4 ms·

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 ne

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
  > I agree that this is a big thing, but Pixar isn't just, or even mostly, iteration, it's the folks doing the iteration. It should be self-evident that you need very good filmmakers making films -- no technology "makes" a film. But it should also be obvious that Pixar doesn't have a monopoly on "good" filmmakers. What they do have is a monopoly on iteration, due to their use of computerized-animation. Fohr ends that monopoly. I think we probably agree here. I would further argue that Pixar's people might not be as successful on the live-action side, since the ability to iterate is gone. As exhibit A, I would present Andrew Stanton and John Carter (of Mars), which does not look promising at all. (This is not true for all Pixar directors though, I think Brad Bird will do very well with MI4.) To be clear: Andrew Stanton is a very good director...when he can iterate, like he did on Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Take away that ability and he struggles, as would be expected. It takes a different kind of skill to make a good film when you can only shoot final footage -- skill Andrew hasn't yet developed to my knowledge. Live-action filmmaking has more in common with dancing than it does with drawing, and animation is not at all like dancing -- there's no real-time performance aspect to animation like there is with live-action. Expertise in one type of film production does not imply expertise in the other.

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
> I agree that this is a big thing, but Pixar isn't just, or even mostly, iteration, it's the folks doing the iteration. It should be self-evident that you need very good filmmakers making films -- no technology "makes" a film. But it should also be obvious that Pixar doesn't have a monopoly on "good" filmmakers. What they do have is a monopoly on iteration, due to their use of computerized-animation. Fohr ends that monopoly. I think we probably agree here. I would further argue that Pixar's people might not be as successful on the live-action side, since the ability to iterate is gone. As exhibit A, I would present Andrew Stanton and John Carter (of Mars), which does not look promising at all. (This is not true for all Pixar directors though, I think Brad Bird will do very well with MI4.) To be clear: Andrew Stanton is a very good director...when he can iterate, like he did on Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Take away that ability and he struggles, as would be expected. It takes a different kind of skill to make a good film when you can only shoot final footage -- skill Andrew hasn't yet developed to my knowledge. Live-action filmmaking has more in common with dancing than it does with drawing, and animation is not at all like dancing -- there's no real-time performance aspect to animation like there is with live-action. Expertise in one type of film production does not imply expertise in the other.