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 |
The leading sentence says that the movie was marketed with an interpunct, but do we have any citation that it is not a bullet or one of other similar characters? The article itself is inconsistent; the lead paragraph uses U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT (WALL·E), but other parts of the article use U+2022 BULLET (WALL•E). Outside of graphic design, the hyphenated WALL-E is universal, but I've rarely seen that in marketing materials. One exception is the official web-site, which uses WALL-E in the HTML title, but the stylized bullet elsewhere. Other data points include IMDB, which elected to use the interpunct, Apple, which opted for the bullet, and Google, which has slightly more hits for WALL•E (59.6m) than for WALL·E (59.4m) or WALL-E (56.4m). The [ Buy n Large] web site uses alternatively hyphens and bullets. Arrant Pedantry has an article on this topic, but reaches no conclusions. And then there is the Manual of Style policy on trademarks. Thoughts? Vectro ( talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think the bullet in the lead section should be changed back to an interpunct—the round dot used in the title card and on promotions could not logically be a "bullet", but an interpunct. The definitions of both bullet and interpunct given in their respective articles say that a bullet is used to start a list. This would not make sense the way it is used in the film's title. An interpunct however, based on the information I picked up from its article, would and seems more logical. — Mizu onna sango15/ Discuss 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway to include a small excerpt on WALL-E's unusually high rating on the IMDB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.144.80 ( talk • contribs)
What's wrong with having an interpunct in the article title? 89.240.59.140 ( talk) 23:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this seems silly to me, but there's been enough re-editing of this to necessitate a discussion, IMO. The bot is called "GO-4", that's a given. It's pronounced "go-for". The established term for this bot's apparent function is a mutated version of that term, which already has an article here ( gofer) and is generally well known. So what's the problem? - Denimadept ( talk) 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:WALL-E/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that mentioning what WALL-E's name means should be left for articles that describe him instead of in the plot summary of this article. But if anyone thinks otherwise, please tell me. I don't want to start a war, and I'm positive you don't either. Immblueversion ( talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.18.76.220 ( talk) 10:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that in the commentary section it seems that while a variety of criticism is mentioned, there is always a defense for it and it always gets 'the last word' though I am sure there would be a response to that 'last word' as well. This kind of weights the article in the defensive direction on Wall-E's behalf, not a neutral stance, doesn't it? I've noted that articles where the public reaction is generally negative, defense is often less (even if it exists)- but in big blockbusters like Wall-E, you rarely see a criticism listed that does not have a rebuttal. This, to me, seems to imply there might be a bias infiltrating the article. Coroloro ( talk) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that right? 3 million dollars seems awful low, considering how just about every other Pixar has done well over 100 million internationally. Does it just need to be updated? 67.183.40.4 ( talk) 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a number of blogs and news outlets are picking up on thisstory - the F-Word site, which the article quotes, also maintains that "Pixar reworked the film to tone down its negative and discriminatory portrayals of fat people", which we can report as an allegation(?) but might not be able to verify? Looks like this probably deserves a mention, in any case. -- 86.133.5.197 ( talk) 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the flag-up for such a discussion but couldn't find it so I have decided to start one. Firstly, there are not a great deal of characters in this film and therefore, one could argue, it doesn't merit a single article just to list the few characters involved in the film. I propose two suggestions. Obviously, these are not the only two solutions that I, or anyone else for that matter, could come up with. My suggestions are as follows:-
My own personal feelings on the matter lean more to my latter suggestion because merging the article with WALL-E would result in a inappropriately long piece. But trimming it would ruin some ones work. Alternative, I think it would be simply marvellous to turn this article into a broader piece about the media response and critics response to the severe lack of characters as well as expanding the description of each one. Please post any other suggestions or thoughts about this here and also, a word to those Wikipedia users more wise than I, please don't be shy in letting me know I did something wrong- I welcome it.
-- rab random ( talk) 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
"but as of now, there has been no compelling argument for keeping it as a separate article."
- SpikeJones 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
-- rab random ( talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been rather busy this week, so I haven't been able to catch up much on what's been going on with the article while I was away. I recently noticed that the mention of references to Hello, Dolly! was removed from the plot. Why was this done? I would think something like that would at least warrant a talk page discussion first—if it doesn't belong in the plot section, should a "Popular culture references" section at least be added to the article and mention the Dolly references? I think this information is plenty noteworthy and sufficiently verifiable (anyone that's seen the musical film can verify this themselves by going to see WALL-E, so there's no need for a citation, if that's the problem). Best, — Mizu onna sango15/ Discuss 18:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I suppose we have. Who removed the refs in the first place? We might want to ask them why they did that. - Denimadept ( talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone's described WALL-E as an "adventure-comedy-romance-science fiction film". This is a bit silly, surely "animated science fiction film" will do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.59.211 ( talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The user Animesouth seems to have a need to state that the film Silent Running was a major influence on WALL-E and cites two poor examples. Does anyone think he has a point and, if not, how do we prevent him from constantly editing this page? From looking at his Wiki page it seems he has annoyed others by doing similarly tenacious edits on other pages and, for reasons unknown to us, will not back off and admit he was wrong.-- Gaunt ( talk) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll note that I have told AnimeSouth if (s)he continues adding it, it'll be considered vandalism; we have asked them enough times to stop. If they insert it again, I'll just report them to AIV. It may sound a little bad faith-ish, but when you've asked nicely three times and they deliberately continue there's not much more to do. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does God allow evil to exist? A traditional answer is that freedom ( free will) necessitates the possibility of evil. In Wall-E, the characters that best display the range of human will and emotion are actually the robots. It is Wall-E that "wakes" John and and Mary from their electronic wombs to experience the world as it is. The captain wrestles with his robotic keeper, Auto, and finally manages to switch to the ship's controls back to manual. The history of the people aboard the ship moves from being one written by a perfect (perfectly secure?) robot guide to being a messy, painstaking labor on the earth. The captain's desire to know his origin leads directly to an exit from paradise and an arrival back on earth. But the humans are not alone in their new, old world. The robots will be with them as they forge a new future, one with a balance struck between man and machine. 192.251.66.254 ( talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone added this section, and it includes links to Dystopia and the Brazil film. Is this neccessary, or is it innapropriate? Your thoughts. dogman15 ( talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:DASH, shouldn't this be moved to WALL–E (currently a redirect)? If I'm interpreting this right, the aformentioned MoS section states that articles which would normally have a hypen in its title should use an en dash (–), and if that's true, I'll have to speedy the appropriate title so it can be renamed. Thoughts? — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the link on top of the page go to the disambiguation, not the video game? 71.249.158.250 ( talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this still protected? Anons seem to be editing just fine, it must've expired already. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Assuming I'm not being too bold here, who—if anyone—wants to go for FA, and what more needs to be done before nominating it? I've found film articles to be among the easiest to promote, so why not give it a shot? — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 05:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I just realised that EVE stands for Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, and that this is wrong! Of course they wanted an E to form that name, but the actual name should be TVE (Terrestrial VE), because it examines earth, not other planets. Should there be a note on this in EVE's character description/page? 190.31.237.127 ( talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know a better way to contact you, but I think the section on Wall E should be Controversy, not commentary because the film was also not about love, but about the earth and how humans left it and how a pile a crap it turned out to be when they left which got a whole fuss of critics and etc. So please stop changing it, Its very annoying and it shouldn't really matter to you anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLight14 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok fine, let it be commentary instead of controversy , since all you guys ganged up on me about this, but I still think Controversy is close. you win mizu onna sango15. By the way, I'm still a little new here, so I don't know how to get to talk pages.
Cheers! WikiLight14 ( talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
After centuries of living in micro-gravity, the humans aboard the Axiom have lost considerable bone and muscle mass, rendering them too obese and weak to stand or move without robotic assistance
Should this line contain a mention of the fact that the humans are also obese because of laziness and sloth, and because robots have been doing everything for them their entire lives? The film condemned such things as materialism and excessive consumption, and the portrayal of humans as lazy, obese, slug-like beings was meant to represent the effect of a society where people grow lazy due to automation; the film's message had nothing to do with low gravity.
Wikiedia is not meant to further a film's agenda, but how about a reference for the sake of accuracy? The humans grew fat not only because of the gravity, but also because of their lifestyles, an exaggerated representation of what already exists in real life. EvaXephon ( talk) 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's simply seemed to me at the pre-screening as an exaggerated point in the film to serve as a societal cautionary tale: anti-couch-potato-ism. Despite all said above. It wasn't an interpretation. It was visually explicit. Also, microgravity effects of that sort are conjectural, despite coming from NASA. I reckon one would have to look at the formal "director's statement" for the artistic intent. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk)
In addition, isn't the line contradictory to what happens later in the film? The humans do eventually manage to stand and walk unaided, even when they return to earth and gravity takes it's full effect. -- Simpsons fan 66 00:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
When the ship tilts the humans slide into each other and into a big pile, so there evidently is gravity. After seeing the movie I did not think about microgravity at all. 24.132.178.138 ( talk) 13:07, 22 August 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. |
I've just implemented the majority of my rewrite of the production section. I know some might object to the reordering of the cast section, but what's important is the article is really comprehensive now. I start this discussion to open up more opinions on whether information pertaining to each character should be shifted in a style like Transformers or Prince Caspian, and suggestions on what to illustrate. This production section is so comprehensive that if fair use policy wasn't the way it was, we could easily squeeze two or three images in each section, but we can't.
Some additional points; the awards and top ten lists need to be cleaned-up. Commentary can and will grow into a proper Themes section. Does anyone else have suggestions on what they can do to make this FA? Alientraveller ( talk) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to move some info from Production into Cast. User:Immblueversion hasn't responded but I'm sure many people want to keep a Cast section. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The Awards section's length is getting out of control. If anyone knows the MOS for sections like these, perhaps they could trim the fat, as it were. DP76764 ( Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent for sidebar) Instead of deleting the film critics awards from the awards listing, would separating them out, as is done on The Dark Knight (film), a different option? SpikeJones ( talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest removing the pale red and pale green from the awards table? It is perfectly fine to read the word in its particular cell to known the outcome; no need to emblazon with color. It seems Christmas-tree-ish and off-balance (with only color on the right side). — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of making sure a handling of a list (or not, based on consensus) is added to the film MOS, I have begun a conversation on the topic if you would like to chime in with your own opinion. SpikeJones ( talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's terribly and truly sad that despite so many other movies having their nice awards section, the film that has matched and surpassed many of them in that regard is sorely underrepresented in a tiny awards table. I say if we aren't going to get rid of all the awards table on all pages, then don't get rid of this one or minimize it ignoring major awards. MidgardDragon ( talk) 4:39AM, 21 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC).
Do we really think that removing the table of awards is a good idea? Referring to another page that lists all nominations and awards by Pixar seems like a drastic lack of forethought. Are there pages that list all the awards for Universal, MGM, or Disney? No. What happens when Pixar is 50 years old and has put out 40 films? Struhs ( talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I prepared something about the DVD and would like to add it. If you would like to check it please take a look at my Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. Sha-Sanio ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have shortened some textpasseges and would like to know if someone has any agrees or disagrees with the new version before I can add it to the article. Sha-Sanio ( talk) 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I have also prepared some information about the nominations for the BAFTA Awards, Wall-e has wom 4 nominations, for further information please check my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. Thanks Sha-Sanio ( talk) 10:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's see if we can get rid of all these capital letters, and sort out the names of the main characters in the same go. Is there citable proof that Wally and Eva is named "WALL-E" and "EVE" and not "Wally" and "Eva"? I know that Wally's took his name from his own robot model name, but that doesn't mean his name is WALL-E. As for the egg robot, Wally consistently pronounces her name as "Eva", not "Eve". And for "EVE" versus "Eva" the same argument applies -- it is based on her robot model name, but it is by no means unique to her.
So, let's get consensus on what Wally's and Eva's names are, and use them, instead of referring to them by their robot designations as if they were uniquely created machines. -- leuce ( talk) 08:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I quote: "It grossed $533 million worldwide, won the 2009 Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature Film, and the 2009 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, and was nominated for five other Academy Awards." The 81st academy awards occurred in 2009 for 2008 films. Elsewhere on WP they are referred to as 2008. Which is correct here? Does the same apply to the Golden globes? -- SGBailey ( talk) 07:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Alientraveller removed the "Cast" section, a move with which I agreed due to the mostly silent nature of the film. The names were inserted into the "Plot" section, so is there a reason to keep such a section? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be critical commentary to support the screenshot that shows WALL-E and M-O. The article is pretty well-developed, so I doubt that any useful commentary would exist. Plot detail, being descriptions of the primary source, does not count as a tether to rationalize screenshots. Regardless of whether or not the "Cast" section is kept, this screenshot should be removed. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about this, so I wanted to bring it up here. Is this sentence (from the "Plot" section, paragraph 3) right? "Traveling to the pod launch room, they see GO-4, Auto's security assistant, deposit the missing plant in a pod that he sets to self-destruct." I got the impression that he was simply ejecting the plant, and WALL-E accidentally set it to self-destruct when he gets trapped inside and starts banging on the controls. I don't wanna change something incorrectly, and its kinda hard to be sure because there is hardly any dialogue, but this is the impression I got from this scene. What are other people's opinions? Cactus Guru ( talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Another editor recently added a comment that WALL-E was a Dystopian fiction film. After reflecting on it, I started to wonder if that's really the case. A Dystopian film gives a vision of society that is the opposite of Utopia - one in which the conditions of life are characterized by human misery, poverty, oppression, violence, disease, and/or pollution. Granted, there is a lot of that last item in WALL-E back on Earth - pollution - but the human beings of 2800 A.D. really aren't suffering any of it. Far away aboard the Axoim, their life existence has long centered around doing no work, spending all their time in leisure, everything catered for them. If anything, I think WALL-E gives a vision of the theater which is not Dystopian, but not Utopian either... instead, it's Anti-Utopian, a vision of the future where human society seems Utopian but there is a fatal flaw which has twisted the Utopian concept (namely, they are on a ship to nowhere, their five-year cruise becoming an endless eternity in wait). At the end of the movie, they come back to Earth, and face potential hardship, but the ending credits show scenes of community, rebuilding, restoring, bringing Earth and prosperity back. Is that really Dystopian? How should we classify the film as a whole?
As a result, I think it best to revert the edit, and invite anyone who is interested in discussing the matter here if they think re-instituting a label (Dystopian? Utopian? Anti-Utopian?) is a useful contribution to the article. -- AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The way utopian themes fit into this movie is a really poignant topic of discussion. I agree that it is anti-utopian but not in the sense that it tries to establish a "utopia" as negative. Rather, today's increasingly technocratic society creates a tacit definition of utopia, and we see the potential manifestation of it in this film. That is, machines do all the work, everything is automated, and life becomes 100% leisurely. As is mentioned in the main page, the movie manages to suggest that some sort of human spirit is derived from labor, which fits into these "anti-utopian" themes. Today's utopia comes at the cost of whatever it is that makes us human; by passing on every task imaginable to machines and robots, the characters also pass on the essence of their being and become mindless themselves. The fact that the protagonists and antagonists of the film aren't humans but robots, which we typically consider to be incapable of human feeling and/or directive, brings to light the way that this way of living affects us as humans. As such, the concept of anti-utopia is very specific to 21st century ideals of what constitutes utopia. Technology carries more and more responsibility in our lives such that the extrapolation of this trend brings us inevitably to WALL-E... Or at least that's what the movie is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.58.248 ( talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I say anti-utopian, if it needs to be categorized at all. 74.33.174.133 ( talk) 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ref #4 is broken, please check link OboeCrack ( talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi MJBurrage. I've reverted your most recent effort in order to draw the conversation here to the Talk Page. Let's attempt to clear this up and get some consensus before we post what we think is the exact year the events of WALL-E (specifically, his adventures aboard the Axiom and what the year is when he causes the human race to hyperjump back to Earth to recolonize the planet) take place. This is what I'm thinking:
At frame 46:16 on the DVD, we see that it has been 700 years to the day since the Axiom's "five year cruise" began.
At frame 1:09:09 on the DVD, we see that the Axiom started receiving quarterly reports from BnL headquarters back on Earth every three months starting in the year 2100, and that the message from Forthright (Directive A113) ordering all Autopilots to take control of their ships and avoid returning to Earth was sent in the year 2010.
Therefore, if they started receiving reports in deep space after they launched in the year 2100, and we know that they launched exactly 700 years ago ("255,642 days"), then the events of WALL-E aboard the Axiom took place circa 2800, not circa 2810.
Give this some consideration after you've had a chance to examine the DVD at 0:46:16 and 1:09:09 once more, and let me know what you think. -- AzureCitizen ( talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL, it's funny how things come full circle, Edokter and MJBarrage. I remember a month ago I was thinking it would be better to leave the exact date somewhat uncertain, because we don't know for sure and are left trying to calculate the exact date from the clues we see in the film. It was my suggestion originally to go with the "early 29th Century" for those reasons, and now I think I was probably wrong. It is good that at least three of us are looking at this, because it catches errors in logic and points out things we didn't consider at the time we wrote what we wrote. I know that I am far from perfect in getting it "right" every time I edit Wikipedia.
As far as the exact date is concerned, it seems we will be unable to fix that, because of the conflicting information inherent in the original work. We know that WALL-E's visit to the Axiom takes place exactly 700 years into the five-year cruise, but we don't know for certain if they launched in 2105 (logical since Captain Reardon's watch began in 2105), or if they launched in 2100 (logical since the ship's log was receiving communications from BnL headquarters by that time). Movies routinely contain these kinds of inconsistencies because different people are working on producing different parts of the film at different times, and things do not always line up despite their best efforts.
So, we're left with the problem of approximating the date for purposes of inclusion in the article (the reader needs to know, approximately, when the events of the story are), without providing further contradictions or completely ignoring one logical explanation altogether in favor of another. So we'll need to use language that allows for both scenarios.
After watching the film segments in question again just now, I believe that between the two dates, 2100 and 2105 (and consequently, 2800 and 2805), I would be willing to concede that 2805 is probably more likely, because I find the proposition that the Axiom would depart in 2800 without a Captain until 2805 less likely than the proposition that somehow the computer had entries in the log from BnL Headquarters prior to launch despite what would seem consitent and routine reports. Maybe the ship was still on Earth, in the process of being constructed, but the computer was already in place and communicating with headquarters, etc? This is all speculative and can not be locked down with certainty, but if I was now forced to wager and pick one over the other, I'd guess it was 2805 before I'd say it was 2800.
Therefore, it seems to me that the best approximation and the best phrasing of language in our situation is to go with "Circa 2805" rather than the "early 29th Century." When used in this fashion, "Circa 2805" implies that in our closet approximation, i.e., the date we believe is most likely, we think it was probably 2805, but if it's fourth quarter 2799, 2800, 2801, 2806, etc., "Circa" expands to cover those possibilities, while "early 29th Century" does not. The only other option I can think of is using "around the time of the early 29th Century," but I think "Circa" is a simpler and more elegant choice.
I will wait for both of you to think this over (along with anyone else who would like to comment) and see if we can arrive at a new consensus. AzureCitizen ( talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
WALL·E: The Intergalactic Guide (ISBN 978-0-7566-3840) clearly states throughout, that the film takes place in 2805.
All of that fits everything in the film as well, with the ships computer being active in 2100 arguably an anomaly, but just as arguably simply a detail about the construction time of the Axiom. Regardless I think the Section should begin with mention of the 2805 date. — MJBurrage( T• C) 06:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The themes section seems to be a religious critique of the film, rather than an enumeration and explanation of the themes of the movie, of which religious references are only a small part. The section currently is now written from a neutral point of view (first line : "Stanton, who is Christian,[...]", his religion is relevant why exactly?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.37.216 ( talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel qualified to craft such a contentful sentence or two; nor am I sure where the appropriate place would be to add this in the article, yet I can't help but feel that the similarities between the WALL-E character here and robot Number 5 (who later calls himself Johnny-5) in the film Short_Circuit should be mentioned. The camera eyes, the tread-like locomotion and of course the fact they are more than just programmed robots (albeit simply assumed the long period of time for WALL-E was enough whereas Number-5 had to be hit by lightning) being among the similaritites. Anyone wish to volunteer?
24.199.4.114 ( talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Just looked through the archives, but apparently this hasn't been brought up before. The plot of WALL-E arguably resembles to an extent that of Idiocracy, and some have also brought up Short Circuit and other films. I've found several so-so sources, many private blogs, but also e.g. a short entry on Metromix Chicago, an article on Irishtimes.com and an entry on the Huffington Post (no doubt, their inclusion threshold is pretty low-ish). They are also mentioned side by side in this article from BaltimoreSun.com.
Let me stress that I don't agree with the few blog entries to be found that allege plagiarism in any way. Consensus appears to be that although the films are entirely independent and different from each other, they do notably share certain elements (e.g. the trash mountains, the "relic-from-the-past" hero saving mankind's future etc).
Would a a neutral summary statement to the effect that "certain similarities with movies such as Idiocracy have been noted" be in order under #Reviews? 87.79.51.88 ( talk) 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In the "Sound" subsection, it states "The Macintosh computer chime, used in computers 1991-1997, was used to signify when WALL-E has fully recharged his battery." Since this is WP:OR, I wouldn't add this to the article, but my 2008 iMac uses the same chime. Also, the citation for the sentence ( http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35724) doesn't support the claim exactly. A movie critic simply states "When [WALL-E's] fully charged he makes a Mac sound, but not a new Mac sound… old school Mac start-up sound." Thoughts?
Thanks, WordyGirl90 ( talk) 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't AUTO's name be capitalized, like the rest of the robot names/acronyms? UNIT A4B1 ( talk) 00:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
FOR ARGUMENT:
On the box of the DVD, it has "AUTO" capitalized. Also, the rest of the robot names are capitalized, so... UNIT A4B1 ( talk) 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
AGAINST ARGUMENT:
Auto should not be capitalized.
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 |
The leading sentence says that the movie was marketed with an interpunct, but do we have any citation that it is not a bullet or one of other similar characters? The article itself is inconsistent; the lead paragraph uses U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT (WALL·E), but other parts of the article use U+2022 BULLET (WALL•E). Outside of graphic design, the hyphenated WALL-E is universal, but I've rarely seen that in marketing materials. One exception is the official web-site, which uses WALL-E in the HTML title, but the stylized bullet elsewhere. Other data points include IMDB, which elected to use the interpunct, Apple, which opted for the bullet, and Google, which has slightly more hits for WALL•E (59.6m) than for WALL·E (59.4m) or WALL-E (56.4m). The [ Buy n Large] web site uses alternatively hyphens and bullets. Arrant Pedantry has an article on this topic, but reaches no conclusions. And then there is the Manual of Style policy on trademarks. Thoughts? Vectro ( talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think the bullet in the lead section should be changed back to an interpunct—the round dot used in the title card and on promotions could not logically be a "bullet", but an interpunct. The definitions of both bullet and interpunct given in their respective articles say that a bullet is used to start a list. This would not make sense the way it is used in the film's title. An interpunct however, based on the information I picked up from its article, would and seems more logical. — Mizu onna sango15/ Discuss 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway to include a small excerpt on WALL-E's unusually high rating on the IMDB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.144.80 ( talk • contribs)
What's wrong with having an interpunct in the article title? 89.240.59.140 ( talk) 23:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this seems silly to me, but there's been enough re-editing of this to necessitate a discussion, IMO. The bot is called "GO-4", that's a given. It's pronounced "go-for". The established term for this bot's apparent function is a mutated version of that term, which already has an article here ( gofer) and is generally well known. So what's the problem? - Denimadept ( talk) 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:WALL-E/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that mentioning what WALL-E's name means should be left for articles that describe him instead of in the plot summary of this article. But if anyone thinks otherwise, please tell me. I don't want to start a war, and I'm positive you don't either. Immblueversion ( talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.18.76.220 ( talk) 10:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that in the commentary section it seems that while a variety of criticism is mentioned, there is always a defense for it and it always gets 'the last word' though I am sure there would be a response to that 'last word' as well. This kind of weights the article in the defensive direction on Wall-E's behalf, not a neutral stance, doesn't it? I've noted that articles where the public reaction is generally negative, defense is often less (even if it exists)- but in big blockbusters like Wall-E, you rarely see a criticism listed that does not have a rebuttal. This, to me, seems to imply there might be a bias infiltrating the article. Coroloro ( talk) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Is that right? 3 million dollars seems awful low, considering how just about every other Pixar has done well over 100 million internationally. Does it just need to be updated? 67.183.40.4 ( talk) 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a number of blogs and news outlets are picking up on thisstory - the F-Word site, which the article quotes, also maintains that "Pixar reworked the film to tone down its negative and discriminatory portrayals of fat people", which we can report as an allegation(?) but might not be able to verify? Looks like this probably deserves a mention, in any case. -- 86.133.5.197 ( talk) 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the flag-up for such a discussion but couldn't find it so I have decided to start one. Firstly, there are not a great deal of characters in this film and therefore, one could argue, it doesn't merit a single article just to list the few characters involved in the film. I propose two suggestions. Obviously, these are not the only two solutions that I, or anyone else for that matter, could come up with. My suggestions are as follows:-
My own personal feelings on the matter lean more to my latter suggestion because merging the article with WALL-E would result in a inappropriately long piece. But trimming it would ruin some ones work. Alternative, I think it would be simply marvellous to turn this article into a broader piece about the media response and critics response to the severe lack of characters as well as expanding the description of each one. Please post any other suggestions or thoughts about this here and also, a word to those Wikipedia users more wise than I, please don't be shy in letting me know I did something wrong- I welcome it.
-- rab random ( talk) 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
"but as of now, there has been no compelling argument for keeping it as a separate article."
- SpikeJones 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
-- rab random ( talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been rather busy this week, so I haven't been able to catch up much on what's been going on with the article while I was away. I recently noticed that the mention of references to Hello, Dolly! was removed from the plot. Why was this done? I would think something like that would at least warrant a talk page discussion first—if it doesn't belong in the plot section, should a "Popular culture references" section at least be added to the article and mention the Dolly references? I think this information is plenty noteworthy and sufficiently verifiable (anyone that's seen the musical film can verify this themselves by going to see WALL-E, so there's no need for a citation, if that's the problem). Best, — Mizu onna sango15/ Discuss 18:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) I suppose we have. Who removed the refs in the first place? We might want to ask them why they did that. - Denimadept ( talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone's described WALL-E as an "adventure-comedy-romance-science fiction film". This is a bit silly, surely "animated science fiction film" will do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.59.211 ( talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The user Animesouth seems to have a need to state that the film Silent Running was a major influence on WALL-E and cites two poor examples. Does anyone think he has a point and, if not, how do we prevent him from constantly editing this page? From looking at his Wiki page it seems he has annoyed others by doing similarly tenacious edits on other pages and, for reasons unknown to us, will not back off and admit he was wrong.-- Gaunt ( talk) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll note that I have told AnimeSouth if (s)he continues adding it, it'll be considered vandalism; we have asked them enough times to stop. If they insert it again, I'll just report them to AIV. It may sound a little bad faith-ish, but when you've asked nicely three times and they deliberately continue there's not much more to do. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Why does God allow evil to exist? A traditional answer is that freedom ( free will) necessitates the possibility of evil. In Wall-E, the characters that best display the range of human will and emotion are actually the robots. It is Wall-E that "wakes" John and and Mary from their electronic wombs to experience the world as it is. The captain wrestles with his robotic keeper, Auto, and finally manages to switch to the ship's controls back to manual. The history of the people aboard the ship moves from being one written by a perfect (perfectly secure?) robot guide to being a messy, painstaking labor on the earth. The captain's desire to know his origin leads directly to an exit from paradise and an arrival back on earth. But the humans are not alone in their new, old world. The robots will be with them as they forge a new future, one with a balance struck between man and machine. 192.251.66.254 ( talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone added this section, and it includes links to Dystopia and the Brazil film. Is this neccessary, or is it innapropriate? Your thoughts. dogman15 ( talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:DASH, shouldn't this be moved to WALL–E (currently a redirect)? If I'm interpreting this right, the aformentioned MoS section states that articles which would normally have a hypen in its title should use an en dash (–), and if that's true, I'll have to speedy the appropriate title so it can be renamed. Thoughts? — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the link on top of the page go to the disambiguation, not the video game? 71.249.158.250 ( talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this still protected? Anons seem to be editing just fine, it must've expired already. — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Assuming I'm not being too bold here, who—if anyone—wants to go for FA, and what more needs to be done before nominating it? I've found film articles to be among the easiest to promote, so why not give it a shot? — Mizu onna sango15 Hello! 05:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I just realised that EVE stands for Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, and that this is wrong! Of course they wanted an E to form that name, but the actual name should be TVE (Terrestrial VE), because it examines earth, not other planets. Should there be a note on this in EVE's character description/page? 190.31.237.127 ( talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know a better way to contact you, but I think the section on Wall E should be Controversy, not commentary because the film was also not about love, but about the earth and how humans left it and how a pile a crap it turned out to be when they left which got a whole fuss of critics and etc. So please stop changing it, Its very annoying and it shouldn't really matter to you anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLight14 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok fine, let it be commentary instead of controversy , since all you guys ganged up on me about this, but I still think Controversy is close. you win mizu onna sango15. By the way, I'm still a little new here, so I don't know how to get to talk pages.
Cheers! WikiLight14 ( talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
After centuries of living in micro-gravity, the humans aboard the Axiom have lost considerable bone and muscle mass, rendering them too obese and weak to stand or move without robotic assistance
Should this line contain a mention of the fact that the humans are also obese because of laziness and sloth, and because robots have been doing everything for them their entire lives? The film condemned such things as materialism and excessive consumption, and the portrayal of humans as lazy, obese, slug-like beings was meant to represent the effect of a society where people grow lazy due to automation; the film's message had nothing to do with low gravity.
Wikiedia is not meant to further a film's agenda, but how about a reference for the sake of accuracy? The humans grew fat not only because of the gravity, but also because of their lifestyles, an exaggerated representation of what already exists in real life. EvaXephon ( talk) 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's simply seemed to me at the pre-screening as an exaggerated point in the film to serve as a societal cautionary tale: anti-couch-potato-ism. Despite all said above. It wasn't an interpretation. It was visually explicit. Also, microgravity effects of that sort are conjectural, despite coming from NASA. I reckon one would have to look at the formal "director's statement" for the artistic intent. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc ( talk)
In addition, isn't the line contradictory to what happens later in the film? The humans do eventually manage to stand and walk unaided, even when they return to earth and gravity takes it's full effect. -- Simpsons fan 66 00:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
When the ship tilts the humans slide into each other and into a big pile, so there evidently is gravity. After seeing the movie I did not think about microgravity at all. 24.132.178.138 ( talk) 13:07, 22 August 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. |
I've just implemented the majority of my rewrite of the production section. I know some might object to the reordering of the cast section, but what's important is the article is really comprehensive now. I start this discussion to open up more opinions on whether information pertaining to each character should be shifted in a style like Transformers or Prince Caspian, and suggestions on what to illustrate. This production section is so comprehensive that if fair use policy wasn't the way it was, we could easily squeeze two or three images in each section, but we can't.
Some additional points; the awards and top ten lists need to be cleaned-up. Commentary can and will grow into a proper Themes section. Does anyone else have suggestions on what they can do to make this FA? Alientraveller ( talk) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to move some info from Production into Cast. User:Immblueversion hasn't responded but I'm sure many people want to keep a Cast section. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The Awards section's length is getting out of control. If anyone knows the MOS for sections like these, perhaps they could trim the fat, as it were. DP76764 ( Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent for sidebar) Instead of deleting the film critics awards from the awards listing, would separating them out, as is done on The Dark Knight (film), a different option? SpikeJones ( talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
May I suggest removing the pale red and pale green from the awards table? It is perfectly fine to read the word in its particular cell to known the outcome; no need to emblazon with color. It seems Christmas-tree-ish and off-balance (with only color on the right side). — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of making sure a handling of a list (or not, based on consensus) is added to the film MOS, I have begun a conversation on the topic if you would like to chime in with your own opinion. SpikeJones ( talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's terribly and truly sad that despite so many other movies having their nice awards section, the film that has matched and surpassed many of them in that regard is sorely underrepresented in a tiny awards table. I say if we aren't going to get rid of all the awards table on all pages, then don't get rid of this one or minimize it ignoring major awards. MidgardDragon ( talk) 4:39AM, 21 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC).
Do we really think that removing the table of awards is a good idea? Referring to another page that lists all nominations and awards by Pixar seems like a drastic lack of forethought. Are there pages that list all the awards for Universal, MGM, or Disney? No. What happens when Pixar is 50 years old and has put out 40 films? Struhs ( talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I prepared something about the DVD and would like to add it. If you would like to check it please take a look at my Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. Sha-Sanio ( talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have shortened some textpasseges and would like to know if someone has any agrees or disagrees with the new version before I can add it to the article. Sha-Sanio ( talk) 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I have also prepared some information about the nominations for the BAFTA Awards, Wall-e has wom 4 nominations, for further information please check my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. Thanks Sha-Sanio ( talk) 10:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's see if we can get rid of all these capital letters, and sort out the names of the main characters in the same go. Is there citable proof that Wally and Eva is named "WALL-E" and "EVE" and not "Wally" and "Eva"? I know that Wally's took his name from his own robot model name, but that doesn't mean his name is WALL-E. As for the egg robot, Wally consistently pronounces her name as "Eva", not "Eve". And for "EVE" versus "Eva" the same argument applies -- it is based on her robot model name, but it is by no means unique to her.
So, let's get consensus on what Wally's and Eva's names are, and use them, instead of referring to them by their robot designations as if they were uniquely created machines. -- leuce ( talk) 08:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I quote: "It grossed $533 million worldwide, won the 2009 Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature Film, and the 2009 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, and was nominated for five other Academy Awards." The 81st academy awards occurred in 2009 for 2008 films. Elsewhere on WP they are referred to as 2008. Which is correct here? Does the same apply to the Golden globes? -- SGBailey ( talk) 07:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Alientraveller removed the "Cast" section, a move with which I agreed due to the mostly silent nature of the film. The names were inserted into the "Plot" section, so is there a reason to keep such a section? — Erik ( talk • contrib) 15:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be critical commentary to support the screenshot that shows WALL-E and M-O. The article is pretty well-developed, so I doubt that any useful commentary would exist. Plot detail, being descriptions of the primary source, does not count as a tether to rationalize screenshots. Regardless of whether or not the "Cast" section is kept, this screenshot should be removed. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about this, so I wanted to bring it up here. Is this sentence (from the "Plot" section, paragraph 3) right? "Traveling to the pod launch room, they see GO-4, Auto's security assistant, deposit the missing plant in a pod that he sets to self-destruct." I got the impression that he was simply ejecting the plant, and WALL-E accidentally set it to self-destruct when he gets trapped inside and starts banging on the controls. I don't wanna change something incorrectly, and its kinda hard to be sure because there is hardly any dialogue, but this is the impression I got from this scene. What are other people's opinions? Cactus Guru ( talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Another editor recently added a comment that WALL-E was a Dystopian fiction film. After reflecting on it, I started to wonder if that's really the case. A Dystopian film gives a vision of society that is the opposite of Utopia - one in which the conditions of life are characterized by human misery, poverty, oppression, violence, disease, and/or pollution. Granted, there is a lot of that last item in WALL-E back on Earth - pollution - but the human beings of 2800 A.D. really aren't suffering any of it. Far away aboard the Axoim, their life existence has long centered around doing no work, spending all their time in leisure, everything catered for them. If anything, I think WALL-E gives a vision of the theater which is not Dystopian, but not Utopian either... instead, it's Anti-Utopian, a vision of the future where human society seems Utopian but there is a fatal flaw which has twisted the Utopian concept (namely, they are on a ship to nowhere, their five-year cruise becoming an endless eternity in wait). At the end of the movie, they come back to Earth, and face potential hardship, but the ending credits show scenes of community, rebuilding, restoring, bringing Earth and prosperity back. Is that really Dystopian? How should we classify the film as a whole?
As a result, I think it best to revert the edit, and invite anyone who is interested in discussing the matter here if they think re-instituting a label (Dystopian? Utopian? Anti-Utopian?) is a useful contribution to the article. -- AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The way utopian themes fit into this movie is a really poignant topic of discussion. I agree that it is anti-utopian but not in the sense that it tries to establish a "utopia" as negative. Rather, today's increasingly technocratic society creates a tacit definition of utopia, and we see the potential manifestation of it in this film. That is, machines do all the work, everything is automated, and life becomes 100% leisurely. As is mentioned in the main page, the movie manages to suggest that some sort of human spirit is derived from labor, which fits into these "anti-utopian" themes. Today's utopia comes at the cost of whatever it is that makes us human; by passing on every task imaginable to machines and robots, the characters also pass on the essence of their being and become mindless themselves. The fact that the protagonists and antagonists of the film aren't humans but robots, which we typically consider to be incapable of human feeling and/or directive, brings to light the way that this way of living affects us as humans. As such, the concept of anti-utopia is very specific to 21st century ideals of what constitutes utopia. Technology carries more and more responsibility in our lives such that the extrapolation of this trend brings us inevitably to WALL-E... Or at least that's what the movie is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.58.248 ( talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I say anti-utopian, if it needs to be categorized at all. 74.33.174.133 ( talk) 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ref #4 is broken, please check link OboeCrack ( talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi MJBurrage. I've reverted your most recent effort in order to draw the conversation here to the Talk Page. Let's attempt to clear this up and get some consensus before we post what we think is the exact year the events of WALL-E (specifically, his adventures aboard the Axiom and what the year is when he causes the human race to hyperjump back to Earth to recolonize the planet) take place. This is what I'm thinking:
At frame 46:16 on the DVD, we see that it has been 700 years to the day since the Axiom's "five year cruise" began.
At frame 1:09:09 on the DVD, we see that the Axiom started receiving quarterly reports from BnL headquarters back on Earth every three months starting in the year 2100, and that the message from Forthright (Directive A113) ordering all Autopilots to take control of their ships and avoid returning to Earth was sent in the year 2010.
Therefore, if they started receiving reports in deep space after they launched in the year 2100, and we know that they launched exactly 700 years ago ("255,642 days"), then the events of WALL-E aboard the Axiom took place circa 2800, not circa 2810.
Give this some consideration after you've had a chance to examine the DVD at 0:46:16 and 1:09:09 once more, and let me know what you think. -- AzureCitizen ( talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL, it's funny how things come full circle, Edokter and MJBarrage. I remember a month ago I was thinking it would be better to leave the exact date somewhat uncertain, because we don't know for sure and are left trying to calculate the exact date from the clues we see in the film. It was my suggestion originally to go with the "early 29th Century" for those reasons, and now I think I was probably wrong. It is good that at least three of us are looking at this, because it catches errors in logic and points out things we didn't consider at the time we wrote what we wrote. I know that I am far from perfect in getting it "right" every time I edit Wikipedia.
As far as the exact date is concerned, it seems we will be unable to fix that, because of the conflicting information inherent in the original work. We know that WALL-E's visit to the Axiom takes place exactly 700 years into the five-year cruise, but we don't know for certain if they launched in 2105 (logical since Captain Reardon's watch began in 2105), or if they launched in 2100 (logical since the ship's log was receiving communications from BnL headquarters by that time). Movies routinely contain these kinds of inconsistencies because different people are working on producing different parts of the film at different times, and things do not always line up despite their best efforts.
So, we're left with the problem of approximating the date for purposes of inclusion in the article (the reader needs to know, approximately, when the events of the story are), without providing further contradictions or completely ignoring one logical explanation altogether in favor of another. So we'll need to use language that allows for both scenarios.
After watching the film segments in question again just now, I believe that between the two dates, 2100 and 2105 (and consequently, 2800 and 2805), I would be willing to concede that 2805 is probably more likely, because I find the proposition that the Axiom would depart in 2800 without a Captain until 2805 less likely than the proposition that somehow the computer had entries in the log from BnL Headquarters prior to launch despite what would seem consitent and routine reports. Maybe the ship was still on Earth, in the process of being constructed, but the computer was already in place and communicating with headquarters, etc? This is all speculative and can not be locked down with certainty, but if I was now forced to wager and pick one over the other, I'd guess it was 2805 before I'd say it was 2800.
Therefore, it seems to me that the best approximation and the best phrasing of language in our situation is to go with "Circa 2805" rather than the "early 29th Century." When used in this fashion, "Circa 2805" implies that in our closet approximation, i.e., the date we believe is most likely, we think it was probably 2805, but if it's fourth quarter 2799, 2800, 2801, 2806, etc., "Circa" expands to cover those possibilities, while "early 29th Century" does not. The only other option I can think of is using "around the time of the early 29th Century," but I think "Circa" is a simpler and more elegant choice.
I will wait for both of you to think this over (along with anyone else who would like to comment) and see if we can arrive at a new consensus. AzureCitizen ( talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
WALL·E: The Intergalactic Guide (ISBN 978-0-7566-3840) clearly states throughout, that the film takes place in 2805.
All of that fits everything in the film as well, with the ships computer being active in 2100 arguably an anomaly, but just as arguably simply a detail about the construction time of the Axiom. Regardless I think the Section should begin with mention of the 2805 date. — MJBurrage( T• C) 06:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The themes section seems to be a religious critique of the film, rather than an enumeration and explanation of the themes of the movie, of which religious references are only a small part. The section currently is now written from a neutral point of view (first line : "Stanton, who is Christian,[...]", his religion is relevant why exactly?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.37.216 ( talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't feel qualified to craft such a contentful sentence or two; nor am I sure where the appropriate place would be to add this in the article, yet I can't help but feel that the similarities between the WALL-E character here and robot Number 5 (who later calls himself Johnny-5) in the film Short_Circuit should be mentioned. The camera eyes, the tread-like locomotion and of course the fact they are more than just programmed robots (albeit simply assumed the long period of time for WALL-E was enough whereas Number-5 had to be hit by lightning) being among the similaritites. Anyone wish to volunteer?
24.199.4.114 ( talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Just looked through the archives, but apparently this hasn't been brought up before. The plot of WALL-E arguably resembles to an extent that of Idiocracy, and some have also brought up Short Circuit and other films. I've found several so-so sources, many private blogs, but also e.g. a short entry on Metromix Chicago, an article on Irishtimes.com and an entry on the Huffington Post (no doubt, their inclusion threshold is pretty low-ish). They are also mentioned side by side in this article from BaltimoreSun.com.
Let me stress that I don't agree with the few blog entries to be found that allege plagiarism in any way. Consensus appears to be that although the films are entirely independent and different from each other, they do notably share certain elements (e.g. the trash mountains, the "relic-from-the-past" hero saving mankind's future etc).
Would a a neutral summary statement to the effect that "certain similarities with movies such as Idiocracy have been noted" be in order under #Reviews? 87.79.51.88 ( talk) 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In the "Sound" subsection, it states "The Macintosh computer chime, used in computers 1991-1997, was used to signify when WALL-E has fully recharged his battery." Since this is WP:OR, I wouldn't add this to the article, but my 2008 iMac uses the same chime. Also, the citation for the sentence ( http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35724) doesn't support the claim exactly. A movie critic simply states "When [WALL-E's] fully charged he makes a Mac sound, but not a new Mac sound… old school Mac start-up sound." Thoughts?
Thanks, WordyGirl90 ( talk) 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't AUTO's name be capitalized, like the rest of the robot names/acronyms? UNIT A4B1 ( talk) 00:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
FOR ARGUMENT:
On the box of the DVD, it has "AUTO" capitalized. Also, the rest of the robot names are capitalized, so... UNIT A4B1 ( talk) 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
AGAINST ARGUMENT:
Auto should not be capitalized.