Nor Catmull, unfortunately. FWIW, the article is centered around the financing and IPO side of the story.
This explains today's Pixar better than any anomaly like "expertise", "talent", or "insight". Investors should never be regarded as retarded, but it's a label they should aspire to. As it stands it looks like disney enjoys heating the home by burning pixar stock.
Zootopia 2 was pretty good tho, ngl
Edit: no, zootopia is not pixar.
Zootopia isn't a Pixar property right?
After the MeToo allegations, his contributions have been removed—or at least significantly downplayed—in Disney and Pixar’s accounts of Pixar’s origins.
This is demonstrably not true.
He has fairly equal representation as the other founders on their history page
Pixar and Disney haven’t been shying away from his involvement in their history
Hm, the fact that he was mentioned or referenced does not prove that his role was downplayed, a quick search of the interwebs shows:
- 2018 Oscars: Despite his massive influence on Coco, none of the filmmakers mentioned him by name in their acceptance speeches for Best Animated Feature.
- Film Premieres: Lasseter did not attend the 2018 premiere of Incredibles 2, a film he was heavily involved in, further signaling his detachment from official company events.
With guys who are in prestigious/powerful corporate positions, I wonder if there is a fundamental issue where everybody tends to brown nose them, but female brown nosing sometimes gets misinterpreted as flirtation and interest.
And because guys in these sorts of positions actually do get an overpowered amount of real interest from women, they may have a harder time detecting inauthentic interest-alias
than say a random janitor guy who a woman is being artificially nice to for some reason.
And then if the guy mistakenly thinks the woman is interested and makes a move, the woman may then in the moment feel unsure about what to do, because an abrupt rejection that contradicts their earlier outward behavior may make them feel not good, they might feel like they caused it, etc (which I think lines up with accounts I’ve read, except they don’t mention the brown nosing part of the theorized pattern).
This doesn’t excuse anything, necessarily, I just wonder if there are some complex dynamics at play. This setup we have where sexual relations are at will, subject only to consent, is not that old, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the system as-is still produces very bad outcomes at times even if the parties involved are all behaving in a non-psychopathic way.
I couldn't find the word 'Lasseter' in that post.
Nor Catmull, unfortunately. FWIW, the article is centered around the financing and IPO side of the story.
This explains today's Pixar better than any anomaly like "expertise", "talent", or "insight". Investors should never be regarded as retarded, but it's a label they should aspire to. As it stands it looks like disney enjoys heating the home by burning pixar stock.
Zootopia 2 was pretty good tho, ngl
Edit: no, zootopia is not pixar.
Zootopia isn't a Pixar property right?
After the MeToo allegations, his contributions have been removed—or at least significantly downplayed—in Disney and Pixar’s accounts of Pixar’s origins.
This is demonstrably not true.
He has fairly equal representation as the other founders on their history page
https://www.pixar.com/our-story
He also is directly mentioned in the Disney+ docuseries on ILM, and was part of Catmul’s retrospective on Toy Story as recently as this year
https://youtu.be/q1Uq8b2ooVk?si=zjHSHjGHtymH-kKy
Pixar and Disney haven’t been shying away from his involvement in their history
Hm, the fact that he was mentioned or referenced does not prove that his role was downplayed, a quick search of the interwebs shows:
- 2018 Oscars: Despite his massive influence on Coco, none of the filmmakers mentioned him by name in their acceptance speeches for Best Animated Feature.
- Film Premieres: Lasseter did not attend the 2018 premiere of Incredibles 2, a film he was heavily involved in, further signaling his detachment from official company events.
With guys who are in prestigious/powerful corporate positions, I wonder if there is a fundamental issue where everybody tends to brown nose them, but female brown nosing sometimes gets misinterpreted as flirtation and interest.
And because guys in these sorts of positions actually do get an overpowered amount of real interest from women, they may have a harder time detecting inauthentic interest-alias than say a random janitor guy who a woman is being artificially nice to for some reason.
And then if the guy mistakenly thinks the woman is interested and makes a move, the woman may then in the moment feel unsure about what to do, because an abrupt rejection that contradicts their earlier outward behavior may make them feel not good, they might feel like they caused it, etc (which I think lines up with accounts I’ve read, except they don’t mention the brown nosing part of the theorized pattern).
This doesn’t excuse anything, necessarily, I just wonder if there are some complex dynamics at play. This setup we have where sexual relations are at will, subject only to consent, is not that old, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the system as-is still produces very bad outcomes at times even if the parties involved are all behaving in a non-psychopathic way.
[dead]