digg

Join DiggAbout

Pixar's first short... unbelievably made in 1984 watch!

experienceproject.com — Can you believe this was made 25 years ago?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • caborobo, on 06/29/2008, -1/+259Knowing how much $ it takes to make their gorgeous films now, I can only imagine how much it cost to make this back then.
    • akey, on 06/29/2008, -1/+74thinking back to the power of a standard PC nearly 25 years ago, the behemoth that pulled this thing together must have been more than a small fortune. simply wow.
    • mnortei, on 06/29/2008, -0/+59And how long it took to render...in 1984 rofl
      • sladek, on 06/29/2008, -1/+389that's why we've just seen it now, it's done rendering
      • wastedthelight, on 06/29/2008, -80/+3until today. that's why we're just now seeing it.
      • cvxdes1, on 06/30/2008, -2/+20@wastedthelight: clearly, it took your computer 15 minutes to render this page, because I know you're not that dumb.
      • DatoeDakari, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4I don't know, maybe he is
    • mohamedmansour, on 06/29/2008, -2/+18who cares about how much money to make it, how much money to buy the hardware. Lets say this film (source code) is about 200MB. Back then 200MB was how much? AS they said they used 4 processors and RAM size was 64 MB.
      • jetboyterp, on 06/29/2008, -5/+2True...and you figure, in 1984, standard PC's came with a 10 MB hard drive (PCXT) 20MB for the good one (PCAT).
      • sfacets, on 06/29/2008, -0/+22They used third party 'Supercomputers' to do the rendering.
      • swordedge, on 06/30/2008, -0/+11Computers that I used in 1984 ran on an 8088 with 128K of ram and one floppy then an 80286/12 (thats 12 MHz) with Well under 640K of ram. This box had 2 seagate ST225's (20M and I compressed the volumes) This video is extraordinary for the time.
      • DelMonte, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7jetboyterp:

        In 1984, standard PCs didn't come with a 10MB HDD, only high end PCs. A PC with a 5 or 10MB HDD would cost at least $5000 and had 256k of RAM. Also I couldn't find any PC from 1984 that came with a 20 MB HDD, I'm sure they existed somewhere, but were extremely expensive and hard to find. A hard disk drive was definitely not standard in 1984.
      • coredump0x01, on 06/30/2008, -0/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_X-MP#Configurati ...

        "A 1984 X-MP/48 was about US$15 million plus the cost of disks."
      • ObamaWins08, on 06/30/2008, -2/+3Because the amount of money invested shows the dedication to progressive movie making the company was willing to make.It is demonstrative that the company itself was a proponent of technology advancing the medium.
      • jetboyterp, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1@ delmonte

        The 1984 XT had a 10 meg hard drive. The AT had a 20 meg hard drive.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_AT
    • svensksvamp, on 06/29/2008, -3/+6http://vimeo.com/1084537
    • houndeyex, on 06/29/2008, -1/+23Dugg just for the ending music. So 80's.
    • Nightlurker, on 06/29/2008, -0/+9http://www.cisl.ucar.edu/computers/gallery/cray/xm ...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_X-MP

      Information about the computer they used for rendering it.
      • Rickler, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Half the power of an xbox, for 1984 that's insane!
      • terracottapai, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1What's the deal with the design?
        It looks like a big circular padded bench with a computer in the middle.
        Anyone wanna explain what exactly the functionality of this was?
      • exidor, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5The story goes that they wanted to minimize the length of the wires used to connect different parts of the computer. The optimal shape would be a sphere, but it would have been impossible to get inside to wire it. So they went with the next best thing and made it cylindrical. The cooling system went around the outside and the bench was added to cover it up (and as a warm place to sit, I suppose). It also looks cool.
      • terracottapai, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Thanks.
    • mrASSMAN, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5This video is shown in the extras of pretty much every pixar dvd movie.
    • RaulMuadDib, on 06/30/2008, -12/+2It's quiet in here... can you hear the echo?
    • westyvw, on 06/30/2008, -7/+1Wish they spent a little more on a plot. Sure it looks great, but without a solid story who cares.
    • SolituSneiku, on 06/30/2008, -8/+11984 does not = 25 years ago....I'm turning 24 this year I would know
      • Myonosken, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3The birthdays just keep coming don't they grandpa.
    • rentmitchum, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1OVER 9000!!!!!!
    • hasansexy, on 08/09/2008, -0/+1Think about this, people probably said: Wow look how beautifuk the landscape looks, almost real.

      Now we say that about cgi to, in another 20 years they'll laugh at us.
  • jazumin80, on 06/29/2008, -8/+87This is so cool... Never seen this one before.
    • burnin8r28, on 06/29/2008, -0/+17never underestimate the 80's
    • dclowd9901, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7The new one that opens WALL•E is absolutely incredible. It's almost worth the price of admission alone.
      • Dested, on 06/30/2008, -10/+7You either know the alt code for that dot or you happen to always have it on your paste, either way you make me sick.
      • h3xley, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9Or he's using a mac in which case it's an easy to remember option-8.
      • akaz, on 06/30/2008, -7/+2WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
        WALL•E
      • Sixcolors, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3WALL•E ©
      • dclowd9901, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Point goes to H3xley. I'm a designer, so it's almost second nature at this point.
      • chimaera2005, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Alt+0149, doesn't everybody know that?
    • silfiriel, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1wow, you've missed so much! get serious...buried
  • akey, on 06/29/2008, -50/+8It's been said before, but George Lucas is amazing
    • 1Static1, on 06/29/2008, -2/+25Actually George Lucas had little to do with this, other than setting up a production company that utilized the best of the best. As per the webpage & wikipedia quote "the animation was by John Lasseter". So I think John Lasseter would be the amazing animator here.
      • akey, on 06/29/2008, -5/+6to identify and nurture this opportunity shows his 'dynamic range'... and that's what i think is amazing...
      • schalicto, on 06/29/2008, -2/+9But then he sold the company believing there to be no future in it.

        Then I guess he changed his mind with ILM.
      • whiteyMcBrown, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2It was a little more to do with Lucas' wife leaving him and wanting lots of alimony, more than not seeing a future in Pixar. George Lucas had to come up with cash and he ended up selling Pixar to Steve Jobs for very little.
    • reuscel, on 06/29/2008, -2/+16I think you mean "was."
      • cleverhandle, on 06/29/2008, -8/+1boo, sir. boo.
      • chillypacman, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2just becuae the prequels did not meet up to the fanboys crazy expectations did not make them bad movies, even so the third was pretty good even from a fanboy perspective.
  • davidhallstrom, on 06/29/2008, -21/+5Good one. Thank you.
  • BillionWishlist, on 06/29/2008, -17/+5who would have thought that was made in 84?
  • samard2002, on 06/29/2008, -39/+8This doesn't actually seem that revolutionary to me when you consider that Tron was released in 1982, two full years before this.
    • joeanon, on 06/29/2008, -3/+20But Tron sucked ass and this is fluid and has nice trees.

      It's more like Roger Rabbit with that plastic animation feel, but much much better before it's time.
    • Chumbuh1, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Tron didn't have soft body character animation. THAT'S whats so revolutionary about this.
  • 1Static1, on 06/29/2008, -2/+70The only thing that gave this away as being 80's specific was the music at the end.
  • YoWhatDaFuxUp, on 06/29/2008, -12/+500Also from 1984...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNaKWXqXkhw
  • tidefan94, on 06/29/2008, -4/+24The pixar guys truly are amazing.
  • akey, on 06/29/2008, -0/+198"It was rendered on one Cray X-MP/48 (where 48 stands for 4 processors and 8 million words of internal memory, with word size of 64 bits (i.e. 8 bytes) it means its RAM size was 64 MB) and ten VAX 11/750s from Project Athena."

    You know when you hear 'Cray' and 'Project Athena,' you're not messing around.
    • chillypacman, on 06/30/2008, -15/+5A $200 computer could render thatn in real time ^_^
    • billgreen73, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1yup. and compare that to the "I want my MTV" and you get the idea of the scales of computing power, (or lack thereof available at the time)
  • fudged71, on 06/29/2008, -2/+13Dugg for "Largo al factotum" in the title sequence. Love that song
    • Matt2k, on 06/29/2008, -4/+2Oh really. So Largo al factorum really revs your engine
      That's kind of unique for you, isn't it.
  • iCallShotgun, on 06/29/2008, -14/+2Is there any higher resolution copies of this?
    • digason, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4It's on the Pixar Shorts Collection on Blu-ray disc.
  • thehype2049, on 06/29/2008, -13/+20ive seen it before, but i didnt think it was make back in 84' i though more along the line sof late 90's
    • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -0/+41Toy Story was 1995, so your perceptions are quite a ways off.
    • vaccumpony, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4 I remember seeing this in the mid eighties in a traveling animation festival. It was after 1984, but the short itself was DEFINATELY made then.
    • daebat, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6umm... it says Copyright Lucas Films 1984 at the end... maybe you should watch the entire thing.
      • themusicalduck, on 06/30/2008, -3/+1Maybe you should try reading the article?
      • PhoenixAvatar2, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8Or reading the comment. He's saying he didn't think it was made then, not that it wasn't made then.
  • EricSancho, on 06/29/2008, -44/+1pfffff... not impressed! buried! older than the internet! plus, bees die after they sting!
    • Thorpe, on 06/29/2008, -1/+6Your moment of fame failed.
    • daebat, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1your face is buried
    • newbill123, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4Not all bees die once they sting. It depends on the bee and the manner of the sting.

      Wally B. appears to be non-aggressive and hence probably a bumble bee rather than a honey bee or wasp. His stinger is smooth rather than barbed. And though deformed by the sting, his insides are still in place. Hence the sting won't be lethal to him.
  • gmoney1, on 06/29/2008, -2/+7So interesting to see those original shorts.
  • cmTaryn, on 06/29/2008, -15/+3http://www.amazon.com/Pixar-Short-Films-Collection ...

    Anybody who enjoys the Pixar shorts should really buy this volume compiling all of the shorts to date. Some of their older stuff is really incredible!
  • Thrash16, on 06/29/2008, -3/+74Wow, I wonder how long it took to render?
    • nitesoIja, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1010 years
    • coderdevo, on 06/30/2008, -0/+18It probably took a month. The benefit of using a Cray was the CPU speed (117 MHz x 2 floating point operations per cycle x 4 CPUs) - 15% overhead = 800 megaflops.

      I found an article titled "CGI Story: The Development of 3D Computer Graphics, 1974-94" that includes a narrative of the making of this short.

      http://lowendmac.com/orchard/07/0403.html

      It states that they convinced the Cray salesman to give them free time on the X-MP hosted at Cray. It would have cost $15 million to buy that hardware.
    • kosmoss, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2In 1989 it took 11 hours to render 1 frame with reflections (no ray-tracing). Painful. SVA - NY
  • akey, on 06/29/2008, -9/+4i just keep going back to this... hate to admit it, but this ridiculously simple short is really addicting (not to mention ahead of its time)
  • majikmixx, on 06/29/2008, -2/+231Fun Fact:

    "John Lasseter made this film to entertain his children; ironically, it frightened them instead."
    • riskybeats, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2I wish I was that one guy who dugg you down for some reason.
    • Philmer, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Seriously? what cowards, that is not even scary in the slightest!

      80s children were seriously strange......heh,me saying that.
    • sw1ft, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Ohhh....nice....thanks for the "FF"!
  • Gimjee, on 06/29/2008, -10/+68Did they name Wall-e after Wally B?
    • Swarms, on 06/29/2008, -6/+44It stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class. It's seen briefly in the film.
      • Gimjee, on 06/29/2008, -2/+2Just coincidence then?
      • tendonut, on 06/29/2008, -0/+8I only noticed that the acronym was explained right before it went off screen..I saw Waste Allocation and that was about it..
      • Philbert, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3That doesn't really answer the question.
      • chillypacman, on 06/30/2008, -10/+2SPOILER ALERT BITCH!

        LALALALALALLALALALALALLALALALALALALALAL
      • vincexs, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Wally B, Wall-e, but Wall-e C if you include the (earth-)class?
      • ThreeStar, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5I've heard a claim that says it's a play on A113, an inside-joke among CalArts alumni that's put in Pixar and other animations. WALL-E = W+A113
      • beloitpiper, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1ThreeStar, A113 comes up later in WALL-E as a secret orders code.
    • Tomamama, on 06/29/2008, -0/+39I wouldn't be surprised if it was a nod toward this. Pixar has a way of referencing their old works in their new ones. (For instance: there's a Buzz Lightyear doll in the dentist's office in Finding Nemo.)
      • xtinamo, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5The Pizza Planet truck from Toy Story also has a brief cameo in every Pixar film to date.
    • D14BL0, on 06/29/2008, -0/+21I don't know why you got dugg down. You have a pretty valid point. Given all the easter eggs thrown in Wall-e (which was actually frontpaged earlier, as well), it's not exactly surprising that Pixar might name a character subtly after their first creation.
    • dontlookdown, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3I know that Andre and Wally B. are references to "My Dinner with Andre".
  • Rozza, on 06/29/2008, -14/+3old, ive seen this before.

    btw, how great was WALL•E
    • kcap122, on 06/29/2008, -2/+4I don't know how pixar keeps coming up with such original ideas for movies. Wall-E is a really memorable character; it's pretty damn hard to make a memorable character who doesn't speak a word throughout the entire film and put him through a love story.

      The fact that the last third of the movie was identical to 2001: A Space Odyssey definitely helped, too.
      • UnterDenLinden, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Woah, what version of 2001 did you watch?
      • kcap122, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1the whole thing about man versus machine in space was the same. in both movies the computer overrode its operator so it could follow its preprogrammed mission. woot.
  • Aurabolt, on 06/29/2008, -14/+2Big Brother is watching
  • Gundemwing0, on 06/29/2008, -13/+104ok that is funny that this is made in 1984 and some video games look worse than that in 2008
    • yuanzhoulu, on 06/29/2008, -1/+83that's because this was probably rendered in weeks whereas those video games are rendered live.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/30/2008, -3/+24Maybe so, but you're not kidding anyone that a modern computer can't do what a mid-eighties computer could thousands of times faster.

        It's time and money constraints with some occasional outright laziness on the part of developers. Our computers are plenty fast enough for this. Hell, they were fast enough for this years ago.
      • marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -1/+70***** IT WE'LL RENDER IT LIVE!
      • dudefaceguyman, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Well I looked up the computer mentioned on Wiki. The super computer they used to render this is 8% the speed of a Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 and roughly half the speed of the first Xbox would take to render the film.


        So while slow, they didn't exactly use a couple ***** ass standard desktop computers back then to do this. They borrowed a 15 million dollar super computer to do it.
    • panteradactyl, on 06/29/2008, -1/+20Yeah, come on. Pre-rendered CG sequences have ALWAYS looked miles better than in game graphics. Think back to FFVIII
    • SevanElevan, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Hm. Now that you mention it, maybe we should tighten up the graphics on level 3.
  • 2clone, on 06/29/2008, -5/+13.. and I still can't find that " We are of the Butterfly" cgi music video from the 90s that was featured on YTV.


    EDIT: Holy Mrbabymans' life... I mean sh1t.. I just found it. It's called The Pyramid.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=cZKnZLP1-jE&feature=rel ...
    • shawnsonium, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Do a YouTube search for "Short Circutz" to find the rest.
    • BoydRE, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5WHAT THE ***** IS THAT??
    • vkzawa, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1These videos help show how amazing the Pixar video is for its time.
    • SugarCoatedSalt, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3thats some trippy ***** right thur.
    • twishart, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2HOLY *****

      I grew up with this stuff. That song has been lodged in my brain for almost twenty years. A lot of these 2 minute 'filler' films were totally awesome. YTV was so rad back then.
    • ryanize, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Woah, flashback. I remember that video and many others like it in a series of videos (and by video I mean VHS at the time) called "The Mind's Eye".

      Thanks for bringing that out of my brain's basement!
  • indigit4l, on 06/29/2008, -38/+1Too bad the CGI is so terrible
    • nerdherder, on 06/29/2008, -1/+17It was made in 1984 for ***** sake!
    • panteradactyl, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1What the hell were you expecting???
    • indigit4l, on 06/30/2008, -9/+2Heh heh my flame bait worked.
      • sleepwalkers, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1...hooray?
        Why bother commenting if that's honestly all you're trying to do?
    • iChaz, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1heh heh. you're a ***** genius now, aren't you. want a cookie?
  • candyman682, on 06/29/2008, -20/+3I don't believe this is from 1984.
  • CharlesDance, on 06/29/2008, -28/+3I actually thought it was really *****.
  • flyn2hi, on 06/29/2008, -2/+11Makes me feel like we were working with dinosaurs back in Chicago in 1976 when making award winning TV commercials using hand painted cells, IBM 360, a Calcomp plotter, and Oxberry 35 mil animation stand. Ya, those were the days.......
    • solid12345, on 06/29/2008, -2/+9What are these tools you speak of, I suspects a witch!
    • Darkangel754, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9How well did it run Crysis?
  • EricaBZ, on 06/29/2008, -0/+11Pretty impressive for 24 years ago! Thanks for sharing!
    • solid12345, on 06/29/2008, -8/+2Really awesome but that wallpaper and stretched comic sans-like font with solid shadowing is god awful, it amazes me how many skilled 3d animators have rudimentary typography knowledge
  • cuevas4711, on 06/29/2008, -3/+26Too bad they were still using sounds from the 50's D:
    • Fortyseven, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2I'm guessing it's probably all public domain stuff. But that music during the end credits...jesus it grates. ;)
    • jgtg32a, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3Actually back in the day no one really cared about that
  • specialK16, on 06/29/2008, -10/+6OMG! Luxo is so cute!
  • Ace0fClub5, on 06/29/2008, -0/+64Sound Design on this is Ben Burtt
    Ben Burtt = Voice of Wall-E
  • username7410, on 06/29/2008, -16/+11984? No.
  • sfacets, on 06/29/2008, -20/+8Too bad Pixar was bought by an evil corporation.
    • swordedge, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Actually, this is how Steve Jobs got most of his money. He bought Pixar for $10 milion and sank $50 million into the company. The first movie after he did that was Toy Story.
      For every six dollars Steve invested, he got seven THOUSAND back. A return of about 1166 times the original investment. Now if I could find investments like that!
    • KMartSheriff, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2You're kidding right? Disney pretty much had to bend over backwards for Pixar and allowed them to give it to them in the ass for as long as they please. Steve Jobs got a 7% share in Disney and put him on the board of directors (Michael Eisner has a 1.6% share in Disney). John Lasseter was made head of the creative team at Disney, meaning he's the one who greenlights anything that is made, and can also kill it off. The deal also included that Pixar is to been considered a separate entity from Disney, and Disney can in no way mess with how Pixar does business.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixar#Acquisition_by_ ...
      • JHB800, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Bingo. Its actually quite the reverse of what SFacets said. Without Pixar, Disney wouldn't still be in the animation business. (yes, that part of Disney got THAT bad since the 90s)
  • jamestwisleton, on 06/29/2008, -8/+16Wally B, Wall-E?
  • MrDo, on 06/29/2008, -1/+60Ah so it's their Steamboat Willie.
    • Shaunzio, on 06/30/2008, -2/+25thats what she said????
    • beabis, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0I think you mean Steamboat Itchy.
    • Cruelapollo, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Steamboat Willie wasn't the first Disney cartoon, nor the first Mickey Mouse.
    • Revlution4ever, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4technically, luxo jr would be there steamboat willie. disney produced several films before producing steamboat willie in 1928. but, steamboat willie is what put them on the map and gave the company their trademark. luxo jr. is the symbol of pixar, as mickey mouse is the symbol of the walt disney company.

  • electromud, on 06/29/2008, -5/+2Wow, I remember watching that when I was little but I never knew it was that old. I can definitely appreciate it much more now.
  • Cam_86, on 06/29/2008, -1/+23As a canadian who was raised on YTV, this brought back a lot of memories.
    Anyone remember Styro the dog?
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=QRKbIvrxols
    Or Bells and Whistles?
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=fA2hcJ3Owo4
  • Ex3poo, on 06/29/2008, -11/+2I find this to be better then the stuff we get today,nowaday's we get things that look like talking corpses.Pixar needs to take it back a few years,becuase it's just scary looking in 2008.
  • sooch, on 06/29/2008, -9/+1Anyone else think the dude look stoned?
  • bella2k, on 06/29/2008, -11/+1Awesome. They have come so far. One of my favorite clips is the farting dinosaurs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9erlZnMekZ0
    • svensksvamp, on 06/29/2008, -1/+9A Mp3-player doesn't have to be an iPod.
      An animated video doesn't have to be done by Pixar.

      2 simple rules...
    • pitlord, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure that was NOT a Pixar animation. Just because someone on YouTube puts "Pixar" in the title doesn't make it true.
      >.>
  • DannoSpeaks, on 06/29/2008, -6/+50So it's Lucasfilms first short then? No offense, but give credit where credit is due. They were still on Lucasfilms payroll, and probably training programs.
    • Philbert, on 06/30/2008, -2/+11I agree maybe it's Lasseter's first CG short, but not Pixar's.
    • wampastompa, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2"Luke blew it up. Give credit where credit is due"
      • plbogen, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1Lucas didn't blow it. He had to sell the division to raise money for his divorce in the aftermath of the end of the original Star Wars trilogy and the debacle that was Howard the Duck.
      • wampastompa, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Clerks quote referring to Luke Skywalker
      • plbogen, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Sorry I misread it as Lucas :-P
    • Skitals, on 06/30/2008, -1/+3Wonder why Disney included this on 'Pixar Short Films Collection Volume 1'????
      • plbogen, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Because Disney is a soulness bastard that is only interested in money and not historical accuracy.
    • JHB800, on 06/30/2008, -2/+2No. All of the people that made this short went on to form Pixar together. This was, for all intents and purposes the first Pixar short.

      Its not exactly clear whether this was an officially sanctioned Lucasfilm project (it doesn't say in the credits whether Lucasfilm bankrolled it, or whether they put Lucasfilm's name on it because they used their facilities) For all we know this was the Pixar guys experimenting in their spare time. Considering that there aren't really any other shorts from Lucasfilm like this, I'd bet on that being the case.
      • plbogen, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1No. All of the people that made this short were sold by Lucas to Steve Jobs.
    • plbogen, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1The Pixar name wasn't created until after Jobs bought the Computer Division of Lucasfilm.
  • MasterTroll, on 06/29/2008, -12/+6Older than the internet.
  • pensel, on 06/29/2008, -3/+12***** impressive that these little projects are what triggered Steve Jobs' acquisition and subsequent decade of cutting personal checks for millions to keep them afloat before Toy Story
    • newbill123, on 06/30/2008, -0/+3But they weren't trying to sell the media they were making. The media was being made and practically given away in order to sell the Renderman software.
  • rimshot848, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5that is amazing for when it was made
  • iadiggs10, on 06/29/2008, -2/+12Wow, I didn't realize that Pixar emerged from Lucasfilm. It makes sense that they wouldn't emerge with that level of sophistication from nowhere.
  • Ledjar, on 06/29/2008, -12/+2Pixar has quite a few shorts from the 80's. not really 'unbelievable'
  • myers100, on 06/29/2008, -10/+2how the hell did they do that!! it was 1984

    • jnordb, on 06/29/2008, -5/+5Doc sent them back a Linux cluster made of a rack full of quad-core blades in the Delorean.
  • saltinekracka20, on 06/29/2008, -3/+136That's unbelivable. No wonder they're stuff today looks so amazing.

    P.S. Veggie Tales, step up your game. Pixar had you matched over 20 years ago.
    • SissySlapParty, on 06/29/2008, -2/+37Dugg for Veggie Tales, rofl.
    • krakkinem, on 06/29/2008, -1/+36Veggie Tales, thank you, THAT'S what this reminds me of.
    • bshensky, on 06/30/2008, -3/+15Veggie Tales? How about that awful kids CGI cartoon "Rolie Polie Olie" on Disney Channel today? I figure with today's technology, they whip out a few episodes of this shiznit each day.
      • pfranz, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5That show first aired in 1998 and was set up for a TV show schedule/budget. I was pretty impressed with the look for that time.
      • krakkinem, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4dugg for "shiznit."
    • jgtg32a, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3593944851 ...
      • cwmather, on 06/30/2008, -1/+2Why, in the name of everything holy is this man being dugg down?!!

        It's Reboot dammit!!
    • PlasmaWhore, on 06/30/2008, -2/+4"their" you ***** moron.
    • CTRaider, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Pixar didn't match them in content. Veggie Tales game is still a step above.
  • solid12345, on 06/29/2008, -27/+15And maybe someday the Nintendo Wii will manage to look as good as that.
    • Syphon8, on 06/30/2008, -8/+5Maybe someday PS3 will manage to look that good.
    • trackerbishop, on 06/30/2008, -6/+3dugg for truth.
    • jgtg32a, on 06/30/2008, -2/+1Why make it look good if you can pawn crap off as art.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.