Slashdot Log In
Disney Buys Pixar
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Jan 22, 2006 06:22 AM
from the not-just-for-rumor-mills-anymore dept.
from the not-just-for-rumor-mills-anymore dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
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.
Parent
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Chairs flying at Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if Ballmer will Fucking Kill (tm) Disney over this.
Parent
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the business side of things, I hope this means we'll see ALL of the Disney archives available on line. I'll pay two bucks for Steamboat Willie on my iPod, and there's a whole lot of other classics I'd love to see again.
-jcr
Parent
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.
Parent
MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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
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!"
Parent
Re:Ok, what happens to Renderman now? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit melodramatic, don't you think?
Now come the crap movies...the "me too" movies.
They're already here.. Didn't you hear about "Antz", the knock-off of "A Bug's Life"?
CGI is new tool. Some great movies will be made with it, and a probably a lot of crap, too. Take a look at some of the lesser movies that were being made at the same time as Citizen Kane. Did they keep Orson Wells from making his masterpiece?
-jcr
Parent
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"
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
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
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
It is a majority... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:this sucks (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Lamp (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Lamp (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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)
Parent
Re:Really? How so? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Might be OK (Score:5, Funny)
~jeff
Parent
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.
Parent
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.'
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...
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
Re:the parallels are interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
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).
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%.
Parent
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.
Parent
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...
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
Parent
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).
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:the big question (Score:5, Informative)
Parent