It was here, it was gone and now it’s back!
Earlier today, a number of sites uncovered a You-Tube trailer for Pixar’s newest project WALL-E, but as quickly as it appeared, the trailer disappeared but now it seems to be back!
If you thought the teasers had insane amounts of “Awwwwwwwwwww” factor, prepare yourselves because this international trailer made me sign loudly and grin from ear to ear.
WALL-E opens June 27th.
UPDATED with working trailer.
This looks SOOOOO much better than Ratatouille. I’m really excited for this one. Despite the Johnny 5 look-a-like thing.
Once again, Pixar proves it’s the master of CGI animation. While they’re busy injecting creativity and imagination into their films, the other studios have yet to go beyond the “talking animals are what make a kid’s movie” mentality.
The main conceit (robot falling in love) leaves me a little cold. But it’s a PIXAR, so I’m looking forward to it for that reason alone.
It’s gone again. Wow, they are fast.
@Andrew: “This looks SOOOOO much better than Ratatouille.”
Proving once again how WRONG you are!
It’ll be some time before the Pixar team tops Ratatouille…probably right about the next time that Brad Bird puts out his next one.
Bug’s Life, Monsters Inc and The Incredibles all exceed Ratatouille in my books.
WALL-E writer/director Andrew Stanton also directed and co-wrote Finding Nemo. I’m thinking those that liked Nemo will like this.
The girl robot sort of looks like a vibrator (albeit one that launches grenades). Ah mechanical love, it may have some interesting adult themes after all
I think Bugs, Nemo, and Monster’s in terms of what the film is trying to say is not really special or spectacular (the execution and technical and story elements are great, but the message doesn’t much exceed the usual children’s animation).
Ratatouille (and The Incredibles) go so much further with their complex messages (albeit, the Incredibles drops it’s message in favour of a traditional ‘all action’ 3-rd act). Ratatouille (as I’ve said in several cinecasts) attempts to stretch it’s target audience to move beyond the standard child-fare tropes and into something about appreciation of talent, art, etc.
That’s why I say it’s Pixar’s best and won’t be topped by something as (seemingly) cloyingly cute as Wall-E. I could be totally wrong (and truth be told, I want to be wrong, I want Pixar to get better and better with each film). But as the Pixar Director’s go, Stanton is my least favorite, even with Lassiter’s complete dropping of the ball with Cars (pixar’s worst film to date by a long shot).
I’m curious, what would you say is the message of The Incredibles.
I agree that Ratatouille has a lot to say about the refinement of talent and appreciating the finer things in life, although I think the last act derails. Incedibles is still my favorite.
I think Lasseter is competing for the title of worst pixar director. It’s tough to say because he and Stanton co-directed A Bug’s Life.
One of the problems with Ratatouille is that it says that art doesn’t take any effort to produce. Remy can cook anything easily, and is apparently born to be the best in the world without ever making an effort. The only effort he’s making is what goes into hiding his identity. Ridiculous. Even Mozart had to rehearse.
“Remy can cook anything easily, and is apparently born to be the best in the world without ever making an effort.”
he watched and was inspired by Gusteau’s show.
he read books.
he practiced and developed cooking at home.
he read Gusteau’s recipe books.
and he had natural talent.
“ridiculous”
maybe you were watching the “Be Kind Rewind” version of Ratatouille.
I hear what you’re saying Henrik. Those things don’t bother me though. It’s kind of an overly literal interpretation of a children’s show.
Yeah but that’s what every conversation about Pixar-films is. I think they’re good children’s shows as well. I’m just not a child.
“Yeah but that’s what every conversation about Pixar-films is.”
-A little presumptuous with that statement, aren’t we? People also talk about the technical aspects of their films, as well as how many times John Ratzenberger cameos.
One of the problems with 12 Angry Men is that it says that one man can win bigoted, biased and stupid people over within 90 minutes. Juror #8 can sway anyone easily, and is apparently born to save the world from all injustice. The only realism in that film is Juror #5′s interest in baseball. Ridiculous.
NO STARS!
I haven’t seen 12 angry men, but I am assuming that alot of the film is based on the arguments that win over the other jurors? When I see it, I will judge wether or not the arguments could realistically win over the characters as they are represented in the film.
The only thing that is ridiculous is your attempts at discrediting my opinion.
12 Angry Men is a parable: It is designed to boil down the judiciary process to 90 minutes. Expecting it to be ‘realistic’ is kinda silly. That is clearly not the aim of the film.
Maybe when I see it, you can attack me for getting it wrong? But I guess all it takes is for Goon to pull it out of thin air to put me on the stand for a film I’ve never mentioned or seen.
Henrik: Goon maybe overreacting a bit, but you kinda got to admit that your highly confrontational commenting style might play a factor in how people reaction.
“I will judge wether or not the arguments could realistically win over the characters as they are represented in the film.”
thats the problem.
12 Angry Men is one of the best films of all time, but its not realistic at all. I find it funny you now say thats how you’ll judge it, because thats the problem – so often you miss context entirely and judge it on your own, Kurt hit the right word – silly, terms.
“…put me on the stand for a film I’ve never mentioned or seen.”
not ‘for’ a film, putting your strict standards of movie realism on trial, ‘using’ a film. A film about a trial. See it works on multiple levels see? Nyah
Kurt – Henrik doesn’t think he overreacts – he thinks other people bait HIM.
I may do so sometimes now, but its merely a case of giving him back what he gives out. Its the only way I can deal with him.
I don’t have strict standards of movie realism. The Lives of Others (no matter what you may think) takes place in the real world. A movie like Indiana Jones has outlandish elements, but the characters are still meant to be grounded in reality and taken seriously to an extent. Something like Dr. Strangelove is probably the most outrageous you can get, and that is an amazing film.
Just because I think that some films are unrealistic and that it is a flaw in them – like Lives of Others – that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate unrealistic movies. They just have to be good. Entertaining, thought-provoking, aesthetically interesting, whatever. That’s whats most important. When you talk about missing context – if you think that Lives of Others takes place in a reality the filmmaker created, I think you are the one missing the context of the piece. Ratatouille obviously has no realism in it, but if the message is something about the appreciation of art, it misrepresents it, since it doesn’t give any respect for the blue-collar aspects of creating art. And again, even for a cartoon, the Deus Ex Machina at the end feels completely ridiculous.
And for the last time – I have not seen 12 Angry Men. I’m sorry. I have never considered any terms, under which to judge the film. What I said was based on an assumption – my knowledge of the film is only that is about a jury that changes its mind. I have no idea if it’s meant to be realistic or not, maybe I would if I had seen the film. But I haven’t. Yet I’m still defending myself as if I had somehow misunderstood it!
If you don’t think that bringing up a completely irrelevant movie, and acting as if you knew what I would say about in the mocking way that you did is baiting, I don’t know what you call baiting. I definitely find it annoying. It’s not like you have a point, you just put up something meant as a mockery. But I took the bait and defended myself – again. Just like I did when you brought up the Jaws comment (where I said in a completely different forum that Jaws wasn’t a perfect movie if you were interested in people and not sharks, and you wrote that I said that Jaws wasn’t about the characters somewhere else).
Remember, Henrik claims Spiderman 3 is realistic because it shows that women are too stupid to quit, and too stubborn to realize they have no talent, when they struggle to realize their dreams.
Man made of sand and webs shot from wrists instead of arseholes be damned!
I compare that to the realism of a character like Eva Mendes in Ghost Rider. I compare characters in Lives of Others to characters in Downfall.
Mary Jane is more realistic than she should be for the movie she is in.
“The Lives of Others (no matter what you may think) takes place in the real world.”
so does 12 Angry Men. What you fail to grasp is that theres the real world,and then theres the real world through the eyes of the director/the world that the director creates. Hyperreality, muted reality, melodrama… do you dislike Shawshank Redemption?
“…it misrepresents it, since it doesn’t give any respect for the blue-collar aspects of creating art.”
I showed you why it doesnt represent it. Remy develops his craft as much as he has natural talent – one of the reasons I love its depiction of art so much is that it doesnt give us the bullshit montage-esque development from nothing. Same with a movie like “8 Mile” – Eminems character has natural talent that he simply has to weild, with the obligatory movie obstacles to overcome.
“If you don’t think that bringing up a completely irrelevant movie, and acting as if you knew what I would say about in the mocking way that you did is baiting, I don’t know what you call baiting.”
Who said I was even talking to you when I made that post? Does ever piece of satire/jackassery speak to the person directly or simply try to show to a larger audience the ridiculousness of the claim?
Again you say “irrelevant movie” – do I have to hit you over the head with a hammer about this? I was taking your quote which shows your standard of ‘ridiculous’ and applied it to another film to show others how silly it is. End of story.
You’re just full of yourself. How pretentious is it to presume you know that I have a standard of anything? And you say that I lack respect for the people I engange in conversations with.
“How pretentious is it to presume you know that I have a standard of anything?”
its not presumption, its just experience with you. either you completely suspend reality, or you hold it to strict standards – with all your complaints about Jaws, Lives of others, Children of Men, and christ, Ratatouille, you don’t show a middle ground.
“And you say that I lack respect for the people I engange in conversations with.”
again, I give to you what you put out to others. I treat you differently than just about anyone else on RT or FJ, save trolls.