Jump to content

Wall-E


Peter T Chattaway
 Share

Recommended Posts

Finally saw it today, with the twins and my dad. The twins both fell asleep about 30-45 minutes into the movie, so I spent at least half of the film holding my daughter and hoping she wouldn't be woken up by the noises etc., and that may have distracted me somewhat ... but, basically, on first viewing at least, I didn't think this movie was a particularly big deal, and I am a bit surprised to see so many people tossing around words like "masterpiece" and "Oscar nomination".

Yes, yes, the Pixar people have done a fine job as usual of getting the colours and textures right, and of simulating hand-held camera moves and zooms and focus pulls, etc., and yes, yes, I rather liked the character of WALL*E himself, who seemed more like a Woody Allen wannabe than a Charlie Chaplin wannabe, to me (though Woody is, himself, a Chaplin wannabe, of course; I imagine part of the reason I was reminded more of Woody than of Chaplin must be due to the Manhattan-like environment in which WALL*E lives, with the piles of trash towering like skyscrapers, etc). And I rather liked the "dance" in space, etc., etc.

I even liked the way the film showed a couple of people being knocked out of their routines and suddenly enjoying the sight of the stars, the swimming pool, etc. For some reason this "slow down" theme didn't annoy me here the way it did in Cars -- possibly because Cars revolves around characters for whom being slow is a PROBLEM, so the last thing they need to do is make excuses for their slowness, whereas in WALL*E, there ain't NOBODY taking it slow except for WALL*E himself ... and he, of course, takes advantage of the slow goings in his life to enjoy what life has to offer. When others do the same, it provides a real set of grace notes to the film; it doesn't feel forced on the audience here as it did in Cars.

But still, all that said, the part of the story that revolved around the fate of the humans didn't do much for me, largely because the humans themselves didn't do much for me. The story didn't seem like it was really ABOUT them, or that it wanted to be about them. And the whole evacuate-the-planet, now-return-to-the-planet angle just seemed too "big" for such a "small" story. I was reminded of a short story I wrote in high school that was all about someone looking for the button that would blow up the world (and no, I had not yet seen Beneath the Planet of the Apes yet, at that point). Blowing up the world is too big a deal to be reduced to a short story, y'know?

As for the political side of things, I have to say that if Stanton's reason for keeping that "stay the course" line in there is because "it's funny", then, uh, I want to know why he FINDS it funny. The whole Fred Willard sequence didn't seem particularly chuckleworthy to me. (For one thing, unlike the Hello, Dolly! footage, which seemed to come from a "real" Hollywood musical, the Fred Willard footage seemed like a "fake" press conference -- so there was a disconnect between the two types of live footage, just as there would be between the live footage of the humans and the CGI footage of the humans.) And since Willard himself has said that the line is a nod to Dubya, I find it puzzling that the line is delivered here at a point when the President is essentially surrendering and giving up hope of achieving his objectives, which is quite different from the situation in the real world, where Dubya has been "staying the course" because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that victory is still a possible outcome.

Back to the twins: We don't watch TV in my house, but I'm guessing my daughter has seen me accessing information on WALL*E a fair bit (I do recall her pointing to my laptop's screen a few times, and me replying "That's WALL*E"), since when we got to the theatre, she ignored all the other movie posters and pointed to the poster for THIS film. And while she didn't make a sound during the previews, she did point to the screen a few times during the movie proper and say "WALL*E" and "uh oh" and "fork" and a few other things. Cuteness. Anyway, I wonder if there's something about the DESIGN of this character that just grabs the children's eyes.

Thoreau wrote:

: You won't get far insulting your audience. At least 2 of my family members including myself came away from the movie feeling the same way.

Thoreau, I found myself thinking of you and your family during some of the scenes on the Axiom. Y'all go on Disney cruises, right? I've never been on one myself, but there were aspects of the Axiom that made me think of that. ("I didn't know we had a pool!" etc.)

Overstreet wrote:

: The last company logo at the VERY END of the credits, even after the Pixar logo, is

a B-n-L logo.

Hmmm, I think the projector switched off before that when I saw the film.

: Again... Stanton has explained that it's real science: Long habitation of space causes to degenerating bone structure and a change in body shape.

I defer to bowen's critique here; as he (she?) notes, the film is pretty inconsistent on this point ("it was the only 'science' the movie directly introduced, and it got my attention when they introduced it only to flub it").

: Note: The people who went into space were not obese. At least, none of those we saw in the real footage were heavy. And the idea of getting people into that "shape" represents something more along the lines of them having created a world in which they can behave like "big babies," not like obese people.

: That's why Jon can't get up when he falls out of the chair.

: I really don't see this as a mockery of heavy-set people in the audience.

Really? You don't think there are "big babies" in the audience watching this very movie and others like it?

bowen wrote:

: The libido and reproduction question occurred to me, but it didn't bother me. First, this is a G-rated movie. It is obviously not going to touch any sexual topic.

Well, the G rating didn't stop Ratatouille from throwing in at least one sly penis joke. (To say nothing of a subplot entirely concerned with a man's illegitimate offspring.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 598
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

bowen wrote:

: The libido and reproduction question occurred to me, but it didn't bother me. First, this is a G-rated movie. It is obviously not going to touch any sexual topic.

Well, the G rating didn't stop Ratatouille from throwing in at least one sly penis joke. (To say nothing of a subplot entirely concerned with a man's illegitimate offspring.)

The penis joke got by because it flies right over the head of kids (and of course "Dr." Ted Baehr) who don't even know it's there. The illegitimate offspring subplot is similar in that only adults recognize that there is anything there. (I'd also point out that we all assume that Linguini is illegitimate, but it is possible that Linguni's parents were married and that the marriage ended before Gusteau became aware of his wife's pregnancy and that he was never told. The marriage angle is a stretch, to be sure, but there is nothing in the film that contradicts it.)

In any case, I'm not sure where you're going with this: you think the question of sex and reproduction SHOULD have been introduced into the Wall

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bowen wrote:

: In any case, I'm not sure where you're going with this: you think the question of sex and reproduction SHOULD have been introduced into the Wall

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but, basically, on first viewing at least, I didn't think this movie was a particularly big deal, and I am a bit surprised to see so many people tossing around words like "masterpiece" and "Oscar nomination".

I wouldn't mind if it did, but I find it unlikely that a combo science fiction and animated film would do so. That would be historical indeed.

Thoreau wrote:

: You won't get far insulting your audience. At least 2 of my family members including myself came away from the movie feeling the same way.

Thoreau, I found myself thinking of you and your family during some of the scenes on the Axiom. Y'all go on Disney cruises, right? I've never been on one myself, but there were aspects of the Axiom that made me think of that. ("I didn't know we had a pool!" etc.)

Yes! How could I have forgotten. I've been on the Axiom but it was called the "Disney Magic". Twice in fact. And ironically, we were having so much fun on the boat, we didn't even get off the boat back to "earth" at the ports of call, with the exception of Disney's own carefully constructed island castaway cay. The boat was more fun than the short time we were allowed to spend at the Bahamas! (We'd been before anyway). There weren't any meals in a cup, but I bet they'd bring you one if you asked.

But that was a vacation, not an eternity. And is that really such a big social problem?

Which brings me to the notion that I think this was a really good science fiction movie. Several times I was reminded of Logan's Run here and I Am Legend and I know there were other direct nods to sci-fi fliks throughout as well, I caught a couple but I'm sure there are more.

For me, the character Wall-E was the best Pixar character yet. And I really appreciated that there was genuine slapstick humor here without the customary references to popular culture. I think it will make this move a bit more timeless. Was anyone else reminded of the robot fake trash can that can be found wandering the cafe tables in Tomorrow land at Disney World, Orlando?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings me to the notion that I think this was a really good science fiction movie. Several times I was reminded of Logan's Run here and I Am Legend and I know there were other direct nods to sci-fi fliks throughout as well, I caught a couple but I'm sure there are more.

Oh, and I was also reminded of the Star Trek episode "The Game" where the entire crew was hypnotized by an addictive eyeglass video game , except for Wesley Crusher who had fallen in love which made him less susceptible to the game and he was able to save the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I haven't read it myself yet, but some people are speculating that the film may have been inspired by a 99-year-old E.M. Forster story called 'The Machine Stops'. (Yes, that would be the same Forster who wrote A Room with a View, Howards End, Maurice, Where Angels Fear to Tread, and A Passage to the One Film Based on My Works in Which Helena Bonham Carter Does NOT Make an Appearance.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got to see this Saturday, and my mom and youngest brother just left to go see it today. I enjoyed it! More than I thought I would, actually, because I mainly avoided hype and was going off mostly previews and some pictures. I was wondering how they'd pull it off. (Confession: I was seriously worried that they wouldn't be able to pull off a movie that wasn't about people, and it wasn't until I was leaving for the theater that I realized nearly all their movies were about inanimate or fantastical things; perhaps it was really the question of the absence of language that bothered me in theory.)

But they pulled it off! A movie with scattered dialogue and hardly any from the main character, and I ended up enjoying it. The plot of the humans returning to earth wasn't as absorbing as they perhaps meant it to be, but the general message of being too entertained and too catered to was, in the end, a good one. Ironic that I was sitting in a theater to see it.

The simplicity and innocence of Wall-E was refreshing. In a way, he reminds me of Mei from Miyazaki's My Neighbor Totoro. I loved the first sequence with his "treasures" and watching him sort things for his lunchbox. I think this could end up being a good film to talk about with smaller kids (my brother's nine; I'm waiting to hear what he thinks of the movie), especially on the themes of EVE's "directive" and Wall-E's "love" for her, that drives him to take care of her even when she's not responding at all. I think I need to see it again to decide, but I may have liked the art and Wall-E's story more than Ratatouille.

Hm. Not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I haven't read it myself yet, but some people are speculating that the film may have been inspired by a 99-year-old E.M. Forster story called 'The Machine Stops'. (Yes, that would be the same Forster who wrote A Room with a View, Howards End, Maurice, Where Angels Fear to Tread, and A Passage to the One Film Based on My Works in Which Helena Bonham Carter Does NOT Make an Appearance.)

Yeah, I can see elements of the Axiom society being influenced by the story, such as the not leaving the chairs and the floating screens in front of them. But no plot points really taken from the story are in the film.

"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the political side of things, I have to say that if Stanton's reason for keeping that "stay the course" line in there is because "it's funny", then, uh, I want to know why he FINDS it funny. The whole Fred Willard sequence didn't seem particularly chuckleworthy to me. (For one thing, unlike the Hello, Dolly! footage, which seemed to come from a "real" Hollywood musical, the Fred Willard footage seemed like a "fake" press conference -- so there was a disconnect between the two types of live footage, just as there would be between the live footage of the humans and the CGI footage of the humans.) And since Willard himself has said that the line is a nod to Dubya, I find it puzzling that the line is delivered here at a point when the President is essentially surrendering and giving up hope of achieving his objectives, which is quite different from the situation in the real world, where Dubya has been "staying the course" because he believes, rightly or wrongly, that victory is still a possible outcome.

I have to wonder if the Willard footage had been shot against a backdrop that didn't look like a Presidential news conference if so many of the "political" criticisms would have been made. Do corporate news conferences (as Willard's first appearance seem to be) look so political normally? The second clip which was obviously the equivalent of an internal company correspondence certainly wouldn't have been broadcast from such a setting I would think.

The setting immediately drew me out of the film and brought to mind White House news conferences.

I would have been content to leave this question aside, except that the film draws it back in by introducing images of babies being indoctrinated in the ways of BNL ... and then takes the concept even further with that scene where the humans are all slipping and sliding around, and the one woman says to the one man, "We're about to have babies!" (Which, by the way, is an awkward line on multiple levels. It feels odd on a surface-literal level -- would any woman really say that to a man she had just met, when she is only referring to the fact that babies are among the many people who are sliding down the floor towards them? And if there is a deeper meaning here ... well, what is it?)

I have no answers to any of the questions you pose, but for some reason that was one of the lines that made me laugh out loud. Maybe it was just the absurdity of the situation and the line.

Overall, I liked this film a great deal. I don't think it will become one of my favorite Pixar films along with Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, but even as a second-tier Pixar film it beats a heck of a lot of others. I'm not sure if I'd seriously consider it for a Best Picture nom, but then I'm not sure if I've seen any other film this year that I would yet either. We'll see how the second half of the year develops...

"It's a dangerous business going out your front door." -- J.R.R. Tolkien
"I want to believe in art-induced epiphanies." -- Josie
"I would never be dismissive of pop entertainment; it's much too serious a matter for that." -- NBooth

"If apologetics could prove God, I would lose all faith in Him." -- Josie

"What if--just what if--the very act of storytelling is itself redemptive? What if gathering up the scraps and fragments of a disordered life and binding them between the pages of a book in all of their fragmentary disorder is itself a gambit against that disorder?" -- NBooth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

livingeleven wrote:

: . . . especially on the themes of EVE's "directive" and Wall-E's "love" for her, that drives him to take care of her even when she's not responding at all.

I found that kind of creepy, myself. I was reminded of how once, back in high school, I went to the hospital to visit a girl that I had a massive crush on, but when I got there, she was asleep, and I very consciously decided NOT to kiss her. Kissing her when she wasn't awake enough to give me her approval would have been wrong, plain and simple. And the way WALL*E carts EVE's comatose body around and pries her arm loose so that he can hold her hand, etc., just seemed kind of weirdly quasi-proto-necrophiliac, to me, or something like that. (And either I'm not exaggerating, or I'm the kind of guy who entertains such concepts more casually than most.)

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ack!

Would it be too much to ask for some spoiler texts? I think I read two words in Peter's last post (starting with "c... b...") that hinted at elements that I shouldn't have known about beforehand...

Nick Alexander

Keynote, Worship Leader, Comedian, Parodyist

Host of the Prayer Meeting Podcast - your virtual worship oasis. (Subscribe)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

I found that kind of creepy, myself.

Sorry, Nick! Mild potential spoilers, kind of:

Show hidden text
Really? Hm. I don't know. I guess it depends on perspective. I wasn't creeped out by it at all; I was slightly amused by his attempts to hold her hand (perhaps because the attempt failed), but I was actually more touched by his desire to keep her safe and near him. That does sound a bit creepy now that I type it out, but when I was watching it, there was a greater impression of care. Maybe it's because Wall-E seemed so childlike to me, that it was more reminiscent of a kid toting around a favorite toy or new puppy than a guy carrying an unconscious girl around.

Then again, I'm also in a house where my youngest brother has been hauling a balloon around with him for three days calling it his "wife." Maybe I've just been desensitized to the weirdness. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter T Chattaway wrote:
I found that kind of creepy, myself.

Sorry, Nick! Mild potential spoilers, kind of:

Show hidden text
Really? Hm. I don't know. I guess it depends on perspective. I wasn't creeped out by it at all; I was slightly amused by his attempts to hold her hand (perhaps because the attempt failed), but I was actually more touched by his desire to keep her safe and near him. That does sound a bit creepy now that I type it out, but when I was watching it, there was a greater impression of care. Maybe it's because Wall-E seemed so childlike to me, that it was more reminiscent of a kid toting around a favorite toy or new puppy than a guy carrying an unconscious girl around.

Then again, I'm also in a house where my youngest brother has been hauling a balloon around with him for three days calling it his "wife." Maybe I've just been desensitized to the weirdness. :)

Also:

Show hidden text
It seemed that Wall-E was trying to help EVE in her directive. That is, he was not trying to keep her locked up in his home (which would be creepy). He seemed to know that the ship would be back to get her and he tried to keep her outside (even in the rain) so that they wouldn't miss her. So he was helping her, too, though obviously there was some search for intimacy/connection too.
Edited by Jeff Rioux
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More spoilers!

He wasn't just toting EVE around for his own amusement; IIRC, Wall-E, thinking EVE had solar panels similar to his own, was trying to expose her to sunlight. After all, that always woke

him up. And the hand-holding seemed to be more of an expression of love than anything Wall-E was trying to receive from EVE. I don't think he ever tried to mouthzap her. I found Wall-E trying to hold EVE's hand about as creepy as Prince Charming kissing Snow White.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More spoilers!

He wasn't just toting EVE around for his own amusement; IIRC, Wall-E, thinking EVE had solar panels similar to his own, was trying to expose her to sunlight. After all, that always woke

him up. And the hand-holding seemed to be more of an expression of love than anything Wall-E was trying to receive from EVE. I don't think he ever tried to mouthzap her. I found Wall-E trying to hold EVE's hand about as creepy as Prince Charming kissing Snow White.

Show hidden text
Good thought about the solar panel connection. Do you think, as I suggested, he was also trying to help her with her directive? I had thought that is why he was bringing her around - so she wouldn't miss her ship.

And I do find Prince Charming kissing Snow White to be creepy (but agree with you that Wall-E holding her hand was an expression of love - and not creepy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show hidden text
Do you think, as I suggested, he was also trying to help her with her directive? I had thought that is why he was bringing her around - so she wouldn't miss her ship.

Show hidden text
Not sure about this, because I can't remember how surprised Wall-E was when the ship returned.

Also,

I love the spoiler-hiding code on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love those scenes.

He clearly cares for her, and worries that something terrible has happened. So he wants her out in the open for the sun, yes, and he may also be hoping that those who brought her might return to fix her. He just doesn't want them to take her away. It was yet another life-affirming note on Pixar's part... someone remaining faithfully and lovingly at the side of a "comatose" character, not really sure whether that person is capable of understanding or perceiving what is happening. Almost seemed like a subtle reference to questions about the ethics of treating and caring for unresponsive patients.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show hidden text
I had forgotten about the solar panels! The realization of what he was initially trying to do in bringing her outside wrenched my heart. I also agree with the angle that he wanted to help with her directive. He wanted her fixed, working again, and that was important to him-- so was making her happy. And later, when she was insistent on fulfilling her directive, it became his mission, too. After his care for her on earth, and the finding her again on the ship, he didn't blindly follow her around.

On another note, I thought the way they handled EVE getting to see the footage of Wall-E taking care of her was pretty nifty. I didn't call it or see it coming, and it didn't seem forced to me. I appreciated that.

Almost seemed like a subtle reference to questions about the ethics of treating and caring for unresponsive patients.


Even if it wasn't intentional, I can definitely see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick Alexander wrote:

: Would it be too much to ask for some spoiler texts? I think I read two words in Peter's last post (starting with "c... b...") that hinted at elements that I shouldn't have known about beforehand...

Sorry Nick, the thing I'm referring to there is all in the first act. It was something I knew about before seeing the film (the CB, not what WALL*E does with it), and knowing about it in advance didn't ruin my appreciation of the film at all.

sanshiro_sugata wrote:

: And the hand-holding seemed to be more of an expression of love than anything Wall-E was trying to receive from EVE.

If he hadn't had to pry her hand loose from her side -- if he hadn't had to, um, FORCE her -- I might see it as innocently as you do. But it still felt kind of creepy.

Let's not forget that she is also wearing lights and stuff that HE has put on her. HE has dressed her up as though she were his doll or something.

Someone earlier in this thread made reference to Lars and the Real Girl, albeit for very different reasons. But whereas THAT film was all about a remarkably INNOCENT relationship with a FAKE girl, this aspect of the film reminds me a little more of Vertigo, which is all about a CREEPY relationship with a REAL girl.

I don't want to overstate the point, but there it is, and it is what it is.

: I found Wall-E trying to hold EVE's hand about as creepy as Prince Charming kissing Snow White.

Well, at least THEY had a prior relationship of some sort. And venerating the dead is no big deal. Prying their hands free of rigor mortis so that you can hold them would be something else entirely. :)

Overstreet wrote:

: I love those scenes.

I like a lot about them, too. But forcing -- forcing! -- someone to hold your hand when they can't say "no" ... and doing so after you have dressed them up to look like whatever your personal romantic fantasy happens to be ... well, that gets a little stalker-ish.

FWIW, I admit that my reaction to that scene is affected partly by the fact that I had already used an image from that scene at my blog, in a post about the theme of "love", and when I saw how that image actually fit into the STORY, I realized the image didn't reflect what I thought it reflected, quite.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CITY LIGHTS SPOILERS

Incidentally, since people keep comparing this film to Charlie Chaplin's City Lights, let us not forget that one of the central premises of THAT film is that Chaplin "loves" the blind girl not merely DESPITE the fact that she is helpless but BECAUSE she is helpless, the same way he admires the statue of the naked woman in the display window at the beginning of the film -- and the moment the blind girl SEES Chaplin for the first time, at the end of the film, and through yet another store display window at that, Chaplin is terrified. By that point, he has already been "neutered" in various ways -- from going to jail to losing his cane to wiping his nose with his underwear (as one critic put it, the final scene in that film marks the first time that The Little Tramp really DOES look like a tramp!) -- and the last thing he thinks he can handle is a woman who stares BACK at him through the window, much less one who comes out from behind the window to talk to him.

So there's a "creepy" element to Chaplin's film too, or at least an element that is more sexually complicated than a simple "romantic comedy" tag would let us know. So if we want to talk about WALL*E, the character, in reference to Chaplin in City Lights and not in reference to Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo, then fine, let's do that. But BOTH films are concerned, to one degree or another, with men who remake the women in their life to suit whatever their romantic fantasy happens to be.

Incidentally, the fact that many of Chaplin's films are shot through with a political sensibility or an element of political commentary should also caution us against the view that we ought to be discussing this film in terms of its parallels to Chaplin but NOT in terms of its political sensibility.

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is off topic slightly, but there was no teaser trailer for next year's Pixar movie at the screening of Wall-E that I saw. It seems they have always had a teaser for the following year's feature before their films. Am I wrong?

And what is the next film? IMDB suggests that it will be Up, which I haven't heard that much about (maybe there is a thread about it here, but with a title like "Up" it is hard to find).

From what I can tell from Pixar blog and IMDB, the upcoming films will be (maybe in order):

Up

Toy Story 3

Newt

Bear and the Bow

Cars 2

John Carter of Mars

Bear and the Bow looks to be released at Christmas 2011, so maybe they are going to move towards two a year?

Sorry, this got even farther off topic than I had intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Rioux wrote:

: This is off topic slightly, but there was no teaser trailer for next year's Pixar movie at the screening of Wall-E that I saw. It seems they have always had a teaser for the following year's feature before their films. Am I wrong?

Oh, good point. That hadn't occurred to me. I remember the trailer for Cars playing before The Incredibles and giving everyone the impression that it would be one of Pixar's weaker efforts to date (remember how it kept showing Mater using the phrase "Dad gum!"? I don't think he used it as much in the finished film as he did in that early teaser). And I'm pretty sure I saw a trailer for WALL*E before Ratatouille. (I can't remember if anything played before Cars because the press screening omitted EVERYTHING but the feature film -- meaning it even omitted the short cartoon that traditionally plays before each Pixar film.) I can't remember further back with any certainty, but your thesis seems like a sound one, to me.

: And what is the next film? IMDB suggests that it will be Up, which I haven't heard that much about (maybe there is a thread about it here, but with a title like "Up" it is hard to find).

The thread for that film is here. It's easy to find if you search for "Pixar" and then scan the titles for "Up".

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan. I agree the creative genius is there but I really do think this is an exagerated and degrading view of humanity.

Denny

Since 1995 we have authored a commentary on film, cinema in focus. Though we enjoy cinema as an art form, our interests lie not so much in reviewing a film as in beginning a conversation about the social and spiritual values presented. We, therefore, often rate a film higher or lower due to its message rather than its quality of acting or film-making.

Cinema In Focus Website

Free Methodist Church of Santa Barbara Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew Sullivan (or someone else?) wrote:

: Just realized something else: after she

Edited by Peter T Chattaway

"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...