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

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.

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).

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.

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

Hilarious, wingnuts corseted up too tight, very Victorian…very unbending, very angry, very uptight, very 1950s and oh so tired.

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

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.

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

Draw your own conclusions…

: )

Not to mention that little WALL-E is solar powered (remember boys and girls, oil is evil

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..

Right Splashman?

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?

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.

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.

“March of the Penguins”

Get off the crack, dude. I’ve watched this film a dozen times… there’s no environmentalist message here.

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.

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

Happy Feet

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.

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

Splashman on July 3, 2008 at 5:10 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).

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.

“The Day the Earth Stood Still” (2008 remake)

catmman on July 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM

No, I mean no, just no, no, ya know.

- The Cat

P.S. No

I wrote:

You’ve probably not missed the minor kerfuffle that’s erupted over WALL-E, specifically the issue of whether or not the eco-green message in the film is its primary point. The film’s writer/director says no, that wasn’t the main point; the main message of the movie is the love story. Skeptical righties and pro-green lefties (is that redundant?) say no, and, pointing to the intentional fallacy, say it’s obviously a biting social satire that is intended to warn about unchecked consumerism, environmental destruction, corporate greed, global warming, yadda yadda, and the lovey bits are just cover.

Care to weigh in?

Jeff replied:

I would normally, but having not seen the movie, I’m uncomfortable passing judgment.

But those who mistrust the author have the right to do so: the intentional fallacy is not to be easily dismissed, and in the end, we can do our best to figure out what the author intended by using every tool at our disposal — from his biographical details to his other works to intertexts and intratextual cues, etc. Intentionalism only notes that the sign is created — and so the meaning made and fixed —
at the time of signification. How we can ever PROVE we’ve accurately assessed that meaning, particularly in a complex literary work, is where the trouble comes in.

Too, the author need not even be lying about what his intent was: it’s possible that he simply signaled that intent poorly, that the reason people are taking his message in a way he claims he didn’t intend is because he did a poor job of signaling his intentions. Communicating badly does not suggest you haven’t tried to communicate. You can intend one thing, and signal that intention poorly. That is a failure not of intent but of the means to signaling it.

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

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.

But whose to say what one needs or not?

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?