Pixar's "WALL•E"

[Spinal]

This film is currently #9 all-time on IMDb. One spot ahead of Casablanca.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This film is currently #9 all-time on IMDb. One spot ahead of Casablanca.

That should settle. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was all in the top ten for a while, if I remember right.

[Raiders]

This film is currently... ahead of Casablanca.

Well, I agree with this much.

[Spinal]

Well, I agree with this much.

I was 100% sure that this post would follow. :)

[Raiders]

I was 100% sure that this post would follow. :)

Yeah, it looked suspiciously like bait.

[Ezee E]

Enjoyed it. Didn't love it. I'll read some thoughts before posting my own.

[Ezee E]

It's very good. I'm not convinced it is great. The environmental angle is potent and leads to some very touching moments. The robots in love angle didn't work so well for me and felt like an unwelcome distraction from the issue at hand.
Hmm... I feel the opposite on this, as I already had the idea of the environmental factor for the first act of the film (which is quite close to perfection) and eventually, the humans got in the way of the two main characters.

Luckily, everything managed to wrap up great, and it never did go too over-the-top.

I am curious if kids were bored or confused by it. Only two kids were loud in my theater, the rest was pretty quiet. I actually think the lack of conversation made it more enjoyable for them.

[Rowland]

The second half's satire grows a bit too broad for its own good, and is probably overloaded with one action setpiece too many that if cut would have reduced the movie's length to a lean 90 minutes, but otherwise this is very, very worthy stuff, if not the masterpiece material I was hoping for. Still, I wouldn't be disappointed if this landed somewhere in the 7-10 region of my year-end top ten.

[Watashi]

The second half's satire grows a bit too broad for its own good, and is probably overloaded with one action setpiece too many that if cut would have reduced the movie's length to a lean 90 minutes, but otherwise this is very, very worthy stuff, if not the masterpiece material I was hoping for. Still, I wouldn't be disappointed if this landed somewhere in the 7-10 region of my year-end top ten.

Did you actually lower your grade by one point?

Sweet Jesus.

[Raiders]

The second half's satire grows a bit too broad for its own good, and is probably overloaded with one action setpiece too many that if cut would have reduced the movie's length to a lean 90 minutes

Too broad? I dunno, seemed pretty pointed to me.

I get the sense this film is going to be like Ikiru where many find the second half weaker than the first and where I find it brilliant and the ultimate point to the entire film.

[Ezee E]

Too broad? I dunno, seemed pretty pointed to me.

I get the sense this film is going to be like Ikiru where many find the second half weaker than the first and where I find it brilliant and the ultimate point to the entire film.

Basically, I read the post like this:

Raiders > Everyone

[Rowland]

Too broad? I dunno, seemed pretty pointed to me.

I get the sense this film is going to be like Ikiru where many find the second half weaker than the first and where I find it brilliant and the ultimate point to the entire film.You're right, it is the ultimate point to the entire film, but it's also sloppier and (I hate to say it) preachier than the pointedly minimalist first half.

[Ezee E]

You're right, it is the ultimate point to the entire film, but it's also sloppier and (I hate to say it) preachier than the pointedly minimalist first half.
Indeed. Everything that is in the second half is also in the first half. I wouldn't say it gets preachy, but it isn't as interesting to watch as that first half, which leaves mystery to the effect of it all.

[Qrazy]

Hmm... I feel the opposite on this, as I already had the idea of the environmental factor for the first act of the film (which is quite close to perfection) and eventually, the humans got in the way of the two main characters.

Luckily, everything managed to wrap up great, and it never did go too over-the-top.

I am curious if kids were bored or confused by it. Only two kids were loud in my theater, the rest was pretty quiet. I actually think the lack of conversation made it more enjoyable for them.

Yeah personally I kind of would have enjoyed a post-extinction of humans film with just robots initially going through the motions of their programming and then over-coming and self-realizing/attaining self-consciousness and perhaps love.

[Sven]

I absolutely adored Presto. Best of their openers, no doubt.

Also, "magic hats = Portal, Auto = Glados", anyone?

The movie itself was... okay. For a film that sets up this model of robots and humans, there was very little sensible development of the robotic nature of anything. Ostensibly, it's connecting the development of artificial intelligence with human evolution (or at least RE-evolution), but there's not a strong foundation of robotic behavior. There is only so far that I can roll with this picture's giving human emotions to mobile hard drives, because it immediately deviates from its dichotomous core (robots:humanity). Wall-E immediately acts like a human, but towards the end when he's rebooted, he initiates his prime directive, forgetting about Eve. Being the only time that Wall-E acts robotically, this piece should've been stronger, as it's really what the movie is about, but he is nonsensically shocked back into awareness. In other words, the love angle is the weakest link for me, because it never really feels transcendent. It's too pat and natural. This love should've torn across boundaries, because it's supposed to be evolutionary.

Which is not to say it's overly anti-humans-as-we-are-now message was not pat, but at least it was amusing, if not quite consistent (you really want me to believe that the fat lady had never seen electronic billboards before?) or new.

Funny, cute, some of the music was great... good times, but not great times.

[Sven]

To coincide with my complaint about the robots immediately transcending robotic behavior, I find that I have a hard time accepting things like desperation or nobility... things that are inconsistent with machines as we understand them at this point (that said, I loved the robot double-takes). Again, I think the film would've been better had it developed those human characteristics from a primitive mechanical core. The idea of searching for robotic behavior that coincides with the human experience is awesome, but they too quickly shed their robotic skins.

I couldn't help being reminded of this wonderful Disney cartoon about a pink hat and a blue hat falling in love and how their emotion was uncanny and human, but how their behavior never transcended their creation.

[Spinal]

Yes, yes, yes.

[Qrazy]

I agree it weakens the film but I don't think it weakens it as much as I think you guys think it weakens it. As I said earlier in the thread we don't have qualms with the love angle in toys, insects or cars. If the robots are just viewed as human avatars (but with the unique functionality of their class) as they are in all Pixar films I don't see it as much of a problem. It only becomes a problem if we expect Pixar to treat the robots as robots or the insects as insects, etc.

[Sven]

I agree it weakens the film but I don't think it weakens it as much as I think you guys think it weakens it. As I said earlier in the thread we don't have qualms with the love angle in toys, insects or cars. If the robots are just viewed as human avatars (but with the unique functionality of their class) as they are in all Pixar films I don't see it as much of a problem. It only becomes a problem if we expect Pixar to treat the robots as robots or the insects as insects, etc.

The problem, though, is that the movie is about the behavioral relationship between humans and robots, but it's nowhere near robotic enough. We don't have qualms with the aforementioned films, because they're alternate non-human fantasy worlds, and they're not about the relationship of toys, cars, insects TO humans, but rather toys, cars, insects AS humans. Wall E is trying to do both and only partly succeeds, I think.

Oh, and here's the cartoon I was talking about. I watched it again and was much moved by it in the ways that I felt WALL E was trying to move me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTxSy9LJbig&feature=related

[Winston*]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTxSy9LJbig&feature=related

Cute.

[Qrazy]

The problem, though, is that the movie is about the behavioral relationship between humans and robots, but it's nowhere near robotic enough. We don't have qualms with the aforementioned films, because they're alternate non-human fantasy worlds, and they're not about the relationship of toys, cars, insects TO humans, but rather toys, cars, insects AS humans. Wall E is trying to do both and only partly succeeds, I think.


I dunno, you're right in relation to A Bug's Life (although there is some human commentary/interaction there too... I think or maybe it was Antz), Cars and Finding Nemo. However there are toy/human interactions in Toy Story (and Monsters Inc). The toys (and in Wall-E the robots) simply assume most of the attributes of human beings. There are many instances of robots being robotic (cleaning robots, big model Wall-E smashers, auto-pilot, Eve for a long time as well) just as there are many instances of toys being toys (Buzz lightyear's before enlightening in I and II) but it's when the robots (the Wall-E we know versus his reprogrammed self) and toys act outside of their programming or 'humanely' that they are capable of love, genuine self-awareness, caring, transcendence, etc. Tangent but... it's the Toys, Robots and Monsters who solely follow their programming and/or enforce certain rules (Monsters Inc - children's screams) divorced of context (in Wall-E the planet will not heal itself) who are the villians in Pixar's universe (not Pixar but also in Horton Hears a Who).

I don't see how the film could have effectively started with a non-lonely, non-self-aware Wall-E. While his 'journey' towards self-awareness (preceding the start of the film) might be an interesting one, it's a separate story. The focus of the film is more on the ways in which humans can act like robots (the future citizens) and it takes a humane robot to reinvigorate humanities humanity.

[Sven]

Tangent but... it's the Toys, Robots and Monsters who solely follow their programming and/or enforce certain rules (Monsters Inc - children's screams) divorced of context (in Wall-E the planet will not heal itself) who are the villians in Pixar's universe (not Pixar but also in Horton Hears a Who).

I do not wish to get into a circular debate, because many of my responses to your arguments (which are all fine observations, save maybe the Toy Story toy:human model, because I don't believe it's as strong as you say) are pointed back to comments I've already made, so I'll leave it at that.

But this quoted text, I do wish to acknowledge in terms of how unfair (and indicative of the movie's shortcomings, in my opinion) that AUTO is considered a villain, when really, it was simply doing its job. You do touch on the argument that it is the adherence to directive that is villainous, but I don't think the idea of overcoming directive is developed strong enough in the movie (for reasons before stated) to justify AUTO's "villainy".

[Qrazy]

I do not wish to get into a circular debate, because many of my responses to your arguments (which are all fine observations, save maybe the Toy Story toy:human model, because I don't believe it's as strong as you say) are pointed back to comments I've already made, so I'll leave it at that.

But this quoted text, I do wish to acknowledge in terms of how unfair (and indicative of the movie's shortcomings, in my opinion) that AUTO is considered a villain, when really, it was simply doing its job. You do touch on the argument that it is the adherence to directive that is villainous, but I don't think the idea of overcoming directive is developed strong enough in the movie (for reasons before stated) to justify AUTO's "villainy".

Well I only call him villain in the loose sense of the word... perhaps antagonist would be better but that may even be too strong. Like Ghibli Pixar tends to recognize that the villainy of it's antagonists is largely due to circumstance and stubbornness, rather than to genuine ill intent.

[Sven]

Well I only call him villain in the loose sense of the word... perhaps antagonist would be better but that may even be too strong. Like Ghibli Pixar tends to recognize that the villainy of it's antagonists is largely due to circumstance and stubbornness, rather than to genuine ill intent.

Perhaps my thinking that Pixar's best is still Monsters Inc, being a film that is more traditional in its protagonist/hero:antagonist/villain model indicates my preference for a more melodramatic approach. Not sure about that, though.

Remember, too, that I didn't hate Wall E. I thought it was mostly good, albeit flawed and never really revelatory. The animation was incredible. My favorite sequence was Wall E running towards the ship taking Eve away. The behind-the-head shots there were stunning.

[Qrazy]

My favorite sequence was Wall E running towards the ship taking Eve away. The behind-the-head shots there were stunning.

Yeah, now there is a sense of geography.

[Watashi]

What about the end credits, iosos?

[number8]

The problem, though, is that the movie is about the behavioral relationship between humans and robots, but it's nowhere near robotic enough. We don't have qualms with the aforementioned films, because they're alternate non-human fantasy worlds, and they're not about the relationship of toys, cars, insects TO humans, but rather toys, cars, insects AS humans. Wall E is trying to do both and only partly succeeds, I think.[/url]

Toy Story 2?

[Sven]

Toy Story 2?

I can't really remember it. Saw it in the theaters when it came out and I remember being amused.

[Sven]

What about the end credits, iosos?

Very fun. I liked that the story was told with lots of animation styles.

[SirNewt]

Perhaps my thinking that Pixar's best is still Monsters Inc, being a film that is more traditional in its protagonist/hero:antagonist/villain model indicates my preference for a more melodramatic approach. Not sure about that, though.

Remember, too, that I didn't hate Wall E. I thought it was mostly good, albeit flawed and never really revelatory. The animation was incredible. My favorite sequence was Wall E running towards the ship taking Eve away. The behind-the-head shots there were stunning.

Mind blowing animation, even ignoring the technical achievements, the characterizations were truly inspired. WALL-E would contort himself in a myriad of ways to achieve some task (much like a human might) yet he never moved in a way outside of what his robotic design seemed to suggest he could move.

[number8]

I can't really remember it. Saw it in the theaters when it came out and I remember being amused.

The whole movie is about toys-human relationship.

[Raiders]

I guess I just assumed more here would think in the abstract, like me, as opposed to being such sticklers for logical sense of WALL-E's emotional functionality. It seems important to me that he has come to somehow reflect the aspects of humanity we most wish to keep and replicate. He is innocence. I care not that it makes little sense logically that a cleaning robot would somehow be capable of replicating human emotion but rather that his programming makes his "brain" a clean slate and that the sloth of humanity may be the reason for his existence, but it is its peculiarities and its ability to love and create that has spawned his emotional abilities. This is why his coming into contact with humanity has such a profound effect; why those he meets automatically seem to take to him and are changed and awoken to the prospects of their existence.

I don't think the film is necessarily at all about some deep dichotomy between robots and humans. The dichotomy for me is the sense of then and now. The sense of connection, creation and love that has over time transferred to robots and has left humans. It seems crucial that the piece of art WALL-E is inspired by is a musical. It has dancing and singing and a strong theme of love. It shows humanity's capacity for both emotion and creation across art forms. I don't think the film should dwell on the fact that, "hey look! Robots in love! Revolutionary... and humans who don't even touch each other!" The robot love is a symptom of the film's real impetus: a renewal of humanity through, of all things, a robot.

I think it is about hope. That even after humanity has given up, there still lives on our ability to care, love, create and sacrifice. And it exists in a peon, an instrument we long forgot about.

[Sven]

I don't think the film should dwell on the fact that, "hey look! Robots in love! Revolutionary... and humans who don't even touch each other!"

I don't think the film should dwell on those things either, but alas...

Seeing the film as all arty and abstracted is well and good, but to me it was too poor in its surface specificities, and too focused on them (being children's entertainment), to adequately draw me into any kind of otherplane.

I was thinking about it, and Ratatouille, to me, suffers from a similar ailment: the rats are at once stand-ins for humans AND interacting with them and I think it never successfully reconciles that.

[Raiders]

I was thinking about it, and Ratatouille, to me, suffers from a similar ailment: the rats are at once stand-ins for humans AND interacting with them and I think it never successfully reconciles that.

I can understand this, but where Remy was clearly as sophisticated and eloquent as humans, I don't think WALL-E could ever be considered a "stand-in" for humans. His raw human traits are entirely the point of the film, and I guess it simply comes down to how willing you are to forgo logic in favor of the bigger picture. I would hardly call this a flawless film, but on the levels I think Stanton was going for, it worked damn near flawlessly for me.

[SirNewt]

I guess I just assumed more here would think in the abstract, like me, as opposed to being such sticklers for logical sense of WALL-E's emotional functionality. It seems important to me that he has come to somehow reflect the aspects of humanity we most wish to keep and replicate. He is innocence. I care not that it makes little sense logically that a cleaning robot would somehow be capable of replicating human emotion but rather that his programming makes his "brain" a clean slate and that the sloth of humanity may be the reason for his existence, but it is its peculiarities and its ability to love and create that has spawned his emotional abilities. This is why his coming into contact with humanity has such a profound effect; why those he meets automatically seem to take to him and are changed and awoken to the prospects of their existence.

I don't think the film is necessarily at all about some deep dichotomy between robots and humans. The dichotomy for me is the sense of then and now. The sense of connection, creation and love that has over time transferred to robots and has left humans. It seems crucial that the piece of art WALL-E is inspired by is a musical. It has dancing and singing and a strong theme of love. It shows humanity's capacity for both emotion and creation across art forms. I don't think the film should dwell on the fact that, "hey look! Robots in love! Revolutionary... and humans who don't even touch each other!" The robot love is a symptom of the film's real impetus: a renewal of humanity through, of all things, a robot.

I think it is about hope. That even after humanity has given up, there still lives on our ability to care, love, create and sacrifice. And it exists in a peon, an instrument we long forgot about.

For me WALL-E represents the ideal of human endeavor, the ideal that if we keep creating, one day, our art or craft or whatever you want to call it will show us who we really are. The things we make, the striving for them is one of our greatest ailments. But, the things we make, may also be the cure.

Sorry if that sounds corny.

[Sven]

I can understand this, but where Remy was clearly as sophisticated and eloquent as humans, I don't think WALL-E could ever be considered a "stand-in" for humans. His raw human traits are entirely the point of the film, and I guess it simply comes down to how willing you are to forgo logic in favor of the bigger picture. I would hardly call this a flawless film, but on the levels I think Stanton was going for, it worked damn near flawlessly for me.

So you think Stanton was aiming for an illogical narrative? You think he was intending for the audience to think abstractedly?

[Raiders]

So you think Stanton was aiming for an illogical narrative? You think he was intending for the audience to think abstractedly?

I think he figured that narrative logic wasn't a top priority for those who think more in terms of thematics and emotions and for children who will love the cute, funny characters and romantics who will enjoy the love story.

I'm pretty much tired of beating this dead horse.

[Sven]

I think he figured that narrative logic wasn't a top priority for those who think more in terms of thematics and emotions and for children who will love the cute, funny characters and romantics who will enjoy the love story.

I'm just trying to figure out how appreciating the film on these levels requires abstract thought.

[Raiders]

I'm just trying to figure out how appreciating the film on these levels requires abstract thought.

Forget I said that word. I was trying to think of a way to say "with little emphasis on complete narrative logic", and that is what came about.

[Qrazy]

I think he figured that narrative logic wasn't a top priority for those who think more in terms of thematics and emotions and for children who will love the cute, funny characters and romantics who will enjoy the love story.

I'm pretty much tired of beating this dead horse.

I wouldn't say it's an issue of narrative logic really, the narrative logic is just fine, it just doesn't attempt to tactical with any real depth (because the film isn't focused on it, it's focused on the social implications) the Robot vs. How does a Robot experience Emotion angle.

[bac0n]

I watched Wall-E in the theatre yesterday with my 3 1/2 year old daughter snuggled up on my lap the entire time. It's a fond memory I'l likely carry with me to my grave.

[eternity]

It's the best Pixar film. By far.

Except my virginity is still intact. Thanks a fucking lot Watashi.

[Spinal]

It's the best Pixar film. By far.

I'd probably still go with Nemo.

[Sven]

I wouldn't say it's an issue of narrative logic really, the narrative logic is just fine, it just doesn't attempt to tactical with any real depth (because the film isn't focused on it, it's focused on the social implications) the Robot vs. How does a Robot experience Emotion angle.

I should've said this.

[eternity]

I'd probably still go with Nemo.

Nemo's bottom tier Pixar for me, but that's kind of misleading considering how that's all 8+ (yes, even Cars).

[Morris Schæffer]

Definitely Toy Story 2 for me with the first one snapping at its heels. Finding Nemo, apart from its stunning visuals, bored me with its story. I'm still expecting Wall-E to stand a chance of making it to #1. As a general animation rule, too much talking animals is when I tune out.

[Raiders]

I still can't really get into Finding Nemo, despite how much I adore individual moments. It is just a bit too episodic for me. It never really built much momentum. Whiny Marlin and crazy Dory go from scene to scene, and as I think I once read someone say, you could likely jumble the order of many of the scenes and it would make little difference. There are many individual epiphanies, but in the end I was not particularly moved.

[Sven]

I still can't really get into Finding Nemo, despite how much I adore individual moments. It is just a bit too episodic for me. It never really built much momentum. Whiny Marlin and crazy Dory go from scene to scene, and as I think I once read someone say, you could likely jumble the order of many of the scenes and it would make little difference. There are many individual epiphanies, but in the end I was not particularly moved.

This is where I stand as well.

Monsters Inc for me, by three landslides.

[SirNewt]

This is where I stand as well.

Monsters Inc for me, by three landslides.

Yes, and Randy Newman is much better at choosing music than he is at singing it.

[ledfloyd]

Yes, and Randy Newman is much better at choosing music than he is at singing it.
Sail Away is one of my all time favorite albums. Randy rules.

i'm going to see wall-e in 42 minutes. can't wait.

[Qrazy]

Monster's Inc is probably my second least favorite with Cars being the least. A Bug's Life and Ratatouille in the middle with Wall-E, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles and the Two Story's at the top. I'm with Eternity though, like Ghibli all the films are good so it basically comes down to a matter of story/character preference and fairly minor quibbles. I wouldn't put them all at 8+ though.

[ledfloyd]

i'm going to see wall-e in 42 minutes. can't wait.
i can't seem to get my pants off. they appear to be stuck to me.

[ledfloyd]

still collecting my thoughts on Wall-E. but i just read a review in film comment and he (kent jones) summed up my gripes with Finding Nemo.

"[It's not] as thoroughly imagined, and boasts a quip-filled and shortcut-ridden screenplay that veers close to DreamWorks territory."

[Spinal]

still collecting my thoughts on Wall-E. but i just read a review in film comment and he (kent jones) summed up my gripes with Finding Nemo.

"[It's not] as thoroughly imagined, and boasts a quip-filled and shortcut-ridden screenplay that veers close to DreamWorks territory."

That's ridiculous.

[Derek]

That's ridiculous.

Seriously. Is Kent Jones ever wrong?

[ledfloyd]

That's ridiculous.
i agree with it. however i seem to be in the minority not liking nemo. it's easily my least favorite pixar.


Seriously. Is Kent Jones ever wrong?
i haven't read much of his criticism but i've liked what i've read.

[Dead & Messed Up]

still collecting my thoughts on Wall-E. but i just read a review in film comment and he (kent jones) summed up my gripes with Finding Nemo.

"[It's not] as thoroughly imagined, and boasts a quip-filled and shortcut-ridden screenplay that veers close to DreamWorks territory."

Interesting. Link?

I completely disagree. While I'd agree that Marlin's quest is episodic, its very nature compels it to be one damn thing after another.

I find the film to be the visually richest and lovely of Pixar's films. Additionally, its refreshingly neurotic characters (rather than the snappy, hipper-than-thou characters that populate lesser animated films) make it a deeper experience than an initial view merits.

SHARKBAIT, BROU-HA-HA!

[ledfloyd]

Interesting. Link?
it's not on their site, it's in the current issue.

i can't decide if i like wall-e more than incredibles or not.

[Spinal]

So we're saying that Finding Nemo uses narrative short-cuts and Wall-E doesn't? :confused:

[transmogrifier]

Finding Nemo is easily (easily) the best Pixar, as it is the funniest, has the most heart, and isn't corrupted by dodgy thematic elements.

[Sven]

Finding Nemo is easily (easily) the best Pixar, as it is the funniest, has the most heart, and isn't corrupted by dodgy thematic elements.

What's dodgy about Monsters Inc?

[Qrazy]

So we're saying that Finding Nemo uses narrative short-cuts and Wall-E doesn't? :confused:

Neither does FTW.

[Dead & Messed Up]

So we're saying that Finding Nemo uses narrative short-cuts and Wall-E doesn't? :confused:

Huh? I thought we were discussing the episodic (almost Homeric) nature of Marlin's quest to retrieve Nemo. In that, while his goal is clearly defined, the antagonism he faces is mostly incidental, not inherently related to his goal.

Which is a reasonable comment to make, but I really don't care. I don't think it's a patch on the flick, since each incident tests Marlin further than the last, and each is wonderfully realized.

[transmogrifier]

What's dodgy about Monsters Inc?

Well, the dodgy thematic elements were references to the two Bird-directed offerings. Monsters Inc. isn't as funny or as heartfelt, but it IS the second-best Pixar film.

[Spinal]

still collecting my thoughts on Wall-E. but i just read a review in film comment and he (kent jones) summed up my gripes with Finding Nemo.

"[It's not] as thoroughly imagined, and boasts a quip-filled and shortcut-ridden screenplay that veers close to DreamWorks territory."

.

[ledfloyd]

Well, the dodgy thematic elements were references to the two Bird-directed offerings. Monsters Inc. isn't as funny or as heartfelt, but it IS the second-best Pixar film.
what are the dodgy thematic elements of the bird films? aside from wall-e they're my two favorite.

[transmogrifier]

what are the dodgy thematic elements of the bird films? aside from wall-e they're my two favorite.

The Incredibles = makes a villain of the one guy trying to transcend his genetic limitations (and then unaccountably, after having him spend the whole movie movie becoming special, he decides to make everyone special); therefore implies that true worth can't be developed, but we are either born with it or not

Ratatouille - genius is genius and should never be questioned, and plebs have to know their place, which is to fall into lock-step with everything the genius has to say, and they shouldn't bother even attempting to offer their own ideas or even suggest collaboration.

[Sven]

Trans gets rep.

[Spinal]

Yeah, gotta say that I agree for the most part on those two.

[number8]

Well, I can argue against it with a different interpretation, but the fact that you can construe those messages that convincingly does show that they are, at the very least, dodgy.

I've always seen the mixed message but sort of blissfully overlooked them, I must admit.

[Qrazy]

The Incredibles = makes a villain of the one guy trying to transcend his genetic limitations (and then unaccountably, after having him spend the whole movie movie becoming special, he decides to make everyone special); therefore implies that true worth can't be developed, but we are either born with it or not

Ratatouille - genius is genius and should never be questioned, and plebs have to know their place, which is to fall into lock-step with everything the genius has to say, and they shouldn't bother even attempting to offer their own ideas or even suggest collaboration.

They're much more about being true to your abilities and believing in yourself.

I) Syndrome craves the power for power's sake, he doesn't use it to do good. Not everyone is equally exceptional or exceptional in the same way and to pretend we are in the name of faux-justice is a mistake. The Incredibles points out that the championing of mediocrity is a mistake just as Wall-E points out that complacency is a mistake. It doesn't imply worth can't be developed, it only implies that some people are born with certain strengths and these strengths should not be shunned in the name of a dubious equality (intelligence, athletic ability, whatever). It's like the Philip K Dick short story where ballerinas are made to wear weights so that normal people don't grow jealous.

R) It's more about freedom of artistry (and again following one's natural abilities) and having the resources and ability to express your unique aesthetic without it being undermined by undue influences. Some people (previous head chef or a studio exec) don't have any sense of artistry or aesthetic sensibilities and an artist shouldn't have to make undue concessions for them.

[Qrazy]

Well, I can argue against it with a different interpretation, but the fact that you can construe those messages that convincingly does show that they are, at the very least, dodgy.


Name me any film and I could read into it a reprehensible message for you.

In fact I find it says more about contemporary morality that the 'messages' of these films has sparked so much controversy (vis. Wall-E's complacent people or The Incredibles 'preserve equality at all costs' folks) than that there's something dark lurking in the films themselves.

[transmogrifier]

They're much more about being true to your abilities and believing in yourself.

I) Syndrome craves the power for power's sake, he doesn't use it to do good. Not everyone is equally exceptional or exceptional in the same way and to pretend we are in the name of faux-justice is a mistake. The Incredibles points out that the championing of mediocrity is a mistake just as Wall-E points out that complacency is a mistake. It doesn't imply worth can't be developed, it only implies that some people are born with certain strengths and these strengths should not be shunned in the name of a dubious equality (intelligence, athletic ability, whatever). It's like the Philip K Dick short story where ballerinas are made to wear weights so that normal people don't grow jealous.


I'll let Ratatouille go, because I think that what you say is definitely part of it, but you seem to be willfully disregarding my interpretation, rather than proving it untrue.

As for The Incredibles, I would have sympathy for your interpretation if Mr. Incredible had shown the least bit of patience with the young Syndrome (he dislikes him right from the start, and while the film implies that he has been a long-standing irritation, I think it's significant that no attempt is made to show Mr. Incredible even trying to tolerate the non-special dreamer). AND, once we discover he is the villian, if the film had dwelled on Mr. Incredible's role in creating Syndrome's evil, then perhaps it would be reasonable to take your interpretation. But it is all glossed over, AND the film uses the line "....and then no-one is special!" as the ultimate threat, as if that was the worst thing that could happen to them, their genetic superiority taken away AND that the film in general seems very contemptuous of the public, showing them as whining sheep hardly worth the bother of protecting.

P.S. In the film, the superheroes are banished not because people are jealous of them, but because they interfered with the wrong people and caused damage. There is no "championing of mediocrity" - the villian threatens to improve the "mediocrity" to something equitable to what the superheroes have, and this is EXPRESSLY seen as a negative thing.

[Qrazy]

I'll let Ratatouille go, because I think that what you say is definitely part of it, but you seem to be willfully disregarding my interpretation, rather than proving it untrue.

There's a difference between not questioning and falling into lockstep and not impinging on someone else's artistic creativity or moreso taking credit for their creativity. Remy just wants his due for his creations. It's Linguini 'the middle man' in the arrangement who begins to think he doesn't even need the artist. Remy needs as much help as anyone to make things work (whether it be kitchen staff helping or the rats) and recognizes this.


As for The Incredibles, I would have sympathy for your interpretation if Mr. Incredible had shown the least bit of patience with the young Syndrome (he dislikes him right from the start, and while the film implies that he has been a long-standing irritation, I think it's significant that no attempt is made to show Mr. Incredible even trying to tolerate the non-special dreamer). AND, once we discover he is the villian, of the film had dwelled on how Mr. Incredible's role in creating Syndrome's evil scheme, then perhaps it would be reasonable to take your interpretation. But it is all glossed over, AND the film uses the line "....and then no-one is special!" as the ultimate threat, as if that was the worst thing that could happen to them, their genetic superiority taken away AND that the film in general seems very contemptuous of the public, showing them as whining sheep hardly worth the bother of protecting.

I feel you're thrusting the hero/villian archetype too heavily on the film. Syndrome is sympathetic exactly because Mr. Incredible ignored him (his biggest fan) and essentially created him. The film recognizes this and it's one of the reasons Pixar/Ghibli villians are strong, because they're not just arbitrary manifestations of evil. -- Syndrome is a villian because he's going to become a 'hero' under false pretenses and then use that to make money selling his goods. It's not really an issue of them losing their superiority, it's more an issue of how Syndrome's going about 'equalizing' the world (of course he'll still be most powerful as he explains)... although yes for Mr. Incredible there is the concern of losing his sense of identity, because he loves to help people. But think about it as a school/sports metaphor. If everyone was popping ritalin and taking steroids wouldn't that devalue genuine accomplishment? With Syndrome's tools that would be basically what people would be doing. It's a short-cut... as Mr. Incredibles training montage points out (even as an incredible) he has to work for it.

---

I think it's pretty clear that the film falls in favor of protecting the public even if they are very fickle... which they are. One day you're on top of the world, the next the media paints you as a villian and people believe it. Pointing out the fickle nature of public perception isn't exactly new, strange or contemptuous thing to do.

[Qrazy]

P.S. In the film, the superheroes are banished not because people are jealous of them, but because they interfered with the wrong people and caused damage.

There will be collateral damage from 'fighting crime', saving things etc. I think the point is that there would be even more damage if the heroes hadn't done anything but people don't view it this way and they're never thanked for their selfless acts, they're condemned. And I think the film makes pretty clear that the controversy is fueled by jealousy and the mother tells the kids not to hide their abilities anymore (hiding something about yourself to remain safe... like being Jewish for instance) and to reach their full potential. Maybe you disagree that people are/would be jealous (although I'm not sure how) but in the film there is lots of dialogue from Syndrome, Mr and Mrs. Incredible and peripheral characters pointing this jealousy ('stifling ability in the name of equality') out.

[Sven]

It's like the Philip K Dick short story where ballerinas are made to wear weights so that normal people don't grow jealous.

That was Vonnegut, not Dick.

[Qrazy]

That was Vonnegut, not Dick.

My bad, I felt I had some lingering doubt about that.

[ledfloyd]

i pretty much agree with what qrazy has said about the incredibles.

i couldn't disagree more with your interpretation of ratatouille though. it's not about the genius being exclusive. the whole idea behind the film was "anyone can cook." anyone can create art. it's not just for geniuses.

[Spinal]

At best, I think Bird's thematic exploration is fuzzy and unfocused. The exception being The Iron Giant which is crystal clear.

[transmogrifier]

I feel you're thrusting the hero/villian archetype too heavily on the film. Syndrome is sympathetic exactly because Mr. Incredible ignored him (his biggest fan) and essentially created him. The film recognizes this and it's one of the reasons Pixar/Ghibli villians are strong, because they're not just arbitrary manifestations of evil. -- Syndrome is a villian because he's going to become a 'hero' under false pretenses and then use that to make money selling his goods. It's not really an issue of them losing their superiority, it's more an issue of how Syndrome's going about 'equalizing' the world (of course he'll still be most powerful as he explains)... although yes for Mr. Incredible there is the concern of losing his sense of identity, because he loves to help people. But think about it as a school/sports metaphor. If everyone was popping ritalin and taking steroids wouldn't that devalue genuine accomplishment? With Syndrome's tools that would be basically what people would be doing. It's a short-cut... as Mr. Incredibles training montage points out (even as an incredible) he has to work for it.


I think it's telling that Syndrome doesn't threaten to render the superheroes powerless, but instead threatens to elevate the non-superheroes to their position.

If I were to suggest taking away all the rich people's money to make the world fairer, I'd be rightfully denigrated, but if I discovered a way to make everyone rich, comfortable and to have access to whatever they wanted, and the rich people tried to stop me doing that, well, that says something about them, doesn't it? This film's no different.

Plus, you're being disingenuous offering up steroids as a valid analogy! Here we have a kid who has pretty ingeniously invented a method to do what he otherwise wouldn't be able to, something that Incredible can do naturally, and you're claiming it's a shortcut? I don't buy it, not even for a penny.

Plus, I find it interesting that Mr. Incredible misses the public adulation, and yet Syndrome is looked down on for wanting to be famous.

[Qrazy]

I think it's telling that Syndrome doesn't threaten to render the superheroes powerless, but instead threatens to elevate the non-superheroes to their position.

If I were to suggest taking away all the rich people's money to make the world fairer, I'd be rightfully denigrated, but if I discovered a way to make everyone rich, comfortable and to have access to whatever they wanted, and the rich people tried to stop me doing that, well, that says something about them, doesn't it? This film's no different.

Plus, you're being disingenuous offering up steroids as a valid analogy! Here we have a kid who has pretty ingeniously invented a method to do what he otherwise wouldn't be able to, something that Incredible can do naturally, and you're claiming it's a shortcut? I don't buy it, not even for a penny.

Plus, I find it interesting that Mr. Incredible misses the public adulation, and yet Syndrome is looked down on for wanting to be famous.

They stop him for the way and reasons he's doing it, not because he's doing it. If he had just invented the items and put them on the market they wouldn't be fighting him.

--

It's a shortcut for the people who would be buying the items and did not invent them as I felt I made clear.

--

He doesn't miss the public adulation, he misses helping people i.e. doing the job his talents best suit him for (versus pencil pusher).

[Watashi]

Lots of rep for you Qrazy.

I just don't understand trans sometimes.

[monolith94]

That was Vonnegut, not Dick.
I could've sworn that was Harlan Ellison, but no, you're right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron.

Good one.

[Qrazy]

Lots of rep for you Qrazy.

I just don't understand trans sometimes.

*sucks up rep like a hoover*

[transmogrifier]

Lots of rep for you Qrazy.

I just don't understand trans sometimes.

I have trouble understanding the regulation of the movement of molecules through cell membranes, but it still happens, and it's still a fact of life.

[transmogrifier]

They stop him for the way and reasons he's doing it, not because he's doing it. If he had just invented the items and put them on the market they wouldn't be fighting him.

--

I'm interested that you are so willing to ignore the fact that Bird even uses this as one of the key components of the plan in the first place though. It's inclusion doesn't really make sense (and the whole Syndrome as regular guy who wants to be famous) doesn't really make sense unless Bird is trying to make some comment on the way the world works. A director (well, screen-writer) has a myriad of choices when it comes to what, how and why characters do what they do, and I'm afraid that all of this pieces fit together into a rather unsavory pattern.

It's a shortcut for the people who would be buying the items and did not invent them as I felt I made clear.

Isn't buying a car a short cut to going somewhere fast? Or should we just allow the born sprinters to get everywhere before us? It's a very hollow argument you're offering up here. You seem to be confusing the competition inherent in games and sports (based on your steroid comment) with our natural inclination to have the best life that we can. Sports are based on the idea of fairness, and as such, should be a contest between individual atheletes talent and/or hard work. Steroids is blatantly cheating as circumvents both of these (equally valid!) methods of success. Dash deserved to run as fast as he wanted in any fair race, and no-one has any right to complain in that situation.

However, in day to day living, there's nothing inherently wrong with people wanting to be able to fly like a superhero (even if they are willing to pay for a device to do it), but the film, and you, seems to believe there is. After all, I assume that to get the money, they had to work hard in another way, and this is there reward. But you seem to be hewing to genetic determinism pretty hard here.

--

He doesn't miss the public adulation, he misses helping people i.e. doing the job his talents best suit him for (versus pencil pusher).

I think it's a little bit of both. Obviously Syndrome CREATING a disaster in order to save the day is indefensible, but that's kind of my point; the normal guy has impure motivations for doing what they do, whereas all the superheroes are as pure as the driven snow.



:)

[Pop Trash]

I like The Incredibles and love Ratatouille but I admit there is something a wee bit Ayn Rand lingering under the surface of Bird's movies (I haven't seen The Iron Giant)

[transmogrifier]

I like The Incredibles and love Ratatouille but I admit there is something a wee bit Ayn Rand lingering under the surface of Bird's movies (I haven't seen The Iron Giant)

The Iron Giant is so much better than his Pixar stuff, they're barely worth comparing.

[Qrazy]

I'm interested that you are so willing to ignore the fact that Bird even uses this as one of the key components of the plan in the first place though. It's inclusion doesn't really make sense (and the whole Syndrome as regular guy who wants to be famous) doesn't really make sense unless Bird is trying to make some comment on the way the world works. A director (well, screen-writer) has a myriad of choices when it comes to what, how and why characters do what they do, and I'm afraid that all of this pieces fit together into a rather unsavory pattern.

It makes perfect sense. Syndrome wants to have and abuse power and to get it by any means possible. This element is fairly standard of most antagonists. It's not his technical wizardry that's problematic, it's the way in which he puts it to use. His motivations, the desire to be super, are not at issue. In fact the desire to be super is a good thing but only when coupled with a moral imperative. This is the line that Bird is drawing. It's the way in which Syndrome puts his desires into practice that makes him suspect. The world doesn't work a certain way such that all who are not born 'super' can never improve their lot in life. Syndrome just happened to foster the pain of rejection towards a negative end result. Edna Mode is the counter-example of a brilliant inventor working on the side of justice.


Isn't buying a car a short cut to going somewhere fast? Or should we just allow the born sprinters to get everywhere before us? It's a very hollow argument you're offering up here. You seem to be confusing the competition inherent in games and sports (based on your steroid comment) with our natural inclination to have the best life that we can. Sports are based on the idea of fairness, and as such, should be a contest between individual atheletes talent and/or hard work. Steroids is blatantly cheating as circumvents both of these (equally valid!) methods of success. Dash deserved to run as fast as he wanted in any fair race, and no-one has any right to complain in that situation.

That's why I gave ritalin (for the people without difficulties who use it to cram) as another example which you've ignored as you ignored Syndrome's character and focus on his 'grand design' out of the context of how the design is put into effect. But yes alright, I'll grant you that people could/should have S's inventions if they were put on the market in a reasonable way. So I'll abandon that line of argument. But I disagree that the gadgets availability is the fulcrum issue here. It's Syndrome's means that are at issue. I see no reason to believe that the film or Bird feels that Syndrome's intent is invalid. That's what makes him sympathetic and an effective villian. Good villians have compelling motivations. He does want to 'help' people in his own twisted way... but again it's his means that are problematic. It's a strength of the film that it doesn't operate in black and white extremes. It recognizes a certain vigilante element about the superheroes (when they're out of work), it approaches it with a light touch and a sense of humor which may seem therefore like it's totally ordained, but Mrs. Incredible herself doesn't want her husband doing such things.


However, in day to day living, there's nothing inherently wrong with people wanting to be able to fly like a superhero (even if they are willing to pay for a device to do it), but the film, and you, seems to believe there is. After all, I assume that to get the money, they had to work hard in another way, and this is there reward. But you seem to be hewing to genetic determinism pretty hard here.

Aside from the points I've already brought up, the issue I think is that with the Superheroes there seems to be some sense of a guild or code of honor which is passed down and enforced. They hold each other accountable and their central role is to protect and serve. So, aside from the issue of Syndrome's specious means, by making his products available (and it's not just flying, I think the implication was that he'd make the violent and dangerous products available as well... although not the most powerful ones, which he'd keep) the public has untold destructive power at their fingertips.

[Qrazy]

I like The Incredibles and love Ratatouille but I admit there is something a wee bit Ayn Rand lingering under the surface of Bird's movies (I haven't seen The Iron Giant)

Not at all really, even if one takes moral issue with his works, the sense of civic responsibility advocated in The Incredibles and friendship and acceptance in Ratatouille make them a far cry from anything even remotely resembling objectivism.

[transmogrifier]

Edna Mode is the counter-example of a brilliant inventor working on the side of justice.


Yes, by not improving herself, but rather serving the superheroes.

EDIT: Actually, I'm being mainly flippant here, as she seems to be doing something she loved. But seeing as its not really a story point whether she is naturally talented with design, or whether she studied her way there, I don't see how her example helps either of our arguments.

[ledfloyd]

i still don't see anything resembling objectivism in ratatouille. i can see the points you're making about incredibles, however i tend to agree more with qrazy's interpretation.

[D_Davis]

That was Vonnegut, not Dick.

Great story, and one that is frighteningly prophetic.

[Raiders]

I don't really see the nature vs. nurture argument in The Incredibles. Syndrome's sin, to me, is not his amazing ability to make himself almost superhuman, but that for all his technical wizardry, he does not care in the least for helping humanity. He cares only about being what he is not. He is not comfortable in his own skin, and when spurned by Mr. Incredible, he goes about finding a way to make the supers "not super." Syndrome had all the freedom to do whatever he wanted with his (assumed) wealth and his technological prowess, and he chose to emulate and destroy those he could not be. The supers who were naturally gifted were punished by society and had little freedom to actually pursue what it is they could achieve. Because they were different, society treated them as dangerous and squelched their potential.

[Pop Trash]

Not at all really, even if one takes moral issue with his works, the sense of civic responsibility advocated in The Incredibles and friendship and acceptance in Ratatouille make them a far cry from anything even remotely resembling objectivism.
Perhaps...it's been awhile since I've seen The Incredibles but there seems to be a theme running both through that and Ratatouillle that isn't explicitly objectivism but the message of rising above mediocrity. That some people are either born with or develop a talent that puts them above the rest of society and a structure like socialism would completely stifle that talent. Then again I'm probably reading waaay too much into those movies and Bird's message was directed more towards the movie studios who sometimes don't give their talent the leverage to be truly great (Pixar being an exception) I guess all I'm saying is that given some of the themes in his movies, Bird strikes me as the type of guy who might be into objectivism.

[Sven]

He cares only about being what he is not.

Do you not think there's something retrograde in criticizing someone for trying to be bigger and better? Or rather, for trying to break out of their caste?


He is not comfortable in his own skin, and when spurned by Mr. Incredible, he goes about finding a way to make the supers "not super." Syndrome had all the freedom to do whatever he wanted with his (assumed) wealth and his technological prowess, and he chose to emulate and destroy those he could not be. The supers who were naturally gifted were punished by society and had little freedom to actually pursue what it is they could achieve. Because they were different, society treated them as dangerous and squelched their potential.

The movie makes it pretty clear that Mr. Incredible's dismissal of Syndrome and his ambitions is what turns him into a villain. I think that opens it up for a nature-nurture conflict. It's, like, not even subtextual. It's right there, in the narrative.

[Qrazy]

Yes, by not improving herself, but rather serving the superheroes.

EDIT: Actually, I'm being mainly flippant here, as she seems to be doing something she loved. But seeing as its not really a story point whether she is naturally talented with design, or whether she studied her way there, I don't see how her example helps either of our arguments.

You could make the same case for not knowing if Syndrome is naturally talented with engineering or studied to get there... it's probably both for both characters. Just as Mr. Incredible needs to work to get back in shape as I pointed out earlier. She chooses to serve the superheroes, she has lots of money and a mansion as a result of her successes. Remember that the superheroes had been essentially disbanded and she decided to help The Incredibles once more so it's a choice she's making, she's not wantonly serving.

[monolith94]

Great story, and one that is frighteningly prophetic.
Ummm, how so? Because, from what I've seen, our society attempting to give people equal opportunities to succeed has been more about empowering people rather than weighing them down. Harrison Bergeron is an interesting story, but I don't see how it's in anyway prophetic.

[Raiders]

The movie makes it pretty clear that Mr. Incredible's dismissal of Syndrome and his ambitions is what turns him into a villain.

Didn't I just say all that?


I think that opens it up for a nature-nurture conflict. It's, like, not even subtextual. It's right there, in the narrative.

What does that have to do with the above? The nature vs. nurture argument isn't that Syndrome was pre-destined to be a villain. It is obvious that his own ambitions of being "super" coupled with his anger over being spurned caused him to become a villain. What I am arguing is that the central conflict in the film isn't God-given talent vs. acquired talent, rather what we do with our talents.

[Qrazy]

Perhaps...it's been awhile since I've seen The Incredibles but there seems to be a theme running both through that and Ratatouillle that isn't explicitly objectivism but the message of rising above mediocrity. That some people are either born with or develop a talent that puts them above the rest of society and a structure like socialism would completely stifle that talent. Then again I'm probably reading waaay too much into those movies and Bird's message was directed more towards the movie studios who sometimes don't give their talent the leverage to be truly great (Pixar being an exception) I guess all I'm saying is that given some of the themes in his movies, Bird strikes me as the type of guy who might be into objectivism.

There is the theme of rising above mediocrity for sure but I don't think it equates with objectivism because he purposively gives examples of those who rise above mediocrity without any moral compass and the harm they cause. One of Bird's ultimate points is one I agree with, which is that society should not hold back the excellent and the talented (even though such people also have to work to get there... Mr. Incredible fitness training or Remy's needing to go to the human world and start work under false pretenses). The effect of no child left behind strategies is often to bring the classroom down to the lowest common denominator. Aside from that though I think most of us can think of numerous examples where unique creativity or excellence is stifled by parents, peers or society (kid wants to be an artist, parents want him to be a doctor, etc). Bird's films are about believing in yourself, your passions and your sense of identity.

[Qrazy]

He cares only about being what he is not. He is not comfortable in his own skin, and when spurned by Mr. Incredible, he goes about finding a way to make the supers "not super."

Come to think of it there's an interesting parallel here with American foreign policy. We created people like Bin Laden and Saddam, then turned our backs on them, and then they turned their backs on us.

[SirNewt]

It's a shortcut for the people who would be buying the items and did not invent them as I felt I made clear.

Couldn't this essentially make Syndrome a Christ figure one man elevating all mankind with his wisdom or knowledge?

[Qrazy]

Couldn't this essentially make Syndrome a Christ figure one man elevating all mankind with his wisdom or knowledge?

If Christ were someone who killed many people, destroyed much of a city and planned to engage in Insider training, then yes.

[Sven]

What I am arguing is that the central conflict in the film isn't God-given talent vs. acquired talent, rather what we do with our talents.

And I'm saying that the nature of those talents being good or evil is a nature-nurture situation. It seems reasonable to assume that if Mr. Incredible was encouraging to Syndrome, he would grow up using his skills as an inventor for good. What Syndrome does with his talents is directly linked to ill-nurturing, which corrupts his benign nature, just as any child disposed to warmth and kindness can transform into a cruel and selfish adult through mistreatment by a parent figure.

For ther record, I'm responding to this comment mostly:


I don't really see the nature vs. nurture argument in The Incredibles.

Perhaps I'm misconstruing your use of the word "see".

[Bosco B Thug]

The world doesn't work a certain way such that all who are not born 'super' can never improve their lot in life. Syndrome just happened to foster the pain of rejection towards a negative end result.

That's why I gave ritalin (for the people without difficulties who use it to cram) as another example which you've ignored as you ignored Syndrome's character and focus on his 'grand design' out of the context of how the design is put into effect. But yes alright, I'll grant you that people could/should have S's inventions if they were put on the market in a reasonable way. So I'll abandon that line of argument. But I disagree that the gadgets availability is the fulcrum issue here. It's Syndrome's means that are at issue. I see no reason to believe that the film or Bird feels that Syndrome's intent is invalid. That's what makes him sympathetic and an effective villian. Good villians have compelling motivations. He does want to 'help' people in his own twisted way... but again it's his means that are problematic. It's a strength of the film that it doesn't operate in black and white extremes. It recognizes a certain vigilante element about the superheroes (when they're out of work), it approaches it with a light touch and a sense of humor which may seem therefore like it's totally ordained, but Mrs. Incredible herself doesn't want her husband doing such things.

Aside from the points I've already brought up, the issue I think is that with the Superheroes there seems to be some sense of a guild or code of honor which is passed down and enforced. They hold each other accountable and their central role is to protect and serve. So, aside from the issue of Syndrome's specious means, by making his products available (and it's not just flying, I think the implication was that he'd make the violent and dangerous products available as well... although not the most powerful ones, which he'd keep) the public has untold destructive power at their fingertips.


There is the theme of rising above mediocrity for sure but I don't think it equates with objectivism because he purposively gives examples of those who rise above mediocrity without any moral compass and the harm they cause. One of Bird's ultimate points is one I agree with, which is that society should not hold back the excellent and the talented (even though such people also have to work to get there... Mr. Incredible fitness training or Remy's needing to go to the human world and start work under false pretenses). The effect of no child left behind strategies is often to bring the classroom down to the lowest common denominator. Aside from that though I think most of us can think of numerous examples where unique creativity or excellence is stifled by parents, peers or society (kid wants to be an artist, parents want him to be a doctor, etc). Bird's films are about believing in yourself, your passions and your sense of identity.

Good posting.

I won't defend The Incredibles by saying it was as sensitive as it needs to be, but it, like Ratatouille, benefits from the unusual circumstantiality and matter-of-factness with which it treats its story and characters, who don't just act and make decisions to fit their role in a parable but to reflect true-to-life decision making. There are definite reasons to sympathize and consider Syndrome's deep-seated emotional position, but he is nevertheless acting selfishly and irresponsibly. The confused nature of his grand scheme is well enough, it being borne of his painful insecurity and his willingness to unnaturally de-value individual gifts purely in order to soothe his unhealthy resentment and bitterness; he is embracing a regimented standard for himself - superpowers or you're worthless. Self-esteem problems is probably the main villain of the film in Bird's eye. One can look at it as his invention as trying to let people transcend a "genetic caste," but it's the same issue as cognitive enhancement drugs for the non-debilitated. It might even the playing field for those struggling, but the variable unpredictability of unnaturally messing with your neurology (not to mention complete social orders) instead of nurturing what makes you special in the first place is the pitfall that Syndrome fails to realize.

The "The film champions genetic superiority" argument is very slippery, it's like those 3-dimensional box drawings that will flip perspective if you concentrate on it long enough. It's troublesome at first, but then you think, what is "Being and embracing yourself" if not embracing your genetics? Nature vs. nurture, work and effort vs. natural ability, I know... very complicated. But I don't think The Incredibles claims to give us a whole picture - there's no developed non-superhero character in the movie that I can recall. I can't say for sure whether the film has a "bad attitude" or not, which it could (I don't think it does), I need to re-watch it, but I think the film is extra forceful as an allegory (for a topical social ill) and championing of individuality by not being as considerate as it really should be.


Anyway, Wall-E was very good, but I've kind of been afraid to think about what left me unsatisfied about it. :P It's a very pure story with very pure visual storytelling (the desolate earth and the plush Axiom were very well-realized locations), but yeah, maybe it's too pure. See, we're even back to discussing the Bird films in its thread... which is why those two are at the top of the Pixar canon for me (though I do love Toy Story 2, even if it's a little gag-driven... I'd have trouble choosing between Wall-E and that one for spot #3).

[NickGlass]

Hm, things are a little fuzzy, methinks.

[SirNewt]

If Christ were someone who killed many people, destroyed much of a city and planned to engage in Insider training, then yes.

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2357/1524688327_48b7de3f82.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEdSdapqLWE8Gk6TC_o0O yXOGB4-g




WOW! Is this the same thread i used as a platform for attacking Randy Newman? Yes, yes it is. That was just three pages and thirty hours ago.

[Boner M]

This was generally excellent, but I got an inexplicable headache about and hour into it, which detracted from the experience. A second viewing is in order.

[DavidSeven]

This is Pixar's Kane.
Their best use of the medium.
Just great cinema from beginning to end.
Hats off to Stanton and crew.

[monolith94]

This was generally excellent, but I got an inexplicable headache about and hour into it, which detracted from the experience. A second viewing is in order.
While I loved it on viewing #1, last night I went to go see it w/ my dad, and was equally (maybe even a little bit more?) impressed. I'm in agreement with David7 here: this is, to me, pixar's finest hour yet. Honestly, those end credits are just so brilliantly executed & appropriate that I could feel my throat tighten and eyes get a bit misty.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think I'm taking my son to see this today.

[Spinal]

This film needs a true dissenter. Arguments over whether it is a masterpiece or merely excellent are boring. :)

[Sven]

This film needs a true dissenter. Arguments over whether it is a masterpiece or merely excellent are boring. :)

I thought it was okay...

[Kurosawa Fan]

I am not a dissenter. I thought it was very good. I don't think it's Pixar's best offering, at least not after one viewing, and I think there are some noticeable flaws, but overall it was a beautiful film. I'm not sure the comparisons to silent film are apt, but I loved the first half of the film, and the fact that my son was riveted with such sparse dialogue is a pretty impressive achievement. Certainly one of the best films I've seen from this year thus far.

[BirdsAteMyFace]

First viewing: with my Mom.

Second viewing: with the girl I'm dating.

Conclusion: Versatile film.

[Spinal]

I am not a dissenter. I thought it was very good. I don't think it's Pixar's best offering, at least not after one viewing, and I think there are some noticeable flaws, but overall it was a beautiful film. I'm not sure the comparisons to silent film are apt, but I loved the first half of the film, and the fact that my son was riveted with such sparse dialogue is a pretty impressive achievement. Certainly one of the best films I've seen from this year thus far.

What did you think of Presto?

[Russ]

I saw Presto as an affectionate homage to Chuck Jones. And a pretty damn good one too.

[origami_mustache]

I wouldn't call it Pixar's best either although it was looking like it was going to be until they left Earth. Did the use of Fred Willard bother anyone else? I don't think they should have mixed in live action like that.

[ledfloyd]

I wouldn't call it Pixar's best either although it was looking like it was going to be until they left Earth. Did the use of Fred Willard bother anyone else? I don't think they should have mixed in live action like that.
i didn't have any problem with fred willard. in fact i kinda liked it.

[Qrazy]

I wouldn't call it Pixar's best either although it was looking like it was going to be until they left Earth. Did the use of Fred Willard bother anyone else? I don't think they should have mixed in live action like that.

Yeah it felt superfluous to me. I can understand why they chose to but it seemed unnecessary. Then again if they hadn't they couldn't really have had the live action musical footage either and that I think worked better than a CGI recreation of the musical would have... so an effective compromise in the end I suppose.

[Russ]

i didn't have any problem with fred willard. in fact i kinda liked it.
All 45 seconds of him? Nah, it was pretty good.

It makes me think that Pixar should start recording/archiving some generic sound bytes from 61-yr old John Ratzenberger for future cameo appearances. How cool would that be, long after he dies, to still have those damn Ratzenberger voiceovers pop up in Pixar films? If I were them, I'd be stockpiling now!

[Duncan]

Loved it. Stanton is definitely my favourite of the Pixar directors. This and Finding Nemo are tops for me.

[Watashi]

So here has yet to see it?

I'm glad everyone is loving it. It seems that WALL-E is finally the first Pixar film to put branch out western animation as a serious medium.

While working at the theater, I've probably seen the film around 20 times (not all the way through mind you), and the closing 20 minutes get to me every time.

[Russ]

So here has yet to see it?

I'm glad everyone is loving it. It seems that WALL-E is finally the first Pixar film to put branch out western animation as a serious medium.

While working at the theater, I've probably seen the film around 20 times (not all the way through mind you), and the closing 20 minutes get to me every time.
So even though I'd say it's without a doubt the most ambitious AND technically accomplished of all the Pixar films, it's still behind Ratatouille because...I had a tendency to admire it more than enjoy it (ie., identify with it)?? Still weighing my thoughts; weird: it's definitely on the same level as top-tier Pixar films, but it's cut from a completely different cloth.

[Watashi]

Oh, I love Ratatouille more too, but that's like saying "do I want to dip my chicken strips into ranch dressing or honey mustard?" They're both equally deserving and very tasty.

[Watashi]

Also Pete Docter will be at Comic Con to show the first footage from Up!.

Can't wait.

[Qrazy]

Aside from the animation Ratatouille felt fairly standard to me. I wasn't particularly impressed by the characterizations or the plot.

[Winston*]

What a piece of excrement. The kind of vapid populism that only appeals to dullards, pseudo-intellectuals, techno-geeks and paedohiles. I'm amazed that so many people here enjoyed this trash,

[Sycophant]

What a piece of excrement. The kind of vapid populism that only appeals to dullards, pseudo-intellectuals, techno-geeks and paedohiles. I'm amazed that so many people here enjoyed this trash,
I'm unequipped to deal with this post.

[Rowland]

What a piece of excrement. The kind of vapid populism that only appeals to dullards, pseudo-intellectuals, techno-geeks and paedohiles. I'm amazed that so many people here enjoyed this trash,Jeremy Heilman (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2008/screening2008.htm)? "Wall-E (Andrew Stanton, 2008) 33"

[Spinal]

What a piece of excrement. The kind of vapid populism that only appeals to dullards, pseudo-intellectuals, techno-geeks and paedohiles. I'm amazed that so many people here enjoyed this trash,

Now that's what I'm talking about!

[MacGuffin]

Jeremy Heilman (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2008/screening2008.htm)? "Wall-E (Andrew Stanton, 2008) 33"

He hates all Brad Bird movies, so it's not surprising.

[Russ]

Jeremy Heilman (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2008/screening2008.htm)? "Wall-E (Andrew Stanton, 2008) 33"
In the minority for sure. Too bad you couldn't link us to his review.

[Rowland]

In the minority for sure. Too bad you couldn't link us to his review.He didn't write one.

[Russ]

He didn't write one.
Well, he should have if he was going to pan a (now) hugely consensus http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon14.gif.

Inquiring minds, yadda yadda.

[Winston*]

Well, he should have if he was going to pan a (now) hugely consensus http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon14.gif.

Inquiring minds, yadda yadda.
In general I find it find it vastly simpler to not write a review than it is to write one. Perhaps Mr. Heilman feels the same.

[Spinal]

Jeremy Heilman (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2008/screening2008.htm)? "Wall-E (Andrew Stanton, 2008) 33"

That's numberwang!

[balmakboor]

I finally caught this today and I had the same impression that I had with The Incredibles -- the "special" world just isn't nearly as special or interesting as the "normal" world. Both films have GREAT first acts/parts. Then, when they become superhero or outer space films respectively, they lose a lot of energy and interest for me and even induce a few yawns. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy them -- I did -- but second acts have been a bit of a struggle for Pixar, at least in these two cases.

Essentially, the visual joke during the space section of WALL•E with all the fat humans lounging about was unable to sustain the amount of screen time asked of it.

[balmakboor]

Loved it. Stanton is definitely my favourite of the Pixar directors. This and Finding Nemo are tops for me.

I read the new Film Comment article on this just now and the author considers WALL•E one of the best Pixars and Finding Nemo one of the least. I would reverse that. Of course, with Pixar, talking best is the same as talking best in contemporary filmmaking and talking least is still the same as talking the best.

[Rowland]

I agree about the first act being significantly superior to the remainder of the film, which has a slightly clunky vibe to it, and the social commentary isn't too far removed from Idiocracy (which I like), only this movie obviously has a more optimistic view of our capacity for redemption.

[Spinal]

I think when you're talking about Cars, you are not talking about a film that is good by any standard.

Also, the second act was my favorite part. :sad:

[Watashi]

Also, the second act was my favorite part. :sad:

Oh yeah. Easily. The part where MO sees WALL-E for the first time and notices he has "100% Foreign Contaminant", I love his reaction as he goes "woah woah woah woah woah". That's one of my favorite Pixar moments.

[Qrazy]

I think when you're talking about Cars, you are not talking about a film that is good by any standard.


I felt it executed very well a rather bad idea for a premise.

[Kurosawa Fan]

What did you think of Presto?

Loved it. I was laughing harder than my son.

As for those flaws I spoke of, they were minor. One of the things that bothered me was the cameo. Didn't care for that at all. Inserting a real person into the mix was awkward and didn't provide anything other than a "Recognize this guy? He's funny, so we put him in the film!" wink to the adult audience. I also thought the space premise, while exhilarating during the adventure moments with WALL*E and EVE, was a bit clunky when it came to the humans. I mean, humans that never get out of their chairs, drink their meals, and never stop looking at a computer/TV screen? I thought it would be a bit more inventive than that. Their world was creative, but their physical situation was... bland?

And while I know this is nitpicking, I didn't care for the final resolution. I guess being familiar with how computers work, I just didn't care for the "love will come through" moment. It could have been resolved in a different, more reasonable manner. I know this is fantasy, and doesn't have to be grounded with any form of realism, but when you establish these robots with computer parts and chips and such, and also establish that when said chips (dealing with memory) are replaced, the robot is washed clean of their "personality" and functions like a newly produced unit, a held hand and a "kiss" shouldn't turn things around. EVE could have just as easily pulled the actual chip off the old, fried circuit board and put it in place of the memory chip on the new circuit board to restore WALL*E. Commence with hand-holding and kiss and everything remains just as touching and dramatic. It's a minor thing, and I know it's probably just me, but it bugged me during the film, so I figured I'd mention it. Go ahead and flame away.

Still, it's a great film. My son loved it too, which is a pretty good litmus test these days. I'm excited to see it again on DVD.

[Raiders]

One of the things that bothered me was the cameo. Didn't care for that at all. Inserting a real person into the mix was awkward and didn't provide anything other than a "Recognize this guy? He's funny, so we put him in the film!" wink to the adult audience.

I thought it was kind of along the film's environmental concerns that it related more present-day events, the "past," as real people; more relatable to our current society.


And while I know this is nitpicking, I didn't care for the final resolution. I guess being familiar with how computers work, I just didn't care for the "love will come through" moment. It could have been resolved in a different, more reasonable manner. I know this is fantasy, and doesn't have to be grounded with any form of realism, but when you establish these robots with computer parts and chips and such, and also establish that when said chips (dealing with memory) are replaced, the robot is washed clean of their "personality" and functions like a newly produced unit, a held hand and a "kiss" shouldn't turn things around. EVE could have just as easily pulled the actual chip off the old, fried circuit board and put it in place of the memory chip on the new circuit board to restore WALL*E. Commence with hand-holding and kiss and everything remains just as touching and dramatic. It's a minor thing, and I know it's probably just me, but it bugged me during the film, so I figured I'd mention it. Go ahead and flame away.

I loved this moment because the entire film is about the power of the past and our memory's ability to heal and "wake us up" (much like WALL•E, the captain's ultimate waking is hinged upon humanity's past/communal memory). WALL•E's actual emotional existence upon which the film is based is itself likely impossible due to his programming, so it seems to me the ending is simply an extension of this. The power of art, memory and love have already transcended his likely limitations in programming, so now the "spark" of love and his memory with EVE transcends this limitation as well.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I loved this moment because the entire film is about the power of the past and our memory's ability to heal and "wake us up" (much like WALL•E, the captain's ultimate waking is hinged upon humanity's past/communal memory). WALL•E's actual emotional existence upon which the film is based is itself likely impossible due to his programming, so it seems to me the ending is simply an extension of this. The power of art, memory and love have already transcended his likely limitations in programming, so now the "spark" of love and his memory with EVE transcends this limitation as well.

To me, it seemed that we (that is to say, humans in the future) have done our best to anthropomorphize the robots, as all of them, even those on the ship, had human characteristics and a distinct personality. And that makes sense to me, as we as a species like to anthropomorphize anything that appears to be living (unless it's ugly). So I can understand WALL*E and EVE displaying human emotions. It's the same reason EVE blinks. It makes them seem more relatable, less creepy and lifeless. But when it comes to computer parts, to the reason they function, you can't replace their memory chip and expect them to retain their memory. I just didn't buy into that.

[Raiders]

To me, it seemed that we (that is to say, humans in the future) have done our best to anthropomorphize the robots, as all of them, even those on the ship, had human characteristics and a distinct personality. And that makes sense to me, as we as a species like to anthropomorphize anything that appears to be living (unless it's ugly). So I can understand WALL*E and EVE displaying human emotions. It's the same reason EVE blinks. It makes them seem more relatable, less creepy and lifeless. But when it comes to computer parts, to the reason they function, you can't replace their memory chip and expect them to retain their memory. I just didn't buy into that.

It was his circuit board, right? Do we know that contains his memory chip? He's a futuristic robot that doesn't exist today. His initial functions could have simply been during his rebooting and once he becomes fully aware, he "wakes up," so to speak. My own desktop occasionally doesn't recognize software one minute and does so the next after a reboot.

But, really, you either accept it or you don't. I could rationalize all day, but it is a manipulative moment no matter how you look at it. I just find it ties in beautifully to the film's themes and accept it as a touching, resonant moment.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It was his circuit board, right? Do we know that contains his memory chip? He's a futuristic robot that doesn't exist today. His initial functions could have simply been during his rebooting and once he becomes fully aware, he "wakes up," so to speak. My own desktop occasionally doesn't recognize software one minute and does so the next after a reboot.

But, really, you either accept it or you don't. I could rationalize all day, but it is a manipulative moment no matter how you look at it. I just find it ties in beautifully to the film's themes and accept it as a touching, resonant moment.

I understand its significance as you saw it, and it's a nice moment, but they shouldn't have played the fake-out. If his memory wasn't on that chip, they shouldn't have hinted so strongly that it was. It would have been just as nice had he not rebooted after charging, and her spark brought him back to life rather than sparking his memory. As it stands, I can see your argument about the power of the past, but the memory angle doesn't really connect with the captain, because the captain has never seen Earth and didn't have any memories. He was learning all of that for the first time.

But you're right, there isn't much point discussing it, because as you said, you bought into it and I didn't. I don't think it harmed my enjoyment all that much, but it was a small issue, and I wish they had resolved things differently.

[Raiders]

As it stands, I can see your argument about the power of the past, but the memory angle doesn't really connect with the captain, because the captain has never seen Earth and didn't have any memories. He was learning all of that for the first time.

Well, it's the difference between humanity's past (the communal memory, so to speak) and the individual past, but I think the theme of the film, which is the timelessness, and boundlessness, of our art, creation and love, fits in with both situations.

[balmakboor]

What really bothered me was at the rate WALL E was working, making and stacking little cubes into the shape of skyscrapers, it would've taken hundreds even thousands of years to perform the work we are shown and yet he never wears out (other than an occasional eye replacement, etc.) and only needs a regular solar recharge to keep going. Plus, I don't care how messy humans are, they would've never created that much junk in such a confined area to provide him with the material to construct those structures in the first place. Totally improbable

Does this really bother me? No, not a bit. And his memory chip bit didn't either. It was just a love fixes everything sort of moment almost like something Spielberg would come up with. Actually, I thought of Spielberg movies including A.I. a lot while watching WALL E.

[ledfloyd]

I felt it executed very well a rather bad idea for a premise.
i like the small town stuff. all the glitz and glam in the first 20 minutes or so really tries my patience though.

[Qrazy]

And while I know this is nitpicking, I didn't care for the final resolution. I guess being familiar with how computers work, I just didn't care for the "love will come through" moment. It could have been resolved in a different, more reasonable manner. I know this is fantasy, and doesn't have to be grounded with any form of realism, but when you establish these robots with computer parts and chips and such, and also establish that when said chips (dealing with memory) are replaced, the robot is washed clean of their "personality" and functions like a newly produced unit, a held hand and a "kiss" shouldn't turn things around. EVE could have just as easily pulled the actual chip off the old, fried circuit board and put it in place of the memory chip on the new circuit board to restore WALL*E. Commence with hand-holding and kiss and everything remains just as touching and dramatic. It's a minor thing, and I know it's probably just me, but it bugged me during the film, so I figured I'd mention it. Go ahead and flame away.


Pretty sure they were going for a ghost in the shell moment.

[Qrazy]

To me, it seemed that we (that is to say, humans in the future) have done our best to anthropomorphize the robots, as all of them, even those on the ship, had human characteristics and a distinct personality. And that makes sense to me, as we as a species like to anthropomorphize anything that appears to be living (unless it's ugly). So I can understand WALL*E and EVE displaying human emotions. It's the same reason EVE blinks. It makes them seem more relatable, less creepy and lifeless. But when it comes to computer parts, to the reason they function, you can't replace their memory chip and expect them to retain their memory. I just didn't buy into that.

You can excise large portions of the brain (although certainly not all of it and not specific segments) and neural networks often have the capacity to rebuild themselves. Granted that is organic versus inorganic material, but if you think of Wall-E's burnt out chip as just one amongst many chips inside of him, it begins to seem less far-fetched.

[Qrazy]

What really bothered me was at the rate WALL E was working, making and stacking little cubes into the shape of skyscrapers, it would've taken hundreds even thousands of years to perform the work we are shown and yet he never wears out (other than an occasional eye replacement, etc.) and only needs a regular solar recharge to keep going. Plus, I don't care how messy humans are, they would've never created that much junk in such a confined area to provide him with the material to construct those structures in the first place. Totally improbable

Does this really bother me? No, not a bit. And his memory chip bit didn't either. It was just a love fixes everything sort of moment almost like something Spielberg would come up with. Actually, I thought of Spielberg movies including A.I. a lot while watching WALL E.

Well, granted it doesn't bother you, but if it did bother someone they should bear in mind that there were lots of Wall-E robots doing the work previously, all the others just died out.

[balmakboor]

Well, granted it doesn't bother you, but if it did bother someone they should bear in mind that there were lots of Wall-E robots doing the work previously, all the others just died out.

Ahhh, one of those last of his kind kinda things.

[Duncan]

He hates all Brad Bird movies, so it's not surprising.

What does hating Brad Bird movies have to do with not liking this film?

[MacGuffin]

What does hating Brad Bird movies have to do with not liking this film?

Well, it's a Pixar movie. Originally though, I thought this was directed by Brad Bird.

[origami_mustache]

Ahhh, one of those last of his kind kinda things.

Yeah, but it still doesn't really explain why he would have the endurance to outlast all the others.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, but it still doesn't really explain why he would have the endurance to outlast all the others.

Because he has achieved a level of consciousness where he's capable of self-repair.

[origami_mustache]

Because he has achieved a level of consciousness where he's capable of self-repair.

There is still no explanation offered as to why.

[Spinal]

There is still no explanation offered as to why.

Hopped up on show tunes. That's my theory.

[origami_mustache]

Hopped up on show tunes. That's my theory.

haha sounds about right.

[Qrazy]

There is still no explanation offered as to why.

Why do species evolve or paradigm shifts occur? Mutation, environmental circumstances, a need for a new solution and frame of reference.

Chalk it up to faulty wiring.

Eve's (and the rest of the robots on the spaceship) seeming consciousness is much more problematic than Wall-E's because with the latter we can assume there's a reason he's the last one still alive. He has discovered the capacity for self-repair. But yes the line between self-awareness and anthropomorphized programming is very thinly sketched in the film, it's not hard sci-fi and isn't trying to be really.

[Wryan]

I know I was down on this movie from the start where the small bits we were shown and the trailers were concerned, but I did say that I was pretty sure I'd still like it. Well, I did. A lot. It's a great film and another medal for Pixar. Loved the first 40 minutes. Loved the humans. Loved the captain. Not the best of Pixar, but certainly near the top. I think Finding Nemo still does it for me the best right now. Over and over that movie never fails to reach me and hit me, squarely and tenaciously.

But WALL-E was stupendous.

[origami_mustache]

It's a great film and another medal for Pixar. Loved the first 40 minutes.

Yeah, I think the first 40 minutes were just about perfect.

[balmakboor]

I know I was down on this movie from the start where the small bits we were shown and the trailers were concerned, but I did say that I was pretty sure I'd still like it. Well, I did. A lot. It's a great film and another medal for Pixar. Loved the first 40 minutes. Loved the humans. Loved the captain. Not the best of Pixar, but certainly near the top. I think Finding Nemo still does it for me the best right now. Over and over that movie never fails to reach me and hit me, squarely and tenaciously.

But WALL-E was stupendous.

Finding Nemo does it for me the most as well. I have a sort of personal connection to it as well. My kids are competitive swimmers and the film is steeped in jargon from the sport. Obviously, one of the writers or the director had kids in the sport. Three examples: Every kid has come out of an event asking "Did I disqualify?" as does Dorrie after the jellyfish race. Kids would often say "Eat my bubbles!" to a competitor -- and now, after the movie, it has really mushroomed and three out of four kids have had a friend write the phrase on their backs along with a bunch of circles with a felt marker. My third example probably originated with Finding Nemo but may have preceeded it. I have no idea for sure. "Just keep swimming" has been used as a motivational slogan by every swim club I know.

[Bridget Jones]

Finding Nemo does it for me the most as well. I have a sort of personal connection to it as well. My kids are competitive swimmers and the film is steeped in jargon from the sport...
Hmmm, very interesting. I can't swim, so maybe that's why I wasn't engaged as much. :cry:

[trotchky]

http://jerkcity.com/jerkcity3543.gif

[Russ]

I hope the ones who ripped off Jim Woodring's comic (above) at least gave him credit.

[trotchky]

I hope the ones who ripped off Jim Woodring's comic (above) at least gave him credit.

That comicstrip is created using the (defunct) IRC client Microsoft Comic Chat, which Jim Woodring did the art assets for. This has been established since the strip first started in 1998.

[Russ]

That comicstrip is created using the (defunct) IRC client Microsoft Comic Chat, which Jim Woodring did the art assets for. This has been established since the strip first started in 1998.
Ah. Well, cool, and my bad, then.

[Grouchy]

Actually, the most bothersome plot hole in the movie is not the memory chip or WALL-E's endurance, but...

Why did the evil HAL computer had to wake up the captain and provide him with a false alarm before stealing the plant? I mean, it could've easily just disposed of the plant and of EVE without ever warning the captain. Even this is arguable, though. Protocol doesn't have to make sense, and the evil computer was a computer after all. Maybe it wasn't programmed to even think of that option.

The answer to all the plot holes is that otherwise there wouldn't be any movie.

Full review on the works.

[Morris Schæffer]

If his memory wasn't on that chip, they shouldn't have hinted so strongly that it was. It would have been just as nice had he not rebooted after charging, and her spark brought him back to life rather than sparking his memory.

I just saw Wall-E one hour ago.

A fairly profound sadness swept over me when, during that sequence, I pondered the possibility that Wall-E might not regain his memory. Seeing him go back to his daily routine, seemingly oblivious to the robot that saved him, was a moment infused with tragedy. Naturally, it could never have ended like that, but I would have found it more resonating. Perhaps they could have hinted that some remnant of Wall-E's experiences was preserved rather than going all-out with a happy ending.

All in all, a minor dissapointment although I had been preparing myself for that in the past few weeks. Whenever Wall-E and Eve were interacting, as they did on Earth and when they were "dancing" in space, the movie offered up some of the best stuff of the year although I haven't seen much great stuff this year so far. Unfortunately, pretty much all the Axiom sequences were rythmically too different for me and thus vastly inferior to the superb first forty minutes. I was pretty indifferent to all the rotund humans for instance. Indeed, I was under the impression that Wall-E would sport more realistic humans a la Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within or the ending of Happy Feet. Certainly, seeing a real human (Willard) in the beginning of the movie seemed to confirm that. Instead, this being an animated feature film, everything has to become cute and exagerated (for the kids you see) and and so we get space-traversing Michelin men because humanity has de-evolved?! And they return to Earth because one lousy little plant was discovered? Why not present a more realistic background with more realistically proportioned humans and let Wall-E and Eve interact in, and with, that universe?

*** or even **½

I don't know yet.

EDIT: It almost seems too playful, too antropo-something as Iosos hinted a few pages back when he talked about the hat romance. Which was indeed more touching than anything in Wall-E.

[Spinal]

A fairly profound sadness swept over me when, during that sequence, I pondered the possibility that Wall-E might not regain his memory. Seeing him go back to his daily routine, seemingly oblivious to the robot that saved him, was a moment infused with tragedy. Naturally, it could never have ended like that, but I would have found it more resonating. Perhaps they could have hinted that some remnant of Wall-E's experiences was preserved rather than going all-out with a happy ending.


I agree that the ending seemed dictated by commercial considerations rather than logic. Seemed to me more egregious than a certain Spielberg film (which I won't mention) that gets a lot of crap for its ending.

[Morris Schæffer]

I agree that the ending seemed dictated by commercial considerations rather than logic. Seemed to me more egregious than a certain Spielberg film (which I won't mention) that gets a lot of crap for its ending.

Agree as well. Wall-E and Eve are likely united for all eternity whereas David had only a few, "soon-to-be-relegated-to-memory" moments with his "mother." I thought A.I. ended powerfully.

Unless, oh darn. You were talking about WotW weren't you! Let's not go there. Really!:)

[Raiders]

I agree that the ending seemed dictated by commercial considerations rather than logic. Seemed to me more egregious than a certain Spielberg film (which I won't mention) that gets a lot of crap for its ending.

Seems no more egregious to me, and this film certainly uses it for thematic purposes (a cop out maybe, but one of the pleasures of this film for me is the way it takes sentimentality and makes it key to the idea of humanity--after all, in WALL-E's pop culture-inspired mind, I doubt sad endings exists).

But, I both love the Spielberg film and have discussed this one to death and promised myself not to come back in here.

Damn you, Spinal.

[ledfloyd]

Instead, this being an animated feature film, everything has to become cute and exagerated (for the kids you see) and and so we get space-traversing Michelin men because humanity has de-evolved?! And they return to Earth because one lousy little plant was discovered? Why not present a more realistic background with more realistically proportioned humans and let Wall-E and Eve interact in, and with, that universe?
i don't think it's unrealistic to suppose people that never walked a day in their lives and were constantly drinking slurpees, 700 years in the future, would look like that.

[Watashi]

How do you prepare yourself for a disappointment? That's something only Morris knows how.

[Fezzik]

A fairly profound sadness swept over me when, during that sequence, I pondered the possibility that Wall-E might not regain his memory. Seeing him go back to his daily routine, seemingly oblivious to the robot that saved him, was a moment infused with tragedy. Naturally, it could never have ended like that, but I would have found it more resonating. Perhaps they could have hinted that some remnant of Wall-E's experiences was preserved rather than going all-out with a happy ending.

Normally, I would agree with you....however, one of the main themes of the film was the importance of intimacy (contact). Everytime Eve or Wall*E touched one of the humans, they seemed to break from their technological trance and become aware of the world around them.

So, if Eve had grabbed Wall*E's hand at the end and he HADN'T come back, to me it would have gone against one of the messages the movie was trying to get across.

I will admit, though, that those two seconds between Eve grabbing Wall*E's hand and him grabbing back was one of the most emotionally suspenseful moments I've ever experienced at a film. You could have heard a pin drop in the theater, and when he DID grab back, one HUGE sigh of relief escaped from the audience.

(Honestly, the fact that Pixar was able to wring so much resonance from two robots still astounds me).

[Ezee E]

Apparently Pixar is going to try and push this for a Best Picture run since the year is pretty weak.

Do you think it has a shot?

[Raiders]

Apparently Pixar is going to try and push this for a Best Picture run since the year is pretty weak.

Do you think it has a shot?

No.

[Watashi]

Yes.

And I'm not saying that because I wish it to be true.

[Spinal]

Makes more sense to me than The Dark Knight.

[transmogrifier]

Makes more sense to me than The Dark Knight.


Correct.

[Grouchy]

Correct.
http://991.com/newGallery/Paul-Simon-One-Trick-Pony-292903.jpg

[Winston*]

Maybe John Ratzenberger will die in the weeks before the nominations and give Wall-E that extra push it needs.

[eternity]

Maybe John Ratzenberger will die in the weeks before the nominations and give Wall-E that extra push it needs.

That man is fucking crazy.

[number8]

I doubt it.

[Qrazy]

No, that would be a silly thing.

[transmogrifier]

http://991.com/newGallery/Paul-Simon-One-Trick-Pony-292903.jpg

http://salamitsunami.com/wp-content/uploads/jimpost.jpg

[Qrazy]

That moustache is beautiful.

[transmogrifier]

That moustache is beautiful.

Isn't it? In NZ at the moment is Movember, where guys grow their mustache as a fundraiser for fighting prostate cancer. This guy would raise a million billion dollars.

[Raiders]

No, that would be a silly thing.

Because you don't like the movie, or because you don't think animated films should be up for Best Picture consideration?

[Qrazy]

Because you don't like the movie, or because you don't think animated films should be up for Best Picture consideration?

Oh I liked the movie and think it could get a nom. I just thought we were discussing whether or not it would win. Although whether or not it merits a nom will depend on the rest of the films released between now and then and we're still entering the best few months for new releases so it's too early to tell.

[Morris Schæffer]

Makes more sense to me than The Dark Knight.

Have you seen The Dark Knight?

[Ezee E]

Have you seen The Dark Knight?
I think he gave it three stars or so.

[Wryan]

I thought John Ratz had already died?

Man, someone told me he died and I got some of my dander up for nothing.

[Spinal]

Have you seen The Dark Knight?

Yes and I liked it. I think it would be a bizarre choice for a Best Picture Oscar nomination though.

[number8]

Yes and I liked it. I think it would be a bizarre choice for a Best Picture Oscar nomination though.

How so?

[DavidSeven]

The Academy could do a lot worse than Wall-E and The Dark Knight.

[KK2.0]

The Academy could do a lot worse than Wall-E and The Dark Knight.

Crash anyone?

[KK2.0]

watch BURN-E, exclusive short from Wall-e's DVD

http://smellycat.com.br/2008/11/14/assista-burn%E2%80%A2e-o-curta-extra-do-dvd-de-wall%E2%80%A2e/

starring an equally adorable welding-robot from Axiom

[Wryan]

The Academy could do a lot worse than Wall-E and The Dark Knight.

It will.

[Morris Schæffer]

Wall-E sweeps best picture at the the Chicago Film Critics Association. I sincerely hope this isn't a sign of things to come and Wall-E gets the Oscar for best picture. God that would suck!

[Raiders]

Wall-E sweeps best picture at the the Chicago Film Critics Association. I sincerely hope this isn't a sign of things to come and Wall-E gets the Oscar for best picture. God that would suck!

Yo' mama.

[Grouchy]

Wall-E sweeps best picture at the the Chicago Film Critics Association. I sincerely hope this isn't a sign of things to come and Wall-E gets the Oscar for best picture. God that would suck!
Huh... What?

[Ezee E]

I think seeing a Wall-E nomination for Best Picture would be kind of cool actually, even if I don't think it's one of the top five.

[number8]

I think it's about fucking time an animated film wins Best Picture.

[Ezee E]

I think it's about fucking time an animated film wins Best Picture.
While I don't think it will win Best Picture, I can say that I have no idea what will end up winning it.

Slumdog appears to be on its way to being the favorite, but I don't see it winning.

[Morris Schæffer]

Nomination is fine, but I will not reconcile with a win. And yes, an animated movie winning the Oscar would be great, but not this one.

[Morris Schæffer]

Huh... What?

The more I think about the second half, the more I loathe this movie. It really goes nowhere.

[Wryan]

The more I think about the second half, the more I loathe this movie. It really goes nowhere.

Ow. I don't think the word loathe even exists in WALL-E's universe. :(

[Raiders]

Ow. I don't think the word loathe even exists in WALL-E's universe. :(

It sadly does in Morris's, though he often incorrectly applies it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Watched this movie again with my sons, who both absolutely love it (and have been watching it near daily, even my three year old who doesn't move a muscle the entire time), and it's charm and romance outweigh any and all problems I have with the humans in the second half. It's an intoxicating film. I smile pretty much from start to finish. It moved to #2 on my top ten this year.

[Watashi]

I love how before WALL-E's release certain people were complaining how small children would hate this movie because "nothing happens" and "there's no dialogue".

KF's post proves that kids don't need ADD-paced pop-cultured stories to keep them entertained.

[Watashi]

The more I think about the second half, the more I loathe this movie. It really goes nowhere.

It certainly goes somewhere.

It's a better sci-fi movie than anything James Cameron has ever done.

[Ezee E]

It certainly goes somewhere.

It's a better sci-fi movie than anything James Cameron has ever done.
Nah. And I like Wall-E a ton.

I'll have to watch it a second time to feel out that second half, but the more I think about it, it remains the same. A masterful first half with a weakened second half.

[Winston*]

I need to watch it again without an annoying kid behind me narrating the whole damn thing.

[Ezee E]

I need to watch it again without an annoying kid behind me narrating the whole damn thing.
This too.

[number8]

I love how before WALL-E's release certain people were complaining how small children would hate this movie because "nothing happens" and "there's no dialogue".

That's kind of a boneheaded prediction, if you think about it, considering that kids enjoy cartoons on a visual level, hence the slapstick of many kids cartoons.

If anything it's young adults that was the risky part of the audience, because they're more used to kids movies that have more risque jokes like Shrek and less amused by silent movies.

[Spun Lepton]

Ow. I don't think the word loathe even exists in WALL-E's universe. :(

You underestimate Morris's ability for hyperbole. Today he loathes it, tomorrow it'll kill his dog, next year it'll knock the moon out of orbit...

[[ETM]]

it's charm and romance outweigh any and all problems I have with the humans in the second half. It's an intoxicating film. I smile pretty much from start to finish.

Ditto on all counts. I wish there was a way to exclude humans from the film to a greater extent, as they definitely are the weakest link.

Incidentally, I've shown both Wall•E and Burn•E to my 4yo niece, and she doesn't care much for the big film, she keeps asking about the "other robot, the small one". Burn•E's cute little wordless story seems to appeal to her more.

[Mal]

I think it's about fucking time an animated film wins Best Picture.

Hell yes.

[Morris Schæffer]

Okay I apologize for I got carried away a bit. I cannot loathe it for it is a great movie for about 50% of the time and it always looks great, but that second half is just weak.

[number8]

I love this!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kXnVoQ9ZFkQ/ScwdL0M6NVI/AAAAAAAAIh8/Ai-HBbI4lkA/s1600/disney-wallemorehuman.jpg