4 ms·

"Fohr can use the first feature ﬁlm we're making with "computer-photography" to build a new, publicly-owned ﬁlm studio – a repeat of what Pixar did with Toy Sto

"Fohr can use the first feature ﬁlm we're making with "computer-photography" to build a new, publicly-owned ﬁlm studio – a repeat of what Pixar did with Toy Story and computer-animation in the 1990s – if we can raise the funds to continue our technology leadership over the next two years." - "Computer-photography" doesn't sound all that compelling, to be honest. How is this better than computer animation (CGI), as used by Pixar, Lucasfilm, et al.? Assume that the layperson -- investors included -- will have no idea what this phrase means. Instead, substitute a brief description of what "computer-photography" can do that makes it so compelling. Is it massively cheaper than traditional CGI? Is it more publicly accessible? Easier to use? Does it produce superior results? Let's assume, for a second, that it's cheaper than CGI and produces comparable results. In this case, I'd use the phrase "advanced, radically inexpensive computer animation technology." Or something to that effect. - Strike the word "new" from the first sentence, because obviously it doesn't exist yet, and hence, the creation of the studio will be the creation of a new studio. Ditto either "feature" or "film," as the phrase "feature film" is redundant. (Yes, I'm aware that there are technical differences within the industry between a "feature film" and other types of film. But the word "feature," used as a noun, will suffice on its own). - Describing your goal as simply "a repeat of...Pixar" makes it seem as though you're simply building a Pixar knockoff, a few decades after the fact. I like how you reference Pixar, because it gives the reader a good sense of what this is. But how is this different from Pixar, if not better than Pixar? Looking back at your "publicly owned" statement, would it be fair to call your studio a "Pixar for the people"? "Pixar for the YouTube set"? Or something to that effect? Tell us why the world needs Fohr, not why the world needs Pixar Clone.

erichocean 15y ago
The feedback so far has been fantastic (and unexpected), and your comment was no exception. I'd like to respond to one specific line: "Tell us why the world needs Fohr, not why the world needs Pixar Clone." A common complaint I hear is "Why can't Hollywood make movies as well as Pixar?" When people say this, by "Hollywood", they mean live-action, non-animated movies -- movies with real people in them. The reason Hollywood can't make movies as well as Pixar is because Pixar cheats -- Pixar can do things that "Hollywood" cannot, due to technology differences in how the films are made. Specifically, Pixar can iterate on each movie for years, making drastic changes to the story, timing, edit, music, dialogue, acting at any time. They literally "make" the film hundreds of times over a four year period. In a way, Pixar starts very early on with the "minimum viable film", and mercilessly beats out every problem until the film is as good as they can make it. Then they release it to you and me. Fohr has the tech and filmmaking system to take that same approach on a live-action film (the key tech needed to do so is computer-photography). So in the sense of "making better movies", we want Fohr to be a Pixar Clone. That's our whole goal.
- cubicle67 15y ago
  There's two other things that got Pixar where it is today - John Lasseter and balls. John’s a brilliant director, and it takes balls to do things like the first third of Wall-E
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  Pixar's technology is amazing and has been revolutionary. And it certainly conveys some competitive advantages against live-action films. But to attribute Pixar's success solely to the technology is a dangerous mistake. Traditional screenwriting and filmmaking goes through a ton of iterations, too. Iterations (and MVP) are not the competitive differentiators you make them out to be in Pixar's case. Pixar's technology makes a huge difference, but so does its direction and, above all, its writing. What separates Pixar from the me-toos of the world is everything it has in addition to its technology. Finally, it's a mistake to think that Pixar and "Hollywood" are separated. Pixar was founded as a tech company, but its clients and collaborators have been Hollywood studios and filmmakers from the get-go. There were more than a few strands of Hollywood DNA in Pixar's genome even before the Disney merger. Technology is great, but writing is still king. The dustbin of history is littered with technically brilliant, but emotionally hollow films. Be careful here. No less a titan of the business than George Lucas made the mistake of thinking pure tech trumped writing, and look at how his prequels turned out.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Specifically, Pixar can iterate on each movie for years, making drastic changes to the story, timing, edit, music, dialogue, acting at any time. They literally "make" the film hundreds of times over a four year period. Pixar isn't the first, or only, place that can iterate - that's been how animated films have always been made. (Yes computer-based animation allows faster iteration than hand-drawn, but Pixar doesn't iterated on fully-rendered either.) > Fohr has the tech and filmmaking system to take that same approach on a live-action film (the key tech needed to do so is computer-photography). I agree that this is a big thing, but Pixar isn't just, or even mostly, iteration, it's the folks doing the iteration. Even if you have John Lasseter, start as a tech company and sell to folks who think that they are JL. Use that money to support your JL.

erichocean 15y ago

The feedback so far has been fantastic (and unexpected), and your comment was no exception. I'd like to respond to one specific line: "Tell us why the world needs Fohr, not why the world needs Pixar Clone." A common complaint I hear is "Why can't Hollywood make movies as well as Pixar?" When people say this, by "Hollywood", they mean live-action, non-animated movies -- movies with real people in them. The reason Hollywood can't make movies as well as Pixar is because Pixar cheats -- Pixar can do things that "Hollywood" cannot, due to technology differences in how the films are made. Specifically, Pixar can iterate on each movie for years, making drastic changes to the story, timing, edit, music, dialogue, acting at any time. They literally "make" the film hundreds of times over a four year period. In a way, Pixar starts very early on with the "minimum viable film", and mercilessly beats out every problem until the film is as good as they can make it. Then they release it to you and me. Fohr has the tech and filmmaking system to take that same approach on a live-action film (the key tech needed to do so is computer-photography). So in the sense of "making better movies", we want Fohr to be a Pixar Clone. That's our whole goal.

cubicle67 15y ago
There's two other things that got Pixar where it is today - John Lasseter and balls. John’s a brilliant director, and it takes balls to do things like the first third of Wall-E
jonnathanson 15y ago
Pixar's technology is amazing and has been revolutionary. And it certainly conveys some competitive advantages against live-action films. But to attribute Pixar's success solely to the technology is a dangerous mistake. Traditional screenwriting and filmmaking goes through a ton of iterations, too. Iterations (and MVP) are not the competitive differentiators you make them out to be in Pixar's case. Pixar's technology makes a huge difference, but so does its direction and, above all, its writing. What separates Pixar from the me-toos of the world is everything it has in addition to its technology. Finally, it's a mistake to think that Pixar and "Hollywood" are separated. Pixar was founded as a tech company, but its clients and collaborators have been Hollywood studios and filmmakers from the get-go. There were more than a few strands of Hollywood DNA in Pixar's genome even before the Disney merger. Technology is great, but writing is still king. The dustbin of history is littered with technically brilliant, but emotionally hollow films. Be careful here. No less a titan of the business than George Lucas made the mistake of thinking pure tech trumped writing, and look at how his prequels turned out.
anamax 15y ago
> Specifically, Pixar can iterate on each movie for years, making drastic changes to the story, timing, edit, music, dialogue, acting at any time. They literally "make" the film hundreds of times over a four year period. Pixar isn't the first, or only, place that can iterate - that's been how animated films have always been made. (Yes computer-based animation allows faster iteration than hand-drawn, but Pixar doesn't iterated on fully-rendered either.) > Fohr has the tech and filmmaking system to take that same approach on a live-action film (the key tech needed to do so is computer-photography). I agree that this is a big thing, but Pixar isn't just, or even mostly, iteration, it's the folks doing the iteration. Even if you have John Lasseter, start as a tech company and sell to folks who think that they are JL. Use that money to support your JL.