Video: Is “Wall-E” green propaganda?
posted at 11:04 am on July 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Answer: Who cares? Is “Bambi” anti-hunting propaganda? Per Lileks, it’s a must-see, which makes it an odd target for conservatives who should be used by now to dining on entertainment seasoned with lefty assumptions. Surely it’s no reason to deny a kid the pleasure of the film. Simply scrape the green-ish ideological residue away with a little chit chat afterwards if it bothers you that much. Responsible parenting, n’est-ce pas?
But I’m preaching to the choir. Most righties aren’t worried about the film’s politics; if they were, it wouldn’t have done $80 million in six days. But Dan Abrams has his axe to grind and so grind it he shall, even if he has to Dowdify a quote to do it: Pay attention to the snippet from Jonah Goldberg that he cites, then compare it to Goldberg’s post at the Corner to see what minor detail Abrams omitted. Also left unmentioned is the fact that National Review’s one full-length review of the movie — titled “Adorably Wall-E” — called it “moving” and “touching” and criticized it mainly for the thinness of the plot. So much for the “radical right.”
Exit question: Since when do leftist intellectuals scoff at analyzing children’s stories for their political subtexts? You think if, oh, say, Twentieth Century Fox rolled out an animated movie about a scrappy band of American children traveling to another planet to depose an evil alien dictator, Keith Olbermann might detect a hidden message or two? Hey, Abrams: Invite a few feminists on and ask them what they think of “Cinderella.”
Update: Writer-director Andrew Stanton comments on the political message about halfway down the page here. “The last thing I’m going to do is try to make a message movie!”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
My point is that in most green propaganda, humanity gets its comeuppance by being destroyed or something (e.g. Day After Tomorrow, The Happening, Dawn of the Dead, etc.)
Lehosh on July 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM
…an odd target for conservatives who should be used by now to dining on entertainment seasoned with lefty assumptions.
That’s why we have a problem.
We’re sick of going to movies full of lefty garbage and we’re sick of paying for it under false pretenses.
This movie could have been made using a different plot device and been just as stunning a film, maybe even more so.
The fact that it wasn’t, shows inherent bias right from the start.
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Dan Abram’s is bit of a tool.
“…then I don’t want to be good.”
What? Really?
JeffreyLloyd on July 3, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Why not address what I said? Would you be fine with your kids coming home from school with material with the kind of propaganda in the film?
catmman on July 3, 2008
Oddly enough, my 8 year old and I have already had discussions about this stuff because of material sent home from school. Go figure. Because I have the mental acumen to counter the propaganda, it becomes a teaching tool.
My wife and I raise our daughters, the school does not. See how that works? I take responsibility for what I do, and our children are being raised the same way.
If it turns out they aren’t buying the latest fashion because some chick on TV tells them to, then I’ve done my job. Rampant consumerism isn’t capitalism.
Krydor on July 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM
There seem to be three groups represented here:
1) Those who are looking for a “green” stick to hit us over the head with, and who find it wherever they look, including in Wall-E.
2) Those who are antagonistic and ultra-sensitive to all things “green”, and have concluded that Pixar is run by enviro-wacko tree-huggers.
3) Those who, like me, are willing to believe Andrew Stanton’s many, many statements on the subject; to wit, the earth-filled-with-trash / people-as-fat-blobs plotline is nothing more than a narrative device that enables the story Stanton wanted to tell: a love story between two robots.
Groups 1 and 2, your corsets are laced too tightly.
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Don’t you see the difference?
At school kids don’t have a choice and will be lectured by a teacher afterwards. At the movies, you can chose to take your kids or not take them, and afterwards, you can talk to your kids and explain what was wrong with the movie.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Exactly. There’s no reason why we can’t condemn it.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Winner!
CBarker on July 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I went to see the movie night before last partly because of a review that I read linked to from this site. It suggested that Wall-E was perhaps the best movie of the decade.
It wasn’t.
I dozed of through much of it.
Cute. Harmless. Incredible computer animation. That’s about it. It had no more of an agenda than any other form of entertainment currently out there. Which means an anti-capitalist, anti-human, pro environment tilt. They did after all, want to come home though.
Wait until Blue-Ray
edgehead on July 3, 2008 at 3:14 PM
That’s about it. It had no more of an agenda …. than any other form of entertainment currently out there.
….. uh – huh. You don’t say.
wise_man on July 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM
It’s also about how some people define “rampant consumerism.” To some, owning a car is “rampant consumerism.” Just about any attack on “rampant consumerism” boils down to an attack on capitalism, in favor of socialism.
wise_man on July 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Hello.
Had to log on for this. While most people see the slamming of poor enviromental policy, our consumption society, and our lack of actual human contact, another BIG message is missed, and it is one people on the right should be behind.
spoilers ahead
When Wall-E gets to the space craft, humanity has become soft, pudgy and lacking in spirit and drive. Why are they like this you may ask? Simple. They are the end result of the Nanny Government, where they will take care of all your needs and wants. In other words, this movie is showing the ultimate result of thinking on the left. If you let the government take care of all your needs, you lose what makes us human. It’s no wonder they are blind to this message.
Chike ex Machina on July 3, 2008 at 3:24 PM
If you really believe that, it certainly explains your arguments here.
I’ll just have to respectfully disagree. Rampant consumerism is a bad thing. Capitalism is not.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM
They’re your kids. To each his own.
But don’t tell me this movie doesn’t have an agenda.
Rampant consumerism isn’t capitalism. Funny how I don’t remember seeing any rampant consumerism in the old Soviet Union. Though I get your point.
The facts still remain: mankind trashed Earth; trash a result of rampant consumerism facilitated by corporations. Mankind not smart enough to deal with the problem of trash, and so self-centered as to completely evacuate their planet instead of dealing with their problems; hiding behind technology which allowes them to live in complete comfort and safety, but doesn’t allow them to figure out how to take care of trash – which the evil corporations don’t want to happen anyway so they can keep people asleep and reliant upon said corporation.
Not to mention that little WALL-E is solar powered (remember boys and girls, oil is evil).
Like I wrote earlier: “Yep. No message here. Move along.”
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Rampant consumerism is a bad thing. Capitalism is not.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Why?
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 3:45 PM
My sister said it was a great family movie. I’ll be seeing it regardless.
AbaddonsReign on July 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
If you have to ask, you’ll never understand.
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 3:47 PM
It’s also about how some people define “rampant consumerism.” To some, owning a car is “rampant consumerism.” Just about any attack on “rampant consumerism” boils down to an attack on capitalism, in favor of socialism.
wise_man
Wait, so if we don’t buy useless crap we don’t need, we are actually socialists?
Rather large tangent here, but my folks were kids in WWII, one in Canada and one in the UK. At no time did either leader of those two countries tell the citizenry that the best way to beat the Nazis was to go shopping. Instead, it was rationing and collection of everything imaginable to recycle for the war effort.
It wasn’t a disposable society back then, either. Something broke, you fixed it. Something breaks now, you toss it out.
Krydor on July 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Perhaps you misconstrued my comment. I didn’t mean to leave the last part about capitalism up there.
So if I have the means, I shouldn’t spend as much as I want on what I want, when I want?
Perhaps we have different ideas of what “rampant consumersim” is.
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Umm, I haven’t seen the movie, but isn’t he the only robot on the planet? So wouldn’t he need a low key power source?
I mean without it, what would he do, go to the gas station repeatedly until he runs out?
Really? You can’t think of a single thing wrong with it? And I don’t just mean wrong as in bad for society. Don’t you see any moral issues there?
If not, I have no idea how to even begin to explain.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:55 PM
“..it was rationing and collection of everything imaginable…”
for the war effort (government). Or…Socialism.
WWII is not really a great example. Nationalization of industry and resources was rampant.
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM
The facts still remain: mankind trashed Earth; trash a result of rampant consumerism facilitated by corporations.
One global corporation. One Global corporation that was corrupt and damaged whatever it touched. Sounds like the USSR to me…
Mankind not smart enough to deal with the problem of trash, and so self-centered as to completely evacuate their planet instead of dealing with their problems; hiding behind technology which allowes them to live in complete comfort and safety, but doesn’t allow them to figure out how to take care of trash – which the evil corporations don’t want to happen anyway so they can keep people asleep and reliant upon said corporation.
Not at all. Mankind was smart enough. They just had a FIVE YEAR PLAN to fix everything. The FIVE YEAR PLAN was a disaster. The Proletariat was kept fat and stupid until an outsider showed them the correct way of doing stuff.
Not to mention that little WALL-E is solar powered (remember boys and girls, oil is evil).
The Mars Landers are all solar powered. The International Space Station is solar powered. Worst argument ever? Yes.
Like I wrote earlier: “Yep. No message here. Move along.”
catmman
You can take away what you want from the movie. I see it as a call for individualism and personal responsibility. You see it as a threat. You are odd.
Krydor on July 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM
1. Rampant consumerism doesn’t necessarily mean people are only buying what they can afford.
2. Even if you can afford every high-tech toy you love, overindulgence is generally a bad thing for people, morally speaking.
3. A completely materialistic society will generally view things like military service as less patriotic than driving to a voting booth (just a random example there). I’m not saying we’re completely materialistic, but when we view movie stars as more important than war veterans, then we’re not focusing on the truly important things, which likely comes from over-valuing material goods.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Who said that? Not me.
wise_man on July 3, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Perhaps he could have had a nuclear power cell? Some type of other power source? This is a cartoon right? Make something up. Or how about a fusion source like on the time machine in “Back to the Future” – it ran on garbage!
But nuclear wouldn’t have fit into the mold would it?
I asked you “why”? Perhaps rampant consumerism is bad to you.
But we’re talking about in the context of the movie, right?
All the trash resulted because humans were too stupid to realize what they were doing, being driven to such behavior by evil corporation(s) and were so self-centered and lazy as to completely leave the planet instead of dealing with the problem.
I disagree with the entire premise, hence my problem with the movie’s message.
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 4:06 PM
…. attacks by organizations. Of course individual people can be anti-“rampant consumerism” all they want.
wise_man on July 3, 2008 at 4:11 PM
Krydor on July 3, 2008 at 4:00 PM
So my opinions are less valid than yours? Thanks.
We are talking about a cartoon, not real life. They could have chosen any type of power source they wanted. Look at my last comment for an example. Better yet, why address it at all?
Because boys and girls, solar is good! “See, even little WALL-E is powered by solar energy. Solar is good!”
Your equating a cartoon robot to the real Mars lander/rover? I’m trying to make the argument that they are inserting messages in this movie. Your making an argument based on real world technology.
Whose odd again?
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Who said that? Not me.
wise_man
You see an attack on rampant consumerism an attack on capitalism. An attack on capitalism is actually pro socialism. Both of these things were said by you. Therefore, it stands to reason that if I am not a rampant consumer of goods I have no use for, then I am actually a socialist. What step have I missed? I do not wholly disagree with the framing device employed in the film.
Krydor on July 3, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Soooo…the liberal propaganda running rampant throughout the film is…clean up your trash and take care of yourself?
Ghastly.
SouthernDem on July 3, 2008 at 4:18 PM
Why does it make a difference if it’s an organization?
What’s wrong with solar energy? It’s not the most effective, but for small objects it’s cheap and effective.
Plus all sources of energy will eventually have to be replaced.
Which would defeat the entire point of having a robot stranded on a planet he’s charged with cleaning.
The whole point is that he’s there all by himself doing a job that needs to be done but will take years to complete. I supposed it could have been something besides garbage but what then?
I haven’t seen the movie, but I really don’t get that impression. If they were so stupid, how’d they get off the planet?
Obviously the garbage didn’t kill them, and since they’re alive somewhere else, it’s mostly a minor inconvenience.
And as Misha pointed out, it’s extremely unrealistic, so much so that who can take it seriously? Does anyone with an IQ over 70 (just above retardation) actually believe we’ll ever be forced to leave the planet because of our trash?
I don’t even think liberals are that stupid.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Whose odd again?
catmman on July 3, 2008
The cheapest form of energy for such a small robot is solar. Solar doesn’t scale up well, but it does the job when it comes to robots.
We are talking about a cartoon. If Wall-E was nuclear, then he might contaminate the Axiom when you-know-what happens.
Krydor on July 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Plasma gasification. It’s real.
MadisonConservative on July 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM
At least part of the communication problem is definition of terms. “Rampant” is not a neutral term, for instance.
The crux of the matter is the term “bad thing.” There are as many different notions regarding what is “bad” as there are individuals on Earth. Based on my value system, “rampant consumerism” is a “bad thing” because the person practicing it has their priorities screwed up. The way we utilize our time and money indicates our priorities; if my priority is accumulating stuff, I am seriously screwed up.
But that’s just me.
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 4:26 PM
In short, Yes.
I took my boys to see this and it dripped with two things… Gorbal Warning propaganda wrapped in a cute lovable robot. However, I’m not sure if they intended it but had an anti-socialism and anti-communism message. If you have seen this movie let me know if I’m wrong.
Claypigeon on July 3, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Pick you battles wisely. Fighting a cute robot is a war I do not think we can win.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 3, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Krydor on July 3, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Both of you just made my points for me.
None of the things I’ve addressed or that you’ve responded to matter. What power source the robot has doesn’t REALLY matter.
What matters is the MESSAGE.
All of the things you answered could have been done with the movie. But they weren’t. WHY?
If you look at the message/imagery: man is bad; he destroyed his environment/planet, he overused his resources, he is lazy/fat/gluttonous, corporations are bad/greedy – driven by other motives than good, alternative energy sources are touted.
The film may have some positives. Dealing with loneliness, relationships, love. All of that is fine.
But what is more likely: Hollywood would make a movie with the altruistic message that love conquers all using the devestated environment as simply a plot device…
or
Hollywood being Hollywood is using that same plot device to push an agenda (though subtle) that man is insert negative descriptor here?
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I don’t disagree. But whose to say what one needs or not? I know I’m picking fly poop out of pepper here, but it goes to a fundamental question which is why I disagree with the entire premise of the film.
Is all of the trash portrayed in the film from “rampant consumerism”? I’d be willing to bet that that which is shown would be construed to be “wasteful”. But is that the message of the film?
Is it that we just buy too much stuff? Or that mankind just uses everything without regard to anything else? Or maybe they use the first message to convey tha last?
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Wall-E is another example of Pixar aiming high, and over most Hollyweird people’s heads, and hoping that enough of the public enjoy it to justify their faith in them.
Is it an “anti-” movie? Not by a long shot . . . It’s just an old fashioned piece of “little guy hero” moviemaking. For sheer “green-power” factor, in fact, this one is nothing compared to what we’ve been subjected to in the past. (I had to go to school with more than a few freaked out teachers during this time. When one of them saw a ‘message movie’, as we called them, things were not pretty in the classroom for days afterward). Maybe it’s when my childhood hit, but I watched a lot of sci-fi between 1968 and 1990 which made dystopic futures the hot thing to do…Run some of these through your memory chips, kiddies, and THEN tell me this charming little flick is high propaganda…
ZPG (Zero Population Growth) – We screwed up so badly on overpopulation that the only option for a period of future history was to go to a center and pick up a Cabbage Patch Human, or escape into a forbidden zone.
Planet of the Apes – Evolution pays us back for nuking the place. (You damned dirty apes!)
Soylent Green – Soylent Green is people!!! Soylent Green is people!!!(You damned dirty apes!) If you saw this, no explanation is necessary, if you haven’t none is possible.
Zardoz – Um…Sorry…No one knows what this one was really about, but it was set in a very weird future in which Sean Connery wears bad facial hair.
Rollerball – The first one, folks, not the WWE version made later. This is set in a corporate future where life is cheap and easily manipulated, and television entertainment and sports either follow the party line or are deleted out of existence in one way or another. The only comfortable thought this movie gives you is that Jeff Probst wouldn’t last five minutes in this future.
Logan’s Run – From the kids who brought you “Don’t trust anyone over thirty”, we take the idea to its illogical conclusion.
Silent Running – Despite the use of 2001:A Space Odyssey as a base for bits and pieces of the movie, this is Wall-E’s real ancestor. Bruce Dern is keeping alive what’s left of Earth’s vegetation in three spaceships. When ordered to dispose of them, he uses Hewey, Dewey and Louie (Wall-E’s design could easily have been suggested by these robots) to preserve them by sending them off into deep space. Dewey (I believe) and the one surviving pod sail off into the sunset in the final shot accompanied by folk music…
Some of these were good…Some positively execrable…But all were styled as sledgehammers to get their points across.
Thoughts?
52Ranger on July 3, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Never mind. We disagree, and this is going nowhere.
It’s a movie, and I don’t believe it’s worth all this time arguing.
Esthier on July 3, 2008 at 4:46 PM
BTW, Abrams is an enooormous tool.
Also, if you look a the human situation in the movie (Stop reading if you have not seen the movie) the humans have been living worry free in a nanny state environment run by more intelligent machines that do everything from feeding them to caring for their children. The “mother ship” (government) provides everything they need with the exception of freedom and free will. So, I pointed that out to my boys as a cautionary tale as well. Furthermore, I don’t think the message of conservation is wrong however I do think hijacking conservation for political purposes and using it as leftist propaganda is evil. I have my children’s ears and trust and not some 120 minute propaganda piece.
Claypigeon on July 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM
“Happy Feet”
“March of the Penguins”
“The Happening”
“An Inconvenient Truth”
“The Day After Tomorrow”
“The Day the Earth Stood Still” (2008 remake)
These were all movies too (and these are the bigger name films I could think of off the top of my head). All of them to one degree or another – with a “green” agenda. Two of them targetd specifically to younger viewers, just like “WALL-E”.
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I’ve seen it. There is no “message” in this film, except the relatively typical “message” about odd-couple romances. As I noted in my first comment above, those who claim to identify a “green” (pro or con) message in the film, are those who would find such a message in a popsicle stick.
Again, Andrew Stanton, the director of the film has stated numerous times there is no “green” message, that the last thing he wants to do is preach, etc. The garbage heaps are props for his main characters, and that is all. The flabby, careless humans are props to contrast with the main characters, and that is all. There is, in my opinion, no reason not to take Stanton at his word. And until you see the movie yourself, I suggest it is rather ridiculous to discuss this issue further.
The movie never tries to narrowly define an anti-consumerism message. In plot exposition, it only notes in passing that taken to extremes, rampant consumerism can lead to negative effects; the mountainous heaps of garbage are simply a convenient visual reinforcement of that notion. If — if — a person chooses to take a anti-consumerism message to heart, it can simply be this: At whatever level one chooses to define it, some people most definitely practice “rampant consumerism”, and we shouldn’t.
Deep enough?
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
FWIW, some personal correspondence with Jeff Goldstein on this subject, which he graciously gave me permission to reproduce.
I wrote:
Jeff replied:
Purple Fury on July 3, 2008 at 5:11 PM
No, I mean no, just no, no, ya know.
- The Cat
P.S. No
MirCat on July 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM
I saw it. It is propaganda.
Micheal on July 3, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Sorry, but this was not a “Global Warming” movie. They don’t even tell you why earth became desolate, and it’s far less hitting you over the head with it as they do in “Soylent Green” or “Silent Running.”
As the conservative movie critic for Sirius Patriot Channel 144, I have to disagree with Lars Larson and the other conservatives. This is a great movie.
Here’s my review.
Debbie Schlussel on July 3, 2008 at 5:27 PM
What he said.
I watched this last night and while I had my guard up, ultimately the ending and story telling don’t bear this out as a doom and gloom parable. The Earth gets over it, humanity gets over it and anyone who’s hair trigger sense of offense got set off by this should get over it too. (and hopefully it wont take 700 years for them to do so).
PolitiNOOB on July 3, 2008 at 5:48 PM
That “Day The Earth Stood Still” remake with Keanu Reeves will be blatantly preachy and will be extremely well-reviewed for how bad it is.
Again, this is what happens when one philosophical/political mindset has a monopoly on the production of entertainment media.
TEACH YOUR KIDS THAT IT’S A VIABLE CAREER OPTION TO WRITE POEMS AND ACT IN PLAYS.
Best case scenario: More entertainment choices for political conservatives
Worst case scenario: Los Angeles is overrun with Republican waitresses and bartenders
ScottMcC on July 3, 2008 at 5:49 PM
You don’t have to ask the feminists about Cinderella; they’re against Wall-E, too.
bokonon42 on July 3, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Get off the crack, dude. I’ve watched this film a dozen times… there’s no environmentalist message here.
Bingo.
The post-apocalyptic, far future of Stanton’s world is the driving force behind the narrative for WALL-E and EVE’s love story… nothing more. The film never even makes any predilections that it’s about anything more… you really have to dig to unknown depths to call this film “propoganda.” People need to go watch
again if they really wanna’ see some environmentalist wackoism in an animated film.
Furthermore, if you really do want to dig into the film’s narrative, then how can people not look at ‘BnL’ as the same sort of liberal, socialist, “utopic” government whose only desire is to provide man with everything he needs? The society of WALL-E’s earth was one of being completely dependent on their government… a very liberal way of thinking which, in this film’s case, got the entire surface of the earth destroyed.
The movie encourages intellectual individuality, for crying out loud! That is nothing if not one of the hallmarks of conservative thought! Stanaton’s also letting our YouTube-addicted, TV-obsessed, Internet-eye-glazed culture know to not forget about the basic needs of human contact and relationship. We can become so wrapped up in our own little technologically made world that we completely neglect our fellow man. That is what makes the story between WALL-E and EVE so effective. It’s just crazy enough to think that if all humanity has lost the God-given ability or attention span to live and love… then perhaps two robots falling in love isn’t such a far-fetched idea after all.
Jockolantern on July 3, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I never said this wasn’t a great movie. I never said one shouldn’t go see this movie.
I have argued that there are “green” messages throughout the film. They may not be preachy. They may not “beat you over the head”, but no one has really disputed that they are there. All that has been done is to try to refute intent about said imagery.
As to the garbage being a “prop”: I have yet to see anyone address my point that if there wasn’t some inherent “green” bias, then why use such a device? I gave an example of an alternative which I believe could have made for a better vehicle to espouse the positives which have been brought forth. Enough people have seen the imagery and that is the perception the film gives (even Mrs. Schlussel above, though she says the messaging is vague, not overt) it is there nonetheless.
Take the guy at his word, fine. He said there wasn’t an overt attempt at “green” bias but that he understood biases were there. I read the interview. Of course Al Gore said there was no bias or untruth in his film AIT.
Just the fact we’re having this discussion should cast doubts on the “there was no intention at an agenda” for the film or that there isn’t imagery in place which has been construed as having a “green” bias.
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Just the fact that you’re defending your point of view regarding a movie you haven’t seen should cast doubt on your judgment and motivation.
Good bye.
Yeesh.
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Granted. I can’t have definitve judgement on the film itself without having seen it.
I CAN have an informed opinion about the imagery portrayed in the film without having seen it my friend since there are enough sources from which to find the information.
And pray tell, what would my motivation be?
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM
“Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death.”
Right Splashman?
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 7:08 PM
So..uhh.. Solar power is evil, right?
..
..NASA is evil?
Damn, I’m going to bed.
Hadn’t heard of the film though, I’ll look out for it when it finally arrives here about 3 months after the rest of the world has already seen it..
Reaps on July 3, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Well, James Hansen, Al Gore’s climate priest, is in charge of NASA GISS.
Draw your own conclusions…
: )
catmman on July 3, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Liberals tried it with “300″ and “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith”, so I see no problem calling them out on their own stupidity.
Ryan Gandy on July 3, 2008 at 8:44 PM
It’s a masterpiece. Some of the most fluent futuristic images ever put to screen. Animation at that level of technical prowess is truly art. Really, go see it. It is a little flimsy in the plot department, but it works as more of a mood piece than anything. A little dark for the munchkins, but an absolutely unique and groundbreaking movie. It’ll be canonized as a landmark film.
INFDL on July 3, 2008 at 9:04 PM
In passing in a comment about global warming Penn (or Teller!) in the LAT:
Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film “Wall-E.” This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can’t turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we’ve done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they’re right, but is there no room for “maybe”? There’s a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?
andycanuck on July 3, 2008 at 9:50 PM
Both of you just made my points for me.
None of the things I’ve addressed or that you’ve responded to matter. What power source the robot has doesn’t REALLY matter.
Then why did you bring it up? You thought it was a big enough deal. It’s also an integral part of the plot. Had you seen the film, you would know why.
What matters is the MESSAGE.
Which is individualism and personal responsibility.
All of the things you answered could have been done with the movie. But they weren’t. WHY?
How would you know if they’ve been done in the movie or not? This movie has layers.
If you look at the message/imagery: man is bad; he destroyed his environment/planet, he overused his resources, he is lazy/fat/gluttonous, corporations are bad/greedy – driven by other motives than good, alternative energy sources are touted.
There is only one corporation which has morphed to the ultimate nanny state. This you would know, had you seen the movie.
The film may have some positives. Dealing with loneliness, relationships, love. All of that is fine.
Phew, I’m glad there’s something you can appreciate in this movie you have never seen.
But what is more likely: Hollywood would make a movie with the altruistic message that love conquers all using the devestated environment as simply a plot device…
Oh man! This choice is gonna be hard…
or
Hollywood being Hollywood is using that same plot device to push an agenda (though subtle) that man is insert negative descriptor here?
Well, see the movie. It is a plot device.
catmman
Krydor on July 3, 2008 at 10:54 PM
I haven’t seen Wall E. (I’m going to wait for the DVD, since I hate theaters) but I will say that one of their prior movies, The Incredibles, had a few encouraging themes in it.
Firstly, the main protagonist, a burly superhero, was blamed for accidentally injuring numerous people while he was trying to save them. That’s the sort of world liberals like to build, a place where those want to help others are afraid to actually do so because they will be thrown under the bus if they try. Proof of that can be found in the Haditha incident, where John Murtha was all too eager to accuse those Marines of killing innocents in cold blood.
Second, the villain’s stated goal was to make a world where everyone was “super,” because if they were, nobody would be. Definitely reminiscent of socialist thinking, where supposedly “unfair” advantages are eliminated and people are made to live at the same level (except for certain elites, of course).
Now, despite that, I don’t think Pixar really went out of their way to present a conservative viewpoint in that movie. I’m merely presenting these points to demonstrate that they aren’t hardcore liberals, and that some of us may be overreacting to certain plot points in the movie just a tad.
R. Waher on July 3, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Here’s another interesting take on the moive.
WALL-E’s Indictment of Liberalism
By Paul Edwards
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PaulEdwards/2008/07/02/wall-es_indictment_of_liberalism?page=full&comments=true
Irenaeus on July 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Hilarious, wingnuts corseted up too tight, very Victorian…very unbending, very angry, very uptight, very 1950s and oh so tired.
AprilOrit on July 4, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I saw the movie tonight. My take, propaganda of a sorts. The first message, man destroyed earth by letting a big corporation take over. If the intent was to say a liberal/socialist Government took over, then it would have been a movie about a Global Government. It wasn’t, they used an evil corporation.
The second message: Mankind was happy to live without any control over their life by being fed by the corporation. Cradle to adulthood. And they all got fat and lazy because of it, so I am sure there is some slam on fat people there.
Third message: We can break away from the control. We can reverse the bad.
Fourth message: Relationships matter.
I do not think it was Pixar’s best. Toy Story and Incredibles were much better. Haven’t seen Cars yet, refuse to see Happy Feet. My 10 year old hated it. My cousin’s 10 year old liked it.
Conclusion, each person will take away what they want from it. But the fact it began with a trashed world that had been taken over by a big corp, set the tone from the start.
chrisknits on July 5, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Krydor,
As I explained in an earlier comment, yes, I haven’t seen the movie.
But I can still have an informed OPINION on what is in the movie based on the source material available.
I never watched Bowling for Columbine so does that mean I can’t have na opinion that the movie is a left wing, anti-gun screed?
Yours is the tired liberal argument – “If you haven’t X, you can’t comment /opine on Y.”
My daughter went and saw the movie the other day and told me that yes, the movie was funny and entertaining, but that it did contain the elements I have brought up in this thread.
So, I can make comments as I have, and thus far, STILL, no one has said the movie doesn’t contain the imagery I’m complaining about – just the intent or “level” of that imagery. some believe it to be of a propagandistic nature. Others disagree (yet still say it is in there).
catmman on July 5, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Yes.
From the evil WalMart/Sams Club corporation “Buy Large.”
And Fred Willard was there in the cartoon movie to give the George W Bush line when he said “the plan to clean up the earth has failed, Stay the course!” And this was an obvious drop-in from the producers who wanted to dig at teh evil Boosh about keeping us in Iraq, even though “the war was lost.” Typical.
I don’t know if someone has ever compiled a list of media that has made a point to be anti-Bush, drop in lines that tell everyone they hate Bush such as this, anytime people drop in the ‘mission accomplished’ line, or other more subtle details like the entire Battlestar Galactica tv series on SciFi, the Dick Cheney character saying that he was wrong at the end of “Day after tomorrow”, etc … but this movie needs to be added to the list.
wise_man on July 5, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2