this artical that i am gonna postgot me thinkin do u like pixar or disney better even though disney distributes them they arnt their movies and i wont except both as an answer (just jokin) but ya heres the artical from animated movies
Did Pixar Outgrow Disney?
Pixar Animation Studios may have outgrown the need for the Walt Disney Co.'s "stamp of approval" after the record box office success of Finding Nemo and other huge hits that burnished Pixar's brand in the minds of animated movie fans. When Finding Nemo became the top-selling animated movie in U.S. history last week, Pixar executives were already discussing how to reduce ties to Walt Disney Co., according to Reuters. Talks on a new deal have dragged on for months, focusing largely on how much Pixar can increase its share of the profits in films it makes. But one question being asked by financial and marketing analysts is whether Pixar's brand can derive much more strength from the association with Disney. Pixar CEO Steve Jobs believes Pixar now has more pull than Disney in the United States with family moviegoers: "Disney has a great brand, and I'm sure that it does help" in promoting Pixar. But Jobs added that an audience poll of the team's previous hit, 2001's Monsters, Inc., showed the Pixar name was a stronger attraction than the Disney name, albeit by a slim margin for families but by a wide margin for adults. "At least in this survey of people walking out of Monsters, Inc, the Pixar brand was already a very important factor, more important than the Disney brand," he said. Not so fast, says Clay Timon, chairman of brand consultant Landor Associates. Surveys by his company, which has worked for Disney but not for Pixar, show Disney has world wide brand almost in a league of its own, while Pixar has much less recognition in the United States and is almost unknown abroad. "I would want to think a second or third time before walking away from Disney if I were Pixar," he said. A new test of the Disney and Pixar brands abroad comes later this year when Finding Nemo hits foreign theaters. It will be the first time a Pixar film has played in theaters during the crowded holiday season, and that will indirectly test whether Disney's strength at that time of year rubs off on Pixar, Timon said. Previous Pixar films have generally done a little better in foreign ticket sales than in the United States, while Disney films like Tarzan and Lion King have often done much better in foreign territories. S.G. Cowen analyst Lowell Singer said that Pixar, which aims for $400 million in foreign box office for Nemo, might wait for the results before signing a new deal.
Pixar CEO Steve Jobs believes Pixar now has more pull than Disney in the United States with family moviegoers: "Disney has a great brand, and I'm sure that it does help" in promoting Pixar. But Jobs added that an audience poll of the team's previous hit, 2001's Monsters, Inc., showed the Pixar name was a stronger attraction than the Disney name, albeit by a slim margin for families but by a wide margin for adults.
ummm...Pixar/Steve Jobs is foolish to think they will be able to line their coffers without the Disney affiliation. We'll see just how profitable their movies become when they are footing 100% of the production costs, 100% of the distribution costs and 100% of the marketing costs. The Pixar name more appealing than the Disney name? Please.
"Walt Disney Pictures Presents" is still a very powerful way to start out a film, both on and off the screen.
Disney is really just the distributor of the films (despite Pixar public praises as "partners"), any of the major studios could have done that with equal success, if they were willing to front the money for the first movie.
Pixar under Fox or Universal would still be recognized as THE PLACE for animated features.
Disney, a company that hasn't "pushed the boundaries" in animation in over a decade, needs Pixar if it wants to stay in the game at all.
This "50% of profits to Disney" for doing next-to-nothing is over.
Disney's only hope to get more than a distribution fee is to give back the perpetual video rights for the movies under the current deal to Pixar (while netting a long-term video distribution deal).
Pixar CEO Steve Jobs believes Pixar now has more pull than Disney in the United States with family moviegoers: "Disney has a great brand, and I'm sure that it does help" in promoting Pixar. But Jobs added that an audience poll of the team's previous hit, 2001's Monsters, Inc., showed the Pixar name was a stronger attraction than the Disney name, albeit by a slim margin for families but by a wide margin for adults.
ummm...Pixar/Steve Jobs is foolish to think they will be able to line their coffers without the Disney affiliation. We'll see just how profitable their movies become when they are footing 100% of the production costs, 100% of the distribution costs and 100% of the marketing costs. The Pixar name more appealing than the Disney name? Please.
"Walt Disney Pictures Presents" is still a very powerful way to start out a film, both on and off the screen.
The problem is, most people think any animated film is a Disney film. Just in the past few months I've had people insisting to me that Shrek, The Iron Giant and Sinbad are Disney movies (one person even said "why did Disney make Sinbad so soon after Treasure Planet? Both are Pirate Movies" (and then proceeded to go on a rant about Disney's PotC too)
Moving away from Disney won't hurt Pixar in the slightest. People will be ignorant and assume that all subsequent Pixar films are Disney films (and I'm sure Pixar's marketing will help this too - "from the makers of 'Finding Nemo') or if they know about the situation, they'll be knowledgable enough to know that Pixar has always been Pixar, whether released through Disney or not.
I tend to pretty much agree with EarthX (welcome to the forums, by the way!). Pixar is batting 1.000 and have made 5 films that have all been critically acclaimed and hugely successful in theaters and on video/DVD. A Bug's Life, which grossed the least, is still the 57th-highest grossing film domestically of the last 8 years (46th worldwide).
People don't flock to Pixar films because they're simply computer-animated. They flock because Pixar's has showcased storytelling skills unrivaled by other animated films these days. They're witty, they're smart, they're beautiful to look at, and there's something about them that can captivate young and old alike.
Disney is probably of the most effective marketers of distribution studios. Their Disney Channel, ABC Saturday morning, their radio network, the cable channels and all their other vested interests prove incredibly impressionable on young ones. Surely, their reach has given a boost to Pixar's films, and their distribution role shouldn't be taken lightly.
I do kind of feel sad for Disney that the success of future Pixar films won't help them financially in the way they have in the past, but like EarthX says, as it is now, they're getting 50% of profits for very little creative input. Pixar can get the deal they want at any other studio, so I think it'd be silly for Disney to let them go, because there is nothing so much as a sure thing in film right now than Pixar, and it'd be most wise to keep that association. Particularly, at these times when Disney struggles with certain high-profile flops financially and with the 2-D/3-D dilemma (which really shouldn't even be an issue) creatively.
Since 1995, with Disney putting out 2-4x the animated film content that Pixar has, Pixar's still put out more undeniable successes.
Currently, in terms of actual quality, I'd say Pixar is miles ahead of Disney.
As far as general reputation, Disney is miles ahead of Pixar, simply because everyyone associates the Disney name with fun family entertainment, and not everyone knows who Pixar is.
John Lasseter said "without Tron, Toy Story would have never existed." So in other words if Disney wouldn't have made Tron; Pixar wouldn't have made any of it's films. So Disney was the FIRST to make CGI movie NOT PIXAR! hehehehe
What is it we're asking here anyway? Which is better? That's kind of vague. Which has a better name recognition now? Who has made better films in the past 8 years? Who would benefit more from a split?
Luke wrote:I do kind of feel sad for Disney that the success of future Pixar films won't help them financially in the way they have in the past, but like EarthX says, as it is now, they're getting 50% of profits for very little creative input.
But don't forget, Disney are sill financing half of each Pixar movie under their current distribution agreement.
This was undoubtably a wise decision for Pixar when they were starting up in the movie business - but now Pixar have earned more than anyone expected (Disney and Pixar included) that they want to finance and profit from their films 100% (minus distribution costs).
I don't blame Disney and I don't blame Pixar. Pixar want to finance and control their own films and Disney gave Pixar a pretty good deal when Pixar were starting out - Pixar needed that 50% financing then, don't forget.
I think the rows over Toy Story 2 has soured the relationship to a small extent, but it was always bound to happen given Pixars financial success.
Mermaid Kelly wrote:Disney is much better without Pixar, and I think their better movies came our BEFORE Pixar intertwined with them.
Well, there's no doubting the fact that Pixar has brough a box office appeal to the Disney family that has not been seen in some time...well, since The Lion King to be exact. But there's also no disputing the fact that Pixar's emergence has ushered in a new wave of animation and pushed traditional 2-D animation to the wayside. So I guess it's all how you perceive it as to whether Disney is better off w/out Pixar.
I personally am a bigger fan of the old "Walt-Style" Disney. I will say I have thoroughly enjoyed all the Pixar releases. Each one has been entertaining to children and adults. I do not think Pixar needs the Disney name behind them as far as name recognition. Someone said it earlier, that people are so ignorant, people think if it's animated, it's Disney. I mean, do that many of the millions of movie-goers buy a movie ticket based on who made the film? No, they just want to escape the real world and be entertained for ~60 minutes or more.
I do think that Disney is definitely not the same as it used to be.. and they have been involved in far too many situations that have placed this gray cloud of shadiness and negativity over their heads. I do wonder what Walt would think of his namesake industry now...
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Disney, but it's far different than the days of Walt
Mermaid Kelly wrote:Disney is much better without Pixar, and I think their better movies came our BEFORE Pixar intertwined with them.
I'm confused by your "intertwined" comment. It's not like Disney animators work on Pixar stuff, so the implication of corruptionm or whatever, seems to be without merit.
It's just a bad comibnation of coincidences that the Disney output has degraded at the exact time that another studio (whose movies Disney, by happenstance, is distributing) is reaching new heights in the industry.
Does Steve Jobs' running of Pixar remind anyone else of Disney circa 1994? Think about it. Pixar now has the highest grossing animated feature ever. Comign on the heels of a huge string of successes. Steve Jobs now decides that Pixar is going ro release a new movie every year. Is it just me or has anyone else seen this movie before?
As for the future of the Disney-Pixar relationship, I think Steve Jobs' public posturing is just that, public posturing. I'm sure his attitude behind closed doors is a bit different from his public persona. As all businessmen's are. I don't think Pixar is going to be burying Disney anytime soon. I think that both companies realize that each has made a lot of money for the other, and I think we'll just see a shift in the profit distribution of the movies. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's what I think. And for the record, I don't think the sky is falling on traditional animation. Traditional animation has slumped before, and it will slump again. No big deal. Like all entertainment it's cyclical.
(just jokin) but ya heres the artical from animated movies
or DISNEY 
