> Specifically, Pixar can iterate on each movie for years, making drastic changes to the story, timing, edit, music, dialogue, acting at any time. They literally "make" the film hundreds of times over a four year period.
Pixar isn't the first, or only, place that can iterate - that's been how animated films have always been made. (Yes computer-based animation allows faster iteration than hand-drawn, but Pixar doesn't iterated on fully-rendered either.)
> Fohr has the tech and filmmaking system to take that same approach on a live-action film (the key tech needed to do so is computer-photography).
I agree that this is a big thing, but Pixar isn't just, or even mostly, iteration, it's the folks doing the iteration.
Even if you have John Lasseter, start as a tech company and sell to folks who think that they are JL. Use that money to support your JL.
> I agree that this is a big thing, but Pixar isn't just, or even mostly, iteration, it's the folks doing the iteration.
It should be self-evident that you need very good filmmakers making films -- no technology "makes" a film. But it should also be obvious that Pixar doesn't have a monopoly on "good" filmmakers. What they do have is a monopoly on iteration, due to their use of computerized-animation. Fohr ends that monopoly.
I think we probably agree here. I would further argue that Pixar's people might not be as successful on the live-action side, since the ability to iterate is gone. As exhibit A, I would present Andrew Stanton and John Carter (of Mars), which does not look promising at all. (This is not true for all Pixar directors though, I think Brad Bird will do very well with MI4.)
To be clear: Andrew Stanton is a very good director...when he can iterate, like he did on Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Take away that ability and he struggles, as would be expected. It takes a different kind of skill to make a good film when you can only shoot final footage -- skill Andrew hasn't yet developed to my knowledge.
Live-action filmmaking has more in common with dancing than it does with drawing, and animation is not at all like dancing -- there's no real-time performance aspect to animation like there is with live-action. Expertise in one type of film production does not imply expertise in the other.
Pixar isn't the first, or only, place that can iterate - that's been how animated films have always been made. (Yes computer-based animation allows faster iteration than hand-drawn, but Pixar doesn't iterated on fully-rendered either.)
> Fohr has the tech and filmmaking system to take that same approach on a live-action film (the key tech needed to do so is computer-photography).
I agree that this is a big thing, but Pixar isn't just, or even mostly, iteration, it's the folks doing the iteration.
Even if you have John Lasseter, start as a tech company and sell to folks who think that they are JL. Use that money to support your JL.