Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Announcements

Pixar Drops Disney To Find a New Studio Partner 581

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pixar Drops Disney To Find a New Studio Partner

Comments Filter:
  • 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?

          • As I understand it Disney has certain licensing rights granted to them by their contract with Pixar but Pixar still owns the movies as well as all the rights to do what they want with the movies (except maybe some merchandising or other things that could have been granted exclusively to Disney).
          • 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:3, Interesting)

              by RazzleFrog ( 537054 )
              Except that Disney has a trademark on Toy Story as it relates to " prerecorded audio cassettes, compact discs, and laser video discs featuring music, stories, activities and other such educational and entertainment topics for children; prerecorded video cassettes featuring animated entertainment; computer software featuring music, stories, activities and other such educational and entertainment topics for children; motion picture films featuring animated entertainment."

              They also hold it for lunch boxes, to
              • 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 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:3, Interesting)

              by ryanw ( 131814 )
              What really made "The Emperor's New Groove" for me was the "kronk" character who the voice was Patrick Warburton [imdb.com]. If it weren't for him the movie woulda' been completely boring to me. It really took me being forced by the kids to watch it two or three times in the period of a month or two to actually enjoy it though.
          • 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.

            • by hoggoth ( 414195 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @11:53PM (#8131807) Journal
              > The Emperor's New Groove
              > It started out following the standard Disney formula but took a different turn somewhere along the road

              You mean they didn't kill off any parents?

              • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:4, Interesting)

                by CaptainCarrot ( 84625 ) on Friday January 30, 2004 @05:13AM (#8133114)
                Hee hee!

                Possibly we'd have seen the dead parents in "Empire of the Sun", which is what the project was originally called. By the time it had metamorphosed into "The Emperor's New Groove" they'd been pushed offstage. Kuzco is 18 and the reigning emperor. No visible mother or father, and his advisor Yzma mentions at one point that she "practically raised him." So yeah, mommy and daddy are dead, but we don't see them croak here. The one happily married couple we do see survives unscathed.

                I meant that it wasn't a mucical; there was no romantic storyline; no comic-relief sidekick like the monkey in Aladdin, that stupid dragon in Mulan or the gargoyles in Hunchback; no hopeless climactic fight against impossible odds that were overcome by courage/innate goodness/magic/semi-divine intervention; and nothing notable in the way of marketing tie-ins. They decided to do characterization and plot instead.

                And it turned out to be a good movie! Who knew?

          • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:3, Interesting)

            by AJWM ( 19027 )
            Emperor's New Groove turned out better than I was expecting, lots of good comedic moments and an animation style different from the usual Disney. I'd rank it higher than Treasure Planet.

            At first the whole concept of Treasure Planet revolted me (I'm a fan of the book, and have seen several different adaptations of it including "Muppet Treasure Island" (which is a hoot, and Tim Curry does a great John Silver) and even as a stage play). Once I got past that and suspended a ton of disbelief over the whole
        • by SendBot ( 29932 )
          That movie rocked. The david spade character was great, and the traditional art styles used in the characters and setting was impressive. It had a very good message about the pointlessness of materialism and the songs were actually cool for a disney flick.
        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:18PM (#8130726)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • 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:4, Insightful)

        by Tassach ( 137772 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:33PM (#8130819)
        I think that now, given Pixar's past successes, they've become a must-see brand name on their own merit. They don't need Disney any more; hell, in 5 years Pixar may very be distributing Disney's films. Disney is fast becoming the *dis*enchanted kingdom, devoted to squeezing the last drop of profit out of it's past glories. Whatever goodwill the Disney name might have commanded in the past is rapidly evaporating.

      • Re:Adios, Disney (Score:4, Informative)

        by daviddennis ( 10926 ) <david@amazing.com> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:35PM (#8130835) Homepage
        Which would you rather be responsible for, Brother Bear [boxofficemojo.com] ($84m + $34m overseas) or Finding Nemo [boxofficemojo.com] ($339m + overseas $504m)?

        'nuff said.

        D
    • 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!

    • Stick a fork in them, they're done.
    • by a.koepke ( 688359 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:18PM (#8130268)
      I think it leaves Disney in the crap :)

      Pixar at first needed Disney to promote them, but now the tables have turned and its Disney that needed Pixar. The talent and ideas at Pixar are a lot better than anything Disney has produces. All of the latest block-buster releases that have held the Disney name were made by Pixar.

      But one thing to note is that this decision will not have an immediate impact. "The Incredibles" due this year and "Cars", expected in 2005, will still be distributed by Disney.
      • 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).
    • 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
    • Disney's 2D is still open, they just closed all their traditional pen & paper animation houses
  • 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.
    • by gkuz ( 706134 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:20PM (#8130288)
      something had to prompt Walt's son to leave

      Roy is Walt's nephew. Walt didn't have any sons.

    • Disney will probably start suing the hell out of everyone for copyright infringement, including ANYBODY who made a cartoon mouse. Their main source of income will be from litigation. Their theme park will be called the Copyrighted Kingdom.
  • 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.
          • Re:Save Disney (Score:3, Interesting)

            by spitzak ( 4019 )
            Even principle animation is going overseas now. A girlfriend of mine worked at Warners on shows like Tazmania and started out animating scenes (she is an excellent character animator) but they changed during that time (1994) to just drawing storyboards.
    • by smoondog ( 85133 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:55PM (#8130566)
      I'm sorry, but I side on Eisner on this one. People on /. love to hit on Disney but, frankly I've been pretty happy with what disney has done:

      1. Sat morning-esque cartoons - Much better IMO than the competition (FOX, etc). Kim Possible (I hate to admit it, although the art looks a lot like penny arcade), Proud Family, etc are actually funny while kid centered.

      2. Feature films. Like Pirates of the C. and Freaky Friday (surprisingly good as well). A few other flops, but they are trying.

      3. They distributed pixar. I realize it was the creative genious of someone else, but that is the way *all* big studios work. Pixar was theirs to keep and they shouldn't have let them go.

      4. Anime. Say what you will about burying studio ghibli films. They bought them and brought them to the US and played a big part in popularizing anime to the general public.

      5. Other things. Like Broadway musicals. Bringing back sunday night disney movies. etc

      That is a lot better in my opinion than Disney has been since its golden age. There are few things disney puts out that are *worse* than watching another episode of pokemon.

      -Sean
  • 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. =)


    • The financial news I've been reading indicates the divorce isn't completely final. Might just be a negotiating tactic by Jobs.

      This is kind of off topic, but I wonder if Apple/Pixar are more dependent on Jobs' brilliance than is good for business. Has he built a managment team that could carry on in the same way? Or are Apple and Pixar all about Jobs? (Think Wang Labs here. Great while the founder was around, not much good after he left.)

      • Re:Being Steve Jobs (Score:4, Interesting)

        by NormalVisual ( 565491 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:50PM (#8130966)
        I believe Pixar is more about John Lasseter than Steve Jobs. Having said that, Roy Disney and Steve Jobs are rather good friends, and it's no secret that Eisner and Jobs don't get along very well. I would not be surprised if it comes out that Roy had a hand in the Pixar situation in his bid to unseat Eisner. From what I've heard, the Pixar deal was looking good until late last year when things started falling apart. Coincidence?
  • by forkazoo ( 138186 ) <wrosecrans AT gmail DOT 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!
    • 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.

      To a large degree, they are right. You may love Pixar's movies, but look at Ice Age, which is at best a mediocre movie with mediocre animation. Disney's 2D animation is about as good as it gets, yet it couldn't compete with even a sub-par 3D movie. Disney has made some good 2D films targetted at a more adult nature, but they just don't do well. Emperor
    • 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.

  • by NTDaley ( 259087 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:19PM (#8130281) Homepage
    Disney is with Nike on the list of companies that I won't have anything to do with. But now I'll be able to watch Pixar's new movies. http://www.google.com/search?q=disney+sweatshops [google.com]
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:21PM (#8130295) Journal
    They are better off without Disney. My wife is a film buff, and I have it on her good authority that Disney is in touble, all over the board. Movies, animation, parks, everything is tanking.

    But as good as Pixar is at making great movies, financial success doesn't come from that. You need good marketing and distribution. I hope Pixar finds a good partner that won't take the lion's share of the profits. They will also need to scramble a little bit more to find funding, but with their reputation, capital should be no problem.
  • by tolldog ( 1571 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:21PM (#8130299) Homepage Journal
    I see this as being both good and bad...

    Disney needs to pull out of its slump. They make the whole industry look bad right now.

    Pixar will go on to bigger and better things, which will help the industry.

    They are big enough now, they could probably handle self distribution, although they probably don't want to get into that role yet.

    Best of luck to the both of them. The better they become, the better we all become, the more secure my job is ;) (assuming they don't squash all competition).

    I imagine the Pixar boys are out celebrating tonight... (if deadlines aren't killing them...) maybe I should head over across the bay and buy them a round.

    -Tim

  • 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.")
  • 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.

  • by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:29PM (#8130372) Homepage
    It means I can stop boycotting Pixar films. Hooray!
  • by so sue mee ( 660717 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:32PM (#8130398)
    You know in Soviet Russia... (no jokes here) the cartoons had to be the most free expression of the artist's spirit since the party paid little to no attention to their messages. But the films came out with better moral message than the average tom and jerry. In fact NO ONE almost got hurt there

    http://www.russiananimation.com
  • Good riddance (Score:3, Interesting)

    by yeremein ( 678037 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:33PM (#8130405)
    Disney noted in its statement that it owns rights to all the Pixar movies, as well as two more animated features yet to be delivered -- "The Incredibles" due this year and "Cars", expected in 2005.

    Hmm, Pixar does all the work, Disney gets the copyrights. I guess this might have been beneficial years ago when nobody knew who Pixar was, but these days they've made a big enough name for themselves that they don't need to be exploited by a megacorp to be noticed. In fact, Pixar has been responsible for the only good stuff coming out of Disney in the past few years.

    Bad news for Disney. I for one won't miss 'em.

  • by firstadopter.com ( 745257 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:41PM (#8130483) Homepage
    Eisner is a total idiot for letting Pixar go. They were practically stealing from Pixar getting 1/2 the profits plus a distribution fee. Mr. "Mickey Mouse" CEO has now fully gutted the Disney animation legacy. All the talent has either been laid off or fled to Dreamworks and Pixar. What a darn shame. I mean Treasure Island vs. Shrek & Finding Nemo? Total disaster.
  • 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 Embedded Geek ( 532893 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:47PM (#8130525) Homepage
    I find it interesting that Pixar made this decision right after Disney decided to close its Florida animation studio (here [reuters.com] and here [floridatoday.com]). The general concensus was that shuttering Florida was so that Disney could concentrate on digital animation out of Pixar. There are still Disney animation facilities in Burbank, but you've got to wonder what chaos must be going on in Eisners' office today.

    While this could concievably just be a negotiating tactic by Pixar, it's more likely to be a simple case of Disney needing Pixar more than Pixar needed Disney.

  • by Embedded Geek ( 532893 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @08:54PM (#8130558) Homepage
    Pixar has placed most of its shorts (including Tin Toy) online here [pixar.com].

    Not updated regularly for obvious reasons, but one of my favorite hidden gems on the web nevertheless.

  • by buckeyeguy ( 525140 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:02PM (#8130627) Homepage Journal
    Goodbye Disney, hello Vivid [yahoo.com].
  • by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Thursday January 29, 2004 @09:07PM (#8130658)
    Disney also has the right to finance and produce sequels if Pixar declines to co-finance and produce them under the current agreement

    NO NO DAMMIT NO!

    I will make it a personal mission to urinate on Eisner's grave if Disney rapes a single one of Pixar's excellent films. I am so f'ing sick of Disney executives walking around the park trying to figure out what movie, series even RIDE they can milk for another buck. Every time I see an advertisement for (classic movie) 2, 3 etc I want to scream.

    Steve Jobs is the biggest ass in the world for allowing Disney this option. Give it a year or two after Pixar profits are gone, and get ready for

    * Toy Story 3 - Buzz and Woody go to Camp
    * Monsters, Inc. 2 - Giggles, Inc.
    * Finding Nemo 2 - Doria's Quest for Paxil ...all done with that craptastic bargain basement 3D animation you see every afternoon on the WB. Ugh. Ugh.

    Like how "spam" came to mean "unsolicited email" I propose we make "disney" as a synonym for cancer, as in "my grandfather's prostate got disneyed" or perhaps as synonym for necrophilia.

    - JoeShmoe
    .
    • Pixar was unable to do a Toy Story 3 since their contract with Disney says they have to come out with X movies by 2005 (and the forthcoming two fulfill that obligation) and sequels don't count. They got conflicting info on this so they went ahead and did Toy Story 2, then learned it wouldn't count towards their obligation.

      Disney owns all the rights to the characters in Toy Story, so Toy Story 3 is not something Pixar can do outside of Disney even if they wanted to. However, Pixar owns the rights to all of

    • by telstar ( 236404 ) on Friday January 30, 2004 @12:04AM (#8131876)
      "The single worst line in the article "
      • Dude, this is Slashdot. You're not supposed to read the article...

  • 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 MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Friday January 30, 2004 @12:45AM (#8132093)
      I think Steve Jobs' decision to sever Pixar's relationship with Disney maybe the final straw that will force Michael Eisner out of running the Walt Disney Company.

      This turn of events is not surprising, given that Roy E. Disney is a close friend of Jobs. I believe that Jobs did this out of his friendship with Roy E. Disney.

      Given what has happened with Disney's 2-D animation department lately in addition to losing Pixar, I would not be surprised that we will see a shareholder revolt that forces Eisner and his cronies from the Disney Board of Directors. In Eisner's place, Roy E. Disney becomes the new head of the Board of Directors, and Steve Jobs will be offered (and accepts!) a Disney Board of Directors position.
  • 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 moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Thursday January 29, 2004 @10:27PM (#8131251) Homepage
    I'm just curious as to how much Disney was actually "involved" in the making of their films at pixar...

    Were the movies written at disney and animated at Pixar, or is the whole thing done at Pixar (and Disney takes care of the marketing)?

    I just wonder, because, while Pixar does indeed produce some of the highest quality animation in the world, it's the story and the creativity which make the movie (anyone remember the Final Fantasy movie? blah).

    That being said, I wish all of Pixar the best of luck, and hope their last two Disney films are as great as the last few. (It would be tragic if disney significantly cut funding to pixar for these films as a result of this announcement).

    That also being said, I want to wish Roy Disney the best of luck in his quest to bring the company back to the way it used to be.
  • 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!

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...