![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Alientraveller 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Alientraveller ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I intend to implement all these after I see the film, which being in the UK will be after July 18. Of course, you're all welcome to cite them in the meantime using the appropriate citation templates. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I loved the film's imagining of a future where sloth and laziness breeds obese people—it appears to be an accusatory finger leveled at our I-want-it-now society, in which corporate commercials drive consumer desire and instant gratification is taken for granted. I left the theater smiling, thinking this was mighty brave and forthright of Pixar. I'm finding, however, that other reviewers have been seeing the film and becoming indignant about how fat people are portrayed. And Pixar has pulled in its horns:
Though I think it very timely that the film chides us for our Walmart big-box big-assedness, a little information about those who are giving a less-than-happy response to the film would be appropriate in this article. Binksternet ( talk) 03:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) By "Disney Community", I was referring to blogs/writers that cover the Disney organization with an analytical or critical eye. Lumped together with 2719 are (in no particular order, and not an inclusive list) Miceage, JHM, Blue Sky Disney, Mouseplanet, Imaginerding, Epcot Central, and Re-Imagineering. And besides, aren't most good writers that are focused on a singular subject "well-read megafan"s? I want to stress that the section in question is the "commentary" section, which should allow for a little bit more leeway in sources....providing, as I think you're trying to say, the source is credible and not just a Joe Blow. I don't have any newspaper/mag mentions at the ready, but his site has been featured on boingboing and metafilter (I know, not necessarily meaningful, but at least more available than being just for random Disney Fans. SpikeJones ( talk) 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The similarities between WALL-E and Johnny 5 from short-circuit is pretty amazing from eyes/expression to build. Where could it be added to the article (with references of course)? It's just interesting in light of the praise that commends the movie for originality. -- 68.77.30.1 ( talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright already! Sorry for snapping, but just find a comparison if you badly want it to be mentioned outside the production section. Alientraveller ( talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
He also looks like the ROBs from Smash Bros and thousands of other generic "tank tread square binocular-eyes" droids all over the place. Calm down. Kakama ( talk) 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As per WP:MOSTM, Wikipedia does not capitalize all of the letters in a trademark even if Pixar considers it to be the official spelling. Otherwise, Realtor would be REALTOR, Time would be TIME, and Kiss would be KISS. Xnux the Echidna 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just watched the movie, and it struck me how many allusions to 2001: a Space oddessy were made. Most notable is how similar AUTO is to HAL-9000. should a section be made in the article about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.181.27 ( talk) 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of films referenced, adding to the fun of the movie: 2001, Short Circuit, Idiocracy, and Star Wars...that I noticed, at least. 65.248.164.214 ( talk) 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In tidying some of this evening's additions to the critical reception section, I came across two which have been added in support of the paragraph concerning the film's treatment of obesity:
I've temporarily hidden their comments until this is resolved. Thanks in advance for your advice. Steve T • C 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the article doesn't put enough weight on the effect of Internet culture (I have a feeling this will not go over well here...) on relationships and spirituality. WALL-E puts as much weight on the need for authenticity in a simulated, ephemeral world as it does on environmental issues. True, we've all seen eight million love stories, but it doesn't make the theme any less important. This film strikes me as the exact opposite of Nineteen Eighty-Four, since this time the love between two beings triumphs over a dystopian society rather than the other way around. The Reality Bug and The Matrix also come to mind. It also seems unusually relevant to the first generation to develop relationships extensively via the Internet. The irony of posting such an idea here of all places isn't lost on me... but on the other hand, that makes us all acutely aware of the peculiar effects of connectivity combined with anonymity, though a computerized fantasy world with all our needs close at hand has yet to come to pass. (Sort of... WOW, anyone?)
My point is, the need for an athletic and social life (with real, live humans) as well as material comfort is a powerful theme in the movie and should receive more weight. Patrick Ford is currently the only cited source with this concept in mind, and his quotation is littered with partisan clichés. Can anyone find more citations regarding this concept? Also, can anyone remember the names of the two humans who first noticed WALL-E and began to rediscover meaning in their lives? Publicly Visible ( talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
When wall-e's mobo gets fried, EVA searches through other chips in the pile. She fines green chips, but of course, none of them work; wall-e uses a blue one. What other computer do we know that has a blue motherboard? This is a pretty obvious nod to the g4-g5-mac pro line, that i dont think anyone has mentioned. Ixtli ( talk) 16:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't; plenty of motherboards are blue, and at any rate, that isn't notable even if it is true. Syphon8 ( talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are no verifiable sources that indicate that this was intentional either. Even if that was the idea, without any support, it's just OR which obviously can't be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The one092001 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
When individuals look up Wall-E they are not necessarily looking for the music article at first - they go to the film, look for info. As with most movie entries, there is a soundtrack/music section, which may be long or short - look at the other Pixar films, look at Lord of the Rings, so on, so forth. Having a disambiguation link at the top of the page - where it's easily overlooked - does the average visitor - to me at any rate - a disservice. Especially when they are used to seeing at least some information regarding the music/score of a film on the film's entry. Pejorative.majeure ( talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone respectfully tell me why this image should not be included? "Shortcircuitfilm.jpg" -- Edwin Larkin ( talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that some are taking things more personally here than they should and that personal agendas are being pushed. Can we take a deep breath on this before we start name-calling please? -- - It doesn't stick. ( talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
He did the soundtrack for the first pixar short, "Knick Knacks", did anyone happen to catch the singing fish? "Don't Worry Be Happy" was Mr. McFerrin's biggest hit. Should this be contained in the trivia section? I like that Pixar is always making circular references to their past work, I would say that this has to be included. N8pilot16 ( talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Earth is so polluted, it becomes uninhabitable. Humanity goes on a space cruise, leaving robots cleaning things up. Sounds very similar to Vectorman. -- Stormwatch ( talk) 05:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It has similarities to the film Idiocracy, in both design, tone, and plot; yet both films are enjoyable in their own right. Wall-E earns credit from me for not trying to hide it's influences and similarities. 65.248.164.214 ( talk) 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else interpreted the ubiquity and homogeneity of all things in the film to be a play on the word 'banal'? I certainly aligns with the sentiment that WALL-E is, at first, the only unique individual, acting on his heart's desire. Just a thought. Kurtto ( talk) 19:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Where in the film does it state that the current year is 2815? As far as I recall, approximations were made (such as "that was nearly 700 years ago", etc.), but no exact date was mentioned. Have I missed something? -- Mizu onna sango15/ Discuss 00:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for only one apostrophe? English grammar dictates "'n'", not "'n". ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ ( talk) 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Should probably leave it according to the spelling in the film's script.
I just saw this film today, and I don't remember any live action. Where/when was it? Nyttend ( talk) 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a very large section with commentary about the message in the film. It is followed by a short section with the director/screenwriter talking about how he came up with the story idea. The source is a print publication. I added a little more to this section where the director explicitly states his reaction to the commentary we list. The source was a web accessible interview. It was removed for not adding anything. I strongly disagree. First of all, it gives a source that anyone can go read right now rather than a print publication not many have access to. More importantly, rather than just detail his story process my additions show him giving an actual reaction the the commentary posted! If the director agreed with all the commentary I admit this wouldn't be much of an addition. But the tiny amount I pulled from his very long response on the subject show that he has a strong disagreement with the popular opinions about the message in his film -- not just a passing surprise at the reaction. I won't immediately re-add my contribution yet but I think there needs to be a little discussion on whether the director gets to give his opinion on the message in his own film rather than just getting to say he was "surprised". (sig not showing up right - this is JThree) James ( talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Now, given that the section already says Stanton believes that people are making connections that he "never saw coming", I honestly think that covers the same ground. But I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus says here. In addition, I have repaired the citation so that it now points to the correct url, so nothing is immediately unverifiable. Steve T • C 00:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)"Director and screenwriter Andrew Stanton has denied putting any intentional message in the film saying "I don’t have a political bent. I don’t have an ecological message to push... I wasn’t trying to be anti anything."
I'm not a huge wikipedia editor, so I'm not going to try to put in my own edits. But I think the New York Times had an appropriate quote describing the Stanton's intentions- "I was writing this thing so long ago, how could I have known what’s going on now? As it was getting finished, the environment talk started to freak me out. I don’t have much of a political bent, and the last thing I want to do is preach. I just went with things that I felt were logical for a possible future and supported the point of my story, which was the premise that irrational love defeats life’s programming, and that the most robotic beings I’ve met are us." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/movies/22onst.html?scp=10&sq=one%20robot&st=cse) 128.148.54.53 ( talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that WALL-E's design resembles that of E.T.'s? The two do look similar. -- 24.63.227.223 ( talk) 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I just typed - my first to Wikipedia - an edit to the "Commentary" section. Magnus, Robot Fighter No. 15 "The Weird World of Mogul Badur" was published in 1966 has two panels showing helpless, obese humans floating on hoverbeds and being fed by robots. Magnus explains that this is what will happen to humanity if it becomes too dependent upon robots. This was the first thing that popped into my mind when the helpless, obese humans on hoverbeds appeared in Wall-E. Hyperion60 ( talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Haha Your "first edit" didn't even last 18 minutes! Welcome to the harsh world of wikipedia! Haha! 65.248.164.214 ( talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there,
As I was purusing the critical reaction section of WALL-E I came to the conclusion that critic Roger Ebert was given a bit more face time, so to speak, about the movie. I don't really think that this shows coat-rack type behavior or even bias. It just comes across a bit lop-sided. As if to say "The only true opinion that matters really is Roger Ebert's," or "The Roger Ebert view on Wall-e." Of course, some one else may have brought this up before, but this is the first time I have really accessed the page. Rocdahut ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Really?! Someone actually thought that should be there? You can't be serious, and I'm assuming you're not, and removing it. Riskbreaker927 ( talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless you give me a site to reference, Andrew Stanton was the only writer for WALL-E.
Apparently an official video game has been released. I was looking for the Wikkipedia article but I couldn't find one. Does anyone know whether it has been created? JACO PLANE • 2008-07-9 16:20
One feature I didn't see in this movie, which has been in every previous work by Pixar as such, is the ball-with-stripe-and-star. It's either present as a ball, or as a texture on something else, but I didn't see it here. Did they, in fact, leave it out? Should we mention this? - Denimadept ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
NPR's Fresh Air had a good 50 min interview with the writer/director this evening. It really adds to and clears up a lot of the background of the film; I.e. The humans started as even more ridiculous gelatinous blobs until they were scaled back (and inspired by NASA research). If I weren't using a phone to edit, I would've added a link. The interview should be free online and would make a top-notch source. -- A Good Anon ( talk) 02:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it ironic that the DVD version of Wall-e will be avaliable for purchase at Wal-Mart? I mean, Wal-Mart is the basis of the evil mega-corporation Buy N Large, isn't it?
"Oh yeah, I see what they're saying here about how fat America is." I said between forcing handfuls of popcorn (from my Wall-e themed popcorn tub) into my mouth. "You see son, this film is patronizing Americans for being fat. So, to promote how fat Americans are, they make us sit on your ass in a theater for two hours." I said between slips from my Dr. Pepper. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
172.130.0.162 (
talk)
02:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Due to the fact my earlier comment on the topic was deleted by someone, and there is nothing at all similar on here, I feel that I should sadly detract from the many various discussions about random Wall-E topics (please remember at the top of this page there is a note stating: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I appreciate the clear and valliant attempts of many users to bring seemingly random topics back to the point of the article) and instead bring us back to a frivolous topic: the actual article and its weight and narrative tone. I've compared this article to several other random CGI films that came to mind (Shrek 1-3, Finding Nemo, Toy Story). I should note that Shrek does not even include a "reception" portion. I appreciate how the reception portion, since I last viewed it, has been editted to be a little bit less like a movie promo. I do feel like the reception portions size is still rather heavy- in fact, the entire Wall-E article reminds me of a WALL-A instead of Wall-E (ie- a big, fat, giant robot from the movie). It needs some serious slimming down and refining before anything more is added to it. Does anyone by chance agree? I think this topic "Article Size" should be used as a place to discuss the ARTICLE itself and how we can cut the fat from it (a whole topic in the article that lists its soundtracks??? I didn't see THAT in the other comparable articles I looked at (EDIT: I did note that in Shrek, they linked instead to seperate articles specifically on the soundtrack. Perhaps that might be a neater way of keeping the look of this entry clean?) and avoid an overly biased take on the movie. Hey, I am a BIG FAN of the movie- but when I read over the page and find myself wondering if members of the production staff might have written parts of it... it means we need to work on it more. The movie DID just come out, so yes we do have a flood of opinions and fans- but we really must try to make sure this articles size is comparable with 1) an encyclopedia entry such as Wikipedia defines it, and 2) other animated/CGI films, including older ones like Shrek which are relatively petite in comparison despite its huge fanbase and reputation. With all love in my heart for Wall-E and its marvelous producers, I must say: let's make this an encyclopedia entry... not a fansite page. Coroloro ( talk) 12:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary in this article is far too long. The guidelines say 300-500 words, and even though this is no absolute limit, this summary seems to be over 1,000 words, which is way too much - the movie is not complex enough to warrant that. I'm mentioning this because I notice the article's up for GAN, and this probably needs to be fixed first. Lampman ( talk) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Alientraveller 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Alientraveller ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I intend to implement all these after I see the film, which being in the UK will be after July 18. Of course, you're all welcome to cite them in the meantime using the appropriate citation templates. Alientraveller ( talk) 16:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Alientraveller ( talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I loved the film's imagining of a future where sloth and laziness breeds obese people—it appears to be an accusatory finger leveled at our I-want-it-now society, in which corporate commercials drive consumer desire and instant gratification is taken for granted. I left the theater smiling, thinking this was mighty brave and forthright of Pixar. I'm finding, however, that other reviewers have been seeing the film and becoming indignant about how fat people are portrayed. And Pixar has pulled in its horns:
Though I think it very timely that the film chides us for our Walmart big-box big-assedness, a little information about those who are giving a less-than-happy response to the film would be appropriate in this article. Binksternet ( talk) 03:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) By "Disney Community", I was referring to blogs/writers that cover the Disney organization with an analytical or critical eye. Lumped together with 2719 are (in no particular order, and not an inclusive list) Miceage, JHM, Blue Sky Disney, Mouseplanet, Imaginerding, Epcot Central, and Re-Imagineering. And besides, aren't most good writers that are focused on a singular subject "well-read megafan"s? I want to stress that the section in question is the "commentary" section, which should allow for a little bit more leeway in sources....providing, as I think you're trying to say, the source is credible and not just a Joe Blow. I don't have any newspaper/mag mentions at the ready, but his site has been featured on boingboing and metafilter (I know, not necessarily meaningful, but at least more available than being just for random Disney Fans. SpikeJones ( talk) 17:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The similarities between WALL-E and Johnny 5 from short-circuit is pretty amazing from eyes/expression to build. Where could it be added to the article (with references of course)? It's just interesting in light of the praise that commends the movie for originality. -- 68.77.30.1 ( talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright already! Sorry for snapping, but just find a comparison if you badly want it to be mentioned outside the production section. Alientraveller ( talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
He also looks like the ROBs from Smash Bros and thousands of other generic "tank tread square binocular-eyes" droids all over the place. Calm down. Kakama ( talk) 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As per WP:MOSTM, Wikipedia does not capitalize all of the letters in a trademark even if Pixar considers it to be the official spelling. Otherwise, Realtor would be REALTOR, Time would be TIME, and Kiss would be KISS. Xnux the Echidna 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just watched the movie, and it struck me how many allusions to 2001: a Space oddessy were made. Most notable is how similar AUTO is to HAL-9000. should a section be made in the article about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.181.27 ( talk) 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There are a number of films referenced, adding to the fun of the movie: 2001, Short Circuit, Idiocracy, and Star Wars...that I noticed, at least. 65.248.164.214 ( talk) 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
In tidying some of this evening's additions to the critical reception section, I came across two which have been added in support of the paragraph concerning the film's treatment of obesity:
I've temporarily hidden their comments until this is resolved. Thanks in advance for your advice. Steve T • C 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel that the article doesn't put enough weight on the effect of Internet culture (I have a feeling this will not go over well here...) on relationships and spirituality. WALL-E puts as much weight on the need for authenticity in a simulated, ephemeral world as it does on environmental issues. True, we've all seen eight million love stories, but it doesn't make the theme any less important. This film strikes me as the exact opposite of Nineteen Eighty-Four, since this time the love between two beings triumphs over a dystopian society rather than the other way around. The Reality Bug and The Matrix also come to mind. It also seems unusually relevant to the first generation to develop relationships extensively via the Internet. The irony of posting such an idea here of all places isn't lost on me... but on the other hand, that makes us all acutely aware of the peculiar effects of connectivity combined with anonymity, though a computerized fantasy world with all our needs close at hand has yet to come to pass. (Sort of... WOW, anyone?)
My point is, the need for an athletic and social life (with real, live humans) as well as material comfort is a powerful theme in the movie and should receive more weight. Patrick Ford is currently the only cited source with this concept in mind, and his quotation is littered with partisan clichés. Can anyone find more citations regarding this concept? Also, can anyone remember the names of the two humans who first noticed WALL-E and began to rediscover meaning in their lives? Publicly Visible ( talk) 01:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
When wall-e's mobo gets fried, EVA searches through other chips in the pile. She fines green chips, but of course, none of them work; wall-e uses a blue one. What other computer do we know that has a blue motherboard? This is a pretty obvious nod to the g4-g5-mac pro line, that i dont think anyone has mentioned. Ixtli ( talk) 16:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't; plenty of motherboards are blue, and at any rate, that isn't notable even if it is true. Syphon8 ( talk) 03:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are no verifiable sources that indicate that this was intentional either. Even if that was the idea, without any support, it's just OR which obviously can't be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The one092001 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
When individuals look up Wall-E they are not necessarily looking for the music article at first - they go to the film, look for info. As with most movie entries, there is a soundtrack/music section, which may be long or short - look at the other Pixar films, look at Lord of the Rings, so on, so forth. Having a disambiguation link at the top of the page - where it's easily overlooked - does the average visitor - to me at any rate - a disservice. Especially when they are used to seeing at least some information regarding the music/score of a film on the film's entry. Pejorative.majeure ( talk) 23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone respectfully tell me why this image should not be included? "Shortcircuitfilm.jpg" -- Edwin Larkin ( talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that some are taking things more personally here than they should and that personal agendas are being pushed. Can we take a deep breath on this before we start name-calling please? -- - It doesn't stick. ( talk) 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
He did the soundtrack for the first pixar short, "Knick Knacks", did anyone happen to catch the singing fish? "Don't Worry Be Happy" was Mr. McFerrin's biggest hit. Should this be contained in the trivia section? I like that Pixar is always making circular references to their past work, I would say that this has to be included. N8pilot16 ( talk) 15:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Earth is so polluted, it becomes uninhabitable. Humanity goes on a space cruise, leaving robots cleaning things up. Sounds very similar to Vectorman. -- Stormwatch ( talk) 05:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It has similarities to the film Idiocracy, in both design, tone, and plot; yet both films are enjoyable in their own right. Wall-E earns credit from me for not trying to hide it's influences and similarities. 65.248.164.214 ( talk) 21:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else interpreted the ubiquity and homogeneity of all things in the film to be a play on the word 'banal'? I certainly aligns with the sentiment that WALL-E is, at first, the only unique individual, acting on his heart's desire. Just a thought. Kurtto ( talk) 19:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Where in the film does it state that the current year is 2815? As far as I recall, approximations were made (such as "that was nearly 700 years ago", etc.), but no exact date was mentioned. Have I missed something? -- Mizu onna sango15/ Discuss 00:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for only one apostrophe? English grammar dictates "'n'", not "'n". ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ ( talk) 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Should probably leave it according to the spelling in the film's script.
I just saw this film today, and I don't remember any live action. Where/when was it? Nyttend ( talk) 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a very large section with commentary about the message in the film. It is followed by a short section with the director/screenwriter talking about how he came up with the story idea. The source is a print publication. I added a little more to this section where the director explicitly states his reaction to the commentary we list. The source was a web accessible interview. It was removed for not adding anything. I strongly disagree. First of all, it gives a source that anyone can go read right now rather than a print publication not many have access to. More importantly, rather than just detail his story process my additions show him giving an actual reaction the the commentary posted! If the director agreed with all the commentary I admit this wouldn't be much of an addition. But the tiny amount I pulled from his very long response on the subject show that he has a strong disagreement with the popular opinions about the message in his film -- not just a passing surprise at the reaction. I won't immediately re-add my contribution yet but I think there needs to be a little discussion on whether the director gets to give his opinion on the message in his own film rather than just getting to say he was "surprised". (sig not showing up right - this is JThree) James ( talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Now, given that the section already says Stanton believes that people are making connections that he "never saw coming", I honestly think that covers the same ground. But I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus says here. In addition, I have repaired the citation so that it now points to the correct url, so nothing is immediately unverifiable. Steve T • C 00:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)"Director and screenwriter Andrew Stanton has denied putting any intentional message in the film saying "I don’t have a political bent. I don’t have an ecological message to push... I wasn’t trying to be anti anything."
I'm not a huge wikipedia editor, so I'm not going to try to put in my own edits. But I think the New York Times had an appropriate quote describing the Stanton's intentions- "I was writing this thing so long ago, how could I have known what’s going on now? As it was getting finished, the environment talk started to freak me out. I don’t have much of a political bent, and the last thing I want to do is preach. I just went with things that I felt were logical for a possible future and supported the point of my story, which was the premise that irrational love defeats life’s programming, and that the most robotic beings I’ve met are us." ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/movies/22onst.html?scp=10&sq=one%20robot&st=cse) 128.148.54.53 ( talk) 16:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that WALL-E's design resembles that of E.T.'s? The two do look similar. -- 24.63.227.223 ( talk) 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I just typed - my first to Wikipedia - an edit to the "Commentary" section. Magnus, Robot Fighter No. 15 "The Weird World of Mogul Badur" was published in 1966 has two panels showing helpless, obese humans floating on hoverbeds and being fed by robots. Magnus explains that this is what will happen to humanity if it becomes too dependent upon robots. This was the first thing that popped into my mind when the helpless, obese humans on hoverbeds appeared in Wall-E. Hyperion60 ( talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Haha Your "first edit" didn't even last 18 minutes! Welcome to the harsh world of wikipedia! Haha! 65.248.164.214 ( talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there,
As I was purusing the critical reaction section of WALL-E I came to the conclusion that critic Roger Ebert was given a bit more face time, so to speak, about the movie. I don't really think that this shows coat-rack type behavior or even bias. It just comes across a bit lop-sided. As if to say "The only true opinion that matters really is Roger Ebert's," or "The Roger Ebert view on Wall-e." Of course, some one else may have brought this up before, but this is the first time I have really accessed the page. Rocdahut ( talk) 09:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Really?! Someone actually thought that should be there? You can't be serious, and I'm assuming you're not, and removing it. Riskbreaker927 ( talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless you give me a site to reference, Andrew Stanton was the only writer for WALL-E.
Apparently an official video game has been released. I was looking for the Wikkipedia article but I couldn't find one. Does anyone know whether it has been created? JACO PLANE • 2008-07-9 16:20
One feature I didn't see in this movie, which has been in every previous work by Pixar as such, is the ball-with-stripe-and-star. It's either present as a ball, or as a texture on something else, but I didn't see it here. Did they, in fact, leave it out? Should we mention this? - Denimadept ( talk) 18:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
NPR's Fresh Air had a good 50 min interview with the writer/director this evening. It really adds to and clears up a lot of the background of the film; I.e. The humans started as even more ridiculous gelatinous blobs until they were scaled back (and inspired by NASA research). If I weren't using a phone to edit, I would've added a link. The interview should be free online and would make a top-notch source. -- A Good Anon ( talk) 02:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it ironic that the DVD version of Wall-e will be avaliable for purchase at Wal-Mart? I mean, Wal-Mart is the basis of the evil mega-corporation Buy N Large, isn't it?
"Oh yeah, I see what they're saying here about how fat America is." I said between forcing handfuls of popcorn (from my Wall-e themed popcorn tub) into my mouth. "You see son, this film is patronizing Americans for being fat. So, to promote how fat Americans are, they make us sit on your ass in a theater for two hours." I said between slips from my Dr. Pepper. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
172.130.0.162 (
talk)
02:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Due to the fact my earlier comment on the topic was deleted by someone, and there is nothing at all similar on here, I feel that I should sadly detract from the many various discussions about random Wall-E topics (please remember at the top of this page there is a note stating: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I appreciate the clear and valliant attempts of many users to bring seemingly random topics back to the point of the article) and instead bring us back to a frivolous topic: the actual article and its weight and narrative tone. I've compared this article to several other random CGI films that came to mind (Shrek 1-3, Finding Nemo, Toy Story). I should note that Shrek does not even include a "reception" portion. I appreciate how the reception portion, since I last viewed it, has been editted to be a little bit less like a movie promo. I do feel like the reception portions size is still rather heavy- in fact, the entire Wall-E article reminds me of a WALL-A instead of Wall-E (ie- a big, fat, giant robot from the movie). It needs some serious slimming down and refining before anything more is added to it. Does anyone by chance agree? I think this topic "Article Size" should be used as a place to discuss the ARTICLE itself and how we can cut the fat from it (a whole topic in the article that lists its soundtracks??? I didn't see THAT in the other comparable articles I looked at (EDIT: I did note that in Shrek, they linked instead to seperate articles specifically on the soundtrack. Perhaps that might be a neater way of keeping the look of this entry clean?) and avoid an overly biased take on the movie. Hey, I am a BIG FAN of the movie- but when I read over the page and find myself wondering if members of the production staff might have written parts of it... it means we need to work on it more. The movie DID just come out, so yes we do have a flood of opinions and fans- but we really must try to make sure this articles size is comparable with 1) an encyclopedia entry such as Wikipedia defines it, and 2) other animated/CGI films, including older ones like Shrek which are relatively petite in comparison despite its huge fanbase and reputation. With all love in my heart for Wall-E and its marvelous producers, I must say: let's make this an encyclopedia entry... not a fansite page. Coroloro ( talk) 12:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary in this article is far too long. The guidelines say 300-500 words, and even though this is no absolute limit, this summary seems to be over 1,000 words, which is way too much - the movie is not complex enough to warrant that. I'm mentioning this because I notice the article's up for GAN, and this probably needs to be fixed first. Lampman ( talk) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)