Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wall-E Supervising Animator Tells His Story

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the just-get-more-computers dept.

228

Denofgeek wrote in to tell us about their story where "Pixar's supervising animator Angus MacLane gives an interesting interview about the technical challenges in bringing Wall-E to the screen. Plus he squeezes in a bit on his love of Lego, too..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GOATSE MAN TELLS HIS STORY: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227713)

It started as a bet. Hemos bet I couldn't fit a softball up my asshole.

Robin 'Roblimo' Miller.

Re:GOATSE MAN TELLS HIS STORY: (-1, Offtopic)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227901)

It started as a bet. Hemos bet I couldn't fit a softball up my asshole.

Robin 'Roblimo' Miller.

I think some should do a psychological study on what drives trollers on the internet. What in their past instigates their fetish? for
a). Frist psoting
b). polluting the internets with the kind of foulness even sewage tanks are ashamed of harboring
c). specifically, is it something about Slashdot?
d). Or just the nature of free anonymity in general?

I'm not joking, I bet one could get a PhD with a thesis on one of the above.

Re:GOATSE MAN TELLS HIS STORY: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24228055)

I think this answers your question:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/ [penny-arcade.com]

Re:GOATSE MAN TELLS HIS STORY: (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24228751)

a). Frist psoting

Attention.

b). polluting the internets with the kind of foulness even sewage tanks are ashamed of harboring

Lulz.

c). specifically, is it something about Slashdot?

Nope.

d). Or just the nature of free anonymity in general?

Yup.

Shorts (1, Interesting)

ryanleary (805532) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227717)

Anyone else want to go see this just for the shorts in the beginning?

Re:Shorts (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227831)

No. I was pissed because I went to see Wall*e. Not a rabbit show. I thought "great, I have to sit through this before the movie I *paid* to see starts".

Sure, it was cute, but I don't like 'value added' stuff. Leave it for the DVD or announce that there is a 10 minute short of a cute and funny bunny magician.

Re:Shorts (5, Insightful)

fracai (796392) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227887)

Whoa, whoa, whoa... You went to a Pixar film not realizing that there would be a short before it? What rock have you been living under?

Re:Shorts (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24227991)

Yes. I have never seen a Pixar movie in the theater. I don't often see kid movies and I *hate* animation movies. But this one struck me as good and interesting. Why? Lack of humans. Of course, the last 1/3 was full of humans but that was far better than every other Pixar movie. It is painful for me to watch CGI humans.

I know, I know. I'm in the minority. Wall*e was by far the best animated Pixar movie to date. The rest were just okay.

Re:Shorts (1)

stephentyrone (664894) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228665)

Finding Nemo?
Toy Story?
Monsters, Inc?
Cars?

Lack of humans is pretty much the norm for Pixar movies. The Incredibles is the odd one out.

Re:Shorts (1)

ikono (1180291) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229939)

Well, to be honest, Toy Story has humans in it, though not as much as the toys. I agree with the gp, though, for the most part. While the animation was pretty good for mid 90s era, I never liked how 'Andy' looked. The Incredibles, for one, had almost a caricature look to them.

Re:Shorts (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228051)

The only movie I remember without a short was The Incredibles. But all the others had shorts. I've always like them myself, a tribute to the old movies. Besides if you are going to be that serious then why the heck are you going to a kids movie.

Re:Shorts (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228161)

i thought the incredibles had the Jack Rabbit short - or was it the two musick playing guys for the girls coin?..

they are all so good

Re:Shorts (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228319)

Cars had the musicians competing.

Re:Shorts (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24229963)

A list of Pixar movies paired with Pixar short:

Toy Story x Tin Toy
A Bug's Life x Geri's Game
Toy Story 2 x Luxo Jr.
Monsters, Inc. x For the Birds
Finding Nemo x Knick Knack
The Incredibles x Boundin'
Cars x One Man Band
Ratatouille x Lifted
WALL-E x Presto

Re:Shorts (4, Informative)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228211)

"The Incredibles" opened with "Boundin'" [wikipedia.org] .

Nice animation, but a little too saccharine for me.

Re:Shorts (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228733)

Maybe it was Finding Nemo

Re:Shorts (1)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228913)

Yep. "Finding Nemo" didn't have a short attached, and "Red's Dream" didn't have a full movie attached.

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Re:Shorts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24229223)

didn't Finding Nemo have Knick Knack before it?

Re:Shorts (1)

VolciMaster (821873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228223)

Was it The Incredibles that had the One Man Band? Or was that Cars?

Re:Shorts (3, Informative)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228293)

It was "Cars" [wikipedia.org] .

And, in case you haven't seen: they're all here [pixar.com] .

Rated G! (5, Interesting)

toxyouxunknown (1291032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227761)

Actually, Wall-E was much different than I expected. I know the critics really liked it, but I found it to be a bit heavy for younger kids, and probably not enough to grab very young kids' attentions. As an adult though, I thought the movie was incredible. I hadn't really read up on it before viewing it and had no idea it was going to be an entire social commentary-esque movie.

Definitely makes you think, though! And the animation was absolutely breathtaking at times.

Re:Rated G! (5, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227843)

Kids don't take much to be entertained. "Oooo Robot Moving." or anytime he goofs up or does something silly.

Here be some spoilers, kind of.

I think this movie had more in it for adults than any other Pixar movie I've seen. The first thing I thought of when I saw the movie was Idiocracy. I imagine that the animators were probably fans.

Short Circuit, 2001 (I was really hoping they'd work in a "I'm sorry captain, I can't do that", Apple startup chime, references to all previous Pixar movies and of course Cliff Claven (John Ratzenberger).

From the beginning everything was very well done and even small details weren't over looked. I can't wait for the DVD to watch it again and just watch some things in the background to see what I missed in the theater.

Re:Rated G! (5, Insightful)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227983)

The rating doesn't mean that it's "for" kids, it just means that it won't "offend" them with the particular things that make the other ratings required for a movie. A documentary on beans could be rated G and would be so boring as to make kids run screaming from the room. Put the F word in that documentary a few times, and it's rated R, but still heinously boring to kids/etc.

Re:Rated G! (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228017)

That is an excellent analogy which I plan on stealing and using if I ever have the need.

Re:Rated G! (2, Funny)

Alpha Whisky (1264174) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228439)

Ah, but no documentary on beans would be complete without the clip from "Blazing Saddles". Would it then be G rated?

Re:Rated G! (5, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228559)

"Get these motherfucking beans out of my motherfucking documentary!", as narrator Sam Jackson would say ...

Re:Rated G! (3, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229531)

A documentary on beans could be rated G and would be so boring as to make kids run screaming from the room.

Especially if it's narrated by George Wendt.

Screw the kids (1)

vilgefortz (1225810) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228041)

Screw the kids! Hollywood already tries to make every damn movie PG, including Alien Sodomizes Terminator and its clones. I am glad whenever a movie is trying not to be simplistic and infantile like almost everything else. Fortunately, ours is a decade of really good, often brilliant, animation.

Re:Rated G! (5, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228187)

For the sci-fi geeks, it really paid homage to many of the films that we consider classics. I read somewhere that they consulted with Oscar winning filmmakers to affect the look of the film. For example, they adjusted their software to simulate the look of the 70mm Panasonic cameras from the 70s to even include their imperfections.

Re:Rated G! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24228651)

"70mm Panasonic cameras"

um, I think you probably mean Panavision there...

Panasonic? (2, Informative)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228761)

I think you mean Panavision [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Panasonic? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229629)

You knew what I meant. :P

Re:Rated G! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229555)

Yea I was just thinking.
This a Silent Running II. What happened after the Valley Forge blew up. Maybe that is why I didn't think it was great. It all seemed way to familiar to me.

Re:Rated G! (1)

lapagecp (914156) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228367)

Remember that a G rating does not mean "Good for kids" it means "General Audiences". What this means parents is that not only do you have to check a rating out but you also have to look at the subject matter of the film. Most people will be happy to rest on the observed fact that if a Movie is intended for adults they will through in some sex and language inappropriate for children. Do yourself a favor and use the power of the internet or even a news paper to read a review before taking children to a movie. I can't personally smack your kids when they get bored and loud in a movie. In fact unless its a Disney movie showing before 5pm don't bring your kids. Put the movie on your blockbuster or netflixs queue and leave me in peace.

Re:Rated G! (5, Insightful)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228597)

I enjoy many of the Pixar movies and "The Incredibles" is still my favorite. Wall-E is second though, displacing "Monsters, Inc." It grew on me.. I've seen it a couple times so far and enjoyed it far more on the second viewing (not that I didn't enjoy it the first go round).

I understand what you're saying about social commentary though. If not handled properly it can be annoying. This may sound like a copout, but I think science fiction has to handle it differently. In other genres the commentary is best hidden beneath layers of abstraction. Want to protest the madness of war in a drama and you make a "Romeo and Juliet" piece that ends in tragedy. Want to comment on the deterioration of the environment and you write about the flower girl that gets sick because a factory blocks her view of the ocean.. Not in science fiction.. In SF the skies turn violent because of pollution. The people wear gas masks. The effect of the disparity between rich and poor are farmed organ donors.

IMHO, this commentary on the cuff is what distinguishes SF. Traditional literature teachers scoff at SF because the themes and messages are so brazen, but it is precisely this "obviousness" that I enjoy.

Re:Rated G! (0, Offtopic)

cparker15 (779546) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228753)

Where are my mod points when I need them??? +1 Underrated

Re:Rated G! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24228887)

It wasn't social commentary. The parallels to real life are obvious but the director and writers have taken a beating over whether this was social commentary. NPR's Fresh Air did a fantastic interview with the director who went out of his way to explain the genesis of the story and that it was NOT social commentary of any kind. In fact, the story was written long before global warming/pollution was even a hot topic. This movie shouldn't get shackled with popular politics just because of the coincidence.

Re:Rated G! (4, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229267)

Actually, Wall-E was much different than I expected... I found it to be a bit heavy for younger kids,

I hear this a lot. Frankly, I don't understand why a movie that doesn't pretend to be a kid-friendly movie gets dinged for, well, not being very kid-friendly. My 8 year-old liked it (the messages were a bit over his head) but my 12 year-old really liked it and he understood the deeper themes. What really bothers me about bad reviews of this movie is the claim like, "I didn't laugh out loud one time!". Gee, maybe that's because it doesn't rely on low-brow humor to get its point across?

Re:Rated G! (4, Interesting)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229517)

I hadn't really read up on it before viewing it and had no idea it was going to be an entire social commentary-esque movie.

Actually, I listened to a really good interview NPR did with Andrew Stanton (director and co-author of Wall-E) [npr.org] and at one point he discusses that the story never was intended to be a social commentary on environmentalism. The story was written about a decade ago and while it certainly has the universal theme of protecting nature, he primarily used the concept of a polluted planet to avoid having to give some other explanation for humans leaving the planet that would have been to heavy for a children's movie (ie: global war).

Excellent Movie (5, Informative)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227767)

I will admit - I don't watch too many movies. However, I am extremely glad I spent the money to see Wall-E and I will be buying it on DVD when it is released.

The animation of this movie is amazing. Using almost no words (two?), the animation team captures a wide range of emotion: love, sadness, fear, humor and anger. What's even better is that they capture these emotions in the form of robots - something that typically is not associated with emotion. The storyline itself is fantastic. Not only is it simplistic enough that even a child can understand it and enjoy it, there is a definite adult theme throughout the entire movie which emphasizes taking care of this planet that we live on.

Additionally, this movie starts up with a great short (haha...that rabbit is awesome), the ending credits are absolutely beautiful and genius (how many different art styles can you spot?) and the soundtrack is great.

I would highly recommend that everybody check this movie out in the theater. It's definitely worth it.

Re:Excellent Movie (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228137)

You see I just wasn't that thrilled with it. The main reason was the "message". Yes I am all for "taking care of the planet" but at the same time I am tired of being beat over the head with it. I find it really funny that Disney/Pixar is making out "mega marts" as the root of all evil.
Then putting out Walle happy meal toys, and selling Walle everything at Walmart.
Was it a good movie yes. Was it beautifully done? Yes. Was it a heavy handed morality story?
I would just rate it as good. I really enjoyed Cars a lot more.

Re:Excellent Movie (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228299)

I would just rate it as good. I really enjoyed Cars a lot more.

Of all the Pixar films, Cars was the only one I thought only had appeal for children.

I like your sig (All spelling and grammar errors are intentional. Grammar Nazis' need entertainment.). Note the grammatically incorrect use of Nazis' instead of Nazi. That's subtle, dude.

Re:Excellent Movie (1)

P51mus (1266460) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229001)

Of all the Pixar films, Cars was the only one I thought only had appeal for children.

Toy Story and Monster's Inc don't have appeal for children? Seriously?

Re:Excellent Movie (1)

brouski (827510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229227)

Toy Story and Monster's Inc don't have appeal for children?

Seriously?

Of all the Pixar films, Cars was the only one I thought only had appeal for children.

Re:Excellent Movie (4, Insightful)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228413)

The main character's directive is to compact trash, but for the most part the "message" is an incidental passive voice in the background of the movie. The last half of the movie is spent in outer-space (away from the planet), and a lot of the first half is setting up the romance between the two robots. This movie is way, way, way more than just "take care of the planet".

There's also social critique of how lazy humans are getting (fast food smoothies, etc). There are a lot of other smaller parts in the movie that are charming, as well (like Wall-E teaching the robot on the Axiom how to wave).

I find it really funny that you think the people who wrote this story and brought it to life are the same people who want to milk the franchise for all it's worth.

Re:Excellent Movie (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229305)

"I find it really funny that you think the people who wrote this story and brought it to life are the same people who want to milk the franchise for all it's worth."
The people that wrote and brought this story to life are employees of Pixar and Disney.
Pixar and Disney are already are merchandising this for all that it is worth.
I find it really funny that you can separate the two.

Re:Excellent Movie (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228659)

I would just rate it as good. I really enjoyed Cars a lot more.

Really? I thought Cars was actually Pixar's only truly bad movie. Horribly boring and cliched.

Re:Excellent Movie (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229395)

I enjoyed it but I do like auto racing. The amount of research they did show that they really seemed to care about the subject. Things like the King being Richard Petty's Superbird and Doc being a Hudson Hornet. The fact that a lot of the buildings in Radiator Springs are based on real buildings on Route 66 I also enjoyed.
I found the characters likable and the movie over all was fun. Not deep but if I want deep I will watch a great movie like Judgment at Nuremberg or Gentleman's Agreement.
If Walle was a life changing moment for anybody then they really need to see more movies.
The thing is I don't think Walle was a bad movie. I just don't think it was great. I would rank it as good.

Re:Excellent Movie (4, Insightful)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228697)

I thought the message was 'geeky socially awkward guy robot gets the hot chick robot.'

IMO the whole 'taking care of the planet' business was nothing more than a macguffin [wikipedia.org] ; the movie doesn't revolve around B&L, but around the interaction between Wall-E and EVE. You could have replaced B&L with anything, such as a post-apocalypse setting, or widespread disease, or simply running out of food (or space).

Re:Excellent Movie (4, Insightful)

Sethumme (1313479) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229703)

I've run into a number of people who's enjoyment of Wall-E is immediately overshadowed by their dislike for the message.

1. There's more than one message in the movie. Yes, the prominent theme is taking care of the planet, but the movie also advocates (*Warning: spoilers*): active awareness and participation; improving the world; disobeying a stagnant and narrow-minded regime; and of course, love, compassion, and teamwork. Not to mention the initial concept of being less wasteful generally.

2. Yes, there is some irony in using mass-culture happy-meals and sedate audiences to convey a message of active participation and environmental conscientiousness. However, there is nothing stopping you from enjoying that happy-meal and then doing your part to contribute to your community. We don't have to be paragons of excellence in order to live up to whatever message you read into the movie, just make an effort toward making a difference.

3. The movie has a lot of unique qualities that make it worth seeing, such as the remarkable characterizations and emotions created without so much as a word; or the fairly unique (or at least rare) storyline that engages our imagination (which is not something I can say about Pixar's Cars' "big-city chum gets stuck in backwater village" scenario). Wall-E is full of invention and creativity, and offers a lot to the audience besides morals.

4. I don't think you are simply tired of hearing the message, but rather you are explicitly offended by the particular message you read into the movie. It seems like what really turned you off from the movie was the suggestion that our current lifestyle is the cause of world's destruction. I'm not sure why you are unable to look past that one nerve that the movie struck and enjoy the film for all the reasons that make it a charming romantic-adventure story, but take solace in the fact that no matter what you do with your life, you won't actually turn into a mindless blimp in a hover-chair.

As a side note, the movie does not claim that mega marts are the root of all evil. Rather, they are simply a little jab at current culture as Pixar illustrates the dystopia. The causal force behind the destruction was humanity's lack of care.

It's a good movie with lots of charm. Go see it for its entertainment value.

Re:Excellent Movie (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229959)

You and everybody else seem to miss one thing.
I didn't say this was a bad movie. Just not great. I thought it was ok.

As to the message. Well maybe it is because I have watched.
All the Planet of the Apes.
Solent Green.
Roller Ball. "the first one"
Logan's Run.
Mad Max.
And the movie one reminds me the most of. Silent Running.
To me there was very little new or original with movie.
I have seen enough movies in my life that I guess that it is just a lot harder to trick me into thinking the story is original.

As I have said time and time again. Good just not great.

What really bugged me was if we could build starships that could run themselves for 700 years why didn't they keep building new robots to clean up the earth? Eva was a marvel why where there not millions of Eva style robots restoring the planet?
Frankly it should have been an Eden by now with that tech.

The end credits complete the story (4, Insightful)

jamrock (863246) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228505)

the ending credits are absolutely beautiful and genius (how many different art styles can you spot?)

I absolutely agree; this film is a masterpiece, and what I find amazing is how Pixar turned the end credits into such a subtle and beautiful coda to the story. The art styles, and the scenes they depict, reflect the progressive rebirth of the newly-recolonized Earth, moving through hieroglyphics to a scene reminiscent of a Van Gogh painting, with Wall-E and EVE gazing up at the large tree, which one realizes is the same plant they struggled to protect, growing from the boot deep in the soil. I can't say enough about this wonderful film, and I continue to be stunned that Pixar keep outdoing themselves with each release.

Re:The end credits complete the story (1)

Arccot (1115809) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229549)

I absolutely agree; this film is a masterpiece, and what I find amazing is how Pixar turned the end credits into such a subtle and beautiful coda to the story. The art styles, and the scenes they depict, reflect the progressive rebirth of the newly-recolonized Earth, moving through hieroglyphics to a scene reminiscent of a Van Gogh painting, with Wall-E and EVE gazing up at the large tree, which one realizes is the same plant they struggled to protect, growing from the boot deep in the soil.

It's frustrating when people automatically begin walking out of Wall-E as soon as the credits start rolling. I don't get it... are they pre-conditioned to do it due to almost universal fade-to-black-cue-music in every other film? I kept looking at them as they passed and wanted to yell "What are you doing?! The movie isn't over!" The ending was one of the coolest parts. 90% of the theater had left before the clips were over.

More than taking care of the planet (4, Informative)

xzvf (924443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228641)

The most important message wasn't taking care of the planet, but individualism and personal responsibility. Notice that all the people were dependent on the corporation (or it could have been government) for their every need. They all had the same clothes and ate the same food and lived in the same size rooms and had communal access to same facilities. The only individuals (and heroes) were the robots and the captain, plus John and Mary that broke out of the sameness. It's the theme of most Pixar movies: Incredibles - Exceptionalism should be rewarded, Cars - taking a different path is a good thing, Nemo - importance of family and not being afraid of life, Bug's Life - break out the the commune and use new ideas, Toy Story - freindship, loyalty and service. They may have thought they were making an environmental movie, but underlying Pixar theme of individual rights and personal responsibility shone through.

Re:More than taking care of the planet (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229011)

The only individuals (and heroes) were the robots and the captain, plus John and Mary that broke out of the sameness.

Ok, spoilers I guess:


Actually one thing I really liked about Wall-E was how all the humans were shown as fundamentally decent people willing to give up ultimate comfort once an alternative was offered to them.

Incredibles - Exceptionalism should be rewarded

I really had issues with the Incredibles message. Unlike Wall-E the average human was portrayed as weak-willed, contemptible, and ungracious for not heaping glory on their superhuman betters. The line from the kid, "when everyone's special then nobody is" I found to be a pretty horrible statement, the implication being that he can't really shine unless everyone else is inferior in every way. And the race at the end, I didn't really see the point; it takes no effort to win, all he gets from winning is the dubious recognition of having won an elementary school race.

Cars - taking a different path is a good thing

I wish the writers had taken a different path instead of hitting every cliche along the way. Five minutes into Cars you know everything that's going to happen in the rest of the movie.

Re:More than taking care of the planet (2, Insightful)

aperion (1022267) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229945)

Incredibles - Exceptionalism should be rewarded I really had issues with the Incredibles message. Unlike Wall-E the average human was portrayed as weak-willed, contemptible, and ungracious for not heaping glory on their superhuman betters. The line from the kid, "when everyone's special then nobody is" I found to be a pretty horrible statement, the implication being that he can't really shine unless everyone else is inferior in every way. And the race at the end, I didn't really see the point; it takes no effort to win, all he gets from winning is the dubious recognition of having won an elementary school race.

I think you are sort of missing the something/being overly critical

"when everyone's special then nobody is" was said by Flash (the youngest child) in response to his mother saying "everyone was special". IMO he said it in a way that I could see any child near his age saying.

I never felt like they were trying to glorify that statement, in fact the same thing was said by the main villain later in the movie. I can see it as an attempt to get children to associate the statement with flash, then show that it was a wrong line of thinking by associating the same statement with the villain, ie guilt by association.

So if anything, I think they were saying that every one IS special even if you aren't exceptional

The race at the end, Obviously flash was given more leway, so long as he didn't abuse his gift and make other people feel inferior/ Ie a lesson in being humble.

I'm not a movie critic/analysis/whatever, that's just how I see things.

Re:More than taking care of the planet (2, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229793)

I thought it was genius that all one had to do to break from the mold was to fall out of the chair. That was a stingingly accurate comment on where we are heading.

Interview with the Writer/Director (1)

KenSeymour (81018) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229529)

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I heard an interview with Andrew Stanton [npr.org] .

It was interesting where he got a lot of the ideas for the movie. He also talks about traditional animation versus CG and how CG really helped his career because
his drawing skills were ok but not great.

Copy? (1)

whitespiral (941984) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227777)

Will-E is the robotic image of ET. Expect a lawsuit after Will-E cashes in the millions from the kids around the world.

Re:Copy? (2, Insightful)

Deth_Master (598324) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227859)

Not E.T. Johnny 5 is alive!

Re:Copy? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229621)

Nope
Silent Running II.
What happened after the Valley Forge blew up.
If you haven't seen Silent Running you will not get it.

Re:Copy? (1)

Pontiac (135778) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227861)

Hmm all my kids think Wall-E is a animated version of the "Short Circuit" movie's Johny 5 robot.
They haven't seen the movie, Just trailers.. Maybe this weekend.

Re:Copy? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227895)

Cheaper to get a cheap DVD of "Short Circuit" though, surely?

Re:Copy? (1)

flitty (981864) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228009)

I bet your kids enjoy their MegaBlocks and their Vii Console, too. The comparison ends at the shape of Wall-E's head and the treads for feet. There is no taint of Steve Gutenberg in Wall-E.

Re:Copy? (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228277)

The comparison ends at the shape of Wall-E's head and the treads for feet.

There's a frickin' laser beam on his head! Johnny 5 had a laser beam in the first Short Circuit, too.

Oh, and the end of the movie reminds me somewhat of the end of Short Circuit 2.

Best. Movie. Ever. (2, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24227881)

Well maybe not best movie EVER, but close to it. And I'm someone who's always found Pixar's stuff way overrated.

There's no story to tell (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24228071)

It's CGI! They just pushed a button and it animated itself... badly!

Or is that just when George Lucas does it?

Blew me away (5, Insightful)

jbacon (1327727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228107)

To be quite honest, I wasn't all that thrilled about going to this movie. I walked into the movie by request of my little brother, and I figured I'd at least get a few laughs out of the movie.

What I got was a masterpiece.

Not two minutes into the film, I was enthralled by the sheer beauty of the landscapes. The incongruity between the cheerful opening tune and the devastated Earth landscape is absolutely delightful.

Also, Pixar has gotten so good at what they do that they don't even need words to tell a story. The first 45 minutes of the movie has pretty much ZERO dialogue with the exception of BnL ads for background. Oh, also a word or two (literally) from the robots.

Particularly well done were the flight scenes - the part in the beginning where EVE watches the ship leave and start cruising around while WALL-E watches in awe, and when the two of them are dancing around the Axiom. I could watch those two scenes over and over again and still be thrilled.

Also, the (oft overlooked) soundtrack is phenomenal as well. I bought it the instant I could, and I've had it on repeat for about a week now. (2815 AD and Define Dancing are my favorites)

I can honestly say that this is the best (in terms of sheer all-around quality) film that I have ever seen, and I fully expect this to just rake in its well-deserved awards.

Re:Blew me away (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228401)

Also, Pixar has gotten so good at what they do that they don't even need words to tell a story. The first 45 minutes of the movie has pretty much ZERO dialogue with the exception of BnL ads for background. Oh, also a word or two (literally) from the robots.

Y'know, I haven't seen the movie, but I really find this to be impossible. Indeed, the lack of dialogue is the single biggest reason I'm not going to see the movie until I, at the very least, pirate it to see if it's any good: stories without dialogue don't work. Period. There's a reason why we quit making silent movies, and it really disappointed me that Pixar is taking a step backward in that regard.

Maybe I'll be surprised, but even without having seen the movie, I'll stake money that it would've been a lot better with dialogue than it is without.

Re:Blew me away (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228557)

Go see the damned movie. If you think that the lack of dialog hurts Wall-e then I'll pay 2x for your ticket.

Re:Blew me away (1)

Achoi77 (669484) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228819)

Y'know, I haven't seen the movie, but I really find this to be impossible. Indeed, the lack of dialogue is the single biggest reason I'm not going to see the movie until I, at the very least, pirate it to see if it's any good: stories without dialogue don't work. Period. There's a reason why we quit making silent movies, and it really disappointed me that Pixar is taking a step backward in that regard.

You are disappointed in Pixar because of the lack of dialogue in a movie you haven't even seen yet? Wow.

Let me guess: do you only play video games with the shiniest graphics, with little regard to actual gameplay?

Re:Blew me away (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229509)

Your analogy is terrible. For me to be doing what you described, I'd have to be going to see the movie because it's Pixar CG goodness, regardless of my hesitations about the plot. My concern is precisely with the "gameplay" here, and you'd better believe that if a game has some gameplay mechanic that looks terrible, I'm very hesitant to waste any money on it before trying a demo or pirated copy.

Re:Blew me away (2, Insightful)

jbacon (1327727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228881)

Here's the thing - it's not at all silent, there's just a small amount of character-to-character dialogue. The beginning is mostly about WALL-E himself, his attraction to EVE, and what the Earth has become - just absorb the imagery and environments.

Also, the only characters in the first half are two robots, a couple ads with the BnL CEO, and a cockroach. Not really a situation where meaningful dialogue can happen and not feel awkward. Doesn't really make sense for a 700-year-old robot to have an extensive vocabulary. Even though he's capable of learning, that would still require human contact, which hasn't existed.

Re:Blew me away (1)

krakelohm (830589) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229049)

It all depends on the story. The first part of the movie without speech really adds to the loneliness of the main character. I was hesitant at first as well, but was very impressed how after a few minutes I did not miss the dialog.

Re:Blew me away (1)

jmhoule314 (921571) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229563)

What about 2001 a space odyssey. In 2001 there is no dialog for a painfully long time but it is widely considered to be one of the greatest films of all time. Movies are not suppose to be books with pictures. Books work much better as books. A movie on the other hand has the ability to tell a story visually. A movie made with minimal dialog pushes the limits of the medium in the appropriate direction.

Re:Blew me away (1)

jmhoule314 (921571) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229667)

to many writers use dialog in movies as a crutch and therefor don't take full advantage of the medium. Its a shame really. Putting the story together for yourself gives you an engaging, active role in the stories development. I find this much more satisfying than having everything spelled out for me. 90% of communication is noverbal and this generally translates terribly to the screen. Clearly im rambling, no point.

Re:Blew me away (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229869)

Y'know, I haven't seen the movie, but I really find this to be impossible. Indeed, the lack of dialogue is the single biggest reason I'm not going to see the movie until I, at the very least, pirate it to see if it's any good: stories without dialogue don't work. Period.

Wow, aren't you the stubborn one? Well, you'll be eating your words soon enough.

Re:Blew me away (4, Insightful)

barzok (26681) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229947)

Indeed, the lack of dialogue is the single biggest reason I'm not going to see the movie until I, at the very least, pirate it to see if it's any good: stories without dialogue don't work. Period. There's a reason why we quit making silent movies, and it really disappointed me that Pixar is taking a step backward in that regard.

2001: A Space Odyssey is 141 minutes long and has 28 minutes of dialog. And no massive explosions, gunfights, etc. either.

That "story without dialog didn't work"? Riiiiiiiight.

Re:Blew me away (1)

TravisO (979545) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228477)

I never bothered to listen to the soundtrack, it's easy to overlook a soundtrack when it's instrumental backing to a movie but I previewed it, it's great, especially the two songs you mentioned. I bought it up on Amazon's MP3 site ($9 for 256kbit MP3s), check it out guys.

http://www.amazon.com/Wall-E/dp/B001B0C48E [amazon.com]

there's mixed bag "inspired by" tracks at
http://www.amazon.com/Wall-E-And-Eve/dp/B001BNG9XC [amazon.com]

Re:Blew me away (4, Insightful)

rgraham (199829) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229063)

> I fully expect this to just rake in its well-deserved awards.

I agree, but you know what sucks, is that an animated film, no matter how well received will ever be able to win an Oscar for Best Picture thanks to the creation of Best Animated Feature category by the Academy a few years ago. Having a separate category for documentaries makes sense to me, but splitting out animation and not action, romance, western, etc. does not.

Where are the toys? (1)

rhartness (993048) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229901)

My wife and I were just as floored at this movie as everyone else appears to be and we've yet to get over how wonderful a film it was/is. We are the type of people who rarely see films but we make it a point to go see Pixar movies because so far they've been quite enjoyable. We are even considering going back and seeing it again, which says a lot when we see only 2-3 films a year.

I wanted to pick up for my wife a little gift and get a Wall-E figurine or some type of toy and I wanted another one to sit by my vintage R2D2 on my desk. Much to my surprise, you can't find Wall-E toys in any store, ANYWHERE (other than the internet). I've searched multiple Targets and [grudgingly] Wal-Marts and I couldn't find anything. The only thing that I found was a book in Books-a-Million and the video game.

I guess Ratitoule didn't earn enough from it's merchandise that most stores decided that it wasn't worth purchasing the product.

Great stuff! (5, Interesting)

Blice (1208832) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228109)

Wall-E was an incredible movie. The character development was outstanding, emotions were believable, and scenes really made impressions on me.

What I found most interesting about TFA was about the software they use for long-term development.
It said that for long-term development movies (Wall-E was 3 years, right?) they use the same software all the way through. I had always wondered about that kind of thing.. Since 3D software and rendering engines and such is always improving, how do these guys make the movies? Do they constantly re-render with the better software throughout the process, etc.? How do they keep up with competition in that regard?

So it was neat to finally find that out. The article also offers a lot of insight into the team arrangement at Pixar. I like that they aren't chained to animating a certain character/part- That they really observe who likes to animate who and what kind of scenes and kind of let them do what they enjoy best in the project. I wish programming jobs were like that- Where we could work on parts that we really liked instead of being moved from language to language and to different teams etc. like our preference doesn't matter. I think it's a really good thing they have over there.

If you haven't seen Wall-E yet, it's well worth the ticket price!

Re:Great stuff! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228581)

I think that he meant they use mostly the same software tools for the animators. These don't change all that much. Pixar writes a lot of their own software and even sells versions of it to others (Renderman). He did mention that they got updates when they needed. Rendering the final images is affected by upgrades in hardware and software. But remember animators don't work entirely with the final rendered images. They work with wireframe and partially rendered images until they are ready to render for review and approval.

If you've seen any of the documentary footage from previous films, although it's computer animated, it's not entirely computer simulated. An artist may use tools to simulate a lot of things but a lot of the talent lies with the animator to tweak the scene adding a nose wrinkle here and the like.

Greatest Wall-E Triumph: the roach! (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228225)

They were able to make a roach cute. And no, not some Disneyesque anthropomorphic huggable buggable plushified abomination to be mass-marketed to yowling ankle-biters everywhere, no, no, no! This was a realistic roach, the kind that makes me reach for a shoe and go Khrushchev on its filthy self. My family went to see this movie together and my own mother, my earliest memories of which involve her screaming hysterically and attacking palmetto bugs with a toilet plunger wielded with the sort of two-hand grip reserved for viking warhammers, she found the roach cute! She gasped when Wall-E rolled over it that last time, thinking it might be dead.

If Pixar can make her identify and sympathize with a realistic roach, the animators at those other studios should just hang up their keyboards and go home.

Come on, Slashdot! (-1, Offtopic)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228377)

Get your priorities right people. I submitted a story around about the same time as this, about yet another huge breach of privacy by Facebook (Here's the story if anyone is interested: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Logged-in-or-out-Facebook-is-watching-you/0,130061744,339284281,00.htm/ [zdnet.com.au] ). I watched my submission get closer to the red as time passed and this ridiculous advertisement for a film about an animated robot get closer to the black. Now it's on the front page and mine is resigned to the fate of whatever happens to washed up submissions.

Sigh.

CmdrTaco taking money from from Pixar? Maybe he just likes cartoons? Or maybe I need to get a life...

Re:Come on, Slashdot! (0, Troll)

xpuppykickerx (1290760) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228441)

I'm getting out my violin just for you!

Re:Come on, Slashdot! (1)

krakelohm (830589) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229747)

Grumpy Gus.

Re:Come on, Slashdot! (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229923)

Here's a hint, and I quote:

about yet another huge breach of privacy by Facebook

Pixar is very retro (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228515)

Pixar, in some ways, is very retro. They like the Populuxe look of the 1950s and 1960s, and their stories are very linear. Pixar films have few, if any, interspersed subplots, flashbacks, or flash-forwards. Shots are long and cuts are few by modern standards.

They even seem to be done with the technology. Pixar's short films have historically been technology demos - they were trials of the next generation of animation. "Geri's Game", for example, is a cloth demo. "Presto" doesn't seem to introduce any new technology; it's just a nice piece of character animation.

Re:Pixar is very retro (1)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229061)

Pixar films have few, if any, interspersed subplots, flashbacks, or flash-forwards.

And thank god for that.

Especially the lack of flashbacks and flash-forwards. If you can't write a coherent plot, bouncing around time like some sort of Dr. Who wannabe isn't going to make it any better.

The hype!! It was good, but not that good. (1)

kalpol (714519) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228627)

Yes, I saw it in the theater, and yes, I liked it, in fact was impressed by it. But it is not the best Pixar movie evarrrr, in fact I'd have to struggle to put it in the top three. The plot was pretty thin, and the characters were not terribly developed or memorable. But from an adult's perspective, and taking the movies as a whole (animation+story+characters), Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars were really my three favorites, not necessarily in that order. Also the cute robot theme has been done before, and looked about the same then.

Re:The hype!! It was good, but not that good. (1)

gambino21 (809810) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229409)

I agree with you. I don't understand why this movie got such great reviews. It was good, but I didn't think it was as good as Cars or some of the other Pixar movies. To me the movie didn't have a lot of depth, the only characters that changed or grew were the general public who made the obvious change of rediscovering a little motivation. It wasn't realistic. Why did the people all fall over when the ship tilted, if the ship has artificial gravity, they would hardly notice a tilt like that. How could they possibly deal with returning to Earth's gravity if their bones and muscles had atrophied. Also, how can these people clean up the Earth now if they couldn't do it thousands of years ago? Don't get me wrong, I don't mind science fiction taking some liberties with reality. It pretty much has to break some rules, but at a certain point, the story loses it's internal consistency to the point where the message of the story has no meaning. I also don't understand the big deal about an understandable movie with little dialog. Hasn't this already been done plenty of times?

Re:The hype!! It was good, but not that good. (1)

HumanoidCarbonUnit (1193441) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229455)

I have to agree with you. I was skeptical about going to see the movie in the first place but ended up going anyway. I was not that impressed by it, sure it was better than I thought it was going to be but it certainly was not "greatest movie ever" status.

Could've used some redacting (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228745)

TFA reads like a verbatim transcription of a conversation with some (badly done)
abridgements. It definitely lacks some quotation marks to mark actual quotations,
and could've used quite some redacting. Like this, it is just sloppy and not very readable.

Yeah, yeah, sorry for RTFAing...

Mac fanboi/fangrrl list of Mac refs in Wall-E... (0)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 6 years ago | (#24228931)

Here's a definitive (at least as far as my observations go) list of Apple and Mac references in Wall-E:

1.) Old Quadra-vintage Mac Chord sound when Wall-E hits full solar charge.
2.) Eve was designed by Jonathan Ive, the creator of many Apple designs.
3.) Eve is made of the same shiny white plastic that has covered Mac products since the first Snow iMac, and the first white iBook.
4.) Eve's reboot sound is reminiscent of the 20th Anniversary Mac sound, the first and last time the sound was used.
5.) Autopilot also looks designed by Apple.
6.) Autopilot's voice is "Ralph," a Mac voice that dates back to the 68K era.
7.) Many have pointed out that Wall-E's eyes seem to do the same type of internal adjustments that the iSight did.
8.) The "foreign contaminant" voice that M-O uses is another Mac voice called "Zarvox." Zarvox is also from the same batch that Ralph is from.
9.) The fried card inside Wall-E, and also the cards Eve tries to use to replace it, all look like Apple II expansion cards.

c08 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24229099)

Real people VS 3d people (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229213)

One of things I found somewhat odd in the movie was the use of the 3d "animated" people VS the use of "real" people. Many of the advertisements used real people, as did the little video that Wall-E liked to watch. However, other parts used animated characters, and the actually active characters in the movie were animated.

Was this a shortcut to save time, or was there some deeper point to this?

Re:Real people VS 3d people (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229377)

Andrew Stanton explained the use of live action in this USA Today article. [usatoday.com] For some things like Hello, Dolly there was no real alternative than using the real footage from the film.

Re:Real people VS 3d people (1)

sirnuke (866453) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229845)

The video Wall-e watches is Hello, Dolly, which is an actual movie. Since Pixar wanted to use scenes from that film, they forced themselves to make anything from that 'era' live action. The deeper meaning is the transition of the look of humans from live-action to cartoonish (note the pictures of the captains) represents their loss of humanity. It's a particularly brilliant solution to the problem.

I recommend August SIGGRAPH for this kind of stuff (0, Offtopic)

peter303 (12292) | more than 6 years ago | (#24229441)

The annual SIGGRAPH meeting [siggraph.org] is in 24 days August 11-15 at the Los Angeles Convention Center. Its the premiere event for seeing how entertainment graphics is done (great parties too). It can be attended very economically too: day passes are in the $50 range. One day-pass lets you see most of the technical exhibit and a different the film animation. The $800 pass is for attending the technical papers and courses (buy the proceedings) which good if you have all week and a generous boss. I'm flying in one morning, attending two days, leaving the following evening. There is light rail direct from LAX to the conventions center (slow). To me its like a science-fiction convention turned live- with all the futuristic computer graphics hardware and software (and great parties too).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?