WALL-E takes top honor and Quantum of Solace disappoints 8

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   sindark Posted 3:47 am
   29 Dec 2008

   Wall-EWall-E is definitely well done: engaging and entertaining, emotive without being sappy. Some of the messages are indisputable: that resilience is a virtue (Wall-E has learned self-repair), that the planet is vulnerable, and that technology can isolate us from natural processes, making us unaware of the impacts we are collectively producing. Others are more dubious: that people ignore their environmental impacts because they are half-hypnotized by machines, rather than because it is convenient to do so, or that a simple imposition of will is sufficient to turn things around. The danger is less that robots will mutiny, and much more that we will be willing to make exceptional ecological sacrifices in order to keep our favourite machines running. It's not that our creations will defy our will, it's that we will refuse to temper our desires, whatever the long-term costs associated. Wall-E does make the second point (largely though the vehicle of the floating, near-helpless humans), but it gives a bit too much of a free pass on the first.
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

2. 

   David Roberts Posted 4:12 am
   29 Dec 2008

   One weird thing about Wall-EIn one of the very first establishing shots, and the camera is zooming in on the landscape, amidst the enormous skyscrapers of trash are ... dozens of wind turbines.
   That can hardly be an accident. Is the point that renewable energy won't save us if we don't change our lifestyles? That wind is futile? I dunno. I haven't seen it remarked on elsewhere though.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

3. 

   sindark Posted 5:08 am
   29 Dec 2008

   Cubes or litterAnother seemingly unrealistic element of the film was Wall-E's function. It's not clear why compacted and neatly stacked garbage is an environmental improvement over just having the stuff strewn around.
   If anything, having it compacted and stacked will make it more challenging to separate into components that can be recycled.
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

4. 

   spaceshaper Posted 5:22 am
   29 Dec 2008

   Trash toy spinoffIf Wall-E ends up promoting the consumption of the same kind of useless trash that it purports to condemn it won't be the first time that a well-crafted animated fable has betrayed its own environmental message. I seem to recall that clown fish were in huge demand for home aquaria following the release of "Finding Nemo" and that countless numbers were consequently suctioned from the reefs in commercial emulation of the human villains of the piece, the Sydney dentist and his nasty daughter.
   
   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

5. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 11:19 am
   29 Dec 2008

   Turbines and Trash Cubes......sindark, you are correct in that there were wind turbines in the movie, as well as a nuclear plant.  Also notice that all the lamps and holo-projectors on Earth were solar powered.
   The main theme of the movie was overconsumption, and not necessarily global warming.
   Ironic in that Buy-n-Large helped save the Earth by converting it to renewables, but then doomed it with trash.
   As for the cubes, if you'll watch the commentary that comes with the DVD, you'll notice in the first scenes that there are a large number of huge garin-elevator type devices on the edge of the piles.
   The purpose of the WALLEs was to to stack the trash.  Then the other machines would scoop up the cubes and incinerate 'em, reducing the amount of space they took up, using the cubes to create energy, and filtering out the toxins and using the byproducts to create additional items for Buy-n-Large consumers and organic elements to help fertilize the poisoned soil.
   It was basically a huge recycling/inceneration operation.
   The smaller, more agile WALLE units could reach all the nooks and crannies to get all the garbage and stack it neatly, while the other more massive machines converted it.
   But the operation failed.
   And we got a spectacular movie out of it.

   Permalink

6. 

   rufwork Posted 1:21 pm
   29 Dec 2008

   Living Daylights?"I still like the grittiness of Daniel Craig -- his Bond is much more like Ian Fleming imagined in his books than anyone since the Sean Connery of the early movies."
   Dalton's first was quite good along these lines.  ;^)  Second not so much.

   Permalink

7. 

   featherfish81 Posted 4:20 am
   03 Jan 2009

   Solar panels?Thanks Tasermons, that explains one of my main problems with the movie.  I couldn't figure out how moving the trash around constituted "cleaning the planet," although I don't think incinerating all of the trash is a much better option.
   My other question is if the planet was so polluted that you could barely see the sun, why would you make the robots solar powered?  It seems like they would have trouble getting enough energy to work.

   Permalink

8. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 2:00 pm
   03 Jan 2009

   Sun, Sun, Mr. Golden Sun...My other question is if the planet was so polluted that you could barely see the sun, why would you make the robots solar powered?
   My guess was that the air pollution got worse after everyone left and the garbage began to (slowly) decompose and what little vegetation was left died off and exposed the the dirt underneath, leading to erosion and duststorms.
   Still, there was some sunlight.  Enough to power WALL-E daily for 700 years and keep the holo-projectors for the advertisements runnin', at least.
   Plus, since it was the future, one could go as far to assume that solar panels would be far more efficient than today's models and be able to convert more energy with less sunlight.
   ...yeah, I spend some of my spare time thinkin' this stuff up and I could go out and get a life...
   ...but I like this more. ;)

   Permalink