Slashdot Mirror


Despairing of Pixar

An anonymous reader writes "According to AnimWatch, Despair Inc :-( has released the short films of stop-motion animator Mark Osborne on DVD. They're available through Happy Product.com. MORE, the first stop action short film shot in IMAX format has been nominated for an Academy Award, won a Jury Prize at Sundance, appeared in a Kenna music video, and even appears in the Hotline documentation, but this looks like the first time it's ever been available on DVD. According to the filmmaker he hopes to fund future films by selling his old ones. This is the best short film I've ever seen, so all I can say is I'm glad it's finally getting a proper release. Isn't this how Pixar and Aardman got their starts?"

145 comments

  1. steve jobs? by lotas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    dident pixar get a major start (with the help of a lot of money) by steve jobs?

    --
    Lotas T Smartman www.lotas-smartman.net
    1. Re:steve jobs? by RLW · · Score: 0, Insightful

      and Disney.

    2. Re:steve jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
      dident pixar get a major start (with the help of a lot of money) by steve jobs?
      Congratulations...I've never seen that done before. I think I actually lost a few brain cells trying to make sense out of that.
    3. Re:steve jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant dead ant dead ant dead ant, dead aaaaaaaaaant. Dead ant.

    4. Re:steve jobs? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Jobs is CEO of Pixar, has been for some time. I don't think he contributed much founding capital.

  2. Direct Download by Captain+Goatse · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here's a Direct Download link, rightclick and choose save as, if you are using iexplore. Save linnk to disk if you are using Mozilla/Firebird.

    1. Re:Direct Download by Ikoma+Andy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Mod parent up. It's good, accurate info and doesn't deserve to be modded down.

  3. Kenna used MORE by Gyan · · Score: 2, Redundant

    as their video for 'Hell Bent'

  4. I am sure it is cool but... by mschoolbus · · Score: 3, Funny

    so all I can say is I'm glad it's finally getting a proper release

    How about proper bandwidth...

    1. Re:I am sure it is cool but... by Walterk · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess their pipes are despairing.. *groan*

  5. Pixar will be around by flewp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I assume the subject line of the submission is trying to indicate that this hurts Pixar.

    The truth is, Pixar will be around for awhile, and will continue to make great films. Really, I can't think of any other CG animation studio that has films of the caliber of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, etc. Sure, tools become better and better and are allowing a greater variety of people/studios to make similiar type of movies, but Pixar is one of the pioneers of the new technologies to hit the big screen and will continue to be for awhile.

    --
    WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    1. Re:Pixar will be around by karmaflux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it implies a threat to Pixar, I think it's just a way to put across the fact that both despair.com and a computer animation house are in the body of the article. A misleading and confusing way, but a way nonetheless.

      --

      REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    2. Re:Pixar will be around by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eh DreamWords did a pretty good job with Shrek.

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
    3. Re:Pixar will be around by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ffs.. DreamWorks :/

      --
      Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
    4. Re:Pixar will be around by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really, I can't think of any other CG animation studio that has films of the caliber of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, etc.

      Pretty sure the movie "Titan A.E." from the now-defunct studio who's name is forgotten would qualify...

    5. Re:Pixar will be around by twoslice · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Movies are all about quality. It does not matter what your company name is - if you make a quality product people will fill the seats and buy the DVDs. Just because you have a recognizable name - does not mean that you will have an instant hit.

      Conversely, if you make a lousy product investors will not make any money at it...

      --

      From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    6. Re:Pixar will be around by flewp · · Score: 1

      My point was that no other CG studio really can claim to have multiple films of the caliber of the ones I mentioned.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    7. Re:Pixar will be around by Free_Lard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      pixar makes pretty family films, yes, but there are other (independent) animators out there. i was very impressed with "The Cathedral", directed by Tomek Baginski which was included in Mike Judge and Don Hertzfeldt's Animation Show. there were a lot of great films in that show, most of them using stop motion or traditional animation, and most were at least as good as any pixar movie ive seen out there. Pixar may be profitableand have immense resources, but they are certainly not the only studio out there

      --
      --daniel

      pushing is the answer.
      pushing will protect you from the terrible secret of space.
    8. Re:Pixar will be around by flewp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, they did a wonderful job. But as I mention a few posts down, no other studio can really claim to have a portfolio (for their type of work) of the caliber of Pixar. That is to say, they have multiple films that are of extremely high quality, both in technical aspects and in storytelling.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    9. Re:Pixar will be around by flewp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Movies are all about quality

      And that's why Pixar is the leader of the field. They are both extremely talented on the technical side and, just as, if not more importantly, the storytelling side.

      Just because you have a recognizable name - does not mean that you will have an instant hit.

      Agreed, but a recognizable name means people will at least look at and consider your work, especially if your recognized name is associated with quality.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    10. Re:Pixar will be around by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll give you that. But Pixar was given the chance to make all those because of it's backing from Disney. Fox just let the animation company die after Titan came out. I can't even find what the name of the studio was, but I know it wasn't called the "Fox Animation Studio". Even though Titan had some issues, I was impressed by the animation. I was really hoping something else would come from it. But I guess not...

    11. Re:Pixar will be around by Jbrecken · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, [DreamWorks] did a wonderful job. But as I mention a few posts down, no other studio can really claim to have a portfolio (for their type of work) of the caliber of Pixar. That is to say, they have multiple films that are of extremely high quality, both in technical aspects and in storytelling.


      As well as the aforementioned Shrek, Antz was a decent story, and had some incredible images. I'd say DreamWorks is in Pixar's league for CG films.
    12. Re:Pixar will be around by sethx9 · · Score: 1

      "I can't think of any other CG animation studio that has films of the caliber of Toy Story, Finding Nemo, A Bug's Life, etc."

      Umm....Wega Digital? I suppose I'm to assume you mean to constrain this to animation studios being more than hired guns? I love Pixar but have to put my money on those CGI artists whose work is more transparent, when the audience doesn't know or very quickly forgets they are looking at CGI.

      I'd love to see Pixar put out something a bit darker, with a bit more complex character development and a bit less "free toy with your Happy Meal purchase" oriented...

      --
      Sorry, I keep forgetting to add the tongue-in-cheek emoticon to the bottom of my posts...
    13. Re:Pixar will be around by bellings · · Score: 1

      Titan A.E. was not a good movie.

      There were a few spots of reasonable animation, but overall the animation was as flat and uninspired as the plot.

      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    14. Re:Pixar will be around by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Just because you have a recognizable name - does not mean that you will have an instant hit.

      Funny, but isn't one of the biggest budget items of a movie the actors? Well, at least those that hire brand name actors in an attempt to have an "instant hit".

      Not sure how common knowledge this is, but one neat trivia piece about "A Bugs Life" DVD is that the widescreen and 4:3 versions of the movies are actually rerenders. Not pan and scan.

    15. Re:Pixar will be around by visgoth · · Score: 1
      I'd love to see Pixar put out something a bit darker, with a bit more complex character development and a bit less "free toy with your Happy Meal purchase" oriented...

      So would I, but unfortunately cg animation is being treated the same as traditional animation in North America. Ie, cartoons are for kids, which is most unfortunate. The mediocrity of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within didn't help much either.

      There have been some darker features made in other countries. Kaena and Wonderful Days (although technically Wonderful Days is more Anime than cg) are the only two I can think of at the moment. Both France and Korea have a more receptive audience for "serious" cartoons, somthing that North America seems to lack. That being said, perhaps the market for such things will open up.

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    16. Re:Pixar will be around by PunchMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not sure how common knowledge this is, but one neat trivia piece about "A Bugs Life" DVD is that the widescreen and 4:3 versions of the movies are actually rerenders. Not pan and scan.

      Screenshots showing the difference available here (Scoll almost to the bottom)

      Link

      This site also has some pretty good examples of the different aspect ratios, etc.

      --
      I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
    17. Re:Pixar will be around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough* PDI/Dreamworks did a pretty good job with Shrek *cough*

      PDI is in the bayarea, Dreamworks is near Hollywood.

      Two studios, same parent company

    18. Re:Pixar will be around by tolldog · · Score: 1

      Not entirely true.

      Marketing needs to be behind you.

      Look at Iron Giant. That should have done much much more in the box office but nobody seemed to notice the movie existed.

      Also, having worked on a *decent* film that was barely noticed (and barely distributed) I can say that it takes a little more than just a quality product. Money and headlines still oil the machine of the box office.

      -Tim

      --
      -I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
    19. Re:Pixar will be around by Khomar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but a recognizable name means people will at least look at and consider your work, especially if your recognized name is associated with quality.

      Absolutely. Consider the past couple trailers for the Pixar films. Both "Monsters Inc." and "Finding Nemo" contained very little about the actual story. In fact, after seeing the trailer for "Finding Nemo", I was not exactly enthused about the story. However, I knew from experience that Pixar uses excellent stories and expressive, fascinating characters, and so I, like millions of others, went and say the film and loved it. Pixar has built such a good reputation that they could almost just display a screen that said " - A Pixar Film - Summer 2005" and people would flock to see it.

      I would also like to point out what I see that makes them great. They combine a fantastic story with great characters told through cutting edge computer graphics with content that is great entertainment for kids while having enough sophistication in their humor to highly entertain adults (note: this means no "adult" humor in the bad sense of the word). This is why Pixar is now the reigning champ, and as long as they stick to this formula, they will never lose that title.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    20. Re:Pixar will be around by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1

      Who knows? With such a confusing headline linking to an article that doesn't even mention Pixar, what do editors actually do around here? Now the comments are all about Pixar, which isn't even in the article.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    21. Re:Pixar will be around by rdnk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they are making great films, for the children and the child-minded. Somehow, while I watched Monsters Inc., I felt uncomfortable with their hilariously expressive faces, obviously to draw young people's attention. But for the older, I suppose that kind of intensive face expression gets tiring after a while (at least, if trying to pay attention to every bit in a movie, like me).

      I wish they would try and produce some more adult minded fantasy, or science fiction (along the lines of, say Final Fantasy). And while I am in it, I didn't think Final Fantasy was disappointment story-wise at all, I ranked (and still do) it among the best CG films ever.

    22. Re:Pixar will be around by Patik · · Score: 1
      Eh DreamWords did a pretty good job with Shrek.
      You've gotta be kidding me. The animation in Shrek was not nearly as good as Monsters Inc. (which came out the same year). In fact, it wasn't even on par with Toy Story, which came out 6 years prior. There weren't many good textures, movement wasn't fluid, the characters' mouths didn't match the words at all, and the story telling was extremely gimmicky (just threw a bunch of old tales together). There was none of the originality, quality, or artistic style that you see in other CG animated movies.
    23. Re:Pixar will be around by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
      They are both extremely talented on the technical side and, just as, if not more importantly, the storytelling side.

      Make that MUCH, MUCH more importantly. A good story will beat a great technical achievement any day.

      If you don't believe me, compare Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within with South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. Both computer animation. One was a technical and visual marvel with a crap screenplay, and it tanked. The other was relatively technically easy with a very good screenplay, and it was a hit.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    24. Re:Pixar will be around by mofolotopo · · Score: 1

      Whew, I thought it was just me. There were a few points in that movie that were nice to look at, but overall I thought it was terrible. The writing sucked, and the acting was wooden.

      I think that a lot of other studios are missing the most fundamental points about why Pixar is so successful. YES they have the best-looking animation you've ever seen, but the thing that keeps kids and adults coming back are the amazingly well-written stories and the attention to character and dialogue. Monsters, Inc. could've been pencil drawn on the back of cocktail napkins and it still would've been a good story. Titan A. E. coul've been piped into my brain via the most amazing virtual reality technology ever, and I still would've been bored.

    25. Re:Pixar will be around by Refrag · · Score: 1

      Shrek already isn't standing the test of time that it's Pixar competitor Monsters Inc. is. Look at the home video market for one indicator.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    26. Re:Pixar will be around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There weren't many good textures, movement wasn't fluid, the characters' mouths didn't match the words at all, and the story telling was extremely gimmicky (just threw a bunch of old tales together)

      Wow. I have to assume you've never even watched the movie. What a bunch of crap. Just like slashdot though - spout off about something you don't know the first thing about, and look like an idiot.

    27. Re:Pixar will be around by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      Both "Monsters Inc." and "Finding Nemo" contained very little about the actual story. In fact, after seeing the trailer for "Finding Nemo", I was not exactly enthused about the story.

      I take issue with this. It is my philosophy of trailers that you can tell how good a movie is going to be as an inverse proportion of how much of the story can be gleaned from the trailers. If they tell the story in the trailer, they have nothing to lose and are hoping people will go despite having no reason to do so. Keeping the story a secret means they have something up their sleeve. Which may well mean that the movie will be pretty good. Check that on the trailers and the movies that come out. It turns out to be remarkably accurate.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    28. Re:Pixar will be around by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      The 'good name' of Pixar could be a major problem with Disney, were Pixar to stop dealing with them when their contract runs out.

      Would I go and see a 'Disney' movie? Probably not. Haven't heard a good review for one for many years now.

      However, I'll be there getting a ticket or buying a DVD for the next Pixar movie, and millions of others will too. And you are right about the storytelling. They get it right BEFORE worrying about the animation. If only a few movie studios would remember this before spending millions on a cast and half a million on a script.

    29. Re:Pixar will be around by Khomar · · Score: 1

      I would actually agree with your observation. My point was rather that you really have no clue what the next Pixar movie is really going to be about, but you still go see it because, after all, it is a Pixar film. Its going to be good.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

  6. Not the first time MORE has been on DVD... by lcracker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I picked MORE up on DVD two or three years ago. It was on a compilation of a bunch of indie shorts. I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it was volume 13 of something (utopia maybe?) and it definitely had a picture of a mushroom cloud on the cover.

    1. Re:Not the first time MORE has been on DVD... by lcracker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok sorry, it wasn't volume 13 but volume 7. It's been on DVD since [at least] Feb 1, 2000 according to here.

    2. Re:Not the first time MORE has been on DVD... by avi4now · · Score: 1

      True, but it's been out of print for a while now. Hence it can be tricky to find and quite a bit more expensive than buying directly from Mark Osborne. Plus, I'm sure more of the funds go directly to Mr. Osborne, so support an artist today!

      On a personal note, this is an amazing film that has a lot of meaning for my wife and I. It had a significant positive impact on our relationship in the first stages. I'm going to order 4 or 5 copies to have for birthday gifts, etc.

    3. Re:Not the first time MORE has been on DVD... by Zach+Baker · · Score: 1

      It's on Short 7: Utopia, but also on the Film-Fest 2: Cannes DVD which has an interview with Mark Osborne on it. "More" is just an awesome, awesome, awesome short. I saw it in 35mm when screening it to vote on the Annie awards and was annoyed that the comparatively weak "Bunny" won that award and the Oscar as well. I would love to see it on an IMAX screen. Blue Sky's more sentimental and technological "Bunny" was talked to death here on Slashdot, I recall. It's nice to see "More" getting some recognition.

    4. Re:Not the first time MORE has been on DVD... by greenhide · · Score: 1

      Also in The Best of Resfest: Vol. 2, which is available for rental from Netflix.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    5. Re:Not the first time MORE has been on DVD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it was on the exquisite but short-lived Short Cinema Journal series - don't recal which # but they never got up to #13. You can still find some copies around DVDuniverse,com; dvdplanet, etc.

      They'd still be around today if you worthless philistines had discovered DVDs a little faster, gotten off your asses and supported them.

  7. No - George Lucas by OpenYourEyes · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, Pixar was a spin-off from the computer graphics division at Lucasfilm. It was sold to Steve Jobs at that time in 1986. Disney wasn't involved until 1991 - well after Pixar had made a name for itself.

    Official Pixar History

    1. Re:No - George Lucas by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's even more complex - initially Pixar was supposed to be a computer making company. They tried to sell a sophisticated graphics workstation called Pixar Image Computer for a cool $135,000. Steve Jobs always was a hardware fetishist, but both his "main" project of that day - the NeXT Cube - and Pixar Image Computer were horrible market flops. Among the 120 employers of Pixar in late 1980's, only five were trying to make films; the others were trying to develop, manufacture and market the workstation that nobody wanted to buy. This policy has led Pixar to huge debt of a 50 megabuck magnitude. Only then came the Oscar and the Disney etc.

    2. Re:No - George Lucas by rekoil · · Score: 4, Informative

      There was software as well...the RenderMan suite is what they were best known for, and I they had a lightweight app called Typestry that I used extensively back when I was a graphic artist. Good stuff.

    3. Re:No - George Lucas by benja · · Score: 0

      50'000'000$ a "huge" debt? My god, that musta been before the bomb, baby...

      :-)

    4. Re:No - George Lucas by The+boojum · · Score: 2, Informative

      Originally, though, their Renderman implementation was supposed to be done in hardware. They initially prototyped it in C on general purpose hardware, and then when the special purpose hardware flopped they realized they were on to something with the software.

    5. Re:No - George Lucas by malducin · · Score: 1

      There was also the propietary stuff they worked on besides RenderMan. I believe Alvy Ray Smith continued working one paint systems there, the Pixar Image Computer was mainly for compositing so they had to write software for that.

      They were also somewhat involved in what would become EditDroid and SoundDroid, but more importantly also building film scanners and recorders for film use (their film scanner was coupled with the Pixar Image Computer), particle systems, etc.

    6. Re:No - George Lucas by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Actually, starting in the late 80's Disney was paying Pixar to develop CAPS. It wasn't a ton of money but it helped quite a bit, from what I understand (Pixar wasn't always a huge money-making machine).

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    7. Re:No - George Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's just like NeXT OS then, which became a huge success on general purpose hardware ... oh, wait...

  8. Exposure by Dracolytch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey Gang, I saw this short quite some time ago on the Sci-Fi show Exposure. If you're interested in shorts, I really recommend checking their site out. Even though they don't have More available for on-line play, they do have shorts like Prelude to Eden, and Protest.

    http://exposure.scifi.com

    ~D

    --
    This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
  9. funding by Savatte · · Score: 5, Informative

    Getting funding for a short film is quite possibly more difficult than getting funding for a feature film. A full-length film at least has the possibility of being picked up and distributed to vast audiences, where as an investor's return on a short film is more likely to be nothing, since they are rarely exhibited. To convince someone to give you money so you can follow your dream or experiement is quite difficult. Stan Brakhage, the world-renowned avant-garde film maker had trouble finding funding for his short films, since he was so prolific (he made about 400 films in his lifetime). He then decided to take a different approach and began painting on the actual film, which took more time, and thus was able to make his funding last.

    For some other non-Pixar fascinating short films, check out:

    Duck Amuck - Chuck Jones
    Eye Myth - Stan Brakhage
    Rabbits - David Lynch
    The Heart Of The World - Guy Maddin
    The Superbowl Is Gay - Andy Milonakis (yes, I'm serious. This is one of the most purely comedic films ever made)

    1. Re:funding by fruey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      and began painting on the actual film, which took more time, and thus was able to make his funding last

      How is taking more time able to allow him to make his funding last?

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    2. Re:funding by Free_Lard · · Score: 1

      and the Cremaster cycle by Matthew Barney.

      --
      --daniel

      pushing is the answer.
      pushing will protect you from the terrible secret of space.
    3. Re:funding by Free_Lard · · Score: 1

      website here. forgot.

      --
      --daniel

      pushing is the answer.
      pushing will protect you from the terrible secret of space.
    4. Re:funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing it's because he didn't burn through film like if he were shooting, thus not having to pay for processing and developing.

      If you got an arts grant for 10 grand, you are more likely to get another one if you take 3 years to use it up, rather than 1 year. Just my guess, though.

    5. Re:funding by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stan Brakhage, the world-renowned avant-garde film maker had trouble finding funding for his short films, since he was so prolific (he made about 400 films in his lifetime).

      Not TOO much trouble finding funding if he made 400 of them!

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  10. Commercials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pixar initially worked on commercials before their movies. Not sure if these even predated the short films becuase they were initially geared to be like an advertising firm. Notable Pixar commercials include:

    Tropicana Orange Juice (with bouncy/dancing oranges)
    Listerine /w animated and Robin Hood Listerine bottle
    Gummy Life Savers that danced and such

    1. Re:Commercials by malducin · · Score: 1

      No the commercials didn't predate the shorts, since they started those when they were still part of Lucasfilm. Andre and Wally B. was the one done while they were still part of Lucasfilm, and Luxo Jr. came out not long after the spin off. Ther's of course the VFX work they also did (Genesis sequence in Star Trek 2, return of the Jedi deathstar animation, etc.).

    2. Re:Commercials by tinrobot · · Score: 1

      Those commercials actually came AFTER Luxo Jr and Tin Toy. The shorts sold them into the ad agencies, no the other way around.

      Pixar was a computer company long before they were an entertainment company. Pixar's first product was actually hardware -- a dedicated rendering box. Only after that failed did they release renderman.

    3. Re:Commercials by greenhide · · Score: 3, Informative

      Luxo Jr. was that animation involving a jumpy, excitable desklamp that now serves as the "i" in Pixar (You'll see it in the opening titles of any Pixar film).

      Of course, instead of just hearing people on Slashdot go on about Pixar's history, why not just get it straight from the horse's mouth?

      A nice, clear, and easy history of Pixar.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
  11. Aardman by lxt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Isn't this how Pixar and Aardman got their starts?" - I don't know about Pixar, but Aardman (based right down the road from me in Bristol) was originally two teenagers who got a commission from the BBC to produce a short kids ident (called the "aard man", hence the company name). From then on, the studio funded itself through producing advertisements and music videos (Peter Gabriel's Sledgehammer for example), and put the revenue it recieved into producing quality shorts - it was this money that funded Nick Park's "A Grand Day Out". "Chicken Run" is an exception to the advertisement funding rule, as it's part of a five film deal with Dreamworks.

    1. Re:Aardman by g_attrill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a nice history on their website explaining everything.

      Gareth

    2. Re:Aardman by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      He started making all his animations by hand at home, and his talent got him noticed... He's made a few quid since, though.

    3. Re:Aardman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Sledgehammer video was done by the guys who went on to create Mainframe (www.mainframe.ca). They are best know for TV and direct to video CGI such as Beast Wars and Reboot!

    4. Re:Aardman by tinrobot · · Score: 1

      Actually, the guys who did the "Moeny for Nothing" video went on to found Mainframe.

      As an aside - the Sledgehammer video was beautifully animated, while "Money for Nothing" was pretty crude. You can really see from the quality that Aardman had been in business for years and years, while the other video was a first attempt.

    5. Re:Aardman by JasonAsbahr · · Score: 1

      I heard the Peter Gabriel video was unpaid work. Awesome, groundbreaking, but done for free for the priviledge of working with Peter Gabriel. True or false?

  12. Yahoo pulled short? by Peale · · Score: 1

    I'm unable to download the short. Who wants to make a torrent?

    1. Re:Yahoo pulled short? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No torrent, but I'll put up a mirror for you.

    2. Re:Yahoo pulled short? by lunarboy · · Score: 1

      Works for me. But I also downloaded it completely before I watched it...

      --
      Roger Wong
      Graphic Designer
      Oakland, CA
  13. From across the sea by Bazzargh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd quite like to see this film, but where's the tech spec for the DVD? From the lack of one, I can only assume that this is Region 1/NTSC?

    Just goes to remind us what a disaster the DVD region encoding is. Its a system that can only help large conglomerates staging their worldwide releases, not small operations who'd like to sell to all and sundry via the 'net.

    Ho hum. Wish more folk would release their wares on Region 0, like the good folks at MindCandy did.

    BTW, Aardman had been going for a long, long time. Those of us who grew up in the UK have been watching their stuff all our lives on Vision On, Take Hart, and Morph. The rest of the world probably saw their work first on music video - Peter Gabriel's 'So' was out 3 years before W&G. So its probably more accurate to say that Aardman got their start by years of slog on TV work.

    As for "hopes to fund future films by selling his old ones" I think that's also the business plan of Disney, Universal, Sony.... ;)

  14. pixar in 1987 by jspectre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    i remember pixar demoing some of their medical imaging systems at princeton university back in 1987.. they sold some high-end unix-based servers to help generate graphics, the kind that are easily done on a PS1 these days. making movies wasn't even on their radar back then.

    didn't buy any of the servers, but they were pretty pictures (for the time).

    --

    abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

    1. Re:pixar in 1987 by bn0p · · Score: 1

      Actually making movies (albeit short ones) was very much on their radar screen. Andre and Wally B. came out in 1984, Luxo and Luxo Jr. in '86 and Red's Dream in '87.

      BTW Pixar's association with Disney pre-dates the movies deal by a few years. Pixar Image Computers and Pixar software were used in Disney's Computer Animation Production System (CAPS). This system was first used for the ending scene of The Little Mermaid in 1989 and won an Academy Award for Technical Achievement in 1992.

      --
      Never let reality temper imagination
    2. Re:pixar in 1987 by jspectre · · Score: 1

      i stand corrected..

      when they did their demo they never mentioned their movie business. then again we were looking at graphics modeling systems, not movies. the systems were to take mri scans and assemble them into 3d images that could be manipulated in real time. not something most computers could do back then with any serious speed (at 32 bits of color).

      --

      abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

    3. Re:pixar in 1987 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pixar released a number of shorts before getting into the feature film gig.

      1984 The Adventures of Andre & Wally B
      1986 Luxor Jnr
      1987 Red's Dream
      1988 Tin Toy
      1989 Knick Knack
      1997 Geri's Game
      2001 For the Birds
      2002 Mike's New Car

      Feature films:
      1995 Toy Story
      1998 A Bug's Life
      1999 Toy Story 2
      2001 Monster's Inc
      2003 Finding Nemo
      2004 The Incredibles
      2005 Cars

      Rumoured:
      2006 Ratatouille

      cheers

      Sara
      a Macgrrl in an NT world

  15. MORE about as good as animation gets. by kid+zeus · · Score: 2, Informative

    I got this on the Utopia collection of independent shorts a few years back, and all I have to say is that it's simply one of the finest pieces of animation ever done. And watching it on in a small, low-res QT window is not the best way to check out the amazing texture brought about by it's Wide Format (aka IMAX) filming. This guy is fantastic, and I hope he gets some great funding because I can't wait to see what he does next.

    1. Re:MORE about as good as animation gets. by Dr.+Smooth · · Score: 1

      even better is a short called "Shadow Puppets". I don't know which came first, but as I watched "More", all I could think of was "Shadow Puppets", which I haven't seen since 1994 at SIGGRAPH.

      I'd love to get THAT on DVD.

      --

      ...if you ask no questions, beware of lies...

  16. Forgotten studio? Not quite. by MsGeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    Titan A.E. was done by Fox Animation at their defunct Arizona studio. They located their studio in Arizona to avoid paying animators union wages. The head of Fox Animation was Don Bluth. Titan A.E. basically bankrupted Fox Animation.

    Fox recently bought Blue Sky Studios in upstate New York, the creators of the short "Bunny" and the feature "Ice Age." They are now working on "Robots" for early 1995 release.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    1. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by Leto-II · · Score: 1

      They are now working on "Robots" for early 1995 release.

      Wow. They're slow. Like Duke-Nukem-Forever-slow. No wonder they have problems being profitable.

      --
      Do not anger the worm.
    2. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by rekoil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Has Don Bluth done ANYTHING that actually made someone money? Every film I've heard of him involved in seems to have disappeared onto the scrapheap of financial and critical mediocrity.

    3. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Secret of Nimh was pretty good. Granted, that's beena about 20 years though.

    4. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Funny

      They are now working on "Robots" for early 1995 release.

      They apparantly are not going to make that deadline.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    5. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by visgoth · · Score: 1
      Has Don Bluth done ANYTHING that actually made someone money? Every film I've heard of him involved in seems to have disappeared onto the scrapheap of financial and critical mediocrity.

      Well, let's see, shall we?
      Err... he got about 15 bucks in quarters out of my pocket back in the summer of 1984 with Space Ace, does that count?

      --
      My patience is infinite, my time is not.
    6. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Ironic, that they were in Arizona to cut costs and Titan A.E. bankrupted Fox Animation anyways.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    7. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by a1englishman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not defending Don Bluth, but your supposition that something has to make money in order to be considered good is erroneous. Making money is an indicator of being popular, not necessarily good. There's plenty of popular films that are utter cods wallop. There are also plenty of good films that were utter financial flops.

    8. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Dive into the titles, then click on "box office & business" under "Other Info". Hey, even Anastasia made money.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    9. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by May+Kasahara · · Score: 2, Informative
      An American Tail, for one. Not to mention The Land Before Time, The Secret of NIMH, and the Dragon's Lair game.

      Just dig back 15-20 years or so and you'll come upon the good stuff.

    10. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by dw5000 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Has Don Bluth done ANYTHING that actually made someone money? Every film I've heard of him involved in seems to have disappeared onto the scrapheap of financial and critical mediocrity.

      Well, An American Tail made $47.8M domestically in 1986. Land Before Time grossed $82M globally on a budget of $12.3M; that was '89. And Secret of Nimh grossed on about that level, too.

      Since '89, though, I don't think anything he's done has broken even before it's been released on video. The problem with Titan A.E. is that it had that huge budget which included setting up the Arizona studio ($75M), meaning it would have need to gross at least $150M before video to even have a chance at breaking even. It got about 1/5 of that worldwide, though a little better than what his other post-Dogs films racked up. It's not all his fault, honestly; if Fox had a clue in its head it wouldn't have flushed $75M down the toilet to win a pissing match with Disney/Pixar.

      Since Titan A.E., Bluth's been attached to exactly ZERO projects. Can you say... done?

    11. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      Again, mea culpa...I meant 2005.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    12. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was your hey day in 1994?

    13. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone posted this. I think people really get off on how badly something does in the market as a way to attack a company or its creative people. In reality, there really wasn't anything wrong with flops such as the Atari Lynx, NeXT, Amiga, etc, but somehow the meme that unless you're making tons of money you're a loser continues to spread, thus we have Bill Gates as the genius behind Microsoft while we (well most) ignore the dirty business tricks that made his products so profitable.

    14. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by thirdrock · · Score: 1

      Is this the BSA? Or is this the RIAA? Is this the MPAA? I thought it was the USA! Or just another country....

      And Iiiiiiiii wanna be ...... an anarchy?

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
    15. Re:Forgotten studio? Not quite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Has Don Bluth done ANYTHING that actually made someone money?"

      Dragon's Lair.

  17. Close paren? by SkyZero · · Score: 1

    Oh my god I almost fainted.... I kept reading looking for a close parenthesis in the article. Dont do this to me before coffee!

  18. Re:steve jobs and other red herrings by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Neither Steve Jobs nor Pixar are even mentioned in the article linked. Why on earth is Pixar in the headline?

  19. Aardman by Burb · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... didn't Aardman get its start working for the BBC in kids TV? "Morph" and all that?

    --

  20. film length by theMerovingian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the best short film I've ever seen

    I am surprised more film people don't make short movies of their 'concepts', and use them as a demo to pitch to major studios/investors. If I were a film executive, I would be much more willing to consider spending $ on someone who would take that much initiative on their own dime. Also, you could sell the short film to recoup some of your costs (even if it doesn't get picked up).

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    1. Re:film length by quantax · · Score: 1

      This is MUCH easier said than done for many reasons. However, the top reasons would be time and money; creating a short film takes a lot of work between a lot of people to make it worth while. Sure, you may make something with less time & people, but I can tell you straight up that 99% of the time, unless you put a lot of work into it, its probably going to come out like shit. This is doubly true for 3D where nothing is done for you. For 1 person to make a 30 second animated piece with *1* character that moves well & realistically would take several months at a minimum. So you have to ask yourself: this idea of mine, is it worth the many months of development and so on (on top of my current job, etc) to try to pitch? I'm not saying this shouldnt be done, but lets recognize that the guys who do this are doing a lot of work to have it come out with any sort of quality, and is not something just 'that should be done'.

      --
      "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
  21. Wouldn't it make more sense... by GeekLife.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For the title of the article to be "The Pixaring of Despair," considering there's nothing happening to Pixar at all?

  22. anybody watch the documentary trailer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
  23. But it's already on DVD! by Muerte2 · · Score: 1

    While I wholeheartedly agree that More is the best short I've ever seen, it's certainly been on DVD before now. I own it!

    It's in a collection of other short films called short 7 - Utopia. I do highly recommend anyone that hasn't seen it to look into it.

  24. No, second time on DVD. by hethatishere · · Score: 1

    This is not the first time MORE has been put on a DVD. Warner Brother's released a series of DVDs called "Short." The one that has more is the 7th in the series called Short: Utopia. It's somewhat of a rarity, but all the DVDs in the collection are fantastic and have some truly amazing short movies and animations. Amazon.com has a few used copies for sale still: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 03JRCL/002-9775621-7736809?v=glance

    --
    Something intelligent here.
  25. How Pixar got its start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know about Aardman, but Pixar got started by making brilliant shorts like Luxo Jr. They now make features, and in Pixar's case, MAJOR BANK.

    The original poster seems to be saying This guy made a brilliant short film, can we expect HIM to go on to make feature films?

    He's also got a Steve Jobsian sugar daddy in the form of Dr. E.L. Kersten. But somehow I don't see a feature length film with this tone exactly cleaning up at the box office with the kiddies.

  26. MORE on DVD by Jaegs · · Score: 1
    ...but this looks like the first time it's ever been available on DVD.

    Actually, MORE is on the Film-Fest DVD - Issue 2 - Cannes released in 1999--the main reason I purchased it; well, that and the picture of Selma Hayek on the front (yum). Just do a search on Amazon or your favorite DVD shoppe.

  27. MORE animator's other short film- online links? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there's a link on the gethappy.com site for an earlier film called GREENER. the trailer is online and looks interesting. does anyone know where this movie can be watched online? has anyone seen it?

  28. Re:No No No - George Lucas by das_katz_socrates · · Score: 1

    If I recall correctly weren't they originally manufactuers of lamps, unicycles and snow globes?

    --
    This sig has no nutritional value...
  29. they had already done a movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They did Red's Dream in 1986. It was their first short film. They would compete with Pacific Digital Imaging (Images?) to see who could do the best demo movie each year at Siggraph. Even Apple did one.

    I think they did Luxo Jr. in 1987.

    They always had their eyes on making feature films. Selling hardware was only a sideshow. Selling Renderman seemed barely more than that.

  30. Creature Comforts did pretty well here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people saw Creature Comforts before Sledgehammer.

    Also, given that Region 0 exists, I don't see how you can say region encoding hurts the small guy. If the small guy wants to sell his stuff worldwide, region 0 allows it.

    I'm not a fan of region coding, but don't go making up fake problems for it.

  31. No, it's not quite how they got their starts. by tinrobot · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pixar started life as a spin off of ILM, with Jobs as a major investor. He hoped to make money off of rendering technology and the shorts were mostly done as promotion. Little did he know there was more money in feature films than Renderman software.

    Aardman got it's start in the 70's by two animators who loved clay. They sold a show called Morph to the BBC and that made the studio. Nick Park came a decade later. The first Wallace and Gromit was a student film he couldn't finish on his own. Aardman provided the resources for Nick to finish it and the rest is history.

    That said, there are a number of OTHER animators who have made decent careers by using one film to finance the next. Bill Plympton comes to mind, as does Don Hertzfeldt.

    Mark Osborne's films are similarly great, I wish him lots of luck.

    1. Re:No, it's not quite how they got their starts. by tolldog · · Score: 1

      I am glad somebody beat me too it...

      People seem to think that animation studios sprang up over night.

      The big ones have been around a long time, just not always making feature animations (or shorts for that matter).

      -Tim

      --
      -I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
    2. Re:No, it's not quite how they got their starts. by tinrobot · · Score: 1

      I should make a correction. As someone else pointed out earlier, the Aard Man series did come before Morph.

    3. Re:No, it's not quite how they got their starts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don Hertzfeldt

      That guy is wrong in the head - the first time I saw Billy's Balloon I couldn't stop laughing for 10 minutes

  32. Did anyone else... by cschmidt · · Score: 1

    feel like they were watching a Radiohead video?

    --

    Who am I to blow against the wind? -- Paul Simon
  33. I don't see what the big deal is by realmolo · · Score: 1

    I've seen this before, long ago. I wasn't impressed in the least. It's the typical pseudo-philosphical shit that every "independent" filmmaker spews out. And claymation just isn't impressive anymore. Not that it every really was.

    1. Re:I don't see what the big deal is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're gonna talk shiite about it, why don't you give us a link to something you've created that is superior to it?

      oh, sorry- good point. You haven't done anything worth a crap... You're just talkin' out of your arse like you always have, assuming that the sheer force of your own willpower combined with your articulated, idiotic opinion will somehow manage to change reality.

      but it won't. this film owns your ass- and in a lifetime of work- creative and otherwise- you won't do anything that would merit even holding Mark Osborne's jock!

      you're the comic-book guy. only less well socially adjusted- and unfunny.

  34. I Funded a Short Film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause at the time Andy made The Superbowl is Gay peice of crap he wasn't paying his half of the rent.

    Calling that a Short "FILM" is like calling yourself "smart."

  35. Animation is outsourced too by agslashdot · · Score: 1

    http://www.toonzanimationindia.com/ Office presumably in Burbank ( CA ), but actual animation studios back in India.

    1. Re:Animation is outsourced too by tinrobot · · Score: 1

      This has been going on since the late 70's when Gunther-Wahl started sending animation to Japan.

      Every single cel-animated TV show on the air today is animated overseas, and it's been that way for decades.

  36. how is the quality of the encode? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm not sure which compilation DVD i've seen with More on it- but whichever one it was - the encoding looked kinda sucky. i guess because they are cramming lots of data (short films) onto one DVD? i'm assuming if the More dvd for sale by the mark osbourne has only the film More on it that they would encode it at a high data level - making for a better picture. maybe?

  37. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within by autechre · · Score: 1

    This was mind-blowing animation, and the story/characters were not bad (Roger Ebert liked it too). However, as with Titan A.E. (which I thought was just kind of OK), the studio was basically destroyed in the process.

    I thought that The Iron Giant was a really excellent movie, though perhaps the animation wasn't as flashily spectacular as Pixar. It certainly wasn't _bad_.

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
  38. Bleah...I meant... by MsGeek · · Score: 1

    ...2005 release, sorry...

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  39. Was out on DVD already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case no one has pointed this out, MORE was on the SHORT series of DVDs, Short 7 to be precise.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372521/

  40. CAPS by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
    Disney wasn't involved until 1991 - well after Pixar had made a name for itself.

    Disney and Pixar first got involved in 1998, before Pixar won its first Academy Award and a eve before they started selling Photorealistic RenderMan to the general public. Yes, Pixar had made a name for itself, but it wasn't as big a name as it was in 1991.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  41. Advert by JasonAsbahr · · Score: 1

    Nice advertisement, anonymous!

  42. How to get sued by Pixar by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Leo Schwab, who hangs out here occasionally ran afoul of Pixar in 1987 over Red's Dream.

    I can recommend Leo as a houseguest. He fixed my toilet that year as well when I put him up so he could attend some convention in Anaheim. What a multi-talented guy.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  43. Oh yeah, that worked SO well for Mike Jittlove by rs79 · · Score: 1

    _The Wizard of Speed and Time_ should be a lesson; God help anybody that tries this. Really.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  44. New Pixar Film by Luketh · · Score: 1

    On the topic of Pixar I have a little piece of insider info that may or may not be common knowledge yet... I don't know. The new Pixar movie will be entitled Gnomeo & Juliet... A girl's love of one particular open-source desktop environment? No, sadly it's about a girl's love affair with a man of small stature... It'll be like Shrek but she sticks with Farkward and there won't be an Ogre but a gnome that's also the man of small stature and... Well you know... if the formula works, a love story at any rate.

    --
    A computer without a Microsoft Operating System is like a dog without bricks tied to its head
  45. Re:YOUR SKILLZ HAVE FAILED YOU!!!! by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    I meta-moderated this as unfair. Not because the moderation itself was unfair, but because I'm fighting back against moderators who use their mod-points to attack people. I'm sorry, but you're probably innocent in this matter. However, you should consider modding up insightful or funny posts instead of modding down people posting anonymously.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  46. Re:YOUR SKILLZ HAVE FAILED YOU!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I never use any negative mod except for "Overrated". It's better to be positive, but there are some things that need to be modded down.