Disney, Pixar to go separate ways (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Mayer]

The deal is a wow, but Pixar was holding the cards. The audience can clearly differentiate between Disney and Disney/Pixar now. Going to just Pixar won't change a thing. With Destino and FN winning, the Oscar telecast should be a fun time. I should probably dump what little Disney stock I bought in 1996 now, and just rebuy it March 2.

I am eager to see where Pixar goes. We all can dream, but I'd like to see Pixar hire some (or all) of Disney's lost talent, and make a 2D animated film.

A guy can dream,
Chuck

 

[JonZ]

Good for Pixar!!


Since theyve made the only Disney films worth seeing in the past decade(longer IMHO), its not good news for Disney(which is a company I cant stand and would love to see fall on its face).

"I'd admit they deserve to control their own characters and films......"

This is a BIG ONE for me. This is essentially the reason I choose not to get involved with comic books after going to graphic art school.

You have to self publish to own your work(I just wanted to write and draw not become a publisher).

Good for them for standing up to Disney and realizing they dont need them. People will go see Pixar films regardless becuase they know their track record.Not having Disney in the title wont hurt them at all.

How does this affect Toy Story3 and The Incredibles?

 

[Michael Caicedo]

I agree with most of the sentiment in this thread. Half of Disney's operating income was coming from Pixar. That is a huge blow. Disney better come up with some real innovation from what's left of their studio.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Not true.

Here's Disney's operating income breakdown as of their September 30, 2003 financials:

Broadcast and Cable Media Networks: 37%
Theme Parks and Resorts: 32%
Studio and Home Video Entertainment: 18%
Consumer Products: 13%

Disney's media and theme park divisions combined account for nearly 70% of operating income. Operating income from Pixar films is a lot smaller compared to its other divisions than most people think.

~Edwin

 

[Chris]

I think what is meant is income through Box Office, which Pixar accounts for a huge chunk. We should also remember, however, that Broadcast & Themeparks have benefitted significantly through Pixar by showing their movies on ABC (ratings winners, thus ad revenues) and theme parks (tie-ins) as well as consumer products (branded toys, etc.)

There are two big Disney cash cows.. one is Pixar, the other is Winnie the Pooh (which is also still in court) Disney is having trouble keeping it's thoroughbreds on the farm.

 

[Ray Chuang]

Chris, you wrote:


And at the rate Eisner's going, Disney will be out hundreds of millions of US dollars in revenue from no more pictures with Pixar, BILLIONS of US dollars from possibly having to pay the estate of the Winnie the Pooh creator, and soon US$25 million to the author of Who Censored Roger Rabbit. That type of financial bleeding will cause enough shareholders to dump Eisner out on the street in a New York minute or faster.

 

[Richard Gilmore]

Eisner's ego was too big for him to admit he needed Pixar and Pixar didn't need Disney. The sooner he goes, the better.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Wall Street does not seem to be overly concerned. Disney's stock is only down 1.3% with most of the market indices also down.

~Edwin

 

[William Waits]

This is where I think everyone is looking at this with blinders on... It's not just distribution of films... It is the ENTIRE package, and good, bad, or indifferent, Disney has the MOST complete package for family that ANYONE, and has the largest audience... While I know that Disney has MANY faults when dealing with Pixar, Pixar will loose something by not being with Disney. Think about it... Who else has the in-grained pencant for animated family entertainment? [no one, but Dreamworks and Fox are still trying, but both of them have their own computer animated "divisions"] Who else can have their characters all over the media? (Print, TV, radio, etc..) Warner is about the only other one. Who else can have millions of exposures and sale opportunities with things such as theme parks? Universal maybe, but they are more concentrated in Orlando... Warner? They sold Six Flags years ago, and while more fun for the adults, it is NOT a child's playground? Anyone can license toys, so that is a party amongst equals.

This is a scenario that definitely would be in both parties' best interest to stick together, rather than go their separate ways. I think that this is just a ploy to help oust Eisner as well...

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Viacom is the one that comes close to having the exposure that Disney when it comes to TV and theme parks. But it is nowhere extensive and visible as Disney.

I have been critical of Disney in the past but a closer scrutiny of the numbers might show that Pixar might just asking too much vs. what Disney can really offer them in return for some other concessions.

Disney is all about the bottom line. I'm sure that they would not have passed on this partnership if it still made financial sense.

Stockholders don't like paying too much for assets with very little ROI (return on investment). Eisner's actions here just might be justifiable in the long run.

~Edwin

 

[TheLongshot]

Maybe... If they can get a good 3D animation studio going. Probelm is, as Pixar showed, it takes more than just technical expertise to make good movies. It also takes the art of writing a good story, something which Disney hasn't done much of in the past few years.

To be honest, Disney lost Pixar a while before this, when they decided to play hardball about their contract with Pixar with "Toy Story 2". If it wasn't for that, they might still have a good relationship. Course, after that was when they figured that they could go it alone with 3D animation, with "Dinosaurs". To be honest, it was only a matter of time.

Also, don't totally rule out Disney becoming a player in this again in the future. There is a lot of time for Pixar to make a new deal, and things can change.

Jason

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Stockholders are often idiots...look at the dotcom boom.

The share price hasn't dropped notably because this decision will not impact profits for the next couple of years. Some savvy investors might be gunshy, but there are still plenty of speculators to keep the stock price up.

Have any analysts been in the news praising this decision?

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I feel like listening to Fleetwood Mac's "You Can Go Your Own".

 

[JonZ]

Im not sure I agree with you Edwin.

It depends on the deal and how much Disney is entitled to and for what.

If Disney provides financing and distribution, theyre most definitely entitled to a cut for that, but I absolutely agree with Pixar OWNING what THEY CREATE.

I would want control of my creations and how theyre used,marketed,etc as well.

I think Disney is crazy for saying "Anything you create we own,it becomes our property and can do what we want with it without your endorsement".....unless Disney hires Pixar as a studio for hire for a specific project.

Who do they think they are.. Marvel Comics? stab stab

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

But traders made a LOT of money. You got to play the market right.

~Edwin

 

[Michael Caicedo]

From today's Orlando Sentinel(via LA Times)

Here's the whole article:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busin...orl-home-promo

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

What's happening with Roger Rabbit?

 

[Mikel_Cooperman]

This was on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle this morning.
I think Disney needs Pixar because there creativity is gone so it surprises me that they would let Pixar go. Give them what they want.

Eisener should have been ousted not Disney.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Actually, Disney left willingly, after he found out that Ol' Mikey was undermining his authority as head of the animation division, and for other reasons that are also well known.

I'm also curious on the Roger Rabbit story, I know about Winnie the Pooh but what's up with Roger Rabbit?

 

[Robert Anthony]

I don't know about EITHER story.

Anyone? Bueller?