Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-ID512260.asp" target="_blank"><b>LP Column: 7/10/08 Rhett Wickham: Oh, Grow Up!</b></a> Rhett Wickham reflects on the high price of being taken seriously by comparing Kung Fu Panda and Wall*E.
Originally Posted By docc Pixar have never made a film where the anchoring emotional moments are diffused by inane humour. Neither is that true of any of the Disney great animated features. The same sadly can not be said of Kung Fu Panda, where only one scene (the passing of Oogway) was not dragged down in such superficiality.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic I disagree with many points of this article: I don't think that WALL-E being nominated for Best Picture would have much of a lasting influence on animated films at all. Look at Beauty and the Beast, how many knock-off fairy tale musicals were there? I can think of a few, but it didn't become a formula. Most studios won't risk $150+ million dollars on an "artistic" film. Not to mention, how many directors would come up with as "out there" of a concept as WALL-E? And I have a big problem with this statement: <<Worse, for the first time in Pixar history, it makes me wonder why they bothered to animate it when they just could have filmed it in live action.>> I find it interesting because in an earlier article Rhett wrote: <<Wall*E is an animator’s dream in both design and ability, unencumbered by too much talk or an excess of bravado. He’s perfectly proportioned, almost a mechanical Mickey in rectangles, with an authentic “cartoon†anatomy. His connective hoses, rubber treads and telescopic limbs have the flexibility to go beyond their basic confines of volume and rigidity, allowing the character to expand and contract like the classic rubber ball. This is still animation, and not physics, and its principles are unapologetically adhered to in moving the essentially flat graphic across his alien landscape.>> That's why it was animated. WALL-E may use realistic textures and environments, but WALL-E is quite stylized in his movements and honestly one of the most "cartoony" animated characters I've seen in some time. If you don't like the plot, I understand, but when you have a title character that is so obviously cartoony as was stated in the first article I think it's very odd to write in a later article that you don't understand why the animation medium was chosen. And there are more statements that just seem strange to me: <<Wall*E proves to Hollywood that Pixar is no longer simply making cartoons>> Cars 2? Toy Story 3? I don't know much about Newt, but Lifted sure was cartoony and it was the same director. WALL-E seems particularly strange for Pixar, almost like Fantasia was for Walt Disney. It was an experimental type movie, and I don't expect it to be the norm for Pixar at all. If it was they wouldn't be doing the "safe" movies like Cars 2 and Toy Story 3. I also found the article to be giving the impression that somehow Pixar making WALL-E was them demoting their other films to "kid's stuff." I haven't heard comments from Pixar saying things like, "At last we can do what we want," or "we'll finally be respected." Actually, what Andrew Stanton has said was that it was a strange project and he just kind of ran with it because it was something he believed in. There are other wierd comments like: <<doesn’t something more have to be at stake than whether or not the “off†button is discovered in time>> What was at stake was the entire human race's future. Seems pretty high to me. << And even if that were sufficient, shouldn’t the protagonist be the guy to push it?>> The protagonist is not always the person to vanquish evil in the end. Certainly the audience is meant to develop an affinity for the captain before he does it. I would argue quite possibly a stronger affinity than Prince Eric or Prince Phillip. <<And once it ends up using trumpets and timpani to remind us that we are consuming too much at the cost of our planet, and possibly our own humanity, we’re faced with the question of how to explain the shelves of WalMart and Target, filled with an awfully big carbon footprint of Pixar branded remote-control Wall*E’s that will doubtless be the stuff of landfills down the road.>> Because the movie wasn't some big environmental based project, it was just a story about keeping humanity and not loosing interpersonal contact. It wasn't some pointed attack on Wal-Mart or whether or not people buy too much. It was about how interpersonal contact is what makes us live. In terms of comparing it to Kung Fu Panada, I haven't seen the film yet but was very underwhelmed by the animation in the trailers and the design of many of the characters. I have heard good things though, so I'll probably watch it some day. In the end the article was frustrating because I do agree with some points the author was trying to make. I love the simplicity of 2-D animation, the lack of textures, the broader movements. I also like the simpler plot lines of Disney animated films. As great as I found WALL-E, in many ways I enjoy the simpler pleasures found in movies such as Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast more. I really do hope that Princess and the Frog will have that sort of formula, and keep away from being too layered. I would like to see CGI get less realistic and more fantastic, in some ways my favorite Pixar animation has been the credit sequences of Monsters Inc, Incredibles and Ratatouille. It's kind of funny though, in many ways I thought WALL-E had the least complicated and most cartoony story so far for Pixar. Go figure.
Originally Posted By dl1956 Interesting, there seem to be echoes of the criticism that Walt Disney received, in Snow White and his later animated efforts, that he was leaving the true realm of the animated film by trying to draw realistically human figures, animals, backdrops, etc. Supposedly this was the beginning of Disney's fall from grace in the eyes of many cultural critics of the latter 1930's.
Originally Posted By goldenstate5 I never post here anymore (since '04 I think), but does anyone find it extremely ironic that a Disney fan site is hosting an article saying (basically) Kung Fu Panda is a better movie than Wall-E, which aside from one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever heard, is just plain...idiotic. KFP was cute, yes, but it was standard Dreamworks stuff that lacked the stupid pop culture gags and fart jokes, which made everybody love it. The theme was very standard and so was the entire production. It seemed like it was just going through the motions. WALL-E, however, was a masterful work of art, and a sci-fi film, for those who for some reason hate the last act. The parallels between the romance of WALL-E and EVE and the human race is very important for this dystopian film. It's necessary, and I can't see why anyone can't see it. If WALL-E has one flaw, it's the underdevelopment of the rogue robots, but it doesn't detract much. (we at least get the main gist: WALL-E freed them, they see him as their hero, the end) Such a wonderful, wonderful film, and anyone who claims (critically, not in the "entertained me more" away) KFP is a better film must be receiving some cash from Katzenberg. By the way, MiceAge is also another place that I saw give a bad review to WALL-E. Why do Disney fansites want Pixar films to fail? (at least Kirby gave it a great review)...
Originally Posted By Doobie <<< Why do Disney fansites want Pixar films to fail? >>> As you said, Kirby gave it a great review. Rhett Wickham has a long history of talking about animation here and he's never shy about sharing his opinion both positively and negatively. There's no agenda here of wanting Pixar to fail, just letting our various writers weigh in on what is perhaps a monumental film in Disney's history. Doobie.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Look at Beauty and the Beast, how many knock-off fairy tale musicals were there?<< The Nutcracker Prince Happily Ever After Thumbelina A Troll in Central Park The Swan Princess The Swan Princess II Anastasia Quest for Camelot The King and I None terribly successful, which is why they petered out. However, I blame that list on the monetary success of Mermaid, Beast and Aladdin, not on the Oscar nom. If there was one movie that was hurt by B&tB, it was Pocahontas, which got all serioused up by Jeffrey Katzenberg, who decided to shoot for winning Best Picture instead of just being nominated for it. The result was a heavy-handed lesser quality movie that got totally overshadowed by the B-production that was going at the same time - "The Lion King."
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Yeh! What Doobie said!!!...... Seriously, I wanted to take a moment to respond directly to some very careful and passionate comments on my editorial. First, I appreciate everyone's feedback, as even the worst tongue lashing of disagreement and disapproval is better than silence to a writer. Half the time I think nobody bothers to read anything I write (...which may be exactly the point people are trying to make, and maybe I should take the hint! *gulp*) docc: I agree that Disney has seldom been guilty of the many offenses of inappropriate humor that have dragged down nearly every DreamWorks animated feature since El Dorado., but I can think of many instances of moments in which Disney has tempered the dramatic or overly romantic with a closely followed moment of humor - although most of those are in recent offerings and not in classics (classical by way of period and time, not marketing moniker) and I think that's part of your point, and it's well taken. But I would politely disagree with your observation about the death of Oogway, only in so far as I think it's made much more powerful as a result of not sitting in the middle of half a dozen other moments made to be just as powerful - all without reason. Oogway's death stands out as memorable, and is made reverent and the sentiment and drama are rightly profound and speak to something universal that would be wrong to poke a pin into with a cheap yuk. Thanks to this moment, the levity brought to bare on the "secret ingredient" moment between Po and his Father reminds us of how ordinary the simple truths are, and how we mustn't take things too seriously for fear of missing the great power of the truly serious moments in life. That feels, for me, at least, to be a delightfully Zen balance in a charming and unpretentious cartoon feature. Wall*E makes romantic soup of way too much for its own good - again, I feel compelled to underscore that this is my opinion - and as a result dilutes the power of things like the reveal of infantalized humans - a potential gasp made mere gag. We're so in need of a laugh at that moment, that the one really amazing and powerful image of the film is robbed of its power because of all the attempts at profundity that precede it. Which is the greater offense of the two films? DL Music: If the article ultimately frustrates you, if is likely the result of my own frustration bleeding into my editorial. I see a trend away from what I, personally, like most about animation; an attempt to assimilate into a culture of "serious film" that dismisses animation because it isn't like live action. The point of my op-ed - which I fear was clumsily lost based on what you wrote in response - is that I believe the likely nod for "Best Picture" will come not because a clubby Academy has finally realized the value of animation as great film, but because Wall*E looks nothing like a cartoon, which is part of what I love about animation, thus part of what I find lacking in this latest Pixar offering. I think that's a high price for animation to pay to get into the club (i.e. Look like me and you're in, look like something other than me and you're excluded but given your own award so that nobody can call me a bigot.) If my criticism of the film, in any way, feels like I'm saying that an opposing opinion is wrong, then I am, indeed, as goldenstate5 says "idiotic" (just for the record, the cash I got from Katzenberg was immediately taken back when he read my slam of Madagascar 2,...so rest easy knowing that I'm no richer as a result *ahem*) Any detraction I may point out is not meant to imply that any other person's love and admiration of Wall*E makes them wrong, or even less astute. I've made that mistake before, when defending films others hated, and I'm careful not to make it again no matter which side of the argument I find myself sitting. Critical opinions don't shape facts, and if mine appeard to be deliberately ripping at yours, then I owe you an apology. Beyond opinion, however, there is one point I am compelled to make in response to your observation that >>...when you have a title character that is so obviously cartoony as was stated in the first article I think it's very odd to write in a later article that you don't understand why the animation medium was chosen.<< There is no incongruity between what I wrote in this piece about Wall*E the film and what I wrote earlier re my delight with the animation of Wall*E, the title character. e.g. -"I'd be a complete fool to ignore Wall*E’s first thirty seven minutes of cinematic magic: it’s the remaining hour that feels entirely empty. Worse, for the first time in Pixar history, it makes me wonder why they bothered to animate it when they just could have filmed it in live action." This (too long) sentence makes the point that it is what follows the first act of Wall*E that troubles me, and which I think was pointless to animate as it takes little to no advantage of what animation offers that is superior to live action. I dont' see this as a contradiction of my previous praise of the title character himself or the animation of that specific character. I have reason to change my opinion of that. I've simply presented an argument that two thirds of the film doesn't appear to have any reason to be animated other than by default, and that troubles me enough to give voice to it in the context of this particular editorial. Perhaps some of that frustration stems from wasting great animation. As always, I appreciate any feedback, even bad feedback, and I'm truly grateful for a safe and democratic forum where opinion can be debated, and dictation of taste is absent, or at least doesn't come with fear of a public stoning or imprisonment! I'm even more grateful for an editorial staff willing to give space to something that may not praise all things Disney, especially a piece from someone who is frequently scolded for being a Disney apologist, particularly as regards animation. Speaking of which...Back off Pocahontas ! I happen to love that film! r.w.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I can think of many instances of moments in which Disney has tempered the dramatic or overly romantic with a closely followed moment of humor<< Let's sing a gay little spring song! Tra la la ....... >>which I think was pointless to animate as it takes little to no advantage of what animation offers that is superior to live action.<< I disagree with that totally. Animation offers more than just the ability to squash and stretch. It also creates a different reaction in the minds of the viewers, which in itself can be valuable. For example, let's say those fat humans were portrayed in live action. What sort of gasp would there have been then? They'd be so repulsive that no one in the audience would relate to them or want to see them succeed. As graphically designed non-people, we can accept them for what they are and move on with the story. There's also the fabulousness of the character designs, landscapes, weapons, spaceships ... you'd probably be CGI-ing those anyway ... why not create the entire shebang, not just the ancillary stuff? It also, dare I say it, makes the marketing easier. If it wasn't animated, the family audience's interest would be greatly reduced. Finally, I'm reminded of Satoshi Kon's answer when someone asked him why he animated one of his earlier movies instead of shooting it in live action. "Because I'm an animator."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>For example, let's say those fat humans were portrayed in live action. What sort of gasp would there have been then? They'd be so repulsive that no one in the audience would relate to them or want to see them succeed. As graphically designed non-people, we can accept them for what they are and move on with the story.<< Except that for me, the inclusion of the live action Fred Willard video segments set up the expectation that we were in for a next-generation "Mary Poppins" style blending of animation and live action. I think, creatively, it was an odd choice to have that live action footage and then have cartoony, animated people later in the film. I get that humans "devolved" into these blubbery masses 700 years later, but to me, you either go with live action humans or animated ones, you don't mix them. But maybe that's just me. I didn't care for the use of the real photos of Elvis in Lilo & Stitch, either. It really pulled me out of the beautiful, water-colored world they had established. (However, I love the use of live action in episodes of SpongeBob, because it actually adds to the goofiness of the show.)
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<I've simply presented an argument that two thirds of the film doesn't appear to have any reason to be animated other than by default, and that troubles me enough to give voice to it in the context of this particular editorial. >> I still don't understand this sentiment based on what you said earlier. WALL-E as you put it was a classic animated character, a design carefully selected as to maximize animation. I don't understand why a non-traditional cartoon story therefore becomes a reason to not have animation. I can understand thinking that the humans could be live action I suppose, but they are in the movie very rarely and all of the robots are quite cartoony in their motions and design. I'm not sure why the trash covered earth was much more cartoony than the axiom so I don't think backgrounds got more "live action." If anything I'd argue that the Axiom was quite a bit more cartoony and stylized than the Earth was. I'm not sure what live action films WALL-E is similar to plot wise, because I can't think of any besides perhaps silent films. The characters are pretty cartoony as they can't develop much depth with only about three lines of dialogue. Now if all of this is because the look of CGI has gotten so realistic than I think I understand what you're getting at. I personally dislike the fact that CGI goes to such efforts to create textures, shadows, lighting etc. I much prefer simple shapes (like I said in an earlier post the Incredibles and Ratatouille end credits are among my favorite moments of Pixar animation) and bold contrasts. I think what I'm getting at is that there seems to be two levels to what makes it a "cartoon": the plot and the medium. WALL-E's plot to me was pretty cartoony, but the filmmaking style was quite realistic. To take it from the other side, Persepolis was not a cartoony plot at all but had a very cartoony look. I have to say that I would absolutely love for Pixar or Disney to try making a movie with a visual style as bold as Persepolis. As brilliant as the animation of WALL-E was, I would have enjoyed the movie more if it would have had a more graphic look. Something that just screams of animation, rather than mimicking live action. So in many ways I don't think we disagree, except in perhaps how much we enjoyed WALL-E's plot.
Originally Posted By goldenstate5 Re-reading the article: If I'm correct, the argument is that Kung Fu Panda was better because it acted more like a traditional animated film? How that makes sense I'll never know...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I have to say that I would absolutely love for Pixar or Disney to try making a movie with a visual style as bold as Persepolis.<< The trouble is, there have been lots of animated features that have already done that. What? Never heard of any of them? The prosecution rests, your honor.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I get that humans "devolved" into these blubbery masses 700 years later, but to me, you either go with live action humans or animated ones, you don't mix them.> I agree. I thought the live-action Fred Willard was an odd choice. Especially since he's such a well-known actor. It kind of took me out of it. Not enough to come close to ruining it or anything, but just a little bit. I'd have gone with an animated character there, or possibly an unknown (and vaguely sinister looking) live actor if they were going for something that was unsettling by its very incongruity.
Originally Posted By ryanbalas The first thing that struck me when reading the article was how well written it was. And, the beautiful bonus is that every post commenting on that article is just as much of a joy to read. The "posters" who write things to simply create tension, insult and demean must all be on MySpace and YouTube right now. Aaahhhhh I have seen Wall E three times. And, have decided that is enough until DVD time this Holiday Season. Loved it. It was with these repeated viewings that I found where the film needed help. There are moments of simply waiting or wondering "...why it was even included." or "...why didn't it offer more." I feel Mr. Wickham missed the point of the climax. The people had become so conditioned to their world that even the simplest of tasks or even thoughts was lost and DID become monumental discoveries. If you became Captain and all the Captains before you told you that this job is boring, the only joy you get is the morning announcements and "...you figure out the rest." - discovering that there is an off button IS a discovery and something important. You can all relate on some level to missing out on important job related information due to complacency. My biggest frustration working with fellow humans is how - at this point in our evolution - we are getting dumber and dumber and it is okay. Surrendering to technology. Why is it okay that you don't know how to work simple objects? Why is it acceptable that you can't remember your own phone number or that of your close friends and family? Why is it okay that you don't know basic driving rules, laws and courtesies? I first encountered the problem when full on computers were introduced to the workplace while I was in the Navy. We still had typewriters (IBM Selectric III's) and we had one computer. It suddenly became okay to have half an office sit and wait for their turn at the one computer rather than get the job done right then with the typewriter. I am dumbfounded when "regular people" are incapable of figuring something very simple out. Not that they have diminished capacities but, they don't use that part of their brain often enough to have it kick into gear when needed. My favorite example of what that is comes from Data (STNG). Ask Data a question or present him with a problem and he'll even tell you - "Processing." Rather than figure it out, they throw it away, put it aside or give up. AUGH! And, because I take the time to figure it out - I forget that not everybody does it too. Something that I feel Mr. Wickham experienced when watching Wall E. He couldn't relate to the mindless blobs in their hover chairs therefore, they can't exist and why is what they discover and do important.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "I think, creatively, it was an odd choice to have that live action footage and then have cartoony, animated people later in the film." And I thought it was a brilliant choice. The live-action people connected those characters to us. Looking at those people, whether it was the CEO of BNL or the clips from HELLO DOLLY, it seemed almost antiquated. We were looking at ourselves, but we had ceased to exist. The animated future-people become that much more of a stark difference, without having to resort to fat suits, which would have taken you out of the movie more.
Originally Posted By basil fan I have to agree that I din't like the use of live-action humans from an artistic viewpoint. The first half of the picture looked way too "live-action" already. Having those animated humans after the real humans just turned me off. If the Willard character had been animated, it would have worked, and he still would've been different enough to contrast with the Axiom humans. I also didn't "get" (artistically speaking) the ending credits animation, usually a major highlight for me since it looks animated, not CGI that looks like live-action. The use of progressing styles of art to correspond to the progression of humanity just didn't work for me. Out of the blue we give viewers the history of art in 2 minutes...why? I was disappointed.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I also didn't "get" (artistically speaking) the ending credits animation,<< I'm just still trying to figure out where the blue jay came from.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "I’d far rather see anthropomorphic animals kick the stuffing out of each other than watch Mac Books make love among the stars." That's the saddest statement I've ever read in an article on Laughingplace. Really? You're gonna reduce that perfect moment to "mac books in love?" Oy. And by the way, it's a Mac book and an 8-Track making love, while, in the background, the human race re-learns why we ever felt the urge to dance in the first place. But I do give Dreamworks credit for finally getting around to animating "Hollywood Ninja." And one more thing, about the pushing of the button thing: "And even if that were sufficient, shouldn’t the protagonist be the guy to push it?" Isn't it kind of a big deal that Wall-E gets crushed to death trying to send the ship back to Earth? The Captain took a bold step, sure, but in true hero fashion, Wall-E was willing to sacrifice himself for us and love and the American way. THAT's what the protagonist does.
Originally Posted By Dlmusic <<The trouble is, there have been lots of animated features that have already done that. What? Never heard of any of them?>> I said Pixar and Disney. Disney has made movies in the past with strong styles, such as Sleeping Beauty and 101 Dalmatians, but recently with their CGI flicks I'm not seeing the same sort of bold styles as animation of the past. I also don't think Pixar has done a movie as stylistic as Persepolis. If you disagree that's ok, but that was my point. I obviously know there are plenty of other companies films that do that, and I've seen plenty of foreign animated films. I just happen to like Pixar's storytelling a whole lot and would love it to be paired with more stylized animation because that's my personal preference. It's no more than a selfish wish, although I do think that there are probably others who feel the same way. In many ways I want a Disney or Pixar do another Pink Elephants on Parade, or train sequence from Three Caballeros or Bird, Cricket and Willow Tree. Even if it's not a whole movie, I'd love a short with an artistic direction that's reminiscent of Shag art. That would be amazing.
