|
Post by bima on Aug 31, 2008 2:10:13 GMT -5
Guys, last night I got introduced to my friend's sister. She said she loves Wall-E. But... she questioned how Wall-E put the live action sequence to the movie. For her, it doesn't make any sense.
She said it would be perfect if the president of BnL was an animated person, not a live action person. Now I always remembered I read someone's opinion somewhere that the live action sequence were a biggest flaw of the movie. It would makes the movie less animated or something. Her statement makes me think...
So what do you think? I myself find the live action was necessary. It makes the tragic future of the earth so real. If Pixar didn't put the live action and put the animation instead, the dystopian setting would lost it touch.
Some of the critic praised Wall-E being a hyperreal. It was so real sometimes, that you feel that the reality wouldn't compare to that. (Like the way the sun had rendered, the detail, etc.)
So, do you like the live action sequence? Or do you like it better if Pixar gives an animation sequence instead?
|
|
|
Post by vanessajoyce on Aug 31, 2008 2:14:37 GMT -5
Actually, the live-action was put there on purpose. Whenever you see humans that look like you and I look, that's supposed to let you know that the film clips you are seeing are from the "past" (for example, BNL president, ads for the Axiom, Hello Dolly sequences).
When you see the "baby-ish" humans, that is the "present" in the film. Stanton did that so the audience could tell which kind of human they were seeing each time, "past" humanity or "present" humanity. It was important to show how humans had degenerated into "big babies" and part of doing that was to show normal humans first.
|
|
bkim
AUTO
Rabbits! Plinkety Plinkety Plink!
Posts: 271
|
Post by bkim on Aug 31, 2008 2:16:49 GMT -5
No! As you said, it was absolutely necessary. One point I keep driving home when I discuss this film with friends is that the film uses the transition from live action to animation as a metaphor for losing one's own humanity (free will, individuality, etc.). It's in the same league as The Wizard of Oz using a transition from B&W to color as representing free expression, or Pleasantville using transition from B&W to color to represent maturity. This device is one of the foremost reasons why WALL-E is one of the greatest films I've seen in a long time.
|
|
|
Post by bima on Aug 31, 2008 2:23:10 GMT -5
Agreed, guys If the president was animated, It wouldn't as real as it gets. The reality was presented on us as a wake up call for how we 'used to' and how we would 'change into'. Some says it would be better if the president was animated the way Zameckis did(I couldn't spell it. ). But I think it would be silly. It's not Pixar's style and - in my opinion - it's not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by vanessajoyce on Aug 31, 2008 2:30:47 GMT -5
Oh wow . . . I never thought of the "Wizard of Oz" comparison . . . great example!
|
|
|
Post by MidgardDragon on Aug 31, 2008 5:57:03 GMT -5
Yeah, as has been said, both here now and elsewhere in the past, the "live action" bits were necessary and made sense in context of the film. The humans "from the past" are all actually human, including Hello Dolly (and the Hello Dolly footage was the main reason they decided to make past humans live action). In the future all humans are "cartoon" versions, and we see the slow dehumanization of them over time via the portraits on the Captain's wall. It's small details like this that people somehow miss (dunno HOW they miss them) that may make people not realize the genius of this film.
|
|
|
Post by bima on Aug 31, 2008 6:19:09 GMT -5
Silly there are so many people miss this...
|
|
|
Post by vanessajoyce on Aug 31, 2008 10:39:37 GMT -5
Well, it's subtle. I think part of the reason people do tend to miss it is because they're waiting for the typical way animated films are written, which is to tell the audience every single thing outright so there's no thinking involved. That's what makes WALL-E so different (and complex). Like my husband said when he saw it the first time, "You had to pay attention." I mean, after all, I'm still learning things about the film from this forum.
|
|
|
Post by bima on Aug 31, 2008 10:49:31 GMT -5
I mean, after all, I'm still learning things about the film from this forum. Yes, it's amazing how we could talk, talk and learn so much from this movie.
|
|
|
Post by Castoro Chiaro on Aug 31, 2008 11:54:44 GMT -5
I dunno...the combination of live-action and animation just sort of annoyed me (except for the Hello, Dolly! parts). The odd proportions of the cartoon characters compared to the live action was just too strange. Just my opinion, though. It didn't take too much away from the movie.
|
|
|
Post by MidgardDragon on Aug 31, 2008 12:01:34 GMT -5
Well, have you read the other parts of the thread? It was actually very well explained in the film, as they showed that people turned into cartoon "blobs" over time. This was shown via the Captain's protraits. In order for the Hello Dolly bits to make sense, everything in the past needed to be live action, otherwise the Hello Dolly bits would be the most out of place thing in the film.
|
|
|
Post by Castoro Chiaro on Aug 31, 2008 12:06:42 GMT -5
It makes sense, sure, but artistically speaking, it sort of annoyed me. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by MidgardDragon on Aug 31, 2008 12:14:29 GMT -5
Well, I guess it doesn't make sense to me because I didn't see it as a problem. Artisitcally speaking I felt it added variety and value to the movie and even some social commentary (humans becoming cartoon blobs as technology increasingly ran their lives). But I guess it makes sense to you if you didn't feel that way, and that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by vanessajoyce on Aug 31, 2008 12:24:32 GMT -5
Visually speaking, it is kind of jarring . . . but mentally speaking, that's the point. ("Aristically speaking" is the sum of both of them.)
Sci fi and symbolism film is full of this kind of thing . . . taking an "expected" way of seeing the world and twisting it so a person is forced to question his/her assumptions. It's one of the things that makes WALL-E brilliant is that the director was willing to work within that tradition instead of sticking to the "visually pleasing" way of making all the humans one way or the other.
You're absolutely right and I absolutely agree that it doesn't feel "right" to see these two types of humans. But if I didn't feel uncomfortable, I couldn't have gotten the point Stanton was making.
|
|
|
Post by Castoro Chiaro on Aug 31, 2008 14:11:46 GMT -5
Sorry, I meant visually. That was really just me, though. Actually, looking at it with that sort of mindset, I can see how important it was to have the live action. It had never occurred to me. I'm really liking the deep level of discussion on this forum!
|
|