First off, the traditional short, Presto is as wonderful an homage as anyone's given to the work of Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, and the other comedic greats of the golden age of theatrical animation. It's good stuff.
WALL*E is not good stuff. WALL*E is -great- stuff.
In fact, it'll be a crime if it's not nominated for "best picture" instead of merely "best animated film".
The first third of the film puts us into a situation so bleak, so lonely, so desperately barren that every gag and bit of whimsy is completely necessary. Otherwise it'd be too depressing to watch. Pixar's not exactly avoided darker content before, but this definitely pushes their scope.
After WALL*E meets EVE, the film becomes several things. It becomes one of the sweetest, most heart-breaking romances of 2008. It becomes an SF adventure. It becomes an epic about the reawakening of what's good in humanity. It becomes the most perfect portrayal of funny robots ever.
One thing it never becomes, thankfully, is an anvilicious tract like certain lesser, non-Pixar films CGI "message" movies have been. The story is told so wonderfully that the message never clashes. Likewise, the message is an important enough one that it never seems tacked on to the story.
(unlike that film whose title rhymed with "snappy beat")
WALL*E is so good that it even made usage of footage from the 1969 "Hello Dolly" cinematic turkey enjoyable...and -that- takes some doing!
You will love this movie. If you don't, then you also don't love truth, beauty, and probably also lack a soul. I pity you. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I've been so excited for WALL-E, so much so that I went and bought the Wii game with a gift card I had. It just looks to be so good, and it's a romance and SF adventure. How can that not draw in a romantic nerd like myself? My girlfriend and I are going to see it tomorrow as part of our five month anniversary thing. I'm looking forward to it. Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
ARGH! I've been waiting for eleven months for this movie but I can't see it today because I'm seeing Get Smart at someone's birthday party!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ok then. Since Narnia doesn't seem to be playing (which means, not cute hot guy on the large screen) I'll just only see Wall-E instead of seeing two movies. I'll also have sushi. Maybe not this weekend though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Since Narnia doesn't seem to be playing...
That's because she's coming to the Portland Con.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
*rim-shot*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Heh. Porter, that was actually my initial reaction.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
*sigh
I'm not going to see this movie until next weekend, probably. We want to see this as a whole family, because if we didn't someone would feel cheated on, and what with a business trip and a vacation to Acadia going on this and next week, we'll probably see it in Maine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hey I just saw it. Per the subject I won't post any spoilers. But my eyes are still trying to take in all that eye candy. I was so impressed with the HUGE shots, so full of detail down to the glint of every robot. The character designs were so well conceived, especially the main robots. There are Pixar easter eggs everywhere, and some scenes I wouldn't change a thing about.
Those were also the best use of credits I've seen in a very long time, I remember thinking, "AWWW is that the conclusion?" It seems Pixar folks felt the same way.
There was alot more dialogue than I was lead to believe, but Pixar definitely tells great story without alot of words. There is no way it won't win the best sound editing oscar. Presto was hysterical, I loved the retro Silly Symphony look at the beginning.
edit: The previews on the other hand were absolutely terrible.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Well, I must be without a soul, because I thought it was one of the worst movies of the year. The CGI wasn't any improvement over the original Toy Story and the lack of sufficient dialogue completely ruined the storytelling.
Ok, now that I am done lying, I loved Wall-E. Definitely my favorite of all the Pixar films, and I want to watch it a couple more times just to absorb the wonderful visuals and enjoy the characters again.
Wall-E himself had all of the character traits that I loved from ET and Short Circuit, but better. There wasn't anything about him that annoyed me or seemed inauthentic. He was also a great example of a genuine hero.
Despite the minimal dialogue (except perhaps near the last part of the film), my 5-year-old was enthralled. In fact, the visual storytelling was more meaningful to him than a lot of the speaking that a child his age would miss. It says a lot about a film that can tell a great visual story that reaches adults and little kids. When I asked my son what he liked most about the movie, he said, "Everything."
If you are picky about what you will pay to see in today's expensive theaters, definitely make this one of your must-sees of the year. The visual detail in this movie needs to be seen on the big screen.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Those were also the best use of credits I've seen in a very long time, I remember thinking, "AWWW is that the conclusion?" It seems Pixar folks felt the same way.
Oh, totally. I was saying to myself: "What, no coda?" Then the credits started... Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I have to wait until July 4th weekend! AIEEE!!!
Anticipation......
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I want to watch it a couple more times just to absorb the wonderful visuals and enjoy the characters again.
I've already seen it a third time.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: Despite the minimal dialogue (except perhaps near the last part of the film), my 5-year-old was enthralled. In fact, the visual storytelling was more meaningful to him than a lot of the speaking that a child his age would miss.
Children are actually not very able to grasp most of the dialog. Many times, characters speak too fast, in funny voices, and the occasional big word or witty sentence, meant to make the adults chuckle, will leave a kid clueless. This is why many children have an insane passion to watch their favorite movies over and over again. It's really the visuals that tell the story for them. When it comes to being a kid, plot is thrown out the window until the movie has been seen enough to understand it. Kids are most likely to imitate the most clearly-spoken and enthusiastically-delivered short sentences, repeating them right after they're said in the movie, and sometimes when the are reminded of it at the supper table.
My suggestion is mostly to let kids be kids; they don't watch TV for the same reason adults do. But it would be cool if, in the digital video era, you could teach a kid to read by always turning on the subtitles. Think of how much attention kids give to the TV! It's like reading immersion camp. Of course, I don't have any kids directly under my responsibility to test this idea, it also helps the adults, because even they can't get everything the first time.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I feel sort of guilty about not mentioning the soundtrack. In addition to a couple of songs from Hello Dolly that tie into WALL*E's humanity and optimism, there's also 'La Vie En Rose' by the legendary Louis Armstrong, a great new song by Peter Gabriel, and a truly evocative score by Thomas Newman. An especial favorite is EVE's theme music. Like EVE herself it's beautiful, stirring, powerful...and strangely wistful. Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Okay, I managed to sneak a screening this afternoon, despite the hostilities that will inevitably arise, but it was SO worth it. I absolutely have a new all-time favorite movie. My biggest qualm with the movie is when WALL-E touches that planet's rings, and the dust swirls. WRONG! Such a pattern of movement requires air currents. And not to mention that a starship traveling at transplanetary speeds would be cruising so fast that if WALL-E touched those ring particles he'd have been blasted to smithereens.
But that's it. I'm willing to forgive the scientific inaccuracy in that one scene for the perfect combination of action, romance, and satire that makes the movie. The animations are so striking, the scenery so detailed, the sounds so emotional, the story so elegant, the... oh I'm getting carried away. This may well be the first time I walked away so stunned and satisfied with a movie that I had impossibly high expectations for.
EDIT: Did anyone stay long enough after the credits, even after the Pixar and Disney screens? The funniest thing happens.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, I did, hoping for outtakes or something. It was worth a chuckle:) I wonder if it was a nod/smirk to the (stupid, IMO) criticisms of hypocrisy in that movie re: marketing and stuff?
(If that was the only scientific inaccuracy you noted, there was one that was actually central to the story that you missed: the plant in the vacuum of space.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:EDIT: Did anyone stay long enough after the credits, even after the Pixar and Disney screens? The funniest thing happens.
Yep, it actually scared me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, you mean startled?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Yeah, the plant couldn't have survived in hard vacuum.
Then again, it's even more unlikely that a robot could develop a soul. Even one with expressive ViewMaster eyes. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
We went this morning (you know, that's the best time to go on the opening weekend of a much anticipated movie? First showing on Saturday morning. There were only 12 of us in the whole theater. It was wonderful.) and I *loved* it. I want to go see it again. I was a little scared of the beginning because it seemed like the usual 'global destruction' guiltfest movies seem to love, but after the first couple of minutes, I really didn't get that. I got how lonely the place was and appreciated the ubiquitousness of BnL. It was taking Walmart to the far extreme and I thought it was funny in a sad sort of way.
I loved the messages about love it held. I also loved the way they illustrated the dead end life of the sole pursuit of pleasure and convenience. I didn't feel preached at and it was cartoonish enough to keep from feeling preachy. It was perfectly done. I think it's my new favorite!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What, you mean startled?
Nope scared me, I'll never go to Wal-mart again.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Just got back from seeing Wall-E and WOW!
I feel almost speechless!
It was so...PRETTY! The detail is incredible. From the sweeping landscape down to every speck of dirt on Wall-E. I didn't know animators could do something like that. When I wasn't ooh-ing and aww-ing of the characters and story, I was wondering how long a particular background had taken to create.
We went to a 9:10pm showing and so it was a small crowd. Only one little kid who talked through the first five minutes. His parents tried to shush him and then lady snapped at them for trying to quiet him because "its a kid movie." Aside wanting to remind her that Pixar doesn't just make "kid-movies," I was tempted to remind her that it was probably well past the kid's bedtime and he probably shouldn't have been there at all.
Thankfully, he got quiet and stayed that way for most of the film (only speaking up at the end when we're all riveted to our seats because you know how kids are doing serious and nearly silent scenes.) Overall, it was an amazing atmosphere. His eyes were glued to the screen and the adult audience was laughing at every perfectly timed joke or visual gag. And I love how natural the humor was. No inappropriate jokes or unnecessary puns. It all just flowed beautifully.
And how could you not love Wall-E and Eve?! I wish we could get performances like that out of more than a few human actors.
On a completely random note, hordes of Barenaked Ladies fans are wondering if the animators at Pixar are tipping their hat to the band. Personally, I hope not since Buy-N-Large is like Walmart, Bush, and Donald Trump rolled into one and it scares me!
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, I did, hoping for outtakes or something. It was worth a chuckle:) I wonder if it was a nod/smirk to the (stupid, IMO) criticisms of hypocrisy in that movie re: marketing and stuff?
(If that was the only scientific inaccuracy you noted, there was one that was actually central to the story that you missed: the plant in the vacuum of space.)
Well, no, I was thinking just that when WALL-E ejected with his fire extinguisher, but I decided that his compartment must be vacuum-sealed. Then he showed the plant to EVE, and then I think I closed my eyes...
I think I'm willing to forgive the trauma to the plant because it is important to the theme and plot to the movie, but the swirling rings do nothing but look cute. Which is why it's a very minor quibble. The movie is perfect, even with its flaws. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: The movie is perfect, even with its flaws.
Just recite the MST3K mantra: "Repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax." Pixar (as usual) was concerned with story and character first and foremost. Any contradictions to the laws of reality can be safely chalked up to the fantasy elements. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There were several other major science holes. Like where did all the food come from?
But it was awesome. Going was not my favorite part of PortlandCon, but it was close.
Also, there will be NO dissing of "Hello Dolly!" It was my gramma's favorite musical. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There were several other major science holes. Like where did all the food come from?
The liquid food in a cup? Well, the captain referred to it as "self-regenerating", so I personally assumed BnL developed a super-batch of mold or something that the robots could grow on the ship, grind up into smoothies, and flavor as needed with tasty artificial ingredients.
I'm not bashing Hello Dolly, I'm bashing the 1969 movie version. I'm sorry, but Barbra Streisand was all wrong for Dolly Levi. It's true!
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
If we are going to argue about the likelyhood of particular details, then shouldn't we find it unlikely that a thousand people who have never used their legs for walking in their entire lives would suddenly be able to walk around just because they decided to do so?
--ApostleRadio
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Yeah, I thought of that too. But I assumed they must have taken turns jogging their newly discovered track on their way through hyperspace.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I saw it yesterday and liked it a lot. I won't say loved, but darn near close. I think because Eve and Wall-E were robots, the depiction of their "emotions" were able to be much purer than what you get with real people. There's always that hint of acting with ... well, actors. But none of that with Eve and Wall-E.
Also, I loved how even though the movie was more or less centered around Wall-E, everyone had their own battles to fight. It wasn't just Wall-E doing things with everyone else watching, helping, or opposing. There were multiple conflicts centered around multiple characters, all of which the audience cared about.
I won't say it's the best movie I've seen, but it is by far the best I've seen this year.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
My girlfriend and I loved Wall-E when we saw it yesterday. In fact, her parents are supposed to come into town next weekend, so we're probably going to take them to see it as well. It was just such an awesome movie.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: If we are going to argue about the likelyhood of particular details, then shouldn't we find it unlikely that a thousand people who have never used their legs for walking in their entire lives would suddenly be able to walk around just because they decided to do so?
--ApostleRadio
The human mind is a powerful thing .
Maybe the suits had some sort of muscle stimulation which kept them from atrophying completely. And maybe they had been taught how to walk when they were babies or even children (notice there were no children? Only adults and babies that I saw) but once they got into the chairs they simply never used it. In which case it might be like riding a bike after not thinking about it for 15 years - A little shaky, but possible.
Just saying, it's not as impossible as the plant in space.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, plants are fairly resilient and would likely survive a minute or two of vacuum. Humans do (according to NASA's best guess) and we have a bunch of important systems that make assumptions about pressure differentials, which aren't found in plants.
The inaccuracy that bugged me the most was when the Axiom threw out all that garbage. If they're supposed to have been doing this for 700 years, just where are they getting all their mass? And I must say that that episode doesn't exactly fill me with hope for the future of these humans as stewards of the new Earth. If 700 years in space can't teach them recycling, then it's just hopeless.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: I saw it yesterday and liked it a lot. I won't say loved, but darn near close.
Ditto this. It was cute and charming and good, but I'm not ready to hail this as the best movie of the year - or even my favorite Pixar film.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The inaccuracy that bugged me the most was when the Axiom threw out all that garbage. If they're supposed to have been doing this for 700 years, just where are they getting all their mass?
According to the tie-in guidebooks, BnL had space-mining operations. The same ships that send out the EVE probes are also used to bring raw materials in for robot construction and the like.
One of the points of the Axiom scenes was, the people had known nothing but the mindless consumerism of BnL before WALL*E came along and started awakening various folk to being engaged and interested in things again. The coda scenes during the credits indicate they were able to deprogram themselves...they're showing re-using ship materials and restoring the ancient Earth buildings. Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie:
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: I saw it yesterday and liked it a lot. I won't say loved, but darn near close.
Ditto this. It was cute and charming and good, but I'm not ready to hail this as the best movie of the year - or even my favorite Pixar film.
What would you consider the best movie of the year (so far)? I'm not being argumentative, just curious. I keep on getting free passes to movie theaters and I have Netflix now, so I'd like to see more quality movies.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Carrie: [QUOTE]]Ditto this. It was cute and charming and good, but I'm not ready to hail this as the best movie of the year - or even my favorite Pixar film.
"It was only averagely awesome. Merely terrific. Sort of super. Ho-hum." (J/K)
But seriously, out of the first half of 2008, this is one of the few films that entertained me from start to finish -and- made me think.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's the best movie of the year for me so far, but then I have a very poor memory for things like 'what movie I liked best'.
(KoM, plants may be resilient, but that plant was on Death's Doorstep. Had one root tendril in the grave, so to speak.)
I think that like all Pixar films, WALL-E was not supposed to be 'realistic storytelling'. I mean, obviously of course. But what I mean by that is that it tries to stay true in terms of emotions, relationships, motivations, etc. - the soft stuff - while not prioritizing the hard stuff as much.
For example, in The Incredibles, we're really good at detecting rocket launches into space. Syndrome's plan would never have worked on that basis alone. I can go on, it's easy. It's also not what any of their films is really about.
WALL-E was about motivations and emotions. It wasn't important that the fat, helpless, sluggy humans couldn't have walked when they did, much less fight off robots. What was important was the will to do so, which had been by that time made completely dormant by stagnation.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
If Wall-E's inner chamber is airtight, the plant really wasn't exposed to vacuum for more than a few seconds. I imagine cell walls are a little more resilient than membranes.
It only occurred to me later, because Pixar is brilliant enough not to beat you over the head with such subtleties: On a fundamental level, Wall-E and Eve's directives are one and the same.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: According to the tie-in guidebooks, BnL had space-mining operations. The same ships that send out the EVE probes are also used to bring raw materials in for robot construction and the like.
You could get metals that way, but where are they getting their organics?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Probably from within their vessel. I doubt they packed only floaty chairs and Big Gulp cups after all. Then they simply grew the stuff.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Modern plants don't synthesise their amino acids from raw elements, though. That's why you need some fertiliser every so often for agriculture.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Grew them from WHAT?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's teh future, folks. 100+ years from present in the future to be precise, if I'm not mistaken. I think we can assume a sufficient technological advance to fill the gray area without overly straining credulity, right?
Don't get me wrong, I know we're just chattin' here and all. But as for where they might have gotten fertilizer, they did have a bunch of poopin' humans, right?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh come on, Rakeesh. You must know better than that. Recycling requires that you keep the amount of organic material constant. If you throw any out, there is less to go around the cycle.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rakeesh, regardless of the year, I'm guessing the laws of conservation of energy and matter will still apply. And using human output (or any non-herbivore's) as fertilizer tends to produce unacceptable levels of soil contaminants very quickly.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The Captain said the food was "self-regenerating", hence earlier my guess that BnL found a breakthrough we don't currently have.
How can they justify that? Recite the MST3K mantra again. If you can accept sentient, romantic robots, then self-regenerating artificial food can fit nicely into such a fantasy world. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: WALL-E was about motivations and emotions. It wasn't important that the fat, helpless, sluggy humans couldn't have walked when they did, much less fight off robots. What was important was the will to do so, which had been by that time made completely dormant by stagnation.
I'm seeing a lot of symbolism in the humans. The way they're designed, even the adults look like overgrown toddlers wearing baby clothes. They're lead to their new home by a robot named after the First Mother, shaped like an egg, rejecting the clingy, smothering parent AUTO was...they're the rebirth of the human race. Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
I agree that the movie is not the best example of scientific accuracy, but again--it's a Pixar movie. C'mon, it was preceded by a short featuring an anthropomorphic rabbit and hats with a dimensional doorway located inside.
Wall-E doesn't do the best science, but what it does do is a hell of a lot of emotional impact. From the bleak, barely-relieved depression of the first 40 minutes or so, to the humor and action of the last half of the movie, I never stopped caring about the movie, or feeling for the characters in it. I believe that movies, first and foremost, are meant to entertain, to move, and to inspire. Wall-E did that in spades.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Grew them from WHAT?
from it's a fantasy movie
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: If you can accept sentient, romantic robots, then self-regenerating artificial food can fit nicely into such a fantasy world.
Except the former does not violate basic laws of physics and the second does.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Human: From the bleak, barely-relieved depression of the first 40 minutes or so, to the humor and action of the last half of the movie, I never stopped caring about the movie, or feeling for the characters in it. I believe that movies, first and foremost, are meant to entertain, to move, and to inspire. Wall-E did that in spades.
Fine, but the point is, these are not major changes we are talking about. Just encapsulate the plant in a globe, and make the destination of the garbage a recycling plant instead of vacuum. The same emotional impact, and much more accurate. I'll even let you have the swirling planetary rings as evoking Wall-E's mood rather than what's actually happening.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: If you can accept sentient, romantic robots, then self-regenerating artificial food can fit nicely into such a fantasy world.
Except the former does not violate basic laws of physics and the second does.
Unless quantum mysticism turns out to be a law of physics...
KIDDING! I was KIDDING!
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Sentient robots that ahven't decided to kill us, what was the point of the matrix? Anyway that was the best pixar movie I have ever seen!
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
T:man, the beauty of this movie is that the robots are more human than the humans, and then teach the humans to be human again. I think it's a much cooler story if you have a robot that acts as an innocent savior than a vengeful slaver.
And yes, I got that you were joking. I'm agreeing with you more than anything.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: T:man, the beauty of this movie is that the robots are more human than the humans, and then teach the humans to be human again. I think it's a much cooler story if you have a robot that acts as an innocent savior than a vengeful slaver.
Those were some of my favorite moments. It seemed like everyone that Wall-E encountered were effected by his personality. His cheer and curiosity was literally infectious. I would just get the biggest grin watching various robots learn to wave and be independent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That moment when Moe decides to leave his guiding line to wipe up Wall-E's tracks was beautiful. Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
My only criticism is that the plot was a bit clumsy. The whole plant business got pretty complicated and random. Besides that... brilliant, of course. But I still think Finding Nemo was better. It had all the humor, beauty, adorableness, and love that Wall-E had, but with a simple, elegant plot.
And...if you can accept the fact that robots can fall in love, I'm sure you can accept all the other scientific inaccuracies. Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
I absolutely hated finding Nemo. It was just not a good movie for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just saw it.
It was excellent. I had several emotional ups and downs during the movie, and I was honestly rooting for the two of them.
Very good movie. Funny, emotionally stimulating, beautifully rendered, and with a nice little packaged message that wasn't so overbearing that you lost the real story in it.
Also, the end credits were beautiful.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I'm gonna want to see this again. This movie is too perfect for only one set of ten-buck tickets.
At least I don't need spend an additional thirty-five on popcorn and soda and whatever other synthetic food-in-a-cup that is vended in those stalls by the theaters. The first time seeing WALL-E taught me the error of those ways.
Edited for clarity
[ July 01, 2008, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: C3PO the Dragon Slayer ]
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
I also think this movie might be the best in-film romance I've seen in a long time.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Wait... I just noticed that some people are spelling it WALL-E and others are spelling it WALL*E. Which is correct?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Neither. It's actually a dot -- those are the two different approximations people are using.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
I haven't had time to read all of the comments above yet, but I will.
My wife bought the WAL-E game for the wii last saturday, and I forbade my kids to play it until we had seen the movie. Luckily they didn't have to wait long, since we went and saw it on Monday.
I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, however I do have a few comments. Pixar being Pixar had beautiful artwork. the writing however was clever, but not brilliant in the way Incredibles was. It was definitely good, so nobody should be discouraged to see it, except fat people. Fat people will probably hate the movie. I won't say any more than that though.
Now onto the scathing criticism part. And that has to do with the Nintendo Wii game based on the movie. This game is a step backwards in Wii gaming. the artwork is on par with the movie, or at least as much as can be expected for a game, so I don't criticise that at all.
the controls are ok, not great. The wii elements of the controls don't really make sense for the game and are there just to annoy you. It would have been better to program all the moves console style than to force you to shake your wii when it makes no sense to do so. The flight mode for Eve is difficult to master. Luckily she heals from damage pretty easily on her own. The parts of the game where you play both Wall-e and Eve are actually very clever and I give applause for how they melded the two very different controls and actions together.
The game is similar to the Ratatoillie game in that its single player, which has a few multiplayer minigames. I haven't played any of the Wall-e minigames yet, however the rat minigames were abysmal. I'm not holding out much hope that Wall-e will be better. the worst part is they defintely took a turn backwards in allowing saved games. In rat you could save 3 or 4 different games, so that multiple people could enjoy the game at different times. In Wall-e you get 1 saved game total. My only conclusion to this sort of decision making is that Disney hates families. Yes, they may pretend to be family friendly when you visit their parks, but at their core they just hate them. Imagine the fights going on in households around the world as siblings and parents erase each other's games in order to play for themselves. Worst of all nobody will ever get beyond a certain level because the game will have been played and erased by the next time you get there. The only way to finish the game will be to play straight through from beginning to end ignoring all family responsibilities until you've successfully completed the game. Disney just may destroy more families with this game than alcohol and drugs ever have.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Steve_G: Fat people will probably hate the movie. I won't say any more than that though.
My mom's overweight and she loves the movie even more than I do... if that's possible.
quote:Originally posted by Steve_G: In Wall-e you get 1 saved game total. My only conclusion to this sort of decision making is that Disney hates families.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
I guess I should have written hugely obese with atrophied limbs and very little bone matter. Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Well, even then, it's not so much making fun of fat people as it is making fun of the overconsumer. It does such a good job at lighthearted satire that it evades all sense of the audience feeling the slightest bit offended.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Neither. It's actually a dot -- those are the two different approximations people are using.
Ok, so it's actually WALL•E.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pretty much.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
A silly question: the larger "Wall-Es" that were compacting trash on the spaceship...their labels said "Wall-A" ...what did their "A" stand for? Wall-E's "E" is for Earth-class, is the "A" astro-class? Air-class? I was wondering.
Also, minor quibble, but why was it so important that WALL-E stop the plant-machine from closing? It was so important and self-sacrificing and yet I was thinking "but he doesn't NEED to do that...they could just wait!" It wasn't irreversible if it did close, they could just open it again with the controls. Also, there seemed to be a lot of focus on time in that last scene, and I was confused as to why it was so important that it all be done IMMEDIATELY! instead of hiding the boot until a better opportunity presented itself. Maybe if the machine had malfunctioned and we had seen that if he didn't stop it from closing they wouldn't be able to use it, etc. etc.
Also I kept muttering to my movie-watching companion that "It only takes a moment" does NOT come after "Put on your sunday clothes" in Hello, Dolly!...but we created an elaborate story involving WALL-E making himself a "best of" compilation video of his favorites scenes to explain it.
Anyhow, seems silly to complain about that since otherwise i adored the movie and didn't care about all the unbelievable plot-contrivances. I loved the concept of the humans who had their "eyes opened" to the world around them. I loved that both WALL-E and the humans were, in a sense, products of this great all-consuming corporation which had controlled them for centuries, but WALL-E was able to find joy in his monotony, whereas the humans were dulled to the world around them.
I have never been so enthralled at the beginning of a movie as when Michael Crawford started belting out "Out There---there's a world outside of Yonkers!" to that great backdrop of all the stars and galaxies.
It really was a lovely movie. I think I might have to see it again.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: A silly question: the larger "Wall-Es" that were compacting trash on the spaceship...their labels said "Wall-A" ...what did their "A" stand for? Wall-E's "E" is for Earth-class, is the "A" astro-class? Air-class? I was wondering.
I think when I saw that I thought maybe it stood for Axiom-class (since that's where they were located). That was the first thing that came to my mind, but maybe astro-class or something else would be better.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Just got back from seeing it again. My teenage brother even wanted to see it again which unusual cause this is usually the age where myself and each of my siblings shunned youthful entertainment.
Random ponderings:
-If Wall*E had so many spare parts, why didn't he repair a friend or two for himself?
-The Axiom was "the jewel of the fleet" and video towards the beginning shows the launching of multiple space-crafts. So what happened to the rest of them?
-I really love the song when Wall*E and EVE are "dancing" in space. Anyone know what its called on the soundtrack? I need to head over to Amazon and listen to the clips and see if any sound familiar.
-There were some similarities to "Short Circuit" in Wall*E's design and personality. But the ending has also been bugging me. EVE replaced his circuitry and computer bits which of course disposed of his memory as evidenced by the lack of musical playback. So are we supposed to believe in a robotic soul? It made me think about the question regarding how much of our bodies can we replace before we lose our identity. I mean, I understand that emotions, curiosity, and original thought are supposed to be beyond a robot's ability anyway, but if this were a story about a human and their brain had been replaced, it would have bugged me equally.
-The whole movie I had the Beatles "I Want To Hold Your Hand" stuck in my head.
-The credits are gorgeous. I can't get over them. I want to give a great big hug to whoever came up with that concept.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Also, minor quibble, but why was it so important that WALL-E stop the plant-machine from closing? It was so important and self-sacrificing and yet I was thinking "but he doesn't NEED to do that...they could just wait!" It wasn't irreversible if it did close, they could just open it again with the controls. Also, there seemed to be a lot of focus on time in that last scene, and I was confused as to why it was so important that it all be done IMMEDIATELY! instead of hiding the boot until a better opportunity presented itself. Maybe if the machine had malfunctioned and we had seen that if he didn't stop it from closing they wouldn't be able to use it, etc. etc.
You'll notice that AUTO presses down really hard on the switch that closes the holo-detector, which causes it to somehow close faster? Still, it breaks the switch into fragments.
Also, take the struggle between AUTO and the Captain to its natural conclusion, had the Captain not switched on AUTO's manual override. After all, it was only lucky happenstance that the Captain managed to reveal the box that contained the override switch. Anyway, the Captain probably would have been subdued and taken back to his room. This really was a "last-ditch" effort.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Also, Wall-E is sort of a "live in the moment" kind of personality. I don't think he really understood EVE's mission outside of small particulars. I mean, when she was going on about her directive, he kept reaching out to hold her hand.
He knew she wanted the plant. He knew she wanted to put in the holo-detector. So when it starts to close, he's not going to come up with plans and strategies. He just wants to keep it open so that they can go back home.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Those explanations satisfy me But then, I want to be satisfied that it all made sense!
Why were there only 7 captains in 700 YEARS of space drifting?
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I noticed that too. I vaguely caught the birth and death dates for one of the captains and it looked like he lived to be 120 years old.
I'm wondering why they were all men.
Someone also mentioned that we only see adults and babies, no children. I'm wondering if their size and mental disconnect from the world means they no longer engage in typical sexual reproduction. Perhaps all the babies are grown in test-tubes, raised until adulthood and then a new batch is brewed up.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Shanna, regarding Wall•E's memory surviving... here's my explanation for it.
We saw a wide variety of his parts being repaired, particularly some sort of circuit board. We didn't see any sort of hard drive being replaced, however. My explanation is that he sustained so much damage that his hard drive shut down. When he was repaired, the hard drive failed to reboot, and he began operating on his basic OS. When EVE "kissed" him, the resulting spark somehow managed to reboot his hard drive, thus restoring his memories.
It's pretty thin, but honestly, I don't need much explanation. I was on the verge of tears at that point, and the simple fact that he wasn't dead was good enough for me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sophie looked up at me at that point in the movie and said, quite sternly, "Daddy, if that little robot is dead I will be very upset with you."
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'm just waiting for Disney to release those little box-like cleaning robots for home use.
Screw the Roomba... I want me an army of those!
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I interpreted Wall-E's reboot as originating from EVE. At an earlier point in the movie I recall a similar spark passing between them, though I don't remember when. To me, this meant that EVE had a backup of Wall-E (which also somehow updated to include memory of later events).
I thought the idea of the characters existing within one another went well with the romantic aspect of the story.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ITS GLADOS!!!!!!!!! AND SHE HAS ACCESS TO CHILDREN!!!
*curls in a ball and cries*
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ITS GLADOS!!!!!!!!! AND SHE HAS ACCESS TO CHILDREN!!!
When you first see the navigator (when they first enter the bridge), that's the first thing that crossed my mind. Big, dark room with this thing hanging from the ceiling...
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I like both of those interpretations. I agree that the scene was incredibly moving regardless, but still wish they had provided a more solid explanation. Or any explanation really.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Apeture Science!
We do what we must... because we can!
Now these points of data
make a beautiful line.
look at me still talking when there's science to do
when i look out there
it makes me glad I'm not you!
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I loved all the 2001: A Space Odyssey references. Auto was clearly a nod to Hal 9000, but there were also musical references such as Blue Danube Waltz and Sprach Zarasthustra .
Of course, I also thought the movie was magical, the end of the credits delightfully ironic and incisive. Brilliant!!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Wait... I just noticed that some people are spelling it WALL-E and others are spelling it WALL*E. Which is correct?
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Neither. It's actually a dot -- those are the two different approximations people are using.
Logos should not be taken as guides to correct spelling and punctuation. Notice that the official site of the movie uses a hyphen and not a centered dot.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: I'm wondering why they were all men
Huh, I thought the second was a woman. She looked squatter than the others and seemed to have longer hair. For whatever reason I assumed it was a female! Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
So much for "no real spoilers." I'm glad I didn't read this thread until after I saw the movie.
I liked the beginning a lot, but it lost it somewhat when they went into space and it got all cartoony.
My pet peeve physics problem? Well, I didn't like the fact that they threw out perfectly good material that they should have been recycling, but I also was bothered by how long the fire extinguisher lasted.
And I'm surprised that conservatives aren't railing about the "stay the course" line.
And it makes no sense that the Axiom class WALL is larger than the Earth class WALL. The earth could have been cleaned up 1/100 the time if they'd left the big ones on earth.
My solution to the WALL•E soul problem? When Eve rebuilt him, and put him in sunlight, he should have rebooted without the Macintosh Reboot sound. then after the soulless excursion and Eve holding his hand, he should have made the reboot noise, indicating that the software was finally accessed by his processors. (Or that love had restored his soul...)
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:The technical explanation is provided for viewers that may not find a "movie magic" explanation acceptable.
Yeah, he means you people.
quote:And it makes no sense that the Axiom class WALL is larger than the Earth class WALL. The earth could have been cleaned up 1/100 the time if they'd left the big ones on earth.
On the Axiom, the garbage area is one big cavern without obstuctions or obstacles. It would be impossible to fit something that size in the adversity that was the surface of Earth. You can see how hard a time even WALL-E himself had traversing the terrain; a skyscraper-sized robot would never be able to get where WALL-E could.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
What was that about technical explanations?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
"Big honkin' robot won't fit" is hardly "technical"... Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
quote:"Big honkin' robot won't fit" is hardly "technical"...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, the second captain definitely looked female to me as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Notice that the official site of the movie uses a hyphen and not a centered dot.
I believe that URLs cannot contain either the asterisk or dot characters. Your evidence is not compelling.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: -The Axiom was "the jewel of the fleet" and video towards the beginning shows the launching of multiple space-crafts. So what happened to the rest of them?
They docked inside the jewel.
-I really love the song when Wall*E and EVE are "dancing" in space. Anyone know what its called on the soundtrack? I need to head over to Amazon and listen to the clips and see if any sound familiar.
It's called "Define Dancing". The same cue is also heard during the song "Introducing EVE" or something like that when she's flying around for the first time.
-There were some similarities to "Short Circuit" in Wall*E's design and personality. But the ending has also been bugging me. EVE replaced his circuitry and computer bits which of course disposed of his memory as evidenced by the lack of musical playback. So are we supposed to believe in a robotic soul? It made me think about the question regarding how much of our bodies can we replace before we lose our identity. I mean, I understand that emotions, curiosity, and original thought are supposed to be beyond a robot's ability anyway, but if this were a story about a human and their brain had been replaced, it would have bugged me equally. It's called 'movie magic'. It's a scientifically verified process by which the audience silently in their heads go "don't die (character)!", and magically, the character doesn't die! A happy ending! Audience reward for a long ardous 2 hours of emotional manipulation. I'm sure making money is somewhere in this equation too...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I believe that URLs cannot contain either the asterisk or dot characters. Your evidence is not compelling.
Who said anything about URLs? I'm talking about text on the site. Though now that I look at it a little more, it appears they use the hyphen for plain text and the dot for anything Flash-based.
Can you give me a good reason for taking orthographic cues from graphic design work instead of established principles? In standard English orthography, the interpunct is not equivalent to the hyphen. Just because the graphic designers who created the logo liked the look of the dot doesn't mean that we should all slavishly follow their lead. After all, I don't see anyone insisting on writing the logo with a red circle around the 'E'.
And though I disagree with Bill Walsh on a lot of things, I think he makes a good argument here.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Did anybody else instantly recognize Sigourney Weaver as the voice of the computer? That's so awesome.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I believe that URLs cannot contain either the asterisk or dot characters. Your evidence is not compelling.
Who said anything about URLs? I'm talking about text on the site. Though now that I look at it a little more, it appears they use the hyphen for plain text and the dot for anything Flash-based.
Can you give me a good reason for taking orthographic cues from graphic design work instead of established principles? In standard English orthography, the interpunct is not equivalent to the hyphen. Just because the graphic designers who created the logo liked the look of the dot doesn't mean that we should all slavishly follow their lead. After all, I don't see anyone insisting on writing the logo with a red circle around the 'E'.
And though I disagree with Bill Walsh on a lot of things, I think he makes a good argument here.
You're not the boss of me!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I still think the intended name of the movie has the dot. And the red circle, for that matter. And I think both the hyphen (that I was using, actually) and the asterisk that different people were using are both legitimate representations of it. It's not a real word -- no matter how anyone spells it -- neh?
I wouldn't suggest that anyone actually use the dot when writing. Any implication that I was doing so was meant to be taken with tongue firmly in cheek . . .
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I still think the intended name of the movie has the dot. And the red circle, for that matter. And I think both the hyphen (that I was using, actually) and the asterisk that different people were using are both legitimate representations of it. It's not a real word -- no matter how anyone spells it -- neh?
Psh. You're just as bad as the people who insisted that Prince had changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol. What are you, some sort of linguistic anarchist? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, he had. Which made him "the artist formerly known as Prince". And that worked until he got sick of that, and went back to Prince.
Which of course made him "the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince".
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: What are you, some sort of linguistic anarchist?
Cool! Ok. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*shakes head sadly*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I loved that movie... It was so sweet and it made my eyes get wet, which is embarassing.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Well, he had. Which made him "the artist formerly known as Prince". And that worked until he got sick of that, and went back to Prince.
Prince was not allowed to use the name Prince due to a contract dispute. Once the contract expired, he was allowed to use the name again. The symbol was his response to not being allowed to use his own name. (Which really is Prince)
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Except the former does not violate basic laws of physics and the second does.
Sentient, loving machines are accepted as a scientific fact now?
I think I missed a discovery or two.
To make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: you believe fiction shouldn't have to have elements that are totally fantastical? I disagree, I guess. It's not like WALL*E is portraying itself as a non-fiction documentary.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
To Shanna:
-If Wall*E had so many spare parts, why didn't he repair a friend or two for himself?
We don't know at what point WALL*E became self-aware, but it was probably too late for the others. Heck, we don't know that the others were fixable.
-The Axiom was "the jewel of the fleet" and video towards the beginning shows the launching of multiple space-crafts. So what happened to the rest of them?
Presumably, they're still off in space. Also presumably, the Axiom can send them a message via the probe ship, or some such.
-I really love the song when Wall*E and EVE are "dancing" in space. Anyone know what its called on the soundtrack? I need to head over to Amazon and listen to the clips and see if any sound familiar.
It's called "Define Dancing" on the soundtrack. It's a slightly reworked version of EVE's theme music.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
And I'm surprised that conservatives aren't railing about the "stay the course" line.
People said "stay the course" decades before Bush did. I'm sure people will still be using it in the future.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Except the former does not violate basic laws of physics and the second does.
Sentient, loving machines are accepted as a scientific fact now?
Not violating basic laws of physics != accepted as a scientific fact
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Well, he had. Which made him "the artist formerly known as Prince". And that worked until he got sick of that, and went back to Prince.
Prince was not allowed to use the name Prince due to a contract dispute. Once the contract expired, he was allowed to use the name again. The symbol was his response to not being allowed to use his own name. (Which really is Prince)
I knew that, come to think of it. But I had forgotten (and I like my version better anyway ).
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Except the former does not violate basic laws of physics and the second does.
Sentient, loving machines are accepted as a scientific fact now?
Not violating basic laws of physics != accepted as a scientific fact
Precisely. Thanks, Porter.
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: To make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: you believe fiction shouldn't have to have elements that are totally fantastical?
Not at all. But when they do, it should be for good cause, not out of laziness. For example, I have no objection to the whole "WALL-E grabs a handful of stardust" scene, even though it makes absolutely no sense scientifically. It was wonderful, and no scientifically-plausible scene would have had nearly the same effect.
The conservation of matter & energy thing is just laziness.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I've already seen it a third time.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)