WALL-E

Post by **Meg** » January 20th, 2007, 3:53 pm

Eh, I wasn't a big fan of Spirit either, JV...But that's for a different thread!

(BTW Vi there are tons of Spirit fan sites out there if you're ever in the mood to look 'em up.)

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 20th, 2007, 4:38 pm

Thanks Meg.

I've seen some of them but I'm more interested in the deeper themes of the story and what it means. I haven't seen too many that discuss that, but I'll check anyway.

(BTW I still think the young Spirit section should have been way longer--it was echoing Bambi after all, which kept the focus on Bambi as a kid. But then Bambi talked and Spirit didn't....still, I think more of Spirit as a foal discovering the world would have been better, and thus it would have made more of an impact when he gets captured.)

Matt Damon was OK, but not the greatest narrator. I think he had the right voice for it...just not the right acting skills!

Or at least, voice-over acting skills. I admire him as an actor but like many big stars he's not that great as a VO....

(Also this may sound weird, but I actually thought Ben Affleck did a WAYYYYY better job in Joseph: King of Dreams...I swear, I NEVER caught on that it was him until I read about it.)

Post by **YCougar** » January 20th, 2007, 11:50 pm

Well, I think the plot in Spirit was nothing to write home about... but I really did like that the horses didn't talk, even to each other. I'm just saying there's a small step between that and being totally dialogue free. And Pixar might be able to pull it off.

Spirit scored two out of three on my usual "animated movie" scale:

* quality animation: check

* good score: check (though Bryan Adams grates on me after a while, the SCORE score was good)

* plot: no check... quite repetitive and unoriginal.

Which means that it's certainly tolerable, if it didn't blow my mind.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 21st, 2007, 12:56 am

The whole point of the plot was that it was built on small, subtle things, feelings and situations. It wasn't a conventional plot. You have to watch it with a different state of mind than you would a Pixar laugh-a-minute kind of film.

You're telling me that when Spirit was separted from his mother and the other horses, you felt NOTHING??

IMO it was sort of like watching "March of the Penguins"--you could say that film had no plot, it was about a bunch of Penguins, etc...Spirit was about a horse and what happens to him.

* plot: no check... quite repetitive and unoriginal.

Umm.....I thought it was very original.

All the conditioins you listed pretty accurately sum up my feelings for Cars, I felt zero ANYTHING when Lightening helped that guy to "win" even thought the soundtrack and images were incredible.

The Golden Globe win was not deserved. I'm sorry to sound harsh, I've held back what I thought lately about DW/Pixar, but I feel strongly about Spirit, I think it was snubbed because it was too "different' to appeal to voters, and Spirited Away won because it was the favorite. Ditto for Cars.

I know many here don't agree with me....sorry if this offends anyone.

(Uh-oh off topic again....I'll go quietly!

)

Post by **James** » January 21st, 2007, 1:08 am

With what Cars was up against it was far and away the best. Can't blame Pixar for lack of competition for the Globe!

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 21st, 2007, 1:18 am

I haven't see the other two films (Happy Feet and Monster House, right?) but I still agree with you James, for sheer technique/style and slick filmmaking, Cars is head and shoulders above those guys.

(I'm sorry, I know it's hypocritical since I didn't see either, I will see them, but these are just my gut impressions.)

Post by **Daniel** » January 21st, 2007, 1:51 am

ShyViolet wrote:The whole point of the plot was that it was built on small, subtle things, feelings and situations. It wasn't a conventional plot. You have to watch it with a different state of mind than you would a Pixar laugh-a-minute kind of film.

Or from many films that aren't Pixar, ie. Hoodwinked, Ice Age (maybe?)

IMO, its just different. Perhaps, its the story telling that turns people off.

ShyViolet wrote:You're telling me that when Spirit was separted from his mother and the other horses, you felt NOTHING??

That's like saying you didn't feel anything, when Bambi's mother died.

How could you not?

ShyViolet wrote:Umm.....I thought it was very original. All the conditioins you listed pretty accurately sum up my feelings for Cars, I felt zero ANYTHING when Lightening helped that guy to "win" even thought the soundtrack and images were incredible.

Ditto.

However, I disagree about Cars. (A little

)

ShyViolet wrote:I know many here don't agree with me....sorry if this offends anyone.

Nah, I agree with you most of the time!

And I'm never offended.

Post by **droosan** » January 21st, 2007, 5:25 am

I'm late to the conversation (as usual), but I do want to echo Kaszubas in highly recommending The Triplets of Belleville to any of you who'd like to see how a feature-length film without dialogue can work, and beautifully.

There's plenty of storytelling/acting that can be done without dialogue .. just watch any silent film.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 21st, 2007, 6:13 pm

I'm late to the conversation (as usual), but I do want to echo Kaszubas in highly recommending The Triplets of Belleville to any of you who'd like to see how a feature-length film without dialogue can work, and beautifully. Smile

I liked it a lot!

Post by **YCougar** » January 22nd, 2007, 2:40 am

Sounds like I've been misunderstood again.

Parts of Spirit worked very well. But I have a friend who put it very well when she said that it's basically a bunch of horse stories she's read, thrown into a single movie.

** (spoiler warning, just in case there are still some who haven't seen the movie yet)

And it's not the "laugh a minute" factor (or lack thereof) that gets me... I hate when gags tossed rapid-fire at me with no discernable purpose, and I like storylines that depend less on jokes to keep the audience awake. (This is actually what killed Madagascar for me... and I think Cars suffered in this area) Individual "episodes" in the movie were fine on their own. I wanted a bit more cohesive a whole is all, with maybe a little less predictability. I mean, it became "look, captured again. Wonder how he'll escape this time?

" Varied danger could have been nice, as well - it was all "humans r evul" all the time.

And by cohesive, I mean I would have liked to see some kind of change or character development throughout... or at least have Spirit gain something from his journey besides a woman. Before I'm jumped on again, I will say that it was good to see him soften toward the Lakota kid, and I liked the mutual respect thing he had going with the colonel by the end. But his homecoming felt more like returning from a vacation to me than a triumphant victory, probably because he didn't lose or sacrifice anything significant. We had a heartwrenching "oh no she's dead" moment for Rain, and even she shows up later as if nothing had happened. Everything stays "best case scenario" for Spirit, and there's really nothing for him to reflect on at the end except "ha, I totally win at being a horse."

I will repeat that I enjoyed the movie... saw it twice in theaters, in fact. And I also believe that it's quite underrated - it's probably near the top of my Dreamworks list. And these complaints are actually minor, but they sound a lot harsher in writing. All it does is separate Spirit from the tippy-top of my favorites list, really.

Hmph. I may have to compile a list of things I really did like about the way Spirit was handled, to redeem myself. Because I really did like a lot about it... it's just not a movie where I go "yeah, and the STORY?! Blew my mind!"

Post by **Ben** » January 22nd, 2007, 8:32 am

As I understand it, the first 30 years of motion pictures were dialogue free.

I welcome Pixar's choice here, and to say it's totally dialogue free when beebs and whistles will go a <I>long</I> way to providing the "dialogue" emotionally, is missing the point.

Cinema, in its purest form, should be able to sustain itelf without the need for any sound at all.

At least Pixar will have that "luxury" and the characters are no doubt going to be designed as being highly cute to appease the general audiences. I smell a big, innovative, hit.

Post by **YCougar** » January 22nd, 2007, 1:05 pm

Even if it's an effort that ends up bombing (which I doubt), to see Pixar try an experiment like this is refreshing to me. It smacks more of "art" and less of "effort to make money," though I know at its core it's both.

Even silent films had dialogue cards. A few (especially Charlie Chaplin) went with as little as possible, but I think it'd be cool to see something like that again.

Post by **Meg** » January 22nd, 2007, 3:29 pm

Well said, Ben - although I'm still skeptical of whether or not this will be totally dialouge free.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 22nd, 2007, 4:14 pm

I see your points YCougar, and I do agree with some of them.

I think Spirit had some definite flaws that could have been improved, chief among them the lack of loss and sacrifice, as you pointed out. I just thought it had some beautiful things too which shouldn't be overlooked (as you also said.

)

I guess I'm somewhat defensive of Spirit, etc...since DW films get trashed so much (not here, but very much on other sites).

(Also when Spirit and Sinbad were released I made a point to see them since they were both 2d, and then when both films flopped, all I read in the media was how 2d animation is gone and how it's all Katzenberg's fault. Huh?)

I still don't get the logic of that.....

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 22nd, 2007, 10:04 pm

At least Pixar will have that "luxury" and the characters are no doubt going to be designed as being highly cute to appease the general audiences. I smell a big, innovative, hit.

I loved Geri's Game, and it had no words at all. I think it could do very well.