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."
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.
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.
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!
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
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?
True, but if you have a run-of-the-mill job in the HR, marketing, finance department, being laid off isn't so glamourous. Especially when you live in the bay area (aka $$$) during a mediocre economic period. Good luck getting the same pay rate and benefits that Pixar offered you. They're one of the best employers to work for in the SF bay.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
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.
Company acquisitions are typically godsends for many talented employees.
You're kidding, right?
It's probably not so bright a future for those employees who have no talent or vision
Those that can do their job competently, and have done it well with no problem for 10 years? Yeah, damn those people. Maybe not everyone wants to have the hassle of running a company of their own (after all, it IS a lot of work). Those people get screwed over. The only people that are safe are the truly brilliant, if the company doesn't just get you to retrain it's own employeed before sacking the lot of you completely.
Oh, it also sucks if you have a good contract, and the aquiring company doesn't have as good a contract for its employees.
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.
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...)
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.
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."
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.