Kevin's Watch

Malik23 wrote:Balon and Cag, I feel like I've got to keep this going since I'm the one who started it. So, please don't feel like I'm being argumentative for the hell of it. There's part of me that feels like I should defend my points simply because I stated them so strongly from the beginning, but there's another part of me that recognizes the worth of your opinions, and I value the opinions of Donaldson fans more than . . . well just about anyone else I've never met.

Haha.

No worries, man. Like Holsety said, thinking about stuff, even to no purpose, is worthwhile. And so is discussing stuff.

Malik23 wrote:It's when I'm "forced" to treat this as an adult's film that I get peeved. "Sci-fi masterpiece," in particular, still makes me want to scream. But then, I've read a ton of Asimov, where the whole robot theme was virtually invented. I also rewatched I Robot last night, and even with its flaws and deviations from Asimov, it's a hell of a robot story.

I couldn't help myself when I caught snatches of it at the theater today, but to think the same thing. Most of my first sci-fi was Asimov, particularly his Robot collections. So as the film progressed, all I could think about was how Wall-E managed to get around the three Laws. And whether or not his positronic brain was just programmed differently. Or what Susan Calvin would say. Heh.

As for most of the other "sci-fi" aspects, I suppose it could pass as Soft, but mostly because of the more overall concepts than any specific scenes. The collapse of the eco-system for instance, or a colony ship. All great sci-fi, but "masterpiece"? HELL no.

Malik23 wrote: Can't this be said of virtually every kid's movie ever made? Well, maybe not Alvin and the Chipmunks. (I don't know, I didn't see it.)

So the question is: does Wall-e do it better than most? Personally, I don't think so.

(I will say though, the character they DID pick, really WAS loveable. I liked him a lot.)

but I disagree

I'm just underwhelmed by this character and his motivation. Therefore, everything after that (like the themes you mentioned) falls apart for me, including his inexplicable struggle. They did a GREAT job making him sympathetic for a robot who can't speak. But basically, this character was no more developed than R2D2 . . . and I couldn't imagine being moved by a film where R2D2 was the main character.

I agree on your points about Wall-e the character. Pixar easily could have used anything else with crooked eyes and an electronic voice, and it would've turned out to be just as loveable a charatcer. Was he the best example of those themes of any childrens movie? That's tougher. I can pick specific character for specific themes I liked more. Aladdin for the Consequences of Your Actions, for instance. Or Beauty and the Beast for Love. But what makes it tough, is that I can't think of another movie that had a high level of....ermm...."goodnessity" on each theme ranging such a wide number of topics.

While there are many other movie characters that are far better for specifics topics, I think Wall-E the film topped out on the average scores across the board.

Malik23 wrote:Like I said: Horton Hears a Who. THAT movie had great characters and intricate themes that were treated in a way that kids could enjoy, but adults didn't have to have it s.p.e.l.l.e.d. out for them. It was also *much* more emotionally powerful. The last scene when they are all shouting: I AM HERE! I AM HERE! My god! That scene nearly started the water works for me. The fact that sentient beings had to struggle with their last breath to assert their bare existence, to be recognized as living, thinking, loving creatures--to be taken seriously for who they are, their own personal reality . . . Wow. That existential metaphor had my soul soaring. [And if you think about it, that theme was very similar to the plight of the Burmese people in Rambo 4--they weren't treated as people worth recognizing as sentient beings.]

Damn, man. I couldn't have put it better. The final scene in Horton DID make me cry. it was nuts the reaction it got from me, and ANYTHING Dr. Seuss is AYmazing to me. But it's a close second to Wall-E for me. At heart, I'm always to be a bit of a boehmian, and I'm a sucker for cheezy, cheezy romance. And for me, Wall-E hit it on the head.

Wall e was the most moving movie I have ever seen.

Spoiler

All that was left on Earth was a trash compacting robot and a cockroach.

The poor little, lonely robot only wanted to love. People need to realize that robots have feelings too.

Holsety wrote:The best Pixar movie is still Monsters Inc. Just saying. Fact.

Opinion. I'd have to say it's Finding Nemo

In my opinion, they're still trying to top their first one. Toy Story is their best.

Monsters and Nemo did nothing for me. Neither did Cars.

The Incredibles was entertaining. Toy Story 2 was ok. A Bug's Life was inferior to the more socially-conscious Ants (gotta love Woody Allen's character). In fact, Ants nonconformist message was done much better than it was in Wall-e.

Never saw Ratatoulle.

Ratatouille was really good. Plus, who'da thunk you could make a whole movie about a cooking rat!

WF, I keep hearing that. I think it's time to give that movie a spin.

FWIW, Cailette hated Ratatouille.

... It seems the odds are against Malik, too.

Odds against me? I'll give it a fair viewing! I'm not biased against Pixar. I've had several people tell me the Rat movie was good, so I'm not going into eager to trash it.

Opinion. I'd have to say it's Finding Nemo

Ratatouille for mine : Paris was beautifully rendered, the food looked scrumptious and the story itself, whilst veering into familar pixar territory (believe in yourself and you can achieve anything !!) also had something interesting to say with regards to the bravery of true artists and the role of the critic in the artists world ...

really looking forward to seeing Wall-E, will probably take my son in the next few days ..

SleeplessOne wrote:

Opinion. I'd have to say it's Finding Nemo

Ratatouille for mine : Paris was beautifully rendered, the food looked scrumptious and the story itself, whilst veering into familar pixar territory (believe in yourself and you can achieve anything !!) also had something interesting to say with regards to the bravery of true artists and the role of the critic in the artists world ...

really looking forward to seeing Wall-E, will probably take my son in the next few days ..

Something about Finding Nemo just hit me really hard, emotionally. I think part of it was the shock of seeing the mom get eaten 5 minutes in - that's not something you expect from Disney!

But I liked that Ratatouille didn't actually say that anyone can do anything; in fact, they were unapologetic about the fact that some people just shouldn't cook

Rigel wrote:
Something about Finding Nemo just hit me really hard, emotionally. I think part of it was the shock of seeing the mom get eaten 5 minutes in - that's not something you expect from Disney!

It's not? Gee...then why the emotional scars from what my therapist refers to as The Bambi/Dumbo Syndrome?

Finally saw this with a couple of my kids yesterday. Just what I expected. Very good. Fun, cute, all that jazz. It was a little too long for my 5 yo, but not too bad. I wouldn't rate it with Hoodwinked, The Incredibles, Shrek, and maybe a couple more, but very good.

I saw Wall-e a couple of nights ago, and really enjoyed it. I thought it was a great movie. Plus I thought it was interesting how they could make a movie with so little dialogue. And it's the little things that they put into the film that makes Pixar so great.

However, I don't think that it's a kid's movie at all... Most of the stuff in the movie would likely go right over most kids' heads.

Still, I give it two thumbs up, and it's likely the best movie I've seen so far this year.

My favorite Pixar movie is still The Incredibles, though.-jay

Cagliostro wrote:

Rigel wrote:
Something about Finding Nemo just hit me really hard, emotionally. I think part of it was the shock of seeing the mom get eaten 5 minutes in - that's not something you expect from Disney!

It's not? Gee...then why the emotional scars from what my therapist refers to as The Bambi/Dumbo Syndrome?

They're both Old Disney though. Old Disney was a bit more hardcore than New Disney.

Malik23 wrote: A Bug's Life was inferior to the more socially-conscious Ants (gotta love Woody Allen's character). In fact, Ants nonconformist message was done much better than it was in Wall-e.

If you think that nonconformism is the height of wisdom.
I personally found that message to be insipid, almost cliche, and quite inferior (although A Bug's Life was also bad, and for most of the same reasons).

I agreed with the other things in your post, btw.

rusmeister wrote:

Malik23 wrote: A Bug's Life was inferior to the more socially-conscious Ants (gotta love Woody Allen's character). In fact, Ants nonconformist message was done much better than it was in Wall-e.

If you think that nonconformism is the height of wisdom.
I personally found that message to be insipid, almost cliche, and quite inferior (although A Bug's Life was also bad, and for most of the same reasons).

I agreed with the other things in your post, btw.

Without turning this into a religious debate, I think I understand why you wouldn't like a nonconformist message. Perhaps you think that rebellion against a correct authority is akin to sin. However, what if our authority figures are wrong? I'll even concede your worldview for the sake of argument, and speculate our authority figures being anti-Christian. Couldn't you see the value of "be true to yourself" in those terms? With all the peer pressure children are faced with, how can teaching them to think for themselves and not accept their world at face value be "insipid?" Cliche? Perhaps. There are lots of kids movies that try to empower their viewers. But can you not see any value in that message from any perspective? Do you think that the worker ants should have just accepted their fate, their place in society and let themselves drown? How would you have handled the movie differently?

Malik23 wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

Malik23 wrote: A Bug's Life was inferior to the more socially-conscious Ants (gotta love Woody Allen's character). In fact, Ants nonconformist message was done much better than it was in Wall-e.

If you think that nonconformism is the height of wisdom.
I personally found that message to be insipid, almost cliche, and quite inferior (although A Bug's Life was also bad, and for most of the same reasons).

I agreed with the other things in your post, btw.

Without turning this into a religious debate, I think I understand why you wouldn't like a nonconformist message. Perhaps you think that rebellion against a correct authority is akin to sin. However, what if our authority figures are wrong? I'll even concede your worldview for the sake of argument, and speculate our authority figures being anti-Christian. Couldn't you see the value of "be true to yourself" in those terms? With all the peer pressure children are faced with, how can teaching them to think for themselves and not accept their world at face value be "insipid?" Cliche? Perhaps. There are lots of kids movies that try to empower their viewers. But can you not see any value in that message from any perspective? Do you think that the worker ants should have just accepted their fate, their place in society and let themselves drown? How would you have handled the movie differently?

This would have to turn into a debate on the significance of my religion, so maybe it's better if I don't respond.
A rebellion against a correct authority would be wrong. Even stupid. What if we're on a ship or spaceship and I want to rebel against this dogma of rules to keep the ship water/airtight? If the authority IS right, then the rebellion is just a teenager not liking that the adult authority that brought him up is mostly right. Fortunately, the teenager eventually turns into an adult and realizes that to continue the rebellion would be rebelling against himself.
Teaching people to think for themselves and not accept face value is something I've always supported, and I'm not advocating the contrary here. However, it may be possible to discover that there is authority that can actually be trusted. If we find that, then it would be wisdom to conform to it, and foolishness to be a non-conformist.

As to the movie (ANTZ), it would have to be completely remade to reflect the Christian worldview - that this world is NOT all, and even death is not the worst thing that can happen to someone. Take the Narnia stories - if you read all the books, you find that in the end, all of the characters slain for the sake of goodness (righteousness) are found in the New Narnia - that their death was not a permanent irreversible thing for their Creator. So it would have to communicate that the idea of preserving THIS life is not, in itself, the great ultimate good, for ourselves or others - although there are some good, moral actions entirely consistent with Christianity in the film as it is.

Does that get across a sense of what I mean?

Yes, Rus, that's an excellent job explaining it. I had a hunch you'd go that direction.

And I think we can find some common ground, believe it or not. I'm my children's authority figure. I damn sure want them to conform to my authority, if only to keep them from running out into the street without looking both ways . . . or refrain from doing drugs.

However, my authority stops at their safety. When it comes to what they want to do with their life, I hope they don't simply take my opinions as their opinions.

I agree with you that preserving your life isn't the ultimate goal. That would a pretty futile goal, since we're all going to die. There are higher goals, like saving the lives others, or leaving a legacy you can be proud of (by living a life you can be proud of).

And I submit to plenty of authority in my own life. While I do speed, that's pretty much the only law I break. (I'm an excellent driver, professionally trained and experienced, and I've never had a wreck in 20 years of driving, so I don't think my speeding is a factor in endangering my family or my fellow citizens.) However, if my authority figures were violating my rights, I wouldn't let a law stand in my way. And I'm a nonconformist in terms of my place in society, job choice, etc. I rarely modify my actions based on the preferences of others. This is actually quite helpful to me on a daily basis. And I try to instill this value upon my children--though, if they want to be a follower instead of a leader, that's their choice; some people can't handle being nothing but a follower. We can't all be leaders.

Malik23 wrote:Yes, Rus, that's an excellent job explaining it. I had a hunch you'd go that direction.

And I think we can find some common ground, believe it or not. I'm my children's authority figure. I damn sure want them to conform to my authority, if only to keep them from running out into the street without looking both ways . . . or refrain from doing drugs.

However, my authority stops at their safety. When it comes to what they want to do with their life, I hope they don't simply take my opinions as their opinions.

I agree with you that preserving your life isn't the ultimate goal. That would a pretty futile goal, since we're all going to die. There are higher goals, like saving the lives others, or leaving a legacy you can be proud of (by living a life you can be proud of).

And I submit to plenty of authority in my own life. While I do speed, that's pretty much the only law I break. (I'm an excellent driver, professionally trained and experienced, and I've never had a wreck in 20 years of driving, so I don't think my speeding is a factor in endangering my family or my fellow citizens.) However, if my authority figures were violating my rights, I wouldn't let a law stand in my way. And I'm a nonconformist in terms of my place in society, job choice, etc. I rarely modify my actions based on the preferences of others. This is actually quite helpful to me on a daily basis. And I try to instill this value upon my children--though, if they want to be a follower instead of a leader, that's their choice; some people can't handle being nothing but a follower. We can't all be leaders.

Good stuff. And a historic occasion - we DO have things we can agree on!
Bearing in mind that I do largely agree with you, a couple of additional points to consider:

I agree with you that preserving your life isn't the ultimate goal. That would a pretty futile goal, since we're all going to die. There are higher goals, like saving the lives others, or leaving a legacy you can be proud of (by living a life you can be proud of).

On this one, "saving the lives of others" ...who are also going to die, and "leaving a legacy", to people who will also die, leaving it ultimately forgotten/lost.

Also, all rights depend upon authority granting them - and claiming them in case of dispute requires appeal to authority.

One of my old favorites on that one:

"The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man." - Chapter 19, What I Saw In America, 1922