comment #1

Midwest Doug says ...

Edward sleeps?

comment #2

sutter kane says ...

What better way to get the very people who need to be exposed to this message into the theatre? It's probably more likely to hit home with them if it's delivered by a cute little animated robot than with, you know, facts and statistics and numbers and stuff anyway.

comment #3

Midwest Doug says ...

I have no problem with this at all. The movie is what it is, and people will take out of it what they will.

Whatever the message, I like a little foreplay and subtlety with a message film. No need to have it hammered over one's head.

comment #4

Noel Murray says ...

For what it's worth, the evangelical community has been turning around on global warming of late. There's a whole wave of younger Christians who are moving towards positive activism -- trying to improve the world in the here and now rather than sitting around condemning sinners and waiting for the rapture. (They're more Mike Huckabee than Ralph Reed, in other words.)

comment #5

breadlymoore says ...

"beware-of-unbridled-consumerism"

In a Pixar film. Released by Disney.

Are they fucking kidding me? What a joke.

I'll make sure to laugh my ass off at this film when I next step into a Disney store.

comment #6

Edward says ...

Sleeping? Heck, I was working and counting the days til retirement.

comment #7

Overstreet says ...

Breadlymoore,

I understand your snarky response. Of course, Disney is the king of merchandising movies. And yes, it is grossly ironic that WALL*E sounds the alarm about the wildfire while Disney feeds the flames.

But I gotta say, I'm impressed with Andrew Stanton. Given the Disney platform, what is he as a storyteller to do? Avoid any theme that might contradict the policies and procedures of Disney?

If Stanton's storytelling highlights the excess of Disney, or any corporation (or any individual) more power to him. If he can do so while receiving a Disney paycheck, I want to congratulate him like some kind of genius.

I wouldn't rush to call him a "hypocrite," as some have, because I doubt that Stanton, as the writer/director, has much influence over what Disney merchandising does with the movie he made.

And if those disposable toys end up drawing kids more fully into the experience of a film that kindles questions in their minds about consumerism, well... that's not a total loss. The Lorax made an impression on me when I was a kid, and I read it on paper that wasn't recycled.

comment #8

Bocephus says ...

"The Lorax made an impression on me when I was a kid, and I read it on paper that wasn't recycled."

Overstreet wins!

comment #9

Jimmycrackcorn says ...

It's "sickening" that Disney is trying to push this as a story-driven film instead of a movie that you should see because it'll be good for you? Really?

comment #10

hollyman says ...

check out some comments Stanton. http://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/?p=592

comment #11

rgmax99 says ...

Noel Murray is correct. A large portion of conservative Christians are on the global warming bandwagon.

Witness the television and magazine advertisements featuring Rev. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson sitting on the beach, talking about the need for both lefties and righties to join the fight against global warming.

I wouldn't call myself a conservative Christian, but Jeff's slight tweak of Christians in this post is another example of his black and white, stereotypical and close-minded views: Middle America folks, McCain supporters, and Christians are bozos. (And no, I haven't decided if I'm going Obama or McCain yet, but I'm a Christian from flyover land.)

That might be a bit harsh, but shit, that's how it seems from our humble high thread-count loving host here at HE.

comment #12

Overstreet says ...

I followed Hollyman's link, and I'm a little baffled. The writer says, "I wasn’t alone in noticing that the first half of the upcoming DISNEY / PIXAR animated film, WALL-E, is basically a statement about conservation and the environment."

Is there a difference between "making a statement" and "telling a story"? I think there's a big difference.

Is "Blade Runner" a "statement"? Sure, we can pick up all kinds of implications about where society is headed by considering the details of Ridley Scott's wildly imaginative and bleak vision of the future. We can do the same with "WALL-E." If we treat it as if it can be reduced to a simplistic sermon, we lose the magic of the movie... and it's that magic that I find remarkable.

What I saw on the big screen last night was an exaggerated vision of the future, and the exaggerations can give us pause and inspire us to consider what they suggest about our current behavior. But I was so caught up in the humor and imagination that I never felt smacked around or that Stanton was sermonizing.

Don't get me wrong: The story is illustrated with alarming, cartoonish images of gross consumerism and wastelands of junk. But Stanton, like Ridley Scott, found a story there, and that makes all the difference.

Is it somehow against the rules for Pixar's folks to stick their toes in the genre of apocalypse-storytelling?

comment #13

breadlymoore says ...

"Given the Disney platform, what is he as a storyteller to do? Avoid any theme that might contradict the policies and procedures of Disney?"

Of course.

comment #14

Overstreet says ...

Then we might as well scrap "Ratatouille" while we're at it, since it also frowned upon the cheapening of entertainment, and merchandising crap for a quick buck.

comment #15

breadlymoore says ...

"Then we might as well scrap "Ratatouille" while we're at it, since it also frowned upon the cheapening of entertainment, and merchandising crap for a quick buck."

Frowned and preached are two very different speeds. Don't start drilling holes on thin ice to make your argument click.

And you label me snarky?

Overstreet, WE GET IT: you loved WALL-E. You were handed access to the filmmakers too. Place your tights and cape back into the closet and stop equating shallow Pixar product to the wonders and intelligence of Dr. Seuss.

Please accept that some will see through the tepid WALL-E slapstick and find an extremely hypocritical film absent subtlety and artistic refinement.

I don't read Playboy for warnings on haystack posing safety, and I don't want to see a Disney film decry the evils of consumerism. Take that shit to Ralph Bakshi...

...hey...now there's a fucking movie!

comment #16

Richardson says ...

"and I don't want to see a Disney film decry the evils of consumerism"

I think it's strange to break down movies by the company which distributes them. But, okay then, which multi-billion dollar distributor do you want to see release films decrying the evils of consumerism?

comment #17

Edward says ...

I don't know what's wrong with a Disney film that has a subtext beyond entertainment and selling product? The fact that it's a Pixar film, makes it all the better.

comment #18

Chris Baumgardt says ...

breedlymoore,

What is it you have against Pixar exactly? You smack Pixar around as being shallow and glossed over kids stuff while trumpeting Dr. Suess and Ralph Bakshi. I am sorry you can't see the very mature level of storytelling going on in every Pixar film. Everyone I know or talk to seems to be able to pick it out and loves that Pixar doesn't make just "kids films".

Of all the companies and film makers doing animation today, Pixar is making some of the deepest and most mature films out there. I love Dr. Suess and Ralph Bakshi, but holding them up as examples of greater subtlety over Pixar is just stupid. Have you watched Wizards and its oh so subtle anti-war message lately?

comment #19

Legowombat says ...

I don't understand the hype for this company at all.

They fit in perfectly with Disney: boring character design; easy b&w messages that would be described as 50's naive if the critics were viewing any obviously adult modern film; faking emotional depth and 'heart' by the tired old 'big eyes' and sad music cliche; and phoned-in performances from celebrity actors, (note i didn't say voice actors), who completely fail to bring the characters to life through their vocal work, and, as such, it falls to the animators to pick up the slack to give them personality.

On top of all that, the avalanche of merchandising for each film is repellent.

I have a 3 year old nephew who loves 'Cars'. Do you have any idea how much stupid 'Cars' merchandise is currently floating around in your average department store? How many trips to whatever American Fast Food Chain is currently flogging their 'moulded in china' collectable figures it takes to complete a set? I doubt this movie is purely about two robots, because that doesn't guarantee 8 weeks of return business to McDonalds or Burger King - there is bound to be a collection of superfluous characters they can turn into plastic figures.

This movie sounds hypocritical in the extreme. Plus, it also looks familiar, in the way that 'Cars' is 'Doc Hollywood', and 'The Incredibles' is 'The Fantastic Four', this looks suspiciously like 'Short Circuit'.

comment #20

Chris Baumgardt says ...

I would say that making films that appeal to people from 5 to 50 is a pretty big indicator that Pixar has some storytelling ability. Normally I don't go in for the make it appeal to everyone out there style, but Pixar seems to be able to consistently pull of this difficult feat film after film.

The fact they they layer their stories on top of familiar arch-stories doesn't make them any less appealing or any less of an achievement. War and Peace was great, but it didn't tell me a new story I couldn't have read from tons of books that were far older. I suppose I could call Tolstoy a copying hack, but I would prefer not to.

As for the case of a Disney backed movie slamming mass-consumerism, I would definitely agree that it is pretty suspect. However, like Overstreet said above I think it is pretty interesting that Stanton and Pixar where able to make a movie that basically bites the hand of their corporate masters. The fact that Disney is ignoring this message and pumping out a ton of cheap toys is quite beyond Stanton's power to control and shouldn't be laid at his feet.

comment #21

Overstreet says ...

breadlymoore wrote:
"Place your tights and cape back into the closet and stop equating shallow Pixar product to the wonders and intelligence of Dr. Seuss."

Dude, I quit wearing my cape after I saw The Incredibles. Didn't that movie teach you anything?

And as I strive to become a better storyteller, I find a lot to admire about Pixar's efficient character development, distinct voices, and gutsy storytelling choices. You'd prefer "Meet the Robinsons" or "Shrek 4" or "Pocahontas"? I don't see any reason to have to choose between Pixar and the whimsical delights of Seuss.

And Bakshi? (shudder) I'm having flashbacks to his flannel-graph version of The Lord of the Rings.

comment #22

Richardson says ...

I think that anybody who compares "Cars" to "Doc Hollywood" really needs to go back and re-watch "Doc Hollywood". It amuses me to no end to watch people criticize "Cars" because of superficial similarities (and I bet even one or two overt references), as if "Doc Hollywood" is "Citizen Kane" and can never be touched. "Doc Hollywood" wasn't even the first movie to use the "Doc Hollywood" formula. You only remember that movie at all because your parents rented it because it's a PG movie with MJ Fox and you suddenly got to see boobs. I can't believe that anybody who was older than 15 when they saw that movie is even sure that they can remember it.

comment #23

Richardson says ...

"And Bakshi? (shudder) I'm having flashbacks to his flannel-graph version of The Lord of the Rings."

Everything that needs to be said about Bakshi:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dcR3ZFlMYNQ

(You might want to skip to about a minute in.)

comment #24

moring says ...

Thanks for linking to my interview with Stanton. I won't bother to address Wells' head-in-the-sand stereotypes about Christians, but I *will* say that my intro and interview were VERY clear that, the way I saw it, the film is full of "beware-of-unbridled-consumerism" themes. I wrote in my intro:

"The humans on the space station have grown fat, languid, and disconnected, victims of their own consumerism."

And I asked Stanton:

"It seemed to have heavier social commentary than most Pixar films. It seemed like a story about fat, lazy, American consumers who don't care about the environment and . . . "

And when he disputed that interpretation, I asked, "But why are they all fat and lazy?" -- clearly questioning his own explanation.

Sheesh, Wells, what do you want? Want me to pick a fight with Stanton and say he's a liar? You're welcome to do that . . .

As for "sucking up to Christian moviegoers," since when is granting an interview to a publication that can reach one million readers "sucking up" to anything? That's called "reaching the ticket buyers," man. That's called capitalism. That's called promoting your film to the audience. Since when is there a problem with that? Should Disney adopt a policy of "No interviews with ANYbody who adheres to ANY religion?" Or do you think they should just shut out Christians with their PR policies?

Well, I gotta run -- time to do my recycling. (Oops, did I just give myself away? A Christian who recycles and cares about the environment? Yikes, that's an oxymoron in Wells' book, apparently.)

mark moring
ChristianityTodayMovies.com

comment #25

Richardson says ...

I have no particular respect for the publication, but Mark's response was pretty good. You have to remember, Mark, that Jeff is a very hateful person who hates almost everybody in the entire country. He uses "Christians" interchangeably with "midwesterners", "rubes", "overweight people", and "mouth breathers".

comment #26

MovieBob says ...

Y'know what this sounds like to me?

It sounds like the Pixar guys are aware that Wall*E is either too "arty" (no-dialogue first act, dark-future, etc.) or maybe they didn't quite nail it (rumored 3rd act issues) but either way that it might NOT be as big a hit as their others. And if it does, they don't want it to be seen as part of the "liberal message movies don't sell" B.S.

comment #27

Ogami Itto says ...

You have to remember, Mark, that Jeff is a very hateful person who hates almost everybody in the entire country. He uses "Christians" interchangeably with "midwesterners", "rubes", "overweight people", and "mouth breathers".

You forgot shlubs and Hispanics.

comment #28

GonePostal says ...

As totally bigoted as Jeff is towards those who aren't "enlightened" like he is, I do like his phrase "American Jabbas" because that's one thing he's right about. Obesity is going to cost us a ton in health care, and people need to start being ashamed of being land beasts again. Working out is not hard. Government shouldn't regulate food intake, I still say eat what you want, but maybe some old fashioned mocking will get the "Jabbas" to eat right.

comment #29

Ju-osh says ...

You have to remember, Mark, that Jeff is a very hateful person who hates almost everybody in the entire country. He uses "Christians" interchangeably with "midwesterners", "rubes", "overweight people", and "mouth breathers".

You forgot shlubs and Hispanics.

And blings!

comment #30

jimb12345 says ...

You cannot go wrong with working Pixar. They are one of the best companies to work for when making films.
orlando dui law