Managing Creativity and Innovation, Homework 3, Casestudy: Pixar

You might also like

Download as doc, pdf, or txt
Download as doc, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

MANAGING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION, HOMEWORK 3, CASESTUDY: PIXAR

March 31, 2012

INTRODUCTION The Pixar Animation Studios is a company specializing in computer animation and CGI Company in Emeryville, California. Pixar is part of the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group division of The Walt Disney Company. Its success owes its animated films like Toy Story or Finding Nemo. Pixar has won twelve Academy Awards. The corporate logo adorns a desk lamp, which had its moderate success in 1986 in one of the first prizewinning short films from Pixar (Luxo Jr.) and since the Pixar film leader is acting. The company name "Pixar" is presumably a portmanteau of the computer language and a combination of the words pixels and Art. HISTORY The origin of Pixar Animation Studios was founded in 1979 and go back to a part of Lucasfilm Graphics Groups. Animator John Lasseter in 1984 joined the team, which until then consisted of only computer specialists. In the same year it was presented at SIGGRAPH, the first short film: Andr and Wally B. After working on special effects for some of Lucasfilm and Industrial Light & Magic produced films, the department was founded in 1986 by Apple cofounder Steve Jobs shortly after he had left his company, bought for 5 million dollars and renamed Pixar. Jobs has invested an additional 5 million dollars in the now independent company and took over the position of CEO (General Manager), Vice President Edwin Catmull was (which had also been vice president of the department within Lucasfilm). In the same year was

presented at Siggraph, the short film Luxo Jr., Pixar is the first production [1] [2]. A year later, the film was awarded with the Prix Ars Electronica and received an Oscar nomination. The original core business of the Pixar Image Computer Pixar was a high-end computers for computer design. He was used mainly by government institutions and the medical industry. The short films were created primarily for promotional purposes. According to John Lasseter, the department had a minor role within the company. But even more success through their own hardware and because of the good prospects for computer animation was dissolved and formed the core business of the animation department, the Pixar Animation Studios. As of 1989, developed by Pixar RenderMan rendering software was offered as a product. Today she is considered an industry standard in 3D computer graphics. That same year, the company created for the first time a commercial. PIXARS RECEIPE FOR SUCCESS The success of Pixar Studios is based on the principle of innovation. While Walt Disney is consolidated under the leadership of Michael Eisner in the 1990s, more to the now somewhat respectable acting, traditional animation, the creative team is based around John Lasseter, deputy director of the company, to the emerging opportunities of the computer-animated film. Particular attention is given to the implementation of visual effects, since the Pixar team recognizes that can be developed with the help of computers and appropriate software programs entirely new forms of artistic expression. A seemingly soulless computer is quite capable of telling emotional and moving stories that productions such as Toy Story (1995) (TOY STORY (1995) trailer), A Bug's Life (1998) and THE MONSTER - prove AG (2001). Despite the various technical innovations and the associated optical brilliance of the films, which 2

constitute a major part of success, frequently emphasizes the importance of the story. Without a good story, even sophisticated animation techniques do not provide the necessary basis for the public good to arrive. Yet it is these technical innovations, which represent the difference to other production companies and herald a new era of animation genre. With Pixar's revolutionary mode of production whose level increases from film to film, not only to achieve record sales, but also create role models of exemplary character. Clever marketing, the worldwide film distribution and sale of consumer products, such as from Finding Nemo plush animals do the rest, which is a steadily growing fan base and Pixar has become one billion dollar manufacturing empire. Finally Pixar is so successful because it both a young and an adult audience responds. On the one hand thrilled with Pixar stories full of humor and sometimes satirical punch, on the other hand, is met by the animation of the characters of young viewers and their need for cuteness. But not only has the audience witnessed the success of the largely commercially oriented animated films, but also the variety of awards. The Pixar studios get their own feature-length animated films, which are awarded by the Walt Disney Company, seven Oscars. At the same time to play these movies, including Toy Story 2001 (1995) (TOY STORY (1995) trailer), A Bug's Life (1998), TOY STORY 2 (1999) (TOY STORY 2 (1999), THE MONSTER AG, Finding Nemo (2003) (Finding Nemo (2003) the INCREDIBLES - the INCREDIBLES (2004) and CARS (2006) (CARS (2006) is much higher income than the one animated film productions of the competition. PIXAR AND DISNEY, PARTNERS OR COMPETITORS ? The relationship between the animation giants Pixar and Disney is the movie empire has always been ambivalent. On the one hand, both benefit from each other in different ways, on the other hand, this constellation is marked by the merger in 2006 of rivalry and competition. While the success story of the animation studio is unique and unbroken, it is still a challenge to beat the venerable Walt Disney Studios with shrinking profits and revenues. The 3

Disney Corporation has slept without a doubt the train bound for computer animation and then in the early 1990s, the Pixar Animation Studios for the production of several feature-length animated films. Disney is taking this step to meet new requirements of the animated film industry to adapt and regretted this decision at any time. Because Pixar goes for Disney in the animation sector is a mega-blockbuster regularly contributing to the significant increase in sales. Come close to the productions of the house is not nearly the success rates of putative competitors Studios; the Disney Corporation is grudgingly accepted. The Disney studio on the merits by the indirect, contractual collaboration with Pixar is so good that it is anxious to get the partnership up. Although Pixar is responsible for the production of animated films and Disney only the distribution of films, takes the Disney Company has secured the lion's share of the profits. Stipulated in the contract namely with the titles to their stories and sequels at Disney, even though the resulting production costs are divided equally. This fact will no longer accept and Pixar decides against a possible contract extension. There are also personal differences of the respective Executive departments, because Steve Jobs and former Disney CEO Michael Eisner, have regard to their objectives and business strategies widely differing views. Further evidence for the discrepancies between the two companies and their different corporate policies, the fact is that John Lasseter, a former Disney-Pixar's pupil establishing and contributing to the traditional Disney Company has turned its back. SHOULD THE FIRM HAVE REMAIND SINGLE? Despite the fact that Disney offers a certain amount of stability and financial security, I strongly feel that the decision to sell to Disney was a grave error. The Company lie now crippled and shackled by Disneys control and is stopped in their rise to the top.

Pixar should have stayed single and should have also expanded on its creative, innovative and their time quite ahead projects. To work under someone, yes it means security and less responsibility, but it also means a narrower scope of vision and lots of key decisions which cannot be made alone. I think Pixar fell victim to Steve Jobs and his hidden agenda; he basically used Pixar to gain enough money, so he could get back into the whole Apple-Game. Last but not least, it is not that unorthodox that smaller, more innovative, and more creative companies, get eaten alive, by the bigger Company, that once stood as a monopoly.

You might also like