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."
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)
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.'
the big question (Score:2, Insightful)
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).
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.
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 huge for its own good. It just got bigger.
Disney empire (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Might be OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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:the parallels are interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Too much focus on Jobs (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that precisely what the role of a CEO is?
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:Considering (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who give the "green light" to movies are business people, much like those suits you see in your company and I would bet that with very little exceptions they are dumb, very little creative and understand very little of what people really want to see. If we do get an ocasional very good blockbuster like the lord of the rings or the spiderman series and other is only because there are very good directors, screen players and other people that are very briliant and are willing to figth those guys.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like Mr Toad's Wild Ride?
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.
Re:Actually. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good luck to Steve J... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody deserves a few billion bucks more than he does, the way I figure it. If he manages to pull Disney out of their spiral of mediocrity, he'll have earned every penny...
And he's going to do that by handing them a better company and allowing them to show their logo at the beginning of each film?
Re:Corporate Citizens (Score:2, 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 is estimated that 75% of all silent films and 50% of all sound films made before 1950 are lost." (1992)
In 1942 the only safe and (marginally) practical means for home distribution was 8 and 16 mm projection. A steep step downward from a 35 mm nitrate master. Those of you who remember Blackhawk Films [filmclassic.com] will know the cost of building a significant collection.
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:the parallels are interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Lilo & Stitch is an excellent movie, and it even went back to using the watercolor backgrounds that made Disney's movies so lush.
Lilo & Stitch is, if anything, the last real Disney movie. It was made by a small team out on their own, without any of the beaurocratic nonsense that ruined movies like Treasure Planet. It's how Disney SHOULD make movies. It's too bad they've tried to run the Lilo & Stitch property into the ground with the sequels and TV series...
Re: Corporate Copyright terms (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:MOD PARENT +INF INSIGHTFUL! (Score:2, Insightful)
Well of course, I am not objecting to Disney's right to do that. However, if the shoe were on the other foot, and I tried to do my own "unique interpretation" of Mickey Mouse, I'd hear from Disney's lawyers before sundown.
Every time Mickey Mouse gets almost old enough to fall into the public domain, Disney has paid off politicians to the tune of millions of dollars, and in return they have gotten repeated extensions of the duration of copyright protection. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of their position, and noting that much of what they have done in the past would have been illegal if the copyright protections they have received in recent times were in effect in those days.
-ccm
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 will be approved and your Pixar stock will go away. In its place, you will be given Disney stock. You really won't have any say in the matter.
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:this sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Hardly, I'll remind you that the Newton was a total marketting failour, the clone licensing probably hurt Apple, and their public image more than helped it. Apple were ALL about desktop/laptop computers at that time Newton was a tiny exception that never took off.
Now look it them today: they're at the forefront of the portable audio market, the biggest digital media distributer on the planet, the industry standard for video software (now with the new FCC requirements regarding closed captioning, even more so, since they're the only game in town that supports closed captioning). I'm not going to say that this was ALL Steve, but they wouldn't have gotten here without him. They're much less of a computer company now than before Steve was on board.
Re:S.Jobs majority owner! No! 7% most single .... (Score:2, 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:2, Insightful)
Lengthy terms of copyright tend to restrict the creation of new works, particularly dirivative works, which it turns out most Disney movies are.
Re:Really? How so? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 significant way than Buzzy Lightspeed, or whatever the character was called.
Jobs/Apple makes a brand new and very proprietary medium; Miniature TV sets. Jobs/Disney owns a behemoth of distribution plus a hundred and one property-rights. Hence, Mickey Mouse will be on iPods everywhere. Complete with adverts. Go, America!
I figure that, barring unforseen weirdness, it should only be a very short matter of time before the Pods will be part of the cell nets, with people eager to plunk down cash for high-speed access via microwaves. And then I'll have to shoot myself.
The prospect of a fast-cooked society of people walking around with their eyes and ears filled with the tender messages of the Beast at all times makes me feel all gushy inside, --though not so much in a warm & fuzzy manner as in a 'filled with worms' sort of way. I find it fitting that Apple and Disney are positioning themselves to be largely responsible fuzzing out the minds of the entire Western populace with electronic cotton candy. They're both happy-happy-bliss-bliss kinds of companies with too much shiny plastic and annoying function-removing fool-proofing. "Don't worry about our proprietary rights management system. You just listen to your music and we'll take care of everything for you."
Ugh.
And who the heck likes wearing head-phones anyway? No, seriously. . !
I never did like using Walkmans. They were certainly cool devices, but I could not stand having an artificial wall of noise separate me from reality. I only used my walkman because it seemed like the right thing to do after spending $200 on a portable tape player, but honestly. . . who actually feels good walking around in the world with their hearing deliberately rendered useless? Drove me bananas.
-FL