Detailed plot info for Pixar's "WALL•E"

[numba1lostboy]

Let's also not forget how well-received Spirit: Stallion of The Cimmaron was. The main character didn't speak at all.
I thought it was boring, but that was just me.

Wall E seems also boring, but I have ample faith in Pixar. I didn't think Cars was going to be good, and I loved it. So, we'll see...

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Come on guys, it doesn't sound that mindblowingly original.

For those of you who complained about Happy Feet winning the Oscar instead of Cars: Well, apparently, Pixar liked it or at least the general story. I mean, a film about the main character that tries to find the meaning of life, global warming messages(:roll:), a live-action character and that's pretty much the basic story for Happy Feet from what I've read. Combine that with Pixar's formula(a "pet cockroach named Spot" which will probably make the film feel more like a buddy film, a romance that'll probably be as in-depth as the one in Cars, what looks to be a possible "rescue/search" movie which Pixar uses so much etc.) and presto, you have one of Pixar's latest upcoming films called "WALL-E".

*sigh* Well, at least the lack of dialogue sounds like a promising an original idea, but hey, it's still an early draft and could be changed at the last minute for all we know. And Jim Hill is always known for having a 50% accuracy rate.

I won't criticize it too much, as it's obviously too early, and I still am huge fan of robots, so I'm going to at least give it a chance, but my enthusiasm for this has dropped since the posting of just 1 picture. I also found this part interesting:

But this robot's proudest possession is an old VCR. On which he plays -- over and over again -- a VHS copy of "Hello, Dolly !"

Now let's pause here for a moment and just think about that. Everything that this robot knows (Or -- more importantly -- thinks he knows) about mankind, he's either learned from picking through garbage and/or by watching a 700-year-old Barbra Streisand film.

A joke using a Barbra Streisand film? Isn't that called *gasp* a "pop-culture reference"? And it's not even an original one. That joke has already been used as character-development for Chicken Litte's "Runt of the Litter".

Using a pop-culture reference already used in an existing popular CG animated film? Very disappointed in you Pixar.

So it's hard to assume this as the "anti-Shrek" just yet Patrick.

[Disneykid]

Come on guys, it doesn't sound that mindblowingly original.

For those of you who complained about Happy Feet winning the Oscar instead of Cars: Well, apparently, Pixar liked it or at least the general story. I mean, a film about the main character that tries to find the meaning of life, global warming messages(:roll:), a live-action character, that's pretty much the basic story for Happy Feet from what I've read. Combine that with Pixar's formula(a "pet cockroach named Spot" which will probably make the film feel more like a buddy film, a romance that'll probably be as in-depth as the one in Cars, what looks to be a possible "rescue/search" movie which Pixar uses so much etc.) and pesto(!) you have Pixar's latest film called "WALL-E".

Happy Feet and (from the sounds of it) Wall-E are different films. Happy Feet's main moral wasn't about global warming. That plot point was awkwardly thrown in during the last 20 minutes of the movie. Happy Feet's main message is being yourself regardless of what the general consensus feels you should be. Wall-E, on the other hand, appears to spread its environmental message throughout the whole film rather than cram it into the last act. It also seems to be a story about how people will take advantage of the naive for personal gain (Wall-E's apparently sent to Earth for a reason other than picking up trash). The live-action bit I'll give you, though, even if this film went into production around the same time as Happy Feet.

A joke using a Barbra Streisand film? Isn't that called *gasp* a "pop-culture reference"? And it's not even an original one. That joke has already been used as character-development for Chicken Litte's "Runt of the Litter".

Using a pop-culture reference already used in an existing popular CG animated film? Very disappointed in you Pixar.

These are two totally different jokes. In Chicken Little, the joke was that Runt had taste in music and media that most guys his age don't have, and that included having a Streisand collection that would be taken away as punishment by his mother if he misbehaved. In Wall-E, the joke is that all he knows of the human race is what's shown in Hello Dolly, and we can only assume the way he approaches humans and other characters will reflect what he's seen in that video. Saying one is a rip-off of the other is just try stretch the "Pixar is unoriginal" tirade thinner than it already is. I don't know about the other members here, but I personally love pop culture references as long as: a) they support the story rather than become it, and b) the references span various decades instead of just a year or two before the movie was produced. Besides, how many movies featured King Kong, Spice Girls, and Motown references before Chicken Little came out?

[TM2-Megatron]

Come on guys, it doesn't sound that mindblowingly original.

For those of you who complained about Happy Feet winning the Oscar instead of Cars: Well, apparently, Pixar liked it or at least the general story. I mean, a film about the main character that tries to find the meaning of life, global warming messages(:roll:), a live-action character and that's pretty much the basic story for Happy Feet from what I've read. Combine that with Pixar's formula(a "pet cockroach named Spot" which will probably make the film feel more like a buddy film, a romance that'll probably be as in-depth as the one in Cars, what looks to be a possible "rescue/search" movie which Pixar uses so much etc.) and presto, you have one of Pixar's latest upcoming films called "WALL-E".

*sigh* Well, at least the lack of dialogue sounds like a promising an original idea, but hey, it's still an early draft and could be changed at the last minute for all we know. And Jim Hill is always known for having a 50% accuracy rate.

I won't criticize it too much, as it's obviously too early, and I still am huge fan of robots, so I'm going to at least give it a chance, but my enthusiasm for this has dropped since the posting of just 1 picture. I also found this part interesting:

A bit of a pessimist, I see. Personally, I don't see this as anything like Happy Feet... it won't have all the stupid songs, and the post-apocalyptic setting will make it darker than HF. And so what if they both have a live-action human... there's no information on what form this guy will take in WALL•E... he may just appear on screens in commercials for his company, or some other minor role like that (I don't think Pixar would give a live-action character a primary role in a CG film; it would be too jarring). Also, I don't see this as a "buddy picture" just because he has a pet cockroach... the thing can't talk, after all (and neither does anything else, apparently, for the first 1/3 or so).

But this robot's proudest possession is an old VCR. On which he plays -- over and over again -- a VHS copy of "Hello, Dolly !"

Now let's pause here for a moment and just think about that. Everything that this robot knows (Or -- more importantly -- thinks he knows) about mankind, he's either learned from picking through garbage and/or by watching a 700-year-old Barbra Streisand film.

A joke using a Barbra Streisand film? Isn't that called *gasp* a "pop-culture reference"? And it's not even an original one. That joke has already been used as character-development for Chicken Litte's "Runt of the Litter".

Using a pop-culture reference already used in an existing popular CG animated film? Very disappointed in you Pixar.

So it's hard to assume this as the "anti-Shrek" just yet Patrick.

Except the Shrek references were current at the time of the movie itself and intended to cause amusement simply because they were so omnipresent in the lives of the viewer... wheras this reference is incredibly dated, and irrelevant to many people (including myself, I couldn't care less about Barbara Streisand; or most musicals, in general). To me, the film reference simply implies the irony that this character, who has no experience with humans despite being fascinated by them, bases most of his assumptions and knowledge about the human race from this ridiculous movie... and, more generally, from the collected garbage we've left behind for him to scrutinize. If you ask me, they went out of their way to choose a reference the majority of their audience wouldn't have heard of.

Just because the character watches a movie that actually exists (as opposed to the writiers making up a fake movie) doesn't mean it's just a shamelessly cheap pop-culture reference like Shrek uses. Do you really think the kids who will see this movie know (or care) who Barbara Streisand is?

It may be more realistic if they changed the VCR or a DVD or Blu-Ray player, though... there's no way a VHS cassette would still play after 7 centuries... especially if it were played all the time by this robot.

[Disney Duster]

A joke using a Barbra Streisand film? Isn't that called *gasp* a "pop-culture reference"? And it's not even an original one. That joke has already been used as character-development for Chicken Litte's "Runt of the Litter".

Using a pop-culture reference already used in an existing popular CG animated film? Very disappointed in you Pixar.

I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, but it's not popular...few people like it...

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Just because the character watches a movie that actually exists (as opposed to the writiers making up a fake movie) doesn't mean it's just a shamelessly cheap pop-culture reference like Shrek uses. Do you really think the kids who will see this movie know (or care) who Barbara Streisand is?

No, we all know kids don't know(or care) about pop-culture references. That wasn't my point.

When on this forum(and others) when people critique a film, pop-culture references are always considered a terrible flaw. My opinion on them is pretty much the same as Disneykid, they're great as long as they're creative(perfect examples of terrible pop-culture references are Shrek 2 and SharkTale).

People whined how "Chicken Little" was bad all because it had Spice Girls references(when it was actually character-development). But Pixar doesn't get those negative reactions when they do the exact same thing. So, people unfairly treat Disney hard on everything recent they do just because they're Disney.

I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, but it's not popular...few people like it...

Should've said "financial success" I guess. While nothing extremely record-breaking, it was just that when compared to "Treasure Planet", "Brother Bear" and "Home on the Range".

[jediliz]

sounds better than "Ratatoulie".

I thought it was supposed to be about a Whale, at least that's what some people thought originally?

[crunkcourt]

I wasn't that excited about WALL•E when I first heard about it, but this description makes it sound more promising. It sounds like it has potential to be an epic Pixar film, but I won't expect too much from it until I hear more.

[Mr. Toad]

I'm not sure what I think about this article.

At least we know what the letters WALL E possibly stand for. I'm a little concerned about zero dialogue throughout 1/3 of the movie....sounds a bit boring to me, and what about connecting to the characters?

I'm sure Pixar will turn this into something great...I have faith.

I have recently been watching some Harold Lloyd movies. Every one of them is silent and they are anything but boring. Silent films have one huge advantage - they really force you to concentrate on everything that is going on.

[Mr. Toad]

I didn't read the whole thing, but enough to know that I will like it a lot! I think it's a brilliant, original idea, and I love it!

I'm a little concerned about zero dialogue throughout 1/3 of the movie....sounds a bit boring to me, and what about connecting to the characters?

Well, it is a challenge to make characters that don't speak so powerful we can relate to them and like them and percieve feelings from them without speech. I mean, today most communication is actually nonverbal (as in our expressions, gestures, and body movement). We relate to people easily by seeing how sad or happy they are in their face or merely observing their situation with our eyes. Besides, Pixar should rise to the challenge!

In fact over 90% of conversation is non verbal. It is easy to lie with your mouth. Much harder with your eyes and body language.

[The Little Merman]

[Disneykid]

Geez, will we EVER see Wall-E happy? We've only gotten two pics of him, and he looks like he's ready to cry in both of them. Thanks for the pic, though, The Little Merman.

[The Little Merman]

He looks so devastated. I have a feeling I am going to be bawling during this movie.

[Kyle]

Geez, will we EVER see Wall-E happy? We've only gotten two pics of him, and he looks like he's ready to cry in both of them. Thanks for the pic, though, The Little Merman.

he has no reason to be happy. from what I understand he was created solely to help clean up the now dead planet earth. if we see him happy it probably wont be untill the end of the movie.

[jlppr]

i can't wait to see this movie. too bad i have to wait so long but at least in the meantime we have ratatouille to look forward to

[Pasta67]

People whined how "Chicken Little" was bad all because it had Spice Girls references(when it was actually character-development). But Pixar doesn't get those negative reactions when they do the exact same thing. So, people unfairly treat Disney hard on everything recent they do just because they're Disney.

The pop-culture references that contributed to Runt's personality and character weren't the problem, at least not for me. References like that are fine, as long as they serve an actual perpose, like developing a personality. Chicken Little's main problem was the unnessessary ones that were put into the dialogue and animation that did nothing but halt the story.

"His name is Kirby?"
"They left him behind?"
"Darth Vader is Luke's father?!"

Those were just distracting.

*SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T READ THE ARTICLE*

I think that the inclusion of Hello, Dolly! is being blown out of preportion. It's just there to show us how WALL•E gains his general knowledge about humans and to show us how interested he is in their world. It's not like he's going to constantly consult that film throughout the movie whenever he needs advice. I think it's just going to be there when we're introduced to him, so it's no biggie.

About the actual movie, though, this article's gotten me quite excited about it. The article states that WALL•E sees multiple humans, so I'm wondering if they'll be played by real people as well. I hope so, since as wierd as it is to have a real person in a CGI film, it would be even wierder to have a combination of real and animated humans.

What really has me drooling is the thought of the animation quality. I can't wait to see how PIXAR animates outer space and different planets. With absolutely no dialogue (at least in the first third), that's really going to put a lot of pressure on the composers and the animators to keep the story going, all while not losing any viewers to boredom. With that said, I think that this movie's going to have a fantastic musical score. It's much more fun to see the characters act out their feelings rather than verbilize them, so with the lack of words, it gives the animators more time to not focus of mouth movements (Not that WALL•E has a mouth, from what I can see...) and focus more on eyes and body language, which is what excites me most.

The bit of satire will be refreshing as well, as long as they don't go overboard.

I haven't seen a second of animation from this, and my excitement for it is already surpassed that of Cars and Ratatouille put together. Can't wait for a trailer.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

This sounds really great. I've held back from posting to think about it, but now I've decided that this will be probably one of the best PIXAR films to date, maybe even second, of course after the wonderful "A Bug's Life". We haven't heard silence in awhile in the world, and this might help enviormentalists to prove a point of what our world will probably look like if us humans continue to trash the planet. Pathetic humans.

[Ariel'sprince]

i don't like this film at all.
a whole silent film? this is goona be a very boring film.
and i don't like the idea that people made earth dirty so that the all point is "look-what's-going-to-happend-in-the-futher",i think this film sucks.

[TM2-Megatron]

i don't like this film at all.a whole silent film? this is goona be a very boring film.

Refreshing, if you ask me. But then, there's no accounting for taste; especially these days.

and i don't like the idea that people made earth dirty so that the all point is "look-what's-going-to-happend-in-the-futher",i think this film sucks.

Well, admittedly, that is basically one of the things that humanity is best at... making a mess of things; from the standpoint of the environment, politics, economics... you name it, we screw around with it.

[Disneykid]

i don't like this film at all.
a whole silent film? this is goona be a very boring film.

Actually, only the first third is (mostly) dialogue-free. Judging by the 90-100 minute running time of most animated films today, I'd say the first 30 minutes or so will be what's silent outside of the Hello, Dolly! tape, and maybe some sort of narrated prologue putting the story in perspective. Besides, Dumbo, Bambi and Sleeping Beauty had long gaps of scenes without dialogue, and they worked just fine.