<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FlameOn #1-3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ralph Giles</title>
		<link>http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30825</link>
		<dc:creator>Ralph Giles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30825</guid>
		<description>I also have to disagree with your characterization of Pixar too. They're doing a *much* better job implementing the Disney formula than anyone else has in years. There's a tremendous amount of talent and skill showing in their films. Like most real art it works on multiple levels and multiple viewings.

I wish they'd evolve the formula a bit though. The only-one-female-character thing is getting old. Even Shrek didn't critique that.

That so much of the art of our time is commercial art doesn't affect its power, any more than the religious context of past ages of affects those works, but I do think it might affect the appeal of our art to future periods.

Anyway, interesting that their office gave you the willies. Was it the toys and creature features, or only their function as aspects of control? Do you feel the same way at Google?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also have to disagree with your characterization of Pixar too. They&#8217;re doing a *much* better job implementing the Disney formula than anyone else has in years. There&#8217;s a tremendous amount of talent and skill showing in their films. Like most real art it works on multiple levels and multiple viewings.</p>
<p>I wish they&#8217;d evolve the formula a bit though. The only-one-female-character thing is getting old. Even Shrek didn&#8217;t critique that.</p>
<p>That so much of the art of our time is commercial art doesn&#8217;t affect its power, any more than the religious context of past ages of affects those works, but I do think it might affect the appeal of our art to future periods.</p>
<p>Anyway, interesting that their office gave you the willies. Was it the toys and creature features, or only their function as aspects of control? Do you feel the same way at Google?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MenTaLguY</title>
		<link>http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30794</link>
		<dc:creator>MenTaLguY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:49:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30794</guid>
		<description>Their work has value as art?  If it achieved only a by-the-numbers restatement of standard archetypes, I wouldn't call that craftsmanship.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Their work has value as art?  If it achieved only a by-the-numbers restatement of standard archetypes, I wouldn&#8217;t call that craftsmanship.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jon</title>
		<link>http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30573</link>
		<dc:creator>jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2007 05:58:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30573</guid>
		<description>Mental, this is why I put the disclaimer before I flame-on'd :) Yes, I've been to Pixar's offices a couple of times and it gives me the willies a little bit like with several other companies that provide toys for employees and scooters and big comfy work stations so employees never want to leave.

While I agree that Pixar has high craftmanship, I wonder what the value is to the whole of trajectory of society and beyond regurgitating standard archetypes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mental, this is why I put the disclaimer before I flame-on&#8217;d <img src='http://rejon.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> Yes, I&#8217;ve been to Pixar&#8217;s offices a couple of times and it gives me the willies a little bit like with several other companies that provide toys for employees and scooters and big comfy work stations so employees never want to leave.</p>
<p>While I agree that Pixar has high craftmanship, I wonder what the value is to the whole of trajectory of society and beyond regurgitating standard archetypes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MenTaLguY</title>
		<link>http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30420</link>
		<dc:creator>MenTaLguY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:20:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30420</guid>
		<description>No real disagreement about the ethics of merch-for-kids, but Pixar's films are widely acknowledged as being consistently well-written and well-made, rather than simply being a merchandising vehicle.  It's worth asking yourself whether you're evaluating their workmanship objectively.

Moral outrage is good when it motivates us to do constructive things, but not so good when it blinds us to the good in the people or things we're criticizing.

Amen to #2 and #3, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No real disagreement about the ethics of merch-for-kids, but Pixar&#8217;s films are widely acknowledged as being consistently well-written and well-made, rather than simply being a merchandising vehicle.  It&#8217;s worth asking yourself whether you&#8217;re evaluating their workmanship objectively.</p>
<p>Moral outrage is good when it motivates us to do constructive things, but not so good when it blinds us to the good in the people or things we&#8217;re criticizing.</p>
<p>Amen to #2 and #3, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jakub Steiner</title>
		<link>http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30359</link>
		<dc:creator>Jakub Steiner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:12:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rejon.org/2007/06/25/flameon-1-3/#comment-30359</guid>
		<description>I'm not sure how you watch Pixar's movies to get it all distrorted like that. Pixar movies are fun for the kids while they keep the parents amused even after the 100th viewing.

I haven't seen Ratatouille yet, but I just can't get enough of Finding Nemo and the Incredibles. Incredibly funny, the dialogs are perfect, brilliant animation, wonderful sets, pure eye candy. Yes the stories are meant for kids, but try to survive any other disney crap three times in a row. 

Even something I thought they can never pull off and keep me amused watching a story I've seen 10 times, with a car as a main character, worked. Cars was great.

Pixar keeps being cool even if they're as mainstream as one can get.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure how you watch Pixar&#8217;s movies to get it all distrorted like that. Pixar movies are fun for the kids while they keep the parents amused even after the 100th viewing.</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t seen Ratatouille yet, but I just can&#8217;t get enough of Finding Nemo and the Incredibles. Incredibly funny, the dialogs are perfect, brilliant animation, wonderful sets, pure eye candy. Yes the stories are meant for kids, but try to survive any other disney crap three times in a row. </p>
<p>Even something I thought they can never pull off and keep me amused watching a story I&#8217;ve seen 10 times, with a car as a main character, worked. Cars was great.</p>
<p>Pixar keeps being cool even if they&#8217;re as mainstream as one can get.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
