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

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#31

Post by jerome-jh »

philmcc wrote: post #10
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 would be curious to see your list of movies, primarily aimed at children, where there are two protagonists who disagree in the beginning and don't end up reconciling in the end. ("Up", which you cited as the last Pixar movie that was 'worth it', is in fact largely a conflicted parent/child relationship) It reads as if what causes you 'grief' is actually the intended format of the content you are consuming. Yes, it'…

The best kid movies speak both to adults and kids, because they have several layers of understanding. That's what makes them great. I have not found those layers in recent Pixar movies, although I admit I skipped a number of them. The cause may be that they have to be so polished in order not to offend anyone. Maybe also their technical superiority in visual effects is somehow exempting them from telling great or controversial stories.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#32

Post by onion2k »

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.…

Pixar does this iteration using a technique called "plussing". When you see someone's work you accept it regardless of whether you think it's good. You're encouraged to do what you can to make your colleagues look good. Work is always a starting point for the next iteration. When you do need to be critical of something you should always add something about how to make it better.

There's a good video on YT about it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhXJe8ANws8

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#33

Post by jedimastert »

kop316 wrote: post #28
jedimastert wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Worst for me would be Cars 2 TBH I keep forgetting that movie exists. It was such a weird moment for them.

I may have to rewatch it, but I recall that movie being fairly entertaining, even as an adult. I also will say I went to watch it without having seen the original Cars, so perhaps I really had no expectations for the film (other than it was a Pixar film)?

I've not had any interest in it, so I haven't really say through it.

The weird thing is that Cars has this emotional center around facades and regret and abandonment and the differences between the journey and the destination and it's this beautiful look into a town that got bypassed. And more to the point it has this emotional weight that was still really accessible to a young me that a lot of other kids studios didn't really trust kids with (except for like Miyazaki films and stuff).

And then Cars 2 was a mistaken-identity spy movie a la Johnny English or Get Smart. I don't doubt it was an entertaining movie or something, but it felt so outside the Pixar brand, like something Disney or Dreamworks or any other studio would make.

It was also the first sequel outside of the Toy Story series, from a studio that somewhat famously refused to do sequels if the world didn't have more story to tell.

Like I said, it was just such a weird departure to do seemingly do a sequel just because the world was popular enough.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#34

Post by klmadfejno »

kop316 wrote: post #30
klmadfejno wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, no I disagree strongly. I quite like Pixar's stories. In particular I appreciate how differently they come off to adults vs. children in ways that feel meaningful to both. As a kid, I completely missed what were obviously concerns of Mr. Incredible's infidelity. In the emotions one, kids see the obvious narrative that the emotions control the child, whereas adults are likely to see the emotions as a metaphor for…

Recently I have been watching a bunch of pixar movies that have been blockbusters, but I really haven't seen before. I like their themes and story telling, but something that bothers me for their major pictures is it feels like they all follow a very similar overall narrative: - some sort of "buddy" movie - some sort of "we only have x amount of time to solve our crisis we got into" - the two buddies have some sort o…

Tropey story beats do get a bit tiresome, but they're there because they work. Fiction that flaunts defying these tropes tends to be pretty great, but its still rare, and probably doesn't feel very good unless the viewer is already tired of the original.

Buddies fight and, having acknowledged their primary character fault, reconcile, is one that is everywhere in children's fiction. I also find it boring.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#35

Post by Fricken »

kinghtown wrote: post #14
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,…

Storytelling is frequently done as a collaborative process. Spielberg famously likes to take his screenplays through 14 drafts and meticulously drafted storyboards put together by a creative team. Large television shows are written by rooms full of writers, and on reality television shows a big chunk of the writing happens in the editing room, often with a committee in the editing room picking at and debating every little detail before a final cut is produced.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#36

Post by pdpi »

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.

10 years is a lot of time, and "worth saving" is a very low barrier.

I'd classify Kubo And The Two Strings, and Inside Out as must-watch films. Spiderman: Into The Spiderverse set new boundaries for what's possible with animation.

Moana, Zootopia, Big Hero 6, Wreck-it Ralph, The Incredibles 2 and Finding Dory are all pretty good films, and definitely tick all the boxes you listed.

I'm not even looking at Anomalisa, Isle of Dogs, and other such more adult-oriented animated films.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#37

Post by lostsoul8282 »

onion2k wrote: post #32
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.…

Pixar does this iteration using a technique called "plussing". When you see someone's work you accept it regardless of whether you think it's good . You're encouraged to do what you can to make your colleagues look good. Work is always a starting point for the next iteration. When you do need to be critical of something you should always add something about how to make it better. There's a good video on YT about it -…

This single comment sent me on a hour long search of Randy Nelson and the interesting world of story telling from writters at pixar and disney.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#38

Post by rocmcd »

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.

I don't think The Good Dinosaur was a very good "children's movie" in the typical sense, but I'd recommend taking a second look at it if you haven't recently. I watched it again after seeing it when it first came out, and I found it to be a pretty good movie - even if it doesn't fit the typical kids movie mold.

It's ironic because The Good Dinosaur would be a good example of them taking a bet on a somewhat unique vision (a dinosaur spaghetti western?) with a more mature outlook, and then getting shit on by reviewers because it wasn't as funny or charming as Inside Out.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#39

Post by jerome-jh »

dmitriid wrote: post #12
jerome-jh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Truly it has quite a bit of depth and is not predictable from the start. Certainly it appeals more to girls. Pixar movies tend to be rather didactic: "OK we are going to talk about [death|depression|aging|following your passion]" whereas the best kid movies just tell a great myth.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#40

Post by philmcc »

jerome-jh wrote: post #31
philmcc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be curious to see your list of movies, primarily aimed at children, where there are two protagonists who disagree in the beginning and don't end up reconciling in the end. ("Up", which you cited as the last Pixar movie that was 'worth it', is in fact largely a conflicted parent/child relationship) It reads as if what causes you 'grief' is actually the intended format of the content you are consuming. Yes, it'…

The best kid movies speak both to adults and kids, because they have several layers of understanding. That's what makes them great. I have not found those layers in recent Pixar movies, although I admit I skipped a number of them. The cause may be that they have to be so polished in order not to offend anyone. Maybe also their technical superiority in visual effects is somehow exempting them from telling great or con…

I agree with you, as far as the dual layers of communication. The general feeling I get is that that's precisely why Pixar is a preferred studio over some of their competitors in the animation space.

I didn't see Onward, but between that, Coco, Soul, and Inside Out, those are four moves that grapple pretty heavily with mortality, death, the afterlife, depression, which I'm assuming sails over the head of most kids.

And even their earlier ones like Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, and Up have pretty serious things to say about childhood illness/"deformity", the role of the critic, and tragedy that similarly seem to be aimed -just- over the heads of kids.

I think I'd need a definition of what a "great" childhood story is, but I'm pretty sure that neither Disney nor Pixar has "controversial" as part of their DNA. Much to the relief of parents everywhere, that's simply not what they're trying to do, so to judge them for not doing that is confusing.

Perhaps you're looking for something more along the lines of A24 (Moonlight, The Florida Project, The Witch) from... Disney?

Post reply on HN