Pixar Finally Offers Animated Shorts on Pixar.com

NicerGuy writes "Today I was bored and decided to check out pixar.com. I hadn't been there in a long time, but was pleasantly surprised to find that they have finally made all(?) of their animated shorts available for download. The films, which are in QuickTime format, include my favorites: Geri's Game and Luxo Jr."

Comments

Ooh, so confusing

[at-b]

I just dunno. My value system is mightily screwed up here, guys.

Pixar == Disney distribution == Disney == bad.

but

Pixar == nifty films == good!

but

Pixar == Steve Jobs == Apple == bad!

but

Apple == iPod == lame?

(this is where it gets confusing)

Pixar (also) == Linux == geeky == GOOD!

but

Linux == Pixar films == more money to MPAA == BAD!

but

Linux == less money to Bill Gates == GOOD!

but

Pixar == Apple == Sorenson Codec == BAD!

but

Sorenson Codec == Good Quality at Reasonable Size == GOOD!

but

Pixar == Apple != Linux == BAD!

but

Apple == OSX == BSD == GOOD!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaargh!

Thinking in more than one direction is really confusing. Someone post something about MS embracing and extending something, even if it's just an elastic band. Please? I need my world to be set right again.

Maybe a frogurt?

Alex

Re:Ooh, so confusing

[SLOGEN]

Since already the 2 statements:

1. Pixar == nifty films == good!
2. Pixar == Steve Jobs == Apple == bad!

Prove that (since == is transetive):

• good == bad

And it's a generally accepted axiom that:

• good != bad

When we apply the usual axiom of negation:

• A == B !(A != B)

We get:

• !(good == bad)

We can now invoke the usual definition of && to prove:

• (bad == good) && !(bad == good) -> false

Establishing that your proof-system is not sound and thus you should expect it to be confusing, since it can prove any statement what-so-ever.

I suspect, that if you remove the "transetive" property from your definition of "==" your system may become sound, but unfortunatly not as funny.

Logic is not easy, but it's good clean fun

Re:Really neat

[Monsieur_F]

Really nice. Thank you Pixar :)

Why is everybody saying Pixar=Steve Jobs ?
Pixar is John Lasseter, that's all.
He's an artist, and I love all that he has done,
from the very beginning.

I think one of the first 3D computer rendered image that Pixar made and got used in a movie was in "Young Sherlock Holmes", but I am not sure about this...

By the way, if you like short animation movies you can also
go to Aardman, and enjoy some movies from the makers of Chicken Run !

Crossover plays Quicktime in Linux. Its good.

[Nailer]

Codeweavers Crossover allows you to view Apple Quicktime. Shockwave, Ipix, and other Win32 based browser plugins under Linux.

it uses Wine, buts in a much more limited and controllable environment, meaning its a lot more stable. It supports any browser which support the Netscape plugin API (Galeon, Mozilla, etc) but bugs in Konq nspluginapi implementation means that Konq and Quicktime is a no goer (currently anyway).

Its twenty US bucks and the cash goes towards the salaries of the fellows who work on the free, main Wine project. it can be clunky at times 9when running Quicktime as a standalone app) but generally its OK. Galeon, OTOH, works with it a treat. I've viewed every single trailer at apple.com with it (to the point of being kicked off my ISP for bandwidth overuse :D ).

Version 1.01 is coming out this week, BTW, which apprently fixes a lot of the bugs of earlier versions.

its a good product and worth the small price. The money also goes to a good cause that contributes to the community.

No, I don't work for them :D

Luxo Jr. and John Lasseter

[Kraft]

In case you don't know, the director of Luxo Jr. is John Lasseter - the guy who directed the Toy Stories.

Anyway, Luxo Jr. is a classic in computer animation. The most amazing part, is that it is made in 1986. This little movie really pushed the mental limit for people as to what computers could produce. Sure, Lasseter wasn't the only one experimenting at the time, but IMO this particular animation made computer animation respectable as it even got nominated for an Oscar under the category Animated Short Film in 87. Well, it's fun no matter what - check it out.

Anyone else think this is funny?

[dimator]

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/eo/20011101/en/_quot_ shrek_quot_stalks_quot_monsters_inc_quot__1.html

Disney/Pixar most definitely do not like DreamWorks, and vice versa. Ever notice how Farquad (the villain in Shrek) looks amazingly like Micheal Eisner, and that saying "farquad" fast enough sounds a lot like "fuck wad"? These guys dislike each other on a personal level.

For the Birds

[EvilSinus]

Unfortunately they haven't relased For the Birds on the net yet. I saw it for the first time back in SIGGRAPH2000 in New Orleans, and everybody loved it. It's just incredibly funny, and so well done.

If I'm not mistaking, the reason it's not up for download yet is because Pixar want to have it nominated for an academy award, for the best animated short. And the academy's rules state a nominee is not allowed to be broadcast on the net or on television, except during animation festivals like SIGGRAPH etc. (Or something to that effect). It was shown at Spike & Mike's Sick & Twisted Animation Festival however.

It should be submitted to the academy this year. Last year however, a fairly reliable source said a paperwork error made the short miss the submission deadline. If that hadn't been the case I'm sure it'd be up for download aswell.

Re:Cool

[greeny]

Actually A Bug's Life is none other than:

Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai.

Seven strangers are recruited to save a village.

Which is also remade as:
The Magnificent Seven,
Three Amigos,
and Galaxy Quest

Amongst others.

It's not that it's "predictable..." It's that we like to be retold/repackaged good stories.

Re:Really neat

[malducin]

Well Pixar got started first as the Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Group back in 1979. Back in those days Triple I, one of the pioneer companies in commercial CG, did a test for Lucas that had several CG X-Wings flying around. This was for the FX work in Empire Strikes Back. Art Durinski and Gary Demos were among those involved. Unfortunately they couln't come to financial terms and Lucas opted to continue the traditional way but move ILM to Northern California. But Lucas was so impressed that he decided to start his own CG division. The first guy they hired was Ed Catmull but many others soon followed and the Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Group was born. They worked on maby things, from the Pixar Image Computer, film scanning, the beginnings of RenderMan and shading languages and digital compositing, among many things. They produced the Death Star hologram for Return of the Jedi. One of the last few things they did was the Andre and Wally B. short, that's why you'll see Lucasfilm credits in there.

But Catmull was always interested in doing animated movies while Lucas was interested in photorealistic effects. So he let Catmull look around and later in 1986 Lucas sold Pixar to Steve Jobs (of course way before he went back to Apple). While Jobs might be the owner, if you want to equate Pixar with someone that would be Catmull (though there are many talented folks there). They also had an agreement that ILM would get first access to any new technology Pixar developed. And the rest as they say is history.