WALL-E

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
PatrickRsGhost
Posts: 2278
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:43 pm UTC
Location: ZZ9PluralZAlpha
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby PatrickRsGhost » Thu Jul 03, 2008 6:49 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Yes, the romanticism was a bit heavy handed, and yes, the logistics of the world wouldn't pan out (where did the babies come from? why was the ship ejecting waste?)


I think I mentioned this before, but certain aspects of the movie seemed to have been based on an old MAD Magazine comic satire (back when they were a comic book, doing satires of various comic book genres) called "BLOBS!", which in turn was loosely based on an old story from the early 20th Century (1908 or close to that) called "The Machine Stops."

I had posted a link to that story I think here and in the "Books You Think Every Book Reader Should Read" thread. In the story, the mothers don't take care of the babies. The Machine does, in a nursery of sorts. In the story, the humans are taught to trust and rely on the Machine to do just about everything for them. They are pretty much forbidden to leave their underground colony, and go up to the surface. The surface of Earth is so toxic that respirators are needed. The whole story focuses mainly on a woman and her son. The son has been exploring a bit, and has opened his eyes to the real world (sound familiar?). He tries to show his mother, but she's too afraid, and gets irritated or frustrated for the most part.

Izawwlgood wrote:But frankly, it IS a kids movie, and if kids movies now adays aren't pandering the old shit that disney used to put forth (Beauty and the Beast, Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid... All rife with pretty awful messages), but instead saying "HEY KIDS! Wake up and DO something, protect something you care about, and fight for something you believe in!" Then I say hell yeah! Wall-e was a great rendition of what all punks think they are doing; he was a simple childlike teacher showing people something unexpected and good for them.


What awful messages were those? Most of those were based (rather loosely in most cases) on fairy tales of the same name. In most cases, they couldn't really create a new message in the movie without completely ruining the story.

Some movies did have a message, be they based on actual works of literature like "Aladdin", "Hamlet" (used a bit in "The Lion King", as was "King Lear"), or if they were original works, like "The Incredibles", "Toy Story", "Finding Nemo", or "Monsters Inc". One of the recurring themes in Disney movies is the moral "be yourself" or "it doesn't matter what's on the outside; it's what's on the inside that counts" or some mushy moral like that. It's very prominent in "Aladdin" and "Hunchback of Notre Dame".
PRG

An important message for you:

010000100110010100100000011100110
111010101110010011001010010000001
110100011011110010000001100101011
000010111010000100000011110010110
111101110101011100100010000001100
010011000010110001101101111011011
1000101110

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: WALL-E

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:15 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote:I think that Wall-E became self-aware before the eventual deaths of all the other Wall-Es, who never thought to pick apart disabled bots and use their parts as replaicement. The other Wall-Es, In my belief, just ran until something went wrong, which made them stationary. Then the windstorms came and broke apart their circuits. Our little hero knew to get out of the storm and kept his innards intact.


Good point! I'm sold.

PatrickRsGhost wrote:stuff on BLOBS! and the Mad Comic


I've read the comic, and enjoyed it. It's a big theme in a lot of technology heavy sci-fi.

PatrickRsGhost wrote:What awful messages were those?


I realize these are based on more ancient stories, which is likely why I find the messages so awful... Its off topic, but here:

Sleeping Beauty teaches girls that they should basically be dead until 'prince charming' comes along and makes them live again. Conversely, it teaches boys that theres nothing to live for except finding your 'perfect princess' and rescuing her.

Little Mermaid, which was a great Anderson story, was modified to show you that it's okay to forsake everything for love, and eventually change who you are to be with someone you've idolized.

Beauty and the Beast is the worst in my mind, as it simply portrays an older mode of marriage. Men are wealthy beasts who need to be tamed, and women are fragile but headstrong homeworkers who settle on the wealthy and beastly men to turn them into prince charming.

Those are in my mind the more classic 'Disney' stories... Of course something like Bambi or All Dogs Goto Heaven are outliers in my little theory. And just to clarify, I really dig Disney by in large (catchy tunes).

I guess I just always had a problem with DISNEY (note, NOT pixars!) message of 'Find true love and have the happy ending', and always REALLY dug Pixars message of 'Hey, change is good, pay attention to stuff around you and be yourself!'. I recognize that I'm probably over analyzing these 'messages' and extrapolating my own insecurities or psychosis.

But back on topic, my point was 'Damn, Wall-E was beautiful and heart warming and I'm really glad I saw it'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Mo0man
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:46 am UTC
Location: 2 weeks ago

Re: WALL-E

Postby Mo0man » Thu Jul 03, 2008 8:47 pm UTC

I thought that the wind\sandstorms were implied other ships landing? I mean, there was the same storm when the Axiom, or rather the one particular Axiom that was featured in the movie landed.
And another thing, why was the design for Wall-E so crappy compared to the design for Eve and the other robots? I mean sure it was a trash compactor robot, but it was a trash compactor robot that was essentially a giant PR movie from Buy N Large. Sure he was cute, but he wasn't any slick, hovering, robotic death machine like Eve was.

That being said, I fusking loved it. So much. I could go into more praises, but it'd just sound like a giant rehash of the last to pages. Bit heavy handed, but the cutest thing I've ever seen
causa major dormuc vulnero ut ovis goatee
I'm number 20075. Remember that. It's important

User avatar
Vanguard
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:52 pm UTC
Location: Away from you

Re: WALL-E

Postby Vanguard » Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:12 pm UTC

No, there were actual dirt-storms, Wall-E had a built-in alert that told him about them.

He's also 700 years old. That's why he's not as slick as all the other robots.
He definately looks like something we would make in today's times.
Image

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: WALL-E

Postby quintopia » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:50 pm UTC

The sci-fi milieu was so well-done that I couldn't help but pick apart the little details. Ignoring the things that were obviously hyperbole, and as such, couldn't have been addressed in a hard sci-fi way, these things irked my suspension of disbelief:

1) The Axiom (or any colony ship) would never have been built for a planetside landing. All those little pods would have been used instead.
2) Sputnik fell from orbit just 3 months after being placed there. Those millions of other satellites should have long since fallen from orbit if they were there 700 years before.
3) The Axiom would not have jettisoned waste metal. . .it would be needed for replacement parts/robots. At least they did indicate that bodily waste was recycled for food (I assume by using it as fertilizer and water for an algae colony under artifical light.)
4) Why did the Axiom accelerate when it jumped to superluminal speeds? No major postulated methods of FTL travel in hard sci-fi involve actual motion of a ship with respect to the space immediately surrounding it. This one I can forgive readily because it made me picture Dark Helmet's dented helmet after stopping at ludicrous speed. ("They've gone plaid!")
5) Humans barely able to stand in microgravity should not have been able to stand at all planetside.
6) No robot WALL-E's size should be that strong.
7) How did WALL-E charge so fast? Plugging into a dedicated solar power plant to charge quickly would have been more plausible.
8) Roaches do not eat Twinkies or anything you might find in a vending machine.


I have explored the BnL site thoroughly and it provides explanations for a lot of things referenced in the movie. For instance, someone asked who takes care of the babies? See NANC-E. The site is hilariously parodical, and one of the articles I especially liked was "Money Monkey Visits Schools" in the Education section. It reminds me of a lot of modern toy companies and some even larger conglomerates. (Disney comes to mind.) Also check out the "Agriculture" section of the Business Divisions tab: it features the "BnL Lift and Separate Forklift." ROFL.
Last edited by quintopia on Sun Jul 06, 2008 8:10 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby EvanED » Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:02 am UTC

quintopia wrote:2) Sputnik fell from orbit just 3 months after being placed there. Those millions of other satellites should have long since fallen from orbit if they were there 700 years before.
Sputnik wasn't in a very high orbit, only about 4,300 miles up. By contrast, there are a lot of satellites up today rather higher. Geosynchronous orbit for instance is about 22,000 miles. I don't find it hard to believe at all that stuff that was a few thousand miles further out than sputnik could stay up virtually indefinitely. 'course, I could be totally wrong.

5) Humans barely able to stand in microgravity should not have been able to stand at all planetside.
I'm presuming by the fact that there was gravity at all that they had artificial gravity generators that would make it near Earth-equivalent.

6) No robot WALL-E's size should be that strong.
7) How did WALL-E charge so fast? Plugging into a dedicated solar power plant to charge quickly would have been more plausible.
Why not? We are talking about the future here. We built a ship that can travel who-knows-how-far in no time at all, carry who-knows-how-many passengers, etc. Why so hard to believe that our mechanical or electrical knowledge has progressed?

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: WALL-E

Postby quintopia » Sun Jul 06, 2008 3:31 am UTC

EvanED wrote:
quintopia wrote:2) Sputnik fell from orbit just 3 months after being placed there. Those millions of other satellites should have long since fallen from orbit if they were there 700 years before.
Sputnik wasn't in a very high orbit, only about 4,300 miles up. By contrast, there are a lot of satellites up today rather higher. Geosynchronous orbit for instance is about 22,000 miles. I don't find it hard to believe at all that stuff that was a few thousand miles further out than sputnik could stay up virtually indefinitely. 'course, I could be totally wrong.

5) Humans barely able to stand in microgravity should not have been able to stand at all planetside.
I'm presuming by the fact that there was gravity at all that they had artificial gravity generators that would make it near Earth-equivalent.

6) No robot WALL-E's size should be that strong.
7) How did WALL-E charge so fast? Plugging into a dedicated solar power plant to charge quickly would have been more plausible.
Why not? We are talking about the future here. We built a ship that can travel who-knows-how-far in no time at all, carry who-knows-how-many passengers, etc. Why so hard to believe that our mechanical or electrical knowledge has progressed?


You make it quite clear you haven't seen the movie.

2)
Spoiler:
Sputnik was actually shown as one of the satellites still in orbit in the movie. Which it couldn't have been if it fell out of orbit.
As for the other satellites, the average lifetime is seven years, over which the average efficiency of the solar cells drops almost linearly. If left for more than a century, all modern satellites would be failed or failing, and soon after they fail, their orbit will degrade until they fall.

5)
Spoiler:
There is a point in the movie where a character specifically mentions that the humans have suffered bone loss due to microgravity. The gravity generators were thus generating at well below earth-equivalent. Never mind that the humans in question were so obese that even having lived on Earth since birth, they would have been bed-ridden.


7) True. But some of the things he did
Spoiler:
like holding up a bulky platform that was being hydraulically propelled downward despite having already received substantial damage to main components
looked absolutely physically impossible for even the most advanced technology. I'm not saying that it's not possible, just that I doubt it would be possible so near in the future as the movie implies. As for his solar panels, which took only a few seconds to charge and only intercepted around two square feet of atmosphere-filtered sunlight, I know for a fact that there would not be enough energy to power Wall-E for a day even if the the solar collectors were 100% efficient.

andqso
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 3:52 am UTC
Location: Piedmont, CA
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby andqso » Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:36 am UTC

Also,

Best. Closing. Credits. Ever.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: WALL-E

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:37 am UTC

Oh my god a pixar movie aimed at 10 year olds is scientifically inaccurate?! Get your pitchforks, it's burnin' time!

To you nitpicking the realism, I say get a grip. The movie portrays a cleaner robot gaining some degree of self-awareness, making an intergalactic trip through space (his oculars are sealed against vacuum?! his pistons work in any temperature?!) and trailing his beautifully curious exploratory through the ice ring of saturn, blahblahblah...

Get over it.

It was a heartfelt, beautiful, poignant, heartwarming, sweet, positive, and sobering movie. It was nothing but win, if a little juvenile.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby EvanED » Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:38 am UTC

quintopia wrote:You make it quite clear you haven't seen the movie.
I'm quite certain I have. ;-)

2)
Spoiler:
Sputnik was actually shown as one of the satellites still in orbit in the movie. Which it couldn't have been if it fell out of orbit.
As for the other satellites, the average lifetime is seven years, over which the average efficiency of the solar cells drops almost linearly. If left for more than a century, all modern satellites would be failed or failing, and soon after they fail, their orbit will degrade until they fall.
Okay, I forgot about that point. But I'm still confused/surprised about why satellites in higher orbit couldn't sustain that just passively. In high orbit, is there still enough particles to slow them down so that they will fall in the span of just a couple hundred years?

Spoiler:
There is a point in the movie where a character specifically mentions that the humans have suffered bone loss due to microgravity. The gravity generators were thus generating at well below earth-equivalent. Never mind that the humans in question were so obese that even having lived on Earth since birth, they would have been bed-ridden.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure how to reconcile those things either, especially given the effects of even comparatively short periods of space travel on people we've seen, like on Mir.
Spoiler:
However, it's clear that referring to the state on the Axiom as microgravity is just wrong anyway. They've at least got to be on the equivalent of a small moon. I think that statement by Auto/Otto or wherever it came from should probably have never made it into the movie in the first place, and it would make sense to assume gravity is around Earth-equivalent if it weren't for that statement. I know this is explicitly not canon, but it's clear that the axiom has undergone some design changes since that statement was made anyway. ;-)


7) True. But some of the things he did
Spoiler:
like holding up a bulky platform that was being hydraulically propelled downward despite having already received substantial damage to main components
looked absolutely physically impossible for even the most advanced technology. I'm not saying that it's not possible, just that I doubt it would be possible so near in the future as the movie implies.
I am still going to disagree... FTL drives -- or even just Axiom-sized self-sufficient ships capable of wandering indefinitely around -- aren't exactly possible "so near in the future as the movie implies" either, so it's already clear that we've made enormous leaps in technology by the timeframe of the movie.

Spoiler:
As for the specific instance of the chamber they were taking the plant to, it's unlikely that it was designed to pull down with all *that* much force. After all, what would be blocking the chamber from closing that just couldn't be cleared out? It's not hard to envision that it would even be designed like a garage door, so that if it hit an obstruction it would reverse itself.

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: WALL-E

Postby quintopia » Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:38 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Oh my god a pixar movie aimed at 10 year olds is scientifically inaccurate?!


It's not aimed at 10-year-olds. I recall several younguns in the theater saying quite openly they didn't understand things.
Also, I thought I made it clear that I thought the movie was incredibly scientifically accurate. I mean, look at the dancing scene in space: few space movies take the trouble to represent space as other than a huge ocean. It was because it was so close to being hard s-f that I even noticed these things.

I'm spoiling your next quote in hopes that you'll put a spoiler on yours too.

Spoiler:
Izawwlgood wrote:To you nitpicking the realism, I say get a grip. The movie portrays a cleaner robot gaining some degree of self-awareness, making an intergalactic trip through space (his oculars are sealed against vacuum?! his pistons work in any temperature?!) and trailing his beautifully curious exploratory through the ice ring of saturn, blahblahblah...

These things I have no problem with. I mean, obviously the stardust thing is impossible, but I said I wasn't going to criticize the hyperbole things that made it a Disney movie. I think robots with self-awareness that have vacuum-sealed oculars (they would have to be, to keep out the fine dust of post-Earth) and very efficient heat sinks are completely plausible in an sf sense.


Izawwlgood wrote:It was a heartfelt, beautiful, poignant, heartwarming, sweet, positive, and sobering movie. It was nothing but win, if a little juvenile.


You'll find no disagreement here. Well-said!

EvanED wrote:In high orbit, is there still enough particles to slow them down so that they will fall in the span of just a couple hundred years?


If you can count "millions of other satellites in close proximity" as "enough particles" then of course.

EvanED wrote:it's already clear that we've made enormous leaps in technology by the timeframe of the movie.


Which is why I wish they had set the Axiom's departure date a little further in the future
Spoiler:
(the message from BnL saying the recolonization project was cancelled was received in the early 2100s I recall)


EvanED wrote:it's clear that the axiom has undergone some design changes since that statement was made anyway.


You're right. There must have been some good scientists in the first generation that came up with some kind of gravity projection field.
Spoiler:
The fall in the garbage shaft did appear to reach Earth-normal terminal velocities. Also, the field is obviously movable, since Auto moved it to "tilt" the lido deck and spill the blobs away from the holo-detector.

User avatar
MrHackman
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: At the Mad Hatter's tea party. Have some wine.

Re: WALL-E

Postby MrHackman » Sun Jul 06, 2008 9:21 am UTC

First off, in terms of accuracy.
It's an animated movie aimed at kids. :wink:
Pixar is well aware that it does not make scientific sense, but it's okay because it's cool/funny/beautiful/essential to the plot (take your pick).

I really liked the movie, the characters were cute, there was techno eye-candy every 5 seconds, and there's the whole "be yourself" thing. There were a lot of funny lines, and 'aww, how sweet' moments (like the secretary bot waving at Wall-E, and the guy and woman playing in the pool). All in all a great movie, one I may actually BUY (as opposed to, y'know, stealing it).
Memetically speaking though, the movie was really well designed. You've got this environmentalist/anti-consumerism theme throughout the whole movie (not to mention that one "stay the course" line. really subtle there), which is being fed to young kids so they're influenced by it. And for a bonus point, the parents (aka current voters) saw it too, so they'll be influenced as well (not as much but still).
If four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is fourteen, what base is next? And more importantly, who is doing the calculation? :)

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby random_kitty » Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:19 pm UTC

Hmmm - when I saw the trailer I though "They better not be making a bad Short Circuit rip-off" though the movie does sound good. It sounds like Wall-E might share some aesthetic and personality characteristics with Jonny-5 but nothing too major.
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

User avatar
PatrickRsGhost
Posts: 2278
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:43 pm UTC
Location: ZZ9PluralZAlpha
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby PatrickRsGhost » Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:36 pm UTC

Wall-E doesn't look just like Johnny 5. In fact, if you combine Johnny 5 and one other character, you'd get Wall-E:

Image

plus

Spoiler:
Image


equals

Image

Spoiler:
Did anyone else notice in the credits when the characters scroll by during the credits, they look like graphics from an old Atari game? Almost like the E.T. game?
PRG

An important message for you:

010000100110010100100000011100110
111010101110010011001010010000001
110100011011110010000001100101011
000010111010000100000011110010110
111101110101011100100010000001100
010011000010110001101101111011011
1000101110

User avatar
marshlight
Posts: 877
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:26 pm UTC
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby marshlight » Sun Jul 06, 2008 6:28 pm UTC

Loved loved loved this movie. Haven't seen a movie I've liked this much in a long time.

Interesting that the Buy n Large site is (C) 2057. Not too far off, really.
Belial wrote:Time to hide in the CAVE OF AWESOME.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: WALL-E

Postby Izawwlgood » Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:02 pm UTC

Awww, but look at those deep, curious, LOOOOONELY eyes! How can you equate Wall-E to the cold, 80's, cheesewhizz that is Johnny-5?!

But fine, he's E.T., because he can communicate with anyone and everyone. And he's sort of helpless in his genius. And is relentless. And is cured by going home.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Sartorius
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:21 am UTC
Location: Oh? Hi! Oh.

Re: WALL-E

Postby Sartorius » Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:37 pm UTC

I adored this movie. I'm a huge cynic when it comes to romance in movies and this didn't trigger it. I know a few people that are a bit too much like the blobs (We have a pool?). I loved the references to 2001:A Space Odyssey. I was cracking up in the theater so much.

If we're talking about errors, I could bring up biological ones as well, especially in relation to plants, but this movie is just too cute and full of eye candy to nitpick it.
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." -Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Aluminus
Posts: 1337
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
Location: View From Space

Re: WALL-E

Postby Aluminus » Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:44 am UTC

When WALL-E took the plant out of his storage bin/garbage-compressor-box when he was floating in space, I was like "Why isn't the plant exploding?"
fyrenwater wrote:Oh dear God, I just imagined this horrible scenario of a psychotic non-people-person running around, trying to steal the people-person section of people-peoples' brains to implant into their own brain.

User avatar
random_kitty
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:02 am UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby random_kitty » Mon Jul 07, 2008 3:58 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Awww, but look at those deep, curious, LOOOOONELY eyes! How can you equate Wall-E to the cold, 80's, cheesewhizz that is Johnny-5?!

But fine, he's E.T., because he can communicate with anyone and everyone. And he's sort of helpless in his genius. And is relentless. And is cured by going home.



Jonny-5 was alive! He was not 'cold'.

*holds up grasshopper* "Reassemble Stephanie"
"Love is an ugly business my friend - yet we live for it" Se04Ep02 Boston Legal

@trophy wrote:"Confidence" is just waiting to experience negative outcomes in real life instead of rehearsing them in your head beforehand.

User avatar
longs
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby longs » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:23 am UTC

Izawwlgood et al,

I apologize for the delaying in my reply.

In general, my only defense is this attitude, this certain aesthetic and outlook I've adopted recently. It is a certain sort of demanding-ness. The magic and heart-warming feelings may have been very real to you, but I just find myself righteously tearing down everything phony, cliched, or the least bit second-rate, and demanding instead a more real (as in realism) recreation of values as they can exist in this world. I don't care much about artistic intent, only execution and success. I give artists just as much help as I would ask for. I realize this is not the most appropriate attitude to apply to kids' movies or to the rest of my environment on a daily basis, as it leads as you may imagine to a lot of cynicism, but...that happens to be the one I'm governed by right now. Were it not, we'd agree a lot more.
the participle.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: WALL-E

Postby Jebobek » Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:41 pm UTC

longs wrote:Izawwlgood et al,

I apologize for the delaying in my reply.

In general, my only defense is this attitude, this certain aesthetic and outlook I've adopted recently. It is a certain sort of demanding-ness. The magic and heart-warming feelings may have been very real to you, but I just find myself righteously tearing down everything phony, cliched, or the least bit second-rate, and demanding instead a more real (as in realism) recreation of values as they can exist in this world. I don't care much about artistic intent, only execution and success. I give artists just as much help as I would ask for. I realize this is not the most appropriate attitude to apply to kids' movies or to the rest of my environment on a daily basis, as it leads as you may imagine to a lot of cynicism, but...that happens to be the one I'm governed by right now. Were it not, we'd agree a lot more.


What movies do you like specifically using this criticism?

Oh and what was your favorite art-part about Wall-E? I agree with you that the no-dialoge showcasing part being the best part of the movie. I liked the overhead view of him at the very beginning. I'm not sure why but it made me think.
Image

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: WALL-E

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:19 pm UTC

@longs: I can understand that, and even relate to it a bit, but I think it's important to switch it off sometimes.

But farbeit from me to suggest that a kids movie wouldn't qualify as art.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Gadren
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby Gadren » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:07 am UTC

Aluminus wrote:When WALL-E took the plant out of his storage bin/garbage-compressor-box when he was floating in space, I was like "Why isn't the plant exploding?"

Probably because plants (and people) don't explode instantly upon contact with space.

I just saw this movie today, and it was brilliant. I was "d'awww-ing" the entire time. :) Like every Pixar film, I go into it with some apprehension (since the previews never really make it all that appealing to me), but I was pleasantly surprised how much could be conveyed with so little dialogue.

When my dad saw it a few weeks ago, he felt disappointed in it, but he admits he may need to see it again to rejudge. I do agree with him that it feels much like two different movies stuck together, but I'm still not sure if that sort of dualism was intended or not. Nonetheless, I loved every minute of it.

User avatar
Aluminus
Posts: 1337
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:51 pm UTC
Location: View From Space

Re: WALL-E

Postby Aluminus » Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:17 pm UTC

Wow Gadren, thanks for the link. I would have thought that the water in the plant would have boiled off.
fyrenwater wrote:Oh dear God, I just imagined this horrible scenario of a psychotic non-people-person running around, trying to steal the people-person section of people-peoples' brains to implant into their own brain.

User avatar
Narsil
Ask me about my junk!
Posts: 2995
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:59 pm UTC
Location: Columbus.

Re: WALL-E

Postby Narsil » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:21 pm UTC

I really enjoyed the nods the movie made to the sci-fi that helped it exist. There was the obvious two pieces of music from 2001: A Space Odyssey, as well as Auto having HAL's glowing red eye. Then there was the not-so-obvious naming of the Leto Deck on the Axiom. This works on several levels:

1) Leto is a Greek goddess commonly depicted as pregnant, searching for a place to bear Apollo, the god of the sun, music, craft, archery, ect. Basically everything that makes culture.

2) Leto is also the name of several main characters in the Dune series, both of whom play roles in restoring water and green land to the planet Dune.

Now, for extra credit, find a G-rated movie that has more effort put into it. Hint: not possible.

Did anyone else feel that the opening short owed just a little bit to the game Portal?
Spoiler:
EsotericWombat wrote:MORE JUNK THAN YOUR BODY HAS ROOM FOR

Mother Superior wrote:What's he got that I dont?
*sees Narsil's sig*
Oh... that.

User avatar
PatrickRsGhost
Posts: 2278
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:43 pm UTC
Location: ZZ9PluralZAlpha
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby PatrickRsGhost » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:48 pm UTC

Narsil wrote:Did anyone else feel that the opening short owed just a little bit to the game Portal?


I have never played the game, but I couldn't help but think of Portal while watching the short. My mom thought it owed a lot to Chuck Jones or Tex Avery, with the exaggerated facial expressions of the rabbit and the magician, especially when he was electrocuted.

Speaking of the short, did anyone notice the red thatched fabric background of the title card? It was just like the red thatched fabric background that was used in the old Disney animated shorts featuring Mickey, Donald, Goofy, and the others.

Did anyone notice the "Weird Science" reference?

Spoiler:
Wall-E puts the bra on his head when he finds a few objects to take back with him.
PRG

An important message for you:

010000100110010100100000011100110
111010101110010011001010010000001
110100011011110010000001100101011
000010111010000100000011110010110
111101110101011100100010000001100
010011000010110001101101111011011
1000101110

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: WALL-E

Postby Jebobek » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Yes I agree, I do think they took somthing from Jones/Avery with the need to act normal in front of the crowd. Something zany happened and the crowd would applaud and the guy had to bow. The old formula of general awkwardness in front of applauding crowd was revived and I appreciated it. Oh my gosh we had a lady laughing HYSTERICALLY in our audience during that short.

My favorite short (from i think avery) was the Magician that took the place of the conductor of an opera because he had something against the lead singer. He then used his magic wand to put the singer in compromizing positions, like making bunnies appear on his arms. The pixar short was basically THIS short plus Portal.
Image

User avatar
PatrickRsGhost
Posts: 2278
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:43 pm UTC
Location: ZZ9PluralZAlpha
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby PatrickRsGhost » Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:47 pm UTC

I think in that Tex Avery short you're thinking of, the magician got back at the opera singer because he wouldn't let the magician open for him. Why should an opera singer allow some hack performer like a magician, performing parlour tricks, open for him. Now, if it was something with a bit more class, sure. If someone was reciting a soliloquy from Shakespeare's "Hamlet" or a dramatic monologue by Tennyson or Browning, then sure. But a magician performing hat tricks and other novelties? No thanks.
PRG

An important message for you:

010000100110010100100000011100110
111010101110010011001010010000001
110100011011110010000001100101011
000010111010000100000011110010110
111101110101011100100010000001100
010011000010110001101101111011011
1000101110

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: WALL-E

Postby Jebobek » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Well in the Magician's defence he was literally booted/thrown out and thats just being MEAN.

But yes I think this had a very big influence, I'd like to do some research on how they got the idea for the short.
Image

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby Lumpy » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:50 pm UTC

I noticed they used the same font and background for the title of the short as Disney used for their cartoons in the 1950s. There was an old Tex Avery short where an opera singer is giving The whole theater was laughing at the magician getting jabbed in the face with his own fingers using the hats as portals. The poor little rabbit just wanted his carrot.

Every time I see a Pixar movie, I always go away thinking it's better than the last. This was no exception. It awes you right from the start with the gargantuan towers of compacted trash with ramps on the side for WALL-E to climb. WALL-E's cache full of human artifacts reminded me of Ariel's grotto from The Little Mermaid.

WALL-E looks old and rusty in comparison to EVE because he's over 700 years old and EVE is relatively new. It was 2110 when the President recorded the message to the autopilot, and the Captain said that was 700 years ago. The two robots are shown together in the credits holding hands after the trees are grown and there are sparrows soaring above the bushes, so they probably 'live' for a lot longer after the movie's closing. Those were the best movie credits I've ever seen, serving as an epilogue while going through different art styles starting with cave paintings, da Vinci oil paintings, impressionism.

It looks like Earth had a corporate dictatorship for a while.

User avatar
asanisimasa
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 11:43 pm UTC
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: WALL-E

Postby asanisimasa » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:12 pm UTC

What happened to everyone else on the planet? The only people that were on the ship seemed to be Americans.
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." - Carl Sagan

User avatar
MrHackman
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: At the Mad Hatter's tea party. Have some wine.

Re: WALL-E

Postby MrHackman » Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:01 am UTC

Time Magazine article about Wall-E and the possibility of winning best picture:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0 ... 24,00.html
If four times five is twelve, and four times six is thirteen, and four times seven is fourteen, what base is next? And more importantly, who is doing the calculation? :)

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby Lumpy » Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:18 am UTC

I couldn't believe there were conservatives that found reason to lambaste it for being "liberal propaganda about the environment." The people involved said that the setting came secondary to the two robots, WALL-E and EVE, in the creative process. I would have thought that the imagery of all those fat people on their hoverchairs with every want being met by the ship would have played well with conservative audiences by sparking a comparison in their minds to government welfare.

Maybe they seemed to be Americans because technology wasn't advanced enough by 2110 for a large enough ship of those capabilities to be built, so only the richest could get on, and America had a head-start because of the recent redistribution of wealth toward fewer people from the middle and lower classes.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: WALL-E

Postby Jebobek » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:47 pm UTC

Pixar puts in the token minorities but never really made a minority-starring movie.

They spend alot on their movies so they need to have it appeal to a wide audience of primarily-american and Euopean audiences. So I can't really blame them for often basing their characters off of the location they're in and the audience they face. Its just good business.
Image

User avatar
mrguy753
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:35 am UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby mrguy753 » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:37 am UTC

America was never mentioned in the movie. I mean, the whole "Buy n Large" was clearly a parody/ allegory for American (though I guess really global, I might just think it's always American because I am) consumerism. However, other than that, the nationality is really never mentioned. They all speak English, sure, becaue Pixar is an English-speaking company and team. So really, I don't think that is a valid criticism.
I sing anyway.

User avatar
headprogrammingczar
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Beaming you up

Re: WALL-E

Postby headprogrammingczar » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:40 pm UTC

On a related note, try watching The Host sometime. It's a great Korean monster movie, featuring lots of Americans. Everyone still spoke Korean perfectly, and the English dubs were all done by Koreans, even the Americans.
<quintopia> You're not crazy. you're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Weeks> You're the goddamn headprogrammingspock!
<Cheese> I love you

emo samurai
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:29 am UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby emo samurai » Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:42 pm UTC

@longs

First off, I find Pixar's work to be excellent. The technical aspects are always flawless, the animation is charming and lovable, and blackhearted as I am,
Spoiler:
I melted inside when I saw Wall-e and Eve dance.


At the same time, Pixar's work is unmistakably geared towards the Wal-Mart worshipper represented by the fat people on hoverchairs. Take the Incredibles. People have accused it, rightly, in my mind, of preaching Objectivist ideology, but who is it preaching to? The people who don't have to be told that "If everyone's super, then nobody is," or the people who do? Like Paradise Lost, Pixar's work is there to justify the ways of God to Man, except instead of God, you have meritocracy, and instead of Man, you have Jesusland.

I assume that this is because of its involvement with Disney. I can only imagine what they would've made if Steve Jobs didn't exchange his 50.1% share of Pixar for Cinderella's Castle.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby cephalopod9 » Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:29 am UTC

Aah, so nerdy!

Spoiler:
Obvious 2001 (don't build an auto pilot with a big red eye in the middle)
Brazil!(!!!1one etc.) big magnifying glass in front of the screen, assembly lines, retro future-nostalgia.
Did any one else think of Star Trek at the captain's controls?
Sputnik!
I can sort of see why people are complaining about liberal messages, but it didn't feel like the main focus.
Spoiler:
They did mention that the people were blobs because of spending time in space, and except for not doing anything themselves it didn't seem like there was anything wrong with being blobs.
Image

User avatar
Lumpy
I can has morbid obesity?
Posts: 1450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm UTC

Re: WALL-E

Postby Lumpy » Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:51 am UTC

Did any one else think of Star Trek at the captain's controls?


I think I heard "I don't want to survive; I want to live!" uttered by Captain Kirk in the episode The Apple from the second season, where the machine kept in the cave keeps them marooned on the planet where all people have all their needs met by it.

User avatar
quintopia
Posts: 2906
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:53 am UTC
Location: atlanta, ga

Re: WALL-E

Postby quintopia » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:29 am UTC

Narsil wrote:Then there was the not-so-obvious naming of the Leto Deck on the Axiom. This works on several levels:

1) Leto is a Greek goddess commonly depicted as pregnant, searching for a place to bear Apollo, the god of the sun, music, craft, archery, ect. Basically everything that makes culture.

2) Leto is also the name of several main characters in the Dune series, both of whom play roles in restoring water and green land to the planet Dune.


Definite mosquito theory here. The lido deck is a common travel industry name for an open deck containing a swimming pool. But I like the idea that you made these spurious connections.


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests