- One highly touted aspect of Pixar’s production process is the role of the “braintrust” in workshopping the development of their films. This method (described by Catmull here) has its origins in the making of their first feature Toy Story, where director John Lasseter enjoyed a close creative collaboration with later Pixar directors Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich, Pete Docter, and Joe Ranft. The idea is that the key creative personnel on any given project must periodically submit to a group critique that unpacks and examines elements of the story under construction. This process is said to ensure the quality of Pixar’s films, but it also has resulted in a series of films that each toe the party line, values-wise. The pressures of this narrative-by-committee process probably account for why so many Pixar stories wind up in the same place: a garbage heap.
It's an interesting and we'll documented theory, but I still had the feeling the author was confusing two concepts, that is "one's place in a company" and "one's place in the world". To put it in another way, it's like the author confused the personal search for meaning with the search for a job. If I read the article and substitute the concept of a job with the concept of one's personal meaning of life, the article makes a lot of sense. There is no need for cynism regarding the whole Pixar theory. That being said, I still skimmed over the last part of the article, so I may have missed an additional argument.
I feel like the meaning in life in America is perpetuated to be centered around your job. People often judge your life based on your job, income, level of comfort and such. Often people who aren't productive members in our society are seen to have less value and an even lesser meaning of life. We are practically raised to believe that without a good job you can't live a fulfilling and meaningful life. I feel this article is pretty much spot on. Not to be disagreeable, just how I see it.
> Often people who aren't productive members in our society are seen to have less value and an even lesser meaning of life. We are practically raised to believe that without a good job you can't live a fulfilling and meaningful life. You're spot on! The perception in America in regards to the type of job you have is judged by everyone.
Well there's another way to look at it. Coming from a more socialist place than America, I was often told that it is always possible for an American to make a living out of whatever he or she likes (and finds fulfilling). For example, Elon Musk's meaning of life is to lead humanity to Mars, and the best place to make a living out of that dream was in America.
This fact (whether it's true or not) leads to the conclusion that if you have a job, it's because you like doing this thing and you find it fulfilling. Meanwhile, in my immediate surroundings, I usually meet people doing a job they don't dislike to much and finding meaning in their hobbies.
The way to approach this problem, in my opinion, is to first find then niche that interests you, and then base a market or job behind that. That makes much more sense than chasing after jobs for value without anything behind the job. You could end up majoring in accounting or computer science because you thought you would make bank but it so happens to turn out that you hate the subject and aren't intrigued by it.
I would really miss technology by living a simple means is all I have wanted for as long as I can remember. My best friend and I have been talking about finding a place where we can go live outside of society. A place to live off of the land and do our own thing. A lot of personal effort involved but at least at the end of the day I see the results of my work and it's for me, not for something I don't believe in.
This is an exceptional read. Here's a badge - I hope more people catch it.
This is really interesting to read and reflect on. Honestly, I'm not sure these values are particular to Pixar, so much as they are an "America in general" thing. Also, this was striking: I don't think the fact that the move is treated as Riley's burden is all about capitalism per se; it's about the fact that adults in our culture don't generally take children's interests into account, or consider their problems important. It's always "they'll get over it," even when something is making a child very unhappy. Although he causes all this, and at no small cost to his daughter’s mental health, Riley’s dad is not depicted as a villain. He loves his family, they love him, and together they work through the deprivations caused by the move. The narrative does nothing to condemn this state of affairs; indeed, it is Riley’s burden to accept them.
Part of the problem is that kids aren't really viewed as people in this country. Children have different rights than adults (albeit understandingly so as they don't have the mental or physical faculties to take care of themselves). And yes a lot of parents don't or can't take their kids feelings into account in in some of these situations. Hell, even in the restaurant people don't count kids as people. People make reservations all the time for 15 people and don't count the 8 small children who need highchairs, boosters or slings regardless of the amount of space and effort they take up. We view children as half of a person instead of a living breathing entity sometimes and this makes it harder to take how they feel about something seriously. It's actually kinda sad...