The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company

The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company

by David A. Price


$17.46 $17.95 Save 3% Current price is $17.46, Original price is $17.95. You Save 3%.
View All Available Formats & Editions
Choose Expedited Shipping at checkout for guaranteed delivery by Wednesday, September 25


A Wall Street Journal Best Book of the Year

The Pixar Touch is a lively chronicle of Pixar Animation Studios' history and evolution, and the “fraternity of geeks” who shaped it. With the help of animating genius John Lasseter and visionary businessman Steve Jobs, Pixar has become the gold standard of animated filmmaking, beginning with a short special effects shot made at Lucasfilm in 1982 all the way up through the landmark films Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, and others. David A. Price goes behind the scenes of the corporate feuds between Lasseter and his former champion, Jeffrey Katzenberg, as well as between Jobs and Michael Eisner. And finally he explores Pixar's complex relationship with the Walt Disney Company as it transformed itself into the $7.4 billion jewel in the Disney crown.

With an Updated Epilogue

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780307278296
Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
Publication date: 05/05/2009
Pages: 320
Sales rank: 538,898
Product dimensions: 5.10(w) x 7.90(h) x 0.70(d)

About the Author

David A. Price was raised in Richmond, Virginia and was educated at the College of William and Mary, where he received his degree in computer science. He graduated from Harvard Law School and Cambridge University. Price has written for The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Business 2.0, The Washington Post, Forbes and Inc. and is the author of Love & Hate in Jamestown. Price lives with his wife and two sons in Washington, D.C.

Read an Excerpt

Still another film was in Pixar’s pipeline during the making of A Bug’s Life. Talk of a sequel to Toy Story began around a month after Toy Story opened, when Catmull, Lasseter, and Guggenheim visited Joe Roth, Katzenberg’s successor as chairman of Walt Disney Studios. Roth was pleased and embraced the idea.

Disney had recently begun making direct-to-video sequels to its successful feature films, and Roth wanted to handle the Toy Story sequel this way, as well. A direct-to-video sequel could be made for less money, with lesser talent. It could be priced cheaply enough to be an impulse purchase. Disney’s first such production, an Aladdin spin-off in 1994 called The Return of Jafar, had been a bonanza, returning an estimated hundred million dollars in profits. With those results, all self-restraint was off; Disney would soon grace drugstore shelves with Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas; Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World; The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride; and still another Aladdin film.

Everything else about the Toy Story sequel was uncertain at first: whether Tom Hanks and Tim Allen would be available and affordable, what the story’s premise would be, even whether the film would be computer-animated at Pixar or cel-animated at Disney.

As with A Bug’s Life, Lasseter regarded the project as a chance to groom new directing talent. In early 1996, once Roth decided that Pixar would handle production of the sequel, Lasseter assigned directing duties. Stanton was immersed in A Bug’s Life; Pete Docter, whom Lasseter regarded as the next in line, was already beginning development work on his own feature about monsters. For Toy Story 2, Lasseter turned to Ash Brannon, a young directing animator on Toy Story whose work he admired. Brannon, a CalArts graduate, had joined Pixar to work on Toy Story in 1993.

The story originated with Lasseter pondering what a toy would find upsetting. In the world of Toy Story, a toy’s greatest desire is to be played with by a child. What, Lasseter wondered, would be the opposite of that–worse, even, than being displaced by another toy?

An obsessive toy-collector character had appeared in a draft of Toy Story and was later expunged. Lasseter felt that it was now an idea whose time had come. Thinking of his own tendency to shoo his sons away from the toys on his office shelves, especially a Woody doll that he prized for its Tom Hanks signature, Lasseter began talking about the notion of a toy collector who hermetically seals toys in a case where they will never be played with again. For a toy, it would be a miserable fate. Brannon then suggested the idea of a yard sale where the collector recognizes Woody as a rare artifact and distracts Andy’s mom to grab him. Out of those ideas, Toy Story 2 was born.

The concept of Woody as part of a collectible set came from the draft story of A Tin Toy Christmas, in which Tinny was part of a set in a toy store and became separated. The other characters in Woody’s set emerged from viewings of 1950s cowboy shows for children, such as Howdy Doody and Hopalong Cassidy. “We started looking at these canonical characters that you find in westerns,” said Guggenheim, who was producer of Toy Story 2 during the first year of development work. “You would find a gruff old prospector. You would find other characters, like an Annie Oakley—Calamity Jane sort of character, a tough frontier girl.”

The development of the cowgirl character, Jessie, was also kindled by Lasseter’s life; Nancy had pressed him to include a character in Toy Story 2 for girls, one with more substance than Bo Peep. Jessie had started in a different form, as Señorita Cactus, a Mexican side- kick to the Prospector; she was to sway Woody with her feminine wiles. When the character of Jessie replaced her, the personality of the female lead became tougher and more direct.

As the story approached the production stage in early 1997, there remained the question of where Pixar would find the people to make it, given the demands of A Bug’s Life on the company’s employees. Part of the answer would come from a production organization within Pixar devoted to computer games. The Interactive Products Group, with a staff of around ninety-five (out of Pixar’s total staff of three hundred), had its own animators, its own art department, and its own engineers. Under intense time pressure, they had put out two successful CD-ROM titles: The Toy Story Animated StoryBook, released in April 1996, and The Toy Story Activity Center, released in October of the same year to coincide with the videotape release of Toy Story. The games featured much of the voice cast of the film, except that the voice actor Pat Fraley took Tim Allen’s place as Buzz, while Woody was played by Tom Hanks’s younger brother, Jim. The company touted StoryBook as the first CD-ROM to deliver full screen, motion-picture-quality animation on home computers. Between the two products, the interactive group had created as much original animation as there was in Toy Story itself.

Jobs had convinced himself that the games would sell ten million copies, like best-selling direct-to-video films. Kerwin, as head of the group, insisted that the market wasn’t there on such a scale. We can make a good, profitable business out of them, she said. (The products had sold almost a million copies combined.) But they won’t be a home run like Toy Story.

If that’s the case, Jobs said finally, then why don’t we just turn all these people over to making another movie? Thus, in March1997, while Kerwin took the assignment of building a short-films group, Jobs shut down the computer games operation and the games staff became the initial Core of the Toy Story 2 production team.

Press Release
March 12, 1997
The Walt Disney Studios and Pixar Animation Studios announce today that a sequel to the groundbreaking Academy Award—nominated feature film TOY STORY is underway and being created exclusively for home video. The all-new, fully computer-animated sequel will feature the voices of Tim Allen and Tom Hanks, who reprise their enormously popular roles as “Buzz Lightyear,” the space ranger, and “Woody,” the pull-string Cowboy, respectively. Production on TOY STORY II reteams Disney’s Feature Animation team and Pixar’s Northern California studios. . . .
“‘Toy Story II’ is the latest production to be announced in our growing made-for-video film category,” Ann Daly, President, Buena Vista Home Video, said. “With ‘Aladdin and the King of Thieves’ and the debut of ‘Honey We Shrunk Ourselves’ next week, we are now bringing both animated and live-action films into this pipeline with great success. . . .”

Disney soon became unhappy with the pace of the work on the film and demanded in June that Guggenheim be replaced as producer. Pixar complied.

He looked back on his seventeen years with Pixar and Lucasfilm and concluded that he had most enjoyed working with groups that were venturing into new directions, like the EditDroid digital editing project and the original Toy Story effort; with Pixar’s shedding of everything but feature films, he believed the company’s strategy left few entrepreneurial opportunities. Guggenheim, now financially secure thanks to the stock offering, left the company.*

Karen Jackson and Helene Plotkin, who had been associate producers on the sequel, moved up to the role of co-producers. Jackson recalled using the enticement of greater responsibility–the chance to be a big fish in a smaller pond–to compete with A Bug’s Life for the production people they wanted.

“You could go to A Bug’s Life and be one of two hundred, or you could come to Toy Story 2 and be one of fifty or sixty,” she said. “To fill the spots on Toy Story 2, we did a lot of recruitment outside. But there were certain key positions on Toy Story 2 where we wanted to get experienced staff on board, and the way to get them on board was to say, ‘We’ll let you run this department,’ or, ‘We’ll let you be the directing animator.’ ”

In November, Disney executives Roth and Peter Schneider viewed story reels for the film, with some finished animation, in a screening room at Pixar. They were impressed with the quality of the work and became interested in releasing Toy Story 2 in theaters.

In addition to the unexpected artistic caliber, there were other reasons that made the case for a theatrical release more compelling. As it turned out, the economics of direct-to-video for a Pixar film weren’t working as well as hoped. The logic of direct-to-video hinged on low production costs, but low-budget and high-budget projects could not readily coexist under Pixar’s umbrella. The creative appetites of Pixar’s leadership made it anathema to produce a film at less than the highest level visually–one in which corner-cutting could be seen on screen. In computer animation no less than in live action, production values cost money.

More prosaically, Pixar wanted the efficiency of moving crew members from one production to the next, whatever the next one might be, so Catmull and Lasseter deemed it unacceptable to create a second, lower-wage staff for low-budget projects. Since labor costs added up to 75percent or more of the production costs, it was unrealistic to try to make a significantly lower-cost production as long as all the films were to come from the same pool of employees earning the same salaries.

Lastly, animation salaries had gone up across the board. For Toy Story, Pixar had been able to hire people relatively cheaply on account of the excitement of working on a milestone in animation, the first fully computer-animated feature. Pixar remained attractive to potential hires by virtue of Toy Story’s quality and Lasseter’s reputation, but Pixar also had new competition for talent; not only was DreamWorks producing traditional and computer-animated features, other studios were opening their own animation units following the success of The Lion King.

After some negotiating, Jobs and Roth agreed that the split of costs and profits for Toy Story 2 would follow the model of the new five-film deal of 1997–but Toy Story 2 would not count as one of the five films. Disney had bargained in the contract for five original features, not sequels, thus assuring five sets of new characters for its theme parks and merchandise. Jobs gathered the crew and announced the change in plans for the film on February 5, 1998.

Lasseter would remain fully preoccupied with A Bug’s Life until it wrapped in the fall. Once he became available, he took over directing duties and added Lee Unkrich as co-director. Unkrich, who had just come off A Bug’s Life as supervising editor, would concentrate on layout and cinematography. Brannon would also be credited as a co-director.

Up to then, the Toy Story 2 team had been on its own–not just figuratively, but literally, having been placed in a new building that was well separated from the rest of the company by railroad tracks. “We were the small film and we were off playing in our sandbox,” Jackson said.

That was about to change.

To make the project ready for theaters, Lasseter would need to add twelve minutes or so of material and strengthen what was already there. The extra material would be a challenge, since it could not be mere padding; it would have to feel as if it had always been there, an organic part of the film.

Unkrich, concerned about the dwindling amount of time left, asked Jobs whether the release date could be pushed back. There was too much to be done.

“I was sitting in Steve Jobs’s office and I said, ‘I’m utterly convinced that we can make a great movie here. I just don’t think we can do it in the amount of time that we have,’ ” he remembered later.

“Steve basically said, ‘Well, we have no choice. There are too many things lined up’ ”–presumably in reference to the film’s licensees and marketing partners, which were getting toys and promotions ready.

Jobs buoyed Unkrich’s spirits. “When I look back on my career,” Jobs told him, “it’s the things that were made under these circumstances, under these conditions that were not the best, that I’m the most proud of.”

With the scheduled delivery date less than a year away, there was no time for months of noodling over the story. Lasseter called Stanton, Docter, Ranft, and some Disney story people to his house, a half-dozen blocks from Sonoma’s nineteenth-century town square, for the weekend. There, he hosted a “story summit,” as he called it–a crash exercise that would yield a finished story in just two days. Back at the office that Monday, Lasseter assembled the company in a screening room and pitched the revised version of Toy Story 2 from beginning to end.

“Everybody was totally entertained,” animator Mark Oftedal remembered. “It was a dramatic turn of events for the movie. It became something that was great and that everybody wanted to get in there and start animating.”

The summiteers found parts of the story in ideas that Pixar had discarded from Toy Story. The opening sequence of Toy Story, at one point, was to be a Buzz Lightyear cartoon showing on television. Lasseter had dropped it from Toy Story in favor of a sequence showing Andy’s relationship with Woody, but the concept of a Buzz Lightyear cartoon evolved into the Buzz Lightyear video game that would open Toy Story 2. In a draft of Toy Story, Woody was to suffer a nightmare after Buzz displaced him as Andy’s favorite toy–a nightmare in which Andy was to throw Woody into a trash can and Woody was to become covered with hundreds of crawling roaches. That nightmare, in a milder form, would appear instead in Toy Story 2 as a device for showing Woody’s fear of rejection after his seam rips. The idea of a squeak-toy penguin with a broken squeaker also resurfaced from an early version of Toy Story.

“John has got a real eye for story,” said Floyd Norman, a veteran Disney artist who had worked there during Walt’s day, starting with Sleeping Beauty, and whom Pixar hired for story work on both versions of the Toy Story sequel.

He [Lasseter] came in with a fresh eye and gave the film a nudge forward and raised the bar a little higher. I think our good film became a great film under John’s direction. He’d see things like Woody becoming too much of a jerk in a scene. I remember we had a sequence in the film where Woody dreams of being lauded as this valued collectible, where he’s a big shot. He’s arriving by limousine and people are taking photographs. He’s imagining this fame and hero worship. John looked at that and said, “Yeah, it’s a funny idea, but it makes our character not as likable because now he’s even more vain.” And he cut that sequence.

Other changes included the luggage-belt chase scene at the airport, which became a bigger set piece than in the direct-to-video version; the concept of having the Prospector still in the box (“mint condition, never been opened”); and the addition of Jessie’s song to tell her haunting story. Lasseter also looked closely at every shot that had already been animated and called for tweaks throughout–a different expression on a character in this shot, a different camera angle or lighting setup in that shot, a handful of extra frames at the end of another.

* He subsequently went to the game company Electronic Arts, where he headed content development for the online game Majestic (2001), and later co-founded an independent animation studio, Alligator Planet.

What People are Saying About This

From the Publisher

"Price is a smart reporter and a solid writer. He deftly makes computer arcana palatable, even interesting.... This is an inspiring tale." —-The New York Times

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company 4.3 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 24 reviews.
RolfDobelli More than 1 year ago
This copiously researched, vivid account covers the rise of one of the world's most successful entertainment companies. Experienced journalist David A. Price fills Pixar's history with implied lessons about patience in management and running a creative company, but he doesn't seem much interested in writing a how-to business book, so he sticks to the historic narrative and draws few conclusions. Notably, Price, whose education is in computer science and law, writes more energetically about (and finds more drama in) the origins of computer graphics and the occasional lawsuits Pixar endured than in the harrowing high-wire act it goes through to make each movie - a struggle Pixar's Ed Catmull and others have discussed and written about often. getAbstract reports that the early parts of the story are the most colorful and dramatic, though the book is an entertaining read and a fascinating business case study all the way through.
Marek More than 1 year ago
Fast paced, entertaing story of the rise of animation powerhouse Pixar and how it almost came to not be. Nice information on the films and the major players of the company including Steve Jobs, Ed Catmull, and John Lassiter. Intersting insight on how technology had to be constantly improved on to keep up with the the desires to animate more complex feature films-the cart pushing the horse so to speak
BNMerch_Man More than 1 year ago
Nobody doesn't enjoy Pixar's movies, but (I hear you asking) why would anyone want to read a history of the company? The short answer, I suppose, is that only computer geeks and animation junkies need apply -- but if you've lived through the computer revolution and can remember life before the PC you may be intrigued at just how forward-thinking Pixar's founders really were. I mean, with powerful desktops everywhere and impressive digital video gimmicks a staple on YouTube, we take computer animation for granted. But The Pixar Touch reveals a gang of nerds who were keen to do Disneyesque animation on computers when these machines were still the size of refrigerators and crude graphical displays were an exotic, breathtakingly expensive technology. So Pixar's story is really a tale of visionaries hard at work trying to help technology catch up with their dreams -- and, after more than a decade hemorrhaging the money of successive owners George Lucas and Steve Jobs, barely getting there, with the landmark 1995 release of Toy Story, by the skin of their teeth.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Most books of this genre often resort to rumor and intuition about what 'really happened.' David Price uses a combination of personal interviews, news stories, press releases, and content from Pixar DVDs to draw a detailed mosaic of what has made Pixar successful over the past twenty years. Price supplies a highly objective account of the most difficult years of the company and brings us all the way through the acquisition of Pixar by Disney. While the book does not dive deeply into the collaborative methods the company employs, it does focus the reader's attention toward the importance of 'story.' In this case, John Lasseter's insistence on 'getting the story right' and understanding audience responses to concepts and ideas. Great stuff for anyone interested in marketing, the entertainment business, and best practices of creativity.
Daniel.Estes on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
The story of how Pixar Animation Studios came into existence is remarkable not just for the movies they make, but because its own history is in itself a Cinderella story.The Pixar Touch by David Price tells of how the company began as a dream of combining the love of animated films with computer graphics. This is the Pixar we now know, but what is less known is how industry wanted the company to be something else, something more profitable at the time. As ownership passed from noted technology shakers George Lucas to Steve Jobs, core members within the company remained committed to their goal of a creating the very first feature length animated film.
ALincolnNut on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Perhaps no motion picture company has had a more successful beginning than Pixar, whose feature-length computer animated films have all been hugely popular box office success; of these, several have been honored with Oscars. This phenomenal success, however, was not easy or foreordained. David Price explores the struggles of the studio in ¿The Pixar Touch: The Making of a Company.¿ Price uses his experience writing for prestigious financial publications, such as The Wall Street Journal and Forbes magazine, to examine the saga of the transformation of a computer hardware company into an entertainment juggernaut. Tracing the origins of the company to early advanced computer labs at the University of Utah and the New York Institute of Technology, he argues that Pixar was the stepchild nobody wanted ¿ or at least nobody knew what to do with ¿ including the likes of George Lucas and even, in his earliest involvement with the company, longtime owner Steve Jobs.For as much as half of its existence, Pixar was focused on developing hardware and software rather than on computer animation. In fact, the animated shorts produced by Pixar over the years were officially intended to demonstrate the capabilities of their products, even though Price believes that creating a viable computer animation studio was the central focus of most of the key Pixar leaders, embodied by John Lasseter.Even when Pixar was given the opportunity to make a feature-length animated movie, there were significant struggles and it was unclear if they would succeed. Through their association with Disney animation, particularly with assistance in story development, the team eventually produced "Toy Story." In some respects, the film would be a make-or-break moment for the company who owed its existence to significant financial support over the years from various benefactors, including Jobs, who was now ready to cut the lifeline.In some respects, the phenomenal success of Pixar as an animation studio is due to three main things, without which it is unlikely the company would have survived. First, those involved with Pixar have benefited from the slow, expensive growth of the company, which received years of financial support without ever showing a profit. Second, the excitement over computer animation coincided with a period of time where there was abundant start up money and investment money for computer and Internet related companies ¿ the now famous bubble ¿ which not only encouraged some of Pixar's early support but also enabled its spectacular initial public offering. Third, the initial film distribution deal with Disney, which was negotiated totally to Disney's advantage, prevented the budding filmmakers at Pixar from making certain rookie mistakes and also provided an unparalleled media rollout for the first film.Price offers a behind-the-scenes account of Pixar's development through its acquisition by Disney. Frequently, the fascinating and engaging narrative is driven by amazement at the audacity and drive of Pixar's leaders and astonishment that the money held out just long enough to support their dreams. Funny, insightful, and attentive to the artistic and business details of filmmaking, the book is an excellent history of Pixar which will interest both film buffs and those interested in modern computer-related business.
JohnMunsch on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Not amazing but enjoyable history of the company from it's rocky all-over-the-place start (hardware manufacturer, software, etc.) to where it is today.
figre on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
This book is a bit schizophrenic. But, considering the subject, it has to be. Describing the evolution of Pixar means delving into the origins of computer graphics on the one hand and the world of movie-making on the other. So, while the first half dwells on Ed Catmull and the group that came together to expand the horizons of what computers could do on their screens, the second half dwells on John Lassiter and his role in making movies ¿ make that, making Pixar movies. Because, for anyone who doesn¿t realize it, Pixar movies are more than animation, they are more than CGI, they are stories that use animation and CGI as a tool for sharing stories people really like.This book moves at a nice clip and is a good overview of how Pixar reached its current supremacy. It provides insight into how the right alignment of talent and money came together to drive the technology beyond what could have been imagined. Yet, it is evident in the telling, that there were a core of people involved who didn¿t care about the technology ¿ that this was nothing but a way to tell the story. So the remainder of the book dwells on how Pixar got out of the technology business (a business that was failing), and into the story-telling business. Some chapters have a predictability when they are devoted to individual movies; they turn into ¿Here is how the story idea was generated, here is how the story developed, here were the hurdles, and here is how they were cleared to lead to another successful movie.¿ But, really, how can that not be the upshot of each chapter when you are talking about a group whose worst effort - Cars - would be considered a smash hit for anyone else. And, what is silently hidden in the weaving of this story is the instrumental role the small company (Pixar) eventually had in the overthrowing of a CEO (Eisner) and the effective takeover of a larger company (Disney). Good reading that is not too light to be considered superficial, but not so in-depth you want to shoot yourself.
Katya0133 on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Price's history of Pixar is engaging and thorough. I was more interested in the creative aspects of the company than I was in the business history, but the author did a good job of making potentially boring events interesting.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This book is awsome!
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
This book presents a compelling and fascinating story of an amazing company. The author has done an amazing job of creating a book that is both an apparently factual historical document that is also a really fun and engaging read. I would recommend this book to anyone with an interest in Pixar.
mikehampen More than 1 year ago
Very interesting. A must read for Pixar fans!
Daniel Moore More than 1 year ago
I love it more than anyone else , so if you love this company , you suck at loving!!!