Blog (Default) | Bulletproof Screenwriting

Avengers: End Game – A New Type of Storytelling

November 10, 2021March 26, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

The year 2019 will perhaps go down in history as a great year for movies: “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” “Us,” Fast and Furious spin-off “Hobbs and Shaw,” “IT Chapter 2,” just to name a few, and this Christmas also sees the release of “Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker.” Whether they are all as good as we want them to be is another question. Let’s hope so.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!

However, April witnessed an event movie that has been in the making for just over eleven years in “Avengers: Endgame.” At the time of writing, it’s just passed “Titanic” at the Box Office and crossed $2 billion in just two weeks. It continues to break records all over the world.

Movies that take in this much money can only do so in two ways: repeated viewings and excellent word of mouth. The audiences for “Endgame” are a large demographic — children, adults, families, males, females … I even know a woman in her 80s who knows more about the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) than some teenagers.

So let’s look at why it’s taken in so much money. What are the elements in the film that have made audiences take themselves to the theatre in droves, queuing around the block to see it?

“Avengers: Endgame” was directed by Anthony and Joe Russo. Along with writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, this talented team skillfully weaves all the narrative threads together whilst managing tone, excitement, and emotional connection. If the previous Avengers film “Infinity War” was the action resolution to this phase of the MCU, “Endgame” is more of an emotional resolution. If films are all spectacle and no heart it can make the film feel soulless, so keeping a good eye on both is key. With “Endgame,” the spectacle and emotional beats are balanced throughout.

Audiences have invested in twenty-two movies in the MCU since “Iron Man” first hit our screens back in 2008. Since then we’ve had “Captain America,” “Thor,” “Black Panther,” “Captain Marvel,” “Spiderman,” and “The Guardians of the Galaxy,” with character threads and stories being set up and paid off accordingly. “Endgame” brings all these films together and plays on the audience’s knowledge of earlier MCU films, rewarding you for your investment, and this makes people feel good.

Any film or book that offers a resolution and conclusion is going to attract more interest as it’s curiosity that draws us in. We want to know how things end. Marvel has definitely played the long game and it’s paid off. On the other side of the street, DC Comics tried to skip a few steps to catch up and although their films have generated good Box Office, the critical reaction wasn’t anywhere near as strong as it has been for Marvel.

Emotion is key in “Endgame.” The tone is one of loss, grief, and failure. Our heroes are lost, questioning their actions, and questioning each other. We are offered internal and external conflict via this story. Friendships have been broken and the family that was the Avengers is now no more.

This emotional backbone is what provides the film, and any film for that matter, with its strength and heart. Any of the big spectacle movies over the years that have been successful always have a strong element of heart: “Star Wars,” “Gladiator,” “Titanic,” “Lord of the Rings,” “Harry Potter,” “The Lion King,” “Forrest Gump,” and “E.T.”

Even though our heroes are facing the end of their world, there’s still time for moments of levity. Every film, no matter what the subject, can be helped with moments of humor even if just sprinkled in small doses.

It keeps things balanced and can even help the more serious elements have more impact. Audiences during “Endgame” laughed, cried, and were thrilled with the visual spectacle. Rarely do films do all three so well.

Of course, besides the emotional component, the film also delivers on the visual spectacle, giving us all the action beats required. The CGI is top-notch, and kudos must be given to not only the visual effects artists and animators behind the film but to the directors for conceiving and breaking down all those massively detailed effects sequences.

It’s akin to a military operation, planning, coordinating, and executing scenes of this scale. It’s sad to hear the odd ignorant audience member sometimes quip, “It’s done in the computer these days…” like somehow filmmakers can hit F7 on the keyboard and you immediately get Iron Man fighting Thanos.

Another strength in the arsenal of “Endgame” was that it was a two-parter. Originally planned as one movie, it was turned into two to help give the story the breadth and screen time it required to do it justice. The cliffhanger at the end of “Infinity War,” where we see that half the population of earth is wiped out including half of the Avengers and their allies, meant we had to come back and find out what happened after.

I remember an interesting article written by Jack Reacher author, Lee Child, where he said the power of story lies in asking a question that the reader or audience needs answered. And here’s the kicker; they might not even care about the subject matter, it’s just that a question has been asked and the brain needs it answered. Child asks at the top of the piece, “How high is the tallest tree in California’s redwood forest?”

He keeps the reader on the edge of their seat teasing them, discussing other elements, not revealing the answer until the last paragraph. At the end of “Infinity War,” Dr. Strange tells Tony Stark, after witnessing the future, that he saw only one in fourteen million possible outcomes in which they won. Audiences needed to see “Endgame” to see what the one-in-fourteen-million answer was.

The film also gives the audiences what they want — the big action sequences of the team doing their own special thing: the banter, the cool visual effects. Too many films try to be clever and rob audiences of what they paid their admission ticket to see, even if what they might want is a cliché. Find another way of serving it up maybe, but don’t fail to deliver what they entered the theatre for.

“Avengers: Endgame” also does its best “Back to the Future Part 2” impression by revisiting scenes from previous MCU films in the series. It’s nostalgic revisiting stories we already know and again it’s paying off on the audience’s investment and time that they have given by watching the earlier films. It’s fun seeing what happened just after they captured Loki in the first “Avengers.”

Having Captain America see his lost love, Peggy, even from afar, or to have Tony Stark be able to understand his father’s feelings and heal old wounds. We are being rewarded for our knowledge.

The hero characters have all been established well in their previous movies, but it’s the villain who is in danger of stealing the show here. Thanos is an exceptional villain and besides being a fully CG character, he’s also a fully three-dimensional character too.

He’s controlled, poised, methodical, and a worthy opponent. He even cries in “Infinity War” after he has to kill his own daughter to secure the Soul stone. A film’s strength very often lies with the villain as seen in movies like “Die Hard,” “RoboCop,” “Mission: Impossible – Fallout,” and “Star Wars.”

Each film department behind the scenes also has to deliver for the whole film to come together; the script, the cast, the sets, the visual effects, the editor, the composer, the costume department…. It’s these moments when we see the climax of a big action extravaganza, as our favorite characters deliver a witty line, as the musical score kicks in with the theme — that’s when we smile and that’s when we get that warm feeling of loving being at the movies.

Then, when we leave the theatre, we jump on social media and tell everyone how good it was as we want others to experience what we’ve just felt. Get enough people to feel the same and before you know it, you’ve crossed $2 billion at the Box Office.

“Avengers: Endgame” is a true Hollywood blockbuster. Not many of us have the opportunity to participate and work in these types of franchises. But as creative individuals, we do have the opportunity to create new “blockbusters” of our own. I cover many of the elements discussed here in my new book, “Making Your First Blockbuster,” written for Michael Wiese Productions, and maybe some of those elements might help you on your filmmaking journey.

Paul Dudbridge is the author of “Making Your First Blockbuster” which can be found here: Making Your First Blockbuster: Write It. Film It. Blow it Up!

How Walt Disney Taught the Art of Storytelling to His Animators

November 10, 2021March 26, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

Walt Disney is by far a giant in many realms, storytelling being one of the biggest. His ability to produce monster hit film after monster hit film is a testament to his knack for telling and constructing an intriguing story.

Below is a memo, written by Walt Disney on December 23, 1935, to a highly respected art teacher from Chouinard Art Institute, Don Graham. Mr. Graham was in charge of training Walt’s animators. If you are a writer, director, or filmmaker this is essential reading. I have the transcript below, as well as the original memo. Enjoy.

WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS
INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION

DATE DECEMBER 23, 1935
TO DON GRAHAM
FROM WALT

Right after the holidays, I want to get together with you and work out a very systematic training course for young animators, and also outline a plan of approach for our older animators.

Some of our established animators at the present time are lacking in many things, and I think we should arrange a series of courses to enable these men to learn and acquire the things they lack.

Naturally, the first most important thing for any animator to know is how to draw. Therefore it will be necessary that we have a good life drawing class. But you must remember Don, that while there are many men who make a good showing in the drawing class, and who, from your angle, seem good prospects – these very men lack in some other phase of the business that is very essential to their success as animators.

I have found that men respond much more readily to classes dealing with practical problems than to more theoretic treatment. Therefore I think it would be a very good idea to appeal to these men by conducting these classes with a practical approach in mind.

In other words, try to show in these classes that the men can make immediate practical application of what they are being taught.

The talks were given by Fergy, Fred Moore, Ham Luske, and Fred Spencer have been enthusiastically received by all those in attendance. Immediately following these talks, I have noticed a great change in animation.

Some men have made close to 100% improvement in the handling and timing of their work. This strikes me as pointing a way toward the proper method of teaching in the future.

The following occurs to me as a method of procedure:

Take the most recent pictures – minutely analyze all the business, action, and results, using the better pieces of animation as examples going thru the picture with these questions in mind:

What was the idea to be presented?
How was the idea presented?
What result was achieved?
After seeing this result – what could have been done to the picture from this point on, to improve it?

Encourage discussion on the part of the men present; if possible, have some of the animators over to talk to them about the problems they were confronted within the picture, and what the animator himself would do if he had the chance to do the animation over.

I believe these classes could be combined for presentation to all the animators, young and old as well.

It wouldn’t be bad if you made up a list of the qualifications of an animator in order of importance. Then all these men could see what it takes to be an animator and could check on themselves to see how nearly they approach the desired perfection.

The list should start with the animator’s ability to draw; then, the ability to visualize the action, breaking it down into drawings and analyze the movement the mechanics of the action.

From this point, we would come to his ability to caricature action – to take a natural human action and see the exaggerated funny side of it – to anticipate the effect or illusion created in the mind of the person viewing that action.

It is important also for the animator to be able to study sensation and to feel the force behind sensation, in order to project that sensation. Along with this, the animator should know what creates laughter – why do things appeal to people as being funny.

In other words, a good animator combines all these qualities:

Good draftsmanship
Knowledge of caricature, of action as well as features.
Knowledge and appreciation of acting
Ability to think up gags and put over gags
Knowledge of story construction and audience values
Knowledge and understanding of all the mechanical and detailed routine involved in his work, in order that he may be able to apply his other abilities without becoming tied up in a knot by lack of technique along these lines.

This is all very rough – just a jumble of thoughts – but what I plan is that we get together after the holidays, as suggested above, and really get these plans worked out in detail. Then we should strive to see that all the men whom we are drilling for animators are given the chance to develop along the lines outlined.

I am convinced that there is a scientific approach to this business, and I think we shouldn’t give up until we have found out all we can about how to teach these young fellows the business.

The first duty of the cartoon is not to picture or duplicate real action or things as they actually happen – but to give a caricature of life and action – to picture on the screen things that have run thru the imagination of the audience to bring to life dream fantasies and imaginative fancies that we have all thought of during our lives or have had pictured to us in various forms during our lives. Also to caricature things of life as it is today – or make fantasies of things we think of today.

The point must be made clear to the men that our study of the actual is not so that we may be able to accomplish the actual, but so that we may have a basis upon which to go into the fantastic, the unreal, the imaginative – and yet to let it have a foundation of fact, in order that it may more richly possess sincerity and contact with the public.

A good many of the men misinterpret the idea of studying the actual motion. They think it is our purpose merely to duplicate these things. This misconception should be cleared up for all. I definitely feel that we cannot do the fantastic things, based on the real, unless we first know the real. This point should be brought out very clearly to all new men, and even the older men.

Comedy, to be appreciated, must have contact with the audience. This we all know, but sometimes forget. By contact, I mean that there must be a familiar, sub-conscious association.

Somewhere, or at some time, the audience has felt, or met with, or seen, or dreamt, the situation pictured. A study of the best gags and audience reaction we have had will prove that the action or situation is something based on an imaginative experience or a direct life connection.

This is what I mean by contact with the audience. When the action or the business loses its contact, it becomes silly and meaningless to the audience.

Therefore, the true interpretation of caricature is the exaggeration of an illusion of the actual; or the sensation of the actual put into action. In our animation, we must not only show the actions or reactions of a character, but we must picture also with the action the feelings of those characters.

My experience has shown me that the most hilarious of comedies is always based on things actual, possible, or probable. That idea, behind the things I just mentioned above, can be incorporated in every stage of instruction – from the life drawing clear on thru to the planning and staging of the work.

I have often wondered why, in your life drawing class, you don’t have your men look at the model and draw a caricature of the model, rather than an actual sketch. But instruct them to draw the caricature in good form, basing it on the actual model.

I noticed a little caricature of one of the models in the life class made by Ward Kimball, and it struck me that there was an approach to the work that we should give consideration. I don’t see why using this method, you can’t give the class all the fundamentals of drawing the need and still combine the work with the development of a sense of caricature.

Would it be a good idea to take a man like Joe Grant and see what could be worked out with him along the lines of giving a talk some night on an approach to caricature, a Harpo caricature – what he sees and what he thinks about when he is trying to make a caricature. It might be advisable to have a talk with Joe on this.

I started out early last fall to work out some sort of system with you for teaching elementary phases of animation in a systematic way. My thought at that time was not to go too straight. That’s why I wanted to get somebody to demonstrate various walks in a comic way.

I still think this is a very good idea and constitutes a far better approach for the younger men than giving them too many straight natural things that direct their minds to the unimaginative end of the business. It is possible that with the comedy, you can still teach them the fundamentals of all these actions.

Take, for example, the walk. Why can’t you teach the fundamentals of a straight walk yet combine it with some person that is giving an exaggeration or a comic interpretation of a straight walk?

Perhaps for very elementary instruction, it might be best to present straight action; but not to keep giving them straight action as they progress and gain a little experience… Start them going into the comedy angle or caricature angle of the action.

For example – a fat person, with a big pot belly: What comedy illusion does he give you?

You could at the same time instruct the classes regarding the reason why he has to move a certain way (because of his weight, etc.) Present the walk soliciting discussion on:

What illusion does that person, fat with pot-belly, give you as you see him?
What do you think of as you see him walking along?
Does he look like a bowl of jelly?
Does he look like an inflated balloon with arms and legs dangling?
Does he look like a roly-poly?

In other words, analyze the fat person’s walk and the reasons for his walking that way… BUT DON’T STOP UNTIL YOU’VE HAD THE GROUP BRING OUT ALL THE COMEDY THAT CAN BE EXPRESSED WITH THAT FAT PERSON’S WALK; also all the character – but drive for the comedy side of the character.

Take a skinny person – somebody that’s loose-jointed, angular, shoulder blades showing – what does he suggest? Does he look hung together with wires like a walking skeleton? Does he look like a marionette flopping around? Does he look like a scarecrow blowing in the wind? What illusion is created by the walk, by the movement, of that skinny loose-jointed person?

In discussing a short person, with short legs – he would naturally have quick movements – seems to move very fast – would have to take twice as many steps as a taller person, thus making him look as if he were going at a greater speed. What illusion do you get from a person like that? Does he strike you as a little toy wound up and running around on wheels? Does he look like a little Pekinese pup? A dwarf?

There are a number of things that could be brought up in these discussions to stir the imagination of the men so that when they get into actual animation, they’re not just technicians, but they’re actually creative people.

In the study of other problems, is it possible to bring out more the exaggeration of form and action – as in the study of the balance of the body? Can we bring that out even to an exaggerated point? It will probably make it stronger to them – make them realize more the necessity of that balance of the body – and yet point out how they can utilize that to strengthen their business when they get into animation, as in bending.

In someone bending over – can we show the exaggeration in that action by showing how the pants pull up in back to an exaggerated degree that becomes comical? Can we show how the coat stretches across the back, and the sleeves pull up and the arms seem to shoot out as from a turtle-neck as they shoot out of the sleeves? What can we do to bring these points out stronger to the men?

In lifting, for example – or other actions – we should drive at the fundamentals of the animation, and at the same time, incorporate the caricature. When someone is lifting a heavyweight, what do you feel?

Do you feel that something is liable to crack any minute and drop down? Do you feel that because of the pressure he’s got, he’s going to blow up, that his face is going to turn purple, that his eyes are going to bulge out of their sockets, that the tension in the arm is so terrific that he’s going to snap?

What sensations do you get from someone rising – different ways of rising? Sitting? When somebody is sitting – when he sits down and relaxes, does it look as if all the wind goes out of him? Does he look like a loose bag of nothing?

Also, in pushing… in the extremeness of a push, the line shoots right down from the fingertips clear down to the heel. In pulling – show the stretch, and all that. Bring out the caricature of those various actions, at the same time driving at the fundamentals of them – the actual.

The various expressions in the body are important. The animators go through animation and don’t make the positions of the body – hold positions and relaxed positions – express anything. They try to do all the expressions with the parts that are moving, whereas the body should enter into it. Without the body entering into the animation, the other things are lost immediately.

Examples – an arm hung on to a body it doesn’t belong to, or an arm working and thinking all by itself. I think something could be worked out to develop this point, even if you got a person up behind a screen, a model perhaps, and threw a light on them.

Have the class do nothing but watch the silhouette as the model goes thru different poses, noting how the body enters into the expression of an action.

Or we could photograph the action to show to the men. The study of this would be a big help toward making the men realize the value of getting the story and the business over in the rough drawings that are the action itself, rather than depending on little trimmings, on the clothes, facial expressions, and things like that to put over the business.

If the animators get the groundwork right, that is, the action underneath all these trimmings right – then what they add is going to be twice as effective. It’s a very important point that we must impress on the new men and the older men.

After we have given the men all the suggestions we can that have to do with expressing ideas through the body, then we can come down to the value of the facial expression – the use of the eyes, eyebrows, the mouth – their relation to one another – how the eyes and the mouth have to work together sometimes for expression – how they may work independently for expression at other times.

In other words, then we would go into the combined use of expressive features and expressive actions of the body. Then it would be good to take one away from the other and see which is the most important.

We should have courses in staging and planning. These courses can be given by some of our more successful animators.

Also, we should try to show how to analyze a scene or piece of business before starting to work on it. We should try to show the men ways of visualizing action in their minds, breaking the action so that the men are prepared in advance to begin animation of the action and know thoroughly what they are going to animate.

So many of the men start in now and have no idea what they’re going to do when they start the scene. They know what they’re supposed to do, but they can’t break it down in a systematic way that will enable them to go knowingly ahead.

Many men do not realize what really makes things move – why they move – what the force behind the movement is. I think a course along that line, accompanied by practical examples of analysis and planning, would be very good.

In other words, in most instances, the driving force behind the action is the mood, the personality, the attitude of the character – or all three.

Therefore, the mind is the pilot. We think of things before the body does them. We also do things on the spur of the moment by the reaction to stimuli that are telegraphed to the mind by the nerves, etc.

There are also things carried out by the subconscious mind – reflexes, actions that have become habit through repetition, instincts. In other words, the subconscious mind is an assistant oftentimes in carrying out things that may or may not have been taught, Examples of that are sleeping, lighting a cigarette and throwing a match away without any thought, whistling, walking, running, sitting, etc. It’s not necessary to think of those actions.

But certain actions we do think about – certain actions we deliberately plan. We plan them very quickly in our minds. The point to bring out here is that when a character knows what he’s going to do, he doesn’t have to stop before each individual action and think to do it.

He has planned in advance in his mind. For example – say the mind thinks, “I’ll close the door – lock it – then I’m going to undress and go to bed.”

Well, you walk over to the door – before the walk is finished, you’re reaching for the door … before the door is closed, you reach for the key … before the door is locked, you’re turning away – while you’re walking away, you’re undoing your tie – and before you reach the bureau, you have your tie off. In other words, before you know it, you’re undressed – and you’ve done it with one thought, “I’m going to go to bed.”

A lot of valuable points could be brought out to the men in showing them that it is not necessary for them to take a character to one point, complete that action completely, and then turn to the following action as if he had never given it a thought until after completing the first action. The anticipation of action is important.

This enters into animation in many ways and we have many serious difficulties coming up because of the men’s inability to visualize things in the proper way.

I think a good study of music would be indispensable to the animator – a realization on their part of how primitive music is, how natural it is for people to want to go to music – a study of rhythm, the dance – the various rhythms that enter into our lives every day – how rhythmical the body really is – and how well balanced the body really is.

That, in itself, is music. In other words, it could be music in the body. We dance – we can keep time to the rhythm without ever being taught – a baby does it – cannibals do it. But fancy dancing or any trick stuff, we have to learn. There are things in life that we do to

There are things in life that we do to a rhythm that come naturally to us. Notice how rhythmic an action like pounding with a hammer is! There’s a reason for that. You must have that rhythm or you can’t carry out that action completely.

Also, saw aboard. See how necessary it is to have a good rhythm for that. Also, walking … if you walked without rhythm, where would you get? You’d have to be thinking all the time what to do next. You’d have to set your mind to walking rhythmically, instead of doing it naturally.

Naturally, the body is very well balanced. When one hand dose something, the other serves as a balance to it. There are various things that combine balance in the body – subconscious balance … and yet the animators do not know it.

They will do something with one hand – they don’t know what to do with the other, so they will do something entirely contrary to what that hand should be doing because they don’t understand the basic concept of balance. This idea of the balance of the body ties in with the idea of the expression of the body. If there is balance, it adds expression to the things that the body is doing.

If you don’t have that balance of the body, then your expressions are wrong, insincere, unconvincing. Those concepts also tie in with overlapping action.

In other words, we could work out all these basic concepts in such a way as to show them all related, interdependent, and have to do with each other, and we could tie them together in various ways, showing different combinations of their application.

We will thus stir up the men’s minds more, and they will begin to think of a lot of these things that would never occur to them otherwise if the way weren’t pointed out to them.

I’d like also to have a study of dialog. I want to prepare a course on dialog – phrasing, and rhythm of dialog, moods, and character of dialog, expressions, gestures, directness, use of the eyes, eyebrows, mouth, head, arms, body, tongue, inhalation and exhalation, and various other aspects that have to do with the successful picturization of dialog in the cartoon.

Let’s see if we can’t organize something like this and get it going right after the first of the year.

– Walt Disney

Pete Docter: How to Craft a Remarkable Story the Pixar Way

November 10, 2021March 26, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

Pete Docter, Pixar, Soul, Inside Out

I’ve been a fan of Pixar Studios film several since I first saw “Toy Story.” The ability that Pixar has to tell an amazing story in uncanny. After that film, I started studying every Pixar movie that came out. It seemed that they had a secret storytelling sauce and they could do no wrong.

It was unheard of for any studio to keep cranking out one hit after another, year after year. Pixar Studios has released 15 feature films with 210 awards won and 211 awards nominated and counting.

I first heard of director Pete Docter when I saw one of my favorite Pixar films “Monsters, Inc.” Pete Docter work on the film was remarkable but when I saw the trailer for 2009’s “Up” I said:

“In Pixar and Pete I trust.”

SPOILER ALERT: The opening sequence of “Up“, Pete Docter compresses a lifetime of love in three minutes and without using any words. Just amazing. Most filmmakers can’t do that in a two-hour feature film.

I recently had a chance to see Pete Docter’s latest film “Inside Out” and all I can say is WOW! I see another Best Picture Oscar® this year. Just an amazing piece of storytelling. Whatever secret sauce Pete and Pixar Studios have its working.

When I saw this amazing hour-long interview with Pete Docter at TIFF 2015 I knew I had to share it with all of you. Even if the average independent filmmaker can grab just a few grains of Pixar storytelling magic dust to sprinkle on their film, the indie film community with be a better place. Enjoy!

Pixar Storytelling Masterclass

Have you ever wondered how Pixar Animation Studios continues to create one masterpiece after another? How do they understand storytelling so well? What is their process? Khan Acadamy has partnered with Pixar to create a multi-year project creating a series of videos, lessons, and online courses to teach their secrets to anyone who wants to learn.

Khan Acadamy is a FREE online learning resource (Bill Gates is one of their main investors). They general teach more math and science but they are not venturing out into storytelling.

Pixar in a Box is a behind-the-scenes look at how Pixar artists do their jobs. You will be able to animate bouncing balls, build a swarm of robots, and make virtual fireworks explode. The subjects you learn in school — math, science, computer science, and humanities — are used every day to create amazing movies at Pixar.

This collaboration between Pixar Animation Studios and Khan Academy is sponsored by Disney.

To watch the rest of the FREE MasterClass goto: Khan Acadamy– Pixar in a Box

Peter Docter
Hi everyone. Good evening my name is Chase is candy fear. I’m the Director of Adult Learning here at TIFF and the program of in conversation with it’s my distinct pleasure to welcome you to tonight’s in conversation with Pete Docter. It is now my distinct pleasure to introduce your host for this evening. He is one of our favorites. Richard Krause is the film critic for seat CTVs Canada AM CTV News Channel and CP 24. He was the host of reel to reel Canada’s longest running television show about movies and as a frequent guest on many national Canadian radio and television shows. His syndicated Saturday afternoon radio show the Richard crow show originates on news talk 1010 in Toronto. He is author of eight books including Elvis’s King, asta Costello’s my aim is true. He also writes a weekly column for the Metro newspaper and I’m sure a lot of you remember when he was on stage with Professor Del Toro amazing event, Guillermo del Toro, please join me in welcoming our host for the evening, Richard Kress. Everybody. Thank you all for coming. We’ve got I think, what’s going to be a really exciting, cool and enlightening conversation ahead. Pete Docter is the Oscar winning director of Monsters Inc. and up and vice president creative at Pixar Animation Studios. His latest film, Disney Pixar is inside out is scheduled to release on June 19 of this year, I saw the first 56 minutes of it today. And it’s really something so you’re in for a treat. You’ll have to wait till June for that. Yeah, I don’t. But make this clear. I don’t, but you will. We’re going to cover a great deal of Pete’s career starting from working at Pixar in 1990 Straight up through to the experience of making this new film. And it is rare, I think, to have someone who is currently at the forefront. Currently, someone who’s changing the way that a certain genre or a certain kind of movie is made. And in terms of animation, Pixar does that every single day. And in terms of movies like inside out and up in Monsters Inc, Pete Docter, and friends who will be announced later, are doing that every single day working at Pixar. So it’s very exciting to have Pete Docter here this evening, we’re gonna kick things off with a Pixar sizzle reel. Just to remind you, I know everyone here has seen all the movies a dozen times, we’re gonna just let your or get you excited about all this and then we will be out to start the conversation. Enjoy please help me welcome Pete Docter.

Host
Welcome, thanks, thanks for having me. Well, listen, these people are very excited people have been at noon, people are waving people are excited to see you look at this. Cool. We’re excited to have you here. And we’re going to talk about a lot of things in the next hour or so. But I want to talk about where the love of animation comes from. I want to talk about you making your first flip book when you’re eight years old, and how an eight year old goes from watching Saturday afternoon cartoons or whatever it was going to the matinees and seeing Chuck Jones cartoons to actually going I think I can do that at home.

Peter Docter
Yeah. Well, that’s a good question. I don’t really remember.

Host
Make something up because they will believe anything you say.

Peter Docter
I did grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons that Chuck Jones we’re all always my favorite. Disney, you know, wonderful world that Disney would come on. This is in the old days before even VHS maybe there was VHS, but we didn’t have it right. And so you just pray please, please be animation, please. It’d be like, Oh, Charlie, the Lonesome Cougar. Okay. I’ll watch it anyway, you know. But I then discovered flipbooks. And I started drawing them like in the corners of my math book and stuff. And I made a big stack of them. And then my dad had a Super Eight camera. And I figured out well if I flip the flip book, and then I took it one step further and just shot one frame at a time. And so I kind of like discovered what all the old guys had known already. how animation works. It’s basically you know, creating one frame at a time and that’s kind of how I fell in love with it. And it’s the same thing I get to do today. Only we use millions of dollars worth of computer equipment instead of 39 cents for the papers

Host
in rendering farms. Yeah, I just learned about rendering firms render farm Yeah, where you send all the information to be public. That’s

Peter Docter
a big bank of all the computers that we have that render the files and, and in the old days, when we started on Toy Story, we set it up so that when a frame would finish, it would make a sound like an animal so and we named all the machines cow horse, chicken. So it sounded like a render farm and the front. It’s pretty cool.

Host
Now, what were some of the like, what were the subjects that you were looking at? When you were making these flip books? What kind of things? Were you telling stories where you’re just making things move? Or what was it about those

Peter Docter
at the very beginning? See, okay, there’s always the guy, you guys probably have this, who sits and draws and you’re just like, Wow, that’s amazing. Look at that horse or the dragon or whatever. That was not me. I wanted to be that guy. But I couldn’t draw, I struggled with drawing, I have my whole life. And people say that they think I’m good or whatever, but I struggle. And but as soon as I found movement, I was hooked. And so I figured at first it was just like making anything move. And then I realized, Wait, when I do something funny, people like that more. And so that kind of led me to storytelling, really.

Host
And it seems an odd choice to become an animator, when, as you say, you can’t draw very well. But it is perhaps more of the understanding of how motion works, and, and how it all fits together than it is the actual nuts and bolts of being able to draw a face.

Peter Docter
Well, I mean, I think out of necessity, I, I learned to draw better than I could. And then when I got to Pixar, I didn’t have to draw and I was happy to leave that and that struggle, daily struggle with noses in the wrong place. But I could still do the movement, and the gestures and the acting, which is what I really loved. Right?

Host
And Pixar, you started the day after school. There was no messing around you, you made a straight line from trainings directly into a career that you’ve had now for 2520 going on 25 years.

Peter Docter
Well, I was lucky, I was born at a good time I credit my mom for that. And everybody, yeah. Up till that time. Basically, if you are an animator, if you were lucky, you’re one of like four people who would get a job animating he-man in the Masters of the Universe or something like this, which was not really high quality stuff. When I got out of school, The Simpsons was just starting up. Disney was back. They were doing a little mermaid just starting up on that. And Pixar was hiring. So I had all this opportunity. But for whatever weird reason. And nobody knew about Pixar at this time. It basically made hardware as a company. They’ve done some of the short films. But I, you know, I kind of look back and scratch my head and say, Why did I decide to go to this computer hardware company instead of going to Disney or some of these other places? And I think the answer is the short films that John Lasseter and the other guys did. They’re just fantastic. And that’s what got me hooked.

Host
And what were those early days, like, you know, I had this idea that is just this bubbling beehive of creativity. And is it or was it like that at the time because they weren’t? You know, at the time, they weren’t making Toy Story yet, shortly after you got there, but they weren’t doing that work yet,

Peter Docter
right? Yeah, no, they were doing we were doing short films and some commercials that just started up commercials. It was kind of like hanging out in your friend’s garage, making stuff just for fun. You know, it was about that level of like the furniture was at about that level two is not like a fancy place. And we would draw on the walls and have paintball fights and laser tag in the hallways and stuff like that. Just because it was fun and it was a rental the building was and then you know as we got going it slowly evolved in that we hired more people so on to

Host
was that kind of anything goes spirit. Did that feed the creativity that you may have felt in there? I mean, it seems like it was I don’t know Wilds the word. But it certainly you know you were you were free to experiment?

Peter Docter
I think so. There’s something that I noticed in other people that we’ve gotten a chance to I can’t believe that I’ve gotten a chance to work with people like Amy Poehler. But she has a similar thing to what was going on at Pixar, which is, let’s make this a fun thing. Right? Like any situation. When Jonas Rivera producer and I met her for the first time it was in an elevator, and she was right away goofing around with people and having fun and like, it’s almost like her brain says, How can I make this interesting, you know, and Pixar was kind of like that to where we would anytime new computers would come up, we’d be like, Ooh, how can I use I can send sounds to that other computer and make it embarrassing sounds like that guys machine. Okay, you know, so it’s all like tools to goof around with, right? And we spend a lot of time doing that.

Host
And then so you’re making commercials, short films, that sort of thing, and then someone comes up with the idea Going around for Toy Story. And you were one of the people that helped create the characters, one of the three people that helped create the main characters in Toy Story. And you’ve said that each one of you identified with a different character. So I guess the obvious question is Which character were you most identify? Where do you most identify with? And and how does that process work? Because I understand that film is by its very nature, a collaborative process. And it has to be I mean, there’s hundreds of people working on anything. But from what I understand Pixar takes that even one step further than you would on on almost any other film at everyone seems to be working together in this amorphous kind of way that that is, I think, a little bit unusual.

Peter Docter
Yeah, kind of befuddled me when we started because my vision, see, when I grew up, I always thought the way it worked is Walt Disney is sitting in bed, and he sits up and he goes Dumbo, and they just, and he goes to work. And he has the whole film in his head and the opening shot, we see a stork and he flies down. And so that was what I seriously think in the back of my head. I believe that’s how it works. So I was waiting for John to come in and tell us what are we going to do? And instead, he would come in and go, Well, what do you think, guys? And I was like, What this doesn’t have? Wow. So you know, as it turns out, of course, John’s enormously clever because instead of just his brain, which is already pretty great. He gets all these other brains. And if you steer people the right way, you get all the ideas from a great community of people. The key is, of course, steering in the right way. So it’s not like old west with with stuff going everywhere. But

Host
like your texts a record? Yeah.

Peter Docter
So that was fun.

Host
Yeah. And so that, is that. Yeah. And it still works that way. Yeah. I mean, is it? I mean, you’ve been there for 25 years? Is it? It? Does it still feel as collaborative? Does it still feel as given take, as it always has, with, you know, a shelf full of Academy Awards and and every other award imaginable? Probably tucked away in your office somewhere? You would think that normally success changes things in that sort of way.

Peter Docter
It’s changed. Yeah. And I say that to provoke just to get you to go what it’s changed. But it has an Ed Catmull is fond to saying it would be if it didn’t change, it would be dead. Right, right. So since Toy Story, we did the whole film, I think with like 120 people, right, which is maybe a third of the crew that we have now for a film. And the studio was about 150. And now it’s 1200 or something. So it’s definitely changed several times over. But that’s a good thing. In terms of what you’re asking about, yeah, it’s still very much a collaborative effort. Everybody is able to contribute. And you know, from John Lasseter to janitors, to anybody who sees the film and wants to send ideas or talk to us and all and yeah, if it’s a good idea, I’ll take it from anywhere. Well, it’s

Host
funny, because I was bragging before you came out that I saw the first hour of Yeah, film today. And it is interesting, you were saying that, you know, to get to the point where you’re ready to show it to people like me, you showed it to the HR department one day, and then you showed it to you know, bookkeeping, and you showed it to whoever is sort of in the building that isn’t doing anything for the next hour and a half come on in and have a look at this. And you know, how seriously, do you take these test audiences?

Peter Docter
We take it very seriously, because what happens is, over the course of five years, strangely, you get kind of close to it. Yeah. And so sometimes it’s hard to tell, do I like this? Am I sick of it? Where do I actually stand in this? And it’s so clarifying to see with an audience, sometimes, they don’t have to even you’re like, just don’t say anything, I know exactly what’s wrong. Having now seen it kind of through your eyes, it’s really helpful. And of course, you know, the way we generally work is, we’ll have a concept. Develop that for a while. Right aversion, door script it, we have a team of storyboard artists to kind of draw up a comic book version of this thing, we cut it on video with dialogue, music and sound effects. And we approximate what it’s going to be like to watch the film when it’s all done, even though it’s just, you know, stick figure pretty rough drawings. Usually, that whole process from concept to there is usually about a year and a half. And then thereafter, what happens is we screen it, everybody who we invited, comes up to a room and tells us what they liked what they didn’t like. And we then the creative team, kind of the core creative team goes away and says, What do you guys think? What should we do? How do we want to change this and just and then we do that whole thing all over again. And we do it about seven or eight times before the film is really ready to produce Well, I

Host
was surprised today and we’ll talk about inside out a little bit later on. But it guy don’t want to join us we’ve got so much else to do. But I was surprised today for the The hour that I saw is beautiful and seamless, and the story flows so beautifully. And then you spoke of it and said, Oh, yeah, we changed everything we changed. You know, there’s some of the characters, we changed out completely. And we and and it was surprising to me because I have this idea that, you know, it’s enormously expensive. It’s enormously time consuming all those things to make any change and a big animated thing like that. How many rendering firms? Do you have going 24 hours a day to make these changes? And, and it really,

Peter Docter
it is horribly time consuming. Yeah, it is horribly expensive soul

Host
destroying a little bit when you’ve worked on? Yeah. For months and months and months, and then it just doesn’t work. Yeah, yeah. But I

Peter Docter
think the lucky stars that we work at a company that we allow ourselves to do that we because I don’t know, none of us could be, you know, it wouldn’t come out. Well, the first time never does. It always sucks at some point. Yeah. And so the fact that we’re able to make mistakes and allow ourselves to try stuff and iterate and not have the pressure of it’s got to be perfect the first time out. Yeah, that’s the only reason our stuff is any halfway. Good. So.

Host
So, Toy Story. First one, you were one of the three writers, which character did you most identify with? I’ll go back to that one.

Peter Docter
Well, okay. So Andrew, John’s obviously directing and Andrew, I think really got a bead on on Woody. And I kind of identified more with buzz for some reason, I don’t really know why. But I just felt like I could write for him and kind of act him out and things. So yeah, that became kind of a good dynamic for

Host
the two of us. And over the course of how many years that was about four or four and a half, four and a half years. And first time you’ve worked on something of that size. First time that Pixar has stepped out and said, feature film, you know, this, look at look at what we’re doing here. What, what was going through your head during those four and a half years, because it’s all new, you’re doing you know, you’re you’re breaking new ground.

Peter Docter
So not only was it the first feature film, it was the first feature film any of us had worked on. So other than Joe ramped, who came a little bit later to the party, he had worked on some features down at Disney brave little toaster and the other one he Rescuers Down Under he was had a story on that. But other than he none of us had experience. So we were just flying by the seat of our pants, kind of saying what feels right, what instinctively have we wanted to try and, you know, we sort of made, we made a list of things of sort of cliches that we wanted to avoid. We didn’t want the our little town song and the I Want song and all these different heroes or villains that grow huge in the third act, all the things that we had seen in, in animated films that we wanted to steer clear of. But then you know, that’s all easy to say at the beginning, then you have the tough work of actually making it play, which is just doing it over and over.

Host
And was there a moment, there must have been a moment where you watched it with the HR department or somebody and you sat there and you’re like, we don’t have to change this anymore.

Peter Docter
No, no, it’s never that well, when it’s finished. When it’s funny when it’s really changing. I mean, it feels like we’re working, working working well. Okay, that’s gonna take it away. That’s when it’s done. Really? Yeah. I think if we did not have deadlines, we would seriously still be working on Toy Story one, really. Because we, we just can’t stop otherwise.

Host
Well, and one of the Joe Grant, one of the legendary Disney artists and story man, he was responsible for your story director on Fantasia. And so you’re, you’re, you know, that’s back catalogue. You’re digging deep here was one of the people that helped you out with Monsters Inc. Yeah. And so I really I find it was really interesting as I have read more, and I learned more about this, how this very cutting edge technology that you’re using, and in a lot of ways, pushing the ideas of what animated storytelling can be in up having a character die, all that sort of thing, which I mean we’ve seen before but then the first time I saw that with an audience, I had to you know, cover myself with a towel to start from getting so by the tears that were happening. I mean, it really pushed the envelope in terms of that sort of thing. But I’ve been impressed all the way along that you dig deep and and refer and pay homage to what came before

Peter Docter
well that was one of the great pleasures for me in working on Toy Story in the success of Toy Story was that I got to meet these heroes of mine like Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston. Unfortunately Milt call had passed, he was my favorite animators, just man that guy can animate. We got to meet Chuck Jones and I struck struck up a really great friendship with Joe. Joe Grant, as you mentioned, who I talked a lot about, like what was it like doing this and what were you thinking on? You know Dumbo and so on? And according to him, he was like nothing has changed. It’s the same thing we’re doing now as we were then. And one thing he always more than once would mention is what are you giving the audience to take home? Right? And that always kind of puzzled me at first. But as we talked about, I realized what he meant was, okay, there’s all the fun of bright colors and movement. But what the next day or in two months are people going to think about that is in your film. And usually that comes down to something either life truth, something that you’ve experienced in your own life, or something that is really emotional. Those are the things that really mean something to you. So on every film that I’ve worked on, you know, we’re always digging for something like that something that’s really going to matter to people

Host
do have moments in films, not of your own films, but in other films, when that sort of idea of sticky content was placed in front of you. And you’re thinking, Yeah, you know, think back to your childhood and movies that really affected you. Do you have those moments that you can tell us about?

Peter Docter
Well, I mean, I was a huge Muppets fan. And the Muppet Movie, I think, had that for me, you know, Kurt’s journey out and kind of believing in himself and all those things. Later, of course, other films that really bowled me over where a Paper Moon, the Bogdanovich film, the relationship between the two of Addie prey and you know, fantastic. There’s, there’s tons of them. But you know, the other one that just mentioned is the station agent by Tom McCarthy. The first time I saw that, I was like, wow, this is really simple, deceptively simple. And that’s something that I admire, and I wish I was better at, which is taking something and making it very, very simple. Just because I think a lot of times we packed way too much stuff into, you know, I guess that happens. After five years you keep someone else will fit

Host
in there, too. Yeah, one more thing. Yeah, yeah, the station agent with Bobby Kandivali. And Peter Dinklage first time I’d seen either of those actors, and it is a movie that stays stays with it definitely along afterwards. So Monsters Inc, you’re you’re you’re developing this, again, we’re talking lengthy four or five year turnaround on these things. When you’re first coming up with this idea. Did you think back to you know what your monsters were like, when you were a kid? That sort of thing that maybe kept you up at night or not? Or what you imagined was under the bed? And if so, what were those things?

Peter Docter
Yeah, well, let’s see. Just backing up a minute. Toy Story finished, and everybody else was moving on to Bug’s Life. And I said, Well, what if I go off and develop something, there was no real. I didn’t think I would direct it or anything. I was just going to develop an idea that I was imagining John would direct. But I thought to myself, like a lot of people after that film, Toy Story came up to me and said, You know, I thought my toys came to life too. And I was thinking, Well, I wonder if there are other things that are like that, that we all kind of know, as kids know. And monsters. I knew there were monsters in the closet in mind there the closet, not the bed. But different strokes, man. That’s right. And the basement, the basement was, and I remember the day this the day that they went from being monsters to mass murders that were a big pivotal thing, like 1415 years old.

Host
Yeah.

Peter Docter
So that was that was the the kind of source of that and then, you know, we I get to work with great folks like Jeff pigeon, Joel Colton, who just would sit weeds. What we did at that one was we got this big roll of butcher block, and I’d roll it out on the table and cut it off. And we just sit there and draw on this big table, we just talk about what what if, what if we had this guy who scares kids for living and, and we would talk and draw and I’d cut out what I wanted. And I would at the end of the day, go home and type something up and we’d start the next day with here’s the story we came up with yesterday and I pitch it to them and then they go well, but what about this and we roll another sheet out and we’d start again and so we just kind of worked that way for a couple of at least a couple months before we had anything right and keep going from

Host
there but and that film was notable for any number of reasons but I remember hearing that just to render the for alone talk an enormous amount of dough like a ridiculous amount of time because no one had really made for that looked like that before right and so is was that one of those situations where you you know are talking to the to the computer animators and just go Yeah, I went for and I want it to be really realistic, which I got to do

Peter Docter
i that except falls with please please. So yeah, no, we early on kind of put us flag in the ground and said I think we’re going to need for this and we’re also going to need this doesn’t get as much credit but we’re this kid has been taken from her bedroom. So she’s got to have like some sort of saggy like night shirt or something like that. And that we had not done if you go back and look at Toy Story. All the clothes are very form fitting because they’re articulated there. They’re not Dynamic they don’t move unless they’re keyframed to move. So between those two things that really had the technical directors sweating a little bit, and we actually, there’s a small company that had done some pioneering work that we ended up buying the it was two guys once Canadian, I forgotten. And so they developed the basis of that simulation software that we’d still use today.

Host
And Ray Harryhausen was an influence. Yeah, I knew Ray Harryhausen, you know, roomful of animation. You know who Ray I don’t need to, I don’t have to explain who Ray Harryhausen is to you. But Ray Harryhausen was was a big influence on you in terms of the monster design. I understand tell me, because I love his work. I love the idea of the stop motion animation because it feels organic, and it feels it feels like someone’s hands were really there. But the monsters were also really cool. They were that’s the Yeah, that’s the other party for sure.

Peter Docter
And of course, that’s we paid homage to him by naming the sushi restaurant afterwards, right. I’d say the other monsters in the film were part Harryhausen, a large part Muppets. In fact, we had to kind of steer away so that they didn’t look too much like some of the Muppets a little bit of what’s his name is Maurice Sendak. Yeah, we’re all these things that like, Okay, I love that. But we can’t do that, because that’s already been done. So you want to make your own kind of find your own piece of ground. You know,

Host
we’re just, we’re talking here. But there is, according to my research here took 11 to 12 hours to render a single strand of Selleys 2.3 million individual strands of hair. can that possibly be right, that adds up? We’d still be rendering

Peter Docter
Exactly. Yeah, it did take a long time. Well, you should check it out.

Host
Yeah, well, you know what, we’re just gonna put a line through it. We’re not going to go back to your kids for six and three, when you made this. And again, inside out we’ll talk about a little bit later on. But there is some personal stuff in that film. Is there anything of your kids in this film? Or is this something new looking? Yeah, in Monsters, I resist you primarily looking back.

Peter Docter
What happened was okay, I love work. You know, as soon as I got to Pixar, I would just stay there all day. And all night, my wife when we first got married, would we’d eat dinner. And then she’d come and play video games and fall asleep until I would wake her up at two in the morning when I was done animating, and we go home, and I go back to work because I just couldn’t get enough. And then we had a kid. And so monsters started at about the same time the kid did. And and as I was working on the film, I was like, This is great. And then my wife would say, he smiled for the first time. And you missed it, because you’re at work. And I was like, how do I make this go because I want to be in both places, but I can’t. And that really is what became this story, this sort of emotional backbone of monsters. A Solly, who’s a monster who loves his job, suddenly gets this kid which at first scary and weird, which is true of real kids. And then he grows to care for her more than he does the job. And so, you know, it’s that impossible struggle with no answer that I think makes for good stories.

Host
And I mean, I think it refers back to what you were talking about earlier that the stuff the sticky content is the stuff that comes from an emotional moment or an emotional epiphany or something that that may be only really known to you, but it comes through in the story somehow.

Peter Docter
Yeah. And it’s weird, as other people have noticed this too, that the more particular and specific you are in the storytelling, the more generally it applies, right? If you try to generalize, then nobody really gets anything. But if you’re very specific and personal about it, it seems to resonate more.

Host
Right. Billy Crystal is one of the things I think that made people really stand up and notice this film as well. Because of the voice work, and that sort of thing. He was approached for Buzz Lightyear, I heard and said, No. And how did you convince him to come on board for Monsters Inc.

Peter Docter
We said, Hey, Billy, would you and he said yes. He was sort of kicking himself. I think he said, I got bad advice from an agent or something. And he was kicking himself that he he had passed on Toy Story. Yeah. So I remember like, going to present to him, whoa, we have this film. And he was already kind of signed on. He told us later. So he was great. And it was a lot of fun working especially, that was really the first film that we got both of our lead actors in the studio at the same time, right?

Host
And see, I don’t ever really understand how you can record everyone separately. And still, I mean, I understand you can edit it together, you can move the dynamics. It always seems to me like the dynamics just couldn’t be there. But they are somehow make it work. But you more and more seem to be bringing actors in together in inside out. There were moments that you had more than one cast member of recording lines.

Peter Docter
You realize when This happens, how fortunate we are and how much control we have versus live action because sometimes actors spark and you get great stuff. Other times, they hesitate and falter. And you know, we’ve had experiments of, of actors reading opposite each other, and it was awful. And there was no chemistry and we had to go back and bring them all in individually and kind of create that. And really credit the editors, you know, starting with Leon crouch on Toy Story who, who create these, it’s, you know, you’ll have Tom Hanks recorded in LA, and Tim Allen recorded in New York three months later, and yet in the scene, they’re both together arguing about being stuck onto the truck, you know, and you totally believe that they’re talking to each other. And that’s good editing, good editing and just part of the magic. Yeah, work. Yeah.

Yeah. And that, you know, good direction to that the director is able to, and I’m not John. John is, and now and so. But

Host
but it’s a different directorial muscle, I would imagine, then it would be in live action, because you’re listening for something very specific, in one person’s performance at a time.

Peter Docter
Yeah. Yeah. When I first started, I thought my job was to have everything in my head, almost like a pre recorded vision of what it should be. And then I would listen and try to direct to that. And I realized, especially as they work with amazing actors, like Bill Hader, and Mindy Kaling, really, what I want to do is set the table and that let them play. Because I’m going to get better stuff, kind of like we talked at the very beginning. If you if you’re able to kind of say, Okay, this is what we’re doing right in here, but don’t define it so precisely, then there’s still a lot of experimenting and planning to do.

Host
But that’s got to be kind of scary, though the idea of going, or maybe, maybe I’m just too controlling. But the idea of going into a project, that you don’t really know exactly where it’s going to end up five years from now. And it’s going to cost a lot of money. And there’s a lot of people relying on on this particular thing to do well, that has to be nerve racking.

Peter Docter
Well, you want to know enough about where you’re going to be able to lead them, right? If you’re like, I don’t know what’s going on, then what else is either. But you know, so, for example, I guess, even in talking to animators, rather than saying, okay, he comes in, and he very quickly puts his hand on the glass, and then 15 frames later, he goes like this, I’m gonna say instead of that, because say, you know, that feeling when you come home from a long hike, and you are just drenched with sweat, and you’re so thirsty, that is what he’s feeling like as he comes in. And that way they can create, they can put in their own specifics of how that’s going to happen. You know what I mean? So you’re setting a scene, more of an emotional thing for them. And the same with lighting. Same with the live actors, you know, as much as I can kind of create the scene in their head and describe the feeling, then they’re going to fill in their own specifics and bring great ideas to it.

Host
Let’s talk about Wally. Cool. And this started from a visual. From what I understand, according to Andrew Stanton, it just the thought of this lonely robot still doing his job after hundreds of years. And do it my grammar. Yeah. And so what was the visual and what did it mean to you? You worked on the story on

Peter Docter
Wally. Yeah, I pitched that at the same time I pitched Monsters, Inc. And then again, that didn’t really John didn’t take to it. So I filed it away on the shelf. And then after monsters, I was like, Alright, I’m ready with the next one. It’s gonna be Wally at that time we called the trash planet. And it didn’t really stick again. I realized this is just not working for me. But luckily, Andrew loved it. And so he kind of took it and carry the torch. But yeah, it was really the that pure visual of panning across a Trad a planet that’s just full full of trash and then a little wall. And you’d see very neatly just the scale of the amount of time that this character had been working and working and working. And the thrill of doing something with no dialogue. Well,

Host
it was gonna say it’s a nervy project, because there’s virtually no dialogue for most of the film.

Peter Docter
You know, people have said that I’ve always scratch my head. I’m like, we did. Luxo Jr. Everybody loves Luxo Jr. There’s no dialogue at all. To me, it feels it felt like the most completely given thing in the world that we could, I had no doubt about it.

Host
But I would imagine, though, that when you don’t have the dialogue to fall back on that the character design then becomes a million times more important.

Peter Docter
There again, I think it’s almost the acting because I don’t know if you’ve ever seen like either puppets or minds where you’ll have no movement in the face. And yet still just through the movement, that timing of things, you’re able to get complete intention and what the character wants. And it’s it’s really a thrill when you see it done well. So yeah, but I mean the design is fantastic, of course and it has this amazing flexibility to get all of that know where that For that, where I struggled, and I think Andrew really succeeded. And the hard work of that was act two, because we had the setup where and we had a lot of fun developing all the stick and things that he would find and so on. But then what happens? Yeah, and that’s the hard part. What’s the story? Yeah.

Host
And again, are we talking months years?

Peter Docter
Well, let’s see, I guess in total, I would have spent maybe six months on it in two different stents before Andrew took it, and I think I don’t remember the timing, because I wasn’t on it at that point. But I think it was at least four years after that, that they finally released it.

Host
And without, I mean, I call this film nervy, I think I probably did at the time when it came out. Because it felt different to me than then a lot of other entertainment. Or animated entertainment. Certainly. And I wonder, without reducing anything to a formula? Because yeah, I don’t think you agree with me that it’s as nervous. I think it is. But because you were there, you’re on the inside looking out maybe. But without reducing anything down to a formula are there are there Pixar traits that that you can identify? And perhaps, you know, suggested? Well, Wally, you know, is more like Toy Story then then? I think it

Peter Docter
is? Well, I would say it’s, it goes back even further than that. All the short films that John did. Were songs dialogue. So you have 10 toy, Luxo reds dream, all of these are inanimate objects brought to life beautifully, just through movement. I mean, read this unicycle, I guess you guys have probably seen that. It’s just really beautifully done. And you totally know what’s going on in that character’s head and what he feels like he or she, I don’t know who it is. So, you know, I think it really that film almost goes back to in a sense even further than that, like Chaplin, and Keaton. And those kinds of things. We looked at a lot of those films along the way. And the animators did I know.

Host
Yeah, those films. I mean, I think that the you talked about Chaplin and Keaton, those films played so universally because of, you know, dialogues you can play everywhere in the world, but they also focused on really primal stuff, stuff that everyone the world over could understand love. Right? fallen down is always funny. You know, that kind of stuff. Holly Wally, right? Yeah, it is. It’s all in Gwalior. Yeah. Yeah. Now, when pics are, we talked about it seems new. But it’s been described in the interviews that I’ve read with you and some others as an old style studio still. And I mean, can you? Can you describe to me, and we’ve touched on this a little bit about it being a place where writers and directors really shaped their films, which I guess is where the old style studio idea comes from? Is that it? Well, I

Peter Docter
like to think of it. I wasn’t there, obviously. But the old Hollywood studio system. Like if you think of MGM, or Warner Brothers, these are studios that had 1000s of employees, and they were on salary. So the cameraman, whether they were working or not, was coming in every Monday and getting a paycheck. And they would work with, you know, John Ford to, you know, whoever, whoever they were working for. And Pixar is like that. So we have these amazing craftsmen and artists and that have been there for as long as you know, 20 years or however long they’ve been there. And they get better every film they learn from that. And they apply all that knowledge to the next one. So nowadays is you know, in live action, you assemble a crew scrappy, put everybody together, you make the film, and then they all scatter, and they have to look for other work. So it’s hard to even sometimes your key people, you know, most directors have a DP or whoever that they come back to. But sometimes they’re on another show. And so at Pixar, we have the benefit of all that shared learn knowledge that stays in the company,

Host
which is pretty cool. Yeah, it is pretty cool. And completely, like, possibly. That’s the only place that still happens. Yeah, you’re right. Yeah. We want to talk about I’m going to show a clip from up people in the booth. So I’m going to do that in just a sec, though. I wouldn’t. So How close was the original idea for up to Yeah, what we see here because I know, in the original idea, there was no young boy rustle wasn’t in there yet. So perhaps tell us a little bit about what the original idea was? If you can remember because it probably changed and morphed many times.

Peter Docter
Yeah. Well, it depends on how far back you go to define original. I guess. This one actually started from a story about two princes who lived in a floating city on an alien planet, believe it or not. And as we develop that, it was interesting at first, and then it went to this weird place of like, Who do I identify with here? I don’t understand. And, and and after a while, I realized, okay, we’re getting nowhere and I’ve got to get something that people can relate to. Right. So we start Everything but the essential elements of that story, which to me, the reason I was attracted to it was, I’m not an extrovert. So nobody told me that as a director, all you do is go around to talk to people all day. And so most of the time, at the end of monsters, I would want to crawl into my desk, and just kind of rock in a fetal position for a while. And so the idea of escaping of floating away, sounded really appealing. And so that’s what the floating city was. And we said, well, what if we make it a floating house? And well, it shouldn’t just be floating, it should have some sort of logic, maybe balloons. Yeah. Okay. And so we came up with this visual, and it was really intriguing. I couldn’t get it out of my head. And then we worked backwards from there to figure out why is this guy floating his house? Well, who is he? Why is he flooding? Why didn’t he just take the train or something? There must be a really good reason he’s floating his house. And where’s he going? So that then created this whole backstory of his wife, and their love for each other, and the promise that they’d made that was unfulfilled and led to that whole sequence that you were talking about, that people like and cry about, which is I always take as the greatest compliment when people tell me, I cried when I saw that.

Host
Boy, did they ever I saw. I saw late, you know, as today when I saw the the first hour of the new film, I saw about 45 minutes of up long before it was was open. You were here and showed it to us. And the response that it got, I don’t know if you remember, but the response was really electrifying people really felt like they were seeing something really special. And, yeah, it was cool. It was a cool thing to be a part of, and to see to be one of those moments to be in an audience. When you’re seeing something that you know, even though you’re only seeing a portion of it is going to be great. And and it really was quite something. And that scene was one of them. There was a lot of kind of, you know, response from people that but again, you know, I use the word nervy again a little bit. I mean, you don’t really I guess the Pixar films aren’t specifically made for kids, they are made with an audience in mind, but you don’t really think from what I understand you don’t think about kids, specifically, when you’re putting these together? Right. And, and I would suggest that was very obvious to me after seeing

Peter Docter
Yeah, up was Bob Peterson, who is writer and co director and Jonathan, I want you to make each other laugh and, and feel something. And so we wrote for ourselves, always, you know, we have we all have kids, and my kids were young at that time. And so I knew they were going to be watching it. So I didn’t want to scar them write something that they’ll relate to and be interested in. But we really are writing for ourselves and not to be selfish about it. Because I think in some ways, that’s our job, as filmmakers is first of all being an audience, right, you know, and we’re sort of a surrogate audience, until we can get a real one until we have something that we can show to a real audience. Yeah.

Host
Yeah. Any thoughts or any trepidation about making the main character sort of a curmudgeonly old man,

Peter Docter
that was one of the the key buy ins for me, Bob Peterson, and I were just saying, like, well, who’s in the house and who’s flying? And I think Bob first said, you know, I’ve always wanted to do something with a grouchy old man, like, Yeah, me too. I drawn him you know, like, growing up and stuff. There’s something funny about and I think you give him license right now, because he is an old man. He’s kind of weaker than like a healthy young young guy. So you he can be grouchy. Yeah, right. And I don’t dislike him for it. And asters

Host
the perfect Oh, yeah. Did you was he always was like, first choice, or was he? I know he

Peter Docter
chose like, recording sessions and you go, yo, again? Like, okay, this is perfect.

Host
You write with people in mind? Yeah, yeah.

Peter Docter
Yeah. What usually happens is at first, you kind of design the character based on I don’t know what exactly something that’s inside of you, or observations that you’ve seen in other people. And then you design the character in most, I think, all cases, on the films that I’ve worked on the characters already designed and built before their cast, right. So you know, it’s always curious to me when people say, Oh, Mike was ASCII looks just like Billy Crystal. Like, I don’t think Billy Crystal would take that as a cop. He’s one eyed green guy, but I think what happens is the animators listen, and they watch the video that we shoot of the actors and they capture these great little nuances to tie the visuals to the audio, right? And so that’s why they tend to look like the characters Yeah,

Host
because I would have thought that the the Ed Asner character looks like Ed Asner, but I guess it wasn’t really planned. I

Peter Docter
know we had designed him first and then we kind of found it as

Host
the as we just saw the dogs talk but they don’t talk is the way dogs traditionally do and films was what was the decision behind not having talking animals, or real talking in real, real talking animals

Peter Docter
that was inherited from another idea. And as Bob and I were working on this other thing, this character came out this talking dog, it was through some other reason in this original story. But at the beginning of up, we got this note for a long time, that as we show this, the film, John Lasseter, and Andrew would say, it feels like a list of things that you like, thrown together into this one movie. What they didn’t know is that earlier, we’d made a list of things that we liked, and we’ve, and that dog was in there. So it was, it was really born out of looking at we had dogs, I had a dog and Bob had a dog and we both do voices for dogs. And Bob, that’s the voice Bob did for his dog. And they’re always kind of you know, they’re a little limited in their intelligence. And so the the I have just met you, and I love you all that stuff came from from Bob goofing around. Now,

Host
you mentioned John Lasseter, I, you know, why was at Pixar A while ago, and people were telling me about the short film, the Steamboat Willie film, the new one, or the newest one nominated for an Academy Award, and how they were using Walt Disney his actual voice in it? Oh, yeah, except for one word there was they couldn’t find one word. And so they went to a sound editor, and they just sort of had him create the word using sounds that Walt made, but they formed the word and apparently lasted or watched it. Anyway. It’s great, except for any pinpointed the one word that wasn’t authentic, and the thing. And, you know, whether that’s apocryphal or not, I don’t know. But that’s what I’ve been told. What does he like to work with? Because the eye for detail, the the incredible way that he works, I think must be something.

Peter Docter
Yeah, that totally sounds like John, he has a real I think his weigh in on some of these, everybody comes at these films from a different place. And I think John’s, from what I’ve observed is through detail, like, I challenge you to find something that John doesn’t know, extreme amounts of knowledge already your shoes, oh, the I visited this factory once. And that’s the same here that the way that that the molding goes, he and he remembers everything. So he’s amazed, literally, okay, we were looking at crew jackets for Monsters University. And he said, Oh, let me let me see it. Because I used to have a way they were sort of letterman jacket style. He said, I had one when I was in 11th grade, and I studied the seamwork. And let me take a look. And he showed it like he knew everything about this jacket this, like what, who would have thought that so he really just, he is an amazing detail, just eye for detail. And then of course, amazing ability to put all that together and work with people is such a collaborative guy, you know, on the films that he directs, he just brings out the best in everybody. And everybody’s excited to work on those films. So it’s it’s he he also I can’t think of anyone else in the world who is better suited for what he does. And John John, I feel like he was doing what he does now even probably when he was 17. That is creating these worlds, collaborating with people bringing stuff together, thinking about everything from the very basic story Inklings all the way through to marketing and The Merchant of toys. He loves toys. So he’s the whole package I don’t know how to do without him.

Host
Maybe he doesn’t sleep? I don’t think he does. Maybe he doesn’t really don’t. Now you have said several times we’re move along to inside out. We want to get to that before we one at a time. And you’ve said several times that when you’re conceiving these stories that often you try and imagine what they would be like without dialogue. And is that a starting place that you came from? For Inside Out?

Peter Docter
No, no, no, inside out from the very getgo. So that was me just thinking Okay, what else can we do here? That would be fun and animation, and I don’t remember exactly my train of thought that led to emotions, emotions as characters, and what if we brought them and personified them sort of like, you know, a seven dwarfs or something like that is the analogy that Jonas came up with later that each one of these guys is a super caricatured, pushed extreme personality who understands the world through their own lens, right? And so,

Host
and only through their own lens, so anger is always angry, like there’s no downtime for anger and joy is always joyful and

Peter Docter
exactly so so that was one that even from the very beginning I kind of thought this is an ensemble comedy. This is going to be have probably a lot of dialogue, and it’s going to come A lot of the hammer is going to come out of the approach that each one of these characters bring to that and end in conflict with each other. So,

Host
and this story, again, we talked about the sticky content, we talked about a personal connection to them, you have a very personal connection to this story. And one of which is your daughter. Yeah, who was a happy go lucky 11 year old, not so much when she was 12. Yeah, and, and so, starting there, and you would also had suggested that perhaps your growing up was a little rocky in some ways as well, which I think is all

Peter Docter
I think it’s why I’m an animator, I don’t have to talk to people if I can draw right here and draw. But yeah, my daughter actually did the voice of young Ellie, the very beginning of, and she was a lot like that kid in that movie. And then yeah, when she got to be 11, she was much more quiet and changed a lot, you know? And we’re like, what’s going on inside of her head? And then I was thinking, Well, let’s find out. So we kind of used that as a setting, the kid is both a character and a setting in the film. And it’s really been one of the hardest things I’ve ever done probably the hardest, because we’re making up an entire world that doesn’t really exist.

Host
We have because it’s not inside the brain. It’s inside the mind, right? It’s a different thing. And so it’s a it sounds like splitting hairs, but it is a different thing. Yeah, we

Peter Docter
don’t have dendrites and blood vessels and stuff. We have long term memory, our dream production or subconscious, you know, places that these guys get to go and travel inside the mind, which has been a blast, abstract thought, you know, things that could only really be done in animation. So that’s been it’s been really fun. It’s been a, it’s really interesting that this will give nothing away. But I saw the first clip from this at D 23. But a year and a half ago. And it’s it’s it struck me that it was being played the clip that I signed away, it felt broad to me, I thought, Oh, this is gonna be like an all out broad, very broad comedy, that the dinner. Yeah. Yeah. And, and I just may have seen that, that that’s the basis of that first trailer.

Host
Yeah, it’s the basis of the first trailer. So they’re having dinner and the young girls, you know, having some mood swings, yeah. And her parents are using their emotions to try and figure out what’s going on. And they’re not connecting particularly well. And it’s very funny clip. But the movie isn’t exactly that the movie is very funny. But the movie, I was really struck with how deeply it gets into the idea that as children grow up, they change in big ways. And we see this in, illustrated in in her brain or in her mind, using very sort of easy to understand ideas about, you know, ideas or little balls and that kind of thing. And it lays it out for us. But there’s something that’s really beautifully deep about the the idea of this child changing in front of you. And I watched it and I thought, you know, I think this is only the kind of subtle representation of this that only a parent could really understand or have made.

Peter Docter
Well, thanks. It was a film that we started to tell from the kids point of view. And then as Ronnie del Carmen, who’s the co director on the film, realized, wait a minute, we’re telling our story as parents watching the kid and so that central relationship is what is thrown into question joy, and her kid, because all the emotions, I mean, this is something that Mindy Kailyn we were talking a couple of weeks ago, and she’s she said she, what she loved about the film is that all the emotions are there for their kid. And there’s something kind of comforting to know that you have this team of advisors, that’s working for you that are plugging away trying to make sure that you don’t get taken advantage of that you don’t get hurt that you don’t get poisoned, you know, all the everybody has their own job. And it’s it’s pretty cool.

Host
Was there a note from the collective hive mind that Pixar that you can think of particularly, that helped shape what the story is? Because, again, I know that the story changed a number of times, but there was Was there one thing that somebody in the group said that shifted the focus of what the film might have been?

Peter Docter
Well, I mean, we got so much help from John from Andrew, everybody along the way. There was a I don’t mean to make this about me, but we were kind of two and a half, three years into the project.

Host
The thing is called in conversation with Pete Docter, oh, you can make it about.

Peter Docter
We were about three years into the project. And we were at the point where we needed to get approvals and move forward and move into production. And we were coming up to a screening and I was like, something about this just isn’t working. And I, let’s see, how do I tell this without giving too much away of the story now that I’ve gotten into it? Well, I’ll say one thing that we were really playing with a lot at that time was fear because fear was a big part of my junior high library probably controlled way More than I’d care to admit. And so that was a central thread that relationship between joy and fear. And I realized in this moment of weakness that that, okay, this film’s not working, we’re gonna have to move into production. I’ve got nothing What if I, what if I just leave and go to Mexico? What if I get fired? What are the things that I’m going to miss? What are the things that really mattered to me, and it was my friends and my family. And I started thinking about why that is. And I think, yeah, these are people that I’ve been happy and had good times with, but they’re also people I’ve been mad at, and scared for, and sad width. And I realized, wait a minute, emotions are at the core of the most important thing in our entire lives. And that is the relationships that we have with each other. And that is something we’re already using in the film, if we just steer it the right way, we can make this really something deep and meaningful, I think. Right? So we’ll leave it to you to see if if we did

Host
it. Yeah. Well, the the hour that I saw has that. And I know that the How long will it be in total?

Peter Docter
It’s about 84 minutes. 85? Yeah, remember, half hour?

Host
The the Pixar, you often do research trips, for your things. And I know for up you went to Venezuela, I think it went to Argentina. This was presumably a little less Scenic. Yeah, you know, what, what sort of research did you do?

Peter Docter
Well, we did a bunch of stuff that you’d probably expect, like we talked to psychologists, neurologists did as much study on sort of the the basic build up of how the brain works as we possibly could. But then we also did weird things like the art department visited an egg farm. And I think,

Host
the inside of the mind when the like, well, the little core memories, and

Peter Docter
Yeah, cuz you’ll see we have all these memories everywhere. And they have to be sorted and catalogued in some way. So we thought, well, that’s already being done in in mass market, you know, food. So let’s go check out how they do it. And maybe we can learn some stuff. So there was, there’s all these kind of weird tangent things that always come up. But that’s part of the fun.

Host
Yeah, it is part of the fun. And the film is very rich visually, one of the things that I hadn’t noticed before, but notice today, when I saw it on the big screen, was that each of the emotions are these sort of amorphous, they have a little, they don’t feel real. They feel like you can put your hand through them. Yeah, yeah, there’s a ghostly kind of feel. Not ghostly. But there’s a there’s a different feel to them, then real world character. Yeah, we

Peter Docter
wanted to make sure that they looked like emotions, the way we feel about stuff, not just little humans, flesh and blood, so so they’re a fog with these little frontward facing discs that look like roiling atoms or something. And hopefully, the whole thing is subtle enough that you you at first, you just take them as characters. And then when you look close, you’re like, oh, wow, what’s happening there? So especially in close ups, it’s really beautiful.

Host
It’s really beautiful. Yeah, it sort of put me in the mind of Tinkerbell and sort of that old school Disney kind of,

Peter Docter
you know, yeah, joy, when she moves really fast, she kind of leaves some of her particles behind. So you get this kind of glittery effect. And

Host
there is something that that looks a little different than the real world computer animation. It when we’re in the mind, particularly joy, who tends to move a little faster than everyone else played by Amy Poehler. But her leg stretch and thinks it’s more like tech savory, it’s more like an homage to what came before it.

Peter Docter
Well, going back to, you know, my roots, I love those films, and Chuck Jones and Tex Avery especially. So it was finally getting to a place where you know, in the early days of Toy Story and stuff, we couldn’t really do that. I mean, you could for very short amounts of time, but you couldn’t sustain it for a feature. So this is finally we had developed technology that allowed us to do these great stretches and, you know, distortions and things. And if used properly in the right hands, it could be really cool. Of course the call also be used for evil. Yeah, if it’s in the wrong hands. In other words, it can, it can be really kind of off putting in the community too much. Yeah. So that means this film even more than any of the rest, I think relied on great artistry in the animation.

Host
Thank you so much for being here this evening. Thank you some Pete. Thank you so much. Really great insight into the process inside out opens June 19. Yeah. Buy your tickets now people. And yeah, and

Peter Docter
in fact, now that you mentioned inside out, you know, we brought something that you might be interested to see. Are you interested?

Unknown Speaker
We have a feel like they might we have the first what is it like 10 minutes, seven minutes of the film. So I’ll say I’ll say thank you and thank you You will get out of your hazing Thank you very much everybody

Peter Docter
Hi everyone. Good evening my name is Chase is candy fear. I’m the Director of Adult Learning here at TIFF and the program of in conversation with it’s my distinct pleasure to welcome you to tonight’s in conversation with Pete Docter. It is now my distinct pleasure to introduce your host for this evening. He is one of our favorites. Richard Krause is the film critic for seat CTVs Canada AM CTV News Channel and CP 24. He was the host of reel to reel Canada’s longest running television show about movies and as a frequent guest on many national Canadian radio and television shows. His syndicated Saturday afternoon radio show the Richard crow show originates on news talk 1010 in Toronto. He is author of eight books including Elvis’s King, asta Costello’s my aim is true. He also writes a weekly column for the Metro newspaper and I’m sure a lot of you remember when he was on stage with Professor Del Toro amazing event, Guillermo del Toro, please join me in welcoming our host for the evening, Richard Kress. Everybody. Thank you all for coming. We’ve got I think, what’s going to be a really exciting, cool and enlightening conversation ahead. Pete Docter is the Oscar winning director of Monsters Inc. and up and vice president creative at Pixar Animation Studios. His latest film, Disney Pixar is inside out is scheduled to release on June 19 of this year, I saw the first 56 minutes of it today. And it’s really something so you’re in for a treat. You’ll have to wait till June for that. Yeah, I don’t. But make this clear. I don’t, but you will. We’re going to cover a great deal of Pete’s career starting from working at Pixar in 1990 Straight up through to the experience of making this new film. And it is rare, I think, to have someone who is currently at the forefront. Currently, someone who’s changing the way that a certain genre or a certain kind of movie is made. And in terms of animation, Pixar does that every single day. And in terms of movies like inside out and up in Monsters Inc, Pete Docter, and friends who will be announced later, are doing that every single day working at Pixar. So it’s very exciting to have Pete Docter here this evening, we’re gonna kick things off with a Pixar sizzle reel. Just to remind you, I know everyone here has seen all the movies a dozen times, we’re gonna just let your or get you excited about all this and then we will be out to start the conversation. Enjoy please help me welcome Pete Docter.

Host
Welcome, thanks, thanks for having me. Well, listen, these people are very excited people have been at noon, people are waving people are excited to see you look at this. Cool. We’re excited to have you here. And we’re going to talk about a lot of things in the next hour or so. But I want to talk about where the love of animation comes from. I want to talk about you making your first flip book when you’re eight years old, and how an eight year old goes from watching Saturday afternoon cartoons or whatever it was going to the matinees and seeing Chuck Jones cartoons to actually going I think I can do that at home.

Peter Docter
Yeah. Well, that’s a good question. I don’t really remember.

Host
Make something up because they will believe anything you say.

Peter Docter
I did grew up watching Saturday morning cartoons that Chuck Jones we’re all always my favorite. Disney, you know, wonderful world that Disney would come on. This is in the old days before even VHS maybe there was VHS, but we didn’t have it right. And so you just pray please, please be animation, please. It’d be like, Oh, Charlie, the Lonesome Cougar. Okay. I’ll watch it anyway, you know. But I then discovered flipbooks. And I started drawing them like in the corners of my math book and stuff. And I made a big stack of them. And then my dad had a Super Eight camera. And I figured out well if I flip the flip book, and then I took it one step further and just shot one frame at a time. And so I kind of like discovered what all the old guys had known already. how animation works. It’s basically you know, creating one frame at a time and that’s kind of how I fell in love with it. And it’s the same thing I get to do today. Only we use millions of dollars worth of computer equipment instead of 39 cents for the papers

Host
in rendering farms. Yeah, I just learned about rendering firms render farm Yeah, where you send all the information to be public. That’s

Peter Docter
a big bank of all the computers that we have that render the files and, and in the old days, when we started on Toy Story, we set it up so that when a frame would finish, it would make a sound like an animal so and we named all the machines cow horse, chicken. So it sounded like a render farm and the front. It’s pretty cool.

Host
Now, what were some of the like, what were the subjects that you were looking at? When you were making these flip books? What kind of things? Were you telling stories where you’re just making things move? Or what was it about those

Peter Docter
at the very beginning? See, okay, there’s always the guy, you guys probably have this, who sits and draws and you’re just like, Wow, that’s amazing. Look at that horse or the dragon or whatever. That was not me. I wanted to be that guy. But I couldn’t draw, I struggled with drawing, I have my whole life. And people say that they think I’m good or whatever, but I struggle. And but as soon as I found movement, I was hooked. And so I figured at first it was just like making anything move. And then I realized, Wait, when I do something funny, people like that more. And so that kind of led me to storytelling, really.

Host
And it seems an odd choice to become an animator, when, as you say, you can’t draw very well. But it is perhaps more of the understanding of how motion works, and, and how it all fits together than it is the actual nuts and bolts of being able to draw a face.

Peter Docter
Well, I mean, I think out of necessity, I, I learned to draw better than I could. And then when I got to Pixar, I didn’t have to draw and I was happy to leave that and that struggle, daily struggle with noses in the wrong place. But I could still do the movement, and the gestures and the acting, which is what I really loved. Right?

Host
And Pixar, you started the day after school. There was no messing around you, you made a straight line from trainings directly into a career that you’ve had now for 2520 going on 25 years.

Peter Docter
Well, I was lucky, I was born at a good time I credit my mom for that. And everybody, yeah. Up till that time. Basically, if you are an animator, if you were lucky, you’re one of like four people who would get a job animating he-man in the Masters of the Universe or something like this, which was not really high quality stuff. When I got out of school, The Simpsons was just starting up. Disney was back. They were doing a little mermaid just starting up on that. And Pixar was hiring. So I had all this opportunity. But for whatever weird reason. And nobody knew about Pixar at this time. It basically made hardware as a company. They’ve done some of the short films. But I, you know, I kind of look back and scratch my head and say, Why did I decide to go to this computer hardware company instead of going to Disney or some of these other places? And I think the answer is the short films that John Lasseter and the other guys did. They’re just fantastic. And that’s what got me hooked.

Host
And what were those early days, like, you know, I had this idea that is just this bubbling beehive of creativity. And is it or was it like that at the time because they weren’t? You know, at the time, they weren’t making Toy Story yet, shortly after you got there, but they weren’t doing that work yet,

Peter Docter
right? Yeah, no, they were doing we were doing short films and some commercials that just started up commercials. It was kind of like hanging out in your friend’s garage, making stuff just for fun. You know, it was about that level of like the furniture was at about that level two is not like a fancy place. And we would draw on the walls and have paintball fights and laser tag in the hallways and stuff like that. Just because it was fun and it was a rental the building was and then you know as we got going it slowly evolved in that we hired more people so on to

Host
was that kind of anything goes spirit. Did that feed the creativity that you may have felt in there? I mean, it seems like it was I don’t know Wilds the word. But it certainly you know you were you were free to experiment?

Peter Docter
I think so. There’s something that I noticed in other people that we’ve gotten a chance to I can’t believe that I’ve gotten a chance to work with people like Amy Poehler. But she has a similar thing to what was going on at Pixar, which is, let’s make this a fun thing. Right? Like any situation. When Jonas Rivera producer and I met her for the first time it was in an elevator, and she was right away goofing around with people and having fun and like, it’s almost like her brain says, How can I make this interesting, you know, and Pixar was kind of like that to where we would anytime new computers would come up, we’d be like, Ooh, how can I use I can send sounds to that other computer and make it embarrassing sounds like that guys machine. Okay, you know, so it’s all like tools to goof around with, right? And we spend a lot of time doing that.

Host
And then so you’re making commercials, short films, that sort of thing, and then someone comes up with the idea Going around for Toy Story. And you were one of the people that helped create the characters, one of the three people that helped create the main characters in Toy Story. And you’ve said that each one of you identified with a different character. So I guess the obvious question is Which character were you most identify? Where do you most identify with? And and how does that process work? Because I understand that film is by its very nature, a collaborative process. And it has to be I mean, there’s hundreds of people working on anything. But from what I understand Pixar takes that even one step further than you would on on almost any other film at everyone seems to be working together in this amorphous kind of way that that is, I think, a little bit unusual.

Peter Docter
Yeah, kind of befuddled me when we started because my vision, see, when I grew up, I always thought the way it worked is Walt Disney is sitting in bed, and he sits up and he goes Dumbo, and they just, and he goes to work. And he has the whole film in his head and the opening shot, we see a stork and he flies down. And so that was what I seriously think in the back of my head. I believe that’s how it works. So I was waiting for John to come in and tell us what are we going to do? And instead, he would come in and go, Well, what do you think, guys? And I was like, What this doesn’t have? Wow. So you know, as it turns out, of course, John’s enormously clever because instead of just his brain, which is already pretty great. He gets all these other brains. And if you steer people the right way, you get all the ideas from a great community of people. The key is, of course, steering in the right way. So it’s not like old west with with stuff going everywhere. But

Host
like your texts a record? Yeah.

Peter Docter
So that was fun.

Host
Yeah. And so that, is that. Yeah. And it still works that way. Yeah. I mean, is it? I mean, you’ve been there for 25 years? Is it? It? Does it still feel as collaborative? Does it still feel as given take, as it always has, with, you know, a shelf full of Academy Awards and and every other award imaginable? Probably tucked away in your office somewhere? You would think that normally success changes things in that sort of way.

Peter Docter
It’s changed. Yeah. And I say that to provoke just to get you to go what it’s changed. But it has an Ed Catmull is fond to saying it would be if it didn’t change, it would be dead. Right, right. So since Toy Story, we did the whole film, I think with like 120 people, right, which is maybe a third of the crew that we have now for a film. And the studio was about 150. And now it’s 1200 or something. So it’s definitely changed several times over. But that’s a good thing. In terms of what you’re asking about, yeah, it’s still very much a collaborative effort. Everybody is able to contribute. And you know, from John Lasseter to janitors, to anybody who sees the film and wants to send ideas or talk to us and all and yeah, if it’s a good idea, I’ll take it from anywhere. Well, it’s

Host
funny, because I was bragging before you came out that I saw the first hour of Yeah, film today. And it is interesting, you were saying that, you know, to get to the point where you’re ready to show it to people like me, you showed it to the HR department one day, and then you showed it to you know, bookkeeping, and you showed it to whoever is sort of in the building that isn’t doing anything for the next hour and a half come on in and have a look at this. And you know, how seriously, do you take these test audiences?

Peter Docter
We take it very seriously, because what happens is, over the course of five years, strangely, you get kind of close to it. Yeah. And so sometimes it’s hard to tell, do I like this? Am I sick of it? Where do I actually stand in this? And it’s so clarifying to see with an audience, sometimes, they don’t have to even you’re like, just don’t say anything, I know exactly what’s wrong. Having now seen it kind of through your eyes, it’s really helpful. And of course, you know, the way we generally work is, we’ll have a concept. Develop that for a while. Right aversion, door script it, we have a team of storyboard artists to kind of draw up a comic book version of this thing, we cut it on video with dialogue, music and sound effects. And we approximate what it’s going to be like to watch the film when it’s all done, even though it’s just, you know, stick figure pretty rough drawings. Usually, that whole process from concept to there is usually about a year and a half. And then thereafter, what happens is we screen it, everybody who we invited, comes up to a room and tells us what they liked what they didn’t like. And we then the creative team, kind of the core creative team goes away and says, What do you guys think? What should we do? How do we want to change this and just and then we do that whole thing all over again. And we do it about seven or eight times before the film is really ready to produce Well, I

Host
was surprised today and we’ll talk about inside out a little bit later on. But it guy don’t want to join us we’ve got so much else to do. But I was surprised today for the The hour that I saw is beautiful and seamless, and the story flows so beautifully. And then you spoke of it and said, Oh, yeah, we changed everything we changed. You know, there’s some of the characters, we changed out completely. And we and and it was surprising to me because I have this idea that, you know, it’s enormously expensive. It’s enormously time consuming all those things to make any change and a big animated thing like that. How many rendering firms? Do you have going 24 hours a day to make these changes? And, and it really,

Peter Docter
it is horribly time consuming. Yeah, it is horribly expensive soul

Host
destroying a little bit when you’ve worked on? Yeah. For months and months and months, and then it just doesn’t work. Yeah, yeah. But I

Peter Docter
think the lucky stars that we work at a company that we allow ourselves to do that we because I don’t know, none of us could be, you know, it wouldn’t come out. Well, the first time never does. It always sucks at some point. Yeah. And so the fact that we’re able to make mistakes and allow ourselves to try stuff and iterate and not have the pressure of it’s got to be perfect the first time out. Yeah, that’s the only reason our stuff is any halfway. Good. So.

Host
So, Toy Story. First one, you were one of the three writers, which character did you most identify with? I’ll go back to that one.

Peter Docter
Well, okay. So Andrew, John’s obviously directing and Andrew, I think really got a bead on on Woody. And I kind of identified more with buzz for some reason, I don’t really know why. But I just felt like I could write for him and kind of act him out and things. So yeah, that became kind of a good dynamic for

Host
the two of us. And over the course of how many years that was about four or four and a half, four and a half years. And first time you’ve worked on something of that size. First time that Pixar has stepped out and said, feature film, you know, this, look at look at what we’re doing here. What, what was going through your head during those four and a half years, because it’s all new, you’re doing you know, you’re you’re breaking new ground.

Peter Docter
So not only was it the first feature film, it was the first feature film any of us had worked on. So other than Joe ramped, who came a little bit later to the party, he had worked on some features down at Disney brave little toaster and the other one he Rescuers Down Under he was had a story on that. But other than he none of us had experience. So we were just flying by the seat of our pants, kind of saying what feels right, what instinctively have we wanted to try and, you know, we sort of made, we made a list of things of sort of cliches that we wanted to avoid. We didn’t want the our little town song and the I Want song and all these different heroes or villains that grow huge in the third act, all the things that we had seen in, in animated films that we wanted to steer clear of. But then you know, that’s all easy to say at the beginning, then you have the tough work of actually making it play, which is just doing it over and over.

Host
And was there a moment, there must have been a moment where you watched it with the HR department or somebody and you sat there and you’re like, we don’t have to change this anymore.

Peter Docter
No, no, it’s never that well, when it’s finished. When it’s funny when it’s really changing. I mean, it feels like we’re working, working working well. Okay, that’s gonna take it away. That’s when it’s done. Really? Yeah. I think if we did not have deadlines, we would seriously still be working on Toy Story one, really. Because we, we just can’t stop otherwise.

Host
Well, and one of the Joe Grant, one of the legendary Disney artists and story man, he was responsible for your story director on Fantasia. And so you’re, you’re, you know, that’s back catalogue. You’re digging deep here was one of the people that helped you out with Monsters Inc. Yeah. And so I really I find it was really interesting as I have read more, and I learned more about this, how this very cutting edge technology that you’re using, and in a lot of ways, pushing the ideas of what animated storytelling can be in up having a character die, all that sort of thing, which I mean we’ve seen before but then the first time I saw that with an audience, I had to you know, cover myself with a towel to start from getting so by the tears that were happening. I mean, it really pushed the envelope in terms of that sort of thing. But I’ve been impressed all the way along that you dig deep and and refer and pay homage to what came before

Peter Docter
well that was one of the great pleasures for me in working on Toy Story in the success of Toy Story was that I got to meet these heroes of mine like Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston. Unfortunately Milt call had passed, he was my favorite animators, just man that guy can animate. We got to meet Chuck Jones and I struck struck up a really great friendship with Joe. Joe Grant, as you mentioned, who I talked a lot about, like what was it like doing this and what were you thinking on? You know Dumbo and so on? And according to him, he was like nothing has changed. It’s the same thing we’re doing now as we were then. And one thing he always more than once would mention is what are you giving the audience to take home? Right? And that always kind of puzzled me at first. But as we talked about, I realized what he meant was, okay, there’s all the fun of bright colors and movement. But what the next day or in two months are people going to think about that is in your film. And usually that comes down to something either life truth, something that you’ve experienced in your own life, or something that is really emotional. Those are the things that really mean something to you. So on every film that I’ve worked on, you know, we’re always digging for something like that something that’s really going to matter to people

Host
do have moments in films, not of your own films, but in other films, when that sort of idea of sticky content was placed in front of you. And you’re thinking, Yeah, you know, think back to your childhood and movies that really affected you. Do you have those moments that you can tell us about?

Peter Docter
Well, I mean, I was a huge Muppets fan. And the Muppet Movie, I think, had that for me, you know, Kurt’s journey out and kind of believing in himself and all those things. Later, of course, other films that really bowled me over where a Paper Moon, the Bogdanovich film, the relationship between the two of Addie prey and you know, fantastic. There’s, there’s tons of them. But you know, the other one that just mentioned is the station agent by Tom McCarthy. The first time I saw that, I was like, wow, this is really simple, deceptively simple. And that’s something that I admire, and I wish I was better at, which is taking something and making it very, very simple. Just because I think a lot of times we packed way too much stuff into, you know, I guess that happens. After five years you keep someone else will fit

Host
in there, too. Yeah, one more thing. Yeah, yeah, the station agent with Bobby Kandivali. And Peter Dinklage first time I’d seen either of those actors, and it is a movie that stays stays with it definitely along afterwards. So Monsters Inc, you’re you’re you’re developing this, again, we’re talking lengthy four or five year turnaround on these things. When you’re first coming up with this idea. Did you think back to you know what your monsters were like, when you were a kid? That sort of thing that maybe kept you up at night or not? Or what you imagined was under the bed? And if so, what were those things?

Peter Docter
Yeah, well, let’s see. Just backing up a minute. Toy Story finished, and everybody else was moving on to Bug’s Life. And I said, Well, what if I go off and develop something, there was no real. I didn’t think I would direct it or anything. I was just going to develop an idea that I was imagining John would direct. But I thought to myself, like a lot of people after that film, Toy Story came up to me and said, You know, I thought my toys came to life too. And I was thinking, Well, I wonder if there are other things that are like that, that we all kind of know, as kids know. And monsters. I knew there were monsters in the closet in mind there the closet, not the bed. But different strokes, man. That’s right. And the basement, the basement was, and I remember the day this the day that they went from being monsters to mass murders that were a big pivotal thing, like 1415 years old.

Host
Yeah.

Peter Docter
So that was that was the the kind of source of that and then, you know, we I get to work with great folks like Jeff pigeon, Joel Colton, who just would sit weeds. What we did at that one was we got this big roll of butcher block, and I’d roll it out on the table and cut it off. And we just sit there and draw on this big table, we just talk about what what if, what if we had this guy who scares kids for living and, and we would talk and draw and I’d cut out what I wanted. And I would at the end of the day, go home and type something up and we’d start the next day with here’s the story we came up with yesterday and I pitch it to them and then they go well, but what about this and we roll another sheet out and we’d start again and so we just kind of worked that way for a couple of at least a couple months before we had anything right and keep going from

Host
there but and that film was notable for any number of reasons but I remember hearing that just to render the for alone talk an enormous amount of dough like a ridiculous amount of time because no one had really made for that looked like that before right and so is was that one of those situations where you you know are talking to the to the computer animators and just go Yeah, I went for and I want it to be really realistic, which I got to do

Peter Docter
i that except falls with please please. So yeah, no, we early on kind of put us flag in the ground and said I think we’re going to need for this and we’re also going to need this doesn’t get as much credit but we’re this kid has been taken from her bedroom. So she’s got to have like some sort of saggy like night shirt or something like that. And that we had not done if you go back and look at Toy Story. All the clothes are very form fitting because they’re articulated there. They’re not Dynamic they don’t move unless they’re keyframed to move. So between those two things that really had the technical directors sweating a little bit, and we actually, there’s a small company that had done some pioneering work that we ended up buying the it was two guys once Canadian, I forgotten. And so they developed the basis of that simulation software that we’d still use today.

Host
And Ray Harryhausen was an influence. Yeah, I knew Ray Harryhausen, you know, roomful of animation. You know who Ray I don’t need to, I don’t have to explain who Ray Harryhausen is to you. But Ray Harryhausen was was a big influence on you in terms of the monster design. I understand tell me, because I love his work. I love the idea of the stop motion animation because it feels organic, and it feels it feels like someone’s hands were really there. But the monsters were also really cool. They were that’s the Yeah, that’s the other party for sure.

Peter Docter
And of course, that’s we paid homage to him by naming the sushi restaurant afterwards, right. I’d say the other monsters in the film were part Harryhausen, a large part Muppets. In fact, we had to kind of steer away so that they didn’t look too much like some of the Muppets a little bit of what’s his name is Maurice Sendak. Yeah, we’re all these things that like, Okay, I love that. But we can’t do that, because that’s already been done. So you want to make your own kind of find your own piece of ground. You know,

Host
we’re just, we’re talking here. But there is, according to my research here took 11 to 12 hours to render a single strand of Selleys 2.3 million individual strands of hair. can that possibly be right, that adds up? We’d still be rendering

Peter Docter
Exactly. Yeah, it did take a long time. Well, you should check it out.

Host
Yeah, well, you know what, we’re just gonna put a line through it. We’re not going to go back to your kids for six and three, when you made this. And again, inside out we’ll talk about a little bit later on. But there is some personal stuff in that film. Is there anything of your kids in this film? Or is this something new looking? Yeah, in Monsters, I resist you primarily looking back.

Peter Docter
What happened was okay, I love work. You know, as soon as I got to Pixar, I would just stay there all day. And all night, my wife when we first got married, would we’d eat dinner. And then she’d come and play video games and fall asleep until I would wake her up at two in the morning when I was done animating, and we go home, and I go back to work because I just couldn’t get enough. And then we had a kid. And so monsters started at about the same time the kid did. And and as I was working on the film, I was like, This is great. And then my wife would say, he smiled for the first time. And you missed it, because you’re at work. And I was like, how do I make this go because I want to be in both places, but I can’t. And that really is what became this story, this sort of emotional backbone of monsters. A Solly, who’s a monster who loves his job, suddenly gets this kid which at first scary and weird, which is true of real kids. And then he grows to care for her more than he does the job. And so, you know, it’s that impossible struggle with no answer that I think makes for good stories.

Host
And I mean, I think it refers back to what you were talking about earlier that the stuff the sticky content is the stuff that comes from an emotional moment or an emotional epiphany or something that that may be only really known to you, but it comes through in the story somehow.

Peter Docter
Yeah. And it’s weird, as other people have noticed this too, that the more particular and specific you are in the storytelling, the more generally it applies, right? If you try to generalize, then nobody really gets anything. But if you’re very specific and personal about it, it seems to resonate more.

Host
Right. Billy Crystal is one of the things I think that made people really stand up and notice this film as well. Because of the voice work, and that sort of thing. He was approached for Buzz Lightyear, I heard and said, No. And how did you convince him to come on board for Monsters Inc.

Peter Docter
We said, Hey, Billy, would you and he said yes. He was sort of kicking himself. I think he said, I got bad advice from an agent or something. And he was kicking himself that he he had passed on Toy Story. Yeah. So I remember like, going to present to him, whoa, we have this film. And he was already kind of signed on. He told us later. So he was great. And it was a lot of fun working especially, that was really the first film that we got both of our lead actors in the studio at the same time, right?

Host
And see, I don’t ever really understand how you can record everyone separately. And still, I mean, I understand you can edit it together, you can move the dynamics. It always seems to me like the dynamics just couldn’t be there. But they are somehow make it work. But you more and more seem to be bringing actors in together in inside out. There were moments that you had more than one cast member of recording lines.

Peter Docter
You realize when This happens, how fortunate we are and how much control we have versus live action because sometimes actors spark and you get great stuff. Other times, they hesitate and falter. And you know, we’ve had experiments of, of actors reading opposite each other, and it was awful. And there was no chemistry and we had to go back and bring them all in individually and kind of create that. And really credit the editors, you know, starting with Leon crouch on Toy Story who, who create these, it’s, you know, you’ll have Tom Hanks recorded in LA, and Tim Allen recorded in New York three months later, and yet in the scene, they’re both together arguing about being stuck onto the truck, you know, and you totally believe that they’re talking to each other. And that’s good editing, good editing and just part of the magic. Yeah, work. Yeah.

Yeah. And that, you know, good direction to that the director is able to, and I’m not John. John is, and now and so. But

Host
but it’s a different directorial muscle, I would imagine, then it would be in live action, because you’re listening for something very specific, in one person’s performance at a time.

Peter Docter
Yeah. Yeah. When I first started, I thought my job was to have everything in my head, almost like a pre recorded vision of what it should be. And then I would listen and try to direct to that. And I realized, especially as they work with amazing actors, like Bill Hader, and Mindy Kaling, really, what I want to do is set the table and that let them play. Because I’m going to get better stuff, kind of like we talked at the very beginning. If you if you’re able to kind of say, Okay, this is what we’re doing right in here, but don’t define it so precisely, then there’s still a lot of experimenting and planning to do.

Host
But that’s got to be kind of scary, though the idea of going, or maybe, maybe I’m just too controlling. But the idea of going into a project, that you don’t really know exactly where it’s going to end up five years from now. And it’s going to cost a lot of money. And there’s a lot of people relying on on this particular thing to do well, that has to be nerve racking.

Peter Docter
Well, you want to know enough about where you’re going to be able to lead them, right? If you’re like, I don’t know what’s going on, then what else is either. But you know, so, for example, I guess, even in talking to animators, rather than saying, okay, he comes in, and he very quickly puts his hand on the glass, and then 15 frames later, he goes like this, I’m gonna say instead of that, because say, you know, that feeling when you come home from a long hike, and you are just drenched with sweat, and you’re so thirsty, that is what he’s feeling like as he comes in. And that way they can create, they can put in their own specifics of how that’s going to happen. You know what I mean? So you’re setting a scene, more of an emotional thing for them. And the same with lighting. Same with the live actors, you know, as much as I can kind of create the scene in their head and describe the feeling, then they’re going to fill in their own specifics and bring great ideas to it.

Host
Let’s talk about Wally. Cool. And this started from a visual. From what I understand, according to Andrew Stanton, it just the thought of this lonely robot still doing his job after hundreds of years. And do it my grammar. Yeah. And so what was the visual and what did it mean to you? You worked on the story on

Peter Docter
Wally. Yeah, I pitched that at the same time I pitched Monsters, Inc. And then again, that didn’t really John didn’t take to it. So I filed it away on the shelf. And then after monsters, I was like, Alright, I’m ready with the next one. It’s gonna be Wally at that time we called the trash planet. And it didn’t really stick again. I realized this is just not working for me. But luckily, Andrew loved it. And so he kind of took it and carry the torch. But yeah, it was really the that pure visual of panning across a Trad a planet that’s just full full of trash and then a little wall. And you’d see very neatly just the scale of the amount of time that this character had been working and working and working. And the thrill of doing something with no dialogue. Well,

Host
it was gonna say it’s a nervy project, because there’s virtually no dialogue for most of the film.

Peter Docter
You know, people have said that I’ve always scratch my head. I’m like, we did. Luxo Jr. Everybody loves Luxo Jr. There’s no dialogue at all. To me, it feels it felt like the most completely given thing in the world that we could, I had no doubt about it.

Host
But I would imagine, though, that when you don’t have the dialogue to fall back on that the character design then becomes a million times more important.

Peter Docter
There again, I think it’s almost the acting because I don’t know if you’ve ever seen like either puppets or minds where you’ll have no movement in the face. And yet still just through the movement, that timing of things, you’re able to get complete intention and what the character wants. And it’s it’s really a thrill when you see it done well. So yeah, but I mean the design is fantastic, of course and it has this amazing flexibility to get all of that know where that For that, where I struggled, and I think Andrew really succeeded. And the hard work of that was act two, because we had the setup where and we had a lot of fun developing all the stick and things that he would find and so on. But then what happens? Yeah, and that’s the hard part. What’s the story? Yeah.

Host
And again, are we talking months years?

Peter Docter
Well, let’s see, I guess in total, I would have spent maybe six months on it in two different stents before Andrew took it, and I think I don’t remember the timing, because I wasn’t on it at that point. But I think it was at least four years after that, that they finally released it.

Host
And without, I mean, I call this film nervy, I think I probably did at the time when it came out. Because it felt different to me than then a lot of other entertainment. Or animated entertainment. Certainly. And I wonder, without reducing anything to a formula? Because yeah, I don’t think you agree with me that it’s as nervous. I think it is. But because you were there, you’re on the inside looking out maybe. But without reducing anything down to a formula are there are there Pixar traits that that you can identify? And perhaps, you know, suggested? Well, Wally, you know, is more like Toy Story then then? I think it

Peter Docter
is? Well, I would say it’s, it goes back even further than that. All the short films that John did. Were songs dialogue. So you have 10 toy, Luxo reds dream, all of these are inanimate objects brought to life beautifully, just through movement. I mean, read this unicycle, I guess you guys have probably seen that. It’s just really beautifully done. And you totally know what’s going on in that character’s head and what he feels like he or she, I don’t know who it is. So, you know, I think it really that film almost goes back to in a sense even further than that, like Chaplin, and Keaton. And those kinds of things. We looked at a lot of those films along the way. And the animators did I know.

Host
Yeah, those films. I mean, I think that the you talked about Chaplin and Keaton, those films played so universally because of, you know, dialogues you can play everywhere in the world, but they also focused on really primal stuff, stuff that everyone the world over could understand love. Right? fallen down is always funny. You know, that kind of stuff. Holly Wally, right? Yeah, it is. It’s all in Gwalior. Yeah. Yeah. Now, when pics are, we talked about it seems new. But it’s been described in the interviews that I’ve read with you and some others as an old style studio still. And I mean, can you? Can you describe to me, and we’ve touched on this a little bit about it being a place where writers and directors really shaped their films, which I guess is where the old style studio idea comes from? Is that it? Well, I

Peter Docter
like to think of it. I wasn’t there, obviously. But the old Hollywood studio system. Like if you think of MGM, or Warner Brothers, these are studios that had 1000s of employees, and they were on salary. So the cameraman, whether they were working or not, was coming in every Monday and getting a paycheck. And they would work with, you know, John Ford to, you know, whoever, whoever they were working for. And Pixar is like that. So we have these amazing craftsmen and artists and that have been there for as long as you know, 20 years or however long they’ve been there. And they get better every film they learn from that. And they apply all that knowledge to the next one. So nowadays is you know, in live action, you assemble a crew scrappy, put everybody together, you make the film, and then they all scatter, and they have to look for other work. So it’s hard to even sometimes your key people, you know, most directors have a DP or whoever that they come back to. But sometimes they’re on another show. And so at Pixar, we have the benefit of all that shared learn knowledge that stays in the company,

Host
which is pretty cool. Yeah, it is pretty cool. And completely, like, possibly. That’s the only place that still happens. Yeah, you’re right. Yeah. We want to talk about I’m going to show a clip from up people in the booth. So I’m going to do that in just a sec, though. I wouldn’t. So How close was the original idea for up to Yeah, what we see here because I know, in the original idea, there was no young boy rustle wasn’t in there yet. So perhaps tell us a little bit about what the original idea was? If you can remember because it probably changed and morphed many times.

Peter Docter
Yeah. Well, it depends on how far back you go to define original. I guess. This one actually started from a story about two princes who lived in a floating city on an alien planet, believe it or not. And as we develop that, it was interesting at first, and then it went to this weird place of like, Who do I identify with here? I don’t understand. And, and and after a while, I realized, okay, we’re getting nowhere and I’ve got to get something that people can relate to. Right. So we start Everything but the essential elements of that story, which to me, the reason I was attracted to it was, I’m not an extrovert. So nobody told me that as a director, all you do is go around to talk to people all day. And so most of the time, at the end of monsters, I would want to crawl into my desk, and just kind of rock in a fetal position for a while. And so the idea of escaping of floating away, sounded really appealing. And so that’s what the floating city was. And we said, well, what if we make it a floating house? And well, it shouldn’t just be floating, it should have some sort of logic, maybe balloons. Yeah. Okay. And so we came up with this visual, and it was really intriguing. I couldn’t get it out of my head. And then we worked backwards from there to figure out why is this guy floating his house? Well, who is he? Why is he flooding? Why didn’t he just take the train or something? There must be a really good reason he’s floating his house. And where’s he going? So that then created this whole backstory of his wife, and their love for each other, and the promise that they’d made that was unfulfilled and led to that whole sequence that you were talking about, that people like and cry about, which is I always take as the greatest compliment when people tell me, I cried when I saw that.

Host
Boy, did they ever I saw. I saw late, you know, as today when I saw the the first hour of the new film, I saw about 45 minutes of up long before it was was open. You were here and showed it to us. And the response that it got, I don’t know if you remember, but the response was really electrifying people really felt like they were seeing something really special. And, yeah, it was cool. It was a cool thing to be a part of, and to see to be one of those moments to be in an audience. When you’re seeing something that you know, even though you’re only seeing a portion of it is going to be great. And and it really was quite something. And that scene was one of them. There was a lot of kind of, you know, response from people that but again, you know, I use the word nervy again a little bit. I mean, you don’t really I guess the Pixar films aren’t specifically made for kids, they are made with an audience in mind, but you don’t really think from what I understand you don’t think about kids, specifically, when you’re putting these together? Right. And, and I would suggest that was very obvious to me after seeing

Peter Docter
Yeah, up was Bob Peterson, who is writer and co director and Jonathan, I want you to make each other laugh and, and feel something. And so we wrote for ourselves, always, you know, we have we all have kids, and my kids were young at that time. And so I knew they were going to be watching it. So I didn’t want to scar them write something that they’ll relate to and be interested in. But we really are writing for ourselves and not to be selfish about it. Because I think in some ways, that’s our job, as filmmakers is first of all being an audience, right, you know, and we’re sort of a surrogate audience, until we can get a real one until we have something that we can show to a real audience. Yeah.

Host
Yeah. Any thoughts or any trepidation about making the main character sort of a curmudgeonly old man,

Peter Docter
that was one of the the key buy ins for me, Bob Peterson, and I were just saying, like, well, who’s in the house and who’s flying? And I think Bob first said, you know, I’ve always wanted to do something with a grouchy old man, like, Yeah, me too. I drawn him you know, like, growing up and stuff. There’s something funny about and I think you give him license right now, because he is an old man. He’s kind of weaker than like a healthy young young guy. So you he can be grouchy. Yeah, right. And I don’t dislike him for it. And asters

Host
the perfect Oh, yeah. Did you was he always was like, first choice, or was he? I know he

Peter Docter
chose like, recording sessions and you go, yo, again? Like, okay, this is perfect.

Host
You write with people in mind? Yeah, yeah.

Peter Docter
Yeah. What usually happens is at first, you kind of design the character based on I don’t know what exactly something that’s inside of you, or observations that you’ve seen in other people. And then you design the character in most, I think, all cases, on the films that I’ve worked on the characters already designed and built before their cast, right. So you know, it’s always curious to me when people say, Oh, Mike was ASCII looks just like Billy Crystal. Like, I don’t think Billy Crystal would take that as a cop. He’s one eyed green guy, but I think what happens is the animators listen, and they watch the video that we shoot of the actors and they capture these great little nuances to tie the visuals to the audio, right? And so that’s why they tend to look like the characters Yeah,

Host
because I would have thought that the the Ed Asner character looks like Ed Asner, but I guess it wasn’t really planned. I

Peter Docter
know we had designed him first and then we kind of found it as

Host
the as we just saw the dogs talk but they don’t talk is the way dogs traditionally do and films was what was the decision behind not having talking animals, or real talking in real, real talking animals

Peter Docter
that was inherited from another idea. And as Bob and I were working on this other thing, this character came out this talking dog, it was through some other reason in this original story. But at the beginning of up, we got this note for a long time, that as we show this, the film, John Lasseter, and Andrew would say, it feels like a list of things that you like, thrown together into this one movie. What they didn’t know is that earlier, we’d made a list of things that we liked, and we’ve, and that dog was in there. So it was, it was really born out of looking at we had dogs, I had a dog and Bob had a dog and we both do voices for dogs. And Bob, that’s the voice Bob did for his dog. And they’re always kind of you know, they’re a little limited in their intelligence. And so the the I have just met you, and I love you all that stuff came from from Bob goofing around. Now,

Host
you mentioned John Lasseter, I, you know, why was at Pixar A while ago, and people were telling me about the short film, the Steamboat Willie film, the new one, or the newest one nominated for an Academy Award, and how they were using Walt Disney his actual voice in it? Oh, yeah, except for one word there was they couldn’t find one word. And so they went to a sound editor, and they just sort of had him create the word using sounds that Walt made, but they formed the word and apparently lasted or watched it. Anyway. It’s great, except for any pinpointed the one word that wasn’t authentic, and the thing. And, you know, whether that’s apocryphal or not, I don’t know. But that’s what I’ve been told. What does he like to work with? Because the eye for detail, the the incredible way that he works, I think must be something.

Peter Docter
Yeah, that totally sounds like John, he has a real I think his weigh in on some of these, everybody comes at these films from a different place. And I think John’s, from what I’ve observed is through detail, like, I challenge you to find something that John doesn’t know, extreme amounts of knowledge already your shoes, oh, the I visited this factory once. And that’s the same here that the way that that the molding goes, he and he remembers everything. So he’s amazed, literally, okay, we were looking at crew jackets for Monsters University. And he said, Oh, let me let me see it. Because I used to have a way they were sort of letterman jacket style. He said, I had one when I was in 11th grade, and I studied the seamwork. And let me take a look. And he showed it like he knew everything about this jacket this, like what, who would have thought that so he really just, he is an amazing detail, just eye for detail. And then of course, amazing ability to put all that together and work with people is such a collaborative guy, you know, on the films that he directs, he just brings out the best in everybody. And everybody’s excited to work on those films. So it’s it’s he he also I can’t think of anyone else in the world who is better suited for what he does. And John John, I feel like he was doing what he does now even probably when he was 17. That is creating these worlds, collaborating with people bringing stuff together, thinking about everything from the very basic story Inklings all the way through to marketing and The Merchant of toys. He loves toys. So he’s the whole package I don’t know how to do without him.

Host
Maybe he doesn’t sleep? I don’t think he does. Maybe he doesn’t really don’t. Now you have said several times we’re move along to inside out. We want to get to that before we one at a time. And you’ve said several times that when you’re conceiving these stories that often you try and imagine what they would be like without dialogue. And is that a starting place that you came from? For Inside Out?

Peter Docter
No, no, no, inside out from the very getgo. So that was me just thinking Okay, what else can we do here? That would be fun and animation, and I don’t remember exactly my train of thought that led to emotions, emotions as characters, and what if we brought them and personified them sort of like, you know, a seven dwarfs or something like that is the analogy that Jonas came up with later that each one of these guys is a super caricatured, pushed extreme personality who understands the world through their own lens, right? And so,

Host
and only through their own lens, so anger is always angry, like there’s no downtime for anger and joy is always joyful and

Peter Docter
exactly so so that was one that even from the very beginning I kind of thought this is an ensemble comedy. This is going to be have probably a lot of dialogue, and it’s going to come A lot of the hammer is going to come out of the approach that each one of these characters bring to that and end in conflict with each other. So,

Host
and this story, again, we talked about the sticky content, we talked about a personal connection to them, you have a very personal connection to this story. And one of which is your daughter. Yeah, who was a happy go lucky 11 year old, not so much when she was 12. Yeah, and, and so, starting there, and you would also had suggested that perhaps your growing up was a little rocky in some ways as well, which I think is all

Peter Docter
I think it’s why I’m an animator, I don’t have to talk to people if I can draw right here and draw. But yeah, my daughter actually did the voice of young Ellie, the very beginning of, and she was a lot like that kid in that movie. And then yeah, when she got to be 11, she was much more quiet and changed a lot, you know? And we’re like, what’s going on inside of her head? And then I was thinking, Well, let’s find out. So we kind of used that as a setting, the kid is both a character and a setting in the film. And it’s really been one of the hardest things I’ve ever done probably the hardest, because we’re making up an entire world that doesn’t really exist.

Host
We have because it’s not inside the brain. It’s inside the mind, right? It’s a different thing. And so it’s a it sounds like splitting hairs, but it is a different thing. Yeah, we

Peter Docter
don’t have dendrites and blood vessels and stuff. We have long term memory, our dream production or subconscious, you know, places that these guys get to go and travel inside the mind, which has been a blast, abstract thought, you know, things that could only really be done in animation. So that’s been it’s been really fun. It’s been a, it’s really interesting that this will give nothing away. But I saw the first clip from this at D 23. But a year and a half ago. And it’s it’s it struck me that it was being played the clip that I signed away, it felt broad to me, I thought, Oh, this is gonna be like an all out broad, very broad comedy, that the dinner. Yeah. Yeah. And, and I just may have seen that, that that’s the basis of that first trailer.

Host
Yeah, it’s the basis of the first trailer. So they’re having dinner and the young girls, you know, having some mood swings, yeah. And her parents are using their emotions to try and figure out what’s going on. And they’re not connecting particularly well. And it’s very funny clip. But the movie isn’t exactly that the movie is very funny. But the movie, I was really struck with how deeply it gets into the idea that as children grow up, they change in big ways. And we see this in, illustrated in in her brain or in her mind, using very sort of easy to understand ideas about, you know, ideas or little balls and that kind of thing. And it lays it out for us. But there’s something that’s really beautifully deep about the the idea of this child changing in front of you. And I watched it and I thought, you know, I think this is only the kind of subtle representation of this that only a parent could really understand or have made.

Peter Docter
Well, thanks. It was a film that we started to tell from the kids point of view. And then as Ronnie del Carmen, who’s the co director on the film, realized, wait a minute, we’re telling our story as parents watching the kid and so that central relationship is what is thrown into question joy, and her kid, because all the emotions, I mean, this is something that Mindy Kailyn we were talking a couple of weeks ago, and she’s she said she, what she loved about the film is that all the emotions are there for their kid. And there’s something kind of comforting to know that you have this team of advisors, that’s working for you that are plugging away trying to make sure that you don’t get taken advantage of that you don’t get hurt that you don’t get poisoned, you know, all the everybody has their own job. And it’s it’s pretty cool.

Host
Was there a note from the collective hive mind that Pixar that you can think of particularly, that helped shape what the story is? Because, again, I know that the story changed a number of times, but there was Was there one thing that somebody in the group said that shifted the focus of what the film might have been?

Peter Docter
Well, I mean, we got so much help from John from Andrew, everybody along the way. There was a I don’t mean to make this about me, but we were kind of two and a half, three years into the project.

Host
The thing is called in conversation with Pete Docter, oh, you can make it about.

Peter Docter
We were about three years into the project. And we were at the point where we needed to get approvals and move forward and move into production. And we were coming up to a screening and I was like, something about this just isn’t working. And I, let’s see, how do I tell this without giving too much away of the story now that I’ve gotten into it? Well, I’ll say one thing that we were really playing with a lot at that time was fear because fear was a big part of my junior high library probably controlled way More than I’d care to admit. And so that was a central thread that relationship between joy and fear. And I realized in this moment of weakness that that, okay, this film’s not working, we’re gonna have to move into production. I’ve got nothing What if I, what if I just leave and go to Mexico? What if I get fired? What are the things that I’m going to miss? What are the things that really mattered to me, and it was my friends and my family. And I started thinking about why that is. And I think, yeah, these are people that I’ve been happy and had good times with, but they’re also people I’ve been mad at, and scared for, and sad width. And I realized, wait a minute, emotions are at the core of the most important thing in our entire lives. And that is the relationships that we have with each other. And that is something we’re already using in the film, if we just steer it the right way, we can make this really something deep and meaningful, I think. Right? So we’ll leave it to you to see if if we did

Host
it. Yeah. Well, the the hour that I saw has that. And I know that the How long will it be in total?

Peter Docter
It’s about 84 minutes. 85? Yeah, remember, half hour?

Host
The the Pixar, you often do research trips, for your things. And I know for up you went to Venezuela, I think it went to Argentina. This was presumably a little less Scenic. Yeah, you know, what, what sort of research did you do?

Peter Docter
Well, we did a bunch of stuff that you’d probably expect, like we talked to psychologists, neurologists did as much study on sort of the the basic build up of how the brain works as we possibly could. But then we also did weird things like the art department visited an egg farm. And I think,

Host
the inside of the mind when the like, well, the little core memories, and

Peter Docter
Yeah, cuz you’ll see we have all these memories everywhere. And they have to be sorted and catalogued in some way. So we thought, well, that’s already being done in in mass market, you know, food. So let’s go check out how they do it. And maybe we can learn some stuff. So there was, there’s all these kind of weird tangent things that always come up. But that’s part of the fun.

Host
Yeah, it is part of the fun. And the film is very rich visually, one of the things that I hadn’t noticed before, but notice today, when I saw it on the big screen, was that each of the emotions are these sort of amorphous, they have a little, they don’t feel real. They feel like you can put your hand through them. Yeah, yeah, there’s a ghostly kind of feel. Not ghostly. But there’s a there’s a different feel to them, then real world character. Yeah, we

Peter Docter
wanted to make sure that they looked like emotions, the way we feel about stuff, not just little humans, flesh and blood, so so they’re a fog with these little frontward facing discs that look like roiling atoms or something. And hopefully, the whole thing is subtle enough that you you at first, you just take them as characters. And then when you look close, you’re like, oh, wow, what’s happening there? So especially in close ups, it’s really beautiful.

Host
It’s really beautiful. Yeah, it sort of put me in the mind of Tinkerbell and sort of that old school Disney kind of,

Peter Docter
you know, yeah, joy, when she moves really fast, she kind of leaves some of her particles behind. So you get this kind of glittery effect. And

Host
there is something that that looks a little different than the real world computer animation. It when we’re in the mind, particularly joy, who tends to move a little faster than everyone else played by Amy Poehler. But her leg stretch and thinks it’s more like tech savory, it’s more like an homage to what came before it.

Peter Docter
Well, going back to, you know, my roots, I love those films, and Chuck Jones and Tex Avery especially. So it was finally getting to a place where you know, in the early days of Toy Story and stuff, we couldn’t really do that. I mean, you could for very short amounts of time, but you couldn’t sustain it for a feature. So this is finally we had developed technology that allowed us to do these great stretches and, you know, distortions and things. And if used properly in the right hands, it could be really cool. Of course the call also be used for evil. Yeah, if it’s in the wrong hands. In other words, it can, it can be really kind of off putting in the community too much. Yeah. So that means this film even more than any of the rest, I think relied on great artistry in the animation.

Host
Thank you so much for being here this evening. Thank you some Pete. Thank you so much. Really great insight into the process inside out opens June 19. Yeah. Buy your tickets now people. And yeah, and

Peter Docter
in fact, now that you mentioned inside out, you know, we brought something that you might be interested to see. Are you interested?

Unknown Speaker
We have a feel like they might we have the first what is it like 10 minutes, seven minutes of the film. So I’ll say I’ll say thank you and thank you You will get out of your hazing Thank you very much everybody

The Ultimate Guide to Screenplay Competitions

November 10, 2021March 26, 2020 by Guest Post

Screenplay Competitions

Back in 1998, when I went to list the BlueCat Screenplay Competition as a new screenplay contest on the Internet, I was surprised to see there were already well over a hundred contests already in existence. This was 20 years ago! I can’t tell you how many have come and gone since then, but there are a bunch more now.

Screenplay contests do not have a good reputation. Why?

Because they’re a rip off!

Well, that’s not an accurate generalization, but like everything in the film and television industry, some experiences are more valuable than others. Writers do derive a legitimate benefit from entering screenplay contests, and some do not.

With so many screenplay contests, fellowships, labs, festivals, grants and competitions out there, what should a writer look for? What separates the best from the rest? Is there a single reason why you should enter your script?

Here are some things you might consider when choosing a screenplay contest:

Who are the judges?

Do you know who’s in charge of evaluating the scripts? What are their qualifications? Are they writers themselves? Who reads the scripts? Who hires the readers? Can you Google the administrators of the contest?

It’s important for a contest to be transparent. They might have a giant cash reward, but if you don’t know who runs the contest, what does that say about the competition?

What if they cite industry representatives involved in the judging of the scripts—do you know what their role is? Do they read all the submissions? Or only the top ten?

Does your script get read completely?

When you enter a contest, do you have proof they read your entire script? Is that important to you? It might not be. You might be comfortable with a contest reading the first 30 pages and then making a decision. Again, they might have the track record to back up their adjudication system. Yet reading your script until the end would be a fair expectation when submitting to a contest.

Does the contest have a history of finding writers that go on to have careers?

You can rely on contests with a record of previous winners going on to become professional writers. Taking a second look might reveal some of the alumni highlights could be seen as being more impressive than others. Study the careers of the previous winners. Are they now professional writers? Have you seen the work of the alumni yourself? Evaluate the track record of their “success stories.” And if they don’t have a track record, ask yourself why you’re entering screenplay contests.

How many contests do they run? How long have they been around?

There are a lot of first-year contests that are very exciting to submit for. And competitions that have been around for decades might not be what you’re looking for. But in general, new contests have not been tested, and the older ones have. Keep your mind open for the exceptions.

Does the contest run multiple times a year? Different niche contests? It’s fun to enter a genre contest, for example. Yet, how effective can they be in adjudicating all these contests? Who’s to say they can’t run all of them professionally. But the larger and established competitions run once a year. They do not have an 8-12 month submission period for a reason. What’s the reason?

What do people say?

Check for reviews on social media and message boards. Ask members of forums and writing groups for their experience in entering contests. Don’t take the first bad comment about competition and decide not to enter. A writer might be upset they didn’t advance in the contest or feel personally hurt over feedback they received. Do the research you would if you were checking out a new restaurant or school.

Be sure to see if the contests kept to their deadlines. Use Google to see if they have extended their deadlines in the past, or took a while to announce the results after they said they would. Why would a contest extend their deadlines or delay announcing their results? Is that in the interests of screenwriters?

Look for regional contests

Here’s a tip: look for contests held in your state by the local film offices. Or the chamber of commerce in your city might be having a screenplay contest. These contests are usually judged by industry folks that grew up there. Plus you won’t be competing against a lot of other scripts. Always enter any and all local writing opportunities.

What do you win?

Some competitions offer cash prizes, feedback and/or access to the industry. Review the prizes carefully. When they say $100,000, is that cash? Or value? Sometimes when you throw in a photo editing software that’s worth $3000, suddenly the actual cash they are providing as a prize is much less. What companies do they promise a relationship with? Go on IMDB and see who the managers represent. Always vet the prizes of the competition.

How much do they cost?

With so many contests out there, you would have to have a nice size budget to enter them all. Review how much each submission costs you. When you enter early, what’s the discount? Some competitions charge extra for additional services like feedback.

After reviewing these guidelines, you probably have a better idea of whether you want to enter a contest. Yet there’s one more very important thing to consider, something often overlooked.

How do they support writers when they’re not marketing and soliciting entry fees?

This is probably the best way to evaluate a writing competition. The mission of every contest is to help writers. Do they? If you have to pay for a chance to have them help you, and it’s worth it, fine. What else are they doing? Do they provide content that helps you as a writer? Some contests hold conferences and panels, write blogs and shoot videos, all in an effort to develop writers. Is it free? If not, why? Check your list and see what the screenwriting competition is doing for writers beyond a sales job and a “SUBMIT NOW” link. This is the best way to see the heart and mind behind the contest and how it will serve you best.

In the end, screenwriting competitions are not for everyone, yet they play an important role in discovering and developing talent, benefitting the writers themselves and the industry at large. And ultimately, the audience, which is what writing for film and television is for.

And always remember: writing today is the best way to win, and when you write, you’ve already won.

Gordy Hoffman is the Founder and Judge of the BlueCat Screenplay Competition. His screenplay Love Liza won the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award at the 2002 Sundance Film Festival and was distributed by Sony Pictures Classics.

Winning Screenwriting Competitions: Lessons Learned

Years ago when I received word that my screenplay, Control; Alt; Delete, had won not one but two screenwriting competitions, I believed that all the hard work, years of struggle, self-doubt, and rejection had culminated to a glowing achievement that would forever wash away the specter of failure: I had climbed the mountain to see my shining new horizon as a working screenwriter.

And it was marvelous.

Things just seemed to be going my way: I got an agent, a manager, and a well-known producer who was going to make my script into a feature. I had meetings with big production companies with studio deals, pitched projects to major producers, was courted with screenwriting assignments – it was my time to shine.

And then it unraveled.

Not suddenly… no. It was more like an incremental closing of a window that you thought was wedged open by accolades of your winning script. One thing happens, and then another, and another.

In and of itself, not one was a devastating setback, but collectively they amounted to an avalanche of overwhelming loss. My agent left the industry, my manager ceased being a manager, and the producer moved on… so did those screenwriting assignments.

In the end, I was back to where I started from, a scribe in name only with little to show for but a glimpse at what could have been.

Was I crushed? You bet. I questioned everything I did; every decision made. What could I have done better? Was I too cavalier? Was I too dedicated? Did I try too hard; could I have tried harder? Was this window of opportunity squandered forever?

Well, was it?

It’s not an easy question to answer. I do believe that those changes have come and gone like that girl you didn’t kiss when you should have: that magic moment will never be replicated.

However, I did learn a lot from the experience – the stuff you don’t learn in film school – call it the film school of hard knocks. And with that, I would like to share some of those lessons learned.

Are You REALLY a Screenwriter?

For years I asked myself the question, am I a screenwriter? You would think it’s an easy question to answer. Living in Los Angeles I’ve rubbed shoulders with those who could answer “yes” to that question within the span of a heartbeat; however, for me the moniker held so much emotional baggage that to answer it with a resounding yes was virtually impossible.

Partly because to call yourself a screenwriter is to give yourself a label that requires proof on several levels:

1) Have you’ve been paid to write?

2) Have you sold any scripts?

3) Do you do it full time?

4) Has anything you’ve written been professionally produced?

5) Are you currently writing something that will be optioned, purchased or produced?

6) Do you have a literary agent?

7) Do you have a literary manager?

If reading this you felt the illusion of calling yourself a screenwriter quickly dissipated by the stark reality that you answered no to most of these questions, then you’re in good company.

At one time I was able to answer yes to four of the above questions, yet even so, I felt the unease of embracing the title because to call it a full fledged career had been as elusive as Tom Cruise winning an Academy Award™ — eventually you think it’s bound happen…eventually.

So maybe you do what I did when someone asked,

“what do you do?”

Squirm a little, furrow your brow, and say with a withered response,

“um, I… write.”

Hopefully that would be enough information, but invariably I would be expected to elaborate.

“Um… I write screenplays.”

I would then proceed to fill in some of the blanks,

“Nothing produced yet, but I’ve come close.”

So are you REALLY a screenwriter?

Well if you simply reserve the title of screenwriter to only those who are gainfully employed doing it, then yes, there’s only a few who can legitimately file their income tax return with the epithet “screenwriter.”

But, what if instead answering the above questions that focus more on the accomplishments of a successful screenwriting career, you were asked a series of different questions:

1) Do you make the time (not just find the time) to write everyday?

2) Have you completed a script? Better yet, have you completed multiple scripts?

3) Have you shared your writing with others and are accepting of constructive criticism?

4) Do you constantly seek ways to better your skills in the craft and discipline of being a screenwriter?

5) Are willing to forgo other career possibilities and weather through years of rejection, disappointment, and at times abject failure?

6) Do you actively search for stories to tell with a unique voice to share with the world.

7) Do write not because you choose to, but because you HAVE to?

If you answered yes to most if not all those questions, then as far as I have come to discover you embody the true essence of what a screenwriter is.

And it is only by answering yes to the later questions that you will ever be able to answer in the affirmative the former questions. So the question remains, are you really a screenwriter?

Am I? Let’s just say in my soul I am and for that reason I proclaim YES!

David R. Flores is a writer and artist (@sicmonkie) based in Los Angeles. He is the creator of the comic book series Dead Future King published by Alterna Comics and Golden Apple Books. Website: www.davidrflores.com

The Coen Brothers Scripts Collection: Screenplays Download

November 17, 2021March 26, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

The Coen Brothers (Joel Coen and Ethan Coen) are two of the most unique voices on the cinema’s stage today. Their career has been going strong for over 30 years. When you read a Coen Brothers screenplay you know that your world will be turned upside down.

When you are done reading take a listen to Apple’s #1 Screenwriting Podcast The Bulletproof Screenwriting Podcast, with guest like Oscar Winner Eric Roth, James V. Hart, David Chase, John August, Oliver Stone and more.

Watch the Coen Brother’s short films Tuileries (Paris, Je T’aime) and World Cinema.

(NOTE: For educational and research purposes only).

Blood Simple (1984)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Raising Arizona (1987)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Miller’s Crossing (1990)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Barton Fink (1991)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Fargo (1996)

**Won the Oscar** Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

The Ladykillers (2004)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Burn After Reading (2008)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

A Serious Man (2009)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

True Grit (2010)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Inside Llewyn Davis (2013)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Bridge of Spies (2014)

Screenplay by Matt Charman, Joel, and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Unbroken (2014)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen, Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson- Read the screenplay!

Hail, Caesar! (2016)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Suburbicon (2017)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)

Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Cohen – Read the screenplay!

Martin Scorsese Scripts Collection: Screenplays Download

November 17, 2021March 20, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

Below you’ll find a list of almost every film in Martin Scorsese’s filmography and the screenplay associated with that film. Take a watch of Martin Scorsese discussing his process below. The screenplays below are the only ones that are available online. If you find any of his missing screenplays please leave the link in the comment section.

When you are done reading take a listen to Apple’s #1 Screenwriting Podcast The Bulletproof Screenwriting Podcast, with guest like Oscar Winner Eric Roth, James V. Hart, David Chase, John August, Oliver Stone and more.

Watch Martin Scorsese’s short films Reflection On Isolation ,What’s A Nice Girl Like You Doing In A Place Like This and The Big Shave.

(NOTE: For educational and research purposes only).

M. Night Shyamalan Scripts Collection: Screenplays Download

November 14, 2021March 20, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

Before you go to see Glass, take a listen to the M. Night Shyamalan as he discusses his screenwriting and filmmaking process. The screenplays below are the only ones that are available online. If you find any of his missing screenplays please leave the link in the comment section.

When you are done reading take a listen to Apple’s #1 Screenwriting Podcast The Bulletproof Screenwriting Podcast, with guest like Oscar Winner Eric Roth, James V. Hart, David Chase, John August, Oliver Stone and more.

(NOTE: For educational and research purposes only).

Labor of Love (2019)

Screenplay by M. Night Shyamalan – Read the screenplay

After Earth (2013)

Screenplay by M. Night Shyamalan & Gary Whitta – Read the screenplay!

The Happening (2008)

Screenplay by Frank Darabont – Read the screenplay

The Village (2004)

Screenplay by M. Night Shyamalan – Read the screenplay!

Signs (2002)

Screenplay by M. Night Shyamalan – Read the screenplay!

Unbreakable (2000)

Screenplay by M. Night Shyamalan – Read the screenplay!

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Screenplay by M. Night Shyamalan – Read the screenplay!

Paul Thomas Anderson Scripts Collection: Screenplays Download

November 17, 2021March 20, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

Paul Thomas Anderson is considered one of our greatest living writer/directors. His filmography might not be long but if packs a punch. His screenplays are a masterclass in the craft. Take a listen to Paul Thomas Anderson discussing her storytelling techniques. The screenplays below are the only ones that are available online. If you find any of his missing screenplays please leave the link int he comment section.

When you are done reading take a listen to Apple’s #1 Screenwriting Podcast The Bulletproof Screenwriting Podcast, with guest like Oscar Winner Eric Roth, James V. Hart, David Chase, John August, Oliver Stone and more.

(NOTE: For educational and research purposes only).

HARD EIGHT (1996)

Screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – Read the screenplay!

BOOGIE NIGHTS (1997)

Screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – Read the screenplay!

MAGNOLIA (1999)

Screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – Read the screenplay!

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002)

Screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – Read the screenplay!

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007)

Screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – Read the screenplay!

THE MASTER (2012)

Screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – Read the screenplay!

INHERENT VICE (2014)

Screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – Read the screenplay!

PHANTOM THREAD (2017)

Screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson – Read the screenplay!

Paul Thomas Anderson: Breaking Down His Directing Style & Techniques

Some people are quick learners, some people have a keen sense already and polish their skill while some seem to have been born with the skill and talent to accomplish something great.

Paul Thomas Andersonfamously known as P.T Anderson happens to be such a filmmaker who seems to have been born with the ability and eye of a filmmaker. Born on the 26^thof June, 1970 P.T Anderson was born in Studio City, California to Ernie and Edwina Anderson.

Paul Thomas Anderson — Credit: Paul Thomas Anderson

Ernie Anderson was the renowned and familiar voice of ABC and a horror show host Ghoulardi, which used to run on Cleveland television late at night. San Fernando is the place where the young P.T Anderson grew up. He did not have a close bond with his mother and shared a troubled relationship with her, but he was particularly close with his father Ernie whose support and encouragement made him make a place for himself by being a writer or a director.

Being the third youngest of nine siblings, Anderson attended numerous schools which included Buckley in Sherman Oaks, John Thomas Dye School and then Campbell Hall School. He and his group of friends were always up to something related to filming and shooting and which got a bit out of control for which his parents sent him to Cushing Academy which was a very refined boarding school.

He had his share of attending elite schools but never really fit the mold. As he was skinny, smart and had a sharp tongue too. Being sent too far from the man he idolized didn’t bode well for him, and somehow he talked his way back and ended up in Montclair Prep and that is where he began to grow in the true sense.

Anderson was interested in film making since a young age. It will be surprising to know that he made his first movie when he was 8 years of age. Ernie, his father knowing his son’s passion gave him a Betamax video camera when Paul was 12 years old and since then, it started. Paul’s teenage life thorough out schooling went by shooting something or another.

Teenage Filmmaker

He has living been living his life following his teenage life motto, anything for a shot. His friends tell how annoyed they used to get because that camera used to be with him anywhere and everywhere and he shot anything he set his mind to. Anderson seemed to have been born with a sense of how the camera could relate to the people and the images could be utilized to narrate a story. And that is exactly how he became a renowned American film director, screen writer and producer.

Anderson had no alternative plan to directing films. After his Betamax he began using 8mm film and arrived at the conclusion that video was easier.

Anderson had begun writing at an early age and by the time he was 17 years old, he was experimenting with Bolex 16mm camera. Anderson wrote and filmed his first real production as a senior in high school at the Montclair Prep after spending years of experimenting. He got the money for his movie by his cage cleaning job at the pet store.

This film was a mockumentary of total 30 minutes which was shot on a video called The Dirk Diggler Story(1988). The plot was about a pornography star and the story seemed to be an inspiration of John Holmes which had also acted as a huge inspiring element in Anderson’s other, Boogie Nights.

Emerson College was where Anderson was enrolled as an English major but he spent only two semesters there and only two days at the New York University before he took a step towards his career as a production assistant on television films, music videos as well as games show in New York and Los Angeles.

Anderson felt that the stuff that was being shown to him at school was more like homework rather than experience. So that is why he decided to make a 20-min movie which would play the part of his college.

In 1993, Anderson made Cigarettes & Coffee with a total budget of $20,000 which were comprised of some college tuition money set aside by his father, gambling winnings and his girlfriend’s credit card.

Cigarettes & Coffee’s was a short film that connecting numerous story lines together with only a $20 bill. This movie was screened at the Sundance Festival Shorts Festivalof 1993. Anderson though to expand it in a feature-length film and following that, he was sent an invitation for the 1994 Sundance Feature Film Program where Michael Caton-Jones acted as his mentor.

According to him he saw Anderson as a talented and fully formed creative voice just with lack of experience and taught him some tough and practical lessons.

Launching of a Career

In 1996 at the Sundance Feature Film Program Anderson got himself a deal with Rysher Entertainmentand that was how he directed his first feature film, Sydney which was later retitled as Hard Eight.

Rysher re-edited the movie upon completion but Anderson submitted the original cut which ended up getting accepted and screened in the Un Certain Regard section at 1996 Cannes Film Festival. And Anderson was able to release his own version after the retitling and raising $200,000 which were needed for its completion. Hard Eight was what launched Anderson’s career.

According to Anderson, he uses the influences of Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, Stanley Kubrickand Max Ophulsin his movies.

Bring on the Porn Industry

While Anderson was coping with the troubles of Hard Eight, he had already started off on the script of his next feature film, Boogie Nights (1997) which was based on The Dirk Driggler Story.The New Line Cinema’s President absolutely loved the script.

And Boogie Nights was an immense commercial and critical success. Boogie Nights won three Academy Award nominationsfor Best Supporting Actor (Burt Reynolds) and it was a revival of his career. It was nominated for Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Julianne Moore).

Frogs from the Sky

Anderson was then given complete creative control by New Line. The result was Magnolia(1999) whose plot circulated around different people coming together in the San Fernando Valley. Aimee Mann’s music was the base and inspiration for this, and has been called the example of American cinema’s strength. Magnolia received three nominations at the 72^ndAcademy Awards for Best Actor in Supporting Role, Best Original Song and Best Original Screenplay.

After Magnolia, Anderson wanted to give comedy a try and he featured Adam Sandler in his next movie Punch-Drunk Love(2002) which was a light romantic comedy drama. The story was about a business owner who has anger issues and seven sisters. Sandler earned critical praise for his role. And Anderson won the Best Director Award at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival.

Anderson happens to have very real and flawed characters in his movies and most of his movies focused on the dysfunctional family relationships, surrogate families, regret and desperate characters as well as themes of denial & responsibility.

Pulling a Daniel-Day Lewis

Little bit based on the Upton Sinclair novel Oil, There Will Be Blood(2007)was regarded as one of the greatest films of the decade by the critics. It earned $76.1 million worldwide, this movie earned 8 nominations at the 80^thAcademy Awards tying with No Country for Old Men for the most of nominations.

The lead actor Daniel Day-Lewis, won an Oscar for Best Leading Actor. Anderson was greatly appreciated and nominated for the Directors Guild of America. This movie was also said to be a wholly American movie to be ever made.

Breaking Down Scientology

The Master(2012) was about an individual bursting with charisma who initiated a new religion in 1950s. Anderson started on its script in 2009 though it was in his head for 12 years. The film received three nominations at the 85^thAcademy Awards for Best Leading Actor (Joaquin Phoenix), Best Supporting Actor, (Philip S. Hoffman) and Best Supporting Actress (Amy Adams).

Anderson is famous for his bold visual style of film making, stylistic trademarks like a continuously moving camera, memorable use of music, long takes based on steadi-cam and multi-layered audiovisual imagery. P.T Anderson is called one of the most exciting talents that surfaced in years. His movies represented feelings of loneliness, destiny, and ghosts of the past as well as destiny.

The Vice

May 2013 brought along with it the production of Anderson’s adaptation of Thomas Pynchon novel Inherent Vice which ended up in August of same year. It was the first time ever the writer had allowed his work to be adapted for screen.

The film’s supporting cast included Owen Wilson, Reese Witherspoon, Martin Shot, Katherine Waterston and Eric Roberts to name a few. And the film earned two nominations for 87^thAcademy Awards. Mark Bridges for Best Costume design and Anderson for the Best Adapted Screenplay.

Anderson again displayed remarkable skill while directing a 54-minute documentary Junun which was regarding the making of an album which shared the same name by Jonny Greenwood, an Israeli composer and few Indian musicians. Majority of the performances were recorded in the Mehrangarh Fort, a 15^thcentury building in the Indian State of Rajhastan. New York Film Festival of 2015 was the place where Junun was premiered.

Currently, Anderson happens to have his hands full with a drama based on the London fashion industry in the 1950s whose filming will began in the end of 2017.

Nora Ephron Scripts Collection: Screenplays Download

November 14, 2021March 20, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

Nora Ephron (1941-2012) was the preeminent female screenwriters and directors in the business. From Silkwood Julie & Julia, her work was second to none. Coincidentally, Meryl Streep appeared in her first and last films.

When you are done reading take a listen to Apple’s #1 Screenwriting Podcast The Bulletproof Screenwriting Podcast, with guest like Oscar Winner Eric Roth, James V. Hart, David Chase, John August, Oliver Stone and more.

NOTE: For educational and research purposes only).

SILKWOOD (1983)

Screenplay by Nora Ephron & Alice Arden – Read the screenplay!

WHEN HARRY MET SALLY(1989)

Screenplay by Nora Ephron – Read the screenplay

MY BLUE HEAVEN (1986)

Screenplay by Nora Ephron – Read the transcript

SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE (1993)

Screenplay by Nora Ephron – Read the screenplay

YOU’VE GOT MAIL (1998)

Screenplay by Nora Ephron – Read the screenplay

HANGING UP (2000)

Screenplay by Nora Ephron – Read the transcript

Frank Darabont Scripts Collection: Screenplays Download

November 14, 2021March 20, 2020 by Bulletproof Screenwriting

Take a listen to the legendary Frank Darabont as he discusses his screenwriting and filmmaking process. The screenplays below are the only ones that are available online. If you find any of his missing screenplays please leave the link in the comment section.

When you are done reading take a listen to Apple’s #1 Screenwriting Podcast The Bulletproof Screenwriting Podcast, with guest like Oscar Winner Eric Roth, James V. Hart, David Chase, John August, Oliver Stone and more.

(NOTE: For educational and research purposes only).

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors(1994)

Screenplay by Frank Darabont, Bruce Wagner, Chuck Russell & Wes Craven – Read the screenplay

The Shawshank Redemption(1994)

Screenplay by Frank Darabont – Read the screenplay! or PDF Scan
(*Nominated the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay*)

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein(1994)

Screenplay by Frank Darabont – Read the screenplay!

The Green Mile(1999)

Screenplay by Frank Darabont – Read the screenplay!
(*Nominated the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay*)

Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods (2003)

Screenplay by Frank Darabont – Read the screenplay!

The Mist(2007)

Screenplay by Frank Darabont – Read the screenplay!

The Walking Dead(2010)

Screenplay by Frank Darabont – Read the teleplay!