WALL-E
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: December 21st, 2007
Pixar's Wall-E
Well Ben, I'm glad to read your thoughts. Hey, I would like you to note you called my argument dumb but I still am on here and consider you a friend I would like to talk with, so I hope we can always be this...strong while we're on here.
The humans could have been done in CGI. If they wanted some difference, they could have tried to make the most realistic, detailed CGI humans they, or perhaps anyone else, has attempted. But there presence, which you said makes Wall-E more better, perhaps more profound or daring, can be taken to insult CGI by itself. The film is "better" or "more believable" because it has live-action or "real people" in it.
And it pains me whenever you said, I know I'm paraphrasing but things like, "The CGI was necessary, this is where we're headed", practically making becoming bad and fat and "a new species of humans" associated with becoming animation or "cartoons". Remember Enchanted's insult to animation? Was that intentional, either?
I can see some of the reasons why it's easier to animate blobs, they're only made up of simple, round shapes. If Pixar was so brave, why not be brave enough to try really convincing anatomical humans? And further try to extablish animation as something serious, believable, impactful, and that can do anything?
As for the genders of the robots, well, in these times when we're more aware of what we're telling children they can be and do, it's not moving forward to have the one doing the strong, tough, dirty job be the boy, and the girl comes down to look at flowers. Which I don't exactly agree with. Eve was more of a fighter, a destroyer, which is thought of as a boy's stereotype.
Once again you and me disagree! I'd say that Wall-E and Eve, more Eve, were not confined to gender stereotypes, and there wasn't much reason for them having genders, and also, I thought the romance was really great and convincing, one of the best parts of the movie, and reminded me of my own past feelings!
The humans could have been done in CGI. If they wanted some difference, they could have tried to make the most realistic, detailed CGI humans they, or perhaps anyone else, has attempted. But there presence, which you said makes Wall-E more better, perhaps more profound or daring, can be taken to insult CGI by itself. The film is "better" or "more believable" because it has live-action or "real people" in it.
And it pains me whenever you said, I know I'm paraphrasing but things like, "The CGI was necessary, this is where we're headed", practically making becoming bad and fat and "a new species of humans" associated with becoming animation or "cartoons". Remember Enchanted's insult to animation? Was that intentional, either?
I can see some of the reasons why it's easier to animate blobs, they're only made up of simple, round shapes. If Pixar was so brave, why not be brave enough to try really convincing anatomical humans? And further try to extablish animation as something serious, believable, impactful, and that can do anything?
As for the genders of the robots, well, in these times when we're more aware of what we're telling children they can be and do, it's not moving forward to have the one doing the strong, tough, dirty job be the boy, and the girl comes down to look at flowers. Which I don't exactly agree with. Eve was more of a fighter, a destroyer, which is thought of as a boy's stereotype.
Once again you and me disagree! I'd say that Wall-E and Eve, more Eve, were not confined to gender stereotypes, and there wasn't much reason for them having genders, and also, I thought the romance was really great and convincing, one of the best parts of the movie, and reminded me of my own past feelings!
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25714
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
"Once again you and me disagree!"
Good! That's what makes for debate. If everyone thought everything was rosy just think how boring that would be!
As for the genders, a studio like Pixar can only be as brave as they can in stages. We may yet see a more ambiguous film from them in the future, but as for now they have been as brave as anyone could in what is ostensibly a family summer blockbuster. Yes, they are stereotypes, but so what? WALL-E is already breaking a hundred different rules they're not going to go out on too many limbs. WALL-E and EVE are never actually referred to as male or female anyway, so if you don't want to read that into it then you don't have to. That's what I got from it...I'm sure it wouldn't even pass a younger audience's mind.
On the CGI...I really don't see where you're coming from. And Enchanted an insult to cartooning? Now you're throwing me for six!
Good! That's what makes for debate. If everyone thought everything was rosy just think how boring that would be!
As for the genders, a studio like Pixar can only be as brave as they can in stages. We may yet see a more ambiguous film from them in the future, but as for now they have been as brave as anyone could in what is ostensibly a family summer blockbuster. Yes, they are stereotypes, but so what? WALL-E is already breaking a hundred different rules they're not going to go out on too many limbs. WALL-E and EVE are never actually referred to as male or female anyway, so if you don't want to read that into it then you don't have to. That's what I got from it...I'm sure it wouldn't even pass a younger audience's mind.
On the CGI...I really don't see where you're coming from. And Enchanted an insult to cartooning? Now you're throwing me for six!
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8279
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 8279
- Joined: October 16th, 2004
- Location: Orlando
- Contact:
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: December 21st, 2007
Macaluso, if they don't have genders, they can't be gay. Well, I guess they could be, as much as they also could be straight.
Well Ben, I for sure agree with the goodness that is difference and debating.
As for them never being called male or female, Pixar did call them that in talking about the film, but if you meant they're never called that in the film...I think you're right, I can't remember if they ever said "she" or "he" or "get him" or "get her" or something.
As for Enchanted, hm, I thought you had the same feelings I did. Basically, Enchanted says the animated world, and it's characters, are as 2-D as the paper they're drawn on. Only when they enter the real world to they become, in fact, like real people. Well, the Disney animators were always trying to make characters as real as possible, especially under the orders of Walt Disney, who wanted his films to be very much like live-action films, I suppose to be be as convincing or "good" as live-action films. I'm sure you know all they tried to do to make characters, especially the human heroines, realistic. So Enchanted is a huge, huge insult to Disney animation, but also to animation in general, as most people think all animation, especially 2-D, is just flat, unrealistic kid's stuff anyway.
But not only that, Giselle is also supposed to become better in the real world. She's supposed to be better than a Disney princess. You can't deny we're supposed to think she's better for what the real world makes her. Meanwhile a character like Prince Edward doesn't become better, and so he goes back to the animated world where things and personalities are flat, and not as good as the real world.
Well Ben, I for sure agree with the goodness that is difference and debating.
As for them never being called male or female, Pixar did call them that in talking about the film, but if you meant they're never called that in the film...I think you're right, I can't remember if they ever said "she" or "he" or "get him" or "get her" or something.
As for Enchanted, hm, I thought you had the same feelings I did. Basically, Enchanted says the animated world, and it's characters, are as 2-D as the paper they're drawn on. Only when they enter the real world to they become, in fact, like real people. Well, the Disney animators were always trying to make characters as real as possible, especially under the orders of Walt Disney, who wanted his films to be very much like live-action films, I suppose to be be as convincing or "good" as live-action films. I'm sure you know all they tried to do to make characters, especially the human heroines, realistic. So Enchanted is a huge, huge insult to Disney animation, but also to animation in general, as most people think all animation, especially 2-D, is just flat, unrealistic kid's stuff anyway.
But not only that, Giselle is also supposed to become better in the real world. She's supposed to be better than a Disney princess. You can't deny we're supposed to think she's better for what the real world makes her. Meanwhile a character like Prince Edward doesn't become better, and so he goes back to the animated world where things and personalities are flat, and not as good as the real world.
