Slashdot Mirror
Pixar For Sale?
blamanj writes "The on-again off-again relationship between Pixar and Disney is currently on-again, and in a big way according to this story. Pixar originally signed a distribution deal which gave Disney a percentage of the profits and a distribution fee of 10%-15% of revenues. With Pixar revenues well over two billion dollars on their films, Jobs was looking for a better deal and dropped negotiations with the mouse. But now, according to CNN, he might be willing to sell the company outright. I can't believe that Pixar employees would be happy."
Company acquisitions are typically godsends for many talented employees. It gives them a chance, whether through direct layoffs or just the ability to use the move as an excuse, to find new employment elsewhere. Many go on to found their own companies and become successful beyond what they could ever hope as a simple employee.
It's probably not so bright a future for those employees who have no talent or vision, but since this is Pixar we are talking about, I don't think that's going to be the case in the vast majority of cases.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Nothing on CNN.com
Makes a lil sense, I mean this isn't like Apple for Jobs, this is a company he bought and helped raise up and stuff it's not the company he helped create like Apple. Though honestly I can't see why he wouldn't want to hold on to it. It's not as if he needs the cash. Unless he's planning on out right buying a really large chunk of Apple or something.
Shareholders own and manage the company, not employees. If employees dont like it they can leave.
Michael Eisner
Well...Am I the only one who's worried about future movies? I mean...What will we occupy our kids with? Computers?! I mean...COME ON! It's not as if I'm going to pay for their WoW subscriptions!
So Jobs cut's a deal with his mates at Disney for TV over iTunes then once he has what he wants, tells Disney to bugger off with distribution of the Pixar flicks. I love it.
Join the Digital TV discussion @ http://forums.dvbowners.com
I wouldn't be suprised if Lucasfilm bought back Pixar from Jobs since Lucasfilm sold Pixar in 1986. I just hope reclaimed Pixar would work on other project besides Star Wars films.
The current deal with Disney, as I understand it:
1: All proceeds are returned to Disney until distribution costs are covered. That works out to 10-15% of all proceeds.
2: The remaining proceeds are split 50-50 between Disney and Pixar. Ultimately, that works out, in conjunction with the distribution costs, to a 60-40 or 65-35 split with Disney raking in the higher end of the money for each film Pixar created in its entirety.
3: Disney owns the rights to ALL characters appearing in Pixar movies. Pixar owns the right of refusal on sequels. ie: if Pixar opts against making a sequel to a given movie, Disney can and probably will make it with no input from Pixar. Witness Toy Story 3.
Disney has been in a creative slump for a number of years. They did not catch on to the technological changes very quickly, and their stories have been lacking, feeling like new cookie-cutter versions of tropes that ceased to be fresh a long time ago.
I seriously doubt bringing Pixar (or any other animation group) in-house would help, though. There is a very real risk that an already demoralised animation division gives up altogether, while the outside company's group dynamic gets destroyed by the change in corporate culture, the hostility and despair from the in-house people and the inevitable loss of people that do not wish to continue after a merger.
For such a move to work, I believe Disney needs to put its own house in order first, so there is a thriving, positive culture to merge with. If not, you'll just destroy two groups, not rescue one as the plan may be.
But then, what do I know...
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Since when should employee happiness be the basis of whether or not to sell a company?
In the end it's the owners who decide whether to hold on to it, or divest it. However, it does seem a little unwise for Jobs to sell off what seems to be a profitable outfit.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Here's the nytimes article they refer to
Jobs ready to sell Pixar: Report
Newspaper says animated studio head open to the right deal; receptive to offer from partner Disney.
October 31, 2005: 9:08 AM EST
The success of the Walt Disney Co. film "Chicken Little" could determine whether Disney or partner Pixar has the greater leverage in upcoming talks.
Pixar has had nothing but hits since it started making films in 1995.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Steve Jobs, the chairman and CEO of Pixar Animation Studios, would be open to a sale of the company at the right price, according to a published report.
The New York Times reports Jobs, who owns about 50 percent of Pixar (Research), would want a strong premium to its current $5.9 billion market capitalization to consider a sale, but he would be open to an offer from its long-time partner, Walt Disney Co. (Research) The paper attributed Jobs' willingness to consider a sale to "two people with knowledge of the talks" now taking place between Disney and Pixar about possibly extending their partnership.
But the paper reports that in talks about a new version of their partnership, Disney CEO Robert Iger has yet to make an offer to acquire Pixar. The paper reports that Disney is hoping that its new animated feature, "Chicken Little," due in theaters this weekend, will give it greater leverage in talks with Pixar.
"Chicken Little" is the first offering from Disney's animation studio since it was revamped to produce computer-generated features that have a three-dimension look, rather than the traditional hand-drawn two-dimensional cartoons.
Pixar has produced only CG features and nothing but blockbusters since it started producing movies in 1995, while many of the Disney-generated animated movies during the period were considered box office flops.
The Times reports that if "Chicken Little" is a hit, it would show Wall Street and Jobs that Disney need not depend on Pixar for creation of new animated movie characters that could be adapted for theme park rides, consumer products and television.
The movie has gotten generally favorable early word, but if it is not well received by critics or moviegoers, the paper reports that Jobs will gain leverage in his talks with Disney because the media conglomerate would be seen as relying on Pixar to add new stories to its creative arsenal.
If the movie performs poorly, Bernstein & Co. media analyst Michael Nathanson told the paper, "investors might want to see a Pixar deal right behind it." Still, he added, "it's all about numbers, and both sides - Disney and Pixar - are looking for leverage."
Pixar has strong cash reserves and no longer needs Disney's to help finance films, so it is looking for a distribution agreement for a far larger percent of the box office than the 50 percent it receives under the current deal with Disney.
But while there are likely to be other studios willing to distribute Pixar films, analysts see Disney as best positioned to promote future Pixar films and its characters due to theme parks and strong merchandise sales channels.
Jobs would evaluate any Pixar partnership based on where he could get the best deal for the studio, the paper reports, not on his developing friendship with Iger. Jobs often sparred with Iger's predecessor, Michael Eisner. The Disney Channel and ABC, other units of Disney, recently signed a deal to distribute shows on the new video version of the Apple Computer (Research) iPod. Jobs is also Chairman and CEO of Apple.
The Times reports that detailed negotiations between Disney and Pixar are likely to begin in mid-November and could be wrapped up by late December or early January, said one of the paper's sources. The studios have several issues to grapple with, according to the paper, including who would have creative oversight over new Pixar characters at Disney theme parks and how revenue from rides and other attractions would be split.
In summary: This is a news article about another news article
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
iff jobs does not write in something that ties them to the company. Otherwise, if the new company does not do a good job (i.e. starts firing or brings in some idiot manager), then I suspect that a number of VC will be after them to start up pixat competitors. And that is good.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
will the headline be
Pixar Employees Lose Their Jobs?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Regardless of the success of Chicken Little, buying Pixar would be buying exactly what Disney needs - a company full of talented, creative overachievers who care as much about their art and storytelling as profits and dollar signs (which they have no problem making plenty of).
The best idea would be to buy Pixar and leave it the hell alone - a Hong Kong for Disney's People's Republic.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
What is it with Jobs and resisting mouse-related progress?
;)
Add your own, presumably better, mouse-related gags if you wish.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Although I'd never buy a Mac, I give Jobs and his employees credit for:
1. Showing the hacks who run Disney that not all movies have to suck. It is possible to make an animated movie that's actually watchable and somewhat entertaining. Just think about the crappy cartoons that existed before Pixar movies, in case you don't agree.
2. Showing that Disney totally sucks. Empereror has no clothes. They can crank out schlocky sequels, but that's about it. A bit like the video game business -- indies do it better. The big publishers are filled with money-grubbing power seekers. With Jobs, I think that money is just for keeping score -- his main goal is to make superb stuff.
3. Pixar has run cirles around Eisner, Katzenberg, Spielberg and Geffen. The media bosses suck. Jobs has more talent than those greedy, grasping, imitative, uncreative hacks.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Can you imagine the lively, engaging style of Pixar stuggling to survive the diktats for formulaic plot heaped upon it by Disney execs? Think "The Emperor's New Groove" but done with shiny new CG. Ugh.
Sean Ellis
Follow OfQuack's antics on Twitter.
"Pixar recently claimed that it is cunctipotent."
You just can't argue with a word like cunctipotent.
Disney has been in a creative slump for a number of years. They did not catch on to the technological changes very quickly, and their stories have been lacking, feeling like new cookie-cutter versions of tropes that ceased to be fresh a long time ago.
At least they can keep on making money on Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck etc. since it's clear that those copyrights will never expire.
siener's youtube channel
What's so bad about a "Marxist tone"?
Marx was first to view society from the perspective of the workers, the bulk majority of people.
It's certainly a better perspective than that of the top 0.1%.
I think it probably does. From what I've heard he's usually been pretty hands off and allowed them to make their films the way they wanted without a lot of meddling. I doubt they'll get that kind of freedom from Disney, a company that has consistently blamed their medium (2D animation) for their falling revenues, seemingly without a clue that it is their lackluster storytelling that has doom their pictures as it is with most films that fail when their producers have the resources to make them hits.
Having worked at Disney recently, I think you're absolutely correct in assuming bringing Pixar in-house would not help. Disney has evolved into a corporate monster where the lawyers have a say in the creative and things don't get done since everything the company releases has to be super safe for the kids. People in-house are worried about not being "edgy" enough to attract teens while at the same time thinking that anything released by the company shouldn't worry the parents of a two-year old. Talk about conflicting priorities!
:)
Maybe if the current management was replaced by Pixar employees...
Posting anonymously, for obvious reasons.
I can't even spell cunctipotent, let alone argue with it.
:(
I had to copy and paste there
Depends on where they are on the geek scale. Disney being the analog of Satan in the computer/copyright world, no I can't imagine they'd be very happy.
OTOH, if they still believe that hiding behind that multiply-protected-by-acts-of-Congress cute mouse of Disney's is... more cute mice, then I'm sure they'd be ecstatic.
The question I want to know is why Jobs would sell Pixar? The clearest answer I can see has something to do with Jobs's little iPod video thingy and Disney's little "we own your whole damn childhood" movie archive...
Direct away from face when opening.
You get +1 arse-kicking points.
I get the feeling that his return to Apple was 'sweet-as,' right up to the release of OS-X and the eventual world dominance of the i-pod. There after, it appears that his ethos for doing things 'best,' both technically and ergonomically have gone out the window. He's selling off the back of his brand and coming up with, praise worthy, but obvious pitches. I think the whole move to x86 and early release of the flaky nano are both good examples of power getting the better of him. The selling of Pixar is another pin in that cushion. Apple doesn't need to be Microsoft and Steve doesn't need to be Bill. In spite of this, he's gone from wanting to be a pioneer with standards to being a business man with greed in his eye.
We really need Woz to come back and shake him up a tad!
The current deal was for a set number of movies, and it expires with "Cars" in 2006. There was also disagreement with respect to Toy Story 2, it was originally a "cheap sequel". Later, it got upgraded to a full fledged movie. Pixar wanted it to count against the original # of movies in the distribution agreement, Disney didn't - I don't recall what became of that.
PS. Why do I keep getting deja vu when I see the Chicken Little advertisements? Is that character (design) ripped off of some cartoon or have I just seen the trailer too many times or are there just too many bird movies this year?
Has Jobs been doing his "reality distortion field visionary leader" bit with Pixar, or has he just been a major stockholder while the company has been going on it's own momentum? Would the sale of Pixar result in layoffs and lower morale, or would the company simply go on the same way it is, or possibly even improve with more investment?
Not a word where you want to miss out the second 'c'...
Oh, by the way -- that system failed, if you havent noticed, in both Russia and China. Note the luxury cars in Moscow and Beijing -- they may still be repressive police states, but they are no longer communist.
Just a random thought: Considering what Jobs can do with Apple, Jobs would need to buy out some minority partners to have more board control in Apple (Valued at about $50bn http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl) -- and for that he would need good cash. That cash can come out of Pixar.
Apple would sure do better with Jobs in better control (of the board) and with Microsoft blundering big-time, MAC could be the next windows. Better control would also decrease the probability of a Sculley-like 1985 takeover Deja-vu.
On a side note, the fact that Google's founders have a unique 3:1 voting power in the board (you can google to find more about it) reflects on the way they focus and innovate tirelessly. Also, the stories of Billy B Gates and Larry "I am God" Ellison and numerous other Successful Owner-CEOs would tell you that when it comes to running (and being in control of) your own damn public limited company, your ownership (shares) is very critical, no matter how good (or bad) a CEO are you.
And, as a reminder, we must never forget how HP (the HP way) got screwed by board politics.
Let pixar be Disney's, but I'll bet you'll want Apple to be Jobs. If Pixar's sale can help him do that, so be it.
Cheers!
(Followed by Sculley "I'm the CTO" Jokes...)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If Jobs is the owner he can do whatever he wants to do with that company. Disgruntled employees or not. Face it their employees not owners, it takes an employee to come up with the idea that they have something to say about whats going on in a company, or what a owner should do with it. It's a selfish world out there, and people like Jobs know that, that's why they have more money in their bank accounts then most of us do.
"If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low
Nothing, except the 100s of millions that Marxism has killed and repressed.
100% Overrated
speaking of things that have failed, you may have noticed that you have no karma.
Maybe its because THE WAY YOU TALK TO PEOPLE is a failure.
What's even worse is when the people replying to you get modded up
Note the Score:5, Interesting in this example
That's gotta sting
Or is it just how NeXT was "bought" by Apple?
The Pixar/Disney story is very interesting, if only for showing the kind of attitude that Pixar has (compared with the normal Hollywood flacks): when push came to shove, Pixar made the move "their way", walking away from the Disney bosses and their "Geld". Shortly thereafter the Disney media bosses decided it really was the best thing ever, and got back on board. And they proceeded to take as much credit for the outcome as they could, of course. If you've ever worked with the publisher/media boss types, you know what they are like, and greatly appreciate the backbone that Jobs and company showed.
... Disney, which was bankrolling the project, peppered the young animators with notes and suggestions. The story was too juvenile, the higher-ups said, and the characters had to be edgier. Afraid to trust themselves, Lasseter and his crew tried to follow all the directions.
Here's the source of this quote:
It was, nearly everyone agrees, a train wreck. Disney hated the movie and the idea -- and shut it down.
"Yeah that was fun,'' jokes Pete Docter, who was nominated for Oscars for "Toy Story'' and "Monsters, Inc.'' "And it happened right around Christmas, too.''
Lasseter recalls that he "begged'' for two weeks to fix things. The animators went back, took out all of Disney's suggestions and made the movie they wanted to make in the first place.
And, naturally, when they screened the new version, Disney execs loved it...
Thanks media bosses!
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
*puts pinky finger on corner of mouth* ...ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Somehow I can't see Disney getting into software...
At this point, if Disney continues it's relationship with Pixar, Disney essentially becomes a competitor against it's own, newly invigorated animation studio. At least, it's in an awkward position. In that sense, Disney buying Pixar and integrating it's own animation studio assets with the acquisition makes a lot of sense for Disney, particularly if they set it up as a subsidiary company and preserve Pixar's brand.
The question is, does it make sense for Jobs. Pixar has been a hit machine. In an age where box office receipts have become less forgiving of expensive major studio offerings of questionable quality, Pixar's destiny is largely up to Pixar. Jobs has the better hand here and I think he knows it. Sell the company? Better have a better answer than just a lot of money in the bank.
Unless Disney give them serious personal investment in the company, they'll just up and leave to form a new competing studio. That's pretty much par for the course.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This could be a win-win situation. If Disney buys Pixar, I'll be quizzing my friends there on how it's going management-wise. If it looks like a repeat of the Apple/NeXT merger, I'll buy a pile of Disney shares, and watch them double in value in three to four years.
When Apple acquired NeXT, their top three levels of management were pretty much replaced with NeXT employees. The result: a revitalized Apple, which has grown from a nadir of about $2B in market capitalization, to todays $47 billion company.
If Disney acquires Pixar, and puts John Lasseter in charge of animation, it could be a great thing for both companies. The Pixar employees (most of them are shareholders) get a nice bundle of Disney shares for their Pixar equity, and those Disney shares then take off when the effect of Pixar's influence on the Disney organization starts to become obvious to Wall Street.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It's no coincidence that the Disney-Pixar relationship improved after Eisner left. He was like oil and water with many he dealt with, especially when it came to Pixar.
I see no reason for Pixar, mutual funds, or individual stockholders to sell Pixar stock at this point.
The NYT probably just phoned Michael Eisner and asked for a good story to print.
would that require the sort of separation that NOT sitting on the board of both companies?
Or would selling the most succesful animation company, but locked into distribution deals with the iTMS, provide Jobs with enough capital to do an end run around M$.
What would be the best strategy given the revenue streams generated since the introduction os video at the iTMS?
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Everybody is moaning and complaining that the sale would be no good for the purchasing company, as all the good employees will leave. Well, from the seller's point of view, that's the problem of the new owner. The buyer, if they wish to keep the creative talent and continue making gobs of money with their new acquisition, needs to make sure the "new" employees stay happy hwere they are. If that means a variation in corporate policy for the Pixar division...well, that's what it takes. If you're going to cut benefits, you'd better be willing to pony up more cash in salaries.
While we bemoan the plight of the employees in the purchase, the simple fact is that they don't own the company, and are always subject to a sale when the owner(s) feel the price is right or that the value has peaked. That is business. If you don't like it, go make your own business. Then you can decide your own fate.
How can I make such harsh remarks from my cushy slashdot-posting-all-day-long job? I got tired of somebody else calling the shots three years ago, so I opened my own firm. Last summer I was contacted by a medium sized, regional company to sell my small practice to them and become the head of a new department, and built it from scratch. It took me about an hour to realize that, as much as I despise day to day business, I really like being the owner. I call the shots. I'm not making as much salary as I would for them, and insead of a wad of cash for my business, I've got a bunch of depreciating equipment, an office upfit loan, and a 4 year lease I've got to pay on every month. But I set my hours, determine which projects I take and which I don't want, and I set my own deadlines. Someday I plan on selling out. It may be to my employees, or it may be in a merger with another firm. It's just business, but in this case it's my business. The employees will have to deal with that.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
OTOH, if they still believe that hiding behind that multiply-protected-by-acts-of-Congress cute mouse of Disney's is... more cute mice, then I'm sure they'd be ecstatic.
Well, since the employees at Pixar enjoy salary bonuses based largely on the performance of the company's copyrighted and sold products, most of them will probably be pleased to work (or continue to work) for a company that does indeed want to see (and defend) revenue from their expensively made products. It does Pixar no good if some family that wants to amuse their kids with a hundred sedative TV-playings of Finding Nemo after they've seen it in the theater don't have to pay for that in-house entertainment. The sale of DVDs is a big part of how Pixar can afford the top-flight talent that flocks to work there.
Pixar also sells software - something a lot of people don't know. Expensive software. Without protecting their rights on that front, a lot of the in-house development that they do wouldn't happen.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Being in the animation industry, I keep a close watch on the big hitters. Disney all but slashed the throats of hundreds of artists a few years ago. They have let almost their entire 2d department go, and have now shut down two of their 3d studios (Secret Lab anyone?). This is nothing but a ploy by Disney to get someone else to make their movies because they tend to screw it up themselves. Chicken Little may be good, but we will see if those artists have jobs in two years.
I'll paraphrase S. Jobs here:
Are you a nut case?
Yes if Disney bought Pixar they would receive a company full of talented, driven artists but that is only half of the reason why Pixar movies do so well. The other half is that management and producers protects the production. The classic story about Toy Story is that Disney fronted the money and was unhappy about the "juvenile" nature of the story and wanted to make it "modern", edgy, or whatever kids call being "cool" these day, they proceeded to hack it up. The result was crappy, no one liked it, everyone was unhappy, and Disney was moments from pulling the plug. It wasn't until Lasseter stepped in and said 'enough is enough' and fixed it by going back to their way that the project showed promise. The rest is history. Award winning history no less.
So unless Disney takes a hands off approach if they buy up Pixar (I still doubt this would happen...would Job's ego allow it?) it will go the way of their ill fated Disney Orlando Animation Studio (which made Lilo). It isn't that Pixar has talented people (go figure...Disney has them too). It is the fact that the rank and file management all the way up to Lasseter understands they need to "protect the baby". Reguardless of whether or the story is stellar, interferrence will definately rob it any chances it had of being so.
Perhaps Pixar needs something like a modified CC/GPL for movies. Some sort of legal thing that says it gives up its copyright after 26 years. Then make it so that it also affects any company that it merges with. Then merge with Disney and cause it to stop all this silly copyright extending business.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Apple = Steve Jobs
Pixar = Steve Jobs
Why not Video iPod and downloadable "Pixar" films. Especially as it seems when you look at the list of travel movies a family brings with them for the kids - Pixar films tend to top the list.
So the ability to download Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles could be a boon for iTunes AND add additional sales for those movies.
(In truth, I think Steve Jobs is better off waiting a few more movies and buying Disney. *lol*)
This just isn't gonna happen, now maybe he is buying Disney. How ? I can't answer that; but think about the theme parks, all that shiny plastic and aluminium....... mmmm
------ http://www.albanwr.com/http://www.albanwr.com
Sorry, but big words do not make up for and an empty argument.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Pixar for sale?
I want to buy some! Can it be bought online or do you need to visit your local dealer? And is there a money-back guarantee?
I can certainly argue with using cunctipotent. Since it means the same as omnipotent, it's just a case of replacing a 5 dollar word with a 10 dollar word. Using big words just to confuse others is a bad idea in my book.
We should be so lucky!
Somebody please, please, please get the franchise away from that hack, George Lucas!
By chance, has Pixar recently made a lot of people very, very angry, including yourself?
Is that this is all about timing.
Based on the early reviews I'm reading, Chicken Little is not going to flop. It's not going to be the rousing success that Disney is hoping for, but it looks like it's going to be a base-hit for the company. And it's going to give Disney that much-needed leverage in their negotiations with Pixar. "Look, we can make passable 3D CG films without you!"
Pixar, OTOH, is set to release their first "flop" next year. Cars will probably make the same amount of money as Chicken Little, but because it won't be the box-office smash that previous Pixar films were, it's going to be trumpeted in the press as Pixar's first major misstep. Pixar has said that they are intentionally going after a younger audience with this film, and it shows; the promos look like they are straight out of Fischer-Price. As a parent, these are the kinds of kiddie film I fear most; a 90 minute root canal for the mind. Without catering to the adult audience, they are going to lose huge marketshare.
But Jobs already knows this. Look at the Pixar image in the CNN/Money photo. Notice any franchises missing?
A Bug's Life was also aimed at a younger audience. But it was Pixar's second feature film, and was a base-hit for them. It was before they really established their reputation as a blockbuster powerhouse, so it was forgivable. But whenever you see promotional material for Pixar nowadays, does it ever include Flick? Almost never.
Cars looks to be aimed at an even younger audience than ABL. The characters are less varied than any other movie Pixar has done (they're all, well... cars; how many variations of a car are there? Or should I say, How many interesting variations are there? Not many). And following up Finding Nemo and The Incredibles is no small feat; the movie definitely has its work cut out for it.
Back to my point... Steve Jobs knows that the next movie is going to be a sleeper. They are going to exit the Disney deal with a fizzle, not a bang. Not that it will be a terrible movie, but Cars is definitely going to deflate Pixar's reputation. Therefore, if Jobs is going to cut some kind of deal with Disney, he needs to do it now while Pixar is still coasting on the reputation of its previous movies, because it will probably be 2008 (or later) before Pixar can release a feature that will redeem them from the upcoming Cars debacle.
If the seller can't address the potential for an employee exodus, the value of what's being sold will diminish. The seller does have a big interest in helping prevent that. You'd be short-sighted if you didn't anticipate problems for the buyer and try to address them.
The buyer, if they wish to keep the creative talent and continue making gobs of money with their new acquisition, needs to make sure the "new" employees stay happy where they are.
And the point of the groaning posters is that a buyout by a company like Disney would probably fail for the precise reason that Disney won't be able to pull that off. We're talking about a company whose writers routinely refer to it as "Mousewitz," you know?
While we bemoan the plight of the employees in the purchase, the simple fact is that they don't own the company, and are always subject to a sale when the owner(s) feel the price is right or that the value has peaked.
Somehow I missed the part where you necessarily have to discard any sort of human feeling (for employees) or artistic enjoyment (for the movies) in order to accept the realities of business. Yep, it'd be permissible for Steve Jobs to sell Pixar. If he sent it to a soulless buyer, it would also suck. Saying "that's business" doesn't mean something cool wouldn't probably be ruined for us and the people who work there.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Why was parent modded +1 for funny? He's making a perfectly sane and serious point here.
Look, we all know that Disney is the big I Am with regards to small children oriented, family type dealies. We all know what Disney feature film humour is like: veiled sexual innuendos for the adults that will fly over the kids' heads that are strange and forced and inappropriate in the film.
Disney is only aimed at making money off merchandise and rides. So their films, the cheesier, the most bland and lowest denominator of family entertainment the better
Pixar actually tries to story tell, develop characters that grow, that have depth, that doesn't necessarily have to adapt to gener/species sterotypes. It's not the medium, it's the company environment that allow these story to grow that makes Pixar a hit.
If Jobs is what everyone thinks he's like, where he just let the art guys do the art and he'll do the business, that's good. But what makes anyone think Disney will let Pixar have the same artistic freedom?
The market research guys alone will be enough to drown out any good ideas from the get-go if Disney were in charge
I agree -- the idea that Steve Jobs would sell Pixar just to cash out and let it slide into mediocrity is as plausible as George W. Bush admitting on national TV that he simply does whatever the voices in his head tell him to do.
Jobs is not CEO of Pixar and Apple for the money or the fame; he's already got that by the truckload. He does what he does because he wants to be reknown as a guy who makes a dent in the universe, who brings style and quality to the masses. Pixar is too closely tied to Jobs for him to just toss it aside; if Pixar gets sold and turns into a factory for Disney cheapquels, that reflects poorly on Steve.
I can see Steve selling Pixar to Disney, but only if there are iron-clad guarantees that Pixar's quality and processes won't be compromised -- e.g., Pixar does the same stuff they're doing now, but as a wholly-owned tamper-proof subsidiary of the Mouse House. But that's not the same thing as what folks are speculating (More related rambling here).
--R.J.
Electric-Escape.net
Well, since the employees at Pixar enjoy salary bonuses based largely on the performance of the company's copyrighted and sold products, most of them will probably be pleased to work (or continue to work) for a company that does indeed want to see (and defend) revenue from their expensively made products.
Do you really think they're in it for the money?
I don't think you work for companies like Pixar if you're in it for the money.
Direct away from face when opening.
Pixar employees won't be happy
They will be when they find out that they are google employees.
So what is the relationship between Apple in Pixar? Is there a link between the two companies that doesn't involve Jobs in the middle?
Does Apple have the cash reserves to buy Pixar? I think Apple is powerful enough at this point to distribute Pixar movies online.
I think it would be a win-win situation for both companies as I've always believed that both shared a common sense of innovation.
Which is why I thought it was great when Apple came out with the Rip, Mix, Burn. campaign. It was fun seeing Disney CEO Eisner crying foul about it in front of a Congressional panel, and moaning about how attitudes like Rip, Mix, Burn. were why Monsters, Inc. was being pirated on the internet.
Took the poor guy a while to grok that the same Jobs who was CEO of Apple was the same Jobs who was CEO of the company that made Monsters, Inc.
I don't think you work for companies like Pixar if you're in it for the money.
But there aren't many independently wealthy people in the country at all, and probably very few (come on, pretty much none) who code rendering routines and produce 3D models and textures for Pixar. So, there's no being in it without the money. And certainly there might be another good gig waiting - at WETA, or Skywalker, or any of a number of other studios/facilities/projects. Money does play a role, and no money no Pixar.
As it happens, they pay pretty well. They wouldn't have their pick of people if they didn't. And they do have their pick.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Jobs is possibly interested in maybe possibly selling Pixar to Disney or perhaps to someone else maybe, possibly. Disney is trying hard to show Jobs and the rest of the world that their animation arm isn't completely dead. Jobs is angling for content deals that will help Apple. Much is possible; nothing is known.
Wake me up when there's more than a rumor.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Jobs got greedy. The contract he wanted Disney to sign was absolutely ridiculous. As we've seen, no one else has partnered with Pixar either. I'd assume that is for the same business reasons Disney gave them the boot. Jobs greed killed/is killing Pixar.
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
There are three reasons why this makes good sense:
1. Pixar is at the top of its game. There may still be some upside on the company's value, but a lot of that will depend on Cars. All of the other studios are nipping on their heels. Their technological advantage is eroding as the technology matures, and creativity is something that can be bought/developed/stolen. Today's unstoppable team can become tomorrow's slump.
2. Steve is trying to build a relationship with the same media companies that he competes with through Pixar. He wants video content for iTMS, but at the same time kicks their ass at the box office. It's hard to play both sides; it's best to just be a distributor, not a competitor.
3. Pixar still wants to play tough with Disney, but Steve wants Disney/ABC to play nice with iTMS. Can't have it both ways. Best way out is to cut the cord w/ Pixar.
The trailers for Cars give away more than we've ever seen for a Pixar film and the characters just don't come across as appealing. Granted, when I first heard about "Finding Nemo" I didn't see how the story could be made to be widely popular ("A Daddy fish searches for his son?") but it was less the story than the characters that made Nemo appealing across all age groups.
Now we have a film that involves pretty limited characters and one that I can't stand listening to. ("Dad Gum!")
Not promising.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Time Warner, who is owned by Viacom.
Say what? I didn't read anything on viacom.com or timewarner.com about Viacom (parent of Paramount Pictures and MTV Networks) buying out Time Warner.
What is it with Jobs and resisting mouse-related progress?
Anything related to The Mouse is not Progress. Remember that The Walt Disney Company was probably the biggest corporate backer of a piece of legislation called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Does keeping all works from 1923 on locked up for another 20 years promote Progress, especially given that such Progress includes works that build on other works?
Perhaps Pixar needs something like a modified CC/GPL for movies. Some sort of legal thing that says it gives up its copyright after 26 years.
Creative Commons has a program called Founders' Copyright to do almost exactly what you suggest up to this point.
I had to quickly scan replies so forgive me if I overlooked this... What about the option of an employee buyout, like Avis did years ago? That would put the company in the hands of those who already know how to run it; the "non-creative" (hey, if you've ever seen an HR person clear a hiring logjam in a state bureacracy you'd think they do have some creativeness!) folks could do the business side, and the "creative" folks could continue to make it profitable.
I think Steve has more power now with Pixar and Apple than he would without Pixar but with three billion dollars in cash. Steve can almost single handedly steer the computer industry (well, for consumers). Apple may only have a small 4% (or so) of sales, but they have much more influence in the industry. He also has tons of content producers using his products, when you think about Final Cut Pro. Pixar is an animation powerhouse. Their movies are almost guaranteed to be hits (because they are quality) and he has Disney by the balls. In an earlier discussion, some were guessing that Disney gave Apple their shows for the music (or would that be media?) store because Disney wanted to be on good terms with Steve in the hopes of recovering a relationship with Pixar. Also, Steve is the darling of the media and has given MS and Bill black eyes a number of times. Steve is better at predicting the needs of the market (iPod vs tablet PC or media center) than Bill, making Bill look foolish ("People want to talk to their computer").
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that Steve has amazing amounts of power in various industries with relatively little money (compared to folks like Bill or Larry Ellison). You know the old saying, "Only Jobs could have gone to the media companies."
You sure sucked the fun out of that one. :/
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Yes, it can be bought online, through any of dozens of online brokers. The ticker symbol is
PIXR
Last time I checked, Steve Jobs was not one of the bigger shareholders, so he would get little out of the deal, except to cede control of the one place which he can guarantee will allow Apple to sell movies via iTMS.
Steve Jobs personally owns more than 50% of Pixar (See the Annual Report) I'm not exactly sure why Jobs is not listed among Pixar's insider roster. I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that Steve's shares have never actually been traded. Or maybe he's got a very good accountant and a healthy fear of the IRS. Who knows.
Anyway, as far as motivation goes, I'd wager "Billions and billions of dollars" would explain it.
Retard. The people of America are the most productive workers in the world, but are the corporate bigwigs EVER satisfied? Of COURSE not! And so there's this ever-escalating world of more and more work, people spending less and less time raising their kids, improving their communities, taking part in politics or other activities. So finally only those people who are employable are those willing to screw over everything else in their lives for the Company. Fuck that. Hard.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
Is there some reason that working for Steve Jobs would be better than working for some other guy?