11-11-2003, 12:03 AM
"CO-OWNED" Lush..."co-owned"
and thats pursuant to the 1991 agreement Pixar and Disney made. Five films in total were to be made under the agreement.
After that point, Pixar could jump over to Dreamworks or Fox or Columbia and produce animated films for them. Actually, I'm sure Pixar will be able to get thier own distribution adn such for thei films and just go solo. I don't think they'll be needing Disney after the current agreement expires. Then again, co-financers are a good thing to have.
So, yes, Disney is involved (fiscally, not creatively).
Pixar creates Pixar magic, not Disney.
(and I agree with your Disney assessment....I would not have any remorse either if they were to disappear off the face of the planet. Now, Pixar on the other hand...that would suck. My kids will be raised on Pixar and MAYBE one or two disney films..Lion King and umm...uhh...Aladdin. maybe.)
Sloats, cel shaded is good but the faggot ass singing has to go though. That's what I'm saying.
and thats pursuant to the 1991 agreement Pixar and Disney made. Five films in total were to be made under the agreement.
After that point, Pixar could jump over to Dreamworks or Fox or Columbia and produce animated films for them. Actually, I'm sure Pixar will be able to get thier own distribution adn such for thei films and just go solo. I don't think they'll be needing Disney after the current agreement expires. Then again, co-financers are a good thing to have.
So, yes, Disney is involved (fiscally, not creatively).
Pixar creates Pixar magic, not Disney.
(and I agree with your Disney assessment....I would not have any remorse either if they were to disappear off the face of the planet. Now, Pixar on the other hand...that would suck. My kids will be raised on Pixar and MAYBE one or two disney films..Lion King and umm...uhh...Aladdin. maybe.)
Sloats, cel shaded is good but the faggot ass singing has to go though. That's what I'm saying.