Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Member since:
December 2007
December 2007
You all will learn, if you haven't yet, that the radical right and left are very defensive people and anything that can be construed as to being against their views are labeled as "propaganda".
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Member since:
July 2006
July 2006
Well I saw most of Wall-E today. The beginning was entertainig but I ended up passing out after Wall-E and E.V.E. land in that space cruise ship thing. Woke up when the Captain was fighting the red eye robot with the 2001 music playing 
From the amount I did see it had some great comedy and it was very, very imaginitive. I just wish I wasn't so sleepy when I saw it.
From the amount I did see it had some great comedy and it was very, very imaginitive. I just wish I wasn't so sleepy when I saw it.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Member since:
January 2008
January 2008
I enjoyed this movie. I went to go see Love Guru today, and all I could think was how much better Wall-E was.
I was watching an interesting program on Starz about Pixar's history. There was a recording of Walt Disney saying something about what he tried to achieve - it was not to entertain children or adults, but to rekindle that little bit that of goodness we hope exists in all of us (sorry if I just butchered that - I can't remember exactly what he said). Wall-E was just that kind of movie. I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just say that this movie is simply about one robot's (a very human-like robot) commitment and perseverance in spite of great difficulties.
To me this movie was nearly as good as Cars and very similar in terms of simplicity and charm. Skyhawk, that guy's review was pretty harsh. It seems he took the film too seriously, or too personally. Let's face it - there's far too few people out there doing anything to protect our future and too many doing things as if they will have no consequence. Wall-e is not a person, so I expect his reasoning to be less than realistic. He can do things that would seem outrageous for a person that would only make him seem more human.
I was watching an interesting program on Starz about Pixar's history. There was a recording of Walt Disney saying something about what he tried to achieve - it was not to entertain children or adults, but to rekindle that little bit that of goodness we hope exists in all of us (sorry if I just butchered that - I can't remember exactly what he said). Wall-E was just that kind of movie. I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just say that this movie is simply about one robot's (a very human-like robot) commitment and perseverance in spite of great difficulties.
To me this movie was nearly as good as Cars and very similar in terms of simplicity and charm. Skyhawk, that guy's review was pretty harsh. It seems he took the film too seriously, or too personally. Let's face it - there's far too few people out there doing anything to protect our future and too many doing things as if they will have no consequence. Wall-e is not a person, so I expect his reasoning to be less than realistic. He can do things that would seem outrageous for a person that would only make him seem more human.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Member since:
January 2008
January 2008
No offense to Jason, but I think he took this movie a little too literally. Let me start with a quote from the piece:
"What Andrew Stanton has done here is take 'An Inconvenient Truth,' removed the science behind it and exaggerated the characters to the Nth degree."
That is a rather extreme over-simplifcation. Pixar's move here was not simply an exaggeration of the science (or "science", depending on your perspective) of the Gore film. The Gore film was about things that many believe could really happen and/or are happening already. On the contrary, "Wall-E" imagines a future world in which, by around 2100, there's no government, and in its place a giant corporation that has sold so much (obviously bought by the people) that the earth is now covered in trash. Now, does anyone really believe that over the next 100 years or so, humans will generate so much trash that we'll be forced to leave the planet because Wal-Mart has replaced the government? I mean, is that even remotely plausible? There's no "Inconvenient Truth" like message. . .it's more like a convenient truth. . .for the story. I don't see how you can rationally conclude that this aspect of the movie sends any message, other than perhaps that over-consumption can be a bad thing (which shouldn't be news to anyone).
In developing this story, Pixar had a problem. They had to find something to get humans off the planet, and they wanted to tie their character into that. Climate change is a non-starter, because then you have to explain how the robot can fix climate change, which isn't quite as simple as "he compresses trash and stacks it into piles." Also, a climate change argument inherently bothers people on both sides of the debate, since invariably there are people that think you went both too far and, at the same time, not far enough. Depletion of natural resources doesn't work either, because 1) a robot can't fix that, and 2) see above regarding going too far and not going for enough. (Note: Obviously I was not privy to any discussions at Pixar, but as meticulous as these movies are, I have to think they considered multiple possibilities for this story, as well as the potential effects of each).
Yet at some point they hit on the idea of trash. In theory, if the planet is covered in trash, this can be cured, and you can leave robots to do it. It's implausible (and yes, exaggerated) as presented in the movie, so it will minimize the backlash which always follows anything that even remotely claims that human activity can have lasting effects on the planet. And lastly, it explains how this robot could be left on the planet, yet learn and collect so much in what essentially amounts to simple form of anthropology.
The review argues that the movie remains "on message," with which I would agree. We simply disagree on what the message is. In my view, the message has nothing to do with climate change or even over-consumption, kind of like how "The Incredibles" wasn't about excessive litigation. Rather, it's about taking advantage of opportunities as they arise. Wall-E took full advantage of the opportunities that were presented him, and when the planet in the movie was ready to support life again, the people came back and fixed it. No offense, but I think it's kind of silly to see a Pixar movie and then spend the aftermath jumping at shadows.
In order to prevent similar issues in the future, I want to provide an easy way for everyone to determine what the "message" in a Pixar movie is. Are you ready? Here goes. The "message" always involves the main characters. Period. In this case, that's Wall-E and Eve, though as stated above, it can also be extended to the humans. This is how we know that "The Incredibles" was not about litigation or insurance companies, "Ratatouille" was not about pest prevention, "Toy Story 2" wasn't about Al's Toy Barn, etc. Easy.
"What Andrew Stanton has done here is take 'An Inconvenient Truth,' removed the science behind it and exaggerated the characters to the Nth degree."
That is a rather extreme over-simplifcation. Pixar's move here was not simply an exaggeration of the science (or "science", depending on your perspective) of the Gore film. The Gore film was about things that many believe could really happen and/or are happening already. On the contrary, "Wall-E" imagines a future world in which, by around 2100, there's no government, and in its place a giant corporation that has sold so much (obviously bought by the people) that the earth is now covered in trash. Now, does anyone really believe that over the next 100 years or so, humans will generate so much trash that we'll be forced to leave the planet because Wal-Mart has replaced the government? I mean, is that even remotely plausible? There's no "Inconvenient Truth" like message. . .it's more like a convenient truth. . .for the story. I don't see how you can rationally conclude that this aspect of the movie sends any message, other than perhaps that over-consumption can be a bad thing (which shouldn't be news to anyone).
In developing this story, Pixar had a problem. They had to find something to get humans off the planet, and they wanted to tie their character into that. Climate change is a non-starter, because then you have to explain how the robot can fix climate change, which isn't quite as simple as "he compresses trash and stacks it into piles." Also, a climate change argument inherently bothers people on both sides of the debate, since invariably there are people that think you went both too far and, at the same time, not far enough. Depletion of natural resources doesn't work either, because 1) a robot can't fix that, and 2) see above regarding going too far and not going for enough. (Note: Obviously I was not privy to any discussions at Pixar, but as meticulous as these movies are, I have to think they considered multiple possibilities for this story, as well as the potential effects of each).
Yet at some point they hit on the idea of trash. In theory, if the planet is covered in trash, this can be cured, and you can leave robots to do it. It's implausible (and yes, exaggerated) as presented in the movie, so it will minimize the backlash which always follows anything that even remotely claims that human activity can have lasting effects on the planet. And lastly, it explains how this robot could be left on the planet, yet learn and collect so much in what essentially amounts to simple form of anthropology.
The review argues that the movie remains "on message," with which I would agree. We simply disagree on what the message is. In my view, the message has nothing to do with climate change or even over-consumption, kind of like how "The Incredibles" wasn't about excessive litigation. Rather, it's about taking advantage of opportunities as they arise. Wall-E took full advantage of the opportunities that were presented him, and when the planet in the movie was ready to support life again, the people came back and fixed it. No offense, but I think it's kind of silly to see a Pixar movie and then spend the aftermath jumping at shadows.
In order to prevent similar issues in the future, I want to provide an easy way for everyone to determine what the "message" in a Pixar movie is. Are you ready? Here goes. The "message" always involves the main characters. Period. In this case, that's Wall-E and Eve, though as stated above, it can also be extended to the humans. This is how we know that "The Incredibles" was not about litigation or insurance companies, "Ratatouille" was not about pest prevention, "Toy Story 2" wasn't about Al's Toy Barn, etc. Easy.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
There is no doubt that Wall-E is a love story, but why is it never criticized in that area? Because it is a successful love story however, the criticism keeps being on the 'preachy' side of things over consumerism and environment, and on how we humans are portrayed...but you know what? We criticize it and dislike it because we know it to be true, we know that we are capable of destroying the environment and we are capable of sitting doing on our PCs watching it all happen thru YouTube...oh, and txting our friends about it too!
Again, Walll-E succeeds, Wall-e will be one of this year's best five movies, along with Dark Knight, Hellboy and two more movies, but for right now, this being such a beautiful and wonderful film to watch, has THE edge over all of them, over violence, over drugs, over organized crime, over red creatures, over whiny billionaires...you name it...as Pixar has always done.
Again, Walll-E succeeds, Wall-e will be one of this year's best five movies, along with Dark Knight, Hellboy and two more movies, but for right now, this being such a beautiful and wonderful film to watch, has THE edge over all of them, over violence, over drugs, over organized crime, over red creatures, over whiny billionaires...you name it...as Pixar has always done.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Member since:
January 2006
January 2006
Econ101,
I'm not going to respond point by point...I just don't have the time right now. All I will say is that Stanton could have layered in the environmental message (yes, it was a message and, no, a movie message does not always have to revolve around the main character) a little more subtly. That is my only criticism.
Would it have been better if I substituted "6 Degrees Could Change the World" for "An Inconvenient Truth"? How about the news special "The WalMart Effect"? All I was trying to do was use an analogy most people would be familiar with.
Jason, Ratatouille man
I'm not going to respond point by point...I just don't have the time right now. All I will say is that Stanton could have layered in the environmental message (yes, it was a message and, no, a movie message does not always have to revolve around the main character) a little more subtly. That is my only criticism.
Would it have been better if I substituted "6 Degrees Could Change the World" for "An Inconvenient Truth"? How about the news special "The WalMart Effect"? All I was trying to do was use an analogy most people would be familiar with.
Jason, Ratatouille man
Monday, July 7, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Again, people criticize the 'environmental/corporate' factor rather than the actual love story (that let's face it, is almost flawless), because for many, most of us, truth hurts, implying that something similar could happen, does hurt, and we want to avoid talking about it.
You have eye candy movies that mock global warming (The Day After Tomorrow) and movies that talk facts/educate about it (An Inconvenient Truth), but when a love story setting's includes something that could actually happen, we dislike it...again, any actual critizicism against the effects? The love story? The characters? The voices? The cinematography? The sound mixing? The soundtrac? The editing? ...
You have eye candy movies that mock global warming (The Day After Tomorrow) and movies that talk facts/educate about it (An Inconvenient Truth), but when a love story setting's includes something that could actually happen, we dislike it...again, any actual critizicism against the effects? The love story? The characters? The voices? The cinematography? The sound mixing? The soundtrac? The editing? ...
Monday, July 7, 2008
Member since:
January 2006
January 2006
Quote:
we want to avoid talking about it.
Not once did I say it not a worthwhile message or idea. Not. Once. My only contention was in the presentation.
Quote:
again, any actual critizicism against the effects? The love story? The characters? The voices? The cinematography? The sound mixing? The soundtrac? The editing? ...
Did you not read what I bloody wrote? I'm sure I used words like beautiful and exquisite in there at least once. I did mention the Newman soundtrack and, I'm fairly certain, the Pixar style on full display. All I said was I didn't enjoy it as much as Ratatouille, yet Wall-E still got a 7 out of 10 from me.
Jason, seriously
Monday, July 7, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
Again, because I'm not like some people who start those upconversion and blu-ray loving and whatnot threads( 
), I want to say that the environmental/corporate thing is not a good or valid argument against the movie, just like Iron Man and the war wasn't.
And to be fair, out of the last three Pixar movies that I've seen in the theater (the only other being Toy Story), Ratatouille was by far my least favorite, with Wall-E on top and Cars in the middle...with Ratatouille there is no edge, not something that breaks the mold, the way both Cars and Wall-E have done...anyways, back to the upconversion threads.... 
), I want to say that the environmental/corporate thing is not a good or valid argument against the movie, just like Iron Man and the war wasn't.And to be fair, out of the last three Pixar movies that I've seen in the theater (the only other being Toy Story), Ratatouille was by far my least favorite, with Wall-E on top and Cars in the middle...with Ratatouille there is no edge, not something that breaks the mold, the way both Cars and Wall-E have done...anyways, back to the upconversion threads....
Monday, July 7, 2008
Member since:
January 2006
January 2006
Quote:
I want to say that the environmental/corporate thing is not a good or valid argument against the movie, just like Iron Man and the war wasn't.
Now I'm just curious. The environment and corporate greed was a front and center theme of the movie, especially the second half. Why is it not a valid argument against Wall-E?
Jason, Anton Ego
