Pixar's movie is too much to talk about!
The fourth part of Toy Story still maintains a high level, perhaps there is Steve Jobs's blessing in the dark. Take a look at the mysterious timeline:
In 1985 Jobs was kicked out of Apple by the board of directors.
In 1986, he spent 10 million US dollars to acquire Lucasfilm's computer animation effects studio from George Lucas (the father of Star Wars) and founded Pixar.
In 1995, Pixar launched the world's first 3D three-dimensional animation animation film "Toy Story", Jobs' worth soared by more than 1 billion US dollars.
In 1996, Jobs returned to the endangered Apple.
The ten years that Jobs left Apple happened to be the ten years when Jobs made cartoons at Pixar, and his product was "Toy Story 1." It may be difficult to say clearly about Jobs returning to Apple, but one thing is certain, it is the pot of gold that "Toy Story 1" unearthed, and Jobs once again proved his vision and ability to lead an industry through Pixar Animation Studios. , To help him return to Apple, and only then have the following stories.
Fate is magical, isn't it? If it weren't for this childhood cartoon, there would be no later iPod, iTunes, MacBook, iPhone, iPad...and there would be no Apple today. The 1995 cartoon was actually a butterfly wing that instigated a hurricane.
The Pixar Studios and Toy Story series not only use 3D technology to force traditional animation, they also change the way the entire Hollywood animation industry thinks.
First of all, it is the introduction of the perspective of marginal people, which is brought about by the unique adolescent experience of the science and engineering geek. Before Pixar was shocked, almost all the protagonists of animated characters were Gen Masahong and a protagonist. In 1991, "Beauty and the Beast" was nominated for Oscar for Best Picture. It was already very subversive at the time, but Bell is Murahua, and the Beast is waiting for the prince to redeem. The "Lion King" script in 1994 is already Hamlet, but the protagonist Simba is still destined to be an extraordinary prince of the prairie.
The protagonists of "Toy Story" in 1995 have become humble toys. Their perspective is humble and sensitive. Their emotions are maintained in their relationship with their owner Andy. Since then, Pixar has never photographed the tall protagonist. The protagonist of "Finding Nemo" is a clown fish with nothing extraordinary, and the protagonist of "Robot Walli's" is an outdated robot that silently cleans up trash on the earth, "Ratuitou The protagonist of "The King" is a little mouse and an unsuccessful apprentice chef...jokingly, if Pixar one day shoot Snow White, the protagonist will definitely be neither a princess, nor a prince, nor a queen, but seven little ones. dwarf. But this impact is far-reaching. The protagonist of DreamWorks' "Shrek" is the ugly monster Shrek, the protagonist of "Kung Fu Panda" is a fat panda, and even Sony's new "Spiderman" last year, the tall and stalwart Peter Parker at the beginning He died, replaced by a growing group of ordinary young version of Spider-Man and middle-aged useless Pete Parker.
But more importantly, "Toy Story" began to take the animation script to the next stage. Once the script of an animated movie was a fairy tale itself or a variant of a fairy tale, but Pixar's script advanced to a kind of philosophical thinking: I What is the value of? How do I exist?
"Toy Story" was produced by Steve Jobs during the downturn, which itself is a prediction of Pixar's future development. From the series of changes that Jobs later brought to Apple, it can be seen that he is not only a pioneer of black technology, but more importantly, he has profound observations on the relationship between people and technological development. It is precisely because he can define the relationship between people and music in the next era, and the relationship between people and mobile phones, so he can create products that belong to the next era, and have iPod and iPhone.
And what does this have to do with Pixar's cartoons? Because compared with traditional animation stories that pay more attention to the fantasy and ups and downs of the story, Pixar has been making its movie scripts with a higher-dimensional thinking: it does not prescribe the social roles of any characters on the scene, on the contrary, it has always challenged the characters themselves. Role in society. It’s not a coincidence that Hu Di’s and iPhone are the same person. Pixar’s idea of creating characters is exactly the same as Apple’s idea of creating products.
Marx said, "The essence of mankind is the sum of all social relations."
We replace the "human" in this sentence with a product, which is Apple's idea of creating the iPhone. It created the iPhone by redesigning the relationship between mobile phones and users. Therefore, the iPhone is different from all previous traditional mobile phones, not only because of the technology itself, but because Apple has created new interactive relationships and product positioning for smart phones.
We replace the "human" in this sentence with a role, which is Pixar's idea of creating Hudi. It changes the relationship between traditional toys and humans, and gives them new social roles and emotional positioning. This is how Hu Di is born.
Even look a little bit off, don’t the smart phones in our hands become more and more like Hu Di? The right independent thinking, the right life helper, the right attachment to each other.
This script idea is revolutionary. The script creation idea of traditional animation is generally to pinch a person first, then create a main adventure for him, insert some element bridges, so the characters in traditional animation naturally have their own social position, and they can stand very naturally. Start your own story in this position. But Pixar’s animated characters and their positions are misplaced, such as:
"Toy Story": Toys are not just toys. They position themselves as the owner's playmates, accessories and guardians, like both playmates and parents, which is far beyond the natural social position of a toy.
Ratatouille: The rat is not a mouse. Its natural role is to eat trash, but the rat in Ratatouille is to become a chef in society.
"Finding Nemo": The natural role of the clownfish is a pet and ornamental, but the social role of the clownfish in Finding Nemo is a father and son.
"Robot Wali": Wali's natural role is a backward robot that mechanically collects garbage, but the social role of the robot Wali is the male protagonist yearning for romantic love.
"The Incredibles": The natural role of Incredibles is the superhero who maintains peace, but their social role is the father of middle-age crisis, the exhausted housewife, and the rebellious teenager.
"Flying House Tour": The old man is not an old man. The old man in the Flying House Tour does not enter the nursing home, but is an adventurer who has walked out of the comfort zone of his life.
"Looking for Dreams": The undead in the dreams are dead, and the dust returns to the dust, but their social role is to live well in another world and fulfill the regrets of this life.
What is the unique Pixar taste? Get out of your own life by adjusting the social relations of each role's dislocation.
Pixar shines in the 21st century, not just because this is the era of political correctness, we need imperfect protagonists. The deeper need is that the 21st century is an era that is forever turned upside down. We can no longer follow a certain routine like the 20th century to live naturally. We need to keep thinking about who I am, what my value is, and what I want to do. To move into my own social role and become the person I want to be.
Toy Story has not given up looking for the theme expression of his social role in the fourth part, and the story is very full. I once suspected that in each of the four dramas, the protagonist has completed a growth. Is there no end to growth? But the changes in Andy and Bonnie's needs are like external changes that we cannot control. They are constantly urging toys to think about the meaning of my existence.
In the fourth part, what moved me the most was that Hu Di was asked, why are you protecting that fork? Hu Di said, this is the only thing I can do for Bonnie. In the role of Hu Di, he has been forced to accept the changes in his social role and to make growth and choices. The appearance of Ribas in the first part is that my favor and social status have decreased. How can I accept it? The second part does the opposite. My status is higher. How can I stick to my heart? The third part, if the master goes to college, I am no longer needed, where should I go?
The situation in the fourth and third part is similar, the master doesn't need me anymore, what should I do? But "Play 4" gives an answer that is more in line with this era. In 2010, the answer to "Play 3" was to find a new owner, a new life, and start a new cycle. In 2019, the answer given by "Play 4" is to give up your original social role and pursue what you really want, from a toy that serves the owner to a free man who explores life.
Under the complete industrial system of Hollywood, it’s not that difficult to tell the story up and down. The production team can seamlessly add new villains and new joke makers. They can also formulately interweave the story lines of the characters and insert them. The right orgasm tear point. But one thing is the unique charm of Pixar. Their stories are forward-looking. Each character is thinking about the relationship between the present and the future, and his relationship with society. Even adults can always find a new perspective to examine how they should exist in laughter and tears.
————This article was originally published in my public account, Sean_lalala (Sean_lalala), welcome to follow
------------------split line-----------------------
Someone in the comment area asked an interesting question, that is, to what extent Steve Jobs participated in the content production of Pixar Animation.
First of all, this problem is slightly off the track. Pixar's script is good, not because it was written by Jobs directly, but because Pixar Studios is different from traditional film companies. Traditional film companies use entertainment industry thinking to develop plots, while Pixar uses technology companies to produce new product ideas to create characters. It's not that Jobs is important, but the thinking of technology companies is important. But Pixar's technology company genes are the result of Steve Jobs's own participation and choice.
On the other hand, Jobs started to be Pixar's CEO in 1986, and in 1995 Toy Story 1 was released. The highest decision-maker does not need to be directly involved in content production, and can influence the final product by making decisions and hiring appropriate employees. Just like Ma Huateng is to Tencent, Li Yanhong is to Baidu. It is impossible for them to participate in the design and launch of every product, but they control the final product by formulating target strategies, controlling what kind of thinking and level of employees are placed in what positions, and finally evaluating and making decisions.
Employees may feel that this product is made by themselves without the direct involvement of the boss, but the highest decision makers actually have the greatest credit for choosing this employee instead of others and placing him in a suitable position. What is interesting is that the quality of Pixar's movies has declined after 2010, while the quality of Disney's animated films has risen significantly. Many people suspect that more and more Pixar employees have flowed into Disney. It can be seen that the original Pixar team is indeed excellent. Then why is it such a team? Isn't this the credit of managers and decision makers? From the current point of view, it is logical to make a 3D animation, but Toy 1 is the first 3D animation, and Toy 1 is made into 3D animation, which itself is the most important content production decision.
Therefore, his strategy, vision and leadership style are enough to determine the product. He doesn't need to be directly involved in the production, even to the extent of script creation. It would be too narrow if the manager had to do it by himself.
But if you have to dig deeper into this issue, it is also very interesting.
I think it is more likely that only Toy Story 1 Jobs was directly involved in content production. He did not participate in the movies after Pixar, but at this time Pixar's spirit, signboard and team have been established, and his own work focus has returned to Apple.
Jobs ’s shadowman page on IMDb shows ( https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0423418/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr5 ) the only movie he participated in as an executive producer in his life was Toy Story 1 (but then Pixar’s He is particularly grateful for every movie, even after Pixar was acquired by Disney, and even after his death). If the executive producer is just nicknamed, it doesn’t make sense to just nickname Toy 1 and not the Pixar movie behind the nickname. So I am more inclined to Toy 1, his "executive producer" has gold content. Toy 1 is definitely a project in which he is deeply involved.
But to what extent is he involved in content production? There are two versions of the information I saw: one said that Jobs was also involved in content production, and the other said that Jobs didn't understand the movie and couldn't talk about it. In fact, he was only responsible for marketing and business negotiations.
The situation at that time is no longer testable, and it is difficult to say that each version is completely credible, but I am more inclined to the previous version. According to the situation at the time, Jobs's other companies were in poor business conditions. Toy 1 was his most important opportunity to stand up at that time, and it did help him return to Apple in the end. According to normal logic, for such a vital product, Jobs has such a deep product control personality, and he is unlikely to be a slap-up shopkeeper.
A genius, through a unique technological vision and strategic decision-making, disrupted another industry to get out of his career trough and get back what belongs to him. It's like what Jobs would do.
View more about Toy Story 4 reviews
