I don't usually like talking about movies. I hate 90% of them all because I'm too restrictive. But this one deserves the exception.
I went to watch Wall-E by Pixar Studios thinking it would be yet another kid animation with some fun jokes to giggle at. But it amazed and impressed me more at each minute. At the end the best word to describe it in my head was GENIUS. Whoever wrote that is a fucking GENIUS.
They managed to put together the fine brilliancy and sentiment of the old silent movies, well-thought jokes of Shrek, outstanding graphics of a last-gen scifi animation plus well-tuned political messages! While I usually don't like movies where space-ships makes sound on vacuum, this one justifies it by reaching their target audience right on spot.
On June 28 2008 17:01 NonY[rC] wrote: I've never seen the words perfect/perfection used in so many reviews. I'm gonna check it out on Monday I think. I really can't wait!
Yea, now that I see it the movie had a 90~95% review average on most main stream movie critics sites. Well deserved ^^
I have never been dissapointed by a pixar production, every movie they have put out has been amazing. I can't wait to see this movie, and if tl.net is giving the thumbs up then that's all I need.
If you don't like WALL-E, you have no soul. The animation is staggering, the title character is almost too adorable, it's funny, and the political stuff, while simplistic by design, is more of a moral feel-good than an overbearing, blunt-force-trauma-style message.
I saw it tonight and I have to agree with the original post.. This movie was absolutely fantastic. It rocketed to #1 of my favorite Pixar list, which is an accomplishment since Pixar has put out so much quality over the years.
I had to fight tears nearly the entire movie and when the ending came I simply couldn't anymore. When is the last time I cried from a movies emotional content being so effective? How about from some robots who can not even really talk.
I saw this yesterday and it was fucking awesome. I felt like a little kid, completely lost in the story and loving every second. Great movie, everyone should go see it.
I thought it was pretty cheesy in the second half. edit: Didn't really feel overwhelmed by the movie, mainly because I watched Wall-E right after wanted.
On June 29 2008 01:57 new_construct wrote: I thought it was pretty cheesy in the second half. edit: Didn't really feel overwhelmed by the movie, mainly because I watched Wall-E right after wanted.
Did you pay for 2 tickets, or did you sneak in? My local AMC theater is awesome. It's easy to sneak in to other movies after you watch one. They don't ID. It's even easy to sneak in food. I once walked in with a Ice Tea in my hand, no one told me anything.
I'd feel better about going to see it if the main character wasn't made to look so pathetically weak you're supposed to automatically feel sorry for it.
I loved it. Wall-E was quite the endearing character, I laughed many times throughout the movie, and much more feeling was conveyed through two robots than I normally see in most movies nowadays.
It started better than it ended, stylistically, but it was still very good all through-out.
Just got back from the theatre, Pixar hits another one out of the park. I'm definitely going to have to get the Dvd and watch it a few more times when it comes out, there were soo many things happening at such a quick pace towards the middle-latter half. It was one hell of a treat for the eyes.
The robot's body & beep languages were very affective and easy to connect with, and the story, although tamed down for kids, can easily be considered an upper tier science fiction drama on its own. I could easily see the "inconvenient truth-ish" message behind it all, be it intentional or not, but nothing about it was preachy, it was more humorous. Like a lot of you said, I did enjoy the first half (the Earth half) a little more than the space madness, but both were great, and the change of pace was a good call (my only gripe was the space half dragged on just a tad too long).
So yeah, congrats once again Pixar, looking forward to "Up" in 09'
On June 29 2008 01:57 new_construct wrote: I thought it was pretty cheesy in the second half. edit: Didn't really feel overwhelmed by the movie, mainly because I watched Wall-E right after wanted.
Did you pay for 2 tickets, or did you sneak in? My local AMC theater is awesome. It's easy to sneak in to other movies after you watch one. They don't ID. It's even easy to sneak in food. I once walked in with a Ice Tea in my hand, no one told me anything.
of course i sneaked in, wall-E's showing was 10 minutes after wanted finished, and the two theater rooms were right beside each other.
On June 29 2008 01:57 new_construct wrote: I thought it was pretty cheesy in the second half. edit: Didn't really feel overwhelmed by the movie, mainly because I watched Wall-E right after wanted.
Did you pay for 2 tickets, or did you sneak in? My local AMC theater is awesome. It's easy to sneak in to other movies after you watch one. They don't ID. It's even easy to sneak in food. I once walked in with a Ice Tea in my hand, no one told me anything.
My local theater is awesomer. I get free popcorn/drinks, and when I don't want free stuff I just bring sodas in, and I tell the people working there I brought sodas in, and their like "cool."
On June 29 2008 05:33 new_construct wrote: it surprises me that there is a thread on "wall-E" and not on "wanted" considering the majority of the people in TL are males and play starcraft
Wall-E and starcraft are both science fiction.
WALL-E = PROBE
Did you see the site go ga-ga over the TSL probe intro?
On June 29 2008 08:04 clazziquai wrote: Is this movie really that good? I'm surprised. I saw the trailer a week ago, didn't look like I would have enjoyed it.
hmm...watch Wall-E or Wanted...
watch both, probably the most visually astounding movies this summer, and they both have a lot of character ( i was really worried about wanted being generic, but it was fuking badass). Plus they are on different ends of the spectrum, so it balances out
Wow, Wall-E was hands down the best movie I've seen in a long time. Whoever mentioned the robots conveying more emotion than most human actors these days, you were entirely right.
I think that it was pretty overrated...definitely not the A+ critics are scoring it
The first half of the movie was slow and seemed pretty pointless, but the second half actually contained a story and everything picked up.
On the other hand, Wanted was pretty pointless too in that its story was rather convoluted and predictable but you watch it for the action scenes (and Angelina Jolie fan service) and not necessarily the deep plot.
Went to see it with a 10, 8, and 5 year old. Was really good, the thing that sucked thou it was $24 the tickets and $10 for a small popcorn and soda. Snuck in 3 cans of coke so could of been worse, was definitely worth it thou.
Oh and a pat in the back for whoever tells me the name of the french song, its also in "Love Me If You Dare". It was towards the beginning...
On June 29 2008 13:09 gunsharp wrote: Just watched Wall-E...
I think that it was pretty overrated...definitely not the A+ critics are scoring it
The first half of the movie was slow and seemed pretty pointless, but the second half actually contained a story and everything picked up.
On the other hand, Wanted was pretty pointless too in that its story was rather convoluted and predictable but you watch it for the action scenes (and Angelina Jolie fan service) and not necessarily the deep plot.
I felt the total opposite way, I found watching Wall-E's lifestyle extremely interesting(and humorous). I could have watched an entire movie about him doing his little job and what adventures he comes across.
On June 29 2008 05:33 new_construct wrote: it surprises me that there is a thread on "wall-E" and not on "wanted" considering the majority of the people in TL are males and play starcraft
Wall-E and starcraft are both science fiction.
WALL-E = PROBE
Did you see the site go ga-ga over the TSL probe intro?
On June 29 2008 05:33 new_construct wrote: it surprises me that there is a thread on "wall-E" and not on "wanted" considering the majority of the people in TL are males and play starcraft
Wall-E and starcraft are both science fiction.
WALL-E = PROBE
Did you see the site go ga-ga over the TSL probe intro?
Ta-da!
Wall-E = SCV
Nah probe. He doesn't have a human sitting inside him and the noises he makes are probe-like. He does look more like a SCV though.
If i thought kung fu panda was 0 comedy and like 1/10 story quality, am I going to like Wall-E? I thought shrek was okay but im not huge on child orientated graphics movies.
On June 30 2008 04:25 HamerD wrote: If i thought kung fu panda was 0 comedy and like 1/10 story quality, am I going to like Wall-E? I thought shrek was okay but im not huge on child orientated graphics movies.
Completely different humor from kung fu panda, which is dumb and infantile. Wall-e is much more insightful and deep. I did like shrek myself, but wall-e is much better.
I give a shining endorsement for this movie. Loved it. I'm not sure I'm ready to call it the best Pixar movie yet, but it's up there. The short before the movie was great too. Brought back memories of Looney Tunes episodes.
On June 29 2008 13:09 BuGzlToOnl wrote: Really loved the movie.
Went to see it with a 10, 8, and 5 year old. Was really good, the thing that sucked thou it was $24 the tickets and $10 for a small popcorn and soda. Snuck in 3 cans of coke so could of been worse, was definitely worth it thou.
Oh and a pat in the back for whoever tells me the name of the french song, its also in "Love Me If You Dare". It was towards the beginning...
The song was originally Edith Piaf's La Vie En Rose...I wish they'd played that instead of some weird American version of it.
Anyway, yeah all throughout the whole movie I was like this movie is so cute :D
Okay, I read this thread this morning, and my boyfriend and I ended up going to the movie theater earlier today. I told him I wanted to watch Wall-E, much to his disappointment. I enjoyed the movie, but I don't think I liked it as much as the majority of you seem to. The beginning was, as aforementioned, very nice stylistically, but I found it to be dragged out a bit and got to be a bit boring. The second half had some rather interesting parts in it, but eh. I don't know, overall it was just pretty good for me, just not spectacular.
The one thing that kind of spoiled it for me was that it was still a Disney movie, so happy ending blah blah.
If someone else mad it would have been crying at the end. As is, I knew nothing bad was going to happen in the end, which felt really off in such a relatively dark movie.
On June 28 2008 16:59 VIB wrote: I don't usually like talking about movies. I hate 90% of them all because I'm too restrictive. But this one deserves the exception.
I went to watch Wall-E by Pixar Studios thinking it would be yet another kid animation with some fun jokes to giggle at. But it amazed and impressed me more at each minute. At the end the best word to describe it in my head was GENIUS. Whoever wrote that is a fucking GENIUS.
They managed to put together the fine brilliancy and sentiment of the old silent movies, well-thought jokes of Shrek, outstanding graphics of a last-gen scifi animation plus well-tuned political messages! While I usually don't like movies where space-ships makes sound on vacuum, this one justifies it by reaching their target audience right on spot.
10/10 Watch it!
Andrew Stanton wrote and directed it, he also wrote and directed Finding Nemo.. Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo and produced Ratatoui...
Not only that, he wrote the screenplay version of "John Carter of Mars" which is the first Pixar film to feature live action (Its set to be a half life action/half animated film)
the guys a genius, no doubt going to be a staple in the future of Pixar films.
He was around when Pixar was first created, and helped nearly found the company...
For anyone interested... this is a GREAT video panel, Brad Bird (Great Animator and writer, he wrote The Iron Giant and The Incredibles), Andrew Stanton, Ed Catmul (President of Pixar), and two other important guys.
On June 29 2008 13:09 gunsharp wrote: Just watched Wall-E...
I think that it was pretty overrated...definitely not the A+ critics are scoring it
The first half of the movie was slow and seemed pretty pointless, but the second half actually contained a story and everything picked up.
On the other hand, Wanted was pretty pointless too in that its story was rather convoluted and predictable but you watch it for the action scenes (and Angelina Jolie fan service) and not necessarily the deep plot.
I felt the total opposite way, I found watching Wall-E's lifestyle extremely interesting(and humorous). I could have watched an entire movie about him doing his little job and what adventures he comes across.
I just saw this movie with my family and i loved it. Pixar always produces great stuff. Definitely go see it if you haven't. It would make a perfect date movie. I also enjoyed the pixar short at the beginning of the movie with the magician and his rabbit.
I watched it with a few friend of mine, we were laughing all the way through we got exactly what we came for and more. Oh man Wall-E ftw, he helped me play better Starcraft by calming me down after an all-night of playing it.
Rarely does a movie so perfectly combine childlike innocence with biting political commentary. This movie is set in one of the most dreary apocalyptic settings I've ever seen, yet through the eyes of a child brings nothing but joy and laughter. This is a movie that everybody from a five year old tyke to the most avid consumer of intellectual cinema can enjoy.
I really loved Pixar's choice of Fred Willard to play the ceo of BNL. He is one of the funniest people on the planet and one of the best improv comedians. Just showing him some love since everyone I've mentioned him to is like "who?" :\
Thanks a lot for all the people who has been giving their comments and stuff, it really helps someone to finally decide to watch or to not to watch a certain movie.
On July 02 2008 07:57 funkie wrote: ok, you guys got me.
I'm going to watch wall-E .
Thanks a lot for all the people who has been giving their comments and stuff, it really helps someone to finally decide to watch or to not to watch a certain movie.
On June 28 2008 16:59 VIB wrote: I don't usually like talking about movies. I hate 90% of them all because I'm too restrictive. But this one deserves the exception.
I went to watch Wall-E by Pixar Studios thinking it would be yet another kid animation with some fun jokes to giggle at. But it amazed and impressed me more at each minute. At the end the best word to describe it in my head was GENIUS. Whoever wrote that is a fucking GENIUS.
They managed to put together the fine brilliancy and sentiment of the old silent movies, well-thought jokes of Shrek, outstanding graphics of a last-gen scifi animation plus well-tuned political messages! While I usually don't like movies where space-ships makes sound on vacuum, this one justifies it by reaching their target audience right on spot.
10/10 Watch it!
absolutely.
i read down further and found similar sentiments to the one posted above, and was going to quote that one too. and then i found another. and another. so instead of a string of quotes i will just simply re-iterate: this moving was amazing. 10/10
I thought the movie was awful. And this is coming from a guy who writes movie scripts and novels for a living. Sorry, but this is more of the marketing high concept kind of tripe that the masses just seem to guzzle endlessly.
The hilarious part is that the movie is couched in this faux-indie style panoramic/minimal dialog delivery, yet the actual characterization in the story is pure cliche.
Wow, boy meets girl, boy likes girl, world gets in the way, boy saves the day. The only fucking thing different in this equation is boy happens to be semi-retarded, speaks as if he has Turrett's syndrome, and wears a robot suit.
I thought this movie was terrible. I really didn't want it to be, but it was. The "political" message was pathetic. Americans are fat, the world has too much trash, and consumer culture makes us lazy. No shit? Sorry, that message has been harped on since the 60's. Nothing new here, nothing even innovative, or slightly provocative.
Look at how the movie is positioned. It's not a literary movie. It's not a movie with texture. Lilo and Stitch was a much better movie that dealt with much more complex and intriguing character conflicts than this movie. This movie had none. There was a vague, ambiguous evil force that held Wall-E back. Not only is the "bad guy" in the movie ill-defined, it's inconsistent with the plot. The girl in the story is practically devoid of all character. What is she other than an I-pod style diva robot girl that is destructive and conservative? Sorry, walking cliche here. She doesn't seem to have any character conflict outside of following her programming and trying to help Wall-E escape. While there could be great conflict within that, it ended up being crap. Typical scenes of her hiding him from her boss, trying to get him into a jump pod, and some space version of an ice-skate romance scene.
This movie was made to sell kids meal toys and give the plebians sound bytes they can feel good about. And shame on everyone who is wowed by eye-candy, bad to nonexistent dialogue, and cliched modes of symbolism. Iron Man was a better movie than this, and even managed to titillate better in a blockbuster-ish kind of way.
They didn't capture the sentimentality of the old silent films. What they captured is the absolute hokeyness of silent film's cultural mores. There's a reason we don't live in the hidebound Pleasantville of Americana past. (Hint: That time sucked!) This film rests firmly on the crutch of using cute robots to sell itself. Without the animation and the robots this would be a hollow fucking shell of a movie. Just replace the setting and the animation with real characters in a modern setting and over half the audience would gag. The other half would enjoy it because that's just the proportion that will always have bad taste.
Too bad this is why so many good films get put aside for cheap comedies churned by the barrel and weak animated films that play on the same formula of small, slightly vulnerable, curious, and naive characters which translates into everyone's head as "cute" because it resembles some kind of prey animal in the archaic wetware known as our brain. Real science fiction deserves better than this. Asimov's puking in his grave.
On July 04 2008 07:15 EGoldman wrote: I thought the movie was awful. And this is coming from a guy who writes movie scripts and novels for a living. Sorry, but this is more of the marketing high concept kind of tripe that the masses just seem to guzzle endlessly.
The hilarious part is that the movie is couched in this faux-indie style panoramic/minimal dialog delivery, yet the actual characterization in the story is pure cliche.
Wow, boy meets girl, boy likes girl, world gets in the way, boy saves the day. The only fucking thing different in this equation is boy happens to be semi-retarded, speaks as if he has Turrett's syndrome, and wears a robot suit.
I thought this movie was terrible. I really didn't want it to be, but it was. The "political" message was pathetic. Americans are fat, the world has too much trash, and consumer culture makes us lazy. No shit? Sorry, that message has been harped on since the 60's. Nothing new here, nothing even innovative, or slightly provocative.
Look at how the movie is positioned. It's not a literary movie. It's not a movie with texture. Lilo and Stitch was a much better movie that dealt with much more complex and intriguing character conflicts than this movie. This movie had none. There was a vague, ambiguous evil force that held Wall-E back. Not only is the "bad guy" in the movie ill-defined, it's inconsistent with the plot. The girl in the story is practically devoid of all character. What is she other than an I-pod style diva robot girl that is destructive and conservative? Sorry, walking cliche here. She doesn't seem to have any character conflict outside of following her programming and trying to help Wall-E escape. While there could be great conflict within that, it ended up being crap. Typical scenes of her hiding him from her boss, trying to get him into a jump pod, and some space version of an ice-skate romance scene.
This movie was made to sell kids meal toys and give the plebians sound bytes they can feel good about. And shame on everyone who is wowed by eye-candy, bad to nonexistent dialogue, and cliched modes of symbolism. Iron Man was a better movie than this, and even managed to titillate better in a blockbuster-ish kind of way.
They didn't capture the sentimentality of the old silent films. What they captured is the absolute hokeyness of silent film's cultural mores. There's a reason we don't live in the hidebound Pleasantville of Americana past. (Hint: That time sucked!) This film rests firmly on the crutch of using cute robots to sell itself. Without the animation and the robots this would be a hollow fucking shell of a movie. Just replace the setting and the animation with real characters in a modern setting and over half the audience would gag. The other half would enjoy it because that's just the proportion that will always have bad taste.
Too bad this is why so many good films get put aside for cheap comedies churned by the barrel and weak animated films that play on the same formula of small, slightly vulnerable, curious, and naive characters which translates into everyone's head as "cute" because it resembles some kind of prey animal in the archaic wetware known as our brain. Real science fiction deserves better than this. Asimov's puking in his grave.
On July 04 2008 07:15 EGoldman wrote: I thought the movie was awful. And this is coming from a guy who writes movie scripts and novels for a living. Sorry, but this is more of the marketing high concept kind of tripe that the masses just seem to guzzle endlessly.
The hilarious part is that the movie is couched in this faux-indie style panoramic/minimal dialog delivery, yet the actual characterization in the story is pure cliche. tent dialogue, and cliched modes of symbolism. Iron Man was a better movie than this, and even managed to titillate better in a blockbuster-ish kind of way.
I guess you haven't learned much about scripts or novels then.
The whole point of wall-e is that it is putting a great spin on the cliched boy meets girl story - by portraying it through two robots. With barely any words except each others names, they managed to convey the essence of the typical love story. Thats something which is really fucking hard to do. You try writing a script which can do that with no dialogue, while simultaneously being cute and interesting.
The criticisms you make could be directed at pretty much any love story. Would you say Amelie is a bad film?
Even the anti-consumerist stuff was tasteful - instead of the people being fat idiots, they were made to seem slightly misguided, and basically jolly people.
I can understand criticizing stuff aimed at the masses, but I don't think wall-e is like that. I went expecting it to be ok, and came out thinking it was brilliant. Blending mass appeal and artistry is the challenge most artists miss I think.
On July 04 2008 13:29 d.arkive wrote: Out of curiosity, Goldman, what scripts and novels have you contributed to?
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.
On July 04 2008 07:15 EGoldman wrote: I thought the movie was awful. And this is coming from a guy who writes movie scripts and novels for a living. Sorry, but this is more of the marketing high concept kind of tripe that the masses just seem to guzzle endlessly.
The hilarious part is that the movie is couched in this faux-indie style panoramic/minimal dialog delivery, yet the actual characterization in the story is pure cliche. tent dialogue, and cliched modes of symbolism. Iron Man was a better movie than this, and even managed to titillate better in a blockbuster-ish kind of way.
I guess you haven't learned much about scripts or novels then.
The whole point of wall-e is that it is putting a great spin on the cliched boy meets girl story - by portraying it through two robots. With barely any words except each others names, they managed to convey the essence of the typical love story. Thats something which is really fucking hard to do. You try writing a script which can do that with no dialogue, while simultaneously being cute and interesting.
The criticisms you make could be directed at pretty much any love story. Would you say Amelie is a bad film?
Even the anti-consumerist stuff was tasteful - instead of the people being fat idiots, they were made to seem slightly misguided, and basically jolly people.
I can understand criticizing stuff aimed at the masses, but I don't think wall-e is like that. I went expecting it to be ok, and came out thinking it was brilliant. Blending mass appeal and artistry is the challenge most artists miss I think.
No, I guess you don't know what constitutes a good script/novel. The whole point of why Wall-E fails is because the story is not portrayed through two robots. Both of the "robots" in the film are anthropomorphized to a ridiculous degree. There isn't even the slightest semblance of robot to them. They act like humans wearing robo-costumes. That's what annoys me. It would have been a GREAT movie if they pulled off what you were talking about. They didn't.
The point of a script with no dialogue that's simultaneously cute and interesting, is an oxymoron to me. Think about it. What are scripts composed of? Only two things. Action and Dialogue. Nearly everything in a story is conveyed either through visuals, sounds, or dialogue. You chop the dialogue. What are you left with? Visuals. Sorry, maybe I'm just not a very visually inclined person, but I think it's a rubbish way of doing movies. I hate panorama scenes in indie films, where you're supposed to draw some kind of deep inner meaning from watching the landscape rush by or a sunset come up.
That kind of stuff feels like emo bs to me. Wall-E had stuff like that. Like when they go whizzing around in space with a fire extinguisher? I didn't like that. When you talk about "cute and interesting" that translates to me as hackneyed cliche and scenes that make me groan. Inching over to touch her hand is one of those for me. Her shutting down and him dragging her around by a rope is another one. I mean, what was their actual relationship??
EVA was sleek looking so he thought she was pretty? He was alone for 700 years so he bonded to the first thing he actually saw? I just don't sympathize with a character like that. I wonder why he hasn't gone insane. And then I wonder how he has human-like mannerisms, or even how he has a brain?? Oh wait. That's right. It's the future, so somehow he must have a completely functional brain. And that AI is couched in a gfx card that malfunctions when scorched. Oh and of course he knows what romance is. He has old black and white films he can watch. And the movies are salvaged from old VHS tapes that somehow route through an Ipod Nano (cue the product placement gag), and then plays on an old CRT TV. NICE! I AM ENRAPTURED BY THIS STORY. On top of that, their actual relationship is built on what? Wall-E dragging her around by a cord to show her the splendors of wasteland Earth? Not only does the entire sequence feel like a queer emo date-rape, it makes no sense. What, EVA accesses her shutdown memory and then the flood of emotions overtakes her? From then on we just accept EVA and Wall-E are in love and watch the hijinks ensue? The entire plot is ill-conceived. The entire "conspiracy" of the President not allowing people back is ill-conceived. It's not a well-thought out movie.
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).
Tired of seeing movies that try to shovel crap like that down my throat. Tbh, I thought Hancock was a much more entertaining movie, and that's pure Hollywood. I'm not against Blockbusters, I'm just against movies that don't deliver.
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.
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.
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.
On July 04 2008 13:29 d.arkive wrote: Out of curiosity, Goldman, what scripts and novels have you contributed to?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are such a tool.
Grow up. Or is name-calling your last refuge from logical conversation?
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.
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?
Don't waste you're time on Jibba, (although I still think you're a little extreme goldman, just saying). He knows he's not good at making any convincing or any sound arguments and he has admitted it several times.
haha np Nimysa, I'm not saying anyone has to agree with me. I'm just glad to debate my own view of the movie, and share my opinion. After all, the thread is for every viewer to sound off right?
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.
Are you kidding? Every post you make starts with "you're less educated than I am" in some derivative form. And it's not just this thread, it's all of them.
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.
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.
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.
geez, who the fuck cares about what goldman thinks. if you enjoyed the movie, fine, but don't try to make him conform to your beliefs, especially for something so trivial
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.
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?
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah god you sound like a douchebag, and i haven't even seen this movie yet blah blah blah blah
I was wondering why this thread kept getting bumped. So much hate...
The main problem as I see it is that the definition of what makes a film "good" is completely subjective. Telling someone that their opinions are wrong just because you disagree is ridiculous.
and everyone i've talked to has really enjoyed the movie. it's a fun movie and really enjoyable to watch. i guess that makes us all uneducated sycophants with bad taste, right egoldman?
edit:
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?
not to derail this thread, but it's really quite different, i think. most people don't realize how good of vocalists people like britney spears/christina aguilera/justin timberlake etc etc really are. listen to the range, the accuracy of the pitch, the tone, the vibrato, the incredible control they have over their voice. it's arguable whether or not they would be as good or successful in a choral setting, and i will agree that a lot of the music they put out is shit to my ears, but there's no denying the amazing abilities they have with their voices. just because you don't like the music they make doesn't mean they're terrible singers. not everyone has to like brahms or tchaikovsky or mahler or anything else that you would consider "educated" or "sophisticated," but if they don't it doesn't automatically make them members of this uneducated "mob" that you speak of.
Sorry for bumping this but Wall-E only just came out in the UK and I saw it today.
First of all, it was definitely a good film. I don't regret paying the entry fee or anything like that. The 5min mini-animation at the beginning of the film made it value for money already.
However, it definitely wasn't perfect or even a 9/10 imo. Sure the animation was excellent and there was an abundance of creativity. However, the strong emphasis on the love story plotline really made some of it quite tedious. Cute it definitely is, but I feel the film sacrificed a lot of potential laughs for yet another cheesy robot love moment. It just wasn't very funny. Finding Nemo is still by far the best animated film and Wall-E didn't come very close to beating it.
On July 05 2008 07:45 TheMusiC wrote: saw it today with my gf, both of us loved it.
and everyone i've talked to has really enjoyed the movie. it's a fun movie and really enjoyable to watch. i guess that makes us all uneducated sycophants with bad taste, right egoldman?
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?
not to derail this thread, but it's really quite different, i think. most people don't realize how good of vocalists people like britney spears/christina aguilera/justin timberlake etc etc really are. listen to the range, the accuracy of the pitch, the tone, the vibrato, the incredible control they have over their voice. it's arguable whether or not they would be as good or successful in a choral setting, and i will agree that a lot of the music they put out is shit to my ears, but there's no denying the amazing abilities they have with their voices. just because you don't like the music they make doesn't mean they're terrible singers. not everyone has to like brahms or tchaikovsky or mahler or anything else that you would consider "educated" or "sophisticated," but if they don't it doesn't automatically make them members of this uneducated "mob" that you speak of.
I will agree on Christina/Justin. But in no shape or form does Britney Spears even have a MEDIOCRE voice. My 13 year old sister sings better.
I'd compare it to Bambi, in that I found it entertaining and well-executed, but I don't like the influence it will have on children's values.
Robots were emotional people with feelings that deserve respect. Technology was only good when it stopped working as designed. Capitalism led to destruction, decline, and stagnation. Space was a place where pathetic failures run away from their problems. Mankind could only be redeemed by returning to a primitive agrarian society. etc. etc.
So many bad, popular messages.
I think it would have been a better movie all around if they had left humans out of it altogether. The show was stunningly beautiful until there were people, and then it was just another cartoon.
On July 01 2008 06:55 ViRii wrote: Not only that, he wrote the screenplay version of "John Carter of Mars" which is the first Pixar film to feature live action (Its set to be a half life action/half animated film)
Damn... After watching Wall-E I swore I'd never watch another Pixar movie, but I'll probably have to watch this... even though they're sure to butcher it.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.lntsf.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Walle2jpg.128154613_std.jpg)
Snuck in 3 cans of coke so could of been worse, was definitely worth it thou. 
