*** Official WALL-E Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

Given the look of his hand, I believe they chose to use a VHS tape rather than a DVD because it would be easier for the character to manipulate, therefore making the whole sequence easier and cheaper to animate.

 

[Nathan Eddy]

The diversity of opinions on this movie is amusing. On the one hand, we have people defending it for two completely different reasons: A) it's a love story set on this backdrop of a dystopian subtext (that we should ignore in favor of the love story), or B) it's a message movie that sharply, accurately criticizes modern human (mostly Western) society.

And then on the other hand we have people reacting against the flood of praise, who in turn inspire the above divisions--based on which interpretation they think is easier to defend. It's obvious that people like this movie, but they certainly can't form a consensus why. I'm not sure if that's evidence of the movie's lack of focus and poor execution, or if it's evidence of the movies breadth and scope. But it's sure interesting watching the camps form.

I think the "love story people" fall into that camp because they are relatively smart and recognize that, technically speaking, this movie IS preachy. It's hard to defend against that charge. The guy here who chastised anyone who might have missed the Walmart analogy certainly got the "message," and he's indignant about anyone else not getting it. How can this message simultaneously be a mere subtext or setting for the love story, and yet a source of disdain for anyone missing it? Clearly, certain types of people LOVE the preachiness because it matches their own world view. And the love story people shy away from that because such an interpretation turns their beautiful little love story into an obvious, preachy, cliche of modern liberal angry politics. They don't want their cute little movie ruined with the connotations which arise from such dogmatic, emphatic human-bashing extremism. That's not very conducive to love.

On the other hand, those people who are stressing how important this message is because of its message don't have much to say about the love story, because cute little robots who fall in love aren't very conducive to an anti-technological, anti-consumerism message--given that robots are inherently technological and the idea of technology saving humanity from its own technological future is inherently contradictory. How can you preach a message of technology robbing us of our connection to each other and our environment, but then have the solution to this problem be a rag-tag band of misfit robots???

I think the problem is that this movie is a jumbled mess of contradictory cliches. It has just enough cliches that just about anyone can latch onto those cliches which fit their own personal values and worldview . . . if they shut off their brain and ignore all the contradictions.

I agree completely with those here who are arguing that the movie is very preachy, not very original, not very romantic, inexplicable with regards to the main source of conflict (the repopulation/AI switcheroo), treats its audience like idiots, and then contradicts its main message by making millions of dollars having us sit in chairs and stare at a screen. This movie must be praised for the sheer ballsy ploy of tricking millions of viewers into thinking that they aren't being made fun of while watching it, and for tricking them into thinking that robots are romantic. How can anyone come away from this movie thinking that two animated robots--pieces of code in a computer--can simultaneously teach us that technology robs us of our humanity and that we need to reconnect to each other??? You've got to be just as malleable and unreflective as the people on Axiom not to see Pixar laughing their asses off at you all as they count the money they've just extracted from your wallets by convincing you sit in theaters, eat a bucket of popcorn, drink a tub of high fructose corn syrup, stare at a screen, and actually think you've been enlightened or moved . . . and then come back here and type out your contradictory opinions on your computer screens while sitting in your chairs. God, that's hilarious. I sincerely wish I'd come up with that scam. Great job Pixar! Oh yes, it's ironic. But it's not ironic in the artistic sense. It's ironic in the sense of: you've been had by your own "cleverness" (or lack thereof). That's the only thing truly great about this mediocre film.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Re: the use of VHS. The tape is pre-positioned at the critical sequence; although I have to ask - does WALL-E every rewind the tape, except when EVE unwinds part of the spool?

By the way, I sure wish folks could talk about the film and their own reactions and not worry about other individual's reactions. Personally I find post #82 to be condescending in the worst possible way.

- Walter.

 

[DavidPla]

Not hugged enough as a child were you

 

[Edwin-S]

Name one film that isn't an exercise by some studio to get people to pay to sit in front of a screen and drink high fructose corn syrup beverages and eat popcorn. If Pixar is laughing at their audience then every other studio is doubled over and laughing too, since they are in exactly the same business as Pixar is.

Do you think something like There Will Be Blood was made because the studio wanted to enlighten the film going public with a drama of monumental proportions? It was made for the very same motivations that you subscribe to Pixar: to sell tickets, soda, popcorn, and chocolate bars.

If people are moved or enlightened by a film then it is by their own volition or involvement in the story being told. To studios and theaters, films are nothing more than the means to generate profits from selling admissions and junk food.

 

[TravisR]

This post made me enjoy the movie even more.

 

[Jerome Grate]

Let's just say that the movie certainly put my mother in law, my wife and my 6 year old daughter to sleep. My son and myself were the only ones that stayed up and watched the movie. That being said, I enjoyed Pixar's ability, by far one of their best created animated movie, but the story line left me hanging. Even with the catch about the computer and it's control was an interesting twist, but still lacking. I think Pixar has a golden opportunity to really make a serious action movie.

 

[Van594]

Oh my gosh, you're right. Manipulated by a movie...who would have thunk it The movie is different things to different people...some just prefer to come away with a positive vibe more then a cynical one. It makes life a lot less of a bummer...try it

 

[Chris Atkins]

I don't think Nathan should be summarily dismissed. I do think it is easy to gloss over the eco-subtext of this film in order to focus on the love story. That's fine, since it's a cute, well executed love story. But the subtext can't be ignored, and certainly wasn't put in there at random.

 

[Edwin-S]

Except his post doesn't seem to be so much about the content of the film. It seems to be more about how people discussing this film are a bunch of fools that have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Pixar.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Yep.

- Walter.

 

[Chris Atkins]

I think his post is completely about the content of the film, and how, from his perspective, the message of the film is a sucker punch to the audience, many of whom may be unaware (or are ignorning the fact), that they are being sucker punched.

I'm not sure I agree with him, but I don't think his post was intended to be insulting. If anything, he's asking viewers to be aware of what the film is communicating.

 

[DavidPla]

That's not trying to be insulting?

 

[JonZ]

"And the love story people shy away from that because such an interpretation turns their beautiful little love story into an obvious, preachy, cliche of modern liberal angry politics."

Do you feel the same way about Planet of the Apes or Pans Labyrinth? Are those films preachy? Both use allegory and metaphor to tell stories that are politically inspired. Why does it have to "angry liberal politics" to use something as a backdrop for a story to take place in if its something you care or feel strongly about? As I said if you feel this way, youd have to apply those criticisms to plenty of films, especially inthe scifi genre.


"You've got to be just as malleable and unreflective as the people on Axiom not to see Pixar laughing their asses off at you all as they count the money they've just extracted from your wallets by convincing you sit in theaters, eat a bucket of popcorn, drink a tub of high fructose corn syrup, stare at a screen, and actually think you've been enlightened or moved . . . and then come back here and type out your contradictory opinions on your computer screens while sitting in your chairs."


Yea but I kissed my G/F goodbye and went to gym after I saw Wall-E

Oh yea, I skipped the popcorn and soda too.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Not if he's right.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Technology is not some monolithic entity which may be used for only one purpose. There is no contradiction in different applications of technology having different (and perhaps mutually exclusive) effects upon humanity.

- Walter.

 

[DavidPla]

But he's not

 

[Kachi Khatri]

Regarding the much debated subtext of this movie...here's what Stanton says.


Andrew Stanton was in Toronto recently and Peter Howell (TorStar critic) asked him:

Q. Do you really see WALL-E as a love story? The environmental calamity theme is front and centre.

A. Yes, I do see it as a love story, and the environmental theme was an accident. I was just trying to pick a very gettable visual situation to make this the last robot on Earth. Trash just seemed obvious to me, because you didn't have to explain it. You'd get it visually. It allows him to look through the detritus of humanity and be fascinated by it ...

So I had no idea life was going to get (so pro-environment). I mean I recycle, but that's about it! I don't have a message or political slant. If I could be that prescient that early on about other things, I'm sure I'd be really rich.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Being right about the movie or being right about the idiocy of the viewers? The derision is about his tone with regards to the audience...not the film.

 

[Chris Atkins]

Both? Cause if he's right about the film, then a lot of us are being played for fools (myself included).