Author Topic: "WALL·E", who is going to see it? (Read 12528 times)

shmokes · « **Reply #40 on:** July 12, 2008, 02:26:37 am »

Quote from: SavannahLion on July 11, 2008, 01:15:51 pm

Sorry, I think I should clarify that.

I understood you and I meant it in the same way. What I mean to say is that I took her to experience her first movie at a movie theater for the present experience, not so that she'd have something to look back on. My point with the zoo is that even though there is no way in hell she will have any memory of it whatsoever when she's older, it was still a positive experience for her. Similarly, she likes movies, and I took her to see Wall-E in the theater because it is huge and I thought she'd get a big kick out of it.

Also, it's worth noting that 2-year-olds do have memories. Just because she won't remember it when she's 12 doesn't mean she won't remember it a month from now.

SavannahLion · « **Reply #41 on:** July 12, 2008, 01:07:22 pm »

Oh, I see what you're saying now.

You know the so-called child experts are actually telling me that very young (babies/toddlers) children shouldn't camping, or to places like Disneyland because children need stable and consistent home environments to "nuture" their development?

---smurfing--- crack heads.

Malenko · « **Reply #42 on:** July 12, 2008, 03:43:27 pm »

not to get off topic, but Wall*E was great and had absolutely NO connection to Johnny 5 at all. I didnt like the people part though, seemed out of place in the CG world

Malenko · « **Reply #43 on:** July 12, 2008, 11:56:29 pm »

Quote from: pinballjim on July 12, 2008, 09:57:57 pm

Right.. besides looking exactly like him and being obsessed with humans... nothing at all.

Wall*E develops a personality after 700 years of cleaning up after humans and doesn't want to be alive but to love another robot.

Johnny 5 gets hit with a lightning bolt and suddenly wants to be alive and even after 2 movies and being gold plated he still doesn't have a personality.

I wont even get into why they look alike cause we both know no 2 robots ever designed ever looked alike. Im not gonna get into an internet pissing contest over a Disney/Pixar movie and if you really think Wall*E is a rip off of short circuit then so be it; you're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it is.

RayB · « **Reply #44 on:** July 13, 2008, 03:39:00 pm »

Funny how showing hommage to various sci fi movies is wrong.. no it's a "rip off". The Auto-pilot's glowing red eye... no that's not an hommage to the classic Hal of 2001, no that's a "rip off". Why are people such

s sometimes ?? Wall-E influenced by JOhnny 5? No, rip off. There were also some hints of the old classic "Silent Running". Hommage or rip-off?

SavannahLion · « **Reply #45 on:** July 14, 2008, 03:35:12 pm »

NVM, found the article that references, SR. A plot driven reference. Whoopdee doo. Let's blame every slasher film as being a rip off of TCM.

mpm32 · « **Reply #46 on:** July 15, 2008, 08:44:07 am »

I saw this last night with my kids; daughter (

and son (3).

I asked my daughter why she thinks the people got that way?

She said because they just sit around watching TV and eating.

We also talked about the environmental aspect but if that's the first thing she got out of it, it works for me.

I liked it and so did my kids, I will buy this when it comes out.

ErikRuud · « **Reply #47 on:** July 28, 2008, 12:02:00 pm »

Quote from: pinballjim on July 14, 2008, 04:29:11 pm

Quote from: Malenko on July 12, 2008, 11:56:29 pm
Wall*E develops a personality after 700 years of cleaning up after humans and doesn't want to be alive but to love another robot.

Dude, you realize that Wall*E is also the name of the robot? And that robot looks just like Johnny 5.

The plots of the movies are completely different. Nobody said the movies were the same... (besides both starring the same robot that's obsessed with humans)

I like this guy's take on the Wall-E/Johnny 5 issue. http://screenrant.com/enough-already-with-the-wall-e-short-circuit-comparisons-vic-1372/

I took my whole family to see Wall-E and we loved it, including my three year old son. I don't think he has ever sat still for that long before.

Mauzy · « **Reply #48 on:** July 28, 2008, 01:00:15 pm »

Quote from: pinballjim on July 28, 2008, 12:29:38 pm

The only thing different is the torso.

I cant see any similarities past the "hands" and tracks. What am I missing?

dstone · « **Reply #49 on:** July 28, 2008, 03:01:27 pm »

Quote from: Mauzy on July 28, 2008, 01:00:15 pm

I cant see any similarities past the "hands" and tracks. What am I missing?

I was just thinking the same thing.

shmokes · « **Reply #50 on:** July 28, 2008, 03:31:29 pm »

Yeah, that's hilarious. I actually took for granted that he did look pretty much just like Johnny 5 until I saw the comparison picture. There is far less similarity than I initially thought.

shardian · « **Reply #51 on:** July 28, 2008, 04:03:58 pm »

I would only consider it a rip-off if Wall-E acted like Johnny-5. He doesn't even talk, so that is a no-brainer. And he certainly is not a military prototype war-machine like Johnny-5. If they look similar, it is because they are both meant to be rough terrain robots.

One other thing would be if Wall-e had shutters on his eyes. Johnny-5 expressed emotion via the eyelid-like shutters. Wall-E's head definitely resembles binoculars much more than Johnny-5.

erictrumpet · « **Reply #52 on:** July 28, 2008, 04:54:38 pm »

Why do so many people seem to miss this? Wall-E looks less like the Short Circuit robot (who was stupid and gay whereas Wall-E is totally awesome, by the way), and more like E.T. the Extra Terrestrial. The way he moves his head and neck is very reminiscent of E.T. - and his personality as well. Curious and childlike. He is also small and cute, but that Short Circuit freak is big and gangly and awkward and I would definitely shoot it if it came into my house. Wall-E is awesome though. Wall-E also isn't followed around by Hollywood's Biggest Mistake, Steve Guttenberg. For the love of God Short Circuit was a bad movie. Anyway Wall-E is awesome. Saw it with my 5 yr old daughter - her first movie theater experience - and it is a fabulous movie and perfect for a kid that age.

Eric.

shardian · « **Reply #53 on:** January 05, 2009, 03:48:05 pm »

I did finally see this, and it is slowly becoming my favorite Pixar Movie. My daughter is almost 2, and she absolutely LOVES Wall-e. Most of the time when we pop in a movie, she hits the road to play with her dollhouse. With Wall-e, she sat or stood glued to the TV. She'll walk around the house saying 'wallleeeeee'. If I even mention seeing Wall-e, she will make a beeline for the TV area.

The first time I watched it, I wasn't very interested. I even fell asleep. I finally watched it all the way thru and really liked it. Then I watched it again and liked it even more. I've seen it 15-20 times already and enjoy it every time. It is one of those truly great movies that you can see over and over.

I officially make this my 'Best movie of 2008' choice. It was Dark Knight until I saw that again on DVD. It wasn't nearly as good the second time thru.

And side note: Do you know how much ass it kicks to have a little girl that likes Wall-E 10 times more than Princess stuff? It is AWESOME!

Dartful Dodger · « **Reply #54 on:** January 05, 2009, 05:58:44 pm »

I rented this as soon as it came it out on video. I thought it was a good movie.

I might see it a second time if it’s on free TV some Sunday afternoon, as long as the other channels aren’t playing any Xena or the Andy Griffith show reruns.

danny_galaga · « **Reply #55 on:** January 06, 2009, 04:23:58 am »

Quote from: shardian on January 05, 2009, 03:48:05 pm

. I've seen it 15-20 times already and enjoy it every time. It is one of those truly great movies that you can see over and over.

this was one of the few movies i didnt go and see because so many people said 'dont bother'. i guess ill make do with a dvd and my 51 cm telly...

Blanka · « **Reply #56 on:** January 06, 2009, 05:48:28 am »

I didn't bother either because they say its too moralistic for European taste.

shardian · « **Reply #57 on:** January 06, 2009, 08:36:19 am »

The director says it's just as easy to embrace the ideas in the movie as it is to throw them aside. I feel that is a pretty good summation. I didn't feel preached to at all when watching it.

ChadTower · « **Reply #58 on:** January 06, 2009, 09:01:17 am »

Quote from: shardian on January 06, 2009, 08:36:19 am

The director says it's just as easy to embrace the ideas in the movie as it is to throw them aside.

Don't agree. If I were watching that at home I would have shut it off. The preachiness was that heavy. Luckily I was at a cinema pub with the kids and had a burger to occupy me. My kids, who are usually all about emotion jerker animated films, didn't dig it nearly as much as they usually do.

shmokes · « **Reply #59 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:03:12 am »

I'm sorry, but in my opinion that can only possibly be due to the emotional baggage you already carry with you regarding environmentalists. Could you not handle Mulan's feminism? Beauty and the Beast's message of beauty being more than skin deep? Virtually every Disney film ever made has an overarching message--a moral of the story.

Wall-E didn't make any specific arguments. It didn't talk about global warming. Didn't rail against the petroleum or coal industries. The only message Wall-E delivered was, "Take care of Earth." It absolutely got no more detailed than that. Presumably that's not a message you find overly offensive, especially stated in such general terms.

And even still, it was barely even touched on! Wall-E is about a love story between two robots. Only a tiny fraction of the movie, a tiny fraction, even deals with environmental issues.

This post isn't just directed at you Chad. It's been tumbling around in my head since Wall-E came out. I've talked to a number of people who simply refused to see the movie to begin with. "If I wanted to be preached at . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah." It's crazy. You're gonna get preached at in EVERY movie. They all have some point they're trying to make (hopefully).

I know you saw the movie, and I'm not trying to tell you what you think. But I do believe that your opinion reflects your expectations going into the movie, rather than the reality of what the movie was. Cos that movie was not preachy.

Hoopz · « **Reply #60 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:11:13 am »

I enjoyed the movie and wasn't too aware of the premise (other than the robots) prior to seeing it. I didn't develop an emotional attachment to the characters like I have for other Pixar movies. Perhaps it was the lack of dialogue, but I simply didn't find Wall-E to be the protagonist along the lines of Nemo, Woody, or Sully/Mike. I would say that my family enjoyed it but found the rabbit in the short before the movie to be more of a favorite character.

I thought the message was fine. I would say it was as much a message of "don't be a fat lazy slob" as "take care of the environment" IMHO.

shardian · « **Reply #61 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:24:01 am »

Wall-e takes multiple views to truly appreciate the work done to give all the robots emotion. There are so many minute details displaying emotion that you can't possibly pick up on more than 10% on the first viewing.

The mere fact they pulled off a movie with little to no dialogue is amazing. Remember the episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where their voices were stolen the entire episode? That was a critically acclaimed episode.

I feel sorry for anyone that misses out on the greatness of this movie because they blinded themselves getting hung up on a message that really wasn't there.

P.S. The Dark Knight was WAY more preachy than this movie, and people praised it. Is it because you liked the message in that better?

ChadTower · « **Reply #62 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:26:19 am »

Quote from: shmokes on January 06, 2009, 10:03:12 am

The only message Wall-E delivered was, "Take care of Earth." It absolutely got no more detailed than that. Presumably that's not a message you find overly offensive, especially stated in such general terms.

Did you miss the entire human race becoming so lazy and obese that they can't walk on their own, can't navigate their own streets, and expect to be served any food they desire instantly or they become disoriented and panicky? That even the captain of the ship had no idea how to do anything? How exactly is that a result of not taking care of the Earth? It wasn't the environmental message I found obnoxious. It was the dramatic statement on the laziness of humanity and where we're headed that struck me as nonentertaining. And I wasn't offended by it. You don't have to be offended by something to be bored by it.

HaRuMaN · « **Reply #63 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:31:20 am »

Quote from: shardian on January 06, 2009, 10:24:01 am

P.S. The Dark Knight was WAY more preachy than this movie

Uh, what?

shardian · « **Reply #64 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:32:58 am »

I thought the hoverchair humans were hilarious. It was an exaggerated MOVIE plot device. It wouldn't have been FUNNY if they were normal sized, active humans. Geez Chad, lighten up!

ChadTower · « **Reply #65 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:36:44 am »

Quote from: shardian on January 06, 2009, 10:32:58 am

I thought the hoverchair humans were hilarious. It was an exaggerated MOVIE plot device. It wouldn't have been FUNNY if they were normal sized, active humans. Geez Chad, lighten up!

Could have been funny any of 100 other ways. As I said, it didn't bother me, I just didn't find what they did amusing. Not everyone sees the same things as funny. I guess I'm tired of "hey look at the fat people!" It doesn't strike me as all that imaginative even if you disregard the animator's shortcut of whale-shaped people.

HaRuMaN · « **Reply #66 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:37:42 am »

^ Chad's sensitive about being fat...

shardian · « **Reply #67 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:38:16 am »

Quote from: HarumaN on January 06, 2009, 10:31:20 am

Quote from: shardian on January 06, 2009, 10:24:01 am
P.S. The Dark Knight was WAY more preachy than this movie

Uh, what?

Exactly.

I didn't think TDK was preachy either while watching it, but that didn't stop the political pundits from going to town on it.

shmokes · « **Reply #68 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:40:00 am »

The movie never even said it was laziness. The movie, in fact, specifically attributed the obesity and (and bone loss) to living their whole lives in space. Nevermind that the ship appears to have artificial gravity identical to Earth's so this doesn't make much sense in my head. But the movie didn't say that human laziness was to blame.

Regardless, do you hate all dystopian stories? 1984? Brave New World? THX 1138? Mad Max? Waterworld (wait . . .)? Minority Report? The Matrix? Fahrenheit 451? Gattaca? V For Vendetta? Planet of the Apes? Serenity? Robocop? Children of Men? Blade Runner? A Clockwork Orange? Terminator?

Don't all of these movies make damning statements about human nature? Are you sure your dislike for Wall-E is as noble as you think?

ChadTower · « **Reply #69 on:** January 06, 2009, 10:42:17 am »

TDK was also based on characters decades old. It's pretty hard to be preachy in the same way as a totally new movie when it's just a new presentation of something we've seen many times already. I didn't see any preachiness in TDK.

Why are you guys so worked up over someone not liking Wall-E? That's what isn't making sense here. Some of us didn't like it and we've given varying reasons. What's so unusual about that? I didn't say there was any nobility in my not liking it. I just didn't find it funny. I didn't find Burn After Reading funny either but nobody was offended when I said that.

shmokes · « **Reply #70 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:07:00 am »

Cos you didn't say that it wasn't funny. You said that, "The preachiness was that heavy." And since it wasn't preachy at all, and there are tons of people (some who posted in this very thread) who refused to go see it in the first place out of the mere expectation of preachiness, I think I'm coming from a fairly reasonable position. But whatev.

BTW, I am far more offended by your lack of appreciation of Burn After Reading.

shardian · « **Reply #71 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:11:55 am »

Chad, you talked our resident movie reviewer out of seeing it. That is a crime in and of itself!

And yeah, I'm fine with you flat out not liking it. Like I said, I didn't care for it the first time either. I would almost bet money you would like it the second time.

ChadTower · « **Reply #72 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:22:17 am »

Quote from: shmokes on January 06, 2009, 11:07:00 am

Cos you didn't say that it wasn't funny. You said that, "The preachiness was that heavy."

I did say that, so I guess my position has morphed a bit as I've thought about it more. I see more preachiness than you, but wasn't offended by it, and at the same time found the fat people jokes to be not funny. Fat people rolling around a ship's deck didn't make me laugh.

I didn't even notice most of the jokes that must have been in Burn After Reading. Seriously. Like an hour in I started wondering if it was actually a comedy.

shardian · « **Reply #73 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:28:12 am »

I can totally see that people who get 100% service from robots for 700 years on an isolated cruise ship would eventually breed total and complete dependence.

What is not believable about that?

ChadTower · « **Reply #74 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:32:48 am »

Quote from: shardian on January 06, 2009, 11:28:12 am

I can totally see that people who get 100% service from robots for 700 years on an isolated cruise ship would eventually breed total and complete dependence.

What is not believable about that?

I haven't said it isn't plausible. Wouldn't have any preachiness to it at all if it weren't.

ChadTower · « **Reply #75 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:57:24 am »

In a reasonable transition from fat dependent slobs... and in the interest of making this thread more interesting...

Those are pork sausage/brat patty flattened out, filled with cheese/potato/eggs, rolled up into cylinders 4" thick and a foot long, wrapped in bacon, and smoked for 6 hours. Misleadingly called smoked fatties.

My new smoker is going to lead to some evil evil foods.

Hoopz · « **Reply #76 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:08:35 pm »

I love my smoker. Brisket, chicken, ribs, salmon etc.

I have a copy of this cookbook too, that has a lot of good recipes and info:

LINK

ChadTower · « **Reply #77 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:23:47 pm »

I'm going to have to find a p180x to avoid being 240lb by August once I get this thing in production.

My local library has that book in the catalog... just placed a hold on it.

Hoopz · « **Reply #78 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:30:04 pm »

Even the recipes for the bbq sauces are amazing. Who would have thought that bacon fat and vinegar would be so delicious?

You got the gas smoker, right? I thought I saw that in the Christmas haul thread. I started using mine years ago with charcoal and wood chips. I only use wood chunks/logs now. Hickory is easy to find in stores. I have oak trees in my backyard that I use also.

ChadTower · « **Reply #79 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:38:47 pm »

Quote from: Hoopz on January 06, 2009, 12:30:04 pm

Even the recipes for the bbq sauces are amazing. Who would have thought that bacon fat and vinegar would be so delicious?

You got the gas smoker, right? I thought I saw that in the Christmas haul thread. I started using mine years ago with charcoal and wood chips. I only use wood chunks/logs now. Hickory is easy to find in stores. I have oak trees in my backyard that I use also.

Yeah, the wife got it, or I would have snared a charcoal burner. From what I'm reading people do get great results from recent propane cabs though and it's much easier. Smoker woods aren't so easy to come by up here. Not many fruitwood trees and most of the forests around here are heavy in softwoods. I ordered 20lb of apple chips the other day. Stores around here only carry "specialty chips", hickory/mesquite, packaged at like twice what it would otherwise cost. Ordered a remote meat thermometer yesterday and once that and the chips are in that sucker is going right into production on the first weekend that is above 45 degrees.

Here, for your torture, is the bacon explosion.

My main dilemma now is how much is enough to run that it's worth doing vs how much is too much for us to actually consume?


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news