Pixar Does NOT Need Disney - Disney Desperately Needs Pixar



Given a choice, the "unknown" always seem scarier but Pixar does not need Disney - here's why?

In 1995 when the deal was penciled, Disney was the king of the jungle LITERALLY. They were coming off Lion King, Aladdin, Beauty & the Beast, Little Mermaid - etc ... whether you want to give credit to Jeffrey Katzenberg in leading the animation division or not, Disney was king in animation.

Not just that Pixar was nothing, Computer-Generated Animation was seen as cold, un-realistic and something that might be amusing in short bursts but who could sit through something like that for 80-90 minutes? TOY STORY changed everything!

It was bright. It was cool. The form itself made you marvel at it - as much as the great characters and great story.

Pixar needed Disney. Disney re-assured parents that they were really getting something kid-friendly and with the Disney 'stamp of approval.' To Disney, it was a shortcut to getting CG animation and if it failed, they could just blame it on the fact that it was not really a "Disney" movie.

Fast forward to 2004. Pixar does not need Disney on both sides of the equation.

On the Disney side, the name does not carry automatic weight anymore. In fact, in many ways - Disney has lost touch with today's kids. The 2-5 year olds are still fine with Disney but Nickelodeon and Nick have the 6+ to pre-teen kids. Disney has a gaggle of pre-teen girls with Lizzie McGuire (losing her also) and other Disney Channel shows but the rest of the kids are at Nick & Cartoon Network.

Disney's last animation release, "TEACHER'S PET has grossed about $6 million dollars in 2 weeks of release. It will be lucky to break $10 million in theater grosses. The last Disney animation before that? BROTHER BEAR grossed about $82 million, $137 million worldwide.

FINDING NEMO - $334 million, (Worldwide - around $840 million).

Do you really think Disney worked less hard on marketing BROTHER BEAR? They even made a theater short that plays before movies to tell patrons to turn off cell phones. Marketing tells you the movie is opening but beyond opening weekend, the rest is word of mouth.

Just like MGM is dismissed but when they come up LEGALLY BLONDE, suddenly they are marketing geniuses but when LEGALLY BLONDE II rolls around, they're not so clever at marketing ... or is the movie's not as good? The studios are 'geniuses' at marketing when the movie is a hit and it's the director's/writer's/actor's or sometimes even us, the moviegoer's fault when it's not - never them when the movie tanks.

Marketing a movie is simple. You pick a time of the year that's appropriate (kids movies should open when kids are on vacation or holiday). You should either stake out a date if you're the 800-lb gorilla or you should find a better spot if you're not. It does not take a genius to figure out you should not open an action movie against LORD OF THE RINGS III. Then you just have to coordinate a PR and ad campaign so people know your movie is opening. Some movies are easier - you have promotional partners and if it's some sort of sequel - again to cite small time studio MGM, when they're releasing a James Bond movie - they are geniuses because they convinced half a dozen partners to advertise for them but when they open CITY OF GHOSTS and it makes a total of $4 million, again - suddenly - they're not as bright.

So who else might Pixar work with? Warner Bros is at the top of the list - they have Looney Tunes and they seem to be able to market HARRY POTTER & LOTR to 'some' success.

Fox - They manage to make like $175 million with ICE AGE. Not too shabby. Universal is tied to DreamWorks, Paramount has Nickelodeon but they'll probably pass because it's not profitable enough for them. Sony (SPIDERMAN) and MGM (JAMES BOND) are not on the top of the list but not so bad if it comes to them.

Disney is no longer the only studio with hit animation as they were in 1995.

People know and trust the Pixar name.

You might also wonder why Pixar doesn't just release the movie themselves - nothing stopping them but it's a lot of work to chase down all the theater receipts and money - better to have a studio that the theaters do not want to upset (If you don't pay us promptly, you don't get HARRY POTTER III - Pixar's next movie doesn't come out for 2 years - theater chains have more leverage to pay them much, much slower).

And Disney, they are claiming that they are doing this for the shareholders - here's the logic using FINDING NEMO money - (counting DVD sales) - We'd rather walk away from $1B in revenue because the next hit might only make us $200 million. We'd rather have ZERO from Pixar than $200 million. What logic is that? Because they can conjure up a $1B animated movie in place of Pixar's output? What kind of logic is that?

And as for re-writing the contract - Ple-lease! What contract ISN'T re-written in Hollywood? If you sign a contract to do sequels but the first movie is HUGE like SPIDERMAN, they tear it up and give you a much bigger deal for the sequel. Pixar has grossed Disney $2.5 BILLION dollars in direct revenue (not to mention the cachet of keeping the Disney name cool with Pixar characters). THey have earned the right to have a new deal. In the meanwhile, while Pixar is cranking out BUG'S LIFE, MONSTER'S INC, FINDING NEMO, Disney is cranking out ATLANTIS, TREASURE PLANET and PIGLET'S MOVIE.

And the sequels to current Disney projects? Tom Hanks and Tim Allen have plenty of money - they do not really need to do TOY STORY 3. Just like DUMB & DUMBERER (The Early Years) without Jim Carrey, is anyone going to care? At least with the prequel to DUMB & DUMBER, they can knock it off cheap and who knows, it might make a little money but TOY STORY 3 is a 2-3 year project to get it right - $100 million in costs - is Disney really willing to commit that much money without Pixar, Tom or Tim? It could happen but will it be a success?

But all is not over - if Mike Eisner steps down, the next regime might kiss and make-up with Pixar so while they might have a deal with Warner Bros, we still might see a sequel to CARS or the INCREDIBLES or TOY STORY 3 from Disney/Pixar just yet.



Posted: Sat - January 31, 2004 at 12:25 AM        

©