WALL• E

[Pozer]

SPOILERS
i'm not sure how WALL•E got his memory back at the end.  i think at that point they should've had Eve just hang out with him for hundreds of years till he eventually started to gain a personality again.  it would've been sadder and more awesome. 

SPOILERS TOO PROBABLY

nah, it was the power of love, dude.

SPOILERS END 

Pixar is all that is left in this world to make me feel like a kid again via cinema.  there is just too much brilliance that equals magic involved.  Lucas is dead forever and Spielberg is only sometimes good for grown up me. 

strong example of the brilliance = magic that cannot just simply be admired:

Or make us feel for a cockroach--one of the most loathed creatures on Earth--without making the cockroach cute?  For the creators to trust that we will come to know who the cockroach is simply judging by how the cockroach chooses to follow Wall•E is one of the many examples of how the filmmakers knew when to keep it simple, and when to make it big.

WALL• E has resurrected my hope that i recently thought Indy 4 had killed and buried.  omuy & friends.. it's a shame you guys are done for. 

[I Love a Magician]

when did "sentimental" become such a bad bad thing

[Astrostic]

why is a unisexual relationship that important? aside from just being different/not cliched i guess? and i think the only thing that distinctly makes wall e or eve gendered is their voices. and you can't just not have them make sounds/communicate in the name of unisex.

the use of an ipod is just a good idea. it's something that'll be around for a bit. i don't think there's a hint of 'promotion' in its usage. it's not like ipods need advertising.

a unisexual relationship is no more important than a heterosexual one, so they shouldn't have felt that they had to morph it into a male/female relationship.  it's not like I look at dumpsters and see them as males and at apple computers and see women.  These things are naturally unisex, and I think it would have been far more impressive if they could have made a film about two machines falling in love instead of the easy way of communicating it.  And it wasn't just their voices.  Their names, to begin with, are Wall-E and Eve.

I put the Apple comment last because I don't think it is that relevant, yet.  But it pulls me out of the film to see an iPod, makes me think, oh, right, Pixar and Apple, they talked about this.  same with the "start-up sound."

[picolas]

a unisexual relationship is no more important than a heterosexual one, so they shouldn't have felt that they had to morph it into a male/female relationship.  it's not like I look at dumpsters and see them as males and at apple computers and see women.  These things are naturally unisex, and I think it would have been far more impressive if they could have made a film about two machines falling in love instead of the easy way of communicating it.

i think without voices the movie would've lacked because the robots wouldn't have been as endearing, and they would be less defined as characters/less interesting. so that was pixar's justification for voicing/genderizing.

minor spoils
the more i think about this the more classic it is. there are so many layers to its brilliance. i think my favourite moment was the trip to the axiom.

[Astrostic]

i think without voices the movie would've lacked because the robots wouldn't have been as endearing, and they would be less defined as characters/less interesting. so that was pixar's justification for voicing/genderizing.

I agree, but I'm not saying they shouldn't have voices, I'm saying that it wasn't necessary for one to be male and for one to be female.

[picolas]

minor spoils

in my opinion a non-gendered voice is odd and off-putting. and very hard to do because we're geared to distinguish between genders. even the completely apple-generated voice for the ship wheel sounds male.

[MacGuffin]

Pixar defies gravity
Source: Los Angeles Times

I vividly remember two things about having breakfast with Pixar guru John Lasseter earlier this year. One was that my back was out, so unable to sit comfortably, I had to take notes either standing up or lying down on the carpet of his hotel suite. The second was that when I asked him how Pixar had managed to rack up such an astounding streak of hit films, he said simply, "Quality is the best business plan of all."

It's such a simple formula, yet one that has managed to elude every other studio in town. As you may noticed, the business plan at other studios is: Find a sequel or a TV remake or a video game that can be transformed into an action film--and then drain it of any freshness or verve that might possibly alienate the most timid, risk-averse moviegoer. Pixar is all about originality. Of the studio's nine releases, only one--"Toy Story 2"--has been a sequel. Pixar's new film, "Wall-E," is not only strikingly original, but dare I say it, artistically daring--and yet here it is, in the middle of a sequel-laden summer, earning rave reviews and making $62.5 million in its opening weekend, the third best Pixar opening ever.

The critics have been rapturous. In fact, for all the talk that critics are out of touch with mainstream moviegoers, critics and audiences are in agreement on one key thing: Nobody makes better movies than Pixar. The company has six films in Metacritic's Top 100 movies of all, with "Ratatouille" at No. 7 (higher than "Schindler's List"), "Wall-E" at No. 21 (a notch above "Raging Bull") and "Toy Story" at No. 31, right up there with Oscar winner "No Country for Old Men." The amazing thing isn't just that Pixar has so many films in the critical pantheon, but that its films have made tons more money than almost every other picture on the list. Pixar is a total anomaly in modern-day Hollywood: It makes art movies that have mass appeal. Its films are often populated with dark, pessimistic themes, but they still somehow feel spiritually engaging and uplifting.

This stratospheric level of quality has turned Pixar into movieland's most reliable family brand. The company's movies seem exotic and unfamiliar at first glance--every year I see box-office reporters scratching their heads before a new Pixar release, wondering if this time the company has gone too far. Surely parents wouldn't possibly subject their kids to a sci-fi film with nearly half an hour of zero dialog or an ode to a rat that wants to be a chef in Paris. But the movies always end up triumphing over industry cynicism and timidity because Pixar's artistry has earned our trust.

When I talk to rival studio executives, they scoff. Come on, they say--Warners has to have three movies in the summer and two at Christmas. Of course, they're not all going to be good. Pixar only has to make one movie a year. Fair enough. Maybe making one movie a year is easier. But that does really explain why Pixar's one movie is better than all of Fox's 20 movies? Or 18 of Sony's or Paramount's films? But I think the other studios are embarrassed because Pixar's amazing track record stands as a rebuke to a system that is dominated by mindless test marketing and arid group think. There's no way a film as original as "Wall-E" could emerge from today's risk-averse studios, who refuse to greenlight a project that is "execution dependent"--studio lingo for a movie that people actually have to like to be successful.

What is the secret to Pixar's success. Here's what Lasseter has to say:

 

First off, Lasseter says success doesn't just breed success--it breeds autonomy, which in turn nurtures creativity. "At Pixar, we've surrounded ourselves with each other, so when we've had success, we've been left alone," he says. "One of the key things we do is--we get comments, but from other filmmakers. Our creative brain trust is our own minds. So we know that we're getting a reaction that comes out of total support, not ego. We have a rule: No note is mandatory, which allows you to be more open to criticism. We only use the notes that help us step back and look at the film through fresh eyes."

Pixar is also unique because of its origins. Today's studios are four generations removed from their original immigrant entrepreneurs. They're more like banks than movie companies, made up of employees all surrounded by constant reminders that they work for a mega-conglomerate always worried about making back its investment. Though owned by Disney, Pixar is still, creatively, the construct of Steve Jobs, a first-generation technological entrepreneur and visionary.

"We're a studio of pioneers who, if you look at it technically, were the ones who invented much of computer animation" says Lasseter. "Everything we've done no one had done before--it was all new. So that creates a group of people who strive to break new ground. It's addicting. When someone comes in and says, 'This is something no one has ever done before,' we all get excited. We have a company culture that celebrates being pioneers."

He adds: "Because we're a culture of inventors, nothing is standard operating procedure for us. We constantly reevaluate and reexamine everything we do. We go back and study what works and what didn't work and we get excited about what didn't work because, for us, that's a challenging new problem to solve."

Pixar has one other arrow in its quiver that other studios lack--an R&D department. Many of Pixar's best films were inspired by or originated as short films. (Go here to see the shorts that Pixar's features are built from.) "It's our key place to experiment," says Lasseter. "In the world of features, the budgets are so high that people get nervous about experimenting. In a short, you can see what works and what doesn't and hammer it out. It has allowed our filmmakers to gain experience, both as animators and as storytellers, but without the pressure of a $150-million feature looming over their head."

"Wall-E's" Andrew Stanton started as an animator on Pixar shorts before graduating to directing. As a number of critics have noted, "Wall-E" pays homage to a host of films before it--it's Stanton's valentine to the sci-films that mesmerized him growing up in the 1970s. If we're lucky, some future filmmaker will make a movie that's a love letter to the Pixar films of today, since their invention and artistry reminds us of what made us excited about movies in the first place.

[modage]

http://www.cinematical.com/2008/07/02/pixar-honors-the-girl-who-cried-at-the-wall-e-teaser/

[matt35mm]

 

That made me laugh a lot.  Good times.

[Sleepless]

That could have been how many of us? I really need to start videoing myself watching YouTube.
Apart from when I'm watching those midgets of course...

[Ravi]

Leaked Pixar Trailer

[©brad]

i wept like a baby. this gave my chills chills. who was it that said pixar is the second coming of christ, pubrick?

this stands alongside ratatouille for me as the best pixar work to date. mac is right, we will not see a better love story this year. heck, maybe not for several years. that dance in space! cinematic heaven. i think my favorite part was when the little guy brings eve back to his bachelor pad and shows her all his collectibles. adorable.

i am baffled by and even feel a little sorry for the cynics who didn't like it (of which there were few, but still). i don't see how you could want more out of a film or from a filmmaker. you either have ludicrously high expectations that will forever doom you from ever enjoying anything or you're just completely cold-hearted.   

[Alexandro]

Someday the period from 1995 to 2010 or something will be known as the Pixar golden age. This was astounding. Specially the first 30  minutes or so. I was almost crying with enjoyment just because of the beauty of everything, from the character design to the music to the situation to every single thing. No praise is enough.

This film will suffer (if that's an appropriate word) from the "Full Metal Jacket curse", meaning that the first half it's so good that the second, even though is great too, can't even begin to compare to it. It is true that WALL*e is almost a masterpiece and that it kinda loses some of it's way in the second half, where suddenly everything is way too complex and contrived compared to the simplicity of the beginning.

Small note: Robots without gender would have been too much. I know what you mean and I think it would have been admirable, but the masses would probably be unforgiven about that. Look, the film it's having problems with the conservatives just because it depicts planet earth destroyed because of pollution. Unisex robots would probably cause some sort of boycott.

Now about the third act:

SPOILERS

To me, the mistake comes, as it usually does, from the need to please everyone. The humans subplot is uninteresting. It's a nice touch, and an intelligent one, but showing that situation with human beings transformed into near zombies is enough, we really didn't needed to see how they got their groove back. That whole aspect feels...uninspired and forced into the thing. As a consequence, things get complicated and way too much action is cramed in there just to solve that aspect of the story. I think us human beings would have been fine with an ending in which the humans of the movie stay just where they are, since they are portrayed in a pretty negative way from the first moment.

[Fernando]

Minor spoils

Saw it last night, it's as wonderful as everyone says, as someone said only pixar cam make you care for a cockroach and while I didn't cry I still have that feeling you get when you're about to, that moment where wall•e leaves earth and the roach is left alone.

What I love about pixar's films is that no matter if you like them or not you still can see the amount of care that was put into them, and particularly in this one is shown on every single frame. I just can't articulate with words to do it justice, it simply is the best film of the year so far and I really doubt there will be another that comes close.

I wonder if GT liked it, for the ppl that didn't I really feel bad for ya.


Nobody except mod mentioned Presto (the short), again that type of comedy has been done a billion times, but these
guys just keep hitting the right notes, hilarious stuff.

[cron]

SPOILERS.
i have a syllogism for all of you that wanted wall•e to die or to have his memory erased:

fuck you.

really though, while it was about to end, i was hoping that the robot died and the movie ended on a sad note , but then i reconsidered this preposterous line of thinking and said, what's the point of even going to the movie and enjoy myself and care and root for  the poor little robot, if i want it to die in the end?  i felt very stupid.   wall•e earned his right to live in love for eternity, and all of you potential robot killers should be ashamed of yourselves.

i was so happy that the movie turned out to be more about consumerism and liberty and less about global warming and those chic trendy discourses. needless to say, pixar is still the reason why people should always look forward to summers and never think about suicide. life feels more serene after watching their films.