5 ms·

Disney paid $4B for Lucasfilm. Six years ago, they paid $7B for Pixar.[1] Pixar used to be a subsidiary of Lucasfilm. This means that John Lasseter is now go

Disney paid $4B for Lucasfilm. Six years ago, they paid $7B for Pixar.[1] Pixar used to be a subsidiary of Lucasfilm. This means that John Lasseter is now going to have control of all of the assets that allowed him to get into making movies in the first place. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Acquisition_by_Disney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Acquisition_by_Disney

edgesrazor 14y ago
Let's not forget they paid that 7 billion in 2006. I can almost see this as Disney trying to replace the eye for talent and negotiating power they lost in Steve Jobs' passing, along with an amazing IP acquisition. Edit: Thought of better terms than "creative force".
- bonzoesc 14y ago
  Steve Jobs wasn't ever really a "creative force" at Disney.
  - edgesrazor 14y ago
    Probably the wrong choice of words. He did help bring in a lot of creative people, however. I'm just wondering if this will follow the same line of thinking - there's quite a lot of talented people who work for the Lucas properties.
    - FireBeyond 14y ago
      Do you think so? To my mind, the set of people in that industry, as creatives, who would think "Hmm, I dunno. I'm not really sold / excited about the idea of working for Disney / Pixar / Lucasfilm... Oh, Steve Jobs is involved? That changes ... everything." (sorry, couldn't resist). These companies appear, at least to me, as the pinnacle of "career as a creative artist in film" employers - I doubt the personality of a board member / part-owner, even one with as much going for him as Jobs did, was ever the deciding factor in their ability to lure talent.
      - aik 14y ago
        Just one example of how he may have indirectly lured more talent than it may seem possible: Jobs was the main driver of the creation of the innovative-layout of the Pixar HQ building. Lassater himself said that he truly believed that the way the building was structured led to better collaboration and creativity -- ie. a better environment, which would drive more people. It's not that people think, "Jobs is involved -- yay!" Rather it's the culture that Jobs helped create and helped nurture that people would find attractive. Many, many other leaders with different priorities would likely end up inadvertently squashing the open collaboration and creativity that made Pixar successful to begin with, rather than nurture it, preventing success and preventing new talent from choosing Pixar.
  - mixmastamyk 14y ago
    I'd say the focus on quality product ended up being a creative force of its own.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    So true, but somehow a lot of people don't know it. He was just a facilitator at Pixar. A damn good facilitator, one who made it all happen, but still he wasn't Pixar's visionary (like he was Apple's). Lasseter deserves all the credit for that part.
    - taligent 14y ago
      Actually you're wrong on that part. Steve was the visionary. He was the one who saw Pixar as being a brand (i.e. a modern day Disney) rather than just an anonymous studio. Kids are buying and trusting the Pixar brand not the Disney brand. So to be able to set that all up (e.g. equal billing) required a vision for what the company could be. Steve was responsible for Pixar. John was responsible for Pixar's movies.
      - joezydeco 14y ago
        Um, didn't the real history go slightly differently? Steve Jobs invested in Pixar because of the hardware. When that didn't fly, the shorts and commercials being done by Lasseter (that paid the bills) turned into a gamble to make a full-length movie. This whole "branding" thing didn't come until the first movie was a success.
        lifeisstillgood 14y ago
        I would suggest that visionary is never having the prediction of exactly how it will turn out but having the faith that this is the right direction and the details will resolve in time
        barrkel 14y ago
        You make "visionary" sound equivalent to "simpleton".
        Swizec 14y ago
        The difference between visionary and simpleton is the scale of money involved.
mariaslickflick 14y ago
pretty low, considering that a movie like Avatar made approx $3 billion in revenues.
- dmix 14y ago
  $1.1 billion in profit. But it was certainly an exception to the average film.
  - gavanwoolery 14y ago
    It probably made more than $1.1 billion in actuality, thanks to Hollywood accounting. :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollywood-accounting-how-19-million-movie-makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollyw...
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      I'd say they wouldn't be so careless as to show a profit if that value was the result of Hollywood accounting 1.1B should be about it. But on paper for the tax man it's mostly like 500Mi loss
  - floppydisk 14y ago
    Star Wars merchandise and expanded universe rights will generate an insane revenue stream (Legos, Video Games, DVD re-releases. . Hasboro toys, books, etc.) on top of a new movie coming out in 2015 that will only supercharge those streams. On top of that, you get extra bonuses such as Indiana Jones and all its associated merchandising. Disney just bought itself a nice constant revenue stream that will keep generating golden eggs so long as Star Wars remains a core part of American culture.

edgesrazor 14y ago

Let's not forget they paid that 7 billion in 2006. I can almost see this as Disney trying to replace the eye for talent and negotiating power they lost in Steve Jobs' passing, along with an amazing IP acquisition. Edit: Thought of better terms than "creative force".

bonzoesc 14y ago
Steve Jobs wasn't ever really a "creative force" at Disney.
- edgesrazor 14y ago
  Probably the wrong choice of words. He did help bring in a lot of creative people, however. I'm just wondering if this will follow the same line of thinking - there's quite a lot of talented people who work for the Lucas properties.
  - FireBeyond 14y ago
    Do you think so? To my mind, the set of people in that industry, as creatives, who would think "Hmm, I dunno. I'm not really sold / excited about the idea of working for Disney / Pixar / Lucasfilm... Oh, Steve Jobs is involved? That changes ... everything." (sorry, couldn't resist). These companies appear, at least to me, as the pinnacle of "career as a creative artist in film" employers - I doubt the personality of a board member / part-owner, even one with as much going for him as Jobs did, was ever the deciding factor in their ability to lure talent.
    - aik 14y ago
      Just one example of how he may have indirectly lured more talent than it may seem possible: Jobs was the main driver of the creation of the innovative-layout of the Pixar HQ building. Lassater himself said that he truly believed that the way the building was structured led to better collaboration and creativity -- ie. a better environment, which would drive more people. It's not that people think, "Jobs is involved -- yay!" Rather it's the culture that Jobs helped create and helped nurture that people would find attractive. Many, many other leaders with different priorities would likely end up inadvertently squashing the open collaboration and creativity that made Pixar successful to begin with, rather than nurture it, preventing success and preventing new talent from choosing Pixar.
- mixmastamyk 14y ago
  I'd say the focus on quality product ended up being a creative force of its own.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  So true, but somehow a lot of people don't know it. He was just a facilitator at Pixar. A damn good facilitator, one who made it all happen, but still he wasn't Pixar's visionary (like he was Apple's). Lasseter deserves all the credit for that part.
  - taligent 14y ago
    Actually you're wrong on that part. Steve was the visionary. He was the one who saw Pixar as being a brand (i.e. a modern day Disney) rather than just an anonymous studio. Kids are buying and trusting the Pixar brand not the Disney brand. So to be able to set that all up (e.g. equal billing) required a vision for what the company could be. Steve was responsible for Pixar. John was responsible for Pixar's movies.
    - joezydeco 14y ago
      Um, didn't the real history go slightly differently? Steve Jobs invested in Pixar because of the hardware. When that didn't fly, the shorts and commercials being done by Lasseter (that paid the bills) turned into a gamble to make a full-length movie. This whole "branding" thing didn't come until the first movie was a success.
      - lifeisstillgood 14y ago
        I would suggest that visionary is never having the prediction of exactly how it will turn out but having the faith that this is the right direction and the details will resolve in time
        barrkel 14y ago
        You make "visionary" sound equivalent to "simpleton".
        Swizec 14y ago
        The difference between visionary and simpleton is the scale of money involved.

mariaslickflick 14y ago

pretty low, considering that a movie like Avatar made approx $3 billion in revenues.

dmix 14y ago
$1.1 billion in profit. But it was certainly an exception to the average film.
- gavanwoolery 14y ago
  It probably made more than $1.1 billion in actuality, thanks to Hollywood accounting. :) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollywood-accounting-how-19-million-movie-makes-150-million-still-isnt-profitable.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121018/01054720744/hollyw...
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    I'd say they wouldn't be so careless as to show a profit if that value was the result of Hollywood accounting 1.1B should be about it. But on paper for the tax man it's mostly like 500Mi loss
- floppydisk 14y ago
  Star Wars merchandise and expanded universe rights will generate an insane revenue stream (Legos, Video Games, DVD re-releases. . Hasboro toys, books, etc.) on top of a new movie coming out in 2015 that will only supercharge those streams. On top of that, you get extra bonuses such as Indiana Jones and all its associated merchandising. Disney just bought itself a nice constant revenue stream that will keep generating golden eggs so long as Star Wars remains a core part of American culture.