rushmore223

I saw Nemo Friday night, and I am still blown away. This movie is pure Pixar all the way. Beautiful to look at, Funny, a great story, characters you actually care about and a better story than 95% of the crap that comes to your local cineplex in a given year. I don't know how Pixar does it everytime, but they do, a perfect record so far.

I also know Pixar is having trouble with Disney, to this I say.. Great! cut free of Disney and produce your own films! Maybe even try that mature themed sci fi project you have been talking about all these years.

Disney is dead weight anyway. Chum for the proverbial Shark.

Bandoman

Aren't they contractualy bound to do 1 or 2 more features under their agreement with Disney?

Pixar will do whatever is in their long-term financial interests. If that means staying with Disney under a renegotiated agreement, so be it.

Daytripper

Yeah, looking at the box-office totals for all the Disney/Pixar films, I can sure see where Disney has been an anchor for Pixar. Yeah, I too say cut them off!!

jarofclay73

Well, what other studio could use a computer animation division? Dreamworks has PDI. Fox has Blue Sky. It's debatable if Columbia will ever do another with Squaresoft (though the Animatrix short is a step in the right direction). Paramount distributed Jimmy Neutron from DNA Productions. I guess Warner and MGM could use a computer animation division, although I'm not sure if they're really looking for one.

Anyway, here's the latest on the Pixar-Disney saga:

devilshalo

Interesting you say that AND you're in Hawaii. Square USA, which was located on Bethel near Nimitz, closed its doors last year. The Animatrix Final Flight of Osiris was its last work.

Sony (Columbia) has Imageworks, which is venturing into an all digital feature. Chubb Chubb's winning the Oscar animated short puts them closer into that direction.

Warner had a digital division.. Warner Digital. But they closed its doors back in 96. They farm out like crazy to ILM. They still have Feature Animation, but then you get crap like Scooby Doo or the Looney Tunes movie.

jarofclay73

I know they left Hawaii but I wasn't sure if they really closed up shop altogether. Too bad. I think Osiris is definitely something to build on. So, I guess Squaresoft is back to just games again?

Deftones

I think Pixar should just be a freelance company. Companies should just hire them to do their stuff.

Dr. DVD

I too have noticed that Pixar's material is several levels above the rest of Disney's fare. I would love to see them go to a new studio, but not until they finish up their current contract, which I hope will end with Toy Story 3!

Groucho

I think the partnership is a good one for both parties. A lot of people won't take their kids to see a cartoon that doesn't have the "Disney" moniker. Likewise, Pixar adds legitamacy to Disney's in-house animated features, which quite frankly have been going steadily downhill since about the time Howard Ashman died.

jarofclay73

The one good thing about the partnership with Disney is it seems that Disney execs don't have control of the story. Pixar has its own people that handles the story and it seems to be working. I wouldn't want to see studios pitching stories to Pixar. I definitely don't want to be simply an outsourced animation company.

NCMojo

(I have read and reread Groucho's comment and have yet to find the sarcastic content. Can anyone help? Maybe we could turn this into some kind of game...)

I completely agree with this statement. Disney needs the bankability of Pixar, just like Pixar needs that "stamp of approval". Let's face it -- the days of traditional animation are numbered, and frankly, why shouldn't they be? It's incredible how much we have done with pen and ink, but as computer software and hardware gets both cheaper and easier to use, the cost and time involved in making these digital films will continue to drop. Add in the DVD factor (digital transfer is never more natural than in all-digital films), and there is no way tradional animation can hold its grip.

Inverse

Today's Disney needs Pixar a lot more than Pixar needs Disney. Just put "from the company that brought you Toy Story, Monsters Inc.," etc. etc. in the ads, and people will come.

The credibility of the Disney name was a great way to promote Pixar when it was just entering feature animation, but now the reverse is true--the Pixar name is propping up Disney, because the Mouse has been releasing pretty mediocre stuff in recent years.

Pixar will do just fine if the deal is not renewed; I'm not so sure about Disney.

Terrell

Say what you want, but the Disney name means a lot more to Pixar than anyone believes. Why else do you think Pixar is trying to get a new contract with Disney? The Disney name and clout means a ton when it comes to box office, marketing, etc. Don't even pretend it doesn't.

You keep telling yourself that. That'll be your little secret. If that were the case, Pixar would walk away from Disney when the deal is done. But why is Pixar trying to get a new deal with Disney? Because they don't believe that BS for one minute.

LBPound

Yeah, seriously, if Pixar was on their own, then it'd be goodbye to the Disney Channel programming and fun McDonald's toys which get kids to go see the movie! Well...

clemente

I wouldn't expect a Toy Story 3 anytime soon. One of the points of contention between the two companies was Toy Story 2. Through some legal/contract wrangling Toy Story 2 didn't count towards the original Disney/Pixar contract, and any future Toy Story sequal wouldn't either, so they'd essentially wouldn't be any closer to their freedom.

But Pixar relies on Disney as much as Disney relies on Pixar. Disney marketing is powerful, it reaches well beyong trailers and TV spots....it literally has the power to reach into the mind of all kids, no studio has that kind of high powered marketing infrastructure for kids movies, which is why no one has been consistently successful.

LBPound

The two remaining pictures under the contract are already accounted for - The Incredibles and Cars. A Toy Story 3 would almost undoubtedly come out of a new Disney/Pixar agreement. Whether it would count as a half-film, and a Bug's Life or Monsters Inc sequel would as well, I don't know. But it's definitely something that's at the foreground of a possible agreement's negotiations.

mwj

I believe that Pixar would choose Disney all things being equal, but it seems obvious that they are looking for a George Lucas-type deal. And with the success of Finding Nemo they seem very likely to have at least one studio offer them this type of deal.

Disney is certainly a powerful marketer. This does seem to have done their own animation projects much good. Regardless, Pixar will continue to do great work because they make good movies and then worry about the marketing. Disney seems to believe that marketing is king and making movies incidental.

Inverse

I think some people are swayed by the Mouse's illustrious past performance, and aren't giving enough attention to their less-than-stellar present.

It may have once been true that Disney was the undisputed king of children's media, but its grip on the throne grows less secure with each passing year. This is especially true when it comes to (non-Pixar) feature animation.

Take the top 20 grossing animated films released from 1995 to 2002. (Figures from BoxOffice Mojo.) Of these, 4 are Pixar/Disney pictures, and 8 are Disney's own. So Disney released 60% of the top 20, a hefty figure. Yet all of us remember a time when that figure would have been 100%. While Disney's command of the market is impressive, it's on the decline and has been for a while.

It's even more striking when you look at the grosses of those top 20 films. The 8 Disney films grossed $990 million; Pixar's movies grossed a similar amount, $854 million, even though there were only 4 of them; the 8 films from other studios grossed about $1 billion.

So Pixar's movies outperform the Mouse's hits by a margin of almost 2 to 1. Also, the Mouse's non-Pixar animated hits now *underperform* the animated hits from other studios. Dreamworks animation is now a more reliable hitmaker than Disney's feature animation department. This shows that Disney doesn't have some magic ability to put butts in seats that no one can replicate.

Here's what Pixar can say to Disney: "With us, you are still the undisputed king of US feature animation. Without us, not only will you face the stiffest competition you've ever faced, but you'll find yourself controlling only a third of a market you used to dominate completely."

All of this could change, of course. By some freak Disney could suddenly start producing profitable animated pictures again; Dreamworks could fumble and fall; Pixar could go solo, produce their dream project, and see it flop miserably. That's show biz. But today, Pixar is on top.

That's why they're interested in talking to Disney: they know Disney really, really needs them and will offer them the moon and the stars to stay. This is a sharp contrast to a year ago, when Disney was feeling cocky and ungenerous, and Pixar was getting ready to walk.

(Mind you, Jobs probably won't get the Lucas-like deal he's supposedly asking for. But that proposal is probably just a negotiating tactic anyway; such a deal would place all of the financial risk on Pixar, thus in practice removing much of the creative freedom Jobs keeps saying is essential to Pixar's success.)

Michael Corvin

Well folks, you better hope Jobs gets his deal. If not there will never be a Toy Story 3 or a sequel to any of the other films for that matter. Disney owns the rights to the characters, therefore Pixar couldn't make a movie with characters owned by another studio. This a a big sore-spot among the two companies as well. Both want to make TS3, but they both want to do it on their own terms. Stalemate.

If Pixar got the 90% deal from Disney, is that such a big deal to Disney? That 10% adds up quick when you add in merchandise, theme park attractions and the like. Disney will make their money, even at 10%. Jobs is a smart guy, and I'm sure he knows this as well.

rennervision

I think Disney definitely won the best half of the deal with Pixar. I mean - six pictures (not including Toy Story II) seems like an ETERNITY. I wonder why Pixar agreed to such a long contract, because I definitely get the impression they regret it now.

The Nature Boy

It shocks me that ANY animated film is not as good as Pixar, story wise. That's the bedrock of all they've done, and they've all been incredibly clever premises(Toy Story, Monsters Inc, Nemo, and I was crying from laughing at the trailer for their next film) with great characters and great story arcs. But the question that always gets me, given the work going into an animated film, how can they all not be golden? Why make a bad script? Jumping to mind is naturally "Treasure Planet", which has to be one of the worst animated films I've ever seen. And that was a 20 millon dollar premise on it's own, Treasure Island in Space.

For those so certain that Pixar needs Disney, I can't say I totally disagree. But, Pixar is well on it's way to branding itself as the NEXT Disney. Especially if they can maintain this track record. And that will ultimately be the key to Pixar. They shouldn't look to expand their output. 2 films to 4-6 films a year would probably drain every project in every way(story, animation, ingenuity). They should look to continue making themselves "Event" filmmakers, and the Pixar name will soon have legitimate clout, if it doesn't already.

RyoHazuki

Pixar is flawless now. Disney's first five were Snow White, Pinnochio, Fantasia, Dumbo, and Bambi. Disney has been making films since 1937. Pixar has been doing it since 1995. There will be a day whether you want to believe it or not that Pixar will make a lousy movie.