Wall*E

[Josh]

My review of the year's most glorious film is up now!

[murlough23]

My review of the year's most glorious film is up now!

I didn't think it was possible to look forward to this film any more than I already was. But you made it possible. The 24 hours or so remaining until I will have the chance to see it are now going to be even more agonizing.

NP: "This Place Is Painted Red", Deas Vail

[bloop]

Since it did come out on my birthday and all, I took my son to see this.  I can't usually get either of my kids to sit through a feature-length - only Pixar and some Miyazaki does the trick for Isaac - but he was enraptured, and I was right with him. 

I'm not sure where I'd put it in a list, but I did love it as much as I've come to expect. 

I thought it was funny that one lady coming out of the theater was complaining that it was a "message movie".  Well, duh, read the synopsis and you can get that.

[murlough23]

I'm not sure where I'd put it in a list, but I did love it as much as I've come to expect.

I'm sure where I'd put it in a list. It's currently my #1 for 2008.

I thought it was funny that one lady coming out of the theater was complaining that it was a "message movie".  Well, duh, read the synopsis and you can get that.

I don't suppose she was slurping the remnants of her extra large soda as she made that complaint?

I can definitely see where it would irritate the few remaining holdouts who think global warming is a myth and whatnot... but I'm not even sure global warming was really the reason why humans had to leave Earth in that story. Sure, the planet's atmosphere looked like crap, but that seemed to be more a matter of accumulating garbage and being too lazy to do anything about it. I thought there was a message to take care of ourselves just as much as there was one about taking care of the planet... perhaps that's offensive to some people, but I don't see much of a way around that one. It hit close to home because it needed to. Just like some of the best sci-fi, this far off imaginary future world is a bit frightening to us because we can identify the ways in which it's really not that far-fetched to think something like this could one day happen.

I actually might have found this movie's desolate depiction of Earth and the fat, lazy human race to be a bit disturbing as a little kid. Even as an adult, it bothered me a little bit. But in a good way. I'm sure it was meant to come across as an outcome that we would hope never actually happened. I commend Pixar for actually getting away with animating such a dystopian vision in such striking detail while still evoking the same sense of awe and wonder that they always do.

[bloop]

I'm sure where I'd put it in a list. It's currently my #1 for 2008.

I don't think I've seen another movie from this year yet.

I don't suppose she was slurping the remnants of her extra large soda as she made that complaint?

Haha, she was, but she was pretty fit, too.  Everything else you said there is pretty spot-on.

Did the incontinuity of not having all the humans in the film in CG bother you, even a little (the Pres. and CEO from 700 yrs ago their time, and some of the footage of what Earth was)?  It did me.  That's the only thing I can name that threw me off just a little bit.

[murlough23]

I don't think I've seen another movie from this year yet.

Then isn't it #1 by default? or are you talking about a list of Pixar movies? I still don't know how to rank it vs. the others yet, other than to say I definitely would put it above Ratatouille and A Bug's Life. I say it's "one of Pixar's best", but pretty much all of their feature-length films are awesome, so it's hard to narrow it down.

Did the incontinuity of not having all the humans in the film in CG bother you, even a little (the Pres. and CEO from 700 yrs ago their time, and some of the footage of what Earth was)?  It did me.  That's the only thing I can name that threw me off just a little bit.

I was like, "Hey, that's Amy's dad from Everybody Loves Raymond!" But yeah, it was weird. I wonder why they made that decision - perhaps it was to make the humans who made the initial decision to leave Earth more easily identifiable with our own contemporary society? I thought it was kind of funny how the real-life human captains evolved into cartoon captains on the wall of the captain's quarters.

In any event, I thought it was cool that they could make live action look like it was being projected as an animated hologram. That can't have been an easy task.

I'm actually quite surprised that the watchdogs over at PluggedIn got through an entire review of the film without noticing the subtle dig at President Bush when the Buy 'n Large CEO, while giving Auto his contingency plan for leaving Earth, told him to "stay the course", as if to make a defeat sound like a victory. The reviewer actually seemed to agree with the film's environmental message and not take it as some sort of "liberal agenda", shockingly enough. Of course, they couldn't resist listing Wall-E finding a bra under "sexual content" and listing "heck" and "darn" as "crude language", so I can't be too proud of them here.

(Incidentally, when I saw the BnL logo throughout the film, I kept thinking "Barenaked Ladies", since that is a commonly used abbreviation for the band.)

NP: "10,000 x 10,000", The Myriad

[bloop]

Yeah, it's obviously #1 for this year by default.  I'm not even going to try to rank Pixar films anymore.  It's getting to be a bit like ranking the top 10 symphonies of all time, in order.

[Josh]

I think there's a clear pick for the weakest Pixar movie-- A Bug's Life-- but picking a favorite is tough. Wall*E has a very good chance of winning that honor for me, but I could just as easily make a case for Toy Story 2, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo, and Ratatouille. (Cars and Monsters Inc. are both fine, four-star films, but I don't think they can hold up to those others; meanwhile, Toy Story is disqualified not for any weakness on its part, but simply because its sequel is superior.)

[murlough23]

I need to watch A Bug's Life again. I wonder if it was weak for what it was supposed to accomplish at the time, or whether it's simply a matter of Pixar continuing to push their own boundaries so much that their early work pales in comparison to what came later.

[ajyouthguy]

wow, ranking the Pixar movies is incredibly difficult.  to say one is the 'worst' or whatever, is tough to do, because even their worst is better than most places best.

that said, my two least favorites are A Bug's Life and The Incredibles, and my two favorites are Finding Nemo and Toy Story

[murlough23]

My two least favorites are (probably) A Bug's Life and Ratatouille, and my two favorites are Toy Story 2 and Monsters, Inc., but Wall-E could potentially break the top 2. I'll probably rent it and watch it again later in the year to be sure.

[NinjaRob17]

I haven't seen Wall*E yet, though I really want to (actually, I haven't seen Ratatouille or Cars yet, either), but my favorite Pixar movie would have to be The Incredibles, followed by either Toy Story or Finding Nemo. Least favorite would be Monsters, Inc. (though, like everybody has said already, I love all of their movies).

[Ian]

Need to see Wall*E, but Finding Nemo and Monsters Inc. are my two favorites.  Cars and A Bug's Life are probably my two least favorite, and I guess the rest are jumbled around in the middle.

[Vlad!]

I saw Wall*E yesterday. The movie itself was quite good, although I found its depiction of humanity incredibly optimistic. I'm not trying to be cynical here; what I'm trying to point out is that if humanity had really gotten lazy and indolent to the point of not being capable of physical motion, I highly doubt they would be so excited about the opportunity to leave that environment and go back to rebuild a planet. If the Israelites wanted to go back to slavery in Egypt, it seems to me that the pseudo-humans on the Axiom would mutiny and return to the Axiom rather than try to build a real civilization again.

My other problem was with the film's blatant butchering of both the laws of physics and common sense. Why would the Earth lander use booster rockets if they have anti-gravity (see Eve)? Why would they build the Axiom on the surface rather than in space? How did Wall*E get from Earth to the Axiom? It's stated later that the Axiom has a faster-than-light hyperdrive (more on that in a minute), but we see him passing by the sun and some planet with rings before heading to the Axiom. And that scene is the first one where I realized: these people have no idea how physics work, because the ship drifts to a stop beside the Axiom, laughing in the face of inertia all the while. And when the Axiom tilts, why do things slide to the side? The president mentioned microgravity (despite the fact that gravity on the ship seems more like, er, normal gravity), but presumably the Axiom generates its own gravity and it would always be pulling "down" regardless of the orientation of the ship in space. And why does the hyperdrive cause people to lean back as though affected by g-forces? Did they just rediscover inertia? However, they're apparently going several million times the speed of light (it looks like we're outside the Milky Way galaxy by the time we get to the Axiom) yet they only appear to be pulling about 2-3g from acceleration.

Also, on the DVD, the second short indicated that the external repair and welding robot was called BURN-E. Wouldn't it be BURN-A, given that the E in Wall-E stands for "Earth-class"?

I realize that a movie intended for children is not going to accurately simulate physics, but couldn't they at least try? Maybe I've lost too much of my childlike wonder, but I had so much trouble getting past all the glaring (and in many cases easily-correctable) physics errors and logic breakers that I had difficulty enjoying the movie.

[bloop]

It's not intended entirely for children.  It's intended for people . . . with souls.   

[Ian]

My other problem was with the film's blatant butchering of both the laws of physics and common sense. Why would the Earth lander use booster rockets if they have anti-gravity (see Eve)? Why would they build the Axiom on the surface rather than in space? How did Wall*E get from Earth to the Axiom? It's stated later that the Axiom has a faster-than-light hyperdrive (more on that in a minute), but we see him passing by the sun and some planet with rings before heading to the Axiom. And that scene is the first one where I realized: these people have no idea how physics work, because the ship drifts to a stop beside the Axiom, laughing in the face of inertia all the while. And when the Axiom tilts, why do things slide to the side? The president mentioned microgravity (despite the fact that gravity on the ship seems more like, er, normal gravity), but presumably the Axiom generates its own gravity and it would always be pulling "down" regardless of the orientation of the ship in space. And why does the hyperdrive cause people to lean back as though affected by g-forces? Did they just rediscover inertia? However, they're apparently going several million times the speed of light (it looks like we're outside the Milky Way galaxy by the time we get to the Axiom) yet they only appear to be pulling about 2-3g from acceleration.

I am grateful my mind doesn't work this way.

[murlough23]

I am grateful my mind doesn't work this way.

Mine does, but my mind is also able to grasp that it's a cartoon. I can't really gripe about this movie's laws of physics if I don't even bat an eyelash at loud explosions in space that happen on every sci-fi show ever except for Firefly.

[Vlad!]

I can't really gripe about this movie's laws of physics if I don't even bat an eyelash at loud explosions in space that happen on every sci-fi show ever except for Firefly.

Bah, the scene where the Axiom tilts is way worse than audible space explosions (I was also sad to see that they put those into Serenity).

[murlough23]

Is now a bad time to start another discussion about personal limitations?

[NewDimension]

I am grateful my mind doesn't work this way.

My mind works like that... It drives me crazy sometimes. But when I watch sci-fi shows it's almost inevitable that they're going to be extremely unrealistic, so I mainly watch them for the humor of how they always rely on over-fantasized concepts. Then when I laugh at how pathetic the show/movie is compared to reality, people get mad at me... The sadest part is, you wish the writers would take the time and do the research to see if what they're writing would even be possible when it comes to reality. But that's why it's called sci-fi. It's just they over-fantasize it too much, to the point it's not even believable. It's like you have to look at their movie the way you'd look at a whole different world; though the writers don't help you do that, since they mix reality with their over-fantasized scripts. So why even call it Science Fiction? It's mainly just fiction since the writers usually discard the laws of science. Either do nothing but fantasy and make a legitimate world no one's thought of before that has it's own rules, or make the fantasy something that could actually be a possibility when it comes to reality.   

[bloop]

Bah, the scene where the Axiom tilts is way worse than audible space explosions (I was also sad to see that they put those into Serenity).

Um, yeah, egregious.

[Vlad!]

My mind works like that... It drives me crazy sometimes. But when I watch sci-fi shows it's almost inevitable that they're going to be extremely unrealistic, so I mainly watch them for the humor of how they always rely on over-fantasized concepts. Then when I laugh at how pathetic the show/movie is compared to reality, people get mad at me...

I have tried to analyze why some things bother me and other things don't, but with little success. Most of the sci-fi in Star Trek doesn't bother me, for instance...I am very willing to suspend my belief and accept that the Enterprise can not only go faster than light but experiences no inertia in doing so, and that transporters can move a person from one place to another nigh-instantaneously, and that someone in Star Fleet Command light-years away can have a nigh instantaneous conversation with the crew of the Enterprise (though the holodeck in TNG does bug me occasionally). Star Wars doesn't bother me either, although the very concept of a starfighter is ridiculous and the physics in the space battles are monstrously broken.

If other people enjoyed the movie, then that's great. I didn't, and I explained why. You don't have to agree with me.

[murlough23]

I've heard various Star Trek shows mention things like "inertial dampers" enough times to know that it's shorthand for, "Look, we know that space flight is really more complicated than this, but we're gonna assume they've invented magical whatzits to deal with these things so that we don't have to waste tons of screen time explaining them or showing every minute physical consequence." I prefer for things to be scientifically accurate, but you know, sometimes you just gotta move the story along.

Things like the holodeck on TNG were annoying for exactly that reason. They were fun as gags, maybe even as the centerpiece of a comedic episode, but they became overused plot devices. They were problematic because they effected the story.

Things in Wall-E like inertia not working properly, or being inconsistent or whatever, should not be sufficient reasons in and of themselves to dislike the movie. I get that they bug. But you've hardly said a thing about, y'know, the story.

As for BURN-E, they thought about the fact that his name technically should have been BURN-A, but then they said, "Screw it, we like that his name is a pun, so there." For a bit character who only really plays a role in a special feature on the DVD, it seems a bit superfluous to dog on the movie for it.

[Vlad!]

Things in Wall-E like inertia not working properly, or being inconsistent or whatever, should not be sufficient reasons in and of themselves to dislike the movie. I get that they bug. But you've hardly said a thing about, y'know, the story.

I would have said more about the story if there was more, you know, story. I thought the parts with the humans were fairly interesting, though as I mention before I find it kind of schizophrenic that they are pessimistic enough to assume that humanity would allow itself to reach that state but optimistic to assume that they would be all gung-ho for leaving it. The parts with the robots were completely carried by the personalities of the characters, which to give it credit was probably intentional. The story about the robots, which near as I can tell is supposed to be a love story between two artificial and asexual creations, doesn't particularly inspire me at all, and when they finally get together all I can think is "and things were going great until they discovered that his USB 21.0 jack wasn't compatible with her IEEE 1394103 port", because I can't imagine how things would culminate differently.

As for BURN-E, they thought about the fact that his name technically should have been BURN-A, but then they said, "Screw it, we like that his name is a pun, so there."[citation needed] For a bit character who only really plays a role in a special feature on the DVD, it seems a bit superfluous to dog on the movie for it.

Sure, it's not a big deal. I pointed it out because I was in nitpick mode at that point and because it's emblematic of how the writers and producers eschewed logic for cute puns.

I don't think Wall*E was a terrible movie (my brother does, so ironically over the break I was taking the other side of this argument...), and I think it's better than A Bug's Life, which is still the worst Pixar movie that I've seen. My goal when reviewing something isn't to set some absolute, like "Wall*E was crap; go see something else instead". It's to describe how I felt and reacted when I experienced it, so that people whose opinions frequently align with mine will be better-armed and so that people who have already seen the movie (or read the book, or whatever) can perhaps gain understanding by seeing the movie from someone else's point of view. Just because I'm defending my own viewpoint doesn't make yours invalid.

I hope that this disclaimer is understood by everyone for every opinion I give about anything I review, but it seems like people who actually review things and know what they're talking about tend to get offended when others give a dissenting opinion. Please don't be.

[murlough23]

I would have said more about the story if there was more, you know, story.

That's a copout. It had as much of a story as any Pixar film. They're generally not known for their complex subplots or whatever you were apparently expecting. If you thought the story was boring, that's fine, but my point is that the film needs to be judged on the merits of the story it was trying to tell and the means used to tell it, not on your little nitpicks.

I thought the parts with the humans were fairly interesting, though as I mention before I find it kind of schizophrenic that they are pessimistic enough to assume that humanity would allow itself to reach that state but optimistic to assume that they would be all gung-ho for leaving it.

I saw it as people being enslaved to something that they didn't even realized that they were enslaved to, because the general populace was not at all aware of what humanity had been like before. They got to that point because of the decisions of (a) humans who preceded them by hundreds of years, and (b) computers designed by humans that eventually ended up running the show. So their turnaround was believable to me because their eyes were opened to something they had never even considered before. It wasn't like these folks knew about Earth. They were basically programmed to believe that their fake utopia was the extent of human life.

In fact, one thing I loved about this movie was that it wasn't naive enough to assume its one little hero could simply change the minds of all of the bad guys. The humans who made the bad decisions involving trashing Earth and then abandoning it were long gone. Otto was essentially the "bad guy" here, perhaps with other machines doing his bidding, but the objective was not to change the minds or the programming or whatever of these machines. I usually find it difficult to believe in a lot of movies where a "bad guy" is shown the error of his ways and has a sudden change of heart at the last minute; I tend to only buy that sort of thing when the character is shown struggling with it throughout the film. So I was glad that, in this case, it was about making a neutral group aware of their ancestors' follies and enabling them to basically overthrow the "bad guy" by force.

Now I'll grant you that they did turn around rather quickly once they had been made aware of Earth's existence and their own potential. But that's a conceit of a lot of stories aimed at younger viewers, just for the sake of moving the story along. We probably didn't need an entire mini-series' worth of political machinations as Wall-E and his cohorts brought about a revolution the hard way through a series of political machinations.

The parts with the robots were completely carried by the personalities of the characters, which to give it credit was probably intentional.

Of course. This was the bulk of the film and, to me, actually more interesting than the whole "show the humans how to save Earth" plot that took up most of the second half of the film. I don't see how you could accuse this part of the film of having no story. Wall-E's existence as the lone robot still active on Earth, having somehow developed an awareness of himself and a personality, was the entire premise of the film. Of course it's a stretch of the imagination to believe that a machine could somehow develop a "personality" - you probably know more than enough about A.I. to realize that this is not possible - but that's the "what if" that was basically the starting point for the story, and most science fiction starts with a "what if" that we generally accept as either impossible or highly implausible in the real world. I'm not sure what the problem is with creating such a fantasy and then running with the implications of it. A robot with a personality would likely want companionship. Other machines would probably not understand this evolution. Misunderstandings and awkward attempts at communication would ensue. I think this is fascinating stuff.

The story about the robots, which near as I can tell is supposed to be a love story between two artificial and asexual creations, doesn't particularly inspire me at all, and when they finally get together all I can think is "and things were going great until they discovered that his USB 21.0 jack wasn't compatible with her IEEE 1394103 port", because I can't imagine how things would culminate differently.

Gah. You're such a guy, only thinking about it purely in terms of their "sexual" compatibility. Seriously, who gives a shit?

The two characters were obviously designed for us to project "male" onto one and "female" onto the other due to their names, voices, and mannerisms, but obviously we understand that machines don't have sexes. Sure, it played like the machine version of the conventional love story, but what was powerful to me there was not the gushy, "Aw, they fell in love", because that's just what it looks like to humans who project their own feelings onto it. The fact that there was a connection there between two beings that most people and other machines would assume to not be sentient was the powerful part. For me, personally, it could have been two "male" computers or two computers who had "robotic" enough voices that we wouldn't assume a gender at all, and the impact of the story wouldn't have been lost. Unfortunately most people would assume that our lead character was a "he" unless it were given specifically female characteristics, so they'd have thought there was some sort of gay subtext or whatever, so I think it was wisest for them to anthropomorphize one character as male and one as female, just so people wouldn't get hung up on unimportant gender issues.

Sure, it's not a big deal. I pointed it out because I was in nitpick mode at that point and because it's emblematic of how the writers and producers eschewed logic for cute puns.

I'm sure this never happens in anime...

I hope that this disclaimer is understood by everyone for every opinion I give about anything I review, but it seems like people who actually review things and know what they're talking about tend to get offended when others give a dissenting opinion. Please don't be.

I'm not offended; you having a disagreement with my opinion does not imply a personal attack on me or anyone else who shares my opinion. But I do tend to get annoyed when people express opinions that do not seem to be well-founded, or seem to make mountains out of picky little molehills. (For that matter, I get annoyed when people like something that I like, but have really stupid reasons for it - i.e. "I like Jars of Clay because they're a Christian band and I don't waste my time on that secular crap.") I'm just trying to set that straight, because for a film that you apparently "liked", you've spent almost all of your effort in the discussion of that film pointing out its flaws.

[Vlad!]

Gah. You're such a guy, only thinking about it purely in terms of their "sexual" compatibility. Seriously, who gives a shit?

Hm, do I have to apologize for my Y chromosome now? But despite my apparently offensive guyness, I wasn't thinking about it in terms of sexual compatibility. I just couched it in those terms to try and give a sense of how ridiculous I found the plot to be.

Also, it's very possible this is just due to my memory fading, but thinking back the relationship between Eve and Wall*E seems almost more reminiscent of that between a woman and a dumb but lovable dog rather than a woman and a man, though enough modern media portrays men as dumb but lovable that it's possible the distinction blurs a bit.

I'm sure this never happens in anime...

Thankfully it's not my job to defend anime, since the vast majority of it is far less watchable than Wall*E.

for a film that you apparently "liked", you've spent almost all of your effort in the discussion of that film pointing out its flaws.

You put liked in quotes as though you were repeating something that I said, but I'm pretty sure I never said that. I spent the majority of the time pointing out flaws because from the reactions of other pholks I determined that most other people loved the movie and thus I didn't need to spend time iterating its good points; you're already aware of them. If it will make you happier:
* The visuals were stunning, especially the post-destruction earth.
* The design of the characters is incredibly good; although it's a little puzzling why Wall*E and Eve have such different designs when they were presumably created around the same time storywise, it was interesting to see how both characters emoted with barely any dialogue.
* It gets its backstory told without being heavy-handed about the sustainability/environmentalism message; I suspect the dystopia/utopia schizophrenia helps this because the hammer is being pulled in two directions simultaneously.
* The robots are exactly as I would expect from Pixar characters: cute and plucky and full of never-say-die optimism.
* The manatee-humans are funny.

So much of how we feel about movies is visceral, and I'm fully aware that many of my reasons are no doubt rationalizations to explain why, when I watched the movie, I just didn't feel engaged by the plot or the relationship between the characters. Maybe the real reason for this is because I was subconsciously upset about something at work or because it was raining when I watched it (which it was) or for any other completely bogus reason, but when the movie finished and I felt fairly meh about it I cast back to ask why, and the glaring failures of basic physics were what sprang most readily to mind.

I don't think I agree about your love story analysis. Everything, from the blatant to the subtle, pointed to the intent that we are supposed to believe the protagonists feel a genuine love connection--from the repeated showing of Hello, Dolly! to the kiss at the end that finally restores Wall*E's personality (obviously she stored a backup copy of his personality files and the kiss was a futuristic data transfer mechanism). I'm sure you could argue "Aha! That's because it's designed to play on your human assumption that when you see two beings behaving in this way it's love", but there was absolutely nothing to suggest that it was supposed to be anything deeper than a love story between two robots. Sure, I'll accept that you find it interesting how we see a very cliched human love story playing out between two non-human sentients, but I don't.

[murlough23]

Hm, do I have to apologize for my Y chromosome now? But despite my apparently offensive guyness, I wasn't thinking about it in terms of sexual compatibility. I just couched it in those terms to try and give a sense of how ridiculous I found the plot to be.

I wasn't offended; I just found it funny that you'd reduce their entire relationship to "This is stupid because they can't have sex." I get that it was just an illustration, but that illustration was based on the premise that their relationship had to be romantic/sexual in nature. This being a film aimed at kids, I don't think it's necessary to apply that level of adult logic, complexity or expectations to it. They are special friends. Aww. Now let's move on.

Also, it's very possible this is just due to my memory fading, but thinking back the relationship between Eve and Wall*E seems almost more reminiscent of that between a woman and a dumb but lovable dog rather than a woman and a man, though enough modern media portrays men as dumb but lovable that it's possible the distinction blurs a bit.

I could see those "dumb puppy dog" qualities in Wall-E, but I think that personality grew very organically out of the character. The robot was designed to do a very simple, menial task, one which apparently affords him a lot of free time when not on the clock, so given the assumption that he can develop a personality, he'd naturally grow very curious despite not knowing jack about most of the stuff he's discovering or really anything about social interaction. Eve's personality was more disinterested and anti-social at first, merely being there to meet her objective. I like how this humorously evokes the nature of some guy/girl relationships in real life (he's obsessively interested in her/she barely notices him) without explicitly defining it as a romantic or sexual relationship. We see what we want to see through our biased/human lens, but are given no guarantee that it all actually works that way. Based on the lack of dialogue, we're left to project a lot of our own feelings and assumptions based on the machines' "body language", and that's why I feel the animators and writers did such a good job here - because of the volumes of things that are said without being spoken.

Thankfully it's not my job to defend anime, since the vast majority of it is far less watchable than Wall*E.

The same could be said for American cartoons. The point I was trying to make was that there are certain "illogical" conventions that you just plain have to accept with this sort of a fantasy story, especially when it's animated and aimed at a younger audience.

You put liked in quotes as though you were repeating something that I said, but I'm pretty sure I never said that. I spent the majority of the time pointing out flaws because from the reactions of other pholks I determined that most other people loved the movie and thus I didn't need to spend time iterating its good points; you're already aware of them.

You said it was "quite good" and then proceeded to delve into all of your minute criticisms. This struck me as a "liked it, but didn't love it" sort of reaction. I wasn't quoting you so much as noting that your alleged level of enjoyment of the film seemed to be in direct contradiction with the problems you had with the film.

If it will make you happier:
* The visuals were stunning, especially the post-destruction earth.
* The design of the characters is incredibly good; although it's a little puzzling why Wall*E and Eve have such different designs when they were presumably created around the same time storywise, it was interesting to see how both characters emoted with barely any dialogue.
* It gets its backstory told without being heavy-handed about the sustainability/environmentalism message; I suspect the dystopia/utopia schizophrenia helps this because the hammer is being pulled in two directions simultaneously.
* The robots are exactly as I would expect from Pixar characters: cute and plucky and full of never-say-die optimism.
* The manatee-humans are funny.

That is helpful. Thanks.

So much of how we feel about movies is visceral, and I'm fully aware that many of my reasons are no doubt rationalizations to explain why, when I watched the movie, I just didn't feel engaged by the plot or the relationship between the characters. Maybe the real reason for this is because I was subconsciously upset about something at work or because it was raining when I watched it (which it was) or for any other completely bogus reason, but when the movie finished and I felt fairly meh about it I cast back to ask why, and the glaring failures of basic physics were what sprang most readily to mind.

I get that I can't change how you feel; my point in pursuing this argument is that this is more of your personal bone to pick that you have with the film, and not really a terribly valid criticism on a more objective level. The way you pointed it out made it feel like you completely missed the whole intent of the movie and the way that the story was told. I can understand noticing it; I can't understand letting it become so bothersome that it robs you of your enjoyment of the film.

I don't think I agree about your love story analysis. Everything, from the blatant to the subtle, pointed to the intent that we are supposed to believe the protagonists feel a genuine love connection--from the repeated showing of Hello, Dolly! to the kiss at the end that finally restores Wall*E's personality (obviously she stored a backup copy of his personality files and the kiss was a futuristic data transfer mechanism). I'm sure you could argue "Aha! That's because it's designed to play on your human assumption that when you see two beings behaving in this way it's love", but there was absolutely nothing to suggest that it was supposed to be anything deeper than a love story between two robots. Sure, I'll accept that you find it interesting how we see a very cliched human love story playing out between two non-human sentients, but I don't.

Then I must admit to being confused about why the hell you watched the movie in the first place, and what on earth you were expecting from it. It feels like you expected it to be something that it wasn't at all intended to be. I don't find most competitive sports to be particularly engaging, but then I don't watch football games and complain about how boring they are.

[ajyouthguy]

my head is spinning from attempting to read the massive overanalysis in this thread...i finally gave up and skipped to the end...

i liked it...it's not my favorite Pixar movie, but i liked it, a lot, and just got it, with Christmas money, to have a copy of it around here.  in fact, my kids watched it...they love it, even though it is deeper and more 'adulty' than most of the Pixar shows.  my kids love Eve-uh and Wa-lee (that's kinda how they both pronounce it)

[Vlad!]

..lots of text..

Obviously we're just fundamentally different people, because you talk about how certain things are interesting and I don't find them to be so. I don't really get into relationship movies in general. I'm sure this is an outcropping of that.

The same could be said for American cartoons. The point I was trying to make was that there are certain "illogical" conventions that you just plain have to accept with this sort of a fantasy story, especially when it's animated and aimed at a younger audience.

I guess that the closer these conventions approach reality, the more I expect them to adhere to it. I'm OK with talking, sentient toys, but if Buzz had accomplished his final flight without the help of the firecracker that pivotal scene (and IMO the whole movie) would have lost a lot of credibility.

You said it was "quite good" and then proceeded to delve into all of your minute criticisms. This struck me as a "liked it, but didn't love it" sort of reaction. I wasn't quoting you so much as noting that your alleged level of enjoyment of the film seemed to be in direct contradiction with the problems you had with the film.

True. I think my opinion of the film was still evolving as I wrote that post. There's a lot of fridge logic that I was working through.

I get that I can't change how you feel; my point in pursuing this argument is that this is more of your personal bone to pick that you have with the film, and not really a terribly valid criticism on a more objective level. The way you pointed it out made it feel like you completely missed the whole intent of the movie and the way that the story was told. I can understand noticing it; I can't understand letting it become so bothersome that it robs you of your enjoyment of the film.

Eh, it doesn't bother me if my criticism is invalid. I've never claimed to be particularly great at reviewing movies (or anything, really); I just describe how I feel about something and let the reader figure out if it matters.

Then I must admit to being confused about why the hell you watched the movie in the first place, and what on earth you were expecting from it. It feels like you expected it to be something that it wasn't at all intended to be. I don't find most competitive sports to be particularly engaging, but then I don't watch football games and complain about how boring they are.

I watched the movie because a friend brought it to my house. I had seen the previews and tagged it as something I probably wouldn't be interested in. Part of my reaction is that I thought the first part was really cool, with Wall*E scooting around a ruined Earth scrunching up trash and finding relics of civilization that he didn't understand. Thought had obviously been put into questions like how he gets power (solar energy), how he's still functioning in the first place (he cannibalizes his siblings), and why everything looks so torn-down (massive dust/sand storms). I was all set to be pleasantly surprised, and then instead I was unpleasantly disappointed.
[/quote]

[enemy anemone]

I hesitated to post here because I was still figuring out what I think of the movie. I had one strong initial reaction that colored the way I responded to it as a whole. I realized that it was probably a nitpicky thing so I wanted to take some time to think about it and maybe get over it. I also wanted to search around to find out what perspectives others had. it's been interesting, and I can respect that others came to different conclusions, but overall I don't think my feelings about it have changed. I also realized that some of the impressions I had about what was going on with Earth and the probes were not quite accurate. (I thought Earth had been nuked and that the other EVEs were being sent to other planets.) anyway, I had started to type out my reactions and thoughts, so I will work with that.

I liked both robots at first. I liked seeing Wall*E scuttle around making trash blocks and building things. I liked that he collected random objects that struck his fancy. I didn't really like how mushy he was about the love story movie (which I found cheesy) but whatever. I liked that he had a little bug friend.
then Eve showed up and I thought she was cool, zooming around, scanning and analyzing everything and blowing stuff up. of course Wall*E would be taken with her. of course she wouldn't be remotely interested in him. his attempts to show her things of interest was kind of cute... but I started not liking him for being so desperate. and then he shows her the plant and she BECOMES AN INCUBATOR AND SHUTS DOWN. all her skillz were for nothing except that. this made me angry. up till then I thought she was an information-gatherer, so I thought she could have continued to gather information about the planet while incubating the plant. hey, maybe there were other plants around. this would not have bugged me.

and then Wall*E became annoying with all his crying "EV-A" and dragging her around by a leash. okay so he thought she needed sun to recharge.  maybe I was supposed to think that it was sweet of him to try to take care of her in his bumbling way. but as far I could tell, she didn't need him to do any of it. (rather than being like "aw, he tries to protect her from the rain!" I was like "he was the one who took her outside! why can't he leave her alone! ...to incubate the plant, blah.")  he wasn't really "taking care of her"--he was just lonely and wanted his robot "friend" back and for her to be his girlfriend. and really, at that point I wasn't convinced they had been on their way to being friends, special or regular--sure she had communicated with him and looked at the stuff he showed her and giggled at him, but she had been frustrated with her fruitless search and here was someone showing her new and interesting things. I noticed the way she reacted to the lighter--she liked it but turned away from Wall*E to stare at it. and then he tried to hold her hand and she was like NO TOUCHEE! and went back to scanning the movie again. I think she would have become bored with Wall*E and his stuff pretty quickly. she wouldn't have gone on the dates that he dragged her to when she was unresponsive.

don't get me wrong--I can and do enjoy seeing robots (or toys or fish or whatever) being unlikely friends and companions. I liked that the "defective" robots rallied behind Wall*E and Eve later. I liked the cockroach buddy and was like "nooo!" when I thought it had died. M-O was also very amusing, and I was like "aww" when he ended up becoming Wall*E's friend instead of just being an annoyed cleaner-upper. I liked that the big trash compactors were rooting for Wall*E and Eve too. I just couldn't buy into the Wall*E and Eve "falling in love" thing. I found Wall*E's mushiness annoying, and Eve later seemed to care about him mainly because he gave her the plant and kept rescuing it and helping her with it. there was the scene where she reviews what happened when she was shut down, and she seemed to melt at seeing him be so devoted to her, but since the umbrella thing didn't do anything for me (see above), I didn't think it should do anything for her either. haha.

anyway, enough about all that.

there was another thing that bugged me, and that was how the captain was so gung-ho about Earth. it was kind of cute, but extremely naive. I couldn't believe that everybody else would be so gung-ho about it either, especially after they saw it. I thought such an attitude was excessively and foolishly optimistic. I don't see how one lone plant could mean that the planet can sustain life, especially not for these blubbery humans. it wasn't like their ship had run out of resources. (what were they eating, anyway, and where did it come from?) it would have made more sense to me if the ship's find-plant programming had analyzed the sort of plant it was (a cocklebur plant is not as helpful to humans as a soybean plant) and waited for it to grow and reseed itself (if it couldn't for whatever reason, it would also not be very helpful). in the meantime they could also send out more information-gathering robots to see if there are more/different plants (since Eve's directive was to shut down after finding one...grumble grumble)*. a planet of cockleburs and cockroaches...not very helpful. and if they're expecting pizza plants, they're in for a huge disappointment. maybe I have no soul but I don't find their enthusiasm to be inspiring.

*now I realize that the other EVEs were investigating Earth, not other planets, so this isn't so much of an issue. but still. none of the other EVEs found anything! so the humans should still wait and see and send out more probes!

well, those are my reactions and thoughts. if others loved it, great. if there are things I missed or misinterpreted, I'm open to learning more (must continue to gather information...). but I'm kind of ready to move on and catch up with BSG.

[Vlad!]

there was another thing that bugged me, and that was how the captain was so gung-ho about Earth. it was kind of cute, but extremely naive. I couldn't believe that everybody else would be so gung-ho about it either, especially after they saw it. I thought such an attitude was excessively and foolishly optimistic.

I'm glad that bugged someone other than me.

I think it's interesting that in general we were bugged by different things. I wasn't excited about a robot love story; you were OK with it but you thought EVE could have done a lot better than Wall*E   

I still get mad over the whole Axiom tilt thing. It's like they weren't even trying at that point.

[murlough23]

I didn't see Wall-E's obsession with the romantic movie as mushy - it was more of a curiosity thing. "Hey, I haven't seen any of these humans around since I went and developed a personality, so I don't know what this whole companionship thing is like." Sure, it was majorly mushy on the part of the writers, but it's one of those things where what it looks like to humans who anthropomorphize the characters (and to the writers who designed the characters to elicit that response from us) may not be how the robot actually "feels".

It's kind of like how I interpret my cat rubbing the sides of its head against my hand as "affection" when really, it's just trying to mark me with its scent and getting frustrated that the scent keeps going away every few hours.

As for Wall-E trying to "help" Eve and not really accomplishing anything... I think that's just Wall-E's nature. Most of the story happened to him - it's more of a "fish out of water" story than a "hero's journey", if you want to consider the classic archetypes of protagonists in such stories. That's what made it amusing and relatable to me - Wall-E only barely understood what the hell was going on, and he basically saved the world by accident. Eve was the one with the purpose, and she too may have had an emerging personality and whatnot, but for the most part, she behaved very functionally, and did her job without a whole lot of sensory output to anyone around her who didn't know why she was built or how she was supposed to function. She probably went into "Mac sleep mode" once she got the plant as a way of protecting it and keeping the plant from further danger. Before she had the plant, she could feel free to fly around and blow stuff up and explore, because there were legions of other Eves and she was expendable. Wall-E understood none of this and naturally, he took it "personally".

Your gripe about the humans is fair, but I think they were a bunch of ignorant and naive people. The "captain" didn't even really run the show, and served as more of a figurehead. So while I do feel that they cut some corners regarding the human's "awakening" for the sake of time, I kind of see their sudden gung-ho response to learning about Earth as the way an innocent child would react. Children can turn over new leaves very suddenly without even necessarily considering the consequences of such a radical shift in ideology. Cynical and cautious adults are the ones who take time to gather data. A group of humans not taught to really think about much of anything in their day-to-day lives would probably respond more like intellectually underdeveloped children.

The real conceit of the film is that these ignorant humans actually accomplish anything upon returning to Earth, but then, this isn't BSG. We needed a happy ending and we didn't need to spend a ton of time on the human's thought processes when they're really secondary characters in a movie about robots.

Speaking of BSG... it's a shame that when Galactica made landfall on Earth, they didn't just go across the river to check things out. They could've found that plant and hung out with Wall-E.

[murlough23]

you thought EVE could have done a lot better than Wall*E   

Why, I wouldn't interface with you if you were the last robot on...

Oh. Alright then.

[enemy anemone]

I think it's interesting that in general we were bugged by different things. I wasn't excited about a robot love story; you were OK with it but you thought EVE could have done a lot better than Wall*E   

heh. I wouldn't have put it quite that way, but yeah, basically I was okay with a robot relationship movie. it's not so much that I didn't think Wall*E was good enough for Eve (she wasn't even looking for a companion) as it was that I didn't care for or believe in the way their relationship developed.
but the original tagline "what if mankind had to leave Earth, and somebody forgot to turn the last robot off?" sounds more interesting to me than a robot relationship story. I wouldn't have minded if the movie remained focused on Wall*E going through our weird crap. I'm not so much interested in him "falling in love" or inadvertently saving hugh-manatee from its unearthly existence. now that I think about it, I would have liked it if he had managed to clear away enough garbage that more plants grew on their own and the world eventually became green again, no thanks to the humans. (I am not convinced that nature even needs us.) and the humans don't return to trash Earth all over again. haha. of course I wouldn't expect that of this sort of movie, but I would like to see a movie go there.

She probably went into "Mac sleep mode" once she got the plant as a way of protecting it and keeping the plant from further danger. Before she had the plant, she could feel free to fly around and blow stuff up and explore, because there were legions of other Eves and she was expendable.

I'm not convinced that Eve in sleep mode offered more protection to the plant than otherwise. she is one tough cookie. and we see Wall*E poking around her wires to try to jump start her (I guess), but it did not affect her or the plant at all. I don't imagine that an awake Eve would let anything mess with her insides or tie her up and drag her around to be exposed to the elements. even though she wasn't harmed by the "jump start" or the rain or lightning, being shut down seems like an inherently more vulnerable state.
later I thought that maybe she had to conserve energy because her plant compartment would need it to maintain a good environment until the ship retrieves her (which might be a long time). I don't really buy that either, but it doesn't really matter to me--the shutdown itself just bothers me in a visceral way.

Your gripe about the humans is fair, but I think they were a bunch of ignorant and naive people. The "captain" didn't even really run the show, and served as more of a figurehead. So while I do feel that they cut some corners regarding the human's "awakening" for the sake of time, I kind of see their sudden gung-ho response to learning about Earth as the way an innocent child would react. Children can turn over new leaves very suddenly without even necessarily considering the consequences of such a radical shift in ideology. Cynical and cautious adults are the ones who take time to gather data. A group of humans not taught to really think about much of anything in their day-to-day lives would probably respond more like intellectually underdeveloped children.

I didn't have a problem with the way the captain was gung-ho about Earth when he saw all the pretty pictures on the screen and heard about new and different things like dancing. my problem is with the sustained gung-ho-ness after seeing the reality of Earth. I think innocent children (and those like them) could get excited about the idea of some new and wondrous thing without questioning it, but if that wondrous thing is not what they get, or worse, if they find out they have to try to make it themselves with broken tools or non-existent materials, I don't imagine they would remain excited. but I don't know--I haven't tried any such experiments on kids lately.

The real conceit of the film is that these ignorant humans actually accomplish anything upon returning to Earth

agreed.

Speaking of BSG... it's a shame that when Galactica made landfall on Earth, they didn't just go across the river to check things out. They could've found that plant and hung out with Wall-E.

hehe! I love it!

[murlough23]

I didn't have a problem with the way the captain was gung-ho about Earth when he saw all the pretty pictures on the screen and heard about new and different things like dancing. my problem is with the sustained gung-ho-ness after seeing the reality of Earth. I think innocent children (and those like them) could get excited about the idea of some new and wondrous thing without questioning it, but if that wondrous thing is not what they get, or worse, if they find out they have to try to make it themselves with broken tools or non-existent materials, I don't imagine they would remain excited. but I don't know--I haven't tried any such experiments on kids lately.

Think from their reference frame. These people have never set foot on a planet before. They didn't know Earth existed or that hugh-manatee had ever known a life outside of Axiom. Just having the chance to return to this planet and set foot on it would have been pretty fascinating, even if from the reference frame of real people circa 2008, it appeared to be a totally bleak and hopeless place.

I was personally wondering where the humans got all of the seeds with which they replanted the Earth (c'mon, there's no way that much biodiversity came from a single weed), but then I remembered, in real life we have that seed bank thing buried under the tundra.

NP: "We Won't Stay Silent", Tim Hughes & Steven Curtis Chapman

[Vlad!]

Think from their reference frame. These people have never set foot on a planet before. They didn't know Earth existed or that hugh-manatee had ever known a life outside of Axiom. Just having the chance to return to this planet and set foot on it would have been pretty fascinating, even if from the reference frame of real people circa 2008, it appeared to be a totally bleak and hopeless place.

I dunno; has there ever been a point in human history where the majority (let alone the entirety) of humanity voted to give up an indolent lifestyle to experience something fascinating and new? Do you really see them sticking with it when the novelty wore off?

I did appreciate it how the captain got Wikipedia'd on the Axiom.

[murlough23]

I dunno; has there ever been a point in human history where the majority (let alone the entirety) of humanity voted to give up an indolent lifestyle to experience something fascinating and new? Do you really see them sticking with it when the novelty wore off?

I don't think there was a vote or anything. They were probably all just sheep-like enough to go along with it.

[Vlad!]

I don't think there was a vote or anything. They were probably all just sheep-like enough to go along with it.

Nah, they all cheered when it was announced they were returning to earth, and they even stood up off their hoverloungers to totter around in support of it. I may have been reading too much into it, but I definitely got a "yay earth" vibe from all the passengers.

[murlough23]

I may have been reading too much into it

You think?

[Vlad!]

You think?

No, actually, I don't, but I wanted to at least partially give you the benefit of the doubt.