Jump to content

Talk:WALL-E

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Syphon8 (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 3 July 2008 (→‎blue motherboard). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Regarding the article's name, please consult this topic.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 18 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Talk:WALL-E/Archives

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)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alientraveller (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create the cast section ?

Resolved

I say we should add the list of cast, I mean we need to get more orgenized.Anonymous person 50 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall-E to Wall•E

I thought Wall•E' name was always spelled with a "•", and not just promoted that way. It's just easier to spell it with a hyphen (-). Should it be changed to Wall•E in the article? -- Chris Brack :P 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, something to think about. BTW, you should sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). RC-0722 361.0/1 20:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we've already covered this in the opening paragraph. It's a hyphen, regardless of what the hyphen looks like. No need to make typing the character's name more complicated than it need to be. SpikeJones (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My god, didn't we talk about this when the movie was first announced and decided going with the fancy bullet was not necessary? Can someone please move it back to Wall-E, please? SpikeJones (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there's your ~~~~ -- Chris Brack :P 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of undoing an edit today that changed every WALL-E in the article to WALL•E. I would argue that not only is the '•' for all intents and purposes just a stylized hyphen, but in addition, having '•' littered throughout the article is extremely distracting, at least in the typeface I'm looking at. It's like having random boldface scattered everywhere... --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one that fixed all of the hyphens. I personally like to see things accurate, and as far as I'm concerned, WALL•E has always been properly known as WALL•E. When you undid my edit, you also undid all the corrections I made to AUTO's name. He is not OTT-O. Go look at the character list on the WALL•E website. Anyways, I'm going to edit it again to fix AUTO, but I'll leave WALL•E's name alone for the present. GlobeReacher (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Sorry about that -- I should have been more careful about the other fixes you made. --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If y'all are already decided, I won't reopen the argument, but I note that imdb, bcdb, metacritic, and comingsoon.net all spell it with the ·, and I've adjusted the titles in those external links appropriately. —Steve Summit (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the manual of style on trademarks, which says to avoid using special characters.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to accurately portray the name of the movie and the character, it is a "•". If you simply want it so that more people can find it, have a redirect at "WALL-E". to quote the manual, "In the article about a trademark, it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used." So the name of the article should have a "•". The movie is not "promoted with an interpunct" - the interpunct is part of the name of the film and the character, similar to "I ♥ Huckabees". The entries for both films have been corrupted for the sake of keyboards, not for correctness. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another useful fact from SPARTAN-984.....

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/SPARTAN-984 is my homebase.

I can suggest that just one simple look at www.buynlarge.com that the company Buy 'n' Large rules the planet.

Just to state it for those not smart enough to understand "rampant unchecked consumerism" as a company ruling the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.72.124 (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the BnL website! Great satire and social commentary, just like in the movie! Demosthenes, blog 20:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This story sounds veeery familiar...

Just a little interesting thing I noticed. The story to this movie seems a lot like that of an old Sega Genesis game called Vectorman, in the sense that the humans have left earth and left robots there to clean up while they're gone, and eventually one robot is left capable of doing his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparx-1 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting comparison, but if it's worthy of being in the article it'll require the appropriate citation. Alientraveller (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its setup is also very similar to many elements of the Roger Zelazny story "For a Breath I Tarry", although as with the above, I don't know if this is appropriate for addition to the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self Destruct?

"There they discover AUTO's assistant about to destroy the plant by launching it into space in a pod programmed to self destruct" I thought the self destruct was activated because wall-e pressed all of the buttons on the console. The assistant just wanted to send the plant back to earth. Can anyone back me up on this? --Maxhawkins (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. The earth is pictured as the destination the bot programs in, which would be pointless if he just said to self-destruct. Then WALL-E hit's the button and it says self-destruct in 20 seconds, and he hits it again and it says 10 seconds. 71.212.32.190 (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Gopher (the assistant) rigged it to self-destruct, and not allow WALL•E to stop it. Earth was the destination set by EVE before Gopher got a hold of it. Reference: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iJ3SRMGhjc4 GlobeReacher (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm; I saw the movie last night. WALL-E sees the self-destruct readout on the panel before he starts pressing buttons--in fact, that's what causes him to do so, pressing buttons in a frantic attempt to deactivate the self-destruct. -- Pennyforth (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the explanation given by GlobeReacher and watched the youtube video to get the exact sequence of events. EVE programs in the coordinates for Earth, Gopher pushes a button on the console that causes the self destruct button to start flashing, after the pod is launched WALL-E gets up and heads to the console, he starts pressing buttons around the joystick (none of which are the self destruct button), he than notices the countdown, and that is when he frantically starts pushing buttons. Note that if you watch the youtube video in fullscreen you can see the self destruct countdown going down (it also changes color from blue to yellow) before WALL-E gets to the console so it was definitely Gopher that activated it. --GrandDrake (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple IIe startup chime?

That is totally wrong. The sound Wall-E makes when he is fully charged is obviously a Mac start-up chime, not an Apple IIe chime. Proof is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvixWtrraZE That is a start-up beep from a IIe. The referenced link is wrong. Lilmul123 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a better source or delete it then. Alientraveller (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The startup chime is the one first created for the Macintosh Quadra by Jim Reekes. Here's an article about the origin of it: [[1]] As for its use in the movie, here's one reference: [[2]] I'll try to update the page. Mahousu (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too promotional in nature

First of all let me apologise if I sign this wrong- this is my second comment ever on a discussion page, normally I stick to reading wikipedia and contributing rare edits. This page comes across right now more like an extention of either a fan site or a text portion of the commercial site. I've read MANY other film pages on wikipedia (including Disney ones) and this one stands out- I have to suspect, even, that perhaps employees of Pixar have come and editted this entry. First, obviously the plot section is way too long as the page notes. Secondly, and most importantly to me, the reaction section is not only bulky but also it comes across like someone basically used quotes as a way to talk up the movie. Yes, the movie reaction IS positive, but shouldn't this section come across a bit more like an encyclopedia and less 'promotional'? I think perhaps more summaries of what people have said should be used if necessary to help trim down the size. I think we have to try to balance quoting critics positive reaction with making the reaction section of the article look like it came straight from the promotional site, don't you guys? Coroloro (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you say, the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, so it will be difficult to get the reception section sounding anything less than a puff piece. However, and speaking as the editor who added the current version of the reception section, I entirely agree that the reviews should be paraphrased better, with fewer direct quotes. Steve T • C 23:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've reworded the section to look less like a straight lift from the two reviews. The Variety one wasn't too bad, but the Hollywood Reporter review looked like a borderline copyright violation. It could still do with some comments from other sources, which I won't get a chance to add until after the weekend, but let me know if you think the tone is still off. All the best, Steve T • C 00:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axiom Italics?

Resolved

Because the Axiom is considered a ship and has a specific proper name, shouldn't the name be italicized? It's italicized when listing the captain of the ship but nowhere else in the article. Traditionally, the names of ships are italicized, so I think this one should be as well. the_one092001 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note...

Electrocution is a shock that results in death. When WALL-E uses the umbrellas in the thunderstorm, he is shocked, not electrocuted. When AUTO does it (to WALL-E)... it could go either way. Just make a note of that in future edits. :) 71.253.199.254 (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WALL-E and EVE's "kiss"

Just so I have this straight around the middle of the film while WALL-E and EVE are dancing through space a spark goes between their two heads. That is their "kiss". Their kiss is a temporary transfer of memory so when WALL-E loses his memory at the end of the film EVE having gotten WALL-E's memory from earlier is able to return the memory through another kiss. A scientific analysis to explain a seemingly impossible happening in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall-E's memory is stored in flash memory and never leaves his body. it took time to reload after a cold boot, so thinking that the spark "kiss" restored it is a fallicy as all it was was good timing for the plot. This is also a scientific analysis to explain a seemingly impossible happening in the movie. SpikeJones (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Voices"?

There are a number of contradictions about the robots' voices which it would be nice if we could clarify:

  • There's the general statement, "There is little traditional dialogue in the film... To create dialogue, Burtt took various mechanical sounds, and combined them to resemble dialogue." But of course WALL·E's "voice" is credited to Ben Burtt, and EVE's to Elissa Knight.
  • Specifically, we have at one point that "Burtt used old Maritime military sounds to express [AUTO]'s emotions", but at two other points, AUTO's voice is explicitly credited to MacInTalk.

—Steve Summit (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the year 2815

Resolved

The full-length trailer states the following: "700 years into the future, mankind will leave our planet, leaving Earth's cleanup in the hands of one incredible machine...". The way this is phrased has the Axiom leaving Earth in the year 2708 instead of 2118. Is this an inconsistency in the trailer vs movie, or are the dates entirely wrong in the article? SpikeJones (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is correct; the trailer is wrong (or worded poorly). I say this based on the movie itself. Mahousu (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the tense is wrong in the trailer in order to make it shorter and sound better to the audience. Correctly, it should have said "700 years into the future, mankind will have left our planet, leaving Earth's cleanup in the hands of one incredible machine." The second part is also incorrect, because when the Axiom departed, Earth was being cleaned up by likely hundreds of thousands (at least) WALL-E robots. Only one (that we know of) is functional by the time the movie starts, but at the time of the Axiom's departure, there were many more allocated to the task. The promotional taglines are meant to entice the viewer, so they're meant to flow together better at the expense of grammatical conciseness. The audience knows what the intent is and the movie clarifies this further. This is similar to the title for the movie Eight Legged Freaks. The lack of hyphenation would grammatically imply that the movie involves eight freaks that each have at least one leg. But clearly, the movie actually refers to freaks that have eight legs, in this case, spiders. the_one092001 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"700 years into the future, mankind will leave our planet" doesn't mean the movie takes place exactly 700 years in the future. It just means that people will leave the planet in 700 years. WALL-E spends plenty of time alone on Earth before the movie's plot begins. -AMK152(Talk • Contributions • Send message) 03:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Credits in plot?

I am for including the story contained in the closing credits within the "Plot" segment as a post-script to the story. At the very least if we start a segment of "Cultural References" it is of note to indicate that the closing credits create a story arc exemplifying key points in art history as well as the restoration of Earth after the Axiom returns.
Fashnable1 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The story ended before the credits rolled. Interpreting graphics that accompany the credits as a *continuation* of the plot is incorrect. SpikeJones (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Incorrect"? That's too black and white of an answer. The closing credits (with story characters described in cave paintings, then hieroglyphics, followed by Monet and Van Gogh impressionism) do indeed relate a postscript to the story. They tell of continued success in the process of humans and robots working to renew the Earth and of a further closeness developing between Eve and WALL-E. Only by the time the last 8-bit digital rendering style is picked up in the closing credits does the story run out and empty graphics begin. Binksternet (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good plot summary should not say "At the beginning of the movie, blah blah blah... then, the film fades to black as blah blah blah. Finally, during the closing credits, the film is interrupted by blah blah". There should be no mention in any way that you are watching a film. The closing sentence of "With a renewed sense of purpose, humanity and robots begin to work together towards restoring Earth's biosphere." is enough.
It could be mentioned in production if we find a discussion of its design. The Monster's Inc. DVD has a featurette on the film's opening credits and how it set a fun jazzy tone, and likewise we could something. Alientraveller (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Opening Weekend Gift

Not sure if this is of note for the article, but I was very put off by the fact that when I took my six year old to the theatre for the film she was given a rubber WALL-E watch as a free gift. A seemingly ironic gift given the intense undercurrent of environmentalism in the film. I felt a single potted plant seed set might be a better free gift. Not sure if this is of any interest, I just thought I would share it. Colecamplese (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Read production: that they look similar is a coincidence. Alientraveller (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [3] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Obviously you didn't read the list of the additional similarities. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Disagree: WALL-E is an acronym. Alientraveller (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just what is "WALL-E" an acronym for? Xnux the Echidna 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sigh... never mind.... Xnux the Echidna 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WALL-E&oldid=223221828"