Disney V Pixar

In an attempt to find some sort of middle ground with all you liberal monkey forum whores, I bring you something with no controversy:

The opening of 'Finding Nemo' blasted away previous records held by 'Monster's Inc.' (also of Pixar) in terms of ticket sales for an animated movie. Even more impressive when you consider the price of children and non-evening tickets.

Pixar and Disney split production costs and profits. Disney does the marketing and distribution.

With two years left on their contract (2 more movies) Pixar (owned by Steve Jobs, btw) are already considering taking offers from Sony and AOL.

Will Disney be able to keep these guys? I sure as hell hope so, but I'm willing to bet its going to cost a whole lot more.

Pixar rocks. With exception of Disney's bone-headed move to support a Mike Moore flick, they rock, too. Its a great match, and one, I hope contines for a long time.

Pixar was a huge gamble that payed off. I recall hearing that everything was banked on Toy Story, if it hadn''t done well, better than 90% of all animated films, and quickly, the company would''ve quickly dissolved. They took a moster risk to be first on the scene with fully computerized feature films, and every time they put up big numbers I feel pretty good about it.

Disney would be lucky to hang on to them.

"Elysium" wrote:

Disney would be lucky to hang on to them.

I would like to second this. Disney had some great work in the early to mid 90s, but they''ve hit a bit of a slump lately. Pixar, however, is just hitting thier stride. To lose Pixar at this point would be a major loss for them. Its been forever since the last Disney Animation movie I really enjoyed, yet Finding Nemo was an excellent movie. It''s not just getting older either, the mid 90s Disney stuff is just plain good moviemaking.

Disney would be having major problems if it weren''t for Pixar. Blockbuster after Blockbuster failing, the Lizzie Maguire deal, none of thier TV shows are really a runaway hit, even at that. I''m not saying they''ll go out of business, just that they''d be in a much less comfortable position if it weren''t for Pixar and thier movies.

Personally I''d like to see Disney go out of business for entirely unrelated reasons, but in the end I think it''s going to come down to how has the better deal. Pixar will probably go with whoever offers them the most money, freedom and the best position. I think it''s going to be close, for sure.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]
Personally I''d like to see Disney go out of business for entirely unrelated reasons

Bite your tongue, you heathen!

Yeah, ABC isn''t doing much of anything, and they''ve had a few stinkers on screen, but Disney is as American as you can get!

Love the mouse!

Hell, next to Vegas, Disney World is the best place on earth! Don''t ask me how I can compare the two without twitching, but I can.

Emperor''s New Groove is a classic, Pyro. A CLASSIC! I don''t know how many times I''ve watched that movie and I still bust out laughing every time I hear, ""Oh! I''m a crumbly canyon wall and I''m taking you with me!""
Lilo and Stitch is pretty damn cute, too!
""Have you ever killed anyone?""
""We''re getting off of the subject.""

A bit more back on topic, I believe Disney and Pixar will stay together for now because I don''t think Pixar could quite stand on its own yet. Most people I ask associate Toy Story and Monster''s INC with Disney rather than Pixar.
I would love to see them strike out on their own but I really worry about the cost of a failure or two.

"Yomm" wrote:

Bite your tongue, you heathen!
Yeah, ABC isn''t doing much of anything, and they''ve had a few stinkers on screen, but Disney is as American as you can get!

<rant>Tell that to your grandchildren when they can''t access over 100 years of thier own culture because the Disney corporation owns the copyright to it, and won''t let anyone access it. Song of the South, anyone?
There are possibly 3 or 4 companies that have control over almost everything printed, seen or heard in the past 80 years, and the copyrights will never expire, thanks to the 1997 ""Mickey Mouse"" Copyright Extension Act, whose sole purpose was to keep the copyright from expiring on Mickey Mouse. I mean, Disney even has thier own senator, Fritz ""Disney"" Hollings (which I am looking forward to voting against, with my new residence!). Im not saying Disney is evil, they have done some damn fine work, and continue to do so. I just don''t think that excuses the problems they have caused, which probably won''t be evident till much further down the road.
And don''t even get me started with thier over-zealous enforcement of thier copyrights.</rant>

I also agree with you Reaper, Emperors New Groove was great, though I haven''t seen Lilo and Stitch. It''s just not as good as thier mid 90s stuff. And, again I haven''t seen it, but one opinion I read was that the reason Lilo and Stitch was good was because they basically made a traditionally animated Pixar movie. Someone else''s words though, not mine. Im not saying Disney is bad, just in a slump, and that thier movies haven''t been doing great, especially thier really expensive ones.

A bit more back on topic, I believe Disney and Pixar will stay together for now because I don''t think Pixar could quite stand on its own yet. Most people I ask associate Toy Story and Monster''s INC with Disney rather than Pixar

To me, that would be motivation to try to get away from Disney. Though I do admit there is some chemistry in thier partnership.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]

"Yomm" wrote:

Bite your tongue, you heathen!
Yeah, ABC isn''t doing much of anything, and they''ve had a few stinkers on screen, but Disney is as American as you can get!

<rant>Tell that to your grandchildren when they can''t access over 100 years of thier own culture because the Disney corporation owns the copyright to it, and won''t let anyone access it. Song of the South, anyone?
There are possibly 3 or 4 companies that have control over almost everything printed, seen or heard in the past 80 years, and the copyrights will never expire, thanks to the 1997 ""Mickey Mouse"" Copyright Extension Act, whose sole purpose was to keep the copyright from expiring on Mickey Mouse. I mean, Disney even has thier own senator, Fritz ""Disney"" Hollings (which I am looking forward to voting against, with my new residence!). Im not saying Disney is evil, they have done some damn fine work, and continue to do so. I just don''t think that excuses the problems they have caused, which probably won''t be evident till much further down the road.
And don''t even get me started with thier over-zealous enforcement of thier copyrights.</rant>

You kinda proved my point. They have such a wealth of good stuff. You sound bitter that you don''t have access to it when you want.

All your reasons just make good buisness sense to me. They should control their own creative work, and they have an excellent buisness model to make as much money as they can off their products. They re-release their stuff every number of years to get the ''new'' youngsters in on it. Sure, I''d like to have access to all their stuff all the time, but I don''t blame them one bit for acting like a buisness. They aren''t a charity, nor a non-profit entertainment company, it just happens that their product is alot more popular and they are doing what they can to capitalize on it.

They''ve done whatever they could to protect their assets.

BTW, a little tid-bit for you: No one has ever died on Disney property!
[size=9][/size]They just move the body off property and have the medical examiner declare death at that time.

"Yomm" wrote:

You kinda proved my point. They have such a wealth of good stuff. You sound bitter that you don''t have access to it when you want.

All your reasons just make good buisness sense to me. They should control their own creative work, and they have an excellent buisness model to make as much money as they can off their products. They re-release their stuff every number of years to get the ''new'' youngsters in on it. Sure, I''d like to have access to all their stuff all the time, but I don''t blame them one bit for acting like a buisness. They aren''t a charity, nor a non-profit entertainment company, it just happens that their product is alot more popular and they are doing what they can to capitalize on it.

They''ve done whatever they could to protect their assets.

BTW, a little tid-bit for you: No one has ever died on Disney property!
[size=9][/size]They just move the body off property and have the medical examiner declare death at that time.

Thats just it, you and me and everyone else has grown up in a society where everything is copyrighted by default, and it''s viewed as ownership of an idea, to the point that copyright infringement is considered ""stealing"". This is not the normal way things work. Its just like saying slavery was a perfectly viable economic concept which allowed slave owners to fully exploit thier assets. But, if you want to talk about this anymore, take it to this thread

And Im sorry if I sound bitter, corruption of the Legislative branch gets on my nerves

That death statistic just proves my point, not really sure where you were going with that.

Bite your tongue, you heathen!
Yeah, ABC isn''t doing much of anything, and they''ve had a few stinkers on screen, but Disney is as American as you can get!

<rant>Tell that to your grandchildren when they can''t access over 100 years of thier own culture because the Disney corporation owns the copyright to it, and won''t let anyone access it.

What''s more American than that?

They''ve done whatever they could to protect their assets.

For someone proclaiming how American Disney is, you don''t seem to mind that the copyright extensions they lobbyed for are pretty unamerican, in fact running contrary to the desires of the framers of the constitution.
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/boo...$2.html

With exception of Disney''s bone-headed move to support a Mike Moore flick,

Strange, didn''t you just say this: ""I don''t blame them one bit for acting like a buisness""?

And Furries. Disney created furries. How about them apples?

"Gunmetal" wrote:
With exception of Disney''s bone-headed move to support a Mike Moore flick,

Strange, didn''t you just say this: ""I don''t blame them one bit for acting like a buisness""?

yeah, and I think this is a piss-poor buisness choice.

"Yomm" wrote:

yeah, and I think this is a piss-poor buisness choice. :)

Well, according to this, the deal doesn''t give a lot of risk for Miramax. If they smell they can make more money out of the deal, they''ll give some more. If not, they haven''t lost much.

I don''t mind Disney making money off Mickey. He''s an original creation. I do object to them taking a classic story and claiming it''s theirs so they can make money off of it. For a company that fights so hard to keep things out of the public domain, they sure have no problem with exploiting that domain for their own gain.

Speaking of PIXAR check out the teaser trailer for the new film the inredibles

http://www.pixar.com/theater/trailer...

I know how this guy feels!