Talk:WALL-E/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Interpunct, bullet, or hyphen in official title?

The leading sentence says that the movie was marketed with an interpunct, but do we have any citation that it is not a bullet or one of other similar characters? The article itself is inconsistent; the lead paragraph uses U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT (WALL·E), but other parts of the article use U+2022 BULLET (WALL•E). Outside of graphic design, the hyphenated WALL-E is universal, but I've rarely seen that in marketing materials. One exception is the official web-site, which uses WALL-E in the HTML title, but the stylized bullet elsewhere. Other data points include IMDB, which elected to use the interpunct, Apple, which opted for the bullet, and Google, which has slightly more hits for WALL•E (59.6m) than for WALL·E (59.4m) or WALL-E (56.4m). The [Buy n Large] web site uses alternatively hyphens and bullets. Arrant Pedantry has an article on this topic, but reaches no conclusions. And then there is the Manual of Style policy on trademarks. Thoughts? Vectro (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to this page for the discussion regarding this. The consensus was that we keep it with a hyphen as WALL-E, so that's how it should stay. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, MOS:TM says to avoid special unicode symbols when at all possible. Since many (fair to say most) sources cite it as WALL-E, it should be kept as is. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 17:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but in the article lead and body we are still using WALL·E and WALL•E. Body text should be consistent, though I suppose one could argue that the name of the character is not necessarily the same as that of the movie. Since I suppose I should take a position on this, I argue that we should do the following:

1. Change "interpunct" to "bullet" in lead text and link accordingly.
2. Change WALL·E in lead text to WALL•E.
3. Use WALL-E throughout article text (no bullet or interpunct).

Vectro (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I have made every effort to assure that this is so; I really want to see this make GA and am determined to push it to FA status as well. If needed, I will add a hidden note at the top of the page requesting that this is not changed again, it is rather irksome that I have to keep reverting changes to swich all WALL-Es to WALL•E. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit summary a few hours ago when I corrected those that you hadn't changed, someone needs to deal with the various international links at the bottom of the article, as some use - and some use variations on •. Why not make sure that the article name is consistent across all WP...? SpikeJones (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately (as far as consistency goes), that's because, aside from a few core policies, each country is free to cast its guidelines (including naming conventions) in the way its community sees fit. Steve ^{T • C} 12:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think the bullet in the lead section should be changed back to an interpunct—the round dot used in the title card and on promotions could not logically be a "bullet", but an interpunct. The definitions of both bullet and interpunct given in their respective articles say that a bullet is used to start a list. This would not make sense the way it is used in the film's title. An interpunct however, based on the information I picked up from its article, would and seems more logical. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 14:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above - an interpunct is an interpunct based on its function, not its size. The fact that many sources cite its title as WALL•E (as opposed to WALL·E), does not mean that it's correct. Is it not anyhow possible to make the title of this article be WALL·E? WALL-E is often used, but essentially incorrect.

If not, I believe the first sentence of the article (WALL-E (promoted with an interpunct as WALL·E)...) should be edited — perhaps to an disclaimer noting that the article is named to conform to Wikipedia Guidelines, and that the correct title should read: WALL·E.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.203.91 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's WALL-E just as it's Disney / Pixar, not Disney [interpunct] Pixar as on the poster. Alientraveller (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(To anon) No, because I don't think the actual title was WALL•E. It's just a stylised hypen in the form of an interpunct. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to tell what the creators of the film would consider the correct spelling. We cannot assume that WALL-E is correct, because it makes no sense, just as the interpunct doesn't. If the robot's name stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter: Earth-Class, Then WALL-E, means: Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth-Class, connecting the last three words into a hyphenated phrase where there really isn't one. If we're making up spellings and are so adamant against using the interpunct (why?), then WALL—E or even WALL:E is more correct. Dario1250 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Then let's keep it how it is now. I agree with what you're saying, but consensus seems to say otherwise (or at least that we should keep it WALL-E to conform to guidelines). —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

IMDB rating

Anyway to include a small excerpt on WALL-E's unusually high rating on the IMDB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.144.80 (talk • contribs)

IMDb user ratings are generally frowned upon in reception sections, as per the Wikipedia film style guidelines. Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner may be used, but user ratings at websites such as the IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Steve is right; not only is the Internet Movie Database considered a generally unreliable point of reference, but is not a good source for film ratings as well, especially since it's primarily user-rated. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Steve as well. The "unusually high" rating is clearly a result of the vulnerabilities. Even Transformers was in the Top 250 (!) of all films on IMDb when it came out last summer. It's better to cite a controlled report of what audiences thought. In fact, here's an example: "And it succeeded on the strength of near-universal adoration from critics and audiences (it drew a solid A CinemaScore grade from an crowd that tilted toward younger ladies)." The CinemaScore grades, I've found lately, seem appropriate and static enough to report without any concern for vulnerabilities. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Title

What's wrong with having an interpunct in the article title? 89.240.59.140 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's improper because of Wikipedia's guideline on trademarks. See MOS:TM for information, and /Archive 1 for the relevant discussion. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GO-4

Okay, this seems silly to me, but there's been enough re-editing of this to necessitate a discussion, IMO. The bot is called "GO-4", that's a given. It's pronounced "go-for". The established term for this bot's apparent function is a mutated version of that term, which already has an article here (gofer) and is generally well known. So what's the problem? - Denimadept (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, per conversation on my talk page. Gofer is more logical than Go for IMHO, so let's just keep it as it is unless reliable sources (i.e., from Stanton, Pixar, etc.) say otherwise. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:WALL-E/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Plot, "Ben Burtt" is linked twice.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay done Gary King (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything further to be done? I'd be glad to help out, as I'm one of the major contributors. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's it. I would have un-linked it myself, but I think just one edit change wouldn't hurt. ;) Congrats, this article a GA now. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is mentioning what "WALL-E" stands for necessary for the summary?

I believe that mentioning what WALL-E's name means should be left for articles that describe him instead of in the plot summary of this article. But if anyone thinks otherwise, please tell me. I don't want to start a war, and I'm positive you don't either. Immblueversion (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I say keep it the way it is; it made it to GA class that way and it'll likely pass Featured in that same fashion. One shouldn't have to go to a separate article just to find out what "WALL-E" stands for, and this is the main article, anyway. If we want to provide as much useful information as is possible (and encyclopaedic), why not leave it? —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So be it. I shall never touch that aspect of the article then. Immblueversion (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it — it's by no means anything against you, Immblueversion. Also, that's just my personal opinion, if other editors think it should go, no problem; I just think it would be easier and more pragmatic to leave it where it is now. Cheers, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 02:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not be in the plot summary, as it is not critical to the plot. It can, however, be in the CAST section where the characters are summarized. SpikeJones (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur, and it'll look better once List of WALL-E characters is merged. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 06:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.18.76.220 (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree that the explanation of Wall-E's name should absolutely remain in this article. How could it not? It seems pretty critical to understanding both the character and the title of the movie itself- and why it is spelled the way it is. Wall-E's entire purpose of creation is summarised in his name- it is the sort of knowledge that I would expect to obtain from a thorough source like Wikipedia.Coroloro (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

On Commentary- should defense get the last word?

I've noticed that in the commentary section it seems that while a variety of criticism is mentioned, there is always a defense for it and it always gets 'the last word' though I am sure there would be a response to that 'last word' as well. This kind of weights the article in the defensive direction on Wall-E's behalf, not a neutral stance, doesn't it? I've noted that articles where the public reaction is generally negative, defense is often less (even if it exists)- but in big blockbusters like Wall-E, you rarely see a criticism listed that does not have a rebuttal. This, to me, seems to imply there might be a bias infiltrating the article. Coroloro (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like what's presented, then re-write the paragraphs that are questionable to you. I see nothing wrong with "critics say this, filmmakers say that" format. To add another line of criticism rebuttal would make it 2:1 instead of 1:1 balance that currently exists. During your rewrite, be sure to use proper citations that show the 2nd point does, in fact, come after the filmmakers' comments. SpikeJones (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to completely balance out the arguments in something like this, because there are inevitably more criticism than the film makers will respond to. The standard format for a debate though is that the defending team gets the last word to respond to the attacks though. This article is about WALL-E and how it was recieved though, not about how the director and other people got into a debate. Say what the criticisms are, then what the director's response to those criticisms is. The defense has the last word BECAUSE it is the defense; it has to answer other questions that people ask, and thus it can't go first. the_one092001 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

With the above said, I suggest keeping the 1:1 ratio, for neutrality's sake. WALL-E just passes GA, let's not ruin it by tainting it with anything that could be perceived as a WP:POVish element. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

International Box office

Is that right? 3 million dollars seems awful low, considering how just about every other Pixar has done well over 100 million internationally. Does it just need to be updated? 67.183.40.4 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just not been updated - WALL-E was only, for example, released in the UK 48 hours ago, and hasn't yet been released in that many countries outside of the USA.--Gaunt (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Boxofficemojo is terribly out of date with the International box office totals - is there not a better site where this information can be extracted?--Gaunt (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of, that is a reliable source. I've never worked with a film article that didn't use boxofficemojo, so I wouldn't know. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that we're using http://www.the-numbers.com as the source for the revenue. If you look at the figures, you can clearly see somebody cant work a calculator. It staes the worldwide gross is $279,537,000, when in fact its only $200,737,000 (See bottom of table on the webpage) Mc8755 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's the Domestic figure. $279,537,000 is the Worldwide figure which is what we're after. --Gaunt (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WALL-E has begun running worldwide yet—only in the US and UK. It's no longer playing where I am (Alaska), but it's still showing in other states and from what I've read, it's not yet opened in Asia or other parts of Europe. If it had, the total gross would've skyrocketed relatively quickly. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but it's still been running in a few countries outside of the US 'Domestic' market, therefore the figure of $279,537,000 represent the Domestic plus worldwide screenings to date. The old BoxOfficeMojo figure was mainly showing the Domestic gross as the site seems to be having a problem with many of its International totals for some reason.--Gaunt (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be right, let's stick with whatever site we're using now; it looks to be more correct. I think it prudent to use more than one reference if possible however, because someone's numbers are majorly screwed up. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about 'fattist' satire...?

Resolved

Looks like a number of blogs and news outlets are picking up on thisstory - the F-Word site, which the article quotes, also maintains that "Pixar reworked the film to tone down its negative and discriminatory portrayals of fat people", which we can report as an allegation(?) but might not be able to verify? Looks like this probably deserves a mention, in any case. --86.133.5.197 (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the commentary section, and inclusion of this allegation would be undue weight. Alientraveller (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you've listened to the interview with Staton himself, he did not intend for the movie to be "fattist" satire. The portrayal of the obese humans is based on NASA's research into the long term effects of microgravity on the human body. The F-Word article has it wrong and was making inaccurate guesses as to the director's intent. The concept of the obese people, like the concept of WALL-E itself is much older than this relatively recent obesity epidemic, and stretches back to the early 90's at least. Stanton "reworked" the film only insofar as he gave the humans shapes again, since they were originally supposed to be blobs until Stanton did more research on the effects of microgravity. the_one092001 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, right now we're not discussing whether the movie *was* "fattist".. we're discussing whether the *genuine (agree with it or not) controversy* over whether the film was "fattist" should be addressed in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.227.104 (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, the movie provides quite a bit of social satire about unbridled consumerism. The future people are glued to video screens, get zero exercise, and suck down liquefied junk food all day. The fact that they're out of shape symbolizes this. Afalbrig (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a place for users to say what they interpreted the movie as. It is fine to say that some reacted to the movie as "fattist" satire, but the article should be written in such a way as to also note that such was not the stated intention of the movie. Interpretations, even those by recognized sources, aren't necessarily correct when it comes to guessing what the director or writer's intentions are, especially for an idea that has been stewing as long as WALL-E has. The F-Word blog may think that the movie is a satire of consumer culture, but it should also be noted that such is not Stanton's stated intention; his ideas are older than the obesity epidemic sweeping the nation and the movie just happens to depict fat people at a time when a large debate is raging over obesity. The controversy should not be stated directly as the intent of the movie unless evidence from the director, writer, or other heavily involved figure is found and cited. the_one092001 (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Finding a solution to the WALL-E and List of WALL-E characters page problem

I noticed the flag-up for such a discussion but couldn't find it so I have decided to start one. Firstly, there are not a great deal of characters in this film and therefore, one could argue, it doesn't merit a single article just to list the few characters involved in the film. I propose two suggestions. Obviously, these are not the only two solutions that I, or anyone else for that matter, could come up with. My suggestions are as follows:-

1. Reduce the overall size of the article and merge, as suggested, into the main WALL-E
2. Expand on the interesting and unusual fact that there are so few characters in the movie

My own personal feelings on the matter lean more to my latter suggestion because merging the article with WALL-E would result in a inappropriately long piece. But trimming it would ruin some ones work. Alternative, I think it would be simply marvellous to turn this article into a broader piece about the media response and critics response to the severe lack of characters as well as expanding the description of each one. Please post any other suggestions or thoughts about this here and also, a word to those Wikipedia users more wise than I, please don't be shy in letting me know I did something wrong- I welcome it.

--rab random (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There hasn't been any commentary about the "lack of characters". If you know of one from a reputable, 3-rd party citable source, then post one here please. The biggest problem is that that page is practically useless and does not expand on the information already in the WALL-E article. Worst case, the main article would end up with an additional section highlighting minor characters, as the sections on WALL-E, EVE, etc are already fleshed out. (robots? fleshed out? HA!). I will wait until I hear any additional dissentions before acting, but as of now, there has been no compelling argument for keeping it as a separate article. SpikeJones (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"but as of now, there has been no compelling argument for keeping it as a separate article."

-SpikeJones15:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this one... I personally have never seen a commentary on "lack of characters". It was just my imaginiation running away with me!! ha. Besides, it was only an example of the kind of expansion which could merit keeping this page.

--rab random (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rem'd Hello, Dolly! references?

I've been rather busy this week, so I haven't been able to catch up much on what's been going on with the article while I was away. I recently noticed that the mention of references to Hello, Dolly! was removed from the plot. Why was this done? I would think something like that would at least warrant a talk page discussion first—if it doesn't belong in the plot section, should a "Popular culture references" section at least be added to the article and mention the Dolly references? I think this information is plenty noteworthy and sufficiently verifiable (anyone that's seen the musical film can verify this themselves by going to see WALL-E, so there's no need for a citation, if that's the problem). Best, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My thought about it is that the "Hello Dolly" bit is not central to the plot. I didn't remove the text, but I don't see that the Plot section has suffered for this. - Denimadept (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so either, but it should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article as it's an important motif; WALL-E would have never learned the meaning of holding hands if not for the tape, after all. That's just my thought on the matter. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 18:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

Oh, agreed. I just keep tripping over the "fact" that a VHS tape survived 700+ years in apparently pristine conditions. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it unbelievable that mention of Hello, Dolly! has been removed from the plot description - the sequences from the film AND the music from it is CENTRAL to the whole meaning of the film! Did those who removed it not GET the film??? It's utter madness to remove the references, kind of like a plot description of Jaws that fails to mention the shark! --Gaunt (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Not central to the plot"?? It's a primary influence (one of very few explained in the movie) on the main character; how is that not important to the plot?--Dp76764 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't seen (and don't plan to see) "Hello Dolly!" so I can't speak to what it's supposed to be doing. As such, it's not central to my understanding of the film. To me, it's a side-issue to help show how lonely the main character is. - Denimadept (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't seen Hello, Dolly! either yet it's blindingly obvious to me just how important it and its music is to the film. Heck, even the director has stated its importance in numerous interviews, you can't get more authoritative than that.--Gaunt (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can't argue with that! Darn it. - Denimadept (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Aha. So we've reached a consensus, then? :D (Anyone who needs some verification from someone who's seen the film can just ask me, and I've seen a lot of musical films in my short time.) Glad we could come to an understanding. —Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 05:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I suppose we have. Who removed the refs in the first place? We might want to ask them why they did that. - Denimadept (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I found it. See [1] by User:Immblueversion. Immblueversion, are you reading this? If so, what's with that change? - Denimadept (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll just ask him/her, since I don't know whether or not Immblueversion watches this talk page. —Mizu onna sango15^Discuss 17:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that—just take a look at the edit summary. Apparently Immblueversion thought it could be better explained in another article (which, IMHO it really wouldn't). —Mizu onna sango15^Discuss 17:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Even putting it into another article would be a pointless exercise as, within the context of the plot summary, it needs to be detailed as it happens in the story. I still find it hard to believe that anyone would remove it, what with it being the main event behind WALL-E's emotional development! --Gaunt (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I won't even touch that aspect of the article anymore. I can't say I won't make any more changes to this article, but I don't want to start a fight. I just need to know things better. Immblueversion (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I feel realy touchy around starting controversies, because I hate getting the feeling that people don't like what I do, even though I can't avoid it. I know what I removed is key to the plot, but I just wanted to see if others felt it should be there. But then I remembered that's the whole point of the talk pages. I'm not THAT experienced of an editor. Just tell me what does and doesn't need to be in the plot summary, and I swear on my obsession off all things I obsess over that I will do everything in my power to uphold that. Immblueversion (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's upset with you, Immblueversion, but they don't agree with that particular change. - Denimadept (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Someone's described WALL-E as an "adventure-comedy-romance-science fiction film". This is a bit silly, surely "animated science fiction film" will do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.59.211 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. "Anime" would do. The description you list is more specific, not at all silly, IMO. - Denimadept (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Anime" is probably not appropriate for this movie. Anime typically means Japanese animation. But "animated scifi" would be just fine. Dp76764 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sounds fine to me. —Mizu onna sango15^Discuss 23:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Animesouth's constant editing to support his 'Silent Running' stance

The user Animesouth seems to have a need to state that the film Silent Running was a major influence on WALL-E and cites two poor examples. Does anyone think he has a point and, if not, how do we prevent him from constantly editing this page? From looking at his Wiki page it seems he has annoyed others by doing similarly tenacious edits on other pages and, for reasons unknown to us, will not back off and admit he was wrong.--Gaunt (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated to AnSth on his talk page, Specifically, you are misinterpreting AS's comment on Silent Running as being an influence on Wall-E. His comment was a direct response to what *others* are saying about the film, not the other way around. The AICN interview leads the witness by asking Stanton what he thought of critics who compared Wall-E to Silent Running, and Stanton provided an answer that helped explain why the critics would think that way without addressing whether there was an influence or not. It's a rather weak assumption to draw a line between that answer and it being an influence, especially compared to how Stanton was more verbose surrounding his use of Hello Dolly. It's along the same lines as the Short Circuit fanboys claiming that Wall-E is based on Johnny, when it's absolutely clear that Wall-E is based on the robots that Jawas showed to Uncle Owen by the Sandcrawler. (in other words, interpretation by the viewer doesn't mean there's any basis of citable, supportable fact behind it) SpikeJones (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The 'references' were also added in on the Silent Running page (none of them supported the statements as written in the article). If he continually re-adds these, Administrative intervention can be requested. Dp76764 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I concur with excluding Silent Running as an influence until reliable sourcing can be found. The information should be excluded from the other film article as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that I have told AnimeSouth if (s)he continues adding it, it'll be considered vandalism; we have asked them enough times to stop. If they insert it again, I'll just report them to AIV. It may sound a little bad faith-ish, but when you've asked nicely three times and they deliberately continue there's not much more to do. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 20:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the best solution, thanks.--Gaunt (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wall-E as an allegory for the Problem of Evil (spoilers!!!)

Why does God allow evil to exist? A traditional answer is that freedom (free will) necessitates the possibility of evil. In Wall-E, the characters that best display the range of human will and emotion are actually the robots. It is Wall-E that "wakes" John and and Mary from their electronic wombs to experience the world as it is. The captain wrestles with his robotic keeper, Auto, and finally manages to switch to the ship's controls back to manual. The history of the people aboard the ship moves from being one written by a perfect (perfectly secure?) robot guide to being a messy, painstaking labor on the earth. The captain's desire to know his origin leads directly to an exit from paradise and an arrival back on earth. But the humans are not alone in their new, old world. The robots will be with them as they forge a new future, one with a balance struck between man and machine. 192.251.66.254 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a forum for general discussion. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New "See Also" section

Someone added this section, and it includes links to Dystopia and the Brazil film. Is this neccessary, or is it innapropriate? Your thoughts. dogman15 (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Seemed inappropriate and un-sourced. Was also added along with some 'commentary'. I removed both. Dp76764 (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dash in title

Per WP:DASH, shouldn't this be moved to WALL–E (currently a redirect)? If I'm interpreting this right, the aformentioned MoS section states that articles which would normally have a hypen in its title should use an en dash (–), and if that's true, I'll have to speedy the appropriate title so it can be renamed. Thoughts? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Aside from the historical discussion on consensus (see archive), your interpretation is misguided as you also have to take into consideration the proper use of hyphen in the preceeding section. As a hyphen is used as a conjunction. In this case, the difference is clear between WALL-E vs WALL-A ("lifter-earth" vs "lifter-axiom") in the same context as the proper WP usage of "little-used car". SpikeJones (talk) 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I thought that was a little strange. Thank you, Spike. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 19:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Link on top of page

Shouldn't the link on top of the page go to the disambiguation, not the video game? 71.249.158.250 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, because there is no disambiguation page to provide a link to. Only the video game article has a similar name, so a direct link is preferred. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we really have one anyway? There are only two works by the name of "WALL-E"—the film and the video game. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Is this still protected? Anons seem to be editing just fine, it must've expired already. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured

Assuming I'm not being too bold here, who—if anyone—wants to go for FA, and what more needs to be done before nominating it? I've found film articles to be among the easiest to promote, so why not give it a shot? —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 05:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a little too soon, as it would fail on comprehensiveness. Film articles are generally not considered such until they complete their theatrical run and until after the DVD has been released (the DVD will almost certainly contain a lot of information that could be incorporated into the article), as we do need some retrospective commentary. There are also a bunch of citations listed above that might yield useful information. I know I wrote it, but the current version of the reception section is also a little weak. Three critics is not enough for a good reviews section. See Hancock (film)#Reception for a reasonable example. That article's release section (Hancock (film)#Release) might also be a good format to follow. Another point to consider is the awards the film is likely to receive. And finally, not all film articles warrant it, but there might be scope here for some kind of expanded "Themes" or "Analysis" section. Hope this helps, Steve ^{T • C} 08:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. Nothing wrong with getting started, however (it comes on DVD in about three months!). Thanks Steve, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 21:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC).

EVE's name

I just realised that EVE stands for Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator, and that this is wrong! Of course they wanted an E to form that name, but the actual name should be TVE (Terrestrial VE), because it examines earth, not other planets. Should there be a note on this in EVE's character description/page?190.31.237.127 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No! She's designed to examine all planets, including Earth. This is why you need sources for information. Alientraveller (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

One could also say that she is an "Extraterrestrial" Vegetation Evaluator because she is an extraterrestrial herself. She does not inherently come from Earth, thus she is extraterrestrial. Regardless, there is no use pointing it out without some kind of source about how it's an error or how Pixar intentionally changed the spelling. the_one092001 (talk) 01:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I choose Controversy

Resolved

I don't know a better way to contact you, but I think the section on Wall E should be Controversy, not commentary because the film was also not about love, but about the earth and how humans left it and how a pile a crap it turned out to be when they left which got a whole fuss of critics and etc. So please stop changing it, Its very annoying and it shouldn't really matter to you anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLight14 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that big a deal, so please calm down and assume good faith. :-) With that said, I belive it should be "commentary" for reasons expressed earlier, but I'll wait for more imput before getting into an edit war (we shouldn't be doing that anyway!). I kindly ask you to do the same (by the way, you could've used my talk page like I requested). Regards, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC).

I say that it should remain "Commentary" because listing it as "Controversy" could make the entire issue larger than it is. Compared to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the controversy surrounding WALL-E wasn't too big. A few people misinterpreted the intent of the film, and Stanton publicly stated what his real intentions were. "Controversy" would imply that the movie caused a major stir or did something terribly provocative and that such was at least in some way the intent of the director, like a Michael Moore documentary. Many pointed out the depiction of fat and lazy humans and called it commentary, but relatively few lined up to rail against the movie. Further, I don't think that unilaterally changing an article just because "other shouldn't care" is a valid reason. You might choose controversy, but as I hope you've seen, others disagree, and they (or at least I) care. the_one092001 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you The one, and I care also (for the record, when I said 'not a big deal' I meant not worth getting 3RR-blocked over :P). I agree completely, and I've asked Alientraveller to comment on the matter also. Thanks, —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC).

It should be kept as commentary, not controversy. The commentary section is about viewers' interpretations beyond evaluating it as a good film (like the professional reviewers), and "Controversy" is an inflamatory term. Not all these observers to themes in the film are attacking it. Alientraveller (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also say it should be Commentary - as Alientraveller says, Controversy is an inflammatory term, plus it's also somewhat limiting in its scope.--Gaunt (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok fine, let it be commentary instead of controversy , since all you guys ganged up on me about this, but I still think Controversy is close. you win mizu onna sango15. By the way, I'm still a little new here, so I don't know how to get to talk pages.

Cheers! WikiLight14 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't ganging up, it's called consensus. That's how Wikipedia works, not through arbitrary individual decisions but by majority agreement by users. User talk pages are accessed by clicking on the user's name in their signature (or finding the user's page through a search) and then clicking the "discussion" tab on their page. For instance, to access my talk page, you'd click on my username in any of my signatures, then at my main user page you'd click "discussion" and see my user talk page. Hope this helps, and please don't get discouraged from editing! the_one092001 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason the humans aboard the Axiom are obese

Resolved

After centuries of living in micro-gravity, the humans aboard the Axiom have lost considerable bone and muscle mass, rendering them too obese and weak to stand or move without robotic assistance

Should this line contain a mention of the fact that the humans are also obese because of laziness and sloth, and because robots have been doing everything for them their entire lives? The film condemned such things as materialism and excessive consumption, and the portrayal of humans as lazy, obese, slug-like beings was meant to represent the effect of a society where people grow lazy due to automation; the film's message had nothing to do with low gravity.

Wikiedia is not meant to further a film's agenda, but how about a reference for the sake of accuracy? The humans grew fat not only because of the gravity, but also because of their lifestyles, an exaggerated representation of what already exists in real life. EvaXephon (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this a number of times, just check the archive. The official line is that microgravity caused it; Stanton admitted that the designs were based on NASA's data of what people would look like after extended periods of microgravity exposure. The concept is older than the recent obesity epidemic, and the film does not explicitly condemn materialism and excessive consumption. Be careful when interpreting the movie, since the interpretations of reviewers is NOT necessarily what the director intended. Certainly, such condemnation can be guessed at and interpreted, but without a source from the director or writer saying that humans are obese because of overdependence, we have to stick with what already has been explicitly mentioned: microgravity. the_one092001 (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

the_one092001 is right, it's not because of laziness, but because of the effects of microgravity. We should really have a notice template on the talk page because of this; it's causing almost as much dispute as the hypen versus interpunct debate. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 04:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simply seemed to me at the pre-screening as an exaggerated point in the film to serve as a societal cautionary tale: anti-couch-potato-ism. Despite all said above. It wasn't an interpretation. It was visually explicit. Also, microgravity effects of that sort are conjectural, despite coming from NASA. I reckon one would have to look at the formal "director's statement" for the artistic intent. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk)

While this seems like it is so, the director himself (Andrew Stanton) said that it was microgravity alone that made them obese, it didn't have anything to do with their laziness (althought that may have contributed, though those food-in-a-cup meals look healthier than traditional food). —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 08:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, isn't the line contradictory to what happens later in the film? The humans do eventually manage to stand and walk unaided, even when they return to earth and gravity takes it's full effect. --Simpsons fan 66 00:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The only part that is outright shown or stated in the movie is that the humans are obese, and that they are obese because of microgravity. From our current perspective, it of course seems that modern consumerism and laziness have caused this obesity. But I do not know of any sources that explicitly states the cause of obesity being laziness and consumerism. For all we know, those "food in a cup" items could be many times more healthy than foods today given their greater scientific and technological level of understanding. While it is true that laziness can make one obese, the clear progression in size as the humans spent more time in space shows that microgravity had a major effect on the development of several generations of space-borne humans, and the very chairs that make them lazy are a result of the microgravity conditions to ease movement.

Thus, I do not see any citable or useable references to laziness as the cause of obesity. Stanton said that he created the humans based on NASA research (no matter how experimental) and the idea that humans have forgotten how to connect with one another. To do that he had to create obstacles that would prevent them from simply interacting the way we do today, and their obese state was a result of this need. However, since the idea was older than the obesity epidemic and not intended to pass judgement on the current state of society, microgravity exposure is the stated reason, and the reason upheld by Stanton in following interviews. the_one092001 (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When the ship tilts the humans slide into each other and into a big pile, so there evidently is gravity. After seeing the movie I did not think about microgravity at all. 24.132.178.138 (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That is, again, your opinion. Stanton does have an official stance on this, as previously stated on the talk page and in the article. Any other piece of commentary or opinion on this that does not come directly from the filmmakers is mere speculation and will be removed from the article. As such, for all intents and purposes, this matter is closed. SpikeJones (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

FA drive

I've just implemented the majority of my rewrite of the production section. I know some might object to the reordering of the cast section, but what's important is the article is really comprehensive now. I start this discussion to open up more opinions on whether information pertaining to each character should be shifted in a style like Transformers or Prince Caspian], and suggestions on what to illustrate. This production section is so comprehensive that if fair use policy wasn't the way it was, we could easily squeeze two or three images in each section, but we can't.

Some additional points; the awards and top ten lists need to be cleaned-up. Commentary can and will grow into a proper Themes section. Does anyone else have suggestions on what they can do to make this FA? Alientraveller (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the list-style cast section (with actor/role and a brief character blurb and any interesting casting tidbits) seems to be the norm for quality film articles, instead of the cast list and then discussion later of the casting reasons. --MASEM 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now, that's for sure. Also, a ton of references need to be formatted, but that shouldn't take too long. Gary King (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope everyone likes the new layout of the Awards and nominations section. I used the same format found in the Ratatouille article. In going through the re-arrangement, I noticed that some award names were not entirely right. For example, the EDA Awards were listed as the Women Film Journalists Awards. Not only should the proper name of the award should be used, but the EDA Awards are actually given by the Alliance of Women Film Journalists. Additionally, there were several categories which were not correctly labeled. It seems there is excessive use of the word "best", and I'm suspicious that many of them are not correct. The one that quickly comes to mind was the Satellite Award for "Motion Picture, Animated or Mixed Media". It had been listed as "Best Animated Film". If these groups go to the trouble of presenting an award, the least we can do is list it exactly as it was presented. If we can review the awards and categories for this kind of accuracy, it would really solidify the integrity of this article. Struhs (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a merging of the reception section with commentary, because some of those criticisms related to how viewers would react to the film and the presentation of the themes. I know not every viewer felt good at the end. I think one paragraph is great and can go into the Themes section I'm sandboxing. As for Stanton's defense, well, I think how the Production section and eventual Themes will speak for themselves as to how the movie is really about relationships (as all good films are). Alientraveller (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad you did that actually, I think there was a proposal for that months earlier that never materialised. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to move some info from Production into Cast. User:Immblueversion hasn't responded but I'm sure many people want to keep a Cast section. Alientraveller (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried it, didn't like how mishmashed the information looked. Have removed Cast entirely. Alientraveller (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added it as a severely trimmed down version. — Edokter • Talk • 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't mean to be mean but I don't see a need for the section. We'll see how it fares in the PR though. Alientraveller (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Award section length

The Awards section's length is getting out of control. If anyone knows the MOS for sections like these, perhaps they could trim the fat, as it were. DP76764 (Talk) 23:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is getting a bit out of hand. I already removed the top ten list. I suggest trimming all the local awards and stick to the (inter)national awards. — Edokter • Talk • 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Please then, remove it from all other articles that also have a 'top ten' list. (My opinion: while the complete top ten listing may have been extravagant, at least the #1 rankings could have stayed). See Ratatouille (film), tiny appearance on The Dark Knight (film), Juno (film), There Will Be Blood, The Incredibles, The Departed, House (TV series), Children of Men, etc. Considering the critical praise the film has received, I believe that including said list is adequate for casual readers who may not realize how widespread the praise was. I have reviewed the film MOS, and it doesn't say that said listing *couldn't* appear, and states "reliable sources should be used to determine how the film was received". The Top Ten List certainly did present that info when combined with the written commentary. SpikeJones (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why remove it from all other articles? If a notable film critic says a film is one of the year's ten best films, that's citable coverage. You're right, MOS:FILM doesn't say top ten lists can't appear. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should put it back Edokter. --Pixelface (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent for sidebar) Instead of deleting the film critics awards from the awards listing, would separating them out, as is done on The Dark Knight (film), a different option? SpikeJones (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Readded critics who named it no.1 to reception. Small enough criteria to not get out of control. Alientraveller (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. With the former list showing 15 #1 cited appearances, what criteria is used to identify which ones of those should stay in the article and which ones should not? Again, the film MOS doesn't indicate a heirarchy of critics, other than "professional film critics...The use of print reviews is encouraged", of which those were. SpikeJones (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What criteria is used? I just included the ones that Metacritic included. They're notable professional film critics. --Pixelface (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest removing the pale red and pale green from the awards table? It is perfectly fine to read the word in its particular cell to known the outcome; no need to emblazon with color. It seems Christmas-tree-ish and off-balance (with only color on the right side). —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be the standard makeup, and it does allow you to see wins and noms at once. The colors are pale enough not to stand out. — Edokter • Talk • 18:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there is really a standard makeup; I've seen multiple tables where there is solid red and solid green, but hopefully that kind of format is not catching on! :) Paler is better, but color for these cells (especially only on the right side of an otherwise-fine table) seems to be weak aesthetics. Reading the word in the cell is simple enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of making sure a handling of a list (or not, based on consensus) is added to the film MOS, I have begun a conversation on the topic if you would like to chime in with your own opinion. SpikeJones (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's terribly and truly sad that despite so many other movies having their nice awards section, the film that has matched and surpassed many of them in that regard is sorely underrepresented in a tiny awards table. I say if we aren't going to get rid of all the awards table on all pages, then don't get rid of this one or minimize it ignoring major awards.MidgardDragon (talk) 4:39AM, 21 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Removal of Award Table

Do we really think that removing the table of awards is a good idea? Referring to another page that lists all nominations and awards by Pixar seems like a drastic lack of forethought. Are there pages that list all the awards for Universal, MGM, or Disney? No. What happens when Pixar is 50 years old and has put out 40 films? Struhs (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Top Ten Lists for current discussion on this topic. Your question is one that is applicable to all film pages, not specifically this one. SpikeJones (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

EDIT - that may not be what you were asking about; the Awards Won By Pixar page would be the one you are referring to as you are asking about major awards, as opposed to merely critics' lists, correct? SpikeJones (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I have two points. First, why separate the awards list from the WALL-E article? I don't see the point of having it someplace else. It's not separated from the Ratatouille article. Second, why create a list of awards won by Pixar? It will just grow and grow over time eventually out of control. As I mentioned before, there don't appear to be such lists for any other major studio. Struhs (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While I want comment on an awards list for Pixar, I must note listing every single award the film was nominated for was indiscriminate. Sourced prose is always better than a giant list. Alientraveller (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the table appearing on Ratatouille's page, that will be handled in the future - one page at a time, please. As for your other points: (a) I suppose nobody has felt the need to create an awards page for "MGM Films" or "Warner Brothers Films". They can if they would like. (b) As for the length, future articles could be broken out into time-based segments (1990-2000, 2001-2010, etc) to keep the lists managable. (c) the film articles have sourced, prose-based information that should convey the major award information, along with links to other places that have more complete info. SpikeJones (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Home Video Release

I prepared something about the DVD and would like to add it. If you would like to check it please take a look at my Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. Sha-Sanio (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened some textpasseges and would like to know if someone has any agrees or disagrees with the new version before I can add it to the article.Sha-Sanio (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also prepared some information about the nominations for the BAFTA Awards, Wall-e has wom 4 nominations, for further information please check my sandbox, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sha-Sanio/Sandbox/Sandbox/Wall-e. ThanksSha-Sanio (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to comprehensively describe every special feature since we cite each one for Production information. There is nothing new in your sandbox. Sorry. Alientraveller (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Names of main characters

Let's see if we can get rid of all these capital letters, and sort out the names of the main characters in the same go. Is there citable proof that Wally and Eva is named "WALL-E" and "EVE" and not "Wally" and "Eva"? I know that Wally's took his name from his own robot model name, but that doesn't mean his name is WALL-E. As for the egg robot, Wally consistently pronounces her name as "Eva", not "Eve". And for "EVE" versus "Eva" the same argument applies -- it is based on her robot model name, but it is by no means unique to her.

So, let's get consensus on what Wally's and Eva's names are, and use them, instead of referring to them by their robot designations as if they were uniquely created machines. -- leuce (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware it's a bit cumbersome having those acronyms everywhere. The screenplay refers to them as Wally and Eve. But WALL-E is the last WALL-E in existence. I wouldn't mind if EVE was changed to Eve though. What about M-O, should we change him too even though he's referred to less? Alientraveller (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

They are credited as "WALL-E" and "EVE". I see no reason to deviate from that. — Edokter • Talk • 13:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the extras on the home video discs has a discussion about WALL-E & EVE's voices. Though WALL-E says "Eva" this is the result of how he pronounces her name. So at the very least, she is not a "Eva".VeeFourAJ (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oscars - which year?

I quote: "It grossed $533 million worldwide, won the 2009 Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature Film, and the 2009 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, and was nominated for five other Academy Awards." The 81st academy awards occurred in 2009 for 2008 films. Elsewhere on WP they are referred to as 2008. Which is correct here? Does the same apply to the Golden globes? -- SGBailey (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just say '81st Academy Awards'. — Edokter • Talk • 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cast" section?

Alientraveller removed the "Cast" section, a move with which I agreed due to the mostly silent nature of the film. The names were inserted into the "Plot" section, so is there a reason to keep such a section? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the names in the plot. I think the Cast section provides easy reference for information about the primary cast. Perhaps it can be moved to the Production section? — Edokter • Talk • 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They existed before when Alientraveller removed the "Cast" section. All the real-world context that exists is found in other sections, and considering that the voice actors were not highly billed, I think merging their names into their roles in the context of the "Plot" section would be best. Not to mention that it's not a suitable home for the M-O image, which is merely decorative since the article, as comprehensive as it is, does not address anything about the shot or the characters within it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all cast can be integrated into the plot because they are not mentioned there. The image is a seperate issue. — Edokter • Talk • 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what I mean by integration. Any issue with this? See discussion below for removal of the M-O image. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I miss Sigourney Weaver; she isn't mentioned. I still feel the Cast section should remain (every movie has it). — Edokter • Talk • 17:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

M-O image

There needs to be critical commentary to support the screenshot that shows WALL-E and M-O. The article is pretty well-developed, so I doubt that any useful commentary would exist. Plot detail, being descriptions of the primary source, does not count as a tether to rationalize screenshots. Regardless of whether or not the "Cast" section is kept, this screenshot should be removed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the image doesn't do anything for the article. — Edokter • Talk • 17:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-Destruct Scene

I wasn't sure about this, so I wanted to bring it up here. Is this sentence (from the "Plot" section, paragraph 3) right? "Traveling to the pod launch room, they see GO-4, Auto's security assistant, deposit the missing plant in a pod that he sets to self-destruct." I got the impression that he was simply ejecting the plant, and WALL-E accidentally set it to self-destruct when he gets trapped inside and starts banging on the controls. I don't wanna change something incorrectly, and its kinda hard to be sure because there is hardly any dialogue, but this is the impression I got from this scene. What are other people's opinions? Cactus Guru (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you re-watch the scene, at frame 57:30 you will see GO-4 pressing an activation control for the lighted red button that figures prominently on the dashboard just before he exits the pod. After it ejects with WALL-E inside, the red button is flashing on the dashboard. WALL-E is seen climbing into the chair and he begins to press controls on the dashboard, but before he tries pressing the flashing red button, you can see the dashboard console flashing the message "AUTO LOCK" at frame 58:10. I would take this to mean that no inputs are being accepted on the dashboard to "cancel" the self-destruct, despite WALL-E's attempts to halt the self-destruct sequence (as evidenced by his panicked response seen at frame 58:14). For these reasons, I think it was GO-4 who activated the self-destruct sequence to deliberately destroy the plant, and not WALL-E activating a self-destruct sequence by accident. -- AzureCitizen (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Utopian, Dystopian, or Anti-Utopian?

Another editor recently added a comment that WALL-E was a Dystopian fiction film. After reflecting on it, I started to wonder if that's really the case. A Dystopian film gives a vision of society that is the opposite of Utopia - one in which the conditions of life are characterized by human misery, poverty, oppression, violence, disease, and/or pollution. Granted, there is a lot of that last item in WALL-E back on Earth - pollution - but the human beings of 2800 A.D. really aren't suffering any of it. Far away aboard the Axoim, their life existence has long centered around doing no work, spending all their time in leisure, everything catered for them. If anything, I think WALL-E gives a vision of the theater which is not Dystopian, but not Utopian either... instead, it's Anti-Utopian, a vision of the future where human society seems Utopian but there is a fatal flaw which has twisted the Utopian concept (namely, they are on a ship to nowhere, their five-year cruise becoming an endless eternity in wait). At the end of the movie, they come back to Earth, and face potential hardship, but the ending credits show scenes of community, rebuilding, restoring, bringing Earth and prosperity back. Is that really Dystopian? How should we classify the film as a whole?

As a result, I think it best to revert the edit, and invite anyone who is interested in discussing the matter here if they think re-instituting a label (Dystopian? Utopian? Anti-Utopian?) is a useful contribution to the article. -- AzureCitizen (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed piegonholing the film to one sub-genre is not doing it justice. We already have had everyone adding stuff like "sci-fi rom-com" and so on, can't we accept Pixar just makes films for everyone? Alientraveller (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw this discussion, I was under the impression that "utopian" was being replaced with "dystopian". I was surprised to see that it was just a narrowing-down of the genre, which I think is unnecessary. The word "utopian" is the only one of its kind that appears in the article body, so I do not think that either word should be mentioned. There are elements of both, to be sure, but they are not overarching themes by any means. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Having been through a similar issue on BioShock, I recommend only stating one of these three if reliable sources do this, don't try to make the assumption based on how you (the editor) interpret them. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though the article doesn`t state it, its still categorized as a dystopian movie and is in the list of dystopian movies, which it clearly is not. It is anti-utopian as you can see if you read the Dystopia article: "a dystopia does not pretend to be utopian, while an anti-utopia appears to be utopian or was intended to be so, but a fatal flaw or other factor has destroyed or twisted the intended utopian world or concept". 142.3.121.63 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-dystopian I guess? Raaggio 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The way utopian themes fit into this movie is a really poignant topic of discussion. I agree that it is anti-utopian but not in the sense that it tries to establish a "utopia" as negative. Rather, today's increasingly technocratic society creates a tacit definition of utopia, and we see the potential manifestation of it in this film. That is, machines do all the work, everything is automated, and life becomes 100% leisurely. As is mentioned in the main page, the movie manages to suggest that some sort of human spirit is derived from labor, which fits into these "anti-utopian" themes. Today's utopia comes at the cost of whatever it is that makes us human; by passing on every task imaginable to machines and robots, the characters also pass on the essence of their being and become mindless themselves. The fact that the protagonists and antagonists of the film aren't humans but robots, which we typically consider to be incapable of human feeling and/or directive, brings to light the way that this way of living affects us as humans. As such, the concept of anti-utopia is very specific to 21st century ideals of what constitutes utopia. Technology carries more and more responsibility in our lives such that the extrapolation of this trend brings us inevitably to WALL-E... Or at least that's what the movie is saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.58.248 (talk) 04:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I say anti-utopian, if it needs to be categorized at all. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref broken

Ref #4 is broken, please check link OboeCrack (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Disney moved the page. — Edokter • Talk • 16:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Year of the events in question

Hi MJBurrage. I've reverted your most recent effort in order to draw the conversation here to the Talk Page. Let's attempt to clear this up and get some consensus before we post what we think is the exact year the events of WALL-E (specifically, his adventures aboard the Axiom and what the year is when he causes the human race to hyperjump back to Earth to recolonize the planet) take place. This is what I'm thinking:

At frame 46:16 on the DVD, we see that it has been 700 years to the day since the Axiom's "five year cruise" began.

At frame 1:09:09 on the DVD, we see that the Axiom started receiving quarterly reports from BnL headquarters back on Earth every three months starting in the year 2100, and that the message from Forthright (Directive A113) ordering all Autopilots to take control of their ships and avoid returning to Earth was sent in the year 2010.

Therefore, if they started receiving reports in deep space after they launched in the year 2100, and we know that they launched exactly 700 years ago ("255,642 days"), then the events of WALL-E aboard the Axiom took place circa 2800, not circa 2810.

Give this some consideration after you've had a chance to examine the DVD at 0:46:16 and 1:09:09 once more, and let me know what you think. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch on the on-screen readout, I had just gone by the dialog. You are correct that it puts the film in the first couple months of 2800 AD, or possibly the last couple months of 2799. So circa 2800 it is.

Technically that puts the film at the very end of the 28th Century (since 2801 is the first year of the 29th Century), so the best lead for the section would be "Circa 2800 AD, the Earth is deserted..."

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That means we now have conflicting information, which is the reason we avoid having a date in the first place. Given that 2110 was nearly 700 years ago, and the first captain on the holographic commemoration started duty on 2105, we know the Axiom lanched in 2105. The five year plan ended in 2110, when the CEO ordered A113. So you see, we can explain every date we can come up with, which is why we need to avoid it. — Edokter • Talk • 11:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That why "Circa" is used. Saying "early 29th Century" might be wrong, "Circa 2800 AD" is not. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL, it's funny how things come full circle, Edokter and MJBarrage. I remember a month ago I was thinking it would be better to leave the exact date somewhat uncertain, because we don't know for sure and are left trying to calculate the exact date from the clues we see in the film. It was my suggestion originally to go with the "early 29th Century" for those reasons, and now I think I was probably wrong. It is good that at least three of us are looking at this, because it catches errors in logic and points out things we didn't consider at the time we wrote what we wrote. I know that I am far from perfect in getting it "right" every time I edit Wikipedia.

As far as the exact date is concerned, it seems we will be unable to fix that, because of the conflicting information inherent in the original work. We know that WALL-E's visit to the Axiom takes place exactly 700 years into the five-year cruise, but we don't know for certain if they launched in 2105 (logical since Captain Reardon's watch began in 2105), or if they launched in 2100 (logical since the ship's log was receiving communications from BnL headquarters by that time). Movies routinely contain these kinds of inconsistencies because different people are working on producing different parts of the film at different times, and things do not always line up despite their best efforts.

So, we're left with the problem of approximating the date for purposes of inclusion in the article (the reader needs to know, approximately, when the events of the story are), without providing further contradictions or completely ignoring one logical explanation altogether in favor of another. So we'll need to use language that allows for both scenarios.

After watching the film segments in question again just now, I believe that between the two dates, 2100 and 2105 (and consequently, 2800 and 2805), I would be willing to concede that 2805 is probably more likely, because I find the proposition that the Axiom would depart in 2800 without a Captain until 2805 less likely than the proposition that somehow the computer had entries in the log from BnL Headquarters prior to launch despite what would seem consitent and routine reports. Maybe the ship was still on Earth, in the process of being constructed, but the computer was already in place and communicating with headquarters, etc? This is all speculative and can not be locked down with certainty, but if I was now forced to wager and pick one over the other, I'd guess it was 2805 before I'd say it was 2800.

Therefore, it seems to me that the best approximation and the best phrasing of language in our situation is to go with "Circa 2805" rather than the "early 29th Century." When used in this fashion, "Circa 2805" implies that in our closet approximation, i.e., the date we believe is most likely, we think it was probably 2805, but if it's fourth quarter 2799, 2800, 2801, 2806, etc., "Circa" expands to cover those possibilities, while "early 29th Century" does not. The only other option I can think of is using "around the time of the early 29th Century," but I think "Circa" is a simpler and more elegant choice.

I will wait for both of you to think this over (along with anyone else who would like to comment) and see if we can arrive at a new consensus. AzureCitizen (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 2805 is the most likely date, Given that it fits two of the three reference points we have. Circa is the best term in English for exactly this situation. I suggested "circa 2800" over "circa 2805" only because the former covers a larger span than the latter under the concept of significant digits, but that relies on a math/science background that the average reader probably does not think about when reading an entry on a film. So I also agree that "circa 2805" is the best choice, with "early 29th century" being the least accurate.

2805 is also halfway between the date most visible to a casual viewer, and the earliest possible launch date. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 11:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with the wording "circa 2805", because the 2805 part cannot be 100% verified. I still think "Early 29th century" is a safe bet. — Edokter • Talk • 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Early 29th century is 2801 through around the 2830s (when early becomes mid is subjective)

Circa 2805 literally means approximately 2805, not exactly 2805; so something like 2800–2810 (2805 ±5 years)

"Circa 2805" is just flat out more accurate (and informative) based on all the details in the film than "Early 29th Century". —MJBurrage^(T•C) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, you disagree with the wording "Circa 2805" because the 2805 part can not be 100% verified? And yet "Circa" is the very English language term primarily used when referring to an approximated date, so the fact that the year can not be 100% verified prompts its use. If "Early 29th Century" had properly covered the situation here, it would have been okay, but we've figured out now that it can't safely cover the situation at hand because the year might have been 2800, 2805, fourth quarter 2799, etc., due to the conflicting information mentioned at different points in the film. Thus, "Early 29th Century" might be right but it also might be wrong, while "Circa" is a safe bet by definition because it approximates the date with the greatest degree of accuracy while still alerting the reader to the possibility that the exact date may not be known. Why revert two other editors in favor of your own opinion and insist on using a potentially incorrect choice ("29th Century") over one which (1) cannot be wrong and (2) guides readers to the closest approximation based on everything that is known? AzureCitizen (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be seen as sneeking in the exact date into the text. That is why it leans towards OR by using "circa 2805", which is my concern. Why not "circa 2810", or "circa 2815"? Though "early 29th century" is a bit wide. What about "At the beginning of the 29th century"? — Edokter • Talk • 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"2805" because it is both 1) the most reasonable date given the evidence (first captain 2105–), and 2) it is the center of the range of possible dates. "Circa" because however likely; 2805 is not 100% certain.

Using "29th century" (even "beginning of" or "first decade") leaves out 2800; which is, an albeit unlikely, possible launch date (since there are four quarterly log updates from 2101).

Saying something like "It took five years to build the Axiom", based on log dates before the ship had a Captain, would be OR. However "Circa 2805" is simply the most correct summary of the facts.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edokter and MJ,

I read the latest replies the other day but have been thinking it over up till now. Edokter, I can appreciate that we don't want to something to be viewed as trying to "sneak in the exact date." Still, it's worth noting that "Circa" does properly alert the reader that it is not exact, that it is imprecise, etc. I've been considering "At the beginning of the 29th Century," and I think that's better than "the early 29th Century" because it seems to narrow the range, but as MJ indicated, it still leaves out the possibility it wasn't the 29th Century yet. It's the technicalities here that are keeping us from finding consensus.

I'm going to propose four phrasings that don't run afoul of the technicality while offering different ways to say it, and would appreciate it if both of you would indicate a preference, along with anyone else who is reading this and would like to contribute or provide a better way to phrase it. Any of these versions would solve the technicality problem:

1. "Around the beginning of the 29th Century, the Earth..."
2. "Near the start of the 29th Century, the Earth..."
3. "Circa 2805, the Earth..."
4. "Around 2805, the Earth..."

- AzureCitizen (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A.C., thank you for the suggestions. IMHO, 1 & 2 are essentially the same thing, as are 3 & 4. As is probably clear from my past comments, I believe 3 & 4 are better given all the information, and prefer actually using the word "circa" rather than its definition. So my vote is for #3.

P.S. I hope I did not offend by numbering the options. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 19:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

More info

WALL·E: The Intergalactic Guide (ISBN 978-0-7566-3840) clearly states throughout, that the film takes place in 2805.

• Dust jacket back – Welcome to 2805!
• Dust jacket front flap – Take a peek into the future and see what life could be like in 2805…
• Introduction, page 6 – It's the year 2805! Earth is a giant trash pile and humans have moved to outer space.
• Earth, page 8 – This is how Earth looks in the year 2805. and …including the evacuation to space in 2105.
• Docking, page 26 – Hover transporters like this are a popular mode of transport in the year 2805.
• The Captain, page 30 – In 2805 humans are lazy, overweight creatures…

All of that fits everything in the film as well, with the ships computer being active in 2100 arguably an anomaly, but just as arguably simply a detail about the construction time of the Axiom. Regardless I think the Section should begin with mention of the 2805 date. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Themes section in need of a rewrite

The themes section seems to be a religious critique of the film, rather than an enumeration and explanation of the themes of the movie, of which religious references are only a small part. The section currently is now written from a neutral point of view (first line : "Stanton, who is Christian,[...]", his religion is relevant why exactly?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.37.216 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious critique? And why are you singling out Christianity from Ludditism, technology, laziness, and Greek mythology? Removing Stanton's faith isn't neutrality, it's censorship and removing context. Alientraveller (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The themes section does seem to be more of "What Dreher has to say about the film" than a general article about the themes of Wall-e. I'd recommend drawing in more sources to reduce the over dependency on the Dreher writing. More so, it'd be more concise to present a subsection as Christian themes of Wall-e. I'd foresee the section broken up into such subsections such as environment, consumerism, technology, and romance.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 00:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, actual scholarly material on a film's themes is not usually forthcoming for a few years. So themes for a film like this are "lightweight" and not necessarily heavily explored this early. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dreher has a lot to say on the film, his article was absolutely fantastic. Now, honestly, who is unneutral, the one who excludes analysis due to the author's Christian background despite his discussion of technology, alienation, laziness and Greek mythology, or, or, well you get my point. Alientraveller (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about excluding anything, but as it stands, the section primarily explores themes based on a christian perspective rather than the themes as a whole, so either it should be retitled as "Christian Themes" or it should be expanded (and probably shortened afterward, as it's already on the long side) to include the rest of the movie's themes.

And does it not occur then that there is a lot of Christian analysis then because that reflects our sources? If you want to expand it, then go ahead, implement some more stuff, don't call tag the article POV. Alientraveller (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't help but feel some connection between WALL-E and Johnny-5

I don't feel qualified to craft such a contentful sentence or two; nor am I sure where the appropriate place would be to add this in the article, yet I can't help but feel that the similarities between the WALL-E character here and robot Number 5 (who later calls himself Johnny-5) in the film Short_Circuit should be mentioned. The camera eyes, the tread-like locomotion and of course the fact they are more than just programmed robots (albeit simply assumed the long period of time for WALL-E was enough whereas Number-5 had to be hit by lightning) being among the similaritites. Anyone wish to volunteer?

24.199.4.114 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Already in the article. Nothing more than a mere coincidence. SpikeJones (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot similarities with e.g. Idiocracy

Just looked through the archives, but apparently this hasn't been brought up before. The plot of WALL-E arguably resembles to an extent that of Idiocracy, and some have also brought up Short Circuit and other films. I've found several so-so sources, many private blogs, but also e.g. a short entry on Metromix Chicago, an article on Irishtimes.com and an entry on the Huffington Post (no doubt, their inclusion threshold is pretty low-ish). They are also mentioned side by side in this article from BaltimoreSun.com.

Let me stress that I don't agree with the few blog entries to be found that allege plagiarism in any way. Consensus appears to be that although the films are entirely independent and different from each other, they do notably share certain elements (e.g. the trash mountains, the "relic-from-the-past" hero saving mankind's future etc).

Would a a neutral summary statement to the effect that "certain similarities with movies such as Idiocracy have been noted" be in order under #Reviews? 87.79.51.88 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

$0.02. Seems a little tenuous. The Baltimore Sun article just mentions the 2 movies in a sentence; there's no real conclusion drawn in it. Private blogs, are of course, not usable. The Metromix article is also a brief, tenuous mention. The only one that might be usable is the Irish Times article; at least they bring it up in an interview and get a response. DP76764 (Talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree on the sources. Admittedly, I didn't dig that deep, but I think the ones I found are among the best available. Obviously, I think they do merit a concise statement somewhere in the article, but that what's up for discussion. 78.34.250.127 (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Macintosh chime

In the "Sound" subsection, it states "The Macintosh computer chime, used in computers 1991-1997, was used to signify when WALL-E has fully recharged his battery." Since this is WP:OR, I wouldn't add this to the article, but my 2008 iMac uses the same chime. Also, the citation for the sentence (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35724) doesn't support the claim exactly. A movie critic simply states "When [WALL-E's] fully charged he makes a Mac sound, but not a new Mac sound… old school Mac start-up sound." Thoughts?

Thanks, WordyGirl90 (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, this is entirely incorrect. WALL-E uses the current Mac startup chime, an F major chord, which was first introduced in February 1997 on the Power Macintosh 9600, and has been the only chime used for Macs since the Powerbook 2400c was discontinued in December 1998. There were several different startup chimes used on Macs sold during the period from 1991-1997, the most common of which were a two-note chime (F and C), the first three-note chime (C major in second inversion), and the second three-note chime (G major); there were at least five other chimes used as well. As far as the citation goes, the critic is just plain wrong - so much for that.

I found the specific dates and models in Mactracker, a free database application about Apple products, which can be downloaded from Mactracker (there is also an iPhone version of the application available at the iTunes store), but the fact that WALL-E's startup chime is the current Mac chime can be verified simply by turning on a Mac.

Shawn Dessaigne (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough response! I'm simply going to reduce the article statement to something like "WALL-E uses the Macintosh computer chime..." Refs might be a bit tricky to come across (a quick search revealed mostly techie blogs), so hopefully it won't go challenged. WordyGirl90 21:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"AUTO" or "Auto"

Shouldn't AUTO's name be capitalized, like the rest of the robot names/acronyms? UNIT A4B1 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

FOR ARGUMENT:

On the box of the DVD, it has "AUTO" capitalized. Also, the rest of the robot names are capitalized, so... UNIT A4B1 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

AGAINST ARGUMENT:

Auto should not be capitalized.

Auto is not an abbreviation like WALL-E or EVE. It is a shorter name for "Auto-Pilot". --MASEM (t) 00:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but the "official terminology" has AUTO capitalized UNIT A4B1 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)