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
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
@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
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
I think you meant a BILLION. You were only off by a factor of 1000...
10/13/09
10/13/09
ok just checked article, its 1 million a store, which seems reasonable
10/13/09
Though I can say that all the Disney stores I've been into were chaos in retail format.
10/13/09
Yeah, I know there's a few out there already, but the bargain-basement way they treat and package those things is an embarrassment.
And no, neither "Disney Princesses" or "The Lion King" count. Disney was better before they started thinking everything needed a f***ing SONG in it.
10/13/09
10/13/09
10/13/09
09/16/09