DVDizzy Forum

Given that Toy Story came out on the heels of the early Renaissance films and was thought of as a Disney film, I think probably not. But it still would have been successful.

As much as I don't really care about Toy Story, it was a cinematic breakthrough and people were looking forward to see what would Pixar release next. Then they released Bug's Life which I personally don't think was good, but I think it was a success.
However what really made the public perception of Pixar were films like Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, and Disney's name didn't really mean anything at that time cause the movies they released were not considered a critical success. So I think Pixar would have been a success even without Disney's name attached to it (just like DreamWorks was).

Well, I think this is less a question about their films and more about how much impact Disney's support / distribution of their films really was? I couldn't answer that. Somehow I'm guessing if they were some new company completely unaffiliated with Disney (like Laika or something), it would've taken them much longer to get to the level of success they did. Although the curiosity in 3D films alone helped them enormously early on, imo.

Toy Story would probably have been impossible to make without financial support from Disney. Without Disney they would have needed to get the money from somewhere else.

The first movies from Pixar represented something new, and gave them a positive reputation. Since then, the studio has gotten a lot of competition.

Even if Pixar never made a movie, we would have seen computer animated movies sooner or later. For instance Kaena: The Prophecy, which came out in 2003, was an independent production. If I remember correctly, it was made by using much of the same equipment used for computer games. People are playing games, and some get the idea to actually make a movie with the same technology.

I think they benefited much from the Disney synergy - characters in the theme parks, happy meal toys, merchandise everywhere . . . IMO, those things tend to underscore the emotional connection people felt to a film as well as to keep that slowly burning. Ice Age was a popular film, but no one (or at least very few people) would feel as emotionally connected to Manny, Diego, and Sid as they do to say, Marlin, Dory, and Nemo. I noticed this with my kids when they were little - they instantly recognized and were excited about Disney/Pixar characters but never had that same intense reaction with anything that came from Blue Sky, Dreamworks, etc.

I do think Pixar would have had success without Disney, I just don't think they would have had as much success.

I think Pixar without Disney could have been like the Laika movies are today.

Without disney I think they would be more in the background, doing VFX work and such, maybe some shorts but not much else.

Without Disney's marketing machine and name recognition, I think that they would have at least had a slower start at success. I'm sure there would still have been some buzz surrounding their first animated feature film if they had made one with another major studio simply due to the fact that they were producing a fully computer animated film, but without the exposure in Disney Stores and at Disney theme parks, the heavy merchandising, or simply the Disney logo (which particularly back then suggested "good animated film") attached to it, would it have had such a great impact on popular culture and become as universally beloved as Toy Story eventually did?

Pixar was on the brink of bankruptcy when they made the deal with Disney. They had money problems almost from the first day. The reason why Jobs kept pouring money into them was most of all psychological; he refused to accept another failure. Had Disney or any other studio waited a little longer, there is a big probability they wouldn't have survived as a company. But they did, partly because of Jobs' ego, and because they were able to keep themselves afloat long enough to make the first movie.

Although had Pixar not become the first studio to make a computer animated feature, another studio would have probably gotten the chance. Blue Sky, for example, was founded by a few folks who worked on the effects for "Tron" and before they got their big feature film break with "Ice Age", the studio created commercials and visual effects for movies. Blue Sky even animated the Nickelodeon logo. So there's an alternate universe where Blue Sky is celebrated for making the first computer animated feature film.

From a financial standpoint, there is no way they would have been around if it weren't for Disney. And the Disney marketing machine also was a great help to them. But if it hadn't been Disney, some company would have needed to help them financially to make their first few movies. What they definitely didn't need from Disney was their help with coming up with some great stories with those early films. Luckily, Pixar realized they needed to stop listening to Katzenberg and make the movie they wanted to make.

If Disney hadn't bought Pixar or renew the contract with them, would they still have had rights over their first five films?

^ I don't believe so. Remember Circle 7 Animation? They were created in preparation for when the deal wasn't made (Eisner era), so Disney could continue to ka-ching $$$ making sequels to the Disney-Pixar films.

farerb wrote:If Disney hadn't bought Pixar or renew the contract with them, would they still have had rights over their first five films?

Yes. They signed a contract. Pixar would make five movies for Disney. Toy Story to The Incredibles.

(Sorry- I'm not sure now if "they" = Pixar or Disney in your question.)

I wasn't clear. I meant Disney. So I guess Disney owned them and Pixar wouldn't have been able to use them at all, maybe that's why there was pressure on both sides to come to an agreement cause each one had something to lose.

Thank you for your answers, blackcauldron85 and DisneyBluLife.

farerb wrote:I wasn't clear. I meant Disney. So I guess Disney owned them and Pixar wouldn't have been able to use them at all, maybe that's why there was pressure on both sides to come to an agreement cause each one had something to lose.

Thank you for your answers, blackcauldron85 and DisneyBluLife.

That is why Disney started Circle 7 animation, so that they could make sequels on those five movies, without Pixar's help.

If Disney did not buy Pixar, Pixar would have no rights to those movies.