Talk:Pixar/Archive 2

Merge Candidates
While I understand the reasoning behind merging Dinoco and Pizza Planet into the Pixar article, can we find some other place to put these things? This article should be focused on "Pixar, the corporation", and not "Pixar's Movie References". The "Pixar Traditions" section is fine as long as it's kept brief and each individual movie page should probably have a template that outlines that film's Pixar Traditions. Thoughts?SpikeJones 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, unless you want to narrow the section down to a paragraph, I see no problem with merging them here. It only increases its size ever so slightly. If you do wish to gut it, the information could easily be cut down to a sentence for each thing. Nemu 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a much better idea to merge Dinoco with Pizza Planet or better yet make a reccuring jokes page (on Pixar and in a whole new article) Martini833 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm thinking it seems folks would like a common Pixar in-jokes article. That might be doable as well, though it'd be important to document the coverage lest it end up like too many popular culture articles. FrozenPurpleCube 21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * the problem with this is that all the in-jokes would belong on each film's individual page, not on a page listing the in-jokes themselves. SpikeJones 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also a problem of notability. Dinoco only passed an AfD due to a small number of people voting. I doubt a page full of stuff like that would survive. If these things really need any sort of explanation, it really should be done in this article. Two paragraphs could easily do the job. You'll have to "sacrifice" information, but it'll be better than wasting time on a separate article. Nemu 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that depends. A connected pattern across several Pixar films is something that could be taken independently from the films themselves is maybe something people would rather see on its own.  I certainly would in many cases prefer it that way.  So it makes for a short article, it's not a problem, as including the information somewhere isn't exactly in dispute.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're still vastly overestimating their importance. Plenty of series have running cameos, and these are no different. Their existence isn't automatic means for an article. Besides a couple of random mentions here and there, none of these "topics" will ever assert any notability or become sourced. All that can be placed are basic facts, and speculation/OR/junk. Nemu 19:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nemu regarding the overestimation of the importance of these running gags, but I don't believe they should be included on the Pixar corporate page itself. It would be like including all information on the Wilhelm scream on the Lucasfilm page because the scream is in all the Star Wars and Indy movies. It may be a feature of Lucasfilm productions, but there's no reason to mention it as part of their everyday business practices. SpikeJones 20:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest nixing the whole section, and just forgetting about the information. The topics really are totally minor; they don't need explanation at all. Nemu 20:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that. It's been a pain keeping up with the joneses on it.  Of the items listed, I could see people complaining if 2 specific ones were deleted - the JohnRatz and JoeRanft pieces.  Perhaps we can move those to "Notable Pixar People" section, where we could also list other notable Pixar people that are significant to the organization but are not listed elsewhere in the article?  Or would they just be listed under "See also", assuming they have their own pages (stub or full)?  There's already discussion on where to put some stubbed animators' pages, so this may be an opportunity to address that as well. SpikeJones 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They don't need their own section or anything. If they're notable to the company, they should be talked about somewhere in the article, so simple in-text links should do. Nemu 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just do a List of Pixar traditions arcticle and cut the section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

List of notable Pixar staff
I started this article to make the people section on the Pixar template less of an argument. I started it off but it's a mess. Anyone want to help? List of notable Pixar staff. Martini833 20:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

BRENDA CHAPMAN and Peter Docter are also directing Pixar films!
It says on the page (the link given below) of BRENDA CHAPMAN: “She is now developing an original feature film for Pixar as a director.”  And it says on RONNIE DEL CARMEN page that: “Ronnie is currently working in development on Peter Docter’s original feature film.

So that means that both BRENDA CHAPMAN and Peter Docter are currently directing Pixar films as well as Gary Rydstrom. http://www.screenwritingexpo.com/faculty.html

User:Pixar is 10:38, 26 April 2007


 * First, the reference is incomplete as the screenwriting expo guide is from October 2006 (or perhaps earlier). The information in that guide may have changed since.  Regardless of the question as to whether a flyer from a conference is a valid WP source or not, the Peter Docter item does not specify that he's working on a film for Pixar.  The Brenda Chapman item, as you can see, has been updated accordingly. Remember that WP requires cited facts for inclusion in articles. SpikeJones 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, please see WP:STYLE for information on how to list references in WP. The references that you are continuing to add are incorrect and inaccurate as is, regardless of where the information is coming from. SpikeJones 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Announced vs Unannounced films in Wikipedia?
Does anybody know WP's official stance on listing unannounced films? Obviously, every film studio has any number of unannounced films in the queue at any given time. Since WP is not a fan site, is it appropriate to list unannounced films at all? SpikeJones 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Falls under WP:CRYSTAL as far as I'm concerned. Unannounced films have a habit of becoming never-made films. Listing things based on one or two off-hand references is REALLY jumping the gun. TheRealFennShysa 23:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

category - Hollywood?
I wouldn't classify Pixar as a "Hollywood film studio", as the category would lead you to believe. Thoughts? SpikeJones 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC) but wheer does it say its a hollywood studio? Martini833 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree Pixar even says themselves they are the opposite of Hollywood studios, tht and the factt they are in emeryville. Martini833 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The "hollywood film studios" category at the bottom of the page, added this past week. SpikeJones 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Houston, we have a template problem
Is it just me, or are the two separate Pixar templates that are fighting for recognition here? I have Template:Pixar Animation Studios on one side, with the associated Template talk:Pixar Animation Studios page. And then over here, I have Template:Pixar films and it's associated talk page being redirected over to Template talk:Pixar Animation Studios. Something tells me that somebody either duplicated effort, or somebody did the move incorrectly. Looks like we need to determine which is supposed to be which and eliminate one of them. Cross-posting this over on Talk:Pixar Animation Studios. SpikeJones 03:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I say Template:Pixar Animation Studios is the better one.  A•N•N•A    hi!  13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Cars Sequel
Just a heads-up: there is a posting on a message board today that states ''Here's an interesting tidbit heard at the Indy 500 from Paul Newman himself: Did you know a new Cars short will debut Summer 2008? And that Cars 2 is set for a 2009 release?''. Unless there is a verifiable citation from a WP-approved source (ie not a blog entry or other self-published website), we need to tread very lightly in posting this information in the article itself. (cross-posting this here for exposure. Keep talk on the Cars (film) discussion page as necessary.) SpikeJones 17:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I highly doubt Cars 2 would release in 2009. If the project does even exist.  That would be an extremely fast turn around (the fastest ever for Pixar).  Plus Pixar isn't big on doing sequels (as Toy Story is the only one). And Cars wasn't a monster success the previous movies were. Lastly, Pixar has confirmed that their 2009 release would be Up_(2009_film).  It would be impossible for Pixar to release two films in one year.  --24.249.108.133 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think its impossible for Pixar to release two films in one years. Dreamworks could do it, Why can't Pixar.Azzstar (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder, citations please
That ALL new Pixar films that people would like to have included as being under production on this page can only be included after a non-blog, reputable 3rd party WP-approved source has confirmed this information. See WP:NOT a crystal ball and WP:CITE for details on what constitutes valid WP sources. Until such references exist, films such as UP will be reverted from the this page.SpikeJones 02:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Pixar films
Template:Pixar films has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SpikeJones 02:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Render resolution
Anyone know if Pixar renders their movies at 2K or 4K resolution? --24.249.108.133 22:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pixar Logo
The current pixar lamp animation screen found in their present movies is not the company logo, it is a common screen from the Google search engine. I suggest that the actual company logo, which is the simple text version, be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P.gobin (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

John Carter of Mars
This article describes this film as a Pixar project; but it is not mentioned in the Pixar article. Who's right ? Hektor (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

change in opening sentence?
Now that 1906 has officially been announced (see citation) and we can talk about it openly, it looks like we may need to change the opening paragraph from Pixar Animation Studios is an American computer animation studio to Pixar is an American movie studio that began as a computer animation studio before branching out into live-action films.  And we may want to start considering changing major portions of this article for things that are not animation-related. I can't imagine that Bird will include a Pizza Planet delivery truck in earthquake-rattled San Fran. Or could he? SpikeJones (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Teaser Trailers
It says in the teaser trailers area, "Refer to each film's page for more information." But on the pages for the films there isn't much information. Why not? Mollymoon (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, teaser trailers are not encyclopedic. If you have worthwhile information to add to those articles, feel free. SpikeJones (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

cross posting 1906 from Template_talk:Pixar_Animation_Studios
You said "1906 is a CO PRODUCTION only FUNDED by Pixar, so it's not Pixar canon, it is Warner Bros". We agree that 1906 is a co-production between Pixar and a different company. Toy Story was a co-production between Pixar and Disney, yet it is accepted as Pixar canon. You tell me what the difference is between the two. SpikeJones (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Pixar
I think that the bulleted points at Pixar is not useful and will also quickly fail this article for any Featured Article Nominations or Good Article Nominations. Could we please either convert it to prose, or better yet, simply delete it? Because the information is a little excessive and almost reads like a "terms of condition" sheet between the two companies rather than any useful encyclopedic content to most readers. Gary King (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * bulleted points do not automatically fail FA noms. But from the perspective of the article, it does provide information specific to how pixar was incorporated into the disney org, along with the reasoning behind the disney-pixar branding.  Prose it, if you would like, but there is reason to include at least some of it herein. SpikeJones (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, but it reads like an SEC filing. I'll see what I can do by the end of today :) Gary King (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All done! Gary King ( talk )  00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you to Gary King for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats on your hard work. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New book, NY Times article
There's a new book out on Pixar and the New York Times has a synopsis of it: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Shorts
Is there any way of finding out what date the shorts Red's Dream, Tin Toy, Knick Knack premiered on? If SIGGRAPH is a one-day thing, than it shouldn't be hard--simply pinpoint what day it was on in 1987, 88, and 89. If not...well, it's got to be written down somewhere. An old agenda, maybe. Who knows. I think it's worth looking in to. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the Birds is also missing a release date. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 13:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Although most know about the Pixar feature films, can some of their early shorts be mentioned? I saw them in the 1980s as part of an animation festival. Luxo_Jr. was nominated for and Tin_Toy won an Academy Award. Not to list all shorts, just mention the notable ones on this page instead of having to go to the Pixar shorts page? 22yearswothanks (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of founding?
The intro paragraph says Pixar was founded in 1979, but the box says it was founded on February 3, 1986. Which is correct? Or, was there an event that happened on Feb 3, 1986 that should be mentioned in the intro paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.107.194 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the second paragraph to be a little more clear. Hope it helps Avalean (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding Alvy Ray Smith
Alvy Ray Smith quit when he disagreed with something Steve Jobs wrote on the board. There is no mention of him on the Pixar website (pixar.com) but in the book iCon: Steve Jobs, the greatest second act in the history of business by Jeffery Young and William Simon, it talks about him in the chapters "Show Business" and "Master of Ceremonies" and especially on pages 185-186.

Kevin chen2003 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

chicken little cross-post
Please check over on Talk:Chicken Little (film) as we search for advice on how to rephrase a sentence on that page that deals with Disney "producing" Pixar films. Thanks. SpikeJones (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

CEO?
I read: "The newly independent company was headed by Dr. Edwin Catmull, President and CEO, and Dr. Alvy Ray Smith, Executive Vice President and Director. Jobs served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pixar."

So, the company had two CEOs, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.152.48 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver studio
Here's news that Pixar is planning a new separate studio in Vancouver, Canada. Why hasn't this been mentioned in the Wikipedia article yet? dogman15 (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because blogs (even nice people like those who run that one) are not necessarily primary news sources and eligible to be used as citations in WP. Once it is reported in a citable source (preferably with the official press release from the company), then it can be added. SpikeJones (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about and  ? dogman15 (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I corrected the misinformation listed in the Pixar Canada section. The studio is not named Glen McQueen Pixar Animation Studio.  I am under the impression that this name was being considered as a title, but Pixar decided not to name it this.  The name is simply Pixar Canada.--63.125.104.162 (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I was not logged in when i made the above edit. --TravisBernard (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment on High Quaility of films?
Should it not be mentioned some where that Pixar feature length films have got consistently good reviews, for example the lowest on rotten tomatoes was, I think, 75% fresh on Cars. Does this not deserve at least a mention somewhere? --86.138.160.94 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait never mind just noticed it :P, I feel like such an idiot now --86.138.160.94 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's being posted by numerous cited sources, just google it. The Vancouver expansion should be part of this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.128.39 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Name change?
Someone recently changed the name of the page to Disney.Pixar (which I've reverted), citing a name change - however, I can find no mention of this from any sources, official or otherwise. Please discuss (and provide sources) if you feel the need to make a change like this in the future. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No sources in intro?
What is up with this? Are they there, and I'm just not seeing them, or what? NoFlyingCars (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Often the introduction is only a summary of the rest of the text so information and their reference are developp/found in the article's body --GdGourou - °o°  -  Talk to me  17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sequels
"To date, Toy Story is the only Pixar film to have sequels." Isn't Shrek 4 being advertised now? I'm changing this sentence. I can't believe there's info this old still on here. 76.125.225.194 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved this to the bottom of the page. Chicken  monkey  01:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Shrek films are Dreamworks, not Pixar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.36.18 (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
Result: The discussion to merge has been open for about a week, and there is clear consensus to merge, with only one editor dissenting. I will merge the article shortly. Snotty Wong  spout 22:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am proposing that we merge the content of Newt (film) into the existing "Newt" section in this article, and redirect Newt (film) to Pixar. The film, by all accounts, has been cancelled and therefore the article on the film will never get any longer than it currently is. Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:NFF suggest that such films should not have their own article. The recent AfD discussion, while closed as Keep, clearly had a large number of comments suggesting a Merge/Redirect was appropriate, and the closing admin suggested starting a discussion regarding a merge. Please indicate below if you support or oppose this merge. Snotty Wong  yak 19:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - as nominator.  Snotty Wong   communicate 19:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Though Newt hasn't "officially" been canceled, it has currently halted production. In such case, I'd think it currently does not merit its own article. Merging here, with the possibility of recreating Newt (film) if/when the film goes back into production, would seem to be the correct way to go. Chicken  monkey  19:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support -agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.81.157 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — 69.125.81.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Support - We at least know that it's unlikely for any new production information to be released, even if it isn't canceled. If Pixar ever decides to start it back up, then an article can be made sometime later. Right now, the article can't really be improved and works better here. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - There is no evidence to support notability, and everything is based on WP:CRYSTALBALL facts. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  03:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - there is enough content (barely) for a stand alone article, but it can be recreated at a future time if necessary. SpikeJones (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge The article Newt (film) has already proven its notability per WP:NFF instructing that "films which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." That production and its cancellation meeting the notability guidelines and having extensive and continuing coverage, even as recently as yesterday in the New York Press, shows suitability for an seperate article.  And there's also last month's Collider, Slashfilm, Screenrant, and even the official Pixar blog (quite informative).  The article can and will continue to grow and be improved to serve the project.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I hope, with everything I can hope with, that newt resumes production, but the coverage you mention (NY Press, Collider, Slashfilm, Screenrant, and The Pixar Blog) is all the same thing: Pixar was going to release newt and now it's been "canceled". That's it. The fact that it's been canceled is just speculation, at this point. The Pixar Blog, despite its name, is unofficial, though I do rather enjoy reading it. Let's take inventory of what we have: the main players who were to be a part of production (director, writers, etc), a loose plot, an unclear period of production, a release date that changed twice, and rumored cancellation. I don't understand how that would merit a stand-alone article, or how merging that information into this article would somehow be detrimental to the project. As an editorial aside, Eric Shapiro has no idea what he's talking about, but that's just my observation/opinion. Chicken  monkey  07:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope they change their minds in the future and decide to make it also, but there does not seem to be any light at the end of that tunnel. So, rather than this discussion being set up like an RFC and seeming to require only either a "support" or "oppose" vote, let's actually have a discussion... and determine just how much of the sourced information in the current article would actually make it into a section at Pixar, as what is there now does little justice to what has been written about this specific topic as it had been covered for several years.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the information currently in this article seems to cover it pretty well, actually. There's only slightly more detail currently at Newt (film) than is already in this article under Pixar. Said further detail seems trivial, at best. If there is currently more information available from reliable sources, I haven't seen it. The leaked concept art for the film? I'm not sure that would be encyclopedic, nor has it been confirmed as authentic (to my knowledge). The fact that Pixar put up a "Newt Xing" sign at their studios? It's interesting (and further proof that Pixar would be a great place to work), but I wouldn't say that's encyclopedic either. What other information is out there? I've been following the film, but perhaps I missed some good stuff along the way? Really, if there's more information that has been reported in the two years we've known about newt, such information could show reason to oppose this merger. It's just, there doesn't seem to be much more than what is already written in this article.


 * The fact that Pixar films have such long production times means we'll undoubtedly be seeing mentions of newt for years to come (at least until Monsters, Inc. 2 is released), because newt was supposed to be released around that same time. However, if all the coverage is going to be is "Pixar canceled newt a month ago", "Pixar canceled newt a year ago", "Pixar canceled newt two years ago", what good is that? I know, that's speculation, but the current information we have is exactly like that. Chicken  monkey  18:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Pixar Format (PXR)
I believe that many people would expect to find information on the Pixar Format (PXR) upon arriving at this article, or at least a disambiguation page. I think we need to either (i) change "Pixar" (currently referring to an American CGI animation film studio) to a disambiguation page or (ii) add a link to an article on the Pixar/PXR format after the following sentences in the current "Pixar" article: "This article is about the animation company. For the graphics designing computer, see Pixar Image Computer." --62.49.171.1 (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Only people who either work in animation or are studying animation would even know or need to read about the Pixar format.  That's a REALLY small group.  No point frustrating the much larger portion of Wikipedia's audience who only care or need to know about the company.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be a small group, and I think that you have made a sound rebuttal against suggestion i. But surely it would be unlikely to frustrate anyone to include a small link to PXR in the italicised text at the top, per suggestion ii? --62.49.171.1 (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Silence = No disagreement, I presume? --62.49.171.1 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I have edited the alternative topic suggestion at the top of the article. I used the same wording regarding the .PXR format as is currently used in the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnane_X_receptor. --62.49.171.1 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The Muppets and Pixar
Shouldn't it mention that Pixar is helping out with the new Muppet movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.198.195 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it mentioned that the company helped with the Tron film? No?  Then don't mention the muppet thing here either. (Do we mention that a Disney film was filmed on the Universal lot? No - studios often help each other out with this type of thing as a matter of doing business) SpikeJones (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Clowns?
"Pixar's twelfth film, Cars 2, is scheduled for release on June 24, 2011 and "Clowns!" 2013."

No source. 76.175.113.248 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And as such, it's been removed. Thanks for the tip, and I'll see about tracking down who added it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

John Carter of Mars
According to the above film's article, it's to be a Walt Disney Pictures production, with Andrew Stanton lent to them for the duration. I've therefore removed the mention here about it being Pixar's second live-action movie. Rojomoke (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pixar is still credited as the production company on the IMDB page. It seems to me that a lot of the work on this is still being done at Pixar and that the 'Disney production' tag might mainly have come about through branding concerns and company politics. Might it be worth mentioning the film as a co-production in the article rather than ignoring it completely?  Blakk   and ekka 13:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a valid source for unreleased, future films.SpikeJones (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify - with unreleased films, the info in IMDB is speculative at best. Only after the film is released OR official announcements from the production companies can be cited can we know for sure.SpikeJones (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pixar's relation to Apple Inc.
I understand Steve Jobs represents Apple Inc. and is the name behind the brand. But from what I can depict from this article is that Steve Jobs bought Pixar independently, without any relation to Apple Inc./Apple Computer at that time, thus making the link between Apple Inc. and Pixar (specifically the 'See Also' section) irrelevant to this article. Other then mentioning the company once to identify the person if his name wasn't sufficient enough. 84.202.208.245 (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Awards
Toy Story 3 was also nominated for an academy award. I dont know if this hasn't been added because the show hasn't been on yet or something so I will wait and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.80.93 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Newt
The source listed as confirming that Newt was cancelled because it had a similar plot to Rio is not valid. While it is a popular rumor, and John Lasseter did say something about it being possible, Pixar responded to this officially saying that John was not confirming the rumor was true, and Newt was not scrapped because of Rio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.241.218 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He never said it outright, but he did imply it. I guess I could change the wording. Do you have a source for Pixar's statement?  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 20:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The logo: Luxo Jr.
I think there should be a short paragraph mentioning that the desk lamp used as the logo for the studio is Luxo Jr., which was the main character in, and the title of Pixar's first animated movie produced in 1986. 07 Matthew (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

List of feature films
Does the introduction really need to mention every single feature made by Pixar? 84.210.37.75 (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

What rendering hardware did pixar really use?
I have always been under the impression that pixar used Pixar Image Computers to render their movies, but obviously, as pixar image computers were not available commercially anymore after 1991 or so, this cannot be the case at all! It puzzled me that this article doesn't mention this, nor does it mention what, if not pixar image computers, pixar used to render their first feature film "toy story". A film released in 1994, four years after pixar the computer company folded.

So I did some research, and according to this they didn't use pixar computers at all but used 117 dual and quad-processor SPARCstation 20 computers instead!

It seems to me that this is worth to be mentioned in the article. Mahjongg (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Disney / Pixar
Many people misunderstand this: Pixar is the part doing all the work. Disney profits off Pixar more than it should, but Pixar needs Disney for advertising. Disney ONLY does the advertising and distribution and things like that. It does not help in any way with the actual making of the movie. Disney has been making terrible movies lately (besides Tangled, maybe) and it is unfair to Pixar for people to say that the movie is a Disney movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davids552 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi. Was there a particular part of the article that you felt needed altering? Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The Pixar Touch
A new editor has added a lot of new information to the article, using a book entitled The Pixar Touch by David Price as their source. The book does not have the proper template applied, but it does use parenthetical cites to a degree. I've asked the editor on their talk page to provide some additional details. If this work is deemed reliable, I think some additional details about the inner workings of Pixar would be notable. Conversely, if this is mainly a gossip or tell-all book, then the edits would potentially fall under WP:NPOV. I believe we need additional details before we unintentionally bite this newcomer. -- McDoob AU  93  14:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is a question of neutrality or reliability, then the new information should be removed from the article, pending confirmation of neutrality and reliability. It can always be added back, after a determination has been made.  Chickenmonkey  21:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I was looking for a tag to add to the article before I found this entry in the talk. Personally, I feel like it reads like the beginning of an essay argument. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic, and the style of the addition was inconsistent with the rest of the article in its structure. If we get more information from the contributor about it, and it's retooled (or even expanded), feel free to undo my delete. 70.190.51.10 (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:McDoobAU93, User:Chickenmonkey and 51.10. Suggest - at the very least - an extensive rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The Good Dinosaur
The following URL suggests that "The Good Dinosaur" has entered its production stage and thus can have its own article:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98454

(It has a picture from the film.) Any faulty info?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NFF: "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." This image would appear to be pre-production art, meaning this is not enough of an indicator that The Good Dinosaur is in full-on production mode. -- McDoob  AU  93  18:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pixar is not the studio with highest average gross.
"with its $602 million average gross by far the highest of any studio in the industry."

Marvel Studios has a higher average worldwide gross. http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=avengers.htm

It should be changed, or specified that "the industry" refers to animated movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denubis1 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No you are think about MCU which inculed all the Iron man Flims, Thor, incredible hulk, captain armerica and the Avengers. Marvel dose not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

question (with example) about No Future Films policy
i recently discovered this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFF#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films

Does a trailer like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vco0SpSz17g make Big Hero 6 verifiable/notable? (i'm fairly confident the video really was uploaded by Disney and not just someone calling themselves that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.201.106 (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the date for the Disney acquisition right?
This page claims that Disney acquired Pixar on May 5, 2006. But here's a source that say it was on January 23, 2006: http://www.complex.com/tech/2013/01/the-15-most-important-tech-acquisitions-of-all-time/disney-buys-pixar So, does anyone no what the truth is? Ojr01 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wiki claims that the acquisition was completed on May 5, 2006, and according to the official press release, it was indeed. The deal was announced on January 24, 2006, with a press release saying: "Disney has agreed to acquire ... Pixar ... in an all-stock transaction, expected to be completed by this summer." So, the acquisition was a gradual process which had started even before the announcement: "The Boards of Directors of Disney and Pixar have approved the transaction..."--Carniolus (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference in dates is easy to explain. Any merger between corporations necessarily starts with negotiations between the high-level execs at the companies, who then have to present the proposed deal to their respective boards of directors.  They can announce the deal once both boards vote in favor, but the deal can't close until it's actually approved by the shareholders. That's why there's always lag time of several months between the announcement of a deal and when it closes. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

disney.pixar fio
FROM THE CREATORS OF FINDING NEMO,CARS 2 AND MONSTERS UNIVERSITY COMES DISNEY.PIXAR FIO Keniel Berdecia (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

query
should someone mention in the traditions section about the fact that every Pixar film includes a short film that precedes it as a demonstration of their technology or something? Visokor (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Simple broken link
Hi, I'am reviewing this article for a school project and I noticed that one of the reference links is no longer available. It is number 72. "Pixar: 20 Years of Animation". Pixar. Retrieved June 28, 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jv19965 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox, missing Steve Jobs?
Why is there no reference to Steve Jobs as a founder in the Info box? or even as a key person?

If he is not considered a founder, then it also means there is incorrect information on his own page since that page lists him as founder and CEO of Pixar.74.104.150.176 (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I've been able to dig up, he did not help found Pixar. He purchased an already founded company and became its CEO. Alvy Ray Smith is very adamant about this but, of course, he's not really an unbiased source. I've added a note to talk page for Steve Jobs. HollywoodCowboy (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

All the sources but one actually link to articles and sites that claim he didn't found Pixar. Is there a chance this will ever get fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.29.67 (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Pixar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/01/62104
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/06/26/pixar_perfectionists_cook_up_ratatouille/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/archive/200701/20070124_transcript.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/about_us/exhibitions.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heritagemuseum.gov.hk/eng/exhibitions/exhibition_details.aspx?exid=158
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.agendacentrosobrasociallacaixa.es/es/caixaforum-madrid/exposiciones-temporales-caixaforum-madrid/pixar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cofounders of Pixar are Ed Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith
A mistaken, widely believed error is that Steve Jobs cofounded Pixar. The facts are that Ed Catmull and I cofounded Pixar and Steve Jobs was our venture capitalist. The issue here as regards the Wikipedia page is should I be allowed to contribute documentation to support this point, or should I be disallowed because I am cofounder?

Of course, if all I did was pass on hearsay, then I shouldn't (nor should anybody) be allowed to do so.

I am quite aware of the apparent conflict of interest issue here, so that's why I seek to back up all claims with original documentation from the founding years of Pixar. They are in my Pixar archive, which has been archived by Pixar archivists. They are the first two footnotes of the Pixar wikipedia page.

The ticklish problem here is the dominating influence of Steve Jobs. He started claiming in 1994 that HE was the cofounder of Pixar. This was when Pixar was already eight years old. It was part of his marketing scheme to sell Pixar to investors when he took the company public.

As many know Steve and I didn't get along. This is well (and accurately) documented in Walter Isaacson's book on Jobs. From the point of our big argument own Steve started writing me out of the history of Pixar, and everybody goes along with his version. The Isaacson book, by the way, lists me as cofounder. David Price's excellent history of Pixar, The Pixar Story, also does.

My goal is to get my cofounding credit back, using standard historical mean - that is, original documentation.

So, I have contributed the Pixar Founding Documents that show Ed and me as cofounders and Steve as investor. That is the actual truth.

I have also contributed the Managment pages of several years of Pixar company business plans, six of them as I recall, that show in every case either the lack of Steve Jobs's name (before the founding) or lists Ed and me as the only cofounders and not Steve Jobs, who is always listed as cofounder of Apple and Pixar's principal investor. This is the documentation that proves he was not cofounder and didn't even claim it until the IPO prospectus of 1994. I believe this is conclusive evidence of my claim. Steve's claim in 1994 was a pure marketing ploy that not only made the cofounder misclaim but also portrayed him as CEO since the founding. That statement was also not true, as the documentation in footnote 2 (the aforementioned six business plans) supports.

I know no other way to get the truth out since anybody associated with Steve Jobs continues to spread the untruth that he, Ed Catmull, and John Lasseter cofounded Pixar. (Lasseter was a key employee present at the founding with 37 other founding employees, who are not considered cofounders.)

Ed and I conceived the company, wrote the business plan for it, decided who to hire to be part of it, interviewed them, and raised the money for the company, all the things cofounders do. So far as financing is concerned, we approached 45 different funding opportunities together, 35 venture capital firms and 10 large corporations. All said No to us except General Motors. We almost closed a deal with GM (with the H Ross Perot branch) but it fell through at the last minute. Steve Jobs had approached us near the beginning of the negotiations with GM and proposed to Ed and me to buy us from Lucasfilm. We said No, but we would take his money and run it ourselves. He agreed and ran a number by Lucasfilm. They rejected it because it was about 1/2 to 1/3 what GM was offering. But when GM fell through, Ed and I called Steve and urged him to make the same offer again. This time it was accepted. So he funded us. The three of us were the board of directors. Ed and I were the management.

By the way, VCs are not listed as cofounders as a general rule in Silicon Valley. I do not list Autodesk as a cofounder of my second company Altamira Software, for example. It wasn't their idea. Pixar wasn't Steve Jobs's idea. He was of course very important to us, but not cofounder nor creator of the notion or the look or feel of Pixar.

Question: How do I get this kind of info into the Pixar wikipedia history other than submit those original documents? Nobody else is going to apparently. I can't see why such submission is Conflict of Interest. It is Truth. Meanwhile I get cut out of my credit after working closely with Ed Catmull for 16 years to get there.

Alvyray (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Alvy Ray Smith, cofounder of Pixar with Ed Catmull
 * Conflict of interest is defined as when you contribute to articles about yourself, your family, your company, or your organization. From WP:COI: "COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines public confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted." So unless you want to be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, I suggest you cease editing any articles related to Pixar immediately. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 21:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Alvyray seems to be correct. The second source he provided here is primary, but took about 20 seconds to find another. (As a reminder, WP:COI isn't an excuse to WP:BITE folks who are trying to edit in good faith and are presenting sources.)
 * Alvyray, probably better in the future if you make requests for others to enact suggested changes. You can do this by pasting on the talk page along with your suggested changes. That will add the page to a que of requested edits. Alternatively, you can ping me to a page by pasting  and I will try to help out. Your editing history seems constructive; it's more of an appearance of impropriety thing.
 * It also may be a good idea to create a user page by clicking here and disclosing your COI there. Again, propriety and all that. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur as well about Alvyray being correct. And I also agree you should declare your COI on your userpage. And per TJW's suggestion about using, any edit you request to be made should also be accompanied with a reliable source to support the proposed content. You can ping me as well to help with any requests or sourcing.-- Isaidnoway  (talk)  18:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit
John lasseter should be removed from the list of Pixar cofounders. I've already proved that the cofounders were Ed Catmull and myself, Alvy Ray Smith. The two footnotes attached to my name in the cofounder list contain this proof. John Lasseter as cofounder was another invention by Steve Jobs at IPO time. The first time John appears listed as cofounder is in the 1994 IPO prospectus, eight years after the founding of the company (the same place where Jobs first claimed he was cofounder). John was extremely important to Pixar but he was not a cofounder. He was one of 38 founding employees that Ed and I brought with us into the new company (see listing in the Founding Documents, footnote 1). If John is listed then so must be these 38 people (including secretaries and the receptionist, everybody in the new company whom Ed and I had convinced to go along with us).

✅ Timothy Joseph Wood  23:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Pixar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.com/Pixar/default.htm to http://alvyray.com/Pixar/default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.com/Pixar/default.htm to http://alvyray.com/Pixar/default.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/faq/faq.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Pixar
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050427012806/http://alvyray.com/Pixar/default.htm to http://alvyray.com/pixar/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Founded Date
There has been a lot of editing/reverting regarding the Founded Date recently (due to lack of citations). Can a citation be provided for this? Paging as they made the last change to that section. MidnightObservation (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Correct founding date can be found on the Pixar website: http://www.pixar.com/about/Our-Story. Arrow over to the 1986 page. Sherialzeerah (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Sheri Alzeerah
 * Thanks for providing that! I'll add it as a citation in the infobox. MidnightObservation (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pixar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311001731/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2004/nf2004129_4222_db035.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2004/nf2004129_4222_db035.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Pixar%2BCanada%2Bsets%2Bhome%2Bbase%2BVancouver%2Blooks%2Bexpand/2927398/story.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.agendacentrosobrasociallacaixa.es/es/caixaforum-madrid/exposiciones-temporales-caixaforum-madrid/pixar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pixar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pixar.com/companyinfo/faq/faq.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914115408/http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117991985.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 to http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117991985.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100422042245/http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Pixar%2BCanada%2Bsets%2Bhome%2Bbase%2BVancouver%2Blooks%2Bexpand/2927398/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Pixar+Canada+sets+home+base+Vancouver+looks+expand/2927398/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 April 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Pixar → Pixar Animation Studios – The full name is "Pixar Animation Studios". Simply titling this "Pixar" is absurd, largely for the same reason "The Walt Disney Company" is not titled "Disney", also due to the fact that there is an article called Pixar Image Computer. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  15:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Wikipedia uses common names, not formal or official names. The reason that "The Walt Disney Company" article has its current title is because of potential ambiguity, which does not seem to be a problem here. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The Walt Disney Company uses the longer name for disambiguation purposes. The title "Disney" would be confusing because it could refer to the Walt Disney Company, to one of its many subsidiaries that are also called "Disney", or to the company founder Walt Disney. Pixar, on the other hand, has no need for such disambiguation in its title. - Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 23:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that there's Pixar Image Computer. 00:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)
 * Right, but this page (Pixar) is clearly the primary topic for the name "Pixar", so this page gets the shorter title. The "Disney" situation is more complicated because, although The Walt Disney Company is the primary topic for the name "Disney", it's slightly ambiguous—the term "Disney" might also refer to one of its many subsidiaries. "Disney" is the common name for the collection of companies called "Disney", but when you are talking specifically about the parent company, it's more common to explicitly give the full name. This distinction is also the reason why thewaltdisneycompany.com and disney.com are fairly different websites, despite both being about The Walt Disney Company. This is getting off-topic though—Disney is a rather complicated case, and isn't great to use as an example. Pixar is a much simpler case with no complicating factors; there's no reason that WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't apply. – Iago Qnsi (User talk:IagoQnsi) 01:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE as well as WP:COMMONNAME. For the exact same reasons, we have China, not People's Republic of China. The fact that we have another article with the word "Pixar" in it means nothing. The Pixar Image Computer is made by Pixar. Should we rename Oldsmobile because Oldsmobile Cutlass exists? No! --Animalparty! (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: All your comments are not without basis, so I agree with that. But I didn't consider "Pixar" to be a mononym since "Animation Studios" is part of the logo. Also, every Pixar film article mentions the company's full name, both in the lead and infobox (as Pixar Animation Studios ), and if I click the Auto-format icon, it changes it to " Pixar Animation Studios". Most editors disallowed showing simply "Pixar" in those places, and I believed the only solution for consistency was if the article was renamed. I realise I'm wrong, so I request this discussion be closed with the article unmoved. But then changing "Pixar Animation Studios" to "Pixar" in infoboxes shouldn't be considered a bad move, as long as it is the article title. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  06:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First, we need not have 100% consistency between article titles and infoboxes. Companies often have one or more legal names that differ from their one or more common names (e.g. Chrysler, BuzzFeed, YouTube), and sometimes the formal or legal title is in an infobox while the title remains the common name. Secondly, sometimes the proper title is a compromise between preciseness, conciseness, and other conventions: the fact that there are over 5 million articles mean we cannot always uniformly apply naming conventions with equal consistency. Thirdly, there is no problem whatsoever with linking directly to Pixar Animation Studios instead of Pixar (or vice versa) if warranted: see WP:NOTBROKEN. Redirects allow multiple names to route users to the intended article, regardless of its current title. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. This isn't like the Disney situation, because there's no other article that can reasonably be located solely at "Pixar".  ONR  (talk)  05:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WEIRD cultist attitude towards the "founding" issue in this article
It would make sense to name Catmull and Smith as founders along with Lucas of their department within Lucas Arts, and have an earlier founding date for that, but the incorporation in 1986 should include Catmull, Smith and Jobs. Jobs was the original owner/investor and CEO in the studio (which was before just a technical department within Lucas Arts). However, this Smith guy behaves himself as a bit maniacal with his absurd campaign to erase Jobs from the picture just because he, Smith, personally has a petty axe of grind. And he is allowed to edit this page where he sources himself on the issue. 93.185.26.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have updated this article to include the release of Toy Story 4. I removed content about "15 films" being on the Top 50 list because this number needs to be updated. I don't know what the current number is so I had to remove it because it was out of date. I also removed some detail that is excessive for the lead of this article. I added that Toy Story 4 is among the top 50 top-grossing films of all times based on a June 2019 article published in Forbes. Dartslilly (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

A lot of people don't get the distinction between a director and a co-director followed by Pixar and Disney Animation
I've seen a pattern on articles related to Pixar in which a lot of inexperienced editors do not understand that Pixar and Disney Animation (during and ever since the former Lasseter/Catmull management regime) both try to maintain a distinction between directors and co-directors. They apply the distinction quite consistently if you actually take the time to read both studios' press releases. The buck stops with directors (in the sense that they have final control over the artistic direction of a film), while co-directors share some directorial duties but ultimately are there to support the directors. Only directors get a formal "director" credit (which is especially important for film awards season). For example, the sole director credit on Coco went to Lee Unkrich, while Adrian Molina was credited as co-director. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Original employees
I notice someone insists that the number of original employees was 44. Co-founder Alvy Ray Smith has a scanned copy of the documents on his website: These are exactly 40, not 44:

92.220.125.90 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Neftali Alvarez
 * 2) Annie Arbogast
 * 3) Malcolm Blanchard
 * 4) George Cagle
 * 5) Loren Carpenter
 * 6) Ed Catmull
 * 7) Susan Anderson Catmull
 * 8) Shannon Collins
 * 9) Don Conway
 * 10) Rob Cook
 * 11) Lynn DeKeyser
 * 12) David DiFrancesco
 * 13) Janice Diane
 * 14) Bob Drebin
 * 15) Lisa Ellis
 * 16) Craig Good
 * 17) Ralph Guggenheim
 * 18) Charlie Gunn
 * 19) Doug Hagemeier
 * 20) Dennis Jennings
 * 21) David Johansen
 * 22) Bill Kaiser
 * 23) John Lasseter
 * 24) Mark Leather
 * 25) Sam Leffler
 * 26) Adam Levinthal
 * 27) Matt Martin
 * 28) Jeff Mock
 * 29) Lane Molpus
 * 30) Tom Noggle
 * 31) Eben Ostby
 * 32) Tom Porter
 * 33) Bill Reeves
 * 34) John Seamons
 * 35) Glenn Sharp
 * 36) Alvy Ray Smith
 * 37) Deirdre Warin
 * 38) Jim Wilson
 * 39) Sara Wright
 * 40) Bruce Young

Adverts Section
The advertising section is really confusing (maybe a translation from another page?); I started editing it to fix grammatical errors but didn't know whether Pixar made the advertisements or some of these products were advertised in Pixar films. I assume the former, but stopped editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreybchapman (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition of a list of Pixar franchises
has added the section Pixar to the article, despite their franchises being already listed in the studio's respective template, therefore I think having this section is unnecessary and removed it, however, Pederjo99 restored it saying it's "necessary" (without any further explanation). I'd best argue to move it to List of Pixar films and/or whether other editors agree on having this section in the article -Gouleg🛋️ (Talk • Contribs) 14:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Steve Jobs... Relisted as one of the founders?
I noticed that an IP readded "Steve Jobs" on the template's "Founders" parameter when I checked the article about Pixar out if there were more disruptive edits or vandalism. It seems insufficient to me that the IP wrote the edit summary as "Steve jobs as one of the founders." because saying that anyone is one of them is not a valid reason to include it.

In order to find out if this is not true at all, I clicked one of the links which another IP stated in one of the sections of this talk page how many employees were when this company became Pixar and it was true that Alvy Ray Smith said. According to this link, Steve Jobs was the Chairman of the Board but he wasn't the founder.

To sum up, while Smith's statements might be unreliable for some contributors if he doesn't have independent, secondary sources, it would be convenient to remove it from the "Founders" parameter, no?-- André the Android (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Community reassessment
IAmAnIndividual (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed
In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed if no notes can be added to it as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding Steve Jobs as one of the founders is nothing but wishful thinking
For those who knows a little about the history of Pixar, they are aware that Steve Jobs was an investor, not a founder (and neither was John Lasseter). Only two people created Pixar; Ed Catmull and Alvy Ray Smith. The ones who keep adding Jobs doesn't even bother to read the full article they're editing, which contradicts the claim.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alvyray https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-real-story-of-pixar https://www.mynewanimatedlife.com/2013/01/exclusiveinterview-with-alvy-ray-smith_19.html

Because the guy who keep reverting the edits even if the information is wrong refuse to post any replies, here is a quote from the article for anyone else who might be interested:

"Steve Jobs wasn’t a part of the Pixar team, except that he was the money behind it. It’s often thought that he bought Pixar from Lucasfilm (he didn’t), that animation was his idea (it wasn’t), that he ran Pixar (he didn’t). He’s often called the cofounder of Pixar (he wasn’t). The board hires a management to run a corporation. Steve, Ed, and I were the original board. It hired Ed and me to run Pixar. Steve did not run it. But he was Pixar’s venture capitalist. He came through with the money when we needed it. He owned 70% of the company because of his investment. We employees owned the other 30%. Over the course of several years, we ran out of money several times. Each time Steve wrote another check to the company for further investment, and took equity away from us. So eventually, by 1989 or so, he owned all of Pixar. So it’s not true that he bought Pixar from Lucasfilm. He funded the spinout of a startup company from Lucasfilm. This is standard practice in Silicon Valley. Meanwhile he started up his own company, Next. He ran Next while Ed Catmull and I ran Pixar."

The whole "Steve Jobs in a founder" is based on a single Tweet from an anonymous Pixar employee. That doesn't say much. It was also an anonymous Pixar employee who used the official Pixar account on Youtube to insult an amateur animator by writing "You suck at animation": https://www.trillmag.com/73448/read/life/amateur-animator-enacts-revenge-on-pixar-after-a-scathing-review-of-his-animation-skills/ 46.212.117.57 (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Glaring Grammar Issue
Final sentence of the introduction: “Since 2006, Pixar has been a subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios, a division of Disney Entertainment, which owned by The Walt Disney Company.”

That should read “which is owned by The Walt Disney Company.”

I’d make the edit myself, but the article is locked and I don’t have an account. Thanks. 114.172.51.56 (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Credit for alpha channel
The source for the alpha channel invention credits only Alvy, but both Alvy and Ed are credited in the history section. Either another source should be added, or Ed’s name removed. 73.59.120.118 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See below, but DROIDMAKER can be a reference for the Alpha Channel fact - it was invented by both of them, they had different contributions to its creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehm2233 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023
For the final section of the History section (Covid and Financial Troubles), can someone please fix the dash in the title from "-" to "–"? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:4475:E7C9:8762:8E07 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Fix Old History
COI - I'm the author of a textbook on the history of pixar DROIDMAKER, which is widely cited online, but i would be using it as the reference for all my adjustments to this history. This is how I believe it should read:

Pixar got its start in 1974, when New York Institute of Technology's (NYIT) founder, Alexander Schure, who was also the owner of a traditional animation studio, established the Computer Graphics Lab (CGL) and recruited computer scientists who shared his ambitions about creating the world's first computer-animated film. Edwin Catmull and Malcolm Blanchard were the first to be hired and were soon joined by Alvy Ray Smith and David DiFrancesco some months later, which were the four original members of the Computer Graphics Lab, located in a converted two-story garage acquired from the former Vanderbilt-Whitney estate. In the years prior to joining, Catmull had invented texture mapping and had produced the first computer animated film (of his hand). At NYIT, the researchers were given unprecedented technology of the day, and with that, pioneered many of the CG foundation techniques—in particular, the invention of the alpha channel by Catmull and Smith. Schure kept pouring money into the lab, an estimated $15 million, giving the group everything they desired but driving NYIT into serious financial troubles. Eventually, the group realized they needed to work in a real film studio in order to reach their goal.

By 1979, during pre-production for The Empire Strikes Back, George Lucas approached Catmull and offered him an opportunity to build a computer group at his studio to solve three specific problems he was having concerning editing, sound post production, and special effects. Catmull joined, and during the following months, his associates from CGL gradually resigned, found temporary jobs (to avoid making Schure suspicious), and eventually joined what became the "Graphics Group" at Lucasfilm.

While Catmull ran the Lucasfilm Computer Division, Alvy Ray Smith was specifically in charge of the Graphics Group. The team, expanded importantly in 1980 to include Loren Carpenter (a pioneer of fractal graphics) and other key scientists, began developing the foundations for animation, a project they understood could take more than a decade. The team worked on creating the precursor to RenderMan, called REYES (for "renders everything you ever saw") and developed several critical technologies for CG—including particle effects and various animation tools.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehm2233 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply 6-JUL-2023

 * To review your request, the following information should be provided:
 * 1) The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
 * 2) Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.
 * 3) Reasons should be provided for each change.
 * In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the three required items are shown:

 1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."

2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."

3. Using as the reference:

4. Reason for change being made:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

Regards, Spintendo  22:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At your earliest convenience, when ready to proceed with all three items from your request, kindly open a new edit request below, under a new level 2 heading. Thank you!

Pixar First Live-Action/CGI Film
List of Films Wall-E 148.252.133.215 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Pixar First Stop–Motion Film
List of Film Disney Pixar Aardman's Stage Fright 148.252.132.140 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What does it mean? This has nothing to with them. Also, WP:NOTFORUM LancedSoul (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: two typos
In the lead, "Disney announced it's acqusition" should read "Disney announced its acquisition" 99.146.242.37 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"Ducks" has not been officially announced.
@ZX2006XZ To be short, no one has officially confirmed this project's existence. Until that happens, it remains a rumor. DanielRPK and WorldofReel are not reputable sources to confirm or deny, it needs to come from someone close to production or Disney/Pixar themselves. That's as simple as it is, really.

Beyond this article, the mention of this project's existence is also featured in List of Pixar films and List of Walt Disney Pictures films. It should be removed from there as well. Madyoshi01 (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Madyoshi01, it's no longer rumored. Info here. ZX2006XZ (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As @Geraldo Perez has said, a personal blog and an unverified Twitter account are not reliable sources; and as I've told you there, your sources beyond that are unreliable at best. I know this is a good faith edit, but none of your sources are valid.
 * The film has to be officially announced to be properly listed. Iger's words regarding Toy Story 5 are an example of this. I'm not saying the film doesn't exist, it wouldn't be the first time a film's development gets leaked before a proper announcement. But, as it stands now, it's not properly announced, and considering this, it shouldn't be part of any article.
 * Wait until a proper announcement. Madyoshi01 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Article missing information or otherwise not making sense.
In the section starting with "The two companies attempted to reach a new agreement for ten months and failed...", a series of dates are listed then an apparent result is mentioned, but neither seems to match the objective of the start of the paragraph. Danlo88 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅. <b style="border-radius:8px 4px;padding:0.5px;background:#DA291C;color:white">‍ Masterofthebrick </b> <b style="color:gray;">‍ talk </b> 12:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)