OT: Steve Jobs

[sdrealtor]

And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[an]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1%5B/quote%5D
Very sad. Amazing man experiencing horrible luck.

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=AN]
A world without Pixar, we still have Kungfu Panda, Shrek, Aladin, Lilo & Stitch, Mulan, the Lion King, etc. Doesn’t sound too miserable to me. Aladin and Kungfu Panda > Toy Story IMHO.[/quote]

Sure those are great films, but you’re missing a little of the point. Before Pixar, computer animation was not a commercial technology. It was the exclusive realm of the SIGGRAPH geeks. I know because some of my friends were in this field in the late 80s/early 90s. There was little funding for the research as it was not seen as having much commercial potential beyond flight simulators and videogames. Steve had a vision that this technology could change the way movies were made years before anyone else did. When Pixar was started in 1986, it took days to render even short 20 second raytraced animations on the most expensive hardware available. You needed megabucks, tons of hardware and manpower to make a crummy short 5-minute film that no one would pay to see. To think that you could make a commercially-viable feature-length film with this technology was just nuts. Steve was exactly that kind of crazy though, and his Pixar team made “Toy Story” not only a technological breakthrough (first feature film created entirely using CGI) but a box-office mega-smash beloved by people everywhere.

Pixar basically invented modern computer animation, it took them 9 years from when Jobs bought them to produce their first real product, “Toy Story”. In that time they had to design and develop all of the software and techniques necessary to pull it off. Who else would have ever funded such a crazy idea for nine years with no payoff? And what if it hadn’t succeeded? Computer animation would be a joke rather than the very serious business it is today.

Aladdin, Mulan, The Lion King, and Lilo & Stitch were all made using traditional cel animation by Walt Disney. WD basically had a lock on the animated film industry using this expensive, old-fashioned technique that they pioneered many decades ago.

Shrek (2001, 6 years after Toy Story) and Kung Fu Panda (2008, 13 years after Toy Story) are from DreamWorks and were made using CGI technology. Without Pixar, it is unlikely that other companies would have undertaken the enormous expense necessary to design the tools and techniques necessary to make films like this. Without Pixar, WD would probably still have a virtual monopoly on animated films. Now however, more companies can compete in this arena.

Pixar really changed the way movies are made. You probably wouldn’t have had the same sort of special effects in “The Matrix” because Hollywood wouldn’t have invested as much in CGI without the success of “Toy Story”.
[/quote]

I don’t get the fantasy films.

What’s wrong with films with real actors depicting real human emotions in realistic scenes?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=AN]
A world without Pixar, we still have Kungfu Panda, Shrek, Aladin, Lilo & Stitch, Mulan, the Lion King, etc. Doesn’t sound too miserable to me. Aladin and Kungfu Panda > Toy Story IMHO.[/quote]

Sure those are great films, but you’re missing a little of the point. Before Pixar, computer animation was not a commercial technology. It was the exclusive realm of the SIGGRAPH geeks. I know because some of my friends were in this field in the late 80s/early 90s. There was little funding for the research as it was not seen as having much commercial potential beyond flight simulators and videogames. Steve had a vision that this technology could change the way movies were made years before anyone else did. When Pixar was started in 1986, it took days to render even short 20 second raytraced animations on the most expensive hardware available. You needed megabucks, tons of hardware and manpower to make a crummy short 5-minute film that no one would pay to see. To think that you could make a commercially-viable feature-length film with this technology was just nuts. Steve was exactly that kind of crazy though, and his Pixar team made “Toy Story” not only a technological breakthrough (first feature film created entirely using CGI) but a box-office mega-smash beloved by people everywhere.

Pixar basically invented modern computer animation, it took them 9 years from when Jobs bought them to produce their first real product, “Toy Story”. In that time they had to design and develop all of the software and techniques necessary to pull it off. Who else would have ever funded such a crazy idea for nine years with no payoff? And what if it hadn’t succeeded? Computer animation would be a joke rather than the very serious business it is today.

Aladdin, Mulan, The Lion King, and Lilo & Stitch were all made using traditional cel animation by Walt Disney. WD basically had a lock on the animated film industry using this expensive, old-fashioned technique that they pioneered many decades ago.

Shrek (2001, 6 years after Toy Story) and Kung Fu Panda (2008, 13 years after Toy Story) are from DreamWorks and were made using CGI technology. Without Pixar, it is unlikely that other companies would have undertaken the enormous expense necessary to design the tools and techniques necessary to make films like this. Without Pixar, WD would probably still have a virtual monopoly on animated films. Now however, more companies can compete in this arena.

Pixar really changed the way movies are made. You probably wouldn’t have had the same sort of special effects in “The Matrix” because Hollywood wouldn’t have invested as much in CGI without the success of “Toy Story”.
[/quote]

I don’t get the fantasy films.

What’s wrong with films with real actors depicting real human emotions in realistic scenes?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=AN]
A world without Pixar, we still have Kungfu Panda, Shrek, Aladin, Lilo & Stitch, Mulan, the Lion King, etc. Doesn’t sound too miserable to me. Aladin and Kungfu Panda > Toy Story IMHO.[/quote]

Sure those are great films, but you’re missing a little of the point. Before Pixar, computer animation was not a commercial technology. It was the exclusive realm of the SIGGRAPH geeks. I know because some of my friends were in this field in the late 80s/early 90s. There was little funding for the research as it was not seen as having much commercial potential beyond flight simulators and videogames. Steve had a vision that this technology could change the way movies were made years before anyone else did. When Pixar was started in 1986, it took days to render even short 20 second raytraced animations on the most expensive hardware available. You needed megabucks, tons of hardware and manpower to make a crummy short 5-minute film that no one would pay to see. To think that you could make a commercially-viable feature-length film with this technology was just nuts. Steve was exactly that kind of crazy though, and his Pixar team made “Toy Story” not only a technological breakthrough (first feature film created entirely using CGI) but a box-office mega-smash beloved by people everywhere.

Pixar basically invented modern computer animation, it took them 9 years from when Jobs bought them to produce their first real product, “Toy Story”. In that time they had to design and develop all of the software and techniques necessary to pull it off. Who else would have ever funded such a crazy idea for nine years with no payoff? And what if it hadn’t succeeded? Computer animation would be a joke rather than the very serious business it is today.

Aladdin, Mulan, The Lion King, and Lilo & Stitch were all made using traditional cel animation by Walt Disney. WD basically had a lock on the animated film industry using this expensive, old-fashioned technique that they pioneered many decades ago.

Shrek (2001, 6 years after Toy Story) and Kung Fu Panda (2008, 13 years after Toy Story) are from DreamWorks and were made using CGI technology. Without Pixar, it is unlikely that other companies would have undertaken the enormous expense necessary to design the tools and techniques necessary to make films like this. Without Pixar, WD would probably still have a virtual monopoly on animated films. Now however, more companies can compete in this arena.

Pixar really changed the way movies are made. You probably wouldn’t have had the same sort of special effects in “The Matrix” because Hollywood wouldn’t have invested as much in CGI without the success of “Toy Story”.
[/quote]

I don’t get the fantasy films.

What’s wrong with films with real actors depicting real human emotions in realistic scenes?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=AN]
A world without Pixar, we still have Kungfu Panda, Shrek, Aladin, Lilo & Stitch, Mulan, the Lion King, etc. Doesn’t sound too miserable to me. Aladin and Kungfu Panda > Toy Story IMHO.[/quote]

Sure those are great films, but you’re missing a little of the point. Before Pixar, computer animation was not a commercial technology. It was the exclusive realm of the SIGGRAPH geeks. I know because some of my friends were in this field in the late 80s/early 90s. There was little funding for the research as it was not seen as having much commercial potential beyond flight simulators and videogames. Steve had a vision that this technology could change the way movies were made years before anyone else did. When Pixar was started in 1986, it took days to render even short 20 second raytraced animations on the most expensive hardware available. You needed megabucks, tons of hardware and manpower to make a crummy short 5-minute film that no one would pay to see. To think that you could make a commercially-viable feature-length film with this technology was just nuts. Steve was exactly that kind of crazy though, and his Pixar team made “Toy Story” not only a technological breakthrough (first feature film created entirely using CGI) but a box-office mega-smash beloved by people everywhere.

Pixar basically invented modern computer animation, it took them 9 years from when Jobs bought them to produce their first real product, “Toy Story”. In that time they had to design and develop all of the software and techniques necessary to pull it off. Who else would have ever funded such a crazy idea for nine years with no payoff? And what if it hadn’t succeeded? Computer animation would be a joke rather than the very serious business it is today.

Aladdin, Mulan, The Lion King, and Lilo & Stitch were all made using traditional cel animation by Walt Disney. WD basically had a lock on the animated film industry using this expensive, old-fashioned technique that they pioneered many decades ago.

Shrek (2001, 6 years after Toy Story) and Kung Fu Panda (2008, 13 years after Toy Story) are from DreamWorks and were made using CGI technology. Without Pixar, it is unlikely that other companies would have undertaken the enormous expense necessary to design the tools and techniques necessary to make films like this. Without Pixar, WD would probably still have a virtual monopoly on animated films. Now however, more companies can compete in this arena.

Pixar really changed the way movies are made. You probably wouldn’t have had the same sort of special effects in “The Matrix” because Hollywood wouldn’t have invested as much in CGI without the success of “Toy Story”.
[/quote]

I don’t get the fantasy films.

What’s wrong with films with real actors depicting real human emotions in realistic scenes?

[briansd1]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=AN]
A world without Pixar, we still have Kungfu Panda, Shrek, Aladin, Lilo & Stitch, Mulan, the Lion King, etc. Doesn’t sound too miserable to me. Aladin and Kungfu Panda > Toy Story IMHO.[/quote]

Sure those are great films, but you’re missing a little of the point. Before Pixar, computer animation was not a commercial technology. It was the exclusive realm of the SIGGRAPH geeks. I know because some of my friends were in this field in the late 80s/early 90s. There was little funding for the research as it was not seen as having much commercial potential beyond flight simulators and videogames. Steve had a vision that this technology could change the way movies were made years before anyone else did. When Pixar was started in 1986, it took days to render even short 20 second raytraced animations on the most expensive hardware available. You needed megabucks, tons of hardware and manpower to make a crummy short 5-minute film that no one would pay to see. To think that you could make a commercially-viable feature-length film with this technology was just nuts. Steve was exactly that kind of crazy though, and his Pixar team made “Toy Story” not only a technological breakthrough (first feature film created entirely using CGI) but a box-office mega-smash beloved by people everywhere.

Pixar basically invented modern computer animation, it took them 9 years from when Jobs bought them to produce their first real product, “Toy Story”. In that time they had to design and develop all of the software and techniques necessary to pull it off. Who else would have ever funded such a crazy idea for nine years with no payoff? And what if it hadn’t succeeded? Computer animation would be a joke rather than the very serious business it is today.

Aladdin, Mulan, The Lion King, and Lilo & Stitch were all made using traditional cel animation by Walt Disney. WD basically had a lock on the animated film industry using this expensive, old-fashioned technique that they pioneered many decades ago.

Shrek (2001, 6 years after Toy Story) and Kung Fu Panda (2008, 13 years after Toy Story) are from DreamWorks and were made using CGI technology. Without Pixar, it is unlikely that other companies would have undertaken the enormous expense necessary to design the tools and techniques necessary to make films like this. Without Pixar, WD would probably still have a virtual monopoly on animated films. Now however, more companies can compete in this arena.

Pixar really changed the way movies are made. You probably wouldn’t have had the same sort of special effects in “The Matrix” because Hollywood wouldn’t have invested as much in CGI without the success of “Toy Story”.
[/quote]

I don’t get the fantasy films.

What’s wrong with films with real actors depicting real human emotions in realistic scenes?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1
[/quote]

I surmised Jobs was probably entering hospice at the time of his resignation announcement after all he has been through.

see: http://piggington.com/when_is_a_house_historic_and_when_is_it_a_teardown

My heart goes out to Steve and his family at this time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1
[/quote]

I surmised Jobs was probably entering hospice at the time of his resignation announcement after all he has been through.

see: http://piggington.com/when_is_a_house_historic_and_when_is_it_a_teardown

My heart goes out to Steve and his family at this time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1
[/quote]

I surmised Jobs was probably entering hospice at the time of his resignation announcement after all he has been through.

see: http://piggington.com/when_is_a_house_historic_and_when_is_it_a_teardown

My heart goes out to Steve and his family at this time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]And it doesnt look like all the money in the world cant help him anymore. Very sad indeed.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/08/26/steve-jobs-apple-photo-resignation-ceo-sick/?adid=hero1
[/quote]

I surmised Jobs was probably entering hospice at the time of his resignation announcement after all he has been through.

see: http://piggington.com/when_is_a_house_historic_and_when_is_it_a_teardown

My heart goes out to Steve and his family at this time.

[Author]

Posts