wall*E (SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS)

[thehefner]

Y'know, there's one thing keeping me from fully embracing WALL*E as a brilliant film. Well, not one thing per se, as my favorite joyless bastard Devin at CHUD.com makes a compelling argument how the film abandons greatness halfway through and settles for just being "good." (Don't read that until you've seen the film, lest it risk you enjoying WALL*E for what it was, not what it perhaps should have been.)

I don't know if I agree with him, but he makes some good points. He certainly echoes my early concerns when I was disappointed to learn that WALL*E would not be a silent (dialogueless) film after all.

But what's really bugging me about WALL*E was the ending.



You did read there were SPOILERS SPOILER SPOILERS here, right?

Okay.

The ending of WALL*E.

As EVE began to frantically reconstruct Wall*E, I started wondering what it was that made Wall*E a person. He could replace any of his parts and still be Wall*E, except for one. His motherboard, his brain, even perhaps his soul? Hold on to that thought. Whatever it was, it wasn't looking too good last we checked, and now it looked like she was downright replacing everything, including the broken motherboard. (My apologies to computer geeks if that was not, in fact, a motherboard, and I am displaying my technological illiteracy full-force)

So when Wall*E reactivates and becomes just another robot, I think I caught on much sooner than many others in the audience. The second there was a lack of recognition, I went, "Oh fuck no."

Dread began to sink in, and soon that dread gave way to a worse dread as I came to realize that the ending--if it's going where I thought it was going--might actually work. I mean, in the OLD YELLER kind of way. And maybe it's the "insane asylum" robots that started to get me thinking of ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST, but I was seriously halfway expecting the CUCKOO'S NEST ending, if you know what I mean. Okay, so maybe that would have been too dark, but still.

But then Wall*E "came back," and huzzah, happy ending.

Except... uh... how? How did he "come back?"

I guess the bigger question to ask is, what went "wrong" with Wall*E in the first place that made him different from the other cleaning bots? How did he develop his "soul"? With that unanswered (and I'm not saying that should necessarily be answered, mind you) it raises the question of what makes Wall*E Wall*E.

Was the motherboard repaired and did I just miss it? Perhaps I'm forgetting something that happened on the ship's garbage compactor, but he wasn't looking too good. And it sure looked like she was replacing such hardware along with the new eye, etc. When he booted up, he went back to being just another cleaning bot, because whatever he was had (it seemed to be) been replaced. Maybe it was one part, maybe it was several. Maybe I'm overthinking this.

But that he could just, "Oh, hi, I'm back!" like that... I just don't know if I buy it.

What think you, folks? Did I miss something? Because I seriously want to hail this as a new Pixar masterpiece.

Comments

[fragmentedsky.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I didn't get that either. Then again, when that motherboard(?) was damaged, Wall*E - despite said damage - was still Wall*E. Not to mention, we didn't see exactly what EVE did in terms of repairs. For all we know, that piece was somehow welded together and just the piece with the hole was replaced, which given his behavior after the hole was made, would not be implausible. What didn't make sense was what brought him back, but in some sense, that could be like rebooting a computer. Think of the soul as a program that doesn't necessarily start up immediately and automatically. Since it is a soul, there are unconventional and/or emotion-centric ways of opening/accessing that program. Part of the problem is that we don't know how Wall*E developed his soul in the first place, so you cannot define what would make him rediscover it.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Glad that bugs you too. I mean, not "glad," really, but at least I'm not alone.

[gnort.livejournal.com]

That was directed at me wasn't it?

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Huh??

Short answer, no. Long answer... huh???

[gnort.livejournal.com]

Never mind, it's not important. I just read too much into the aside.

[scampster4.livejournal.com]

Uh huh. I'm going to tell you what I told Abby.

Why does it require any more answer than that it's a Disney movie? They were trying to make the point that the robot was so close to human that it'd developed its equivalent of a soul, and thus its parts weren't what made him himself. It's the happy ending that you expect and that the movie probably wouldn't have felt quite right without.

Unless I'm remembering it wrong, it's pretty much the same thing that happened in The Brave Little Toaster. And I never heard anyone complain about that.

But in the end, I return to my original point that it's a Disney movie, and thus, made for kids. The adorable robot who saved the world isn't going to die. Period. You can't look at it with complete rationalism, because you can't look at any Disney movie like that. They require you to suspend all that and go back to age 5 when you didn't ask those sorts of questions. And don't say you did. Freak.

Yes, in truth, Zeus was a whore. But in Hercules, he's a loving daddy. Do you really think that an arrow tied to a rope can pull up a full grown horse and two adults? Not so much. You're not watching it for its realistic qualities. You're watching it because it's entertaining. And happy. And adorable.

So just be happy with it and enjoy the awesome. So says Carlen.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Because this isn't just Disney. It's Pixar. They've raised the bar well above and beyond, "Oh, it's just a kid's movie, it doesn't deserve thought." No, no, a million times no.

First of all, why should kids' movies be dumb anyway. But more to the point, Pixar's films have (usually) been for adults as much as for kids. How much of the parental fear stuff of FINDING NEMO was lost on kids? Or the Enron-type metaphors of MONSTERS, INC? Or hell, what about most of RATATOUILLE? Not really kids' stuff.

So no, I call shenanigans on this idea. Pixar has a long history of crafting intelligent films for everyone, not just kids, and especially appealing to adults as well. Disney does that shit, sure. But I won't accept it from Pixar, because they don't usually except it either. Nor should you! Also sprach Heffie.

[scampster4.livejournal.com]

No, no. Don't take it there. I never said it was dumb. Hell, for a cartoon, this was pretty freaking dark for the majority of it. I mean, seriously now, Earth is a giant garbage and the human race has evolved to the point where we're nothing but lazy ass blobs, kept alive nearly entirely by machines? It's like the Matrix Lite. The movie was very cleverly done.

But they're not going to kill the hero. It's just not going to happen. They kill plenty of people in the Incredibles, but none of them meant anything in terms of having to feel upset about them. They pushed the usual line here. They dangled the possibility that someone you've grown to truly care about might not come back. And Pixar's done that before.

Regardless of who the movie is intended for, my point still stands. They were pushing the point that the robot had essentially become human. There was something more to him than just parts and more to him than any of the more advanced robots around him. I look at it with the logic that the brain's a very strange and unknown thing. The littlest gestures can trigger memories. And he's, you know, a robot. So it works differently for him.

Was it the sappier ending? Of course. Would it have worked without it? I really don't think it would've worked nearly as nicely otherwise.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I didn't say you said it was dumb. I'm just saying that the average Pixar film is smarter than the average Disney film, is all.

No, you're right, killing him off would have been waaaaayy too dark. But leaving him a blank automaton, that's the sort of thing that old Disney might have done, and it's the sort of daring move that I could honestly imagine Pixar having the balls to pull off.

I would have just liked the "brain being a strange and unknown thing" to actually be touched upon in the film, because as it stands, it's kinda bugging me (and Abby, yay, I'm not crazy and alone!). That way, there could have been some prescient for a labor bot randomly and inexplicably becoming human. I'll see it again, and maybe it'll work for me then. But for now, ehhh, I don't think I buy it.

Ps. Can I get a Hell Yeah on the HAL homage? Classic move made of brilliance.

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

More to the point of this post: You're not alone, but I'm split on whether or how much this issue detracted from the WALL-E experience.

On the one hand, it would've been a brilliant Cannes-worthy film if he remained a blank automation. Heart wrenching FUCK!:(ness.

On the other, I'm quite happy, for the kids in the audience, to have it not be quite as dark as leaving him a blank automation. In fact, I daresay that's even darker than leaving him a total junkyard death -- the erasure of spirit being far worse than the death of body and hopeful passing on of any soul-type thing.

That said, they easily could've gone for the compromise by trying to scientifically technically flesh it out, even just slightly. They may have run into problems, though: with the technical soundness of any proposed compromise (e.g. a half change of motherboard or melding of sorts making no real tech sense and almost being worse than simply not going there); with the length of the movie (too long spent splitting hairs and parsing minutiae rather than running with suspension of disbelief)...

...but I'm happy enough that they didn't: The thought provoking questions were raised enough for kids and adults alike, maybe not to win Cannes or Sundance, but at least to succeed as a fucking brilliant kid's movie, a subtle call to action and revolution lite and subversion and forward thinking, while raising the quintessential sci-fi AI questions regarding the fuzzy boundaries and makeup of life, sentience, thought, feeling, the soul, the mind-as-hardware, the subject/object distinction, cogito ergo sum, sum greater than al its parts?, etc... maybe not to scientific or philosophical resolution or satisfaction, but at least opening this door of inquiry -- a huge success of The (original) Matrix... but lighter, and yet somehow more poignant in its non-heavyhandedness and more true-to-love rendering of the spirit and virtue of duty and love and wonder itself.

I haven't read the article you linked to yet, but I will. Still, I walk away thinking it was a great -- not just good -- film/movie/whatever, despite said hang-up, though I see and respect how it'd be a near-dealbreaker issue for some.

Then again, if we're gonna go skeptic, don't forget to ask all the questions about fueling the Axiom and all the bots in space, growing regenerative foods, how robots manage to get wet and not rust or break down, etc etc etc...

Re: Ps. Can I get a Hell Yeah on the HAL homage? Classic move made of brilliance.

[fragmentedsky.livejournal.com]

I confess, Hef, I'm with this person (thus somewhere between you and Carlen) - yes, there are gaps in logic, as they mention here and I put in my above comment, but honestly, to say I'm actively bothered about it in the context is overstating it. I cared enough to notice and there is a potential that the film could have been even more potent, so to speak, if there hadn't been a logic gap...but honestly, it didn't really take away from my enjoyment of the movie itself.

and to the poster of this comment - kudos on the Hal thing, I loved that too.

Re: Ps. Can I get a Hell Yeah on the HAL homage? Classic move made of brilliance.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Noooooo, abandoned in my hour of sympathetic need! Maybe I don't even WANT your Joe-Joe's now. What do you think of that, huh? Huh?

...

GIMMEGIMMIEGIMMIE

Re: Ps. Can I get a Hell Yeah on the HAL homage? Classic move made of brilliance.

[fragmentedsky.livejournal.com]

I'm the Swiss, bitch. :p I am neutral. It would have been better had everything been completely logical, but no movie, not even a Pixar one, is completely logical. It really comes down to how far you're willing to suspend personal disbelief, and that's different for everyone.

Maybe I'll just EAT THEM ALL MYSELF.

Re: Ps. Can I get a Hell Yeah on the HAL homage? Classic move made of brilliance.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

In the words of Zapp Brannigan, "What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

But if you eat them, then with what--dare I ask--will you bribe me to come over and watch BATMAN BEGINS, hmmmm?

Re: Ps. Can I get a Hell Yeah on the HAL homage? Classic move made of brilliance.

[fragmentedsky.livejournal.com]

Laziness.

And I would use booze, genius. Obviously.

Re: Ps. Can I get a Hell Yeah on the HAL homage? Classic move made of brilliance.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

...

you win this round.

Re: Ps. Can I get a Hell Yeah on the HAL homage? Classic move made of brilliance.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you say here, or at least I definitely want to agree with the "on the other hand." I'm close to it, I'll just need to keep thoughts like yours and others here in mind when I rewatch the film.

[interdisciple.livejournal.com]

I take Devin's points, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. Put like that, yeah, I do agree, but I wonder what direction the movie could've or should've gone...

More on the suspension of disbelief: Did anyone else find it unlikely that Wall*E could've hung on for the duration of the space flight without melting or letting go? Almost as bothersome to me as the soul point, though again, one MUST grant a few let-'er-slides, not merely because "it's a kid's movie," but because the more challenging question remains: "well, shortcomings aside, what do you suggest could've or should've been done instead to better complete the masterpiece-like qualities of all that worked so brilliantly in the beginning?"

still, the combination of the first half's everything and the love and revolution themes that carried on throughout, for me, transcended the cartoonish aspects of plantboot-keep-away and the tubby manifestation of futurists' Human ca. 2700. still, devin's and your points are interesting ones well taken. (see my other, 1st response to this thread)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't think I agree with Devin either, as I did really love the movie as a whole (including the insane robots!). That said, I think I really could have watched a whole movie-length story of Wall*E on Earth. The joyless bastard wasn't wrong to invoke Tati and Keaton in describing that.

Um... the ship had a... cloaking device that protected it and therefore Wall*E from burning up...? Work with me here, people!

[yancentric.livejournal.com]

The piece in question wasn't necessarily a motherboard -- it was simply a board, and likely one of many.

More importantly, this movie was never about how wall-e came about getting a soul, so much as what he did with the one he had. it's a celebration of the strength of the human spirit, even when the actual human spirit is off hibernating somewhere. something happened in wall-e to make him more than the sum of his parts, and that something was strong enough to make it through a complete replacement of most of said parts.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Aye, you're quite right. Still, I took the board to be THE board, because he really wasn't looking good there, y'know?

Yeah, like I said, we didn't necessarily need the question of soul-acquisition explained (hell, in all likelihood, it never SHOULD have been explained, lest we get midi-chlorians or something), but it's just one major side factor that--left completely open--frustrated me in relation to him awakening from his blank automaton state. Wow, how's that for a convoluted sentence?

Aye, I suppose I am overthinking and picking apart something that makes emotional and artistic sense.

[leiacat.livejournal.com]

The ending actually worked for me - I thoroughly expected him to be resurrected by the power of EVE-nookie, because that's how stories work, so to me it was merely predictable rather than broken.

I am, however, with Devin - what made the movie brilliant was the silent-film aspect. When the action shifts to the ship, inevitably but still disappointingly, the story takes over, and the movie reduces to merely good.

I wish the humans weren't there, somehow. I wish the quest to return to Earth could have happened by some mechanism other than people-blobs fed 700 years worth of junk food. I am willing to acknowledge that the people-blobs are there to teach a not-so-subtle lesson, but I think it makes the story less interesting, and the storytelling less compelling than it would have been if it were just about the bots. More Mo the cleaner-bot. Heck, even more Auto (who was voiced by a machine - is that not nifty?), who would have made a more interesting villain if he had more interesting things to foil. Even the mad-bots in their randomness would have been forgiveable if they got more interesting stuff to do. I think the story could have had far more "human spirit" in it if only it had less "humans".

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Devin makes a great point about how bold it felt to have live-action humans there all of a sudden (the wonderful Fred Willard to boot!). Personally, it reminded me of Chaplin's MODERN TIMES, a silent film where the boss shows up via a giant screen and actually speaks, but no one else does.

Almost makes me wish that they kept all the humans live-action (which would open up a whole new can of worms), but then again, like you say, the people-blobs themselves might have been the problem regardless.

I think the story could have had far more "human spirit" in it if only it had less "humans".

Fascinating thought. From the start, I'd have hoped this movie would have actually been about a post-apocalyptic world where humanity was dead. I didn't dislike the use of the humans, as it reminded me of IDIOCRACY, but still, I can't help but wonder what could have been.

[little-dinosaur.livejournal.com]

I could have watched him play with his cockroach friend and work Buster Keaton-level perplexity and terror all day. Everything else didn't really need to be there, but I was okay with it.
Plus, it was about how cyberpunk kicks Star Trek's ass. Which I appreciate.

Also, his girlfriend is an iPod.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

I think it's wonderful that we finally have a cute cockroach pal in a mainstream kid's movie. It delights me.

Explain how it's about cyberpunk kicking Star Trek's ass. And while I'm far from a Trekkie, whatchoo got against Trek, baby?

Of course, she'd have to watch her back from her arch-nemesis, ADD-M, the Zune descendant.

[little-dinosaur.livejournal.com]

The cockroach reminded me of Ted from "Bone", except that Ted was sassier.

I don't know, there's Wall-E's taped-together busted-ass-ness down on a really messed-up Earth, which is cyberpunk, and this perfect uniformed spaceship society that's deluded itself into torpor, that's Star Trek, and then Wall-E gets on the Enterprise and gets them all back down to live in the apocalyptic future on Earth because it's much better.

What I have against Star Trek? It's the uniforms. Can't deal with the unitopia.

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

Thing is, they could have done a much more traditional version of that same story beat. They fix him, and he doesn't turn on. Give it a minute for tension, and then have it click in. Same story, less philosophical dubiousness.

I think they wanted to tell a slightly more interesting story, but managed to botch the execution. Consider all of the dead WALL*Es around the space. We're not expected to connect with them. This robot is unique; it was around for a long time and developed personality.

All mechanical devices do that. You learn that the car "likes" to be started twice before it turns over, or that your computer "gets cranky" on web sites with large images.

Those aren't in the design, or its memory banks. It's quirkiness, and the Pixar story wanted to capture some of that as a human trait.

Viewed that way, it took the fixed WALL*E a moment to reconnect with the elements of him that flaked out. They weren't in his memory, but rather in the busted parts.

At least, I think that's the story they were trying to tell. If it is, they botched it. Botched it deep, not just in that instant but with every robot in the story, including the busted ones. They wanted to create a different sort of consciousness, and didn't really succeed.

The story could have been fixed with a tweak at the end to make it less ambitious, and I think that was a good idea. Or they could go back to the drawing board, and it surprises me that they didn't. That's their way.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Very interesting! I have nothing to add to that, except to say that it's yet another level I'll be considering upon repeat viewings.

[angrylemur.livejournal.com]

Kiss of life!

EVE downloaded his memory by accident the first time they 'kissed', out in space. She transfered the memory back to him (also by accident) when she 'kissed' him on Earth.

It's not a perfect theory (by any means) but I think that's what they were trying to get across.

I think the film lost something when the humans started playing a bigger role in it. The first parts of the movie, with no dialogue except for Wall*E and EVE's electronic noises, were beautiful, and the lack of any glib remarks or manufactured attitude was almost jarring. I went with one of my most stoic friends and even he was visibly moved. Once the humans were introduced, though, the occasional visual gags (OMG GUYS THEY'RE ALL REALLY FAT!) took away from the utter sincerity of the beginning, and some of the simplicity that made it so beautiful was lost to a more "Hollywood"-ish style of entertainment.

Anyway. That said, it was still cuter than anything has any right to be and I think I'm cuted out for the next week or so. If I see any pictures of kittens or anything I might go into cute overload.