post #61 of 97
11/20/08 at 8:48am
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by David Coleman
Ok I can go the 5 on the video but I got to severely disagree on the audio.
First issue is I always bitstream and i've heard films in 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 in dtsma. I keep reading this 6.1 track but mine is only showing 5.1. I'm sorry, I felt the rocket takeoffs and windstorms were disappointing. Clarity was nice and there was a fair amount of discrete information but less than I was expecting. Have to say after experiencing the sound behind KUNG FU PANDA, this one comes up short! |
|
Originally Posted by TonyD
does the movie start right in the middle of a word in the opening song?
|
|
Originally Posted by Ron-P
I love the older Disney animated films, much more then these Pixar films (or most all these newer CGC's for that matter). For one; the music, much better in the older films vr the newer. The animation is better, the look is softer and not as harsh and bright. The stories are better, there more emotionally engaging. I'd have to say most all the older Disney films are better in every way over all these newer films.
|
|
Originally Posted by TravisR
^It's an easter egg. If I remember correctly, you just push up on your remote from 'Play movie' and then press enter.
|
|
Originally Posted by Brian L
I would agree with the previous column that the audio (low bass in particular) was somewhat of a let down.
There were a few scenes that really rocked the house (the Axiom's return to earth was the winner for us), but overall, WALL-E was no "Iron Man". Disclaimer: My Panny 10a does not do DTS HD MA, so I had to live with the DTS core via the 5.1 analogs. |
|
Originally Posted by Mike Frezon
My impressions exactly...although I still have the second half of the film to watch so I haven't seen the Axiom's return to Earth.
I am also using the analog outs on a Panasonic BD-10 and while the audio in the first half of the film was as clear and perfect as could be, I was actually struck by how little I was getting from my subwoofer as Wall-E and Eve were blasting off from Earth to the Axiom. In fact, I did something I never do and actually went and checked my sub to make sure it was working! I even adjusted it's level--something else I never do. I have a modest little system (the sub is a Sony SA-WM40)...but you tend to know when you expect a certain level of bass... And it just wasn't there. I'll be interested now to hear how things sound when the Axiom returns to Earth. |
|
Originally Posted by Brian L
Next time we screen it, I will probably switch to the optical connection, which, while still DTS Core, will be an interesting comparison.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jay Pennington
Where did they hide The Pixar Story? Can't find it. I have the two-disc BR. Don't tell me it's on the third disc of the digital copy set...
|
|
Originally Posted by TonyD
does the movie start right in the middle of a word in the opening song?
|
|
Originally Posted by Ron-P
The animation is better, the look is softer and not as harsh and bright. The stories are better, there more emotionally engaging. I'd have to say most all the older Disney films are better in every way over all these newer films.
|
|
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
Okay, an opinion from someone seeing this film for the first time.....
I can see where people felt that Wall-E fell short of other Pixar films. It does only in the sense that it has a storyline that doesn't move as smoothly as other films before it. I found myself a little bored with the first third of the film. However, the final two thirds of the film are just brilliant. What I really found myself amazed with was how much emotion was brought out in a story essentially involving two robots. Without any vocalization, the animators effectively (and often humorously) conveyed their communications to the audience. That is where my appreciation of the film lies. The Blu-ray presentation is outstanding. This is another one of those demo quality presentations in both audio and video. The LFE response is through the roof. During rocket ship take off and landings, the entire room shook madly. I was very happy that I chose to buy this BD title blindly. It's a wonderful, charming film that shows off the brilliance of both the Pixar writers and animators. Is there nothing Pixar can't do well? |
|
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow
Just throwing in my two cents here:
I'm not so sure I agree with this premise. IMO, the music (particularly the Giacchino scores on "The Incredibles" and "Ratatouille") has been very well done, if a little sappy for the "Toy Story" films. The animation is something dependent on the medium, and some of the early rotoscoping does not look good to me. But I disagree most with the stories being better and more "emotionally engaging". Most of the Disney films, both older and newer, were of a highly derivative nature (i.e., came from existing stories) and left little or nothing to the imagination. Anyone not obviously pretty, cuddly, or of certain species—or, most egregiously in 1960+ releases, certain races—had pretty much no chance of being a protagonist. This is especially notable in the "big name" releases like "Cinderella", "Bambi", "Snow White", etc. For instance, in the old Disney films, a shy plain girl like Violet Parr (from "The Incredibles") wouldn't have been given any significant characterization, she'd be an ugly stepsister. Just counting Pixar films, we've had empathetic characters from toys (including mangled ones), bugs and spiders, an entire society of monsters, sharks, turtles, cars, rats (in a kitchen, no less!), and robots with 3-word vocabularies and their pet cockroaches. Most of these characters had back-stories and motivations made up pretty much from scratch. And that doesn't even get into Disney's unconventional animations (the Halloween-Town characters from "The Nightmare Before Christmas” are a prime example) or CGI efforts from other companies like “the “Shrek” films. Some of the more “daring” Disney films actually managed to at least try to step outside the norm, like “The Sword in the Stone”, and they got better about not stereotyping characters with newer films where the good guys could be Beasts and humpbacks and warthogs. To not even bother to break out of pre-existing molds is to me a poor example of storytelling and engaging with an audience. Perhaps it’s because I’m of a different generation (although even my parents feel Pixar films are superior to the older Disney ones), but I tend to respect ideas and stories that come from someplace outside centuries-old European/American tales more. |
|
Originally Posted by Brent Hutto
I can't dispute what sort of story one person find compelling and another does not. But Jesse's point is correct in that the storytelling style of Disney in the Sleeping Beauty/Snow White era could hardly be more different than Pixar's today. At one extreme (let's say Finding Nemo) you can find a Pixar story that is simply a modest updating of the classic lost-child quest. But when you watch something like Wall-E or The Incredibles you're experience the influence of a very different storytelling muse than ever visited the writers and directors of the Disney classics.
And there's absolutely no objective criteria on which to base an assumption that one or the other is better. I will say that for my part the fairy tales seem a part of my childhood and the modern Pixar stories resonate completely. But that's just one 40-something person's experience. |
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I can't agree with a word of this, considering that Pixar's goal has always been to bring computer animation up to the organic look and fluid motion of Disney's classic animated films. Disney's 2D animated films have always excelled at creating the "illusion of life". Pixar's goal was to reach that plateau with computer animation.
|
| They are almost there, but their films still have a sameness of texture that says computer animation. Ratatouille is probably the closest that Pixar has ever gotten to creating the classic look of a Disney 2D feature, while still creating a "3D" look. |
| Even Pixar's storytelling has been an effort to attain the quality of storytelling that occurred in Disney's golden age. |
|
Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
... I found myself
a little bored with the first third of the film. However, the final two thirds of the film are just brilliant. |
| I can't agree with a word of this, considering that Pixar's goal has always been to bring computer animation up to the organic look and fluid motion of Disney's classic animated films. Disney's 2D animated films have always excelled at creating the "illusion of life". Pixar's goal was to reach that plateau with computer animation. They are almost there, but their films still have a sameness of texture that says computer animation. |
|
Originally Posted by Vern Dias
the bass response shook several items off the shelves in the HT and adjacent rooms.
4 subs, 2 SVS PB12 Ultra and 2 Klipch +tactile transducers in the couch. Vern |
|
Originally Posted by Jesse Blacklow
Are you sure about this? I've never heard Pixar state that their goal was to emulate Disney. In fact, from everything I've seen and read about Pixar, they were all about breaking new ground in the technological world as well as the storytelling one regardless of what Disney or others had done. After all, Pixar was an offshoot of ILM and other Lucasfilm divisions, not Disney. If anything, the relationship with Disney (especially in regard to development) was tenuous or even rocky most of the time.
I could be wrong here, so if you've got a link or reference to Pixar management and/or founders saying they always wanted to make CGI a xerox of classic Disney animation, I'd be interested. |
| I'm not sure where you see any of this, since every Pixar film apart from sequels has a different visual style from the one before it. Not to mention, one could make the same argument about the Disney 2D features, because of "Nine Old Men" dictating art styles for 50+ years. |
| To me, these stories--"classic" as they may be--are just not in the same league as Pixar, which can take a general theme but go in a completely different direction with it than anybody else. This isn't to say I don't appreciate the older Disney films (like Brent, I'm amazed at "Sleeping Beauty"), but to say that they're high-quality examples while Pixar is essentially bankrupt of innovation or storytelling compared to fairytale retreads is, IMO, misguided and in most cases the opposite is true. Not to one's taste, sure, but that's completely different. |
|
Originally Posted by Edwin-S
Yes, Pixar films have different visual styles, but the 3D textures always give the films a "computerized" look. Things still do not look completely organic. Human characters, especially, still have a plasticity to them that looks odd. The same can't be said about human characters in Disney's hand drawn animated features.
|
|
Originally Posted by Vern Dias
We watched this last night and the bass response shook several items off the shelves in the HT and adjacent rooms. No fatalities, however. Anyone who finds the bass to be weak might be having issues with system compatibility or the likes.
HTPC Arcsoft TMT, 7.1 channel analog audio. 4 subs, 2 SVS PB12 Ultra and 2 Klipch +tactile transducers in the couch. Vern |

