Disney's Next Acquisition?

[bradhig]

no more buyouts. It kills competition. I don't wanna see Voltron get bought out by Disney or any other big corporation.

Well you won't have to worry about Voltron 'cause that's now owned by DreamWorks Classics which is now owned by Universal.

I agree though, competition is good and after this Disney-Fox merger, let that be the first and ONLY time one studio merges with another. Although, I wouldn't mind if Warner bought MGM one day (but that's not the matter at hand here).

Voltron is owned by World Events Productions and Dreamworks produces Voltron Legacy Defender umder license from them.

[Disney Duster]

Huh? Disney produced the Pixar films. So they technically "made" them.

Producing and owning aren't the same thing especially when they didn't own them to begin with and had to buy them. I wish they didn't buy them.

[Escapay]

Huh? Disney produced the Pixar films. So they technically "made" them.

Producing and owning aren't the same thing especially when they didn't own them to begin with and had to buy them. I wish they didn't buy them.

When Disney signed Pixar to a three-picture deal in 1991, one of the stipulations would be that Disney owned the first film and its characters outright, as well as sequel options. Eventually, Disney's contract with Pixar gave them ownership rights to each film made with Pixar up through Cars. When the contract negotiations between Pixar and Disney soured, Pixar was looking for other studios to distribute their new films. Had the contract negotiations fallen through, Ratatouille would have been the first film Pixar would actually own, but the last distributed by Disney. Instead of re-negotiating the distribution contract, Disney ended up buying Pixar outright. Thus, Disney already owned the films they made with Pixar, then bought Pixar, and continues to own films made by Pixar.

I wish Disney only owned the movies, tv shows, tv channels, radio station, video games, books, and plays that they themselves made.

If Disney only owned films they themselves made, then pretty much 90% of their films post-1980 would not be owned by them. Most live-action films are made with production companies who work with Disney. For example, 2015's Cinderella was a co-production between Disney and three other production companies: Genre Films, Allison Shearmur Productions, and Beagle Pug Films. By comparison, 2011's Prom was made entirely by Disney themselves with no other production company involved. So in this twisted definition of "Disney only owns what they themselves make," then Prom is a Disney film while Cinderella is not. Also, their animated films from 1985 to 1992 were co-financed by Silver Screen Partners, not just by Disney themselves, so I guess Disney wouldn't be allowed to own those either.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

Then what I wish is they never owned Pixar or it's characters but just helped distribute their films. The co-productions I don't count as owning other companies, and I consider them owning the films they made in conjunction with other companies. I mean, if Disney doesn't own Cinderella or the other films from the 80's onward, who would own them? The other companies? I say if Disney makes something with another company helping that's still Disney owning the film without owning other companies so it works out to what I wish.

[Escapay]

Then what I wish is they never owned Pixar or it's characters but just helped distribute their films.

But their original contract with Pixar specified that Disney would own the films they made with them. You can't change history.

The co-productions I don't count as owning other companies, and I consider them owning the films they made in conjunction with other companies.

Your exact words were "I wish Disney only owned the movies, tv shows, tv channels, radio station, video games, books, and plays that they themselves made." The phrase that they themselves made would preclude that Disney would have to have had no collaboration with another company on said movies, tv shows, tv channels, radio stations, video games, books, or plays. Thus, if we go by the meaning of that absurd argument, then any co-productions Disney made after 1980 should not be owned by Disney. Fortunately, in the real world, such a scenario does not exist and Disney is allowed to collaborate with whatever studio they want without your narrow-minded notions of what Disney should and shouldn't own.

I say if Disney makes something with another company helping that's still Disney owning the film without owning other companies so it works out to what I wish.

So... you want Disney to own Pixar films, but not Pixar itself.

Thank goodness you're not on their board of directors.

Albert

[Disney Duster]

But their original contract with Pixar specified that Disney would own the films they made with them. You can't change history.

That's why I said what I wish, not that that's how history was.

Your exact words were "I wish Disney only owned the movies, tv shows, tv channels, radio station, video games, books, and plays that they themselves made." The phrase that they themselves made would preclude that Disney would have to have had no collaboration with another company on said movies, tv shows, tv channels, radio stations, video games, books, or plays. Thus, if we go by the meaning of that absurd argument, then any co-productions Disney made after 1980 should not be owned by Disney. Fortunately, in the real world, such a scenario does not exist and Disney is allowed to collaborate with whatever studio they want without your narrow-minded notions of what Disney should and shouldn't own.

What the? I want Disney to collaborate with whomever they wish and own those films that they collaborate on. That is my wish. I consider the ones they collaborate on as part of what they themselves make. I consider collaborations part of what they themselves make. If you want, I will augment my wish to "what they themselves and collaborations make".

So... you want Disney to own Pixar films, but not Pixar itself.

Thank goodness you're not on their board of directors.

What the? No, I said earlier I don't want Disney to own Pixar films. I wish they just distributed them. I said that before. I don't know why you're being like this. I'm sorry for anytime I offended you, even though I bet any time I did it was never intentional. I apologize anyway.

[Escapay]

I want Disney to collaborate with whomever they wish and own those films that they collaborate on.

[...]

No, I said earlier I don't want Disney to own Pixar films.

Two contradictory statements in the same post.

Albert

[willard]

I say if Disney makes something with another company helping that's still Disney owning the film without owning other companies so it works out to what I wish.

Disney financed the Pixar films. The films were made for Disney.

[Disney Duster]

Well I want them to own the films that seem like theirs. You know that Cinderella seemed more like a Disney film than a Pixar film and thus used it as an example. It seems what I am thinking of I can't find the right words to say. And then you ignored my apology. I'm sorry. But maybe you will always hate me because you just hate the kind of person I am. Well, I can't change like the Beast like you must want me to, I don't see anything about myself I have to change. I'm debating with you in a nice way, I consider. I don't know why you have so much hate to ignore me so and throw words like twisted and narrow-minded my way, unless you don't have any hate for me when you say such things but I doubt I'll even get a response from you saying either way.

[Sotiris]

I would also have preferred if Disney never bought Pixar. Sure, they would have owned their films up until Cars but they could have sold them like they did with Power Rangers. Honestly, I wish Disney never had anything to do with Pixar. I hate how Lasseter took over WDAS and changed the DNA of the studio and its films and essentially turned it into Pixar 2.0. I also resent how WDAS and Pixar characters are always bundled together in books and other merchandise. Even though Disney owns many animation studios, they only do this with Pixar and WDAS. No wonder the general public thinks they're the same studio.

[willard]

I hate how Lasseter took over WDAS and changed the DNA of the studio and its films and essentially turning it into Pixar 2.0.

Not sure I would call Frozen, Zootopia and Moana "Pixar 2.0".

Even though Disney owns many animation studios, they only do this with Pixar and WDAS. No wonder the general public thinks they're the same studio.

That's because those two are the theatrical studios and thus the jewels in the crown.

[Disney's Divinity]

Not sure I would call Frozen, Zootopia and Moana "Pixar 2.0".

There are some differences (mostly female characters and music in two of them), but they're identical to most PIXAR films otherwise, especially Zootopia.

[willard]

Not sure I would call Frozen, Zootopia and Moana "Pixar 2.0".

There are some differences (mostly female characters and music in two of them), but they're identical to most PIXAR films otherwise, especially Zootopia.

Hardly. If anything Moana and Frozen were trying to recall the 90s films which made them less interesting than Zootopia. As for the latter, Pixar (aside from Wall-E) hasn't made films with such obvious social commentary.

[Disney's Divinity]

Hardly.

Yeah, alright, illuminating. Moana is the only one of those three films that could be successfully compared to the '90s, and that's only because Musker & Clements--'90s pioneers--were involved with it. And even then PIXAR's story structure, style of comedy, and buddy tropes were stamped all over it.

[willard]

Moana is the only one of those three films that could be successfully compared to the '90s, and that's only because Musker & Clements--'90s pioneers--were involved with it. And even then PIXAR's story structure, style of comedy, and buddy tropes were stamped all over it.

Actually, the humor and "meta-fairy tale" aspect of Frozen and Moana are closer to DreamWorks if anything. Tangled was even originally supposed to be more like Shrek.

[Disney's Divinity]

Actually, the humor and "meta-fairy tale" aspect of Frozen and Moana are closer to DreamWorks if anything. Tangled was even originally supposed to be more like Shrek.

In an earlier draft that was dropped, just like Glen Keane's version. As for meta-fairy tale, isn't that what Brave is? As for Zootopia being unlike PIXAR because of its social commentary, WALL-E says hi.

[Disney Duster]

I so agree with Sotiris and to some extent Disney's Divinity. I actually think WDAS's films still feel like Disney films, but they do have similarities to Pixar. What I'm most upset with is now how everyone thinks Pixar is Disney and vice versa.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I agree that the Disney movies has started to feel more and more like Pixar. Lasseter was brought in because Disney feature animation was in trouble back then. But now, if Lasseter doesn't come back, they should let two different people lead the Pixar studio and the Disney studio, as mentioned in another thread. I also feel that Zootopia has a lot in common with The Incredibles.

Even if this is a little off topic regarding what this thread is all about.

[willard]

As for meta-fairy tale, isn't that what Brave is? As for Zootopia being unlike PIXAR because of its social commentary, WALL-E says hi.

And Brave is more like a Disney film than Pixar. And I already noted Wall-E as an exception.

[willard]

Apparently when (or if) the Fox deal is done, Disney "won't be acquiring anything at least of any significance for quite a long period of time."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/disneys ... ssets.html