Greg McKeown:
Welcome, everyone, I’m your host Greg McKeown, and I’m here with you on this journey to learn. Have you ever wondered what kind of communication is necessary in order to be able to break through to the next level to have real innovation? What does it take? Well, today’s guest is the absolutely perfect person to answer that question. I’m not sure there’s anyone who could answer it better, who’s alive today. This is Ed Catmull. He’s the co-founder of Pixar, who went on to lead both Pixar and Disney’s animation studios in what we could describe as the second golden era of animation. You know the names of these movies, Toy Story, A Bug’s Life, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Cars, Ratatouille, Wall-E, and on and on and on.
He not only helped to create a new industry, he also created a new standard within animation the world. over. By the end of this episode, you will have insights into how to actually have conversations that produce not just efficiency or productivity but innovation, invention, and breakthrough creativity. Let’s get to it.
Thank you to everyone who has subscribed to this podcast, and if you are not one of those people, subscribe right now, pause, subscribe, and then make it easy on yourself to get new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday.
Now, this sounds like a segue, but it’s not. You retired in 2019; is that correct? Did I get that right? And what has your involvement at Pixar been since then? Are you still involved but in a different role? Has it eventually led to very little involvement, or how would you describe your current connection?
Ed Catmull:
I’ve already put people in place to succeed me. I worked on that for a long time. And when you do that, okay, it’s time to let them do it, but then at the same time, I just get retired, and then Covid hits, which amplifies streaming. So the people that solve problems are still there. But to be honest, a whole bunch of things hit all at once, but I wasn’t there for it because, with Covid then, it was essentially theirs to solve. And these are hard problems, but these are also good problem-solving people. I have no exposure.
Greg McKeown:
Okay, got it. So I’m actually familiar with some of the work that you did over those years before retirement to try to solve what I was told you believed was the biggest single threat to Pixar going forward, which is that the original group of directors is not going to be there, and every movie had some point of serious inflection point where those original group ends up coming back together and trying to go through a problem-solving process to get it where you want it to be. And so that you’d taken it really seriously to try to address this problem of, well, what happens once we all go, how can it continue?
So, first of all, let’s see if what I understand is approximately right. That’s sort of how you saw the biggest challenge, and that this is why you invested so much to try to think about this succession planning and the processes to put in place. Is that the correct reading of how you were working on it through those years?
Ed Catmull:
Yeah, because we knew that there was one group that was doing, it’s like the back group for everybody and teaching others and so forth. And then as we brought others in, we were finding that they again had a very different set of characteristics, and one has to assume that they bring something to the table we didn’t see and it’s new, and we can’t have the company continue to be even any kind of replica of the first one because that isn’t the way it works if you’re doing something creative. Other people have to change. So the principles were okay; how do we find people who are passionate and support them? And the one thing I did know was that starting way back when I was in graduate school and then at New York Tech and then at Lucas Film and then Steve, and then with Disney, I say I really had support.
So I felt like, okay, my job, our job was to provide support for new people and for new ways to do anything, but that takes time to do that. So my support wasn’t because one day somebody showed up and did something. It was like, no, this continued over years, and for every one of us, it’s like this was a process. Nobody magically rose to the top. Even Steve, we’d started talking about Steve, but Steve went through years of going through things and growing, and as a result of the things that he learned over time because he had all these elements in place that let him learn, then he basically could transform, well, what do we do for other people? How are we supporting them? How do we think about it, and that’s what we tried to set up at every level of the company. It wasn’t just the creative side. How do we think about the technical side? How do we think about the production management or marketing?
Greg McKeown:
It’s really curious to look at it now from a few years on. I know that Steve was affected by what happened at Disney when Walt Disney died unexpectedly and the challenges that faced the company without the visionary, without the person who was pushing and polishing and prodding and probing to make it better. And so it was one of the reasons he built Apple University was to try and make sure that the thinking could continue and the understanding of why decisions were made and so on.
Meanwhile, the same thing has been happening at Pixar. At least one could argue this is the case because that original group of unusually gifted directors and then also just that process of decision-making together, you’ve all had to shift past it. And I wonder how would you evaluate Pixar in those years? I mean, it’s a tricky question I’m asking. I get that. How well has Pixar continued to do the things that led to Pixar’s extraordinary success over that first generation?
Ed Catmull:
Well, the thing I liked was all the way up until I left, they were still making some really great films. Now, there were a lot of the original people still there, but other people were now engaged in involved of it, including new people who weren’t part of the original group. And so the ideal one is there’s an intermingling, but it’s also a passing on; it’s probably not right to say passing on cultural values. It’s more like the value of is we’re going to continue to change and that what we’re doing now can’t be like it was at the beginning, right? We can’t be the first at anything. Again, you have to be the first at something else. And with each one of them, it was like, okay, a refinement, you go back and you look at it, did this work? So then there’s a question, do we keep on being or working on being self-aware of what works and what doesn’t work?
Because my own view is that some people are looking for the sweet spot because one side, you hang on to what worked, and you don’t let go. And the other is you go off in some wild avenue, and is that place you get where you are addressing new things? That’s not a stable place. In fact, if you look at in this industry, and I would argue a lot of industries, then the leadership is changing, the expertise is changing, the technology changing, the customers are changing, expectations changing. There is nothing in this picture that is stable. Now if you deeply understand that, then you think about how you have to address problems in a different way. You’re not trying to find the new stable point. You’re trying to be the kind of company that’s robust and is continuing to change.
Greg McKeown:
I love everything you just described, and I want to be more precise in the question. Do you think Pixar is doing as well today as they did when you were there with the original Brain Trust? Do you think it has continued in the same level of success? Or do you see some cracks in the system, let’s say?
Ed Catmull:
Well, one of the ways that we were measured in the past, there was a succession of four films in a row, that redefined Pixar not as a very good animation studio but as a company that produced Pixar films, which caught me off guard.
Greg McKeown:
So what does that mean?
Ed Catmull:
Well, what it meant was that as we were having successful film because there were other animated films that are out there.
Greg McKeown:
Sure.
Ed Catmull:
At some point, our worry was we were going to produce something which didn’t do well, and that was right after the first; that was my worry. What’s going to happen? You can’t keep producing good films. And I knew that people were, it’s almost like gunning force, I guess you could see it as some of the reviewers. Nobody deserves this.
Greg McKeown:
Suddenly you are not the underdog anymore. You are the king of the classroom. And so it becomes a little cooler to vote against you, but this is what you’re saying, what’s happening? Carry on.
Ed Catmull:
So I could see this building, and I thought, okay, now we’re at some point they’re going to turn – not good is going to happen. And then our eighth film, which came out, was Ratatouille, and then it was Wall-E and Toy Story 3.
Those four films in a row were undeniably great films and basically what it did was it kind of blew through this. And what I realized after this point, we weren’t compared with other renovation companies; we were a different category. And because it is still true when people look at it, they comparison against Pixar. And even subsequently to that period of a film came out, it didn’t live up to the Pixar standard then was that was how they talked about.
So now, with that in mind, when Covid hit and they switched to streaming, one of the things which was part of the definition of what a film was when the film opened, there was a lot of public things about the opening of the film, the box office, and how it reviewed all those things in Apple. Well, everything changed when I think the next four films were released on streaming. It changed the perceptions of what people do.
And then for a lot of films like you go to the theaters because, oh, we’ll just wait until it’s streaming. So what that meant was that kind of thing got in the way? Do I think the phones are extremely good? Yes, but that sort of buzz that happens, it wasn’t the same as it was. So that was one of those, they say they were with some things there, and I’m on the outside looking at it thinking, well, it’s one of the consequences of change. Actually. I’m talking about change. I, of course, in no way would’ve predicted a pandemic to know that the streaming was going to have a major impact.
Greg McKeown:
What was the most challenging movie that you were a part of?
Ed Catmull:
Well, there were a few times in which we changed directors. It had, the question was that if you were asking for somebody to commit to make it happen and to pour their souls into it, then you’re supporting them. So that’s the rule. You have to support them. And we all know that everything to begin with doesn’t work very well. We always say that when we’re given the reviews, but they don’t work very well, and we know that, and we’re protecting them. What does it mean to say, okay, we’re not going to protect it anymore?
Greg McKeown:
At what point do you go, okay, we can’t keep protecting you. It’s actually a different person that’s needed here.
Ed Catmull:
So we have done that a few times, and because there is one rule, it’s not a rank trust rule, but it’s that the one thing that a director can’t do is to lose the confidence of their entire team.
Greg McKeown:
Once you sense that had happened, it’s time to make a change.
Ed Catmull:
Yes. Now what normally happens is if there is a problem and there are problems, then you are, in some cases, they just need the time to solve the problem. So some are fall easily in that category, and then for some, it’s okay; maybe the team isn’t working around it. So you do some adjustments, but frankly, these are all private and confidential. You can add somebody to the team because you’re not trying to do anything to harm this creative team that’s leading it, and you’re trying to support them. Let’s support me. If that doesn’t work and they’ll lose the team, then that’s when you have to do something larger.
And each one is a very different story. So like with Ratatouille, that was a wonderful man who can see the idea. It was a high-risk idea. We were very proud of the fact that we took on a very high-risk idea. We believe that some, not all of them, but some of them should fall into this category. They would fail the elevator test, and this would be one of the short elevator tests, which means that you’ve got to give it some room to solve the problem because solving harder problems requires more creativity. So if you take on the challenge, you say, okay, we’re going to solve this problem. So, in this case, the basic premise was about art and the love of art. We call it cooking, but actually, it’s an artistic statement about passion. And this story was stuck. It was caught circle, and they couldn’t get out of it. And so we did have to make a change.
The basic premise of the movie that was in the film as that came out was the premise as originally pitched. The look of the characters was from that, led by that director. So everything about the final film looked like the fruition of the original idea, but they were caught in a cycle, and they couldn’t find their way out of the cycle. Brought in Brad Bird, who loved the concept of the passion of the artist. That’s what drew him in to be able to be willing even so he met with a friend of theirs who’s a writer, not even at Pixar, and they came up with the key breakthrough, and once they did that, it broke this cycle that was in there and then all of a sudden, boom, it turned into this beautiful magnificent gem. So that’s not the arc of other films.
So each one has a very different arc, and with Up, which is the doctor’s film, the final film bore no resemblance whatsoever to the original film. And the thing is, it doesn’t matter. We don’t care. It’s how do we have it so that we’re enabling people to do something, which is great. It may be solving the problem of the original idea or even evolving the idea and turning it into something that’s different. And that’s what it means to be sort of be open and creative and supportive and at the same time knowing you have no idea where this is going. So that’s why I said each one is a different arc.
Greg McKeown:
Speaking of arcs, let’s connect a few arcs here. So I think that there was one more rule that you used for Brain Trust that we didn’t address. What was that rule?
Ed Catmull:
Oh, we, I’m with, it was peer-to-peer. The people in the room were people who had the respect of each other as filmmakers. That was what I’m so was peer-to-peer, keep the power out, keep the candor. I forget the others actually writing down these rules. It was trying to clarify for others, but in our minds, it’s actually a total package.
Now when I say it’s a total package, there were other things because people did get lost in their own idea, and they let go of it. I mentioned that outside forces, Steve, but we did have a couple of other outside forces. One other is was for film, we could do an audience screen. Now with products, there are times when you get feedback. Some people are really good about getting it, genuine feedback. Some people actually don’t want it.
In our case, we want it, but it comes late in the game all it’s just a different mechanism to try to get there. And in the case of Pixar and Disney, this is late in the game where Inside Out, which is, this is great film, but honestly, was stuck at some point. And in this case, everybody loved it. They were excited about it, and everybody knew there was something, and they couldn’t figure out what the problem was with all the outside forces, with all the inside forces, with all the creative strength, they couldn’t pick what the problem was. So the first time we said, let’s go show it to the Disney Brain Trust, we’d kept them quite separate. We wanted to make sure that Disney had its own personality. They did things in different ways. They talked with each other. They can beg, borrow, and steal ideas from each other, but they didn’t have to.
Greg McKeown:
Yes, I see. You wanted to keep it interdependent, but there was an independence underneath it.
Ed Catmull:
They wanted each other to succeed. And everybody understood that if both of them were doing well, it was better for everybody. So there was no jealousy, whatever. So that didn’t happen. But we didn’t actually show the movies to the Brain Trust. So the first time, we showed it to the brain trust down there, and there were two people in particular who picked at the central problem that we had missed.
The problem was that Joy was working extremely hard to get back to headquarters, which is where she belonged. She needed back there, but she was trying so to get there that she, it’s almost like she appeared to be a Celtic and it was about her, the basic thing that was driving her was about her being back there, but the job was about getting her back there. So that’s the reason people loved it.
So that’s what the group down there picked at. And then once that was realized, then you could go to, and this is where you go to the deep level, you say, well, everybody else wants her back there. So if you think about a child and your child cries or is hurt, unhappy, or sad, then a lot of parents would say, having been there, “Where’s my happy girl? Where’s my happy boy?”
Because everybody else wants joy to be back there. So if everybody else wants it, they’re the ones that can try to drive it to push that. So, in this case, joy didn’t need to be that kind of force in the movie. It could come from others. And once that was in there, it became more profound because then, as an adult, you can say, oh, I’ve done that because we have, for child psychologists, that’s one of the issues that some parents can’t accept the fact that their child is depressed or unhappy or anything,
Greg McKeown:
Not accepting or understanding or affirming where they are actually at. And so you were able to connect with that human emotion.
Ed Catmull:
Yes. And when you do that, okay, now this is a deeper movie. And so, with those notes, Pete and his team could come back and make a large number of small changes, and now it really worked. We then said, okay, that worked, but we were having problems in a film down at Disney, which was that Zootopia had some serious problem. And so we thought, well, if we’re going down to Disney, maybe we can do the reverse. So we brought it up to Pixar, and in this case, Andrew standing in particular after saying nothing for 20 minutes, said something, which actually blew the film open.
Greg McKeown:
Which was?
Ed Catmull:
In the original version, because the predators worked together, there was always the worry that predators might revert to their dangerous state when they became adults. They need to wear these collars, and they could measure their state of aggression or alarm, and then it would shock them.
And the question was, okay, how does society work? And the protagonist was the fox. And the arc of the story was that he was cynical, and by the end of the movie, he basically had learned that they were going to remove black collars as the element in the film. The course of the movie was to figure out why this wasn’t necessary, but the film wasn’t working at all.
What Catherine stuck on it was there was a very powerful emotional scene where the polar bears would first place the collar on their child. It was sort of like a coming-of-age party. But for the parents, it was like this kind of painful for them. And it’s when the child realized this pain that comes with becoming an adult.
So when it was shown at Pixar Andrew Denton, when he spoke up, he said, when I saw those collars, then I hated that city, and there is nothing you could ever do to redeem it. This was inexcusable, and it made the film inherently forever unliked. So just boom two before across the forehead. And the reason they were stuck on it was that they fell in love with that emotional thing.
So they then went back, and his view was he wanted them to understand and try to solve this problem. And it turns out there were people at Disney who had said that before, but they couldn’t overcome the fact that they were stuck on something. So, in the end, it turns out Judy, the bunny became the protagonist, and she had a deeper story, which is to learn that she had some biases that she didn’t know about, and they came out. And so that was a deeper and more relevant theme for the movie. And it came about because somebody else was actually able to brush aside something that even others had said before, but he couldn’t push through it. Whatever takes.
Greg McKeown:
Yes.
Ed Catmull:
Let me get to the truth of what works
Greg McKeown:
Well, you’re trying to get it right rather than be right. And many of these stories pushed to that theme, although it’s not the only theme that we’ve covered. You’ve talked about the arc of a movie. We’ve talked also and began with the idea of the arc of Steve’s life, and particularly the arc of his career and how it shifted materially, but more than the media story about him.
Let me just read one thing that you wrote, and then maybe if you could share with us the last time that you talked with him on the phone and what that all meant.
You write here “to let these media narratives drive the narrative about Steve is to miss the more important story. In the time I worked with Steve, he didn’t just gain the kind of practical experience you would expect to acquire while running two dynamic, successful businesses.
He also got smarter about when to stop pushing people and how to keep pushing them without,” Alright, I’m going to start reading the whole thing again.
“To let these media narratives drive Steve’s story is to miss the more important story. In the time I worked with Steve, he didn’t just gain the kind of practical experience you would expect to acquire while running two dynamic, successful businesses. He also got smarter about when to stop pushing people and how to keep pushing them if necessary without breaking them. He became fairer and wiser, and his understanding of partnership deepened in large part because of his marriage to Laureen and his relationship with the children he loved so much. This shift didn’t lead him to abandon his famous commitment to innovation. It solidified it. At the same time, he developed into a kind of more self-aware leader, and I think Pixar played a role in that development.”
Can you maybe respond to that here and then share with us maybe the last time that you were able to speak with Steve and what that meant to you?
Ed Catmull:
Well, it was getting near the end, so he was engaged quite a bit up until he resigned from the board. Then we had a few discussions since then. And then there was one time in which I was downstairs, and I got the goodbye call, and I knew what it was. It was a thank you. But because he was so completely sharp and self-aware through none of this, there was no delusion or wasn’t trying to fool himself. He knew what was happening. So it’s emotional for me, but that was, yeah, he was going to his friends and just calling each of them.
Greg McKeown:
Thank you for sharing it. You’re emotional now talking about it.
Ed Catmull:
Yeah. There are a few other emotional things too that I have regarding the things that I learned from him and working with him and the effect on me. That’s why we started at the beginning. It’s like I was in some ways a mentor for, well, I dunno what I think about the person who protected and challenged, and it was part of growing my view of what my job was.
Greg McKeown:
It seems to me that it is a really unusual, unusual kind of collaboration that you had with Steve in a way that is exactly what one would hope from the best collaborations. Not just that you can create great things, do great things together, but that somehow it elevates beyond that where you understand each other really at new levels and that you edify each other and that it becomes some kind of joy to work together, but it’s more than the work itself. I may be reading too much into it, but it seems like that was the kind of long-term collaboration you had. It was beyond the work into something much more meaningful than that and something that changed you both. That’s my read.
Ed Catmull:
The thing I feel is the case and was that for both of us, it was we’re trying to do something which has an impact, and it’s done well. And you do that by the relationships you have with people, the full acknowledgment of what they do and what they bring. And even though Pixar and Apple did it in different ways, at heart, there was that in common that we’re not trying to do this because it’s important to be in charge. It’s important to be so good. And I say that because I know that’s the words that anybody might use about what they would want to do. But I think, okay, that is actually the way that the two places work. And I’m very aware also that sometimes the narrative turns around the visible people. In our case, it could be directors or Steve or because I’ve written a book, around me, but I was always aware in discussions with Steve it was like a full appreciation for what others do.
And the narrative about it is one thing, but how does that really work, and how deep is the appreciation and the gratitude for your partners and your friends and those you’re with. And when I say the partner, it’s even broader. Broader. It’s like, okay, in my case, my friends and universities and in that community, it’s like, okay, what is this like? It always worries me because sometimes they simplify the stories, one that take place. But when I talked with Steve, and I’d say a lot of people don’t think that he was doing this, but I know from the conversation the way he talked about other people and in particular those at Disney who were more likely to have a discussion, you actually had a deep appreciation for what others brought at the table. And by thinking that way and by bringing in what others brought and appreciating them, you are setting yourselves up for getting something which is good. Something that’s truthful never easy. Nobody ever said it was going to be easy, but at least the importance of and the value of it was clear, and I’m kind of rambling here, but we talk about the arc they went through. Well, actually, there are companies that have gone through arc. These are complicated stories. They’re rich and think that when they work well, it’s because the people thought about it and don’t take for granted the people around them were the same pls or for them matter, even take granted the accident that enabled them.
Greg McKeown:
Ed. These are only to use your phrase, beautiful ramblings; very appreciative of your time today. Thank you for being on the podcast.
Ed Catmull:
Thank you, Greg. I really enjoyed talking with you.
Greg McKeown:
What is one idea you heard today that caught your attention, and who is one person you can share that insight with within the next 24 to 48 hours? If you haven’t already yet, please sign up for the 1-Minute Wednesday. Join well over a hundred thousand people now who receive that newsletter every week.
If you found value in this episode, please write a review on Apple Podcasts. The first five people to write a review of this episode will receive free access to the Essentialism Academy. Just go to essentialism.com/podcastpromo for more details, and I will see you next time.
