4 ms·
Let's not forget they paid that 7 billion in 2006. I can almost see this as Disney trying to replace the eye for talent and negotiating power they lost in Steve
by edgesrazor 14y ago
Let's not forget they paid that 7 billion in 2006. I can almost see this as Disney trying to replace the eye for talent and negotiating power they lost in Steve Jobs' passing, along with an amazing IP acquisition.
Edit: Thought of better terms than "creative force".
- bonzoesc 14y agoSteve Jobs wasn't ever really a "creative force" at Disney.
- edgesrazor 14y agoProbably the wrong choice of words. He did help bring in a lot of creative people, however. I'm just wondering if this will follow the same line of thinking - there's quite a lot of talented people who work for the Lucas properties.
- FireBeyond 14y agoDo you think so? To my mind, the set of people in that industry, as creatives, who would think "Hmm, I dunno. I'm not really sold / excited about the idea of working for Disney / Pixar / Lucasfilm... Oh, Steve Jobs is involved? That changes ... everything." (sorry, couldn't resist). These companies appear, at least to me, as the pinnacle of "career as a creative artist in film" employers - I doubt the personality of a board member / part-owner, even one with as much going for him as Jobs did, was ever the deciding factor in their ability to lure talent.
- aik 14y agoJust one example of how he may have indirectly lured more talent than it may seem possible: Jobs was the main driver of the creation of the innovative-layout of the Pixar HQ building. Lassater himself said that he truly believed that the way the building was structured led to better collaboration and creativity -- ie. a better environment, which would drive more people. It's not that people think, "Jobs is involved -- yay!" Rather it's the culture that Jobs helped create and helped nurture that people would find attractive. Many, many other leaders with different priorities would likely end up inadvertently squashing the open collaboration and creativity that made Pixar successful to begin with, rather than nurture it, preventing success and preventing new talent from choosing Pixar.
- mixmastamyk 14y agoI'd say the focus on quality product ended up being a creative force of its own.
- pooriaazimi 14y agoSo true, but somehow a lot of people don't know it. He was just a facilitator at Pixar. A damn good facilitator, one who made it all happen, but still he wasn't Pixar's visionary (like he was Apple's). Lasseter deserves all the credit for that part.
- taligent 14y agoActually you're wrong on that part. Steve was the visionary. He was the one who saw Pixar as being a brand (i.e. a modern day Disney) rather than just an anonymous studio. Kids are buying and trusting the Pixar brand not the Disney brand. So to be able to set that all up (e.g. equal billing) required a vision for what the company could be. Steve was responsible for Pixar. John was responsible for Pixar's movies.
- joezydeco 14y agoUm, didn't the real history go slightly differently? Steve Jobs invested in Pixar because of the hardware. When that didn't fly, the shorts and commercials being done by Lasseter (that paid the bills) turned into a gamble to make a full-length movie. This whole "branding" thing didn't come until the first movie was a success.
- lifeisstillgood 14y agoI would suggest that visionary is never having the prediction of exactly how it will turn out but having the faith that this is the right direction and the details will resolve in time