Jungle Emperor/Kimba television series. There's quite a bit of evidence that they were fully familiar with Jungle Emperor. There's a good article about this on KimbaWLion.com [kimbawlion.com].
  • by shoppa (464619) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:24PM (#8130328)
    After _Lion King_, everyone expected every Disney animated feature to rake in cash at the box office. If you look at the reviews from the past few years, all the animation fans dissed Disney each time they came up with a solid film that didn't go straight to #1. It took Disney a while for them to get back on track making good consistent stuff. (In the past couple years, I put _Lilo and Stitch_ and _Brother Bear_ as really good stuff. _Treasure Planet_ was good too even though it didn't get nearly as much attention as it should have.)

    With _Nemo_, the bar got raised too high for Disney again (although you could argue that Disney didn't do much in the way of making it.) Now that Disney isn't hooked up with Pixar, I hope that the bar is set appropriately for future Disney animation.

    Not that I didn't like _Nemo_, I thought it was great, wonderful, funny, my kids loved it and I loved it too. But that's a once-in-a-generation thing; it's great it happened, but we shouldn't let _Nemo_'s success stop us from appreciating good work. If Disney had stuck with Pixar, they'd be afraid to release anything that wasn't going to gross more than _Nemo_; now that they've broken up I hope we can look forward to seeing three or four good animated features a year, with some of them being really original.

  • Disney's fault (Score:5, Informative)

    by kaan (88626) on Thursday January 29 2004, @08:43PM (#8130498)
    It sounds like Disney-insiders blame the CEO of Disney.

    From the article:

    Roy Disney and ally Stanley Gold, who both resigned from the Disney board late last year and called for Chief Executive and Chairman Michael Eisner to step down, placed the blame on Eisner.

    "More than a year ago, we warned the Disney board that we believed Michael Eisner was mismanaging the Pixar partnership and expressed our concern that the relationship was in jeopardy," they said.
  • by Teahouse (267087) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:21PM (#8130751)
    Roy keeps the Disney flame alive once again. He quit over the liquidation of feature animation in Florida. He told it like it is. Disney has fallen so far away from it's core values (making excellent animated features, and then marketing them in it's parks) that he felt Eisner should leave.

    Eisner and the other souless robots on the board countered by justifying Pixar and digital animation shopped out to other studios as the future.

    Guess what? Pixar is gone, at best, Disney can only do cheesy straight-to-video sequels from now on. They have no decent feature animation left to speak of. It's all regurtitation of old ideas from here on out.

    Roy will be back in about a year, when Disney's stock drops by $5. That should be enough to bring Roy back just like last time he did this. Eisner is a dead man walking. Perhaps Disney will be able to right the ship after he's gone. No more Mighty Ducks, Haunted Mansion, or Miracle movies unless they actually release actual animated flicks.

  • by smeng (571333) on Thursday January 29 2004, @09:58PM (#8131039)
    When Pixar started off, they had no experience with distributing their work and marketing. So that's when they decided to collobarate with Disney. Disney being the giant that it was then, obviously had the better cut of the deal. The deal was to make 6 films. Pixar has done Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc., Finding Nemo. That's 5 movies they've done for Disney and by rightly, it would've been 1 more film and the contract would've been over. But why is Pixar making 2 more films for Disney (The Incredibles & Cars)? Well, Disney argued back that Toy Story 2 is a sequel. They twisted Pixar's arm on that, and that's why Pixar isn't doing anymore sequels, they've practically done Toy Story 2 for free! Frankly, I'd say good riddance to Disney! Pixar's build a name for themselves and they are well loved by audiences of all ages. I don't think anyone else could have pulled off a story about fishes in the way Pixar has done. The originality and creativity of Pixar is seemingly boundless. Good job to Pixar for ditching Disney and I wish them all the best!
  • by FrankDrebin (238464) on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:02PM (#8131063) Homepage

    mine Mine mine MINE mine Mine

  • by ScottForbes (528679) on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:38PM (#8131320) Homepage
    Keep in mind that the original Toy Story came out at about the same time as James and the Giant Peach, and not long after Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. Disney was expecting a modest profit from its partnership with Pixar, and thought they'd be splitting maybe $20-30 million in profits per film -- adequate compensation for allowing Pixar to borrow the Mouse's distribution and marketing chain, but small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

    The idea that Pixar would crank out five consecutive blockbusters was simply not on the table in 1995. Pixar's output up to that date consisted of a couple of award-winning animated shorts; suggesting that Pixar would outshine Disney Animation by 2000 (with Disney releasing The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and Lion King in the five years prior) would have gotten you laughed out of the studio.

    But then Jeff Katzenberg decided he'd had enough of Michael Eisner, and went off to Dreamworks to make Antz (and Shrek). Lion King turned out to be the high-water mark for Disney's 2D animation unit; their best effort since was Tarzan, which grossed $435 million worldwide -- a little more than half of Finding Nemo's leviathan take, which is currently at $844 million.

    So, Pixar has ended up paying Disney about 10-20 times what Disney's contribution to the process is worth. Eisner was probably using these lucrative terms as the starting point in his negotiations, while Steve Jobs (who already has Sony and Warner on speed-dial) was starting from the idea that Pixar could snap its fingers and have five studios vying for the honor.

    Eisner is unquestionably an idiot for failing to recognize this, because he desperately needs Pixar to feed quality product into the gaping maw of his marketing, distribution and merchandising empire -- he's not going to make as healthy of a living selling Brother Bear plush toys and video sequels, that's for sure. Pixar just needs a distributor, though, and they're big enough now that they can get one for the asking.

  • by Killswitch1968 (735908) on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:40PM (#8131334)
    Being the undisputed cartoon motion picture producers have certainly bloated their ego, but done nothing for their movies. Take any 5 Disney movies of the last 10 years and I guarantee they each have the mandatory criteria/characters:

    1. The comedic relief
    2. The love interest
    3. The complacent good natured affable hero
    4. The easily-identifiable bad guy (always in black and smoking something)
    4. The up-beat music song
    5. The slow-dance music song
    6. The Billboard song
    7. The humorous evil sidekicks.

    Put 'em all in a bag, add some celebrity voices, and presto-chango, we've got ourselves another cliche by-the-book Disney flick.
    Now take a Pixar movie, not quite such an easy formula? AND NO STUPID SONGS. I hope they mop the flour with Disney.

    PS. I must say though The Gummi Bears cartoon series was awesome.
  • by Timbotronic (717458) on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:54PM (#8131420)
    Nice one Pixar. Disney have just lost the goose that rendered the golden egg. I wonder how many more times Disney will be undone by their own greed?

    Anyone hear about how Disney dropped out of Peter Pan because they didn't want to donate any money to a London children's hospital? The author of Peter Pan left the copyright to the hospital in his will. When the most recent movie was made, Disney believed it should be exempt from making any payment to the hospital from the sale of spin-off books, board games, soft toys and computer games, which are expected to generate tens of millions of dollars in their own right.

    Read the full story here [smh.com.au]

    So FUCK YOU Disney! Guess how much 50% of 0 is you bozos!

      • by Jotham (89116) on Thursday January 29 2004, @10:24PM (#8131232)
        Here's a question to ponder though... Everybody know's who directed Kill Bill. Everybody and their freaking dog knows who directed the LOTR trilogy. How many of you honestly know who directed "Finding Nemo" and don't have to look it up on IMDB? Be honest now!

        I admit I had no idea (the answer is Andrew Stanton(story) & Lee Unkrich but I had to look it up)-- but poll a crowd of people and the answer will be 'Pixar'... not the director but that answer will still win.

        How many people know (and care) who the distributor for Kill Bill is?

        The names Pixar and Tarantino respectively draw the audiences and get the pay dirt - so they hold the power - the rest are all become negotiable contracts.