EPTIt's not a well-thought out movie.
It was, but it's a Disney movie. Yes, it's cute and emo by design because it's a Disney movie. The fact that you can't suspend your disbelief is your own limitation, not one of the movie, as I'm sure 100% of their intended audience is successful in doing so.[Movie] Wall-E - Page 6
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
EGoldman
United States110 Posts
On July 04 2008 13:29 d.arkive wrote: Out of curiosity, Goldman, what scripts and novels have you contributed to? I'd talk about my upcoming project, but I'd rather not jinx it. And I'm going to avoid talking about what I have done because of posts like this: I bet it's nothing you've ever heard of. Based on the attitude of his post, he probably writes complete crap. Then he calls the masses uneducated and tasteless when he finds out everyone hates it. It's just not productive. I'm not here to get into a penis-size contest. I'm here to comment on a film that I thought was terrible. But don't worry, I make my bank  And it's mostly in the SF genre, so yeah, I'm touchy when it comes to robots. I don't like mainstream interpretations of it that rely on big-budget studios and sell with eye-candy/product advertisements. It's what destroys the industry. Same reason PC companies like EA get bigger and bigger, and some of the best studios get shutdown one after another. Graphics = higher costs. But everyone wants better graphics and so creativity gets shunted aside. New concepts are avoided for "proven" franchises. That's why you see sequels and so on that are rather stank still get produced. | ||
|
EGoldman
United States110 Posts
On July 04 2008 22:34 Jibba wrote: It was, but it's a Disney movie. Yes, it's cute and emo by design because it's a Disney movie. The fact that you can't suspend your disbelief is your own limitation, not one of the movie, as I'm sure 100% of their intended audience is successful in doing so. While you're flinging that around, I hope you know Disney movie is a bad word. And using "intended audience" to prove your point is further indication that you have no clue what you're talking about. Phraseology like that is part of the problem. If it makes money, that makes it good? GTFO with your worship of capitalism please. | ||
|
EGoldman
United States110 Posts
On July 04 2008 17:10 Tsagacity wrote: I bet it's nothing you've ever heard of. Based on the attitude of his post, he probably writes complete crap. Then he calls the masses uneducated and tasteless when he finds out everyone hates it. lol if you got a point to make, then make it. If not, then keep quiet. Trying to go for low blows doesn't work. But thanks for your two cents of kindergarten psycho-analysis. I'm sorry you enjoyed a kiddy film about people wearing robot suits. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 04 2008 22:36 EGoldman wrote: While you're flinging that around, I hope you know Disney movie is a bad word. And using "intended audience" to prove your point is further indication that you have no clue what you're talking about. Phraseology like that is part of the problem. If it makes money, that makes it good? GTFO with your worship of capitalism please. You are such a tool. I don't care if you don't like the movie, but you're criticizing it for not having realistic robots. Disney movie is a bad thing when applied to more mature movies that aren't made by Disney, but in fact this was. It was targeted as a children's movie that adults can enjoy, and the general consensus, even among your script writing peers, is that it is a wild success. | ||
|
EGoldman
United States110 Posts
Grow up. Or is name-calling your last refuge from logical conversation? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The eventual irony of this discussion is going to be delicious. | ||
|
EGoldman
United States110 Posts
On July 04 2008 22:43 Jibba wrote: You are such a tool. I don't care if you don't like the movie, but you're criticizing it for not having realistic robots. Disney movie is a bad thing when applied to more mature movies that aren't made by Disney, but in fact this was. It was targeted as a children's movie that adults can enjoy, and the general consensus, even among your script writing peers, is that it is a wild success. Like I said before, using mob mentality as justification for the merits of something is not only irrational, it reflects poorly on your education. And check your reading comprehension. I'm criticizing it because it tries to fob off having terrible characterization by using the stereotype of robots. You seem to lack the capability to understand ideas beyond the soundbyte level. I don't care what it's targeted as. That doesn't make it a "good" film. Or perhaps you don't understand the difference between profitable and good? Success doesn't make something good. If I were you, I'd just stop. The more you try to clarify your remarks, the more obvious it is that you're missing the point. This is the same phenomena that has people admiring singers like Britney Spears. She's not talented. She's produced. Oh, but she makes a lot of money!! Must be class!! Or do you think boy bands and divas are quality music? Is that it Jibba? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
nimysa
United States383 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Wait, are you gwho's second account? | ||
|
EGoldman
United States110 Posts
Still, I think it's pretty hilarious that some people resort to personal attacks when I've done nothing but comment on the movie. (Aside from when I engaged with Jibba directly) My gf was the one who actually wanted to go see it, but after the movie, even she was disappointed. And she's a marketing/design kind of girl, so this is "supposed to be" her kind of thing. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
The first thing you told them was "I guess you don't know what constitutes a good script/novel." Then read your reply to my first post, which was fairly non-argumentative. While you're flinging that around, I hope you know Disney movie is a bad word. And using "intended audience" to prove your point is further indication that you have no clue what you're talking about. Phraseology like that is part of the problem. If it makes money, that makes it good? GTFO with your worship of capitalism please. You're not interested in discussing opinions. You're interested in bolstering your own ego by dismissing others' opinions as invalid based on their "lesser" intellect/talent/experience. Trust me, you are the king of personal attacks in this thread thus far. Yes, targeting a film towards a younger audience does require much more simplicity, and certain emotions can only be portrayed with nuance. Yes, they use caricatures because they're easy to understand. Yes, it was designed to make money because they are part of the entertainment business. Personally I think the movie was slightly overrated, considering how lavishly it has been praised, but I'm not writing 500 word essays on how an iPod shouldn't play VHS. You haven't given an inkling of how it should've been. | ||
|
XDawn
Canada4040 Posts
but it was pretty cute, and just made me smile | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
He has some good things to say though. There were some things I really found outrageous, i.e. ideas of consumerism consuming us, the jokes on obesity, global warming messages, etc. When they first appeared the gf and I just turned one another, had a moment of silence and then laughed so hard everyone in the movie theatre we could see turned and probably thought wtf. The art direction and the robots are what really made the movie and yes, they were pretty human. | ||
|
traced
1739 Posts
On July 04 2008 22:28 EGoldman wrote: I'm fine with Shrek. I can suspend my disbelief. Why? Because Shrek is made to be fantastical and silly. But the fundamental crux of why Wall-E is supposed to be admirable is that it does a convincing job of making robots fall in love. But they're NOT ROBOTS. They act just like people!! Where is the artistry in that?? The animation?? All you need is money and a good studio for that. That's production values, not skill (in the filmwriting sense). being that you're an accomplished novelist and a screenwriter, i'm surprised you didn't mention the second layer of shrek, appropriate to this argument. shrek is fantastical and silly to the general audience, the target of your little tirade here. but to a man such as yourself, the appeal should be the satire...well, no that's not even it. it was a calculated attempt to sink the disney brand by destroying it's most cherished old characters and archetypes. as you know, katzenberg, president of dreamworks animation, was squeezed out of disney by eisner. spurned, one of his primary motivations for starting the company was, simply, revenge. hence, the corporate espionage and genesis of antz. hence shrek. now, i won't comment on the quality of shrek, but i will say that it's in the style of all of the other dreamworks' animated movies i've seen. but that movie works better because its object of attack is so cherished in your memory. this is one of the reasons why each successive shrek gets weaker, as the sequels are more about the shrek series itself instead of the disney legacy. by the way, nice job trolling. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
 | ||
|
Deleted User 30223
3104 Posts
On July 05 2008 03:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Jibba and EGoldman have ruined this thread | ||
|
funkie
Venezuela9377 Posts
On July 05 2008 03:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: EGoldman has ruined this thread Fixed. Can't believe he ruined this thread. Well, it was awesome for the first 5 and half pages. Oh well..I'm still going to see it. | ||
|
EGoldman
United States110 Posts
On July 05 2008 04:20 funkie wrote: Fixed. Can't believe he ruined this thread. Well, it was awesome for the first 5 and half pages. Oh well..I'm still going to see it. There's nothing "ruined" here, except perhaps the contiguous flow of sycophantic praise for a movie that didn't deserve it. And you're right traced. That was another element of Shrek. It wasn't one of the factors actively running through my head when I enjoyed it though. | ||
| ||
