It really helped me shift my mind during some difficult projects where I felt like I was working against impossible odds.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/pixars-ed-catmull-emerge...
Also, he never covered why Cars was so awful. (or Cars 2) which I believe both came out before the book? Maybe you disagree they were bad but rottentomatoes and metacritic has them near the bottom of the list along with The Good Dinosaur, Brave, and Monsters University.
I'd love to know what he thinks changed.
What I liked most about that book was how much he acknowledged luck. Examples: Luck they didn't get sold/disbanded before Jobs bought them from Lucas. Luck that Jobs was willing to blow 70 million on them as a computer company before they switched to being an animation company. And he acknowledges lots of other luck.
The good dinosaur, Brave and Monsters university all still good but not quite Pixar.
Cars two is an absolute disaster though and it's a shame it wasn't covered in the book. Something clearly went very wrong with this movie and they redid most of it in ten weeks or so I read, it seems to go against all the values and things they talk about and it does feel as if the story they tell about themselves is perhaps worked as much as the stories they make.
I see Cars as a film that appeals to children primarily, while the others are "family" movies in the best sense.
It always seemed to me that Cars was intended to be a more child-oriented movie, but I don't know that it should suffer for that critically.
Maybe it w as hoped to be a film on the same level as those others, but I can't imagine anybody read the script and thought it would be.
They're not family movies, they're movies that parents want their kids to be interested in but the reality is kids prefer Cars, Frozen, Shrek and Minions.
Finally went and saw Brave. And, I have to say, I was disappointed :(
Oh, the movie certainly had its good points. It was technically gorgeous - both the artwork and the character animation were Pixar at the top of their very considerable game. And despite complaints of the story being overly Disneyfied it was satisfyingly subversive[0] of many of the tired tropes it referenced. I didn't even mind that it was predictable[1] - fairytale movies tend to be, and that is often part of their charm.
No, what ruined it for me was that it was a fundamentally boring movie. The dialogue was bland, the humour was slapsticky (which tends to fall flat for me), the moralising was heavy handed, and there was no real tension other than that required for the linear development of the plot. Even the "jokes for the adults" that have practically become de rigueur for big-budget animated movies weren't all that funny (though I did blink a bit at the Wicker Man reference).
All in all, not one of Pixar's best.
[0] http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/just-another-princess-movie/
[1] it was nice that it ended with her going her own way rather than finding a nice boy to marry, but it wasn't really what I'd call a plot twist
So I guess it's subjective then :)
I still admire his determination and dedication towards the animation industry, but I'll be more reserved with my praise.
Such agreements are standard practice in many industries, and if they're actually illegal, it's due to a technicality in a law with which few are familiar (anti-trust legislation), not due to some naturally-apparent moral imperative. It's obvious that the executives involved did not conduct their actions with the intent of hamstringing employee growth, but rather with the intent of maintaining stable operations and keeping turnover low. It's completely reasonable to understand this as a normal part of running a business, especially considering that such agreements are common across industries.
Don't fall for the hyperbolic narrative from artist's trade outlets who are trying to manufacture rage to serve their own interests.
[0] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-s...