Disney Buys Pixar 461
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."
Good luck to Steve J... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, because being the owner of the world's largest collection of turtle necks is an expensive hobby.
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:5, Funny)
Chairs flying at Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if Ballmer will Fucking Kill (tm) Disney over this.
Re:Chairs flying at Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Better nail down the sofa, then!
Re:Chairs flying at Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [theinquirer.net] 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Super Q (Score:5, Funny)
and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:5, Insightful)
NO! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!
Thoughts like this will lead to Disney convincing Congress to retroactively extend copyright for another 20 years.
MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Interesting)
Just mentioning the obvious - with the right argument, anything that has copyrights or trademarks with a corporate name on them will be safe for the rest of eternity.
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Informative)
Except that copyright law explicitly does not treat corporations like natural people. 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.
Re: Corporate Copyright terms (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:3, Insightful)
U.S. copyright was extended to 28 years in 1831 and the option to renew extended to 28 years in 1909. [arl.org]
Film conservation in the U.S. begins with New York's Museum of Modern Art in 1935. Iris Barry: American Film Archive Pioneer [uiuc.edu] "It i
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:3, Insightful)
What matters, ultimately, is Disney's unique interpretation of the story. Might as well complain about Rogers and Hammerstein's take on "Cinderella" or Tim Burton's "Corpse Bride." "Tales as old as rhyme" and all of that.
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Copyright extension (Score:4, Interesting)
The day corporations become citizens is the day I start rooting for the terrorists!!
"Corporate Personhood" (Score:5, Informative)
I hate to break it to you, but Corporations were given "personhood" (human rights) a very, VERY long time ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood [wikipedia.org]
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:3)
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:4, Funny)
By "magic dust" you mean, "reality distortion field", right?
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
No, but throwing Steve Jobs at it as the largest stockholder, would certainly change that.
I don't think Jobs would tolerate that kind of fuckwittedness in middle management. I wouldn't be surprised if Disney undergoes a significant purge.
this sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless I've totally misread the story, Disney will now be the sole owner of Pixar. Jobs will now (not still) be the single largest shareholder in Disney. That doesn't mean that he necessarily has the power to change its entrenched culture. I doubt he has anything like enough of a shreholding to replace the existing management, or to plausibly theaten to.
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
In other thoughts; does this sound like something we've seen before? Small Steve-owned company gets bought for vastly more than its market value by big failing company, Steve gets put in charge of big failing company, big failing company becomes big meteoric success company? Does the word NeXT spring to mind for anyone else?
Re:this sucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Recycled "franchieses" aren't nearly so important to a company with some actual creativity. I'd much rather see Pixar given a free hand than chained to some sequel assembly line because somebody thinks it's 'safer.'
Re:Disney will now be the sole owner of Pixar (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that, since you own stock, you're joking and do understand what will happen. But in case anyone doesn't understand this --
Disney wants to acquire Pixar. Pixar's board (who nominally represent the shareholders) have said they're cool with this. There will be a shareholder vote. Since people in favor of this deal own A LOT of the Pixar stock, the deal
Ok, what happens to Renderman now? (Score:5, Interesting)
I should say that the golden age of CG movies are now over. Now come the crap movies...the "me too" movies.
Honestly, has anyone really seen anything coming out that even remotely looks interesting? Chicken Little(already out last year)? Ice Age 2? Cars? Open Season? Over the Hedge? Any of these really grabbing you? How about Valiant(also out I believe...or did it go straight to video)? Or The Ant Bully? These are all coming out in the next few months. Have I missed any? Oh, forgot Hoodwinked, and Monster House.
Ah, the old Hollywood adage. If you can't make a buck with quality, then make it with quantity. "Teh peoples want teh CG! We gives them teh CG!"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ok, what happens to Renderman now? (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, I can see them now "Perl of the Orient" "Firewall Apache" and the classic "Slashdotted: As the Sun Went Down"
Re:Ok, what happens to Renderman now? (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's different. That's a *competing* film, since it was made and released at about the same time. In much the same way that "Armageddon" was made at the same time as "Deep Impact". There's lots of movies that get made this way, and they're not knockoffs because that would imply that the first (better) movie was made first, made lots of money, and got academy awards well before the knockoff was made.
Re:Ok, what happens to Renderman now? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a decent accounting of what happened between "A Bug's Life" and "Antz".
http://www.businessweek.com/1998/47/b3605013.htm [businessweek.com]
Too lazy to use html, it's Sunday.
Re:Considering (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who give the "green light" to movies are business people, much like those suits you see in your
Re:Considering (Score:3, Interesting)
And let's not forget that Disney had the opportunity to do LOTR, but passed on it...
Dreamworks vs. Disney vs. Pixar (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen both "Finding Nemo" and "Shark Tale", and I deeply and truly wish I hadn't spent the time seeing "Shark Tale". I understand that there's room in the world for all sorts of tastes, but I honestly don't see how anyone enjoyed "Shark Tale" more than "Finding Nemo".
Antz was one of the first big non-Disney cartoons, and as
Re:this sucks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Informative)
"largest single shareholder" != "majority shareholder"
If my math is right, Jobs will own about 7% of the company. That happens to be more than any other one person owns, but it's way short of a majority.
It is a majority... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Re:this sucks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Informative)
If anything, this could be good news as disney may not try to make the sequels themselves now that the relationship is "ok" with pixar again.
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:bye-bye Minnie (Score:5, Funny)
No, they'll still have many mice, but Mickey's red shorts [amazon.com] will only have one button.
Re:this sucks (Score:3, Informative)
Disney's buying John Lassater et al (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be surprised if there is significant change at Pixar.
If there is, you can count in seconds how long it would take for someone to offer John Lassater an animation studio of his own. Heck, with the profits from this, Lassater can probably finance his own movie if he really wants, and he'd drag half Pixar's crew along with him.
That's why things won't change. Well, maybe they will. I'm betting everyone gets raises.
Steve Jobs is a great man, but in Pixar his primary responsibilty was negotiating great contracts. Let's hope this is another one of them.
As for Steve taking over Disney, I don't think it's impossible, but I'm hoping he keeps focus on Apple, where - as we all know - he's been doing great.
I do think Steve's likely to become an influential advisor and board member, but probably not CEO. Remember, John Lassater and friends basically ran Pixar, which is why Jobs could be CEO of two companies and preserve excellence. I don't think he could do that with Disney.
D
Re:Actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Bundling" tendencies will be interesting to see (Score:4, Interesting)
Quelle Horreur (Score:2, Funny)
Let me be the first to say...
NOOOOOOO!
Re:Quelle Horreur (Score:5, Interesting)
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
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), Ice Age, Robots, etc, etc. Some of it a bit scary, so we are always by his side, so I've seen these movies a bazillion times.
The ones that last (both for us as adults and for him) are the Pixar ones. You can watch these movies again and again and they stay funny, and you can find new deepts in them. The disney ones are usually okay, but they always play the emotion card a bit heavily, which gets old really fast (dreamworks and fox is rather uneven, but usually okay, too).
Pooh (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Quelle Horreur (Score:4, Funny)
DO NOT WANT
Lamp (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lamp (Score:5, Funny)
my crystall ball... (Score:5, Funny)
on a sidenote, what happens to renderman?
Might be OK (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a good feeling about the new CEO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Iger [wikipedia.org]
Read up on these completely different management styles and then take a look at Disney again. Iger was responsible for talks to continue with Pixar, so its no suprise that it might lead to this.
Re:Might be OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? How so? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Might be OK (Score:5, Funny)
~jeff
Re:Might be OK (Score:5, Funny)
Initially, I suspect he'll be cold to the idea, but I think that will thaw after a while.
Re:Might be OK (Score:3, Funny)
And then the creative juices will get flowing again.
Re:Might be OK (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the simple fact of being Not Eisner will give him some help in dealing with those that Eisner alienated, but I'm expecting no major shifts in Disney policy or much of a reduction in its general trend towards heat death.
the parallels are interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Yes, but ten years ago Apple was still a (relatively) innovative technology company. They could accept change.
Disney is an entertainment company who traditionally employ people to hand draw cartoons. I don't think they can change in the way apple did.
Re:the parallels are interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the parallels are interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Too much focus on Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Too much focus on Jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
There are plenty of good ideas out there for movies. There are tons of good stories waiting to be told. There are plenty of people who would love to
Re:Too much focus on Jobs (Score:5, Informative)
They're the ones who deserve credit for Pixar's success. These guys gave us the Zbuffer, Texture mapping, and so much more. Almost everything we know today... these guys had a hand in. Their artistic vision in a fledgling technical realm is also unique to them thanks to John Lassetter, and George Lucas.
You have to realize that from the start... Pixar were pioneers. It's easy to pass the name Pixar around as a company these days... "Disney buys Pixar... blah blah blah"
But Pixar deserves to be its own entity as Disney once was.
I wish Lucas had not sold Pixar... But then again i'm glad Jobs was there to buy it up. I'm glad Lassetter was able to keep Jobs from sticking his maniacal self into the Pixar day to day.
Hopefully with Jobs being a major share holder in Disney, he can keep DISNEY from screwing up Pixar. John Lassetter (a former disney animator) has a challenge on his hands... and its the same old challenge he's had for sometime now. And that is to keep the suits out of his fun world. If you seen his studio (And i have friends that work there) you will be reminded of old disney. Where artists play, create, and have fun. It's not a corperate labarynth of cubicals. It's a kindergarten, as it should be.
As a 3d animator myself... the challenge has always been about staying young and vibrant, full of ideas and having fun while keeping the suits out of your day to day because they dont understand the culture.
Today's Disney is not the old Disney. I have family members who work for Disney broadcasting in fairly high positions and its a nightmare in many respects. Disney has all but destroyed their 2d artist division that made Disney... well Disney.
Disney is a buisness... as much as you can say Pixar is a buisness... It's really not run like a buisness. Actually I should say that Pixar is run how a buisness should be run because it takes care of its employees because Pixar is its employees.
Disney doesnt look at the world this way. Disney is its companies not its employees. Disney is not its 2d animation anymore. Disney is its "brands". Look at teh falling out of Miramax (the Wiensteins) and Disney. Miramax could very well be considered a film making company that had a mission to deliver a certain quality film, unique to itself. Very much like Pixar.
Anyways... The point is: Pixar will hopefully be untouched. Jobs may be able to help continue the Pixar "island" in the corperate world. I wrote ealier on slashdot about how Jobs and Lassetter really have different mindsets and John wants to keep Pixar intact and run under his own idea of how the pixar culture should be.
I fear that Disney will take over Pixar and change it. Disney is buying Pixar because of the BRAND name that is Pixar because Disney cant compete in the 3d animation realm. Dont think for one moment, that if Disney had the chance... they would kill off the Pixar name and Pixar would become "Disney Animation"
Thats what we all fear the most. Something unique, beautiful and creative being lost in the typical corperate world of greed.
I hope John, Ed, Alvy and whoever still remains at pixar from the old founders... gets a good stake in disney as well. I fear that they do not.
This is how the corperate world treats Pioneers.
Re:the parallels are interesting (Score:4, Funny)
John Lasseter saves Disney Animation. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually a GREAT idea, because the hallmark of Pixar is the great storytelling of their movies. Lasseter could even help Disney revive traditional animation at Disney, too.
I think people forget that unlike Michael Eisner, Robert Iger tries to be as much hands off as possible, letting each Disney division run by their own managers. This means Mr. Lasseter will have free reign to rebuild Disney's animation tradition. (big thumbs up)
the big question (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the big question (Score:5, Informative)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like Mr Toad's Wild Ride?
Jobs will take over Disney (Score:2)
Hopefully the merger won't affect Pixar's writers. As we saw with Chicken Little Disney does decent computer animation, but crap stories.
Pixar and Disney (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Shit no... (Score:2, Insightful)
The least thing is that those mergers are highly stressfull for the company being acquired, since you can expect some of the staff to be layed off in the reorganisation, but most importantly, Pixar was the true opposite of Disney in terms of spirit and phylosophy about creating quality content.
This may leave lots of the artists in Pixar demoralized and maybe quit the company to open small independent studios.
Disney is way to greedy and too
Disney empire (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs doesn't make $3.5bn (Score:5, Interesting)
Pixar's market cap is just a hair under $7bn, about half of which Jobs owns. Disney is buying all $7bn worth of Pixar stock with $7bn worth of Disney stock. So Jobs isn't making any money, he's just changing the name on part of his stock portfolio (Disney's buy is a bit above market value for Pixar, so he does make SOME money, on the order of 1% of the $3.5bn the article mentions). He's also going from being a 50% owner of a $7bn company to a 14% owner of a $50bn company.
So maybe Jobs thinks he can get in and infect Disney with Pixarness and save it. Maybe he just wants to cash out and do something else, and figures he can sell 14% of Disney a lot easier than he can sell half of Pixer. Could be he thinks Pixar will do better with Disney behind it than with Disney as an enemy. Possibly there's another explanation. Let the speculation continue - we'll know in a few years what the plan was and whether it worked or not.
Re:Jobs doesn't make $3.5bn (Score:5, Interesting)
If Jobs went from owning $3.5billion worth of Pixar to owning 14% of Disney, that would mean he just made $3.5billion, because 14% of a ~$50billion company is about $7billion. I'm no accountant, so someone correct me if I'm figuring this the wrong way (does the market cap of Pixar get added to Disney's?), but I think his share of Disney is actually only 7%.
Re:Jobs doesn't make $3.5bn (Score:5, Informative)
The gory details are that Disney writes new shares equivalent in value to the value it's assigned to the acquisition of Pixar, and 'swaps' those Disney shares for Pixar shares (effectively removing them from the market). The value of Pixar is added to the value of Disney (that's the +$7bn), but no new value is created. All Pixar shareholders are now (Disney + Pixar) shareholders; they have a same-value piece of a larger pie. Their slice is 'thinner' -- a smaller percentage; Jobs goes from 50% of Pixar to 7% of (Disney + Pixar). Similarly for Disney shareholders, but not as big of a percentage drop since Disney's valuation prior to the deal was closer to that of the combined entity.
This will be a day long remembered. (Score:3, Interesting)
Steve Jobs is (Score:5, Funny)
You see Steve Wozniak talking to a CGI lion on the technical production of blue boxes. In the background is a giant Intel factory, where little orange men are packing new iMacs into crates marked Nigeria...
No $7bn takeover (Score:4, Informative)
How will this affect the Studio Ghibli deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
What I am concerned about is how the deal will affect the Studio Ghibli/Disney distribution deal. For many years, Disney has had wide distribution rights over Ghibli works. Sometimes this has worked out for the better (the heavily promoted Spirited Away), and sometimes not so well (Miramax requested, but was denied, many edits in Princess Mononoke).
A closer connection between Pixar and Disney will probably not harm Ghibli. It was noted [nausicaa.net] that John Lasseter (founder of Pixar) had given very strong support to Spirited Away, and was a key driver of what success that movie had in North America. A closer connection between Pixar and Ghibli will probably result in an even stronger benefit.
Now, on notes of pure speculation, how might the Pixar/Disney merger benefit Ghibli going forward? Could we expect Miyazaki-animated short films (currently limited in distribution to the Ghibli Museum in Mitaka City, Tokyo) put on sale on the iTunes Video Store? Or maybe distribution of older classic Ghibli films? Imaging having a copy of Gauche the Cellist [nausicaa.net] on your iPod to perk you up on those cloudy days of life. Or how about strong promotion and wide distribution of the forthcoming Tales from Earthsea [nausicaa.net]? With the combination of a a imaginative and sensitive director like Goro Miyazaki [nausicaa.net] and effective marketing, I can't imagine how Earthsea wouldn't become a major blockbluster.
What else would you like to see come out of the Studio Ghibli/Disney/Pixar deal?
---
patiwat
Re:How will this affect the Studio Ghibli deal? (Score:5, Informative)
Will Disney modify (i.e. cut scenes from) these films?
No. This will not happen. Disney can not cut even one second from the films, according to the contract. Ghibli has officially stated that "With Disney's commitment to maintain the quality of the original titles, there will be no changes to music and sequences in foreign language versions." According to Mr. Suzuki, the producer of Ghibli, other companies such as Fox and Time-Warner contacted Tokuma, but Disney was the only company willing to agree to this condition, and that was the main reason why Tokuma chose Disney as a partner.
The term means that Disney can not touch the films, but that does not prevent Disney from asking Ghibli to cut or change the contents of the film, as Tokuma and Ghibli retains the editing right. In an interview, Mr. Suzuki said that Miramax faxed Ghibli, asking if they could cut several scenes from "Mononoke Hime". But nothing was cut from Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke).
---
Patiwat Panurach
But what will happen to Bud Lucky?!?! (Score:3, Funny)
S.Jobs majority owner! No! 7% most single .... (Score:3, Informative)
Let's get some basic math resolved. Steve Jobs owns 50.6% of a roughly $7 Billion publicly traded corporation, PIXAR. Assuming this rumor is fact and that the combined valuation of the merger is $60 Billion (Disney at $54 Billion + $7 Billion in Cash--no stock swap) then Steve owns no matter how you swing has (.506 x $7 Billion) / ($60 Billion Valuation at time of merger) = 5.9 % of DIXSNAR's/PIXNEY's total company value. If it is a stock swap then it becomes .506 x 7 / 53 = 6.68%: close but no cigar.
Both Steve being majority owner and 7% as highest individual stock holder are incorrect. What is most pitiful is the fact that PIXAR built a brand new corporate headquarters a few years back, became the powerhouse in Software Animation Films for both content and presentation, publically denounced their partnership with Disney and publically focused on a new roadmap for this highly creative and technically sound corporation all just to merge with the enemy? Pathetic. Disney has everything to gain and PIXAR has everything to lose. Distribution channels that everyone brags about with Disney are overvalued, especially in the emerging distribution mechanisms gaining ground today--Podcasting/videocasting, etc.
What I find most disturbing is the many enthusiasts discussing Steve Jobs becoming Disney's CEO and steering them like he has done with Apple. Get something straight. As Steve said, "Apple is my old girlfriend I haven't seen in 20 years but I want to give one more shot." PIXAR never was Steve's main focus. It was either NeXT or presently, Apple. He loves making the big partnerships but much prefers driving the mechanisms and tools that let the Producers produce over attempting to drive Producers and retool them into his Vision. He's best when he gives the creative minds the means to be their most creative, period. The day Steve would rather give a Keynote about "Goofy in the 21st Century" over "OS X Lion" will be when they take him away to the Insane Asylum.
Steve's Master Plan (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure he makes sure he still has control over at least the Pixar unit. Pixar will be the only profitable unit and he knows it. What this does give him is control over Disney's vast media library.
iTunes + Disney (guess which TV station Disney owns + many films which are not directly under the Disney name) content.
Is it Disney buying out Pixar? Or Steve Jobs taking over Disney?
Hahaha! World Domination!
Re:Does not compute (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Disney died when they fired Roy (Score:3, Interesting)
Unlike Michael Eisner (who seemed to have alienated most everybody at Disney), Robert Iger--who has far better relations with Roy Disney--wants to mend fences to save the company, and if that includes a merger with Pixar, so be it.
This merger could put John Lasseter in overall charge of all Disney animation divisions, and that could set the stage for a major revival of Disney animated features and TV shows.
Re:You think the Matrix is creepy (Score:3, Funny)
When will our savior come?
All too soon, say Christian analysts. The EU constitution treaty [wikipedia.org] was signed in Rome. Once it passes, the Roman Empire will be back [contenderministries.org], and once it grows to 666 million people, watch out. Read the prophecies of Daniel and Jeremiah and The Revelation of Jesus Christ [wikipedia.org] for details.
Ears Busting with Pod Buds. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Zzzz -whazzit- I'm AWAKE! What did you say?
Oh. Well, there's a big difference between making cameras and making movies. Yeah, Apple has affected media production by selling tools, but now it's poised to cross the boundary in a somewhat more si