What I found interesting in the book "Creativity Inc" by their co-founder, Ed Catmull, was that Jobs effectively gave them 70 million and 3-4 years of them trying to make computers before they pivoted to animation. I'd love someone to give me 70 million :P
PS: I read the book when it came out. I don't have it around to check my memory is correct about 3-4 years and 70 million. What I remeber is they were a subdivision of ILM tasked with making computers. ILM tried to sell them to HP IIRC, who was not interested. Jobs bought them to make computers, not animation.
After the MeToo allegations, his contributions have been removed—or at least significantly downplayed—in Disney and Pixar’s accounts of Pixar’s origins.
Hm, the fact that he was mentioned or referenced does not prove that his role was downplayed, a quick search of the interwebs shows:
- 2018 Oscars: Despite his massive influence on Coco, none of the filmmakers mentioned him by name in their acceptance speeches for Best Animated Feature.
- Film Premieres: Lasseter did not attend the 2018 premiere of Incredibles 2, a film he was heavily involved in, further signaling his detachment from official company events.
With guys who are in prestigious/powerful corporate positions, I wonder if there is a fundamental issue where everybody tends to brown nose them, but female brown nosing sometimes gets misinterpreted as flirtation and interest.
And because guys in these sorts of positions actually do get an overpowered amount of real interest from women, they may have a harder time detecting inauthentic interest-alias
than say a random janitor guy who a woman is being artificially nice to for some reason.
And then if the guy mistakenly thinks the woman is interested and makes a move, the woman may then in the moment feel unsure about what to do, because an abrupt rejection that contradicts their earlier outward behavior may make them feel not good, they might feel like they caused it, etc (which I think lines up with accounts I’ve read, except they don’t mention the brown nosing part of the theorized pattern).
This doesn’t excuse anything, necessarily, I just wonder if there are some complex dynamics at play. This setup we have where sexual relations are at will, subject only to consent, is not that old, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the system as-is still produces very bad outcomes at times even if the parties involved are all behaving in a non-psychopathic way.
The problem with your hypothesis is that 'a woman being nice to you' (brown-nosing or otherwise) is in absolutely no way whatsoever flirting. Flirting is an entirely different way of behaving.
Yeah, sure, the plot of The Hot Chick is totally imaginary and not used as a satire on the behaviour of some people. Especially in those scenes at the cafe. Yes.
What I found interesting in the book "Creativity Inc" by their co-founder, Ed Catmull, was that Jobs effectively gave them 70 million and 3-4 years of them trying to make computers before they pivoted to animation. I'd love someone to give me 70 million :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity,_Inc.
PS: I read the book when it came out. I don't have it around to check my memory is correct about 3-4 years and 70 million. What I remeber is they were a subdivision of ILM tasked with making computers. ILM tried to sell them to HP IIRC, who was not interested. Jobs bought them to make computers, not animation.
He has fairly equal representation as the other founders on their history page
https://www.pixar.com/our-story
He also is directly mentioned in the Disney+ docuseries on ILM, and was part of Catmul’s retrospective on Toy Story as recently as this year
https://youtu.be/q1Uq8b2ooVk?si=zjHSHjGHtymH-kKy
Pixar and Disney haven’t been shying away from his involvement in their history
- 2018 Oscars: Despite his massive influence on Coco, none of the filmmakers mentioned him by name in their acceptance speeches for Best Animated Feature.
- Film Premieres: Lasseter did not attend the 2018 premiere of Incredibles 2, a film he was heavily involved in, further signaling his detachment from official company events.
And because guys in these sorts of positions actually do get an overpowered amount of real interest from women, they may have a harder time detecting inauthentic interest-alias than say a random janitor guy who a woman is being artificially nice to for some reason.
And then if the guy mistakenly thinks the woman is interested and makes a move, the woman may then in the moment feel unsure about what to do, because an abrupt rejection that contradicts their earlier outward behavior may make them feel not good, they might feel like they caused it, etc (which I think lines up with accounts I’ve read, except they don’t mention the brown nosing part of the theorized pattern).
This doesn’t excuse anything, necessarily, I just wonder if there are some complex dynamics at play. This setup we have where sexual relations are at will, subject only to consent, is not that old, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the system as-is still produces very bad outcomes at times even if the parties involved are all behaving in a non-psychopathic way.
Then, using that stereotypical behaviour to chastise others.
You also presume that "brown nosing" is the same category as "being nice". It's not. Brown nosing is a non-genuine, fabricated expression.
So is the woman faking "being nice" due to brow nosing, or faking "being nice" due to sexual interest?
The parent poster was merely wondering if this is hard to discern, and even indicated that it "doesn't make it right".
Your response is part of what is wrong with such dynamics today. Knee jerk reactions to speculation is not called for.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0302640/?ref_=sr_t_3