# Wall E



## indy500tchr (Jun 27, 2008)

I've been waiting for this movie to come out for quite some time. I thought the little robot was so cute and we were going to see his daily ins and outs while he cleaned up Earth. At least that is what the previews made me believe. To my suprise that was just the first 20 mins. or so. The rest of the movie took place on this spaceship filled with fat people who did nothing but ride around in these movable recliners with a screen in front of them chatting with their friends and constantly drinking their breakfast, lunch and dinner. They were oblivious to what was going on anywhere but the screen right in front of their face. They were so fat they couldn't even walk. Even the babies were all fat. There wasn't one skinny person there. 

Now I am very comfortable with my size and I think it would be awesome to live in a place where everybody was the same size but somehow this did not sit well with me at all. I felt very uncomfortable and slightly offended. Especially since they were depicted as "too fat to function". It kind of reminded me of some of the threads around here talking about immobility.

I didn't realize how political Disney really was. I would like to hear your take on the movie.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 27, 2008)

I just got off a similar thread on another similar site and we discussed this same topic, where some people called for a boycott to the movie.

While you may have been somewhat uncomfortable with the portral within the film, my understanding is that these humans are so pampered inside the ship, they have reason to take care of themselves. 

Again not having seen it my understanding is that this film is fable about taking care of ourselves and the planet, avoiding being lazy.

I leave with this thought, John Lasserter who created Toy Story and many of the other Pixar films is a BHM himself who wears Hawaiian shirts. He guided this story. This is a man who has been assigned creative control at Disneyland and has set forth policies to make rides more accessible to people of all shapes and sizes. I highly doubt a man of his size would willingly allow his story department to make fun of larger people.


----------



## indy500tchr (Jun 28, 2008)

Oh I didn't feel that they were poking fun at fat people at all just putting them in a very negative light like you said "not taking care of themselves" and "avoid being lazy" You know since all fat people dont take care of themselves and are lazy. * angry eyeroll* It gives off a very negative vibe for people of size.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 28, 2008)

indy500tchr said:


> Oh I didn't feel that they were poking fun at fat people at all just putting them in a very negative light like you said "not taking care of themselves" and "avoid being lazy" You know since all fat people dont take care of themselves and are lazy. * angry eyeroll* It gives off a very negative vibe for people of size.



When I mentioned laziness as theme it extended beyond just the issue of the weight but the large ongoing issue in the film regarding taking responsibility and stewardship for both the planet, environment and the temple of our bodies.

The message of the fable "seems" to be bigger and broader than just the fact that these humans have gained weight. 

I am sorry if I offended you with my counter argument, truly I apologize. I did not mean to impure the productivity, health or vitality of people of size. Laziness *can* but does not always lead to a sedimentary lifestyles that can cause weight gain. I know plenty of active, healthy and even fit - larger people, both men and women.


----------



## ParliamentofOwls (Jun 28, 2008)

I Just got back from seeing it and thought it was great. I'm not about to over analyze a children's movie because it had a rather common negative portrayal of obesity. I love fat chicks and I love robots in love!


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 28, 2008)

First off, the message has nothing to do with Disney (who, thank god, pixar will sever with soon). The message is all Pixar. This is NOT an anti-fat film. The film was anti-laziness of humanity. It is anti waste and destruction. 

If you have not seen it, please do not listen to the nonsense being spewed by people who were apparently too reactionary to actually see the film before judging (i'm by no means saying that you guys did that; i have just heard that kind of thing floating around). 

I saw at midnight and was blown away. It's phenomenal. It is a lovely film in every way. 

One thing to keep in mind is that the humans aren't portrayed as bad. The situation into which humanity let itself fall is, but it's not as though the message is "look at those awful fat people". I think that Pixar was very careful to avoid that. The humans, when called upon to be, are warm and caring and brave. And still fat.

It really doesn't give off a negative vibe for people of size. Really. It makes a point about mindless consumerism.

ayschucks, you hit it right on the nose. 

And let's not forget that one of the fat characters is a hero.


----------



## STfa (Jun 28, 2008)

I must agree with Indy500chr. My wife and I had been looking forward to seeing this for a long time, ever since the first trailers. Not one thing anywhere prepared us for what we walked into. I am not being "overly sensitive" here. I'm a practical guy, but look at it from our point of view. 

My wife is disabled. She would be disabled whether she weighed 95 lbs or 495 lbs. She is wheelchair/scooter dependent. Now imagine how she felt, sitting in the theater, enjoying the story up until then, when all of a sudden, we are shown this entire race of 500 lbs immobile people who are too fat to walk on their own and have to use a mobility device. My wife sank in her chair! And my 300 lbs wife is NOT ashamed of her size, by the way. 

The fact that these characters are that large is (essentially) incidental. After 700 years in space, living with service bots who do everything down to brush your teeth for you, they've developed into this. But there are references made like "we have a pool?" and "I didn't know we had a jogging track", to illustrate that these things were available but people were too lazy to use them, choosing instead to be online nearly all the time and slurping their liquid meals all day. In other words, being fat is a consequence of laziness, not DNA.

During the end credits, the animations show a new Earth being cultivated by farming and caring for the planet. Groovy, except that as time goes on, the people get thinner and thinner, once again reinforcing the negativity that thin is right and fat is wrong and that a clean, healthy planet is for the thin people who deserve it (even though it was fat people who first began the re-cultivation process. 

Somebody mentioned that one of the people on this project was a BHM. Well, that doesn't mean much. I know several BHM who hate their bodies and go on about hating their body more than most BBWs I know. Having a BHM on board the project doesn't assure us a size positive message.

The fact is, this is a movie about excesses. What is really ironic is that Pixar is not about to put their money where their mouth is. The Wall-E toys and games and other assorted "landfill candidates" have hit the store shelves. So much for preaching about consumerism. Most of these toys would be the same ones in those huge garbage piles that Wall-E was compacting! 

The fact is, we live in a very anti-fat, anti-size environment right now. In the late 80's, we could have gone on a talk show and said this movie re-enforces the negative stereotypes that all fat people are lazy gluttons and its wrong. Its weight bigotry. But today, everywhere you turn there is somebody making anti-fat comments or advertising weight loss products or telling boogie-man stories about childhod obesity and the so called obesity epidemic. Today, its not easy to stand up and say "That is an offensive stereotype". The fact is, people are treated like being fat is something they choose, and not something they just are. 

An interesting point, too is that when I saw that world of nothing but supersized people (the press is using the term "morbidly obese" people; just what we need), it seemed just as wrong and just as illogical as the world we see on TV and movies today with nothing but thin people and no fat people to be found usually. There is this thing called human diversity, after all. 

The fact that one of the fat people ended up being a hero is very nice. It would have been even nicer if he had been a 500 lbs hero who could walk and perform as good as any able bodied thin person, but sadly, part of what made him a hero was that he got off the chair, and with that climatic music in the background, stood on his own two feet and took labored steps forward. 

The fact is, the story could have been told equally as well with average sized people who lounged in lazy luxury and excess, but they wanted to make a statement about obesity here. Science fiction has had artificial gravity from the earliest Flash Gordons to the present. 

Because of no gravity, being in space causes muscle atrophy and bone mass loss but it wouldn't cause thousands of humans to become 500 lbs. This ship they'd been on for 700 years HAS artificial gravity. These people could have been walking around and swimming and doing things, besides eating, sleeping and internet. Believe me, this was a statement about the sins of gluttony and sedentary lifestyle, every bit as much as it is about the sins of the disposable economy and pollution. The problem is most fat people do not choose to be fat. So things like this only serve to reinforce negative stereotypes and will open the door to more and more stuff like it. 

The movie is visually stunning. Wall-E is very lovable. Too bad it had to have this negative spin to it. In fact, I'd never been in an animated movie like this where the kids were so quiet. This movie was clearly aiming at parents. 

My wife waited until the end of the credits and every last person left the theater before she rode out on her scooter. Its easy to criticize her feelings if you are not a large person dependent on a scooter, but I'm sure for those who are, most would feel the way we did. 

Meanwhile, we won't be filling any future landfills with Wall-E merchandising.


----------



## Keb (Jun 28, 2008)

Wall-E was pure art. The people on the ship were fat because of 2 things--being pampered by the robots to the point where they didn't have to move, and the effects of being in space for an extended period of time (the first of which was illustrated, the second said point blank in the movie). It wasn't poking fun at fat people, or blaming them. It was a really positive movie and I enjoyed it.


----------



## butch (Jun 28, 2008)

Funny, though, that every other science fiction thing out there, like Battlestar Gallactica, Star Trek, etc., shows people in space for extended periods of time and they seem to have little to no fat people populating their space ships? 

Its hard for me to believe any movie that explicitly ties overconsumption and lack of environmental awareness to fatness is not making a negative claim about fat people. Why would WALL*e decide to buck the trend of creating a fat free future that is prevalent in most science fiction, if not to suggest that fatness is a huge marker for what ails us as a society today? If they had meant fat to be neutral, then that ending about people getting thinner as they worked the newly regenerated Earth would not have been included in the film.

If we lived in a world that didn't overwhelmingly have negative beliefs about fat people, then we'd see more diversity in our films when it comes to portrayals of fat people, and maybe then I could accept the claims that fatness in WALL*e is not meant to be read in a negative light. Since that isn't the case, I'm guessing Pixar decided to jump on the 'blame the fatties for everything bad about the planet' bandwagon.

Funny, too, that I'm guessing in this fat future all the people were well taken care of; affluent, even. At least the fatties were able to move up the socio-economic ladder in this film.

I will offer this disclaimer, I haven't seen the film, and I wasn't planning on seeing the film, as I'm not a big fan of animation. I've seen one Pixar film, and liked it, if that matters. My opinion comes from what I've read here and in other places (including movie reviews) as well as my familiarity with how fatness is portrayed in film, and the track record for that is pretty dismal, unless you happen to be a 'big star' like John Goodman, and then you begin to see more nuanced, less prejudiced characterizations of fat people.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 28, 2008)

STfa said:


> I must agree with Indy500chr. My wife and I had been looking forward to seeing this for a long time, ever since the first trailers. Not one thing anywhere prepared us for what we walked into. I am not being "overly sensitive" here. I'm a practical guy, but look at it from our point of view.
> 
> My wife is disabled. She would be disabled whether she weighed 95 lbs or 495 lbs. She is wheelchair/scooter dependent. Now imagine how she felt, sitting in the theater, enjoying the story up until then, when all of a sudden, we are shown this entire race of 500 lbs immobile people who are too fat to walk on their own and have to use a mobility device. My wife sank in her chair! And my 300 lbs wife is NOT ashamed of her size, by the way.



500lbs is excessive correct? I mean that type of weight is a health risk for heart disease, strokes, or Alzheimer's disease. Can you honestly argue with a film that is warning against such extreme laziness that could cause such extreme weight gain with extreme health risks? We all enjoy healthy curves but can you honestly argue that a fable warning us about excessive frivolous life styles, being self sufficient and good stewards to our planet and ourselves- is a bad message to teach children while they are young? Would you rather we bury our heads in the sand and not teach children to treat there bodies and the planet like temples?

I am not a parent and I have never been extremely heavy but I have been heavier than I am now. I was a chubby kid growing up. If an animated film, would have planted some ideas in my head as a child about taking care of myself- I don't see it as a bad thing. Nor would I see it as a bad thing if I did have children who were taught to be healthy.

To qualify I am still not "skinny" and I am extremely healthy and I've meet many large people, both men and women who are healthy.



> The fact that these characters are that large is (essentially) incidental. After 700 years in space, living with service bots who do everything down to brush your teeth for you, they've developed into this. But there are references made like "we have a pool?" and "I didn't know we had a jogging track", to illustrate that these things were available but people were too lazy to use them, choosing instead to be online nearly all the time and slurping their liquid meals all day. In other words, being fat is a consequence of laziness, not DNA.



Find me evidence that suggest being fat is exclusively based on DNA. My brother, sister and I are large people and could be much heavier and yet both of my parents are beyond petite. Your size is not predetermined at your conception, that fatalistic kind of attitude prevents a healthy lifestyle.



> Somebody mentioned that one of the people on this project was a BHM. Well, that doesn't mean much. I know several BHM who hate their bodies and go on about hating their body more than most BBWs I know. Having a BHM on board the project doesn't assure us a size positive message.



This is the same guy who has gone out of his way to rebuild "It's A Small World" to create boats that are designed for people of all shapes and sizes, because the original boats were not built that way in the 1960's. He widened the hatches to the Nemo Submarine Voyage. He created wider seats for the new Toy Story Mania ride at California Adventure.

John also created the Incredibles which featured Mr. Incredible a BHM who let himself go and proved that with hard work and dedication he could be healthy and large.

I highly doubt, based on all the evidence I've scene, that he suddenly become a closested bigot against people of size.

I am sorry you and your wife felt this was a negative stereotype.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 28, 2008)

Keb said:


> Wall-E was pure art. The people on the ship were fat because of 2 things--being pampered by the robots to the point where they didn't have to move, and the effects of being in space for an extended period of time (the first of which was illustrated, the second said point blank in the movie). It wasn't poking fun at fat people, or blaming them. It was a really positive movie and I enjoyed it.



Hear, hear! 

Thank you for being a voice of reason in all of this. 

I'm genuinely saddened that people felt attacked by the film. That sucks, and I would hate to walk out of a movie feeling as though I had been insulted. I'm not negating what you felt, and I'm really sorry you did. I just feel that it was a misinterpretation.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 28, 2008)

I'm with the positives...saw it at midnight.

Wonderful, touching, melancholy, yet sweet film. Incredibly sad, and moving, and not really for children. 

I loved it, of course...


----------



## phatfatgirl (Jun 28, 2008)

I also loved the movie, I was taken aback when i first realized about the "morbidly obese" people, but it didn't stay on my mind long. I basically went into sugar shock watching the movie because it was sooooo sweet. 
so basically I loved it.


----------



## stan_der_man (Jun 28, 2008)

This thread sort of reminds me of another thread way back where there was a discussion about the movie "Shallow Hal", with Jack Black.

I haven't seen Wall E. so I don't know the specifics. I remember in the discussion of "Shallow Hal", it was also the same thing where it was an entertaining movie that didn't paint being fat in a positive light (at least that's what I concluded...)

Personally, I think with movies like these you have to take them at what they are... not necessarily a political statement but simply entertainment... maybe the personal opinion of one producer / writer at worse. Unfortunately, I do agree with other post here that popular entertainment in general doesn't paint fat people in the best light, and probably won't in the near future, this is probably just another example of that.


----------



## pani (Jun 29, 2008)

Well, I haven't seen it, and I really stay away from pop media to begin with, but the part about them getting thinner as they "improve" disgusts me. The same old propaganda they have been throwing at us for years. Although I won't be surprized if they weren't paid by a diet company to write that in a script. That is not farfetched, product placement and commerical interests influencing "entertainment" is at an all time high. Sex and the City had numerous product placements. Disney is also not what it used to be. I used to show a video to my students that showed Michael Eisner, while he was CEO of Disney speaking at a conference where he said encouraging aggression in kids in pursuit of a sale is a good thing. He was talking about how boys like aggression and it is perfectly fine to capitalize on it if it make a buck. Disney has become just like any other corporation, just out for the almighty dollar and I think it is sad that so many people are still so loyal to them because of their former reputation. Disney once had a terribly tacky fat joke on the Pirates of Carribean ride where pirates were chasing women in order to rape them. Except one fat woman was chasing a pirate. Really, not only was it insulting to fat women, it promoted the stereotypes that some women want to be raped. It took years of protests for them to remove her. I still haven't forgiven them for that!


----------



## Zoom (Jun 29, 2008)

When I heard about the possibly negative portrayal, the dichotomy between my wanting to see teh fatz0rz and my showcasing my temper tantrum against the message, was offset by my not having seen it.

However, I got really pissed off when the trailer made use of the _Brazil_ soundtrack. Couldn't they just make up their own damn music? What a fetid pile of unoriginality.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 29, 2008)

Trailers frequently make use of scores from other films, as they are often cut before the score from their own film is finished.

Very common.

As "Brazil" is my favorite film, I understand your protest, but those who have not seen it MIGHT want to consider seeing it first.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 29, 2008)

pani said:


> Well, I haven't seen it, and I really stay away from pop media to begin with, but the part about them getting thinner as they "improve" disgusts me. The same old propaganda they have been throwing at us for years. Although I won't be surprized if they weren't paid by a diet company to write that in a script. That is not farfetched, product placement and commerical interests influencing "entertainment" is at an all time high. Sex and the City had numerous product placements. Disney is also not what it used to be. I used to show a video to my students that showed Michael Eisner, while he was CEO of Disney speaking at a conference where he said encouraging aggression in kids in pursuit of a sale is a good thing. He was talking about how boys like aggression and it is perfectly fine to capitalize on it if it make a buck. Disney has become just like any other corporation, just out for the almighty dollar and I think it is sad that so many people are still so loyal to them because of their former reputation. Disney once had a terribly tacky fat joke on the Pirates of Carribean ride where pirates were chasing women in order to rape them. Except one fat woman was chasing a pirate. Really, not only was it insulting to fat women, it promoted the stereotypes that some women want to be raped. It took years of protests for them to remove her. I still haven't forgiven them for that!




SO I guess the part about Pixar leaving Disney as fast as they can is just lost here?

Pixar does not want to be a part of the Mouse...so you can breathe now.


----------



## NancyGirl74 (Jun 29, 2008)

Pixar didn't want to be part of the Mouse years ago. They used Disney to get off the ground and Disney provided...much to their mutual benefits. It was a very smart move on Disney's part to have the foresight into giving computer animation a boost up because it has basically become the way of animation today. 

Anyway, Pixar's contract with Disney was up years ago (Just after Nemo was out on DVD, I think) and they opted to re-sign. Pixar and Disney are a powerful combination. I sure Pixar would love to be independent and out from under the thumb of the Mouse but it all boils back down to money. Disney equals money. They may not be making brilliant animations like they used to but they are still a marketing machine. All they have to do is label _Toy Story_ a classic, "lock" in the Disney "vault" for about 5 years, repackage it with bonuses and when they take it out of their imaginary vault everyone who already owns it will buy it again for all the new goodies. Boom! An old movie has now just doubled its value. No one markets better than Disney. I'd lay odds that Pixar re-signs with Disney (again) for very lucrative deal that ultimately benefits them both.

As for the movie Wall-E. I was looking forward to seeing it myself and I'm sure I still will. What bothers me from what I'm hearing about the movie is not that they are making some sort of statement against excessive laziness and wastefulness. I think it's a good statement to make in this day and age. However, using fat characters and only fat characters to help illustrate their message seems very ignorant and a bit prejudice. Not all fat people are lazy and/or wasteful. I'm sure all of us know skinny people who are lazy and wasteful (I sure as heck do!). So, I think their message is a good one but the generalization that this futuristic way of life is lead by only fat people (or is the only cause of fatness) is a bit bothersome. I'll have to see how I react when I watch the movie.


----------



## Webmaster (Jun 29, 2008)

I saw the movie with my 12-year-old son on Friday. Like most, I love Pixar's movies and we couldn't wait to go see it. 

Without having read all the arguments pro and con in this thread, I will say that my own reaction and that of my son both are negative. When the fat people plot was revealed, my son leaned over and whispered, "That is so wrong." Of course, he's grown up in a size-positive/size-acceptance environment, but he is quite capable of deciding himself what he feels is good old-fashioned fun, what is clever speculation, and what is just a cheap grab for laughs at the cost of fat people. Both he and I felt it was the latter.

I mean, what with exhaustion of renewable resources, our ability to nuke ourselves into oblivion, global warming and whatever, the worst that can happen to our planet is that we drown in garbage and then become hugely fat and lazy? Ha ha ha.

I am sure one can construct some sort of justification into this movie, but in a society where fat people (and no, fat people are not a majority of the population, only statistically fat people are) are ridiculed, discriminated against, and exploited, is it really necessary for the next big Pixar megamovie to equate garbage, eating, fat, and lazy? Is it necessary to gleefully portray a ship full of obese people plop around, unable to walk or reach or anything? 

In my opinion, with Wall-E, Pixar is so far off, it's off the scale. Sure, some of the Pixar folks may be fat themselves, but that just makes them apologists. They did our children and the fat people in this nation and anywhere a huge disservice with this movie. More, really; a cruel slap in the face.


----------



## butch (Jun 29, 2008)

Webmaster said:


> I saw the movie with my 12-year-old son on Friday. Like most, I love Pixar's movies and we couldn't wait to go see it.
> 
> Without having read all the arguments pro and con in this thread, I will say that my own reaction and that of my son both are negative. When the fat people plot was revealed, my son leaned over and whispered, "That is so wrong." Of course, he's grown up in a size-positive/size-acceptance environment, but he is quite capable of deciding himself what he feels is good old-fashioned fun, what is clever speculation, and what is just a cheap grab for laughs at the cost of fat people. Both he and I felt it was the latter.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the review, and for raising such a size-positive son. Lets hope his peers are as savvy to the negative associations in this film as he is.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 29, 2008)

Webmaster said:


> I saw the movie with my 12-year-old son on Friday. Like most, I love Pixar's movies and we couldn't wait to go see it.
> 
> Without having read all the arguments pro and con in this thread, I will say that my own reaction and that of my son both are negative. When the fat people plot was revealed, my son leaned over and whispered, "That is so wrong." Of course, he's grown up in a size-positive/size-acceptance environment, but he is quite capable of deciding himself what he feels is good old-fashioned fun, what is clever speculation, and what is just a cheap grab for laughs at the cost of fat people. Both he and I felt it was the latter.
> 
> ...





Your argument regarding laziness not necessarily equaling fatness is a good one....gotta say that.

It would have been nice if they had shown at least some humans as thin, completely limp noodles with no bone or muscle tone as the result of the same.

The laziest person I know is thin as a rail.

So yeah....I get that.


AND...I get why people who have seen the movie might not like the garbage=fat association.....ok...I concede this as well. Also a good point.

Somehow tho..and I am REALLY sensitive to negative fat stuff....I wasn't offended...it just seemed less about the laziness of FAT people...and more about the laziness and wastefulness of HUMANS in general.


----------



## toni (Jun 29, 2008)

I was going to take my daughter to see this movie last Friday. However, our cat ran away and we spent the day looking for him (he is now found). Anyway, I am glad we didn't go. I was really looking forward to it but I will not support (waste my money) a movie with such blatant stereotypes. 


BOO on Pixar, Boo on Disney


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jun 29, 2008)

I have to take one of the children I babysit for to see it today. As she is already OBSESSED with dieting and weight loss at the ripe old age of 10, I'm terrified to see the effect it will have on her.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 29, 2008)

I finally got to see this movie last night and in all of these reviews by people who have seen this film, there was one import detail that has been left out. More than the laziness idea, there is a specific plot point that explains why these people are heavy and if you simply miss that point then you might see a negative association. 



Spoiler



The reason the humans have gained weight goes beyond just laziness, there is a plot to purposefully keep these humans occupied and subjected to a life of laziness. The weight is used as a plot tool to keep the humans subjected and immobilized from stopping a sinister subplot.


----------



## goofy girl (Jun 29, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> I finally got to see this movie last night and in all of these reviews by people who have seen this film, there was one import detail that has been left out. More than the laziness idea, there is a specific plot point that explains why these people are heavy and if you simply miss that point then you might see a negative association.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



AAUUUGHHH!! Spoilers go in white text!! white text!!!!


But thanks for the warning


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 29, 2008)

goofy girl said:


> AAUUUGHHH!! Spoilers go in white text!! white text!!!!
> 
> 
> But thanks for the warning



Fixed...sorry. On some of the other forums I am part of, writing the word


Spoiler



in the brackets creates a special window.


----------



## goofy girl (Jun 29, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> Fixed...sorry. On some of the other forums I am part of, writing the word
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...





Spoiler



just trying to help out the newbie 

Oh..and I'm impressed by that


Spoiler



thing..that's fancy. I bet GEF would pay for that to simplify her white texting


----------



## gwydion (Jun 29, 2008)

Here's the thing, I was really excited about this movie, and it was one of those which might have actually warrented a trip to the theater (instead of the mailbox, a la Netflix), but...

well, in this society, who wants to be the fat people going to see a movie where fat people are portreyed as the result of terminal laziness? Even if that isn't the intended message, I harbor serious doubts about how people will react to the concept being portreyed (gosh I'm glad I'm not lazy like _that_ fatass!)

Guess this will have to be relegated to the list of movies I'll be adding to my Greencine queue when I switch over from Netflix (due to them cancelling the profiles system as a bald-faced attempt at getting families to buy separate plans...) 

Oh well. I still have Batman to look forward to.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 29, 2008)

I almost feel like shouting THESE PEOPLE AREN'T SIMPLY JUST LAZY OR OVERWEIGHT.

THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING CONTROLLED AND PURPOSEFULLY FEED A POOR DIET AND OVERFED TO PREVENT A MUTINY.

All the preconceived notions I had going in about the weight issue were wrong and the weight was a plot device not a negative stereotype.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jun 29, 2008)

I haven't seen the movie yet, I plan on taking my kids next week though. 

I don't understand what all the outrage is about, if you sit around and eat a high calorie diet and get no excersize you are going to be fat. That's just how it is. People are fat because they take in more calories than they burn, so if someone is simply sitting in front of a computer all day, day in day out they are gonna be fat. Not saying its a bad thing, not saying its a good thing. Its just how it is.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 29, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> I haven't seen the movie yet, I plan on taking my kids next week though.
> 
> I don't understand what all the outrage is about, if you sit around and eat a high calorie diet and get no excersize you are going to be fat. That's just how it is. People are fat because they take in more calories than they burn, so if someone is simply sitting in front of a computer all day, day in day out they are gonna be fat. Not saying its a bad thing, not saying its a good thing. Its just how it is.



Well, yes, but I think some of the implications are where people are finding problems.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jun 29, 2008)

Tooz said:


> Well, yes, but I think some of the implications are where people are finding problems.




But are the implications there because that's how the movie was written or do we as fat people see them because of the things that some of us have gone through in our day to day lives?


----------



## Tooz (Jun 29, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> But are the implications there because that's how the movie was written or do we as fat people see them because of the things that some of us have gone through in our day to day lives?



Well, equating fat with some of the other adjectives people have mentioned elsewhere in this thread is abrasive. Also, there ARE people who are skinny who lead lives sedentary in nature and eat high fat diets. To make ALL the humans fat is a little bit of a sweeping generalization. For me, personally, I will still see the movie, but I am sick of fat being used to make any kind of political (if we can call it this) statement.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jun 29, 2008)

I just saw this. I went to the movie prepared to be offended and upset, but now that I've seen it, I completely agree with you, Ayschucks. I hadn't seen your post when I left, and was going to come back and post almost exactly what you did, but you pretty much said it for me.

These people were not fat because they were lazy and overeating - they were fat because they were manipulated into being that way over a period of several hundred years. It was obvious to me that this was the point the plot was trying to make, but since they never came out and said it, I don't know if fatphobes and/or children will get it. People will see what they want to see, regardless of what's there. But yeah - I really did not find this movie fatphobic or offensive or prejudiced at all, and I have a VERY open eye to that.


----------



## Littleghost (Jun 29, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> SO I guess the part about Pixar leaving Disney as fast as they can is just lost here?
> 
> Pixar does not want to be a part of the Mouse...so you can breathe now.



It would be nice if they got their wish, especially since they want to bring more animation that isn't as child-oriented to the US. But last I heard, their contract had been renewed with Disney, which included Wall*E. Have you heard anything since then?


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 29, 2008)

They nearly merged as I understand it. Disney bought out Pixar but made sweeping accommodations to make everyone happy. Steve Jobs made our like a bandit as did his second in command at Pixar, John Lasserter who was promoted to the head of all creative endeavors for Disney including control over all future movies, plots, themeparks, rides etc.

He has made huge efforts to restart the traditional animation department as well as update the rides and create ground breaking attractions like the new Toy Story Mania.

Basically it boils down to this Apple/Pixar and Disney now have a very twisted relationship based on nepotism but the end result is better for Disney products.


----------



## Les Toil (Jun 29, 2008)

STfa said:


> The Wall-E toys and games and other assorted "landfill candidates" have hit the store shelves. So much for preaching about consumerism. Most of these toys would be the same ones in those huge garbage piles that Wall-E was compacting!



That kind of hypocrisy tells me Disney/Pixar needs to stay as far away from a socio/political message as they can.


----------



## Les Toil (Jun 29, 2008)

goofy girl said:


> AAUUUGHHH!! Spoilers go in white text!! white text!!!!
> 
> 
> But thanks for the warning



LMAO! What's funny is when you quoted him, YOU forgot to put the spoiler in white text too!


----------



## Les Toil (Jun 29, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> I haven't seen the movie yet, I plan on taking my kids next week though.
> 
> I don't understand what all the outrage is about, if you sit around and eat a high calorie diet and get no excersize you are going to be fat. That's just how it is. People are fat because they take in more calories than they burn, so if someone is simply sitting in front of a computer all day, day in day out they are gonna be fat. Not saying its a bad thing, not saying its a good thing. Its just how it is.



Yeah, but as Red pointed out, there's quite a few lazy-ass people that eat crud all day that AREN'T fat. They just look like Don Knotts with a pot belly. But I have to agree that from a physiological standpoint, excess consuming without a calorie-burning plan is inevitably going to cause weight gain and there's not much of a way to see it otherwise. Unfortunately that message is being given within this movie at the expense of many fat folks with a naturally slow metabolism.


----------



## moore2me (Jun 29, 2008)

STfa said:


> I must agree with Indy500chr. My wife and I had been looking forward to seeing this for a long time, ever since the first trailers. Not one thing anywhere prepared us for what we walked into. I am not being "overly sensitive" here. I'm a practical guy, but look at it from our point of view.
> 
> My wife is disabled. She would be disabled whether she weighed 95 lbs or 495 lbs. She is wheelchair/scooter dependent. Now imagine how she felt, sitting in the theater, enjoying the story up until then, when all of a sudden, we are shown this entire race of 500 lbs immobile people who are too fat to walk on their own and have to use a mobility device. My wife sank in her chair! And my 300 lbs wife is NOT ashamed of her size, by the way.
> 
> ...




Dear STfa, I am sorry for your wife embarrasment at this movie. In the south it is considered extremely rude to have a guest come into your home (or business such as a movie theater) and then treat that guest in a shameful manner. To embarrass a person like your wife to the point where she does not even want to exit the theater with everyone else is just horrible. That makes me think this movie make her feel less than human - and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. In the old days, Disney films did not treat people in a shameful fashion. For them to do so now, is abhorrant and Walt should visit these "movie moguls" and give them a lesson in manners and human dignity


----------



## bigsexy920 (Jun 29, 2008)

People can't be manipulated into being fat !!!!! Who ever heard of such a thing. 



BigBeautifulMe said:


> These people were not fat because they were lazy and overeating - they were fat because they were manipulated into being that way over a period of several hundred years.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jun 29, 2008)

You have to see the movie, Berna.  Dont' want to get too into details because it'll give too much away. But they were.


----------



## bigsexy920 (Jun 29, 2008)

I actually do want to see it - and I want to see it even all the more since all the talk.


----------



## Durin (Jun 29, 2008)

The Only good thing in the movie was Wall-E. He is a great robot, shows the power of faithfulness, curiousity, ect.


The portrayel of the guests of the Axiom left me feeling cold. It seems like the media has decided to flog "The War Against Obesity" into the ground.

While it had it's share of fat gags I thought Kung Fu Panda portrayed Po in a fairly positive light.

What I can't understand, what is the inherit goodness in going back to Earth to be dirt farmers. I bet most folks who saw the movie have never worked a farm let alone a garden. 

I would think our race could be perfectly happy writing books, games, new buisness schemes. ect. ect. Even if we weigh 600 average and can't get around so good without our skimmers.

What's so holy about living on a planet and turning dirt?


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 29, 2008)

Durin said:


> The Only good thing in the movie was Wall-E. He is a great robot, shows the power of faithfulness, curiousity, ect.
> 
> The portrayel of the guests of the Axiom left me feeling cold. It seems like the media has decided to flog "The War Against Obesity" into the ground.
> 
> ...




My entire brain is on overload from this thread but this post let alone had sent gears and springs firing off into the atmosphere as my head did a 360 turn.

Did you miss the fable about being a steward not only to our planet but to ourselves and the temple that is our body?

The real question is why wouldn't we want to take control of our lives? Before Wall-E's intrusion there was not art, culture, writing books, playing games- There was no romantic love (which poses all sorts of creepy cloning questions) 

Whats to write about if you are stuck in that ship? What could possibly inspire you?

I am sorry, several of these posts are so overly sensitive to a story that many have not seen or chose to isolate certain points and negate the rest. Its not wrong, wrong, wrong- its a fable with a positive message about responsibility and love and determination. We go in as grown ups and lay our hangs up on the themes and cry bloody murder over something so innocent. 

Sorry I don't see what so holy about avoiding getting your hands dirty and tilling the earth.


----------



## isotope (Jun 30, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> My entire brain is on overload from this thread but this post let alone had sent gears and springs firing off into the atmosphere as my head did a 360 turn.
> 
> Did you miss the fable about being a steward not only to our planet but to ourselves and the temple that is our body?
> 
> ...




Kudos to this fellow here! 

After reading this thread, all i have to say is...

L I G H T E N U P (pun?)

I wrote several different responses but i think i'll just keep to the main message of turning down the venom on such an innocent and well put together movie and two other things...

One, yes, the humans did lose weight when they got back to earth and started cultivating. That's called reality. You go from doing nothing and eating all day in a climate controlled enviroment to working the fields on a hot sunny day, you're going to shed pounds. It's not a message, it's just reality.

And two, if you're offended and haven't seen the movie, then you have too much free time. So, with so much free time, you should go see Wall-E and make your own judgements.

Seacrest out.

PS, Wanted had a much much worse fat stereotype than this. Point your angry blame fingers at that.


----------



## ripley (Jun 30, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> Did you miss the fable about being a steward not only to our planet but to ourselves and the temple that is our body?
> 
> 
> Its not wrong, wrong, wrong- its a fable with a positive message about responsibility and love and determination.



So fat people are bad stewards of the temple that is their body?

And it's a positive message to lose weight?



isotope said:


> One, yes, the humans did lose weight when they got back to earth and started cultivating. That's called reality. You go from doing nothing and eating all day in a climate controlled enviroment to working the fields on a hot sunny day, you're going to shed pounds. It's not a message, it's just reality.




It IS a message when the emblem of the "sickness" is fatness, and the happy ending's emblem is shown by everyone losing weight.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jun 30, 2008)

That's not the message at all, IMHO. People were manipulated into gaining, and as a result of that and the antigravity of the ship, they suffered bone loss, making it even harder for them to do anything about it. I honestly didn't feel it attacked or judged fat people at all - and as I said, I'm very sensitive to that. 

Also, I didn't see anyone losing weight at the end of the movie. But I left at the start of the credits, so if it was after that, that's why.

I think this is one of those movies you have to really see to know how you feel about - it's impossible to grasp where its' coming from without seeing it, IMHO - YMMV, as always


----------



## goofy girl (Jun 30, 2008)

Les Toil said:


> LMAO! What's funny is when you quoted him, YOU forgot to put the spoiler in white text too!



well, I figured it was already there, and the whole thread is full of spoilers now anyway .....


----------



## moore2me (Jun 30, 2008)

Durin said:


> The Only good thing in the movie was Wall-E. He is a great robot, shows the power of faithfulness, curiousity, ect.
> 
> 
> The portrayel of the guests of the Axiom left me feeling cold. It seems like the media has decided to flog "The War Against Obesity" into the ground.
> ...





ayschucks said:


> My entire brain is on overload from this thread but this post let alone had sent gears and springs firing off into the atmosphere as my head did a 360 turn.
> 
> Did you miss the fable about being a steward not only to our planet but to ourselves and the temple that is our body?
> 
> ...


*
Moore's comments:
I wouldn't necessarily call it holy, but fresh veggies that you have grown yourself, sure do taste better than the store bought ones! Hubby has a big garden and even tho we are both fat, he cultivates it and does all the harvesting himself. Having a home garden is a tradition around our neck of the woods - so it's what his father did, his grandfather did, and what my grandfather did. Nothing holy about it, just good stewardship of our resources.**And by the way, where do you think the fruit and veggies you eat come from?*



isotope said:


> Kudos to this fellow here!
> 
> After reading this thread, all i have to say is...
> 
> ...


----------



## butch (Jun 30, 2008)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> That's not the message at all, IMHO. People were manipulated into gaining, and as a result of that and the antigravity of the ship, they suffered bone loss, making it even harder for them to do anything about it. I honestly didn't feel it attacked or judged fat people at all - and as I said, I'm very sensitive to that.
> 
> Also, I didn't see anyone losing weight at the end of the movie. But I left at the start of the credits, so if it was after that, that's why.
> 
> I think this is one of those movies you have to really see to know how you feel about - it's impossible to grasp where its' coming from without seeing it, IMHO - YMMV, as always



I'm not picking on you, BBMe, but I wondered, doesn't it cause you any concern to see a movie that uses only one clearly defined marginalized group as a visual symbol of humanity's flaws?

Can't a movie be both of the things people are claiming in this thread? A fantastic movie both visually and narratively, elevating the art of animation, and one that has a critical message that we all need to hear, and also a film that continues to perpetrate an equation that fat may equal lazy, ignorant, wasteful, greedy, self-obsessed, etc?

Let me give you an example of what I'm thinking about. DW Griffith's "BIrth of a Nation" helped create the grammar we use to structure narratives in the medium of film, and was so powerful that Woodrow Wilson called the film 'history written in light.' And yet, the film has the most horrific and offensive representations of black people, and a fledgling NAACP mounted a high-profile campaign against it. A film historian can think two things about this film-its a work of art, one of the top films ever made, and its also one of the most offensive films ever made, and should be justifiably critiqued for its portrayal of African Americans.

Another exmaple would be "Triumph of the Will," which is an absolutely gorgeous film, turning the documentary into a graceful aesthetic wonder, and yet that film is in the service of Hitler's beliefs about the purity of the Aryan race. Again, one can praise this film for all of its artistic merit while denouncing the message that it serves about eugenics and 'the final solution.'

These may be extreme examples,and maybe its unfair to compare animation to live action film, but if I recall, Disney can't sell "Song of the South" anymore, so animation does have the power to offend in a way no different from other types of films.


----------



## Mabus (Jun 30, 2008)

I have to agree with the pessimists on this one; knowing the mindset of the general populace it's hard for me to imagine the average person walking out of this film without thinking that fat people were at least emblematic of the traits decried in the film if not to blame for the whole situation, and that is a definite negative in my mind.

I also have to raise an issue with the movies overall theme; I don't want to start an argument here but - as a longtime advocate of space colonisation - it seems to me that with the level of technology at their disposal the humans could have easily re-taught themselves technical knowledge and established large scale space colonies such as O'Neill Cylinders with more than enough clean open space to lead healthy and productive lives, the return to a degraded and nearly toxic Earth to eke out a subsistent existence and redevelop from scratch (albeit at an accelerated rate) just seemed like gratuitous moralising.


----------



## braindeadhead (Jun 30, 2008)

I saw Wall*e on Friday night and I really liked it. The short at the start was worth the cost of admission alone.

I can certainly see how people could be offended by this movie and how it portrayed fat people. I did not see this. I saw it more as a warning about the risk of the society we now live in. 

Yes the humans in the movie were fat but that was not the worst of their problems. They were without human contact. They depended on machines for everything. They had no idea how to survive because they had accepted comfort over self reliance. The joke about the pool and the jogging track wasn't a fat thing to me, it was about how unaware they had become. They spent every second of every day looking at screens with no thought for what was going on around them. 

That was the message I took from the movie. That accepting comfort for independance was the failure, not being fat.

And I would recommend the movie to anyone, fat or thin.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 30, 2008)

moore2me said:


> *
> Moore's comments:
> I wouldn't necessarily call it holy, but fresh veggies that you have grown yourself, sure do taste better than the store bought ones! Hubby has a big garden and even tho we are both fat, he cultivates it and does all the harvesting himself. Having a home garden is a tradition around our neck of the woods - so it's what his father did, his grandfather did, and what my grandfather did. Nothing holy about it, just good stewardship of our resources.**And by the way, where do you think the fruit and veggies you eat come from?*



As the grandson, great grandson of a whole generation of farmers who has spent time bailing hay and growing my own veggies and fruit since I was a child, I know exactly where they come from.

The relationship with the earth is HOLY. Early man recognized this in nearly all world religions, the earth was seen as the life giver, the god of giving, the mother figure, etc. 

What does that even mean that the temple of your body has been taken over by the God of Chaos?



moore2me said:


> When a handicapped adult woman is reduced to a state of mortification by what is supposed to be child's entertainment - yes that is wrong and inhuman. And, if as I suspect, you are a defender of our country, remember the code of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. They were sworn to defend people who were not capable of defending themselves and to right wrongs against their fellow countrymen.



As a culture we've long since outgrown The Knights of the Round Table and that kind of code. If we lived by your standards no Mel Brooks movie would have seen the light of day. Censors would fly into every children's film and remove anything even remotely sensitive. If you want to live in a "Brave New World" or "Fahrenheit 451" where we burn books and avoid even the slightest chance that we might be offended, well you are more than welcome to. If thats the way we are headed, I'd rather go sit and banter with Mark Twain and George Carlin. 



Mabus said:


> I have to agree with the pessimists on this one; knowing the mindset of the general populace it's hard for me to imagine the average person walking out of this film without thinking that fat people were at least emblematic of the traits decried in the film if not to blame for the whole situation, and that is a definite negative in my mind.



You know I knew this was going to be an argument so I spent sometime this weekend asking around about a dozen or more people of various ages and backgrounds about that their feelings.

Not one person I spoke to walked away with a negative impression of the people in the film. I've even started a thread in a Disney forum I attend to ask participants to discuss the theme and fable of the story, without any leading questions. So far it has not been an issue that has been discussed.

I believe people are being overly sensitive to an issue that is a non-issue for the general public. 

Films and television, including children's films, used to be able to tell a story without such backlash or sensitive reactions. I'd say if Bambi was released today, an alliance of mothers would be upset that his mother died. 



Butch said:


> These may be extreme examples,and maybe its unfair to compare animation to live action film, but if I recall, Disney can't sell "Song of the South" anymore, so animation does have the power to offend in a way no different from other types of films.


Well said. Your entire argument was well presented and very honest and well researched. Despite the negatives, "Birth of a Nation" is a fantastic film.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jun 30, 2008)

Les Toil said:


> Yeah, but as Red pointed out, there's quite a few lazy-ass people that eat crud all day that AREN'T fat. They just look like Don Knotts with a pot belly. But I have to agree that from a physiological standpoint, excess consuming without a calorie-burning plan is inevitably going to cause weight gain and there's not much of a way to see it otherwise. Unfortunately that message is being given within this movie at the expense of many fat folks with a naturally slow metabolism.



 I'm one of those fat people. Doesn't matter what I do or don't eat, I'm fat.



butch said:


> and also a film that continues to perpetrate an equation that fat may equal lazy, ignorant, wasteful, greedy, self-obsessed, etc?



Ok but is this film really perpetuating those ideas or is that just how some fat people see it because of the many times that they've had those statements thrown in their faces?

Kinda like the woman who goes after a job, doesn't get it and assumes that its because she's a woman. When in reality its because there really just was a better qualified candidate?


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 30, 2008)

braindeadhead said:


> I saw Wall*e on Friday night and I really liked it. The short at the start was worth the cost of admission alone.
> 
> I can certainly see how people could be offended by this movie and how it portrayed fat people. I did not see this. I saw it more as a warning about the risk of the society we now live in.
> 
> ...




YES! YES! YES! ding ding ding!

Looks like we are going to be split here....and thats ok..but that is exactly what I saw.

Yes...there should have been atrophied thin people too..sure....yes.

Not a reason to write off a beautiful, sad, charming film.

I am So saddened to read that a poster's wife felt personally mortified....I really, really am. It breaks my heart... most sincerely....but I truly and honestly believe that was about a far from their intent as possible.

And intent is all we can control.....


----------



## Sandie S-R (Jun 30, 2008)

Just throwing out one more point that hasn't been mentioned. 

My hubby Guy works in the edge of the entertainment industry in computer animation and digital imaging and editing. He goes to all the industry conventions like Siggraph and ComicCon. (And I would like to preface this with the fact that we have always been huge fans of Pixar and their smart, and incredibly fabulous films.) 

In the last year there was a lot of hype about Wall-E, with lots of clips and trailers and sneek peeks shown. However, Guy, just like all the rest of us was shocked to hear about the plot twist with all the fat people. He had no idea it was in the movie. 

Why? 

Well, because Disney/Pixar had to have known that the plot would be offensive to a majority of the people, and specifically chose not to include that in any of the promotional materials. So, this way no one would know about the controversary, and it would not spoil the turn out for opening weekend. 

Looks like it worked. They made $65 million at the box office this weekend. 

Personally the deceptive manner in which they handled the promotion of the movie, almost offends me more than the "fat" part of the plot. Obviously they didn't see the need to be honest with the public about this movie from the beginning. 

I'm really disappointed. And we will not be going to see this movie. First time ever that we have not seen a Pixar movie.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 30, 2008)

Sandie S-R said:


> Personally the deceptive manner in which they handled the promotion of the movie, almost offends me more than the "fat" part of the plot. Obviously they didn't see the need to be honest with the public about this movie from the beginning.



You know, this has crossed my mind as well. I've been seeing the ads for the movie, and then when this thread popped up, I was shocked at it-- I had no idea anything like that was even in the film.


----------



## pani (Jun 30, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> I almost feel like shouting THESE PEOPLE AREN'T SIMPLY JUST LAZY OR OVERWEIGHT.
> 
> THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING CONTROLLED AND PURPOSEFULLY FEED A POOR DIET AND OVERFED TO PREVENT A MUTINY.
> 
> All the preconceived notions I had going in about the weight issue were wrong and the weight was a plot device not a negative stereotype.



Except it is the exact opposite in real life. It is weight obsession that keeps our population in check. People are so focused on their scales and kept in line with their guilt they have let the country go down the tubes. There is nothing a control freak hates more than fat. So this movie's main propaganda lies in its reverse message. Losing weight = rebellion from oppression. Except that weight obession is what oppressed us in the first place. Being thinner equals less consumption and more social responsibility. So it is o.k. to buy those useless Wall-E toys. If you believe, as I do, MSM has been reduced to nothing more than consumerism and control of the masses, this is the same old, same old.


----------



## olwen (Jun 30, 2008)

Tooz said:


> You know, this has crossed my mind as well. I've been seeing the ads for the movie, and then when this thread popped up, I was shocked at it-- I had no idea anything like that was even in the film.



I had the same reaction. I saw the trailers and heard all the hype and there was no mention of the plot. I started reading this thread and thought what the fuck? Seriously. I like Pixar's films, but because of the lack of plot info on this movie I decided I wasn't going to go see it, especially not for $12 bucks. Now I really don't want to pay to see it...


----------



## bigsexy920 (Jun 30, 2008)

I have a co-worker that went to see the movie and I asked her what she thought - and she said it was really good very cute. I explained to her the thoughts that were coming up on this thread. But first I let her tell me what the movie was about in her words. And basically what she got out of the movie was, that you need to appreciate the things that are around you. Don't let yourself get too complacent or you will begin to forget the things that are important to you. 

So then I explained the some of the thoughts about how it shows big people in a less than positive way. She said she didnt realize that until I said it and she did see how it could be viewed as a negative to people of size. I truly believe it didnt even dawn on her to think of it that way. 

Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see how others outside of this community see the movie and I thought I would share that.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 30, 2008)

bigsexy920 said:


> Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see how others outside of this community see the movie and I thought I would share that.



I've been asking people left and right about this. Young, old, fit, thin, fat, etc. Not one person has given me an unprompted response about the weight of the people on the ship.


----------



## moore2me (Jun 30, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> What does that even mean that the temple of your body has been taken over by the God of Chaos?
> 
> *Moore's comment:
> I (just as Susannah) and several others on this Board have multiple sclerosis. This is a chronic, degenerative disease of the nervous system that affects just about every part of one's body. The chaotic part is that every day the disease is different and unpredictable. Instead of saying we MSer''s body is a temple it is closer to the truth to say it is a E ticket ride to a fun house/freak show at the state fair. And there is precious little we can do about it other than learn to live gracefully with our disease.*
> ...





Sandie S-R said:


> Just throwing out one more point that hasn't been mentioned.
> 
> Well, because Disney/Pixar had to have known that the plot would be offensive to a majority of the people, and specifically chose not to include that in any of the promotional materials. So, this way no one would know about the controversary, and it would not spoil the turn out for opening weekend.
> 
> ...




*Sandie S-R, I think you are absolutely right about this. It didn't occur to me either until you mentioned it, but now I see their manipulation plainly.*


----------



## RVGleason (Jun 30, 2008)

Interesting to note in the final movie trailer for 'WALL-E' that the Jeff Garlin Captain character is briefly shown, touching slightly on the movie's plot. 

View attachment WallE.jpg


----------



## goofy girl (Jun 30, 2008)

bigsexy920 said:


> I have a co-worker that went to see the movie and I asked her what she thought - and she said it was really good very cute. I explained to her the thoughts that were coming up on this thread. But first I let her tell me what the movie was about in her words. And basically what she got out of the movie was, that you need to appreciate the things that are around you. Don't let yourself get too complacent or you will begin to forget the things that are important to you.
> 
> So then I explained the some of the thoughts about how it shows big people in a less than positive way. She said she didnt realize that until I said it and she did see how it could be viewed as a negative to people of size. I truly believe it didnt even dawn on her to think of it that way.
> 
> Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see how others outside of this community see the movie and I thought I would share that.





ayschucks said:


> I've been asking people left and right about this. Young, old, fit, thin, fat, etc. Not one person has given me an unprompted response about the weight of the people on the ship.



Considering it's a big part of our lives, we probably tend to be more observant (sensitive??) about these things??


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 30, 2008)

moore2me said:


> * How did we hop from Camelot to book burning? If I'm not mistaken, the peeps at King Arthur's court were wanting to burn Guinevere - but that was because her infidelity.
> 
> And pray tell, what is wrong with having a strong moral code? There is nothing wrong with protecting people that are weaker than you. It is our society's social responsibility to care for people that are not able to take care of themselves. It is also society's responsibility to give each person a sense of value and to treat them with kindness and courtesy. *


*

If you want to have a "strong moral cord" where we have to walk around on eggshells about what you say, then be my guest but does the rest of society need to bow to those standards or can we meet in the middle and appreciate humor from time to time?

Can we avoid being so politically correct all the time? Has it really improved how we treat each other or just lent more credence to the awful things we think or say in private? 

I am truly sorry for your condition, you simply chose to express it in words that were vague so I honestly and truly apologize for my reaction.




Asking people about the lack of sensitivity in Wall-E at a Disney Forum would be like me asking for a good recipe for a banana daiquiri at a Pentacostal website.

Click to expand...


Forgive me, I am only a member of 3 online communities not including myspace. I went to the other Disney community where I knew a large chunk of the population had seen this film and couple properly comment on it. 

After reading 10 pages of comments- you know the biggest hang up from most users and most people is--- its all anti-consumer/anti-greed. Not a peep about the weight of the humans or how they were portrayed. 

PS- I'll stick with George Carlin, he hated everyone pretty equally .*


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 30, 2008)

ayschucks, at the risk of making this the thread in which I heap love upon you, I have to say that your posts are awesome.


----------



## Keb (Jun 30, 2008)

This review is from a Christian group with the aim of guiding parents (I find their reviews interesting and very thorough, though obviously what their reviewers are looking for is specific), but it discusses the interpretation of the fat people in the film at the end and has some quotes from the director of the film:

http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0004114.cfm

Most interesting to me was this part:

It posits a future in which everyone's more than a little heavy, sure, and it's already being tweaked for appearing to be insensitive in this area. It's like the New York Post's Kyle Smith writes on his kylesmithonline.com blog, "Those potato-y people of the future seemed uncomfortably close to paying guests of Walt Disney World, passively absorbing entertainment in a sterile, climate-controlled, completely artificial wonderland that profits from everything they eat, see or do."

Stanton's take? "I wasn't trying to make the humans into fat, lazy consumers," he told Christianity Today, "but to make humanity appear to be completely consumed by everything that can distract you—to the point where they lost connection with each other, even though they're right next to each other. The reason I made them look like big babies was because a NASA guy told me that they haven't yet simulated gravity perfectly for long-term residency in space. And if they don't get it just right, atrophy kicks in and you begin to lose your muscle tone—you just turn into a blob of goo."


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 30, 2008)

Keb said:


> Stanton's take? "I wasn't trying to make the humans into fat, lazy consumers," he told Christianity Today, "but to make humanity appear to be completely consumed by everything that can distract youto the point where they lost connection with each other, even though they're right next to each other. The reason I made them look like big babies was because a NASA guy told me that they haven't yet simulated gravity perfectly for long-term residency in space. And if they don't get it just right, atrophy kicks in and you begin to lose your muscle toneyou just turn into a blob of goo."



Thank you for this, Keb. Maybe this will shed some light on the subject. I assumed and hoped that this was the aim. That's definitely how I interpreted it while watching it.


----------



## Carl1h (Jun 30, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> If you want to have a "strong moral cord" where we have to walk around on eggshells about what you say, then be my guest but does the rest of society need to bow to those standards or can we meet in the middle and appreciate humor from time to time?
> 
> Can we avoid being so politically correct all the time? Has it really improved how we treat each other or just lent more credence to the awful things we think or say in private?



Do they have to walk on eggshells in their criticism of this movie to please you? They disagree with your opinion on the movie... big deal.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 30, 2008)

Carl1h said:


> Do they have to walk on eggshells in their criticism of this movie to please you? They disagree with your opinion on the movie... big deal.



Not at all. I believe the responses both sides have been well-written and approached in a very honest manner, responding with intelligence and respect and I have done my best to respond in kind. Thank you for your guidance.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 30, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> Thank you for this, Keb. Maybe this will shed some light on the subject. I assumed and hoped that this was the aim. That's definitely how I interpreted it while watching it.



Heck YES, Keb....nice input.


----------



## Donna (Jun 30, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> Did you miss the fable about being a steward not only to our planet but to ourselves and the temple that is our body?
> 
> Its not wrong, wrong, wrong- its a fable with a positive message about responsibility and love and determination.





ripley said:


> So fat people are bad stewards of the temple that is their body?
> 
> And it's a positive message to lose weight?



ayshucks, I am really interested to read your response to Ripley's question. I noted you responded to other folks' questions, so I am assuming you missed it so I am quoting it again. I ask not to lead or accuse, either. I am asking out of pure curiosity.

ETA: I am reserving judgment on the movie as I have not seen it yet. Reading this thread hasn't swayed me one way or the other about seeing the movie (call it morbid curiosity if you will.)


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 30, 2008)

Donna said:


> ayshucks, I am really interested to read your response to Ripley's question. I noted you responded to other folks' questions, so I am assuming you missed it so I am quoting it again. I ask not to lead or accuse, either. I am asking out of pure curiosity.
> 
> ETA: I am reserving judgment on the movie as I have not seen it yet. Reading this thread hasn't swayed me one way or the other about seeing the movie (call it morbid curiosity if you will.)



Thanks for reminding me, obviously a lot to respond to. The film draws certain parallels with disconnecting with the earth through consumerism that leads to excess to such a degree we simply abandon the planet and leave the mess for little Wall-E robots.

In space that trend continues as people are manipulated into that same disregard, choosing consumerism over romantic interactions, working out, romantic love and it seems even learning is devalued and replaced with the religion of consumerism that is high light time and time again in the film. 

If the body is a temple and you choose not to improve yourself when its available to you, then would it not follow that you are poor steward of your body? These people do not seek to learn, grow, create or even reproduce or find love with each other. It devalues them as a species not because of their weight but because they have been manipulated into truly ignoring the things around them. 

The positive message about valuing yourself, your body, romantic love, and learning is all tied together and not independent of the central message about love. These pursuits of love, learning and life result in potential weight lose, as illustrated in the final credits in a slide show. The weight loss is a product of these humans simply getting out of these floating chairs, eating solid foods, regrowing the planet and building relationships with each other. Its not a pro-weight loss moment, just the natural result of having to rebuild a planet. 

Try building a house or tending a garden if someone has been sedimentary for a while and I bet they lose weight and gain muscle. Its not a message, its a reaction to whats happening in the film.


----------



## toni (Jun 30, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> If you want to have a "strong moral cord" where we have to walk around on eggshells about what you say, then be my guest but does the rest of society need to bow to those standards or can we meet in the middle and appreciate humor from time to time?



Yes, humor can be appreicated. However, I guess you have never been the only fat person in the audience when a cruel fat joke is being cracked and you feel everyone is look at you? It is humilating and embarassing. I can releate to how the OP's wife might have felt. I am sure she is not the only one feeling this through out the country. There is no excuse for it.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm going to respond to Ripley's question. It's a good one.

I didn't view size as the unavoidable result of bad stewardship, but as the unavoidable result of 700 years in a chair being waited on by robots. I think that it was something that, from a scientific standpoint, they couldn't ignore. If we as a species spent almost a thousand years, totally immobile and drinking liquified cake, we'd all be heavier and have weaker skeletal structures. 

I really think that's all it was. Not, "fat people are lazy and hate the planet" but "if we never move we might all, as a species, gain weight."


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 30, 2008)

Wasnt interested in the movie before (Havent really enjoyed a Pixar movie since Toy Story) and I am not interested in it now. I just find it darkly humorous that a movie that is trying to shame us on the excesses of consumerism has loads of merchandising tie-ins. Just too, too perfect.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 30, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Wasnt interested in the movie before (Havent really enjoyed a Pixar movie since Toy Story) and I am not interested in it now. I just find it darkly humorous that a movie that is trying to shame us on the excesses of consumerism has loads of merchandising tie-ins. Just too, too perfect.



HAHAHAHA~! I said that to my sweetie....THAT was the only thing that bugged me about the dang film....

Otherwize I loved it, Jack, my darling friend.


----------



## ayschucks (Jun 30, 2008)

toni said:


> Yes, humor can be appreicated. However, I guess you have never been the only fat person in the audience when a cruel fat joke is being cracked and you feel everyone is look at you? It is humilating and embarassing. I can releate to how the OP's wife might have felt. I am sure she is not the only one feeling this through out the country. There is no excuse for it.



I have been there and I am so sorry to others who are there now. I was always the chubbiest kid in school, there were a lot of days of tears. I was also in Boy Scouts, theater, an alter boy, went to Catholic School, I could sing and I had style--- so everyone thought I was the chubby gay boy. 

My reaction- I became cynical, I learned how to laugh back, I learned how to take a joke. I learned how to run circles around those people. I learned to be a good person and extend a helping hand to those who needed it the most.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 30, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> HAHAHAHA~! I said that to my sweetie....THAT was the only thing that bugged me about the dang film....



Remember, kids, consumerism is evil and it will make you fat! 

Now go out and buy the Wall-e lunch boxes, posters, t-shirts, bath towels, plush dolls, action figures, watches, sound track CDs, video games, limited edition pins, buttons, coloring books, story books, pop-up books, pencil cases, stickers, balloons, RC robots, pajamas, shoes, toy robotic arms, cups, dish sets, Pez dispensers, paddle balls, wall clings, post cards, back packs, party favors, temporary tattoos, tins, sun glasses, Christmas ornaments, Wilton cake pans, bed sheets, playing cards, etc...

You could make a landfill just of Wall-e merchandising. Seriously, its just *too* perfect.


----------



## moore2me (Jun 30, 2008)

It still bothers me that a 90 odd minute film can diagnose, predict, depict, cure, and miraculously fix what they "perceive" as society's main problem(s) and do it all in a clever, animated cartoon that is aimed at today's youth and young adult markets. And, it bothers me even more when folks with great enthusiasm climb on their bandwagon and help these guys beat their artifical drums and help proclaim their cartoon message.

Real life is a whole lot more complicated than getting out of rolling chairs, exercising, meet and greet with the neighbors, and grow veggies in the dirt. This little simplistic Pixar film is nothing more than a mean-spirited Toy Story in space. As to a small glimpse of what motivates people to do some of the things they do, I suggest studying Maslow's hierachy of needs. In wiki, it can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow&...archy_of_needs

If you really want to help people, especially young adults, teens, or kids, knowing a little more about motivating people and helping them mature and learn, is a great way really help us move this spaceship Earth in the right direction. Also, older adults need help in their day-to-day lives with just the normal tasks of living. These are things we can do now that will make the world a better place and help ourself at the same time. 
__________________


----------



## HottiMegan (Jun 30, 2008)

I saw the movie and enjoyed it. I didn't even really get taken by the message about fat people. I felt sorry that they lost their connection with eachother on a personal level. I think the stronger message was about consumption without respoinsibility. 
And there was a scene that they explained the lack of gravity over 700 years had changed their body make up to make them all fat. It wasn't necessarily about laziness, it was a result of bad environement.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jun 30, 2008)

Wow...

Its a MOOVIEEEE.

It's not even total crap, like Girls Gone Wild, or something.

And people can watch a flick 
AND be all that you (Moore2Me) suggest they be.

This from a woman who cracked the MOST tasteless AIDS joke I have ever heard in my LIFE.

AMAZING.

Fuck this!


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 30, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Wow...
> 
> Its a MOOVIEEEE.
> 
> It's not even total crap, like Girls Gone Wild, or something.



I'm not upset by it. Like I said, I just find the whole thing darkly amusing. 

The very idea of Hollywood trying to shame us about excess just gives me the giggles. Not to mention the you are all fat and wasteful clashing with the go buy all the Wall-e merchandise so the Disney and Pixar execs can go buy more beach houses, Mercedes and blow just fills my dark little heart with glee. :happy:


----------



## Keb (Jun 30, 2008)

On the note of preachiness, I found it waaaaaaaay less preachy than Disney's Pocahontas, which annoyed me for several reasons. But Wall E just felt like Art to me, beautiful and full of admiration for the beauty of the universe.


----------



## ayschucks (Jul 1, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> I'm not upset by it. Like I said, I just find the whole thing darkly amusing.
> 
> The very idea of Hollywood trying to shame us about excess just gives me the giggles. Not to mention the you are all fat and wasteful clashing with the go buy all the Wall-e merchandise so the Disney and Pixar execs can go buy more beach houses, Mercedes and blow just fills my dark little heart with glee. :happy:



Ironically, Pixar is not in Hollywood and exists in Marin County near San Fransisco. Its company that honors employees, pays them well and offers industry leading benefits and perks and encourages positive behavior of its staff and creators.

Its easy to confuse the distributor, in this case Disney, as the one who is preaching but Pixar is a think tank of people who were probably thinking green long before it ever became a trend.

They've been preaching anti-consumerism since Toy Story, which at heart was a story about remembering the important objects in life that have as much or more intrinsic value over the latest and greatest toy ie Buzz Lightyear. 

Pixar is one of the last haven's of original creativity. I am sorry so many disliked the film, I just figure you're missing out on the joy I found.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 1, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> They've been preaching anti-consumerism since Toy Story



While making tons of Toy Story merchandise and they are still milking that merchandising cow to this very day. 



> I just figure you're missing out on the joy I found.



Don't feel bad, I finally got some amusement out of one of their movies.


----------



## moore2me (Jul 1, 2008)

In the words of tiny E, "Thank you, thank you very much."


(Picture below stolen from Obesus's Birthday Thread) 

View attachment podb8_27.jpg


----------



## ayschucks (Jul 1, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> While making tons of Toy Story merchandise and they are still milking that merchandising cow to this very day.



That DISNEY made a ton a money. All merchanidising was run through Disney. Lets go back to the chalkboard, Pixar creates and makes the movies, Disney packages it and puts it out there, Disney runs amok with the aftermath, while Pixar moves on.


----------



## TotallyReal (Jul 1, 2008)

I'm pretty shocked that some people here took the movie so bluntly. (Especially those that haven't seen it.) My interpretation of the film, and that of many critics, is wildly different. This post has a few spoilers in it, so skip if you don't want to read them.

First off, *This movie does not degrade or mock fat people.
* It merely states that growing to be hugely overweight is a consequence of a life of complete ease, PLUS a consequence of several generations growing up in a gravitational environment that isn't earth. Being fat isn't the only thing that has changed in the humans in the film: they're mostly devoid of muscle matter (again, because of the environment and because they're waited on by servant robots) and they rely on computers for their every need.

Furthermore, *every single person is painted as sympathetic.* There aren't any typical "fat jokes," because since everyone is fat, there's nothing unusual about it. The people talk to each other, are friendly to Wall-E, and don't at all fit into the "mean, grumpy fat person" or "ditzy, unwanted fat person" stereotypes. They are completely normal people, who just happen to be fat.

So just to summarize:
Being fat had nothing to do with the destruction of Earth
Being fat is just a consequence of mankind spending 700+ years in the low gravitational field of a spaceship with every want fulfilled by robots
Being fat is only one aspect of what happened to humanity

Now, on the positive side, I would say that this is not only Pixar's best movie by leaps and bounds, it's a fantastic movie by any standard. It is wildly experimental, and the ease at which it creates sympathetic, human characters out of robots that speak almost entirely in beeps and buzzes is an act of genius.

I'm a pretty cynical guy, and when I told my friends I was going to see this, they thought I was joking. But, with Wall-E, Pixar has taken the leap from "kid movie that adults can enjoy" to "movie that absolutely anyone can enjoy."

This movie is a goddamn masterpiece, and if it doesn't get a nomination for Best Picture, then Hollywood has no soul.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

Hollywood has never had a soul... I used to be in that industry..

(Of course..I was in computer animation at the end of it..thats a little better...)




I agree on your take as to the fat stuff....and I really thought it was beautiful.


Mean spirited my ARSE.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jul 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Wow...
> 
> Its a MOOVIEEEE.



I saw the movie last night. I was ... awe stricken. 

It wasn't about fat people, bad fat people, horrible earth-destroying soul-sucking fat people.

It was about the death of a culture, and how that happened, and the natural consequences of certain actions. 

The humans lived in deep space for 700 years. They had no need (or ultimately, inclination) to care for themselves. They became, in essence, the grown-up version of helpless infants. 

Again, the movie was about what happened to humanity after spending 700 years living in space, living sedentary lifestyles, being waited on and catered to. To those who disagree with the <gasp> concept that they became fat ... how else would they be? What should they have looked like? Because for the movie to work, based on the premise laid down by the director (that humanity became so accustomed to not having to think, question, feel, do), I can't see another way to portray what they became. 

Fat wasn't portrayed as bad. It was matter-of-factly portrayed as the consequence of certain choices (and, more to the point, these people were manipulated into making these choices). The humans were pleasant, if docile, and ultimately heroic. They just happened to be fat. I don't see how that is a negative thing. It just *is*. 

So I'm trying to figure out what all the uproar is about. It seems to me that much of it resides in the fact that the humans were portrayed as fat. So ... are *we* now seeing that as a negative state of being?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 1, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> That DISNEY made a ton a money. All merchanidising was run through Disney. Lets go back to the chalkboard, Pixar creates and makes the movies, Disney packages it and puts it out there, Disney runs amok with the aftermath, while Pixar moves on.



When Disney dumped 7.6 billion into the laps of Pixar's execs and shareholders in 2006 to keep them in the Disney "family" they (Pixar) could have easily put a clause that restricted the amount of merchandising from their movies and characters into the deal. 

Jump to two years later and Wall-e's likeness is slapped on damn near everything but condoms and colostomy bags. 

So, yes, when mega-corporations, millionaires, billionaires and celebrities try to shame us on excesses and the evils of consumerism it gives me the giggles. It also fills my dark spiteful little soul with glee thinking about poor little Wall-e in the future cleaning up garbage dumps filled to overflowing with the glut of his own merchandising.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jul 1, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> When Disney dumped 7.6 billion into the laps of Pixar's execs and shareholders in 2006 to keep them in the Disney "family" they (Pixar) could have easily put a clause that restricted the amount of merchandising from their movies and characters into the deal.
> 
> Jump to two years later and Wall-e's likeness is slapped on damn near everything but condoms and colostomy bags.
> 
> So, yes, when mega-corporations, millionaires, billionaires and celebrities try to shame us on excesses and the evils of consumerism it gives me the giggles. It also fills my dark spiteful little soul with glee thinking about poor little Wall-e in the future cleaning up garbage dumps filled to overflowing with the glut of his own merchandising.



Yes, I find it ironic, myself. Kind makes me feel like I did when a big name bank in Canada, start using the song "The times they are a changing...." to plug their services.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> I saw the movie last night. I was ... awe stricken.
> 
> It wasn't about fat people, bad fat people, horrible earth-destroying soul-sucking fat people.
> 
> ...




WELL SAID, my friend! Wasn't it ...well...terrific?...


----------



## mossystate (Jul 1, 2008)

Hmmmm...me wonders if both ' sides ' of this have something worthwhile hearing. I have not seen the movie. I have read this thread and even I can see that the ' truth ' ( which is an interesting thing to even say, as our personal experiences are just that ) is probably not so black or white. People who make movies tend to know exactly the messages they are wanting to get across.... multiple messages.

Oh..and..Jack?...^5


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> When Disney dumped 7.6 billion into the laps of Pixar's execs and shareholders in 2006 to keep them in the Disney "family" they (Pixar) could have easily put a clause that restricted the amount of merchandising from their movies and characters into the deal.
> 
> Jump to two years later and Wall-e's likeness is slapped on damn near everything but condoms and colostomy bags.
> 
> So, yes, when mega-corporations, millionaires, billionaires and celebrities try to shame us on excesses and the evils of consumerism it gives me the giggles. It also fills my dark spiteful little soul with glee thinking about poor little Wall-e in the future cleaning up garbage dumps filled to overflowing with the glut of his own merchandising.




An excellent point, of course...(one I keep completely separate from my enjoyment of the film, by the way...)

So....whats Good, love? Is there any media thats good...given the volume and marketing in which its produced?

I too rather loathe it that more than half the films made are more about the stuff thats marketed with than the film itself...but the film is still lovely.

I dunno....we are a wasteful culture bent almost entirely on selling things to each other (said the retail clothing and jewelry designer...)....so...escape is hard.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> I too rather loathe it that more than half the films made are more about the stuff thats marketed with than the film itself...but the film is still lovely.



By all means enjoy the movie. Im sure its well done.

But the way my brain works (and I will be to the first to admit my sense of humor is a tad odd) Im not able to separate the message from the messenger. The dark humor of it all is just way too delicious. Its like tasty little spite filled candies to me. 

The very idea of the mega-corporations, millionaires, billionaires and celebs that live the life of excesses and opulence that would put medieval royalty to shame trying to guilt the working classes has always struck me as darkly amusing. 

Seriously, I just love that shit.


----------



## JoyJoy (Jul 1, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> So I'm trying to figure out what all the uproar is about. It seems to me that much of it resides in the fact that the humans were portrayed as fat. So ... are *we* now seeing that as a negative state of being?



I haven't seen the movie, but I've heard from friends and family that it is exactly as it has been described here - a masterpiece. None of them saw it as a dig at fat people, and what TotallyReal and TraciJo said makes a lot of sense. I'm looking forward to seeing it. 

That said, I can understand why some did perceive it as a dig. With all of the negative press over the past few years, it's hard to not automatically see it in anything publicly dealing with fat people, because we've been put on the defensive and always have our guard up against such things. Also, even if we don't see movies such as this one as a negative stereotype, they could be used by the clueless fat-phobes to reinforce their bias, in their own twisted ways. So I agree with mossy...it's not really a black or white issue....but it is sad that we have to be wary of so many things these days.


----------



## djzulu (Jul 1, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> Ironically, Pixar is not in Hollywood and exists in Marin County near San Fransisco. Its company that honors employees, pays them well and offers industry leading benefits and perks and encourages positive behavior of its staff and creators.



Correction. Pixar Studios is actually in Emeryville, CA near the Bay Bridge in Alameda County (next to Oakland).

DJ Zulu


----------



## TotallyReal (Jul 1, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> By all means enjoy the movie. Im sure its well done.
> 
> But the way my brain works (and I will be to the first to admit my sense of humor is a tad odd) Im not able to separate the message from the messenger. The dark humor of it all is just way too delicious. Its like tasty little spite filled candies to me.
> 
> ...



***MORE SPOILERS HERE***

While I agree with you in spirit, I can't help but think that you're being a little disingenuous with the whole 'totally unable to separate the message from the messenger' thing. Cautionary tales about humanity almost can't be made without some level of hypocrisy. I mean, there's a terrible irony in "Silent Spring" being popular enough to demand several print runs, right? Does that take away any merit Rachel Carson's work has had? I would assert that it doesn't. And the old "Al Gore flies around in a private jet" line from Republicans. Of course -- he's being a hypocrite. But it's pretty hard to deny that, right or wrong, Al Gore has done more to advance public awareness of the causes of environmentalism and sustainability than anyone else in America.

And despite what some people have mentioned earlier, *the movie is not preachy and does not guilt anyway. *Yes, a giant Wal Mart-like corporation eventually depletes earth of all natural resources. But they're not portrayed as supervillianesque, or menacing, or even bad. They're just a corporation, with Fred Willard as the CEO, for god's sake! There wasn't an evil plot, or a cunning betrayal -- they just gave the public exactly what they wanted.

Instead, *the real enemy is man's inability to prevent himself from consuming more than the planet is able to replenish.* I think even the most right-wing rah-rah Capitalist would agree that there's a certain balance in nature. After all, the great President Teddy Roosevelt, Republican hero, all-around man's man and Nobel Prize winner, was a devout conservationist and established 194,000,000 aces of national parks. That's _194 million aces. _

Even more interesting (and this is something that personally affected me as a super-anti-consumerist leftist-anarcho dickbag) is that consumerism itself isn't even portrayed entirely as negative! Again, yes -- overconsumption destroyed the earth's ability to sustain life. But the artifacts that Wall-E has been privately collecting on Earth are all remnants of our consumerist culture -- a spork, like the kind you get from drive-through at KFC, a Rubik cube, lawn gnomes, hubcaps -- all are things that we classify as "junk," but still are iconic enough to be artifacts in a future besieged by junk. As hard as this is for me to say, there _is_ something magical about the bric-a-brak that we view exclusively as clutter, but only when taken in moderation.

Rather than pooh-pooh the premise of the movie based on a misunderstanding of the plot and a blunt swipe of your irony sword, you really should see this damn thing. Do I wish that the only Wall-E related merchandise were books and maybe an action figure or two? Of course. Does Disney's merchandising of the film make its message any less relevant? I think I've made a convincing argument that no, it does not.

So by all means, don't see the movie. But really, from someone who is probably every bit the cynic you are, you're missing out. My highest praise, I guess, is that I liked it enough to write something serious on a web forum to try to convince complete strangers to go see it, which I'm pretty sure is a first.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

Goodness TotallyReal.....you are a treat.

Some really, really excellent arguments here. 

What a thoughtful response.

Jack...you know I love you...but its like I said above..."Whats GOOD then?"...


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 1, 2008)

TotallyReal said:


> While I agree with you in spirit, I can't help but think that you're being a little disingenuous with the whole 'totally unable to separate the message from the messenger' thing.



You enjoy it your way and I will enjoy it my way. Everybody wins! 

Now I'm off to Wal-mart to admire all those sweet Wall-e products. I totally gots to get me that Wall-e cake pan. I can then literally eat the delicious dark humor of it all.


----------



## stan_der_man (Jul 1, 2008)

At 12 bucks full price... I'm about as likely to see this movie as I am any other movie.


You know what I think...

It's all this man's fault!







First he killed the floppy drive, then he tried to make a cube shaped computer that wasn't upgradable, then Disney fired his company's ass, now he's mocking fat people!


Pay no mind to me... the hard disk in my PowerBook just took a dump, I'm a little bent at the moment.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> You enjoy it your way and I will enjoy it my way. Everybody wins!
> 
> Now I'm off to Wal-mart to admire all those sweet Wall-e products. I totally gots to get me that Wall-e cake pan. I can then literally eat the delicious dark humor of it all.



I love you, you evil little bugger.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jul 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> I love you, you evil little bugger.



I love him too, PLUS I get to luxuriate in the exquisite pain of knowing that he shall never return my affections. Kinda like being 13 and having an all-consuming crush on the gym teacher


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> I love him too, PLUS I get to luxuriate in the exquisite pain of knowing that he shall never return my affections. Kinda like being 13 and having an all-consuming crush on the gym teacher



How perfectly you put it.....Loving Jack is always loving from afar...

Exquisite torture.


Tee hee.


----------



## Smite (Jul 1, 2008)

I just want to clear something up if it hasn't been said in this thread yet (really don't want to read nonsensical complainging about how being active and working brings weight loss, which is apparently a sin to some here), but Pixar isn't going to leave Disney. They're permantely part of Disney now, and won't be leaving for a LOOOOOOONG (decades) time now. 

Hence Disney-Pixar Studios.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 1, 2008)

As luck would have it, I dont even have to leave my home to purchase any of the fine, fine bazillions of Wall-e products. 

I just found the Wall-e cake pan on ebay (of which there are 33 pages of Wall-e stuff right now BTW and thats not even counting the separate ebay stores) along with official Wall-e candles, cake toppers and icing. I shit you not there is actually an official Wall-e cake icing. 

You know, what makes this even more perfect, is people can consume the glut of Wall-e products while sitting on their asses in front of a computer screen. Thats right! Just like the movie.

Seriously, it just doesnt get any fucking better than this!! This is totally going to keep me going for days.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> As luck would have it, I don’t even have to leave my home to purchase any of the fine, fine bazillions of Wall-e products.
> 
> I just found the Wall-e cake pan on ebay (of which there are 33 pages of Wall-e stuff right now BTW and that’s not even counting the separate ebay stores) along with official Wall-e candles, cake toppers and icing. I shit you not there is actually an official Wall-e cake icing.
> 
> ...





I should very much like to this cake pan ..and icing.

(separate, Arv....separate.....separate...)


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

Of course....its Hardly New....


----------



## ayschucks (Jul 1, 2008)

fa_man_stan said:


> At 12 bucks full price... I'm about as likely to see this movie as I am any other movie.
> 
> 
> You know what I think...
> ...



How and when did Disney fire his company's ass- they've never had a more incestuous relationship of nepotism as they do now.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

Sometimes..its fun, even....how many years has it been, now?


Hay! I want these!


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Of course....its Hardly New....



To be fair, Lucas is a merchandising whore and has never said otherwise. 



RedVelvet said:


> Sometimes..its fun, even....how many years has it been, now?
> 
> 
> Hay! I want these!



I actually have some of the Nightmare before Christmas action figures. NBC was a wonderfully dark and romantic movie.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 1, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> I actually have some of the Nightmare before Christmas action figures. NBC was a wonderfully dark and romantic movie.



OH HELLS yes.

and a perfect Score and Soundtrack as well.

NBC is perfect in my eyes...


----------



## ThatIsThat (Jul 1, 2008)

I am going to see Wall-E in about 4 hours or so, so I will judge after I see it, but I read through this entire thread and based on what everyone has said, I think that the real issue is not whether or not they are sending a bad message about fat people, but what they are saying about _immobile_ people. I would find it very hard to believe that anyone would defend being immobile as being "healthy." Just as being immobile because you are severely underweight and starving, curled up in a ball because you're so hungry is extremely unhealthy, so is being immobile because of weight. I am slim myself, so I'm sure you could say I just "can't understand" or am being "insensitive" (even though I love chubby guys) but I just think that you could find discrimination about fat people in almost anything and I just don't think this movie is one of those cases. And, if I read the spoilers correctly, it seems pretty clear that these people didn't just "get" immobile by being lazy, so I just really don't see what the issue is in that case, if it is out of their control. Most people I know that normally "hate" fat people are still sympathetic when they hear the tales of people being forcefed and severely overweight against their will. 
If these humanoids were just fat, not immobile, sure I could see more of the opposing argument. Many fat people can be in good shape and take care of themselves. But immobile... that's just not healthy in anyone's book.

In regards to all other "bullying" if you wish to refer to it that way... the best way to get a bully to stop is to not whine but be proud of yourself. By picking arguments like this against Wall-E, it just makes the offended persons look overly sensitive. However, if more of the people on these forums decided to publish books, work in media, do whatever they could to promote the image that a fat person can be healthy (not that fat people are always healthy... that is a myth just like all thin people are healthy) then that will help acceptance far more than complaining will. To use the quote everyone uses from Gandhi, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." 

Also, I'm sorry if I said anything that offended anyone. It was not my intent.


----------



## stan_der_man (Jul 1, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> fa_man_stan said:
> 
> 
> > At 12 bucks full price... I'm about as likely to see this movie as I am any other movie.
> ...



Come to think of it, you're quiet correct Aysch (do you mind if I call you Aysch for short...?) My bad... just ranting I suppose. If I remember correctly, after founding the company Apple gave Jobs the boot and then he came back and saved Apple's ass (Wozniak bailed with a bundle of cash early on...) I knew there was a firing and an ass involved somehow...

I'm doing much better now... I stuck the ol' PowerBook in the fridge for a half hour, cooled it down... It's workin' like a champ now.


----------



## TotallyReal (Jul 2, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> You enjoy it your way and I will enjoy it my way. Everybody wins!
> 
> Now I'm off to Wal-mart to admire all those sweet Wall-e products. I totally gots to get me that Wall-e cake pan. I can then literally eat the delicious dark humor of it all.



Hey, I was just trying to engage you with some reasoning and logic, hombre, since that ostensibly was your kick, with you bringing up the ironies of consumerism and all. It seems that you'd rather rub your digital hands together and say "Oh, how delightfully _eeeeeeeeevil _of Pixar! An official Wall-E BeDazzler! This will go nicely with my Wall-E fondue pot! Bwahahahaha!" So, like you said: enjoy it your way!

I guess you're more of an idealist and optimist than I am, too. While it would be super-keen to have anything in the public sphere be totally untainted by that invisible hand of Adam Smith, I've kind of accepted that almost any mass creative expression I like will either 1) Sell out or 2) Betray their ideals or 3) Collapse, and frequently all three in rapid order. So when something good manages merely a smaller hypocrisy here and there, I rejoice.

But in the end, I don't really give a fire flower whether or not you or anyone else sees it: I was just trying to offer a (rare) heartfelt recommendation of something, and in the process, defend an entirely valid (and -- this can't be stated enough -- entirely transcendent) work of art from what I felt were criticisms both incorrect and unsupported. So since I've done that, I guess it's back to lurking! (Thanks for the massive tide of reputation, also!)


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 2, 2008)

TotallyReal said:


> Hey, I was just trying to engage you with some reasoning and logic



Well, that was your first mistake.



> It seems that you'd rather rub your digital hands together and say "Oh, how delightfully _eeeeeeeeevil _of Pixar!



And yes it was delightfully evil. Magnificently deliciously fill my dark little spiteful soul with glee.

This was not some low budget Indie film that managed against all odds to buck the studio system and big Hollywood and release their meaningful little art film with a message. This was big business shaming people for consumerism while burying them in an avalanche of tacky merchandise. 

I find the whole thing simply glorious.


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Jul 2, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> I love him too, PLUS I get to luxuriate in the exquisite pain of knowing that he shall never return my affections. Kinda like being 13 and having an all-consuming crush on the gym teacher



Well, it's still better than being 13, and the gym teacher having an all-consuming crush on you. x.x


----------



## TotallyReal (Jul 2, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> This was big business shaming people for consumerism...



Good point!


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 2, 2008)

TotallyReal said:


> Good point!



Preach it!

The multi-billion multi-national mega-corporation that is Disney/Pixar, which is famous for their mountains and mountains of merchandise making a movie about the evils of consumerism is beyond perfect. 

It just doesnt get any better.


----------



## moore2me (Jul 2, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Preach it!
> 
> The multi-billion multi-national mega-corporation that is Disney/Pixar, which is famous for their mountains and mountains of merchandise making a movie about the evils of consumerism is beyond perfect.
> 
> It just doesnt get any better.



How about Jimmy Swaggart preaching for years about the evils of sin and adultry and then getting caught with a $20 hooker? (She said it wasn't his first time either.)

How about our federal Bureau of Land Management, saying that they have too many wild horses on public lands and in Bureau managed corrals and are saying they need to euthanize 30,000 or so. At the same time the other hand of the federal land programs are opening the public lands up to forestry, drilling, etc., etc., and selling plots of Federal land off to private and public entities. How about using horses to make up for some of this his priced gas we're having to buy? Plus, they are a renewable resource (if they're not gelded).

We can't afford to keep a few herds of horses alive, but we can afford to send billions upon billions over to the middle east where they shoot at our soliders, bomb our soliders, and in general show disdain for whatever we are doing in their country. But we sure can keep the war contractors in tidy profits. 

(Sorry for the thread derail - back to the little space robot thingy.)


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jul 2, 2008)

djzulu said:


> Correction. Pixar Studios is actually in Emeryville, CA near the Bay Bridge in Alameda County (next to Oakland).
> 
> DJ Zulu




HA! you're posting again.


----------



## Lastminute.Tom (Jul 2, 2008)

just watched it on t'interweb and was awesome I didn't get any negative vibes about the fatties or anything possibly because I was watching it at home instead of in the cinema with lots of judgmental people, 
(spoilers)from what I can discern from the plot the humans had to leave earth because of the pollution, they were going to stay on a luxury spaceship for a few years until "operation cleanup" had made the earth habitable again, so if it was only supposed to be a short stint living in luxury its hardly surprising that 700 years later the entire population has got used to taking everything for granted,
I didn't think that they were being made lazy by the auto-pilot on purpose so they'd be unable to do anything if they discovered the orders to never return, I think the auto pilot was just following its orders which were to never return to earth,
I'm sure if you were a fat kid who went to see it with a group of mean children you probably wouldn't like it as you just know that they're going to rip the piss out of you afterwards, but all in all I liked it and would watch it again. I would say that everyone should give it a chance especially if you liked "batteries not included" which is one of my favourite childhood films, although the cinema might not be the best place to see it if you get easily offended by bitchy people


----------



## RVGleason (Jul 2, 2008)

Just got back from seeing 'WALL-E' with PlumpLin today. We both enjoyed it and thought it was a good, fun cautionary fable. We weren't at all offended by the fat characters, who were attractive and quite heroic in helping others. The premise of them becoming fat after 700 years in space was actually quite logical when you consider the effect of zero gravity after such a long period of time. The humans didn't question why they were fat considering the space environment they got used to living in. 

What wasn't taken into consideration in the posts I've read in this thread is that in spite of their weight, all the humans were actually quite healthy with long life spans. This was hinted at in the scene that showed the photos of the line of Captains of the space ship leading up to the current Captain. The movie takes place 700 years after humans abandoned Earth. There were at least six previous Captains on the ship, which by the movie's premise meant humans in this future had lifespans of over 100 years. 

There were little cultural jokes here and there we enjoyed, including the indestructible cockroach pet of WALL-E or that Twinkies were still edible 700 years later! 

I agree that there's an underlying political theme in the movie, but it doesn't interfere with the overall enjoyment of the film and it's endearing characters. 

As a MOVIE, I found 'WALL-E' enjoyable and consider it one of the best films so far this year. If there are folks who find some elements of it offensive, that's a shame. But, you have the choice of seeing it or not seeing it, no one is twisting your arm. For those who want to see a really enjoyable film, I highly recommend 'WALL-E'.


----------



## RVGleason (Jul 2, 2008)

Interesting interview segments from the 'WALL-E' creators. Considering my screen name, the mention of Jeff Garlin as a modern day Jackie Gleason got my attention. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-lkbqgsrRXg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_X1cbiJS1Q&NR=1


----------



## altered states (Jul 2, 2008)

It's a classic sci-fi short story by E. M. Forster, I guess now (conveniently both for Pixar and us) in public domain:

http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/prajlich/forster.html

I read this in high school, pre-internet, and it stuck with me. The parts about people occupying themselves consuming and barfing out second hand opinions based neither on experience or primary sources was particularly prescient. I didn't remember that from the first time I read it, but 100 years later, really, what else is blog culture/WWW2? I'm not accusing Pixar of ripping off Forster - I think something written in 1909 is fair game for riffing on - but I'm surprised I haven't seen more reference to the story in terms of this movie, based on what people here are saying.


----------



## stefanie (Jul 2, 2008)

RVGleason said:


> Just got back from seeing 'WALL-E' with PlumpLin today. We both enjoyed it and thought it was a good, fun cautionary fable. (snip)
> 
> What wasn't taken into consideration in the posts I've read in this thread is that in spite of their weight, all the humans were actually quite healthy with long life spans. This was hinted at in the scene that showed the photos of the line of Captains of the space ship leading up to the current Captain. The movie takes place 700 years after humans abandoned Earth. There were at least six previous Captains on the ship, which by the movie's premise meant humans in this future had lifespans of over 100 years.



I enjoyed it too, and didn't feel it was "fat-bashing," personally. The robot romance was sweet - but the little human romance sub-plot was darling. 

That was an excellent point about the long reigns of the various captains. I would love to see a screen-cap of that shot, to be able to actually count the years for each one. Because you're right - the Axiom captains, at least, *were* long-lived.


----------



## RVGleason (Jul 3, 2008)

Another little movie reference 'joke' is found with the Auto robot. It resembles the computer HAL from the movie '2001, A Space Odyssey', complete with the red computer eye. The subplot of the computers running the ship instead of the humans is another reference to '2001'.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 3, 2008)

From the Metafilter comment section.................

"Here's a true story about how awesome Pixar is.

As some of you know, when the trailer first came out, my girlfriend, 
Courtney, burst into tears at the trailer. She was emabrrassed but 
somewhat amused by this, as so she made a video of herself watching the 
trailer on her computer 
<http://betteronme.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-watch-walle.html>, knowing she 
would start crying every time that little robot said his own name.

After a few months, she started to get trickles of emails from people at 
Pixar who said they had seen her video and really appreciated it. It was 
all sort of under the radar -- mostly code monkeys, and they were sort 
of circumspect about the subject.

Then she got an email from one of the film's producers, saying they 
wanted to send her something for Christmas. She received a Crew Jacket 
at a nice note saying that the folk at Pixar had appreciated the film.

Then, last month, she received another barage of emails from Pixar, 
again from producers. They were having the wrap party for Wall-E in San 
Francisco, and wanted to know if we wanted to join them.

They flew my girlfriend out (I paid my own way; we weren't going to ask 
them to ) and put us up in the Mark Hopkins Intercontinental Hotel, the 
same one featured in Bullitt, at the top of Nob Hill. We met a few of 
the people who had contacted my girlfriend, all of whom were very nice, 
and some of whom she had gotten to be quite good friends with in the 
past six months. We walked over to a nearby Masonic Temple, which had 
been elaborately dressed to look like the interior of a spaceship, and 
then we settled into the the theater with a thousand of the people who 
had worked on Wall-E, as well as their families.

Before the movie begam the producers and the film's director, Andrew 
Stanton, came out and gave a very heartfelt speech about the making of 
the film. They made it abundantly clear that, as far as they were 
concerned, this film was a collaborative act, and no part of it could 
have existed without the imagination and labor of the people who made 
it. They were the real stars of Wall-E, Stanton told them, even if they 
are never seen on screen.

Then he said this: "Six months ago, when the first trailer for Wall-E 
came out, we were only halfway done with the film, and we weren't 
exactly sure how we were going to get it done. We were exhausted. And 
then, one day, a movie showed up on YouTube showing a girl watching the 
trailer for Wall-E. And every time she watched it, she would cry on cue. 
When we saw that, we knew we were on the right track."

Everybody in the theater laughed at this knowingly.

"Well," Andrew Stanton said. "We invited Courtney here tonight."

A gasp went through the theater. I turned and looked at my girlfriend, 
who was gape-mouthed with astonishment. Andrew Stanton asked her to 
stand up, and all one-thousand sets of eyes in the theater turned to 
find her, and thunderous applause broke out. Courtnye stood, and, not 
knowing what to do, blew kisses to the assembled artists and 
craftspeople who had made the film.

It was one of the most moving and astounding things she had ever 
experienced, and I had ever witnessed, and Pixar had done it for no 
reason other than that her video had touched them and made them 
optimistic about the film they were making, and they wanted to repay her.

We went to talk to Andrew Stanton afterward. He recognized Courtney at 
once and embraced her, delighted she had made it. As we talked to him, 
Brad Bird, the Academy Award-winning director of Ratatouille, 
interrupted. Stanton introduced us, and Brad Bird offered to take our 
photos. This is the photo he took. 
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/contusion/2546329988/>

For the rest of the evening, at the wrap party, people from Pixar came 
up to Courtney and talked to her excitedly, thrilled that she had been 
invited. The next day, one of the Pixar employees Courtney had 
befriended gave us a tour of the studio 
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/contusion/2547820544/in/set-72157605401403923/>. 
Then we went home, unable to believe our experience.

Pixar has never tried to make use of this story for promotional 
purposes. They really did it exclusively because they were touched by 
Courtney's response to their trailer, and because they thought it would 
be nice, and because they thought it would be a treat to their 
employees, who, from what I have seen, they treat with enormous respect.

So, you know, screw those who see a pessimistic or partisan message in 
this film. It's a well-made, well-told story with, in my opinion, the 
single greatest animated lead character ever put onto film, produced by 
artists with passion, committment, and the intelligence to create what 
must stand as the single finest collection of consistently excellent 
films ever produced by a studio. And they treated my girlfriend really 
well. If that's not enough to deserve us an an audience, I don't know 
what is."


----------



## pani (Jul 3, 2008)

What I find interesting is that when Subway first came out with their mild to moderately offensive commericials, many hardcore fat activists were offended, and were told to lighten up by the more "moderates." Now, Subway has come out with a blatantly offensive commercial that has people seeing red. Well, we saw the direction it was going right off the bat. I don't know if it is true or not, but some posters over at BFB have commented that the fat jokes in Wall E were much more blatant, and had been toned down because of protests. I do know they did raise the issue over a year ago and people did let their feelings be heard. So I just can't get excited about the movie, because there is some indication they really intended it to be an antifat message. If they toned it down to avoid controversy, well that is probably just a marketing decision. But hey! We still value Aristotle and Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, even though they said ridiculously misogynistic things. So if you want to love Wall E, love it! But those of us who have our doubts have also acted reasonably, given the history of fat bashing in Hollywood and the current climate.


----------



## Liss (Jul 4, 2008)

I am bigger than those future-people and I can run about and be pretty active. They were not really that fat, in my eyes. It was more that they had a sedentary lifestyle and they actually had a diagram of Bone loss. 
I was sort of offended but I mean logically if you eat fast food and don't move you will most likely gain weight. It depends on how you spin it.


----------



## RVGleason (Jul 5, 2008)

It's interesting to note that in illustrating the romantic plot-line of 'WALL-E' that the film makers use scenes and songs from the 1969 movie musical version of 'Hello Dolly!'. It adds a certain sweetness to 'WALL-E' and with the movie being such a big hit I think it's going to generate interest in 'Hello Dolly!'.

WALL-E and Hello Dolly!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0NOAokrAVYY


----------



## moore2me (Jul 5, 2008)

Fuzzy Necromancer said:


> Well, it's still better than being 13, and the gym teacher having an all-consuming crush on you. x.x



*Moore's comment:*
*In most states, acting on physical attraction between an adult and a 13 yr old is illegal. And it is also a violation of professional ethics of a secondary teacher. Male and female teachers get hauled into court and jail for this every year. *



Liss said:


> I am bigger than those future-people and I can run about and be pretty active. They were not really that fat, in my eyes. It was more that they had a sedentary lifestyle and they actually had a diagram of Bone loss.
> I was sort of offended but I mean logically if you eat fast food and don't move you will most likely gain weight. It depends on how you spin it.



*Also, the lack of gravity in space is a big contributor to loss of mobility, bone mass, and overall conditioning. NASA has been fighting this for years and their astronauts experience trouble walking even after a little over a week of zero gravity space flight. It has nothing to do with their body mass or overall physical condition (which is excellent), it is an effect of no gravity. Even low gravity can cause problems*.


----------



## Irena (Jul 5, 2008)

I have to throw in my two cents here because i saw it last night and *LOVED* wall-e...I left there with nothing but wonderful feelings towards such a sweet and really eye opening movie. I think some people are really missing the positive things they were trying to elude. Global warming and destruction of our earth issues, being completely sedentary, spoiled and not taking responsibility for your actions (or lack there of) issues...as well as the most important issue, ignorance. After reading some of the other responses I can see both sides...but I've thought a lot about it and i truly dont think that was the intention. If they were trying to make fun of fat people, i doubt there would there have been a romance between two of the humans, as well as i dont believe they would have included the medical reasons for why people were how they were. I think the bone loss issue was key. I also think the overconsumption (not only food mind you) issue especially was there to point out how it in itself is unhealthy. The end was positive...everyone walking again, being able to function and rebuliding the very damaged earth. they are such positive themes i dont see how people could be so offended. I am not saying i wasnt shocked for a moment...but then that moment passed when they explained why everyone was in the condition they were. What i took from the movie was love (and such an adorable love at that!!!), tollerance and showing how ignorance can be all consuming. I think it was such a beautiful and touching movie. I hope I havnt offended anyone because that really was not my intention here...but i just felt it was such a wonderfully made movie I had to say how I felt. In the end I really dont think, regardless of anything else they could have made a cuter robot!! I really just spent most of the movie going aawwwwww lol


----------



## RVGleason (Jul 5, 2008)

Irena said:


> If they were trying to make fun of fat people, i doubt there would there have been a romance between two of the humans.



I agree. PlumpLin and myself loved the secondary love story with the two humans and our favorite moment is when they're together in the swimming pool playfully splashing about, ignoring the warnings of the lifeguard robot who they short-circuited with a splash, symbolic of the humans eventually retaking control of their lives. Lin and I found the moment very cute and sweet.


----------



## ayschucks (Jul 6, 2008)

Okay, I haven't touched this thread in a while because I've given up trying to sell my viewpoint to people who have already made up their mind about this movie.

That said I have to say I would be far more offended by the themes and content of Kung Fu Panda than I would with Wall-E. I finally saw the movie today and while in the end the panda does succeed, he is subjected to humiliating comments and torture due to his weight and in the end he only becomes the hero not because of his desire to be the best, but because his teacher exploits, his uncontrollable appetite to train him. I mean the movie ends on a fat joke for crying out loud.

So where's the Kung Fu Panda thread? 

Ultimately I liked the Kung Fu Panda, but it was nothing compared to Wall-E.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Jul 6, 2008)

I saw this in the thread lists and decided not to comment on it until I had seen it. Well, fighting a bout of traveling family flu last week, I was unable to see it until today. Took Lieutenant Snackbar (Ensign Snacky was napping) with me to the matinee. It was...indescribably awesome.

First off, I echo a lot of what RedVelvet said. Although I have not had the fortune of firsthand experience with Pixar Studios, from watching numerous documentaries, I believe them to be one of the most people-dedicated companies out there. Think of SAS, the software company in North Carolina, who treat their employees literally like family. Pixar seems to be the same way. It has a real "my buddies and I got together and decided to make these movies" feel to everything they do, and the quality of the work put into each and every film is the reason they become instant classics, oxymoronic though that term may be.

I did not enjoy Ratatouille, mainly because I had to experience it with two very overtired kids, but I do want to revisit it eventually. Every other one holds a special place on my movie shelf, and the boys at times watch them in marathon form on rainy or snowy weekend days. While I feel Shrek always holds the top spot in their heart next to Wallace and Gromit, 
they do love Cars more than anything, and Finding Nemo is another fave.

When I first saw 'humanity' 700 years in the future, my first thought was "Dimensions shitstorm," because it indeed gave the (quite honest) impression that fat was a bad thing. It's a foregone conclusion that with robotics, hover chairs, video holo channels right in our face 24/7 and endless pampering catering to our every need, how could we NOT become larger and ill equipped to move? 

The producers said there was no message save the love story between Wall*E and E.V.E., and I believe it--the humans were a backstory, a means to an end to get the thing to come full circle. The message I did get from the human scenes was that apathy breeds immobility. If you don't get up and keep moving, you lose it. You see in the film that once people break free from their traps (which you do eventually find out is part of the problem) they started thinking for themselves and getting off their asses.


I thought it was just an amazing love story full of such strong emotions and fun. It was a movie for all ages (several in jokes were caught by the adults and we all chuckled), and the message if you could call it that was easily seen by both of us. I say this is one of Pixar's most amazing efforts yet.

P.S., the voice of Wall*E was the sound designer who came up with all the classic sound FX from the Star Wars movies (lightsabers, blasters, etc.). A fitting homage I think, plus John Ratzenberger has his usual role as Master Thespian.


----------



## ThatIsThat (Jul 7, 2008)

ayschucks said:


> Okay, I haven't touched this thread in a while because I've given up trying to sell my viewpoint to people who have already made up their mind about this movie.
> 
> That said I have to say I would be far more offended by the themes and content of Kung Fu Panda than I would with Wall-E. I finally saw the movie today and while in the end the panda does succeed, he is subjected to humiliating comments and torture due to his weight and in the end he only becomes the hero not because of his desire to be the best, but because his teacher exploits, his uncontrollable appetite to train him. I mean the movie ends on a fat joke for crying out loud.
> 
> ...


I was actually wondering that myself. While Wall-E's main theme was definitely not about the "fatness" but environmental conservation, the importance of caring for our world, etc. Kung Fu Panda's (based on the previews I saw) definitely seemed to be about a fat Panda showing all the skinny bitches what's what and being a hero while throwing around his weight some (bad pun, I know). While I think because it's showing the Panda as a positive guy, that he can still be a hero despite his size, it's definitely more about weight discrimination than Wall-E is, yet there is no Kung Fu Panda thread.


----------



## RVGleason (Jul 7, 2008)

CherchezLaFemme said:


> I was actually wondering that myself. While Wall-E's main theme was definitely not about the "fatness" but environmental conservation, the importance of caring for our world, etc. Kung Fu Panda's (based on the previews I saw) definitely seemed to be about a fat Panda showing all the skinny bitches what's what and being a hero while throwing around his weight some (bad pun, I know). While I think because it's showing the Panda as a positive guy, that he can still be a hero despite his size, it's definitely more about weight discrimination than Wall-E is, yet there is no Kung Fu Panda thread.



Perhaps it's because 'Kung Fu Panda' is more of a fun kid's flick which deals with self-confidence and being heroic despite obstacles. 'WALL-E' is more an adult film with kid appeal where the focus of the film is more on the love story between WALL-E and EVE. There's no romantic subplot in 'Kung Fu Panda', but it's suggested in the ending cast credits of the film that the female character of Viper appears to have a crush on Po.

'WALL-E' has a more underlying political message which doesn't get in the way of the love story, just as Charlie Chaplin's 'Modern Times' also has a similar political message but the focus of the story again is on the love story between Chaplin's Tramp character and Paulette Goddard's Gamin. ('Modern Times' appears to be the Chaplin film that was the main inspiration for 'WALL-E', along with several Buster Keaton films. The filmmakers studied every Chaplin and Keaton movie for a year before they started work on 'WALL-E'.) 

'Kung Fu Panda' is more a fun kid's action film and the main character of Po is seen in a very comical but positive light where he succeeds in the end. Besides, Panda's are supposed to be fat!


----------



## mollycoddles (Jul 10, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> While making tons of Toy Story merchandise and they are still milking that merchandising cow to this very day.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't feel bad, I finally got some amusement out of one of their movies.



JESUS CHRIST, how many posts do you have to make pointing out the irony that Wall-E is being merchandised? Oh, wow, Jack, you're sooooooo very clever! Stop acting like you're somehow the bastion of wisdom because you've noticed that kids' movies exist to sell crap; this is not exactly shocking news. We get it already.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jul 10, 2008)

Saw it again.

Still terrific.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jul 11, 2008)

mollycoddles said:


> JESUS CHRIST, how many posts do you have to make pointing out the irony that Wall-E is being merchandised? Oh, wow, Jack, you're sooooooo very clever! Stop acting like you're somehow the bastion of wisdom because you've noticed that kids' movies exist to sell crap; this is not exactly shocking news. We get it already.



Okay....do you realize you are calling me out over a post I made over a week ago? Bizarre.

No biggie though, I got a pretty good sense humor about these sorta things.


----------



## mossystate (Jul 11, 2008)

Ok, from now on?...only original thoughts and comments...and one per customer.


* waits for the melodic sound of a gaggle of crickets *


----------



## Raqui (Jul 11, 2008)

I will watch this today and come back with my reaction. At my standing now a movie that potryas fat people in that light is wrong for children to see because they will grow up visualizing every fat person as living like that. It is bad enough that grown ups who are not fat or who are anti-fat will see this and use it to hate the bigger persons of the human race. They will now go to there children and say "See what happens when you watch tv and eat, you will be just like them!" Every child will be remember this and connect it with every fat person they see. Especialy the ones like myself who are 600lbs. While I can walk and I am healthy according to all my test, i know many smaller than me who cant for varied reasons. I cant imagine the horrible view for those who are immobile for one reason or another. It is just another brainwashing technique in the BAD BAD FAT PEOPLE direction.

But i will come back I am not saying that WALL E isnt cute as a button or that my view wont change. So see you all later when I have viewed the movie.


----------



## Jellybean (Jul 11, 2008)

The director of Wall E was on NPR yesterday - he said the original idea was to design humans who were blob-like b/c when people are in zero gravity for too long, they lose bone mass. When that didn't work out, they went for a design to make the humans resemble giant babies who need to take their "first steps" back towards taking care of themselves. No mention of "fat" in his comments.


----------



## maxoutfa (Jul 11, 2008)

what really scares me here is that so many offer opinions without having seen the film (so they have no real point of reference), and then get quoted, which only furthers the negative spin on the subject. That's like saying you didn't like a film because you didn't like the title, even though, because you didn't like the title, you never saw the film, and then a friend tells a friend that you didn't like the film, so they don't go see it, based on your "recommendation". Absurd.

For those of you who found the portayal somehow offensive after actually seeing the film, I'm sorry that such a wonderful work was spoiled for you.

Having seen the film myself, my fat-o-meter didn't register at all. It seemed like no great leap of faith that humanity, after living aboard a spaceship for 700 years in an environment where there was no incentive to get out and do anything (it was all done for you), would become lazy and have no desire to do anything other than e-message each other constantly. It seemed that the great pacifier of the masses was comfort food - all the advertisements hawking "FOOD", and "get your new yummy whatever" - all to give the populace SOMETHING - whatever it took to take their minds off the fact that they were stranded on a huge spaceship, and that the hope of ever returning was slim. 


If I were on that ship and had everything handed to me on a platter while I just vegged out, I'd probably look like them as well. That is not any kind of indictment against fat people, nor does it infer that all fat people are that way because they are lazy.

In a broader sense, this film merely fulfills a "what if" scenario; hypothesizing on a state of humanity that may well not even exist. 

That the closing credits showed the populace returning to earth, planting crops, etc, and becomming thinner in the process - since many of the ship's people could hardly walk, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to envision that as they began to actually use their muscles, they would become better toned. Perhaps those credits weren't necessary, and maybe to some of you there is a subliminal negative message there, but I for one was not bothered by it.


----------



## fatlane (Jul 11, 2008)

tres huevos said:


> It's a classic sci-fi short story by E. M. Forster, I guess now (conveniently both for Pixar and us) in public domain:
> 
> http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/prajlich/forster.html
> 
> I read this in high school, pre-internet, and it stuck with me. The parts about people occupying themselves consuming and barfing out second hand opinions based neither on experience or primary sources was particularly prescient. I didn't remember that from the first time I read it, but 100 years later, really, what else is blog culture/WWW2? I'm not accusing Pixar of ripping off Forster - I think something written in 1909 is fair game for riffing on - but I'm surprised I haven't seen more reference to the story in terms of this movie, based on what people here are saying.



Once again, tres huevos wins an Internet.

As regards the lack of portly folk in sci-fi shows and films, it's because they're dealing with the current pool of Hollywood actors and actresses. OF COURSE they wished the actors playing Spock and Kirk were about 300-400 pounds heavier, but where were they going to find guys like that on such short notice? Look how long it took Shatner to bulk up... they didn't have time like that.

Thank goodness for the FA anthems of The Beatles, or we'd have precious little in modern society that was fat-positive. If they hadn't sung "I Want to Hold Your Hand" about holding a fat girl's hand, where would we be now?

Over 60% of America is overweight. If a movie makes a skewed view of size, it's a matter of national self-loathing. We meet that by being positive, not by being screechy orthopraxists. I mean, who's gonna want to be on the same side of the fat equivalent of a vegan?

And for all the fat vegans (and not-so-fat vegans) reading this, yeah, I know I just slammed veganism. But it's got some twisted things behind it - it's even classified as an eating disorder "orthorexia nervosa": self-righteous eating. We become neither superior nor inferior based upon what we eat for, in time, it's all in the same place.

So, yeah... no need to screech and preach. Be positive, take things in stride, and point out flaws in thinking without throwing stones. The minds that can change, will. The minds that cannot change, meh.


----------



## Wagimawr (Jul 12, 2008)

fatlane said:


> The minds that can change, will. The minds that cannot change


will die lonely and stupid.


----------



## fatlane (Jul 12, 2008)

Wagimawr said:


> will die lonely and stupid.



That as well.


----------



## Alison (Jul 12, 2008)

I think that it is just a movie made to entertain kids! I think a lot of people would complain if all they showed were skinny people. They would complain that everyone in the world doesn't look like that! Oh my gosh, there weren't any mexican people in this movie! I'm sure you could sit and point out a million things wrong, but you have to realize it is just a movie. Anyone can sit down and misconstrue any type of message to fit what they believe. I think this movie was made because the creator thought it was a really cool idea. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I really enjoyed this movie!


----------



## pani (Jul 13, 2008)

I personally am enjoying this dialogue about the movie:
http://the-f-word.org/blog/
People are on both sides of the fence, but no one is making the other side feel wrong or reactionary. At any rate, what I find amusing is how so many people are vigorously defending it as just a movie. The whole point of propaganda is for no one to recognize it as such!


----------



## That1BigGirl (Jul 13, 2008)

I watched it tonight.

I'm not offended. 

While *maybe* I could see how someone could be... I think there is greater meaning to the movie (such has been mentioned). I watched it with an open mind, and I thought a lot about it. If you believe in evolution (not to get into a pro/con evolution debate)... it is what's going on after 700 years of being lazy. (Again, someone mentioned this previously)

Anyway, just my 2 coppers. 

PS- I even cried a little at the ending. :doh::blush:


----------



## moore2me (Jul 14, 2008)

Jellybean said:


> The director of Wall E was on NPR yesterday - he said the original idea was to design humans who were blob-like b/c when people are in zero gravity for too long, they lose bone mass. When that didn't work out, they went for a design to make the humans resemble giant babies who need to take their "first steps" back towards taking care of themselves. No mention of "fat" in his comments.



There are two problems with this (malarkey) about the studio making humans to resemble giant babies (and not fat people):

1. It would take a lot more than 700 years for a change in environment (living in zero gravity) to bring about a big change in our internal structure. See Darwin's Theories of Evolution. We are talking about natural selection changes that take tens of thousands of years and more. Sure spending time in zero gravity (a week, or 7 generations living hundreds of years) will make us weak & unable to walk. It would change one individual's bone mass, but it would not be an inheritable trait passed on in the genetic population until it went thru natural selection.

2. These changes due to zero gravity would affect thin people or people of normal size just as much as it would fat people. Why doesn't the movie use people of normal size as the main characters if they are concerned about showing the effects of zero gravity? In fact, not having gravity makes a lot of people nauseaus, so many would not be hale & hearty eaters in that situation, and would have trouble gaining weight - they would be puking a lot.


----------



## Shala (Jul 14, 2008)

I adored this movie......it was phenomenol.

Such fundamentally sweet and heartwarming films should be made more often.


----------



## Happenstance (Jul 14, 2008)

This is a great film. (Aside from the lack of Mexicans.)

I think it would be foolish to deny that a society of completely immobile people run by a corporation without an independent thought to their minds would be considerably fatter than our current society, and so I didn't have a problem with the portrayal of our descendants. However, I suspect it's going to be taken the wrong way - inactivity as a result of obesity, rather than obesity as a result of inactivity. This is a film, first and foremost, portraying loss of emotion and independent thought, and what a sad state humanity is in if we lose them.

Moore2me, the humans' altered structure in the film wasn't an attempt to warn people of the dangers of living in space, it was a plot device to set up the metaphor of the people taking their first steps. You're either reading into this too far, or just trying to inform other readers and I'm bothering you for no reason.

Fatlane, I lost your 'slam on veganism' in the syntax, but most vegans I know are not self-righteous, and do what they do in order to act on their own morals. The vegans who advertise that they are vegans may think themselves better than everyone else, but among any interest group - even here at Dimensions - you will find people who think they are better than other people because of the group they belong to or the beliefs they subscribe to.


----------



## Ho Ho Tai (Jul 14, 2008)

Mrs Ho Ho has decided we should see this movie. I dragged my feet a bit, but some friends wanted to see it also, so . . .

I knew nothing of the plot until I read it here, but something jogged my ancient memory banks. Huge glowing tubes, unused for years, gradually fired up, connections were made, and this popped out:
WALL-E? Fat people in space? Heinlein's "Waldo"!

I googled the string [ wall-e heinlein waldo ] and sure enough, many references came up. You might try it. In that story, it wasn't indolence which led to immobility, but a neurological disease. The disease was the mother of invention; a billionaire inventor, living in space and in the grip of the disease, was the father. Not quite robotic, waldos were force and motion multipliers which allowed the inventor to function.

The path from necessity (Waldo) to convenience (equipping everyone with them) and back to necessity (no longer can get along without them) is pretty clear and it's an easy trap to fall into. It's the reason we keep real books on real shelves, hiking boots in the entry, bicycles in the garage and a tool box full of hand tools nearby. It's why people like BDMan makes his own fuel and organic gardners till their own soil.

TV, the internet, SUVs and all are nice, but oh so seductive!


----------



## FaxMachine1234 (Jul 15, 2008)

Happenstance said:


> This is a great film. (Aside from the lack of Mexicans.)
> 
> I think it would be foolish to deny that a society of completely immobile people run by a corporation without an independent thought to their minds would be considerably fatter than our current society, and so I didn't have a problem with the portrayal of our descendants. However, I suspect it's going to be taken the wrong way - inactivity as a result of obesity, rather than obesity as a result of inactivity. This is a film, first and foremost, portraying loss of emotion and independent thought, and what a sad state humanity is in if we lose them.



Exactly. Fat activists who try to attach malicious intentions to this movie are just as misguided as the 1,000,000 other filmmakers in Hollywood who _do_ use fat as a malicious joke. If you fight every battle the cause is diluted, and all the ridiculous-sounding (about this movie) people quoted in the Telegraph article linked to on the front page just proves that.


----------



## Waxwing (Jul 15, 2008)

Ekim said:


> Exactly. Fat activists who try to attach malicious intentions to this movie are just as misguided as the 1,000,000 other filmmakers in Hollywood who _do_ use fat as a malicious joke. If you fight every battle the cause is diluted, and all the ridiculous-sounding (about this movie) people quoted in the Telegraph article linked to on the front page just proves that.



You're absolutely right.


----------



## butch (Jul 15, 2008)

To be fair, its not just fat activists who have complained about the way humans are portrayed in the film. There is a very interesting article in Slate about this, written by someone with no investment in fat activism at all.


----------



## Waxwing (Jul 15, 2008)

butch said:


> To be fair, its not just fat activists who have complained about the way humans are portrayed in the film. There is a very interesting article in Slate about this, written by someone with no investment in fat activism at all.



You're right-- I don't mean it to seem like I'm just irked at fat activists. that's not it at all. I read snippets of that article in Slate, and rolled my eyes so hard I hurt my head. 

Humans are a malignant virus on this planet and until we realize that and *change* our behavior, we have a bleak future ahead. Hurt feelings and indignation don't change facts.


----------



## RVGleason (Jul 15, 2008)

Okay, here's a YouTube clip from a scene from 'WALL-E' that shows the passengers of the Axiom when the ship is tilted purposely by the Auto-Pilot to prevent them from returning to Earth. 

Note the scene shows the passengers unselfishly helping each other with the secondary couple of John and Mary saving some babies. Once out of the induced stupor of the ship, the passengers do what they can to help each other. 

Despite it being titled by the poster of the video as the 'funniest scene in the movie', (there are scenes in the movie with WALL-E that are much funnier), I find the image of the passengers bravely helping each other to be a pretty positive message.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nPZcCvtB9Wg


----------



## BigBeautifulMe (Jul 16, 2008)

Even though I had thought there WAS no making fun of fat people in Wall-E, a local reviewer in my favorite local rag thought there was (2nd to last paragraph), and that's making me wonder - if "regular people" see it that way, maybe I AM being overly naive. 

http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=17310


----------



## Waxwing (Jul 16, 2008)

BigBeautifulMe said:


> Even though I had thought there WAS no making fun of fat people in Wall-E, a local reviewer in my favorite local rag thought there was (2nd to last paragraph), and that's making me wonder - if "regular people" see it that way, maybe I AM being overly naive.
> 
> http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=17310



But most people *don't* see it that way. You're not being overly naive; a lot of people are being overly-reactionary.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jul 16, 2008)

Meh. People are going to read how they like, wheather its positive or negative for fat people. In the end its a film that will not change society or peoples minds for or against already percieved ideas and thoughts.


----------



## RVGleason (Jul 19, 2008)

Here's one of the sweetest scenes in the movie 'WALL-E', with WALL-E and EVE in a lovely space dance. Plus, it shows the budding romance between the humans John and Mary and the reawakened curiousity of the Captain. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2lkffSsImXc


----------



## ZainTheInsane (Jul 20, 2008)

...is that I loved the movie...it is a great movie, and it showed that people can be intelligent, resourceful, and learn quickly. 

And for all those who were offended...you have ruined your lives with political garbage...I doubt you'll ever see a movie without thinking there is some political motivation behind it.

That is all. :bow:


----------



## dragon6860 (Jul 21, 2008)

I'm gonna have to agree. Wall-E is one of the best movies that I've seen in a long long time, and I really think that all the people who are crying out "It's Size-negative!" need to take a step back and realize that just because a movie is not saying every five seconds how fat is good, it's a size negative movie. Yes, there are fat people in the movie. No, they're not portrayed in an amazing way. But to be honest, if you're looking at the PEOPLE you're not paying attention.

Wall-E is, at it's core, a love story between a hopeless, shy romantic, and a aloof goal-oriented girl. It is NOT about the people. They are background, and that's all. Trying to read in how Disney is spreading an Anti-fat message is short-sighted and narrow minded. Everything is not about you, or directed at you, or designed to insult you. Remember that.


----------



## droekturn (Jul 22, 2008)

I think it has gotten to the point that every group that isn't the majority (or even sometimes is) now sees something as pointing fun at them, being insensitive, insulting, etc.

In Wall-E the people are that size from years of muscle atrophy, never moving, drinking and eating all day long. If everyone acted that way most people would grow to a very large size. The fact that they started getting a little skinnier at the end was becasue they all began walking and eating healthier. And for most people, that would lead to weight loss after a lifetime of laziness.

This kind of reminds of people complaining about the Dark Knight. There were alot of posts on the net recently about too many black people being killed in the movie, and the use of other stereotypes.


----------



## A Bolder Boulder FA (Jul 22, 2008)

Ekim said:


> Exactly. Fat activists who try to attach malicious intentions to this movie are just as misguided as the 1,000,000 other filmmakers in Hollywood who _do_ use fat as a malicious joke. If you fight every battle the cause is diluted, and all the ridiculous-sounding (about this movie) people quoted in the Telegraph article linked to on the front page just proves that.



I may not agree with you on things politically all the time, but I completely agree with this.

I didn't see "size-ism" at all in Wall-E, and to try and conflate it as such is ludicrous. In fact, at one point in the movie, the owner of the megacorporation explains that after having lived in space for so long, they would have experienced "bone density loss".

After all...if you're living in a low gravity environment, without having to perform strenuous activity for 700 years...humanity probably would end up looking like the citizens of the Axiom in Wall-E. In fact, you could make the argument that the "fat" people in the movie were actually perfectly adapted for their environment. 

I thought it was an excellent, incredibly well-animated and engaging movie with some real character and heart. EXCELLENT film.


----------



## Fish (Nov 21, 2008)

I never had the chance to see this movie in theaters, but HAVE finally watched the DVD and fell instantly in love. This is an incredible movie that effortlessly continues the string of awesomeness that is PIXAR. The rest of my post here is SPOILER laden, so stop reading now if you don't want any spoilers.

And having read a good number of the negative reviews in this and other threads regarding the way humanity is shown in the film, I have to add my voice to those that see the films view of these future humans NOT as an attack against fat but as a comment on apathy and inactivity. These humans became passive observers in their own lives, and eventually less than that. They talked to people who were sitting right next to them on computer screens. They didn't see the swimming pools right in front of them and were oblivious to the beauty of the stars right outside their windows until WallE came along.

And through their observations of WallE and EVE, they are shaken out of their stupors and chose to act and become participants in their lives again. 

I listened to the commentary track and it cleared up the filmmakers intent to me like crystal. It was NOT some kind of underhanded poke at fat people at all. These people were never even referred to AS fat or obese in the movie itself. They were babies. Big, adult babies because in the environment in which they lived, that was all they NEEDED to be. They LOOKED like babies and their level of functionality was reduced to infancy and it was infancy that they would have to grow out of again for humanity to survive. At the end, when the captain stands and walks, LOOK at it. It's a baby becoming a toddler. He steadies himself on the consul and walks hesitantly. The message had NOTHING to do with attacking obesity and everything to do with maturing as a species and having to grow up all over again. 

This is a brilliant, beautiful movie with lots of great messages about interaction and what it means to be human and it's a real shame if folks miss it because they think it's another extended fat joke. It's not.


----------



## chublover350 (Nov 21, 2008)

i actually just bought it today...i haven't seen it yet heard visually it looks amazing :bow:


----------



## Seiger23 (Nov 21, 2008)

I fail to see how this movie was offensive =/


----------



## butch (Nov 21, 2008)

Fish said:


> I never had the chance to see this movie in theaters, but HAVE finally watched the DVD and fell instantly in love. This is an incredible movie that effortlessly continues the string of awesomeness that is PIXAR. The rest of my post here is SPOILER laden, so stop reading now if you don't want any spoilers.
> 
> And having read a good number of the negative reviews in this and other threads regarding the way humanity is shown in the film, I have to add my voice to those that see the films view of these future humans NOT as an attack against fat but as a comment on apathy and inactivity. These humans became passive observers in their own lives, and eventually less than that. They talked to people who were sitting right next to them on computer screens. They didn't see the swimming pools right in front of them and were oblivious to the beauty of the stars right outside their windows until WallE came along.
> 
> ...



I'm sure that is all true, and in fact I don't have a problem at all with that message, but as an artist you know that there is a huge difference between the intent of the artist and the reception by the audience, and if the reviews I've read are any indication, the movie is being read as an indictment of our 'obese' culture. So, how did the artists fail in portraying the distinction they were setting up, that the human race has been infantilzed and their bodies have atrophied due to their consumer, wasteful, and lazy lifestyle, but that this has nothing to do with the size of their body or the gluttony of their appetites?

My complaint with the movie isn't about the message, the themes, or even the portrayal of their bodies so much as it is a complaint that the fat body, intentionally or not, is always linked to negative constructs like greed, sloth, and wastefulness. If that association wasn't so strong, then we'd all be able to look past the representation of the character's bodies and see that the message the filmmakers are presenting in Wall*E are about all bodies, not just the fat ones. Perhpas if we lived in a culture where fat people (or giant baby looking adults, which, to be honest, even if that is all they're expected to look like in the film, then they don't look any different than fat adults) were represented in film as something other than a negative stereotype or comic relief, then none of the reviewers would lazily view Wall*E as a critique of fat people.

And yes, disclaimer, I haven't seen the film, and so what do I know? I do know I can watch a film that is deeply problematic for the messages they present while still thinking the film is brilliant-for me, "Million Dollar Baby" is an excellent example. I think those of us sensitive to the fact that fat people are no different than anybody else are less likely to remember that most people in America aren't so charitable in their opinions about fat people, and may not be able to make the distinction that you all are able to about the visual representation of the human race in Wall*E.


----------



## dragon6860 (Nov 21, 2008)

I'm afraid I have to say, that if you are judgeing the film when you yourself have not seen it, then your opnions on the movie are not vaild. I've never seen Citizen Kane, and I say, It's a horrible boring movie. Of course, my thoughts are not valid. 


Decrying Wall-E a movie about how fat people suck when you've never seen it is extremly shortsighted. See the movie, then claim it's a movie about how fat people are horrible. I'll disagree, but then at least we're on the same footing and we can have a debate.


----------



## butch (Nov 21, 2008)

Yes, you're right, which is why I made sure to point that out. My criticism, though, is based on what I've seen people in the media say about the film, which is that amny of them view it as a critique of obesity, and if that is a prominent opinion about the film, then I don't have to see it to say that I'm not keen on having my body be a symbol for greed, laziness, and waste, whether that was the film's intent or not. I'd be happy to see it when I don't have to pay to see it, so if someone wants to send me the cash to rent it, I'll see it right away and give you a more informed critique of the film.


----------



## mossystate (Nov 21, 2008)

Butch...I understand what you are saying. 

I have not yet seen this movie. Now, if I see it and I interpret it differently than so many of the reviewers...and a majority ( it seems ) of the general public...well, that is wonderful that I had my own experience....but....none of us live only inside our own heads. And, images and words _do_ matter...and they do shape attitudes and how we percieve others...for the good....or the bad.

It is not overreacting to question things...even where you can find some real good.


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 21, 2008)

butch said:


> My complaint with the movie isn't about the message, the themes, or even the portrayal of their bodies so much as it is a complaint that the fat body, intentionally or not, is always linked to negative constructs like greed, sloth, and wastefulness.



Complicated by the fact that many of the poorest people are also "obese," while thinness is valued by the well-off. It seems obvious that there is some ideology of obesity that works to maintain the class status quo. Fat has become the scapegoat for an entire culture's sins.

On the other hand, the positive imagery associated with fat is discounted and even actively "pogromed" out of existence. Fat femininity, for instance--as an idea--has been almost completely vilified and ridiculed. 

I think it's important to ask ourselves how ideas of fat are used toward maintaining certain cultural attitudes that make it possible for the ruling classes to remain the ruling classes. A movie like _Wall*E_, whose production values themselves point to its being aligned with values of superficial consumption, is by definition nothing more than hegemonic ideology packaged as entertainment--its artistry remains at the level of eye candy, while its "message," which purports to "conscientious consumption," remains simplistic and moralizing, rather than organically creative or visionary (how about some real genius answers to our pressing questions, Pixar?), aiming explicitly at beating consumers brows into submission. "Consume carefully and take action for the planet," seems like a wonderful message. When you pick that apart, though, it's obviously just another way of harnessing the growing awareness of consumerism's faults, in the interest of more consumerism of a prettier kind. It's the false consciousness of the priest offering penance for one's sins, of salvation through confession. In the service of this exchange, all that's required is that we repudiate the symbolic evil of overconsumption--fat. In return, we get the go ahead to continue consuming to our hearts' content.


----------



## Tad (Nov 21, 2008)

Fasc: I really enjoyed the movie, but I agree with what you said. Especially when you see all the cheap Wall-E merchandise for sale! Couldn't let sticking with the message get in the way of marketing opportunities, ya know.


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 21, 2008)

edx said:


> Fasc: I really enjoyed the movie, but I agree with what you said. Especially when you see all the cheap Wall-E merchandise for sale! Couldn't let sticking with the message get in the way of marketing opportunities, ya know.



I haven't watched, but I think it's probably very cute. I know kids probably love the characters, and the amount of artistry involved in the animation is impressive. I'm a big fan of animation and I'd probably enjoy it on that level. And it's precisely its pretty surface that makes it a perfect vehicle for what it ultimately does. Evil, I tell ya. Eeeeeeevil. 

lol Thanks for the comment, Ed.


----------



## sweet&fat (Nov 21, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> I haven't watched, but I think it's probably very cute. I know kids probably love the characters, and the amount of artistry involved in the animation is impressive. I'm a big fan of animation and I'd probably enjoy it on that level. And it's precisely its pretty surface that makes it a perfect vehicle for what it ultimately does. Evil, I tell ya. Eeeeeeevil.
> 
> lol Thanks for the comment, Ed.



Haha, Fasc! I'm teaching a class on design theory/history this semester, and we just started discussing semiotics. We read a very basic introduction to the topic (an intro to a reader), and you just reminded me of the following passage:

"This book is intended to reveal the common intersections of entertainment and ideology that can be found in contemporary American life. Often what seems to be simply entertainment, like a TV show, is actually quite political. The point is to see that little in American life is "merely" entertainment; indeed, just about everything we do has a meaning, often a profound one."

Wanna come talk about Wall-E to the students?


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 21, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> Wanna come talk about Wall-E to the students?



Thee birds with one stone:

1. Meet you and hang out and hoot and holler.

2. See NYC again! :smitten:

3. Destroy false gods! 

lol

:bow:

Sounds like a great class, sweet. Just my kind of thing. I bet it's going to be fun, too. Bringing back class consciousness to the young 'uns. About time!


----------



## ladle (Nov 21, 2008)

I watched this movie and loved it. I read into it very little other than it was a very cutesy story. Wasn't until I saw this thread that I started to see its EVIL hidden undertones....haha
I'm glad I don't read too much into things, otherwise I'd never watch ANY movie in case it offended someone, somewhere..


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 21, 2008)

ladle said:


> I watched this movie and loved it. I read into it very little other than it was a very cutesy story.



A cutesy story in which fat is literally the bane of humanity.


----------



## ladle (Nov 21, 2008)

It was misguided of them to use fat to imply laziness.
I guess that was the 'easy' way for them to do it.
But again....there are people that get offended at every movie that comes out, I try not to read that much into them.


----------



## RVGleason (Nov 22, 2008)

Here's a link to another 'WALL-E' thread on the BHM/FA discussion board. 

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50380

RV :eat1:


----------



## TraciJo67 (Nov 22, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Complicated by the fact that many of the poorest people are also "obese," while thinness is valued by the well-off. It seems obvious that there is some ideology of obesity that works to maintain the class status quo. Fat has become the scapegoat for an entire culture's sins.
> 
> On the other hand, the positive imagery associated with fat is discounted and even actively "pogromed" out of existence. Fat femininity, for instance--as an idea--has been almost completely vilified and ridiculed.
> 
> I think it's important to ask ourselves how ideas of fat are used toward maintaining certain cultural attitudes that make it possible for the ruling classes to remain the ruling classes. A movie like _Wall*E_, whose production values themselves point to its being aligned with values of superficial consumption, is by definition nothing more than hegemonic ideology packaged as entertainment--its artistry remains at the level of eye candy, while its "message," which purports to "conscientious consumption," remains simplistic and moralizing, rather than organically creative or visionary (how about some real genius answers to our pressing questions, Pixar?), aiming explicitly at beating consumers brows into submission. "Consume carefully and take action for the planet," seems like a wonderful message. When you pick that apart, though, it's obviously just another way of harnessing the growing awareness of consumerism's faults, in the interest of more consumerism of a prettier kind. It's the false consciousness of the priest offering penance for one's sins, of salvation through confession. *In the service of this exchange, all that's required is that we repudiate the symbolic evil of overconsumption--fat. In return, we get the go ahead to continue consuming to our hearts' content*.




Fasc, I agree with most of what you just said. The highlighted part, not so much. I think that the message in Wall*E had nothing to do with fat being the "evil" of overconsumption -- it was a byproduct, if that (there was another explanation for the human's physical condition, involving the effects of being in space for 700 years). And I don't think that the fat characters were portrayed unsympathetically, either. In fact, they were cast in a rather heroic role towards the end of the movie. For purpose of this movie, I think that the concept of the evils of overconsumption were more about unchecked consumerism and the irresponsible disposal of waste. 

Now, pardon me while I rush out to buy my kid a Wall*E lunchbox


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 22, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Fasc, I agree with most of what you just said. The highlighted part, not so much. I think that the message in Wall*E had nothing to do with fat being the "evil" of overconsumption -- it was a byproduct, if that (there was another explanation for the human's physical condition, involving the effects of being in space for 700 years). And I don't think that the fat characters were portrayed unsympathetically, either. In fact, they were cast in a rather heroic role towards the end of the movie. For purpose of this movie, I think that the concept of the evils of overconsumption were more about unchecked consumerism and the irresponsible disposal of waste.
> 
> Now, pardon me while I rush out to buy my kid a Wall*E lunchbox



Well, I should probably watch movies before I try to make definitive statements about them. lol But I do think, in general, that this _kind_ of "consciousness-raising" movie works to further and exonerate consumerism, and little else.

Now excuse me while I go consume some organic, vegan instant noodles.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Nov 22, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Now excuse me while I go consume some organic, vegan instant noodles.




Ah. A shredded cardboard box, then


----------



## Mathias (Nov 22, 2008)

I just finished watching the movie and frankly, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I know that that's been said by many others throughout this thread in much more eloquent ways but I didn't find anything wrong with the movie whatsoever. It focused much more on the environment than it did on blatantly making fun of fat people.


----------

