DHP Review: Wall-E
Posted by Dirty Harry on Saturday, June 21st, 2008
SECOND UPDATE: Think Progress readers… This one’s for you.
UPDATE: ****Welcome fellow National Review fans, and my eternal thanks to John J. Miller for helping you find my new home. Hope you’ll take a look around, consider a bookmark, and come on back now and again. You’ll find 2-3 movie reviews a week, a lot of classic film pimping, and the 24/7 effort necessary to keep track of Hollywood’s pro-abandon-the-Iraqis-to-terrorists lunacy.
In the next couple days, I’ll be reporting on my few moments with the stars and director of Wall-E — including more on that “Stay the course” shot. Thanks again, John. ****
On to the review…
For all its charms and wonders, one moment sticks in my head and, well, craw. It also confuses me. Why? Why go there? Other than the dark chuckles from the liberal critics around me, what’s to gain? And other than a lack of self-control or hubris on the filmmakers’ part, there’s no explaining it. But they did it. They actually had the President (Fred Willard) say about his failed mission, “Stay the course.”
Have we lost Pixar? Have we lost the wonderful studio who brought us The Incredibles and Ratatouille to Bush Derangement Syndrome? Here you have a winning streak going back ten-years, enormous amounts of public goodwill, equal amounts of credibility as serious storytellers, and they stop things cold, yanking you out of the story with the liberal nonsense. Quite a disappointment. Anyway…
800 years in the future Earth has been abandoned by all but a single, small, resourceful, expressive, and oh-so lonely garbage compactor named Wall-E, who diligently does his job cleaning up — one square-foot at a time — the mountains of garage that eventually forced mankind to flee into space hundreds of years earlier. Powered by the sun and with only a cockroach and a VHS copy of Hello Dolly for company, Wall-E longs for someone to love, a hand to hold.
After centuries alone, Eve arrives. She’s a sleek, white probe with a deadly streak sent to look for any sign of life. Immediately smitten, Wall-E dodges her laser blasts until he earns her affection. It’s the small plant he offers her that takes them both on a journey into the faraway universe.
The first forty-minutes are magical. The introduction to Wall-E and slow reveals of his routine and world are mesmerizing and almost completely without dialogue. Eve’s arrival, their courtship, and those first moments in outer space are equally wondrous. It’s only when we get inside of the ship and meet the human beings that things become routine in that frantic kind of way that hopes to cover for a lack of any real story.
The human characters (and robot supporting characters) are terribly underdeveloped. Much of the latter part of the second-act is spent with the ship’s captain, voiced by Jeff Garlin, but he’s flat, only there to move the plot along. As the plot turns towards the fate of the human characters, Wall-E and Eve are left to chase the Maguffin with a cast of “whacky” robots. Eventually this results in third-act numbness and you just bide your time until it’s over.
At first there’s not much of an environmental message. The piles of garbage covering our planet come off as nothing more than a good idea to set up a cool alt-version of our world and the lead character. Unfortunately, this doesn’t last. The humans are introduced as meaty, lazy, chair-bound consumers who live in a world run by a large corporation. The message about our consumerism, sloth, and addiction to visual stimulus is eventually beaten like a drum.
This may well be the fifth or sixth movie this year to depict our government as taken over by a corporation – as though that would be a bad thing.
One very odd aspect was Fred Willard as the ’stay the course’ President. He’s actually Fred Willard. Not a cartoon and not a computer rendering. Every other human is a cartoon and cartoony. He’s only seen via historical footage, but still…
Wall-E the character, however, is amazing. The imagination behind his creation, how he moves and expresses himself, is quite a thing. I could watch that dumb little robot do his dull job for hours. It might’ve actually made for a better movie.
Whatever you do, be sure to show up on time so you don’t miss Presto, the cartoon-short that opens the show. At just a few minutes, Presto is a small masterpiece. Energy, humor, personality… It takes you back to the best of the old Warner Brothers’ cartoons when The Mighty Chuck Jones was at the height of his powers.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
(ahem)on 20 Jun 2008 at 7:27 am 1hi-res quicktime preview of presto.
Right in Seattleon 20 Jun 2008 at 7:33 am 2What happened to the company that brought us The Incredibles, indeed. I was kind of looking forward to this. It struck me as a very interesting spin on the romantic comedy. But They (and you know who I’m talking about) can’t help it. To Them politics is everything, the Alpha and Omega of Their world, Their raison d’etre.
Never allow a story to just be, as story. No. The politics is going to stick its ugly nose into the tent.
This “Stay the course” stuff is very disappointing. Makes me want to wait till the DVD before I see it.
Right in Seattleon 20 Jun 2008 at 7:35 am 3But I must say, when it comes to just straight visual story telling, nobody does it better than Pixar.
Steve W.on 20 Jun 2008 at 7:40 am 4This is the movie I’ve been looking forward most to–yes, even more than Iron Man, Indy 4, and Dark Knight. I’ll probably still go see it, as even mediocre Pixar (i.e., “Cars”) is still better than 90%+ of other movies out there.
But this sounds very disappointing indeed.
Templaron 20 Jun 2008 at 7:49 am 5I figured it would turn out more or less like this…
jicon 20 Jun 2008 at 7:53 am 6Have they started with the anti-consumerism merchandising and advertising tie-ins yet?
Opuson 20 Jun 2008 at 8:08 am 7Is there any possible way that the film couldn’t turn into an enviro-wacko screed? The very plot of the film screams it.
To me, when a filmmaker tosses in, out of the blue some anti-Bush or anti-US line it’s like spitting in my face.
E Porvaznikon 20 Jun 2008 at 8:14 am 8This was amazingly the first Pixar that didn’t register on my radar to see immediately (sure, on the surface a lesser from the gang, but with the homage to the ghost towns along the highway I love to stop into when I roadtrip, I liked Cars, quite a bit), so, as always, thanks for taking the hit for us, DH!
Kon 20 Jun 2008 at 8:57 am 9Have they started with the anti-consumerism merchandising and advertising tie-ins yet?
LOL.
The director did “Little Nemo”, the one where the line “Must have been an American” or some such is uttered about the human who kidnapped the child.
“The Incredibles” and the Rat picture were by Brad Bird, who’s managed to keep the politics implicit rather than in your face.
By itself, the enviro message in this movie is insignificant, but taken with the blizzard of AGW prop it’s very annoying.
Tanneon 20 Jun 2008 at 9:06 am 10Ehm…this movie isn’t about the environment and the director also confirmed that.
Anyway, thanks for the review.
Acushlaon 20 Jun 2008 at 9:06 am 11Realize it’s asking a lot, but throw in that the Willard/President also played ‘lookatthemonkey’ with the populace by bombing an aspirin factory or two in Poodookistan while ignoring dirty little sand fleas with expired visas taking one-way flying lessons under his nose because he is busy feasting on greasy cheeseburgers and fat, oversexed interns. . .
well, then I’m in.
Splashon 20 Jun 2008 at 9:16 am 12Pixar going Hollywood? I thought they were smarter than that. Ah well, if they finally need to experience some disappointment at the box office — and it’s inevitable at some point — this sounds like a likely candidate.
Tanneon 20 Jun 2008 at 9:23 am 13Are you mad? Every kid and woman in all countries are going to see this movie just because of the CUTENESS-FACTOR. Cuteness sells…
Carolynon 20 Jun 2008 at 10:26 am 14They don’t give up, do they? Those little BDS shits just don’t give up. I don’t feed them - I don’t buy a single ticket to any of their films, no DVD’s, I don’t even rent them on Netflix - but they’re still scurrying around.
I thought it was only cockroaches that you couldn’t eliminate from the face of the earth.
elboboon 20 Jun 2008 at 10:27 am 15Wow what irony, a review claiming dissapointment about political slant from a website whos slogan proclaims a political slant from the other side.
Fall in line folks, fall in line….
[IMH]on 20 Jun 2008 at 10:57 am 16elbobo, you’re ignorant. Harry goes out of his way to praise good liberal films, making explicit how much he loves the film while disagreeing with the politics.
What Harry and others want is a Hollywood that can make movies with different points of view. The Hollywood we have is not only incapable of that, but its commitment to one point of view supercedes everything, including decent storytelling. Being disappointed by a political slant that gets in the way of the story is a different thing than being disappointed that there is any political slant at all.
Of course, recognizing that kind of nuanced distinction would rob you of the chance to mock a weak straw-man position. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.
[IMH]on 20 Jun 2008 at 10:58 am 17(weird formatting there, the “good” should come between “praise” and “liberal films”.)
elboboon 20 Jun 2008 at 11:12 am 18That was not my point at all. You want Hollywood to make more balanced films, I am all for that. However It is just lame to not think art will imitate the issues that people have at this point in time in history. I think there is a reason that Hollywood leans to a more liberal angle and that is because for whatever reason you want to quantify people in the arts community tend to be on that side. I can think of many reasons for this which I won’t go into because that will probably open a big can of worms. If conservatives want their voice heard by all means make a compelling movie with your principals and heart within. It would be an interesting piece of art.
Chris
Jake Was Hereon 20 Jun 2008 at 1:01 pm 19Certainly more interesting than some of the stuff turned out by people with liberal principles. You have to admit, a lot of the stuff they make is pure, unadulterated dreck, and a lot of that is traceable to the principles the filmmakers hold.
I imagine that if we DID make conservative films, we’d get a few masterpieces floating on a sea of underscripted overproduced heavily biased crap — exactly the same thing we’re getting out of liberal Hollywood now, just with different politics.
LT Nixonon 20 Jun 2008 at 1:32 pm 20This looks like a knock-off of Short Circuit. Johnny Five is Alive baby.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Wall-E Press Junket — “Stay The Course”on 20 Jun 2008 at 1:40 pm 21[…] My review of Wall-E is up. You can read it here. […]
Ed Driscoll.comon 20 Jun 2008 at 4:25 pm 22Wall-Eyed…
Dirty Harry reviews Pixar’s Wall-E and is knocked out by the incredible CGI (as was I when I saw the trailer before the latest Indiana Jones movie), but he’s rather offput by one of its themes:For all its charms and……
Max Poweron 20 Jun 2008 at 6:17 pm 23elbobo:
It’s fine to have a liberal point of view, we just don’t want something potentially wonderfull like another Pixar film poisoned with a little bit of BDS.
Hope that helps.
Stephanieon 20 Jun 2008 at 6:38 pm 24Gee dunno…a conservative who gets a little bit put out by an anti capitalist, anti Bush screed in a movie he is reviewing? Hmmmmmmm. Is it just me? Dunno.
Kon 20 Jun 2008 at 11:39 pm 25Ehm…this movie isn’t about the environment and the director also confirmed that.
Thank goodness. For a second there I thought a movie about a consumerist society of overweight humans who abandon a brown earth due to mountains of garbage might have an environmental theme. What could I have been thinking of?
Tanneon 21 Jun 2008 at 12:37 am 26The “anti-consumerism-trashed-earth-pro-environment-etc. message” in this movie is just a “hull” for the deeper/core message of the movie.
Obviously you didn’t understand it.
Troyon 21 Jun 2008 at 12:43 am 27That’s all right K… you probably thought Schindler’s List was about the Holocaust. You idiot — Spielberg just reconfirmed that it was about German efforts to utilize Jewish accounting principles in the industrial war effort. And that’s all.
Also not about the environment… Soylent Green, The Happening, Day After Tomorrow, An Inconvenient Truth and Gladiator. Do I have to explain why for each of these?
Cambiason 21 Jun 2008 at 5:56 am 28The analogy I like to use when explaining this problem is this:
Suppose you went to a movie, and as you were going in the usher informed you that at some point during the film someone was going to kick the back of your seat really hard. Just once or twice during the film.
It would make it hard to enjoy the movie, as you’d be constantly on edge waiting for the kick on the back of the seat.
That’s what being a conservative moviegoer is like. You’re always slightly tensed up, waiting for the kick.
Opuson 21 Jun 2008 at 6:53 am 29Cambias I love that description,it also applies for television. It’s like someone cooking and serving you a wonderful meal and then coming out and spitting in it halfway through.
Drewon 21 Jun 2008 at 3:31 pm 30I thought conservatives were the tough guys and here is a website devoted to the imagined slights to all things you hold dear.
Boo hoo crybabies.
swillon 21 Jun 2008 at 3:45 pm 31Oh the horror! The horror! The world is ending! Boycott everything now!
You do realize it’s just a stupid cartoon movie don’t you? WTFC.
Drewon 21 Jun 2008 at 3:58 pm 32Oh yeah, guys…BDS is only used now by the seriously deranged conservatives anymore. The rational conservatives are now distancing themselves from that loser for all they have got. GWB has destroyed the GOP conservative brand. There’s a reason your retarded man child of a president is hovering below 30%. The economy, the war, oil prices, what hasn’t he screwed up.
Scotton 21 Jun 2008 at 4:22 pm 33“Stay the course” was first the father’s line, not the son’s.
Remember the skits on Saturday Night Live with Dana Carvey?
I suggest a lot of you need to grow some harder bark.
JohnLockeon 21 Jun 2008 at 4:25 pm 34“You do realize it’s just a stupid cartoon movie don’t you?”
Pixar is banking on the fact that all audiences are as stupid as you. In fact, that line of thinking is what keeps the smug grins on the faces of filmmakers who like to slip “subtle” agendas into their films. I’ll bet you think “V for Vendetta” was just a stupid action flick, don’t you? Never mind the whole “Coalition of the Willing” reference with a swastika overlaying the American and British flags. It was based on a 1980’s comic book, dontcha know? The filmmakers couldn’t possibly have slipped in some modern politics.
*sigh* The one thing I will forever thank Lenin for was that wonderful term, “useful idiots.” It really never loses its, well, usefulness.
V the Kon 21 Jun 2008 at 4:28 pm 35Drew, you’re comin’ off a little bit obsessed.
chipon 21 Jun 2008 at 4:57 pm 36The irony of course is that the Iraq war is now largely won because Bush did stay the course. So I’m not sure how the “intellects” at Pixar decided this was a clever jab.
Jeffon 21 Jun 2008 at 5:19 pm 37Hollywood won’t get my 5 year old’s 10 bucks.
It’s not just a cartoon. It’s another broken window.
Snarky Bastards » Blog Archive » Curse You Pixaron 21 Jun 2008 at 5:53 pm 38[…] Pixar Not only does Wall-E copy its robot from a mediocre Steve Guttenberg flick, it also contains some sort of Bush crack. Fred Willard? Really? Grumble. Maybe they should just rerelease […]
Colinon 21 Jun 2008 at 5:54 pm 39Sorry, but I don’t see “Stay the course,” being such a jab at Bush.
Now, if Willard had said “Mission accomplished” or “Bring it on” . . .
Drewon 21 Jun 2008 at 6:45 pm 40Obsessed?
I’m amused that such a suckass site exists. Conservative movie reviews?
Can’t you simps think for yourselves?
HARRY HERE: Not “conservative movie reviews,” rather, reviews written by a conservative. I don’t even know what a ‘conservative movie review’ is.
Joe Melnickon 21 Jun 2008 at 6:51 pm 41Drew - are you saying that any movie review site is for people who can’t think for themselves, or just non-liberal review sites?
I’m sure you find it jarring to read reviews that aren’t steeped in the liberal agenda you get everywhere else.
The great thing about the web is that address bar at the top of your browser, you can use it to go anywhere. You know, like another site.
Ginaon 21 Jun 2008 at 7:08 pm 42And of course “Get Smart” had to shoehorn in a lame joke with a president that couldn’t pronounce “nuclear” correctly. Sigh. (You know, before he was elected, I knew lots of people who couldn’t say the word right, but all of a sudden it turned into a Bush thing that no one else had ever done before. Go figure.)
It especially didn’t work because immediately after, this president shut down an effort to deal with a national threat. So was he Bush or wasn’t he?
(However, I do have to say that I had fun at the movie overall. Carrell was perfect. Hathaway was all right, but would have been far better if they hadn’t tried to remake 99 in feminist-angst mode. But that’s a rant for another day . . . )
RWon 21 Jun 2008 at 8:58 pm 43***Can’t you simps think for yourselves?***
We’re not the ones who need the gov’t to take care of our every need, bub.
JerseyCajunon 21 Jun 2008 at 9:24 pm 44My two cents:
Conservatism used to be about truly free markets. If only one corporation exists in the movie and it represents the only ‘authority’ then it’s just government under different guise.
Also, conservatisms roots are in Classical Liberalism (you leave me alone, and I’ll leave you alone - fiscally and socially) and weren’t fans of corporatism at all, seeing as it creates a separate class of businesses that receive special status and protection that helps insulate it from the natural corrective forces of competition.
A traditional conservative would have no problem criticizing corporate culture because modern corporate culture as currently instituted is not an aspect of a free market, and it only tends to feed more power to the government.
On a cultural level, yeah, we could use some gentle criticism on our less desirable cultural habits. Sci-Fi has always been a great venue for poking at our fallibility. As long as the film doesn’t suggest that change needs to come from authoritative force, then I’m cool with that.
And what one of the earlier comments said was true. Even most conservatives recognize that Bush isn’t really anything resembling a conservative except maybe on one or two scant issues. He’s being torn a new one by all sides now. He’s an easy target for any and all comers, and he’s earned that distinction.
misterdon 21 Jun 2008 at 10:41 pm 45What’s so bad about “Stay the course?” As I recall, back in 2006, conservatives were just as frustrated with Bush over that as much as the liberals were. We only differed in how the course should change (and many conservatives were absolutely infuriated when Bush decided to “change course” a couple of days *after* the election).
As for Brad Bird, he may have done The Incredibles, but he also did Iron Giant. He’s not nearly the conservative voice that some want him to be.
Stanleyon 21 Jun 2008 at 10:52 pm 46For what it’s worth, I don’t associate the phrase “Stay the course” solely with George W. Bush. People say “stay the course” all the time, and I’m not totally convinced that this was a deliberate anti-Bush joke. (Though I’ll admit I don’t know the full context, as I didn’t read the whole review. I’m looking forward to seeing this movie and don’t want too much spoiled for me.)
I am a screenwriter and don’t feel that it’s always as purposeful a project as Dirty Harry might think. I’m a conservative too, but sometimes I’ll find that I’ve written myself into an area where a liberal viewpoint will seem to “come out”. But the questions that a screenwriter has to ask as he’s writing will tend less towards “Is this an opinion that I’m advocating?” and more towards “Is this what the story demands, in order to make my protagonist and my antagonist work in the right way, to achieve the greatest dramatic tension?… etc.”
Point is, the line might rankle less ten years from now. It’s just a line. “Stay the course” is probably said by thousands of people a day. Maybe, in 8 years, President Obama will be identified in some way with the phrase and the movie will look like conservative propaganda.
misterdon 21 Jun 2008 at 11:09 pm 47Oh, I’m 99% sure this was a Bush gag, but that’s typical in most films - they spoof whichever president is in office at the time the movie is made (sometimes accidentally - Dave and Wag the Dog was supposed to be GW Bush, not Clinton). Now the NATURE Of the joke is usually different - more playful for a Dem, more pointed for a Rep,- but they’d still go with the current guy (which is sometimes unfortunate as it “dates” films that should aim for a timeless feel).
Bill Woodson 21 Jun 2008 at 11:25 pm 48I may be misremembering, but I thought “Stay the course” was a slogan associated with Bush the Elder.
Johnon 22 Jun 2008 at 6:40 am 49I may be misremembering, but I thought “Stay the course” was a slogan associated with Bush the Elder.
Yes it was, and Dana Carvey made quite a career using it while portraying Bush 41 on Saturday Night Live.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the scriptwriter or editor couldn’t be holding a grudge over Dukakis losing from 20 years ago or against the Bushes in general, and just the general plot synopsis shows a story more likely to come from the mind of someone who is at the very least sympathetic to the worst-case scenario environmentalism that has humans in general either pollution, or overpopulating or global warming civilization to death. Certainly compared to the settings for all of the previous Pixar features “Wall-E” qualifies as having the most depressing starting point, even if the first section of the movie is the most successful one.
Pixar Gets Political with Anti-Bush Crack | KyleSmithOnline.comon 22 Jun 2008 at 7:38 am 50[…] against hurricane-level opposition actually seems to have changed the game in Iraq. Dirty Harry has the story at […]
Kevin of the Midweston 22 Jun 2008 at 8:06 am 51I am all for keeping cartoonists employed — they are NOT the sort of people you want idling on the street — but even so I won’t be going to see “Wall-E.” Something snapped in my during the water-boarding session known as “Cars.” “Viewing” became “enduring.” Usually I just want to watch a movie, not be subjected to it.
BTW: I love your new home.
Opuson 22 Jun 2008 at 9:04 am 52If a filmmaker wants to inject politics into their film then they should make a political movie.
On the commentary track on the dvd for The Incredibles the animators talk about a scene they were working on when Brad Bird was gone for a few days. They’d come up with a bunch of different gags for a character in a particular scene. When Bird saw what they’d done he thought it was funny, but the gags took you out of the story, they weren’t necessary to the telling of the story. Consequently they never made it into the film.
That’s exactly what these political potshots do, they take you out of the story. Pixar, who in every other situation strives for the tightest story possible can’t restrain themselves from injecting their personal political BDS and potentially alienating half their audience who are already sensitive to these types of things to begin with.
gon 22 Jun 2008 at 9:52 am 53That’s what being a conservative moviegoer is like. You’re always slightly tensed up, waiting for the kick.
sucks to be you, I guess. Fearful that at any minute, your entire being is going to be incapacitated by….a little joke.
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 9:58 am 54>>>sucks to be you, I guess. Fearful that at any minute, your entire being is going to be incapacitated by….a little joke.
Oh cut the crap already, you disingenous asshole. Nobody is more thin-skinned about being the butt of a joke than you Libturds are. We’ve got rhino hides compared to you little pussies.
Mike Kriskeyon 22 Jun 2008 at 10:00 am 55“That’s what being a conservative moviegoer is like. You’re always slightly tensed up, waiting for the kick.
sucks to be you, I guess. Fearful that at any minute, your entire being is going to be incapacitated by….a little joke.”
G-
We’re not incapacitated by the kicks. We take ‘em all the time and much more calmly than liberals. Doesn’t mean we have to enjoy them, though.
Outlaw 13on 22 Jun 2008 at 10:06 am 56A review is by definition someones impression and opinion about what he/she saw. If you don’t agree with Harry, that’s fine, but that’s the way HE saw it. If you didn’t see it that way that doesn’t make your opinion invalid, or even his opinion wrong, it just means you have a different opinions.
Why on earth do some people feel everyone needs to see everything exactly the same way? Read Marx much?
Good grief, it’s a frecking movie review…lighten up.
Sadly, No! Movie Studioson 22 Jun 2008 at 10:06 am 57Wow, Carlitos, that’s quite the rhino hide you got their feller, judging from your reaction to g’s comments.
Just a bit of advice: dozens of people are killed by tipping over vending machines in a fit of rage when it fails to dispense their purchased Zagnut Candy Bar. Don’t you be the next victim.
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 10:13 am 58>>>vending machines, Zagnut Candy bar.
Let me guess– wit? Don’t quit your day job. You’re just not that funny.
Sadly, No! Movie Studioson 22 Jun 2008 at 10:18 am 59Thanks, Carlitos, for the advice. I normally pay great attention to career advice from guys who use words like “Libturds.”
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 10:25 am 60>>>I normally pay great attention to career advice from guys who use words like “Libturds.”
Yeah, as opposed to guys like you who brings us words like “wingnut.”
Ponder over this word for a minute or two– hypocrisy.
Sadly, No! Movie Studioson 22 Jun 2008 at 10:29 am 61Quick question, Carlitos. Which of those words would you say in front of your grandmother?
gon 22 Jun 2008 at 10:30 am 62nice way to show your moral superiority, Carlitos. “asshole” “libturds” and “pussies” - all in response to little ole me?
Unless that’s your normal vocabulary? stay classy.
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 10:40 am 63sadly & g,
so we’re now to believe you libturds are offended by a little bit of harsh language? LOL. I guess I was right the first time– you are disingenous assholes.
leahon 22 Jun 2008 at 10:42 am 64The reflexive anti-Bush, anti-conservative bias is reflexive. It’s like getting your hand stamped to attend an event. It shows how sodden with liberal conformity and political correctness the creative community in Hollywood has become. The same anti-Bush jokes showed up in Get Smart, and virtually any and every movie currently screening. Even if the reference is apropos of nothing, it’s there, like a tic. I’m weary of it, and explaining it to my kids. However, if I frame it as being on the lookout for propaganda, it’s like finding continuity errors. Loads of fun for the whole family!
Juanitaon 22 Jun 2008 at 1:06 pm 65Why would anyone read a review by a self-admitted failed screen writer who is unemployed, rises at noon every day, and sits on his ass watching porn? Aren’t you just a teeny bit of a bit of a hypocrite to the conservative community? Dirty Harry ‘d sooner pump a few rounds into you before he’d want to be associated with your “disabled” butt.
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 1:32 pm 66Juanita,
cause they’re really good reviews. Any more stupid questions?
Outlaw 13on 22 Jun 2008 at 1:40 pm 67Juanita,
Nobody forced you to type the URL to this site into your browser…if this place isn’t to your liking, I’m sure you can find greener pastures elsewhere, GBU.
JohnFNWayneon 22 Jun 2008 at 1:50 pm 68I guess Juanita must have liked Wall-E …
epobirson 22 Jun 2008 at 2:05 pm 69Some people are really missing the point here. It isn’t just about a specific group taking offense. It’s about the type of joke being used inappropriately in the context of the movie.
Long ago, an RPG game that first apeared on the Sega CD, had a Clinton joke inserted by the company that produced the English translation of the game. This annoyed a lot of people. Not because they were Clinton fans. It was equally annoying to people who detested the man. The problem was that the joke had no business apearing in the context of the game’s setting. It threw the player out of the fantasy world and back into real life.
When playing a game or watching a movie that is supposed to be completely apart from my daily life, I really, really don’t want a gag put in referencing current events. It diminishes the experience. Worse, with the passage of time, the gag becomes increasingly meaningless to an audience that doesn’t get the reference.
Jimboon 22 Jun 2008 at 2:40 pm 70The pantie-bunching outrage expressed over a single, harmless joke about Bush’s habitual mispronunciation of “nuclear” is priceless.
Personally I thought Get Smart unfaily humanized our Worst President Ever. They protrayed him as a harmless doofus, not the sociopathic torturer and stuffed-shirt bully boy he actually is.
The conservative cult of endless whining and victimization comes through loud and clear in these comments as well. If you’re reduced to sitting around at movies with your butt cheeks clenched just waiting for any perceived slight or expressed opinion that differs from your narrow one-dimension world wiew you’d better stock up on the Preparation H: given the complete and total failure you folks have presided over for the last eight years any and all things labeled “conservative” will likely bring smirks of derision or gales of laughter for years to come.
I know I’m certainly going to enjoy that show.
gon 22 Jun 2008 at 3:24 pm 71so we’re now to believe you libturds are offended by a little bit of harsh language?
Not offended, just noting it as an indicator of your character.
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 3:37 pm 72Jimbo,
if only it were a “single harmless joke” instead of just the latest in an endless diahretic stream of poop flowing the Liberal anus we call Hollywood. Talk about a narrow one-dimensional worldview. This is it. Speaking of Liberal anuses, it would take one not to see the laughable irony of someone like you who clearly suffers a serious case of Bush Derangement Syndrome accusing somebody else of a victimization cult. But we all know Liberalism is one big victimization cult anyway, yet you people with your endless and constant “woe is me, Bush is steeeling my fweeedoms” snivelling have taken it to new and unprecedent heights. Laughable to hear you accusing others of a cult. I almost wish you’d win an election just so you’d stfu at least or a little while.
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 3:39 pm 73>>>Not offended, just noting it as an indicator of your character.
Glad to hear it.
Re character, my dog has more character in his left nut than a roomful leftards like you.
jack fateon 22 Jun 2008 at 6:14 pm 74“This may well be the fifth or sixth movie this year to depict our government as taken over by a corporation – as though that would be a bad thing.”
Did you really type that? Please go look up the type of government you glibly allude to. I imagine you might want to revise the last eight words of that sentence.
Other than that, your review was an interesting and entertaining read. Though I cannot fathom what it must be like to be sensitive to and contemplate politics in every perceived subtlety. When do you get to enjoy the movie or be entertained? Isn’t that the point?
Juanitaon 22 Jun 2008 at 7:16 pm 75No seriously, I’m always amused when I find out a neocon is also an unemployed failure living at his mom’s place eating cheetos all day. It’s like, just the other day I stumbled across a rabid neocon who hates the civil service and who also works for the welfare department.
There’s a disconnect here somewhere. Though it’s also true that ‘Dirty Harry’ has a role model in Bush, who is as lazy and stupid as they come.
Every loser has a role model.
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 7:28 pm 76juanita,
disconnects are found everywhere you look. For example here:
Al Gore’s carbon footprint jumps 10%:
http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764
A disconnect! Or like this one:
Liberals don’t give to charit:
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 7:29 pm 77Liberals don’t give to charity:
http://hebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6989
A disconnect! There are more, hold on.
Carlitoson 22 Jun 2008 at 7:31 pm 78Here’s another one:
Democrats, party of the rich:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20030707-090426-8917r.htm
Another disconnect! They’re everywhere you look.
Juanitaon 22 Jun 2008 at 7:52 pm 79Carlitos, apparently tennessepolicy.org can’t do basic math. Give these a read.
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9707.html
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9704.html
ignatovon 22 Jun 2008 at 10:30 pm 80Bush, along with countless other conservatives, said “Stay the course” endlessly before the 2004 elections. It was practically a sacred mantra.
Anyone who says it now is accused of derangement syndrome. Why? Way back then it was a patriotic imperative. Now it’s a ridiculous liberal bromide. Why?
My answer? The phrase has been revealed to be an empty slogan designed to rally the masses to support a doomed regime of imperial colonialism. And to remind the masses of how they’ve been duped, well that’s just mean-spirited. Especially in a cartoon!
gon 22 Jun 2008 at 10:31 pm 81my dog has more character in his left nut than a roomful leftards like you.
gon 22 Jun 2008 at 10:32 pm 82Carlito - you are a class act all the way. The ladies must love you.
dave™©on 23 Jun 2008 at 12:54 am 83If by “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” you mean “People With Brains Who Know Republicans Are Full of Shit,” I don’t think Pixar was ever yours to “lose”.
If by “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” you mean “Moronic Brownshirt Fucks Who Worship the Drunken Psychopath Like a God,” who really gives a flying fuck what you idiots think? Go back to whacking off in your mommy’s basement to pictures of war casualties and leave the adults alone.
Attmayon 23 Jun 2008 at 4:13 am 84If we ever needed more proof that leftism requires intellectual and emotional immaturity, we sure got it.
judsonon 23 Jun 2008 at 7:03 am 85You are all a bunch of sad, angry little people. You can’t enjoy anything.
JerseyCajunon 23 Jun 2008 at 7:18 am 86Attmay, how can anyone reading this page limit that comment to any one side?
This whole ‘discussion’ has all the maturity and intellect of a couple six year olds throwing spitballs and name-calling. I feel like I’ve wandered into a kindergarten without a teacher to contain the chaos.
This conversation reflects poorly on both sides.
Carlitoson 23 Jun 2008 at 7:33 am 87g,
still on your moral high horse kick? Looks like you found a new toy.
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 7:34 am 88The influx of leftist commentary here makes me pine for the company of Bob and akatosh. They at least had something relevant to say, more often than not inspired a good debate, and possessed the manners to say it all with civility. This is a sad state of affairs.
Michael Fiskon 23 Jun 2008 at 7:39 am 89Have we lost Pixar? Have we lost the wonderful studio who brought us The Incredibles and Ratatouille to Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Pixar’s film development is split into multiple “teams”… Wall-E is being done by John Lasseter’s studio, who also sneaked in a message of antediluvian populism into Cars. I don’t bother with the studio unless it’s another Brad Bird film (his next one, by the way, is “1906″, a co-production live action film between Warner and Pixar that is set for a 2009 release).
As far as the corporatism elements go, the traditional classical liberal would argue that there’s nothing inherently wrong with massive corporations, but rather how they behave. If they directly interfere in people’s daily lives or the lives of others in their field… then there’s a problem.
Legalizeon 23 Jun 2008 at 8:10 am 90I thought conservatives were all about “the free market.” Why can’t you geniuses make your own movies, market them, and sell tickets? Quit whining. Stop looking for your viewpoint to be subsidized in every market place where you can not compete. There’s a reason Bush jokes are prevalent in our society: he’s been the president for the past 7 years. Get over yourselves.
Carlitoson 23 Jun 2008 at 8:22 am 91>>>I thought conservatives were all about “the free market.”
We do. Too bad Liberal Hollywood doesn’t. The dozen or so anti-war flops in a row can attest to that. I guess they don’t need the money.
In Hollywood, just as in academia, it’s WHO YOU KNOW, baby. That’s how the Left keeps it’s stranglehold.
In Hollywood, the Left IS the Establishment, just as it is in academia and the mainstream media. How does it feel to be “The Man.” LOL.
Michael Fiskon 23 Jun 2008 at 8:31 am 92We don’t have to have our viewpoint subsidized… mainly because, when it’s funded, it sells (even if it has to be a single person rather than a studio funding it, see Phillip Anschutz and Mel Gibson). Meanwhile, massively-funded left-wing screed films tend to tank at the box office. When a movie with all the star power and promotion that Lions for Lambs had, and still only grosses $15 million domestically… I think that tells you all you need to know there.
The labor union left has a mantra “People Before Profits”. Apparently that’s true in film… supporting Their People ends up costing them Their Profits.
Legalizeon 23 Jun 2008 at 8:32 am 93Did you ever consider that the anti-war pictures you haven’t named didn’t do well because, gee, maybe they were bad movies, rather than the message the espoused didn’t resonate? No no, it MUST be a conspiracy to exclude conservative ideas! How do you explain Michael Moore’s success? All ideology, and little filmmaking substance. How’s that work?
Just more excuses as to why conservatives can not succeed in the market place of ideas, Calitos - your ideas suck and have been roundly rejected by consumers.
Seriously, if Hollywood is making such bad movies (and I think for the most part IT IS MAKING BAD MOVIES), why can’t you make your own if your ideas are better? There’s no government collusion going on here. Hollywood isn’t a monoploy. Lots of folks make successful pictures outside of the Hollywood system. Why can’t you?
You folks merely invent excuse after excuse.
Legalizeon 23 Jun 2008 at 8:34 am 94“We don’t have to have our viewpoint subsidized… mainly because, when it’s funded, it sells (even if it has to be a single person rather than a studio funding it, see Phillip Anschutz and Mel Gibson).”
Then, what the hell are you whining about? What do you care? Watch the movies you like, and quit whining about the ones you don’t like. How difficult is that?
Michael Fiskon 23 Jun 2008 at 8:37 am 95Legalize - Simply put, film making is a fool’s venture anymore. Whichever side puts out films anymore, it comes largely down to one thing and one thing only: One or two people writing a check to make sure it happens.
The difference is, our money people like investing in things that, you know, make money. So fine, have your films that are insufferable and lose money… it’s money the deep pockets on the left can’t use for other things while those who respect the free market undertake more profitable ventures.
Also, regarding Michael Moore’s “success”: He had one successful film from a box-office standpoint. Bowling for Columbine did okay (but mainly because it was done on the cheap), and Sicko, well… I don’t think it made back its promotional budget.
Michael Fiskon 23 Jun 2008 at 8:39 am 96And, as to why I care: I don’t. I just find it hilarious that you’re hyperventilating over the fact that we just think preachy left-wing films suck. That’s it.
(For the record, I probably only end up seeing about three or four films a year, mostly independent films, and probably not what you would call “conservative” films either… about par for the course for an anarcho-capitalist libertarian like myself)
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 8:49 am 97There’s a reason Bush jokes are prevalent in our society: he’s been the president for the past 7 years. Get over yourselves.
Hey, I like a good Bush joke, and I voted for the man twice. But in most movies they’re jarring as hell, and grind the movie to a halt — I want the fantasy I paid $8.50 for, not boring, mundane, petty reality. Also, most of the jokes about Bush are pretty stale, as in, I’ve heard them all about eight thousand times, they weren’t funny to begin with — and it doesn’t say much for the creativity or intelligence of the filmmakers.
I cringe just as much at movie-jokes aimed at the left — it’s just as jarring, and it bothers me that someone else in the audience is being gratuitously insulted when he paid to have a nice communal film-going experience like the rest of us.
But Legalize is right. Complaining about a product has absolutely no place in the free market!! The next time I hear someone whinging on about anything, be it cell phone service or the selection at the grocery store, I’m going to tell him to stop carping and start his own damn corporations!
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 8:51 am 98I cringe just as much at movie-jokes aimed at the left …*
* I hasten to add that this happens with about 1/10,000th the frequency of rightie jokes.
Mia Kulperon 23 Jun 2008 at 9:06 am 99Incredible.
Legalizeon 23 Jun 2008 at 9:06 am 100“But Legalize is right. Complaining about a product has absolutely no place in the free market!! The next time I hear someone whinging on about anything, be it cell phone service or the selection at the grocery store, I’m going to tell him to stop carping and start his own damn corporations!”
Cute. Or, more accurately, you can change your cell phone service or go to a different grocery store. Just like you can NOT go to movies that offend your delicate sensibilities - or invest in your own, or produce your own. Lots of people do. Lots.
As for conservative product being produced because it makes money: how’d Ben Stein’s anti-science screed do at the box office? How do conservative authors do when Regeny publishing doesn’t bulk buy them and sell them at bulk rates to retailers so as to inflate sales numbers on the dreaded NYT list?
I don’t recall outrage over Wag the Dog. I don’t recall the outrage over the months and months and months of Clinton/Monica jokes on virtually every program at the time. I don’t even recall the outrage over Dana Carvey making fun of Bush Sr. Presidents are ALWAYS made fun of in popular culture. That fact that one recognizes the “stay the course” reference makes it pretty clear that it’s pretty timely.
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 10:41 am 101I don’t even recall the outrage over Dana Carvey making fun of Bush Sr.
Because that was actually funny.
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 10:49 am 102Legalize — Now that I think of it, your breed of commenter has always perplexed me. You spend a lot of time here complaining copiously about our complaining. To what end?
Lava Manon 23 Jun 2008 at 10:51 am 103Put me in the camp that believes “Stay the course” is just something that is said by people, especially leaders who refuse to change course, which seems to be an element of this story. Should the line be altered simply to dance around anything that an actual President has said?
Putting aside the hypocrisy of addressing these things in a merchandisable consumer product, which is unavoidable in a Hollywood movie, these seem like actual social trends that deserve satirizing. Don’t tell me conservatives have to take offense when movies make fun of consumerism and sloth now. Attacking consumerism is not the same as attacking captialism.
Craigon 23 Jun 2008 at 11:06 am 104I’m no liberal, and I’m not a BDS sufferer. But if there’s an inverse BDS, a hypersensitivity to criticism of Bush, this may well be an example. WALL•E is not a political film. Nor is it, as much as some would like it to be, an environmentalist film. No more than “Lawrence of Arabia” was about sand.
Look up Andrew’s interviews where he talks about just that. Everything in the movie is just there for clarity. The “Stay the course” line is about the only pop culture reference in the whole piece. That stacks up well against films from some other studios. And I’m far from the only conservative who thought that wasn’t the brightest thing Bush ever said. Poking fun at presidents is a long-revered American pastime. Don’t be so thin-skinned.
Bush is only a president. This is only a cartoon. But it’s a love story and nothing else.
Full disclosure: I’m biased, because I worked on the movie.
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 11:09 am 105Fair enough, Craig. I’m actually inclined to see the movie regardless of the line — which you’ve convinced me is not worth worrying about anyway.
Grangeron 23 Jun 2008 at 12:41 pm 106Don’t forget, 9/11 happened on bush’s watch. 8 months in, with 30 briefs describing an imminent attack on U.S. soil by terrorists possibly flying airplanes.
And bush did NOTHING.
Oh, and he spent more money than any president in history.
And he dropped going after terrorists to start a quagmire with a country that was no imminent threat to the U.S. All the while creating more terrorsts, and turning the world against our once great country.
bush deserves to be prosecuted for murder.
He deserves to be criticized. Loudly. Call it “bush bashing” if you want, but it’s certainly warrented.
The worst “president” in U.S. history.
Carlitoson 23 Jun 2008 at 1:24 pm 107>>>Don’t forget, 9/11 happened on bush’s watch.
That was my first tip off you suffer from the derangement we call BDS.
The current energy crisis is the direct result of Leftwing environmental policies from the 70s and 80s that prohibit oil exploration and drilling on U.S. soil, as well as restrictions on nuclear power plants to power our industries and cities.
But hey, the energy crisis “happenned” on Bush’s watch! Just like 9/11 did, which was also the direct result of Bill Clinton’s negligence throughout the 90s.
I guess you haven’t seen “The Path to 9/11″, or know that Bill Clinton refused to take Osama Bin Laden into custody when he was offered up on a silver platter because he “didn’t have enough evidence to hold him.”
Carlitoson 23 Jun 2008 at 1:28 pm 108Sudan offered up the Osama Bin Laden and data on his network. Bill Clinton and his advisors didn’t respond:
Carlitoson 23 Jun 2008 at 1:29 pm 109From the LA Times:
Sudan offered up Osama Bin Laden and data on his network. Bill Clinton and his advisors didn’t respond.
www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
Mike18xxon 23 Jun 2008 at 1:35 pm 110> Don’t forget, 9/11 happened on bush’s watch.
> 8 months in, with 30 briefs describing an imminent
> attack on U.S. soil by terrorists possibly flying airplanes.
Reports which the Clinton Administration not only did nothing about, but which actively covered.
– There was a whole string of bombings in the US throughout the 1996 re-election season, they were Islamic terrorist related, and they were all shoved under the carpet. Some, such as the Olympic Park bombing, were blamed on the people who reported them (Richard Jewell).
Bush’s major sin in all of this is to refuse to name the enemy clearly (Islam) — yet the Left isn’t about to either, so they’ve no ground to stand upon.
Condi Oaton 23 Jun 2008 at 2:12 pm 111Ha ha ha ha, what a pleasure it will be to watch you embittered loons retreat into the powerless circle jerk of your message boards for the next 4 years (8? 12?).
Grangeron 23 Jun 2008 at 2:23 pm 112I guess all you bushies hate America and our Soldiers as much as he does. Shame on you.
bush is the worst president in history. Yes, even worse than reagan (who’s getting gang raped by Saddam Hussein right now in hell).
America will be great again once shrub is gone.
Grangeron 23 Jun 2008 at 2:27 pm 113And the TRUE enemy of the world is ALL religion. Any idiot who thinks ANY of the gods are on “their side” is truly delusional. Islam, Scientology, christianity, buddism, hinduism, dittoheadism. All phony.
BY the way, Bin Laden was NEVER offered up to the U.S. That’s a wingnut rumour. But it isn’t fact.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » DHP Review: Get Smarton 23 Jun 2008 at 2:35 pm 114[…] my review of Wall-E I criticize Pixar for yanking us out of the story to fire off a lame, dated anti-Bush joke. […]
Attmayon 23 Jun 2008 at 2:38 pm 115I reiterate: leftism requires emotional and intellectual immaturity.
Grangeron 23 Jun 2008 at 2:44 pm 116And don’t forget, Jesus was a communist. At least according to the bible.
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 3:02 pm 117Hmmm… I think someone’s trying having fun at our expense. Granger’s “observations” are so comically stale and rote that they can’t possibly be real. I mean, how long has it been since we’ve seen honest-to-goodness dorkiness like this at Libertas? I thought the Left stopped making this model about a two years ago.
Stickwick Staperson 23 Jun 2008 at 3:03 pm 118(Yes, I know this isn’t Libertas. But since most of us are transplants, it’s relevant. And where are all these new kooks coming from?)
Carlitoson 23 Jun 2008 at 3:21 pm 119>>>BY the way, Bin Laden was NEVER offered up to the U.S. That’s a wingnut rumour. But it isn’t fact.
You poor thing, of course it’s not something you Lefties would have learned about. This kind of info is tightly managed on your blogs. That’s why you have to come here! So we can school you in the ways of the world. For your listening pleasure:
BILL CLINTON DISCUSSING HIS REFUSAL TO ACCEPT CUSTODY OF OSAMA BIN LADEN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvo2lQe81xk
Troyon 23 Jun 2008 at 3:27 pm 120Stickwick…. Libertas had a big spam filter. WordPress may not, but I’ve never noticed this amount of troll before. Not that the Grangers of the world aren’t welcome I guess. I assume DH makes a certain amount of dough (or is it D’oh!) with each hit. But it has increased alarmingly.
John Oon 23 Jun 2008 at 7:43 pm 121I think what is necessary here is a much closer look at the offenses the Hollywood culture has inflicted upon us.
One line in a movie is just not enough. We, as enlightened conservatives, need to dig deeper, and start examining the obviously liberal and Islamofascist facial expressions of the actors and actresses in question.
After all, we all know that the “stay the course” quote is objectively nonsense.
And I actually WORK in a Corporation, and can think of no better world to live in. Sure, it is sometimes if not often a little to much like Dilbert, whose writer (I can’t even name him, so great is my hatred for him) is obviously a Corporation-hater of the extreme variety, but that’s just the way the world should work, whether that Dilbert guy likes it or not.
I personally would like to thank you for alerting me to this liberal propaganda. For a while there, I thought Star Wars was your basic good-evil story written for the future, but thanks to you and people like you, it wasn’t long before I realized it was just a liberal interpretation of good v. evil, therefore obviously moronic.
Thanks again. It is this kind of eye-opening analysis that keeps me glued to the conservative ethic. One line in a fantasy movie can make a huge difference.
Kudos to your insightful perspective.
Carlitoson 23 Jun 2008 at 8:07 pm 122>>>before I realized it was just a liberal interpretation of good v. evil, therefore obviously moronic.
Not as moronic as your post though, but close. There is no Liberal interpretation of good and evil, as morality is relative and “good” and “evil” are just different points of view. That’s the Liberal interpretation of good v. evil. This isn’t the case in Star Wars, which is quite old school in it’s interpretation of good vs evil. Good guys = good. Bad guys = bad. Straight up conservative.
Lucky Duckyon 23 Jun 2008 at 9:47 pm 123I guess the thing that strikes me immediately that instead of wondering over the lack of self-control or hubris from President Bush, you’re boohooing about a movie.
Jesus.
Onionon 24 Jun 2008 at 1:17 am 124Carlitos, why did you call John 0 a moron? He’s backing up the review.
Carlitoson 24 Jun 2008 at 5:48 am 125Onion,
love the nic!
I didn’t call John a moron, I said his post was moronic. It’s obvious to anybody with half a brain why.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Dirty Harry Responds To “The Village Voice”on 24 Jun 2008 at 9:11 am 126[…] unavailable to defend them from the Gloucester charges, perhaps because they were distracted by a treasonous line in an upcoming Pixar […]
Sean Martinon 24 Jun 2008 at 9:21 am 127I suppose it’s easy to trash a movie when most of the responders here HAVENT EVEN SEEN IT YET and are depending on a single critic’s review.
This is like LIFE OF BRIAN, Take 2. Everyone got all upset about that one too, remember? Then folks actually *saw* it and realized, “Hey, it aint so bad after all”.
Well, I guess this will be much the same. “Oh! My! God! A film about the ENVIRONMENT! How LEFT WING LIBERAL! It must be TERRIBLE!”
Sheesh, people. Get a life, huh? For myself, I’ll see it before getting all worked up by the fact that it’s a freaking *cartoon*…
The Third Policemanon 24 Jun 2008 at 10:15 am 128My, such delicate little flowers to be so perturbed by an item of pop culture that does not completely reinforce your worldview. Although since your horizons seem claustrophobic perhaps that can’t be fully achieved. A word of advice, avoid those things called ‘books,’ and other story-telling devices . . .
Badhdad Bushon 24 Jun 2008 at 11:03 am 129Anyone who is still a Repuglicker has something wrong with their brain.
Baghdad Bush and his crime family should be tried, then hung by their necks until dead.
That’s not BDR, that’s called justice.
Why do you hate America so much that you can still support that little piece of filth?
Carlitoson 24 Jun 2008 at 12:01 pm 130>>>Baghdad Bush and his crime family should be tried, then hung by their necks until dead.
You libturds should try to “understand” his point of view, you know, like you do with terrorists and pedophiles.
Kiton 24 Jun 2008 at 12:11 pm 131Baghdad Bush,
Define “crime family.”
John Oon 24 Jun 2008 at 6:14 pm 132I see that my first and only post here was deleted. And to add to the fun, the host had to visit my blog to make sure where I was coming from, since I ostensibly agreed with the author of this movie review.
There was nothing even remotely profane, obscene, or nutty in my post.
All hail free speech. Too bad I didn’t save it, or it would be a good subject of a post of my own.
“Stupid is as stupid does,” said some famous non-partisan movie character.
Intellectual consistency is not exactly the hallmark of conservative thought these days, outside of Pat Buchanan and George Will more often than not, but that’s why they’re considered morons among the true believers.
I have a lot of respect for Pat and George, even though I disagree with them all the time. But I’m pretty absolutist about free speech, and this place no longer qualifies.
For the record, I get scarily emotionally difficult to deal with if anyone classifies me as a Democrat, and I have the voting record to prove it.
Carlitoson 24 Jun 2008 at 6:22 pm 133>>>I see that my first and only post here was deleted.
Hmmm. That’s curious. It was still there last time I checked two seconds ago. That’s two moronic comments in a row for you now.
Troyon 24 Jun 2008 at 6:29 pm 134Only the government requires free speech John O. Everything is free market and monopoly. You couldn’t come to my house and say what you want. Why would you come here to Harry’s place and think the same? It’s his name and his space. I hope he doesn’t edit either much unless
John Oon 24 Jun 2008 at 7:02 pm 135My original post was about #13, if IIRC. In any case it was early. I think someone felt embarrassed.
That being said, it is indeed true. Home team makes the rules. But on a movie review, I would think the host wouldn’t be too bent out of shape about a satirical post.
Picking one line out of a movie is not moronic, I’m sure. My two posts were. Right on!
Carlitoson 24 Jun 2008 at 7:14 pm 136>>>My original post was about #13,
I know you’d like to believe you got deleted, but I hardly think anything you said would have been worth the effort. You’re not that good. Perhaps you left the “deleted” comment on a different thread because DH isn’t one to go deleting comments unless you’ve crossed the line, and snarky unfunny satire doesn’t cross that line.
John Oon 24 Jun 2008 at 7:25 pm 137LOL, Carlito. I’ve never claimed to be a quality writer of ANY kind.
But I’m not stupid, and I can remember about how early I posted something.
That being said, I’m happy to be wrong. Gives me faith in humanity, and contrary to all the blog-geniuses I deal with on either side I don’t make any declarations about being funny, smart, witty, or incisive.
In any case, I certainly agree it wasn’t worth deleting. That’s why I was so shocked not to find it when I saw our host’s link on my blog.
Carlitoson 24 Jun 2008 at 7:30 pm 138>>>contrary to all the blog-geniuses I deal with on either side I don’t make any declarations about being funny, smart, witty, or incisive.
I appreciate your humility. Hopefully next time you’ll go for a straight delivery, sans the snark, that way we can actually be bothered to respond to your comment on the merits (yes, it’s possible a Lefty’s comment might have some merit).
John Oon 24 Jun 2008 at 7:38 pm 139LOL, again, Carlito. I appreciate the “compliment.”
That being said, the original post wasn’t that bad. Making fun of picking a single line out of a two hour movie seems a little like trying too hard to me.
John Oon 24 Jun 2008 at 7:56 pm 140Incidentally, again, the last time I accused someone of “looking too hard” was someone at someplace like Pandagon, if memory serves. Some freakish lefty show, is the point.
Over identified identity politics are strange. See, Larry johnson, or anyone who devotes themselves to a cause or a person in the absence of considering other’s points of view.
I’m pretty much a libertarian leaning semi-anarchist-lite, all things considered. I think virtually everyone has something to offer. It’s one of my few gifts. And I calls them like I sees them.
Carlitoson 24 Jun 2008 at 8:41 pm 141I see your point. And that’s probably true in most of life, but that isn’t true for conservatives who just want to watch a damn movie without someone flicking you in the balls with a gratuitous shot that has nothing to do with the story. It gets on your nerves after a while, and blogging about it lets off steam.
Voig Nederlanderon 24 Jun 2008 at 8:58 pm 142For heaven’s sake, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more uptight group than today’s ultra-conservatives. Why, oh why must EVERYTHING be about you? Isn’t it possible, just POSSIBLE, that the line was a throw away, not meant to pick on Bush specifically (not that he doesn’t make an excellent satirical target, even you people have to admit it), but rather to connect to something that is immediately identifiable as MODERN Presidential speak?
But then, I forget. If you folks don’t constantly make yourselves out to be victims of the big bad Hollywood liberal machine, no one else will. Because in reality, you AREN’T.
It’s a movie. Get over yourselves. It’s about a robot, and a cartoon robot at that. You’d think for all the typical neo-con gun-toting, war-mongering psychotic machismo posturing you’d be able to let something said in a cartoon pass without comment. My guess is you’re frustrated that Wall-E isn’t real, because it means Bush can’t invade.
Carlitoson 24 Jun 2008 at 9:06 pm 143>>>My guess is you’re frustrated that Wall-E isn’t real, because it means Bush can’t invade.
LOL. I really did laugh at that one.
But would you just listen to yourself. You sound more upset about us being upset than we’re upset about the constant gratuitous nutshots from Hollywood.
So who’s the whiner here??? Just chill the fuck out bro.
Voig Nederlanderon 24 Jun 2008 at 10:43 pm 144Well, my whining is about unwarranted, collective conservative paranoia over the past 25 years, vs. whining about a 3 second toss-out line from a cartoon.
I won’t argue I’m not whining, but at least it’s about something that’s had a chance to get annoying.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » “Stay The Course” — What I learned At The Wall-E Press Junketon 25 Jun 2008 at 7:08 pm 145[…] of my life. What an experience to enjoy and share. Everyone was no nice I felt guilty writing a less than enthusiastic review, but that means they were doing their […]
Amanda Reckonwithon 25 Jun 2008 at 7:33 pm 146Today’s American conservatives suffer stupendously from their own sense of ideological entitlement.
They’ve been coddled so much by Fox, talkradio and their own blogs, they can’t help but feel threatened by any and all dissent.
Their logic bubble is so inflated, a gnat is all it takes to make the whole thing go kablooey!
el gordoon 26 Jun 2008 at 1:56 am 147Amanda, there are few conservatives who can afford to live in a bubble. I know hardly any conservatives personally (precisely two, none of them family) but I meet liberals all day long. Which is why I don´t want their bullshit invading my movie experience.
By contrast it is quite obvious that many academics, journalists and artists are rarely confronted with any challenge to their very liberal worldview. And they are not used to being in the minority. And if you challenge them they always whine about talk radio and Fox. Always.
Dec22007on 26 Jun 2008 at 9:36 am 148I saw a screening of this and liked the movie. However the Bush bashing was unwarranted. Did you notice that when Willard was giving a press conference with the Buy and Large symbol behind him it said BU……RGE with his head between this. Seems like BUSH, GEORGE.
Doubt many people will catch that!
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Wall-E Opens Tomorrowon 26 Jun 2008 at 7:56 pm 149[…] my Wall-E review – 148 comments and […]
Carlitoson 26 Jun 2008 at 8:02 pm 150>>>And if you challenge them they always whine about talk radio and Fox. Always.
Yeah, have you noticed. blah, blah blah, FOX NEWS!!! LOL. Talk about a bubble.
el gordoon 27 Jun 2008 at 2:00 am 151Fox News has both Hannity AND Colmes. What are MSNBC or CNN or CBS doing for balance? Matthews, Olberman or the NYT are as partisan as any talk radio host, they just don´t admit it.
Republicans did not resort to censorship when they had all branches of government. Democrats have announced their intention to bring back the Orwellian-sounding fairness doctrine, which is aimed exclusively at the remaining self-declared conservative outlets. Clearly it is liberals who cannot take diversity except on their terms. Explain to me why I would not think that deep inside many modern liberals there is a little fascist who wants out.
JohnLockeon 27 Jun 2008 at 9:59 am 152Wow. 151 responses. I love the irony of all this. Really. I want to take it out for a lovely steak dinner and propose to it. A movie reviewer has the audacity to complain about a lame joke representative of a larger trend in modern film “satire,” and the leftwing masses, jumping at the chance to get in a dig at those “hypersensitive” rightwingers, come swooping in to…complain. They come over here from their lovely little home of Sadly, No! (which is apparently was passes for witty political commentary in the leftwing blogosphere) and the other dark corners of the Internets and, rather than use reason and logic to put Harry in his place, whine about how conservatives are always…er, um…whining. And of course, in a manner remarkably similar to the trend observed in Godwin’s Law, they quickly descend into typical leftwing screed against Bush, talk radio, and Fox News with seemingly not pertinent reason to do so.
In addition, we also get a few of the pathetic Hollywood apologists, touting a line nearly as tired as that one they give about how they “support” the troops: “It’s just a movie.” I wonder how many of them were saying that when “300″ came out, and people starting drawing comparisons between the Persian army and militant Islam. Of course, the only difference is that Leonidas never said “Stay the course” when wave after wave of Persians slammed into Spartan shields. What I find particularly ironic is that there is also the occasional charge of “you haven’t seen the movie, so you can’t complain.” But the reviewer, the one who HAS seen the movie, tells us that the line is not even just a throwaway joke devoid of context. It was said by a president about a failed mission. So, the context of the line actually bolsters our argument. It wasn’t something said offhand by a generic character. It was quite obviously meant to be a criticism of the Bush Doctrine, a criticism slipped into a “cartoon,” as several Hollywood apologists have called it here.
But hey, why am I bothering with logic and reason? These are probably the same people who don’t seem to grasp the concept of self-deprecation, most likely because they take themselves way too seriously.
SchwaSTLon 27 Jun 2008 at 10:08 pm 153Hey DH, been a big fan of your work since you started over at the old place. I just wanted to throw in my two cents on WALL*E.
I think you overreacted a bit on the “stay the course” line. Yeah, it’s a bit of a cheap shot, but it’s also just kind of a throwaway lin. I may be reacting to it differently since I had the heads-up going in, but it really didn’t bother me. Nor did the film’s environmental message… it hit me more as an acceptable conservationism rather than anything more in line with anything that the Sierra Club would endorse.
I think what sells that line of thought to me was the end credits montage, paralleling the rise of their culture with the advancement in art. Between that and the captain’s emotional discovery of society, the overarching message to me was that Western culture is worth preserving.
I do remember one beat towards the end of the second act that hit me a little heavy-handed, but once the plot kicked in again it was gone.
It may just be me - I haven’t read through the other comments - but I absolutely loved this picture. Andrew Stanton is far and away the greatest talent that Pixar has. I would have said that Brad Bird’s films were better visually… not any more. The used future look and simulated cinematography of WALL*E were better than anything I’ve seen in ages. And (since the plot was admittedly on the thin side) the character work CARRIED the picture… all the greater feat considering that WALL*E and EVE couldn’t speak more than two words.
Again, love your work, generally think you’re spot on, but I think your offense at this picture was a bit of a reach. Pixar’s movies are about enjoying simply for the love of great filmmaking. And this one certainly qualifies.
Jeremy Buchanonon 28 Jun 2008 at 9:40 am 154Very enjoyable movie…right up to the point of the “stay the course” line. That line hit my ears like nails on a chalk board. This just goes to show you that the Hollywood crowd, one and all, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE liberal political activism. They know that conservative parents of children are going to be there in the theater with the kids and this is their opportunity to lob a brick at them. Oh yes, I picked up on it. My wife asked me later if I thought there were some political overtones in the movie and I pointed out the “stay the course” stab. So liberals can’t win elections, but they can rule entertainment.
Celebrity | Celebrity News Blogon 28 Jun 2008 at 4:33 pm 155[…] critics with (surprise!) conservative slants have taken issue with this. At Dirty Harry’s Place, John Nolte expresses his disappointment in the first paragraph of his review: “Have we lost the wonderful studio who […]
buddhistMonkeyon 28 Jun 2008 at 11:58 pm 156((( “This may well be the fifth or sixth movie this year to depict our government as taken over by a corporation – as though that would be a bad thing.” )))
There’s a name for that. It’s called “fascism.”
Discuss: Do Politics Belong in Kids Movies? | cinematvnews.comon 29 Jun 2008 at 3:16 am 157[…] with (surprise!) conservative slants have taken issue with this. At Dirty Harry’s Place, John Nolte expresses his disappointment in the first paragraph of his review: “Have we lost the wonderful studio […]
Herbon 29 Jun 2008 at 4:47 am 158“the leftwing masses, jumping at the chance to get in a dig at those “hypersensitive” rightwingers, come swooping in to…complain.”
No….not to complain. To laugh uproariously in your faces. You’re offended by a cartoon saying “Stay the course?” Seriously?
Don’t take Bush criticism so personally, for Pete’s sake. Are you George Bush? Do you support everything he says and does? Do you think he’s the first perfect human being since Jesus?
No? Then what’s the problem?
timon 29 Jun 2008 at 4:02 pm 159I saw the movie for the second time today. I didn’t remember “stay the course” from the first time I saw it. This time I caught it but now I know why I didn’t remember it. Its a throwaway line played completely in context. Its not even a pop culture reference. I can’t really think of another line that would be appropriate in that scene. So I can only guess that this is your idealism getting in the way of objectively looking at the movie. This movie is not a criticism against the current president, or the last one, or George Sr.
So a message to the ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ commentators - in the words of Scalia: “get over it”
timon 29 Jun 2008 at 6:32 pm 160This is really weird. I think Bush Jr. is probably the biggest goon in the world and I didn’t even catch that “stay the course” line.
Great movie.
JackLon 29 Jun 2008 at 7:15 pm 161I dunno. It seems to me that there are some subtle digs aimed at the left as well. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it, but Eve’s carrying of the plant in her belly was like a pregnancy of sorts, and the resulting scramble to save the plant has a pro-life flavor. Also, note that when people are jarred out of their electronic cocoons, their outfits turn from (Democrat) blue to (Republican) red — and everybody ends up red in the end. Furthermore, the environmental ‘experts’ who claimed that the planet’s toxicity was irreversible turned out to be wrong in the long run. Hmm, any present-day relevance to that?
Review: Full Catastrophe Living by Jon Kabat-Zinn « Mrs. Peel’s Words of Wisdomon 30 Jun 2008 at 7:08 am 162[…] I spent most of the book waiting for the kick in the seat (as a commenter at Dirty Harry’s put it). (There isn’t a direct kick, but the book was written by a hippie in the ’80s, and it […]
Michelleon 30 Jun 2008 at 9:24 am 163I’ve spent the weekend thinking on the film, which I saw Saturday morning. I’ve never commented here before, but I felt compelled after I thought of something I’m not sure has been mentioned (perhaps it has in this thread — hard to tell between the political back and forth that has nothing to do with the film).
WARNING! To cover certain points, there are potential “spoilers” in this comment.
First, I really liked the film a lot. I’m not quite to the place of ‘love’, but I think I’d have to see it a few more times before I could declare that. As I left the film, my sister and I grumbled about the heavy preaching against the corporations…but then it hit me.
This film is actually quite a good representation of conservatism. If you forget for a minute that it is a big Wal Mart type company running everything, you’ll realize two things: 1) the company is the de facto government and 2) no one in this quasi-utopia is really happy.
The company is the government. You can see that over time, the company desired to not just make products for people to buy but wanted to take care of all of the needs of a person. On the Axiom, the ship sent out carrying a large chunk of the human population, they sit in hoverchairs, never moving. When someone falls out of a chair, the robots all freak out to try to help the person. The people are encouraged not to do anything for themselves. The captain barely knows how to walk, and he clearly only got an education that the computers felt was appropriate for him (knows nothing about dancing?) Some of the people discover there is a pool, but NO ONE USES IT. That would require getting out of the chair, moving limbs…something the robots won’t really let anyone do.
Does this remind you of anyone? Liberals in particular want to protect everyone, particularly from themselves. Life should be “fair” and no one should ever have hardship. The people on the Axiom are all equals, but none of them do anything, but consume. That’s all they are allowed to do.
No conservative I’ve met believes that consumerism is a “conservative principle”. In fact, most conservatives I know do care about the environment and are very particular about people helping other people. We believe in the individual to overcome obstacles and make decisions for themselves, not for government to make those decisions for you.
When the captain fights back against Auto, it’s a great moment, he has achieved something no one else has. He was willing to make a decision none of his predecessors had to make, and he stuck to it, facing incredible odds to overcome not only the robots of the ship, but his own “programming”. He wants to be a farmer, plant things, watch them grow, once he knows what farming is and how wonderful Earth can be.
Watching the end credits where the new progress of man is recorded (albeit a little strangely with robots around) made me smile, as you could tell that these people were back to living their lives as they saw fit, rather than a monolithic company or robots with programming.
So, the ’stay the course’ line never bothered me — mainly because it reflected the idea that this big “government” was going to continue to take care of people rather than take risks to fix the planet. Keep them ignorant and safe. A robot knows the truth for hundreds of years before the Captain finds out that the cleanup attempt failed — but then, who was left on the planet to really try, besides the WALL-E robots?
As with a lot of films, if you have a political viewpoint, oftentimes you view a film through the lens of that viewpoint. Where others saw bashing of Bush and conservatives (and I do think we are a little too sensitive to that…with reason, of course), I saw intense criticism of a government that controls everything in a person’s life, a la “Atlas Shrugged” or “1984″.
Consider these posibilities and perhaps look at WALL-E in a different context. You may be surprised what you see.
T74on 30 Jun 2008 at 11:53 am 164***We’re not the ones who need the gov’t to take care of our every need, bub.***
Read Tragedy of the Commons.
You wouldn’t last one day without a strong gov’t.
Christopher Coleon 30 Jun 2008 at 10:42 pm 165Is it all possible for you to see this movie for what it is? That there is more to our existence than what meets the eye?
For WALL-E, his existence is to clean up after everyone. Even when he’s the only one cleaning up, he does that dutifully, although he longs for something more. All work and no play makes WALL-E a dull ‘bot.
Move ahead to the AXIOM, and you see a hedonistic society where everything is taken care of for them. It isn’t until the characters are shaken out of their complacency and laziness that they realize there is more to their own existence, and that by getting up and doing work, maybe even returning to their planet of origin and cleaning it up, is a good thing.
Buy N Large is not only a corporation, but becomes the end all/be all of humanity. It becomes the all encompassing entity that controls every aspect of humanity, something conservatives have traditionally been opposed to (government taking over our lives). So then the corporation/government destroys life on earth. Too much government had been viewed as a bad thing by the framers of the Constitution.
So while you’re too busy looking for the environmental boogeyman in a children’s film, you have completely missed things conservatives have traditionally stood for. Well with “conservatives” like Bush and McCain, I am not surprised.
Melissaon 01 Jul 2008 at 12:59 am 166Bush senior is before my time, so I didn’t catch anything that was supposed to be mocking in the president’s speech. I did, however, notice that this guy resembled a much younger bush senior, and that’s when I noticed the “Buy N Large” logo behind his head, and the only visible letters were BU RGE. My first thought was “BUSH, GEORGE”. I just shook my head and thought “Wow, Pixar… way to push the line there guys”
Ernest T Spoonon 01 Jul 2008 at 9:43 am 167What apathetic bunch of crybabies.
It’s only a movie!
May you wallow in your own shit!!!
bcon 01 Jul 2008 at 12:29 pm 168These twisted opinions coming from same people who think the news media is “liberal” lol!
The stupidity is astounding.
Timon 01 Jul 2008 at 3:51 pm 169“This may well be the fifth or sixth movie this year to depict our government as taken over by a corporation – as though that would be a bad thing.” That is fascism. And as awesome as you think it might be - it isn’t our government. You are an idiot.
Egadson 01 Jul 2008 at 4:45 pm 170“our government as taken over by a corporation – as though that would be a bad thing”
Well Tim and others beat me to the obvious - it wouldn’t be so bad, if you are into black patent leather and goose-stepping…
Jason Lightneron 01 Jul 2008 at 6:03 pm 171Movie was fantastic and the message it conveyed was good. You and most of your readers are neocon fascists. Good luck with that.
The Chutry Experiment » Robots in Loveon 01 Jul 2008 at 7:08 pm 172[…] lecturing the public on the evils of environmental degradation and other forms of liberal “non-sense.” Oh, and it’s filled with “Malthusian fear-mongering, too.” I might […]
JJon 01 Jul 2008 at 7:08 pm 173I weep for my country knowing there are douchebags who write worthless blogs complaining about Pixar’s magical storytelling.
Shporqon 01 Jul 2008 at 8:13 pm 174Are you people serious? Have you already forgotten about the Clinton years? There was a Clinton jab in 3/4 comedies on the big or little screens. Shit, that didn’t even end until 9/11 when it became taboo to criticize the great and powerful leader. Did you forget that Clinton was portrayed as a fat simpleton? Jesus Christ man, get over yourselves. Are you fuckers so sensitive that you can’t handle a cartoon teasing your hero? Are you so afraid of a clean planet that you can’t watch a farcical version of what a dirty planet could cause?
And I think the author and several of his loyal posters need a lesson in fascism.
Alberton 01 Jul 2008 at 8:22 pm 175“I reiterate: leftism requires emotional and intellectual immaturity.”
Liberals are smarter than conservatives by a significant amount–most academics support liberal candidates, as do the most intellectually demanding disciplines such as the sciences.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Wall*E: When Moonbats Attack…on 02 Jul 2008 at 8:33 am 176[…] some linky-love from Think Progress, the moonbats swept into my Wall*E review dropping hate like bits of guano. Check out the last twenty comments, or […]
JohnLockeon 02 Jul 2008 at 9:17 am 177“No….not to complain. To laugh uproariously in your faces. You’re offended by a cartoon saying “Stay the course?” Seriously?”
If you just wanted to “laugh uproariously” in our faces, you would’ve stayed in your own little Internet communities and snickered about how “reactionary” we are over there. Instead, you all went to the effort to come over here and make a big deal about a minor criticism that a movie reviewer dared to make about Pixar’s “masterpiece.” If you truly saw yourselves as having the intellectual high ground here, would you really resort to comments like these?:
-”May you wallow in your own shit!!!” (Ernest T Spoon)
-”You and most of your readers are neocon fascists. Good luck with that.” (Jason Lightner)
-”I weep for my country knowing there are douchebags who write worthless blogs complaining about Pixar’s magical storytelling.” (JJ)
That last one is particularly enlightening. If this is such a “worthless” blog, why bother with it? Why do you feel the compulsion to come here and whine and moan about how wrong we are? It seems to me that you just can’t stand the idea that someone, somewhere has a dissenting opinion. How dare we question Pixar’s motives! What audacity must we have to point out a criticism of foreign policy in a children’s movie! Pixar’s films are consistently done with a certain above average quality, which somehow makes them above reproach. Having a corporate government isn’t fascism. Suggesting that we can’t have a dissenting opinion is fascism.
“Don’t take Bush criticism so personally, for Pete’s sake. Are you George Bush? Do you support everything he says and does? Do you think he’s the first perfect human being since Jesus? No? Then what’s the problem?”
The problem is that I DO support the Iraq War and support “staying the course,” and when filmmakers have the gall to slip criticism of a (successful) foreign policy strategy into a children’s movie, I, like many others here, want to call them on it. This isn’t simply poking fun at the sitting president. This is an implicit mockery of foreign policy in a movie supposedly aimed at CHILDREN. How many six-year-olds are going to find Fred Willard saying “stay the course” funny? The only people who find that funny are the ones who disagree with staying the course.
Sonny Bunch » Lay off Wall*E, jerkson 02 Jul 2008 at 9:20 am 178[…] have to say: I don’t understand the conservative reaction against Wall*E. The pro-environment message may not be subtle (I mean, the Earth is literally covered under […]
Mr. Blankon 02 Jul 2008 at 9:30 am 179“Liberals are smarter than conservatives by a significant amount–most academics support liberal candidates, as do the most intellectually demanding disciplines such as the sciences.”
The fact that you consider that to be a logically sound argument proves your lack of intellectual ability. Let’s deconstruct it:
*Most academics are smart.
*Most academics are liberal.
*Therefore, liberals are smarter.
Brilliant reasoning, Holmes!
Adamon 02 Jul 2008 at 9:37 am 180I think a lot of you are getting worked up over nothing.
Nate Winchesteron 02 Jul 2008 at 10:10 am 181Ummm…. no that isn’t fascism. You should read Jonah’s book sometime. You might learn something.
mikeon 02 Jul 2008 at 10:16 am 182Wow look at all the bitching neo-cons. It’s just a movie, get over yourselves.
kinlawon 02 Jul 2008 at 10:45 am 183mike
Classic leftist “arguments”: projection and straw men.
We are not bitching. We have made calm, and legitimate criticisms. It is you lefties who have your panties in a bunch.
Grayon 02 Jul 2008 at 10:46 am 184I’m sorry, but I just have to disagree. This movie represents a dystopian future where humanity has given into it’s flaws. These flaws are consumerism, gluttony etc. I don’t see a problem with that, it’s perfectly alright for a movie to show us a compelling What If.
The movie was trying to tell us that we need to take care of our planet, and I’d hope that a Conservative viewpoint might be able to actually have enough self-awareness to realize the flaws in Conservative ideology. This movie had a message, and it was a good message. I don’t see how anyone can disagree with the idea that we shouldn’t over pollute, we should stay active and aware, and we should appreciate life. Regardless of some petty political jab the movie might have made that is unimportant.
It’s too easy for people to categorize and dismiss things when they don’t fit their political, economic or social beliefs. Realize that everything has validity even if it’s only a little bit. Try to be a little self-aware and critical.
Daniel Crandallon 02 Jul 2008 at 11:12 am 185Dear Jason Lightner,
Some thoughts:
“Movie was fantastic …” Reasonable people can disagree on this, no need for name calling.
“… and the message it conveyed was good.” According to the filmmakers WALL-E contains no message. It is pure escapist entertainment. If it does contain a message, which I think it does, as to whether or not it was a “good” one, again something that reasonable people can disagree on.
“You and most of your readers are neocon fascists. Good luck with that.” Oh, never mind. You, obviously, don’t qualify as one of the “reasonable people”.
Grayon 02 Jul 2008 at 11:21 am 186Well, for me the message is environmental conservation, independence from visual media and appreciation for life and love. That for me is the most smack in the face obvious message that I took away from the movie. While it is my opinion I can see that many also saw that as well.
Yet while others took it as some sort of personal attack against their conservative beliefs instead of looking beyond themselves and their own rather unimportant beliefs at the bigger picture. We only have one earth, and why be careless with it.
It’s not about us, and our own rather small and pathetic ideologies. Sure reasonable people can disagree, but even reasonable people can still be wrong.
Too many of the “conservative” critics that shot down Wall-E dismissed most of it’s good aspects because it had an environmental message. When really… whats wrong with environmentalism in it’s pure form not dressed up with liberal or political agendas.?
mrpitheron 02 Jul 2008 at 11:39 am 187Egads said on 01 Jul 2008 at 4:45 pm #
“‘our government as taken over by a corporation – as though that would be a bad thing’”
“Well Tim and others beat me to the obvious - it wouldn’t be so bad, if you are into black patent leather and goose-stepping…”
LOL: You liberals crack me up. You are so eager to throw the Nazi label at conservatives that you get it exactly backwards! The Nazis (and Fascists, and Totalitarians, and Communists, and, yes, Progressives) were all about having the government take over the private sector, not the other way around. (I’m sure some of you have heard the phrase “means of production” in your cell meetings, or weren’t you paying attention?). Geez, if you are going to insult someone over something so stupid, at least get it right!
kishkeon 02 Jul 2008 at 12:22 pm 188Well, for me the message is environmental conservation, independence from visual media
You learn about independence from visual media from a film?
Jacqueson 02 Jul 2008 at 12:22 pm 189Oh fsck, you guys are a laugh a fucking minute. Jeebus christ, you go out of yoru way to find “liberal” conspiracy anywhere it might look. Maybe you should pull your heads out of your collective arses for a couple of minutes and just enjoy what life has to offer. Fuck.
InkblotPropagandaon 02 Jul 2008 at 12:36 pm 190Our hyper consumption isn’t a liberal bias, its a fact…. Look at it historically, we have lost so much
There were approximately 60 million bison in the US in the early 1600’s, all the way down to approximately 1000 (due primarily to the fur trade)…
Throughout California it used to be common to see flocks of birds that would cover the sky for an hour….
The rational part of you knows we do destroy, there are numerous examples like the ones I gave…. It is undeniable… And the damage we do now requires more human based solutions due to the lasting impact of complicated/undiobegradeable molecules….
I love this country and I would die for a just cause to better it, but it easier to try to use less and convince others too…. I hope more kids question your Styrofoam usage because its going to be more and more their problem as this debate continues about ideology and not factual evidence
kishkeon 02 Jul 2008 at 1:24 pm 191We shouldn’t just leave the trash lying around; we should burn it. That styrofoam just melts away in a fire.
Georgioon 02 Jul 2008 at 1:48 pm 192How Orwellian that a movement that mislabels itself as “conservative” is so hell bent on promoting and defending over consumption and gluttony.
“Mussolini defined fascism as being a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, democracy and individualism.”
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Educate yourself for a change and argue with reason and logic, supported by facts instead of blindly attacking your opponent based on the dialog of your favourite “conservative” leader.
Please prove me wrong and respond to this with a well thought out argument.
Nate Winchesteron 02 Jul 2008 at 5:46 pm 193It would help if you put a coherent point forward in the first place.
Buck Turgidsonon 02 Jul 2008 at 7:42 pm 194Georgio,
Among the four things Mussolini claimed fascism was in opposition to in your wikipedia article, socialism is also a collectivistic ideology. And in fact, fascism is a brand of socialism; in particular, national socialism. This is in contrast to communism only in its scope, as communism is an ideology of international socialism. Both are leftist in origin. Stalin sought to recharacterize fascism as a right wing ideology after his falling out with Hitler, and the propaganda has left a lasting mark. In either collectivist system, government runs business, not the other way around, as some previous commenter seems to think. (This is not to say that business running government is a good idea - while some government functions might work better in private hands, there still needs to be a government that makes, enforces and interprets laws independently and which is limited in its powers to prevent impingement on citizens’ rights. So with respect to that latter consideration, a certain amount of government inefficiency is thus desireable.)
Classical liberalism is distinct from, and bears no resemblance to, what goes by the name liberalism today. For an understanding of classical liberalism, read F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, a repudiation of collectivist ideology and economics. If you support such things as redistributionist government policies, you are not a classical liberal but a collectivist or at least a collectivist-lite. While not all today’s conservatives are classical liberals, the only classical liberals today are found under the broader umbrella of conservatism. Examples: Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Milton Friedman.
So if you think you can win an argument by reciting a wikipedia synopsis of something Mussolini once said (he also identified himself as a socialist numerous times, by the way) and hoping that the folks around here do not know what collectivism or classical liberalism are, you have much homework yet to do.
Quand Wall-E choque la droite américaine! - LeBuzz.infoon 03 Jul 2008 at 12:57 am 195[…] dénommé Dirty Harry va plus loin, parce qu’il y introduit un argument politique: «C’est peut-être le […]
Dirty Harry’s Place… » MSNBC Jumps On We “Wall*E” Criticson 03 Jul 2008 at 9:00 am 196[…] few of my fellow right-wing extremists criticized Wall*E’s enviro-kookosity. I defended it, but had a problem with the jarring Bush shot that took me out of the movie. However, overall, even […]
conservatives are whiny bitches | Minisauruson 03 Jul 2008 at 5:52 pm 197[…] You selfish dickhead. dirtyharrysplace: […]
Tommy Von 03 Jul 2008 at 6:08 pm 198Hilarious.
There is the liberal problem in a nutshell.
I am really thrown for a loop how hateful these people are. I knew it was bad, but my goodness… so much bile in so little space.
Over criticism of a movie!
So apparently you can’t criticize Allah and you can’t criticize Pixar. When did Pixar become such a sacred cow?
(And I think Georgio just got bitch-slapped by Buck. That was worth looking over at this thread right there. Do these people really still think their liberalism is classical liberalism? And socialism and fascism are polar opposites? Really? Still? And do they even know what a neo-con is?)
Car Donationson 04 Jul 2008 at 11:00 am 199Car Donations…
That used car yours can do a lot of good for people in need. Consider donating yours to a worthy cause……
Stephanieon 04 Jul 2008 at 11:08 am 200(And I think Georgio just got bitch-slapped by Buck. That was worth looking over at this thread right there. Do these people really still think their liberalism is classical liberalism? And socialism and fascism are polar opposites? Really? Still? And do they even know what a neo-con is?)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes they do think laughably that they are the philosophical descendents of Thomas Jefferson. He would be railing against these tyrants. They do believe that socialism and fascism are opposites even if both embrace enforced birth control, intrusion into peoples lives like cigarette bans, etc. And no they don’t know what a neo con is. Hell I don’t even know what a neocon is and frankly I don’t care.
Stephanieon 04 Jul 2008 at 11:10 am 201Georgio on 02 Jul 2008 at 1:48 pm #
How Orwellian that a movement that mislabels itself as “conservative” is so hell bent on promoting and defending over consumption and gluttony.
“Mussolini defined fascism as being a collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, classical liberalism, democracy and individualism.”
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Educate yourself for a change and argue with reason and logic, supported by facts instead of blindly attacking your opponent based on the dialog of your favourite “conservative” leader.
Please prove me wrong and respond to this with a well thought out argument.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Georgio,
When you can be honest about what you really are, which is a minion socialist fascism then we will be honest about what we are…classical liberals.
Wanna know what most of us want? For idiots like you to mind your own business, stop telling everyone how to live their lives and to understand you are not better educated, better informed or better than any of us in anyway…you are a mere equal in the eyes of God….get it? Good. Now please run along Georgie. You bore me.
Stephanieon 04 Jul 2008 at 11:13 am 202And btw Georgie? Anyone quoting Mussolini ought to know this: The guy was a socialist and was till the day he ended up like all socialist tyrants ought to, hanging upside down like a Benito Pinata.
And as far as socialism is concerned, you can explain this…National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party…sounds a bit pinko to me……
Tristan O'Tierneyon 04 Jul 2008 at 1:17 pm 203Wait, there are actually conservatist right wingers who know how to use the internet?? Since when did they start moving out of the deep south and into places without 56k baud modems?
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Wall*E: “A stealth Michael Moore-style attack on America”on 04 Jul 2008 at 5:04 pm 204[…] Conservatives criticize Wall*E and all kinds of hell breaks loose. But when the left says the same things we did — and worse — but in that way liberals love to hear, it’s “wonderfully provocative”…. […]
interneton 05 Jul 2008 at 10:54 pm 205raaagh what do you mean this movie tells kids to actually take care of the planet
fucking liberals
polteron 06 Jul 2008 at 6:50 pm 206You really nailed it with that review - what a disappointment to bring crappy political shots into what’s been such a great series of flicks from them.
It was quite a shame - and I’m with you - the first half of the movie was great, it really started to stink once they were in the ship and you realized finally **** SPOILER***** that it was some yuck yuck moment by “Bush” with his order to stay in space… like no one on she ship would have been checking on what’s going on back home on Earth???
Pu-lease
polteron 06 Jul 2008 at 6:57 pm 207nice site - can ya sign me up for an update mailer?
Christopher Coleon 07 Jul 2008 at 7:54 pm 208Wow, the neocons on here are really defensive about Bush.
Let’s get a few things straight here: he went to war on a nation that was not involved in the planning or the implementation of 9/11: he invaded a sovereign nation (yes Hussein was a dictator and a very evil man) but that does not give us the luxury, or even the right, to go into any area of the world we damn well please and dispose of their leaders: we disposed of this particular leader with no plan as to how to keep the country from caving in on itself, as when a region defined by tribal warfare going back 1300 years might tend to do: on top of all of that there is abuses of our government and the companies it has decided to contract with. Whether it’s Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib, or the murder of 17 civilians by a private army contracted by our government and currently not being held accountable, this administration has made one massive blunder after another. The world we are living in is not any safer than it was pre-9/11. You cannot expect that by trading freedom for security that you will gain either one of them (Benjamin Franklin said that, and I think he knew something about governmental abuses). Bush did not even ask for a declaration of war from the Congress, so this whole action over there is Constitutionally illegal! Not to mention so is the illegal wiretapping and spying on the communications of private citizens. When Qwest refused to do that Bush and his minions determined that they would be phased out.
But you know what? This movie doesn’t deal with any of that. It’s a children’s film that explores what a world occupied by only one robot, one cockroach, and one sprout would be like. It is a film where the human characters, instead of taking the easy way out, fight to make a better world and a better life for themselves. It is a world where the nanny state and the creature comforts are rejected for principles that the Constitution champions. “What’s the Constitution” you might ask? It’s that document that Bush has destroyed, that document that great men labored and debated over to make sure that it outlined the greatest possible nation free from governmental abuses and maximize freedom and responsibility.
Those used to be things that actual conservatives believed in. Hell, in fact liberals believed in it too! Madison and Jefferson, two of the principle architects of our government, disagreed greatly on what the exact nature of the government should be, but somehow they were able to come together and appreciate each other’s views, and even respect each other.
The point is, you are reading something into a line said in a movie not about any current policy or figure and you are taking offense to it, stating that it was intentionally done by Pixar as an unfair jab. Despite that I think it wasn’t, what does it matter if it is? The freedom to speak our minds without the government taking us away (or worse) is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. We have the right to dissent. We have the right to criticize. People like McCain and Rove would absolutely love to take that away, but to do so would be an affront to everything this nation was founded on.
bvorkaon 09 Jul 2008 at 8:23 pm 209I was going to write something witty in response to Cole but decided he and his mythology weren’t worth the effort. Instead, I’ll stay on point.
I agree with Harry except that the Bush line didn’t bother me. What jarred me out of the film over and over again were the humans and that drum beat about the evils of corporations, capitalism, and consumerism. I’d just settle in with the robots — because even as flat characters, they ruled, especially M-O (after Wall-E and Eve, of course) — and then along would come a chair-bound telly-tubby and ruin it for me.
The biosphere disaster on Earth was essential to the plot of the film and if Pixar had avoided all the anti-consumer/anti-corporation nonsense (oh the sweet irony of beating that broken drum during a $180 million film) the film would have been the better for it. By making the humans normal and just trying to survive in a spaceship — inherently a closed eco-system that would mandate recycling and waste management — they actually could have had a legit ecology lesson in an entertaining story.
Alas, instead we got cheap shots and plot holes big enough for the Axiom to slip through, not to mention the inconsistencies. Like, why are the Earth-class WALL’s so small while the Axiom-class are massive?
Ah well, we’ll always have those first 40 minutes or so, and the utter magic of Wall-E himself. Oh, and Presto, too.
Yaron 09 Jul 2008 at 10:28 pm 210I must say, I’m confused by the anger of conservatives towards this vague yet massive leftist agenda that hollywood is apparently using to ruin America.
Let’s assume that the “stay the course” line is the horrible slight you’ve all taken it to be; Pixar wanted George Bush’s entire administration to crumble with rioting liberals brought to a boil by the similiarity between Fred Willard’s character and George W. They wanted conservatives to see the light and suddenly become granola eating, electric car driving hippies. This is the only goal I can think of that is worthy of the ubiquitous and all-mighty leftist hollywood agenda.
But, none of that happened. Instead, all we have is that a hollywood movie is made that disagrees with your politics. Those who agree with its supposed message were already convinced. Those who are horribly offended by it just saw a movie they didn’t like. So conservatives get all in a huff about how they didn’t like the movie because it made fun of poor little George W. If that’s your worst complaint, I think the recommendation that you grow a thicker skin is fitting.
But that isn’t the worst complaint conservatives have. Conservatives are incensed by this ineffectual movie insult. You clearly take this to be of broader import than just a movie being ruined. You see this as some sort of etheral conspiracy against the oppressed conservatives, held down by big, mighty hollywood. This is apparently indicative of a much worse scenario for most conservatives. WALL-E’s “stay the course” line is yet another of the symptoms of some liberal master plan, a plan that is slowly rotting away at America’s family values and religious core. This is why conservatives lash out at movies like this with fury far greater than what any stupid hollywood movie deserves. This is the debate that matters, to both sides.
Let me paint you a picture. Imagine, instead of movies being fucked up by politics you don’t like, it’s an entire country. And imagine it’s not cute movie characters saying things you find horribly offensive, but instead it is the most important people in the country, the people who wield the most power, the president of almost 8 years, and the vice-president and senators and judges and so on. Imagine that, and then think about how angry you are over a movie. The political angst works both ways. It’s just that conservative angst is about a stupid movie industry, while liberal angst is about people that actually exist and are screwing things up right now.
Christopher Coleon 09 Jul 2008 at 10:37 pm 211Yar, you make sense, so don’t expect any of the neocons here to get it.
p0rtal00on 11 Jul 2008 at 5:08 am 212thanks guys n dolls, i haven’t laughed so much in ages, i gotta come back for more chuckles, i think i’ll bookmark this site under a new folder called “i’m depressed” because the amount of drivel spouted is just so ludicrously funny i’m bound to be cheered up.
Xeynonon 11 Jul 2008 at 8:01 am 213Did you watch the same bleeping movie I did? Yeah, the environmentalist theme seems like an inherently liberal one, but I hardly think the movie offers a liberal take on it.
WALL-E undercuts whatever liberal messages it contains with some equally trenchant conservative ones. If anything, life aboard the Axiom is a nightmare vision of a liberal society - everyone lives in extreme comfort, all their material needs tended to by the power of the state (the ship is functionally an entire society, not a corporate product, something the more obtuse among you seem to have entirely missed), and the government decides what is best for the people on a mass basis - not individuals themselves. The movie clearly exalts getting off your ass, taking responsibility for your own life, and cleaning up your own mess above having other people (or a giant army of robots) do it for you, and if that’s not a theme conservatives should love, I don’t know what is. It suggests, rather stingingly, that we have nobody to blame but ourselves for our increasingly slothful, fat, pampered society. I don’t know any bleeding-heart liberals who’d be comfortable with that message.
I came away from this movie thinking Pixar had kept their subversively libertarian streak nicely intact. Apparently some people are so intent on seeing liberal propaganda that they imagine it even when it’s not there.
Dirty Harry’s Place… » Wall*E: Dirty Harry’s Place Rates An L.A. Times Mention…on 14 Jul 2008 at 9:06 am 214[…] but once the chase for the plant begins the movie slips tracks losing its unique charm. However, as I mentioned in my review, the environmental aspect — the world being covered in garbage — still doesn’t […]
Calyboson 24 Jul 2008 at 7:37 pm 215“This may well be the fifth or sixth movie this year to depict our government as taken over by a corporation – as though that would be a bad thing.”
Wow, that’s… that’s pretty darn insane, right there. The fact that you could toss off a sentence like that says volumes about how far you are from understanding what American values and ideals really are.
Wall-E and the Propagandic Liberal Agenda for your Soul « i type thingson 11 Sep 2008 at 9:31 pm 216[…] Dirty Harry: Have we lost Pixar? Have we lost the wonderful studio who brought us The Incredibles and Ratatouille to Bush Derangement Syndrome? Here you have a winning streak going back ten-years, enormous amounts of public goodwill, equal amounts of credibility as serious storytellers, and they stop things cold, yanking you out of the story with the liberal nonsense. Quite a disappointment. […]