Call Me 'Consumer.'baron_wasteJune 1 2014, 16:40:44 UTC
‘Cuz I just followed the profile perfectly: I saw the trailer, liked it, looked at additional material, and thus decided to buy the movie at Wally World. I’ve now seen it - and I enjoyed it thoroughly. For me, this is saying quite a bit: For the first time in who knows how long, I could actually, purely enjoy a movie without rewriting scenes and dialogue in my head. (And improving same.)
There was so much to like about this film. For one, I loved how the 8-bit characters were rendered ‘realistically’ without losing their either/or motion ranges: They still moved like 8-bit sprites! Indeed, their 8-bit world produced pixellated cake-icing splash patterns, &c. And later, better graphics produced better animation - Tapper, the bartender, flicked through a range of positions, while Calhoun was relatively realistic. (Relatively.)
Meanwhile, Vanellope was adorable. I could wish real kids were like that. But there, oddly, was the only unexplained element: Why can ‘glitches’ not leave their games?
[It also would have been interesting if Calhoun’s weapons, the golden hammer, &c., hadn’t worked outside their own game programs. If, as they point out, being outside your own game universe means you can be killed in real life (so to speak), then this would be consistent. “Sugar Rush” is, as you say, a go-cart racing game aimed at preteen girls. Full-auto laser-assault rifles &c. literally don’t compute!]
But one thing you mention above, I found an odd yet perhaps explainable omission: This is indeed a Disney film about Little Computer People, which does not hesitate to show real, previously-existing titles and products. Yet nowhere, nowhere is Disney’s own TRON seen or even hinted at! (I know - I took a good, zoomed-in look at the brilliantly-executed ‘Game Central’ concourse and its denizens. Such a shout-out would be there if anywhere - but nope.)
Either the stench of Tron Legacy was still fresh on their lawn, or they felt that an essentially live-action game movie wasn’t appropriate, or maybe was TOO appropriate and would overbalance the rest of it, or, who knows.
Finally, the end credits were completely charming, showing the main characters rendered into various games with varying results. I enjoyed the film thoroughly.
Re: Call Me 'Consumer.'jeff_duntemannJune 2 2014, 17:47:53 UTC
Why Vanellope couldn't leave her game didn't bother me; she probably failed some kind of background MD5 hash check or something like that. She was damaged, and having something to check to see that damaged software doesn't leave a game is reasonable. I twitched a little harder at why the bugs were allowed to leave *their* game. Granted they weren't damaged, and if you can grant that sophisticated subroutines can go wandering around between game consoles, it doesn't violate the literal sense of the premise. Perhaps the bugs can't just walk out the front door, but have to be carried somehow. That might have been harder to predict by the game's designers.
My overall impression is that there was just enough internal consistency to allow the willing suspension of disbelief, which made the tale work pretty much as designed.
Carol and I just finished weekend-sitting our two nieces, and watched a direct-to-DVD Disney flick that I assumed would be awful, but wasn't: *The Pirate Fairy*. It's a sort of Peter Pan prequel focusing on Tinkerbell and the fairy society she lives in. More significantly, we see fairy science and technology, presented as an internally consistent framework that much impressed me. Again, it's targeted at the 7-10 year old girl audience, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.
The common theme here: Solid scriptwriting. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I see more attention paid to scripts these days. Let's hope it's a trend and not just a statistical artifact.
‘Cuz I just followed the profile perfectly: I saw the trailer, liked it, looked at additional material, and thus decided to buy the movie at Wally World. I’ve now seen it - and I enjoyed it thoroughly. For me, this is saying quite a bit: For the first time in who knows how long, I could actually, purely enjoy a movie without rewriting scenes and dialogue in my head. (And improving same.)
There was so much to like about this film. For one, I loved how the 8-bit characters were rendered ‘realistically’ without losing their either/or motion ranges: They still moved like 8-bit sprites! Indeed, their 8-bit world produced pixellated cake-icing splash patterns, &c. And later, better graphics produced better animation - Tapper, the bartender, flicked through a range of positions, while Calhoun was relatively realistic. (Relatively.)
Meanwhile, Vanellope was adorable. I could wish real kids were like that. But there, oddly, was the only unexplained element: Why can ‘glitches’ not leave their games?
[It also would have been interesting if Calhoun’s weapons, the golden hammer, &c., hadn’t worked outside their own game programs. If, as they point out, being outside your own game universe means you can be killed in real life (so to speak), then this would be consistent. “Sugar Rush” is, as you say, a go-cart racing game aimed at preteen girls. Full-auto laser-assault rifles &c. literally don’t compute!]
But one thing you mention above, I found an odd yet perhaps explainable omission: This is indeed a Disney film about Little Computer People, which does not hesitate to show real, previously-existing titles and products. Yet nowhere, nowhere is Disney’s own TRON seen or even hinted at! (I know - I took a good, zoomed-in look at the brilliantly-executed ‘Game Central’ concourse and its denizens. Such a shout-out would be there if anywhere - but nope.)
Either the stench of Tron Legacy was still fresh on their lawn, or they felt that an essentially live-action game movie wasn’t appropriate, or maybe was TOO appropriate and would overbalance the rest of it, or, who knows.
Finally, the end credits were completely charming, showing the main characters rendered into various games with varying results. I enjoyed the film thoroughly.
Reply
My overall impression is that there was just enough internal consistency to allow the willing suspension of disbelief, which made the tale work pretty much as designed.
Carol and I just finished weekend-sitting our two nieces, and watched a direct-to-DVD Disney flick that I assumed would be awful, but wasn't: *The Pirate Fairy*. It's a sort of Peter Pan prequel focusing on Tinkerbell and the fairy society she lives in. More significantly, we see fairy science and technology, presented as an internally consistent framework that much impressed me. Again, it's targeted at the 7-10 year old girl audience, but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.
The common theme here: Solid scriptwriting. Maybe it's a coincidence, but I see more attention paid to scripts these days. Let's hope it's a trend and not just a statistical artifact.
Good to hear from you again, BTW.
Reply
Leave a comment