Earlier this month, Walt Disney (DIS) issued a statement saying its CARS franchise is expected to be a moneymaking venture in waiting.

CARS 2 hit the theaters today, and analysts predict that merchandise sales will beat last year's TOY STORY 3 sales. Already, Cars has produced more than $10 billion dollars since its release in 2005.

But thinking back to last summer, TOY STORY 3 provided profound wisdom and analysis on the economy – something that CARS 2 likely won’t compete with.

To recognize fully where we are, we must first understand how we got here. For economic neophytes and experts who want a simple background on the current financial crisis: look no further than TOY STORY 3. Now that the film has received numerous accolades nearly a year after its release, I can analyze the allegorical comparisons without spoiling the mood.

SPOILER ALERT: If you have not seen TOY STORY 3 but want to see it without knowing anything about it, stop reading here.

The film chronicles the uncertain future of Sheriff Woody, Buzz Lightyear, and all their toy friends as they prepare to accept the fact that their owner Andy Davis is now 17-years old and has outgrown them. Andy packs his stuff for his first year of college, excluding the toys from his suitcases and boxes.

Andy’s character represents the economic business cycle, globalization and technological advancements. Just as the global economy has evolved through innovation, so too does Andy through his maturity.

The business cycle is a periodic movement of economic activity and output measured by real gross domestic product (GDP that is inflation-adjusted). It’s comprised of a contraction (economic activity slows down), trough (economic activity reaches a low point for the period), expansion (economic activity picks up), and peak (economic activity reaches a high point for the period). 

In his early youth, Andy played with his toys religiously. They shared very eloquent and mutual experiences together. The toys entertained Andy and helped him through his darkest moments, and Andy satisfied his toys by playing with them on a frequent basis. The relationship was beneficial to both parties. In economic terms, Andy and his toys reached a peak, where their utilities (or satisfaction) were at extremely high levels.

Following any Golden Age, a contraction is bound to occur. The United States felt it when the Great Depression caused the Crash following the Roaring Twenties and again when the technology bubble burst at the turn of the millennium.

The toys encountered their recession (two straight quarters of negative GDP; in other words, a prolonged contraction) when Andy stopped playing with them. Not only was the atmosphere recessionary in magnitude, but in essence, the toys were unemployed! There was no use for them. Andy found new gadgets to keep him busy, as evidenced by his ability to drive his own car and use his Apple (AAPL) computer. Andy tucked his toys away in a box he never opened until he started clearing out his drawers before moving to college.

Technology’s immediate effect puts people out of work. Software developments have reduced the demand for traders and brokers. The Internet has shrunk media’s subscription-based revenue model.

But just like the business cycle, toys are recycled as well, from one kid and generation to another.

Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear, or Lotso, represents the devious and unethical figures who contributed to the worsening of the crisis. Banking and ratings agency executives to derivative salespersons: none is as lowly regarded as former hedge fund manager and Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff. Through his firm Ascott Partners, Madoff aggravated the crisis by running the largest Ponzi scheme history has witnessed ($50 million). He duped investors spanning from non-profits, sports teams and high net worth individuals, forcing them to liquidate holdings, thus increasing downward pressure on stock prices during one of the most unstable market periods ever and tainting an industry even more than it could handle.

In the film, the toys are already struggling to “find work,” and therefore can’t keep themselves busy by being played with. After Andy’s mother donates them to the Sunnyside Daycare, the toys meet Lotso, who shows them a tour of the facilities and explains the great work they will do.

Lotso befriends them and brings them in to club with open arms. Little did the toys know that he runs the daycare like a prison. The toys end up being abused by toddler children during the day and are held captive by Lotso and his posse at night. Much like Madoff, Lotso cons the toys throughout the film, until justice finally serves him right. By that time, however, it is too late. Much of the damage had already been done.

TOY STORY’s chief character and toy, Sheriff Woody Pride, is the leader of the vegetative toys. Translation: he is trying to jumpstart a “dying” industry. As seen in the film, he insists on preserving capitalism. He gives a symbolic “State of the Toy” speech early in the movie where he lays out the situation the toys face and offers potential solutions to the problem. With the charisma of a fearless President, Woody consistently peps his troops as they aim to escape the harsh rule of Lotso and spur Andy to play with them again.

In the end, like any Disney ending, everyone is happy. In real life, nevertheless, the economy is still struggling. Geopolitical strife is increasing. The case is still very open, and only time will tell what results our leadership and actions bring.

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Disney has made a couple huge acquisitions in the past few years under CEO Robert Iger's watch, headlined by the gigantic $8 billion deal for Pixar in 2006 and the $4 billion purchase of Marvel Entertainment in 2009.

But Iger isn't done yet. He announced on a conference call Tuesday that although he feels Disney's character lineup is unparalleled, he's still looking to "buy either new characters or businesses that are capable of creating great characters and great stories."

Disney has a few things to consider if it's going to make yet another move for already-developed characters. Pixar's characters were consistent with Disney's existing contingent when it was acquired, but consistency in branding was a big talking point for the Marvel acquisition. How would testosterone-fueled characters like The Hulk get along with the Disney princesses and that cute little mouse?

In this case, it went quite well because of how they were marketed, and Iger had even characterized the deal as "perfect." The Marvel acquisition gave Disney a broader appeal, and it benefitted in areas like video games. It kept its more adult content branded as Marvel, and occasionally meshed the two together.

So what's this next strategic move going to be for Disney? Iger hinted that he's not looking to fill any specific holes and didn't cite any specific targets. The Marvel move showed that he's willing to take risks with his brand, so it should be interesting to see which direction Disney goes with its next acquisition. Will it take a shot at a giant like DreamWorks again to try to make a big splash? Or go for a smaller, out-of-nowhere deal for a company like Dark Horse?

DON'T MISS: The 29 Most Valuable Brands In The World >

Please follow War Room on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

While pretty much anyone you ask identifies Steve Jobs with his amazing work at Apple, that's not the only company he's responsible for turning into a major success.

After Jobs was ousted from Apple in 1985, he went on to buy Pixar from LucasFilm.

About a decade later, Pixar produced the first feature-length computer animated film, Toy Story, in a distribution deal with Disney.

From there, Pixar exploded and made Steve Jobs a very wealthy man. But it wasn't as easy as it sounds.

Here's how Jobs brought Pixar from a niche spinoff company to one of the most valuable movie studios on the planet.

1985: Steve Jobs ousted from Apple

Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple following poor Mac sales after an internal battle with John Sculley. Jobs went on to found NeXT Computer, but he also had his eye on another company...

1986: Steve Jobs buys Pixar

Steve Jobs paid LucasFilm $5 million for Pixar, which was called Graphics Group at the time. He invested another $5 million into the company.

1990: Jobs sells off Pixar's hardware division

From its earliest days, Pixar was also a hardware company. Its flagship product was the Pixar Image Computer, a $135,000 machine targeted at the medical and graphics industry. Even though Disney bought a bunch of them, the computer didn't sell well.

Finally, Steve Jobs decided to sell off Pixar's hardware division to Viacom systems fo $2 million.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

This article originally appeared at American Express Open Forum

"Keep looking, and don't settle." These wise words were spoken by the late, great, modern technology entrepreneur, Steve Jobs, of Apple and Pixar fame. The quote has since been re-posted online in various capacities, and it's one that offers a good piece of advice to new business owners eager to get their businesses off the ground. It's a reminder that, just as in dating, looking and acting desperate isn’t going to get you anywhere.

And Jobs didn’t live or work desperately; he lived passionately. (Except perhaps, when an employee accidentally left the prototype for the iPhone 4 at a bar.) Here, we compiled five tips on how not to conduct your business self, based on Jobs' five simple words.

1. When looking for a business partner, the right person is more important than the right now person

You don’t want to join forces with someone who is simply there and available over someone who meshes well with you and contributes to your work and vision. So don’t settle for just any old person—whether they're a friend, family member or acquaintance. There’s too much at stake.

2. Avoid asking people to work for you for free. Instead, offer them a spot as an equal unpaid partner with a future stake in the company

Expecting people to work for free is a surefire way to breed resentment and could also lead to a business lacking in passion and sustainability. Where is the incentive for loyalty? If you don’t have the investor dollars, focus on finding people that would have an interest in a share of your business. Again, if you find the right person, collaborating will be easy and will help you get your passion project off the ground.

3. Try listening more and talking less

Less really is more. Reeling off your story and your motives shows a need to prove something. If someone wants to know about you and your product, they will ask you. Assaulting everyone with your sales pitch usually results in lost opportunities. People who are too proud and upfront about their accomplishments lack credibility and are often transparent in their desperation. Hold high standards, and focus on what is right for you and your business to achieve those standards.  You will be rewarded with nice word-of-mouth promotion and sales.

4. Don’t give your product away

Not unless you have a plan and an allocated reason for investing your hard work in a giveaway. If you do give your product away, it should be part of a specific strategy that results in press and sales. Otherwise, get that 501(c)3 because all that donating will result in making you a not-for-profit.

5. Don’t waste your time on work you don’t believe in

It’s not an opportunity you can’t pass up if you don’t actually believe in the idea. In his famous Stanford commencement address in 2005, Jobs said: “Our time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow always know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

Please follow War Room on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A full-scale replica of the house in the Pixar/Disney movie “Up” has been built in Herriman, Utah. The iconic home was brilliantly recreated with an amazing attention to detail by custom builders. Blair Bangerter of Bangerter Homes said: “I was just watching the movie, and thought, ‘We build houses kind of like that, ’” and after receiving the go-ahead from Disney, they started recreating Carl and Ellie’s house. The house has 2,800 square feet and an expected asking price of $390,000. On weekends, the house will be decorated with balloons, but, unlike the animated version, it will remain on the ground.

Read more posts on Pursuitist »

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Disney and Pixar movies are now available for rent on YouTube.

That's bad news for Netflix, which lost access to more than 1,000 Disney titles after failing to renew a deal with distributor Starz. A recent deal between Netflix and Disney covered only Disney-ABC TV shows.

The deal only includes a few movies today, like "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Cars 2", but Google promises that hundreds will be coming to the site shortly. YouTube will also feature "extras" from Disney like behind-the-scenes clips.

The movies will be available for rent both on the Web and through the YouTube app on Google TV.

Disney joins other major studios like Universal, Sony, and Warner, who made about 3,000 movies available for rent earlier this year. Rentals cost between $1 and $4 and generally have to be watched within 24 or 48 hours.

Last week, the New York Times first reported that Google and Disney were teaming up to spend about $15 million making short exclusive videos for YouTube.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

This morning, Google CEO Larry Page posted this stop-motion animation video to his Google+ page, and likened it to "StreetView meets Toy Story."

It was done as a personal project by Tom Jenkins, who works for a commercial video production house called in London. He talked to The Atlantic about how he made it.

Check it out:

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Normally, I wouldn't want to bring up something of this gravity during the holidays, but I have to take a firm stand on an issue that's been bothering me for a long while. I've sat by long enough and did nothing while wrongs were committed, on greater and greater scales. But no more. Today I make my stand. Here goes:

The eyes of anthropomorphized cars are the headlights, not the windshield.

And there's no exceptions here. Having a cartoon car with the eyes in the windshield is wrong, just wrong. And that includes you, too, Pixar. Sure, you've done some amazing things, made some incredible movies, but you've also ruined the concept of anthropomorphism in cars for a generation of children. Can they recover? Maybe. But it would take nothing short of a remake of Cars and Cars II to even begin to undo the damage.

Let's back up a bit here, and just clarify what I'm talking about. By anthropomorphize I mean, of course, to make human— as in how in cartoons about cars, or car toys, or even just the way we look at cars we ascribe human traits to them, specifically reading their parts as features of a face. Our brains are programmed to do this automatically— we find faces in everything, as any Google search of a certain Mars landmark will tell you.

When we look at a car, we see the front end as a sort of face. They're almost always bilaterally symmetrical, like a face, they have roughly the same number of general features, so it's easy to ascribe eyes, mouth, and even sometimes a nose to the various components. Like I said, we're really good at doing this. Consider the simple emoticon — :-) — and you'll see what I mean. We see faces in everything.

I'll reluctantly give a pass to some very early cartoons about cars — like Tex Avery's One Cab's Family — because at that time not all cars had headlights. But that's it. Everything after that that places eyes in the windshield when there's a perfectly good pair of headlight eyes there is just doing it wrong. And it's wrong conceptually, as well as visually. The windshield is what we, the drivers, look through— it's just empty glass. Headlights aren't eyes, of course, but in general structure they sure as hell resemble eyeballs more than a sheet of laminated glass. On split windshields, the windshield eyes make a bit more sense, but even so, the number of cars with a split windshield is pretty minimal.

Perhaps in something like Cars, they wanted to make the windshield have the eyes to help avoid the sticky issue of where all the people are. The Cars universe is entirely populated by sentient cars. Okay, I'll buy that. But then that does bring up sticky questions like, why do they have seats? Or steering wheels or door handles or dashboards or pedals or anything like that? Hell, for that matter, why do they have windows at all? Or even greenhouses? Shouldn't they just be low rectangular, doorless slabs? See, that's no argument for windshield eyes.

Plus, if the eyes are in the windshield, what do you do with the lights? Ignore them? Pretend they're just two evenly sized, symmetrical moles? Growths? It's just weirder if you try to ignore them, giving the car a sort of two-faced effect, which is creepy and afflicted pretty much every car in Cars.

Even cars with covered lights work — just pop the lights open and you're good. Quad headlights, too— even when there's four of them, the headlights still read like eyes, way more so than the windshield.

I'm so adamant about this because, now that I have a kid, he has lots of anthropomorphized toy cars. About half do it right, with headlights as eyes, and half are making the inane mistake. I don't want him brought up like that. I want him to go out into the world, look at a car's front end, and see a friendly face, or a determined face, or an angry face, or whatever kind of face. It's fun. If he's trained to think he has to see eyes in a windshield for a car to have a face, then that requires a specially modified car, and that's only provided by some entertainment corporation as some promotional thing, looking to make a buck. We can't let them take our car faces away from us.

Look at that picture of that Austin-Healey Sprite there. If you don't see those headlights as the eyes of that car's friendly, in-your-face face, then you're either an alien or lying or both. You big lying alien, from some weirdo planet where you see out of a featureless panel in your forehead. Gross, don't even try to mate with me. Get back to your stupid planet, and take these DVDs of Cars II with you.

This post originally appeared on Jalopnik.

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Fall in love with Dori, Marlin, and Nemo all over again…in 3D.  

"Finding Nemo" may not be coming out until Sept. 14, but Disney has already released their first trailer for the film. 

"The Lion King 3D" grossed $167 million in total during its run (so much for their original two-week limited engagement), causing Disney to order the re-release of four more classics over the next two years including "Nemo." 

Disney's four film re-release starts this Friday with "Beauty and the Beast 3D."  

We expect the small clownfish to make a big splash come September. For now, check out the trailer below.

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Strong evidence has surfaced in a class-action suit between employees and the power players in Silicon Valley that could help the employees win their case.

In May, employees at Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar filed a class-action suit against their employers claiming they conspired to keep wages artificially low.

Now papers from a previous DOJ investigation on the matter have been released that help them prove their claims, TechCrunch reports. (A full copy of the DOJ legal papers, with the juiciest parts redacted, can be seen on TechCrunch.)

These companies were investigated by the Department of Justice last year. The companies had apparently decided that they wouldn't hire away employees from each other. Plus, they had reportedly agreed to secretly call one another if an employee was in negotiations for a job. This was done without the employee's knowledge, much less consent, according to the lawyer for the employees. In a press release at the time the lawyer said:

"The complaint alleges the conspiracy among defendants consisted of (1) agreements not to actively recruit each other's employees; (2) agreements to provide notification when making an offer to another's employee (without the knowledge or consent of that employee); and (3) agreements to cap pay packages offered to prospective employees at the initial offer."

It's that part about conspiring over wages that really has these employees ticked off.

In September, each company avoided litigation with the DOJ by agreeing to end these practices though they didn't admit guilt. But they didn't do anything to compensate employees whose careers (and pay) might have been affected.

Hence the lawsuit.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

“My product isn’t quite there yet.”

You’ve said this before. We all have.

Anyone working on getting their first product out to market will often have the feeling that their product isn’t quite ready. Or even once it’s out and being used, nothing will seem as perfect as they could be, and if you only did X, Y, and Z, then it would be a little better. In a functional case, this leads to a great roadmap of potential improvements, and in a dysfunctional case, it leads to unlaunched products that are endlessly iterated upon without a conclusion.

About a year ago I visited Pixar’s offices and learned a little about this product, and I wanted to share this small story below:

Over at Pixar…

Matt Silas (@matty8r), a long-time Pixar employee offered to take me on a tour of their offices and I accepted his gracious offer. After an hour-long drive from Palo Alto to Emeryville, Matt showed up while I was admiring a glass case full of Oscars, and started full tour. I didn’t take great photos, so here’s some better ones so you can see what it’s like: VentureBeat, Urbanpeak.

I’ve always been a huge fan of Pixar – not just their products, but also their process and culture. There’s a lot to say about Pixar and their utterly fascinating process for creating movies, and I’d hugely recommend this book: To Infinity and Beyond. It gave me a kick to know that Pixar uses some very collaborative and iterative methods for making their movies – after all, a lot of what they do is software. Here’s some quick examples:

• Pixar’s teams are ultimately a collaboration of creative people and software engineers. This is reflected at the very top by John Lasseter and Ed Catmull
• The process of coming up with a Pixar movie starts with the story – then the storyboard – then many other low-fidelity methods to prototype what they are ultimately make
• They have a daily “build” of their movies in progress so they know where they stand, with sketches and crappy CGI filling holes where needed – compare this to traditional moviemaking where it’s only at the end
• Sometimes, as with the original version of Toy Story, they have to stop doing what they’re doing and restart the entire moviemaking process since the whole thing isn’t clicking – sound familiar, right?

The other connection to the tech world is that Steve Jobs personally oversaw the design of their office space. Here’s a great little excerpt on this, from director Brad Bird (who directed The Incredibles):

“Then there’s our building. In the center, he created this big atrium area, which seems initially like a waste of space. The reason he did it was that everybody goes off and works in their individual areas. People who work on software code are here, people who animate are there, and people who do designs are over there. Steve put the mailboxes, the meetings rooms, the cafeteria, and, most insidiously and brilliantly, the bathrooms in the center—which initially drove us crazy—so that you run into everybody during the course of a day. [Jobs] realized that when people run into each other, when they make eye contact, things happen. So he made it impossible for you not to run into the rest of the company.”

Anyway, I heard a bunch of stories like this and more – and as expected, the tour was incredible, and near the end, we stopped at the Pixar gift shop.

There, I asked Matt a casual question that had an answer I remember well, a year later:

Me: “What’s your favorite Pixar movie?”
Matt: *SIGH*
Me: “Haha! Why the sigh?”
Matt: “This is such a tough question, because they are all good. And yet at the same time, it can be hard to watch one that you’ve worked on, because you spend so many hours on it. You know all the little choices you made, and all the shortcuts that were taken. And you remember the riskier things you could have tried but ended up not, because you couldn’t risk the schedule. And so when you are watching the movie, you can see all the flaws, and it isn’t until you see the faces of your friends and family that you start to forget them.”

Wow! So profound.

A company like Pixar, who undoubtedly produces some of the most beloved and polished experiences in the world, ultimately still cannot produce an outcome where everyone on the team thinks it is the best. And after thinking about why, the reason is obvious and simple – to have the foresight and the skill to refine something to the point of making it great also requires the ability to be hugely critical. More critical, I think, than your ability to even improve or resolve the design problems fast enough. And because design all comes to making a whole series of tradeoffs, ultimately you don’t end up having what you want.

The lesson: You’ll always be unhappy

What I took away from this conversation is that many of us working to make our products great will never be satisfied. A great man once said, your product is shit – and maybe you will always think it is. Yet at the same time, it is our creative struggle with what we do that ultimately makes our creations better and better. And one day, even if you still think your product stinks, you’ll watch a customer use it and become delighted.

And for a brief moment, you’ll forget what it is that you were unhappy about.

Special thanks to Matt Silas (@matty8r, follow him!) for giving me a unique experience at Pixar. (Finally, I leave you with a photo of me posing next to Luxo Jr.)

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

We just read the best story/analysis of Steve Jobs' success in his second stint at Apple at Fast Company.

Journalist Brent Schlender, who was close with Jobs ("We were iChat buddies for several years), writes that Apple's unprecedented run of great products can be tied directly to Jobs' time at Pixar.

Schlender recently found hours of old tapes of interviews he did with Jobs during the "wilderness" years of the 1990's when when Jobs was at NeXT and Pixar.

After listening to those tapes, and reflecting on the conversations, Schlender managed to answer one of the most interesting questions about Steve Jobs: How did he go from the brilliant, but childish, genius at Apple in the eighties to the visionary who delivered the iPod, iTunes, iMac, iPhone, and iPad?

Walter Isaacson's 656 page biography failed to answer that question. We once saw Isaacson speak and asked him the question, but his answer was a let down. We don't even remember it, just the feeling that he hadn't answered the question.

Schlender convincingly answers the question, and says it comes down to Jobs' time spent at Pixar, as well as the fact that he got married, had kids and settled down.

On the latter, he writes, "His personality didn't change overnight after meeting [his wife,] Laurene, but his selfish ways did begin to moderate, especially after his children, Reed, Erin, and Eve, came into the family in 1991, 1995, and 1998, respectively."

At Pixar, he learned how to nurture talent, tell a story, negotiate with big media companies, and focus on building one hit product after another.

It's somewhat ironic that Pixar, not NeXT, was really the most important company to Jobs' development. NeXT was supposed to be his way of exacting revenge on Apple. After all, NeXT was a computer company.

But, NeXT was a "a travail of spite and malice," whereas Pixar was a "labor of love," says Schlender. NeXT never worked out, perhaps because Jobs was operating from the wrong mind frame. Pixar, which was his side project quietly blossomed, and Jobs learned much more because of it.

Here's the nut of the story, as well as the most interesting parallel between Pixar and Apple:

But some of the tougher years at NeXT and Pixar had taught him how to stretch a company's finances, which helped him ride out his first couple of years back, when Apple was still reliant on a weak jumble of offerings. With newfound discipline, he quickly streamlined the company's product lines. And just as he had at Pixar, he aligned the company behind those projects. In a way that had never been done before at a technology company--but that looked a lot like an animation studio bent on delivering one great movie a year--Jobs created the organizational strength to deliver one hit after another, each an extension of Apple's position as the consumer's digital hub, each as strong as its predecessor. If there's anything that parallels Apple's decade-long string of hits--iMac, PowerBook, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad, to list just the blockbusters--it's Pixar's string of winners, including Toy Story, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, WALL-E, and Up. These insanely great products could have come only from insanely great companies, and that's what Jobs had learned to build.

Now go read the whole thing >

Don't Miss: The Best Steve Jobs Quotes From Walter Isaacson's Biography >

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

"Toy Story 2" is considered of the best-ranked films in history, it's one of the few films to score a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and it nearly vanished from the Disney vault forever right before its theatrical release. 

Pixar's much-anticipated sequel to its 1995 hit "Toy Story" may have never made it to the big screen because the entire animation was accidentally deleted from its systems. 

If it weren't for a mom with back-up files, a year of work would have gone down the drain and we may have never seen "Toy Story 2" … for a few more years at least.

This video's been floating around since last year, but its something you probably didn't know about the film ... and we've learned a lot of things about "Toy Story."

However, it's a nice tidbit to watch if you've never heard the story.

Check out the short film chronicling the near travesty below:

Want more fails? Check out 12 ridiculous Hollywood lawsuits> 

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Just when we thought everything had already been said and written about Steve Jobs, a few of those who knew him best offered up some great new details.

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, Pixar chief Ed Catmull and Apple's CEO Tim Cook took the stage this week at AllThingsD's big tech conference and offered up some great tidbits about what it was like to know and work with Jobs.

Larry Ellison became friends with Steve Jobs thanks to a peacock.

Ellison says it's impossible to copy Steve Jobs.

Steve wore the same clothes everyday because he didn't want to think about how to dress.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

In this week's trailers, Leonardo DiCaprio squares off against Jamie Foxx in Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained," Denzel Washington does a barrel role, and John C. Reilly gets animated.

Plus, Emma Watson breaks out from underneath the "Harry Potter" shadow in "Perks of Being a Wallflower" and Jennifer Lawrence tries her hand at horror.

Now you just need to wait a few months until you can purchase your theater tickets.

Django Unchained - December 25

Quentin Tarantino's latest follows Jamie Foxx as the titular freed slave out to rescue his wife from evil plantation owner, Leonardo DiCaprio. As always, Tarantino looks to have found the fun in what is typically grim material (previously done with Nazis), and is continuing his familiar theme of revenge. Christmas can't come soon enough.

Wreck-It Ralph - November 2

Disney's non-Pixar computer animated films ("Tangled," "Bolt") have been consistently solid, if never reaching Pixar-level perfection. "Ralph" may be the movie to change that. Similar to how "Monsters Inc." gave a behind-the-curtain look at scaring as a profession, "Ralph" portrays video game characters as blue collar workers. Ralph's (voiced by John C. Reilly) journey through the video game world looks both visually stunning and full of fun cameos (Bowser in group therapy!).

Flight - November 2

Robert Zemeckis returns to the director's chair for his first non-motion-capture movie since 2000's "Castaway." Denzel Washington stars as pilot that saves his plane from crashing, but may go to prison for drinking prior to takeoff. How does he save the plane and its passengers? Tips from Star Fox of course!

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Few, if any, movie studios have had the success Pixar has at the box office over the past two decades. But just how much money has the  computer animation film studio made? 

In honor of Pixar's 13th feature film "Brave," out June 22, let's check out just how much money the studio's insanely profitable films have earned.

Note: The following numbers only tally the production budget and total gross in North America. It does not factor in international grosses, merchandising, DVD sales, distribution and marketing costs, or inflation (numbers are taken from BoxOfficeMojo).

#12 — "Cars 2" (2011)

Budget: $200 million

Domestic Gross: $191 million

Profit: -$9 million

The studio's first critical miss was a blatant cash grab to renew "Cars" merchandising sales. This movie may not have earned back it's budget domestically, but it's far from a loss for the studio once everything else is factored in.

#11 — "A Bug's Life" (1998)

Budget: $120 million

Domestic Gross: 163 million

Profit: $43 million

"Bug's Life" have been more successful, had the similarly-themed computer animated film "Antz" not come out a month prior.

#10 — "WALL-E" (2008)

Budget: $180 million 

Domestic Gross: $224 million

Profit: $44 million

"WALL-E" once again proved that Pixar could do no wrong, as the first third of the film contains no dialogue.

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Scotland is using Disney/Pixar's newest movie, "Brave," in theaters this Friday, June 22, as part of an advertising campaign to drive tourism to the country.

The computer animated film takes place in Scotland's Highlands and follows Merida, a princess and skilled archer, as she sets out on a journey to live her own life. 

The national tourism organization VisitScotland plans to spend £7 million (nearly $11 million) on the campaign, which they expect to reach 80 million people . The film will play in 72 different countries. VisitScoland chairman Mike Cantlay, who will attend the LA premiere along with First Minister Alex Salmond, calls this a "great opportunity for Scottish tourism."

VisitScotland.com has already created a section of their website devoted to the movie, inviting readers to "Discover Scotland: The Land That Inspired Disney/Pixar's 'Brave.'"

Early reviews for the film have been decidedly mixed, though tracking expects it to gross over $200 million in North America alone, and an additional $400 million at the foreign box office.

SEE ALSO: Pixar's wildly successful history >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Entertainment Weekly's Adam Markovitz recently wrote a blog post suggesting that Disney/Pixar's newest princess might be gay—and internet commentators were quick to respond.

From the post:

"She bristles at the traditional gender roles that she’s expected to play: the demure daughter, the obedient fiancée. Her love of unprincess-like hobbies, including archery and rock-climbing, is sure to strike a chord with gay viewers who felt similarly “not like the other kids” growing up. And she hates the prospect of marriage—at least, to any of the three oafish clansmen that compete for her hand—enough to run away from home and put her own mother’s life at risk. She’s certainly not a swooning, boy-crazy Disney princess like The Little Mermaid’s Ariel or Snow White. In fact, Merida may be the first in that group to be completely romantically disinclined (even cross-dressing Mulan had a soft spot for Li Shang)."

He goes on to say that, "regardless of whether or not Disney/Pixar intended it, those same traits are bound to make Merida an unofficial gay icon — even if she never comes near a Pride parade."

The post was heavily shared, and lead to hundreds of passionate comments. "I found this article to be offensive. Whenever a girl wants to be independent and not obsess about boys, she is presumed to be gay. This article just encourages that kind of narrow minded thinking," said a commenter named Julia. 

Some have questioned the need to classify the character's sexual orientation at all, considering she's the star of a animated children's movie.

Since Pixar films appeal to all ages, it's easy to forget that they are made first and foremost for kids. This isn't "50 Shades of Brave."

Disney would never broach the subject and risk potentially millions of merchandising dollars by stating the sexual orientation of their newest character, so don't expect a definitive answer. Not that there should be one.

Films, books, and all forms of popular culture are open to personal interpretation, and "Brave" is no different. Gay or straight, Merida is a strong, independent female character (Hollywood's been churning out a lot of them lately) and that's reason enough for praise. 

SEE ALSO: How Scotland is using "Brave" to boost tourism >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

After losing $200 million on "John Carter," director Andrew Stanton ("WALL-E") was in Disney's dog house. It was unlikely that the Pixar star would get another chance to handle a big budget live-action film anytime soon. 

Now Deadline is reporting that Stanton has officially signed on to direct the sequel to his Pixar hit "Finding Nemo," in an attempt to get a chance to make another live action film for the studio down the road.

With an $868 million worldwide gross (over a billion after inflation), its no wonder Disney wants Stanton to go back to the ocean.

Disney also plans to release the original "Finding Nemo" in 3D on September 14. 

It took four months, but now people can finally say, "Thanks, 'John Carter!'"

Now someone sign Taylor Kitsch as a love interest for Dory.

SEE ALSO: Six reasons why "John Carter" flopped > 

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Why are there Combat Carls instead of G.I. Joes in "Toy Story"? Why doesn't Barbie make an appearance until the third film? 

Plenty of toy brands appear In 2010's "Toy Story 3," including Barbie and Ken.

However, before the predecessor's initial release in 1995, there was a time Fisher Price and Mattel didn't want to be associated with the kid's flick.  

Pixar Camera Artist, Craig L. Good took to Quora at the end of last week to set the record straight explaining how Pixar landed the rights to feature brand-name toys in its films: 

Some flat turned us down. We couldn't get G.I. Joe, so had to invent Combat Carl. Mattel in those days didn't want Barbie in any kind of animated film because they felt it was important for her to be neutral, allowing girls to imprint any personality they wanted. Obviously they later changed their minds. In this case it helped us make the story stronger. Barbie was going to show up driving her Corvette in Sid's house and tell Woody, "Come with me if you want to live." Yeah, a Sarah Connor reference. In the process of writing her out John and the story team realized that she would have been deus ex machina and that Woody needed to be in charge. That's when the whole complicated "wind the frog" sequence was born. 

Good also went on to reveal there was a lawyer dedicated to releasing the rights to use Mr. Potatohead. Thank goodness they didn't have to revert to Mr. Cucumber. 

I can remember our producer, Ralph Guggenheim, updating us by saying, "I just got off the phone with Mr. Potatohead's lawyer." There really was (probably still is) a lawyer dedicated to Mr. Potatohead licensing. It was touch and go for a while, but we landed him. To the best of my recollection we didn't pay cash for any clearances, but did offer credit at the end of the film. 

By the time we made the sequels it was much, much easier to convince people it was a good idea to let their toys appear in the movie. In all fairness they had no particular reason to think so when we were making the first one.

SEE ALSO: Pixar's making a "Finding Nemo" sequel >

Please follow The Wire on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »