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

51–60 of 89 posts

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#51

Post by m4tthumphrey »

samzer wrote: post #15
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 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.

This is exactly why I edited my comment and added "original" - the Cars sequels are definitely below par.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#52

Post by jerome-jh »

philmcc wrote: post #40
jerome-jh wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

Limiting my complain to recent Pixar movies: I think Coco, Soul and Inside Out are fairly obvious and not multi-layer. Definitely they talk of "difficult" subjects to kids: death, depression, regrets about ones life. They are not much fun either and the story is rather weak: often predictable, déjà-vu moments (Soul and Inside Out are strangely very similarly built with a meta-world in both), repetitive loop of slow and fast action scenes.

Japanese anime also talks about difficult subjects and IMO does it much better. Thinking of "Okko's Inn": much less predictable, some funny and tense scenes, and yet not shocking for children and quite emotional for parents (OK maybe our smallest daughter woke up and came in her parents bed the following night but she has not been traumatized for life :)

Since I am engaged in a reckless defense of Frozen in other posts: I think this movie is multi-layered. It talks of women and power, femicide, love vs friendship, sisterhood, although it is packaged in a story suitable for the smallest children as its success showed. The story is definitely not predictable from the start and has the power of myths. Of course Disney is well known for its ability to adapt old myths and tales.

As for older Pixar: The Incredibles was fun and multi-layered, Ratatouille was fun, Wall-E was great ...

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#53

Post by jerome-jh »

inanutshellus wrote: post #42
jerome-jh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stalker Sounds like I'll have to watch it ... someday. With young kids you are pretty much limited in terms of what can be watched. Maybe one of the reason I am so angry about american animation I find so shallow ;)

So wait, what're these non-US-made, deep, family-friendly films of which you speak?

One I saw recently with kids is japanese anime "Okko's Inn" (see above).

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#54

Post by sdenton4 »

kinghtown wrote: post #47
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…

I like Pixar a lot. But maybe it’s just a matter of personal taste. Letting go is a unifying theme in Up but my problem with the movie isn’t that it’s bad but that you had a table of all the guys at Pixar spitballing scene ideas and then glueing them all together. The result just feels episodic, in a bad way, and commercially manufactured. Up is a really good movie but I don’t want every CG film to have the Pixar pre…

'Up' is one of the best films of all time, followed by an additional hour and twenty minutes of pretty-decent movie.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#55

Post by jtr1 »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #44
onion2k wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 skill, or at least the ability to consider pulsing, is so valuable. A lot of things in life are not good. Even more are just okay. Very few are good and almost none are perfect or great. Having the ability to be in a situation or see something that is just okay and go, "Okay well it's not perfect but that is okay. Can I make it a little better?" is really helpful. It also makes life a lot less frustrating.

Agreed. I'd almost go so far as to say that it's an essential tool for aggregating intelligence. Sifting for and refining ideas just strikes me as so much more efficient than attacking and defending them.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#56

Post by willismichael »

jerome-jh wrote: post #52
philmcc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

Limiting my complain to recent Pixar movies: I think Coco, Soul and Inside Out are fairly obvious and not multi-layer. Definitely they talk of "difficult" subjects to kids: death, depression, regrets about ones life. They are not much fun either and the story is rather weak: often predictable, déjà-vu moments (Soul and Inside Out are strangely very similarly built with a meta-world in both), repetitive loop of slow a…

Frozen? Elsa makes absolutely no proactive decisions for the entire movie. She is completely reactive.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#57

Post by EricE »

ekianjo wrote: post #50
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

Toy Story has been on a very slid downhill after the second episode. 3 and 4 were both unnecessary and not very good. The same can be said for the Cars sequels, and the more recent Pixar productions in general - they had much better ideas in the very first years.

Look at Pixar before and after John Lasseter.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#58

Post by KaiserPro »

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,…

You have to remember that as pixar got bigger, more people had a say in the story.

The original pitch might have been absolutely groundbreaking, but for what ever reason one of the producers didn't like a character, and pushed for it to change.

All movies are a collaboration. there is no such thing a single "author" on a movie, its always team work. Sometimes that team is aligned to the same vision, other times not, and a compromise has to be hashed out.

> Their technical chops are probably best in the world.

They were ground breaking, but up until recently they insisted on making their own version of everything. This was fine in the early 90s when there was no other option. But now there are better tools out there. Thats not to say that all their tools suck, far from it.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#59

Post by nickthemagicman »

w-m wrote: post #20
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#"…

I watch Always Sunny in Philadelphia and they follow all the steps except step 8.

They always return back to their original situation unchanged... many times having caused a lot of problems in the world along the way.

Which adds to the humor and myth of the charachters being jerks.

Re: Pixar in a Box: the art of storytelling

#60

Post by bennysonething »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #44
onion2k wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 skill, or at least the ability to consider pulsing, is so valuable. A lot of things in life are not good. Even more are just okay. Very few are good and almost none are perfect or great. Having the ability to be in a situation or see something that is just okay and go, "Okay well it's not perfect but that is okay. Can I make it a little better?" is really helpful. It also makes life a lot less frustrating.

Yep, it's pretty much the key to be able to work with people
Post reply on HN