Jump to content

Talk:WALL-E/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Ed Koch's review

Explain to me how Ed Koch is in any way a "notable" film critic besides the fact that he was a former NYC mayor? I don't see why film critics shouldn't have some sort of official recognition to be cited as a source of a film's reception. You may as well be quoting some random guy on IMDB. 207.32.33.16 (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts reading this article. Ed Koch's quote should be removed, he is not a notable film critic - 63.239.65.9 (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If the man comments something, it's notable, he earned it. Besides: "He also hosts his own movie review video show on the web called The Mayor at the Movies." "From 2005 to 2007, Koch wrote a weekly column for the New York Press. He also writes film reviews for the Greenwich Village newspaper The Villager." See here Gregorik (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Gender?

It seems somehow clear, but how do we know that Wally is male and Eve female? They are roboters - i know - and therefore dont have a sex, but obviously there is a obvious male-female-difference (Wally=male and Eve=female) but it seems different: Eve does have the social characteristics of the classic male-role (dominant, aggressive, hunter) and Wally somehow female. Otherwise the visual appearence: Wally is square and dirty - Eve is round and clean. So i dont know how we can distinguish the two Genders. --kommerz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.26.203 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because "Wally" is traditionally a boy's name, and "Eve" is traditionally a girl's? SpikeJones (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Using the pronoun it instead of he/she is also a solution. We don't really have to assign genders (i.e. stereotypes) to otherwise inanimate objects, for sexuality and heteosexuality are not the only possibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.165.210.73 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

*too long tag* says break the content up & move it. I say

a lott of this content is crufty and can leave 'pedia. is there not a wall-e lover's wiki? what stays could be better organized under a quick, easy few headings/subheadings. "plot" is huge. "story" is huge. huh? oh yeah, "story dev". someone should write a wall-e zine. kbai. n-dimensional §кakkl€ 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "too long"; everything in this article is sourced, thus encyclopedic. We can't help it if there is so much information. — Edokter • Talk • 01:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote

Currently there is a hatnote linking to WALL-E (video game). I think it would be nice to add some information about the video game in the article somewhere, perhaps the last paragraph of the Release section. Then the hatnote can be removed. One of the problems is that WALL-E (soundtrack) could also potentially be in the hatnote, since it also has the same name, but its already linked in the article body, so the same should be done for the video game. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research

This phrase: "The robot's design appears to be based on HAL 9000, a nod to 2001: A Space Odyssey, as both robot's directives and logic are the same: to complete their mission without fail." is original research, is it not? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not OR, but the wording should be cleaned up. "Appears to be based on" should read "reminiscent of" or "recalls" instead. Many sources can be found supporting this statement, but saying the design is based on HAL is not exactly correct. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
"The robot's design brings to mind HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, as both robot's directives and logic are the same: to complete their mission without fail. Auto also features a HAL-style red "eye" in the center of his body." is still original research. "Brings to mind" doesn't change a thing, it's still an assumption, not a fact; the article is a tertiary source, it's supposed to repeat what has already been reported reliably. If sources do exist, then they need to be referenced, and the sentence can stay as-is. If the reference says the design "was based on", then obviously that can be said. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 07:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Keraunoscopia, we generally don't tag something as OR unless there's a good indication that is OR. "Brings to mind" is vastly different than "appears to be based on". The former is widely referenced in articles about the film, while the latter is not. As for the second part, I have not had a chance to verify that statement as of yet, so I'll simply remove it. Obvious and widely sourced content generally doesn't require a source (although it is a good idea to add it if needed). Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree, and state that it reads like OR, even knowing myself that AUTO is very HAL-like in appearance. That doesn't mean it's wrong, heck, here's a source [1] that makes the necessary connection. Without the source, however, the statement reads like original research on WP's part, regardless of which way it is worded. It would be better to state something like "AUTO's appearance has been considered to be compariable to HAL from 2001" with a source. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that's true at all. The film is laden with 2001 references, and the sources make mention of them. "Original research" is when we find things that are not already published by reliable sources, and that isn't the case here. Most of the sources on this subject support the wording "brings to mind", which is synonymous with "reminiscent". Saying that their appearance is "comparable" misses the point entirely. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, the fact that there's 2001 refs all over WALL-E isn't the issue (I do see several other sources in the bottom half of the article for this support). It's proven, etc. But you need to look at how this is presented. The current wording for AUTO's character, using the "brings to mind" phrase, implicitly puts WP as the expert on this connection without a source; even with a source, it is very awkward language. WP cannot be treated as the expert per OR, we're summarizing data from a number of sources but not creating our own connections and interpretations. "Brings to mind" or "appears to be" without additional expert referencing, emphasize that Wikipedia's authors are the experts here, which is the wrong implication. We can fix this by taking us out of the active speaking role and asserting the connection to other sources. That's all that needs to be done. If you even want to keep that type of language, then something like "AUTO's designs have brought to mind to reviewers of HAL from 2001" and reuse existing sources - WP is not actively speaking that point but reiterating the point from other sources. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Masem, the article is very poorly presented and needs to be rewritten. Most of the writing is terrible. A good example of awkward language we should not use in this article is saying that a character is "considered to be compariable". The wording of "brings to mind" is a paraphrase of what most sources say about the connection, namely that Auto is "reminiscent" of HAL; Surely, we can add sources, but we should change passive to active voice whenever possible. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, we want to use active voice, and yes, there's improvements that can be made. All I'm trying to point out that the statement "AUTO's design brings to mind HAL from 2001", without nearby sources, reads like original research (even though it's not) and puts WP as the authority. Changing it simply to "AUTO's design brings to mind HAL from 2001, according to critics." and adding two reused sources, removes all problems with the possible OR implications without changing voice. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Can you make the changes? I'm about to go offline. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. From WP:OR, "all material added to Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source." If it isn't sourced, it can be construed as original research. Also, Viriditas (talk · contribs), there is a large difference between "common knowledge" and original research. AUTO/HAL is not common knowledge and has to be sourced, or I have every right to tag it {{or}}. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Not "exactly", but rather "wrong. You've misunderstood what OR says and what it means, and you aren't the first editor to do so. That our content is attributable to a reliable published source does not mean that if it lacks an explicit source it is considered original research. You need to understand that what it does mean, is that all of our content is assumed to be based on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. It does not mean that simply because something is unsourced in an article that it is not based on those sources. Original research means that we've found unique content on Wikipedia that cannot be found in published sources. That is not the case here, so your tagging would be in error. Keraunoscopia, please try to give more thought to this subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Except that if the content isn't attributed to the source by way of a reference, then how is the reader supposed to know it's published information? He doesn't, and he's not going to assume that it is. What you're saying is that references aren't needed so long as the information can be attributed to a reliable published source... by what, intuition? I think WP:OR and WP:RS is quite clear on the matter. Cite the information and there're no problems. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get the idea that we assume something is OR because it is unsourced, but that isn't correct. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Which is why the {{or}} tag has a question mark in it:[original research?] <------- it's asking, "Is this original research"? The answer in this case was no, and sources have been provided in this discussion on the talk page. The phrase in the article is still unsourced and makes the assumption that the reader makes an automatic connection between Auto and HAL, which is clearly not the case for readers who have never seen 2001: A Space Odyssey. Anyone could have noticed the HAL reference and thrown that sentence in without a source. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is an issue to question it as original research. It's not clear from such a statement that it was a personal observation or one that someone might have made in a publication. For example, "Filming lasted for 60 days" would not be questioned as original research. This kind of unattributed description is in the gray area of uncertainty. If there was an uncited sentence that used "probably" when theorizing something, that would be more clearly original research. Has citation been found for this HAL observation or not? Erik (talk | contribs) 21:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like Masem (talk · contribs) above was maybe going to rephrase and add two citations, which I think are listed in this discussion. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'Starliner' Wikilink points to the Space Station article, but is the Axiom really a space station? -- 98.108.146.96 (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Question--Why the "Axiom"?

Have any of the creators indicated why the spaceship was given the name "Axiom"? The meaning of the word seems unrelated to the themes of the film. Was it really chosen arbitrarily--perhaps they liked the sound--or have I missed some kind of allusion? 118.165.204.65 (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

This should be nominated for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.89.57 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The real wall-e

Notice the similatirty?

Apparently, Wall-e is aquatic! ResMar 14:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

3-D Re-Release

Pixar will plans a 3D Re-Release of WALL-E, Presented in Disney Digital 3D, RealD Cinema, IMAX 3D, Dolby 3D and XpanD 3D and Released on November 4, 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.217.139 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for this ? Barry Wom (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sequel

Pixar plan to make a sequel for this film set on November 4, 2016 in theaters, It was Directed by Steven Dean Moore, But Not Andrew Stanton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.209.12 (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Velarde, Robert (2010). "Technology". The Wisdom of Pixar: An Animated Look at Virtue. IVP Books. pp. 114–124. ISBN 0830832971.


I removed the reference link to the official website because it is now defunct and goes to a Disney landing page. 76.252.34.200 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the name given as “Wall-E”?

The opening phrase “WALL-E, promoted with an interpunct as WALL·E,” makes it seem like the hyphenated version is the standard, and the interpunct is optional and lesser. As the film is firmly promoted, titled, and indeed the main character is actually on-screen labelled “WALL•E”, surely that is the correct and preferred title, and the hyphenated version should be downgraded to a ‘sometimes written as “WALL-E”’…? Jock123 (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree totally with Jock123 and only came onto the Talk page to raise this point --92.26.116.125 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Another vote for me in the same direction. When a film title is presented in a wholly consistent way and being compatible with existing typography (at least one European/western language – Catalan – uses the interpunct on a daily basis), surely this should be noted as the actual title. The article redirect should go the other way around, and the factual title should be noted in the article's head – even if/especially if in the article (for typographic ease) this interpunct is substituted for a hyphen.--Paracel63 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Why? Because this is Wikipedia which is nothing more than an online POV game (regardless of the assertions to the contrary). Where all the "users" are battling for supremacy on what is the "truth". As any philosopher will tell you, truth is just perspective. Logically there is no hyphen in the title so it should be a dot. However being this is Wikipedia that does not mean anything. Here it's all about consensus. Or in another way a democraticly decided decision. But what is democracy? A simple system where are any two morons can out vote a genius. I have no idea why it's not called Wall dot E, all I do know is the hyphen camp got there first so they hold the hill (of moral high ground) till enough force can be brought to bare and knock them off. Then the whole game starts again. Mr Wales is laughing all the way to the bank!! 109.156.28.51 (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Themes

I'm relatively new to this but feel there are several major "themes" that have been omitted; Importantly - technological determinism - its is perhaps a bit one sided to include the quote about technology saving mankind when there is a counter argument that it may be anti technology. Also, within the context of the population resource debate - it arguably has a pro-marxist, pro malthusian message. That isn't a joke, I've just written a dissertation on it. Also the lifeboat / ark section seems to be more resonant with Garrett Hardins "lifeboat ethics".

The section on themes seems a little too blunt for me, although well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.8.34 (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be worth noteing

That You can sync up wall-e with Pink Floyds The Wall , just like dark side of the moon and wizard of oz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poohman0 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot section: Victim of disinformation campaign (it's wrong in places)

I am having a ball watching this movie - WALL-E - for the first time; it's wonderful! Since there are some bad spots on my DVD, I decided to read about the plot here on Wikipedia (and also on IMDb) to fill in the gaps. As I was reading the plot, it became obvious that someone has been messing with this page in a negative way; the plot, as currently described, is revisionist: it is inaccurate in at least one instance that I know of (so far). It says: ' WALL-E enters the pod before it launches, retrieves the plant, and escapes unharmed before the pod explodes. He then reconciles with EVE, celebrating with a dance outside the Axiom.

If you've seen WALL-E, then you know this is not what went down; in the movie, WALL-E is jettisoned into space in a pod that self-destructs. I hope someone fixes it.

This information is true as of this writing: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 at 4:30pm CST (Nashville, TN). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.93.125 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

not EVE but EVA

I'm sure its not just a coincidence that NASA uses EVA as an acronym for Extra Vehicular Activity. WALL•E clearly pronounces it EVA. Is it written anywhere in the movie? 75.159.31.148 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The CEO of BnL calls EVE the Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator. This is also written in the article itself. 129.241.129.16 (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The lede

The lede currently reads that this is a "CGI science-fiction romantic comedy film." The attempts by various IPs to change it to only a "romance film" shows a lack of understanding of both genres. Since none of the IPs address this situation we may need to file a RFPP. MarnetteD | Talk 22:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Name that Robot

On the current version of the article [2013-05-25] it mentions in several places the name of the robot was WALL-E, but throughout it does not explain what it means. Acronym City.. In reviewing the film however, it opens with a bunch of other pieces of hardware that have been abandoned on unused Highway (Roadway -Autobahn) type structures, with the name "Waste Allocation Load Lifter" ,and a sub-lettering below that of "Earth-Class". Again, the article fails to mention this, that there are two parts to the WALL-E machine, the compactor part , and the sort and storage part, where WALL-E, the robot resides, while it's batteries are recharged from the sun.

Correction - Robot named

Actually, Robot is named , but not till further down in the article, (Cast of Characters), is the name given. Richard416282 (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WALL-E naming convention

I moved the following statement from the article to the Talk page, it is inappropriate for it to be in the article itself.

The discussion where consensus was achieved can be found at the "Official Wikipedia naming?" thread in the first Archive on the talk page.

Please do not change the hyphens in the film or title character's name. Consensus and Wikipedia guidelines have determined that it should be kept as "WALL-E", and any edits changing the hyphen to an interpunct, bullet or other such character will be reverted. Thank you.

Please do not put this type of text into the article when it doesn't pertain to the topic itself.

Thanks, and hope we can help make these articles awesome! Alex (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit before yours vandalized the hidden code comment and made it visible in the article text. I've reverted back to the last good version. Thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

WALL-E in Disney Digital 3D

This film did never get re-release into theatres in the US in February 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.171 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WALL-E. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Gender

This article consistently refers to Wall-E as 'he' and EVE as 'she', but I recall no point in the film at which they were mentioned by gender. I question how two relatively non-anthropomorphized robots can even have a gender. Enigmocracy (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Sofia Lucifairy ..this is discrimination, why all garbage collectors are men Ultrastarine (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User: Enigmocracy . Ya you are right but in the movie the character behaviour shows that who is male (Wall - E) and who is female (EVE). Ultrastarine (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As some recent edits have replaced gender-specific pronouns with neutral ones, and as I was sure I'd heard the gender-specific ones used in the DVD special features, I poked around, and found (pretty quickly) an interview where director Andrew Stanton refers to WALL-E and Eve as "he" and "she": [2]. No, it's not in the film, but there's little dialog in the film, relatively speaking, so that's not surprising. If you can find a better source where the filmmakers refer to them exclusively and purposefully using non-gender language, please share here. I figure Stanton's interview should be a good enough source for us to assume his intent. --Fru1tbat (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on WALL-E. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on WALL-E. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on WALL-E. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of name WALL·E

I did not see mention in this article about the etymology or meaning of the name WALL·E itself.

I have only watched the film once, many years ago.  I vaguely recall the etymology was depicted visually, perhaps through the conflation of two display signs, one of them the beginning of a Wal-Mart sign.

I do not wish to do any “original research”, and am unsure whether citation to certain time periods (in minutes and seconds) of a film is a permissible reference, akin to a page of a written work.

I do not have the opportunity to view the film for this purpose, nor the interest to do extensive review of “primary sources”.

I mention this solely in case anyone has the time or inclination to make this improvement to the article, if warranted. SPN Lifer (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It is in the first entry here WALL-E#Cast MarnetteD|Talk 16:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

On the categorizing of a mixed animation/live-action movie?

Would not the parts with Fred Willard be considered the live action part? (I agree the Hello Dolly clips do not count) --Masem (t) 22:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. You might be right Masem. They had slipped my mind. My first thought is that they are kinda iffy but if you think they qualify as a defining characteristic please feel free to restore the cat. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to edit war, I just posed it. I do remember at the time of release, there was commentary about Willard's scenes (eg [3]) but as we do not want to dilute the cat, makes sense to ask if it is a defining cat. --Masem (t) 23:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

A couple editors (or maybe just the same one) have recently removed this line from the lead on the film and its apparent critique of society: "The film criticizes consumerism, corporatism, nostalgia, waste management, human environmental impact and concerns, obesity, and global catastrophic risk." This line is sourced, but I understand the objections to it. The intent is stated as fact, even though Stanton contradicts it (see the "Themes" section). What is actually factual, then, is what critics interpret the film as critiquing, not what the film was intended to critique. Maybe we should be more careful about the wording. The line in the Themes section (which cites the same article) is even worse: "Because WALL-E overtly critiques consumerism, it also critiques Disney's production values and aesthetic, without being too obvious." That's entirely a single source's analysis, and even if it's a reliable source, I don't think the wording is appropriate. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mglamb, Anniep256. Peer reviewers: Makayla Stanley, Kungfudragon1, Jaimeneto17, Brandon Shortrede.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WALL-E/Archive_5&oldid=1221502514"