Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Coming in 1 week!
Sorry, folks. Been way too busy to update, but I thought I'd give you all a little snippet of my new film.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Interview with Andrew Stanton
Hey everybody. So this is the transcript from the press conference I went to with Andrew Stanton about WALL•E. This is pretty short compared to what we’re used to at CalArts (I’m beginning to realize how spoiled we are there). There are a lot of spoilers here, so if you haven’t seen the movie and don’t want this to ruin it for you, please don’t read on.
For those who have seen WALL•E, this is chocked full of great ideas, insights and explanations! Kudos again to everyone who helped make WALL•E possible. I loved it!
I’ve paraphrased the other reporters who were asking questions for sake of privacy, simplicity and what-have-you. I’ll just call the interviewer in this dialogue “Crowd”.
Crowd: So were you looking at your trash compactor one day and said, “Oh that would be a cute robot … ?
AS: No actually, and I’m sorry if you guys already know all this, but there was this lunch that we had during Toy Story around ’94 and we were batting around just any idea we could think of to try and come up with what the next movie would be. One of the sort of half-brained sentenced was, ‘Hey we could do a Sci-Fi. What if we did the last robot on Earth? Everybody’s left, and this machine just doesn’t know it can stop and keeps doing it forever.
And that’s really where it started. All the details weren’t there – there wasn’t even a name of the character, we didn’t even know what it would look like. It was just the loneliest scenario I’d ever heard and I just loved it. And I think that’s why it just stayed in the ether for so long.
Crowd: Other studios have movies about humanistic style robots. You actually had functional robots that had to communicate that way. They weren’t like people. Is that cheating?
AS: Right, well it’s funny. Being a Sci-Fi geek, myself, and going to the movies all my life I had come to my own conclusion that there have really only been two camps of how robots have been designed. It’s either the “Tin Man” which is human with metal skin, or it’s … R2-D2. It’s a machine that has a function and it’s designed based on that, and you read a character into it. And I was very interested in going with the machine side, cuz to me that was what was fascinating.
The other thing that I think really motivated me to want to see a film like this is that … John [Lasseter] had made Luxo, Jr. – this little short about a lamp that hops around that’s just an appliance! It’s not even made to be a character, it’s just happened to be an appliance that you could just easily, by its own natural design, throw a character onto it. And that thing is powerful. I’ve had to watch that thing about a thousand times.
[Crowd laughs]
And I always am like … just before we put it on I go, “Oh jeeze, I gotta watch this again,” and I get caught up every time. And I said, ‘There is some unique power to that type of bringing a machine to life than other kinds of machines that are designed to look like a character. There’s something unique about that, and I started to put it into the category of: Why we are so attracted to pets and infants …
Crowd: Wow … [light laughter]
AS: … umm, to pets and infants because I think there’s something about, something that’s already appealing where you’re kind of charmed by it, but it can’t communicate fully. And you’re … you want, you’re compelled, you almost can’t stop yourself from finishing the sentence: “Oh, I think it likes me. I think it’s hungry. I think it wants to go for a walk. And I think what it does (I’m getting really geeky here, but this is really where my head was at for a long time) is that I think you pull from your own emotional experiences to finish the sentence, so it becomes twice as powerful.
I think that’s why love at first sight works in movies. You know, nobody says anything. The guy or the girl just stares at the other person … that other person walks across the room and you go racing back to when it happened to you. And you’re using that personal emotional experience to fuel that moment in the movie, and I said, ‘Wow! What if you could get a character that did that to you through a whole movie, just like Luxo does for about a minute and a half to two minutes on this short?’ And I think that’s really what made us from day one go, “That would be a really powerful movie. I don’t know how hard that would be to achieve, but I know that if you achieved it that it would be really powerful. So in a weird way we never questioned that you could succeed at it. It was just, did we have the knowledge and ability to be the ones that did it?
Crowd: Can you talk about putting facial expressions on a creation that doesn’t have a face?
AS: Well, that’s sort of what I’m coming into. It’s not that you put anything on it, it’s like, you gotta go find a design that already makes you to do it to it. That’s what happened with John with the Luxo lamp. He never designed that. He just happened to see a lamp and I … I can’t help myself, I see a face on it.
So that’s what we did. I was at a baseball game, somebody handed me their binoculars … I hadn’t designed WALL•E yet, I knew he had to compact trash. So I knew he was going to be a box at the most basic thing. I knew he was gonna collapse to possibly show that he’s shy, and that’s all I had. I honestly was thinking of just putting a single cone lamp on there cuz I loved how much you just read a face into the simplicity of Luxo. But, I thought, ‘I dunno if that’s gonna hold for 90 minutes.’ And then when I got handed these binoculars at a baseball game, I missed the entire inning, I just turned the thing around … I started staring at it, started making it go sad and happy, then mad and then sad. And I remember doing that as a kid with my dad’s binoculars and I said, ‘It’s all there! There’s no nose, there’s no mouth there’s nothing and it’s not trying to be a face. It just happens to ask that of me when I look at it, and I said ‘That’s it! I can’t improve upon that.’ So that’s why I ran with that.
Crowd: Can you talk a little bit about the devolution of the humans? There’s been an argument that has come up. Most everybody has said that they just devolved over 700 years or (and tell me if I read too much into it), this was Auto’s logical solution to his final command …
AS: [Laughs], you read too much into it. Honestly, I knew what I wanted humanity to be and I didn’t know right away how to express it at first. It was something to amplify what was going on with the main point of the story of the movie – the love story. And I’m not one of those people that comes up with a theme and then writes to it. I go with sort of natural things that seem to be firing and then somewhere halfway I realize what the theme is.
And I realized that was I was pushing with these two programmed robots was their desire to try and figure what the point of living was and it took these really irrational acts of love to sort of discover them against how they were built. And I said, ‘That’s it! That’s my theme. It’s Irrational Love defeats life’s programming. And I realized that’s a perfect metaphor for real life. We all fall into our habits, our routines, our ruts … and they are actually used quite often, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid living; to avoid having to do the messy part of having relationships with other people, of dealing with a person next to us. That’s why we can all be in a room and on our cell phones and not have to deal with one another. And I thought that’s a perfect amplification of the whole point of the movie.
So, I just wanted to run with science in a way that would sort of logically project that. And I found out by talking to (I think his name was) John Hicks who was an advisor to NASA about long-term residency in space, he told me this fact of … they still are arguing about how exactly to correctly set it up so that when a human does go all the way to Mars and back, they won’t start losing their bones because disuse atrophy kicks in if you don’t simulate gravity just right the entire time. And that’s sort of a form of Osteoporosis, and you won’t get that back. They’ve actually said if we don’t get this right, they’re just gonna be a big blob. And I said, “Oh my gosh, that .. that’s perfect!”
Crowd: [Laughter]
“That’s perfect!” And I didn’t want it to be off-putting. To be honest in a very early version, I actually went so weird I made them like big blobs of Jell-O cuz I though Jell-O was funny and they would just sort of wiggle and stuff. And it was just sort of a Planet of the Apes conceit where they didn’t even know they were humans anymore and they found that out. But it was so bizarre I had to sort of pull back, I needed some more grounding. So as I pulled by I go, ‘Well look, I don’t want it to be offensive, but I do think that if you had no reason to do anything anymore – if everything had been figured out: health, regenerative food, all the other needs to get up – and technology made it that easy to never get up (it’s kind of happening with just my remote in my living room, you know) then I guess this would sort of set in.
So I though, all-right I’ll make them big babies. There’s actually a scientific term that Peter Gabriel actually told me about. It’s called Neoteny, where there’s this belief that nature figures out that you don’t have to use these parts of yourself anymore to survive, so why give it to you? Why let you grow any farther? And I though, that’s perfect. It’s almost a metaphor for, “It’s time to get up and grow up a little bit.”
Crowd: But how did they reproduce?
AS: [Big laugh], Umm, I leave that to your imagination, but I did sort of go with Aldous Huxley’s view of the future.
Crowd: Can you tell us a little bit about the voice of EVE? I understand she was a Pixar employee?
AS: Yes! Well, the one thing that Ben Burtt couldn’t simulate was a female voice, himself. If it needed to be neutral or male it was easy for him to be the source of anything that had to have a human element to it, or inflection. But because we wanted a very obvious feminine source, fortunately Alyssa Knight was one of our in-house, sort of … Pixar players for lack of a better term. Because we’re in San Fransisco and we’re always re-writing our stuff every day, we don’t have access to actors that quickly. So, we use people in-house to do stand-in vocal stuff. She had been a stand-in for many movies and was a pretty decent actress, so I called her in just to do all the female stuff – and it worked so well. When Ben [Burtt] started affecting it, I said, ‘That is so good, I’m sorry, I’m not gonna look for another actress and redo all this. She’s great. So that’s why.
And that’s frankly the methodology Pixar’s had in all their movies. If you look back at our casting it’s all over the map – whether we use A-list, B-list or employees. What’s consistent, if you look at it is, “Is that the best voice for the character?” And that’s why we choose who we do.
Crowd: Can you tell us about the political or ecological message in the film?
AS: Well, I hate to not be able to fuel where you wanna go, but that was not where I was coming from when I did that stuff. I knew I was going into territory that was basically the same stuff. But, I don’t have a political bend … I don’t have an ecological message to push … I don’t mind that it supports that kind of view, it’s certainly a good citizen way to be – But, everything I wanted to do was based on the love story.
I wanted the last robot on earth. That was the sentence we came up with in ’94. I have to get everybody off the planet. I have to do it in a way that you get it without any dialogue. You have to be able to get it visually in less than a minute. So, trash did that. You look at it, you get it – it’s a dump and you gotta move it. Even a little kid understands that. And it makes WALL•E the lowest of the totem pole and it allowed him to sift through everything we’ve left on the planet to show you that he’s interested about us. So, I had to look at everything from the point of view of: What would you get visually without having dialogue describe stuff to you?
And I actually had him find the plant way before I knew where the movie was going. And I realize the reason that I love that idea was because it reminded me those dandelions that push through the sidewalk – that reality is forcing itself through all this man-made material to exist and I thought, ‘That’s WALL•E!’ He’s this man-made object but somehow he’s got more of a desire to live than the rest of the universe. And I felt like he was meeting himself – it was almost looking at himself. And for some reason I couldn’t get rid of this, even though I didn’t know where to go with it. And it ended up being a great symbol of hope. But, the most I do is recycle and sometimes I’m pretty bad at that if you talk to my wife. So that’s about where I push it.
Crowd: So you’re not coming from a political or ecological standpoint, but you do have a lot of this consumerism in the film.
AS: Well, I wasn’t trying to be anti-anything. I think I was just trying to say, “Well, look, too much of a good thing of anything is a cautionary tale.” So I honestly did everything in reverse. It was like “I gotta go with trash because I love what it does to my main character and it’s very clear. Well, then I went backwards from that and I said, ‘Why would there be too much trash?’ Well, it would be really easy for me to get that we bought too much stuff, and it would be really easy to show that without having to have it explained. And it’s kind of fun, it’s fun to be satirical like that. You know, we all have that sort of Simpsons bend. So I just went with what felt somewhat true. I mean, I think we’ve always felt that we have to be sort of disciplined in that area.
Crowd: You do use the phrase, “Stay the course” in the movie, though. That’s a pretty overly political thing.
AS: It just … was such a natural thing to say at the time, I said “screw it, it’s funny.”
Crowd: More than just a love story, it has a theme of moral responsibility especially toward the end when he decides to take the plant over love. Was it difficult to make a more layered moral dilemma?
AS: No, it’s actually much easier when you know what you’re [doing] … If you do multiple agendas then yeah, It’s gonna be difficult; you’re going to confused yourself as a storyteller. But if you always know it’s just about this one theme; it’s all do to that. And fine, if it parallel other things, if it happens to touch other subjects … fine. But as long as I’m picking it for the right reason; this one singular purpose, then everything else will just fall into place. And I’ve had sort of discipline since the first movie.
So, that plant – him giving it back to her was a relationship choice. It was to personify, “I care more” … he’d finally learned what the ultimate place to get to in a relationship with somebody else is: Caring more about their needs than your own needs, and that’s what that represented.
Crowd: I was just curious why Hello Dolly worked so well?
AS: Haha, I know – WHY? The weirdest choice that I’ll ever make in film-making in my life. And I’m not lying, when I had that weird idea of putting that song in the beginning I turned to my wife and I said, “This is the weirdest idea I’ve ever had, and I’ll be asked why I chose this for the rest of my life!”
[Laughter all around]
But, by the time I’d sort of come to terms on the analysts’ couch why I had done it, I realized: “Okay, I’m willing to put up with answering this for the rest of my life because I really do think it’s the best choice.” One thing I always wanted early, early on (and it’s even in the very first script – by then I’d chosen that song) … I knew I wanted old fashioned music against space. I knew I loved idea of future and past juxtaposed. And then on the first frame that would not seem familiar, that would seem sort of like, “fresh” – like this isn’t exactly where I’m used to a movie being, let alone an animated movie. And I just liked that it was almost like a firm footing that I wouldn’t be conventional.
So then, I started looking through stuff and I said, “Well there’s so many old fashioned songs, what do I pick?” and I started going down to like, standards at some point. And standards come from a lot of musicals, and I’d done enough musical theatre to know what the staples are, you know: Fiddler on the Roof, Guys and Dolls, Annie, West Side Story … and Hello Dolly. And so, I got to Hello Dolly, I played the beginning of “Put on your Sunday Clothes” and when that phrase “Out there” came on – just viscerally, just “out there” against stars. I’m like, “Wow, that just kicks in – it just works.” And out of context it works. And then it starts talking about, you know ... weird stuff, but I was like … I dunno, I can’t drop it.
And so I kept putting it in and slowly showing a slightly larger circle of intimate creative friends and said, “What do you think?” And it kind of worked, and I finally realized why. I realized it’s because the song’s about two nerdy guys that have never left their small town. They just want to go out to the big city for one night, feel what life’s all about and kiss a girl. And I said, “That’s my main character!” So, then my co-writer, Jim Reardon said, “You know, he should just find the movie, and that’s what’ll explain why he knows this.”
So we looked at the movie, and when I found that second song and I saw the two lovers holding hands – it’s like this light bulb went off and I said, “That’s exactly how he can express the phrase I Love You without being able to say it.” And when you get that kind of gift falling on your lap when you’re doing your research, you don’t run away from it – you just embrace it. So I embraced the odd choice, and I think this is meant to be.
Crowd: How hard was it to get the rights to that?
AS: Yeah, I worried. Fortunately it was REALLY early on – and we’re talking 2004 I had this idea. So right then I started working on my producers to talk to FOX and say you know, “I don’t want to push this idea too far and find out that I can’t use it.” So fortunately, there were a lot of close connections between people that knew each other and we could get thru the red tape and they were very, very accommodating.
Crowd: So you didn’t have to go through Michael Crawford?
AS: I think, no, they had to go to all the people involved and get the OK. It was all properly done.
Crowd: There’s a couple references I wanted to ask you about. One is when John and Mary unplugged from their chairs and went from Blue to Red. It seems very …
AS: Yes. You know, everybody’s like “Oh this is a policital year, were you thinking…?” I was like “What the heck?”
[Crowd laughter]
Crowd: Well no, not political, I thought like, a reference to the Matrix? The blue or red pill.
AS: No, to me it was like Mac preferences. On your computer you can slowly set all your preferences until it’s the way you like it. But, if it goes back to it’s default state; it goes back to it’s reset sort of default settings. So to me, Red was the default setting. So everybody’s in their own little choices, but everyone’s starting to like the same sort of choices that were sort of dictated by consumerism. I just liked the idea. Again, everything was also driven by, “Will you get it without much dialogue?”, and it’s like … they’ll be the only two red people in a sea of blue. That’s why I picked it.
Crowd: I was curious about the choice to use Fred Willard.
AS: Haha, well he’s the most insincere car salesman I could think of. The most friendly insincere kind. It’s funny, I thought it would be a little more obvious and I hope that I succeeded in the sense that when once I chose and old movie for WALL•E to watch; that I knew we’d be showing footage of real humans beings … I said, “Well that sets a precedent. That means any time you look at old footage it should be real human beings. I can get away with being CG with where humanity’s changed in the present/future, but I thought it would be even weirder if I was sort of all over the map with how I portrayed humans in old footage. I said I should just be consistent with that. So, that’s why I picked it. It was just because I set a precedent.
Crowd: Alright, thank you very much.
AS: Yep, great thank you!
Some folks sneaked some Bonus questions:
Crowd: Can you talk a bit about John Carter of Mars?
AS: Well, pretty much it’s already out there. I’m definitely writing it with Mark Andrews, and that’s all we’re doing right now.
Crowd: Is it gonna be live-action?
AS: Everybody’s asking that, and we’re not gonna make that decision for about a year or so.
Crowd: Any talks about Finding Nemo 2?
AS: No. Not yet. You know, again … if we come up with a great story then it may get made, but so far we haven’t heard anything that sounds as good as the first movie.
Crowd: Any Pixar characters we should look out for?
AS: Inside the movie? OH YEAH! I’m not gonna give any of them away, you gotta look for yourself!
Crowd: In the very beginning in WALL•E’s truck, Rex is there among his stuff.
AS: Mike Wazowski’s in there too if you look hard enough.
Crowd: Woah-ho. Thank you.
.....
And I'd like to add my personal thanks to Andrew Stanton. I didn't get all my questions in during the group talk (and there were some I really wanted to ask!), but glad you took note of my CalArts shirt and shared a little horrah with me, haha. Hope to see you again soon and thanks again for WALL•E.
For those who have seen WALL•E, this is chocked full of great ideas, insights and explanations! Kudos again to everyone who helped make WALL•E possible. I loved it!
I’ve paraphrased the other reporters who were asking questions for sake of privacy, simplicity and what-have-you. I’ll just call the interviewer in this dialogue “Crowd”.
Interview with Andrew Stanton:
Crowd: So were you looking at your trash compactor one day and said, “Oh that would be a cute robot … ?
AS: No actually, and I’m sorry if you guys already know all this, but there was this lunch that we had during Toy Story around ’94 and we were batting around just any idea we could think of to try and come up with what the next movie would be. One of the sort of half-brained sentenced was, ‘Hey we could do a Sci-Fi. What if we did the last robot on Earth? Everybody’s left, and this machine just doesn’t know it can stop and keeps doing it forever.
And that’s really where it started. All the details weren’t there – there wasn’t even a name of the character, we didn’t even know what it would look like. It was just the loneliest scenario I’d ever heard and I just loved it. And I think that’s why it just stayed in the ether for so long.
Crowd: Other studios have movies about humanistic style robots. You actually had functional robots that had to communicate that way. They weren’t like people. Is that cheating?
AS: Right, well it’s funny. Being a Sci-Fi geek, myself, and going to the movies all my life I had come to my own conclusion that there have really only been two camps of how robots have been designed. It’s either the “Tin Man” which is human with metal skin, or it’s … R2-D2. It’s a machine that has a function and it’s designed based on that, and you read a character into it. And I was very interested in going with the machine side, cuz to me that was what was fascinating.
The other thing that I think really motivated me to want to see a film like this is that … John [Lasseter] had made Luxo, Jr. – this little short about a lamp that hops around that’s just an appliance! It’s not even made to be a character, it’s just happened to be an appliance that you could just easily, by its own natural design, throw a character onto it. And that thing is powerful. I’ve had to watch that thing about a thousand times.
[Crowd laughs]
And I always am like … just before we put it on I go, “Oh jeeze, I gotta watch this again,” and I get caught up every time. And I said, ‘There is some unique power to that type of bringing a machine to life than other kinds of machines that are designed to look like a character. There’s something unique about that, and I started to put it into the category of: Why we are so attracted to pets and infants …
Crowd: Wow … [light laughter]
AS: … umm, to pets and infants because I think there’s something about, something that’s already appealing where you’re kind of charmed by it, but it can’t communicate fully. And you’re … you want, you’re compelled, you almost can’t stop yourself from finishing the sentence: “Oh, I think it likes me. I think it’s hungry. I think it wants to go for a walk. And I think what it does (I’m getting really geeky here, but this is really where my head was at for a long time) is that I think you pull from your own emotional experiences to finish the sentence, so it becomes twice as powerful.
I think that’s why love at first sight works in movies. You know, nobody says anything. The guy or the girl just stares at the other person … that other person walks across the room and you go racing back to when it happened to you. And you’re using that personal emotional experience to fuel that moment in the movie, and I said, ‘Wow! What if you could get a character that did that to you through a whole movie, just like Luxo does for about a minute and a half to two minutes on this short?’ And I think that’s really what made us from day one go, “That would be a really powerful movie. I don’t know how hard that would be to achieve, but I know that if you achieved it that it would be really powerful. So in a weird way we never questioned that you could succeed at it. It was just, did we have the knowledge and ability to be the ones that did it?
Crowd: Can you talk about putting facial expressions on a creation that doesn’t have a face?
AS: Well, that’s sort of what I’m coming into. It’s not that you put anything on it, it’s like, you gotta go find a design that already makes you to do it to it. That’s what happened with John with the Luxo lamp. He never designed that. He just happened to see a lamp and I … I can’t help myself, I see a face on it.
So that’s what we did. I was at a baseball game, somebody handed me their binoculars … I hadn’t designed WALL•E yet, I knew he had to compact trash. So I knew he was going to be a box at the most basic thing. I knew he was gonna collapse to possibly show that he’s shy, and that’s all I had. I honestly was thinking of just putting a single cone lamp on there cuz I loved how much you just read a face into the simplicity of Luxo. But, I thought, ‘I dunno if that’s gonna hold for 90 minutes.’ And then when I got handed these binoculars at a baseball game, I missed the entire inning, I just turned the thing around … I started staring at it, started making it go sad and happy, then mad and then sad. And I remember doing that as a kid with my dad’s binoculars and I said, ‘It’s all there! There’s no nose, there’s no mouth there’s nothing and it’s not trying to be a face. It just happens to ask that of me when I look at it, and I said ‘That’s it! I can’t improve upon that.’ So that’s why I ran with that.
Crowd: Can you talk a little bit about the devolution of the humans? There’s been an argument that has come up. Most everybody has said that they just devolved over 700 years or (and tell me if I read too much into it), this was Auto’s logical solution to his final command …
AS: [Laughs], you read too much into it. Honestly, I knew what I wanted humanity to be and I didn’t know right away how to express it at first. It was something to amplify what was going on with the main point of the story of the movie – the love story. And I’m not one of those people that comes up with a theme and then writes to it. I go with sort of natural things that seem to be firing and then somewhere halfway I realize what the theme is.
And I realized that was I was pushing with these two programmed robots was their desire to try and figure what the point of living was and it took these really irrational acts of love to sort of discover them against how they were built. And I said, ‘That’s it! That’s my theme. It’s Irrational Love defeats life’s programming. And I realized that’s a perfect metaphor for real life. We all fall into our habits, our routines, our ruts … and they are actually used quite often, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid living; to avoid having to do the messy part of having relationships with other people, of dealing with a person next to us. That’s why we can all be in a room and on our cell phones and not have to deal with one another. And I thought that’s a perfect amplification of the whole point of the movie.
So, I just wanted to run with science in a way that would sort of logically project that. And I found out by talking to (I think his name was) John Hicks who was an advisor to NASA about long-term residency in space, he told me this fact of … they still are arguing about how exactly to correctly set it up so that when a human does go all the way to Mars and back, they won’t start losing their bones because disuse atrophy kicks in if you don’t simulate gravity just right the entire time. And that’s sort of a form of Osteoporosis, and you won’t get that back. They’ve actually said if we don’t get this right, they’re just gonna be a big blob. And I said, “Oh my gosh, that .. that’s perfect!”
Crowd: [Laughter]
“That’s perfect!” And I didn’t want it to be off-putting. To be honest in a very early version, I actually went so weird I made them like big blobs of Jell-O cuz I though Jell-O was funny and they would just sort of wiggle and stuff. And it was just sort of a Planet of the Apes conceit where they didn’t even know they were humans anymore and they found that out. But it was so bizarre I had to sort of pull back, I needed some more grounding. So as I pulled by I go, ‘Well look, I don’t want it to be offensive, but I do think that if you had no reason to do anything anymore – if everything had been figured out: health, regenerative food, all the other needs to get up – and technology made it that easy to never get up (it’s kind of happening with just my remote in my living room, you know) then I guess this would sort of set in.
So I though, all-right I’ll make them big babies. There’s actually a scientific term that Peter Gabriel actually told me about. It’s called Neoteny, where there’s this belief that nature figures out that you don’t have to use these parts of yourself anymore to survive, so why give it to you? Why let you grow any farther? And I though, that’s perfect. It’s almost a metaphor for, “It’s time to get up and grow up a little bit.”
Crowd: But how did they reproduce?
AS: [Big laugh], Umm, I leave that to your imagination, but I did sort of go with Aldous Huxley’s view of the future.
Crowd: Can you tell us a little bit about the voice of EVE? I understand she was a Pixar employee?
AS: Yes! Well, the one thing that Ben Burtt couldn’t simulate was a female voice, himself. If it needed to be neutral or male it was easy for him to be the source of anything that had to have a human element to it, or inflection. But because we wanted a very obvious feminine source, fortunately Alyssa Knight was one of our in-house, sort of … Pixar players for lack of a better term. Because we’re in San Fransisco and we’re always re-writing our stuff every day, we don’t have access to actors that quickly. So, we use people in-house to do stand-in vocal stuff. She had been a stand-in for many movies and was a pretty decent actress, so I called her in just to do all the female stuff – and it worked so well. When Ben [Burtt] started affecting it, I said, ‘That is so good, I’m sorry, I’m not gonna look for another actress and redo all this. She’s great. So that’s why.
And that’s frankly the methodology Pixar’s had in all their movies. If you look back at our casting it’s all over the map – whether we use A-list, B-list or employees. What’s consistent, if you look at it is, “Is that the best voice for the character?” And that’s why we choose who we do.
Crowd: Can you tell us about the political or ecological message in the film?
AS: Well, I hate to not be able to fuel where you wanna go, but that was not where I was coming from when I did that stuff. I knew I was going into territory that was basically the same stuff. But, I don’t have a political bend … I don’t have an ecological message to push … I don’t mind that it supports that kind of view, it’s certainly a good citizen way to be – But, everything I wanted to do was based on the love story.
I wanted the last robot on earth. That was the sentence we came up with in ’94. I have to get everybody off the planet. I have to do it in a way that you get it without any dialogue. You have to be able to get it visually in less than a minute. So, trash did that. You look at it, you get it – it’s a dump and you gotta move it. Even a little kid understands that. And it makes WALL•E the lowest of the totem pole and it allowed him to sift through everything we’ve left on the planet to show you that he’s interested about us. So, I had to look at everything from the point of view of: What would you get visually without having dialogue describe stuff to you?
And I actually had him find the plant way before I knew where the movie was going. And I realize the reason that I love that idea was because it reminded me those dandelions that push through the sidewalk – that reality is forcing itself through all this man-made material to exist and I thought, ‘That’s WALL•E!’ He’s this man-made object but somehow he’s got more of a desire to live than the rest of the universe. And I felt like he was meeting himself – it was almost looking at himself. And for some reason I couldn’t get rid of this, even though I didn’t know where to go with it. And it ended up being a great symbol of hope. But, the most I do is recycle and sometimes I’m pretty bad at that if you talk to my wife. So that’s about where I push it.
Crowd: So you’re not coming from a political or ecological standpoint, but you do have a lot of this consumerism in the film.
AS: Well, I wasn’t trying to be anti-anything. I think I was just trying to say, “Well, look, too much of a good thing of anything is a cautionary tale.” So I honestly did everything in reverse. It was like “I gotta go with trash because I love what it does to my main character and it’s very clear. Well, then I went backwards from that and I said, ‘Why would there be too much trash?’ Well, it would be really easy for me to get that we bought too much stuff, and it would be really easy to show that without having to have it explained. And it’s kind of fun, it’s fun to be satirical like that. You know, we all have that sort of Simpsons bend. So I just went with what felt somewhat true. I mean, I think we’ve always felt that we have to be sort of disciplined in that area.
Crowd: You do use the phrase, “Stay the course” in the movie, though. That’s a pretty overly political thing.
AS: It just … was such a natural thing to say at the time, I said “screw it, it’s funny.”
Crowd: More than just a love story, it has a theme of moral responsibility especially toward the end when he decides to take the plant over love. Was it difficult to make a more layered moral dilemma?
AS: No, it’s actually much easier when you know what you’re [doing] … If you do multiple agendas then yeah, It’s gonna be difficult; you’re going to confused yourself as a storyteller. But if you always know it’s just about this one theme; it’s all do to that. And fine, if it parallel other things, if it happens to touch other subjects … fine. But as long as I’m picking it for the right reason; this one singular purpose, then everything else will just fall into place. And I’ve had sort of discipline since the first movie.
So, that plant – him giving it back to her was a relationship choice. It was to personify, “I care more” … he’d finally learned what the ultimate place to get to in a relationship with somebody else is: Caring more about their needs than your own needs, and that’s what that represented.
Crowd: I was just curious why Hello Dolly worked so well?
AS: Haha, I know – WHY? The weirdest choice that I’ll ever make in film-making in my life. And I’m not lying, when I had that weird idea of putting that song in the beginning I turned to my wife and I said, “This is the weirdest idea I’ve ever had, and I’ll be asked why I chose this for the rest of my life!”
[Laughter all around]
But, by the time I’d sort of come to terms on the analysts’ couch why I had done it, I realized: “Okay, I’m willing to put up with answering this for the rest of my life because I really do think it’s the best choice.” One thing I always wanted early, early on (and it’s even in the very first script – by then I’d chosen that song) … I knew I wanted old fashioned music against space. I knew I loved idea of future and past juxtaposed. And then on the first frame that would not seem familiar, that would seem sort of like, “fresh” – like this isn’t exactly where I’m used to a movie being, let alone an animated movie. And I just liked that it was almost like a firm footing that I wouldn’t be conventional.
So then, I started looking through stuff and I said, “Well there’s so many old fashioned songs, what do I pick?” and I started going down to like, standards at some point. And standards come from a lot of musicals, and I’d done enough musical theatre to know what the staples are, you know: Fiddler on the Roof, Guys and Dolls, Annie, West Side Story … and Hello Dolly. And so, I got to Hello Dolly, I played the beginning of “Put on your Sunday Clothes” and when that phrase “Out there” came on – just viscerally, just “out there” against stars. I’m like, “Wow, that just kicks in – it just works.” And out of context it works. And then it starts talking about, you know ... weird stuff, but I was like … I dunno, I can’t drop it.
And so I kept putting it in and slowly showing a slightly larger circle of intimate creative friends and said, “What do you think?” And it kind of worked, and I finally realized why. I realized it’s because the song’s about two nerdy guys that have never left their small town. They just want to go out to the big city for one night, feel what life’s all about and kiss a girl. And I said, “That’s my main character!” So, then my co-writer, Jim Reardon said, “You know, he should just find the movie, and that’s what’ll explain why he knows this.”
So we looked at the movie, and when I found that second song and I saw the two lovers holding hands – it’s like this light bulb went off and I said, “That’s exactly how he can express the phrase I Love You without being able to say it.” And when you get that kind of gift falling on your lap when you’re doing your research, you don’t run away from it – you just embrace it. So I embraced the odd choice, and I think this is meant to be.
Crowd: How hard was it to get the rights to that?
AS: Yeah, I worried. Fortunately it was REALLY early on – and we’re talking 2004 I had this idea. So right then I started working on my producers to talk to FOX and say you know, “I don’t want to push this idea too far and find out that I can’t use it.” So fortunately, there were a lot of close connections between people that knew each other and we could get thru the red tape and they were very, very accommodating.
Crowd: So you didn’t have to go through Michael Crawford?
AS: I think, no, they had to go to all the people involved and get the OK. It was all properly done.
Crowd: There’s a couple references I wanted to ask you about. One is when John and Mary unplugged from their chairs and went from Blue to Red. It seems very …
AS: Yes. You know, everybody’s like “Oh this is a policital year, were you thinking…?” I was like “What the heck?”
[Crowd laughter]
Crowd: Well no, not political, I thought like, a reference to the Matrix? The blue or red pill.
AS: No, to me it was like Mac preferences. On your computer you can slowly set all your preferences until it’s the way you like it. But, if it goes back to it’s default state; it goes back to it’s reset sort of default settings. So to me, Red was the default setting. So everybody’s in their own little choices, but everyone’s starting to like the same sort of choices that were sort of dictated by consumerism. I just liked the idea. Again, everything was also driven by, “Will you get it without much dialogue?”, and it’s like … they’ll be the only two red people in a sea of blue. That’s why I picked it.
Crowd: I was curious about the choice to use Fred Willard.
AS: Haha, well he’s the most insincere car salesman I could think of. The most friendly insincere kind. It’s funny, I thought it would be a little more obvious and I hope that I succeeded in the sense that when once I chose and old movie for WALL•E to watch; that I knew we’d be showing footage of real humans beings … I said, “Well that sets a precedent. That means any time you look at old footage it should be real human beings. I can get away with being CG with where humanity’s changed in the present/future, but I thought it would be even weirder if I was sort of all over the map with how I portrayed humans in old footage. I said I should just be consistent with that. So, that’s why I picked it. It was just because I set a precedent.
Crowd: Alright, thank you very much.
AS: Yep, great thank you!
Some folks sneaked some Bonus questions:
Crowd: Can you talk a bit about John Carter of Mars?
AS: Well, pretty much it’s already out there. I’m definitely writing it with Mark Andrews, and that’s all we’re doing right now.
Crowd: Is it gonna be live-action?
AS: Everybody’s asking that, and we’re not gonna make that decision for about a year or so.
Crowd: Any talks about Finding Nemo 2?
AS: No. Not yet. You know, again … if we come up with a great story then it may get made, but so far we haven’t heard anything that sounds as good as the first movie.
Crowd: Any Pixar characters we should look out for?
AS: Inside the movie? OH YEAH! I’m not gonna give any of them away, you gotta look for yourself!
Crowd: In the very beginning in WALL•E’s truck, Rex is there among his stuff.
AS: Mike Wazowski’s in there too if you look hard enough.
Crowd: Woah-ho. Thank you.
.....
And I'd like to add my personal thanks to Andrew Stanton. I didn't get all my questions in during the group talk (and there were some I really wanted to ask!), but glad you took note of my CalArts shirt and shared a little horrah with me, haha. Hope to see you again soon and thanks again for WALL•E.
Friday, June 27, 2008
WALL•E Article in Campus Circle
Recently, I had the great opportunity to see a pre-screening of WALL•E at the Disney lot. A few days later, I was able to sit down with some of the cast and crew on behalf of Campus Circle Magazine (You can download the latest issue for free). There is a brief and very condensed article to be found on page 6 of this week's issue, written by yours truly.
My shortened review of WALL•E? My GOD! What an amazing film! The more I think about WALL•E, the more I fall in love with it. It's a spectacular piece of cinema in every way. EVERY single way. It's one of the best films I've ever seen, certainly the best this year, and my new favorite Pixar film (beating out Toy Story 2 and Rats). They have outdone themselves once again. I can't wait to see it for the 3rd time, own it on Blu-Ray and see what they come up with next! (Or hopefully work on part of what they do next).
Below is the article. Let's call it a preview of my next blog, which will be the full transcript (possibly with audio clips) of the chat between Andrew Stanton, Ben Burtt, Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard and John Ratzenberger.
My shortened review of WALL•E? My GOD! What an amazing film! The more I think about WALL•E, the more I fall in love with it. It's a spectacular piece of cinema in every way. EVERY single way. It's one of the best films I've ever seen, certainly the best this year, and my new favorite Pixar film (beating out Toy Story 2 and Rats). They have outdone themselves once again. I can't wait to see it for the 3rd time, own it on Blu-Ray and see what they come up with next! (Or hopefully work on part of what they do next).
Below is the article. Let's call it a preview of my next blog, which will be the full transcript (possibly with audio clips) of the chat between Andrew Stanton, Ben Burtt, Jeff Garlin, Fred Willard and John Ratzenberger.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Stan Winston - (1946-2008)
Stan Winston passed away yesterday. Stan was a legend in the Physical Effects world of movies. I just recently discovered out who he is, actually. I found a book about his work at Barnes&Noble called "The Winston Effect". I suggest you pick it up.
I found this book and immediately realized i've been in love with the work of this amazing man since I was a kid. Sorry to say, I was ignorant of his existence until recently, but ... Anyone who knows me well knows I prefer to see physical effects whenever possible. CG is great and all, but nothing beats animatronics, make-up, prosthetics and so forth. And Stan did some of the best!
Winston was your modern day Harryhausen and he will be missed among the film-making community. Glad to see some of his latest contributions went to Iron Man.
Some of his credits included: Batman Returns, The Wiz, The Hand, Friday the 13th, Edward Scissorhands, Terminator(s), Jurassic Park(s), Big Fish, Island of Dr. Moreau, Pearl Harbor, A.I., Constantine, Galaxy Quest, Inspector Gadget, Congo, Small Soldiers, The Monster Squad, Predator, Aliens and Iron Man.
Winston's studio was also responsible for:
Avatar, Indy 4, World Trade Center, Charlotte's Web, War of the Worlds, Zathura, Doom, The Time Machine, What Lies Beneath, End of Days, The Sixth Sense, Austin Powers, Mouse Hunt, Tank Girl, Interview with the Vampire, Pumpkinhead, Alien Nation, Invaders from Mars, Starman, The Thing ... and many more along with various Television shows, Commercials and Music videos.
Thanks Stan, your work will continue to inspire me for years to come as it did for years before.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
"And God made two great lights..."
Science and religion/spirituality have often gone hand in hand in my eyes. More and more, the two seem to be part of the same greater existence. I've said before that I believe things of the spirit world, or of God, are merely Science we have not yet achieved the ability to understand yet.
I'm not sure how long this video has been around but, I just discovered it tonight.
Long have I been interested in science, ancient civilizations and history, mythology and tales of great things we've lost: The Mayan Calendar, Atlantis, Shangri-La, ancient Egyptian knowledge, and countless more.
A lot of this subject matter receives much skepticism and dismissal. My response to that is that many or possibly every "radical" or new idea informed by some sort of evidence has, in the past, met with the same harsh criticism only to be later proven valid.
I stand aside many who claim that perhaps we are not as advanced as man has ever been. That there is something greater, governing our planet even to the smallest scale of each individual. Call it the work of God, the work of science or what-have-you. That there is a natural balance, that we are not an accident in the universe ... and that we equally serve some greater purpose as much as it serves us.
Truths we hold up today will be proven false in the millennia to come, I can guarantee you that. It has certainly happened before. People once thought the Earth was flat. They believed the Earth was the center of the Solar system, or that ancient Mayans were crude and savage people - primitive. They claimed that "this" or "that" religion was the one and only true explanation, or that science is the answer. Wars have been fought over such discrepancies, and there's nothing that will ever change that.
I find it ironic that in what we call an "ever changing and advanced, civilized world" it is not popular belief that we accept the fact that more often than not - we don't have all the answers. Not only that, half the time we're dead wrong! Humans are constantly discovering new and better explanations for things. Bringing this back to religious implications, I find it very curious the Vatican recently acknowledged potential Alien life forms, as also being creatures of God.
Much of all these topics follow the model of "The Great Year", a concept long dead (or dormant) in today's society ... but it wasn't always so. And it won't be again, soon.
This fascinating 6-part video examines all of this ... The science surrounding our planet and the reasons for certain natural occurrences ... orbits, ages and extinctions. I highly suggest you check it out. It sums together almost every topic I've raved about, separately, for years. It's the grand-unifying theory of mankind's mysteries. It's "The Force" that governs everything, one might say. Fitting that this is narrated by none other than Anakin Skywalker, himself: James Earl Jones.
Enjoy!
I'm not sure how long this video has been around but, I just discovered it tonight.
Long have I been interested in science, ancient civilizations and history, mythology and tales of great things we've lost: The Mayan Calendar, Atlantis, Shangri-La, ancient Egyptian knowledge, and countless more.
A lot of this subject matter receives much skepticism and dismissal. My response to that is that many or possibly every "radical" or new idea informed by some sort of evidence has, in the past, met with the same harsh criticism only to be later proven valid.
I stand aside many who claim that perhaps we are not as advanced as man has ever been. That there is something greater, governing our planet even to the smallest scale of each individual. Call it the work of God, the work of science or what-have-you. That there is a natural balance, that we are not an accident in the universe ... and that we equally serve some greater purpose as much as it serves us.
Truths we hold up today will be proven false in the millennia to come, I can guarantee you that. It has certainly happened before. People once thought the Earth was flat. They believed the Earth was the center of the Solar system, or that ancient Mayans were crude and savage people - primitive. They claimed that "this" or "that" religion was the one and only true explanation, or that science is the answer. Wars have been fought over such discrepancies, and there's nothing that will ever change that.
I find it ironic that in what we call an "ever changing and advanced, civilized world" it is not popular belief that we accept the fact that more often than not - we don't have all the answers. Not only that, half the time we're dead wrong! Humans are constantly discovering new and better explanations for things. Bringing this back to religious implications, I find it very curious the Vatican recently acknowledged potential Alien life forms, as also being creatures of God.
Much of all these topics follow the model of "The Great Year", a concept long dead (or dormant) in today's society ... but it wasn't always so. And it won't be again, soon.
This fascinating 6-part video examines all of this ... The science surrounding our planet and the reasons for certain natural occurrences ... orbits, ages and extinctions. I highly suggest you check it out. It sums together almost every topic I've raved about, separately, for years. It's the grand-unifying theory of mankind's mysteries. It's "The Force" that governs everything, one might say. Fitting that this is narrated by none other than Anakin Skywalker, himself: James Earl Jones.
Enjoy!
Successful prequels without even trying!
I just came back from seeing The Incredible Hulk. I liked it, I thought it was very smart in some aspects, fairly good acting, graphics were ... eh okay enough I guess. Better than the previous film. And the casting was WAY better.
But I had an interesting thought tonight. I know the Marvel Studios are working toward making The Avengers movies. We've just seen Iron Man, and the Hulk. I'm curious to see what other films coming out soon will add to this (Captain America?, Thor?), or if those are just the main two. I haven't been following it too closely to be honest.
So my interesting thought is this: I can't (off the top of my head) think of another time in film history when someone has attempted to make a slew of superhero films that are all essentially prequels for another superhero film; one that will combine characters from all the others.
It seems like a fanboy's dream come true. Combining characters from their pick of films or comics or whatever. Some of us have even thought up Peter Pan meeting Link in some far fetched world (haha, bit of an inside joke there). But its not just for fanboys anymore. With a successful string of superhero movies back to back - you've gained the general public attention on a much wider and acceptable scale.
My point being: we've all seen crossovers in films before - hell, even Tarantino makes sure to give little hints about his characters being related to one another (the Vega brothers, for one). I'm no comic fan, but I know this progression seems only natural for those who know the franchise ... but strictly talking film here, I don't think anything like this has quite been done before.
I sincerely hope they make them close together and regard each of the "prequel" films as canon in the "series". I also hope they don't change casting, that always leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
So yeah .. very interesting ... I'm now actually kind of looking forward to The Avengers movie should it see the light of day. I think it's a great opportunity facing film - and it's a unique opportunity to seize that. One could do the same thing with the DC Comic world as well. I've gained a whole new respect for comics and how they've opened up a new chapter in films. Why did no one make such an intertwining strand of movies before? Or have they - informers welcome.
But I had an interesting thought tonight. I know the Marvel Studios are working toward making The Avengers movies. We've just seen Iron Man, and the Hulk. I'm curious to see what other films coming out soon will add to this (Captain America?, Thor?), or if those are just the main two. I haven't been following it too closely to be honest.
So my interesting thought is this: I can't (off the top of my head) think of another time in film history when someone has attempted to make a slew of superhero films that are all essentially prequels for another superhero film; one that will combine characters from all the others.
It seems like a fanboy's dream come true. Combining characters from their pick of films or comics or whatever. Some of us have even thought up Peter Pan meeting Link in some far fetched world (haha, bit of an inside joke there). But its not just for fanboys anymore. With a successful string of superhero movies back to back - you've gained the general public attention on a much wider and acceptable scale.
My point being: we've all seen crossovers in films before - hell, even Tarantino makes sure to give little hints about his characters being related to one another (the Vega brothers, for one). I'm no comic fan, but I know this progression seems only natural for those who know the franchise ... but strictly talking film here, I don't think anything like this has quite been done before.
I sincerely hope they make them close together and regard each of the "prequel" films as canon in the "series". I also hope they don't change casting, that always leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
So yeah .. very interesting ... I'm now actually kind of looking forward to The Avengers movie should it see the light of day. I think it's a great opportunity facing film - and it's a unique opportunity to seize that. One could do the same thing with the DC Comic world as well. I've gained a whole new respect for comics and how they've opened up a new chapter in films. Why did no one make such an intertwining strand of movies before? Or have they - informers welcome.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Kung Fu (Awesome) Panda kick ass movie
Hey all,
So per request of the Hegge-meister. I'm posting a bit of a review of Kung Fu Panda!
I'll start off by saying, I was a bit skeptical about this one. For a long time now, nothing too extraordinary has come out of Dreamworks beyond Shrek .. which I've got my gripes about. I think already that film is starting to fade because too much of the jokes and entertainment is locked in time and pop culture.
Kung Fu Panda broke thru that barrier like Pai Mei brakes thru solid blocks of wood! This movie really did kick ass. While I don't think it was quite as solid as a Pixar film, it definitely is the best thing Dreamworks has done to date.
The characters are fairly well defined and we understand their motives, and most of us, I think can emphathize with them. Especially in our business of animation and film-making. The main character looks up to these great warriors, wants to be like them and dreams of being revered as a great warrior himself.
The story could have been stronger, but it's not like it didn't work. Not like Indiana Jones. Haha.
Aside from the story/character motivation flaws (minor as they were) - the rest of the film makes up for it. The entertainment value of the whole thing was pretty great. From terrific acting choices, to solid and some of the best 3D animated designs i've seen since 2D, the film really works. They clearly defined their setups and payed them off fairly well too.
Nicholas Marlet's work was translated into 3D brilliantly. And James Baxter's animated 2d/After Effects intro and closing sequences were spectacular, comical and very well stylized. I also like how all the little loose ends that didn't carry much weight were addressed in the closing credits montages (ex: fixing the broken urn of souls, Po adding his own action figure to his collection, etc.)
Just one more comment too. I like how there was little to no promotion about the actors who played the voices of the characters. Even with Jack Black (as recognizable as he is), i found myself forgetting it was him voicing it and totally bought the fact that it was a panda named Po. As for the other characters, if I hadn't know previously David Cross, Angie Jolie and Dustin Hoffman were voicing - I imagine I might not have picked up on it - nor cared because the characters were what they were supposed to be. Characters in THAT FILM.
Back to one of my first comments too, for that matter - I FUCKING LOVED how they kept everything IN THAT UNIVERSE! No jokes referencing pop-culture, and nothing out of the world they established. Something some other films (cough cough ... Shrek ... Madagascar, cough cough) didn't do.
Well I guess that's it for now. Not an in depth analysis, but there wasn't much to pick on. Go see it! I give the movie an A rating. Go Dreamworks! This movie actually started to sway me to possibly want to work there? We'll see how the future goes - I did see a trailer for Madagascar 2 in there. :::shudders:::
May the Fu be with you.
F U! YaY!
So per request of the Hegge-meister. I'm posting a bit of a review of Kung Fu Panda!
I'll start off by saying, I was a bit skeptical about this one. For a long time now, nothing too extraordinary has come out of Dreamworks beyond Shrek .. which I've got my gripes about. I think already that film is starting to fade because too much of the jokes and entertainment is locked in time and pop culture.
Kung Fu Panda broke thru that barrier like Pai Mei brakes thru solid blocks of wood! This movie really did kick ass. While I don't think it was quite as solid as a Pixar film, it definitely is the best thing Dreamworks has done to date.
The characters are fairly well defined and we understand their motives, and most of us, I think can emphathize with them. Especially in our business of animation and film-making. The main character looks up to these great warriors, wants to be like them and dreams of being revered as a great warrior himself.
The story could have been stronger, but it's not like it didn't work. Not like Indiana Jones. Haha.
Aside from the story/character motivation flaws (minor as they were) - the rest of the film makes up for it. The entertainment value of the whole thing was pretty great. From terrific acting choices, to solid and some of the best 3D animated designs i've seen since 2D, the film really works. They clearly defined their setups and payed them off fairly well too.
Nicholas Marlet's work was translated into 3D brilliantly. And James Baxter's animated 2d/After Effects intro and closing sequences were spectacular, comical and very well stylized. I also like how all the little loose ends that didn't carry much weight were addressed in the closing credits montages (ex: fixing the broken urn of souls, Po adding his own action figure to his collection, etc.)
Just one more comment too. I like how there was little to no promotion about the actors who played the voices of the characters. Even with Jack Black (as recognizable as he is), i found myself forgetting it was him voicing it and totally bought the fact that it was a panda named Po. As for the other characters, if I hadn't know previously David Cross, Angie Jolie and Dustin Hoffman were voicing - I imagine I might not have picked up on it - nor cared because the characters were what they were supposed to be. Characters in THAT FILM.
Back to one of my first comments too, for that matter - I FUCKING LOVED how they kept everything IN THAT UNIVERSE! No jokes referencing pop-culture, and nothing out of the world they established. Something some other films (cough cough ... Shrek ... Madagascar, cough cough) didn't do.
Well I guess that's it for now. Not an in depth analysis, but there wasn't much to pick on. Go see it! I give the movie an A rating. Go Dreamworks! This movie actually started to sway me to possibly want to work there? We'll see how the future goes - I did see a trailer for Madagascar 2 in there. :::shudders:::
May the Fu be with you.
F U! YaY!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
