> 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 nee

> 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.