Pixar's Motto: Going From Suck to Nonsuck
polycounter lvl 9
I like the way they think, and i think a lot of independent studios have this kind of mentality. A good article to read and think about. 
http://www.fastcompany.com/1742431/pixar-s-motto-going-from-suck-to-nonsuck
Pixar's Motto: Going From Suck to Nonsuck
By Peter Sims
In a world that is obsessed with preventing errors and perfection, perhaps it's ironic that despite 11 straight blockbuster movies, Pixar cofounder and President Ed Catmull describes Pixar's creative process as "going from suck to nonsuck."
That's because Catmull and Pixar's directors think it's better to fix problems than to prevent errors. "My strategy has always been: be wrong as fast as we can," says Andrew Stanton, Director of Finding Nemo and WALL-E, "Which basically means, we're gonna screw up, let's just admit that. Let's not be afraid of that." We can all work this way more often.
So, for instance, Pixar does not begin new movies with a script. Far from it. Film ideas begin on rough storyboards until they work through thousands of problems throughout the process in order to take films from suck to nonsuck.
People at Pixar describe storyboards as the "hand-drawn comic book version" of a movie, a blueprint for the characters and actions. Storyboards are three-by-eight inch sheets of white paper upon which Pixar's story artists sketch ideas. As Joe Ranft, who was one of Pixar's master storyboard artists described it, "Sometimes the first try works, while other times a dozen or more passes are required."
They must persist. Pixar used 27,565 storyboards on A Bug's Life, 43,536 for Finding Nemo, 69,562 for Ratatouille, and 98,173 for WALL-E.
This process of rigorous critique, and even major change, doesn't end once the initial script has been approved and the first version of the film has been created on what are called "reels." Reels contain the work-in-progress storyboards, combined with a voice track, that are shown internally before Pixar moves to the expensive digital animation phase.
"Every time we show a film for the first time, it sucks," Catmull will say. People then email their comments to the director to explain what they liked, what they didn't, and why, and substantial changes are made.
In fact, directors say that Pixar's films will suck virtually until the last stage of production--problems are constantly identified and fixed. Finding Nemo had a massive problem with a series of flashbacks that test audiences didn't get that had to be fixed, while Toy Story 2 had to be completely rewritten a year before it was released. (Pixar film release dates are set in stone, which serves as a constraint.)
What we see is not effortless genius. Through tireless iteration, toil, and (often) sleepless nights, the films start to come together.
Depending on the form it takes, perfectionism is not necessarily a block to creativity. A growing body of research [1] in psychology has revealed that there are two forms of perfectionism: healthy or unhealthy. Characteristics of what psychologists view as healthy perfectionism include striving for excellence and holding others to similar standards, planning ahead, and strong organizational skills. Healthy perfectionism is internally driven in the sense that it's motivated by strong personal values. Conversely, unhealthy perfectionism is externally driven. External concerns show up over perceived parental pressures, needing approval, a tendency to ruminate over past performances, or an intense worry about making mistakes. Healthy perfectionists exhibit a low concern for these outside factors.
Pixar's culture is defined by a pursuit of excellence and quality. Being able to go from suck to nonsuck when developing a new film is a process of ongoing prototyping, a process that facilitates experimentation by the animators as it allows for a rigorous and continual scrutiny of the work in progress, enabling Pixar to practice healthy perfectionism.
The point of describing Pixar's creative process is not to say that we should all implement such a process on our own. It is not always possible to have people assemble regularly to offer feedback, for example. But finding ways to fail quickly, to invest less emotion and less time in any particular idea or prototype or piece of work, is a consistent feature of the work methods of successful creators. Despite the myths, it's hard work.
As Pixar's chief creative officer John Lasseter expresses his perfectionism, "We don't actually finish our films, we release them."
http://www.fastcompany.com/1742431/pixar-s-motto-going-from-suck-to-nonsuck
Pixar's Motto: Going From Suck to Nonsuck
By Peter Sims
In a world that is obsessed with preventing errors and perfection, perhaps it's ironic that despite 11 straight blockbuster movies, Pixar cofounder and President Ed Catmull describes Pixar's creative process as "going from suck to nonsuck."
That's because Catmull and Pixar's directors think it's better to fix problems than to prevent errors. "My strategy has always been: be wrong as fast as we can," says Andrew Stanton, Director of Finding Nemo and WALL-E, "Which basically means, we're gonna screw up, let's just admit that. Let's not be afraid of that." We can all work this way more often.
So, for instance, Pixar does not begin new movies with a script. Far from it. Film ideas begin on rough storyboards until they work through thousands of problems throughout the process in order to take films from suck to nonsuck.
People at Pixar describe storyboards as the "hand-drawn comic book version" of a movie, a blueprint for the characters and actions. Storyboards are three-by-eight inch sheets of white paper upon which Pixar's story artists sketch ideas. As Joe Ranft, who was one of Pixar's master storyboard artists described it, "Sometimes the first try works, while other times a dozen or more passes are required."
They must persist. Pixar used 27,565 storyboards on A Bug's Life, 43,536 for Finding Nemo, 69,562 for Ratatouille, and 98,173 for WALL-E.
This process of rigorous critique, and even major change, doesn't end once the initial script has been approved and the first version of the film has been created on what are called "reels." Reels contain the work-in-progress storyboards, combined with a voice track, that are shown internally before Pixar moves to the expensive digital animation phase.
"Every time we show a film for the first time, it sucks," Catmull will say. People then email their comments to the director to explain what they liked, what they didn't, and why, and substantial changes are made.
In fact, directors say that Pixar's films will suck virtually until the last stage of production--problems are constantly identified and fixed. Finding Nemo had a massive problem with a series of flashbacks that test audiences didn't get that had to be fixed, while Toy Story 2 had to be completely rewritten a year before it was released. (Pixar film release dates are set in stone, which serves as a constraint.)
What we see is not effortless genius. Through tireless iteration, toil, and (often) sleepless nights, the films start to come together.
Depending on the form it takes, perfectionism is not necessarily a block to creativity. A growing body of research [1] in psychology has revealed that there are two forms of perfectionism: healthy or unhealthy. Characteristics of what psychologists view as healthy perfectionism include striving for excellence and holding others to similar standards, planning ahead, and strong organizational skills. Healthy perfectionism is internally driven in the sense that it's motivated by strong personal values. Conversely, unhealthy perfectionism is externally driven. External concerns show up over perceived parental pressures, needing approval, a tendency to ruminate over past performances, or an intense worry about making mistakes. Healthy perfectionists exhibit a low concern for these outside factors.
Pixar's culture is defined by a pursuit of excellence and quality. Being able to go from suck to nonsuck when developing a new film is a process of ongoing prototyping, a process that facilitates experimentation by the animators as it allows for a rigorous and continual scrutiny of the work in progress, enabling Pixar to practice healthy perfectionism.
The point of describing Pixar's creative process is not to say that we should all implement such a process on our own. It is not always possible to have people assemble regularly to offer feedback, for example. But finding ways to fail quickly, to invest less emotion and less time in any particular idea or prototype or piece of work, is a consistent feature of the work methods of successful creators. Despite the myths, it's hard work.
As Pixar's chief creative officer John Lasseter expresses his perfectionism, "We don't actually finish our films, we release them."
Replies
interesting article but personally, that line sets off warning bells.
I totally love Pixar's ideology and commend them for being an awesome and very forward thinking company but I always find it slightly hard to swallow when massive film studios talk like this.
When you have a company brimming with only the best, most passionate and ridiculously talented people in the planet then toss in a mountain of cash, you can somewhat afford to break the rules and go out on a limb.
I'm sure we'd all love to dissect every little bit of a title until it was pure goose shitting gold but who apart from a select few have the resources to do that?
I've dealt indirectly with a few film studios and watched in jealous amazement as they casually burn through hundreds of millions of dollars with their 4 years time-lines trying anything and everything until something sticks...only to hire a bucket tonne of talent at the last minute to make the 3 year long design process a reality in the last year.
Must be great, now try doing that with $4 million, a staff of 30, failing tech and a 6 month deadline. Yeah the scope should match the resources but we all know it never does.
In essence, they are right, it should be about that 'pursuit of excellence' but it's not always a feasible route.
Ah, the promise land...
This part is the one I'm actually most curious about. How do they internally structure their management with this as their core value?
Every studio I've ever worked for (or even heard of) have performance evaluations, and multiple layers of management, and approval process that REQUIRES approval of superiors. And isn't 'performance evaluation' simply a version of "ruminating over past performances"?
And the part about percieved parental pressure? I mean I would absolutely LOVE to be given carte blanche at my job, and do what I do without a superior guiding me or telling me what to do. I would guarantee 110% effort at all times.
Is this just a cleverly worded way of saying 'everyone is on board with the global vision of the project, and therefore all striving for the same goal, and therefore without the need of coddling?
I would really like to know how their projects are managed. The structure, the philosophies, etc.
Starting with a more free-form process, and one where every participant is encouraged to not be afraid of mistakes, would be very creatively liberating. Each participant would be encouraged to experiment without worrying about reprisals when their ideas don't work out. It would also prevent most of the staff from becoming too married to a single idea. If you aren't worried about making mistakes, you also aren't worried about tossing out what clearly isn't working.
This approach clearly wouldn't work for every studio, and certainly not every discipline. Game development in particular relies more heavily on technical structures that are harder to alter, both in concept and in practice. (the programming back-end of game mechanics) But I can definitely see a benefit to this approach, especially on collaborative creative projects. Applying this philosophy to a group of artists working together could be very successful. Pixar has certainly proven its efficacy with their film track record. (they've never really had a miss, just some movies that aren't quite as good as others)
I've seen various interviews/videos on pixar. In one video, a manager talked about how their problem wasn't making people stay late, but was actually getting them to go home and have a life.
I'd also heard that they send them home at the 8 or 9 hour mark on most days. That was years ago though...
With games you do have to make smart choices of what to iterate on and what to plan out and sadly hardly touch. The more flushed with cash the project is, the more "oh well lets try everything under the sun and see what sticks" you can be.
Being real with making mistakes is an awesome approach, it allows you to burn through those "thoughts of genius" that turn out to be not so great. I think the important thing is to test your ideas early and often and view your work with a critical eye. That seems to be successful with just about anything.
They can afford to be very choosy about what type of person they let into what positions to maintain the company culture. I've also heard that if you're not the type of person to put work first then it feels like a mill and those people normally burn out or move on. I've heard that some of the other studios like BlueSky are much easier on the hours and foster a better environment, but that just could be coming from the people I've talked to who didn't really click well with Pixar's culture.
hahaha that sounds like the biggest PR line of bullshit ever. I have hear game studio behind the scenes interviews say stuff like that too, then it shows a pan of the studio and all the employees look tired as fuck and stressed to hell. staying at work for so long just isnt physically good for you, not to mention mentally horrible.
As apposed to just telling a good story.
Its not really that hard. Or it is but surely you dont need to go through a thousand iterations to tell a good story.
Would say a film like Spirited Away have been able to be made in this evironment. It requires a vision and follow through. I think a film like Spirited Away almost rights itself(little iteration required), Miyazaki new how it had to be, the difficulty was in making it that way.
It sounds great I suppose but I'm sceptical.
Of course it's really hard to tell a good story. weirdo...
I have a few friends at Pixar and it has met all their wildest expectations as a workplace.
I find it amusing when people nitpick successful or high-profile (film or game) studios. Of all the possible entertainment studios/pipelines to be critiquing, Pixar is not the one we should be focused on.
Yes. That is exactly what it is. You don't need a committee to write or develop a good story. More often than not, it is best to identify a really good writer and have just one person develop a good story on their own.
The problem is that the story that person writes may not be possible with your current rendering technology. Or it might not fit into the desired time limitations. Pixar is a hybrid company, half film producer and half software firm. They are the logical step between the film and game industry. And the cost of their films makes it impossible for them to invest in a single creative writer.
So they kind of have to go the safest route possible. Their method for doing this results in very good movies, without taking too many risks. Their execution is extremely safe, but also extremely solid. They will never be cutting edge in terms of the art of film, but then they aren't an indie film studio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar
It doesn't seem that they were ever hurting for solid financial backing.
To me, Pixar sets the bar for the entire current animation industry. This isn't to say there aren't other good movies out there, but it's certainly the leader in quality, depth, polish, etc. I also feel like their movies have a lot of heart and soul, which I think is the most important factor in a movie, and sometimes the most tricky.
I really don't think I'm making any other point here but that I worship Pixar and their animators. Ahhh, to be good enough to be hired by them... I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't love the chance to work there, but I question that I'll ever have worked hard enough to be good enough for them. I love the art and culture, but I quite like having a life as well.
One of the best quotes is this:
"But finding ways to fail quickly, to invest less emotion and less time in any particular idea or prototype or piece of work, is a consistent feature of the work methods of successful creators. "
75% of their time is spent during pre-pro, where 25% is spent actually doing Production.
Works great when you don't have a client breathing down your neck, asking for final art, story and cinematics, before the game mechanics are even fleshed out.
sounds like your average game production to me. just that the pre-pro is then thrown away before production and you're left rushing something half-baked out of the door.
but in order to do what they do you need to somehow build this culture of excellence and implant this mindset in your key staff, don't you?
that will take lots of time and you have to somehow be in a better position than the rest of the crowd to afford it and - presumably after at least one well done project - end up with a boss who is trusting the judgment of their staff enough to finance everyone going back to the drawing board if they consider it necessary.
add to that that a movie production surely holds less surprises than that of a videogame and i think you're looking at a very tricky way of doing things that can not be applied to many cases.
It would certainly take a lot for me to dismiss Pixar, they've proven themselves time and time again.
It's sounds like a great way to run a project but its certainly not easy or common path taken in our industry.
I think the biggest difference with Pixar and other film/game studios is the bosses obviously gave a shit early on and put their money where their mouth was, building a culture from this idealogy. They drove this from the top, not many companies do that.
You know the funny thing is I bet once you get the wheels rolling with a process like this its actually pretty self sustaining.
I'm guessing its a lot more open to internal critique if people are actively trying break things and perfect them, unlike the whole 'get it done perfect first time and it had better be quick' mentality where people feel like there jobs on the line if they break it so no one tries to break boundaries.
ps, I don't get why it costs loads of resources? Isn't the point of all that storyboard revisions etc to minimise costs? IE you don't begin real work until you're dead sure, and every possible stakeholder has had their oar in to adjust this or that. And there's still the fixed deadlines, it's not like they can just mess around forever right?
the gaming equivalent of all these storyboards being prototyping- I strongly believe prototyping the shit out of a game before jumping in with both feet does save money, you just need to start it enough in advance before all the main body of artists and programmers are free twiddling their thumbs. So really its a question of timing and organisation to get the next project all ready and set to go before anyone runs out of stuff to do (hence the fixed deadlines)
Still, we are only looking at the end result and not the years of being in Disney's pocket under gridlock with one sided contracts, or the years spent trying to figure out how to make Renderman salable. It took them decades to get into a self defining and controlling position in the film industry and almost a decade longer to truly be masters of themselves as a studio. The fact that George Lucas saw no point in the company says a lot on how he saw their technology, and yet Steve Jobs took a chance in them. Now look at where they are at now. None of that happens over night.