Did anybody see Wall-E? — Page 2

 

Says you.  It wouldn't be the first time in history that a film didn't do well at the box office but then had great home video sales.

Most of what they listed at that site are simply mistakes, not huge glaring plot holes.  And again, so what?  Does every movie have to be perfect in order to not be bad?  Give me a break.

Wall-E was fun and enjoyable.  I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy it (like you seem to not enjoy most Pixar movies).  Pixar movies make me feel like a kid again.  I'd say they're doing their job just fine.

i will say this:

1) you're right, a movie can do well on dvd and not in the theaters...

2) not every movie has to be perfect, but the imperfections have to be good enough/funny enough/not important enough/endearing to make a lasting impression

(ie. the original 'star wars', a galore of issues, but still classic to me)......................

3) you don't have to be sorry, it was only a movie..... i don't feel bad that PIXAR let me down yet again, because they'll be more movies coming out from them

whether i like them or not.. (their hit/miss ratio is pretty low for me)...

4) you seemed to miss the part, where i said TOY STORY was one of my all time favorite movies (flaws and all), that i have seen it more than STAR WARS,

and that i was really won over by 'the incredibles', and that CARS is slowly creeping up there to be one of my all time favorite animated movies also....

maybe i'm picky/biased/stickler for the movies i like, and don't care for everything someone (yes you PIXAR) throws out there for the public to

devour, and its about time the public realizes it also..maybe they're finally getting a clue..........

being a big computer graphics fan,

i used to wait for every animated movie to come out regardless of what it was (shrek/dinosaurs/chicken little, etc etc etc).......but after

a certain point, i realized almost ANYBODY can put out a computer animated movie..............so i had to have some criteria to separate the wheat

from the chaff............................................wall-e is apparently heading down the road of chaff................i might have been ambivalent before,

but rethinking it, makes me realize how sub-par and displeasing it really was..

later

-1

negative1 said:

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

negative1 said:

 

    excuse me,

   do you need further proof? http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=robots.htm please learn how to do 'research'..........................

  THOSE ARE BOX OFFICE NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! they DO NOT INCLUDE VHS or DVD sales, or they would be even higher..

  and furthermore, if you bother to click on the link... notice this part ?  Production Budget: $75 million

yeah, that's right, it made back way more than its budget...

i don't know which universe you live in, that's a huge HIT.......................................

'robots' is the move that Wall-E wishes it could have been............................

pixar LOSES, do you get it now?

Wall-e has disappointed all pixar fans, and is performing as one of the WORST releases they ever have.....

gee, do you think they'll make a sequel for it too?

how do you like this happy quote for the weekend.

Sixth spot goes to Pixar's WALL-E, as the computer animated kids flick got competition from not only Batman, but also Space Chimps this weekend. WALL-E earned $9.8 million and falls 48% compared to last weekend. WALL-E has seen some of the biggest drops in Pixar history, and has a current total so far of $182.5 million.

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=10818&cmin=10&columnpage=3

LOOKS LIKE 'WALL-E' is the movie that is going to be the HUGE FLOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

later

-1

 

BOX OFFICE ALWAYS INCLUDES VHS AND DVD SALES AFTER THE FILM HAS BEEN RELEASED ON THOSE FORMATS.  I MANAGED A VIDEO STORE FOR THREE YEARS.  I KNOW HOW THE NUMBERS WORK.  THE FACT THAT WALL*E IS STILL MAKING MONEY AT THE BOX OFFICE IS A REALLY GOOD SIGN FOR THE FILM.

 

pyscho_davy,

please stop, you are just making yourself look worse everytime you say something, STOP digging a hole:

working at a video store , while fun, does not make you an expert in anything, and you still won't admit

that ROBOTS was a huge HIT compared to the flop that is CRAP-E, i mean WALL-E is,

 

see for yourself

-------------------------

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/boxoffice.htm

---------------- 

Box Office Mojo publishes several sections reporting box office receipts by time period, including Daily, Weekend, Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Seasonal, Yearly and All Time.

KEY TERMINOLOGY
Box office tracking refers to theatrical box office earnings. Additional sources of revenue, such as home entertainment sales and rentals, television rights, product placement fees, etc. are not included. All grosses published reflect domestic earnings, i.e., United States and Canada, unless otherwise noted.

=================================

 

DO YOU GET IT NOW !   Home entertainment sales and rentals are not included in the "BOX OFFICE" numbers. period. Don't even try to deny it.

by the way, i don't know if I included IMAX figures also, as seeing ROBOTS in IMAX blows away anything WALL-E could ever do..

(and if you want back up confirmation , look here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358082/business

 

so anyway, are now admitting that even though wall-e hasn't even made back its money,

the fact its still in the theaters is a good thing????  what is that supposed to mean,

all the other PIXAR movies made way more, and were doing much better...

please stop trying to make this movie into a 'hit', so you can justify liking it...

 

i don't care if you do or not.............but don't make it seem like its doing better than it is..

just admit it..

later

-1

 

 

 

 

 

THE FACT THAT IT'S STILL MAKING MONEY SAYS SOMETHING FOR THE MOVIE.  IT ONLY HAD ONE BAD REVIEW.  YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK.  COME BACK AFTER YOU FINISH JUNIOR HIGH.  THERE'S NO NEED TO REPLY TO THIS POST.  YOU'VE BEEN ADDED TO MY COLLECTION OF DEAD HUMAN PUZZLES OR WHAT THEY LIKE TO CALL THE IGNORE LIST AROUND HERE.  

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

 

 

THE FACT THAT IT'S STILL MAKING MONEY SAYS SOMETHING FOR THE MOVIE.  IT ONLY HAD ONE BAD REVIEW.  YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WEAK.  COME BACK AFTER YOU FINISH JUNIOR HIGH.  THERE'S NO NEED TO REPLY TO THIS POST.  YOU'VE BEEN ADDED TO MY COLLECTION OF DEAD HUMAN PUZZLES OR WHAT THET LIKE TO CALL THE IGNORE LIST AROUND HERE.  

oh,

i see ,  you can't face the fact that you're wrong (as you've been several times).....

as everyone on this board can see how weak YOUR arguments are...........

maybe you should go back to school, and learn how to actually read web pages,

......................if  by what you mean 'weak', is the same as being correct, i'll take that..................................

i'm glad you're ignoring me, since you obviously don't know how to debate correctly....

well guess what, i'll never put you on the ignore list, since your comments are so funny,

and wrong....................i'll discuss whatever you want anytime...... i guess you feel its

easier to run away and hide rather than face the facts......thats fine,  some people

don't want to face reality when they're wrong all the time.......................................

later

-1

The amount of money a film makes is no bar to how creative and artistic a film is.

The prequels made shit loads more money than the original versions of the original star wars trilogy and they suck as far as i'm concerned.

More than suck, actually they are a complete unmitigated unforgivable travesty of a classic, so far watered down now for the kiddies. and they added fake cgi for the bubblegum brained morons who like this shit better.

If the amount of money a film makes is the only important factor then films the dumbed down american public goes to see, (aka the average stupid american who watches american idol), are the most sucessful and artful films ever made.

negative1 said:

 

being a big computer graphics fan,

i used to wait for every animated movie to come out regardless of what it was (shrek/dinosaurs/chicken little, etc etc etc).......but after

a certain point, i realized almost ANYBODY can put out a computer animated movie..............so i had to have some criteria to separate the wheat

from the chaff............................................wall-e is apparently heading down the road of chaff................i might have been ambivalent before,

but rethinking it, makes me realize how sub-par and displeasing it really was..

 

later

-1

Well no wonder you're so negative toward it.  Most of those movies were utter crap.  I think I'd be getting tired of cg animated movies too if I bothered to see all the crappy ones along with all the good ones.

I remember watching "The Wild" on a free PPV night.  We got about 15 mins into it and I said out loud "This a bad version of Finding Nemo".  The movie plain old sucked.  I just did not enjoy it one bit.  I've seen all three Shrek movies.  I loved the first one the best.  I think the third one is second best to me.  I haven't seen Chicken Little and I don't plan to, just because it looked so bad.

Do yourself a favor and avoid the crappy looking cg animated movies (the ones that look like they have a crappy story that is).  You're right, anybody can put out a computer animated movie.  If you had to watch all those other movies to find that out, well, that's sad.  The thing I like about Pixar movies is something they said on the commentary of Finding Nemo.  "We make the movie we want to see first and it usually turns out to be fun for the kids too."

skyjedi2005 said:

The amount of money a film makes is no bar to how creative and artistic a film is.

The prequels made shit loads more money than the original versions of the original star wars trilogy and they suck as far as i'm concerned.

More than suck, actually they are a complete unmitigated unforgivable travesty of a classic, so far watered down now for the kiddies. and they added fake cgi for the bubblegum brained morons who like this shit better.

If the amount of money a film makes is the only important factor then films the dumbed down american public goes to see, (aka the average stupid american who watches american idol), are the most sucessful and artful films ever made.

 

 

Actually, they didn't.  You need to adjust for inflation to do a proper comparison.  Unadjusted, the prequels each made more than ESB and ROTJ, but ANH beat them all out.  Adjusted, the prequels stunk in comparison.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

i'm not too sure, but that looks like to me to be a false domestic take since it looks like it includes all the numerous re-releases as well as the 97 special edition. it should be adjusted to reflect only the 1977 gross adjusted.

Plus if we are talking about not readjusted gross titanic is still number 1 and no star wars film ever beat it. Sad but true and no movie has yet to break its record of #1.

Return of the King and Revenge of the Sith made valiant efforts, even rotk tied titanic for number of oscars.

I am kind of biased when it comes to Wall E since i loved artoo detoo in star wars and ben burtt worked on wall e, so i like the movie.   I do hate the pc save the earth garbage but i'm not sure it was overly done, still i wonder if they had al snore as adviser on this film.

skyjedi2005 said:

i'm not too sure, but that looks like to me to be a false domestic take since it looks like it includes all the numerous re-releases as well as the 97 special edition. it should be adjusted to reflect only the 1977 gross adjusted.

 

Plus if we are talking about not readjusted gross titanic is still number 1 and no star wars film ever beat it. Sad but true and no movie has yet to break its record of #1.

Return of the King and Revenge of the Sith made valiant efforts, even rotk tied titanic for number of oscars.

Why should it reflect only 1977?  No major plot points were changed until 1997.  So I'm with you that it shouldn't include the SE, but every rerelease until that point is fair game.  Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to differentiate them.

I was comparing the Star Wars movies to each other.  I'm aware that no Star Wars movie, unadjusted, has ever beat Titanic.  I'm also aware that the top two movies of all time, adjusted for inflation, are Star Wars and Gone with the Wind (I didn't even need to look that one up :P).  My whole point was that adjusted for inflation, the prequels didn't do well at all.  Even unadjusted, Star Wars did better than all the prequels.  In fact, if you look at that list, you'll see that TPM did the best, with ROTS coming in second.  That's probably because TPM was the first Star Wars movie in 16 years.  AOTC didn't do as well, probably due to the bitter taste from TPM.  ROTS did second best, again, probably because "this is the one we've been waiting for" as some people put it.

skyjedi2005 said:

The amount of money a film makes is no bar to how creative and artistic a film is.

The prequels made shit loads more money than the original versions of the original star wars trilogy and they suck as far as i'm concerned.

More than suck, actually they are a complete unmitigated unforgivable travesty of a classic, so far watered down now for the kiddies. and they added fake cgi for the bubblegum brained morons who like this shit better.

If the amount of money a film makes is the only important factor then films the dumbed down american public goes to see, (aka the average stupid american who watches american idol), are the most sucessful and artful films ever made.

 

 

hey, i'm totally on your guys side about box-office being a negligable factor...i only brought it up, since someone *AHEM*COUGH*PSYCHO_DAYV****AHEM**

thought some move *AHEM* was a flop, when in fact it was actually a HIT.....i also brought it up to compare its performance to other pixar movies...

anyways, enough of that.....

about watching a lot of cg movies, yes shrek 1 was decent, and the graphics were average, but the plot saved it.......i thought dinosaurs was

very cool, especially after seeing 'jurassic park'<-good effects, terrible translation from book.......................hey , you can't really know if a movie

is going to be good until you watch it right???????????????? i know a lot of people thought 'cars' was a waste of time, and for kids only, but

to me it was a breakthrough..............................

going back a bit.....i remember a 2d/3d animated movie , called 'iron giant' that didn't do that well, but it is still one of my favorite movies also..

with a great plot, and beautiful animation also...........................i'm sure there are others out there as well..

later

-1

negative1 said:

 

hey , you can't really know if a movie

is going to be good until you watch it right???????????????? i know a lot of people thought 'cars' was a waste of time, and for kids only, but

to me it was a breakthrough..............................

Uh, no.  Honestly, it's pretty easy to tell a good movie from a bad one even from the trailer.  Some exceptions are Mission to Mars (horrible movie) and Meet the Spartans (GAWD aweful movie).  Mission to Mars looked like a decent trip to Mars movie.  To bad they got ALL the science wrong.  Meet the Spartans looked like a funny, slapstick movie.  Apparently the directors couldn't even do that right though.

The other thing people usually take into account is who's making it and who's in it.  I actually check the writing and directing credits on comedies now to see if it's someone that did a previously funny movie.

ChainsawAsh said:

Wait ... you thought "Meet the Spartans" looked good from the trailer?

Yes.  I thought it looked like a campy, satirical movie in the same vain as Scary Movie or even Airplane.  I was sadly mistaken though.  Of course, just looking at who directed it told me everything I needed to know.  Which is why I now look at the writers, directors, and the actors in any of those movies.

wow this is one hell of a thread. I can't beleive you think Wall-E was a flop. some of the reviews i have heard on the movie were overwhelmingly positive. One local critic where i live, In vancouver said he thinks its one of the best movies of this decade.

For get about box office numbers and all that crap. It is purely meaningless. When a peice of crap like spiderman 3 can break records it just goes to show how valuable those numbers really are.

I was looking and your rating for movies, and well i am very surprised by most of them:

you thought Nemo was bad. Just talking to people i have not met one single person that disliked that movie. And the one i found to be the most humerous was ratatille(sp) you said your interested in CG. Well i am curious to know how much CG work you have actually done. My roommate who is currently doing his masters in Computer graphical programing, recommended the movie to me, saying that the graphics were amazing, and i agree with him. There was stuff in that movie that have never been tried before. Academic papers were written on some of the techniques they used in that movie. WallE was the same, it was out of this world remarkable. I havent seen robots, or cars so i cant comment on them but i did see the incredibles and i thought it was just ok. But still you amaze me, your interesting in CG but you still find someway to dislike movies like wall-E.

shimy said:

wow this is one hell of a thread. I can't beleive you think Wall-E was a flop. some of the reviews i have heard on the movie were overwhelmingly positive. One local critic where i live, In vancouver said he thinks its one of the best movies of this decade.

For get about box office numbers and all that crap. It is purely meaningless. When a peice of crap like spiderman 3 can break records it just goes to show how valuable those numbers really are.

I was looking and your rating for movies, and well i am very surprised by most of them:

you thought Nemo was bad. Just talking to people i have not met one single person that disliked that movie. And the one i found to be the most humerous was ratatille(sp) you said your interested in CG. Well i am curious to know how much CG work you have actually done. My roommate who is currently doing his masters in Computer graphical programing, recommended the movie to me, saying that the graphics were amazing, and i agree with him. There was stuff in that movie that have never been tried before. Academic papers were written on some of the techniques they used in that movie. WallE was the same, it was out of this world remarkable. I havent seen robots, or cars so i cant comment on them but i did see the incredibles and i thought it was just ok. But still you amaze me, your interesting in CG but you still find someway to dislike movies like wall-E.

 

look,

i meant 'flop' in the sense that in comparison to other pixar movies, it is performing underwhelmingly....ok? for the last time, YES, i know it doesn't matter

overall whether the market likes it or not, but it does have an impact on the company, and of course their future projects etc.......if you look at how all

the other pixar movies fared at this point in time, they were all doing a lot better, and this movie is starting to disappear off the map compared to

the other ones.............[granted $190 million is nothing to sneeze at, but it barely covers its production expenses]...............

..............not everyone likes all particular subject matter ok? i don't happen to like 'cutesy' animals/robots/etc...............granted 'car's didn't appeal to everyone either, although i liked it because i've always been biased towards cars....

ok, let''s look at the broader picture concerning 'cg'.........................

1) you want to know what work i've done with 'cg'? , i started off using computers back in the late 70's, everything from doing

line graphs, and 2-d plots on dot matrix printers, to 2 color monochrome, and  then 4 color cga monitors, and the over to primitive graphics on

16 color EGA screens back in the 80s, to 256 color VGA monitor after that

2) my background is in math, so i started doing mathematical modelling of graphs, figures, fractal objects, and then 3d objects, and of course ray-tracing

shortly after that.........................when i saw TRON that's what the set the standard for me....until 'toy story' came out, nothing could top it......

even today, a lot of movies can't match what TRON did.....

3) i worked with a lot of computer generated graphics programs in college, and during my coursework in mathematics.....later after i graduated, back

in 1991, i worked for a company that produced computer graphics libraries....i worked on image processing toolkits, and all other kinds of 3d software..

i eventually wanted to get into programming graphics for computer games, but lacked the artistic skills to get into that market at the time

4) afterwards, anything computer graphics related was just a hobby, using programs like FRACTINT, and autocads 3d-studio, and POV-ray, i delved

heavily into computer graphic rendering / 3d object rendering / ray tracing / radiosity etc, along with all the algorithms, and mathematical background

needed for that...................i also minored in physics, so i understood lighting/optics/refraction/reflection etc.......................which come into play when

understanding how those algorithms applied to those software packages....

5) you're saying that 'new techniques' were used in 'nemo' , 'wall-e' etc?????????????????? yeah, so what, they were based on older studies

of algorthims and papers that came out a much longer time ago..........yeah, sure we have more efficent ways, better lighting models, more

releastic textures/shaders etc.............but why would you care about that, unless you have a background in it...........most people are just

looking at eye-candy....................i'd be interested in what to hear your friend thinks is so 'revolutionary' if anything.........

6) i mentioned it before, but just because something might be 'technically innovative', it still needs to be artistic, and aesthetically pleasing also....................things

which i find a lot of the recent 'pixar' movies to be lacking................they really need to step it up, and instead of making incremental increases,

really need to do some ground breaking or major advances before i start taking them seriously again...

later

-1

by the way,

even though  its way too early..(and a little bit worrying)..

this tiny bootleg trailer for tron 2...ie : tr2n

is here http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2008/07/tr2n_tron_2_trailer_online.html

later

-1

WALL-E is by far the best movie (of any type) I have seen in a very very very long time, period. It's probably a little too intelligent or subtle for a lot of people...

MoveAlong said:

WALL-E is by far the best movie (of any type) I have seen in a very very very long time, period. It's probably a little too intelligent or subtle for a lot of people...

wall-e 's pro-ecological theme was about as subtle as 'hitting someone over with the head with a sledgehammer', which is what i suspect the

motive of selling this to children was for.....notice how 'kung fu panda'[which i refuse to watch] is beating this as its competition?

more numbers: week 5. another huge drop of 37%

Seventh goes to WALL-E, which is now in its fifth weekend. WALL-E earned $6.3 million and was off 37% compared to the previous frame. WALL-E has seen drops of 48%, 42%, 46% and now 37% - drops that are way too high for the usual Pixar film. Still, a current domestic gross of $195.2 million is great, and it will slightly surpass Ratatouille's final gross of $206 million, which is in the lower echelon of Pixar releases.

'horton hears a who' which was decent was much more interesting as a storyline..

later

-1

here's the next pixar movie 'up'..

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/07/26/comic-con-teasing-pixars-up/

video

http://www.theanimationblog.com/2008/07/26/first-video-of-pixars-up/

sorry, looks like another boring plot/story..

later

-1

negative1 said:

MoveAlong said:

WALL-E is by far the best movie (of any type) I have seen in a very very very long time, period. It's probably a little too intelligent or subtle for a lot of people...

 

wall-e 's pro-ecological theme was about as subtle as 'hitting someone over with the head with a sledgehammer', which is what i suspect the

motive of selling this to children was for.....notice how 'kung fu panda'[which i refuse to watch] is beating this as its competition?

 

more numbers: week 5. another huge drop of 37%

Seventh goes to WALL-E, which is now in its fifth weekend. WALL-E earned $6.3 million and was off 37% compared to the previous frame. WALL-E has seen drops of 48%, 42%, 46% and now 37% - drops that are way too high for the usual Pixar film. Still, a current domestic gross of $195.2 million is great, and it will slightly surpass Ratatouille's final gross of $206 million, which is in the lower echelon of Pixar releases.

 

 

'horton hears a who' which was decent was much more interesting as a storyline..

later

-1

Oh yeah, real big surprise that Wall-E had another big drop.  Let's see, TDK is still going strong (quickest movie to $300 million) and it had to compete with X-Files, which seems to have had a fairly lackluster opening (most likely due to TDKs continuing numbers).  Yeah, I'm real surprised Wall-E took another hit.  And of course huge numbers of people were at Comic-Con this weekend.

Kung Fu Panda (which I liked and thought was very funny by the way) is only ahead of Wall-E by $15 million.

Hey, notice how Hancock, a shitty movie about a homeless guy that's a "super hero" dropped 3 places to number 6?  And how it's just $11 million ahead of Wall-E?  But I guess it's a winner since it's making more money.

So why are you refusing to watch Kung Fu Panda?  Do you not like Jack Black (the voice of the Panda)?  Or is it "not deep enough" for you?  Seriously, sometimes you just need to enjoy a movie for what it is and not look for some deeper meaning that only the few "select" will get.

negative1 said:

 

i don't happen to like 'cutesy' animals/robots/etc...............granted 'car's didn't appeal to everyone either, although i liked it because i've always been biased towards cars....

So you're probably going to hate most every CG animated movie that's released then.  At least the one's from Pixar.

Now i am pissed because they promised their next movie would be John Carter of Mars instead we get something called "up" wtf?

Or will the burroughs sci fi project get delayed as often as toy story 3?

There are some people who like the Pixar films for their content but still prefer traditional animation. I have a loathing and hatred for almost anything and everything cgi because of the star wars special editions and prequels. To me it makes everything look like a videogame. this was the stupidity of the later bond films starring Pierce Brosnan like die another day as well.

I am worried how these ilm people will handle the effects in the new trek film for next year.   Will the enterprise look like a retarded cgi cartoon?

I could not possibly care less about how much money a film makes and "competition" with other films. Respect WALL-E for the beautiful film that it is, or don't. I loved it...

And yes, the new Trek film will be one big retarded CGI cartoon. How could it not be? That's what the action genre has become...

here is a link to papers published on ratatuie

http://graphics.pixar.com/

shimy said:

here is a link to papers published on ratatuie

 

http://graphics.pixar.com/

 yes, i know the papers are there..

again, who cares? unless you can understand them, apply them, or deal with them,

it's all eye-candy.......revolutionary? more like evolutionary....not to knock pixars

techniques.......but until there is a huge breakthrough ...this is status quo.....

go to the siggraph conferences if you want to see the real innovations/innovators...

later

-1

negative1 said:

 yes, i know the papers are there..

again, who cares? unless you can understand them, apply them, or deal with them,

it's all eye-candy.......revolutionary? more like evolutionary....not to knock pixars

techniques.......but until there is a huge breakthrough ...this is status quo.....

go to the siggraph conferences if you want to see the real innovations/innovators...

later

-1

But isn't that what it's all about at the end of the day (besides a story)?  Making it look better and more realistic, which we simply call "eye candy".  If the story is utter crap, it won't matter how good it looks.  It's only status quo if every movie uses the same techniques.  As long as they continue to push the technology forward, and they seem to be doing just that, then it's not status quo anymore.

negative1 said:

shimy said:

here is a link to papers published on ratatuie

 

http://graphics.pixar.com/

 yes, i know the papers are there..

again, who cares? unless you can understand them, apply them, or deal with them,

it's all eye-candy.......revolutionary? more like evolutionary....not to knock pixars

techniques.......but until there is a huge breakthrough ...this is status quo.....

go to the siggraph conferences if you want to see the real innovations/innovators...

later

-1

Wow did you just say that. i thought you had all this back ground in CG, you of all people should be able to appreciate that. what do you want thats revolutionary. hell if your standards of revolutionary are that high i should point out that thought toy story was the first animated movie of that length. they had been making short movies like that for a long time. so you could call that evolutionary too. What was so revolutionary in all the other movies then.

I also just want to point out, i have minimal experience with actual computer animation, and i can at least appreciate some of the stuff they are talking about in the abstracts. Did you even look at the abstracts?

I am also curious what your opinion of a huge break through is going to be. Some of the stuff in that movie had huge breakthroughs. Techniques they used to develop ways to have object deformation due to impact is pretty big. As they talked about in the paper, In movies before directors and animators would try to avoid direct contact as much as possible because it was hard to make it look like you had actual contact, not floating objects.

I'm sorry but you just dont seem very credible anymore, you're making these blanket statements, using flash words like revolutionary, and Breakthroughs, but what exactly are your problems with the movies. Surely you are not just looking directly at the finished product and judging it on the broad aspects the overall look, and not paying attention to detail. Because as you said yourself your very interested in CG. It almost seems like you dislike the stylization as apposed to the actual computer graphics, and if thats your arguement. Then your critiziums need to be a little more accurate and not say things like "the graphics are ok" when really they are spectacular. because the CG style, vs the real word physics and the stimulation is great.