Disney and Pixar divorce

I'm actually a little surprised about the success of Finding Nemo. It was OK, but any of the big hitters of the 90's top it no contest.

I think Pixar quality stands apart from Disney fairly well already.

Listening to my kids illustrated it very well.

My 6 year old son recently asked about seeing Brother Bear
and his 9 year old sister informed him that "Disney movies
are not any good unless they have the lamp guy at the
beginning"

Even at their ages they know that trademark Pixar lamp
well and will follow it eagerly into theaters with or without Disney attached.

I'm with you on Nemo, Jeff. How did the Pixar film with arguably the least amount of vocal talent become the biggest hit?

Now all we need is for Pixar to purchase, say, a theme park chain.

Another article with more detail.

http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=38017142

Finding Nemo ($1 billion+ worldwide box office and video combined) is still one of my favorite movies of 2003 and is up for 4 Academy Awards including Best Animated Film and Best Screenplay. Pixar knows how to make them and Disney knows how to draw them (advertising, marketing, distributing, merchandise, etc.). Disney's Brother Bear is up for Best Animated Film as well, so it's not as if Disney quality in animation was horrid or anything. Disney's Lilo and Stitch was up for Best Animated Film last year and lost to the Disney-distributed Spirited Away (Studio Ghibli).

I think Pixar is something special as the only Disney animated films with unadjusted box office to gross more than the lowest-grossing Pixar film (A Bug's Life at $162 mil) are Tarzan, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Aladdin, and Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. The only Disney animated "bomb" in the past few years would be Treasure Planet (which I really liked and it made it up on video- Disney also had a bomb in 1985 with Black Cauldron) and Disney was only the top-grossing studio of 2003 by $300+ million... That doesn't even include Miramax or some of their other divisions. Pirates of the Caribbean (nominated for 5 Academy Awards including Best Actor), Freaky Friday (nominated for Best Actress Golden Globe), and Bringing Down the House made about $550 million combined. Even better IMO, all three were well-liked by their target audience.

Lion King 1 1/2 nor Cinderella 2 would *never* win an Academy Award since they're both direct-to-video. That reminds me that 101 Dalmations II took many of last year's direct-to-video awards at another show. I love Disney, but they're not perfect at all. I'm not a huge fan of them pushing back some of their home video releases (Ed Wood, Disney Treasures, Kill Bill Vol. One,..), but the City of God (4 AA nominations) change is understandable to get people to see it in theatres.

Disney and Pixar may or may not make an agreement to stay together. I hope they would since I think the combination is an animated force that Dreamworks nor Fox can hold a candle to. Every animated studio has hits and misses- Dreamworks (Shrek/Sinbad) and Fox (Ice Age/Titan A.E.), so I wouldn't give any of them besides Pixar the perfection award so far. I'm hoping The Incredibles and Cars will be really great quality movies or else the Pixar breakoff may not be such a hot idea if people recognize their last two projects as average or less than. We'll see...

-Danny

Well the whole thing about the rights to the sequels. Do you really think that they will be that good? Disney does not have a computer animation depatment, do they? Also if Pixar came up with the storys for all thier movie, show can Disney try to copy their formuals? And finally what ever Disney does it is in their best intrest to keep making animated movies because thats what brings people in to the parks. Little kids want to go to DisneyLand/World to ride Dumbo or see Mickey. Not to go get their picture taken with a Orlando Bloom look-a-like.

Movie formulas have been copied for decades. How often do you really see something totally original? Disney has done computer animation in the past (see Dinosaur) and direct-to-video animationed movies with Pixar characters (Buzz Lightyear of Star Command). I prefer Pixar storylines (more importantly the memorable characters and humor) to Dinosaur, but I would say the animation of Dinosaur was possibly better and more detailed than some Pixar. Disney has come up with some fantastic characters, storylines, screenplays, etc. lately with Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove, so hopefully Home on the Range will have the same. If that's a success, I could still see more handdrawn animation from Disney to come.

-Danny, knows "big kids" that would freak to be in the same park with Orlando Bloom (lookalikes or not) ;)

Danny.

"Kill Bill Vol I" is a Disney picture? That's news to me.

By the way, I loved that movie.

I sure do hope that Home on the Range does good because I liked Disney handdrawn better than Disney computer (Dinosaur). Also thanks for the information Koaster King.

Chitown: Kill Bill was Miramax and the DVD (which will be soon be preordered by me!) will be distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment. Too bad vol. 2 got pushed back till April....

Walt started toying with the idea of a park (when it was to be just a small picnic ground based around a miniature train system, at the Burbank Studios) when his doctors said animation was too stressful for him. There are some published theories that he was getting very tired of animation and even Mickey, which is why there was very little reference to Mickey in the park until Toon Town opened, based on the thinking that guests wanted more Mickey, which is quite true. By the time Walt Disney World was around, the company definitely wasn't the animation-based company it once was. Walt was more interested in real world fantasies, and the company definitely started to round out to what it now is based on his visions.

Having said that, I don't think you can put more or less weight on Disney animation these days. I think they are just as important as each other, based on both corporate image and financial value. They mightn't be as lucrative, but they give a much more consistent cashflow. Yeah, they have off years and slumps (such as in recent years), but I'd be very surprised to hear if they've ever had a year that didn't still bring in pehnominal amounts (to us) in pure profit.

My personal tastes lead me to prefer the classic animation over the new Pixar films. I think they look much much nicer and they're generally cheaper and quicker to make. Brother Bear looks better than Nemo (which I thought wasn't all that good), and Home on the Range looks very nice and I hope succeeds.

Disney will certainly survive without Pixar, but how well will Pixar do without Disney? As I see it, Disney took care of the things that really matter for the box office figures - marketing and whatnot. Pixar might have the goods to get the Oscars, but I don't think they've got the infrastructure to pull off the depth of advertising that Disney can, and maybe they'll find that half the success in their movies was the Disney logo.

Pixar might have the goods to get the Oscars, but I don't think they've got the infrastructure to pull off the depth of advertising that Disney can, and maybe they'll find that half the success in their movies was the Disney logo.

Funny.. people said almost EXACTLY the same thing about Miramax when they formed.. Yes I know they are owned by Disney, but they are one of the few companies that are allowed to run thier own course with VERY VERY little word from Disney.

.. they have how many Oscars to thier credit now? *** This post was edited by Red Garter Rob 2/1/2004 11:19:53 AM ***

Personally, after researching Disney Imagineering books and Park Design books, if Walt were around today, I think he would be concentrate more on his parks than animation. I also think we would have more roller coasters at the Disney Parks. If you research the books, many conceptual drawings of the first Disneyland show a rather large roller coaster.

Its spin off time . Pixar has had much success and wants to be on there own??? Why not. Disney will just replace the format with there own name.. uuuuuuuuuuuuhh lets see.... Disney Films... You think of one..

I think the main reason that nemo did so good was the wide range of audience it appealed to. Bright Colors and lovable characters appeal to the kids, and more subtle, adult jokes and underlying messages (not subliminal, just more complex ones) appeal to teens and adults. I thought brother bear was a fantastic movie as well, and somewhat showcased that Disney still has it, for me at least.

Jeffrey R. Smith: I think you misread my post. I never said that Disney's profit off of Pixar's movies was a bad thing. My point is that it was easy profit for Disney, and that Eisner was a fool to let it go, even if that profit would be decreased.