Pixar’s Braintrust: candid notes, no orders

Case study · Marketing 475 · Giving and Using Creative Critique

Pixar built a review process where peers give blunt, specific notes on unfinished films but have no power to force changes, which keeps the critique about the work and leaves the decisions with the person who owns it.

The situation

Pixar makes feature films that take years to finish. Every one of them starts as a rough draft: story reels, sketches and temporary voices. Ed Catmull, Pixar’s co-founder and longtime president, has said this plainly. In his 2014 book Creativity, Inc., excerpted in Fast Company, he wrote that “early on, all of our movies suck” and that the studio’s job is to take them “from suck to not-suck.”

That creates a feedback problem. A director who has lived inside a story for months can no longer see it clearly. A Longreads summary of the same excerpt puts Catmull’s point this way: “Where once he or she could see a forest, now there are only trees.”

The challenge

The studio needed outside eyes on each film. But feedback on creative work often fails in two ways. Reviewers soften their notes to protect feelings, so the real problem never gets named. Or the notes come from a boss, so the creator hears them as orders, gets defensive and stops thinking about the work.

Pixar needed critique that was honest enough to find the problem and safe enough that the director would actually listen.

What they did

Pixar formed a group it calls the Braintrust. According to Catmull, it grew out of the working relationship among John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Pete Docter, Lee Unkrich and Joe Ranft, and later expanded to other directors, writers and heads of story. The only requirement for membership is “a knack for storytelling.” The group meets every few months to review each film in progress.

The process rests on a few rules.

• Candor is required. Catmull called the Braintrust Pixar’s “primary delivery system for straight talk.”
• The group has no authority. In a 2014 Stanford interview Catmull said the Braintrust “could not tell the director what to do.” Notes are offered as suggestions for the director to accept or dismiss.
• The target is the film, not the filmmaker. Catmull said members had intense discussions about the film itself, “but it was never personal.”
• Notes name a specific problem tied to the goal. In an Inside Out session described in the book excerpt, Brad Bird told director Pete Docter, “I think we need something that your audience can get a little more invested in.” Andrew Stanton added, “I think you need to spend more time settling on the rules of your imagined world.”

What happened

Catmull points to Toy Story 2 as the case where the Braintrust “helped turn around a film in danger of foundering.” Disney first planned the sequel as a direct-to-video release, then upgraded it to theaters. Pixar was unhappy with the film’s quality, Lasseter agreed it was not working, and he was asked to take over. With a release date that could not move, the team had about nine months to rebuild the film. It opened in November 1999 and became a major hit.

The practice outlasted that crisis. Catmull later described the Braintrust as something that has changed over time, except for one thing: “the demand for candor.” When Catmull also took charge of Walt Disney Animation Studios, he brought the same principles there.

Why it worked

Removing authority changes how a note is heard. Catmull said that because the group had no power over the film, the director did not come in “in a defensive posture.” A director who does not have to obey can afford to listen.

Keeping the focus on the work lets people be blunt without being cruel. Members are not judging whether a director is talented. They are asking whether this scene does its job for the audience.

Good notes also point to a goal. Bird’s note was not “make it better.” It named the problem, audience investment, and pointed toward a fix. That gives the director something to act on.

Where it gets complicated

The Braintrust has no authority, but the studio does. Directors at Pixar have been replaced. Brenda Chapman, the original director of Brave, was replaced by Mark Andrews in October 2010 after creative disagreements with John Lasseter. In a 2012 New York Times essay she called the period “a heartbreakingly hard road” for her, and also wrote that “in the end, my vision came through in the film.” Notes can be optional on paper while the people giving them still hold real power.

Candor also depends on trust that takes years to build. Catmull himself wrote that the Braintrust “is not foolproof.” A team that copies the meeting format without the trust, or where the most senior voice always wins, may get the bluntness without the safety.

The marketing principle

Critique improves creative work when it is aimed at the work, tied to what the work is trying to do, and specific enough to act on. Pixar adds one more lesson: the person who owns the work decides which notes to use. Your job as a reviewer is to name the problem clearly. Your job as a creator is to listen, then choose, and be able to explain your choice.

Sources

• Inside the Pixar Braintrust, Fast Company (2014)
• Inside the Braintrust (Ed Catmull interview transcript), Stanford eCorner (2014)
• How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity, Harvard Business Review (2008)
• Ed Catmull Details Inside Out Story Meeting in Creativity, Inc. Preview, Pixar Planet (2014)
• Toy Story 2, Wikipedia (2026)
• Brenda Chapman Talks About Brave in New York Times Op-Ed, Cartoon Brew (2012)

---

Back to Giving and Using Creative Critique · All case studies

Brand names, images and trademarks belong to their owners and appear here for educational purposes only.