Pixar Co-founder Shares 'the Real Story of Pixar' (ieee.org) 41
Alvy Ray Smith cofounded Pixar. He was the first director of computer graphics at Lucasfilm and the first graphics fellow at Microsoft. He has received two technical Academy Awards for his contributions to digital movie-making technology.
This week he shared "The Real Story of Pixar," in an article in IEEE Spectrum that Slashdot reader Tekla Perry says "corrects some of the things legend got wrong, and gives a fast tour of computer graphics history, as he talks about the key computer graphics breakthroughs that led up to Pixar and how Moore's Law saved the company." Its starts in 1980 when Smith is part of a team hired by Lucasfilm to create its Computer Division: This division was charged with computerizing editing, sound design and mixing, special effects, and accounting for the company's books, as if this fourth challenge would be as difficult as the other three. Ed Catmull, who led the Computer Division, made me head of the Computer Graphics Group, which was tasked with the special-effects project. At Lucasfilm, we continued to develop the software needed for three-dimensional computer-generated movies. And we worked on specialized hardware as well, designing a computer, called the Pixar Image Computer, that could run its calculations four times as fast as comparable general-purpose systems — but only for pixels. We were still waiting for Moore's Law to get general computers to where we needed them — it did, but this strategy gave us a boost for a few years.
We didn't get one of our fully computer-generated movie sequences into a major motion picture until 1982, with our one-minute "Genesis" sequence in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. It showed a bare planet catching on fire, melting, and then forming mountains and seas and green forests. We followed that groundbreaking piece of a movie with a brief sequence in Return of the Jedi in 1983, featuring a "hologram" of the Death Star... But then our Computer Graphics Group, now numbering 40 people, got the news that the Computer Division was on the chopping block.
Then Smith continues the story with an excerpt from his new book, "A Biography of the Pixel." ("We did have a prototype special-purpose computer, the Pixar Image Computer. So Ed and I wrote up a business plan to build and sell Pixar Image Computers, calling them 'supercomputers for pixels'...") 35 venture capital firms turned them down, as did 10 corporations where they'd proposed a "strategic partnership." Finally, they made a desperate pitch to Steve Jobs: Steve, who had just been ousted from Apple, proposed that he buy us from Lucasfilm and run us as his next company. We said no, that we wanted to run the company ourselves, but we would accept his money in the form of a venture investment. And he agreed...
Pixar was a lousy hardware company. We failed several times over our first five years. That's failure measured the usual way: We ran out of money and couldn't pay our bills or our employees. If we'd had any other investor than Steve, we would have been dead in the water. But at every failure — presumably because Steve couldn't sustain the embarrassment that his next enterprise after the Apple ouster would be a failure — he'd berate those of us in management . . . then write another check. And each check effectively reduced employee equity. After several such "refinancings," he had poured about $50 million (half of the fortune he had made from Apple) into Pixar. In today's money, that's more than $100 million. On March 6, 1991, in Pixar's fifth year, he finally did buy the company from the employees outright.
The company was still in financial trouble — but expanding computing power eventually made it possible to render an entire full-length movie, and Disney financed the years of production necessary for the 1995 movie Toy Story. But even before its release, Steve Jobs "took Pixar public on November 29, 1995, on nothing more than the promise of Toy Story.
"It salvaged his reputation and made him a billionaire."
The article's subheading? "How a bad hardware company turned itself into a great movie studio."
This week he shared "The Real Story of Pixar," in an article in IEEE Spectrum that Slashdot reader Tekla Perry says "corrects some of the things legend got wrong, and gives a fast tour of computer graphics history, as he talks about the key computer graphics breakthroughs that led up to Pixar and how Moore's Law saved the company." Its starts in 1980 when Smith is part of a team hired by Lucasfilm to create its Computer Division: This division was charged with computerizing editing, sound design and mixing, special effects, and accounting for the company's books, as if this fourth challenge would be as difficult as the other three. Ed Catmull, who led the Computer Division, made me head of the Computer Graphics Group, which was tasked with the special-effects project. At Lucasfilm, we continued to develop the software needed for three-dimensional computer-generated movies. And we worked on specialized hardware as well, designing a computer, called the Pixar Image Computer, that could run its calculations four times as fast as comparable general-purpose systems — but only for pixels. We were still waiting for Moore's Law to get general computers to where we needed them — it did, but this strategy gave us a boost for a few years.
We didn't get one of our fully computer-generated movie sequences into a major motion picture until 1982, with our one-minute "Genesis" sequence in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. It showed a bare planet catching on fire, melting, and then forming mountains and seas and green forests. We followed that groundbreaking piece of a movie with a brief sequence in Return of the Jedi in 1983, featuring a "hologram" of the Death Star... But then our Computer Graphics Group, now numbering 40 people, got the news that the Computer Division was on the chopping block.
Then Smith continues the story with an excerpt from his new book, "A Biography of the Pixel." ("We did have a prototype special-purpose computer, the Pixar Image Computer. So Ed and I wrote up a business plan to build and sell Pixar Image Computers, calling them 'supercomputers for pixels'...") 35 venture capital firms turned them down, as did 10 corporations where they'd proposed a "strategic partnership." Finally, they made a desperate pitch to Steve Jobs: Steve, who had just been ousted from Apple, proposed that he buy us from Lucasfilm and run us as his next company. We said no, that we wanted to run the company ourselves, but we would accept his money in the form of a venture investment. And he agreed...
Pixar was a lousy hardware company. We failed several times over our first five years. That's failure measured the usual way: We ran out of money and couldn't pay our bills or our employees. If we'd had any other investor than Steve, we would have been dead in the water. But at every failure — presumably because Steve couldn't sustain the embarrassment that his next enterprise after the Apple ouster would be a failure — he'd berate those of us in management . . . then write another check. And each check effectively reduced employee equity. After several such "refinancings," he had poured about $50 million (half of the fortune he had made from Apple) into Pixar. In today's money, that's more than $100 million. On March 6, 1991, in Pixar's fifth year, he finally did buy the company from the employees outright.
The company was still in financial trouble — but expanding computing power eventually made it possible to render an entire full-length movie, and Disney financed the years of production necessary for the 1995 movie Toy Story. But even before its release, Steve Jobs "took Pixar public on November 29, 1995, on nothing more than the promise of Toy Story.
"It salvaged his reputation and made him a billionaire."
The article's subheading? "How a bad hardware company turned itself into a great movie studio."
Sounds a lot like what’s in Isaacson’s (Score:3, Insightful)
What’s the part that “legend got wrong”?
I remember it like it was yesterday (Score:3)
Which isn't saying much, since I barely remember yesterday anymore...
Anyhow, I used to hang around the River Oaks theater in Houston where they showed out-of-mainstream cult stuff. In 1986, that included the Fantastic Animation Film Festival (1977) [imdb.com]. In addition to the main feature they threw in some more recent short bits, including Luxo Jr.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It was NOT POSSIBLE for a computer to make such realistic images! It took me several viewings before I was fully convinced it was a
Re: (Score:3)
You kids who have CGI shoved down your throats for every scene in every movie can't appreciate how groundbreaking that was,
User name checks out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just sad to see the River Oaks shut down this past year. So many great off-the-radar films -- I saw Tommy Wisseau do a Q&A after "The Room". Richard Linklater (director, Houstonian) wants to try to do something to keep it a movie theater -- so many of that eras movie theaters got turned into other things (such as the Trader Joe's on Shepherd).
I don't think there is any place to even see such films any more. The other theater I would go to was the other Landmark (now closed -- thanks Joel Osteen!) a
salvaged his reputation and made him a billionare. (Score:1)
"It salvaged his reputation and made him a billionaire."
Pretty sure the success at Apple second time around did that.
Pixar - while good - is a minor success in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I'm sure his success at NeXTStep did that otherwise there would have been nothing to attract Apple's attention. Nothing to base upon. Reputation, isn't an OS.
Re: salvaged his reputation and made him a billion (Score:2)
NeXT was in no way shape or form successful until it finally got bought by Apple. The best anyone could say of it in the 80s and 90s -- once the curtain was lifted and people saw what their product was and how much it cost -- was that it looked pretty. Sun kicked their ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure the success at Apple second time around did that.
The only reason Apple asked him back is because he proved he knew what he was doing and had what Apple needed with NeXT. His reputation did take a hit when he was ousted from Apple, and NeXT fixed it and led to the path that made him a billionaire.
Pixar - while good - is a minor success in comparison.
Agreed, rather minor success in comparison to either Apple tenure - which is saying something! I don't like the man (love Apple's other Steve), but can't deny how successful he was at what he was doing...
Re:salvaged his reputation and made him a billiona (Score:5, Informative)
The second stint at Apple is later than the Pixar IPO. At least the part about "made him a billionaire" is literal: when trading closed on the day of the IPO, Jobs' Pixar shares were worth just over a billion USD.
Re:salvaged his reputation and made him a billiona (Score:5, Interesting)
Same point as I was going to make. Apple's lowest point came two years after this, when Microsoft, of all people, put $150M into the company and Michael Dell suggested the company should be shut down, and the capital returned to the shareholders.
Re:salvaged his reputation and made him a billiona (Score:5, Informative)
Michael Dell never "suggested the company should be shut down". This is Apple fanboy lore.
Michael Dell was asked what he would do as CEO of Apple. He responded that he would be a poor choice for CEO of Apple because he would likely shut the company down. It was a commonly held and sensible view at the time. Apple had loads of assets and hopelessly uncompetitive products then.
It is amazing how fanboy lies are so easily accepted as fact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno if CNN counts as Apple fanboys:
https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/18... [cnn.com]
“What would I do? I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders,” Dell replied after some prodding.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And I've never owned an Apple product besides a pair of those white earbuds someone gave me, or heard about Dell's comment before this thread, so not exactly leading the fanboy parade over here.
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Dell was asked what he would do as CEO of Apple. He responded that he would be a poor choice for CEO of Apple because he would likely shut the company down. It was a commonly held and sensible view at the time. Apple had loads of assets and hopelessly uncompetitive products then.
It's not a schooner, it's a sailboat [youtube.com]
It is amazing how fanboy lies are so easily accepted as fact.
What's really amazing is that you were modded "informative."
"...when Microsoft, of all people..." (Score:2)
"Corporations are people too !" -- Mitt Romney
https://www.latimes.com/la-xpm... [latimes.com]
Re: salvaged his reputation and made him a billion (Score:3)
It was Apple (round 2) that helped his reputation. But it was Pixar that he made his first billion from.
So that's what went wrong (Score:2)
Re:So that's what went wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Pixar was a great animation studio until about, oooh, just after Toy Story 3 came out around 2010. Meaning Toy Story 3, on the timescale those movies are made, would've been the last movie made before Disney took over entirely. Today I learned that Disney ruined Pixar. Good job guys.
Disney has pretty much ruined everything they have bought.
Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar...
Re:So that's what went wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Disney has pretty much ruined everything they have bought.
[...]Star Wars[...]
Meesa think you forgeta Jar Jar.
Re: So that's what went wrong (Score:1)
I don't actually see anything wrong with jarjar, i actually quite enjoyed the first six movies of star wars. Can't say the same for the sequels. I didn't watch The Mandalorian yet so i can't say anything about it but i heard it is quite good too.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm also a Jar Jar fan. The Force channels power through his clumsiness.
and "Howard the Duck", too! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ignoring for a moment that the pre-Disney prequels were pretty dire, Marvel has been a huge success for Disney with multiple billion-dollar movies coming out of it.
It's helped the comics too. The comics went through a phase of trying to replace the X-Men with the Inhumans, because they had sold the X-Men movie rights to Fox and couldn't get them back. It was mostly terrible and was only resolved when Disney bought Fox and the rights, at which point they promptly killed off the Inhumans in the comics.
Of cour
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that when Pixar was acquired, John Lasseter became the CCO, essentially meaning that the creative control of the entire Disney went to the ex-Pixar folks. Only recently the position was passed on to Jennifer Lee (who was behind the little project known as Frozen).
So yeah, Disney bought Pixar and result was that Pixar started assimilating the Mouse, not the other way around. Steve Jobs became the largest shareholder because of that deal, remember? I already mentioned Frozen, but e.g. Zootopia
Re: (Score:2)
Pixar was a great animation studio until about, oooh, just after Toy Story 3 came out around 2010. Meaning Toy Story 3, on the timescale those movies are made, would've been the last movie made before Disney took over entirely. Today I learned that Disney ruined Pixar. Good job guys.
Disney has pretty much ruined everything they have bought.
Marvel,
You can argue that Disney ruined Hollywood by taking over the industry with Comic Book movies, but I can hardly see how they ruined Marvel.
Star Wars,
Star Wars was ruined by George Lucas. They partially salvaged it with Eps 6-9 and more substantially salvaged it with the Mandalorian.
Pixar...
A bunch more hits, classics, and Ocsars, still not seeing the ruination.
Not true - Mandalorian (Score:1)
Disney has pretty much ruined everything they have bought.
I know you and others dislike the newer Star Wars movies, but Disney also made The Mandalorian - some of the best Star Wars content ever produced in any medium.
Also under Disney, they have produced the High Republic books and comics, which have excellent wiring and storylines for the most part.
And coming up next year are a very promising looking set of new shows - sure some of them might not hit, but some of them probably will.
Frankly, who else besid
Re:So that's what went wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Pixar was a great animation studio until about, oooh, just after Toy Story 3 came out around 2010.
What was wrong with Inside Out or Soul? (Both by Pete Docter)? Thought they were pretty much excellent. The only recent ones that have been more of a 'meh' have been Brave and Good Dinosaur. Toy Story 4, Coco, Finding Dory and Onward were all at least passable if not good.
Re: (Score:2)
I also liked Luca quite a bit.
Really captured those summer days where me and my brother left the house in the morning and would go hang out "building" things from the junk pile (an abandoned farm's midden) in the forest beside our house. The only rules were "be home before dark. Or else."
Watching those parts of the movie, for me, was like the scene in Ratatouille where ego tries his plate.
Re: (Score:3)
I also liked Luca quite a bit.
Really captured those summer days where me and my brother left the house in the morning and would go hang out "building" things from the junk pile (an abandoned farm's midden) in the forest beside our house. The only rules were "be home before dark. Or else."
Watching those parts of the movie, for me, was like the scene in Ratatouille where ego tries his plate.
I thought Coco was great. I liked Luca a lot, but they lost a few points for leaving out John Ratzenberger.
Animated movies have become amazing over the years. They create beautiful worlds and characters with more depth and emotion than you get in a lot of live action films.
Re: (Score:2)
I loved the movie COCO.
It thaught us a lot about Mexican tradition, history and about their values, it was very touching to me and I'm not a Mexican, but that celebration of the Dead and staying in touch with their family members by celebrating it rather than fearing it touched me to tears.
Re: (Score:2)
> What was wrong with Inside Out
At least that one had the story locked before the Evil Mouse came in.
I'll refer you to the thousands of angry rants on YouTube about Disney's psycho then woke story requirements rather than repeat them here.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)