Disney Buys Pixar

BlueDjinn writes to tell us that it appears a great deal of speculation over Disney's buyout of Pixar Animation Studios is in fact true. From the article: "[Pixar] is set to meet tomorrow to approve the company's $7bn (£3.9bn) takeover by Disney. The all-share deal will make Steve Jobs, the chief executive of Apple, around $3.5bn and the single largest shareholder in Disney. Jobs created Pixar in 1986 when he paid $10m for the computer animations division of Lucasfilm, owned by Star Wars creator George Lucas."

Comments

this sucks

[Hank Chinaski]

Now we will see Nemo 2, Nemo 3 (dvd only release) and a Nemo tv series, with each one getting a little crappier. Same for all other Pixar films.

Disney will milk the IP till the cow dies and will probably not fund development of new IP.

1) Buy Pixar
2) Milk IP
3) Short-time profit

Re:this sucks

[Voltageaav]

As Jobs is still the largest stockholder of the company, how many changes will really take place?

the parallels are interesting

[eobanb]

The parallels here are almost amusingly similar to when Apple bought NeXT, ten years ago. Because so much of NeXT's advanced technology essentially displaced Apple's own struggling and dated codebase for the Mac OS to become Mac OS X, and Steve Jobs' own idea of a trimmed and stylish product line replaced the beige box Power Mac (insert four-digit number here), many industry analysts joked that 'NeXT had bought Apple for negative $400 million.'

Look at what's happening now! Like NeXT, one of Steve's projects, was bought by Apple, and its technology incorporated into the company to revamp its product line, Pixar, again a project of Steve, may very well save Disney. For the purists that either hate to see Disney's long-lived traditional animation replaced by computer 3D rendering, or fear that Disney will mishandle Pixar's talent and resources and bring an unfortunate end to the latter studio's remarkably successful run of films, consider two facts: since this isn't a hostile takeover, clearly the folks in charge at Pixar, Steve Jobs included, believe that this will be as good for Pixar as it will be for Disney. They wouldn't be doing this if they thought that Disney was going to ruin them. Also consider now that Steve Jobs is the largest shareholder at Disney. That really carries some weight. Steve has a reputation for getting what he wants, and I also don't doubt that he made this deal without knowing he would have a significant say in Disney's direction.

So really, guys, calm down! Just imagine the headline read, 'Pixar buys Disney for -$7 billion.'

Re:the parallels are interesting

[jacksonj04]

They *used* to employ people to hand-draw cartoons. They used to be bloody good quality too, just take a look at something like Beauty and the Beast. Then compare it to Tarzan or Lilo & Stitch, and you'll see that Disney clearly no longer employ as much talent as they did before.

Pixar and Disney

[walnut_tree]

This is quite a development! I suspect that Pixar will continue to operate (largely) autonomously, but there will undoubtedly be a good deal of knowledge sharing between Disney and Pixar. John Lasseter has often expressed his admiration for Disney's animators and their pioneering role in developing the medium. While there might seem to be a lot of enmity between the two companies, I suspect there's also a lot of mutual respect between the artists at both studios.

People may not like the management decisions made by Disney (which have often dictated the direction of their films) but the company still employs a great many talented artists. And of course, Pixar continues to benefit from Disney's considerable marketing muscle - few other companies know how to so thoroughly milk their products for every cent they can get (and I don't say that as praise).

Re:Good luck to Steve J...

[bersl2]

I'll pay two bucks for Steamboat Willie on my iPod

NO! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

Thoughts like this will lead to Disney convincing Congress to retroactively extend copyright for another 20 years.

Disney empire

[gEvil (beta)]

Keep in mind that the Disney empire also includes ABC, ESPN, the go.com network, as well as a bunch of movie studio (Touchstone, Miramax, Dimension) and record company imprints. Several of these operate somewhat autonomously, but Jobs will have some say in things as the single largest shareholder in Disney. Gates wants to control the living room. Jobs will control the living room.

Re:Might be OK

[mrchaotica]

Disney has been evil from the beginning, even when it was being run by Walt himself.

Re:Ok, what happens to Renderman now?

[jcr]

I should say that the golden age of CG movies are now over.

That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think?

Now come the crap movies...the "me too" movies.

They're already here.. Didn't you hear about "Antz", the knock-off of "A Bug's Life"?

CGI is new tool. Some great movies will be made with it, and a probably a lot of crap, too. Take a look at some of the lesser movies that were being made at the same time as Citizen Kane. Did they keep Orson Wells from making his masterpiece?

-jcr

MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL!

[mrchaotica]

If it weren't for the assholes at Disney (and the *AA), you'd already be able to have Steamboat Willie on your iPod, for free!

Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL!

[mrchaotica]

That may be true now, but I'm sure that in 1942 (i.e., 1928 + 14 years, the length the copyright term was was originally intended to be) it would have been much easier and cheaper to make a high-quality copy. Moreover, since everyone would be free to have a copy then, we'd have plenty of backups today.

Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

For human-authored works, the term is life + 70 years. For corporation-authored works, the term is 120 years from the date of their creation, regardless of whether the corporation "dies" or not.

Sure, after the Sonny Bono act extended the copyright. It used to be somewhat shorter (80 years, I think). What I don't get is how Congress justifies retroactive extension of copyright. Copyright on new stuff I can see, but changing the rules of the game like this is indefensible. It runs against the stated purpose of Copyright: those works are already made. Extending their term won't encourage someone to make more, nor will it enrich the public domain.

Too much focus on Jobs

[namekuseijin]

I don't think much of the success of Pixar is due to Steve Jobs.

Rather, the main man over there is John Lasseter, the legendary animator directly responsible for some of the companies most memorable movies. Would Pixar be anywhere today wasn't it for the brilliant movies?

Jobs is just this one guy who sees ahead better than most and invest in people who can make it happen, like Lasseter or Wozniak...

Re:Good luck to Steve J...

[garyboodhoo]

Disney's not exactly known for it's ability to listen - to anyone. Not a matter of malevolence, just hubris. The company is a lot more than the animation division. In recent years they've made it pretty clear just how poorly animators and storytellers are regarded. Throwing money at the problem won't do a thing to change that.

Best possible case - Pixar is treated as an independent division, like Touchstone for example.

Pooh

[1u3hr]

My son is two and a half and he's very much into animated movies. Nemo, Shrek (1+2), Toy Story (1+2), Winnie the Pooh (tons)

Just an aside: my daughter is a bit older, and I picked up a copy of "The House at Pooh Corner" for her. It (the original book by AA Milne) was so much better than the simpering Disneyfied versions you see in hundreds of illustrated books. Easy to read, yet full of subtle humour and wordplay. This I've found is a general rule: Disney cartoons are fine, but avoid their literature; go to the source.

Re: Corporate Copyright terms

[KwKSilver]

For corporation-authored works, the term is 120 years from the date of their creation, regardless of whether the corporation "dies" or not.

Only 120 yers for corporate copyright? The poor things, how dreadfully unfair! They should divert a river of cash and and army of crack-whores to Washinton D.C. to "fix" that. Where's Abramof when he'd needed? Singing or somthing?

Re:Chairs flying at Microsoft

[Basehart]

I could never figure out why they got involved in the news business by creating MSNBC.

Why not buy the Cartoon Channel instead and sell Xbox 360's, Napster and Rio MP3 players all day long for free!

It must have seemed like a great idea in 95 when the Microsoft Total World Domination Machine was in full power. Taking on CNN and Fox News in a battle royale must have seemed like fun to King Gates.

But to have it all fall apart at a time when their arch rival is pulling the World's biggest rug from under Microsoft in super slow motion must really hurt like hell!

Super Q

[cgenman]

And Jobs did it with one thing: Quality. And Marketing. Ok, two things.

They invested a ton of effort to get an easy human computer interface, which got them the MAC. Jobs re-did that success to a degree with NeXT, which didn't pay off right away but got him even more money when NeXT becamse OSX. He bought Pixar while it was struggling, and helped drive it into one of the most creative, quality-focused entertainment companies in the world. The iPod was designed and re-designed and recieved constant feedback from Jobs himself... when was the last time you heard about Ballmer getting dirty in the trenches? Same with iTunes.

Years ago Jobs and Apple realized that quality and clarity commanded a premium, and have been working dilligently to create and milk that. MS's strategy has been to crush the competition from a business legal standpoint. The former has made Jobs and Apple welcome in new areas and businesses, while the latter leaves Microsoft having an uphill battle every time it enters a new market.

MSNBC was an interesting idea, but it didn't do anything better or more original than the competition.

I'm glad to see that sometimes quality is rewarded.