Excellent but underrated film

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

My review of The Pixar Story allows me to release a theory on the studio's film Toy Story I vaguely established several months back and only came to fully formulate upon watching the documentary. The film details how Pixar was so advanced, innovative, and intimidating to several graphic designers and the animation industry in general, it was somewhat ostracized and manipulated by Disney because they had no idea just what to do with them. Sort of like how in Toy Story, Buzz Lightyear is sort of brushed off and mocked by Woody and several other toys upon his arrival. However, by the end, the toys all learn to work together in unison for the greater good of...the toybox, perhaps? If you allow Buzz Lightyear to represent Pixar, Woody as Disney, and the additional toys as other animated studios and computer designers, the film is sort of allegorical in the regard to the rise of Pixar. Whether this is intentional or not is up for serious debate. I think it was just my brain overworking itself after a long line of average movies.On the other hand, the documentary The Pixar Story is, like the studio, something to behold. It's a necessary and efficient profile of one of the best and most powerful studios today, and sheds light on the innovators creating the films loved by kids and adults alike. It begins by showing us three men that drove the forces of Pixar as we know it. They are Ed Catmull, a technical officer, Steve Jobs, the late entrepreneur and CEO of Apple, and John Lasseter, Pixar's founding father. We learn that Lasseter was into animation from just a little kid, and relished the thought that he could grow up to make cartoons for a living.He attended California Institute of the Arts, where he won back-to-back Student Academy Awards for two short films he made while in school. When he finally got a job at Disney, he spent a lengthy time developing ideas for intriguing and innovative cartoons before he was fired because Disney, ultimately, didn't know what to do with such an ambitious soul. He was trying to introduce the wonders of computer animation to the company in the mid 1980's, when the machine was already being feared as a substitute for man. Lasseter tried to implore, however, that the computer is a tool for the artist and that it's inherently incapable of creative thinking. That's where an artist comes in.Catmull who assisted a lot with the technical side of Lasster's animation and even is credited with creating the first computer animated scene in film history in the 1976 film FutureWorld, while Jobs invested and believed so much in Lasseter's vision he was able to take several financial beatings before even returning any money, leading him to be called the world's most forgiving venture capitalist. In a sense, these men were rebels without a utensil. They believed in a new way to create art enough to further it and churn out film after film, each one a financial and critical success.After establishing the three men, the film looks extensively at the production of Toy Story. Lasseter claims that making this the studio's first feature was an intelligent decision because he stated early on he did not want to follow in the footsteps of Disney by creating frothy musicals and mythical fairy-tales. Through numerous uphill battles, the film was made and received universal rave reviews. The animation was dazzling, the storyline clicked with young kids and the adults, who didn't see the film as one to endure but one to enjoy, and the immensity of the animated setting and the gravity-defying ways the characters were moving was simply remarkable and never-before-seen. The film also details how the film's release sparked questions about the future of computer animated features and whether or not they would be the future and hand-drawn/traditional animation would later be phased out with the times. The Pixar staff in the film make perfectly clear that time between Toy Story and A Bug's Life, their followup film, was nervewracking because they had to prove that they were the real deal and people weren't just overhyping their work.On a final note, the latter act of the film concerns the traditional vs. computer animation debate and how after Disney films began to take a loss in revenue, the medium of traditional animation was rejected in favor of its sleeker, more visually dazzling cousin. In my opinion, the two could've coexisted and the demise was the fault of studios like Disney and DreamWorks not updating their stories and not their technology. Pixar raised the bar in animation, but it did the same in storytelling too, and American audiences didn't care to see a film like Disney's Home on the Range, Jungle Book 2, or Teacher's Pet when their sister-studio Pixar was churning out films like Finding Nemo, Monsters, Inc., and Toy Story 2 during the exact same time. Pixar's magical quality stemmed from them allowing the stereotype of animated films being for kids to gradually disappear and get adults, teenagers, and the elderly excited for their latest endeavor. The bar was raised in both departments, and Disney should've realized that films about singing cows and singing jungle animals weren't going to cut it any longer. The demise of the animation the studio pioneered was its own fault - not Pixar, who unfortunately was handed much of the blame.The Pixar Story is a solid documentary exploring a profound, revolutionary studio, and, in addition to it taking a look at each individual Pixar film (we can try and forgive the huge amount of time the film spends developing Toy Story and how the remaining six features get the cold shoulder in terms of how much time they're allotted on screen) explores a medium that definitely deserves a documentary in its honor.

Wow...what a great and thorough film. This is the story of Pixar Studio--from its earliest days to the present (which was 2007 at the time). It offers so much more than you might expect from such a film--wonderful access to the folks who built the studio who you might think were too busy or too important to participate--but they did. So, in addition to seeing lots of great films being made, you get to meet folks like John Lasseter and Steve Jobs and see them as people--very excited and creative people, but still people. Amazing access, however, isn't all. You also get a great sense of excitement and fun--and it's practically impossible to watch this film without feeling this and feeling inspired--and the music sure helps with this as well. For fans of CGI...heck, for ANYONE, this is a must-see film and you learn a lot and have a great time learning. See this film.

As a huge animation fan, I like the Pixar films very much. They are funny, poignant and are beautifully animated with lovable characters. In fact, while I prefer some of their films over others there is no Pixar film I hate. I saw this documentary by chance knowing little about it, and I loved it. The Pixar Story was so interesting and even moving. The interviews are well delivered and written, and I found them and how certain scenes were animated and done really intriguing. I also loved the music and the animated sequences featured especially for the door climax from Monsters Inc and the incredibly moving When Somebody Loved Me from Toy Story 2(Tom Hanks summed it up brilliantly). The Pixar Story goes along at a good pace and is a perfect length too. If anything though, I would have liked to have seen more of the Pixar shorts, as some of those are gems. But this is just nitpicking and doesn't take away from the fact that this documentary is wonderful. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Writer/producer/director/co-editor Leslie Iwerks, granddaughter of Ub Iwerks (SFX Oscar-winner, The Birds(1964)), submitted this doco of hers for Oscar consideration too, but The Pixar Story received only Emmy and American Cinema Editors award nominations.Such oversights don't prevent this delicious voyage from Mickey to Ratatouille(2007) from also being an emotive, ennobling ride--much as Pixar Treks usually are. Along the way we discover that animation is a labour of love for keen students, the best of whom go to CalArts to be lectured by Disney's retired artists, who themselves retain a student's attitude despite being lifelong pros. And when the lecturers went home, we're told the animation students taught each other--just like computer scientists do. I know that excitement well.It dawns on us that animation really is a me-generation- and recession-busting globaliser of minds.Back in 2004-5, according to this "lucid" ('Bottom Line: the lucid and entertaining story behind Pixar's success', Kirk Honeycutt, THR, 9 Oct 2007) feature documentary, the traditional animation industry was being dismantled. Established and talented 2D animators were being laid off in an industry contraction blamed on 3D and Pixar specifically. Ed Catmull goes to great lengths on camera to emphasize how being scapegoated hurt them. After all, they were just animators trying to survive in a hostile business environment.The trades kept declaring that 'Animators draw less as computers tooning up' (Greg Reifsteck), and '3D success is flattening traditionally animated pix' (THR's Carl Diorio). Of course by then Pixar had been in a production deal with Disney Studios, which distributed their product, for 14yrs. Perhaps to buy time for their own 2D animators, Disney is alleged to have decided to source Pixar's blockbusters to create direct-to-video 2D sequels without any Pixar input. The decision would prove contentious since Pixar creators would not abandon their "children" (to career-killing sequelitis). A mighty battle over creative control allegedly ensued within the Pixar/Mouse House.Eventually, 6yrs after the alleged Toy Story2(1999) near-calamity, there was a massive Disney shake-up instead.According to Iwerks' roadmap, the Mouse House had also been struggling with an industry-wide Fear of the Computer for some time, which first resulted in their early loss of John Lasseter in 1984. They had expected 3D to be cheaper than 2D! This industry war may have lasted 30+yrs, but venerable Disney artist Joe Grant, speaking just months prior to his death in 2005, makes the astonishing admission that in losing Lasseter, Disney was set to lose their heir to Walt.Lasseter had been 3D-animating his 'Brave Little Toaster' at Disney during the early 1980s, while concurrently, Pixar co-founders Alvy Ray Smith and Ed Catmull were creating the famous high-quality early CGI "Genesis Project" clip for STII-The Wrath of Khan(1983) at ILM. Interestingly, Star Trek performed the same universal-appeal humanist function then that Pixar does today.Iwerks' documentary reveals that during that momentous year at a computer graphics conference, Catmull, having heard SOME of Lasseter's tale of woe, instantly snapped him up post-Disney as the new animation hire for the fledgling CGI company that George Lucas had permitted them to start up. The Pixar Story also claims that for two decades afterwards, Disney kept trying to tempt Lasseter back, but he always remained more committed to Pixar.In the late 1990s Disney finally over-invested in the lukewarm 2D/3D actioner Treasure Planet(2002), and LOST around $100M for their Feature Animation division. This was almost certainly the cause of the subsequent organisational shake-up in late 2005, when Michael Eisner was replaced by Bob Iger as head of Disney. And with that, The Pixar Story informs us, the entire mood, prospects, and history of Pixar changed.3D's success is arguably just a natural evolution; if it wins the final look of cinema feature animation, so what? Conversely, many feel much more comfortable with 2D full-frame for TV weekly comedies, which according to Seth MacFarlane of Family Guy fame, is a much more intimate format for his type of entertainment.As industry insiders know, 2D is still the staple of animation and the bulk of the business--it's just not sexy. 2D is also vital to 3D itself pre-rendering, so plenty of animation jobs remain at as many studios as are able to offer great UNIVERSAL STORYTELLING. Roy Disney (Walt's nephew) confirms this in the home stretch of Iwerks' triumph.But more than that, enchanting storytelling perhaps needs to be rarer/harder to do than the annual supply of 3D multiplex features currently proposed. Even 3D's over-reliance on animal-allegories/fables can prove fatal. Audiences are already reaching saturation point from their inundation by the big three 3D studios. This could prove just as devastating as Disney's "perfectionist" movement-over-characterisation had become to 2D. Under no circumstances should anybody again attempt a Meet Dave(2007)-like stylistic debauchery of contemporary cultural cool.Thankfully, Iwerks reveals Pixar artists as remaining "hungry" after a decade-and-a-half of financial success. Equally, they're well aware of their high regard not only by the public at large, but among 2D traditional animators, recently giving their "9 Old Men"/CalArts lecturers Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas animated cameos within The Incredibles(2005).The Pixar Story also features welcome live-action cameos by the two saddest quick-succession losses to animation in 2005: Joe Grant (Fantasia(1940), Dumbo(1941)--heart attack); and Joe Ranft (our beloved Heimlich--car accident). Tragically neither saw Iwerks' doco, 7yrs in the making, completed.This often gobsmacking, educational and deeply moving feature documentary finally concludes with a moving end credit sequence full of quiet dignity showcasing the enormous workloads underpinning wireframes. The end crawl is overlain by a powerfully Beatlesesque instrumental, "Modern Inventions", by The Submarines. It sells the whole message of 3D, willing us to fall in love with the entire precept of animation--and certainly with the Pixar folks at Emeryville, CA.For everything else I had to say about The Pixar Story(2007), consult Honeycutt's review referenced earlier.(10/10)