Eisner kills Toy Story 3 - Will Disney's stupid mistakes ever end?

[DanG]

please identify for me the last successful Disney animated film not produced by Pixar? Then name the last Disney non-Pixar animated theatrical release that wasn't a pure formulaic connect the dots?

I'll hang up and wait for my answer.

Disney is approaching another valley in its animated film creativity. They could have made Shrek, but they didn't and they won't make the next one either.

DanG

 

[Captain Crook]

But Sccop, "it'll hurt them in the long term". Hogwash! The contract goes through 2004/2005...That's a lifetime.... ... By the time the contract is up, another viable external vendorwill be around...

Oh, how exact is that statement! Also, don't think just because Pixar is riding high that it has to continue. It doesn't. Things inexplicably fall apart all the time. Sure the odds are favorable that they will continue to succeed but they will not maintain a monopoly on this technique...

Why do we hold Disney to such a standard that we feel they should be benevolent not only to us the consumers, but to thier business contemporaries, as well? Should Eisner call Jobs and say "Hey Setve, it's Mike...You know, I'm sorry about all the bickering and you know we at Disney have really had more than our fair share of success so what say we do TS3 and count it as a contracted movie and to show we have no hard feelings we're going to give you a 60 -40 split...Perhaps you can repay the favor when our contract is up..." Yeah, that'd be good business.

 

[All Aboard]

DanG, Tarzan (1999).

 

[hopemax]

Why do we hold Disney to such a standard that we feel they should be benevolent not only to us the consumers, but to thier business contemporaries, as well?

I'm not, but I think if Disney wants Toy Story 3, it's going to cost them something. Is Pixar supposed to tell Disney, "We know you've been struggling, and even though you've bullied us around for years and we've been counting the days until our contract is complete, we'll set all that aside and work on something we really don't think we need to work on to make you happy?"

Toy Story 3 isn't guaranteed under the contract, right? So Pixar is still following the terms of the contact if they say "no," right? Pixar is just saying if you want our "no" to turn into a "yes" it's going to cost Disney something. And isn't that how the "game" is played?

 

[hopemax]

Forget the first half then, even though AV used language to give the impression that there was bullying.

Pixar is within it's contractual rights to say "No, we will not make Toy Story 3." Correct? That's playing buy the "rules," right?

So if Disney comes back again and says, "We want the two of us to make Toy Story 3." Is Pixar supposed to just say"Sure!" or is it unreasonable, since they are being asked to do something that they aren't contractual obligated to do, that they ask for something in return?

Disney wouldn't be in the wrong to turn down Pixar's price, but is Pixar in the wrong for making the counter-offer instead of just flat out saying "No."

 

[hopemax]

And my own addendeum...

The contract also says that sequels go direct-to-video, correct? But based on the successes of Toy Story 1 and 2, Disney would most likely prefer that #3 would also be a theatrical release, is that a logical assumption?

So at that point Disney would be asking for modifications to the original deal, right? So why should Pixar be forced to honor the original deal while Disney gets the theatrical release?

 

[JeffJewell]

...there's a subtlety to this deal that I have not yet seen widely reported.

The "sequels don't count" clause was a part of the first Disney/Pixar deal, but not the second (or revised, however you want to look at it) deal. Toy Story 2 was already in production, and Jobs actually has a leg to stand on when he says "giving" Disney TS2 under the terms of the old contract was something he did not have to do (in the original deal, the assumption was "sequel" would mean Direct-To-Video. Pixar thought (correctly) that TS2 was good enough for theatrical release, and agreed that was the TS2 would not "count" toward the number of films contracted for in exchange for the extra money they'd make from a theatrical release. It's the "making a film for theatrical realease while being paid for DTV" bit the Jobs refers to when he says Pixar has done that for Disney once already but has no intentions of doing it again).

Eisner is saying that because TS was produced under the first contract, no Toy Story sequels should ever count toward the number of movies contracted for.

Even if you believe Eisner is technically and legally correct about this, he's still a bonehead, because (as Hope points out) Pixar is under no obligation whatsoever to ever make TS3. Eisner can insist that he's right all he wants to and the result will be the same: no TS3.

If Eisner is so brilliant for this hard-ball deal-making, what does that make Jobs? It's Jobs who is clearly in the drivers seat as to whether Toy Story 3 will ever be made, and if so, under what conditions.

Jeff

 

[JeffJewell]

Disney is not trying to say that Pixar has to make TS3 AND not count it

...that is precisely what Disney is trying to say.

Pixar would be perfectly happy not to make TS3. Pixar is largely made up of creative types, and sequels are largely the idea of marketing types. Pixar has their Disney movie line-up already roughed out, and TS3 ain't a part of it.

Eisner is shooting off his mouth saying, oh yes, we _will_ get TS3, oh yes, it _will_ be Pixar who makes it, and oh no, it will _not_ count as one of the movies we've contracted for.

You may think that makes Eisner a brilliant businessman, but what it makes him is a CEO without TS3.

Jeff

PS: Yes, let's see the TS3 from the folks who brought you the blockbusters "Dinosaur" and "Atlantis." Oh, wait, those weren't blockbusters. On top of that, Eisner fired most of those folks.

 

[JeffJewell]

...but I'm afraid this disagreement has all the markings of being relatively minor and short-lived.

Disney can make TS3 regardless of whether Pixar participates

You're absolutely right about this. The certainty in my post wasn't from a "Disney must have Pixar in order to make TS3" position, it was from a "Disney knows Pixar's TS3 will kill at the box office, whereas Buzz Lightyear and Star Command on the big screen will make Atlantis look like Snow eff-ing White."

Disney has made some pretty cruddy business moves lately. However, this is definitely not one of them

I see what you mean now, you're right, the original deal was one of the smarter things Disney has done post-Wells.

I was tunnel-visioning on the topic again, and took your meaning to be that Eisner's current stance on TS3 was the good move. I was disagreeing with that part.

Good deal at the time or no, right now the only way we'll see a "real" (read: Pixar) TS3 is if Eisner publicly plays nice with Jobs. I know they both have egos, but Eisner's ego needs to be alerted to the fact that he needs Pixar a lot more than Pixar needs him.

Jeff

 

[JeffJewell]

if even WE can get along, who knows, maybe there is hope for Jobs and Eisner

...ah, but you seem to forget the millions of dollars suspended in the middle of that little relationship.

I mean, we'd surely both be banned for life if we'd been able to make money with kicking each other in our respective cyber-crotches...

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

Okay, it’s taken up far too much time just keeping up this thread. So let me be brief:

This is Hollywood, not the real world. This is the place that continues to put Pauly Shore in movies. This place loves the Clintons. Do attempt to apply logic – or contract law – around here.

Contract disputes are about ego, not about the law. Jeffrey wanted to be President, Mikey said no. The lawsuit was revenge. Had Mikey said yes or if had given Jeffrey a large check up front, no one would have looked twice at the contract.

Disney bullied Pixar around when The Mouse had all the power. Mikey’s screwed that all up. Now Pixar has all the power and it’s payback time.

Contracts, right or wrong, good or bad, are irrelevant. What’s important was to keep the relationship strong and the product flowing. Mikey thought Pixar was disposable and bullied them over for short-term profit. ‘Dinosaur’ slammed into The Secret Lab and destroyed Mikey’s Ultimate Weapon of Global Domination. Like a bad cartoon villain, Mikey’s left with absolutely nothing but the box from Acme Industries. Ooops, Pixar’s not so disposable any more.

Internal Disney animation? Yes, I hold out great hope for it since they’ve eliminated 45% of the Animation Department, most of the key people are working for the competition, the industry considers Disney Animation to be washed up, the “new wave” of Disney animated film sank faster than its namesake, the next “new wave” film (‘Treasure Planet’) is rumored to be two years late and still doesn't have an ending, and their internal product all seems to have a ‘2’ after the title. Which one of those facts gives you confidence?

Good movies are not made on an assembly line. You cannot train anyone off the street to stand there and turn the screws all day and expect ‘The Lion King’ to roll out the back door of the plant. Good movies require talent and skill – and very, very few people in Hollywood have that (someone like Mr. Lassiter). Hollywood does turn out product on an assembly line; we call it “prime time television”. Judge for yourself the average quality of that programming.

The Mess is not about business decisions. It’s about egos and corporate chest thumping. Disney’s risk (which was very little compared to Pixar’s) was so overwhelmingly compensated for with ‘Toy Story’ and ‘A Bug’s Life’ that discretion would truly have been in order.

Bottom line, what’s the better deal: ‘TS3’, three films and then nothing. Or ‘TS3’, two films and another five picture contract?

 

[airlarry!]

This is the strangest thread. Every time I think I will finally agree with The Scoop on something, (like when he says that technically speaking, Disney is right about the details of the contract) I reread AnVo's post, and remember who is right.

You see, this whole thread reminds me of that time some brilliant CEO said "Oswald the Rabbit could be made by anybody and the public will love it and we will still be rich!" or "I want more Three Little Pigs, and I don't care if the artist is not really into making sequels."

Both of these decisions (yes, I am obviously truncating the story a bit but you get the drift) involve the creative talents of our lovable Uncle Walt. There were times in his life when others felt like *they* could get the same product without Uncle John's help.

ScooP:

Disney can make TS3 regardless of whether Pixar participates...sure, it would be nice to have Pixar, but Disney can acquire enough contract work to get this done: DTV or even theatrical. No, the final word about whether Pixar makes TS3 may be up to Jobs, but the final word whether it gets made at all is up to Disney...

Uh-hunh. No way. Let's just inject a little common sense here. Fox, Warner Brothers, even Dworks (pre-Shrek) bit the big fat donut hole when they tried to out-Disney Disney. Only one little guy and his admittedly now-big-time company were ever able to even come close to Disney's ability to craft a story and sell it to the people. Shrek? Hah. Double Hah. One movie does not a string of hits make. BUT UNCLE JOHN HAS DONE IT THREE TIMES IN A ROW. For that, I stand up and take notice, as you should, Scoop.

Oh, Cousin Mikey....I think you are about to pull an Oswald here if you let Uncle John get away. AnVo has already told us during other threads that Uncle John will never work directly for the Mouse...but that doesn't mean that the Board can't muzzle Mikey and patch things up with Pixar. Come on Mikey, give Uncle John et al the big fat contract they deserve, and sign 'em up for another 10 movies or so. Stick to sinking...err...fixing ABC like you did in the '70s.

Here is a mantra, Scoop, for you to repeat... "I want Toy Story not Dinosaur, I want Toy Story not Dinosaur..." And this has nothing to do with the talent still at Disney Feature Animation. We know that Wise and Troubador and the rest are talented...but at Pixar, Uncle John nutures and and cajoles and supports the talent...sort of the way a stern but friendly fellow did starting way back in '28....

 

[airlarry!]

Hmm...that came out a little harsh, Scoop. All I meant to say was that I think your analysis of the contract negotiation is dead on correct...but that you were missing the point that Disney could win the battle and lose big time in the war. The question is not can Disney play hardball with Pixar. The question is why would Disney want to play hardball with Pixar.

 

[Another Voice]

It’s the irony of the situation that both sides are right: Disney is correctly interrupting a contract that’s been very good for both parties, but they’ve sacrificed a potentially equally lucrative future in the process. I would feel better if Disney seemed a little more committed to animation and to retaining talent. Technology means nothing, it’s the talent to tell a compelling story that always makes the difference. There is no guarantee that Pixar won’t suffer a similar brain drain as Disney has had, and Pixar has yet to hit the big time without John Lassiter. But I’d rather stick with them then hope some game company can make a good movie (that plan worked so well with ‘Final Fantasy’).

‘Monsters, Inc.’ and next year’s ‘Finding Nemo’ will let us know if Pixar has a team or just one star player. ‘Ice Age’ from Fox will be out early next year. Dreamworks is readying ‘Shrek 2’ and a few other projects. Disney is stuck with absolutely nothing at the moment and ‘Atlantis’ has made some people question the future of traditional animation for theatrical movies (personally, I won’t go that far yet). With the tremendous lead time required for these films, Disney needs to move very quickly starting right now to replace Pixar.

The saddest moment for me in all this – the original draft for ‘Dinosaur’ would probably have been as much of a turning point for animation as ‘Snow White’ was back in the 1930’s. The combination of concept, story and technology (years ahead of anyone else at the time) was truly astounding. Disney could have established dominance in the field that would have been unchallenged for another 75 years. But shortsighted management doomed the project and then rushed to put out a mediocre mess. That’s getting to be a habit I fear…

 

[YoHo]

Well After a weekend back in Chi-town and the fading Wedding Hangover(ah being a groomsman, all you have to do is walk down the asile with some girl you don't know, shake hands, and drink heavily ), I'm going to sift through my confused Nuerons and agree with AV here. This isn't new york, this is Hollywood. A town where one of the most stereotyped phrases is "getting in to bed together" that tends to imply that there's a bit more emotion involved here.
Disney may be interpreting the contract right, but Eisner's making himself look like a big fat moron in the eyes of his peers and that matters more then anything else (Of course, he doesn't think he has peers, but that's a different problem.)

 

[DancingBear]

Seems to me that the argument that Disney is shooting itself in the foot re TS3 only make sense if you assume that somehow an extended future with Pixar is/was possible.

It appears that Pixar wants to satisfy its 3-picture contract ASAP so it can shop itself around as a free agent. Pixar's unwillingness to do a longer-term deal with Disney may be partly based on the clash of egos, etc., but mostly it knows that it has something to sell NOW and it wants to hit the market while it's hot. (Query what happens if the next 3 are dogs?)

So Eisner is offered the chance to get three brand new pictures from a proven hitmaker, or get TS3 plus two new pics.

And you know that you could make TS3 without Pixar (based on other posts here).

Sure, the Pixar TS3 might be sure to be profitable, and sure, Pixar's TS3 might be better than the one Disney makes in-house or with another contractor, BUT, it seems like a no-brainer for Eisner (insert your joke here) to get 3 potentially blockbuster new franchises rather than the tail end of one franchise plus 2 new.