Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

khanacademy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#11

Post by wegs »

jerome-jh wrote: post #8
mkl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Là-haut = Up

OK edited :) To summarize my mind, I think the only american animated movie that's worth saving in the last 10 years is Disney's Frozen. It has some harshness, complex character relationships and appeals both to adults and children.

Frozen teaches kids all the wrong lessons. Shirk your responsibilities. Ignore your community. Focus on yourself.

"Let it Go" is like an ode to everything I dislike about American culture. It's so very American.

Best animated movie I've seen in the past decade was probably Moana, but I can't say I've seen many.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#12

Post by dmitriid »

jerome-jh wrote: post #8
mkl wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Là-haut = Up

OK edited :) To summarize my mind, I think the only american animated movie that's worth saving in the last 10 years is Disney's Frozen. It has some harshness, complex character relationships and appeals both to adults and children.

Frozen is as cliched and as boring as possible.

Compare it to, say, Coco. Or Zootopia. Or Klaus. Or, if we're talking about relationship with parents, Inside Out.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#13

Post by Closi »

jerome-jh wrote: post #4

I suppose "art" is meant as "technique" here. Modern large productions are so standardized today it is not an uncommon feeling one is watching the same movie ever end ever. I think the last Pixar movie that was worth is "Up" (OK I have not seen them all). My main grief is that surprise is only obtained with a combination of visual effects, fast rhythm and loud sounds, and no more with the story. Relationships between…

> I suppose "art" is meant as "technique" here. Modern large productions are so standardized today it is not an uncommon feeling one is watching the same movie ever end ever.

Art and technique aren't mutually exclusive - and the process of storytelling is both an art and requires you to fit the bounds of storytelling, just as a painting class might teach you line drawing techniques but still counts as art.

The other thing to note is that you are listening to the same story over and over. This is the concept of the Joseph Campbell monomyth. All modern screenwriting is mostly based on the Campbell Hero's Journey, which argues that all great stories and myths are, at their core, the same. You generally follow a protagonist who moves from a place of comfort and is thrust into a new situation, where they need to overcome some sort of challenge which involves the protagonist needing to change as a person to overcome (i.e. metamorphosis). There are exceptions to this structure, like sometimes there isn't even a protagonist, but this is the general structure across the ages.

Storytelling is usually seen as playing within the structure, rather than inventing a new structure. Usually writers who don't embrace structure end up naturally writing in the same structure inadvertently anyway, because the theory is that this reaches the core of what a story is.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#14

Post by kinghtown »

superbcarrot wrote: post #2

What people don't realise about Pixar is how much iteration goes into their stories - they're very comfortable with taking some idea and working on it from different angles until it's good. And there's a process there that can be taught. I think that's contrary to the way some people imagine storytelling - it's almost never the case that some creative person has a brilliant story come out perfect in the first draft.…

I feel that Pixar’s mastery of storytelling is overrated. Coco was lovely but I find their movies to be needlessly sad and curiously episodic in form. In “UP”, each sequence was very well crafted but they fit together randomly as though each scene was brainstormed by a group.

They lack a singular vision in their films, there are no auteurs at Pixar: just art by committee. This isn’t to say that their stories are bad, though they are sometimes lukewarm. Except for the Pixar level of excellence in the visuals and animation, which to be clear are admirable on their own, I feel that their movies lack identity. I wouldn’t want their model to become adopted by everyone.

They love and study Miyazaki but don’t seem to trust any one person to direct a film. Everything must be put through a committee.

I would very much prefer a CG animation course by them. Or a full overview of their pipeline, asset management, USD implementation. Their technical chops are probably best in the world.

Maybe they could do something like release a public version of Presto. Or help out with animation and rigging code with the blender foundation.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#15

Post by samzer »

m4tthumphrey wrote: post #5
ekianjo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're very comfortable with taking some idea and working on it from different angles until it's good. Except when their stories end up not being very good at all. There's a lot of variability in what they produce, to be honest, so I am not sure if their "process" is a robust as they would like us to believe.

I can't think of any original Pixar stories that were "not good at all". Brave is probably the only one I might put close to that category. Which ones would you include? Edit: Added "original"; some of the sequels are not great

I guess it's subjective. I found brave quite decent and there were some moving moments.

Worst for me would be Cars 2 and in the context of general films, it's still okay.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#17

Post by tomthe »

If you don't have time for the full course, here is a hn-comment [0] that I really, really appreciated and helped me when telling stories to my kids:

>Yes. Pixar has a template:

>Once upon a time there was ___.

>Every day, ___.

>One day ___.

>Because of that, ___.

>Because of that, ___.

>Until finally ___.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20408283 edit: it may have been another comment from here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#18

Post by RobertKerans »

mkl wrote: post #6
m4tthumphrey wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of any original Pixar stories that were "not good at all". Brave is probably the only one I might put close to that category. Which ones would you include? Edit: Added "original"; some of the sequels are not great

I also think most of their originals are good. I thought The Good Dinosaur was awful though, and can't understand how it could have come out of this kind of long process of iterative refinement.

Maybe studio just got caught up in it, lost objectivity? Or they just hit a point of no return and hey, it's a Pixar film, it's not going to lose money even if it's very average, is just a possible hit to reputation. It's just not a great subject or story, but I bet the initial tests they did for it looked fantastic. Everyone loves dinosaurs, right? And story is dead simple to understand (too simple? There's nothing there imo), so probably an easy sell at first. Once committed, past a certain point just need to finish it because sunk cost, can iterate and refine a turd forever and it'll still be a turd.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#20

Post by w-m »

tomthe wrote: post #17

If you don't have time for the full course, here is a hn-comment [0] that I really, really appreciated and helped me when telling stories to my kids: >Yes. Pixar has a template: >Once upon a time there was ___. >Every day, ___. >One day ___. >Because of that, ___. >Because of that, ___. >Until finally ___. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20408283 edit: it may have been another comment from here: https://hn.…

It's not unique to Pixar. Many stories and so many films follow the Hero's journey: a common template of stories that involve a hero who goes on an adventure, is victorious in a decisive crisis, and comes home changed or transformed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey).

The character needn't be a hero either, if you consider Dan Harmons story circle technique (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Harmon#"Story_Circle"_tech...):

1. A character is in a zone of comfort or familiarity.

2. They desire something.

3. They enter an unfamiliar situation.

4. They adapt to that situation.

5. They get that which they wanted.

6. They pay a heavy price for it.

7. They return to their familiar situation.

8. They have changed as a result of the journey.

Post reply on HN