Slashdot Mirror


Pixar Eaten by Mickey Mouse

The rumors went flying this weekend, but Dekortage writes "It is official: Pixar has been sold to Disney. Steve Jobs will join the Disney board, and John Lasseter is now Disney's Chief Creative Officer. So, dear Slashdot, does this mean that Disney's movies will improve, or that Pixar's will become worse?" Also the price of Pixar was $7.4 billion with a b dollars.

39 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Price by Ours · · Score: 5, Informative

    price of Pixar was $7.4 billion with a b dollars

    Thats a lot but it may have been interesting to say it was in Disney stock.

    --
    "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    1. Re:Price by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think that this may be more about gaining leverage in pushing content to iTunes. Steve Jobs is now the single largest Disney shareholder. That gives him a LOT of swing in the company. Disney also owns ABC, if I'm not mistaken. Now, if Jobs says to the board that he wants all of Disney's movies and all of ABC's shows on iTunes, he's got a lot of pull. While he might have been able to convince them before when he didn't own a huge chunk of Disney, now that he does own a hefty chunk of the company any such move is almost certain to succeed.

  2. Nice deal by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think the devil made a nice deal; only $7.4 billion for a prime quality soul.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Nice deal by Urkki · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, what's so evil about Disney again? I mean, other than the whole no-pants thing corrupting minds of youngsters, and the various "Donald Duck"-parties that have been inspired by this...

      I guess I could google for the evilness of Disney, but you should never trust the Internet so I'd rather read about it here on peer-reviewed slashdot.

    2. Re:Nice deal by thesandtiger · · Score: 5, Informative

      So, what's so evil about Disney again?

      That they're one of the key corporations behind the ever increasing extensions of copyright duration would be the biggie for me.

      Granted, if it weren't them, someone else would do it, but they did do it. So meh.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    3. Re:Nice deal by soft_guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fact that they are hypocrtical. First, they used stories from the public domain to build their empire. Then they use their money and power to bribe congress to extend copyright from the original 14 years to be basically infinite. Thus, no material can ever enter the public domain again.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    4. Re:Nice deal by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with Disney, is that they made most of their early money out of public domain stuff. Yet, this stuff would not have been in the public domain if the copyright extensions had been active then.

      So on one end they should protect their interests... And on the other, according to their own views of copyright, they stole it all.

      Go figure...
      --
      Krazy Kat

  3. Don't kid yourselves by nagora · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Disney is a supertanker of a company and it'll take more than a seat on the board or even being nominally in charge of animation to turn it around from the pile of crap it has become. Pixar is dead, for all serious purposes, although I'm sure Disney will make a big deal out of exploiting its "brand" on more of its third-rate tat.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    1. Re:Don't kid yourselves by tpgp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disney is a supertanker of a company and it'll take more than a seat on the board or even being nominally in charge of animation to turn it around from the pile of crap it has become.

      Kinda reminds of Michael Dell saying (about Apple) "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders"

      I think if anyone can turn around disney, then Lasseter with Steve Jobs backing will be the ones to do it.

      What I think we should be more worried about is the creation of the most vertically integrated entertainment duopoly since paramount case of 1948 broke up the old vertical monopolists.

      I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce the content, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.

      The potential for abuse is frightening

      --
      My pics.
    2. Re:Don't kid yourselves by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm pretty sure people said the same of Apple before the NeXT people took over (that was carefully worded and I'm still sure someone's going to point out Apple bought NeXT - yes, they did, but NeXT's people took over Apple, I mean, they became the senior people and stuff.) Right now, with John Lasseter being Disney's Chief Creative Officer, and Jobs both on the board and being Disney's largest shareholder, it looks like, at least nominally, a replay.

      Now, that said, there are differences, chief among them being that neither Jobs nor Lasseter is a former CEO of Disney, and as such are not necessarily as familiar with the culture and market as Jobs was with Apple.

      Disney, like Apple in the mid-nineties, has lost its way. For the past 30 years, it's not really had any significant direction, and has concentrated largely on media takeovers and lobbying for copyright extentions to protect Mickey Mouse, arguably a brand that has fizzled out anyway over the last decade. There's still a lot of good coming out of it, clearly there are good people in parts that are trying to find good things and pump Disney money into them, whether it's Pixar or Miramax (Pulp Fiction.) While I'm not necessarily going to argue that Jobs or Lasseter are the right people for the job, it certainly needs a fresh approach, and Jobs and Lasseter may, ultimately, be the right people to do that.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Don't kid yourselves by node+3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the early 80's, Disney was severely in danger of fading away. Eisner not only saved Disney financially, but built it into the huge, powerful media corporation it is today. However, it's not all roses. As you noted, "Disney is a supertanker of a company" that "exploit[s] its brand[s] on ... third-rate tat."

      Disney's new CEO, Robert Iger, has impressed Steve Jobs enough to make this deal possible. Jobs is the type of person who wants to make [insanely] great things, and he wouldn't send one of his greatest creations into the maws of mediocrity. If you recall, it was recent that Jobs was ready to leave Disney in a very public row between Jobs and Eisner.

      I fully expect the Pixar acquisition will make Disney better far more than it will make Pixar worse. I also suspect that under Iger, Disney will be vastly different from the Disney your post describes. How Disney's new CEO fares has yet to be decided, but the prognosis is positive, especially if Steve is willing to trust one of his three greatest creations to him.

    4. Re:Don't kid yourselves by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce the content, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.

      Are you talking about Sony?

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    5. Re:Don't kid yourselves by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure people said the same of Apple before the NeXT people took over... I'm still sure someone's going to point out Apple bought NeXT - yes, they did, but NeXT's people took over Apple

      The usual way to word that around here is that NeXT bought Apple for $-400 million. Alas, I didn't come up with that, but it's very apt.

    6. Re:Don't kid yourselves by wootest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce the content, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.

      The only playback codecs Apple make that are somewhat relevant to this is Pixlet and Apple Lossless, and both are high-quality codecs that might make sense inside the studios but will never be used to encode any content distributed by the network to the playback device.

      The FairPlay DRM, however, is proprietary, but that's not a codec. And both H.264 and AAC are supported parts of the independent MPEG-4 standard. Nice try though.

      (And again, like someone else said, "You mean, like Sony?")

    7. Re:Don't kid yourselves by Rebelgecko · · Score: 3, Funny
      --
      CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
    8. Re:Don't kid yourselves by tpgp · · Score: 4, Funny

      I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce the content, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.

              Are you talking about Sony?


      Sorry, I meant to say:

      I mean we're going to have one guy (Jobs) essentially controlling two companies that will between them produce content we like, the distribution network, the playback codec and the playback device.

      See - sony no longer fits the description ;-)

      --
      My pics.
  4. More Like Pixar Took Over Disney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lassiter is now Chief Creative Officer of the animation studios, as well as Principal Creative Advisor at Walt Disney Imagineering. Pixar president Ed Catmull is now president of the new combined Pixar/Disney animation studios. And as much as I dislike Technomessiah Steve, I would love to see him take over the creative vision aspect of the theme parks.

  5. iTunes by Peter+Bonte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm wondering what the Disney/Pixar - Apple relation is going to work out. iTunes is selling Disney material now so apparently there is some cooperation.

  6. Either which way by TehBlahhh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it is too early to draw any conclusions from this deal. It could still go any which way - better films, worse films, more web X.0 content, more DRM, and so on and on. I'd say we need about half a year before any 'conclusion' on this deal is more then mere speculation.

    With that in mind, allow me to say: WOHOO! all the backlog of (quality) disney movies on my ipod!

  7. In the best of all worlds, by ameline · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This will be similar to Apple buying Next. In the end, all the senior people of Next wound up running Apple -- Apple adopted NextStep as their OS, and called it OSX.

    With any luck, Jobs, Lasseter, and other senior Pixar people will wind up running Disney. It would be a substantial improvement.

    --
    Ian Ameline
  8. Not hard to see why.... by FalconZero · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...from the box office totals (in millions of US dollars)

    Pixar
    • Toy Story (1995) $191
    • Bugs Life (1998) $162
    • Toy Story2 (1999) $245
    • Monsters, Inc (2001) $255
    • Finding Nemo (2003) $339
    • Incredibles (2004) $261

    Disney
    • Aladdin (1992) $217
    • The Lion King (1994) $312
    • Pocahontas (1995) $141
    • Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) $100
    • Hercules (1997) $99
    • Mulan (1998) $120
    • Tarzan (1999) $171
    • The Emperor's New Groove (2000) $89
    • Atlantis (2001) $84
    • Lilo & Stitch (2002) $145
    • Treasure Planet (2002) $38
    • Brother Bear (2003) $85
    • Home on the Range (2004) $50

    Can you guys spot the trend too?

    (Data from Wikipedia/www.boxofficemojo.com)
    --
    Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
    1. Re:Not hard to see why.... by david.given · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The Emperor's New Groove (2000) $89

      Damn. There's no justice. That film is great, and completely blows away most of their other recent films for sheer style, verve and originality --- I reckon it's better than The Lion King, which suffered rather from the Disney over-earnestness.

      Treasure Planet (2002) $38

      That one's a real pity. Everything about it was so good --- the animation, the concept, the style, the characterisation, the acting --- except for the actual plot. If only they'd stuck to the original Stephenson novel instead of going off into la-la land with space portals and huge explosions and crap like that, this could have been good. The first half --- up until whatshisname gets pushed overboard by Silver --- is well worth watching.

      Home on the Range (2004) $50

      I've never even heard of this one. That's how much Disney's impacted me recently...

  9. Plan for Profit! by wbren · · Score: 4, Funny

    1. Buy Pixar for $10 million
    2. Build it into a great animation studio
    3. Sell yourself to the devil (Mickey Mouse)
    4. Personal profit of $3.5 million!

    Great work, Steve Jobs! See, this time I didn't even need to include the mysterious "..." step. Amazing!

    --
    -William Brendel
    1. Re:Plan for Profit! by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Informative
      Personal profit of $3.5 million!
      I think you may have misread something important. He bought Pixar for 10 million and it is now worth 7.4 billion of which he owns >50% of the shares. His personal profit is far far greater than 3.5 million.
  10. Toy Story 3 and history of Pixar by boxlight · · Score: 4, Insightful
    does this mean that Disney's movies will improve, or that Pixar's will become worse?


    Disney owned all the sequel rights to Pixar movies, so a few months back Disney was saying they were going to do Toy Story 3 without Pixar. If that'd happened it would've produced a better Disney movie, but a worse Pixar movie -- if you follow me.


    Despite popular fanboy and media opinion, John Lasseter is the mind behind the success of Pixar's movies. Steve Jobs is the owner, distribution negotiator, but Lasseter is the talent.


    BTW, there's a great chapter in THE SECOND COMING OF STEVE JOBS about the history of Pixar. Check it out.


    boxlight


  11. does this mean we'll see Pixar's TRON 2? by boxlight · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if this means we'll see that remake of (Disney's) TRON that John Lasseter wanted to make?

    Cool!

    boxlight

  12. Apple computer on the phone for you Mr. Jobs. by mrshowtime · · Score: 4, Informative

    Jobs should have waited a few more years and maybe could have acquired Disney :) However, I seriously doubt Jobs will let any of the idiots running Disney or any "middle management" types even on Pixar's Holy Ground, let alone put -any- suggestions on anything creatively. Why attempt to break what is "money in the bank" for Disney by letter Pixar do what Pixar does best. Remember, Jobs is now "Mr. Disney" he owns the most stock out of any shareholders and is on the board of directors. Do not be surprised if you do not see Jobs as CEO in a few years of Disney. Apple who?

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  13. Hi! I am an animator. I am a millionaire. by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guys, what happened is GOOD. Disney just made anyone holding stock in Pixar a millionaire. I once consulted at a company where this has happened. You pull up into the parking lot and no one has a car worth under $40,000. Everyone shows up to work because they want to and like working there, not for the salary. If the company goes down the shitter, they just leave.

    IP and equipment didn't make Pixar great. The people made Pixar great. If Disney fucks it up, everyone just ups, leaves, and forms a new company leaving Disney with nothing but a name. Disney shelled out a few billion for the SHOT at using Pixar to do something good. If they blow it, the real 'assets' of Pixar can simply leave and go make another few million each.

    I saw good for Pixar. Way to make yourself horrifically rich and still leave a dozen escape hatches to bail from Disney. Those people deserved a big steaming pile of money. I hope they go out and enjoy it.

  14. Re:Now is the time by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It's hard to judge a movie by it's trailers, but if Cars turns out to be as awful as it looks, Pixar is going to crash and burn when it's released. Best to sell now while Pixar's reputation is still riding high."

    This happens almost before every Pixar feature. Examples.

    Finding Nemo? A story about fish? WTF can't they animate stuff with legs anymore, this is going to be so lame, omg Pixar is ruined. Results: critical acclaim and great box office, awards, great public perception.

    Incredibles? Omg those are so stylised, nothing creative about it, some story with CG humans. It looks so lame, omg Pixar is ruined. Results: critical acclaim and great box office, awards, great public perception.

    Now it's happening to cars. But all those who are trolling on the teaser trailer will be in for a surprise. Pixar isn't randomly greenlighting movie screenplays based on explosion/boob ratio.

    I'm sure it's gonna be a great movie and I'm looking forward to it.

  15. The way I saw it by MickDownUnder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well.... Steve Jobs is not just on the board of Disney... he's now the largest stock holder. I saw a TV interview with disney's CEO Robert Iger and Steve Jobs, if that interview is anything to go by Jobs is going to have a major input on how Disney is going to be run from this day forward, Mr Iger actually looked quite uncomfortable in the interview when jobs began to speak... and speak.... and then speak some more.

  16. It's about time.. by seven+of+five · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... Steve Jobs finally 'made it'. After all that hard work and risk taking... I sincerely hope he kicks ass and offends people in the Disney board room, and has not mellowed out overmuch the past few years...

  17. Does this mean... by PurpleButter · · Score: 5, Funny
    Does this mean that Mickey Mouse will now only have 1 button?

    --
    Look at the whole picture, not just the hole in the picture.
  18. How does it work? by ceeam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    7-odd billion dollars. Let's suppose that Pixar employees work for peanuts and every movie is a hit and they net $200mil with each one (I'm generous today). That would take 35+ titles to bring those 7-odd billions back. Seems unlikely. OTOH - maybe Disney _needs_ something to prevent their image going _completely_ through the floor... They need someone to go to Disneylands, for example, etc... Still... Looks like a bubble.

    1. Re:How does it work? by WebGangsta · · Score: 4, Insightful
      7-odd billion dollars. Let's suppose that Pixar employees work for peanuts and every movie is a hit and they net $200mil with each one.

      Even if you go with $200m, you're still forgetting a few things:

      (a) you're talking about US box office numbers, not international [see the box office breakdown here]. International BO numbers will bring that figure way up.

      (b) DVD sales, licensed merchandise (plush, books, lunchboxes, tshirts, etc), and theme park attractions will all contribute to the bottom line on top of the BO numbers.

      (c) Pixar was sitting on $1b in cash themselves, so the stock swap actually netted Disney a little bit of cash, making the quoted $7.4b number a bit of a misnomer.

  19. Re:Isn't it the other way around? by csoto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly my thoughts. Basically, Disney Animation is gone. It has been replaced in whole by Pixar, which isn't altogether a terrible thing. I mean, Disney couldn't milk the Lion King forever, and they had no new ideas.

    I don't think Jobs would have agreed to this if he wasn't sure the talent were also coming along. He did the same with Apple - he brought Avie and gave Ive the carte blanche he required. If Jobs cares about Pixar, and my understanding is, he does, then there's little to worry about. Lasseter is the creative force behind Pixar, and not only will he be in charge of Disney's animation vision, but they're putting him in charge of theme parks, consumer goods and even their broadway stuff. That's a massive shift in power, and it's long overdue.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  20. Good for Pixar, Good for Disney by WebGangsta · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I read most of the comments for this article posted so far, and everyone seemed to be miss the important part of the story, because it's not all about Jobs:

    John Lasseter is now Disney's Chief Creative Officer, working with the animators at Disney and Pixar as well as leading the Imagineers in designing and revamping attractions for the theme parks. Also, the current President of Pixar, Ed Catmull, is now the head of all Disney Animation.

    All the news reports I've seen have said that Iger and Jobs main concern was keeping Pixar as intact and independent as possible. Lasseter is under contract until 2011, and is well respected in the animation field for his passion for storytelling and perfection. When asked about whether traditional 2D animation would be restored, John didn't rule it out.

    Read the LA Times article about John for more insight.

    With Ed and John running all animation at Disney, and Jobs sitting on the board to help them from the top, where's the possible downside?

  21. Re:You are underestimating the NASCAR crowd. by Kirth · · Score: 3, Funny

    I predict that Cars will totally flop in Europe.

    --
    "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
  22. Re:Disney has no influence over Pixar? by Anim8me2 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    SO, you are right in the abstract but you are missing the details.

    Disney makes most of that money in marketing and licensing. NOT from box office.

    in this case Disney has final say like a hen-pecked husband has final say in his house... "Yes dear, whatever you say." The fact that Jobs has no creative input is moot, what he does have is a seat on the board and controlling interest. As such if Lasseter and Catmull call him up and say they need his backing on an issue, he will do it. He is very aware of what makes Pixar great.

    You seem to think that Disney just snapped their fingers and created a CG division. Actually what they did was consolidate their assets from several location (Orlando, LA, New York). Remember there were at the very least 400 animators/modelers/TDs working on "Dinosaur" and many of them remained or were hired back over the years. 2 years is about right for a studio to produce a CG feature. Pixar has that number cut down and Animal Logic are trying to do it in 9 months for "Happy Feet", but the idea is the same. The pipelines have been in place for a while so this is no great feat.

    Will we see more marketing of Pixar movies (toys, games, etc.)... sure. That is one of Disney's strengths right now. That doesn't make them bad. THey are just leveraging their content in the only way they know. That will even out over time as the Pixar mentality spreads to the right people at Disney.

    Lasseter is in charge of story, so don't expect a slew of sequels. DO watch for a live action feature written and directed by Brad Bird. And ya know what... it will kick ass!

  23. Re:Hi! I am an animator. I am a millionaire. by Apotsy · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Uh, they only paid a few % over the current trading value of Pixar's stock. In order to have been made a millionaire by this deal, you would have already had to have owned a million dollars worth of Pixar stock, or close to it.

    Pixar stock did go up a double digit percentage over the past few months on speculation that this would happen, but that's still not going to make anyone rich unless they were already.