I took some time to post a comment about a Wall-E story on Digg, a I didn't want to waste all that effort on Digg, so here it is for your enjoyment.
"I can agree that the animation and graphics of the movie were well done, but the story is not cohesive or great. It completely lacks in truth and depth.
The main conflict of the films is that Wall-E is lonely on earth. So the goal of the whole film is for Wall-E to find love. This plot and conflict are set-up in the first act of the film when Wall-E is on earth.
But a sub-plot of saving the human race soon takes over the film and completely overshadows the love story which should have been the central focus of the film. Pixar should have chosen one or the other, no film can truly support multiple focuses like this. The human story could have been used to support the love story, but I never found that to be apparent, it always seemed to be an equal and separate issue.
What was made worse by the film is an exceptionally weak and deus ex machima climax. The climax of the film was when Eve has to fix Wall-E and save him. When he comes back to life without a personality it is an exceptionally sad moment. But suddenly Wall-E finishes his reboot sequence and it comes back. This is a pathetic and meaningless solution to an amazingly interesting love story.
The meaning I get from this climax is "wait a few minutes and your love with come back to you...". If that is what the creators believe about love than I applaud them on their success... I don't know what they believe about love, but it needs to be something much more meaningful than a reboot process.
I have lost my faith in Andrew Stanton at Pixar, however I still believe at least Brad Bird has the ability to make good film.
If you actually want to see a good film, I suggest finding Speed Racer at whatever theaters it is still playing in. The critics of this film where confused by the faced paced action and colors , it is an exceptional film and in my opinion blows every other film this summer out of the water."
Kyler
Broken Technology
I've just finished reading the book "Surely You must be Joking Mr. Feynman". It is sort of like and autobiography and anecdote collection of a famous nuclear physicist.
One of the first things that Feynman discusses is that as a child he learned how radios worked and became the neighborhoods radio repairman. I was a little bit jealous since I actually don't know the fine details of how radios work. I know the general process, but I don't know the stuff about vacuum tubes and amplifiers.
But then I realized that I had actually learned to fix problems that are much different than he did.
He learned how to look at something that was broken and knew exactly how to fix it because he knew exactly how it worked. Sometimes the problems were hard to find, but he always knew every step in the process.
But in my lifetime I have always been fixing technical issues in our new computer driven age. The difference is that it is truly impossible to know how any of our equipment works. We are supposed to know what connects to where, or what program does what. But all of the components contain thousands or millions of parts and most computer programs are millions of lines of inaccessible code. And all of the information on these topics is badly spread across internet forums, or doesn't really exist anywhere.
What I've discovered, that even though sometimes I won't ever know exactly what is going on, or exactly what was the problem with the device, I will be able to find a solution. It's almost like an intuitive knowledge of this horrible mess of technology that we have that lets me solve issues. It generally takes along time and sometimes doesn't work, but in the long run it has served me well.
Kyler
One of the first things that Feynman discusses is that as a child he learned how radios worked and became the neighborhoods radio repairman. I was a little bit jealous since I actually don't know the fine details of how radios work. I know the general process, but I don't know the stuff about vacuum tubes and amplifiers.
But then I realized that I had actually learned to fix problems that are much different than he did.
He learned how to look at something that was broken and knew exactly how to fix it because he knew exactly how it worked. Sometimes the problems were hard to find, but he always knew every step in the process.
But in my lifetime I have always been fixing technical issues in our new computer driven age. The difference is that it is truly impossible to know how any of our equipment works. We are supposed to know what connects to where, or what program does what. But all of the components contain thousands or millions of parts and most computer programs are millions of lines of inaccessible code. And all of the information on these topics is badly spread across internet forums, or doesn't really exist anywhere.
What I've discovered, that even though sometimes I won't ever know exactly what is going on, or exactly what was the problem with the device, I will be able to find a solution. It's almost like an intuitive knowledge of this horrible mess of technology that we have that lets me solve issues. It generally takes along time and sometimes doesn't work, but in the long run it has served me well.
Kyler
Disney
I recently finished reading the biography of Walt Disney. What stood out most in my mind was how Disney actually related to animation. I think the general feeling is that Walt Disney was an animation guru who directed all of the Disney animations and really made the idea of animation what it is today. The feeling is that Walt's greatest achievement and his goal was to do what he did with animation.
What I found after reading his biography is a much different feeling. Walt was obsessed with animation, but only for the periods when he was truly enthusiastic about his animation.
Walt was actually a person who would become extremely intend on whatever he was interested in at the time. He would devote his entire mind and all of his force into whatever it was that truly interested and challenged him. Because of this tendency to throw himself into his endeavors with such gusto, he often not only succeeded, but outshone everyone else in the field.
Walt's interested varied over his lifetime. Comics, animation, film, music, trains, the future, city planning, traveling, family and drawing are just a few of the things that at different points in his life, Walt engulfed himself in completely. It just so happened that Walt's most major and first success was the animation interest. It is only because of the timing of this event that lead the Disney Company to be known primarily for it's animation.
The author of the biography I read, had the belief that Walt had some issue with reality and control, which he felt was the reason Walt loved animation. I felt throughout the entire book that the author was wrong. I know in myself that I have the same tendencies to throw myself into whatever interests me at a certain point. And I know this is simply how I am. It is not the result of some childhood incident about gaining control.
In that way, I felt I related fairly well to Disney. I may be able to narrow focused for moments of my life, but I am definitely going to follow a very convoluted route throughout my life. Thankfully, I am going to be very enthusiastic about it.
Kyler
What I found after reading his biography is a much different feeling. Walt was obsessed with animation, but only for the periods when he was truly enthusiastic about his animation.
Walt was actually a person who would become extremely intend on whatever he was interested in at the time. He would devote his entire mind and all of his force into whatever it was that truly interested and challenged him. Because of this tendency to throw himself into his endeavors with such gusto, he often not only succeeded, but outshone everyone else in the field.
Walt's interested varied over his lifetime. Comics, animation, film, music, trains, the future, city planning, traveling, family and drawing are just a few of the things that at different points in his life, Walt engulfed himself in completely. It just so happened that Walt's most major and first success was the animation interest. It is only because of the timing of this event that lead the Disney Company to be known primarily for it's animation.
The author of the biography I read, had the belief that Walt had some issue with reality and control, which he felt was the reason Walt loved animation. I felt throughout the entire book that the author was wrong. I know in myself that I have the same tendencies to throw myself into whatever interests me at a certain point. And I know this is simply how I am. It is not the result of some childhood incident about gaining control.
In that way, I felt I related fairly well to Disney. I may be able to narrow focused for moments of my life, but I am definitely going to follow a very convoluted route throughout my life. Thankfully, I am going to be very enthusiastic about it.
Kyler
Video Game Theory
It has been becoming fairly obvious to me that the video game industry is growing stagnate. Most games are either sequels or rip-offs of successful games. I understand why sequels are actually a good thing since they tend to mean that a product can be perfected. However, most games this year have reached their 4th iteration and show few signs of letting up. I'd say that is mostly a sign of greedy corporations that are scared of innovation and of innovators who are scared to try new things.
There is also a trend towards making games more "accessible", which results in making games too easy. I think game companies try to make their games accessible as to allow for a larger audience, which means more money. This does not however mean the game is any better. In most games the ideas of a "health bar" or lives have been completely eliminated. This isn't a horrible design decision by itself since the idea of having "lives" in a game was weird to start with. I think the decision to removes lives and such was made to reduce frustration. I don't think these type of decisions should be made from the point of eliminating a problem that resulted from the initial game design. The game design needs to be rethought from the beginning to prevent the frustration.
What I am attempting to get at is what I see as the purpose of video games. I see video games as fundamental a method of teaching and then testing the player. The progression through the game is simply a learning process. What I see as the downfall of many video games is that they assume that they are attempting to allow players to "play" a movie. To create for themselves a cinematic experience. I believe that movies and video games are very different media's that shouldn't be confused and video games should never attempt to replicate a film.
If we look at videos in the context of them being learning processes it becomes obvious why some games are successful and others aren't. Why are first person shooters becoming less successful? Because players have been learning the same thing over, and over and over and over and over again. Hundreds of games have gone over how to "push A to jump", "press right trigger to fire". Most games attempt to add in a little bit of a gimmick to this learning formula, whether it is squad tactics or neat powers in BioShock.
But take Rockband for example. This is a dream learning process. Three new controllers to learn to use. Tons of songs that are easily separated into different difficulties and it is easy to test the players on their ability. It is no wonder that this game is hyper successful.
So the question needs to be rephrased for game makers. For a long time they thought they wanted to tell stories, when in actual fact they just keep trying to teach players how to play a FPS. The question needs to be - What should we teach the player?
Kyler
There is also a trend towards making games more "accessible", which results in making games too easy. I think game companies try to make their games accessible as to allow for a larger audience, which means more money. This does not however mean the game is any better. In most games the ideas of a "health bar" or lives have been completely eliminated. This isn't a horrible design decision by itself since the idea of having "lives" in a game was weird to start with. I think the decision to removes lives and such was made to reduce frustration. I don't think these type of decisions should be made from the point of eliminating a problem that resulted from the initial game design. The game design needs to be rethought from the beginning to prevent the frustration.
What I am attempting to get at is what I see as the purpose of video games. I see video games as fundamental a method of teaching and then testing the player. The progression through the game is simply a learning process. What I see as the downfall of many video games is that they assume that they are attempting to allow players to "play" a movie. To create for themselves a cinematic experience. I believe that movies and video games are very different media's that shouldn't be confused and video games should never attempt to replicate a film.
If we look at videos in the context of them being learning processes it becomes obvious why some games are successful and others aren't. Why are first person shooters becoming less successful? Because players have been learning the same thing over, and over and over and over and over again. Hundreds of games have gone over how to "push A to jump", "press right trigger to fire". Most games attempt to add in a little bit of a gimmick to this learning formula, whether it is squad tactics or neat powers in BioShock.
But take Rockband for example. This is a dream learning process. Three new controllers to learn to use. Tons of songs that are easily separated into different difficulties and it is easy to test the players on their ability. It is no wonder that this game is hyper successful.
So the question needs to be rephrased for game makers. For a long time they thought they wanted to tell stories, when in actual fact they just keep trying to teach players how to play a FPS. The question needs to be - What should we teach the player?
Kyler
Wall-E
Well apparently not all things created by Pixar are going to be spectacular. And I am even more confused by the worlds review system. How can Wall-e possibly attain the scores it is getting, and how can Speed Racer be so easily overlooked.
I think the fundamental issue is that when creating you can either simply make things and they turn out to be good, or you can make things that seem good, and most likely aren't.
I was watching a documentary about the making of the film Bambi, and they were reading transcripts of the story meetings that took place. And a one point, one of the storymen actually said something to the effect that "we are doing this to make the film look like a good movie". Many creators fall into the trap of simply thinking if they recreate what they think is great, they will make something great. This is simply not true.
For the first time in a Pixar movie I got the feeling that the creators thought more about what seemed great than what was right for the film.
Here are just a few of the things I thought were well done and not so well done.
Wall-e the character was extremely well done. The animation was funny, and his personality was enjoyable. But that was really all there was to him.
The story was disjointed. At one point I thought it was a love story, but it turns into a very badly resolved story about civilization that detracts from the love story. Pixar was able to make a perfectly good movie about cars that had no humans in it. What would be so hard about keeping the people out of it?
Many parts of the story were mainly focused on gross over-generalizations about the state of our world, but I never felt any real truth about the situation.
The thing I thought was most enjoyable about this film was actually the short that was played before the film. It is the first time in a long time that I have really felt I could appreciate animation entirely based off of the "gag".
Well at least there was one good film this summer. Can't say I am looking forward to anything else.
Kyler
I think the fundamental issue is that when creating you can either simply make things and they turn out to be good, or you can make things that seem good, and most likely aren't.
I was watching a documentary about the making of the film Bambi, and they were reading transcripts of the story meetings that took place. And a one point, one of the storymen actually said something to the effect that "we are doing this to make the film look like a good movie". Many creators fall into the trap of simply thinking if they recreate what they think is great, they will make something great. This is simply not true.
For the first time in a Pixar movie I got the feeling that the creators thought more about what seemed great than what was right for the film.
Here are just a few of the things I thought were well done and not so well done.
Wall-e the character was extremely well done. The animation was funny, and his personality was enjoyable. But that was really all there was to him.
The story was disjointed. At one point I thought it was a love story, but it turns into a very badly resolved story about civilization that detracts from the love story. Pixar was able to make a perfectly good movie about cars that had no humans in it. What would be so hard about keeping the people out of it?
Many parts of the story were mainly focused on gross over-generalizations about the state of our world, but I never felt any real truth about the situation.
The thing I thought was most enjoyable about this film was actually the short that was played before the film. It is the first time in a long time that I have really felt I could appreciate animation entirely based off of the "gag".
Well at least there was one good film this summer. Can't say I am looking forward to anything else.
Kyler
Believing Yourself
Well I recently have been thinking about what it means to believe in oneself.
According to common knowledge self-esteem is directly related to believing in yourself. And pretty much everything else stems from self esteem.
I've always been sure that I believe in myself and that I have exorbitant amounts of self-esteem. But when I started to delve into the question of believing yourself I hit a wall.
The wall was this. If you can lie to yourself, but you have complete faith in yourself, you will be believing a falsity. And generally, I attempt to stay away from untruths and lies.
So the question has turned into: Do I ever lie to myself? I thought about it long and hard and realized I could easily lie to myself about the question itself. Yes, I do lie to myself.
So, I was then stuck in a dilemma between believing in myself fully and telling myself lies. It was at this time that I began to recognize a new interpretation of what I consider belief in oneself. I no longer consider my thoughts as what I need to believe in. They are going to be both lies and truth, covering a complete range inbetween. The part of myself that I can still hold accountable and which I still believe in is the part that observes those thoughts. The part of me that tries to check every thought for it's validity or for lies, is the part that I believe in. No matter how badly I fail, or the stupid things I say or do. It is so far back in my mind, with such a distance to my external reality that nothing ever comes even close to scratching my belief in it.
It is protected by the knowledge that everything can't turn out right. That I can make mistakes and still have a chance to learn things in the future. It is actually protected from accountability since it never generates it's own actions or ideas, it simple observe those that go before it.
It is me at my most fundamental core, yet you can never actually see it. It like trying to see the inside of a brick. Every time you break it, you only create more surface. (analogy courtesy or Mr. Feynman (he used the brick in a completely different example)).
Kyler
According to common knowledge self-esteem is directly related to believing in yourself. And pretty much everything else stems from self esteem.
I've always been sure that I believe in myself and that I have exorbitant amounts of self-esteem. But when I started to delve into the question of believing yourself I hit a wall.
The wall was this. If you can lie to yourself, but you have complete faith in yourself, you will be believing a falsity. And generally, I attempt to stay away from untruths and lies.
So the question has turned into: Do I ever lie to myself? I thought about it long and hard and realized I could easily lie to myself about the question itself. Yes, I do lie to myself.
So, I was then stuck in a dilemma between believing in myself fully and telling myself lies. It was at this time that I began to recognize a new interpretation of what I consider belief in oneself. I no longer consider my thoughts as what I need to believe in. They are going to be both lies and truth, covering a complete range inbetween. The part of myself that I can still hold accountable and which I still believe in is the part that observes those thoughts. The part of me that tries to check every thought for it's validity or for lies, is the part that I believe in. No matter how badly I fail, or the stupid things I say or do. It is so far back in my mind, with such a distance to my external reality that nothing ever comes even close to scratching my belief in it.
It is protected by the knowledge that everything can't turn out right. That I can make mistakes and still have a chance to learn things in the future. It is actually protected from accountability since it never generates it's own actions or ideas, it simple observe those that go before it.
It is me at my most fundamental core, yet you can never actually see it. It like trying to see the inside of a brick. Every time you break it, you only create more surface. (analogy courtesy or Mr. Feynman (he used the brick in a completely different example)).
Kyler
Car Jacking
A brief story from the road trip.
Coming home we stopped in Innisfail at a mall. When we were leaving, I went ahead to unlock the car. As I approach the car I pressed the remote unlock when I was about 6 paces away from the driver door. At the same instant, a woman approaching from the other side, much closer to the door, started to approach the door and lean in to open it.
First my mind took an account of what the woman looked like. Probably 50 years old. Paint splattered shirt. Frazzled looking hair. Didn't rule out some sort of criminal.
No obvious threat. First action taken. Lunging steps to close distance to the car.
Next thought. How could she steal my car if I have the keys on the outside... I don't know... Some sort of scheme I don't want to see play out might exist... I should stop this right now.
Second action taken. Slam partially open door shut and say extremely sternly "EXCUSE ME"
The women is completely horrified. But immediately realizes her mistake.
I realize her mistake. Threat averted. Begin emergency apology protocol.
There is another black car parked two spaces down from mine, also with remote key unlock. We had pressed the buttons simultaneously and she had heard the unlock sound, furthering the illusion.
At least I didn't tackle her.
Kyler
Coming home we stopped in Innisfail at a mall. When we were leaving, I went ahead to unlock the car. As I approach the car I pressed the remote unlock when I was about 6 paces away from the driver door. At the same instant, a woman approaching from the other side, much closer to the door, started to approach the door and lean in to open it.
First my mind took an account of what the woman looked like. Probably 50 years old. Paint splattered shirt. Frazzled looking hair. Didn't rule out some sort of criminal.
No obvious threat. First action taken. Lunging steps to close distance to the car.
Next thought. How could she steal my car if I have the keys on the outside... I don't know... Some sort of scheme I don't want to see play out might exist... I should stop this right now.
Second action taken. Slam partially open door shut and say extremely sternly "EXCUSE ME"
The women is completely horrified. But immediately realizes her mistake.
I realize her mistake. Threat averted. Begin emergency apology protocol.
There is another black car parked two spaces down from mine, also with remote key unlock. We had pressed the buttons simultaneously and she had heard the unlock sound, furthering the illusion.
At least I didn't tackle her.
Kyler
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)