Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
> 
>>> CG is top notch too, as always...
> 
>> But as the guys at Pixar always say, it's not just the CGI, it's the 
>> story. It always has to be about the story.
> 
>   Even though feature-length CGI movies are enjoyable, it's always the
> short movies with no talking which are the most hilarious and most
> evocative.
> 
>   WALL-E does the latter in a feature-length movie (although it's not
> completely a silent film). Somehow expressions and postures work a lot
> better than words.
> 
I took my 6 year old son to see WALL-E at a smallish local cinema.  He 
liked it but got more enjoyment from the short before it - 'The Magician' ?

When my wife went to see it at a 'big' cinema chain they didn't show the 
short.

Does anybody know whether the DVD release will include the short ?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:31:35 +1100, Paul Fuller wrote:

> Does anybody know whether the DVD release will include the short ?

I've never known Pixar to leave the short out - I can check when I get 
home and see if it's there.  I'd ask my wife to look, but the disc is for 
her. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>
> > CG is top notch too, as always...
>
> But as the guys at Pixar always say, it's not just the CGI, it's the
> story. It always has to be about the story.

That's why I put the brilliant CG as just a side note.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   Even though feature-length CGI movies are enjoyable, it's always the
> short movies with no talking which are the most hilarious and most
> evocative.

Yes, Presto is amazing too! :D

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Consider A Bug's Life, and its clone, Antz.
>
> Oddly enough, I found Bug's Life rather trite and childish and obvious,
> while Antz was highly enjoyable. (I also believe Bug's Life was out
> sufficiently later than Antz that you'd have a hard time calling Antz the
> clone.)

Indeed I too apreciated Antz much better.  One of those few "huh?" Pixar
moments... :)

Post a reply to this message

Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
> I took my 6 year old son to see WALL-E at a smallish local cinema.  He
> liked it but got more enjoyment from the short before it - 'The Magician' ?

Presto!

My 5-year-old daughter didn't like Wall-e very much.  Nor ET, which I watched
with her on DVD.  She just doesn't enjoy sad stuff, not even music in minor
tones.  Guess I shouldn't show her Bambi either. :P

> Does anybody know whether the DVD release will include the short ?

Yes, Pixar always does it.  It's the whole package! :D

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Indeed I too apreciated Antz much better.  One of those few "huh?" Pixar
> moments... :)

My duh. I thought Antz was the one by Pixar. Ignore my rant.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Indeed I too apreciated Antz much better.  One of those few "huh?" Pixar
> > moments... :)
>
> My duh. I thought Antz was the one by Pixar. Ignore my rant.

mwahahaha

Post a reply to this message

Yeah a master peace, I bought the movie like 2-3 months ago, but I might 
go and see it one more time :)

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message 
news:4946e95f@news.povray.org...

>  I'd ask my wife to look, but the disc is for her. :-)

  You have managed to do what I haven't Jim. And there are very few days 
left!

    'Doomed' is the word... :o/

      ~Steve~



>
> Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:31:35 +1100, Paul Fuller wrote:
> 
>> Does anybody know whether the DVD release will include the short ?
> 
> I've never known Pixar to leave the short out - I can check when I get 
> home and see if it's there.  I'd ask my wife to look, but the disc is for 
> her. :-)
> 
> Jim

Good.  Something to look forward to.

Cheers

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I really can't remember if this movie has been discussed here before
> (I do have a faint memory that it might have been, but I can't remember
> for sure).
> 
>   Anyways, if you haven't seen it, I suggest you go to rent it. Like now.
> Don't even bother reading any further, just get up and go rent it.

	Overall story was good, but not great. However, the cuteness of Wall-E
made up for all of that.

	I don't think anyone mentioned this, but when I saw the trailer, I
couldn't help thinking of the first Wallace & Grommit short.

-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:33:51 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:31:35 +1100, Paul Fuller wrote:
> 
>> Does anybody know whether the DVD release will include the short ?
> 
> I've never known Pixar to leave the short out - I can check when I get
> home and see if it's there.  I'd ask my wife to look, but the disc is
> for her. :-)

Confirmed, the disc includes a short called "Presto", sounds like the 
one. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:43:16 +0000, St. wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4946e95f@news.povray.org...
> 
>>  I'd ask my wife to look, but the disc is for her. :-)
> 
>   You have managed to do what I haven't Jim. And there are very few days
> left!
> 
>     'Doomed' is the word... :o/
> 
>       ~Steve~

Christmas was easy.  She was even in the store with me while I shopped - 
but she doesn't know what I bought.

Her birthday is also the same week (the 27th, same as my younger 
brother's, coincidentally - but a 9 years difference), and that's going 
to be trickier.  I've worked out what to get her, but it is mail order 
from a specialty shop and she knows the name.  That makes shipping a bit 
tricky.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	Overall story was good, but not great. 

Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem 
fairly trite to an adult?  I'll settle for novel, myself. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Anyways, if you haven't seen it, I suggest you go to rent it. Like now.

It says this comes with the disk.
http://www.snotr.com/video/1927

CAUTION! CONTAINS SPOILERS!

If you haven't seen the movie, you might want to defer watching this.


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

>  Anyways, if you haven't seen it, I suggest you go to rent it. Like now.
> Don't even bother reading any further, just get up and go rent it.

I bought it a couple of weeks back and watched it for the first time at the 
weekend.  I must admit that I found several earlier Pixar films more 
enjoyable to watch.  I don't know whether I will feel like watching Wall-E 
again, but have seen Cars, Ratatouille, The Incredibles and Finding Nemo 
several times each and wouldn't say no to watching those ones again.

I don't know what it was about the film that didn't do it for me, it just 
didn't seem as "clever" as earlier films, or maybe I just didn't get a lot 
of the content.  The overall concept of the story was good, I just think 
they could have done a bit more with it.  The first part was pretty boring 
before they got into space, I don't know maybe if they had given Wall-E and 
Eve more dialogue it could have been interesting?

From a purely CG viewpoint, excellent though.  There was one nit-pick I had 
during the film but I forgot it afterwards so it can't have been that bad 
:-)

Post a reply to this message

> I took my 6 year old son to see WALL-E at a smallish local cinema.  He 
> liked it but got more enjoyment from the short before it - 'The Magician' 
> ?
>
> When my wife went to see it at a 'big' cinema chain they didn't show the 
> short.
>
> Does anybody know whether the DVD release will include the short ?

The UK English bluray version I got had that short on it.  Pretty clever, 
wait until the next one that will involve a hat that is a time machine :-)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Anyways, if you haven't seen it, I suggest you go to rent it. Like now.
> 
> It says this comes with the disk.
> http://www.snotr.com/video/1927
> 
> CAUTION! CONTAINS SPOILERS!
> 
> If you haven't seen the movie, you might want to defer watching this.
> 
> 

Now I'll have to watch the main feature again carefully to see if you 
can spot the sub-story in the background where they cross tracks.

Very clever.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson escreveu:
> Confirmed, the disc includes a short called "Presto", sounds like the 
> one. :-)

http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4809

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem 
> fairly trite to an adult?  I'll settle for novel, myself. :-)

Have you watched it?

Children are likely to be pretty bored and clueless the whole first 
(mute) half of the movie -- its crowning jewel really.  My daughter was. 
  After that, some concessions were made to please the little ones, but 
nothing that turn it into suckage.

Post a reply to this message

scott escreveu:
>  The first part was
> pretty boring before they got into space, I don't know maybe if they had 
> given Wall-E and Eve more dialogue it could have been interesting?

They are worker droids and have no speech!  How about contract some 
voice actors to put some imaginary dialogues on old Chaplin/Keaton 
movies as well?  Perhaps Tom & Jerry could get the same deal too...

I also heard some right-wings were annoyed at the whole post-apocaliptic 
world and environmentalist message... can't please greeks and trojans...

Post a reply to this message

> They are worker droids and have no speech!

Yeh and neither do cars or rats or ants :-)

It's just not the same as previous Pixar films, I kept waiting for them to 
suddenly realise that each other could speak and then the film would take 
off, and waiting ... and waiting....

Post a reply to this message

scott escreveu:
>> They are worker droids and have no speech!
> 
> Yeh and neither do cars or rats or ants :-)

But the point is that they behave like simple worker droids in the film, 
rather than antropomorphic american-way-of-life robots of "Robots", the 
old movie from the same creators of Ice Age...

> It's just not the same as previous Pixar films, I kept waiting for them 
> to suddenly realise that each other could speak and then the film would 
> take off, and waiting ... and waiting....

Yes, that's the beauty of it.  Previous Pixar movies were always like: 
american toys way of life, american (well, australian actually) fish way 
of life, american monsters way of life, american super-heroes way of 
life and american cars way of life.  They changed a bit from this old 
passional subject of John Lasseter (that perfectly fit Disney's agenda) 
beginning with Ratattoille and now, Wall-E.

It's a welcome change of pace and I particularly enjoyed that the robots 
were portrayed semi-realistic.  I also liked how much Wall-E's sad, 
battered cameras looked a lot like Woody Allen's sad expression...

Post a reply to this message

Thanks I have a few laughs, very good short :)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to 
>> seem fairly trite to an adult?  I'll settle for novel, myself. :-)
> 
> Have you watched it?

Yes. Actually, I was referring more to things like Bug's Life than Wall-E. I 
didn't see Wall-E as a kid's movie, for exactly the reasons you discussed. 
Far too many inside jokes in the beginning and too big a theme (in terms of 
global disaster) to really seem like something targeted at children.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I don't know what it was about the film that didn't do it for me, 

Did you watch the ones you *did* like on a movie screen, with an audience 
around you?  It can make a tremendous difference, depending on the movie.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> battered cameras looked a lot like Woody Allen's sad expression...

Yes! Thank you! I've been trying to figure out who Wall-E looked like from 
the first time I saw a movie poster!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> I don't know what it was about the film that didn't do it for me, 
> 
> Did you watch the ones you *did* like on a movie screen, with an 
> audience around you?  It can make a tremendous difference, depending on 
> the movie.

Haha, I prefer to see films in the big screens, but I also prefer it if 
the rest of the audience are dead quiet, or, if I can possibly manage 
it, absent. I usually find other people far distracting from the film. 
(Not always a problem with big audiences, but I've had far too many 
cinema experiences where the people behind me were treating the place 
like a pub...)

Wall-E is a masterpiece ok, it rocked. :)

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> Haha, I prefer to see films in the big screens, but I also prefer it if 
> the rest of the audience are dead quiet, or, if I can possibly manage 
> it, absent. I usually find other people far distracting from the film. 

I went to see a vampire movie in the middle of the afternoon on a thursday 
once. It was the least memorable movie I ever saw, because there were 3 
others in the audience.

On the other hand, I saw "The Grudge" and there were dozens of teens down 
near the front who'd obviously seen it several times already and were 
raising hell, and it was still rather disturbing. :-)

And of course, Rocky Horror Picture Show wouldn't be the same without the 
audience.

But I find commedies greatly enhanced by having an audience, which is why 
people put in fake soundtracks on the ones you watch by yourself at home.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > battered cameras looked a lot like Woody Allen's sad expression...
>
> Yes! Thank you! I've been trying to figure out who Wall-E looked like from
> the first time I saw a movie poster!

They always manage to make their characters look a bit like their voice actors,
but Wall-E doesn't have a voice.  So, I guess they settled on someone iconic
enough... :)

The name also resembles WAlle n... :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> Haha, I prefer to see films in the big screens, but I also prefer it 
>> if the rest of the audience are dead quiet, or, if I can possibly 
>> manage it, absent. I usually find other people far distracting from 
>> the film. 
> 
> I went to see a vampire movie in the middle of the afternoon on a 
> thursday once. It was the least memorable movie I ever saw, because 
> there were 3 others in the audience.

I like to focus on a movie. If the guy behind me is nattering on his 
phone and the guy in front is wrestling with a plastic bag, well, it 
really grinds my gears!

> On the other hand, I saw "The Grudge" and there were dozens of teens 
> down near the front who'd obviously seen it several times already and 
> were raising hell, and it was still rather disturbing. :-)

I've not seen the Grudge, but from what I've heard I think I'd be quite 
thankful of the extra noise in that particular case. In fact, I think 
horror movies nullify my previous claim - when I saw 'Identity' I was 
the only person in the screen and it scared the sh*t out of me!

> And of course, Rocky Horror Picture Show wouldn't be the same without 
> the audience.

Well, that's different! Or sing-a-long Sound Of Music for that matter 
(not that I'm likely to rush into that either)

> But I find commedies greatly enhanced by having an audience, which is 
> why people put in fake soundtracks on the ones you watch by yourself at 
> home.

Fair enough. I don't usually bother with pure comedies in the cinema, 
they lose nothing on a small screen and I'm more often disappointed by 
them these days. I'd rather be disappointed by big-budget eye candy 
instead! (SWII:AOTC anyone?)

Yes, I think you're right actually, it depends on the movie. If it's a 
serious drama/thriller I'd prefer my co-viewers to keep it down, but I'm 
not that bothered otherwise. I think the few truly bad experiences jade 
my attitude a little!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> I don't know what it was about the film that didn't do it for me, 
> 
> Did you watch the ones you *did* like on a movie screen, with an 
> audience around you?  It can make a tremendous difference, depending on 
> the movie.
> 


I think that it depends on the movie.

I've been to some movies where the audience atmosphere helped to make 
the movie really fun.  And when watching the same movie with a different 
audience it fell flat because it was so quiet in the theater.

I do have to agree that at least in most cases having a quiet theater is 
best.


In all cases it is best when the audience is 'with' the movie.
Whatever noises they make is in 'emotion' with the movie.
No crumpling paper noises, no talking.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     Overall story was good, but not great. 
> 
> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem
> fairly trite to an adult?  I'll settle for novel, myself. :-)

	Yes.

	In terms of story quality, I thought Toy Story and Monsters Inc were
both great.
	
-- 
BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal Port Not Responding.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	In terms of story quality, I thought Toy Story and Monsters Inc were
> both great.

OK. I guess you can be formulaic without being trite. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:36:12 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> Her birthday is also the same week (the 27th, same as my younger
> brother's, coincidentally - but a 9 years difference), and that's going
> to be trickier.  I've worked out what to get her, but it is mail order
> from a specialty shop and she knows the name.  That makes shipping a bit
> tricky.

The retailer made this easier - the item's out of stock, they can't ship 
until January.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:39:24 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> 	Overall story was good, but not great.
> 
> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem
> fairly trite to an adult?  

I've seen a few that worked well that way - though at the moment I'm 
having a bit of a memory access issue and can't come up with the name of 
one.

But basically it's kinda like something like Animaniacs - the humour has 
a tinge of double-entendre to it - the jokes have dual meanings (not all 
of the dual meanings are of an "adult" nature, but require a greater 
understanding/experience of the world than a kid is likely to have).  
We've been watching a bit of the first series of Animaniacs, and have 
found this to be the case.  Our son, who just turned 21, has commented on 
this because he watched it as a kid, and he's pulling entirely different 
levels of humour out of it now as an adult.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:12:07 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> 	In terms of story quality, I thought Toy Story and Monsters Inc 
were
> both great.

Agreed, we loved Monsters Inc and watch it fairly regularly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:11:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> scott wrote:
>> I don't know what it was about the film that didn't do it for me,
> 
> Did you watch the ones you *did* like on a movie screen, with an
> audience around you?  It can make a tremendous difference, depending on
> the movie.

There's a reason we've just purchased a projection system for our TV 
room.  Can't wait for it to get here - Wall-E will probably be one of the 
first on the new screen, followed shortly by our annual LOTR marathon.

Then it'll be time to retire "the monolith", as we call it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     Overall story was good, but not great. 
> 
> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem
> fairly trite to an adult?  I'll settle for novel, myself. :-)

	Also, the Wallace & Grommit shorts come to mind...


-- 
BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal Port Not Responding.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> followed shortly by our annual LOTR marathon.

Annual marathon? Every year you watch them again?

I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone multiple
times. Or why they'd want to...

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:26:56 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> followed shortly by our annual LOTR marathon.
> 
> Annual marathon? Every year you watch them again?

Yeah, pretty much every year.

> I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone
> multiple times. Or why they'd want to...

It's the sort of thing we make time for - it's a chance to do something 
as a family that we enjoy doing.  And this year, if I can get the 
projector positioned correctly, it'll be a cinematic experience for us 
again, but without the crowds. :-)

We do rent a fair number of films using Netflix, so it's not all "old" 
stuff.  It's just good old escapism.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> I don't know what it was about the film that didn't do it for me,
>
> Did you watch the ones you *did* like on a movie screen, with an audience 
> around you?

No, I don't think so, nope the only time I went to the cinema in the last 
few years or so was to see Borat.

> It can make a tremendous difference, depending on the movie.

Yep, although maybe when I watched Wall-E I was just in the wrong frame of 
mind or something, will give it another shot probably, if only to try and 
spot Burn-E more times :-)

BTW watching Borat at the cinema was unreal, I have never been in a cinema 
where the entire audience was laughing out loud and clapping for almost the 
whole film.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone multiple
> times. Or why they'd want to...

	Well, if you reduced the time you spent on these newsgroups by half,
you'd have time. It's all about priorities.

-- 
BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal Port Not Responding.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez escreveu:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> followed shortly by our annual LOTR marathon.
> 
> Annual marathon? Every year you watch them again?
> 
> I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone multiple
> times. Or why they'd want to...

I've watched quite a few movies again and again.  And again whenever 
there's a new and better media format! XD

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:39:24 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> 	Overall story was good, but not great.
>> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to seem
>> fairly trite to an adult?  
> 
> I've seen a few that worked well that way - though at the moment I'm 
> having a bit of a memory access issue and can't come up with the name of 
> one.

The Muppets (including the movies) still have a pretty reasonable adult 
following -- partially because of the double-entendre aspect that you 
mention.  Other than Pixar films, I think a lot of Miyazaki's stuff also 
holds up very well to an adult viewing.


> But basically it's kinda like something like Animaniacs

I miss the Animaniacs, and the zany other shows they inspired too (like 
Freakazoid).  Out of curiosity, are there any good kids shows on these 
days?  In the few times I've tuned in recently I've only seen Yu-Gi-Oh 
and some other highly non-interesting shows.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> I don't get how people have time to watch so many movies, let alone
>> multiple times. Or why they'd want to...
> 
> Well, if you reduced the time you spent on these newsgroups by half,
> you'd have time. It's all about priorities.

True.

And yesterday I joined Facebook, that's soooo not gonna help with my time...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:02:07 -0800, Kevin Wampler wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:39:24 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>> 
>>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>>> 	Overall story was good, but not great.
>>> Is it even possible to make a children's movie that isn't going to
>>> seem fairly trite to an adult?
>> 
>> I've seen a few that worked well that way - though at the moment I'm
>> having a bit of a memory access issue and can't come up with the name
>> of one.
> 
> The Muppets (including the movies) still have a pretty reasonable adult
> following -- partially because of the double-entendre aspect that you
> mention.  Other than Pixar films, I think a lot of Miyazaki's stuff also
> holds up very well to an adult viewing.

Ah, yes, the Muppets.  You've just reminded me of something else I wanted 
to get my wife. :-)

>> But basically it's kinda like something like Animaniacs
> 
> I miss the Animaniacs, and the zany other shows they inspired too (like
> Freakazoid).  Out of curiosity, are there any good kids shows on these
> days?  In the few times I've tuned in recently I've only seen Yu-Gi-Oh
> and some other highly non-interesting shows.

I don't know myself - I spend a fair amount of time watching things like 
Spooks, 24, and Law & Order.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote in message
news:49475bb5$1@news.povray.org...

> >  Anyways, if you haven't seen it, I suggest you go to rent it. Like now.
> > Don't even bother reading any further, just get up and go rent it.

> I bought it a couple of weeks back and watched it for the first time at
the
> weekend.  I must admit that I found several earlier Pixar films more
> enjoyable to watch.  I don't know whether I will feel like watching Wall-E
>
[...]
>
> From a purely CG viewpoint, excellent though.  There was one nit-pick I
had
> during the film but I forgot it afterwards so it can't have been that bad
> :-)

(Spoiler alert)





I agree that it's not one of the better movies from Pixar. It was in fact
rather disappointing, given all the rave. A 4 out of 10, 5 tops on a
charitable day.

The story is flat. Very flat, for a feature length film. Sometimes, it feels
like Pixar should stick to shorts.

Yes, CGI is top notch for portrayal of Wall-E and earth, and a short space
sequence. It fails for everything else (more later).

I won't go into logical flaws in detail. I am sure anyone who's remotely
interested in sci-fi will find dozens of major flaws. Yes, I know it's an
animation and a kid's movie. But it still cheapens the whole thing, and
creates an ambiguous atmosphere, when it's apparent that the writers cannot
be bothered with a straight story. It fails spectacularly on the consistency
front. The suspension of disbelief only works when the movie is consistent.
I can take realism. I can take fantasy. I can even take absolute nonsense.
But when you try to mix them all, it fails.

Speaking of cheapening, the humans were the poorest depiction in a CGI in
recent years. It feels like they ran over the budget with CGI for Wall-e and
decided to have a high school kid model and animate the humans and a B-movie
actor play the live one. The latter being the more inexplicable decision.
Actually the rationalization is transparent (so don't explain to me), but
it's just an admission of failure. Something like "we couldn't do it in CGI,
we couldn't do it with humans, so here, take this cheap mish-mash of a
solution and call it artistic license".

The movie plagiar- I mean, references, especially 2001 was also very cheap.
Yes, it's all been done before, but real artists at least try to construct
their own version. What appears cute on a Simpson cartoon does not go with
well on a feature length movie, that is supposed to be a "film".

Anyway, just because it's Pixar, and just because the animator mastered
putting droopy eyes on a robot does not make this a good movie. At the end
of the day, it was very average as a movie. Every CG artist should see it,
however, because of the hype and to learn from its successes and failures.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 05:23:08 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Speaking of cheapening, the humans were the poorest depiction in a CGI
> in recent years.

Did you watch it on DVD, and if so, did you watch the extras where they 
talked about this?

I would agree that it wasn't the best Pixar film.  I don't know that I 
could say which was, though, because I've liked them all.

I have to admit, though, I did like "Presto!" better than the main 
feature.

Jim

Post a reply to this message