Talk:WALL-E/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Citation(s) for use

  • Todd Gilchrist (2007-08-03). "Exclusive Interview: Andrew Stanton". IGN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Alientraveller 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Portrayal of obesity and consumerism

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)

The part that everyone seems to forget though is that a lot of the "fatness" is due to microgravity. People don't even need to exert themselves to keep their bodies in any sort of shape, which leads to the same sort of muscle and bone deterioration seen in astronauts. One can only imagine how strong these effects would be over 700 years and several generations. It is true that the advent of hoverchairs and servant robots has eliminated the need for physical activity and has made the humans aboard the Axiom lazy, but the movie itself shows states that the obesity is also due in large part to the effects of microgravity. Laziness and obesity are two separate things; the laziness can be seen as a result of consumer culture, but the obesity is also due to the effects of microgravity on human bodies that have (by the generation seen in Wall-e) never experienced full gravity in their lives. the_one092001 (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw the explanation about microgravity; I saw the image showing notional skeletal mass reduction. So why aren't the the inhabitants of Axiom skinny and weak-boned? It would be just as plausible that they stay slender in artificial gravity. So why are they, every one of them, so darn fat? Why does the captain not know there's a jogging track? Why don't John and Mary know about the pool? Hundreds of residents sun themselves around it, but nobody swims in the pool, even though floating in water would be a welcome relief from gravity's ill effects. Why do the residents all change to blue outfits after it becomes the new red? Why are they drinking the same products pictured in ads, and feeding their faces nearly every waking moment? Why is there nobody at all, not even athletes or models or celebrities, who are thin? The only thin people are pictured in advertisements, probably stock footage from centuries past. The one092001, nobody's forgetting the microgravity explanation. They are seeing instead the glaring laziness and lemming-like culture of consumerism which outweighs it. If Pixar gave away seed packets or potted plants, as Colecamplese suggests, it would be more in keeping with the overarching message of the movie: get off your ass and do something positive. I don't think of the film as being against fat people; I see it as anti-sloth and blind consumerism. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the consumer culture has nothing to do with the rampant obesity. Indeed, it has nothing to do with the complete unawareness to their surroundings shown by essentially all of the residents. The lack of gravity plays a part in the obesity because it eliminates even the passive exercise of keeping oneself upright that is present in environments with gravity. Just by sitting or standing upright a person is expending calories to fight the force of gravity that would normally pull them down, but this passive exertion is absent in a microgravity environment. The diagram specifically shows people getting fatter as a result of microgravity, not taller and skinnier. The voiceover mentions a loss of bone mass, but the picture shows people getting fatter with their bones appearing father and farther apart. This of course does not address the issue of mass consumerism that has taken over the lives of the Axiom's residents. The mass ignorance is a result solely of the consumer culture, but the obesity (which is an entirely different problem) is largely influenced by the lack of gravity.
As a side note, the pool is a bit of a moot point in microgravity because there is no point in relaxing in one to relieve gravity's ill effects. Pools are used to simulate weightlessness for astronaut training, and in an environment that is already near zero-g, it would be pointless to use aside from the physical feeling of immersing oneself in water.the_one092001 (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
We are discussing the notion of "microgravity" presented in the film as a concept explaining weak bones, but normal gravity is what is constantly pictured in action on board the Axiom. Things fall down at a normal speed; a man flops to the ground as soon as his hovercraft lounge chair dumps him. The pieces of a shattered translucent wall/door fall immediately downward just as if gravity were at normal strength. Broken parts of robots fall down to the ground, looking like a bit of hardware you or I might throw to the ground. What we see depicted aboard the Axiom is gravity behaving exactly like here on Earth, not a weaker version. I think the microgravity explanation is a sop to those who would prefer such an explanation; people whose sensibilities might be offended by the more obvious reasons for flabbiness and obesity. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It might also be simply that Pixar was unwilling to depict a full microgravity setting within the Axiom. If the gravity was really at a full 1G, then it would be easy to prove wrong through a little research or even common sense. There are other errors in animation as well, such as when the Axiom begins to list as a result of AUTO and the Captain's fighting. All of the crew and passengers slide to the side of the ship as if they were aboard a ship within a planet's gravity well. In reality, because the gravity is generated locally, there should be no change in relative orientation for the passengers at all, or they would have been flung to the other side of the ship by their relative momentum. Given this, I believe that Pixar simply did not, for whatever reason, animate the ship as having microgravity because it would render Wall-e helpless and destroy the uniqueness of EVE and Wall-e's zero-g "dance" outside the Axiom. The ship should have microgravity, but there are numerous instances where it needs gravity for humerous effect. This is similar to the warped physics seen in old Wily Coyote and Roadrunner cartoons, where the physics are changed essentially at will for humerous effect.the_one092001 (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm happy that you're happy. o_O Still, the article here could use a referenced, neutral paragraph describing critical reactions that aren't positive. Binksternet (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe Pixar was fully aware of what they were animating. Remember the scene where WALL-E is on top of the spaceship and goes from micro-gravity to regular gravity? It seems to me that the CEO of Earth was downplaying the problem of easy-living (like seriousness of the trash-covered Earth initially), and giving another explanation in its stead. Well, I suppose the commentary when the Blu-ray is released will settle this. Though the laziness of the humans on board seem to be the cause, and not the micro-gravity environment. I believe it would be best if it was simply left as a statement that humans were obese and not specify the reason why, since micro-gravity, while not doing doing good for muscle and bone, does not leave a person morbidly obese. I'm certain, and pretty sure a large portion of obese people can also attest to, standing up and "fighting gravity" doesn't keep you fit, or burn that much energy. Rl042 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that you can't reference blogs and that two of the ones you listed were written before the movie even came out. For instance the F-word blog gave very inaccurate comments of what the movie would be like and than claimed in an update that it must have been "considerably reworked" when it is far more likely that her predictions were just plain wrong. I can understand the desire to discuss the various issues the movie presents but those are already covered in several professional reviews from people who actually watched the movie. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Note, I removed the F-Word blog and CalorieLab sections last night due to their inappropriateness as sources. See #Question on suitability of sources for my reasons. Steve T • C 20:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Speculating that the microgravity explanation was a hoax is pointless unless there are reliable sources to support the conclusion that it was an intentional lie. As I pointed out above, there are several other animation errors present. During the scene where WALL-E and EVE dance outside the ship, WALL-E seems to slow down whenever his fire extinguisher is not creating thrust. In space, this should not happen; he should continue in the same direction until he fires the extinguisher in the opposite direction to stop. The scene near the end when all of the humans move to the pool deck also incorrectly portrays the gravity field on the ship. Because the ship does not appear to be anywhere near a source of gravity, it is safe to assume that the ship is generating its own gravity field. In that case, when the ship lists due to the captain and AUTO's fight, the humans should not have moved at all, since their relative orientation to the gravity source (the floor) remains the same. Instead, they are knocked over to the lower side of the ship as if they were on the deck of an oceangoing vessel that relies on Earth's gravity field which would indeed pull the passengers to the lower end of the ship.
Given this, I believe it is safe to say that the microgravity could simply be an error or intentionally overlooked in order to portray the ship in a way that is easier to understand. People expect to see gravity; they are so used to it that they just don't notice it when it's there but are acutely aware when it's gone, like the air we breathe. Animating full microgravity would have eliminated the physical comedy involving WALL-E's trek up the garbage chute, as well as M-O's journey in search of WALL-E's tracks. Only EVE would be unaffected becuase she possesses full flight capability; all of those other malfunctioning robots would be helpless without it. Thus, Pixar animated gravity in order to make the movie more understandable, or they simply overlooked the issue. the_one092001 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You forgot to mention there's no sound in space, either. ;) You do bring up good points. Though they would be more in the realm of scientific inaccuracies than errors in animation itself. However, I still believe the reason for humanity's obesity goes too much into plot detail and should be left out of the summary.
As an aside to support the edit, it would be no far stretch to imagine that both living in space and easy-living could potentially contribute to the weight problem. So when there's dispute in the detail to which is the culprit, it may be best to just leave it out. As a final thought, I'd like to point out when the AXIOM does land on Earth, the humans aboard are able to, more or less, walk out, indicating that they do not have a weakened muscular-skeletal system, or else they would have been crushed under their own weight. Rl042 (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the difference is that we have a citation for microgravity (the movie itself) but AFAIK all of the ones blaming consumerism were removed. I agree that it was a jab at consumerism as well, but microgravity was explicitly mentioned. As for the end, it wouldn't be a nice ending if humanity came all the way back to Earth, after WALL-E's big sacrifice, only to collapse under the weight of Earth's gravity. Again, an innaccuracy for the sake of the plot. I don't think that adding a few words describing conditions on the Axiom is too much, but I won't add them without consensus. the_one092001 (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I had added a ref to commentary about the human body shapes changing to the Commentary section, but "Steve" removed it. It wasn't so much as "hey, look at the fat people", but also how the inclusion of the 700-year-old videos of live action actors contrasted with the "present day" cartoony folks... and that Pixar otherwise purposefully showed the progression of gravity affects with the portraits of previous captains. It's in the article history if somebody feels the need to re-add it. SpikeJones (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Which one was that? I can only recall removing the F-Word and CalorieLab ones, due to reliability issues. The article at present does mention the consumerism issue in the "Commentary" section. Steve T • C 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I posted a comment about it on your talk page after you removed it; didn't hear back from you (for whatever reason), so I dropped it. Here is what was removed: Jeff Pepper, a Disney-focused writer, pointed out that the film's 700-year-old live-action videos contrasted with the present cartoon human form. When combined with the series of Axiom captain's portraits, we see that Pixar was purposefully trying to show how living in space for an extended period of time can atropy a body.[1]SpikeJones (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I do remember it, and I plum forgot to respond. Yes, I originally removed it because it was a(n admittedly popular) blog from someone who had not demonstrated their expertise or credibility in the field, other than being a well-read megafan. You responded that it had recognition within the Disney community "as a fairly reasoned, knowledgable blog." Can you elaborate upon "Disney community"? Do you mean the fan community or the, for lack of a better word, talent? And has he been cited by any recognisably reliable sources, such as newspapers and the like? These would go some way, though perhaps not all the way, to demonstrating his suitability for use. Steve T • C 15:10, 10 July 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)

As a man who is proud to be fat-friendly (I have happily dated BBW exclusively in my life), I left the theater thinking that the film's treatment of obesity was gentle and compassionate. No one was mocked in the film that I can recall. The huge ads in the Axiom for "dessert in a cup" were more of an insult to us in 2008 with our "fry-pods" and Hot Pockets than it was to the people of the Axiom. When the ship turned and they all slid off their chairs, that was less comedic than it was an accurate and scary depiction of people unable to stand on their own. It was a very sad scene, not a mockery. To me, their extreme obesity was a similar state of being to the pod-dwellers in the Matrix movies. It was a form of imprisonment, with the prisoner unaware of their plight. I could no more mock the passengers on the Axiom than I could the pod-dwellers. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well as I said further down, Stanton's intent was NOT to portray the Axiom inhabitants as the result of hundreds of years of consumerism. In his interview, he admits that the depiction was based on NASA research into the effects microgravity. His original idea was nothing like the humans in the movie; they were supposed to be like blobs of jello as a result of the lack of gravity. At the time he released it though many people thought that he was planning on bashing consumerism because they were unfamiliar with just how old the concept was and how it predated all of this fat-bashing and anti-consumerism that has come to the fore. We now have a verifiable source that testifies that the obesity is a result of microgravity, not consumerism. the_one092001 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
As much as I don't want to agree with the micro-gravity bit, the_one092001 is correct. I just thumbed through the art book for the movie, and it said the original concept was using gelatinous people that would be later revealed as humans. However, it confused audiences, so they had to re-evolve them to an intermediate. The form depicted in the movies is sort of like a race of babies. Underdeveloped limbs from being over-pampered. I still want to hold that it isn't an entirely zero-G environment, as a result, but it is definitely gravity-reduced. The visual narrative is just too strong to say otherwise, and to merely write it off as 'inaccurate for the sake of convenience' does not give due credit to the film-makers. Of course, suspension of disbelief plays heavily in an animation such as this (like why aren't we questioning faster-than-light travel). It stands, though, that consumerism is not the sole cause. Rl042 (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see laziness as a possible cause, but considering the amount of robotic support and the advanced level of technology, I wonder why they simply didn't have a way to have the robots exercise for them (i.e. moving their muscles, stimulating muscle growth). Those "food-in-a-cup" products aren't inherently unhealthy; they are probably packed with vitamin boosts etc. just like today's smoothies from Jamba Juice. Thus, the obesity is mostly a result of microgravity and a bit of laziness. the_one092001 (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would imagine their complete disconnect from the physical world could be a culprit. They simply aren't aware of the condition they're in. And they don't suffer from it, either, because they're become so inundated with BnL advertisement. Interestingly, the BnL Website (yes, they have a website) states the corporation has technology to "Quick Fix" all health problems, so lazing around would have no inherent health detriments (ie. organ failure). Rl042 (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wall-e & Short Circuit

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)

Read production: that they look similar is a coincidence. Alientraveller (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
same as how the ship had the eyes of 3000 space oddessey. the robot that said 'hello dave". rewrite this as you wish
This issue should not yet be resolved. This is a total bite off of Johnny 5 in my opinion. I will find some published material so a new section can be created detailing the allegation of unoriginal material. Compare the link to the WALL-E character. Johnny 5 -- Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
A section reiterating what everyone knows: that WALL-E and Short Circuit are both robotic turtles with tank treads and binoculars? I can detect your sarcasm, as if homages are a bad thing. If some reviewer hates the movie because of his resemblance, then add it to the reviews section. Alientraveller (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There already exists a comment from the director stating an unintentional similarity. Anything beyond this statement made by the person held responsible to the character design delves into WP:POV and/or making this entry into an unnecessary essay, regardless of what other articles are written claiming that there may be more to it than there is. This topic should be marked "resolved". SpikeJones (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that this allegation is being discussed in the media makes it relevant for the article. Even though, there seems to be a general consensus that a Disney film can harbor no wrongs, there still exists some controversy. Here is an example of the allegation made with a relatively weak suspicion of plagiarism: [1] The explanation of binoculars and tank treads seems to be a very weak excuse. I move for a new section titled, "Allegations of Plagiarism" -- Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no allegation of plagiarism in the link you provided. Inspriation, maybe, but that is discounted in the same sentence. There is no need for the section you're proposing. None at all. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The article doesn't use the word plagiarism because it is POV. Again, I'm making the point that there is the allegation of similarities between the films in the article. This allegation alone should be included in a new section. If you feel that plagiarism is too strong a word, then we can argue a different title for the section. Do not let your childhood feelings towards WALL-E affect your judgement. There are clear similarities between Johnny 5 and WALL-E. Whether I describe the similarities as plagiarism, or you describe them as tank treads and binoculars, which by the way is ridiculous, then we should have a neutral section, with references, included in the article. -- Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, include it in reviews if someone accused the title character of resembling something else too much. To create a "controversy" section is actually unneutral. That's it not been covered in a source anyway speaks volumes. Alientraveller (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is affecting my adult feeling about the film or the character. There's a minor similarity, but it's nothing more than coincidental. A lot of allegations get discussed in the media about a lot of things - doesn't make them necessarily important or relevant. You're trying to generate a controversy when there isn't one - certainly not one with repuatable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
First, the proposed section would have to detail the story of the controversy with NPOV. Arguments in oppostion and arguments in favor would be included of course. Second, you say only a minor similarity? Ok let me attempt to tackle that absurd statement: Similarity number one: a robot. Similarity number two: Two triangular protrusions at the bottom. Similarity number three: two tank treads for transportation. Similarity number four: Two large circular eye sockets. Similarity number five: semi-rectangular head. Similarity number six: a box structure with lights/doodads near the center region. Similarity number seven: dual finger to single thumb clamp hands. These similarities are undeniable. Finally, the fact that there are discussions, which can be easily documented, alleging the similarities between Johnny 5 and WALL-E, indicates that the neglect of this fact, would be doing the article a disservice to any future researcher. Again, I implore you not to be emotional about this subject. It is a simple fact that this discussion exists and should be mentioned within the article. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:26, 1 July 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)

The article I found above discusses the similarities. To be fair, however, I agree that wording such as, "plagiarism" and "copied" are not quite substantiated. But "similarity" is a little more aligned with the consensus. I will title a section that says something like, "Allegations of Similarities to Johnny 5." Do you have any suggestions? --Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No no no, my whole point is why does it merit a section for something that'll probably be only a few sentences? See WP:UNDUE. Some people will think he's similar to E.T, some to Short Circuit, some to Autobot Bumblebee, some to Lenny to Toy Story. If someone disliked the similarity add to reviews. Otherwise, Stanton acknowledging the coincidence in Production is all that's necessary. Alientraveller (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The acknowledgment stays in the production, but no new section. Ok, on documenting a disliking of Johnny 5 similarity in reviews. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 19:18, 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)

Obviously you didn't read the list of the additional similarities. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If Wall-E's eyes were based on a pair of binoculars - which they clearly were, from shape to movement (when the eyes bend downward they fold like a pair of binocs), isn't it perfectly undestandable if Johnny-5's eyes were similarly based on binocs? Which they most likely were. So if two people get their idea for a shape from the same object, it's not going to be copying, etc. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Did you even read the entire discussion on the similarities? Apparently you didn't notice the other similarities besides the binoculars head. Also, I updated the poster pic to comply with copyright. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Speaking from observing a functional and aesthetic approach to design; Wall-E is supposed to be humble and minimalistic. The "box" body is to make transport and deployment of a great number of Wall-E units stackable when in the retracted mode, the tank treads are a necessity in a hostile environment vs. less effective wheels, the arms have no elbow joint (not needed), but can extend in length to scoop trash in to the compactor cavity, the hands are minimally functional - Johnny Five could squeeze a grape, not design intent for a Wall-E... and the binoc head, again minimal design and limited space for fitting in the retracted mode as the treads took up into the compactor cavity... If Buy-N-Large had to produce multitudes of these very quickly to tackle the trash problem in the initially planned 5-year period, these units would have to be very spartan - AND - appealling to the consumer/taxpayer/citizen/customer with the cute/concerned look... So, one could say that Buy-N-Large intentially designed it after E.T. and Johnny 5 in some respects as to instill calm and confidence in the population. Craftsmanguy (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
That both are robots doesn't really count as a "similarity" since "robots" is what is being discussed... Sort of like saying the similarity between chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream begins with, "Uh... they're both ice cream?" Or, perhaps, I am exactly like user Edwin Larkin in that we are both human. We are also more or less bilaterally symmetrical and possess digestive tracts, hence user Edwin Larkin is a copy of myself. I can point out more similarities if needed. :P More to the point, Short Circuit - the film - was a straight cash-in on the popularities of R2D2 and ET, and the robot was obviously designed with those two in mind. That Wall-E looks a little like #5 should not be surprising in that there are only so many reasonably plausible designs for cuddly robots. Why has no one yet pointed out that EVE is a ripoff of R2D2 and V.I.N.CENT from Disney's The Black Hole? Because to do so would be pedantic and silly? - It doesn't stick. (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

Disagree: WALL-E is an acronym. Alientraveller (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just what is "WALL-E" an acronym for? Xnux the Echidna 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
As stated in the article: "Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth-class". Not to be confused with the larger WALL-A: "Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Axiom-class" SpikeJones (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh... never mind.... Xnux the Echidna 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Relations to 2001?

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)

It's already been noted in the reception section; if there is any extended commentary to this effect from a good source, there may be scope for some additional detail. Individual editor interpretation would conflict with Wikipedia's rules on original research. Steve T • C 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Another item in the story that is remisent of 2001: A Space Odyssey is the fact that the machines are the only characters showing any depth of personality. In 2001, HAL the computer behaves in a fashion akin to human wheras the living members of the crew show no emotions. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention the use of musical cues, such as Also sprach Zarathustra when the captain gets to his feet. I recall noticing at least one other direct nod to 2001. Chester320 (talk) 06:12, 7 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)

Question on suitability of sources

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:

  • The first is from CalorieLab.com (see here) - this is primarily a database of nutritional and fitness information. It does have what it terms a self-published "news blog", but no expert credentials are presented. It is also unclear where their nutritional information comes from - their own research, or a mere collection of other sources. Even their own disclaimer (see here) says "CalorieLab should not be relied on as substitute for professional medical or nutritional advice." A second opinion would be welcome, though I know which way I'm leaning.
  • The second is from blog The-F-Word.org; on the face of it, this would seem a no-brainer. Again self-published, again seemingly no expert credentials or history of writing for professional publications on the subject. However, the author has racked up a number of impressive appearances in other media outlets (see here) and describes herself as an "award-winning journalist" (see here), though (an admittedly quick) Google search is inconclusive on this last part. Again, I'm leaning away from using her, but I'm a little less sure than with the other source.

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)

Yeah, the second one, Rachel Richardson appears to be an enthusiastic blogger, as an expert in her field a somewhat self-declared one. That doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's talking about, but it does mean she's not what Wikipedia would term a reliable source. I'm going to take these out entirely. Steve T • C 23:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dehumanization

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)

The two humans' names are John and Mary Craftsmanguy (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

blue motherboard

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)

soundtrack/music

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)

Short Circuit Poster

Can someone respectfully tell me why this image should not be included? "Shortcircuitfilm.jpg" --Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

1) WP:NFCC does not apply as one can click on the article and see that poster. 2) It's a gross inflation of an opinion. WALL-E and Short Circuit's resemblance is a coincidence and adding the poster is putting it out of proportion. Alientraveller (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur; the inclusion of the poster artificially inflates the significance of the resemblance. It could be seen as an attempt to create controversy where there is none. Steve T • C 15:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. There are comments made by Andrew Stanton and other writers that discuss the similarities between Johnny 5 and WALL-E. The short circuit poster is an image that serves to enhance the article by providing a visual of a film that is being discussed in the article. Furthermore, if the shortcircuit jpg gets nominated for speedy deletion, then the WALL-E poster should be nominated as well. Especially since I damn near copied the copyright protocols from the WALL-E poster. Of course with the exception of the appropriate information. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Disagree all you want - doesn't change the fact that the image doesn't enchance the discussion in any way - as Alientraveller put it, it gives undue consideration to what is, in reality, a very minor comparison. Copyright protocols have nothing to do with whether the poster belongs here or not. The WALL-E posters clearly belong on this page, the Short Circuit ones do not. The image you uploaded is unneccessary, as the Short Circuit article already has a poster image - but both it and the one you uploaded do NOT belong in this article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
How does it not enhance the article? It gives the reader a visual reference to the movie that is being discussed in the article. The fact that you so passionately deny a visual reference demonstrates your lame POV towards the childrens' movie: WALL-E. Even Andrew Stanton throught it was worthwhile to discuss the Short Circuit film. However, if we follow your logic, Andrew Stantons quotations, since they are addressing a "minor comparison," should no longer be a part of the text in the article either. Drop your attachment to a computer generated character and wake up. The movie poster is relevant because the text in the article makes it relevant. Especially since Andrew Stanton is referring directly to a movie that has been allegedly used as a source for a character in his own film. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"WALL-E and Short Circuit's resemblance." What are you talking about? I see no resemblance betweem the 2 movies. True, WALL-E has developed a personality, but this is shown not to be unusual with the B&L robots; EVE definetly shows a personality of her own. And so do many of the other robots onboard the AXIOM (M-O is one of the most notable). I SC, the robots in that film were prototyp moble weapons -- automitons. --Jason Palpatine (talk) 15:23, 10 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)

Thanks, Teflon Dog, I think someone needed to be reminded of that. The Short Circuit mention is one sentence out of hundreds. It is *not* an important part of the article - just a minor mention. If a reader is interested in a comparison, there's a Short Circuit poster and other images of the other robot on that film's page. With that in mind, the images you uploaded were unnecessary and *that* is why they are up for deletion. Nothing more than that. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's amazing how this article has mutated from its earlier forms. Prior to all the skeptics of Stanton's bite on Johnny 5, there was more than one sentence addressing this issue. Now I read the article and find a statement that asserts that Stanton only saw Short Circuit once. In fact Stanton said he "believed" he saw Short Circuit once. Either way, the consensus demonstrates that the Short Circuit poster doesn't belong in this article. Even though there is plenty of material out there discussing these films' similarities, this information is conveniently eliminated on a daily basis from the article. I will acquiesce to the fact that I am the minority here. My mistake: trying to enhance an article that is continually changing via the finger tips of fans, not NPOV editors. Signing off on this one as defeated. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop with the insults and name-calling - it doesn' help your argument one whit. Yes, there was more than one sentence before (largely written by you), but it was largely unsourced. And "plenty of material" is a leading term - maybe on blogs and such, but reliable independent third-party sources? Not so much. Some random people posting on blogs and bulletin boards is NOT the way to claim that there is "plenty of material" out there. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
This is over. Civility works both ways. Edwin Larkin admitted that the poster should not be included, now stop jabbing him over it. the_one092001 (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Mcferrin

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)

I write it off as coincidence and not worthy of being mentioned, as the singing fish qualifies as a unique oddity that WALL-E would collect (it fits with his collection), and the toy fish did sing that song in real life. I did not notice whether Rubik, the fish, or other copyright/trademark owners were credited in the film credits (as the hula hoop was credited to Wham-O in the Wall-e commercial spot). SpikeJones (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that it could be a nod to McFerrin, but I would think some third-party confirmation would be wanted before its inclusion here, no? --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the only way it should be included would be if a non-biased, non-blog third-party were able to report in an interview with the film's creators that it was a purposeful inclusion. Anything other than an official PIXAR statement would be deemed a casual WP:OR observation. SpikeJones (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unoriginal story

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)

You might think that if you haven't read this article: The Wall-e story predates Toy Story (which was in production in 1993). Vectorman came out in 1995. I don't know how long Vectorman was in production, but not as long I think as Toy Story. Anyway, the Talk page is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject, etc. --- It doesn't stick. (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The same argument could be used about any movie to a varying degree of broadness. What matters is not whether or not the story is new, but how well it is executed and especially marketed. WALL-E had the advantage of coming from a well-known and well-respected CG animation studio, and several months of Disney-strength advertising. Even if it sucked, it still would have brought in big crowds that many good movies from small studios can only fantasize about. the_one092001 (talk) 19:27, 7 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)

Did Idiocracy have cute robots? - It doesn't stick. (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

BNL = BANAL ?

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)

  • Without any citations however, it cannot be added to the article.the_one092001 (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    I get the impression he was simply throwing it out there for discussion, not seriously thinking of adding it to the article. Coroloro (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Setting

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)

I have heard that date mentioned on several websites for the movie and it is listed on the WALL-E soundtrack. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

Buy 'n' Large

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.

Live action?

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)

The scene in which a video is shown of humans aboard the Axiom, for instance; also when the instruction manual is activated. --Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Director reaction to commentary

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)

Hi. Thanks for not jumping into a revert war like so many have done of late. Anyway, the addition was the following text:

"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."

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)
Scratch that; upon re-reading the section, there's no explicit denial from Stanton, so I have incorporated the necessary text (without the quote - that he denied it is, I feel, enough). My apologies for the hasty revert. Steve T • C 00:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No problems. I'm not some "activist" trying to push an agenda on Wikipedia or anything! I was just very surprised by director Stanton's reaction, which seems much more pronounced than the current text seems to imply. By coming out and explicitly saying in question to the film's environmental message that "I hate to not be able to fuel where you want to go, but that was not where I was coming from when I did that stuff" he is almost making moot all the commentary we have posted trying to deconstruct his film. The commentary section has NINE(!) different sources discussing the ecological message. I think it is very relevant that not just did the director "not see it coming" but that he doesn't "have a political bent", he doesn't "have an ecological message to push", and he isn't "trying to be anti anything". BTW - thanks to you as well for not taking my message personally! James (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Oops wrote the above while you were editing! One more minor thing. The commentary section with Stanton's response probably should be in its own paragraph. It refers not just to the paragraph it is currently contained in, but also the paragraph above it. Actually it refers MORE to the paragraph above it! Like I said - minor! James (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As there is no contrary discussion I'm going to go ahead and add this paragraph break. It really makes no sense tacked on to the paragraph it currently resides in and should be on its own or at the very least added to the preceding paragraph James (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Robot E.T.

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)

No. Alientraveller (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't even get this one started again. We already went to many rounds on this agument with respect to Short Circuit. Alientraveler can tell you. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I just saw The Simpsons Movie -- Wall-E looks just like the bomb robot used at the end of the film. Let's be sure to mention that resemblance, along with every other camera-headed, tread-foot robot we run across per WP:OR. What fun that would be! SpikeJones (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This would be funny. Except it's, you know, not. :P - It doesn't stick. (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Did Wall-E credit Magnus, Robot Fighter?

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)

Hi, hope you don't mind, but I've removed that edit. That's because it's what Wikipedia classifies as original research. Any additions of this type need to be sourced to reliable, third-party sources, to avoid the appearance that we're just making all this stuff up. Additionally, merely noting something like this is usually considered too trivial to include in an encyclopaedia, and you may be interested to read the comments on this talk page concerning WALL-E's similarity to other properties. All the best, Steve T • C 18:56, 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)

Too Ebert Heavy?

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)

You are correct; I'll see if I can find some time to trim it down later. It wouldn't hurt to include reviews from more than three critics either. This was brought up at another film's talk page recently. That article's reception section originally followed pretty much the same format as this one, but a very fruitful discussion led to a more integrated section with opinions from seven. A similar thing needs to happen here at some point. Steve T • C 10:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An Apple References Section?!?

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)

Screenwriter

Unless you give me a site to reference, Andrew Stanton was the only writer for WALL-E.

According to the end credits (reported in the Production notes) the original story is by Andrew Stanton and Pete Docter, the screenplay is by Andrew Stanton and Jim Reardon (also Story Supervisor), Sabine Koch is the story manager, and then there is a number of story artists. I think that Stanton, Docter and Reardon must be cited (they are the ones that will be Oscar-nominated for the best original screenplay, in case).--Elikrotupos (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Video game

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? JACOPLANE • 2008-07-9 16:20

References to previous movies

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)

Without citations, we can't post it. Unless its a confirmed as both a normal Pixar easter egg and as being missing in this film, we can't add it since it's OR. the_one092001 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC
Good point. Given the page that section appears to be based on, I'm not the only one who noticed the lack. I've posted a follow up to the original question by another user. We may have to wait for the DVD release to determine for certain. - Denimadept (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

fresh air intervierw with Stanton (7/10)

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)

NPR Interview with Stanton SpikeJones (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Stanton stated that the consumerism commentary was completely coincidental, and that the existing concept was scaled back based on real NASA research on the effects of long-term zero or microgravity exposure. He also attributes their appearance to the appearance of babies, because humanity no longer has to grow up on Earth and is just waiting for something to happen. The walking scene at the end he says is symbolic of humanity learning how to walk, just like babies do. For reference, this part comes up around the 30 minute mark since the interview is rather long. the_one092001 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Irony?

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)

Wikipedia is NOT a forum people. This is NOT the place to point out all of your wry observations from life. the_one092001 (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Size

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)

Just as a note, film articles with notable soundtracks usually have a section in the article about the soundtrack (or, sometimes in a seperate article, but I don't want to over-populate, and the former is the usual practice). Look at the articles for any musical film—for example, this, which is a Good Article—and you will likely see a soundtrack listing, complete with an infobox for the CD., which is why I added it to this film, despite the fact that it is not a musical. --—Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 19:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC).
That's quite a long paragraph. Film articles should all have a Reception section. Gary King (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel the WallE soundtrack need to be split. I don't agree with the merge. Transformers (film) is a featured article and it has soundtrack on different article. Why can't soundtrack have a different page?. Iam getting quiet annoyed with this practice when someone created a soundtrack it should be there not merge into main article. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the Transformers soundtrack needs to be merged then. I'm usually all for separating articles rather than merging but it's ten times more practical to just keep the soundtrack section where it is IMHO, because it may not meet WP:N if it's by itself. The article is not that large unto itself anyway. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 07:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The Transformers soundtracks are separate because there are two of them (an album and a score) and because there is already a separate category of audio CD's relating to the franchise. I agree that the article is becoming too large, but the reception section is a recognized part of media articles (games, movies, etc.). The lack of one in the Shrek article is likely due to the fact that it was written before this became standard policy, and the article was "finished" by the time it was. My only suggestion is to spin out the soundtrack again, but I'd really like to avoid that at the moment. Compared to a number of articles around here though WALL-E isn't that long, so it could reasonably be left as it is provided there are no further major additions. the_one092001 (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Why not merge EVERYTHING then. Very soon Wall E soundtrack WILL be split. I will make sure it happens. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if it's going to cause such a dispute, I will split it myself. It would have been just fine at GAN (even FAC) as is, though. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

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)

Note that WP:PLOTSUMMARY is only guideline, though. My GAs has more than 1,300 words (and not that complex a plot), and it passed just fine. As long as unimportant elements are removed, it should be okay. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 23:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your observation Lampman -- write up your plot summary suggestion, and we'll see how that goes... SpikeJones (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The plot summary here does not seem to be any longer than that of other films; The Incredibles has a plot summary of 982 words, Ratatouille has a summary of 1,215 words, and Cars has a summary of 1,143 words. WALL-E weighs in with a moderate 1,096 words. The guidelines listed appear to be for an "episode," presumably a TV episode which would be much shorter and would thus fit more easily into 300-500 words. It also states that the summaries can be longer if necessary to convey the complexity of the plot to viewers unfamiliar with the work. the_one092001 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and even some Featured-status film articles have plot summaries longer than 1,000, it is just a matter of complexity and consistency. I'm in favour of keeping it the way it is because there is really nothing that needs to be removed. —Mizu onna sango15/Discuss 00:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Jeff Pepper (2008-06-29). "The Reality of Wall-E". 2719 Hyperion. Retrieved 2008-07-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WALL-E/Archive_3&oldid=1136389051"