And Wall-E looks to be another feather in what's becoming a very feather-filled chapeau for PIXAR.

And my "he looks like" vote is for the "goose droid" from Star Wars.

Now hurry up and release the second damn season of Amazing Stories so I can finally watch the origina; "Family Dog" on DVD. My VHS is all worn out. God I love that thing.

However, I DID like it more than I thought I would, and don't think it's a bad movie, just a poor Pixar film.

But your "informed" opinion on CGI is so fucking retarded in its reasoning I hardly know where to start. Yes, there's a red button you'll be able to push that says "animate". Jesus. How fucking old are you?

Shuttlepod - not every movie they do has Happy Meals. Especially the one about, you know, good food!

Oh dear Ganymede, posting about originality and at the same time discovering the Short Circuit thing like it hasnt' been said 1000 times in every post already! Tool. I don't see people posting unoriginality TBs every time a new buddy movie with 2 cops come out. That goes for your enlightened post too, Neo Zeed.

More robot movies are a BAD thing??

I'm grumpy tonight. Maybe 'cause it's almost 5 in the morning. The trailer made happy, even if it was only a little bit different to the other.

Whoever up there talked about "some other planet", the planet is Earth. It's not 'til later he goes off. Sorry, just can't find your post anywhere up there now.

Oh and bring on Power of the Dark Crystal in 2009! Genndy rocks, and this will hopefully be the best of all puppetry, animatronic and cg worlds. Best tool for the job I say!

And I heard a little Jawa-speak in Wall-E, too. Oootineey!

Instead of being so snippy (I wasn't right that your post was the 100th echo of the same thing without acknowledging it?) consider that his form has something to do with his function and draws on the same sort of real world examples audiences would subconsciously recognise. Yes there may be similarities but it's certainly not the outright rip you imagine. The girl character has iPod lines but it's all a design comment and in aid of the story. C3PO is analogous in how similar he is to Maria, but still pretty iconic in his own right. And Mickey Mouse and Mighty mouse (or Felix in the earlier iteration) are similar but also distinct. Chewie looks just like the adult "Little Fuzzies" but still his own guy. Fair?

It's reasonable that his body is boxy and compact - and that his head would be separate to emphasize that, as well as being more practical (and much more importantly, expressive). You wouldn't get that if he was completely self contained though. I'll bet a hundred bucks that he's inquisitive and that's why they gave him the binocular type head with the focusing lenses. The foreshortened angles to give his eyes sclera is incredibly clever. And the neck amplifies his interest when he cranes/extends it to look at something or as a muppet-type accent. There's no 'golden triangle' because he doesn't talk. And he's yellow to play up the forklift thing. The practical design cues are part of it, but the emotional response is even more important. You liked Empire, right? The walkers are the stupidest thing ever if you want to be literal about it. In a setting where they've established that vehicles have some sort of anti-gravity device, why walk over the terrain when you can fly? It's moronic! The reason of course is the emotional analogy of being stomped underfoot by a huge beast. Pixar do the same thing with the shape, scale and character(!)istics of their characters. I'm guessing but I think even his name is purposely invoking Walmart and all that it implies.

Since you asked, yes originality IS important to me, being a character designer. I also think that certain emotional responses are acheived in certain ways and there's overlap if the character or purpose require it. Good guys = generally not jagged and pointy (Ed Scissorhands is the exception that proves the rule). Cute characters = head roughly the same size as the body, bigger eyes etc. See what I'm getting at? Years ago I was accused of 'copying' another artist's decisions for choosing a certain animal to do a certain task. Aside from the fact I'd done mine years before, and that he'd done so many damn animals in contrast to my three it was hard NOT to overlap, the unescapable fact was that if he'd done his research/homework he SHOULD be coming up with the same animals for the same tasks, as it was all about the appropriate context. And the animals were so distinctive visually they're alway going to look superficially similar if you stylise them. I also had scientists actually criticising me for giving them four digits instead of the 'right' amount! I said Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny don't stand upright and talk in real life either! And that considering the characters were supposed to be friendly, I wasn't sure poison spurs were the right choice, accurate as it might be.

Anyway I hope all this rambling has satisfied you and that you can agree I made a fair comment about your post. Like I said it was about 5 in the morning. Don't argue, or I'll bore you to death again. ;) Cheers.