42 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

I loved how the camera focused on the little trash can's eyes. I am suppose to feel emotion ?

I certainly hope you were feeling emotion.
I'm not sure what else you'd be feeling in a movie theater full of children.















did i take that one too far?

[Mister E]

You can't register any emotion in little robotic movements and you certaintly can't in reflective, telescopic eyes. LOL ! I loved how the camera focused on the little trash can's eyes. I am suppose to feel emotion ?

You are. I did. So did most folks who saw the film, I wager.

I found it hilarous how low the film sunk at that point. It's like looking into a pair of sunglasses and searching for it's emotion. Of course people fell for it and said "aw" because people are suckers for small things with big eyes.

[[dark]]

You can't register any emotion in little robotic movements and you certaintly can't in reflective, telescopic eyes. LOL ! I loved how the camera focused on the little trash can's eyes. I am suppose to feel emotion ?

You are. I did. So did most folks who saw the film, I wager.

I found it hilarous how low the film sunk at that point. It's like looking into a pair of sunglasses and searching for it's emotion. Of course people fell for it and said "aw" because people are suckers for small things with big eyes.

Or maybe people actually connected with the character. Maybe the audience did feel something. Maybe the character - and the film - succeeded in evoking such emotions.

I know I was moved.

[Mister E]

Or maybe people actually connected with the character. Maybe the audience did feel something. Maybe the character - and the film - succeeded in evoking such emotions.

I know I was moved.

Maybe that's a load of bull like the whole movie is. You want emotion in animation ? Check out when Daffy loses it at the end in DUCK RABBIT DUCK ! Or when Marc Anothony cries in FEED THE KITTY. That beats a trash can's telescope eyes.

[Mister Asterix]

Or maybe people actually connected with the character. Maybe the audience did feel something. Maybe the character - and the film - succeeded in evoking such emotions.

I know I was moved.

Maybe that's a load of bull like the whole movie is. You want emotion in animation ? Check out when Daffy loses it at the end in DUCK RABBIT DUCK ! Or when Marc Anothony cries in FEED THE KITTY. That beats a trash can's telescope eyes.

Why do you seem to be getting so angry about this? If people are being fooled into thinking that there is emotion in a film when it’s not there, then that film is a success. If people are being conned into thinking that that little box has has a personality, then that is a success. That they don’t connect to you, it is a failure. But they seemed to be having quite a lot of success.

To me CGI is like a MOOG synthesiser in ’70s rock; it’s being experimented with, overly so. Some of it’s actually good. A lot of it is seeing what you can do with the new toy. Eventually though, it gets better and becomes a seamless part of the film/music.

[[dark]]

If people are being fooled into thinking that there is emotion in a film when it’s not there, then that film is a success. If people are being conned into thinking that that little box has has a personality, then that is a success. That they don’t connect to you, it is a failure. But they seemed to be having quite a lot of success.

To me CGI is like a MOOG synthesiser in ’70s rock; it’s being experimented with, overly so. Some of it’s actually good. A lot of it is seeing what you can do with the new toy. Eventually though, it gets better and becomes a seamless part of the film/music.

Thanks, Mr *, for putting that far more eloquently than I ever could.

[Mister E]

Why do you seem to be getting so angry about this? If people are being fooled into thinking that there is emotion in a film when it’s not there, then that film is a success. If people are being conned into thinking that that little box has has a personality, then that is a success. That they don’t connect to you, it is a failure. But they seemed to be having quite a lot of success.

I am angry because none if this crap deserves the attention it gets. WALL-E is a con and Pixar can be doing better right now, ALOT better. I love animation and when I see this crap on the screen, I can't help but be angry. It's a 4 minute student film that was turned into a feature. It's a success, and ? When does that mean ANY artistic integrity ?

[[dark]]

Why do you seem to be getting so angry about this? If people are being fooled into thinking that there is emotion in a film when it’s not there, then that film is a success. If people are being conned into thinking that that little box has has a personality, then that is a success. That they don’t connect to you, it is a failure. But they seemed to be having quite a lot of success.

I am angry because none if this crap deserves the attention it gets. WALL-E is a con and Pixar can be doing better right now, ALOT better. I love animation and when I see this crap on the screen, I can't help but be angry. It's a 4 minute student film that was turned into a feature.

I think you're hugely underestimating the amount of thought, effort and care that goes into a film like this.

As Mr Asterisk said, there are plenty of CGI films out there that exist seemingly for the sake of it. But Pixar - with only the mild stumble that was Cars - continually push boundaries in terms of technology (I'm just as fond of the sweeping apocalyptic landscapes as I am of the nuanced character designs) and story-telling (a $180 million film that's largely dialogue-free!).

It's a success, and ? When does that mean ANY artistic integrity ?

I hope you realise that, critically and commercially, Pixar achieved just that. You're in an undeniable minority (and a small one at that) to be so vehemently against this movie's successes.

[Jim]

I am angry because none if this crap deserves the attention it gets. WALL-E is a con and Pixar can be doing better right now, ALOT better. I love animation and when I see this crap on the screen, I can't help but be angry. It's a 4 minute student film that was turned into a feature. It's a success, and ? When does that mean ANY artistic integrity ?

OK, so you didn't like some film.

You didn't have to.

[Mister E]

I think you're hugely underestimating the amount of thought, effort and care that goes into a film like this.

I am sure they take alot of time to make the texures look realistic and the camera focusing right but I don't watch animated films for that.

As Mr Asterisk said, there are plenty of CGI films out there that exist seemingly for the sake of it. But Pixar - with only the mild stumble that was Cars - continually push boundaries in terms of technology (I'm just as fond of the sweeping apocalyptic landscapes as I am of the character designs) and story-telling (a $180 million film that's largely dialogue-free!).

They haven't advanced story telling at all. Bland character with a goal, bland love interest, bland villian, etc. They have barely gotten past Disney's crap in the 70's. They take one human trait, make a boring character design, give him or her a stupid name, and that's it. Then the story is about some goal that you think "No he can't possibly do that !" and he does it with the the help of his equally bland friends. Then throw in some sad moment like you think the character died. At the end, everything is fine and the moral is you can do it as long as you believe in yourself.

I hope you realise that, critically and commercially, Pixar achieved just that. You're in an undeniable minority (and a small one at that) to be so vehemently against this movie's merits.

I am in a WHAT ? LOL ! You are saying that because you don't follow animation and not paying attention it's community. Yes, to Joe six pack I am in the minority. I am devistated.

[Red Barchetta]

In action films I prefer things to be done for real, and if CGI is an absolute necessity, use it only for minor touch up jobs. It should not be visible.

I quite agree, CGI should only be used to touch up, or in background scenes- and there it should be seamless, not- Whoa! CGI!

[ImTheMoneypenny]

Critics and audiences praise alot of so I don't care. I care what artists have to say and people who can apperciate the artform.

Mister E I am an artist, in fact I earn a living with my hand skills as both a painter and a freelance graphic artist, and I think WALL-E is a visual masterpiece. Especially the portions of the film set on Earth.

Granted there are a few awful CGI films out there, Beowulf and The Polar Express make me cringe. They are examples of dead-eyed CGI animation. However in my opinion, PIXAR knows how to give their characters some semblance of life in their expressions and their eyes.

I appreciate many forms of animation, whether it is the classics I was raised on, Disney, Max Fleischer, Looney Tunes, and Don Bluth. Now that I'm older, I also enjoy rotoscoped animation films (which Fleischer pioneered.) like Bakshi/Frazetta's Fire and Ice, Heavy Metal, American Pop, and the very modern noir of Renaissance, which is an inker's dream btw.

As an artist I'm not threatened by CGI animation. There will always be hand-drawn animation. Look at Persepolis for example. As well, comic books and graphic novels alone keep people like me working too.

CGI in films is a tool of the trade making the previously unfilmable possible. I have no problem as long as it is done well.

Edited by ImTheMoneypenny, 17 September 2008 - 08:17 PM.

[Mister E]

Critics and audiences praise alot of so I don't care. I care what artists have to say and people who can apperciate the artform.

Mister E I am an artist, in fact I earn a living with my hand skills as both a painter and a freelance graphic artist, and I think WALL-E is a visual masterpiece. Especially the portions of the film set on Earth.

Granted there are a few awful CGI films out there, Beowulf and The Polar Express make me cringe. They are examples of dead-eyed CGI animation. However in my opinion, PIXAR knows how to give their characters some semblance of life in their expressions and their eyes.

I appreciate many forms of animation, whether it is the classics I was raised on, Disney, Max Fleischer, Looney Tunes, and Don Bluth. Now that I'm older, I also enjoy rotoscoped animation films (which Fleischer pioneered.) like Bakshi/Frazetta's Fire and Ice, Heavy Metal, American Pop, and the very modern noir of Renaissance, which is an inker's dream btw.

As an artist I'm not threatened by CGI animation. There will always be hand-drawn animation. Look at Persepolis for example. As well, comic books and graphic novels alone keep people like me working too.

CGI in films is a tool of the trade making the previously unfilmable possible. I have no problem as long as it is done well.

Well I am going to have to disagree, artist or not. I am sorry but if you find the boring, poorly edited and inept story telling of Don Bluth's films, you lost some credibility to me. Worst of all, I can't believe you mention his name along side Flesicher and the Looney Tunes. Yes I know Fleischer pioneered rotoscoping, one of the worst things of animation before CGI. That was little more then an easier way to animate something with alot of detail or realistic human movement, strictly technical and not an artistic achievement. As for Renaissance, again, it was more puppetry. Your compliment of Wall-E just proves my point really, all it's achievements were just technical. They don't know anything about character acting in there films. I can list countless examples of great character acting in 40's Looney Tunes shorts. That was the medium at it's very peak. To say anything Pixar has done that comes close is laughable. All they get onto the screen is generic because 1. They insist on following the tired Disney rules and 2. CGI is extremely limiting. The character design of Ratatouille himself is a generic mouse with googly eyes. They bland lead chef is a fudged version of the Milt Kahl boy Disney has used since THE JUNGLE BOOK. WALL-E is a box with alot of detail. I am sure you are a great artist ITMP but you have a weak outlook on animation.

I must say one last thing, if I were to do WALL-E again, I would be alot more bold. I'd have the character become bitter towards humanity. Instead of watching HELLO DOLLY, he sees the evil side of humanity. He becomes disgusted with them and he hates the fact he gets treated as merely a lonely trash compactor. He goes up to the space to take his vegence on the humans but finds someone who he likes, no bland love interest and sees the error of his ways. His design would look like a real trash can and beaten up. Also, he can go through the agony of some trash getting stuck inside of him and we see his hilarous reactions. Anyway, that's my version.