乔布斯传之节选22

Cinderella

from Chapter 22

Lasseter was riveted as he watched the two wiry and tightly wound principals parry and thrust. “Just to see Steve and Jeffrey go at it, I was in awe,” he recalled. “It was like a fencing match. They were both masters.” But Katzenberg went into the match with a saber, Jobs with a mere foil. Pixar was on the verge of bankruptcy and needed a deal with Disney far more than Disney needed a deal with Pixar. Plus, Disney could afford to finance the whole enterprise, and Pixar couldn’t. The result was a deal, struck in May 1991, by which Disney would own the picture and its characters outright, have creative control, and pay Pixar about 12.5% of the ticket revenues. It had the option (but not the obligation) to do Pixar’s next two films and the right to make (with or without Pixar) sequels using the characters in the film. Disney could also kill the film at any time with only a small penalty.

The idea that John Lasseter pitched was called “Toy Story.” It sprang from a belief, which he and Jobs shared, that products have an essence to them, a purpose for which they were made. If the object were to have feelings, these would be based on its desire to fulfill its essence. The purpose of a glass, for example, is to hold water; if it had feelings, it would be happy when full and sad when empty. The essence of a computer screen is to interface with a human. The essence of a unicycle is to be ridden in a circus. As for toys, their purpose is to be played with by kids, and thus their existential fear is of being discarded or upstaged by newer toys. So a buddy movie pairing an old favorite toy with a shiny new one would have an essential drama to it, especially when the action revolved around the toys’ being separated from their kid. The original treatment began, “Everyone has had the traumatic childhood experience of losing a toy. Our story takes the toy’s point of view as he loses and tries to regain the single thing most important to him: to be played with by children. This is the reason for the existence of all toys. It is the emotional foundation of their existence.”

The two main characters went through many iterations before they ended up as Buzz Lightyear and Woody.

高翔

拉塞特对这两位瘦削干练的公司负责人的激烈交锋印象深刻。“单看史蒂夫和杰弗里的干劲，我就非常敬畏，”拉塞特回忆说，“那就像是一场击剑比赛，他俩都是此道高手。”但是卡曾伯格使用的是佩剑，而乔布斯用的是花剑。皮克斯公司正在破产的边缘上，迫切需要与迪斯尼公司做成这笔交易。加之迪斯尼公司可以承担整个项目的资金开销，而皮克斯公司则不能。结果就是双方在1991年5月达成以下协议：迪斯尼公司将完全拥有影片及片中人物的版权，并且对影片创作享有完全的控制权，皮克斯公司可以获得大约12.5%的票房收入。迪斯尼公司有杈利（而无义务）制作皮克斯公司接下来的两部电影，也有权使用（不一定跟皮克斯公司合伙）影片中的人物制作电影续集。迪斯尼公司同样有权随时以较少的罚金为代价终止影片的拍摄。
    约翰·拉塞特提出的创意叫“玩具总动员”， 它来自于拉塞特和乔布斯共有的一个信念：产品有其自己的内在意义，它们为着一个目的而被制造出来。如果产品有情感的话，其情感就一定会建立在实现自身价值的愿望的基础上。例如，杯子被制造出来是为了盛水；如果杯子有情感，那么被盛满的时候它会高兴，空着的时候它会悲伤。计算机屏幕的工作是与人交流，独轮车的工作是在马戏团被人骑着表演。至于玩具，它们被制造出来是为了被小孩子玩，因而它们内心深处的恐惧就是被丢在一边或是被新的玩具取代。所以，一个受人喜爱的旧玩具和一个闪闪发光的新玩具在剧中搭档就产生了很强的戏剧感，特别是当剧情涉及到那些被孩子们丢弃的玩具的时候。原始电影脚本中说到：“每个人都有童年时失去玩具的悲伤往事。我们的故事就从玩具的视角来展开。它曾失去，又努力重新得到那个对他来说最重要的事：和孩子们一起玩。这是所有玩具存在的理由，这是它们存在的情感基础。
    经过多次讨论，两个主角的名字最终被确定为“巴斯光年”和“胡迪”。

小远

拉塞特对这两位精明干练的公司负责人的争锋相对印象深刻。“单看史蒂夫和杰弗里的闯劲，就令我心生敬畏，”拉塞特回忆说，“那就像是一场击剑比赛，他俩都是大师级别。”但是卡曾伯格使用的是佩剑，而乔布斯用的是花剑。皮克斯公司正濒临破产，急需与迪斯尼公司达成这笔生意。并且迪斯尼公司可以揽下整个项目的资金花销，而皮克斯公司则不行。结果就是两家公司在1991年5月达成如下协议：迪斯尼公司将完全拥有影片及卡通人物的版权，并且对影片创作享有所有的控制权，迪斯尼公司支付皮克斯公司大约12.5%的票房收入。迪斯尼公司有杈利（而无义务）制作皮克斯公司接下来的两部电影，也有权使用（不一定跟皮克斯公司合伙）影片中的人物制作电影续集。迪斯尼公司同样有权随时以较少的罚金为代价终止影片的拍摄。   

约翰·拉塞特提点子是叫它“玩具总动员”， 它来自于拉塞特和乔布斯共同所有的一个信念：产品有他们自己的含义，它们为着一个目的而被制造出来。如果产品有情感的话，他们的情感就必定会以实现自身价值的愿望为基础。比方说，杯子被制造出来是为了盛水；如果杯子有情感，那么被盛满的时候它会觉得开心，空着的时候它会感到难过。计算机显示器的目的是与人交流，独轮车的目的是在马戏团被人骑着表演。至于玩具，它们被制造出来是为了被小孩子玩，因此它们最大的恐惧就是被丢在一边或是被新的玩具取代。所以，在剧中搭配一个受人喜爱的旧玩具和一个闪闪发光的新玩具就产生了很强的戏剧感，特别是当内容涉及到那些被孩子们丢弃的玩具的时候。电影原内容说：“每个人都有童年时失去玩具的悲伤往事。我们的故事就从玩具的角度开始。它曾失去，又努力重新得到那个对他来说最重要的事：与孩子们一起玩耍。这是所有玩具存在的理由，这是它们存在的情感基础。   

两个主角的名字经过多次讨论，最终被确定为“巴斯光年”和“胡迪”。