Talk:Waking Life

Animated

Animation: American / Films Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Philosophy: Social and political / Continental Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Continental philosophy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acw5507. Peer reviewers: Mmh65, Shengchieh Lee.

Above undated message substituted from

• King, Mike (2008). "Waking Life". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 158–161.
  ISBN 0786439882
  .

I thought Linklater handed out clips of the film to animators and let them animate. Was it still rotoscoped on a Mac despite this? -crynyd

What is the relevance of animating on Macs? If there is any, it's not clear and should be elaborated in it's own subsection.

One reason it is relevant is that the animation was done on relatively inexpensive "off-the-shelf" computers as opposed to supercomputers costing tens of thousands of dollars as Pixar and such use. I'll elaborate on this in the article.

The link called "Fan Site" appears to be only very loosely, if at all, related to the film. I didn't remove it because I thought I might be missing something. ThreeDee 07:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The annoying thing about Wikipedia is that every article imparts a distinct approval or despising of its subject. Here, the editors pull no punches as to their opinion on the film. Look:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/waking_life/

Why has Wikipedia sided with the fans? Not everyone is a fan. The intellectual snobbery shines. Listen up; you're not right or wrong. Stop calling things "interesting" (is it okay to say "uninteresting" too?), "innovative" (how about "hackneyed"?), "unsurprisingly" (how can we say that when we cannot prove what constitutes actual "surprise"?) and stacking comparisons to prove your argument, for example: The animators used relatively inexpensive "off-the-shelf" Apple Macintosh computers (as opposed to the expensive supercomputers and computer clusters used by Pixar and DreamWorks). Encyclopedias should not contain arguments for or against anything, nor ANY comparisons. The reader is the ONLY ONE who should be comparing things. He, not the encyclopedia, should write the editorial and conclude a point from the facts. The burden of comparison, evaluation and interpretation should be upon him alone. The ideal, objective reference article should be pointless and inconclusive.

Drop the POV, please. Don't balance it with another bullshit "criticism" section. State what the movie is, not what you, your dog, your girlfriend think or what Ebert, Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler believe. It is not encyclopedic, reference-worthy content to restate other people's opinions. Stop it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.180 (talk • contribs)

While I agree with what you're saying (minus the part about the use of "off-the-shelf" computers, as I believe that's relevant even though there may or may not be better wording), why not just change it? This is a wiki after all. This article is pretty short, so it wouldn't take you too long. Unfortunately, it seems to be human nature for people to want to spread their opinions as facts, and as such, you're right that every page has POV. It's impossible to completely get rid of it. But for a short page like this one, it doesn't take much. -67.163.21.39 01:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the link to Glover Gill's site belong here, or on the entry for Gill (which currently does not exist)? - 20, April 2007