Talk:WALL-E

FA drive

I've just implemented the majority of my rewrite of the production section. I know some might object to the reordering of the cast section, but what's important is the article is really comprehensive now. I start this discussion to open up more opinions on whether information pertaining to each character should be shifted in a style like Transformers or Prince Caspian], and suggestions on what to illustrate. This production section is so comprehensive that if fair use policy wasn't the way it was, we could easily squeeze two or three images in each section, but we can't.

Some additional points; the awards and top ten lists need to be cleaned-up. Commentary can and will grow into a proper Themes section. Does anyone else have suggestions on what they can do to make this FA? Alientraveller (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the list-style cast section (with actor/role and a brief character blurb and any interesting casting tidbits) seems to be the norm for quality film articles, instead of the cast list and then discussion later of the casting reasons. --MASEM 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now, that's for sure. Also, a ton of references need to be formatted, but that shouldn't take too long. Gary King (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope everyone likes the new layout of the Awards and nominations section. I used the same format found in the Ratatouille article. In going through the re-arrangement, I noticed that some award names were not entirely right. For example, the EDA Awards were listed as the Women Film Journalists Awards. Not only should the proper name of the award should be used, but the EDA Awards are actually given by the Alliance of Women Film Journalists. Additionally, there were several categories which were not correctly labeled. It seems there is excessive use of the word "best", and I'm suspicious that many of them are not correct. The one that quickly comes to mind was the Satellite Award for "Motion Picture, Animated or Mixed Media". It had been listed as "Best Animated Film". If these groups go to the trouble of presenting an award, the least we can do is list it exactly as it was presented. If we can review the awards and categories for this kind of accuracy, it would really solidify the integrity of this article. Struhs (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a merging of the reception section with commentary, because some of those criticisms related to how viewers would react to the film and the presentation of the themes. I know not every viewer felt good at the end. I think one paragraph is great and can go into the Themes section I'm sandboxing. As for Stanton's defense, well, I think how the Production section and eventual Themes will speak for themselves as to how the movie is really about relationships (as all good films are). Alientraveller (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad you did that actually, I think there was a proposal for that months earlier that never materialised. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to move some info from Production into Cast. User:Immblueversion hasn't responded but I'm sure many people want to keep a Cast section. Alientraveller (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried it, didn't like how mishmashed the information looked. Have removed Cast entirely. Alientraveller (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added it as a severely trimmed down version. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't mean to be mean but I don't see a need for the section. We'll see how it fares in the PR though. Alientraveller (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Award section length

The Awards section's length is getting out of control. If anyone knows the MOS for sections like these, perhaps they could trim the fat, as it were. DP76764 (Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is getting a bit out of hand. I already removed the top ten list. I suggest trimming all the local awards and stick to the (inter)national awards. — Edokter • Talk • 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please then, remove it from all other articles that also have a 'top ten' list. (My opinion: while the complete top ten listing may have been extravagant, at least the #1 rankings could have stayed). See Ratatouille (film), tiny appearance on The Dark Knight (film), Juno (film), There Will Be Blood, The Incredibles, The Departed, House (TV series), Children of Men, etc. Considering the critical praise the film has received, I believe that including said list is adequate for casual readers who may not realize how widespread the praise was. I have reviewed the film MOS, and it doesn't say that said listing *couldn't* appear, and states "reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received". The Top Ten List certainly did present that info when combined with the written commentary. SpikeJones (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why remove it from all other articles? If a notable film critic says a film is one of the year's ten best films, that's citable coverage. You're right, MOS:FILM doesn't say top ten lists can't appear. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should put it back Edokter. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent for sidebar) Instead of deleting the film critics awards from the awards listing, would separating them out, as is done on The Dark Knight (film), a different option? SpikeJones (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Readded critics who named it no.1 to reception. Small enough criteria to not get out of control. Alientraveller (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. With the former list showing 15 #1 cited appearances, what criteria is used to identify which ones of those should stay in the article and which ones should not? Again, the film MOS doesn't indicate a heirarchy of critics, other than "professional film critics...The use of print reviews is encouraged", of which those were. SpikeJones (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What criteria is used? I just included the ones that Metacritic included. They're notable professional film critics. --Pixelface (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest removing the pale red and pale green from the awards table? It is perfectly fine to read the word in its particular cell to known the outcome; no need to emblazon with color. It seems Christmas-tree-ish and off-balance (with only color on the right side). —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the standard makeup, and it does allow you to see wins and noms at once. The colors are pale enough not to stand out. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there is really a standard makeup; I've seen multiple tables where there is solid red and solid green, but hopefully that kind of format is not catching on! :) Paler is better, but color for these cells (especially only on the right side of an otherwise-fine table) seems to be weak aesthetics. Reading the word in the cell is simple enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of making sure a handling of a list (or not, based on consensus) is added to the film MOS, I have begun a conversation on the topic if you would like to chime in with your own opinion. SpikeJones (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's terribly and truly sad that despite so many other movies having their nice awards section, the film that has matched and surpassed many of them in that regard is sorely underrepresented in a tiny awards table. I say if we aren't going to get rid of all the awards table on all pages, then don't get rid of this one or minimize it ignoring major awards.MidgardDragon (talk) 4:39AM, 21 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Removal of Award Table

Do we really think that removing the table of awards is a good idea? Referring to another page that lists all nominations and awards by Pixar seems like a drastic lack of forethought. Are there pages that list all the awards for Universal, MGM, or Disney? No. What happens when Pixar is 50 years old and has put out 40 films? Struhs (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Top Ten Lists for current discussion on this topic. Your question is one that is applicable to all film pages, not specifically this one. SpikeJones (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

EDIT - that may not be what you were asking about; the Awards Won By Pixar page would be the one you are referring to as you are asking about major awards, as opposed to merely critics' lists, correct? SpikeJones (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I have two points. First, why separate the awards list from the WALL-E article? I don't see the point of having it someplace else. It's not separated from the Ratatouille article. Second, why create a list of awards won by Pixar? It will just grow and grow over time eventually out of control. As I mentioned before, there don't appear to be such lists for any other major studio. Struhs (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While I want comment on an awards list for Pixar, I must note listing every single award the film was nominated for was indiscriminate. Sourced prose is always better than a giant list. Alientraveller (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the table appearing on Ratatouille's page, that will be handled in the future - one page at a time, please. As for your other points: (a) I suppose nobody has felt the need to create an awards page for "MGM Films" or "Warner Brothers Films". They can if they would like. (b) As for the length, future articles could be broken out into time-based segments (1990-2000, 2001-2010, etc) to keep the lists managable. (c) the film articles have sourced, prose-based information that should convey the major award information, along with links to other places that have more complete info. SpikeJones (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Home Video Release

I prepared something about the DVD and would like to add it. If you would like to check it please take a look at my Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. Sha-Sanio (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened some textpasseges and would like to know if someone has any agrees or disagrees with the new version before I can add it to the article.Sha-Sanio (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also prepared some information about the nominations for the BAFTA Awards, Wall-e has wom 4 nominations, for further information please check my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. ThanksSha-Sanio (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to comprehensively describe every special feature since we cite each one for Production information. There is nothing new in your sandbox. Sorry. Alientraveller (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Names of main characters

Let's see if we can get rid of all these capital letters, and sort out the names of the main characters in the same go. Is there citable proof that Wally and Eva is named "WALL-E" and "EVE" and not "Wally" and "Eva"? I know that Wally's took his name from his own robot model name, but that doesn't mean his name is WALL-E. As for the egg robot, Wally consistently pronounces her name as "Eva", not "Eve". And for "EVE" versus "Eva" the same argument applies -- it is based on her robot model name, but it is by no means unique to her.

So, let's get consensus on what Wally's and Eva's names are, and use them, instead of referring to them by their robot designations as if they were uniquely created machines. -- leuce (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware it's a bit cumbersome having those acronyms everywhere. The screenplay refers to them as Wally and Eve. But WALL-E is the last WALL-E in existence. I wouldn't mind if EVE was changed to Eve though. What about M-O, should we change him too even though he's referred to less? Alientraveller (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They are credited as "WALL-E" and "EVE". I see no reason to deviate from that. — Edokter • Talk • 13:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the extras on the home video discs has a discussion about WALL-E & EVE's voices. Though WALL-E says "Eva" this is the result of how he pronounces her name. So at the very least, she is not a "Eva".VeeFourAJ (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oscars - which year?

I quote: "It grossed $533 million worldwide, won the 2009 Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature Film, and the 2009 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, and was nominated for five other Academy Awards." The 81st academy awards occurred in 2009 for 2008 films. Elsewhere on WP they are referred to as 2008. Which is correct here? Does the same apply to the Golden globes? -- SGBailey (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just say '81st Academy Awards'. — Edokter • Talk • 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cast" section?

Alientraveller removed the "Cast" section, a move with which I agreed due to the mostly silent nature of the film. The names were inserted into the "Plot" section, so is there a reason to keep such a section? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the names in the plot. I think the Cast section provides easy reference for information about the primary cast. Perhaps it can be moved to the Production section? — Edokter • Talk • 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They existed before when Alientraveller removed the "Cast" section. All the real-world context that exists is found in other sections, and considering that the voice actors were not highly billed, I think merging their names into their roles in the context of the "Plot" section would be best. Not to mention that it's not a suitable home for the M-O image, which is merely decorative since the article, as comprehensive as it is, does not address anything about the shot or the characters within it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all cast can be integrated into the plot because they are not mentioned there. The image is a seperate issue. — Edokter • Talk • 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what I mean by integration. Any issue with this? See discussion below for removal of the M-O image. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I miss Sigourney Weaver; she isn't mentioned. I still feel the Cast section should remain (every movie has it). — Edokter • Talk • 17:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

M-O image

There needs to be critical commentary to support the screenshot that shows WALL-E and M-O. The article is pretty well-developed, so I doubt that any useful commentary would exist. Plot detail, being descriptions of the primary source, does not count as a tether to rationalize screenshots. Regardless of whether or not the "Cast" section is kept, this screenshot should be removed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the image doesn't do anything for the article. — Edokter • Talk • 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-Destruct Scene

I wasn't sure about this, so I wanted to bring it up here. Is this sentence (from the "Plot" section, paragraph 3) right? "Traveling to the pod launch room, they see GO-4, Auto's security assistant, deposit the missing plant in a pod that he sets to self-destruct." I got the impression that he was simply ejecting the plant, and WALL-E accidentally set it to self-destruct when he gets trapped inside and starts banging on the controls. I don't wanna change something incorrectly, and its kinda hard to be sure because there is hardly any dialogue, but this is the impression I got from this scene. What are other people's opinions? Cactus Guru (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you re-watch the scene, at frame 57:30 you will see GO-4 pressing an activation control for the lighted red button that figures prominently on the dashboard just before he exits the pod. After it ejects with WALL-E inside, the red button is flashing on the dashboard. WALL-E is seen climbing into the chair and he begins to press controls on the dashboard, but before he tries pressing the flashing red button, you can see the dashboard console flashing the message "AUTO LOCK" at frame 58:10. I would take this to mean that no inputs are being accepted on the dashboard to "cancel" the self-destruct, despite WALL-E's attempts to halt the self-destruct sequence (as evidenced by his panicked response seen at frame 58:14). For these reasons, I think it was GO-4 who activated the self-destruct sequence to deliberately destroy the plant, and not WALL-E activating a self-destruct sequence by accident. -- AzureCitizen (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Utopian, Dystopian, or Anti-Utopian?

Another editor recently added a comment that WALL-E was a Dystopian fiction film. After reflecting on it, I started to wonder if that's really the case. A Dystopian film gives a vision of society that is the opposite of Utopia - one in which the conditions of life are characterized by human misery, poverty, oppression, violence, disease, and/or pollution. Granted, there is a lot of that last item in WALL-E back on Earth - pollution - but the human beings of 2800 A.D. really aren't suffering any of it. Far away aboard the Axoim, their life existence has long centered around doing no work, spending all their time in leisure, everything catered for them. If anything, I think WALL-E gives a vision of the theater which is not Dystopian, but not Utopian either... instead, it's Anti-Utopian, a vision of the future where human society seems Utopian but there is a fatal flaw which has twisted the Utopian concept (namely, they are on a ship to nowhere, their five-year cruise becoming an endless eternity in wait). At the end of the movie, they come back to Earth, and face potential hardship, but the ending credits show scenes of community, rebuilding, restoring, bringing Earth and prosperity back. Is that really Dystopian? How should we classify the film as a whole?

As a result, I think it best to revert the edit, and invite anyone who is interested in discussing the matter here if they think re-instituting a label (Dystopian? Utopian? Anti-Utopian?) is a useful contribution to the article. -- AzureCitizen (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed piegonholing the film to one sub-genre is not doing it justice. We already have had everyone adding stuff like "sci-fi rom-com" and so on, can't we accept Pixar just makes films for everyone? Alientraveller (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw this discussion, I was under the impression that "utopian" was being replaced with "dystopian". I was surprised to see that it was just a narrowing-down of the genre, which I think is unnecessary. The word "utopian" is the only one of its kind that appears in the article body, so I do not think that either word should be mentioned. There are elements of both, to be sure, but they are not overarching themes by any means. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Having been through a similar issue on BioShock, I recommend only stating one of these three if reliable sources do this, don't try to make the assumption based on how you (the editor) interpret them. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though the article doesn`t state it, its still categorized as a dystopian movie and is in the list of dystopian movies, which it clearly is not. It is anti-utopian as you can see if you read the Dystopia article: "a dystopia does not pretend to be utopian, while an anti-utopia appears to be utopian or was intended to be so, but a fatal flaw or other factor has destroyed or twisted the intended utopian world or concept". 142.3.121.63 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-dystopian I guess? Raaggio 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The way utopian themes fit into this movie is a really poignant topic of discussion. I agree that it is anti-utopian but not in the sense that it tries to establish a "utopia" as negative. Rather, today's increasingly technocratic society creates a tacit definition of utopia, and we see the potential manifestation of it in this film. That is, machines do all the work, everything is automated, and life becomes 100% leisurely. As is mentioned in the main page, the movie manages to suggest that some sort of human spirit is derived from labor, which fits into these "anti-utopian" themes. Today's utopia comes at the cost of whatever it is that makes us human; by passing on every task imaginable to machines and robots, the characters also pass on the essence of their being and become mindless themselves. The fact that the protagonists and antagonists of the film aren't humans but robots, which we typically consider to be incapable of human feeling and/or directive, brings to light the way that this way of living affects us as humans. As such, the concept of anti-utopia is very specific to 21st century ideals of what constitutes utopia. Technology carries more and more responsibility in our lives such that the extrapolation of this trend brings us inevitably to WALL-E... Or at least that's what the movie is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.58.248 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I say anti-utopian, if it needs to be categorized at all. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref broken

Ref #4 is broken, please check link OboeCrack (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Disney moved the page. — Edokter • Talk • 16:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Year of the events in question

Hi MJBurrage. I've reverted your most recent effort in order to draw the conversation here to the Talk Page. Let's attempt to clear this up and get some consensus before we post what we think is the exact year the events of WALL-E (specifically, his adventures aboard the Axiom and what the year is when he causes the human race to hyperjump back to Earth to recolonize the planet) take place. This is what I'm thinking:

At frame 46:16 on the DVD, we see that it has been 700 years to the day since the Axiom's "five year cruise" began.

At frame 1:09:09 on the DVD, we see that the Axiom started receiving quarterly reports from BnL headquarters back on Earth every three months starting in the year 2100, and that the message from Forthright (Directive A113) ordering all Autopilots to take control of their ships and avoid returning to Earth was sent in the year 2010.

Therefore, if they started receiving reports in deep space after they launched in the year 2100, and we know that they launched exactly 700 years ago ("255,642 days"), then the events of WALL-E aboard the Axiom took place circa 2800, not circa 2810.

Give this some consideration after you've had a chance to examine the DVD at 0:46:16 and 1:09:09 once more, and let me know what you think. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on the on-screen readout, I had just gone by the dialog. You are correct that it puts the film in the first couple months of 2800 AD, or possibly the last couple months of 2799. So circa 2800 it is.

Technically that puts the film at the very end of the 28th Century (since 2801 is the first year of the 29th Century), so the best lead for the section would be "Circa 2800 AD, the Earth is deserted..."

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That means we now have conflicting information, which is the reason we avoid having a date in the first place. Given that 2110 was nearly 700 years ago, and the first captain on the holographic commemoration started duty on 2105, we know the Axiom lanched in 2105. The five year plan ended in 2110, when the CEO ordered A113. So you see, we can explain every date we can come up with, which is why we need to avoid it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That why "Circa" is used. Saying "early 29th Century" might be wrong, "Circa 2800 AD" is not. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, it's funny how things come full circle, Edokter and MJBarrage. I remember a month ago I was thinking it would be better to leave the exact date somewhat uncertain, because we don't know for sure and are left trying to calculate the exact date from the clues we see in the film. It was my suggestion originally to go with the "early 29th Century" for those reasons, and now I think I was probably wrong. It is good that at least three of us are looking at this, because it catches errors in logic and points out things we didn't consider at the time we wrote what we wrote. I know that I am far from perfect in getting it "right" every time I edit Wikipedia.

As far as the exact date is concerned, it seems we will be unable to fix that, because of the conflicting information inherent in the original work. We know that WALL-E's visit to the Axiom takes place exactly 700 years into the five-year cruise, but we don't know for certain if they launched in 2105 (logical since Captain Reardon's watch began in 2105), or if they launched in 2100 (logical since the ship's log was receiving communications from BnL headquarters by that time). Movies routinely contain these kinds of inconsistencies because different people are working on producing different parts of the film at different times, and things do not always line up despite their best efforts.

So, we're left with the problem of approximating the date for purposes of inclusion in the article (the reader needs to know, approximately, when the events of the story are), without providing further contradictions or completely ignoring one logical explanation altogether in favor of another. So we'll need to use language that allows for both scenarios.

After watching the film segments in question again just now, I believe that between the two dates, 2100 and 2105 (and consequently, 2800 and 2805), I would be willing to concede that 2805 is probably more likely, because I find the proposition that the Axiom would depart in 2800 without a Captain until 2805 less likely than the proposition that somehow the computer had entries in the log from BnL Headquarters prior to launch despite what would seem consitent and routine reports. Maybe the ship was still on Earth, in the process of being constructed, but the computer was already in place and communicating with headquarters, etc? This is all speculative and can not be locked down with certainty, but if I was now forced to wager and pick one over the other, I'd guess it was 2805 before I'd say it was 2800.

Therefore, it seems to me that the best approximation and the best phrasing of language in our situation is to go with "Circa 2805" rather than the "early 29th Century." When used in this fashion, "Circa 2805" implies that in our closet approximation, i.e., the date we believe is most likely, we think it was probably 2805, but if it's fourth quarter 2799, 2800, 2801, 2806, etc., "Circa" expands to cover those possibilities, while "early 29th Century" does not. The only other option I can think of is using "around the time of the early 29th Century," but I think "Circa" is a simpler and more elegant choice.

I will wait for both of you to think this over (along with anyone else who would like to comment) and see if we can arrive at a new consensus. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 2805 is the most likely date, Given that it fits two of the three reference points we have. Circa is the best term in English for exactly this situation. I suggested "circa 2800" over "circa 2805" only because the former covers a larger span than the latter under the concept of significant digits, but that relies on a math/science background that the average reader probably does not think about when reading an entry on a film. So I also agree that "circa 2805" is the best choice, with "early 29th century" being the least accurate.

2805 is also halfway between the date most visible to a casual viewer, and the earliest possible launch date. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with the wording "circa 2805", because the 2805 part cannot be 100% verified. I still think "Early 29th century" is a safe bet. — Edokter • Talk • 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Early 29th century is 2801 through around the 2830s (when early becomes mid is subjective)

Circa 2805 literally means approximately 2805, not exactly 2805; so something like 2800–2810 (2805 ±5 years)

"Circa 2805" is just flat out more accurate (and informative) based on all the details in the film than "Early 29th Century". —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, you disagree with the wording "Circa 2805" because the 2805 part can not be 100% verified? And yet "Circa" is the very English language term primarily used when referring to an approximated date, so the fact that the year can not be 100% verified prompts its use. If "Early 29th Century" had properly covered the situation here, it would have been okay, but we've figured out now that it can't safely cover the situation at hand because the year might have been 2800, 2805, fourth quarter 2799, etc., due to the conflicting information mentioned at different points in the film. Thus, "Early 29th Century" might be right but it also might be wrong, while "Circa" is a safe bet by definition because it approximates the date with the greatest degree of accuracy while still alerting the reader to the possibility that the exact date may not be known. Why revert two other editors in favor of your own opinion and insist on using a potentially incorrect choice ("29th Century") over one which (1) cannot be wrong and (2) guides readers to the closest approximation based on everything that is known? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be seen as sneeking in the exact date into the text. That is why it leans towards OR by using "circa 2805", which is my concern. Why not "circa 2810", or "circa 2815"? Though "early 29th century" is a bit wide. What about "At the beginning of the 29th century"? — Edokter • Talk • 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"2805" because it is both 1) the most reasonable date given the evidence (first captain 2105–), and 2) it is the center of the range of possible dates. "Circa" because however likely; 2805 is not 100% certain.

Using "29th century" (even "beginning of" or "first decade") leaves out 2800; which is, an albeit unlikely, possible launch date (since there are four quarterly log updates from 2101).

Saying something like "It took five years to build the Axiom", based on log dates before the ship had a Captain, would be OR. However "Circa 2805" is simply the most correct summary of the facts.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edokter and MJ,

I read the latest replies the other day but have been thinking it over up till now. Edokter, I can appreciate that we don't want to something to be viewed as trying to "sneak in the exact date." Still, it's worth noting that "Circa" does properly alert the reader that it is not exact, that it is imprecise, etc. I've been considering "At the beginning of the 29th Century," and I think that's better than "the early 29th Century" because it seems to narrow the range, but as MJ indicated, it still leaves out the possibility it wasn't the 29th Century yet. It's the technicalities here that are keeping us from finding consensus.

I'm going to propose four phrasings that don't run afoul of the technicality while offering different ways to say it, and would appreciate it if both of you would indicate a preference, along with anyone else who is reading this and would like to contribute or provide a better way to phrase it. Any of these versions would solve the technicality problem:

1. "Around the beginning of the 29th Century, the Earth..."
2. "Near the start of the 29th Century, the Earth..."
3. "Circa 2805, the Earth..."
4. "Around 2805, the Earth..."

- AzureCitizen (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A.C., thank you for the suggestions. IMHO, 1 & 2 are essentially the same thing, as are 3 & 4. As is probably clear from my past comments, I believe 3 & 4 are better given all the information, and prefer actually using the word "circa" rather than its definition. So my vote is for #3.

P.S. I hope I did not offend by numbering the options. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

More info

WALL·E: The Intergalactic Guide (ISBN 978-0-7566-3840) clearly states throughout, that the film takes place in 2805.

• Dust jacket back – Welcome to 2805!
• Dust jacket front flap – Take a peek into the future and see what life could be like in 2805…
• Introduction, page 6 – It's the year 2805! Earth is a giant trash pile and humans have moved to outer space.
• Earth, page 8 – This is how Earth looks in the year 2805. and …including the evacuation to space in 2105.
• Docking, page 26 – Hover transporters like this are a popular mode of transport in the year 2805.
• The Captain, page 30 – In 2805 humans are lazy, overweight creatures…

All of that fits everything in the film as well, with the ships computer being active in 2100 arguably an anomaly, but just as arguably simply a detail about the construction time of the Axiom. Regardless I think the Section should begin with mention of the 2805 date. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Themes section in need of a rewrite

The themes section seems to be a religious critique of the film, rather than an enumeration and explanation of the themes of the movie, of which religious references are only a small part. The section currently is now written from a neutral point of view (first line : "Stanton, who is Christian,[...]", his religion is relevant why exactly?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.37.216 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious critique? And why are you singling out Christianity from Ludditism, technology, laziness, and Greek mythology? Removing Stanton's faith isn't neutrality, it's censorship and removing context. Alientraveller (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The themes section does seem to be more of "What Dreher has to say about the film" than a general article about the themes of Wall-e. I'd recommend drawing in more sources to reduce the over dependency on the Dreher writing. More so, it'd be more concise to present a subsection as Christian themes of Wall-e. I'd foresee the section broken up into such subsections such as environment, consumerism, technology, and romance.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, actual scholarly material on a film's themes is not usually forthcoming for a few years. So themes for a film like this are "lightweight" and not necessarily heavily explored this early. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dreher has a lot to say on the film, his article was absolutely fantastic. Now, honestly, who is unneutral, the one who excludes analysis due to the author's Christian background despite his discussion of technology, alienation, laziness and Greek mythology, or, or, well you get my point. Alientraveller (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about excluding anything, but as it stands, the section primarily explores themes based on a christian perspective rather than the themes as a whole, so either it should be retitled as "Christian Themes" or it should be expanded (and probably shortened afterward, as it's already on the long side) to include the rest of the movie's themes.

And does it not occur then that there is a lot of Christian analysis then because that reflects our sources? If you want to expand it, then go ahead, implement some more stuff, don't call tag the article POV. Alientraveller (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't help but feel some connection between WALL-E and Johnny-5

I don't feel qualified to craft such a contentful sentence or two; nor am I sure where the appropriate place would be to add this in the article, yet I can't help but feel that the similarities between the WALL-E character here and robot Number 5 (who later calls himself Johnny-5) in the film Short_Circuit should be mentioned. The camera eyes, the tread-like locomotion and of course the fact they are more than just programmed robots (albeit simply assumed the long period of time for WALL-E was enough whereas Number-5 had to be hit by lightning) being among the similaritites. Anyone wish to volunteer?

24.199.4.114 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Already in the article. Nothing more than a mere coincidence. SpikeJones (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot similarities with e.g. Idiocracy

Just looked through the archives, but apparently this hasn't been brought up before. The plot of WALL-E arguably resembles to an extent that of Idiocracy, and some have also brought up Short Circuit and other films. I've found several so-so sources, many private blogs, but also e.g. a short entry on Metromix Chicago, an article on Irishtimes.com and an entry on the Huffington Post (no doubt, their inclusion threshold is pretty low-ish). They are also mentioned side by side in this article from BaltimoreSun.com.

Let me stress that I don't agree with the few blog entries to be found that allege plagiarism in any way. Consensus appears to be that although the films are entirely independent and different from each other, they do notably share certain elements (e.g. the trash mountains, the "relic-from-the-past" hero saving mankind's future etc).

Would a a neutral summary statement to the effect that "certain similarities with movies such as Idiocracy have been noted" be in order under #Reviews? 87.79.51.88 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

$0.02. Seems a little tenuous. The Baltimore Sun article just mentions the 2 movies in a sentence; there's no real conclusion drawn in it. Private blogs, are of course, not usable. The Metromix article is also a brief, tenuous mention. The only one that might be usable is the Irish Times article; at least they bring it up in an interview and get a response. DP76764 (Talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the sources. Admittedly, I didn't dig that deep, but I think the ones I found are among the best available. Obviously, I think they do merit a concise statement somewhere in the article, but that what's up for discussion. 78.34.250.127 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Macintosh chime

In the "Sound" subsection, it states "The Macintosh computer chime, used in computers 1991-1997, was used to signify when WALL-E has fully recharged his battery." Since this is WP:OR, I wouldn't add this to the article, but my 2008 iMac uses the same chime. Also, the citation for the sentence (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35724) doesn't support the claim exactly. A movie critic simply states "When [WALL-E's] fully charged he makes a Mac sound, but not a new Mac sound… old school Mac start-up sound." Thoughts?

Thanks, WordyGirl90 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)