WALL-E: The best acclaimed movie of 2008

BEST.

MOVIE.

EVER.

PERIOD.

END OF STORY.

Seriously. He has a FORUM online (google the WALL-E forum). And it is BOOMING. And--this is big--animated film has won no less then NINE best picture awards. Not best animated, best picture.

If you haven't, go see WALL-E. If you have... GO SEE IT AGAIN!

WALL-E is better then Frodo. I have said it.

I've seen it. My assessment is this:

Human kind is headed in that direction. It's really kind of sad how true that movie is, as well as scary.

I was talking to someone who had it in his head that we should start building robots like that to serve us, and to do tasks that we usually don't like doing. I thought of this movie and, while it would be nice to have a robotic servant, I think it's a much better idea and very important for humans to just do some things themselves. WALL-E is a perfect example of how important that is. WALL-E, and the movie Idiocracy, are a cinematic example of how human kind should never take a simple hard day's work for granted, nor should we dismiss the idea of new innovations on planet conservation as well as better ways to dispose of garbage, recycling more, and education. Face-to-face human interaction as well. The two characters (I forgot their names) that met after their eyes were taken off computer screens represent that. They had a lot of fun spending time together and ignoring the commands of the robots and computers all around them than they had just floating around on chairs all day, sucking down liquidized food, and talking to computer screens. The woman even noticed the sheer spectacle and size of the space ship that she had never taken stock of before.

Altogether, there is no substitute for doing things yourself or for socialization with your fellow man, as well as the importance of caring about the Earth seems to be the message that I got out of WALL-E, which is some pretty heavy stuff considering the lightheartedness of the characters. A movie deserving of it's awards, yet I do wonder if the message behind it really sank in with some people once all the hype and publicizing is looked past.


However, no...I disagree. WALL-E is not better than Frodo. *Pulls on Frodo shirt*....I do actually have a Frodo shirt....it's green.

No.

I can trump Wall-E infinitely with five words:

The
Fox
and
The
Hound

Yes, the OLD one.

My money is with WALL-E for being one of the most heartwarming films I've ever seen.

It's practicably mandatory to go "Awww.." at least once while watching.

I disagree on WALL-E being better than Frodo. Yes I enjoyed WALL-E but it didn't captivate me or draw me in as LoTR did. I must also say that the Dark Knight was also a ridiculously good movie. I really enjoyed Iron Man as well. 2008 was a great year for movies in general so the competiion was very rough this year. I think one of the reasons WALL-E is winning so many awards is that critics feel that movies that have a message are "better" than movies with just a story. I don't know but I don't think WALL-E is the best movie that came out this year.

See, that's where everybody gets it wrong. WALL-E does not have a message, that's just a background element. Yet so many people have been conditioned to cynicism they can't see it any other way!

Oh no, you can't claim that movie didn't have a message. I've long since been conditioned to cynicism, but cmon, that movie was all about the message.

*apply above statement to all movies*

Ok, what am I talking about? Oh right, Wall-e. Yeah, amazing movie, I saw it twice. Best movie of the year? Ehh.... I dunno. I'm biased; I don't see movies that often.

Masterweaver wrote:See, that's where everybody gets it wrong. WALL-E does not have a message, that's just a background element. Yet so many people have been conditioned to cynicism they can't see it any other way!

Dude...seriously...did...you pay attention to the film? Did you notice that all those tall "buildings" at the beginning were actually piles of trash? Did you notice the way the people looked and behaved until they stopped constantly watching computer screens? How about the Captain? His character was a HUGE, HUGE (no pun intended) example of what the entire movie's message was. That's not cynicism, that's seeing the subtext behind the actions and events of the film to capture the storie's underlying theme. Just because it's a movie with cute characters doesn't mean it does not have a message. This movie had a very big message and it's kind of boggling that you don't think it had one.

Unless you're kidding...

Personally, it's not the greatest movie ever released, not my favorite movie, but it's a good one. My favorite movies are the Labyrinth and the Return of the King. (Those movies had some underlying messages too.)

No no no no no no, you're missing my point. It's there, granted, but it's a BACKGROUND ELEMENT. It's just part of the setting.

Harry Potter and magic. Aside from the initial "omygosh there's magic!", nobody comments on the wands and the wizardry. It's the norm. Even Eragon, which is primarily about dragons, has a more developed system of magic. It's not unimportant to the plot, it's just background.

Same principal here. There' the initial "omygosh the planet's trashed!" and then the story moves on. The only reason plotwise the planet's a garbage dump is so that WALL-E can initially be built. In fact, in the DVD commentary it is explicitly stated that the environmental aspect was reverse-engineered from the story and the film is not meant to be preachy at all!

Ignore the setting and focus on the story. That's the true glory.

Um...yeah, the story moves on from "Oh my gosh the planet is trashed" to "They are trying to find a solution to untrash it." Why do you think the captain sent out E.V.E?

And there is buttloads of commenting on the wands and wizardry in Harry Potter. The whole battle between the "pure bloods" and "mixed bloods" thing? Yeah, that was metaphoric for acceptance. The idea that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant, that equality and peace for everyone, whether they were pure or muggle-born, or muggles themselves.

And I disagree about Eragon, because it sucked.

What I feel you're missing is that the setting IS the story. No one said the movie was meant to be preachy. It was only stated that the movie does have a lot more involved in it than you're really giving it credit for.

No, that's a subplot. The actual plot is "WALL-E wants to hold EVE'S hand." Incidentally, we have no evidence that the captain sent EVE out personally or even knew she was going to Earth.

Again, the Half-blood, wandcraft, and other such are merely aspects of the world that are not explored in full detail as part of the plot. They are there, take it or leave it, and many of them are originally introduced as a plot device. In fact, the webcomic Sluggy Freelance makes light of this fact.

Although I do grant the Eragon movie was a disappointment. The books are great, though.

The setting is never the story, only detail. Remember that, young padawan! Or I will be forced to make you do something amusing!

I dare you to make me do something amusing.

Mostly because I like being amusing.

Anyways. Background information, sub-plots, setting, and miscellaneous are all, strictly speaking, unimportant to the main plot, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore them. And I would argue that Wall-e's plot had more to do with the message than you are claiming.

Masterweaver wrote:No, that's a subplot. The actual plot is "WALL-E wants to hold EVE'S hand." Incidentally, we have no evidence that the captain sent EVE out personally or even knew she was going to Earth.

Again, the Half-blood, wandcraft, and other such are merely aspects of the world that are not explored in full detail as part of the plot. They are there, take it or leave it, and many of them are originally introduced as a plot device. In fact, the webcomic Sluggy Freelance makes light of this fact.

Although I do grant the Eragon movie was a disappointment. The books are great, though.

The setting is never the story, only detail. Remember that, young padawan! Or I will be forced to make you do something amusing!

Don't patronize me. You will find out quickly that does not fly with me.

Characters+setting+story=plot. WALL-E and E.V.E were not the only two characters in the movie. If they were, then the entire thing would really have just been all about them, but they weren't and they set in motion a lot of things.

And we do have evidence that he sent her out, because she was immediately brought to his cabin once it was discovered that she had found the plant and it was noted that he had been sending out probes for a long time. He wanted to go home because he was tired of floating in space doing nothing, which is also why the Auto-Pilot stole the plant once it was brought on the ship! There really is a massive chunk of the film's plot that you are ignoring here. That's called literary analysis, reading between the lines. Even though this is a movie, it still tells a story that can be analyzed in such a way. Stories like these that have more than one central character should never be taken at face value. IF these aspects of the story really, truly were unimportant and meant to be ignored, then the movie would have barely any direction or any reason to be watched at all because it would have no plot. It would be good for an animated short at the most, but nothing beyond that because it would have no way to branch out into the full-length film that it is. There would be no point in E.V.E arriving on Earth for that matter. Without the plot that was attached to her arrival, she wouldn't have a reason to come to Earth, and WALL-E would not need to meet her. Shoot, if there was no reason for the humans to return to Earth, there would be no point in the existence of WALL-E himself.

This is starting to remind me of a similar conversation about zombies >.>

Why is that continuously brought up? That ended ages ago. It needs to be dropped. I also don't really see any similarities in subject matter.

You are forgetting one important detail: SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS.

More than likely, the entire thing was an automated and outdated process that nobody actually cared about by the time of the movie. The Captain himself was initially somewhat unsettled by EVE's arrival, and only began to get interested after a long bout of research. And it can be further argued that returning to Earth was merely an outlet of his spontaneity. "I don't want to survive! I want to live!" That, right there, is the message, not the ecology, not the commercialism. These are secondary aspects, like the history of Balrogs in LTOR. People can examine them all they want, but an initial read-through will not require "Balrogs came from here."

And this argument is becoming circular. Seriously, relax Pandora! Have a cupcake in a cup on me. It's not all about winning!

I'm not trying to win anything. I'm just trying to say that there is more involved in the plot of Wall-E than is at face-value. The same can be said for any movie....except maybe the Aqua Teen movie because that just made no sense at all...but Aqua Teen never does.

My point isn't even about Wall-E entirely. It's that most films, especially Disney ones, have an underlying intention. A purpose for the story telling. A reason for the events that occur and what comes of them. Characters are rarely ever the same as they were at the beginning of the story by the time it reaches the end. ('cept maybe Jack Sparrow...I've never seen a flatter character be played by Johnny Depp.) That's because the plot, as well as sub-plot, are significant enough to effect them in some way.

Take the Labyrinth for example. At face value, it's a fantasy movie about goblins and their king. But looking deeper you notice there are underlying tones of friendship and loyalty and self-confidence. The character Hoggle, at the beginning, is a grouchy old dwarf that doesn't want to help anyone, is his own best friend thinks himself a coward and serves the goblin king. By the end, he changes into a caring and loyal friend to Sarah, Ludo and Sir Didymus, and sees the true cruelty in the King's actions that he didn't see before, or didn't seem to want to see. He also becomes braver, in he is no longer afraid of the King's power over him (which is also an inherent theme in the film) and stands to fight for Sarah. That is a result of the events and settings that surround him and an essential part of the plot. Hoggle is also the first person she meets in the Labyrinth.

What I'm getting at is that though ideas that surround the central characters of a film (in your case Wall-E) they cannot stand up by themselves without the setting and story surrounding them. They exist to help portray the overall intention of the story, in short, the big picture. Which is what I believe you are missing in simply assessing only Wall-E and E.V.E and what they do.

Touche.

But on the other hand, you came across as saying they affected the characters far more then they did. I believe we were arguing opposite ends of a scale whereas the story actually sits round the middle. I propose a truce, as we are clearly both right.

What really gets me is that the Annies (presumably the Animated Oscars) chose Kung Fu Panda over WALL-E. There is hard evidence that they were bribed by Dreamworks, though, so that only further cements WALL-E's epicness.

And are you sure you don't want that cupcake in a cup?

I'm sure. Thank you anyway.

I saw Kung Fu Panda. I liked it, but also not my favorite movie. I don't know much about the Annies, so I wouldn't be able to say anything on the subject.

Oh! Found the Stanton quote:

"I am very honored it is being associated with issues of the planet, but I would be lying if I said that was my agenda. It wasn't. It's not about global warming. I wanted to show the last robot on earth, and I wanted to show the loneliness so I could have the most potent love story imaginable," he says. "Anything I chose environment-wise was a selfish choice in order to make the love story work."

There's the evidence.

Well, he did a poor job of it, because honestly I can think of several love stories better than Wall-E.

Romeo and Juliet (Obvious where that one is from)
Satine and Christian (Moulin Rouge)
Jack and Rose (Titanic)
Christine and Raoul (Phantom of the Opera)

Besides, Master, whatever happened to "It's not all about winning" or "We're both right" hm? I do believe you said both of those things.

Just wanted to show I'm not making stuff up.

No one said you were. But you refused to listen to the possibility that the environment the characters were set in had any importance, let alone any message at all.