Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/19/09
What attracts me to Pixar movies is that perfect blend of every key element - imagery, animation, story, humor, acting, and character depth. They nail EVERY SINGLE ASPECT, EVERY TIME. It's truly unbelievable.
At the same time, I have no interest whatsoever in animated movies from the other CGI studios, like Dreamworks (Shrek is oohhkayy, but I refuse to watch Open Season). Tried, but just can't get into these other movies.
11/18/09
Pixar is still a joke, American animate as a whole is a big joke, soulless cheap story entertaining man-child with no higher aspiration, lost direction in the technology world. thats what it is, american animate.
11/18/09
Japanese animation may cover more genres when its all said and done but in terms of flat out great story telling (which is the point after all) Pixar is completely holding their own. Its often copied, never duplicated. There is a soul that other movies wish they had. Look at how often they're criticized for their choice of characters. Even as far back as Toy Story people were saying you couldn't "love" a toy. Wall-e got some of the same reaction because how much can you love a soulless robot. Even the human characters in Up were originally criticized (ironically in some form because Pixar had done so well with the inanimate objects of the past that people didn't think they could do people) because who is really going to sympathize with a grumpy old man. I'll flat out say that if you didn't get a bit choked up in Up I question your compassion. Thats soul, thats heart, and Pixar has time and time again shown they've got it in spades.
11/19/09
11/18/09
... life.
11/18/09
11/18/09
I don't think they're limiting it to a solely live-action definition of film. Even then at the time they certainly had their share of hits. The Disney animated films of yore though were wonderful. Hit after hit. It really was a "just when you thought it couldn't get any better thing". Then Katzenburg left to go play entertainment studio with Spielberg. There was always a question of how much his influence was really responsible for those hits though and after the mediocre of everything Dreamworks I think it was answered.
11/18/09
11/18/09
Can't say thats a film that will forever live in my memory. Hell I had to look it up just because I always get it confused with "We are Marshall".
11/18/09
I looked here:
[en.wikipedia.org]
and I am not sure what you mean by "hit after hit" in terms of live action. I never knew Disney was behind SO MANY clunkers. "Tron" and "Roger Rabbit" can only erase so many sins.
11/18/09
We used the same list. Like I said Disney had some success with live action but it was never the bread and butter.
I'd add "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" (and maybe even the sequel).
11/19/09
But when Jobs declares there are only "two significant brands in the film industry" and one (Disney) had/has a sagging live-action franchise whose catalog has earned few, if any critical distinctions in the industry (Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, etc.) and the vast majority of films are live action-- it tells me that Jobs is misinformed at best.
This is not a surprise, I suppose I wouldn't hire Peter Jackson to design an ipod either. The difference is he would not say something quite as stupid on the subject.
#tips
11/19/09
I glossed over that the first time I read it too. Certainly without a doubt there are plenty of other "brands" in the film industry. Today I'd certainly add other "brands" to the family film list too. Regardless I don't think you can say that Disney isn't a significant brand in the family film industry.
It doesn't matter how much of their library is live action how much is animated. It matters that people recognize it and think of it as a positive when they hear it. He was just saying that parents are going to take kids to a Spielberg or Disney movie just because its a Spielberg or Disney movie.
Again, the live action/animated thing doesn't really matter. I guess you can make the argument that the sheer amount of crappy live action dilutes the Disney brand and certainly they've been accused over it in the past but there is no doubt that regardless of the size of one library compared to the other Disney is better known for their animated films than their live action ones. There they've won multiple multiple awards. In fact they were the first (and only as far as I know) animated film to be nominated for best picture.
11/19/09
The family film industry, while not an artistic juggarnaut, is certainly quite profitable. It makes sense that it would attract the interests of a failing computer engineer fired from his own company for seeking the opposite (who, after nearly killing Pixar for 9 years on similar grounds, suddenly owned the secret sauce of "Toy Story," et. al.). Indeed, wikipedia states that he started working his way back into Apple by the end of the year.
Great points, fellow gizmodian.
#tips
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
I'd say they're household names. I'd say they're brands. Since the whole pixar thing came out of Lucasfilm though I wonder if either there were LFL references outside of the quote or it was precisely what Steve was getting at 'cause he felt that Lucas had squandered the great thing he had going.
@blash: Eh, what is Spielberg really memorable for? Its mostly his old work. Jaws, ET, Indy (which after all is a Lucas contribution too). He did definatly have a resurgance at that point in his life with Schindler's List which was the first time he really proved he could do "grown up" movies.
I mean by that argument Frances Ford Coppola is completely irrelevant. After all what has he done besides those silly gangster movies. Where as I would say even with his some what limited portfolio he is at level that few even hope to ever attain.
I always found it interesting that the big 3 of that generation (and really any generation) had such close ties to each other.
11/18/09
Point and click adventures ftw! (specifically MI3)
11/18/09
It's funny because I just lambasted someone for making the same mistake with html
11/18/09
11/18/09
I admit maybe not for children like Steve was talking about but ILM, LucasFilm, and Lucas are certainly "brands" in that you know what to expect and you know what you're getting.
It may not be the most common thing. Yeah I would be more likely to do that than the average movie goer but even they do it to a certain extent. Movies even market on it.
I might not say "I'm going to an ILM movie" but thats just because you wouldn't say it that way. There are certainly cases where you (and even the average movie goer) says "I recognize that name and I've liked movies they've worked on so I'll probably like this"
11/19/09
11/19/09
Spielberg didn't work on that like he did JP. He directed and produced JP. Just served as an Executive producer on "We're back". Now what an EP does kinda varies but for the most part they're the people that throw money at the problem (don't know how much involvement he personally takes but traditionally its very little) yet because he is really a "brand" they put it out and feature his name prominently. A really good example is Tarantino. He became such a name so fast that Miramax really banked off it. He was "executive producer" on movies he never looked twice at and it would be featured heavily in the marketing. I just had to convince someone that other day that he didn't direct Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon but had some odd yet heavily featured credit for it. It got to the point where they were even re-releasing old movies with a "Quentin Tarantino" presents headline.
11/18/09
Very disturbing vision from Steve Jobs.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
/Film recently featured an article that showed of the top 50 grossing films so far in this decade, only 9 were original stories (i.e. not sequels/remakes, stories from books). Of those 9, five of them were Pixar movies. Two more were Dreamworks animated films which, arguably, wouldn't have their place in the world if not for Pixar.
Pixar makes stories and makes them well. And if they get the chance to let someone else run the business side while they're free to keep cranking out the wonderful stories they make, I have no problem with their lack of "branding".
And as long as Jobs stays out of the creative side, I'm fine with his involvement. So long as he respects that the actual filmmakers in this group need to be left to do their own thing.
11/18/09
Now I'd say they're less willing to do that because they effectively took over Disney. Its funny when you "buy out" a company and that company ends up effectively taking you over out of the deal. Personally I love the fact that when Pixar took over the first thing they did was to re-start the traditional animation studio. I'm not sure if its going to be a classic but I'm super looking forward to Frog Princess.
11/18/09
I'd like to think of "Pixar" entity as the actual creative force behind the movies. As for the branding, Disney controls that.
11/18/09
Sure Disney puts that stuff out, but especially back then it was all Disney/Pixar. It may have gone unnoticed by the average consumer but I think that goes to more of what Jobs was getting at.
Best parallel I can come up with, Nike/Micheal Jordan (though I don't know how well that resonates with kids these days). Yes Nike was the push behind most of it, but I think you can easily say without the Jordan "brand" they wouldn't have gone as far. Its very chicken and egg. Jordan couldn't have done it without Nike, Nike couldn't have done it without Jordan.
Similarly, Disney without Pixar would basically be nothing (or at least a completely different company) now.
11/18/09
And you have no idea how angry I get when people just call Pixar movies Disney movies.
I am a bit disturbed by Jobs' notion that Pixar should be a "brand". But what I'm more worried about is that Pixar suffers from the branding that Disney gives while Disney gets all the credit. That is all.
11/18/09
These days, you still don't go see "the next ILM film" or "the next Weta film" or "the next DD film" but you still see "the next Pixar film" (and now, if you like crappy fart jokes and pop culture references, "the next Dreamworks film." - oops! Did I say that out loud?! :D ). Maybe "the next Michael Bay film" or "the next James Cameron film". But you don't say, "Man, I can't wait to see the next Universal film" (which is what you're implying by saying Disney controls the branding).
11/18/09
I think it goes further then just being able to say "I'm going to go see the next Pixar film". You're right I might not say I'm going to go see the next "ILM film" but thats more of because of the fact that you wouldn't say that. I would certainly say "hey ILM is working on this film and I generally enjoy the work that they put out so I'm going to go see this film" which is, like you said, what branding is all about.
11/18/09
@tande04: Agree to an extent but as I said to Pessimippopotamus, they were a startup, theres no other reason they didn't truthfully create those products other than they weren't nearly big enough to warrant it.
#tips
11/18/09
BTW, you must work in the effects industry? I do as well, and while some of my work friends do know who worked on a given film, most of them (and I as well) do not :) I don't think any of my non-work friends do, even the super movie nerds.
11/19/09
See I'd still say that the fx house is marketed as a brand with the movie. I have seen trailers, TV commercials, posters, and especially DVD boxes that say "featuring the groundbreaking effects of Industrial Light and Magic" or something similar (monster movies especially usually have a nod to the effects house). No they're not taking the top billing (unless its a really, really bad movie otherwise) but they're featured as part of the marketing and I think that the general population knows at least some of them in a "household term" sort of way.
I'm also admittedly really bad about knowing what is in the minds of "the general population" though.
11/19/09
I mean start up isn't a word that I'd really ever use with Pixar. They were a Lucasfilm division before being little more then an apple division before they were a Disney division. Yes, they weren't a huge name but they were always backed in some way shape or form by a big name. Thats probably just me being nit-picky though. I see what you're saying though that they were hoeing their own road in a world dominate by massive conglomerates. Either way where was I with my point...
I don't think they weren't ever putting out merchandising/marketing because they couldn't it was just much smarter to do it the way they did it. There is such a thing as brand dilution too when you start branching out too much. You might say that about Disney. What are they? A theme park? A store? A movie studio? An animation house? Disney keeps it all under the general "family entertainment" umbrella but there has been lots of criticism aimed at them over the years of sacrificing one in place of the other. I'm sure at some point if they Disney/Pixar deal fell through and Pixar really would have made a go on their own like they threatened to that they would have started making things to go with the movies but it never had to which is probably for the best.
And I'm sure that the Pixar people loved being picked up by Disney. They pretty much handed them the keys to the kingdom. I mean almost every major head of every division was replaced with a Pixar guy (which was hilarious). Like I said, my favorite part was that they started back up the traditional animation studio (Disney had shut it down to focus only on computer generated animation in an attempt to "compete" with Pixar).
11/19/09
#tips
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
@jakemg: This one?
11/18/09
Can a photoshop guru out there fix it up to be Jobsie in the jumpsuit?
#tips
11/18/09
@Nathan Obbards: Like this, but with the banner behind him. And give Jobs a bigger package.
#tips
11/18/09
how do i delete my double post?
#tips
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em...
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
-Bill Gates
11/18/09
10/19/09
10/19/09
And why was the lamp the only non-alphanumeric object? #pixar
10/19/09
Indeed, this video raises too many questions! What is entirely clear, however, is that we simply cannot lay judgment on this hapless lamp without a proper context; those who know his story now have the moral obligation to tell it. #pixar
10/19/09
10/19/09
10/13/09
10/13/09