Talk:Waking Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Socrates This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Macs?

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.

[edit] "fan site" link

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)

[edit] wp

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 (talkcontribs)

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)

[edit] Glover Gill

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

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Waking Life DVD Cover.jpg

Image:Waking Life DVD Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)