Slashdot Mirror


Trailer of Pixar Movie 'Finding Nemo'

tjansen writes "The trailer of the next Pixar movie, Finding Nemo, is out. Only Quicktime, as usual, so you need CrossOver on Linux machines." Actually's Disney's site has Real and Windows Media formats, so you can pick your poison.

203 comments

  1. Crossover? by sheepab · · Score: 1, Troll

    Why does this seem to be a plug for a product? I know of other sourceforge projects that will play Quicktime movies. I dont need to spend money just to watch a trailer. I dont mean to be a troll but I believe I have a point.

    1. Re:Crossover? by carl67lp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you know of other products, rather than chastising the initial post, why not be more informative and actually list them?

    2. Re:Crossover? by agentZ · · Score: 2

      Well, that's nice, but could you please some links to those projects, or at least their names?

    3. Re:Crossover? by cscx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Projects marked "Stage 1 -- Planning" don't count.

    4. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Really? Where can I find something that plays the Sorensen codec, and plays is properly? I'm not talking about something that only gives me audio or only gives me video. Until then, I'm sticking with Crossover.

    5. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Due the the fact that Quicktime hasn't released the codec, you can't play Sorensen QT files properly. In order to actually watch them, you've got to run the QT software. Enter Crossover.

      It's called reading up before posting. Try it sometime.

    6. Re:Crossover? by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are many projects working on being able to play all Quicktime movies, but none that I am aware of have yet accomplished this goal. Codeweavers Crossover Plug-in does by integrating the Windows platform viewer with the Linux environment.

      The company itself also contributes code to Wine project, and provides decent support for it's products. It's fine that you don't want to pay money for their product, but there is nothing wrong with those who do.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    7. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you braindead? Xine and mplayer have had sorenson support for some time now.

    8. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorensen v1 != sorensen v3.

      Like previous posters have said, read up before posting.

    9. Re:Crossover? by taviso · · Score: 5, Informative

      $ mencoder -o nero.avi -oac copy -ovc copy mms://wmd31sea.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/find ing_nemo/finding_nemo_trailer_750.wmv

      $ mplayer nero.avi

      tada, no crossover required. also no lag, no skipping. what more could you want ? :)

      mplayer homepage.

      --
      ex$$
    10. Re:Crossover? by .com+b4+.storm · · Score: 1

      You do have a point, except that you (and the news posters) neglect to keep in mind that you need Crossover to play Sorenson encoded Quicktime movies. There are indeed "other sourceforge projects that will play Quicktime movies" but good luck finding much online that uses an open codec compatible with those players.

      --
      "Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
      -- Ryan Stiles
    11. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if Linux people got it together, realized OS X is everything they've always wanted Linux and Unix to be, and got out of this dillusional world where it's "cool" to write a driver for your own printer and have a forever glitchy OS, not to mention one that's prone to hacks and virii, this would be a null point.

      Now stop being a glution for punishment, and go buy a real computer with a real OS, and Quicktime. Sorry to be so rough on you guys, but you just need a good bitch smack from reality. Anywhoo, posting as AC to avoid having my mail flooded with defenders of the... whatever today's popular movement is.

      WARNING: Anti-Linux/Unix Comment Posted. Begin mod-down to deny truth in 5.....4.....3.....2...

    12. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're complaining that someone appears to be plugging a product.. in a story about a trailer..

      THE IRONY BURNS!

    13. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the link.. how long should this take tho? the last console message says conneted.. its been there for a good 20-30 mins now. I have a 2ghz P4 w/ 512 runnign RH8

    14. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    15. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, mplayer could play windows media stuff just fine.

      Dolt.

    16. Re:Crossover? by 1000StonedMonkeys · · Score: 1

      er... why not just do: mplayer mms://wmd31sea.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/find ing_nemo/finding_nemo_trailer_750.wmv ?

    17. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi, first poster again. Man, it feels damn good to be on the right team. Just thought I'd get that out there in the open and off my chest.

    18. Re:Crossover? by havardi · · Score: 1

      remove the extra space that slashdot put in the link he posted.

    19. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably cause da server is slasdotted i tried with mplayer and the bitch was jumpy as fuck. mencoder worked nice.

    20. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know who Linux people remind me off? My ex-girlfriend. They always think they're cool (she could be sometimes) and they can't figure out if they love linux or want to have Mac OS X instead (She was a bi sexual red head). Yeah, frightening isn't it? Mac users have hot bi chicks that let them do highly pornographic things with them and their girlfriends, while linux guys sit at home and jerk it to ASCII porno pics. "Is that a nipple?" "No, just a ; in the wrong place." Ok, so linux people remind me nothing of her, but I just thought it a good opportunity to point out that MAC PEOPLE GET PUSSY!!! Damn linux losers. Go debug a shell or something. And feel free to correct any grammer/technical errors to prove your wit... and just how many layers of shrink wrap cover your unused cocks.

    21. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parent: name me some projects which support sorenson codec!
      reply: mplayer supports sorenson!
      ac: hahaha you fool, sorenson != sorenson!!! HAHAHA.

      you suck.

    22. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, why dont you try it sometime ?

      clicky. about 12 down.

    23. Re:Crossover? by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      yeah, why dont you try it sometime ?

      clicky. [mplayerhq.hu] about 12 down.

      Look more closely. Sorenson v1 is supported. The page doesn't mention anything at all about Sorenson v3, supported or unsupported. It doesn't work in mplayer.

    24. Re:Crossover? by danov · · Score: 1

      Crossover? (Score:1, Troll)

      I dont mean to be a troll but I believe I have a point.

      Well, it seems that you ARE a troll, but at least you're right: you DO have a point.

    25. Re:Crossover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why dont YOU look more closely.

      clicky.

      mplayer definitely DOES SUPPORT sorenson V3

  2. ..As opposed to..? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The trailer that's /been out/ for a month? There's no reason to mention the release of a new movie trailer. I mean, a star wars or matrix trailer is one thing, but a movie about talking fish just because it's animated using a computer, much like many movies today are? Hey, there's a trailer out for "3, 2, 1 Penguins!" too.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    1. Re:..As opposed to..? by tjansen · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is the first trailer on Apple's site (and the Pixar.com as well). There was a teaser on the Monsters Inc DVD though...

    2. Re:..As opposed to..? by CatWrangler · · Score: 3, Funny
      Hey, there's a trailer out for "3, 2, 1 Penguins!"

      Is that some strange Linux indoctrination film?

      --

      ---
      When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--

    3. Re:..As opposed to..? by cheese_wallet · · Score: 2

      I think it's a play on words with that old educational show 3-2-1 Contact.

      there's a blurb here

    4. Re:..As opposed to..? by tolldog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Having worked on it, here is some more information:

      3-2-1 Penguins!

      Same company as " Jonah a Veggietales movie", which is still in the theaters.

      I don't know how Penguins is currenly being produced but the first three episodes were created on SGI Octanes and rendered on Linux boxes. Jonah was created on both Linux and SGI systems as well as being rendered on Linux boxes (500+ dual proc systems).

      Not as big or as fancy as finding Nemo, but it also cost 1/10th to produce as Monsters Inc. $12MM vs $150MM. Although not number 1 in the box office, it has been in the top ten every week but one since released.

      -Tim

      --
      -I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
    5. Re:..As opposed to..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Jonah isn't that good. (The "Song Under the Credits" was funny, though.)

  3. Fishy by D4Vr4nt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Toys, Bugs, Monsters.. now Fish..

    I dunno how long they can keep this going. However, I know for one thing I'm not caught into this preview nearly as much as Pixars past works. This movie seems like the little mermaids friends geared towards 5 year olds. Not that I'm saying that's bad or anything; just seems like a huge change of pace from Pixar.

    Here fishy fishy..

    --
    R4NT.com - A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
    1. Re:Fishy by mad_cow · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't see much of a deviation here. For a kid, the ocean's a pretty cool setting... lots of mysterious creatures and such floating about.


      Don't be fooled, either, Pixar always manages to make their movies interesting to both children and adults. It may look like something that only a 5 year old can enjoy, but I'd be very surprised if that were truly the case.

    2. Re:Fishy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the preview on the monsters inc dvd is much better. this one doesn't do it justice.

    3. Re:Fishy by alfredo · · Score: 2

      Pixar and Disney will have to renegotiate their contract very soon. What happens between them will determine just who is the most powerful person in Hollywood.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    4. Re:Fishy by sheWhoWalksWithToesL · · Score: 1
      Undah da seeee....undah da seee..... since life is sweet here we got the beat here naturaleee,...(naturalee-ee-ee).... Gotta love it.

      Actually, this film is very consistent with Pixar. In the trailer I noted at least 3 cliches of our culture turned to comic affect. THAT is Pixar's forte. Remember the Star Wars comedy worked into Toy Story 2? Same thing, laughing at culture icons.

      Being the easily amused type, I found the trailer very funny.

      -SheWhoWalksWithToesLikeCobras

      --
      -SheWhoWalksWithToesLikeCobras Please enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...
    5. Re:Fishy by jafac · · Score: 2

      I screened the trailer to my 6 yr old daughter and 9 yr old son last night - both were enthusiastic about going to see the movie. A big plus for me: no visible toilet humor. I'm getting kinda sick of fart jokes. Is it me? or am I just getting old and grouchy?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  4. Uhh... by jaaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, I love PIXAR movies. The CG is always awesome and I usually make it a point to see pretty much any computer animated film . . .

    But what's with the 'Slashvertisements' lately. I mean, it'd be one thing if we had some article here that talked about the tech that went into it or something like that, but this is just the trailer! Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post? Maybe it's just a slow weekend...

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
    1. Re:Uhh... by tjansen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but this is just the trailer! Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post?

      So far there has been a slashdot story for every single star wars or star trek trailer and teaser. Finding Nemo is much cooler... IMHO.

    2. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post



      There seems to be an overwhelming /. community which reveres all that is apple/pixar/steve jobs. (not that there is anything wrong with it).

      Hence the /vertisements.

    3. Re:Uhh... by whereiswaldo · · Score: 2

      How can we - people who don't pay a single dime to each use gigabytes worth of Slashdot bandwidth - complain that Slashdot is trying to generate some revenue to pay for what must be a very expensive to run website?

    4. Re:Uhh... by Kaboom13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "How can we - people who don't pay a single dime to each use gigabytes worth of Slashdot bandwidth - complain that Slashdot is trying to generate some revenue to pay for what must be a very expensive to run website?"

      Although I've seen no evidence that slashdot is being paid to run these stories (clever submitters + lazy editors = advert on front page) even if they were, running ads as news shows a complete lack of integrity. There is a time and place for advertizements. Notice how slashdot blasts search engines which allow companies to buy rankings, but encourages google, who clearly marks their advertizements in a professional manner. It is irresponsible ( and boring) to post stories which are little more then ads. Slashdot should just make these companies pay for banners like everyone else, or at least save this crap for a slashback.

    5. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the ratio of paying to nonpaying visitors?

    6. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3/(visitors_per_day-3)

    7. Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh.. because it's cool, I wouldn't have known about the trailer or even the movie otherwise, and I actually enjoyed watching said trailer. I think it's been pretty well shown there's no particular policy for what gets posted and what doesn't. Just "News for Nerds" and "Stuff that matters". This is the part for the nerds to watch and enjoy; and I am one.

  5. Got any alternatives then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why the big stink about unsupported media formats? I mean, is there a viable alternative format out there? Windows doesn't support DivX out of the box, and it's not mainstream enough to consider releasing in that format. Ogg Vorbis was supposed to be developing an open-standard video codec, but it's vaporware for now. MPEG4 is totally unnecessary for video of this type.

    Repeat after me: "Linux users are *not* the majority." Windows users are. Don't expect corporations to force Windows users to take a few extra steps to watch their advertisements just so that Linux users aren't disenfranchised...

    You probably have a Windows box, or know someone who does, so quit complaining and watch the trailer there. If you don't, then you probably don't give a shit about the movie anyway...

    1. Re:Got any alternatives then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Troll

      You sir, are an asshat.

      BTW, mplayer plays DivX just fine...out of the box.

    2. Re:Got any alternatives then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That a fact? I've got a nice WinXP (no SP1) box here that begs to differ...Thus, it also follows that anyone running Win2K or WinME or anything earlier would also have to either install DivX, or upgrade Windows Media Player.

      Or, are you suggesting, contrary to common Slashdot mythos, that I *should* install all the latest and greatest upgrades of software from Microsoft, which will violate my privacy and auction my firstborn to evil megacorps and sell my wife to a whorehouse in Utah?

    3. Re:Got any alternatives then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, using DiVX mostly rules out mac users. As of a few months ago the only method of playing DiVX under Mac OS 9 was arcane, complex, required you to fiddle with a "sound track cleaner" on some movies and didn't work at all on some others. The situation under Mac OS X was even worse. As far as i'm aware, this situation has not gotten better.

      I haven't tried to play divx under mac in a few months, so it's possible someone's come up with a non-painful method of supporting divx under mac os classic and X by now, but in general i think it's safe to say that at this point in time, only the most technically proficient of mac users are aware of how to go about playing a DivX on their platform.

      Besides this, maybe i was just getting stuff from the wrong sites, but *all* the DivXs i've ever seen looked like *shit*.

    4. Re:Got any alternatives then? by Panoramix · · Score: 1
      That a fact? I've got a nice WinXP (no SP1) box here that begs to differ...Thus, it also follows that anyone running Win2K or WinME or anything earlier would also have to either install DivX, or upgrade Windows Media Player.

      Wtf has mplayer to do with Windows Media Player upgrades?

      Or, are you suggesting, contrary to common Slashdot mythos, that I *should* install all the latest and greatest upgrades of software from Microsoft, which will violate my privacy and auction my firstborn to evil megacorps and sell my wife to a whorehouse in Utah?

      I thought he was suggesting that we Linux users can watch DivX out of the box, with mplayer.

      (btw, the RealVideo version of this Nemo clip can be watched with RealPlayer 8 for Linux --if you can stand the EULAs on that thing. Just don't install it as root.)

    5. Re:Got any alternatives then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he was suggesting that we Linux users can watch DivX out of the box, with mplayer.

      While Windows users *can't*...which was *my* point...

    6. Re:Got any alternatives then? by nuckin+futs · · Score: 0

      ever heard of vlc?
      http://www.videolan.org/

      vlc video player can play DivX, VCD, DVD, MPEG-1, 2, 4

    7. Re:Got any alternatives then? by nuckin+futs · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh, BTW...not only is vlc open source, there's also a drag and drop method for OS X. You don't have to be an advanced user.

      ooh...I figured out how to do links...I'm now dangerous!

    8. Re:Got any alternatives then? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      windows users can get divx5, ffdshow or whatever codec pleases them... and use any player they choose. look, most of my totally clueless friends manage to do this, it's as simple as installing mplayer on linux(depending on system, simpler, SIMPLER THAN friggin quicktime install with it's bloat annoyware, don't get me wrong, qt is ok video codec and apples servers are usually fast as hell, but the player PROGRAM just sucks ass so much, and they don't provide codec for uusing other progs, which makes them suck as much as real*).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Got any alternatives then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I had not heard of it, i don't think versiontracker had it the last time i went looking for a divx player. I will try it out, and if it works well recommend it to others.

      Thank you.

  6. Environment. by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 5, Interesting



    Anyone know how much this advances computer animation?

    The under-water environment looks extremely well done; the colours, refraction, fading etc. look very realistic.

    Have these been done before, or has Pixar invented lots of new stuff again?

    1. Re:Environment. by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 2, Interesting



      This paper describes ways of doing the lighting underwater.

    2. Re:Environment. by robson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The under-water environment looks extremely well done; the colours, refraction, fading etc. look very realistic.

      This is what continually perplexes me about Pixar. Technically, they seem very geared around the infinitely explanding path toward photorealism. And that's cool.

      Yet, one could easily argue, given the evidence (Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, and now Finding Nemo) that Pixar has a clear and deliberately unrealistic style. So you have this bizarre juxtaposition of the big-eyed, cartoony character in Monsters Inc who sported a state-of-the-art hyper-realistic hair (or fur) simulation.

      What I'm saying is, why bother with advances toward photorealism such as hair simulation and advanced underwater effects if every one of your characters is designed to look like a stuffed animal or 3d rendering of a Disney character?

      It's almost as if there's a schizophrenia within Pixar.

    3. Re:Environment. by ghutchis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hello? So far the feature-length films they've done have been *for* Disney!

      I'd guess that the intent is exactly that--they're currently making movies for kids, particularly Disney movies for kids, so they aim for a particular look.

      I would expect that when their contract with Disney is up, they may move towards other areas.

      -Geoff

    4. Re:Environment. by mizhi · · Score: 2
      What I'm saying is, why bother with advances toward photorealism such as hair simulation and advanced underwater effects if every one of your characters is designed to look like a stuffed animal or 3d rendering of a Disney character?


      Well, could that that the creative angle they're going for? Having some realistic things in terms of world physics with characters that would be impossible for real actors to pull off?

      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    5. Re:Environment. by spinkham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's because we're so intimately familiar with the human form that it takes much more for a human form to be believable. Not only does the rendering have to be more correct, with much more involved lighting techniques, but the movements and expressions would have to be that much better too.
      Animation technique that gives us a hyper-realistic monster we would only concieve of as ok on humans in a realistic setting.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    6. Re:Environment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Remember how bad the people's movements were in Final Fantasy? If it looks cartoony, flaws in physics are easier for the brain to forgive.

    7. Re:Environment. by malducin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they are making animated movies. They are necessarily stylized. By that logic, why wasn't Ice Age made like Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts? They make stylized films. Some Japanese animated films dtrive for a lot of realism, why not make them live action instead? Animated films are an art to themselves. Yes of course Pixar, PDI, Blue Sky and many other deliberately goo for a stylized look.

      You also have to remember Pixar's story. Ed Catmull was always interested in making animated films even before founding the Lucasfilm Graphics Group. One reason Pixar was spun-off was because Catmull wanted to make the animated films, while Lucas was interested in using computers to help the live action filming process, mainly for doing Visual Effects (though there were other efforts like the EditDroid and SoundDroid).

      I don't see what the problem is ;-)

    8. Re:Environment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's almost as if there's a schizophrenia within Pixar.

      There is. It's called Steve Jobs.

    9. Re:Environment. by hobbes17r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the topic you're really getting at here makes actually perfect sense. As we hear so often, Story is always the number one emphasis of Pixar - and they have developed an amazing sense for pushing the tech behind their movies selectively, in a way that technological shortcomings never distract or detract in any way from the story.

      Note how Toy Story timed in nicely with the arrival of solid Phong shading techniques in the CG world - plastic toys. This is a trend in Pixar movies, straight through Sulley's fur in Monsters Inc, hair and fur having become a significant area of advancement in the industry over the past few years.

      In an obvious contrast, Square's Final Fantasy, pushed photorealism on every front at once, and the result was characters that were technologially impressive but awkward to watch as actors - distracting to what little story laid underneath as there was obviously something wrong, constantly stealing the viewer's attention... You don't see Pixar making realistic humans, because they understand that sense of interference.

      As much as shaders and other CG fronts have advanced in recent years, all we have now is a steadily growing library of realistic effects, which, when used selectively, can greatly assist in conveying emotion, story and character. Pixar has made very good stylistic decisions on pushing visuals in the right places at the right times.

      Would realistic fish be fun to watch anyway? Actually, will fish be fun to watch for an hour and a half? A sense of weight is usually key to sucessful acting, so this is in fact a very ambitious movie in terms of animation, to compliment the rendering advancements...

    10. Re:Environment. by bdr1 · · Score: 1

      when you go for hyper-realism with characters you wind up with those odd waxy-looking homonuclia like the princess in Shrek

    11. Re:Environment. by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my opinion Pixar is taking the best route, generating breathtaking imagery without straining to reach for the holy grail of photorealism.

      With their stylized characters, they don't have to strive to meet the impossibly high standards created by our exposure to reality every day. When you look at Final Fantasy, it's gorgeous, but the flaws are even more evident because you look at human faces every day.

      When you're looking at what appears to be a living, breathing cartoon the suspension of disbelief lasts just that much longer because there's nothing to compare it to in the scope of your mind's eye.

      It's like a paraphrased quote from a recent cinefx magazine... if you want to make a CG film with characters that all look and act perfectly human, just hire real people.

    12. Re:Environment. by russellh · · Score: 1
      What I'm saying is, why bother with advances toward photorealism such as hair simulation and advanced underwater effects if every one of your characters is designed to look like a stuffed animal or 3d rendering of a Disney character?

      Yeah. And those voices and sound effects - they sound so realistic, juxtaposed to the obviously computer generated stuffed animals...

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    13. Re:Environment. by GuavaBerry · · Score: 1

      Simple. These mind-bogglingly cool graphics technologies are still being used to make cartoons. Iconified characters are easier for kids to identify with (and make easier to identify merchandise, for the cynical). The desired effect isn't photorealism at all. Why bother recreating the perfect human digitally when you've got actual humans who can just dance in front of an analog camera? The expense seems wasteful. All you need is something that looks like it could be real, like watching snow clump on Sully's fur (which adds atmosphere and emotion, not realism).

      Hyper-realism just doesn't click with audiences (witness Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within). Besides, when it comes to fantasy-based cartoons, it's easier to relay impossible animation on a character (that is, the 'squash and stretch' regularly associated with Cartoon Physics) if the animator isn't constrained by trying to make it look terribly 'realistic' at the same time. This is precisely why action-animation combo movies can look awkward when the action sequences happen (Cool World, Roger Rabbit).

    14. Re:Environment. by tekunokurato · · Score: 1

      It's quite literally because they're realistic about what can be accomplished. I was recently at the Pop!Tech conference where Alvy Ray Smith (Pixar's founder) spoke a bit about his work there. He said that they had gauged projects based on what the graphical requirements would be and then essentially plotted them on a timeline for when the technology would be possible. If they needed 4 mil. polygons per frame for Toy Story, for example, and they could only realistically produce about 800,000 because the year is 1985, they would project that the project would be feasible in 1994 and plan accordingly.

      The fact that pixar is still using unrealistic characters is just a sign that they don't feel the technology to do something "better" exists yet.

    15. Re:Environment. by robson · · Score: 2

      I would expect that when their contract with Disney is up, they may move towards other areas.

      Cool. I'm keeping my mind open enough to fall back in love with Pixar if they do start taking more chances once the Disney contract is up.

    16. Re:Environment. by robson · · Score: 2

      Because they are making animated movies. They are necessarily stylized.

      Right, but you're missing my point -- I'm not saying that their stuff shouldn't be stylized (that's why I went out of my way to suggest that they were doing so deliberately)... my point is that if the tech people and the art people were of one mind, it seems like we'd see more innovations that were focused on enhancing the non-photoreal style that permeates Pixar's films.

      It's possible that I'm just responding to the difference between the creative division and the PRman division.

      (BTW, my other gripe is that Pixar's style is way too generic and "default" for my taste... it doesn't seem very carefully thought-through. But I suppose that's another rant ;)

    17. Re:Environment. by robson · · Score: 2

      The fact that pixar is still using unrealistic characters is just a sign that they don't feel the technology to do something "better" exists yet.

      But wait, that wasn't my point -- I'm not saying Pixar should be doing realistic-looking films. I'm asking why their technology seems to be striving for realisim while their art is striving for a clearly non-photoreal style. Thus, the schizophrenia, blah blah blah.

    18. Re:Environment. by shnarez · · Score: 1
      Think of it as if your teddy bear came to life. Fully realistic fur, walks like a bear and all, all the physics of the world are in order... except it's a live, talking bear. Possibly cartoony-looking to be funny to the kids.

      Entertaining for the kids? Certainly. Good CG and entertaining for the rest of us? Possibly. So what's wrong again?

    19. Re:Environment. by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      Because in a CG environment, you can make anything your little heart desires. Why would you go to extremes to make it look exactly like reality, thus turning your renderfarm into an expensive video camera?

      Well, maybe not quite, but since the tech isn't quite up to rendering realistic people (Exhibit A: Final Fantasy), you might as well exaggerate the shortcomings and call it 'artistic license'.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    20. Re:Environment. by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but what is photorealism? What does a non-stylised talking ant look like anyway?

      Photorealism is the ability to make it look exactly what you want it to look like, no more, no less.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    21. Re:Environment. by malducin · · Score: 1

      Ahhh I see your point. Well not liking their style is up to each one of us. I guess that's the style the people at Pixar like.

      Besides the PRMan division has to respond to clients with different needs. They need to be able to make a renderer as flexible, feature full and robust as possible. After all it seems parts of Iron Giant were rendered with PRMan, so indeed even an extreme style like non-photoreal rendering is possible. "Work in Progress" and "Synchonicity" by ILM are other 2 pieces of stylized animation done in PRMan.

      Besides who knows, maybe The Incredibles will have a diffrent style with Brad Bird involved.

    22. Re:Environment. by MagFox · · Score: 1

      If you want a photorealistic movie with realistic people, then why not just use a camera and film?

    23. Re:Environment. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's also another explanation.

      In the real world it's expensive to do fantastic things and easy to do mundane things.

      In the CG world, it's incredibly expensive to do mundane things, and only slightly less expensive to do fantastic things; because it will cost as much to stage a battle in space as it will in water as in plasma, because the render time is dictated by scene complexity and not by any hard limits of physics, like survivability.

      So all of these advances in *mundane* things like light, shadow, hair, and water, make the fantastic things even more fantastic, like the monsters or the ships or the fish or the whatever.

      If you want photorealistic realism, you may as well use real people doing real things with real objects, like other films.

      If you want photorealistic unrealism, then that's where CG has an advantage over conventional film, so there's no reason not to go full tilt with the unrealism, sorta like Anime does, or sorta like stop motion film.

    24. Re:Environment. by sumengen · · Score: 1

      To make it realistic, you need to have strange characters (creatures) with strange moves and facial expressions etc. These are always exagerated and that is what makes it "feel" real. Consider "Tom and Jerry".

      I don't know why but if you try to have a human or realistic animal character with realistic environment (gravity, phisics) and realistic facial expressions, realistic joint movement; IT DOESN'T FEEL REAL. Not with todays technology at least.

    25. Re:Environment. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "odd waxy-looking homonuclia" you're talking about is Cameron Diaz. That might have something to do with it.

    26. Re:Environment. by jafac · · Score: 2

      The real question is:
      why spend millions of dollars researching new technology to create completely perfect photorealistic images, when you can get completely realistic images with a camera?

      The unrealistic style is just that; style - something that's not really possible in live-action movies. If you're not going to have style, then you may as well film live-action.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    27. Re:Environment. by robson · · Score: 2

      It's like a paraphrased quote from a recent cinefx magazine... if you want to make a CG film with characters that all look and act perfectly human, just hire real people.

      (I'm shamelessly duplicating another reply, but I can't think of many other ways to say it.)

      Right, but you're missing my point -- I'm not saying that their stuff shouldn't be stylized (that's why I went out of my way to suggest that they were doing so deliberately)... my point is that if the tech people and the art people were of one mind, it seems like we'd see more innovations that were focused on enhancing the non-photoreal style that permeates Pixar's films.

    28. Re:Environment. by robson · · Score: 2

      Well, maybe not quite, but since the tech isn't quite up to rendering realistic people (Exhibit A: Final Fantasy), you might as well exaggerate the shortcomings and call it 'artistic license'.

      (I'm shamelessly duplicating another reply, but I can't think of many other ways to say it.)

      Right, but you're missing my point -- I'm not saying that their stuff shouldn't be stylized (that's why I went out of my way to suggest that they were doing so deliberately)... my point is that if the tech people and the art people were of one mind, it seems like we'd see more innovations that were focused on enhancing the non-photoreal style that permeates Pixar's films.

    29. Re:Environment. by robson · · Score: 2

      The unrealistic style is just that; style - something that's not really possible in live-action movies. If you're not going to have style, then you may as well film live-action.

      As I've said in some other replies, I'm not suggesting that Pixar should use a more realistic style. I'm asking why their technology seems to be striving for realisim while their art is striving for a clearly non-photoreal style.

    30. Re:Environment. by orange7 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's more to fend off the competition. Also, bear in mind that they make Renderman, which is used by other companies.

      Pixar is a pretty nasty company when it comes to patenting graphics techniques that are either obvious or that have been previously presented at academic talks or conferences. They're pretty quick to use such patents, too.

      It's probably best to steer clear of any technique they're using. (Subdivision surfaces etc.)

      A.

  7. Pixar and plug-ins... by EverStoned · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or does it seem like Pixar, and the other CG film makers, just make a new effect and make a whole movie out of it?

    1. Re:Pixar and plug-ins... by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It sort of the other way around. Somebody comes up with a movie script (sometimes even a plot too) Then they ask hey can we do this?? The CG/SFX guys go "idonno, let me get back to you." Eventually they figure it out, and low and behold we have something new. The Abyss, the Matrix, most of the Pixar movies, and nearly all the Star Wars movies are good expamples of this. Eventually they what they invent becomes standard tools for the industry

    2. Re:Pixar and plug-ins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not necessarily. quite often, the cg and compositing guys find something new and say "hey, look what we can do - let's put that into the next movie".

    3. Re:Pixar and plug-ins... by AvitarX · · Score: 2

      umm, the guy that did Toy Story was on NPR and said that they picked Toys because the CG looked plastic. Then went on to do Monster's inc. and said it was because real life people/animals would look awkward (eww Final Fantasy).

      So the setting is matched to the capabilities, though there is most likly some script sriving the FX also.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    4. Re:Pixar and plug-ins... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Have you seen the previews for "The Santa Clause 2"? There's a movie based on a stupid pun. Next to that, Pixar isn't bad at all.

    5. Re:Pixar and plug-ins... by groke · · Score: 1

      not only is it a movie based on a stupid pun.. it's a SEQUEL to a movie based on a stupid pun. much much worse. :)

  8. too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. Re:too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dude has even posted 8 comments on slashdot.

  9. Streaming media... by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Which does bring up a question - why is there no mpg file available for download as a rule?

    The order of preference seems to be as follows:

    1. Real player format that can not be downloaded at all

    2. Quicktime file which you can usually download (but I don't like the client :)...)

    3. Some other weird streaming format (windows media? can it be downloaded)

    4. Nice mpg file that I can actually take to my desktop -- even with my Cable connection, my processor just does not handle video streaming very well.


    Can someone tell me why this is happening? Seems counter productive - streaming is bad for network if it can be avoided. And this is not premium/paid content we are talking about! This is trailers... as in the stuff that studios should be happy to let us watch for free!

    1. Re:Streaming media... by mad_cow · · Score: 2, Informative

      The short answer is Steve Jobs: Pixar is his baby, and Quicktime is an Apple technology, and Apple, of course, is another Jobs baby.

    2. Re:Streaming media... by norwoodites · · Score: 2

      For number 2, if you do not like the client make your own, it is not hard or even better use one that is already different than the one that comes with Quicktime as QuickTime is an api.

    3. Re:Streaming media... by DLWormwood · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Can someone tell me why this is happening? Seems counter productive - streaming is bad for network if it can be avoided. And this is not premium/paid content we are talking about! This is trailers... as in the stuff that studios should be happy to let us watch for free!

      It's all about content control. They don't want people out on the 'Net to easily redistribute the trailer via unapproved sites or to edit/modify them into derivative works.

      Despite the paranoia of the ex-Napster crowd, this isn't about curtailing free use rights per se. Many corporations view unauthorized distribution as compromising of the PR campaigns they run and worry about "Guilt By Association" if a third party gets publicly identified with the distribution of their work.

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
  10. Sponsors by bayankaran · · Score: 0

    This news item was co-sponsored by Pixar and Crossover.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
  11. Some one please help me understand... by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am very confused. I thought that /. disliked MPAA/DISNEY/REAL NETWORKS/WMA (you know companies that support laws like the DMCA)???

    If what they are trying to do is so evil, why does /. run stories about their newest products?

    MPAA BAD!
    MPAA BAD!!
    MPAA BAD!!!
    OH something shinny!!!

    1. Re:Some one please help me understand... by belbo · · Score: 4, Informative
      RTFFAQ

      b.

      --

      --
      "Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."

    2. Re:Some one please help me understand... by damiam · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is not one person. Slashdot is many people with many opinions. Not all of them are anti-MPAA zealots.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    3. Re:Some one please help me understand... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

      Fish don't have shins.

    4. Re:Some one please help me understand... by boy_of_the_hash · · Score: 1

      This is Disney/Pixars way of paying back the community that enabled them to build huge powerful and optimised renderfarms so cheaply by restricting the choice of media formats for their trailer.

      Leaves a bitter taste doesn't it?

    5. Re:Some one please help me understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I thought that /. disliked MPAA/DISNEY/REAL NETWORKS/WMA (you know companies that support laws like the DMCA)???

      And I thought /. really really likes kewl 3D animation stuff and giii-gantic honkin' Pixar renderfarms that run Linux? =)

      "Slashdot" isn't an individual, you know... Read what Taco said.

    6. Re:Some one please help me understand... by skwirl42 · · Score: 1

      if only I had mod points right now... :)

    7. Re:Some one please help me understand... by mizhi · · Score: 1

      You can get the media formats in QuickTime, Windows Media, and RealMedia. On the disney site at least. The apple site is different.

      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    8. Re:Some one please help me understand... by malducin · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, Pixar's renderfarm is mostly SUN machines. The software used to distribute render jobs was written by Pixar.

      Disney mostly is only involved in the film distribution, not in making it at all.

      So exactly how much has the "community" done for Pixar?

    9. Re:Some one please help me understand... by singularity · · Score: 1

      I like Taco's answer to that, but I like my answer even more:

      I strongly dislike the MPAA and RIAA because they are trying to stifle me from something that I enjoy quite a bit.

      If the MPAA was regulating say, my use of eating cabbage, I would not have a big problem with that, because I do not like cabbage.

      So i am left with a tough decision - do I give up something I like *a lot*, or do I fight as much as I can against it and still enjoy the thing in question?

      I like movies too much to give them up despite what the MPAA is trying to do.

      ObTopic: I thought that the first twenty seconds or so were great (before the light scene) and very realistic. The movie definitely seems to be lacking in one spot, though, and that is plot.

      Movies like Toy Story and The Lion King demonstrate that you can have a reasonable plot with complex characters in a children's movie.

      He is a fish, looking for his son.

      This sounds like "The Land Before Time" or something.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    10. Re:Some one please help me understand... by boy_of_the_hash · · Score: 1
      PIXAR are _MIGRATING_ to linux, as are most of the other major VFX/CG houses. Disney already use linux.
      Pixar has only deployed 15 stations in production and 25 in software development, but VP of Technology Darwin Peachey says the studio is on the verge of a major purchase and deployment of desktops to replace their current SGI desktops.
      The article that was taken from is HERE Mine was a tounge in cheek comment by the way.
    11. Re:Some one please help me understand... by malducin · · Score: 2

      Yes, but those are workstations. The 15 stations for production are probably for running something like Maya or menv, and the other are programmers workstations. I was aware of the switch also. Heck even Pixar said that they might try a few Macs with OSX

      Workstations are completely separate from the Renderfarm which is mostly SUN machines:

      Sun Customer Success Stories: Pixar
      SUN MICROSYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY USED IN RENDERING DISNEY/PIXAR'S "MONSTERS, INC."

      Well I guess I took your comment too seriously, didn't notice the tongue in cheekness ;-)

    12. Re:Some one please help me understand... by jx100 · · Score: 1
      The software used to distribute render jobs was written by Pixar.


      Am I the only one who, after reading that, thought that they were talking about Steve Jobs?
    13. Re:Some one please help me understand... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      I like movies too much to give them up despite what the MPAA is trying to do.

      My thoughts exactly. I dislike the people who fund the the movies, but I watch the movies because I appreciate the efforts made on the artistic side. I watch MPAA's movies when they, for some reason, take a pause to the flood of crap and lobbying stupid laws and actually come up with a great movie! =)

      That said, I'm not sure I'll be the first one to see Finding Nemo. Pixar's stuff is often good, but Disney in general is suffering from "I liked their early stuff better" syndrome. =)

  12. new movie... beautiful by korea · · Score: 1

    Pixar is doing a movie in an all aqua element. Excellent! It's like they keep challenging themselves. From Toys to microscopic insect scapes to complicated hair rendering to this.

    --

    --

    "pain is weakness leaving the body."
  13. Nemo Slashdotted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think their server just went "Dive! Dive!!!"

  14. Re:QuickTime format by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And open discussion forum here.

  15. Re:FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does anyone have a direct link to windows media stream so i can feeed it to mplayer - trying to wade through all this js cruft to get the uri is killing me.

  16. Re:FP by tjansen · · Score: 1

    Try this one:
    http://acw.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/fi nding_ nemo/trailer_750.asx

  17. Spoiler: Re:Some one please help me understand... by hhawk · · Score: 1

    Something shinny indeed!

    hmm just like the fish in the trailer with the LEL, light emitting lure!!

    --
    http://www.hawknest.com/
  18. Alternate title for the movie by seldolivaw · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Pixar makes an underwater filter!"

    (and flogs it to death)

  19. Upcoming Pixar Movies. by FrankieBoy · · Score: 5, Informative

    From what I hear the next movie in the hopper is "The Incredibles" which is a story about a super-hero family. Then it's "Ray Gunn" a futuristic film-noir in the vein of "BladeRunner". After that it's "Toy Story 3", yep they're back. Hanks and Allen have already agreed to do the sequel.

    1. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Heh. I read that as Gay Runn. My eyes aren't doing so well. Maybe I should go for a walk. To much games today.

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    2. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by Schnapple · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Where and when did you hear this? A short while back I read on AICN that the next film was The Incredibles (like you said) but that the film after that was tentatively called Cars and would mark the return of John Lasseter (sp?) to the director's "chair".

      The reason there's not a Toy Story 3 yet is because Pixar is contractually obligated to deliver three films to Disney by 2005 and sequels don't count towards that number. Steve Jobs pleaded with Disney to make a Toy Story exception but they wouldn't have it. If TS3 is indeed already in planning stages then either they have great confidence their new Disney deal will allow for it, or they're sure whomever they deal with next will.

      The part that worries me is that rumor has it Pixar thinks Finding Nemo will be their weakest film and if there's fallout from that they may not be in the bargaining position they would be in right now if it doesn't do so well.

    3. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by malducin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it's Disney who wants a TS3. They can argue that it's not art of the deal and sort of get an "extra" Pixar film besides the others they have to do. Yes Jobs wanted the exception, and if TS3 went ahead Jobs would again plead that TS3 count towards their commitment.

      The interesting part will be future negotiations because it has come to a point where it's debatable who need whom more. Pixar needs a studio for distribution, but I don't think finding a new one would be a problem (though going at it alone would be much more difficult). On the other hands Disney's traditionally animated films are kinda underperformers. Pixar is coming to a point of being on a better bargaining position.

      By the way The Incredibles is directed by Brad Bird, who made the very underrated The Iron Giant. Some of those rumors say that about Nemo, becuse rumors have it that everyone wanted to be involved with Incredibles.

      Also interestingly enough, Dreamworks is working on their own underwater movie, called Sharkslayer, which is kinda of a mafia like film.

    4. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by epukinsk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Upcomingmovies.com has some good info on Pixar's upcoming films:

      2003: Finding Nemo
      2004: The Incredibles
      2005: Cars

      Apparently Ray Gunn and The Incredibles were an either/or proposition, and it looks like it's going ot be The Incredibles.

      Here's a good overview of Pixars plans.

    5. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by dr00g911 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Pixar needs a studio for distribution

      Do you *really* think so?

      Pixar has pumped out the only worthwhile stories/characters/animated films to come out of Disney since Mulan -- and I even give Mulan the benefit of the doubt for the awesome title sequence, the Eddie Murphy casting and the non-Disney ending.

      Between Pixar's clout and their warchest, I'm hoping they go out on their own.

      Honestly, I'm surprised that they've gotten away with as much as they have so far that's completely averse to the Mouse's canon (the ending to Monsters, Inc. is a BIG one -- doing Seven Samurai as 'A Bug's Life?' -- brilliant!).

      To hell with photorealism. We've seen how far we can go that direction. Pixar, their animators and directors seem to have new -- at the very least -- touching and compelling stories to tell. Which barely any in the market can say now.

      Shrek? How the hell can you go wrong with Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy? You can't? It didn't matter that the film was ugly. It didn't matter that there was a cliché story. It didn't matter if they were pandering more to the adults in the crowd than the kids (which Antz did -- and it was God Awful as a result).

      I couldn't care less if Pixar's films were a flipbook, as long as they're told with style, wit and heart. Oh, AND they manage to be the prettiest thing on the block when they're released even with their aversion to photorealism.

      Y'know what? They care about the STORY -- although I'm a bit nervous about the three new films in three years thing. That's one hell of a lot of manpower.

      Bottom line: Pixar has class, regardless of how you feel about Jobs and Disney. Getting out from under the Mouse's thumb can *only* be good for them. The Mouse is about cash, first, thank-you-very-much. Then critical acclaim/adoring fans.

      I'm still at the point that I've been amazed by Pixar enough to believe the opposite of them. That's (to me) Jobs saying 'I've got money, and the most awesome storytellers there are to buy. So what are you waiting for... tell your fucking stories!'

      --dr00gy
    6. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by mshiltonj · · Score: 2

      From what I hear the next movie in the hopper is "The Incredibles" which is a story about a super-hero family. Then it's "Ray Gunn" a futuristic film-noir in the vein of "BladeRunner". After that it's "Toy Story 3", yep they're back. Hanks and Allen have already agreed to do the sequel.

      Links! Where are the links?!

    7. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by poulbailey · · Score: 1

      > Shrek? How the hell can you go wrong with Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy? [...] Antz

      Shrek was made by Dreamworks SKG and not Pixar. The same goes for Antz. The two studios are in direct competition.

    8. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by tregoweth · · Score: 1
      Pixar needs a studio for distribution

      Do you *really* think so?

      Well, yeah -- unless they want to start their own distributor, someone has to make the prints and send them to theatres. That's why George Lucas has a deal with Fox for the Star Wars prequels.

    9. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      Pixar needs a studio for distribution

      Do you *really* think so?

      At the moment, yes, unless Pixar does a lot of hiring for the things that Disney does for them now. It's hard to appreciate the marketing blitz that helped make Monsters Inc an incredible financial success, both in the movie theaters and the home, until you see what a marketing failure can do to a good movie (like the Iron Giant). And when it comes to marketing, really no one is better than Disney.

  20. DivX Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    mencoder -oac mp3lame -ovc lavc \
    -lavcopts vcodec=mpeg4:vhq:vbitrate=16000 -o finding_nemo_trailer.avi \
    mms://wmd31sea.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/f ind ing_nemo/finding_nemo_trailer_750.wmv

  21. Exact match of target audience by jukal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finding Nemo, focus on 6-12 year old kids, slashdot... focus on 6-66 year old geeks.

    1. Re:Exact match of target audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      slashdot... focus on 6-66 year old geeks

      The demographic of The Beast!

  22. Voices? by farfisa69 · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know who the voices belong to? They sound very familiar. Website wasn't much help...

    --
    Meat is murder, I eat chicken.
    1. Re:Voices? by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 2, Informative

      Albert Brooks : "Nemo's father"
      Alexander Gould : "Nemo"
      Ellen DeGeneres : "Dory"
      Willem Dafoe : "Gill"
      Geoffrey Rush : Nigel the pelican
      Barry Humphreys : vegetarian great white shark

    2. Re:Voices? by smoondog · · Score: 1, Redundant

      www.imdb.com

      -Sean

  23. Re:fuck pixar by boy_of_the_hash · · Score: 0, Troll

    Indeed they did kill BMRT by claiming patent infingement against Exluna. Thing is that Exluna's flagship commercial product Entropy produced renders that were more photo-realistic to my eyes than pixars PRman - although a little slower.

    I thought \. might be focusing a little more on the technology than a stupid film about talking fish. Gee let me see if I can't find some tech info on WETA/LOTR2 which will probably be worth watching - for starters.

  24. Disney / Pixar relationship... by FlynnMP3 · · Score: 1

    Anybody know if this is the last motion picture that Pixar is contractually obligated to release under the joint name of Disney/Pixar?

    Seriously, these guys do such an amazing job, I would hate for them to be associated with Disney forever.

    1. Re:Disney / Pixar relationship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pixar has 3 more movies in the Disney deal - Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars. They can start talking to other studios after they deliver Nemo to Disney.

      The deal is for 5 movies - the reason there will be 6 produced under the deal (Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy Story II, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars), is that Toy Story II didn't count, as it was a sequel.

    2. Re:Disney / Pixar relationship... by geofft · · Score: 1

      Definitely a minor point, but I think TS2 didn't count because it was originally a direct-to-video project, and it was only released into theatres when they realized how good it was.

    3. Re:Disney / Pixar relationship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this big company bashing is really innane. what's the problem with disney?

    4. Re:Disney / Pixar relationship... by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      you've got to be kidding...

  25. What happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (damn file formats...) Is this movie based on Jules Verne's book?

  26. Disney good family fun by Alec+Varezz · · Score: 0

    Looks like Michael Eisner is a pimp and mickey mouse is his bitch.

  27. Five, six, or seven? by yerricde · · Score: 3, Interesting

    there will be 6 produced under the [Disney/Pixar] deal (Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy Story II, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars)

    What about Monsters, Inc.? Does that make seven, or is Cars now an independent film?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Five, six, or seven? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toy Story was under an earlier deal. A Bugs Life was part of the next deal. Toy Story II didn't count because it was a sequel. The other films in the deal are Monsters, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars. Pixar can start talking to other companies after they deliver Finding Nemo to Disney.

  28. Weakest film yet? by SageMadHatter · · Score: 1

    The part that worries me is that rumor has it Pixar thinks Finding Nemo will be their weakest film and if there's fallout from that they may not be in the bargaining position they would be in right now if it doesn't do so well.

    Weakest?! Umm... considering that every Pixar film is in the top 100 grossing films of all time (three on the top 50), I don't think there is much for them to worry about it. So they make $250 million this time instead of $260 million *shrug*

    http://us.imdb.com/Charts/usatopmovies

    Mad Hatter

    1. Re:Weakest film yet? by Schnapple · · Score: 2
      By "Weakest" they meant in quality of story, interaction, etc. And since they now have legitimate competition (witness how Shrek won more awards and made more money despite being, IMHO, inferior to Monsters Inc.) this may wind up translating into less box office money.

      And plus a lot of people (myself included) point to Pixar films as some of the best of all time for all ages - if they do a bad one, then there goes that 4-0 record of theirs.

      Finally remember how fickle the public is. Witness how many people went from being the biggest Star Wars fanboys to wanting Lucas' head on a stick as soon as Jar-Jar opened his mouth. All you have to do is mess up once (e.g., Mariah Carey) and you're screwed.

      All that said, however, I don't see how this could be a bad movie. Perhaps its like comparing cold pizza to warm pizza.

    2. Re:Weakest film yet? by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Yay, someone who agrees with me that Monsters Inc. was better than Shrek. Trust me, I hate Disney, and I love the idea of a movie studio displacing Disney (while making fun of them at the same time), but Monsters Inc. was just a really great movie. Shrek, with it's sarcastic "wit" that was fashionable about 5 years ago is a lot less interesting to me.

  29. Finding Nemo? by norweigiantroll · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. How can you find no one?

  30. Re:Nice Animation, but... by sparkleytone · · Score: 1

    > Just some of the reasons I don't care about this movie or any Disney related movie/show/website/commercial/cd/dvd/app/video/*.*

    well...anyone still living in a world where file extensions rule his or her computing experience has an excuse for all that rage...

    Living in a m$ world takes its toll.

  31. Ummm w/ Toy Story 2, it makes 7 films, not 6 by SageMadHatter · · Score: 1

    Pixar has a deal with Disney, were they must deliver 5 films, right? Thus:

    1. Toy Story
    2. A Bug's Life
    3. Monster's Inc.
    4. Finding Nemo (2003)
    5. The Incredibles (2004)

    (Notice that I did not include Toy Story 2 in that listing). That's all they need. Why are they maked a 6th film for Disney?
    6. Cars (2005) ?

    Mad Hatter

    1. Re:Ummm w/ Toy Story 2, it makes 7 films, not 6 by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pixar orignally had a 3 picture deal with Disney, and Toy Story was released under that contract (notice that Toy Story isn't even branded as Pixar at all, and the Pixar Luxo logo trailer doesn't even show until after the credits.) That contract was replaced by a new 5 picture contract, so the 5 films are Bugs, MI, Nemo, Incredibles, and Cars (TS2 doesn't count, and Disney declined to allow Pixar to create a TS3 that would count as one of the films). In their last earnings teleconference, Pixar said that they are already in early pre-production on the film after Cars, which they are financing entirely themselves and which they will own all the rights to, although of course they could choose to get a new contract with Disney, they would just get to keep a much, much bigger piece of the profits (they currently get 50% minus all distribution fees)

      --
      "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
  32. Upcoming Pixar Movies, from the source by alispguru · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't know where you heard that stuff, but a Pixar press release says the next three films are:

    Finding Nemo

    The Incredibles

    Cars

    Nothing about "Ray Gunn", nothing about "Toy Story 3". What's your source?

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  33. Direct Movie Link by sexecutioner · · Score: 4, Informative

    In case anyone wants the file directly the direct URL is:

    http://acw.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/findin g_ nemo/finding_nemo_trailer_1500.mov

    Else you can pull these from the HTML source on Disney's page, not hard to do.

  34. Based on the ORA book? by BitHive · · Score: 1

    I hear the book didn't do so well. . .

  35. 321 penguins I could understand..... by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    if it stared Tuxedo Penguin and his g/f Gown.

    We need another version of some Tux games. Tux Racer is cool now, but imagine a complete Quest for the Herring game! Sales of a console version(still GPL) could help fund its progress.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:321 penguins I could understand..... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2

      Problem with that is it would be a fucking stupid idea.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:321 penguins I could understand..... by Mathness · · Score: 1

      Yeah, what Linux is missing is a good and big adventure game (most are small and good, like Nethack).
      Like Bard's Tale, Ultime Underworld or similiar.
      Lets call it Lord of the Herrings, where your quest is to finde a Herrings to rule them all :)

      --
      Carbon based humanoid in training.
  36. I found Nemo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was right here under Jimmy Hoffa, and MAN did he smell!

  37. You want a reason? Look at the Evidence. by User+956 · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post? Maybe it's just a slow weekend...

    Look at the evidence. Steve Jobs is CEO of Pixar (and Apple). Slashdot, if not VA Linu^H^H^H^HSoftware wants to be bought out by Apple. Think about it: How many Apple articles do you see on a daily basis? Why does Apple have its own section, customized to look like Apple's website? Why does Apple have eleven (count them yourself) different topic categories? (Compared to one for Sun, one for Microsoft, one for IBM, one for Compaq, and *none* for Dell, whose market share is nearly six times that of Apple)

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:You want a reason? Look at the Evidence. by Rakarra · · Score: 2
      and *none* for Dell, whose market share is nearly six times that of Apple [com.com])

      Wow, there are no categories for McDonalds, who are a much larger company than Dell either. Then again, maybe it's because there's really nothing exciting or newsworthy about Dell. They're a reseller. There's nothing particularly exciting about VA either, which is why we so rarely see stories about them.

      If there were enough worthy stories about Dell, then it would have its own category. But it doesn't really deserve one.

  38. ...and its just being stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you're right.

    But these pointy-headed marketing types are forgetting the trailer is an advertisement.

    They have fans that want to distribute that advertisement. ....and they want to stop them?.....hello?

    It reminds me that marketing is the province of people who couldn't cut it in the sciences.

    1. Re:...and its just being stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They have fans that want to distribute that advertisement. ....and they want to stop them?.....hello?

      What are you talking about? Right click on the film, select "save as quicktime movie" and save to you Kazaa/whatever directory.

  39. QuickTime vs. Real vs. MS-Media by mah! · · Score: 1
    Why should MS-Windows media or whatever it is called be more interesting to Linux users than QuickTime? Has M$oft released a player for Linux? That would be very surprising!

    Why doesn't slashdot staff advocate a vendor-independent standard like MPEG-4 instead? I don't see Real or MS Media being any more open-source-friendly than QuickTime, as far as codec specs goes.

    1. Re:QuickTime vs. Real vs. MS-Media by kyhwana · · Score: 1

      Because mplayer will play windows media files (as well as Real video/audio files).
      It will also play every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. It WILL play V1, as it was REd and released.

      So linux/unix users can play everything but V3 sorenson, so both Real and WMV are more interesting than quicktime.

      Mplayer homepage

      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
    2. Re:QuickTime vs. Real vs. MS-Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Because mplayer will play windows media files (as well as Real video/audio files). It will also play every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. It WILL play V1, as it was REd and released.

      So Sorenson 1 has been reverse-engineered? Interesting...
      You mention every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. Does it mean that it plays MPEG-4 compliant video and audio as well, as for example encoded by QuickTime 6 MPEG-4 compliant codecs? I did not know there was a standard MPEG-4 video and audio playback codec on Linux. Even more interesting.

      Does it handle streaming Quicktime .movs encoded in MPEG-4 or in H.261 or H.263 such as streams reflected by DSS or QTSS from multicast tools?

      So linux/unix users can play everything but V3 sorenson, so both Real and WMV are more interesting than quicktime.

      Sorry I have to correct you on this: Linux/Unix users except Mac OS X users can play everything but V3 Sorenson, since on the Mac OS X Unix platform all of these are playable.

      :-)

    3. Re:QuickTime vs. Real vs. MS-Media by mah! · · Score: 1
      So you say that

      mplayer will play windows media files (as well as Real video/audio files). It will also play every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. It WILL play V1, as it was REd and released.

      So Sorenson 1 has been reverse-engineered? Interesting...

      You mention every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. Does it mean that mplayer plays MPEG-4 compliant video and audio as well, as for example encoded by QuickTime 6 MPEG-4 compliant codecs? I did not know there was a standard MPEG-4 video and audio playback codec on Linux. Even more interesting.


      Does it handle streaming Quicktime .movs encoded in MPEG-4 or in H.261 or H.263 such as streams reflected by DSS or QTSS from multicast tools?

      So linux/unix users can play everything but V3 sorenson, so both Real and WMV are more interesting than quicktime.

      Sorry, but I have to correct you on this: Linux/Unix users except Mac OS X users can play everything but V3 Sorenson, since on the Mac OS X Unix platform all of these are playable.

      :-)

    4. Re:QuickTime vs. Real vs. MS-Media by kyhwana · · Score: 1

      AFAIK mplayer should be able to play anything that any open source app can play. There is an mp4player that will play MPEG-4 compliant video/audio streams.
      Im not sure about the QT6 MPEG-4 codecs.

      It can handle the quicktime format, so I imagine that since it can do H.263 it should be able to do H.263 movs.

      And to the MacOSX thing. Pffft. Has MS released a version of WM player for MacOSX yet?
      mplayer won't do the binary only codecs on anything but x86, for obvious reasons. (Because the libraries were compiled on x86.)

      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
    5. Re:QuickTime vs. Real vs. MS-Media by mah! · · Score: 1
      AFAIK mplayer should be able to play anything that any open source app can play. There is an mp4player that will play MPEG-4 compliant video/audio streams. Im not sure about the QT6 MPEG-4 codecs.
      The MPEG-4 codec in QT6 is simply an ISO-compliant MPEG-4 codec (as from this page). If mplayer plays RTSP/RTP streams (not files!) and if it complies with MPEG-4 standards, it should play them. That's what I was asking - since I don't use mplayer myself. Does it or does it not?

      Does mplayer use QT-compatible codec APIs or does it reverse-engineer the codecs? Since you mentioned that it plays all QT formats except Sorenson-3 ... does it play On2, ZyGoVideo, etc. (these are just a few examples of codecs used with QuickTime) encoded videos?

      I also still see no answer about the Sorenson-1 video codec used by mplayer. Has it been reverse-engineered to be used on Linux? Because if that is so, I could recompile it on IRIX and have some good use for it. Or does it simply use the x86 binary codec as distributed with QT?

      And to the MacOSX thing. Pffft.
      I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. Is Pffft=Perfectly futile for fun-impaired types?

      Has MS released a version of WM player for MacOSX yet?
      Good question. I suppose so, since there is something called "Windows Media Player for Mac OS X" which Micro$oft released sometimes in January this year. (hope this answer helps: I do not have a detailed answer because I do not use Micro$oft products at work: being a computer science professional, I would consider such use a moral equivalent to prostitution; supporting Micro$oft products, a moral equivalent to drug dealing).

  40. This movie will increase the level of competition by i_luv_linux · · Score: 1

    This movie will change the whole expectation from these type of movies. It includes so many new techniques. It was very hard to simulate water in these movies, but now it seems that they can simulate almost anything.

  41. Disney marketing opportunities! by sheWhoWalksWithToesL · · Score: 1
    They design them to look like a 3D rendering of a Disney character so that they can easy make the stuffed animals look like the character! And don't forget the full-sized characters that walk around at Disney World.

    SheWhoWalksWithToesLikeCobras

    --
    -SheWhoWalksWithToesLikeCobras Please enter any 11-digit prime number to continue...
    1. Re:Disney marketing opportunities! by robson · · Score: 2

      They design them to look like a 3D rendering of a Disney character so that they can easy make the stuffed animals look like the character! And don't forget the full-sized characters that walk around at Disney World.

      I was hoping to avoid such a cynical conclusion ;)

  42. Quicktime is just fine, thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least Quicktime doesn't try and phone home every time you use it.

  43. much funnier trailer by dostick · · Score: 1

    This trailer is SO MUCH funnier http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/comedian.htm l

  44. MODERATORS ON CRACK by orange7 · · Score: 1

    This is a perfectly valid/interesting post, given the slashdot community's focus on patent rights and renderering technology. Why the fuck is it moderated troll?

    I mean, I'm getting the impression most posters are just here to go, "ooh, look at the pretty fishies."

    A.

  45. ugggh by mixmasta · · Score: 1

    I love pixar movies, but ellen de generes?? snooze...

    And if it takes place on the great barrier reef, how come the two main characters sound like they are from california? The fish should have aussie accents, mate =)

    --
    #6495ED - cornflower blue
  46. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    A certain monk had a habit of pestering the Grand Tortue (the only one who
    had ever reached the Enlightenment 'Yond Enlightenment), by asking whether
    various objects had Buddha-nature or not. To such a question Tortue
    invariably sat silent. The monk had already asked about a bean, a lake,
    and a moonlit night. One day he brought to Tortue a piece of string, and
    asked the same question. In reply, the Grand Tortue grasped the loop
    between his feet and, with a few simple manipulations, created a complex
    string which he proferred wordlessly to the monk. At that moment, the monk
    was enlightened.

    From then on, the monk did not bother Tortue. Instead, he made string after
    string by Tortue's method; and he passed the method on to his own disciples,
    who passed it on to theirs.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...