Animation and Anime

WALL*E has a new trailer & a viral website!!!

Published at: Dec. 17, 2007, 8:30 p.m. CST

Hey folks, Harry here... At Butt-Numb-A-Thon 9 this year - a pair of producers from Pixar's latest brought 15 minutes of astonishing footage from WALL*E. It began, very much like this new trailer -- showing us WALL*E's humdrum life on Earth... where he's basically been left marooned for the past 700 years... compacting trash and fitting it together like legos into the world's largest building block set. We learn that his only companion is a tiny cockroach... Then EVE arrives... an elegantly designed "Mac-ish" looking robot - and thus begins a romance... He takes her back to his pad to show her the treasures he has amassed in the 700 years upon Planet Earth... the character animation in this sequence is amongst the best I've ever seen in the 100 years or so that Animation has been around. Just stunning work. Then she must leave... and WALL*E can't bear to see her go. So - as you'll see on the last series of shots... he hitches a ride - and from there... he ventures into the heavens... Now in the Headline - there was a mention of a viral site. In the film there is a company BnL... short for BUYNLARGE - this is the company running things in the future - and I know this because I was presented with a BnL tracksuit (that fits!) from Pixar at BNAT - and they told me about the site. This site is hilariously subversive and dry-witted. Enjoy!



WALL-E Exclusive Trailer

Add to My Profile | More Videos



Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:35 p.m. CST

    first

    by box

    first

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Awesome

    by tylerzero

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:35 p.m. CST

    Too Soon

    by box

    It's too soon for me to be first...

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:35 p.m. CST

    What the hell is this...

    by Pipple

    I don't know whether to be excited or not frankly...

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Jeez, i'm one of those people...

    by Kevin Bosch

    No, not a First!er. One of those people that points out that this website isn't new, but has been around for months now. Aw, who cares, it's news to most people who read AICN.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:36 p.m. CST

    looks cool

    by ScreaminBrains

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:37 p.m. CST

    BnL

    by mithrandir16

    The Buy N Large website has been up for at least a few months. It is pretty funny. Along with the great animation, it's a great sign for the movie.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Pixar owns me

    by BeeDub

    I'm there opening day.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:38 p.m. CST

    too slow

    by mithrandir16

    Ah, DocBosch beat me to the punch.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:40 p.m. CST

    I'm there dude

    by ThePilgrim

    Reminds me of a comedic silent picture, and I'm not complaining!

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:41 p.m. CST

    His eyes look like tits

    by Musicballs

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:51 p.m. CST

    how about a fucking SPOILER ALERT with that description

    by wcoop893

    jesus christ, maybe im just being an ass but i didnt want to know anything more than we have seen in the trailers. obviously the movie is supposed to be a mystery based on the trailers.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 8:51 p.m. CST

    okay, we get it, PIXAR

    by finky089

    spend enough time with the intro crap, why don't you???

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:05 p.m. CST

    I don't care what ANYONE says...

    by Buckys_Kick_Ass_Arm

    This is going to be one of the best movies of the year. Pixar is a company you just cannot criticize in terms of quality of animation. CGI animation is quickly becoming exhausting to watch because of so many shitty, SHITTY movies that don't hold a candle to Pixar's look, feel and overall quality. So excited to watch this with my wife.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:07 p.m. CST

    Better Than "Cars"???

    by MrDagon

    Cars sucked. This looks like it sucks. How about a movie that DOESN'T have cute toys to sell???

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:08 p.m. CST

    Wall*E Shall Rock

    by kevinwillis.net

    Looks mega-groovy. The marketing is going to get old, though.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:22 p.m. CST

    someone clarify brazil

    by aestheticity

    ive heard that music used to back mundane workaday situations where someones dreaming of more in many things since the movie brazil, did that film forge the link or did it already exist? like in some 20's flick?

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Love the BRAZIL music

    by George Newman

    will this film be a fantastic, escapist hallucination dreamed up by a lonely and pathetic robot?

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Maybe not appropriate for ostensibly a kids' movie, but...

    by toshiro-solo

    Holy. Fucking. Shit. I need to see this movie right now. Looks to me like Pixar's best for sure since The Incredibles (although I did like Ratatouille), and maybe their best yet. Which is sayin' somethin'.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:39 p.m. CST

    I'll need diapers during this flick..

    by JimCurry

    I've got to imagine there will be a whole lotta pissing, shitting, cumming going on as I watch this lil robot fuck me with cuteness.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:42 p.m. CST

    he sounds like a jawa

    by occula

    offical dork overload

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Aestheticity--Brazil music from 1930s

    by George Newman

    so says Imdb

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Hurt by not having voices...?

    by Osmosis Jones

    E.T. had no dialogue for it's first FIFTEEN MINUTES. Plus, that trailer did a brilliant job indicating Wall-E's emotions just through body language and sound cues.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Just another movie

    by Juggernaut125

    that makes me believe 2008 could be a banner year for exceptional and thrilling movies. I can't wait for this one.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:05 p.m. CST

    JimCurry.... That is entertaining

    by Buckys_Kick_Ass_Arm

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:10 p.m. CST

    Just saw a Uwe Boll DUNGEON SIEGE on comedy central

    by George Newman

    In the Name of the King, indeed.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:10 p.m. CST

    I Hate Being a Mudstick

    by Mr. Winston

    And I've been complaining a lot lately, but Christ...I'm glad I'm not the only one who's willing to call out the SHORT CIRCUIT thing. <br> <br> I think this looks amazing and after all I've seen and heard about it I'll be there opening day. But this isn't about that - it's just annoying to keep hearing everyone who's seen advanced footage talk about the miracle of anthropomorphic expression they've reached with this character. I mean, fuck...someone else got there first in 1986. You take humanish-shaped eyes, rotate them on an axis and, if you're really feeling spry, add some flaps to imitate eyelashes/brows. Wow! <br> <br> I swear I'm not trying to be contrarian (not that anyone has cared or noticed, but I have a lot of Irish Guilt swirling about). Maybe there's a lot more to this that I just don't know about. Point is, it looks good on its own merits and if it's Pixar, you can bet the story is going to fulfill expectations. I actually think the mechanical humming as opposed to outright talking is going to challenge audiences - especially kids - to buy into their own imaginations a bit, which can only be a good thing. But let's not pretend they've gone and reinvented the nonhuman expression wheel here. What they've done looks great so far, but so far it also looks like they've dipped pretty heavily into the well. With that in mind I'm docking them a few creativity points and hoping they buffer that by blowing me away with the rest of the movie.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:12 p.m. CST

    George Newman

    by Almega

    I just saw that too... I'm very curious about it now. Jason Statham, John Rhys-Davies, and Ray Liotta.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Wish I could edit...

    by Almega

    Just looked up the full cast. Lots of names. Burt Reynolds, Matthew Lilliard, Leelee, Ron Pearlman.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:15 p.m. CST

    looks interesting

    by systemsbroom

    although I've never understood the love for Incredibles. Insulting Ayn Randian message choked the fun out of it for me.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:16 p.m. CST

    It's OK, Didn't Love It...

    by grievenom

    I'm not feeling it with this one. Who knows, I may change my mind when I see more footage, but this doesn't blow my skirt up.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Next summer is looking good.

    by one9deuce

    Except it's all feeling a little bit like deja-vu. There is the obvious two: BATMAN and INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE came out in 1989 and THE DARK KNIGHT and INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL are coming out in 2008. But we had SHORT CIRCUIT 2 in the late 80's and WALL-E is absolutely coming off like more than just "homage". Wall-E himself looks almost exactly like Johnny-5. I can't even give Pixar the benefit of the doubt now because of CARS. Although RATATOUILLE was awesome.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:47 p.m. CST

    pixar owes me 4 billion dollars

    by ironic_name

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:50 p.m. CST

    I liked this movie better when it was called...

    by Captain Internet Sellout

    A Grand Day Out with Wallace and Gromit

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:55 p.m. CST

    I think AICN has forgotten about the spoiler box

    by BadMrWonka

    invisotext is completely alien to them at this point.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:56 p.m. CST

    It's the Aliens from the 5th Element

    by Orionsangels

    They have the key

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:57 p.m. CST

    What spoiler? Wasn't it obvious?

    by Orionsangels

    Now WALL-E goes to a planet where he meets fancy robots and he feels different left out. At first he's the outcast. Then he meets a girl robot. At the end he's saves the universe and the movie ends with him and the girl robot on that garbage planet. Geez i can write these stories upside down.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 10:59 p.m. CST

    Soooo

    by cornponious

    The Bare Naked Ladies are in this?

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 11:18 p.m. CST

    harry

    by BadMrWonka

    that is some of the best hyperbole in the history of hyperbole!<p>just kidding big guy. this does look exciting. and your giddiness and geeking out over shit like this is what keeps a lot of us coming back. Pixar makes us all kids again, if only for a short time.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 11:22 p.m. CST

    SPOILER ALERT:

    by Kirbymanly

    Harry needs to start thinking before to types out a story. Dude, take 5 seconds to think about how you're going to present something before you do. Its not asking a lot.

  • Dec. 17, 2007, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Kirbymanly, it will never happen

    by JimCurry

    The man has no edit button, on the site or in his head. No, not a good thing when you're not funny or interesting.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 12:35 a.m. CST

    The last robot on earth is not alone

    by emp

    If someone from Pixar reads this: I have cancer in my ass, and the only thing that would make me happy is to be invited to a very early pre-screening of this movie. Please?

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 12:38 a.m. CST

    shouldn't it be a fluorescent bulb by now?

    by FlowCytometer

    They just had the chance to change the bulb, why not be all current and environmentally-pc?

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Spoiler-Crying Idiots

    by Mr. Winston

    I'm convinced that if the Internet has done anything it's bred an entire generation of social cripples who feel it is their own personal forum to complain - and to do nothing but complain - about that which is A) 100% free to them, B) of their own personal interest and C) totally contrary or unrelated to what they're ultimately whining about. I guess if no one can actually SEE you bawling, you're not a worthless basement-dweller. <br> <br> I'm sorry that you didn't get your spoiler box for information that's been readily available for months and offers only a bare-bones synopsis of the first 25 minutes of the movie. If you refuse to read the trades or film-related message boards or anything relevant to the world of entertainment, allow me to apologize personally for anyone who has now wronged or will in the future wrong you so severely. I'm quite sure that you really wanted to know NOTHING about the film, even the most basic details, right up until its release date, and that you will be so fervent in this show of staunch self-deprivation that you're going to carry around with you little ear plugs and an eyemask just in case anyone in your presence ever dared discuss broad plot details, and that afterwards you would chastise them roundly and proudly instead of simply keeping your eyes glued to whatever Hentai fetish, sad excuse for real personal interaction you were ogling at that highly offensive moment. <br> <br> Please, for the love of God, shut up and fuck off.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 1:10 a.m. CST

    60% of you

    by hard8

    are retards. Spoilers? No voices? SHort Circuit? Oh God, please STFU. Pixar has been making award winning films longer than most of you have learned how to use the internet. Unfortunately that's about as skilled as some of you are going to get in life.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 1:24 a.m. CST

    Pixar hasn't made a good film since the original TOY STORY!

    by Orionsangels

    For me anyway.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 1:32 a.m. CST

    The real problem..

    by Captain Internet Sellout

    ...isn't that Pixar hasn't made a good movie since Toy Story.. the real problem is they keep making the SAME movie.. just changing the props.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 1:53 a.m. CST

    I wonder which continent Pixar will buy on 2009

    by Harold The Great

    This movie will make a scary amount of money. As for Pixar haters... they're weird.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 2:53 a.m. CST

    PhunnEE! Looks like another winner from PIXAR...

    by Zardoz

    ...even if I didn't care for the cooking French rat movie! Now where's Incredibles 2?

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 2:55 a.m. CST

    Mr_Incredible

    by Mr. Winston

    I think the majority of the people nonplussed with the Wall-E character (myself included) aren't projecting that WALL-E steals SHORT CIRCUIT's storyline, but just the design. And after hearing how everyone was wowed by the incredible animation and expressions within that character, I have to say I was disappointed to see that Wall-E was basically a Johnny Five knockoff. That said, I'm going to hold out hope that there's more to the animation that I just haven't seen yet, and frankly I'm looking forward to this more than IJ4 or THE DARK KNIGHT now.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 2:56 a.m. CST

    This is the first Pixar/Disney movie that...

    by That 70s Venom

    ... I have had any sincere interest in in quite some time. I think the last one from Pixar was Toy Story and the last one from Disney was The Lion King. I will actually slap down my 10 bucks to see this in the theatre.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Spolier alert my ass

    by semisaj

    OMG....don't come to this site if you don't want spoilers YOU FUCKING MARDI ARSED DICKHEADS....I actually hate it when we are not told something about a movie...anyway Toy Story 2 great.. no 1 ok ..Incredibles great..Cars and Rat lame.. the rest average at best! This looks like it could be better than Toy Story 2

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:27 a.m. CST

    bacci40...

    by Captain Internet Sellout

    That was a very hurtful thing to say.. I don't descriminate among robots.. I whack off to big ones.. small ones.. you name it.. All their movies are the same formula..it's always a movie in some new world filled with toys.. or fish or monsters or cars superheroes.. an the same self aware jokes throughout parodying that subject. They could have covered all of it in one movie and saved us a lot of time and money.. whoops.. but then they wouldn't be able to rake it in.. Luckily in each world only the cars, fish, superheroes etc etc can talk to each other.. or their run would be over.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Spoiler Alert - that's just all in the first 20-30 minutes

    by HEADGEEK

    it apparently heads into a series of amazing directions. And I didn't even tell y'all about the amazing shit in space.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:39 a.m. CST

    Dark Knight and now this

    by filmcoyote

    this week's trailers are showing how summer 08 will deliver the best summer films ever. If only Indy could pull out a great trailer - though i just can't see that being good. Hoping though. Wall*E will have me there opening day, so will Dark Knight. Come on 08!

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 5:04 a.m. CST

    Pixar variety

    by Clancy Van Lustbader

    Personally I have no complaints. Still, Pixar is going to be taking on Burroughs's 'John Carter of Mars' soon aren't they? Well, *that* should shut a lot of complaining pieholes.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 5:20 a.m. CST

    i find pixar "haters" hilarious

    by slappy jones

    you guys must be so cool and hip and jaded. can we hang please??? you all sound so awesome.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 5:22 a.m. CST

    oh and "cars" isn't that bad. its just not that great

    by slappy jones

    but i will still take cars over drek the third or fucking ice age any day

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 6:10 a.m. CST

    Success kills creativity..

    by Captain Internet Sellout

    Toy Story being so hugely popular is what killed Pixar.. they probably would have put out much more cool stuff had it not been so huge. But instead they just kept pumping out the same movie over and over because the formula worked. Have you kids not seen "A grand Day out"?

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Then.........?

    by fxmulder35

    If you hate AICN....what are you doing here? Just more bitching. Wall*E looks incredible. Can't wait.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 7:46 a.m. CST

    systemsbroom

    by jzarbaugh

    "Insulting Ayn Randian message"? YOu are going to have to explain that one. I had to Google Ayn Rand and am still having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. Maybe it is too early...

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 7:52 a.m. CST

    I'M GONNA CRY AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by ludmir88

    BUAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Pixar Haters are like accidentally stepping into a dog turd

    by SpyGuy

    Your first reaction is you're pissed that they're there, temporarily ruining an otherwise perfectly good day. Then you try to smear them off your shoe, hoping all traces of them will be scraped away, and even when they're gone, they still manage to leave a nasty smell.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 10:33 a.m. CST

    This may be a good movie, I'll probably

    by Grammaton Cleric Binks

    take the kids, but bottom line is it will ALWAYS have Short Circuit comparisons.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 11:31 a.m. CST

    If talkbackers knew about this viral site for a year,

    by SkeletonParty

    why didn't any of you mention it to us? Instead, you bitch about how you knew about it for a year. You are emotionally twelve years old. <p>If you hate this AICN then don't show up. If you like the site and know about something cool, share it. <p>And quit bitching about a "Spoiler Box". The headline says he saw the first fifteen minutes of a show, he's probably going to talk about it.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 11:36 a.m. CST

    "Insulting Ayn Randian message"??

    by SkeletonParty

    I had a question about that, too. <p>I think the message was that society celebrates mediocrity and it is up to individuals to fight the suppression if individuality. <p>Ayn Rand said, "The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." <p>That's sort of close, but I don't see how it is insulting.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Awe inspiring

    by PullMyFinger

    The look of Wall-E is so utterly spectacular that I'm viewing the similarities to Johnny 5 and R2D2 as and homage. Like Mr. Incredible said, we got it, he looks and sounds like two other robots. If you're not into Pixar (and what I think will be their greatest film to date) then continue to whine about "rip offs", while we all get blown away by its brilliance.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Nice

    by Cobbio

    God, I'm so happy Pixar is finally making a science fiction movie. Looks great so far.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Wall-e looks great!

    by darthvedder81

    I love that Pixar is telling the story visually and with sound effects—you can't get much further away from the "pop-culture reference", hip stars doing the voices dreck that most CGI studios put out. And what was so horrible about Cars? It looked terrific and had some heart to it. I'll admit it's not Pixar's best but a bases clearing triple is almost as good as a Grand Slam...

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Visually, looks pretty stunning.

    by aceattorney

    But the concept - we'll see if it works.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Robots rule!

    by Automaton Overlord

    Now and forever.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 2:51 p.m. CST

    C'mon... who doubts Pixar anymore???

    by SifoDyasJr.

    it's not that they can do no wrong, it's just that, so far, they haven't done wrong.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 3:45 p.m. CST

    I love it!

    by moondoggy2u

    By the way, gentleman (and lady(, the reason you guys think it sounds like R2-D2 is because Ben Burtt (or however his name is spelled) is doing the sound effects/dialogue for the entire movie! And yeah, that's good news;)

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 3:58 p.m. CST

    WHAT? NO HARR·E???

    by ludmir88

    CLAIM YOUR RIGHTS HARRY!!!

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:06 p.m. CST

    I WANT THAT ROBOT FOR NEXT CHRISTMAS!!!

    by ludmir88

    OR NEXT SUMMER.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:15 p.m. CST

    MRX67 ARE YOU OK WITH THIS MOVIE???

    by ludmir88

    crazy guy!!!

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:21 p.m. CST

    by TheDohDoh

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:23 p.m. CST

    JOHNNY 5 NEEDS SOME FUCKING ROYALTIES

    by TheDohDoh

    THAT IS ALL. THE SIMILARITY IS MORE THAN UNCANNY, IT'S PLAGARISM.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:27 p.m. CST

    2008 will rock.

    by TattooedBillionaire

    There, I said it. Wall-E is looking like it might lead the pack, which is saying quite a lot at this point. Time will tell. Pixar is one of the best things going in film right now.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:35 p.m. CST

    jzarbaugh and SkeletonParty

    by systemsbroom

    The Ayn Randian bit is that the world in Incredibles is divided between super people and the rest of us mediocre folks, and that the problems in society (or at least the ones the film focuses on) derive from us mediocre saps holding back the super people, who are just too super to be restrained by our rules. <P> The insulting bit comes from the fact that the chief villain is a mediocre person who wants to be super, and in fact who wants to make everybody super. Typically, this guy--the guy who wants to work and earn his abilities through dedication and innovation--would be the hero, and the elites who have *inherited* their powers would be the bad guys. <P> Add to that that Ayn Rand's concept of a super-person was basically creative individual, and I couldn't shake the feeling that the whole movie was essentially the Pixar people telling the audience that the world would be a better place if we just accepted our mediocrity and devoted ourselves to enjoying their wondrous creations. <P> I know that's probably a little neurotic of me, but that's how I felt watching the movie. People have told me that my problem is that I was identifying with the wrong characters in the movie, which is probably true. Still, I'd rather see a movie that is about challenging one's limitations than one that is (potentially) instead a thinly veiled post-hoc rationalization for inequality.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Wow.

    by Jack Burton

    The question isn't if a Pixar movie will be good, it's how good. Those guys make the other studios look like they are standing still. I especially liked the little dig at the end of Ratatouille that proclaimed "100% animation, no motion capture!". Motion capture done right yields amazing results (LOTR, Monster House). unfortunately it still tends to look creepy in the wrong setting.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Jesus Christ, Mr_Incredible

    by Mr. Winston

    Is everyone on this board so purposefully ignorant? Nevermind, I already know the answer to that. <br> <br> "Yeah, we know he looks like Johnny Five from Short Circuit. Even I thought that he looked like Johnny Five the first time I saw WALL-E. The thing is, you don't have to repeat it like a million times. We got the first time. Besides, it's going to be a completely different movie." <br> <br> The point is not - at least from my end and that of a few others here - just to point out that, "Oh, he looks like Johnny Five." And it's not like I'd expect you to be impartial, based on your Pixar-fellating username, but I was disappointed by the look of the character. Sorry I busted up your delicate feelings by stating my opinion, but I was under the impression that I was entitled to it. <br> <br> I blame that on the many positive advance reviews for the pieces of footage seen to this point where more than one person I talked to (and more than one BNAT reviewer on this site) claimed that the character work on Wall-E was "the best ever" or "absolutely revolutionary". I'm willing to leave that there's MUCH I haven't seen of the character and that I could and should be pleasantly surprised by the finished film, but I'm sorry...I'm not blown away by that character design because I've seen it before. It may be very good - and that's to say nothing for the rest of the animation and the film itself - but it's not original. And that doesn't bother me per se (until preening minions like you chime in without a point). In fact I like the idea of a little Johnny Five/R2-D2 homage. I think it fits. But that doesn't change the fact that the footage was made out to be, like I said, a reinvention of the wheel. And it appears to not be that at all. On a positive note, I think it does mean that everyone was so blown away by the clips in so many other aspects that it made them ignore the fact that the character design is derivative - which can only be a good thing. <br> <br> As far as a comparison to SHORT CIRCUIT, I never once posited that it might be the same or even a similar movie, so quit with the non-sequiturs.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 5:35 p.m. CST

    I sometimes think...

    by Obscura

    ...that people enjoy hating something just to sound like they know more about film than others. Throw away your ego, forget the past and just look at what they're creating, because every second of the trailer is pure film magic. Classic Disney style sprinkled with fairy-dust type magic. Quite simply, if you've ever come out of a pixar film thinking you've just wasted an hour and a half of your life, then just accept you're probably not an animation fan. Pixar are the absolute best at character animation right now. its not the technology, its not the (great) character designs, its the performance that is key. they know character, they know it starts with script. they make moves the right way, even if you dont like the outcome. The more animation studios we have in the world that place script and character performance above everything else, the better.

  • Dec. 18, 2007, 7:06 p.m. CST

    I believe..

    by Captain Internet Sellout

    I believe people hate a lot movies because these same people should be making movies. For example.. I read a book by a screenwriter who was the same age as Spielberg and Lucas and thought they were incredibly overrated. He felt this way necause he knee all the stuff they ripped off. And now you have the generation that grew up loving Spielberg and Lucas learning the same thing about Spielberg and Lucas as they become more sophisticated. Now these guys don't seem so magical anymore. I have the same problem with this Pixar movie. Go find Wallace and Gromit's A Grand Day Out.. and realize that Pixar ripped off the robot all alone on the moon for this trailer.. that's WallE.. with a little Short Circuit thrown in only not as cool and with nothing of interest added in..

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 12:27 a.m. CST

    systemsbroom...

    by jerseycajun

    I got a completely different message from the Incredibles than you did.<br /><br />Syndrome could have used his natural talent with invention to be his own hero, but rather he chose to use his abilities to cut down the supers. It wasn't that he developed his unique abilities to their limit, it's how he used them.<br /><br />The message of the film is simply that we aren't all born with the same gifts and talents. No matter how much some of us work in life, we may never be as brilliant as Einstien, or as artistically talented as Michaelangelo. Talent and skill is not evenly distributed across society, nor should we pretend that it is. That's what I got out of it.<br /><br />Ratatouille even completed this theme more fully by explaining that greatness at a particular task is not the fate of everyone who works earnestly at it because our limitations are different, but also that we can't count someone out of greatness on account of superficial qualities.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 12:43 a.m. CST

    The Johnny 5 comparisons...

    by jerseycajun

    For the folks who are complaining that somebody ought to file a copyright/royalty suit for likeness infringement is apparently unaware that you only need to make your creation about 10% different from another work to avoid legal action. Hold up a picture of Johnny five next to Wall-E and then decide if there's less than 10% difference in appearance.<br /><br />The similarity is in the eyes and the tracks only and even those have elements that have an altered look between them. Not anywhere near 90% similiar. Infringement means you're deliberately trying to cause confusion between two artistic creations so that the copier benefits from the popularity of the copied work. I sincerely doubt Pixar is trying to capitalize on 20 year old, moderately successful sci-fi comedy. If anything, it's more likely an stylistic homage to the previous robotic character.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Captain Internet Sellout

    by jerseycajun

    The robot in "A Grand Day Out" was shaped like a box. So now any robot that incorporates a box into its' design is a rip off of "A Grand Day Out"? That's absurd. It's like trying to patent a circle. It's just too generic an element to be taken seriously.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 6:20 a.m. CST

    Jerseycajun

    by Captain Internet Sellout

    I'm not even talking about the shape. It could be any shape and they are still ripping-off A Grand Day Out. But then to add the box shape and squatty appearances.. it's way way way too much. Again.. if they added some elment that was COOL to the whole thing I might not have such a problem with it. But if anything what's different is worse -- uninspired.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Pixar automatically gets my money

    by Abominable Snowcone

    Looks like a combo of E.T and that oven-robot from the first Wallace and Grommit adventure. You know, the stove robot on the moon whose job is to clean shit up. Does WallE get to have sex with Ally Sheedy? Do I?

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 10:10 a.m. CST

    Johnny-5? I don't think so...

    by DocMHumphrey

    Check out Emkay from Star Wars Expanded Universe: <bR><br>http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/MK-09<br><Br> Close enough...scroll down the page to see his full body design.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 10:39 a.m. CST

    The Pixar Rendering Engine

    by Movietool

    Always makes me wet myself. Beautiful. Their software engineers are the unspoken heroes of that company.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Rand / jerseycajun / systembroom

    by gboybama

    I'm with you Jersey. I love the messages of both Ratatouille and Incredibles. Current society hates achievement and loves mediocrity. Kids need at least *some* examples of an alternative philosophy. Kudos to those two movies for providing it and doing so in an artistic and entertaining way.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Randian Message

    by DocMHumphrey

    I also dig the example they showed in "Cars", just because you're great at something, doesn't mean you have to be a douche.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 12:10 p.m. CST

    gboybama

    by systemsbroom

    No, no, no, the message of Incredibles and especially Ratatouille was *not* that society loves mediocrity and that you should instead appreciate excellence. The message was that some people are simply *better* than other people. The rat whose name I forget was a great chef--but not because he worked at it. He just was; he had innate talent. In fact, the Luigi kid who *did* want to be a great chef (or at least a competent one) and who worked at it and at least appeared to try hard failed and was not happy until he accepted his lot as a servant of the rat with the in-born talent. <P> That's a terrible message. Toss out the freaky outliers like Einstein and Hawking, and the facts on the ground are that to be great at something, you have to devote vast time and energy and resources to it. As such, the takehome of the movie (made all the more ironic by the repeated statement that "anyone can cook," which the rat reveals doesn't mean that anyone can cook if they just put their mind to it and work hard, but that this magical talent requisite talent to being a great cook could be found in anyone, even a rat) is that some people are innately better than others, so don't let your pride or prejudice get in the way of basking in their greatness. <P> I like Pixar movies, but I just found this particular theme too prevalent in both Incredibles and Ratatouille for me to fully enjoy them. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it's just me that sees this in them, but still, I preferred toy story (and even finding nemo, although albert brooks is often painfully unfunny).

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 1:21 p.m. CST

    systembroom

    by gboybama

    I think your take is seriously off, but I respect a well reasoned and interesting point of view like yours. Cheers! That being said, I think the root of our disconnect is a firmly rooted belief on my part that not all people have equal potential in all things. It's sad but true that I will never be a Roger Federer or Pete Townshend or Ben Franklin. Whether it be genes, education, hearing Mozart while in the womb or just dumb luck, some folks just tend to excel in certain disciplines better than their more average peers. As a society, we choose whether to tell those with special talents (Remy the Chef or Mr. Incredible) to reign it in and get back in line with the rest of us or whether we appreciate and encourage their gifts. Personally, I choose the latter. Importantly, however, I don't think this has to happen to the exclusion of also encouraging and appreciating the rest of us. I don't resent their success and I enjoy my gifts in the proportion that I have them. These movies just deliver the simple message that when a bird wants to fly high, you let that bird fly high... as high as they can. It's an optimistic and positive message IMO.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 3:49 p.m. CST

    gboybama

    by systemsbroom

    I appreciate your civility, and I definitely get what you are saying. I just think that very little of what we call "talent" is innate (although I agree that there's a lot of dumb luck involved), and so a movie that suggests that greatness is intrinsic and therefore not attainable just kinda grates on me. There's a fair amount of psychological literature out there on what it takes to develop talent--you should check out those freakonomics guys on the subject; they have some good, easily digestible meta-analysis that suggests that most great athletes or musicians, for example, got that way through large amounts of practice. <P> Anyway, I agree that most of us never will be Federer or Townshend or Franklin--although it's possible that maybe any of us *could*. The thesis of the movies I'm criticizing, though, is that No, you can't, not unless you are a Remy or an Incredible, which which case, you just *are*. I accept that there is inequality in ability; I just bristle at the normative statement that inequality exists because some people are just intrinsically better than others.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 3:56 p.m. CST

    systemsbroom

    by jerseycajun

    Linguini found his place as a great waiter. What you're suggesting is that if two people work equally hard, on average, they will achieve the same level of success, all external factors being equal. I just don't believe this to be the case, nor do I believe this is a cause to see that as somehow unfair. Each of us is dealt a different hand of cards in this life with different talents and abilities. Some people are naturally good at speaking, others can't muster anything but sweat when attempting a talk in front of a crowd. People are different, and it extends to many areas of life that Hollywood has for a long time held as somehow perfectly level and even amongst us all.<br /><br />And nowhere is there an implication that being better at a particular task or subject makes you a better person. How on earth do you derive that from those movies? How was Remy a better "person" than Linguini? A better Chef? Sure. But from the standpoint of character, they both experienced moments of excess pride and moments of grace.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 4:47 p.m. CST

    jerseycajun

    by systemsbroom

    I see all that. But I'm not saying that if two people work equally hard they should achieve equal success. Just that in Ratatouille, Remy doesn't work at all at being great. Everything he does involving food is amazing. There's no trial and error, no accumulation of knowledge. He is a great chef because he just *is*. <P> Anyway, I think that we are just reacting differently to material in which we see a lot of the same. You say that Linguini achieves success because "he finds his place" as a great waiter. I can see how that's laudatory, but I found it a bit unsettling. Stories about people finding "their place" don't resonate with me, especially when that place is as a servant. <P> Similarly, maybe it's sloppy of me to say that Ratatouille has Remy be a better person than Linguini. But it is clear that "head chef" is more important than "waiter"--the love interest french girl (I think it was her) explains as much to Linguini when he first starts and she lays out the kitchen hierarchy for him. <P> Add into this the likelihood that "cooking" is a stand in for the artistic process in the film, and the movie came uncomfortably close (at least to me) to being a thesis by Pixar creative types about how some people are great artists, and that everybody else should just passively enjoy their art (like that creepy food-critic guy) or actually accept just being a servant of the great artists (like Linguini). <P> I don't mean to rant, and I found a lot to enjoy in the movie, too, but just found the aspects I'm talking about here to be vaguely insulting and paternalistic.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 5:23 p.m. CST

    I don't understand.

    by jerseycajun

    I gather from your comments that being a waiter means you're subservient to others simply because you take their order and bring food?<br /><br />I mean, it would be wrong on many levels to force someone into such a hierarchy, but remember, Linguini went looking for a job there voluntarily, he didn't have to take that job.<br /><br />If you've ever watched "Dirty Jobs" on Discovery, Mike Rowe often points out that the happiest people he's met in his life are the ones working the dirtiest, and lowliest jobs on earth while some of the most miserable occupy more socially "acceptable" rungs. I'm starting to get a little disturbed that you seem to be flirting with the idea that being among the higher ranks of any order is always preferable to all people. Nobody had to tell Linguini he should be happy as a waiter, because you can tell by the look on his face by the end that he's happy in his work. At this point, he'd probably turn down an offer to become a head chef.<br /><br />There should be absolutely nothing unsettling about finding your place as long as in doing so, it is left entirely up to the individual and not forced by others upon you.<br /><br />To add further, I've met waiters who enjoy their work enough to make a career out of serving customers, not as simply a job on the way to other work.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 5:40 p.m. CST

    Just one furhter note..

    by jerseycajun

    If, as an artist myself, I was able to snag a job at Pixar simply doing storyboards for the rest of my professional career and never rising higher than that, I'd be thrilled simply because I'd have the fruits of my labor contribute to a studio who's library is second to none.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 6:10 p.m. CST

    jerseycajun

    by systemsbroom

    I didn't dislike the fact that Linguini seemed happy as a waiter. I certainly don't begrudge anybody happiness at their job as a waiter. But the key point here is the Linguini is not a real person. He's an element of a story, and that story has (to my mind) unfortunate overtones saying something like the following: Be content with your lot; if you try to do something different, you will fail and be unhappy *unless* you have a special, quasi-magical talent. <P> I understand completely that there are people who are happy doing all manner of dirty, lowly work. That's great for them. I just can't fully enjoy a movie that posits normatively that amazingly talented people are that way because they are innately special, and that you'll be happiest when you get out of their way. It's just too creepy a message when coming from a wealthy corporation in a movie marketed at the general public. <P> I guess my main complaint about the movie is that it suggests that people have "places" to which they ought to resign themselves. The fact that the characters are happy in their places once they find them is the sneaky, paternalistic part. I like my movies to tell me that you should go out there and be whatever the hell you want to work to be, not tell me that there is some place out there commensurate to my innate qualities, and that once I settle into that hole, I'll be happy.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 6:15 p.m. CST

    jerseycajun, your further note

    by systemsbroom

    But see, that's your ambition. The negative corrollary to what Ratatouille is about is that you either have what it takes to be something, or you don't. So if you (not to get personal, so no offense) never get to do storyboards for Pixar, in the world of Ratatouille, it's because you just weren't born with the talent for it, and those people that are doing the storyboards were so born. <P> Look, we've both (along with others) written a lot on this topic already, and I just want to inject back into this my perspective: I liked Ratatouille, just not as much as some of the other Pixar movies. This is my quibble with the movie, that's all.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Oscar Worthy for sure.

    by NubtheSquirrel

    I mean, it will be nominated for animated feature based on the fact that it will be incredible but Ben Burtt will be guaranteed an Oscar nod for his sound effects and sound editing. I am almost guarantee that. George pretty much shot himself in the foot by letting Burtt leave Lucasfilm.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 6:50 p.m. CST

    by jerseycajun

    The question I have then, is why you would anyone want to be in their way in the first place? Why hold them back? Also, if we had to resign ourselves to our jobs, then we never really enjoyed them in the first place, and perhaps that's a sign we should keep looking.<br /><br /> None of the characters looked like they had resigned themselves(which I interpret as a sign that they have given up on finding happiness in their work). Indeed, if one enjoys one's work, then they generally aren't in need of resignation to anything. They tackle their work with enthusiasm.<br /><br /> <i>"I like my movies to tell me that you should go out there and be whatever the hell you want to work to be, not tell me that there is some place out there commensurate to my innate qualities, and that once I settle into that hole, I'll be happy."<i><br /><br /> These are not mutually exclusive ideas. Why treat them as if they were? Generally speaking, people usually like doing something they're good at. Inversely, people usually are not happy or satisfied with repeated attempts at doing something they're not good at nor seem to be able to master a skill as well as it takes to enter that profession.<br /><br />The movie also says nothing about restricting people from trying to do something. Indeed, just the opposite, it says that we must risk failure in life - to try things - but without guarantees as to whether or not the risk will pay off.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 7:28 p.m. CST

    jerseycajun

    by systemsbroom

    Maybe this is the crux of it. You write "Generally speaking, people usually like doing something they're good at." That's true. But what I'm talking about is the difference between liking something because you are good at it and being good at something because you like it. <P> If Luigi liked cooking, he was screwed. He couldn't become good at it. He could try as hard as he wanted, but he could never do what Remy could do without trying at all. *That's* the aspect of the movie I'm unhappy with. It's narratively convenient that Luigi ends up happy as a waiter, but again, Luigi isn't a real person, so his happiness is just another way of thematically reinforcing the idea that finding your place and doing what you innately ought to do will make you happy. <P> I would also argue with you that the movie is about risking failure to find success. Remy didn't risk anything, except getting caught as a rat in a kitchen, which is a risk completely ancilliary to his cooking ability. And there is never a moment when there is any doubt that any dish Remy makes is going to be anything except wonderful. He doesn't fail once.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 8:32 p.m. CST

    by jerseycajun

    We also don't see Remy cook very many dishes. We knew Gusteau had a much longer cooking career than we're allowed to see of Remy's in the film, and we know that Gusteau himself created disasters from time to time despite his own fast rise in the culinary world, as that was revealed in the course of the film.<br /><br />It stands to reason that Remy will eventually create a failure in his career. The fact we don't see him experience a creative disaster in the earliest point in his career is not indicative of guaranteed future successes.<br /><br />And the message of the film was "Anyone can cook", so yes Linguini could probably become competent at it. I'm competent at it, too. But I can't cook like what it takes to create dishes for a top-of-the line gourmet kitchen either. I don't know how far I could go in that world because I've never tried, but I would eventually reach my limit, and that limit would not be the same as yours, or Remy's or anyone elses.<br /><br />There is even some indication that Collette wasn't as good a chef as Remy despite having more experience in the kitchen. But the movie is not suggesting that she doesn't belong there, even though she came up through the system the hard way.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 8:49 p.m. CST

    jerseycajun

    by systemsbroom

    The phrase "anyone can cook" is explained later on in the film. It doesn't mean that anybody can do it, just that there's no way of knowing in which person (or animal) this great talent of cooking might reside. Remy even says so in reference to Linguini. <P> And I'll agree, the movie indicates plenty of times that Collette is not nearly as good as Remy--Remy corrects her choices, and of course ends up leapfrogging her to be head chef in a matter of months (days?) despite her entire professional career of extremely hard and persistent work. And you are right, the movie doesn't suggest that she doesn't belong in the kitchen--it just demonstrates that somebody with a magical gift can completely outshine someone who diligently applies themself. <P> Anyway, Gusteau was done in not by failing, but because his heart was broken by an evil "critic"--that paragon of mediocrity, a professional class of those who can't create for themselves, but can only run down others' creations. A critic who, I might add, is a sepulchural and miserable fellow until he decides to stop judging genius and instead resign to enjoying it. <P> I also disagree with the idea that Remy will eventually create a failure in his career. What reason do we have to think this, other than our real-world intuition that nobody is *actually* a magically gifted person?

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 9:58 p.m. CST

    by jerseycajun

    I said it already. Remy and Gusteau shared a similar history. A meteoric rise in the food industry with a display of phenomenal talent.<br /><br /> Gusteau's sweetbread recipe was a self-described catastrophe, so we know that genius isn't a guarantee of flawlessness. I'm not sure what Gusteau's death has to do with the idea that I was trying to get across. We see Remy prepare exactly 3 dishes. The soup, the sweetbreads and the ratatouille dish. Using that as a statistical predictor of an entire career's worth of creative decisions isn't rational.<br /><br />You've already acknowledged that some people are just unusually good at what they do. Some people just breeze through learning how to do things that take others years to master. It's not an unreal situation. It happens, and it's not "magical". Where do you think the term "child prodigy" comes from? There are kids out there who have mastered certain skills that would take me longer than the time they've been alive to master. That's reality. Why deny it?

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 10:27 p.m. CST

    jerseycajun

    by systemsbroom

    I'm certainly not denying the existence of prodigies. I'm just saying that a movie whose message (at least to me, a caveat I've mentioned several times) is that people who succeed do so because that's their place in life kinda rub me the wrong way. That's all. <P> Regarding Remy's future success, and the rationality of using three dishes to predict a career's worth of creative decisions, I have two things to say. One, it wasn't just three dishes. Remy ran that restaurant for however long the cooking montage(s) was/were supposed to gloss over. Could be months. And during that time, the narrative is constructed to let the audience know that the restaurant is a wondrous success. So it could be any number of dishes. <P> Two, and more importantly, it's nonsensical to predict Remy's career because Remy doesn't exist. He's an element in a story. He has no existence past when the credits roll (unless Pixar makes an ill-advised sequel). And during the movie, he does fantastically for no better reason than some sort of inborn gift. He's a thematic device that conveys a certain set of ideas. <P> Again, I liked this movie. I'm just saying that I give it an A- instead of an A because it seems (again, to me) to espouse a philosophy too remniscient of the sort of Calvinist/Randian whatever idea that Great People achieve great things, and so if someone is doing something great, they must be a Great Person. And if they are not, they are not. Which is rarely true (Mozart) but more often, inaccurate. <P> Anyway, it's been great fun sparring with you, mi amigo--it's rare to get into a conversation on these boards that, if I may say so myself, is intelligent and engaging. I think we should both congratulate ourselves on exchanging a whole slew of posts with nary a "this movie will suck because so-and-so's costume is too jokery" between us. Systemsbroom, out.

  • Dec. 19, 2007, 11:01 p.m. CST

    Ditto.

    by jerseycajun

    Too few of these conversations on the internet, period. Hope it's not the last. I think where you see a predestination angle, I just see it as a result of the characters being that good at what they do with the talent they have. After all, it's not predestination if the characters choose not to act on their talents. Oh well, 'till next time.