Talk:Elephants Dream

Storyline

I think the current storyline section is largely irrelevant to informing someone about this movie, given the abstract nature of the movie and the fact that people have widely different interpretations of its meaning. I read below that the creators originally intended for the movie to show the abstraction of a computer, but this intent does not come across at all in the movie itself (in my opinion). It might be best to remove the section entirely and only mention that it's an abstract film and its meaning is open to interpretation. If that isn't done, the section needs to be expanded to give equal time to other points of view, as it's clear that the creators' POV is not the only one.

(I personally think Workaphobia's ideas below are worlds better than the current ones in this section, but I'm not sure any one interpretation should be presented.)

If someone else feels the same as me, feel free to remove the section. 100DashSix 03:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you and I cleaned the section up with some notes. If you agree, you can remove the section altogether. Pictureuploader 12:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Title?

Does anyone know why it was called "Elephants Dream". The only thing I can think of is: elephants dream is an euphemism for pink elephants; which is a euphemism for drunken hallucination caused by delirium tremens. I thought the movie was supposed to be like an overlapping dream sequence of two people. So, it was kind of like "Pink Elephants on Parade" (in Dumbo) for adults? If this is the case it should be stated in the article, so as to clarify the name. Jdm64 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the DVD's The Making of Elephants Dream footage, it was called Elephants Dream because the crew couldn't decide how to pronounce the work in progress title, Machina. They choose the current name in a Thai restaurant after Ton told the crew (after a few beers) that there is a Dutch tradition that when telling stories to your kids, an Elephant would suddenly appear and blow the rest of the story away. A member of the crew then suggested "Elephants Dream" and the name stuck. There may be more to that story on the DVD contents, however I don't have a working DVD drive so that's all I know of it. I'll ask on the Elephants Dream IRC channel if I find out any more infomation about it. Until then, I've removed your edit. - Drahcir 12:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's ok that you removed my edit. I just wanted to know why the strange title? It didn't make sense. But, I still think that the story behind the title should be included in the article! (that is once we find the correct meaning). Jdm64 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dutch fairy tales often end in the silly rhyme "En toen kwam een olifant met een lange snuit, en het verhaaltje was uit!" after the "happily ever after"-part. It translates to: "And then there appeared an elephant with a long nose, and the story ended". It's not really supposed to mean anything, except that the story is indeed over. And kids love rhymes. By the by: the Flemish usually use a long-nosed pig instead of an elephant.

Actually, it is: "En toen kwam een olifant met een lange snuit, en die blies het verhaaltje uit!", roughly translated as: "And then there came an elephant with a long snout, who blew the story out!", like blowing out a candle... (Would you look at that, it actually rhymes in English too!) Mysticyx (talk)

Plot?

Does anyone know if the movie's plot is anything more than random nonsense? I came to the article to find the answer to this exact question. - CannibalSmith 1:21, 26 May 2006 (EET)

I have assumed it has something to do with Proog living in a world of his mind that he's trying to get Emo to see. However, Emo doesn't see it or refuses to see it. --Zifnabxar 00:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's open to interpretation. It could, possibly, have something to do with belief in God. If the 'machine' represents our environment, a place that seems so perfect for human life, then perhaps Proog believes it must have been designed for the purpose because of how well everything fits together; and Emo is an atheist ("why should I entrust my life to something that does not exist?"). On the other hand, someone suggested to me that the machine responds to Proog's dreams and fantasies - not Emo's - and that what Emo seems to create at the end is what his blasphemous statements conjure up in Proog's mind. On the third hand, it could be that the machine responds to anybody's dreams, but that Emo refuses to dream anything. I don't know, really. --Baryonic Being 11:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See how easliy Emo walks on pads provided by the machine over the gap, while Proog must (?) demonstrate acrobatic tricks. So indeed, it looks like the machine responds to anybody's dreams. But Proog tries to convince Emo that his world is unsafe.212.220.94.60 14:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what the short is about - sort of. As Baryonic said, this movie is extremely open to interpretation, so what follows is just my take on it.

There are a lot of details in this movie that suggest Proog and Emo are not bound equally by the rules of the machine. Remember the scene where they go up in the elevator and Emo sees nothing? This is because Emo is, from the perspective of Proog's world, blind. The details of the machine that Proog is so keen to work in harmony with, make no sense to or go totally unnoticed by Emo. While Proog has a strong commitment to the ways of the machine and believes that his life is in jeopardy if he doesn't synchronize himself to the "clockwork", Emo is able to act normal, and instead it is the machine that bends itself to cater to him. Example: In the pad-jumping scene someone referred to (btw, these pads belong to a typewriter - I know this because the name of the song accompanying the scene is called "Typewriter Dance"), Proog's acrobatics are timed so perfectly that he is able to cross an incredibly complicated obstacle with only moderate concentration. On the other hand, Emo crosses from one end to the other in such a simple manner that the pads might as well not even be there. Emo asks Proog, "Well, don't you ever get tired of this?" because he sees an old man dancing around on solid ground playing in his own imaginary world. To Emo, there is no chasm, and there is no threat of danger.

The short's creators are very consistent about this. In the very beginning, when Emo falls down, it is not because of the electric tendrils that the machine fired at him, but because Proog pushed him away from this possibly imaginary danger. What if the tendrils were never really there? Another example: In the elevator scene, notice that as the elevator accelerates or decelerates very sharply, Proog is affected by inertia whereas Emo does not feel any change in motion. Again, this is because the elevator only exists for Proog; It has no affect, inertial or otherwise, on Emo.

After Proog slaps Emo in the face, Emo walks away from the small room with no exits, apparently oblivious of the wall two inches in front of his face. Indeed, that wall moves to make way for him! Every hazard and obstacle we see are tainted by Proog's point of view. That wall only seemed to move because movement was necessary to preserve Proog's fantasy, and Emo was free to ignore it entirely. Finally, when Emo's condescending words recreate the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the Colossus of Rhodes, Proog is the only one affected. Emo at no point believes that the threat is real - and he may very well be right.

FYI, this slashdot comment describes an interesting viewpoint. It basically says that Proog represents the logical half of the brain, while Emo is the creative half. Proog cannot abide imaginative, unpredictable fun in his so carefully crafted and isolated logical world, which is why he tries to dominate Emo and eventually attacks him.

Felt good to get all that off my chest. Workaphobia 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The above is wholeheartedly my take on the story as well. The machine is simply a construct of Poog's imagination, which he's trying to convince Emo is real (perhaps because they're institutionalized together, and Poog feels that Emo is the only one who might humor his delusion). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.75.156.130 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

How about a very simple explanation to that bit in the elevator scene: Emo can't see because Proog told him to close his eyes! ;-) 130.67.100.231 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lee's name

I've changed Lee's name back to Lee Salvemini. I first added the names of the crew directly from the Orange blog which has listed his name as Lee J Cocks, however in the Ton and Bassam DVD commentary and on the back of the DVD cover, they refer to him as Lee Salvemini. I think it's safe to say that Lee prefers this name. - Drahcir 12:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

- That's correct, Lee changed his name on returning to Australia. --Matt

Explanation of the film

I had added the explanation of the film. (Though was not logged in at the time). Others may wish to expand upon it. AmyNelson 12:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it your own interpritation of the film or is that actually what the creators had in mind? Jdm64 00:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing that I've learnt in High School is that the authors do not have to know their works meaning and stating 'what author though' is only one interpretation - not necessery the most important one. Uzytkownik (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is what I believe that the creators had in mind after studying the project, it's creators, and the film itself. AmyNelson 01:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The movie makes sense now. Thankyou. --James Hales 11:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see any basis for stating that any part of the movie is a symbol for the internet. Maybe it's true in part, and maybe it's as valid as the claims I made above in my interpretation - but I just don't believe so. Now here's my problem. I'm new here. I registered specifically to post about this article, but I'm not sure what the best way is to do that without doing original research, which to my understanding is a cardinal sin of wikipediandom. So I suppose what I'll do is add to this article a more detailed summary of the facts of the plot, and then try to mention some of the interpretive details without slanting the article. I just can't cite any external resources. If anyone knows a better way to handle this, I'd like to know. Workaphobia 19:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with this. We can't just put down ideas that we think the creaters had in mind unless there are hard facts that can prove this or places we can cite. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, just that without facts to back up that that is the point they should not be included in the article. --Zifnabxar 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've been meaning to rewrite the storyline selection for a while now, because I couldn't validate some claims. I've watched a large amount of the content behind the movie and some things in that selection don't work out. I couldn't find any reference from the crew that the machine is meant to represent the inside a computer, or the hand meant to represent the Internet. If someone wishes to rewrite it before me, here are some statements you may wish to add with references.

• The story starts off with Proog, a teacher showing Emo this machine. The first two scenes are showing the characters on there way to it, meaning the movie doesn't take entirely in the machine. It's only until the third scene, that they are inside the machine. – Referenced: Andy & Bassam commentary.
• The hand in the final scene of the film is conduired up by Emo, without him knowing. – Referenced: Ton & Bassam commentary.

Before somebody rewrites, I highly recommend that they listen to the commentarys. There some interesting statements in those. – Ðra 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just two other thoughts: In the uncyclopedia there is a very interesting idea about Proog representing the PROGrammer (of blender?) and Emo representing the EMOtional graphic artist. Proog shows Emo the world of blender and how he can use it and to avoid obstacles in the GUI... Of course in this interpretation the programmer is not very nice to the artist. Maybe that is a little revenge from the story board creators against the programmers ("You have to use open source and blender for your ideas and nothing more!"). Another idea of mine is, that the movie is about the understanding of the movie itseslf. Proog sees some logic in it. Emo not. Emo wants to go and watch another film with other people who are not as insane as proog. But Proog is obsessed with this movie. He cannot understand, that someone doesnt like this world (this movie). Then the birds are merchandies and trailers of other films. Proog asks Emo why Emo can't see the beauty and perfection of the Machine. but Emo is an ordinary guy and makes fun of proog, telling him, "Yeah this is a very senseful and good movie, like other movies (the hanging gardens and the colossus). At this point proog thinks, he will lose emo to other movies and his only chance to "save" emo is to knock him out. Of course this is a very cynical view of this movie. But what I really like about elephants dream is, that you can even interpretate such cynical view in it and watch the movie without seeing anything that violates this view.

May be I'm speaking tom PROGrammer point of view but nowhere is stated if the traps are real or not. If they are it could mean that we can use non-FLOSS software and do not beware DRM (the room with music?) but there are hidden traps. The knocking Emo out would save them both.

I do not state that my interpretation is more correct then yours. If fact I took your impretation from Proog point of view.

Desktop Managers

Do we need to tell people that they used KDE/Gnome? I find that about as relevant as telling people what brand of screens or mice they used. Porty 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm I think it's a bit more relevant; if you approach it from the point of view of someone who doesn't know anything about Linux and who learns about it after hearing about this project, the inclusion of Gnome and KDE would probably help them. It's not vitally important, but I suppose I'd say it should be kept in, and it's only two words anyway. 100DashSix 01:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I see where they got that info from now, it's taken straight from the credits... so.. I guess it's more consistant to keep it in. Porty 15:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can Emo hear?

Emo can hear the telephone and he can hear the music behind the door. Why can he hear that and nothing else? Tortanick

From what I can gather from the elephants dream segment of the Blender Conference. Emo can hear the telephone and the door (which is a entrance bar), because they are forms of contact to other people (Which he wants to have). However Proog is afraid of having contact with others, and that makes him think that all things that could expose him to others are dangerous. Philipmac 11:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm

I do not fully understand what this movie's about. --PaxEquilibrium 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Financial Results

I heard somewhere that from the DVD sales the movie payed for itself many times over, but I can't find exact numbers or a source. Does anyone know if this could be added to the article? HHermans 21:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Maxforum reference

What is maxforum? Is this forum owned and operated by the creators of the film? Otherwise this cannot be used as a reference in the article as it fails WP:RS.--Crossmr (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Indie 50

A little while back Elephant's Dream was featured in 3D World's "Indie 50" issue. I was wondering if anyone knew what the other 49 short films were. Because my old library had the dvd (which I checked out frequently), but now I've moved 4 states away and cannot find a library that has it. I would order a backorder of the issue but they sold out a long long time ago. subsequently, now I'm trying to assemble them all independently, but I can only remember the names of a few of them. --Drizzt3737 - 10MAY2010 —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elephants Dream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126075019/http://www.blender.org:80/community/blender-conference/schedule/ to https://www.blender.org/community/blender-conference/schedule/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214144849/http://www.3dmedia2010.com:80/en/3d-film-festival-0 to http://3dmedia2010.com/en/3d-film-festival-0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ElephantsDreamPoster.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)