Originally Posted By Anatole69 My understanding is it was supposed to be a trilogy, though not plotted out in advance, but Eisner was insisting that any sequels to the first Toy Story wouldn't count as part of Pixar's film obligation to Disney... and that point of contention was one of the things that drove Pixar away from Disney. That's why it took so long for them to make the third film. AFAIK - Anatole
Originally Posted By Christi22222 >>Eisner was insisting that any sequels to the first Toy Story wouldn't count as part of Pixar's film obligation to Disney<< This makes absolutely no sense and I can see why it would irritate Pixar. How would a film not count just because it was the same franchise? Silly. Especially when it is a powerhouse success sort of franchise. Wouldn't you be begging for more, whatever the terms? Disney really does get too big for its britches. Seriously. (Same for Pixar, though, so pot meet kettle.)
Originally Posted By DlandDug Toy Story 2 was conceived as a direct-to-video project. It was deemed strong enough as a feature, and was therefore tweaked to add "scope." Eisner famously insisted it was NOT part of the five films promised in the original contract, setting up the near break between Pixar and Disney. Because Disney had the rights, they were, indeed, working on a Toy Story sequel of their own. But over at Pixar there was a third film in the works at least as early as TS2. When Pixar became part of Disney, possibly the very first project scrapped was Disney's Toy Story. So... not really a trilogy in its original conception, but pretty early on.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "This makes absolutely no sense and I can see why it would irritate Pixar. How would a film not count just because it was the same franchise?" << From what I understand, the contract specifically excluded sequels from the deal. One of the big issues between the two companies (probably more between Jobs and Eisner) was Disney's unwillingness to amend the contract to change that. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Christi22222 ^^Interesting. I obvioulsy have no knowledge of the movie world. So gotta ask...why would you write a contract that didn't count sequels to begin with? What would be the incentive for either side to make one if it didn't count towards contract fulfillment?
Originally Posted By JeffG I can only speculate on the reasons for the contract, but I would presume Disney wanted sequels excluded since the contract also stated that they owned the sequel rights, meaning Pixar could only make a sequel with Disney as a partner anyway. For Disney, it was much better to ensure that each film that counted towards the deal would be original content that could spawn new lines of merchandise, sequels, theme park attractions, etc. In Pixar's case, they basically were in the weaker negotiating position. At that time, they were a tiny company that needed Disney's money to pay for the films as well as Disney's marketing and distribution capabilities. The contract was definitely way more favorable to Disney, but Pixar essentially had to take what they could get as they needed Disney more than the other way around. Later, after Pixar had a long string of hits (and Disney's internally produced films weren't doing too well), they wanted to renegotiate. -Jeff
