So we're all in agreement about where the real creativity rests in the Disney-Pixar partnership, right? Because when it comes to animated features, Pixar is 5 for 5, and by most measures each and every one of those flicks was a grand slam; Disney, on the other hand, has been churning out a lot more material, but the signal-to-noise ratio is a lot lower, and there have been some downright flops from a box office perspective. Nothing against Disney as an institution, mind you, but we doubt that many attentive observers would argue with the statement that for the past ten years or so, Pixar's been a superstar while Disney's been a little more hit-and-miss.

Indeed, the analysts certainly aren't rushing to defend Disney's honor. We stumbled across a Hollywood Reporter article which says that Disney zagnut Michael Eisner has "confirmed earlier company statements that the studio has several sequels in the works to the blockbuster films Pixar has created for the company"; given the plethora of utterly missable direct-to-video let's-squeeze-the-parents-for-more-cash sequels that Disneys's been shoveling out recently (The Little Mermaid II: The Return to the Sea, Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure, Cinderella II: Dreams Come True, etc. ad infinitum), we shudder to think of what those unPixarian sequels might be; Toy Story 3 is a given, of course, but what will it be, exactly? Buzz Goes To Treasure Atlantis? Woody vs. Piglet: High Noon? The mind reels.

Steve, being no fool, has voiced his frustration with this situation in public: "We feel sick about Disney doing sequels because if you look at the quality of their sequels... it's been pretty embarrassing." Which brings us to the analysts. Reportedly Jessica Reif Cohen of Merrill Lynch feels that, financially speaking (which is all that ever counts, right?), the prospect of non-Pixar-produced sequels to the Pixar stable of films would be "a positive for Disney," because hey, instant money; Disney has made a cool billion smackers from cheesy direct-to-video releases so far. However, she makes it pretty clear that this sort of dreck may likely hurt Pixar, instead: "The unproven writing and graphics quality of Disney's work with computer-guided-image animation may have an unintentional 'contagion' impact since consumers may subconsciously associate these films as Pixar product." In other words, Disney's sequels are going to blow chunks but Pixar's going to be standing right in the spatter zone.

Which is, of course, horribly, soul-crushingly unfair; Pixar has no input whatsoever into making sure these sequels aren't embarrassingly awful, yet no matter how bad they turn out to be, Disney makes money and Pixar looks bad. This, incidentally, is exactly the sort of thing that had Steve negotiating for less-stinky contract terms with Disney before he walked away. Worse yet, The Impossibles isn't even out yet, but Disney will have the right to churn out crappy sequels to that, too-- and even to Cars, which is due for release next year. And yet, the only thing Pixar can do is hide under a tarp and hope it doesn't get splashed with too much spew before it can finally make movies without having to live in constant fear of a direct-to-video Disney sequel lurking in the not-too-distant future...