digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at ghiblicon.blogspot.com

WALL-E = Pixar's 'Rubber Soul'?

ghiblicon.blogspot.com — A comparison of Pixar and The Beatles... now that Pixar has mastered the technology, how do they evolve?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • michaelpinto, on 07/10/2008, -1/+81It's hard not to Digg a story with both a Pixar and Beatles reference...
    • Jeffler, on 07/11/2008, -3/+68If XKCD makes a comic about this article, and Obama shows it to the crowd on his iPhone, digg would explode
      • DaHuuuuuudge, on 07/11/2008, -0/+12I think the universe would just stop. No need to keep going after reaching perfection.
      • pnunn, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3And all that would be left were 50 diggers complaining that when they submitted the same thing it didn't make front page.
      • Futurejunior, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1If the whole thing was reviewed by Yahtzee, then Digg would explode
      • quomen, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3If Xenu sneezed, the Universe would a 'splode.
      • ZoomBoy, on 07/11/2008, -1/+4If Kevin Rose exploded, Kevin Rose would explode.
  • metejada, on 07/10/2008, -2/+6Great work keep it up
    • rpgmaker, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Great post indeed but I have to disagree. WALL-E is a great movie but that doesn't mean that Pixar is going to abandon the old 'happy endings all' formula, they're part of Disney after all but it sure means that they're going to release really good movies like this from time to time.
  • rgladstein, on 07/11/2008, -0/+34Since I don't know a lot about the Beatles, the Rubber Soul reference is kind of lost on me -- I guess the point is that they've begun a phase in which they're sufficiently respected and accomplished that they're given a lot of freedom to experiment.

    In any case, it's an excellent article, and anyone who's a fan a Ghibli Studios is OK by me.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/11/2008, -0/+27Go buy Rubber Soul immediately
    • brstilson, on 07/11/2008, -0/+26Rubber Soul is their first album that catapulted them from being just another boy band to legendary rock status. (i.e. it's when they started taking drugs)
      • regeya, on 07/11/2008, -3/+1Um...hate to burst your bubble, but they were taking drugs before they were famous.
    • nesagwa, on 07/11/2008, -0/+17The Beatles put out HELP! the soundtrack to their second film in August 1965. Featurd songs like Help, Act Naturally, Ticket to Ride, etc. Save for one oddity (Yesterday) it was pretty much more of the early 60s straight forward dance type rock or ballads they had been doing forever.

      In December 1965 they released Rubber Soul that contained songs like Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Think for Yourself, etc.

      The change was mostly in subject matter rather than musical style (that didnt really start until Revolver), either more inward looking or more critical of the world around them.

      Thats where the comparison comes from.
    • tehjarvis, on 07/11/2008, -0/+12It really pushed music production at the time, as well as songwriting.

      It's what made Brian Wilson go and write Pet Sounds, as it (Rubber Soul) was the first real "album"...ie, the songs fit together and it felt more cohesive overall. Pet Sounds, then pushed the limits one more time, and the Beatles, inspired by that, wrote and released Revolver. Brian Wilson then started to go crazy and wanted to release a psychedelic album by the name of Smile, which never came out, but inspired the Beatles to do the super ambitious Sgt. Peppers

      Get Rubber Soul, then Pet Sounds, then Revolver, then some 68 Smile bootlegs, then Sgt. Peppers. With all these albums and the battle of the Beatles and Beach Boys, it shows you the entire revolution from 60's pop to psychedelic 70's rock...and it all started with Rubber Soul. Music would sound entirely different today if it was never released.
      • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I love the story, probably apocryphal, about where John Lennon told Brian Wilson that the Beach Boys' music "had nothing to say."

        ...and that comment was the inspiration for Pet Sounds.
    • Malacandra95, on 07/11/2008, -0/+12You pretty much nailed it, except that Rubber Soul was the *beginning* of them earning respect. Up until Rubber Soul, the Beatles were considered disposable pop for adolescents.

      When Rubber Soul came out, they started being taken seriously as artists and musicians. Partially, it was because they were showing a greater range of influences and writing more thoughtful, reflective songs (not so much "I Wanna Hold Your Hand!"). Songs like "Nowhere Man", "I'm Looking Through You", and "In My Life".

      They hadn't yet started to break new ground in the recording studio, that would become apparent in their new two albums, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's... but they were showing full mastery of song craft... and musicians - and "grownups" - had taken notice.
      • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Ah, so like Green Day's "American Idiot," or Nine Inch Nails' "Broken."

        ..Why yes, I do take them seriously as artists.
    • skillet, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0
      Crap. I just bought Revolver and Abbey Road on my lunchbreak; been learning guitar and have one of the Beatles' chord books and want to mess around with some of the songs but need a reference point (I'm a Beatles fan, grew up listening to them and know all the classics, I've just never gone out and bought a lot of their CDs, relying on radio and my parents' LPs growing up).

      I stared at Rubber Soul for awhile and couldn't decide between it and Abbey Road. I'll get RS at some point soon for sure. Thanks for the explanation.
      • skinnyskittles, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2abbey road is an excellent album. their best in my opinion
      • TheNateGBent, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1If you like Revolver, Abbey Road probably won't disappoint.
        Personally I'd say its in the top three of their albums.
  • sock2828, on 07/11/2008, -0/+53Start using LSD?
    • brstilson, on 07/11/2008, -3/+1LS3D
    • schavira, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4I thought Rubber Soul was primarily motivated by pot. Now Revolver on the other hand...
      • sock2828, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Exactly this about how they can progress
    • Phyraxus, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1They seemed to be inspired by Brave New World and 1984 more than LSD.
  • rhesusattack, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3Isn't Brad Bird directing a live action film next?
  • xOKxWhy, on 07/11/2008, -1/+10Pixar's next movie is going to be their best?
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/11/2008, -0/+13Yoko's on her way to the Pixar board of directors...
      • Gattung, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0Yoko=Disney
      • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2While Disney did buy Pixar, you could make an argument that from a certain perspective Pixar now has a greater influence over Disney than the other way around. Steve Jobs is the largest single shareholder of Disney which gives him an enormous amount of clout. John Lasseter is now the Chief Creative Officer of both animation studios now and is also Principal Creative Adviser at Walt Disney Imagineering.
      • Gattung, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0http://www.theanimationblog.com/2008/05/30/john-la ...
  • ELLIS1128, on 07/11/2008, -2/+13-D?
  • h3smith, on 07/11/2008, -8/+2I thought WALL*E was alright - not some epic movie that many seem to acclaim. I don't see how it could keep many kids attention either - no discourse for the first hour?

    It was pretty, don't get me wrong. But the story line needed some work.
    • GrammerPants, on 07/11/2008, -0/+9As a kids movie it needed dialog. Because that's what kids like. But as a movie for an adult to enjoy, it was my kind of movie. Some times words are not necessary to enjoy a film. Castaway for example, or to a lesser extent I am Legend.
      • norman619, on 07/11/2008, -6/+2I have to agree. The thing is almost 2 hrs long with lots of air. It could have easily been a 1.5 hr movie. A good measure of the quality of this film as a children's film is my nephew's reaction to it. He goes ape-***** over anything with robots and spaceships. He fell asleep half way through the film. This film is sub-par as a Pixar film.
      • GawtMilk, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3I didn't think Wall-E was great, but I certainly ENJOYED seeing it. I was impressed that depth of field was finally mastered, and the animation was excellent. But it was lacking something -- too many references for adults in a "kid's movie", but the plot was too "kiddish" for an "adult movie"; and the constant 'messages' of the film were a bit too obvious.

        I think it would make a brilliant short movie, but I mean -- it needed more dialog or, well...interest. It was similar to playing Grand Theft Auto IV : you sat there going "woah", but then you stepped back and realized how much filler there was, and you end up feeling it's phenomenal execution on a sub-par story.
    • pleeker, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6My 10-year-old and 6-year-old were absolutely enthralled by the movie, from start to finish. You're really underestimating a child's imagination.
    • Ducttape21, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1The children may not have been entertained but I was extremely interested throughout.
    • Phyraxus, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2It is much more epic for adults who can appreciate the themes within the movie without actually having them fleshed out entirely. A child could have been completely oblivious to the techniques required to create such a society and those which are already being applied on our own.
  • TwistyMcFister, on 07/11/2008, -4/+18Dugg for Wall-e

    Awesome movie!!!!
  • vinceislegend, on 07/11/2008, -5/+64Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall-E
  • assbeard, on 07/11/2008, -2/+31I just saw it last night. ***** phenomenal movie. Pixar just doesn't make bad movies. The level of detail in the character modeling was fantastic. The fact that they used macintalk for the voice of Auto was hilarious too.
    • basevillin, on 07/11/2008, -2/+3Pixar does indeed have some terrible movies. (A Bug's Life was infuriatingly terrible).

      However WALL-E was outstanding.
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4Everyone time wall-e reboot it's the old school mac noise. I laughed my ass off when I heard it.
      • assbeard, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2as did I. It wasn't when he rebooted though, it was when he charged his batteries.
      • tikidrummer928, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3the first time i heard i started cracking up but no one else got it. my girlfriend looked at me like i crazy.
  • Kajico, on 07/11/2008, -0/+9You never master the technology because every new film presents a challenge in one form or another.
    • lennybird, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Thanks for that Socrates.

      I'm just kidding, you're right.
  • KillsTheWeak, on 07/11/2008, -11/+2Minus the torso, Wall-E looks like a ripoff of Johny 5.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4Looks closer, the eye shape is different and Johnny 5 had "eyebrow" flaps while Wall-E has none.
    • trafficlight, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Don't think of it as a ripoff, but rather a homage to Johnny 5. There are a lot of references in the movie to past movies. The obvious one is 2001 with the autopilot looking and acting like HAL.
    • bjs3171, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6yep. and that was really the most important aspect of the movie, what Wall-E looks like.
  • HappyScrappy, on 07/11/2008, -2/+7Pixar had already mastered the technology. They've made a ton of good films already. Did you somehow miss Ratatoullie?
    • oxymoron69, on 07/11/2008, -11/+1I did, because of the horrible title.
      • HappyScrappy, on 07/12/2008, -1/+1Agreed. It was a terrible title.
    • bobbarkerbilly, on 07/11/2008, -1/+1IMO Rataoullie was fun, but certainly not of the same caliber as Wall-e.
  • Evicted, on 07/11/2008, -9/+7Overly long, full of completely irrelevant Beatles references, lacking any sort of cohesive thesis. Did not enjoy.
    • Terr01, on 07/11/2008, -0/+7Would not buy again.
      • macweirdo42, on 07/11/2008, -0/+11Instead of office chair, package contained bobcat..
    • pilot3033, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2it's a blog post
    • moraldebate, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Agreed. It's a bad Beatles reference too. It only works under the assumption that all Pre-Ratatouille Pixar films were formulaic family pop.

      Just because Pixar movies have been imitated horribly by Dreamworks, etc. doesn't mean that they weren't successful and original pieces of art in their own right. Pixar movies have always been about concepts (except Cars) and examining life further. "Love me do" isn't exactly equivalent to that.

      Somebody doesn't know ***** about music.
  • Dorke, on 07/11/2008, -6/+1tl;dr
  • Lucas123, on 07/11/2008, -0/+10I know I'm going to get buried into tomorrow, but I've got to pick Rubber Soul and Revolver over Sgt. Pepper's. Sgt. Pepper's is a great album -- no doubt -- but I never got why people hailed it as the Beatles' masterpiece. I'd even put the "white album" over it -- it's vastly more eclectic.
    • skinnyskittles, on 07/11/2008, -0/+7i actually consider abbey road to be their best
    • tehjarvis, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I too like Rubber Soul and Revolver (especially Revolver) better than Peppers, but I prefer Peppers over the White Album. I don't think you're giving it a fair shake, pop it in and listen to it again, especially the first half.
      • Lucas123, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I love Revolver. I remember the first time I listened to it (I won't say how long ago). I was blown away. "Taxman", "Eleanor Rigby", "Yellow Submarine", "I'm only Sleeping", "Got to Get You into My Life". Just a great album.

        I'll have to listen to Sgt. Pepper's again.
    • kpaphysicist, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2From my understanding, Sgt. Peppers was the last album that they actually worked together to write music. So it had the best ratio of togetherness and experimental creativity. However, it's not my favorite either.
    • KrazyIan, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3In my opinion, Abbey Road is their finest hour. Incredible album start to finish.
    • regeya, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1The White Album is my favorite. They were branching off in separate directions, but it didn't reek of Paul's self-indulgent wankery of Abbey Road.
  • Mudcrutch, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4It's not the technology that makes the movies great, it is the animation and story-telling.
  • Brian48216, on 07/11/2008, -0/+21To me, Pixar's strength was never their technology. Anybody can do technology.

    Their greatest strength has to be art direction and writing. With the art direction and style, you can easily overcome any short comings in graphical realism.

    If anybody saw Final Fantasy Spirits within- the graphics were incredible. Story and art direction weren't on the level of Pixar though.
    • bjs3171, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6they did invent the technology, though. they literally wrote the original software themselves while still part of Lucas Films. so, it's a pretty big strength. but yes, the reason their movies are stil relevant is because they write some of the best stories being told today. period.
    • amadeusdemarzi, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6Actually, if you look back on Spirits Within today, it doesn't look to hot anymore. It was amazing when it came out, but movies such as WallE blow it out of the water in visual quality.
      • WillyWonka, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Yeah characters now move their upper lips :)
    • inajeep, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4No, anybody can not do technology. Bad visual or audio can and do ruin movies. Pixar's strength is to be able to have two strengths. Tech and story telling. Each is a blend of many different components and it cheapens it slightly to roll it up into a ball and call it technology.

      Keep doing what your doing Pixar.
  • savethejets, on 07/11/2008, -1/+7Are we just waiting for pixar's Yoko then?
    • SaintStryfe, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Heaven's forbid.

      Honestly, hooking with Disney was the worst possible Yoko, but thankfully, it seems to have weathered the storm.
  • tehjarvis, on 07/11/2008, -0/+16"now that Pixar has mastered the technology, how do they evolve? "

    They get more psychedelic.
    A Pixar movie in the vein of Alice in Wonderland or Fantasia would be super awesome. Make it just right and it would be a cult classic for decades.

    I really want to listen to some Beatles now.
    • o0joshua0o, on 07/11/2008, -1/+5Alice in Wonderland was Walt Disney's least favorite animated film.
      Fantasia bombed at the theaters.

      In summary: Great idea!
      • tehjarvis, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Alice in Wonderland is my favorite. I think it'd be awesome, Pixar could definitely pull it off.
        I'd rather see a good movie than a popular one that makes money.
        Besides, it was mainly a Rubber Sould/Revovler -> Sgt. Peppers Reference.
      • o0joshua0o, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I actually agree that if it's possible to pull off, Pixar can probably do it.
      • SaintStryfe, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I would love to see Fantasia done with modern music. the only problem is would it seem like a string of Pixar shorts. Not sure how'd they pull it off.
      • pilot3033, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3Citizen Kane also didn't do to well at the box office.

        The idea of disposable pop, and flavor of the month entertainment is by no means a new concept. Great works of art usually, but not always, don't do to well nor are they recognized until years later.

        Pixar has the unique position of shaping an audience. Toy Story came out when I was still at an age of the mentioned "babysitter" animation was perfect. Toy Story hooked me on Pixar, and I've seen every movie since. Each film getting more complex in its story, and more artistic in its nature.This is the reason seeing the potential for Pixar's latest films to be masterpieces that influence and shape art for years to come is not hard to imagine.

        Instead of baffling the world with instant genius, they've taken a generation and opened up their minds to bigger concepts. Meta-genius.
  • ender7074, on 07/11/2008, -4/+3Great article until the author decided to turn it all into a political statement. Buried.
  • bagurka, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4Pixar doesn't master the technology, Pixar has always been on the leading edge developing and evolving the technology. Toy Story 1 & 2 may seem outdated now, but back when they were released, they were cutting edge same as latest Pixar movies today.

    Besides, it's the story and the characters what makes Pixar movies genius, not just the beautiful CGI and animation.

    Hence comparison to the Beatles, who were a pop boy band before Rubber Soul and became the Beatles Beatles after, is wrong. Pixar has been Pixar since the first lamp clip :)
  • khulbert, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3First I want to say that I love Pixar. Their movies are fantastic, and I think Wall-E is the best one yet. But let's not forget that these movies need to stay accessible to kids. If Pixar goes off and starts trying too hard to appeal to Art Teachers and Beatles fans they will have lost their focus. I for one trust Pixar to continue doing what they do best, making great movies everybody can enjoy.

  • Scanner, on 07/11/2008, -12/+2They can start by stopping all the damn preaching in the movies. We are here for entertainment, if I wanted to be depressed and hear how much I suck as a human I'd go to a greenpeace rally.
  • morninglorii, on 07/11/2008, -1/+3I'll probably get dugg down for this, but can someone explain the Rubber Soul reference? I do like the Beatles a lot, but I'm too young to have been around when they were popular, and I haven't studied their history. Thanks in advance.
    • SaintStryfe, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3They explained it better in one of the first comments, but to make the short version: It was the album that marked the Beatles' turn from disposable pop of the era to being a major musical force.
  • Senturion, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3For the people complaining that Wall-E was not good for kids my question is...why does that matter?
    Is it not acceptable for Pixar to make animated movies that are not for kids, that appeal to a broader audience or even a narrower, but different one?
    This argument that animation = kids is the exact reason that people still think video games are for kids.
    Just because something broke into society as something for kids doesn't mean it can't evolve past that. (See: The Simpsons, Family Guy, Grand Theft Auto, etc.)
    Wall-E is a fantastic movie.
  • bshock, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I feel as though this article misses the point. Yes, Pixar has been in the vanguard of computer animation technology. But they have always remembered the one vital point that most of Hollywood has forgotten: story is fundamental. Without a compelling story and sympathetic characters, all the special effects in the world are just boring video wallpaper. Every Pixar film has been superior to its rivals because of that. And while they may not be performing classic theater, they are producing something closer to art than any other mainstream filmmaker.
  • rentmitchum, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2I am compelled to say Cars was awful and a massive step backwards in my opinion for Pixar. God, that movie was awful. I saw Wall-E last week though and it was excellent. I've seen every other Pixar movie actually except Ratatoullie, which I mean to rent sometime soon. It's not that I didn't want to see it, it looked great, but I had no money at the time. Cars somehow was a glaring mistake though.. To me it was just too childish and stupid... Toy Story was amazing, giving all the toys personalities. It was CLEVER. I can't say the same for ***** automobiles. It was like the inanity of Thomas the Tank Engine combined with the disappointment that I was indeed watching a new Pixar movie...

    So yea.. that's all. Hopefully they never again tread in Cars' retarded footsteps.
    • TommyGunner, on 07/11/2008, -3/+0Cars is one of the best Pixar Movies made. I have not seen Wall-E yet but I can assume from the trailers I will not like it because if its story. I want to be entertained when I watch a movie, not see a groups thoughts on how global warming is coming and there is nothing you can do. The previews remind me of Al Gores Faulure
      • asnider, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3Though environmentalism is a strong theme in the movie, it's almost an afterthought in a lot of ways. Wall-E is, at it's core, an endearing love story with traces of an adventure movie. While I won't deny that there are some political overtones, they are easily overlooked if you don't agree with them.
      • pilot3033, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2The movie is about robot-love, not global warming.

        In fact, the film makes a point of showing how we came to master renewable energy and are still *****. It's just a plot device to give WALL-E (the character) a purpose and a starting point for the rest of the story.

        The subtext is that we are a nation of consumers and here's what it can lead to. But the film doesn't bash you over the head with it, it's more like a recurring joke.
      • rentmitchum, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I feel like you're the type of person Cars was made for, and that is why I hated it.. because you are someone I wouldn't get along with and would actively avoid if I met you. I imagine you wearing a John Deer hat sitting in your truck, possibly with the mysterious 'lift kit'. On your hitch you have hung a set of rubber balls, to show how strong your truck, and therefore you, are. I hate you.
    • SaintStryfe, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4I didn't love Cars either, but let me play devil's advocate;

      Cars had an awesome message. Just because it's not the newest, it's not bad. Lightning thinks it's purgatory being stuck in a small town, until he starts to learn that even a quiet place out of the spot light can have all kinds of things to love.

      I think the casting was the worst mistake. A lot of Pixar's fans did not gravitate toward the Auto Racing legends, and of course it had Larry the Cable Guy, which is a huge turn off. But then again, it drew in a lot of people. Granted many of these people missed the storyline entirely, but hey.

      The story itself was stock. Meerly stock. But done beautifully.

      The movie is not at all one of my favorites, but it is far, far from bad. Definitely not retarded.

      Beside, anything with George Carlin playing an Anthropomorphic VW Bus can't be all bad.
      • pilot3033, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2An anthropomorphic, hippie (pot smoking) VW Bus at that.

      • rentmitchum, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Larry the Cable Guy I admit made me scowl every single time he opened his "grill". I'm sorry, I agree somewhat with you with the message, but that message has been done better a thousand times over.. I'd prefer Groundhog Day or, though my mind isn't thinking of other examples, other movies that deliver the same message without forcing anthropomorphic cars down my throat. I hated it, it wasn't like Finding Nemo or Toy Story with it's characters having their own little worlds unknown to the humans in the movie, like .. well like almost every other Pixar movie. It had other cars in the ***** bleachers. It was all cars, therefore I couldn't see past that and think it was anything less than retarded.

        Your argument is well thought out though, I won't say you are wrong. Cars just wasn't for me, and in my mind is the only blemish on Pixar's amazing movie-making record. It seemed to me a movie designed especially to pander to the Nascar loving Larry the Cable guy watching beer swilling Americans with barely any thoughts in their heads. At least I had Ricky Bobby making fun of that same crowd around the same time period (were they in the same summer?) to take the sting off.
      • Hangly, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I liked it for the Car Talk guys. That's all I really remember.
  • beermaker, on 07/11/2008, -2/+2This guy is an anime fan... i think lacks of neutrality
  • kevisazombie, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2How do they evolve? GAMING BABY OOOH YEAH LOOK AT THOS PIXELS!
  • 12D3, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Wall-E was pretty damn good. They took a lot of steps away from 'normal' kids animated films with the main characters communicating in pantomime and political/ecological messages that are sent througout.

    UPCOMING SPOILER

    As much as I loved the character Wall-E, a part of me wishes he would have actually 'died' at the end. I really think this would have punched me in the stomach and made this movie linger in my mind much more. As an adult I always appreciated the bittersweet nature of the hero dying or sacrificing themselves in the end. Usually there is a deep sadness that they are gone, but if done right, you see how much their life changed others around them and how much good they really did. Which Wall-E did to everyone he encountered.

    I think that would probably be the next step they could take. That version of Wall-E would be their Sgt Peppers in my opinion.
    • SaintStryfe, on 07/11/2008, -0/+3I think the film's message in the end was Hope. Killing the Savior.... that'd be way too Christian. Beside, he's a Robot. As long as his programing is there, of course he could be rebuilt.
      • 12D3, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1I understand the movie wasnt necessarily built for him to die in the end, however, I dont think "Christian" has anything to do with it.

        Also, if you have ever formatted your computer, you'll know it doesn't hold the same information on it once you have done so, which is what I thought they might go for with the ending.
      • tcpip4lyfe, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2I'm glad he didn't die. I would probably wept like a little girl.
    • Xandah, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0I agree that it needed a bit of a punch at the end. I'll admit that moment that Wall-E looked at eve with those empty soulless eyes hit me harder than just about any regular death scene ever could. However, I think a bittersweet ending would have suited the movie better.

      Maybe instead of all his memories coming rushing back, just a glimmer of his curiosity. This could also tie into the love story, with it being implied that Eve would stay with him for the hundreds of years it would take him to "re-learn" to be sentient.

      Either alternate ending would tie into the theme of the movie that we're all more than the sum of our parts.
  • knute5, on 07/11/2008, -1/+2Cars was a C+ story with an A+ visual execution. From a marketing perspective it was a home run. That's why you'll see a Cars 2...
  • paidhima, on 07/11/2008, -0/+5It's interesting to watch people deride Wall-E for being preachy. It's as if they've completely forgotten that the artistic medium has been an outlet for progressive, and sometimes subversive, thought throughout history. If Wall-E had a message, it's not so much doom-and-gloom as it is mildly cautionary. It's not "humans suck; look what happens!" It's more "maybe take some notice - this future is not out of the realm of possibility."
  • maxsunset, on 07/11/2008, -2/+1This was a thoughtful look at the evolution of Pixar, but it feels very over-thought and speculative. I agree with many points he makes, but I'm going to have to bury this as it mostly comes off as Pixar-fanboyism...
  • jsbyrnes, on 07/11/2008, -0/+4Ok, if you don't get the Beatles references, here's what happened. The first few Beatles albums and singles, (Please Please Me, With the Beatles) don't have anything them that was particularly revolutionary, but at the time they were considered to be very advanced for popular music. There was lots of covers, the songs were all about simple teenage relationships, most of the songs had the same structure as most pop songs, etc, but there were also a lot of originals and they had their own sound. Hopefully the analogy to Pixar here is clear - animated movies weren't new, but they took a new direction and really perfected them. The next few Beatles albums have some evolution in sound("Yesterday" made #1 in America even though it was their first song to feature only one Beatle, and only one instrument), but didn't really break through into totally uncharted area for popular music. Rubber Soul comes out about the same time they started using LSD, and is the first more experimental work. Most of the songs have a conventional sound to them, but things are clearly changing. There are songs that are just about sex, something that could get an album banned back then, and they started trying things that no one had done in pop before - such as the sitar on Norwegian Wood. Then with Revolver nothing is held back - there are songs totally done with Indian instruments, backwards vocals and solos are common throughout the album, the lyrics are highly eclectic, and they practically invented countless production methods that are still in use today. The next album, Sgt Peppers Lonely Heart Club Band, is full blown psychedelia that accomplished even more than Revolver. The point the author is making is that WALL-E is Pixar's first step into something truly different, and they see them as developing in the same way that the Beatles' sound did.
  • fracktica, on 07/11/2008, -0/+6The ticket to see WALL-E was the best $8 I've spent in a great while. The animation was terrific, but this is the first pixar film where I didn't realize that until thinking about it later... I was just simply too enthralled with the life of that little robot.

    A friend of mine thought the movie was too "message heavy"... I just don't understand... are taking care of the environment and being more self-reliant really terrible messages? I'm not all that political, but I felt that WALL-E spoke to us as human beings, not democrats or republicans. The flaws of trashing the environment and becoming useless blobs are primarily human ones, not political ones.
    • regeya, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Indeed...one of the overriding messages, in my opinion, is that the human race had gotten in the fix it was in by relying on big government to fix their problems for them...and they get out of the fix by rolling up their sleeves and doing something about it. So no, I don't get why people complain about the moving being too left-wing. To me, it seems to be right down the center.

      And beyond that, it seemed to be more of an homage to 60s and 70s science fiction--references to 2001, Logan's Run, etc. abound. Heck, Ben Burtt and Doug Trumbull worked on the movie, which seems to suggest that that was the intent.
  • Micetro, on 07/11/2008, -1/+0id give my left nut to work at Pixar!!!!
  • Nikole, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2they evolve with mind altering drugs, just like the beatles
  • Perplexion, on 07/11/2008, -0/+0Some have stated on here that Pixar needs to stay accessible to children. I agree with this only because a Pixar movie that only appeals to adults will make less money and be seen as a failure regardless of critical or popular success thus lowering or eliminating the chance of another such movie. However I would like to see a sort of sub-studio under the direction of Pixar with the same talent that does make movies with adult themes and subjects formed by the artists that are currently in Pixar who want to move in that direction. While the movies that are currently being made are enjoyable there's only so far you can go while staying accessible to kids.
  • Vanessa6, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Can't wait to see this movie! I haven't seen one Pixar film that has disappointed me yet.
    • feelfree82, on 07/12/2008, -0/+1Its releasing in my country only in the month of Dec... can u believe that non sense.

  • hotrodZoidberg, on 07/11/2008, -0/+2Plastic soul, man. Plastic soul...
  • yomandude, on 07/13/2008, -0/+0Is it just me, or does Pixar give Asian people the shaft in their movies? I know that Kungfu Panda was suppose to be a representation of Chinese culture, but all the characters are Animals, not people. I thought it was pretty inaccurate in Wall-E that the future had mainly white people. Scientifically speaking, in 700 years or so, most people will have brown hair, brown eyes, and dark skin. This is because of dominant genetic traits v. recessive traits. Most people will look Asian, black, or both. I couldn't help but to notice that it seemed like all the people in the Wall-E future were white except for some black babies who almost died when the spaceship was keeling over. Anyone else agree?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.