Are Disney's Glory Days Behind them?

[weepstah]

supernova, lol to the dark side.

I think it was Eisner's perseverance that brought the Muppets to the fold. And once he was ousted they didn't really know what to do with the franchise.

HauntedGabe, I agree about your Pixar comments. By the time Iger gained control it was clear they needed to bring Pixar in (to help, frankly) and I applaud that he made it happen.

[HauntedGabe]

And your point is what? How does that change who's property it is in either Universals or Disney's portfolio's? Anyone can pretend or more accurately fail to accept that Pixar or Muppets are owned by Disney but to what end?

[supernova]

supernova, lol to the dark side.

HauntedGabe, I agree about your Pixar comments. By the time Iger gained control it was clear they needed to bring Pixar in (to help, frankly) and I applaud that he made it happen.

It would seem that it should have always been Pixar going to Disney for help, not eventually the other way around. Disney, the once giant in animation, turning to a company like Pixar to figure out how to regain the magic that they lost along the way. Somehow Disney forgot how to make movies, so buy Pixar, not to help Pixar out (that was way back in 1999 when Pixar needed Disney's marketing power to help promote the movie), but to help out their own struggling movie division. It's like the US bombing Japan, then helping to rebuild them and watching them overtake us in car and electronics productions. Or KMart purchasing Sears. Or United purchasing Continental. Those still make my brain hurt.

[HauntedGabe]

I think it was Eisner's perseverance that brought the Muppets to the fold. And once he was ousted they didn't really know what to do with the franchise.

eeekkkk....not really. In 2004 Eisner was already trusted with nothing and they ousted him with a no confidence vote.
He wasn't part of the team that purchased Muppets in 2004.

HauntedGabe, I agree about your Pixar comments. By the time Iger gained control it was clear they needed to bring Pixar in (to help, frankly) and I applaud that he made it happen.

Indeed. Disney's subcontractor was building the best movies consistently.
Iger was brilliant to purchase them.

It would seem that it should have always been Pixar going to Disney for help, not eventually the other way around. Disney, the once giant in animation, turning to a company like Pixar to figure out how to regain the magic that they lost along the way. Somehow Disney forgot how to make movies, so buy Pixar, not to help Pixar out (that was way back in 1999 when Pixar needed Disney's marketing power to help promote the movie), but to help out their own struggling movie division. It's like the US bombing Japan, then helping to rebuild them and watching them overtake us in car and electronics productions. Or KMart purchasing Sears. Or United purchasing Continental. Those still make my brain hurt.

Pixar without Disney wasn't making it even with all of Steve Jobs money.
Whatever the reason Pixar and Jobs needed Disney to raise the bar of their films. Iger was just smart enough to purchase it for control of the filmmaker. Jobs then became the biggest outside shareholder. Win Win.

The only questionable film made since the purchase was Cars2. Its receipts were pretty lack-luster. Hopefully Disney's Pixar Division will learn from that.

[supernova]

The only questionable film made since the purchase was Cars2. Its receipts were pretty lack-luster. Hopefully Disney's Pixar Division will learn from that.

And not even Lasseter's knowledge about how to put a human touch on a film could save Disney's latest Tron flop. There's their Lose/Lose.

[StewbotTalborg]

I was in the 4th Grade I think, when the first Toy Story came out and honestly, until Disney and Pixar had their dispute in 2004 I had never truly realized that the two were as separate as they were. For me, and the kids growing up in the Pixar age, these characters aren't "Pixar characters" they're Disney characters.

[weepstah]

"Pixar without Disney wasn't making it even with all of Steve Jobs money.
Whatever the reason Pixar and Jobs needed Disney to raise the bar of their films."

I'm really not sure what you mean. Disney bought Pixar in 2006. The previous 2 Pixar films prior to the acquisition won the Academy Award for Animated Film (not saying this means a ton to me, but still). Finding Nemo made almost a billion dollars. It was Pixar who was at the top of their game. Disney's animation studio was at their lowest point since the early 80's. Disney released Home on the Range and Chicken Little in 2004 and 2005. How exactly would they be helping Pixar to raise the bar? They immediately put Lasseter in charge of things and he is still trying to rebuild the Disney animation division IMO.

[supernova]

"Pixar without Disney wasn't making it even with all of Steve Jobs money.
Whatever the reason Pixar and Jobs needed Disney to raise the bar of their films."

I'm really not sure what you mean. Disney bought Pixar in 2006. The previous 2 Pixar films prior to the acquisition won the Academy Award for Animated Film (not saying this means a ton to me, but still). Finding Nemo made almost a billion dollars. It was Pixar who was at the top of their game. Disney's animation studio was at their lowest point since the early 80's. Disney released Home on the Range and Chicken Little in 2004 and 2005. How exactly would they be helping Pixar to raise the bar? They immediately put Lasseter in charge of things and he is still trying to rebuild the Disney animation division IMO.

I'd say that sums it up pretty well. Nicely done.

[HauntedGabe]

"Pixar without Disney wasn't making it even with all of Steve Jobs money.
Whatever the reason Pixar and Jobs needed Disney to raise the bar of their films."

I'm really not sure what you mean. .

If Pixar could make it on there own without Disney they would have. Instead they sold the firm to Disney. If Pixar could bring Disney films down and take over that market without Disney they would have. Pixar couldn't.

Disney wasn't advancing without Pixar in their other film divisions. Pixar was a match made in heaven.

[supernova]

If Pixar could make it on there own without Disney they would have. Instead they sold the firm to Disney. If Pixar could bring Disney films down and take over that market without Disney they would have. Pixar couldn't.

Disney wasn't advancing without Pixar in their other film divisions. Pixar was a match made in heaven.

But that's the thing. Pixar DID make it on their own without Disney. They needed the extra push in marketing, especially for the first Toy Story. And Pixar didn't need to try to take Disney's films down. They were doing quite well on their own. No one at Pixar made a secret phonecall to Disney from a blocked number to convince them that making "Dinosaur", "Fantasia 2000", "Bolt", "Meet the Robinsons", "Chicken Little", "Home on the Range", "Treasure Planet", "Atlantis", and "Brother Bear" would solid ideas. Disney came up with those brilliant masterpieces all on their own. From everything I read about the deal, it was more Disney pushing to buy Pixar, not Pixar approaching Disney.

[Mo Noyz]

It's all laid out in rather convoluted detail in the new Jobs bio, but the short version of it is that Disney owned the rights to Pixar's earlier movie (i.e. Toy Story, Monster Inc, etc.). When Pixar decided it was going to stop licensing its movie with Disney, and simply use Disney as a distributor, Disney threatened to take their ball and go home. In the end, Jobs knew the only way Pixar would get to keep their "babies" was by allowing Disney to acquire Pixar.

[supernova]

Plus, from the beginning, Pixar made a wise move at first hooking up with Disney to market Toy Story. A movie ABOUT toys will SELL toys. However, Pixar would have had to enter into negotiations with toy manufacturers and shop their product around. Disney already had the avenues in place. When Disney markets and hypes, they usually do it well. Unfortunately, Disney also tends to over-market their products (Hunchback of Notre Dame movie actions figures... really, Disney??) and many of the toy lines flop and they lose money. Was anyone at Disney really scratching their heads as they were boxing up Wall-E and Ratatouille action figures to ship to clearance centers thinking, "Wow, I can't believe this stuff didn't sell!" No big deal, Disney. Just put it on the shelf next to the discounted Tron:Legacy toys.

[JNota0005DakMC]

I think it was Eisner's perseverance that brought the Muppets to the fold. And once he was ousted they didn't really know what to do with the franchise.

i think i need to clarify something here a bit... Henson was ready to sell the Muppets to Disney way back in 1990... he was going to sign the papers the week he tragically passed away... the story i know is that Disney was still interested in buying them after his death... a little too interested... Eisner pushed the family to sell and it was their decision not to... they felt Eisner and Disney were being pushy and not giving them time to mourn Jim Henson's death... this is why we do not have Muppet Studios in MGM like planned.. not because the franchise was dying... but because the Henson family refused to give in (good for them)...

Eisner finally got the Muppets in 2004 but it seemed he bought them to punish the Henson family... the one film they created (Muppet Wizard of Oz) was a disaster... it was Bob Iger who actually came up with the idea of releasing the Muppet Show on DVD and was instrumental in putting people at the head the Muppet Studios (He renamed it from the original Muppet Holding Company that Eisner gave it upon acquisition) that wanted to see the franchise go places... this in turn created the youtube channel and eventually helped green light the Muppet film...