Wall-E - Pixar's next film (after Ratatouille)

[mybluerabbit]

Wow, I just saw WALL E this weekend and it was great - probably my second favorite after the Incredibles!
But what really surprised me was how gutsy of a film this was, in the sense that it was really off beat. It really felt almost like a 2 hour short. Yay to Pixar!

So I did have one question though. What is Pixar's next film? I thought usually they showed previews for the next one before the film, but I didn't see any this time...

[Disneykid]

Their next movie is Up, which is rumored to be a reimagining of the Don Quixote story. There was no teaser for it in front of WALL-E because it doesn't come out till November of 2009. Supposedly we'll see one attached to Bolt later this year.

[PixarFan2006]

I am planning on finally seeing WALL-E this Tuesday (Since it's discount movie day). I hope it's really good.

[magicalwands]

There was no teaser for it in front of WALL-E because it doesn't come out till November of 2009.

I don't know what country you're from, but here in the US Up is following the same schedule Cars, Ratatouille and Wall-e have. Up is being released in May 2009. But you're right, we'll probably see the trailer attached to Bolt.

[Simba3]

Their next movie is Up, which is rumored to be a reimagining of the Don Quixote story. There was no teaser for it in front of WALL-E because it doesn't come out till November of 2009. Supposedly we'll see one attached to Bolt later this year.

I thought it was scheduled for release in May 2009. Was it officially pushed back?

[Disneykid]

Whoops, I stand corrected. I should've remembered that The Princess and the Frog's getting a November 2009 release, so of course Up would be a summer one. It does make me wonder, now, why we didn't get a teaser in front of WALL-E. I guess Pixar wants to be more hush-hush about their films from now on, so we may not see a Toy Story 3 teaser in front of Up next year, either.

[Disney Duster]

TM2-Megatron, all I know is that it makes more sense to say that me typing this and thinking and feeling and you reading and understanding and thinking and feeling and us and everyone living and loving and having the interests and passions we have is proof that souls and God exist, than to say that all that proves souls or God doesn't exist.

As for the rest of what you said, I already said I would do what I could to prevent machines like AI being made, but if they existed I would let them fake live and fake love all they wanted to, as long as it didn't hurt others.

Also, if something was made from DNA, the DNA isn't artificial or fake, so they aren't fake, either. So maybe they could have non-fake love...depending on how that little experiment goes or even if it's possible.

And for all the rest of your post, I see you have stemmed yourself too steep in science fantasy. You already said we were talking about things that don't exist. You want machines to have rights and have their love thought of the same way as human love. If your wish is to be a machine someday, then wish your wish and maybe magically it will come true other than in fantasy movie land.

[TM2-Megatron]

TM2-Megatron, all I know is that it makes more sense to say that me typing this and thinking and feeling and you reading and understanding and thinking and feeling and us and everyone living and loving and having the interests and passions we have is proof that souls and God exist, than to say that all that proves souls or God doesn't exist.

It proves we have quite complex minds, that have developed over a considerable stretch of time; nothing more. It doesn't prove, or disprove, the existence of God/souls/etc... conveniently, these things (as with most things in religion) can't be quantified. Whether one believes in them or not is a personal choice; a choice you clearly have no respect for unless it agress with yours. Fortunately, though, I'm in Canada; and I recently read an article on yahoo! news that said around 25% of our popluation admitted to being atheists, so at least I'm in good company. I have no idea what the figures are for the U.S., though I doubt it's quite that high. And if it were, I'm sure many people would be reluctant to admit it due to the discrimination they'd face.

As for the rest of what you said, I already said I would do what I could to prevent machines like AI being made, but if they existed I would let them fake live and fake love all they wanted to, as long as it didn't hurt others.

What gives you the power or right to judge whether the feelings of such beings are real, though? Just because you believe in God doesn't give you the right to make decisions and cast judgments only God would be qualified to make.

Also, if something was made from DNA, the DNA isn't artificial or fake, so they aren't fake, either. So maybe they could have non-fake love...depending on how that little experiment goes or even if it's possible.

DNA is a molecule, made up of atoms. Amazingly enough, the same is true of most other things in the Universe; including materials used to build robots. All of these things simply exist; they're neither "real" nor "fake", as you use the terms. The particular atoms that make up molecules of human DNA are no more or less valid than any other as a basis for a living thing.

And the point of that question was that the DNA in question wasn't natural. Lke any other molecule of any other substance, it's theoretically possible for DNA to be artificially planned, engineered and created from scratch. I'm not talking about genetically engineering an existing person, but simply writing the DNA for a new being from the ground up. That's as beyond our ability as AI (perhaps more so), but it's a similar issue.

And for all the rest of your post, I see you have stemmed yourself too steep in science fantasy. You already said we were talking about things that don't exist. You want machines to have rights and have their love thought of the same way as human love. If your wish is to be a machine someday, then wish your wish and maybe magically it will come true other than in fantasy movie land.

Now this sounds like a same-sex marriage debate. Again, I'm just curious why you think you (or any human, for that matte) would have the right to tell other beings that their emotions aren't as "valid" as those of humans? Why does it even matter so much to you? Who are any of us to judge the validity of the love felt by another being? We're not in their head, and even if we were we still wouldn't have that right. I do know this, though. There are quite a few humans who are totally incapable of feeling love for anything other than themselves (and even then, it's probably not what most of us would call love). I'm certainly not going to hold the human race as a whole up as a "gold standard" by which to judge the emotions of other types of life.

It's a fairly common practice to discuss ethical considerations using examples of things that may, or may not, exist in the real world. Doing so hardly means I've submerged myself into "science fantasy", or whatever you want to call it. Simply that I'm open to the idea that such things are probably possible at some point in the future. Hopefully, though, they don't come to pass until people with opinions like yours are just footnotes in history texts on the closed-mindedness and conservativism common to early, post-industrial human civilizations.

[Disney Duster]

I just came in to correct you that I said "it makes more sense" to say all this proves souls and God exist than to say it proves it doesn't.

Oh, and to tell you I'm gay and am all for gay marriage.

[jeremy88]

So, I finally saw this one last night. It was very...interesting. But good, that Eve-a was one tough robochick. Anyways, this one was weird, but a good weird. Wall-e was a cute character, and the whole theme of the movie was really innocently cute. I give Wall-e a 8/10.

Living cars in a world w/o humans just doesn't make any sense...

Wowzers I know TM2-Megatron said that, but I actually heared my best friends voice in that sentence...spookey. Everytime we discuss Pixar flicks, he always rambles on about how Cars makes no sense with out humans and yaddy yaddy yah. Just get over it Bobby...sheesh. Now I gotta call him and let him know he's haunting me on UD. Well he'll be glad to know someone shares his same thought on Cars lol.

[Widdi]

TM2-Megatron you sound like you'd make an excellent Pastafarian. I should send you some literature. Or you could, you know, Google it, but where's the fun in that?

As for this whole debate I don't see you people complaining about Bambi and Feline or Pongo and Perdita falling in love. We have no way of proving that such creatures as deer and dogs can have complex human emotions like love.

This is a movie, abandon disbelief at the door and enjoy a good story. And get over yourselves.

[yukitora]

^it's a shame it's not the best story Pixar could've developed. I should rewatch it soon

Even the insects in Cars were fundamentally cars.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Whoops, I stand corrected. I should've remembered that The Princess and the Frog's getting a November 2009 release, so of course Up would be a summer one. It does make me wonder, now, why we didn't get a teaser in front of WALL-E. I guess Pixar wants to be more hush-hush about their films from now on, so we may not see a Toy Story 3 teaser in front of Up next year, either.

Some analysts think Up isn't ready.

Me? I don't by it. I think the reason is that Bolt might as well be viewed as a Pixar film considering how much input Pixar put into it and didn't want to overkill with teasers. Those teasers can't really take all that long to animate. Plus, they probably think Disney under Pixar's leadership needs more attention at the moment.

Frankly, I'm glad Pixar has broken the tradition(if you don't count Bolt as a Pixar movie). The teasers got extremely tired for Cars, got flat out lame for Ratatouille, and they literally had to resort to begging people to see the movie in the Wall-E one. There's no real reason to advertise a whole year in advance, general audiences aren't aware a movie exists until within two weeks in advance of the movie at most.

[yukitora]

Eh I didn't like the report.

Up is gonna be great. Bolt is gonna be great. Plus, waiting that whole year for Wall-E was quite a painful experience

[TM2-Megatron]

I just came in to correct you that I said "it makes more sense" to say all this proves souls and God exist than to say it proves it doesn't.

All I said was that it doesn't prove or disprove.

Oh, and to tell you I'm gay and am all for gay marriage.

I'm also all for it, although it's pretty much a moot point in Canada now.

Just apply your open-mindedness, then, to nonhuman beings and you'll be good to go in a potential, if distant, future world, lol.

TM2-Megatron you sound like you'd make an excellent Pastafarian. I should send you some literature. Or you could, you know, Google it, but where's the fun in that?

Satirizing religion holds no more appeal for me than religion itself. I take no issue with religion in general and mostly try to live and let live. However, it does begin to irk me when elements of it are used to curtail the rights and/or impose judgment on others, when absolutely no right to do so exists. I do realize I'm talking about a type of creature that doesn't, as yet, exist; however since it was mentioned in the thread I felt I should debate it.

[JDCB1986]

I hope all of the little vignettes of WALL•E goofing around in a white space are included on the DVD/BD releases ! There seem to be an endless number of them.

[PixarFan2006]

I just got back from seeing WALL-E. I thought it was pretty good overall. The animation was great and there were many humorous moments.

I also liked the short too, even though it was not the best.

Here's how I rank the Pixar films now:

1.Toy Story
2.The Incredibles
3.Toy Story 2
4.Ratatouille
5.WALL-E
6.Monsters Inc
7.Finding Nemo
8.A Bugs Life
9.Cars

[PixarFan2006]

The previews I got in front of WALL-E were:

The Tale of Despereaux (C)
Madagascar 2 (C-)
Beverly Hills Chihuahua (F-)
Hotel for Dogs (C-)
Bolt (B-)
Fly Me to the Moon (D)
Pink Panther 2 (C-)

[Disney Duster]

Widdi, why not read everything I say before you say anything about what I said? I already talked about how the animals in those Disney animated movies are supposed to feel exactly the same way humans do, they are voiced emotionally and passionately by human voice actors. They aren't fake robots feeling real love, but real, and yes, human-like animals feeling real, and I suppose, human-like love. In real life we know animals feel pain, we can tell when they are happy or sad, and we can tell that they love certain companions (as in there own kind or their owners) over others. They are meant to mate just like humans are, and then there's even gay animals. Animals are real creatures with real emotions and feel real love like us real humans. In case you forgot, humans are animals.

But more than that, I already abandon disbelief when I see a talking animal in the first place. But in Wall-E's world, the robots exist in the what is supposed to be the real world in the future, built by humans and acting like we imagine real robots would, and acting like many machines and electronic things do today. Talking animals are not possible in the same way Pixar's vision of the future for Earth with robots is possible. That the robots fall in the same love humans and animals have is preposterous and insulting. They are fake beings who fall into fake love.

Basically, think of all the similarities between animals and humans and the how different animals and humans are from robots. Those differences are why we have real love, cause, you know, we're real and and have feelings and um, machines and robots don't.

[TM2-Megatron]

Basically, think of all the similarities between animals and humans and the how different animals and humans are from robots. Those differences are why we have real love, cause, you know, we're real and and have feelings and um, machines and robots don't.

I'll assume you're referring to the differences in our minds. The human body, like any biological form, is simply a very intricate mechanism. The only difference is in the materials and. We're biochemical, machines are generally electronic.

As for the differences between human minds and robot minds, yes, obviously those differences are why we have emotions and they don't. At the moment, we're unable to construct an artifical neural network that could rival the complexity of our own. That doesn't mean it isn't possible, or that the thoughts and feelings emanating from that mind would be less real than yours or mine. It's just your own prejudice talking, pure and simple.

And I'm not sure why you're bringing animals into this. Most animals certainly aren't capable of emotion; not as we define the term. Animals mate because nature drives them to reproduce. Emotions arise only in complex minds; they aren't innate to all living things.

In any case, since your basis for this reasoning is coming from some kind of spirituality, there's little point in continuing.