Comcast to buy Disney? (1 Viewer)

[Glenn Overholt]

So where's the insider trading scandal with Eisner when you want one?

Glenn

 

[Ernest Rister]

"It's amazing when you look at that list at how much they got away from a serious effort to release major animated features on a regular basis."

Well, one could argue that Walt Disney himself had to step away from the table for awhile in the 40's after Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi and The Three Caballeros all failed to turn a profit. From 1945 - 1949, he made "package films", made up of animated shorts that could be released individually as shorts. His first true feature-length narrative film after 1942's Bambi was Cinderella in 1950.

1951 saw the release of Alice in Wonderland, which failed at the box office.

1953 saw Peter Pan which did well.

1955 saw Lady and the Tramp which did okay.

Then there was a 4-year gap -- the expensive flop Sleeping Beauty was released in 1959.

101 Dalmatians was a rebound in 1961.

The Sword in the Stone was a disappointment in 1963.

Then, you have another 4-year gap, for the release of Walt's last animated feature, The Jungle Book in 1967.

So looking at the animated feature output of the 70's, it's really not that different from the 50's and 60's.

1970 had The Aristocats.

1973 had Robin Hood.

1977 had The Rescuers and Pete's Dragon.

1981 had The Fox and the Hound.

In between, there were many, many short films produced to keep the animators occupied, everything from the acclaimed Winnie-the-Pooh shorts, to smaller, forgotten films, like Ward Kimball's It's Tough to be a Bird and Don Bluth's The Small One.

If you ask me, the "new animated feature a year" model we've seen since the late 80's has not served Disney particuarly well. One of the reasons a new Disney animated feature enjoyed "event film" status was because audiences were accustomed to receiving a new one every three years or so. By releasing such a large number of animated features (sometimes two in a single year, plus the low-budget features), in addition to the release of so many animated features on home video, the bloom came off the rose. Making matters worse were the direct-to-video "cheapquels" to the animated features, further diluting the value of the Disney brand name in animation.

Steve Jobs was right to criticize Disney for making such poor sequels to their feature films. In many ways, I believe they did more harm to the esteem of the Disney brand than all the silly live-action comedies of the 60's and 70's combined. Some people love those goofy live-action films from the 70's (I myself have a soft spot for Hot Lead and Cold Feet, the Witch Mountain movies, the first Love Bug and the original Apple Dumpling Gang). I don't know anyone who admires Cinderella II, Pocahontas II, Hunchback II, Atlantis II, Jungle Book II, Hercules II, etc etc etc. In fact, I mention those titles and people sort of wince, like mentioning the name of a city that's suffered a natural disaster.

 

[TheLongshot]

Course, the question is, is Pixar going to fall into the same rut? Starting with Finding Nemo, they seem to have a plan of a film a year now, where before it was every other year.

I also wonder what happened with Disney and the animated short. I mean, what happened with "John Henry"? I saw some nice artwork for it when I visited WDW in 2000, but it basically went into a black hole.

Personally, I think it will be a sad day when Disney is eaten by a conglomorete. It means that there is no going back...

Jason

 

[Ernest Rister]

John Henry was released on DVD and VHS as part of Disney's American Legends, a collection of Disney shorts dealing with American folk tales. Also included were Johnny Appleseed and Paul Bunyan.

 

[Sean Laughter]

But that's just the films under the Disney contract isn't it? We don't know how they plan to space them out outside the Disney requirements.

 

[Allen Hirsch]

Good point - that could be Disney's requirement/goal, not Pixar's.

 

[Chris]

Or could be Pixar getting the quickest way possible out of their deal

 

[Ernest Rister]

Disney has no mandated timetable for Pixar releases. Pixar expanded up from one crew to - I believe - three, so don't be too surprised to start seeing a film-a-year from Pixar. It's already happening - Finding Nemo (2003), The Incredibles (2004), Cars (2005).

 

[Sean Laughter]

Of course we know about up to cars, but my point is that those films already have a distributer in the can, and until Pixar has some cemented deal with a future distributer I'm not sure they'll be wanting to put two or three new films into production without a prior deal.

 

[TheLongshot]

Good to know. I had no clue...

Jason

 

[Ernest Rister]

"...until Pixar has some cemented deal with a future distributer I'm not sure they'll be wanting to put two or three new films into production without a prior deal."

Pixar would have absolutely no trouble lining up a distributor, nor even a finance partner if they wanted one. Pixar afraid to make a movie without a distributor would be like Steven Spielberg afraid to make a movie without a distribution agreement. If everyone waited for a distribution agreement before taking the risk to produce a movie, the independent film market wouldn't even exist. Pixar is going independent, just like George Lucas and Walt Disney before them.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Pixar has tens of millions of dollars in the bank (possibly approaching 100 million), and a proven brand. They already have more directors than 'Incredibles' and 'Cars' need, and likely more animators.

They aren't waiting for any deal.

They already have films in pre-production, and possibly production. Nothing will slow down at Pixar.

Hey, look, Pixar has tons of job openings.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yeah, Pixar can shift into the indy market with more strength than when Walt first did it so long ago (financially and name brand speaking). Lots of indy companies get going and make it with a lot less power than Pixar has.


You still have to wonder if a new Disney owner wouldn't look at the character rights Disney has over Pixar creations and see a great benefit from getting them back together as a team. It sure seems like all fingers are pointing at Eisner as the reason for the split and not a Pixar desire to be away from Disney overall.

Of course Pixar could also see and taste the opportunity to become their own "Disney" as we were discussing in the other Disney/Pixar thread.

I can't possibly imagine Jobs being able to pull the old switcharoo and buy Disney, but wouldn't that be a real twist.

 

[Pete-D]

Jobs would need some serious investment to get at Disney though. That means he'd need some powerful friends to help him out.

I think other companies, like say Japanese game giant Nintendo, might be persuaded to come on board as well and possibly open up some interesting oppurtunities for Disney and Pixar as well (the Playstation brand is huge for Sony, but imagine Disney powering their own entertainment content platform under the Nintendo banner... yikes).

 

[Chris]

There were some reports today that Bill Gates may look to leverage an interest in Disney to keep them away from Comcast..

That having been said, I saw this in an MSNBC article:


Updating classics to CGI? Dumbo for pete sake? Jeez.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271801/

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Well, once you admit to yourself that you don't have anybody who can write a decent movie, you turn to remakes.

 

[ThomasC]

Michael Eisner will be on Larry King Live tonight at 9 P.M. Eastern.

 

[Sean Laughter]

Somebody call in and dig into him, ummmmm, Ernest??

 

[Seth Paxton]

This first came out some time ago and was already bitched about around here quite a bit. It's one of the big reasons so many people are sick of Eisner.


Disney brought in the hired-gun lawyer to help protect them from hostile takeover. So they've circle the wagons.


Can't wait to see the King interview, though he is quite the lightweight inteviewer. In this case Eisner will at least have to give pat answers to all the major questions, while the follow-ups might not have too much bite to them.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Don't expect much. At best, Larry King is more on the entertainment side of an interview rather than the investigative side. He tries not to take sides on an issue but rather let his guests do all the talking and let them get away with it. No thanks.

~Edwin