Slashdot Mirror


Pixar Drops Disney To Find a New Studio Partner

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."

17 of 581 comments (clear)

  1. Adios, Disney by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Adios, Disney by jobugeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
    2. Re:Adios, Disney by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Adios, Disney by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:Adios, Disney by furiousgeorge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    5. Re:Adios, Disney by edsel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Adios, Disney by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

      You let her be exposed to Disney so she will buy their crap, but you don't let he watch a show that helps her learn.

      Great parenting!!! Start saving now for her bail.

    7. Re:Adios, Disney by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    8. Re:Adios, Disney by chez69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
  2. Been Waitin' Fer This! by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  3. Blame Eisner! by El · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.")

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  4. A good thing for all involved (and us too!) by shoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Roy Disney was right! by Teahouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
  7. Re:So where does this leave Disney? by ziggles · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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).

  8. Re:The sadly anonymous director of Finding Nemo. by Jotham · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Disney needs the competition by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.