|
Post by Spaz Ranger on Feb 1, 2004 0:32:05 GMT -5
Ohh I read in the News paper yesturday that Pixar is not redoing their contract with Disney after they do the Incredables and Cars ;D! Not that I don't like Disney but hey TS3 would be sweet.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Parsec on Feb 1, 2004 16:07:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I just read that yesterday too. I'm sure they'll both survive, but it just won't be the same if you know what I mean. ^_^ No chance of a TS3. But I guess Pixar's leaving because they're sick of the unfair dealings they're getting in their current contract with Disney. It's too bad Michael Eisner has to be such a stick-in-the-mud, though - cause he's the main reason Pixar's ditching Disney. But since Roy Disney was kicked out, one of Disney's Anaheim sports teams sold because it wasn't winning, and the whole Pixar deal, I'm beginning to think he's not the kind of person who should be in charge of the Disney company. So, who knows? Maybe Pixar'll do better on their own.
|
|
|
Post by Buzz Lightyear on Feb 1, 2004 22:13:56 GMT -5
Yeah I read that also. I think Pixar will be able to get along without Disney. I think Pixar films are the only thing keeping Disney afloat. I mean I saw Brother Bear, it wasn't anywhere near good in my opnion. Not too sure about the Lion King 1 and 1/2 though, looks OK. I wasn't too clear on one thing. Are they allowed to make sequals with the films they made with Disney or no?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Parsec on Feb 2, 2004 14:43:49 GMT -5
I wasn't too clear on one thing. Are they allowed to make sequals with the films they made with Disney or no? No, as far as I know, Disney officially owns the rights to Toy Story 1 & 2, Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc, A Bug's Life, and probably The Incredables too. However, the new movies Pixar makes once it's separarted from Disney will belong to Pixar. The only way they'd be able to make sequals to movies like Toy Story, is if Disney gave them permission to. Too bad about that, though. I also agree with you on the opinion that Pixar is the only thing keeping Disney afloat. They never had so much success in recent years as they did when they bought Pixar from (if I remember right) George Lucas.
|
|
|
Post by Buzz Lightyear on Feb 2, 2004 17:03:47 GMT -5
Well that sucks!! I doubt I'll like another movie as much as TS. Hmm but maybe Disney will have to cave in and let them one day because they are loosing on their own movies. I don't think that is fair really, I mean Pixar was responsable for the inital idea and the characters. I personaly think they should have rights to the things they create. That would be like me creating a character and saying someone could write for them and RPG for them and so on and so forth and then they all of a sudden become the creator. To me the negotiations would be better if that part was split two ways. This is one of the reasons when I do the disclaimer on works of fiction and art I put Pixar's name before Disney.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Parsec on Feb 2, 2004 18:37:00 GMT -5
Well that sucks!! I doubt I'll like another movie as much as TS. Hmm but maybe Disney will have to cave in and let them one day because they are loosing on their own movies. I don't think that is fair really, I mean Pixar was responsable for the inital idea and the characters. I personaly think they should have rights to the things they create. That would be like me creating a character and saying someone could write for them and RPG for them and so on and so forth and then they all of a sudden become the creator. To me the negotiations would be better if that part was split two ways. Yeah! I never thought it was fair either. You see, after TS2 came out in theaters and became such a big hit, Disney must have gotten majorly jealous because that's when the "Pixar movie sequals = no Pixar profits" part of the contract was added. And, in effect, that's one of the main things that started the uproar between the two companies. Pixar wanted to make sequals and even when they were with Disney they could, BUT absolutely none of the profits made by that sequal would go to Pixar - only to Disney - even though the people at Pixar were the ones who came up with the idea, spent years bringing it to life, and all that. So, I guess that was the last straw for poor Pixar. And, like you said, that would be like creating a really awesome character and then having someone else abuse their rights to use it and then, suddenly, they become it's creator. To me the negotiations would be better if that part was split two ways. Yeah, that's what Steve Jobs (Pixar CEO) and John Lasseter (A top executive & director) thought too. In the negotiations, the heads at Pixar were trying to convince Michael Eisner that they should split the profits and that Pixar should have the rights to their own characters, so that they'd have more freedom and rewards in making sequals and new movies in general. And that seemed fair enough. But Michael Eisner stubbornly refused to agree with the deal and, as it turns out, nobody could get the two companies to find much common ground. Heck, I personally sent John Lasseter, Michael Eisner, and Steve Jobs a internet-wide fan petition to reach a fair resolution to this whole dispute early last year (in the hopes that us fans could show them what we want - we are the ones who buy their movies and merchandise after all). It seemed to lengthen the negotiations, however, even that wasn't enough. So, they split. And in some respects I think it'll do some good for both Pixar and Disney. Perhaps it'll bring Eisner back to the realization that they need Pixar more than Pixar needs them. This is one of the reasons when I do the disclaimer on works of fiction and art I put Pixar's name before Disney. That's a good idea. I think I should start doing that too. I've always credited both of them, but never thought of putting Pixar's before Disney's. It does seem right, though.
|
|
|
Post by Buzz Lightyear on Feb 2, 2004 22:31:37 GMT -5
Yeah! I never thought it was fair either. You see, after TS2 came out in theaters and became such a big hit, Disney must have gotten majorly jealous because that's when the "Pixar movie sequals = no Pixar profits" part of the contract was added. And, in effect, that's one of the main things that started the uproar between the two companies. Pixar wanted to make sequals and even when they were with Disney they could, BUT absolutely none of the profits made by that sequal would go to Pixar - only to Disney - even though the people at Pixar were the ones who came up with the idea, spent years bringing it to life, and all that. So, I guess that was the last straw for poor Pixar. And, like you said, that would be like creating a really awesome character and then having someone else abuse their rights to use it and then, suddenly, they become it's creator. Yeah, that's what Steve Jobs (Pixar CEO) and John Lasseter (A top executive & director) thought too. In the negotiations, the heads at Pixar were trying to convince Michael Eisner that they should split the profits and that Pixar should have the rights to their own characters, so that they'd have more freedom and rewards in making sequals and new movies in general. And that seemed fair enough. But Michael Eisner stubbornly refused to agree with the deal and, as it turns out, nobody could get the two companies to find much common ground. Heck, I personally sent John Lasseter, Michael Eisner, and Steve Jobs a internet-wide fan petition to reach a fair resolution to this whole dispute early last year (in the hopes that us fans could show them what we want - we are the ones who buy their movies and merchandise after all). It seemed to lengthen the negotiations, however, even that wasn't enough. So, they split. And in some respects I think it'll do some good for both Pixar and Disney. Perhaps it'll bring Eisner back to the realization that they need Pixar more than Pixar needs them. That's a good idea. I think I should start doing that too. I've always credited both of them, but never thought of putting Pixar's before Disney's. It does seem right, though. I would have signed it. Man even though they got out of the Disney Empire they still got shafted with that deal. Hopefully somewhere in the future they will regain their own characters back. I mean pretty soon people in the Disney company are gonna get tired of a leader who doesn't do a good job, or not even a fair one. I mean of course they need Pixar. Finding Nemo brought in most of their profits in the animation area this year. Yeah that's what I thought too about my disclaimers. I thought it was more appropriate to give credit to the people who created it first then the people who funded it. I'll make another stupid analogy, putting Disney's name first in the credit is like giving credit to the people who fund an archeological dig for an amazing discovery when in fact the archeologist is the one who did all the heard work. Yeah I'm always good for an off topic comparison lol.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Parsec on Feb 3, 2004 14:10:21 GMT -5
Yeah that's what I thought too about my disclaimers. I thought it was more appropriate to give credit to the people who created it first then the people who funded it. I'll make another stupid analogy, putting Disney's name first in the credit is like giving credit to the people who fund an archeological dig for an amazing discovery when in fact the archeologist is the one who did all the heard work. Yeah I'm always good for an off topic comparison lol. I wouldn't exactly call that a stupid analogy, Buzz. ^_^ Lol. I actually think it works very well in clarifying your point - gives people a different way of looking at it.
|
|
|
Post by Buzz Lightyear on Feb 3, 2004 15:00:30 GMT -5
Lol well I guess it works.
|
|
|
Post by Spaz Ranger on Feb 3, 2004 21:38:39 GMT -5
see that? Those are tears! No more TS!!!!? NOOOOOOOO That's a crime against humanity!! I agree with Buzz, totaly not fair! For ANYONE!!
|
|
|
Post by RedRage on Mar 28, 2004 8:11:05 GMT -5
yeah that pretty much sucks a lot...but there isn't much we can do, eisner sucks, its all his fault.
|
|