Wall-E

[Grames]

Strictly based on the actual contents of the movie, the theme is simply about struggling for your values, which is a benevolent, life-affirming theme regardless of ancillary details. You may as well start blasting Victor Hugo's novels because HE was far from being philosophically perfect, either.

The huge contradiction between a benevolent, life-affirming theme and the malevalence of Marxism doesn't bother you? Philosophical perfection isn't the standard here. Marxism is ugly. The package deal of coupling it with "benevolent, life-affirming theme" is purposely deceitful. After a century of lies, murder, genocide, war, and police state oppression by avowed Marxists practicing Marxism in countries dominated by Marxism there is no possibility of anyone to fail to realize exactly what the theory of Marxism entails in its deadly practice. It is not an idea to be tolerated even in its appearance as an "ancillary detail" in an animated movie about anthropomorphic robots.

How ironic that the makers of this movie apparently have more respect for the power of ideas than you, a self described Objectivist. Passivity in the face of outrages like this is what permits evil ideas to spread and gain influence.

[Unknown Idealist]

Hmm. Fascism also "looks and sounds" more like capitalism than, say, communism . . . should we assume that they are the same then? The modern "big-box store" culture we have now is a result and hallmark of a mixed economy and I am not necessarily in favor of it simply because it "looks like" capitalism. (I'd like to see what would arise under an actually capitalist system before I make up my mind which one is better.) Not to mention that a monopoly of the type depicted in the movie (stupid, ineffectual, tasteless--real monopolies may exist but only by being superior to all competitors in every way) can't actually exist under capitalism.

This brings up an interesting ancillary issue: if someone is diatribing against an actual evil but they mistakenly believe it is caused by capitalism, can they actually be said to be attacking capitalism? It is possible that they know what capitalism actually is and are intentionally confusing the issue as part of a smear campaign. However, most of the time I have not found this to be true. Most people genuinely are confused about how capitalism works and are seriously concerned about actual evils. I prefer to *encourage* this because they are *thinking*. I would prefer to demonstrate to them that capitalism doesn't actually cause those evils than to try to convince them to embrace evil.

I thought Wall-e was very fun and enjoyable. Now, would I prefer to see a movie with less proximity to bad ideas? Sure. However I can't see theoretical movies, only real ones. Like I said, I thought Kung Fu Panda was better and I recommend it instead unless you don't like martial arts movies for some reason. Wall-e is one of the better movies that are in theaters right now.

I’m waiting for someone to point out to me what part of Wall-E World is non-capitalistic. Where are the stifling state regulations and choking red tape? Where are the demagogic politicians and busybody bureaucrats? Where are the storm-troopers (or even lowly traffic cops)?

And why wouldn’t big-box stores exist under laissez-faire? Once government pulls its long nose out of the economy, won’t many consumers still exhibit a preference for one-stop shopping at deep discount prices? You might as well postulate laissez-faire without pro wrestling, fast food or rap music.

Yes, monopolies tend not to arise under capitalism. But how does that truth support the conclusion that Wall-E is not a depiction of capitalism run amok, a reductio ad absurdum? If you draw a caricature of me and I don’t like the way I look, may I safely assume you were drawing somebody else? The Iron Heel, a novel by racialist-socialist Jack London, gives us a grim future dominated by big businessmen. Since the society Objectivists favor does not in any way resemble the one imagined by London, would it be fair to assume London’s vision was not anti-capitalistic?

If Wall-E is not an attack on capitalism, then neither is An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps we should give Al Gore the benefit of a doubt and suppose that he is seriously concerned about actual evils and simply doesn’t know how laissez-faire would work.

At least we can agree that Kung Fu Panda was a better flick (and I hate martial “arts” movies).

[K-Mac]

I didn't get that capitalism destroyed the planet at all. I just got back from seeing this movie and I thought it was very cute and entertaining. (And a million times better than Hancock, btw.) Wall-E was typical Pixar. Here are my thoughts...

1.) Capitalism didn't destroy the planet...a government-run monopoly did! (Notice that the President was also the CEO of BnL.)

2.) Even though a government-run monopoly seemingly destroyed the planet, it took measures to save human lives through technology. (You mean new inventions make life better and easier and increase our life expectancies? Never!)

3.) Neither man nor BnL destroyed the planet anyway. Bugs and plant life survived and were making a comeback unassisted by man. (Gee, imagine that!)

4.) Man returned to the planet to clean up the mess he made. (Wow! Another light bulb moment! Man can clean up after his own mess!)

5.) People had the will to live and thrive, not just survive, as stated by the Captain. ("I don't want to survive, I want to live!") In addition, when given the option for mindless games and chatter or a learning experience, they chose the learning experience.

The only problem I had with the movie was this...if man can create technology to live in comfort and take care of himself, why did they not also invent something to keep themselves healthy? (Some medical technology or some type of robotic workout equipment, special diets, etc.) Other than that, very cute and visually stunning. (There was a scene in the beginning with a toaster and it looked so real. The dents and scratches on Wall-E's head, really looked like scratches in metal.)

And finally, I loved the cockroach! I never, ever in a million years would have thought I'd ever say that! If you're from the hot, humid South, you know what I'm talking about.

[Mammon]

I’m waiting for someone to point out to me what part of Wall-E World is non-capitalistic.

The only way it's possible for a company to get as big as BnL was for the government to give it to them. Or if everyone is too stupid to create another company. Also, do you think a bunch of fat people sitting around in floating chairs being bombarded by constant stimuli is what capitalism is?

Where are the stifling state regulations and choking red tape?

Again, that wasn't the point of the movie. It left how the world got in such bad shape up to the audience to decided. But, there were alot of robots telling man what to do in the ship, after the fact that the earth was messed up.

Where are the demagogic politicians and busybody bureaucrats?

Did you miss the CEO of the Earth?

Where are the storm-troopers (or even lowly traffic cops)?

Did you miss the robots?

And why wouldn’t big-box stores exist under laissez-faire? Once government pulls its long nose out of the economy, won’t many consumers still exhibit a preference for one-stop shopping at deep discount prices? You might as well postulate laissez-faire without pro wrestling, fast food or rap music.

If there is no market demand for these things, they wouldn't exist. A free market reacts better to market demand.

Yes, monopolies tend not to arise under capitalism. But how does that truth support the conclusion that Wall-E is not a depiction of capitalism run amok, a reductio ad absurdum? If you draw a caricature of me and I don’t like the way I look, may I safely assume you were drawing somebody else? The Iron Heel, a novel by racialist-socialist Jack London, gives us a grim future dominated by big businessmen. Since the society Objectivists favor does not in any way resemble the one imagined by London, would it be fair to assume London’s vision was not anti-capitalistic?

Different media, different judgement. Don't drift off the subject to make null points. You *see* it as capitalism run amok, and the movie condemns that. Why? Because a business was involved in the process? You, and Grames are making the Marxist fallacy that business=Capitalism. If you say you aren't, which you will, then prove it. What makes you think this is an attack on capitalism, devoid of the fact that there was a big business involved.

If Wall-E is not an attack on capitalism, then neither is An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps we should give Al Gore the benefit of a doubt and suppose that he is seriously concerned about actual evils and simply doesn’t know how laissez-faire would work.

Wall-E does not make an remarks about industrial society and its effects on people. The build up of trash could of been a real problem, maybe regulation prevented people from dumping it into space, or the ocean or burning it or something. We don't know, that's the point. It doesn't make any remarks.

Read the Manga-- Hotel, it's a similiar story, yet the characters in the story blame mankind for the problems the world is facing and decide mankind needs to bear responsibility for it. I didn't see any of that in Wall-E

Also, you, Grames, and the OP all seemed to ignore the fact that humans didn't become super-fat and lazy until they boared the ship and reproduced there for a couple hundred years. They said the obesity was caused a mix of things, including the hyper-gravity and bone loss in space.

But even so, you think being a tub of lard that has all it's food in the form of a cup, and doesn't even notice the world around it... is a good way to go about life? The represents capitalism?

[Unknown Idealist]

I didn't get that capitalism destroyed the planet at all. I just got back from seeing this movie and I thought it was very cute and entertaining. (And a million times better than Hancock, btw.) Wall-E was typical Pixar. Here are my thoughts...

1.) Capitalism didn't destroy the planet...a government-run monopoly did! (Notice that the President was also the CEO of BnL.)

The President of what? The U.S.? Where is that mentioned?

2.) Even though a government-run monopoly seemingly destroyed the planet, it took measures to save human lives through technology. (You mean new inventions make life better and easier and increase our life expectancies? Never!)

So who created this wonderful technology? The same government-run monopoly? (You mean government-run monopolies make life better and easier and increase our life expectancies? Never!)

[Mammon]

The President of what? The U.S.? Where is that mentioned?

If you actually watched the movie, then you'd notice it in the messages the Captain was reviewing. The CEO of BnL was also the President of the US.

[Unknown Idealist]

The only way it's possible for a company to get as big as BnL was for the government to give it to them. Or if everyone is too stupid to create another company. Also, do you think a bunch of fat people sitting around in floating chairs being bombarded by constant stimuli is what capitalism is?

You might as well say that the conditions described in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle would not happen under laissez-faire and that, therefore, The Jungle is not really an anti-capitalistic novel.

No, I don't think Wall-E is a fair depiction of capitalism. But I don't think Das Kapital is a fair depiction either

Again, that wasn't the point of the movie.

Right. Its point is not to criticize gummint.

It left how the world got in such bad shape up to the audience to decided.

And for those who needed a little help, there was the ruin of a Buy N' Large store right next to the junk heap.

But, there were alot of robots telling man what to do in the ship, after the fact that the earth was messed up.

Just as there are stewards on any cruise ship directing passengers where to go.

Did you miss the CEO of the Earth?

Since when did "CEO" mean "government official"?

Did you miss the robots?

You mean the robots were the government? Where was that stated?

If there is no market demand for these things, they wouldn't exist. A free market reacts better to market demand.

Fine. Now explain Jennifer's idea that big box stores wouldn't exist in a free market economy.

Different media, different judgement. Don't drift off the subject to make null points.

Not a null point. Critiques of capitalism invariably misrepresent it.

You *see* it as capitalism run amok, and the movie condemns that. Why? Because a business was involved in the process? You, and Grames are making the Marxist fallacy that business=Capitalism. If you say you aren't, which you will, then prove it.

Nope. I'm making the anti-Marxist, anti-environmentalist point that a Consumer-as-King economy is good. Wall-E viewpoint is that we are evil for wanting and buying things to make us happier.

What makes you think this is an attack on capitalism, devoid of the fact that there was a big business involved.

Because the film sees people getting and consuming as much as they want (one of the great boons of capitalism) as a tragedy.

Wall-E does not make an remarks about industrial society and its effects on people. The build up of trash could of been a real problem, maybe regulation prevented people from dumping it into space, or the ocean or burning it or something. We don't know, that's the point. It doesn't make any remarks.

It just sort of happened right there in front of the super-store. Funny coincidence. I note that it didn't happen in front of a government agency.

Read the Manga-- Hotel, it's a similiar story, yet the characters in the story blame mankind for the problems the world is facing and decide mankind needs to bear responsibility for it. I didn't see any of that in Wall-E

I did.

Also, you, Grames, and the OP all seemed to ignore the fact that humans didn't become super-fat and lazy until they boared the ship and reproduced there for a couple hundred years. They said the obesity was caused a mix of things, including the hyper-gravity and bone loss in space.

Another example of the movie's low IQ. One of the effects of weightlessness is loss of body mass.

But even so, you think being a tub of lard that has all it's food in the form of a cup, and doesn't even notice the world around it... is a good way to go about life? The represents capitalism?

You think Marx's distorted portrait of business represents capitalism?

[tps_fan]

The huge contradiction between a benevolent, life-affirming theme and the malevalence of Marxism doesn't bother you? Philosophical perfection isn't the standard here. Marxism is ugly. The package deal of coupling it with "benevolent, life-affirming theme" is purposely deceitful. After a century of lies, murder, genocide, war, and police state oppression by avowed Marxists practicing Marxism in countries dominated by Marxism there is no possibility of anyone to fail to realize exactly what the theory of Marxism entails in its deadly practice. It is not an idea to be tolerated even in its appearance as an "ancillary detail" in an animated movie about anthropomorphic robots.

How ironic that the makers of this movie apparently have more respect for the power of ideas than you, a self described Objectivist. (bold mine) Passivity in the face of outrages like this is what permits evil ideas to spread and gain influence.

Holdddddd on a minute, cowboy. Whoa there! _Now_ I'm in this. Not that Jenny needs help defending herself, but it happens to be my pleasure to offer her some allegiance in this matter. ;-D The "more respect" line you offered is just a baseless assertion, but let's backtrack some....

Leaving aside that JMegan already stated her _qualified (or delimited)_ approval of _Wall-E_ viz. that it has philosophical problems, and that she's comparing it to what else is actually out there on screens currently, there's also the fact that Hollywood has a long-running track record of putting out Leftist-tinged movies. Look, if you or someone else doesn't like the movie, then don't see it again, don't buy it on DVD, and/or review it as a bad movie. Heck, I believe some movie theatres even offer refunds if patrons complain that the movie they just watched was awful. You can't stipulate that another person can't enjoy an artwork, if she has a rational reason for doing so. JMegan _did_ give reasons why she enjoyed it, and those were some damn good reasons too!

Would you have the movie going audiences just stay home en masse and not see newly released films? Are you willing to say that _Wall-E_ is bad in the vein and of the magnitude of _Song of Russia_? If so, then you would have something of a point as far as complaining about the film. (Your assessment of JMegan is still _well_ off-the-mark as many people here can testify to and for easily available reasons.)

What else have I forgotten? Oh yeah, there's the matter of personal context! You might be familiar with the article where AR refers to a situation where various people see an image generated from a slide projector, and those people come to different estimations of what the image personally means. (Apologies, the reference leaves me at the moment....) Moving pictures are similar in this respect. A critic who's got a movie under the microscope for "philosophical fouls" as a prime m.o. is going to have a decidedly different movie going experience from someone who mainly wants some light entertainment. Is it unfortunate if Pixar makes a movie with bad philosophical or other scientific premises? Well, gee.... this is OO.net where this movie is being discussed after all.... On the other hand, what if Pixar not only makes a movie based on some philosophical premises that when integrated together result in a work of mixed value BUT that work is still ultimately superior to other Pixar films or superior to other currently shown films in other regards? Should that same movie be avoided at all costs?

Discuss. :-)

I'm glad that Jenny, Kelly, et al. got value out of the film.... maybe I should go get me some aesthetic value from it as well.... hmmmm.

[Grames]

You, and Grames are making the Marxist fallacy that business=Capitalism.

Marxism is a specific set of ideas and doctrines. Those ideas have a specific set of philosophical premises and consequences. Marxism is not merely the opposite of capitalism and thinking so greatly underestimates the sophistication and danger of this foe.

There are multiple Marxist elements in this movie and to let yourself be distracted over the precise status of BnL is truly an example of thinking in nonessentials.

[K-Mac]

The President of what? The U.S.? Where is that mentioned?

When the Captain is learning about the manual (Manuel, ha ha!), and again when the mission is being canceled, the video he's watching is of the BnL CEO who is referred to as Mr. President. They don't say of what nation or if it's of the entire planet, and frankly, that's irrelevant anyway. The point is, government and business are mixed, and that's not good.

So who created this wonderful technology? The same government-run monopoly? (You mean government-run monopolies make life better and easier and increase our life expectancies? Never!)

I knew I should've elaborated. I knew one of you would take this off on an irrelevant tangent. Of course I don't think government monopolies are good. Duh! This is not the debate forum.

Not that it's relevant, but I don't know if the government invented anything or just took advantage of existing technology. If you must have an answer, I would guess the latter since that's what government usually does, but who knows? IT'S A MOVIE! My point was that man is capable of using inventions to survive which is something enviros don't believe. Your argument, is basically, that the movie is anti-man. My point its, I don't think it was, and I listed my reasons.

I'm glad I didn't let the bad reviews from this forum dissuade me from seeing this film. In fact, while watching it, I sorta wondered why so many of you hated it. Does it not coincide with how you view most of mankind? Many of you think that the general population is a bunch of non-thinking cattle, when in reality, they are just like the people in the movie...they simply don't know what other options are available to them. Once they learn of other options, they are eager to explore them and learn more. Just like the bored Captain having the dictionary read to him to learn about dancing and farming, just like the two humans who have their TVs turned off and end up splashing around in the pool. "I didn't know we had a pool!" Me a year or so ago, "I have never heard of Objectivism!"

I went into this movie quite pessimistic due to some of the posts I read here, but during the movie, I couldn't help but find the good in it. Call me an optimist, I guess, but I see the good in man.

[Grames]

The "more respect" line you offered is just a baseless assertion, but let's backtrack some....

The base of my assertion is JMeganSnow's dismissal of the Marxist elements of the movie as "ancillary elements" as if Marxism is somehow rehabilated and less poisonous because it is not the central theme of the movie. This specific act is an example of not respecting the power of ideas, or even the identity of these specific ideas.

Look, if you or someone else doesn't like the movie, then don't see it again, don't buy it on DVD, and/or review it as a bad movie.

I am doing all of these things. Pointing out Marxist elements as reasons for a "thumbs-down" for this movie is entirely appropriate at a online gathering of people sympathetic to Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

You can't stipulate that another person can't enjoy an artwork, if she has a rational reason for doing so. JMegan _did_ give reasons why she enjoyed it, and those were some damn good reasons too!

There is no stipulation. The viewpoint to which I am trying to rally people has damn good reasons too. Reasons! An appeal to reason is not a stipulation.

Would you have the movie going audiences just stay home en masse and not see newly released films? Are you willing to say that _Wall-E_ is bad in the vein and of the magnitude of _Song of Russia_? If so, then you would have something of a point as far as complaining about the film.

Its even worse in some ways, namely that the target audience is intellectually defensless against its wiles.

What else have I forgotten? Oh yeah, there's the matter of personal context! You might be familiar with the article where AR refers to a situation where various people see an image generated from a slide projector, and those people come to different estimations of what the image personally means. (Apologies, the reference leaves me at the moment....) Moving pictures are similar in this respect. A critic who's got a movie under the microscope for "philosophical fouls" as a prime m.o. is going to have a decidedly different movie going experience from someone who mainly wants some light entertainment. Is it unfortunate if Pixar makes a movie with bad philosophical or other scientific premises? Well, gee.... this is OO.net where this movie is being discussed after all.... On the other hand, what if Pixar not only makes a movie based on some philosophical premises that when integrated together result in a work of mixed value BUT that work is still ultimately superior to other Pixar films or superior to other currently shown films in other regards? Should that same movie be avoided at all costs?

Discuss. :-)

This movie is not badly made. JMeganSnow's identification of the plot-action of Wall.e as benevolent and life affirming is accurate. This is movie is not bad, it is evil in the same way Ayn Rand called several novels good but evil. The point about personal context is also true, which makes it all the more important that I continue speak up in the attempt to enlarge people's personal context when evaluating this movie, especially if it is after they have already seen the movie.

[softwareNerd]

Funny thing is: if I hadn't read this thread, I don't think I'd have even noticed the Wall-E background so much.

The movie makers wanted to set it in a dystopian background. Admittedly, they chose the accepted cliche of the day. Instead of the 1984 type dystopia, they chose a old-style Romanticist dystopia, where mankind has become lazy without toil.

Aesthetically, they painted this very fuzzily, with almost no detailing in terms of motivation and emotion of the "evil" side of things. Instead, they sought to focus all the detail and emotion on the good folk: the one's who wanted to live. It is incidental that the two main protagonists are robots. They are "anthropomorized" enough that any kid watching (this was a kid's film) would readily identify with them as if they were human.

Aesthetically, it is like a painting with many ruins in the background, all painted fuzzily, with two heroes in the foreground taking up all the visual attention.

And, Grames, let's not get personal with the "self described Objectivist" remarks. It's just a kiddie movie, after all.

[Unknown Idealist]

When the Captain is learning about the manual (Manuel, ha ha!), and again when the mission is being canceled, the video he's watching is of the BnL CEO who is referred to as Mr. President. They don't say of what nation or if it's of the entire planet, and frankly, that's irrelevant anyway. The point is, government and business are mixed, and that's not good.

If no nation is mentioned, why should we suppose there is any national or international government involved? Consider that Joe Cross is "President and CEO" of Nanophase Technologies ( http://seekingalpha.com/article/65806-inte...se-technologies ). The title "President" in such a context relates entirely to the private sector. Mr. Cross is not the leader of any nation.

Not that it's relevant, but I don't know if the government invented anything or just took advantage of existing technology. If you must have an answer, I would guess the latter since that's what government usually does, but who knows? IT'S A MOVIE! My point was that man is capable of using inventions to survive which is something enviros don't believe.

Then this means that Al Gore is not an "enviro." After all, he has heavily promoted alternative energy technologies and is a partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, an investor in more than 300 information technology and biotech firms.

I'm glad I didn't let the bad reviews from this forum dissuade me from seeing this film. In fact, while watching it, I sorta wondered why so many of you hated it. Does it not coincide with how you view most of mankind? Many of you think that the general population is a bunch of non-thinking cattle, when in reality, they are just like the people in the movie...they simply don't know what other options are available to them. Once they learn of other options, they are eager to explore them and learn more. Just like the bored Captain having the dictionary read to him to learn about dancing and farming, just like the two humans who have their TVs turned off and end up splashing around in the pool. "I didn't know we had a pool!" Me a year or so ago, "I have never heard of Objectivism!"

No. I think people are naturally diverse and unique. Getting hundreds of thousands (millions?) of individuals to take on the same physique, color preference, lifestyle, eating habits, etc. would require the re-engineering of the entire species. In other words, making man into something other than man.

Call me an optimist, I guess, but I see the good in man.

Me too. That's why I hated the movie.

[K-Mac]

If no nation is mentioned, why should we suppose there is any national or international government involved?

Did you even see the movie?? When the CEO/Mr. President is speaking, does the background not look a little familiar to you? (Much less what was actually said.)

As to your other comments, I'm not wasting anymore of my valuable time with you. If you could see no good in the movie, you're just being pessimistic. It's amazing how much good you can still find in this world, and this country in particular, when you're actually willing to see it.

An interesting review from the WSJ.

[Unknown Idealist]

Did you even see the movie??

Yep, the very film that The Detroit News said had an "underlying eco-message."

When the CEO/Mr. President is speaking, does the background not look a little familiar to you? (Much less what was actually said.)

I suppose it looked like Shelby Forthright's office.

As to your other comments, I'm not wasting anymore of my valuable time with you. If you could see no good in the movie, you're just being pessimistic. It's amazing how much good you can still find in this world, and this country in particular, when you're actually willing to see it.

I noticed that the passengers aboard the Axiom had a very positive attitude, seldom uttering a peep of complaint.

An interesting review from the WSJ.

The same review in which Fred Willard is referred to not as "the President" but as "a frazzled captain of global industry."

[K-Mac]

Since you're too busy trying to insult me and force me to think the movie is evil, this is what the background looks like. I don't agree with everything I read in the newspapers, but if you do, good luck with that.

You can take whatever negative messages you want from the movie (and life), but I will choose the positive.

You sure are cranky.

Edited July 7, 2008 by K-Mac

[Unknown Idealist]

Since you're too busy trying to insult me and force me to think the movie is evil, this is what the background looks like. I don't agree with everything I read in the newspapers, but if you do, good luck with that.

You can take whatever negative messages you want from the movie (and life), but I will choose the positive.

You sure are cranky.

"Insult" you? "Force" you? I have no idea what you're talking about. Why take a disagreement over a Disney movie personally?

The message I took from Wall-E is quite positive: it is possible to make much better movies than this one.

[K-Mac]

If you can't read through your responses and see that you're nit picking apart everyone's posts in an effort to prove something, whatever that may be, you're blind.

[JMeganSnow]

The base of my assertion is JMeganSnow's dismissal of the Marxist elements of the movie as "ancillary elements" as if Marxism is somehow rehabilated and less poisonous because it is not the central theme of the movie. This specific act is an example of not respecting the power of ideas, or even the identity of these specific ideas.

Excuse me? Ideas have power precisely BECAUSE people respond to ESSENTIALS instead of ancillary issues! This is why an attempt to defend capitalism on the basis of altruism is doomed to *fail*. A movie that passionately depicts the acquisition and defense of values is not going to successfully put across marxist or environmentalist ideas because the thematic premise of the movie is *SELFISH*.

No, I don't regard any vague odor of marxism or environmentalism as poisonous any more than I regard the minute amounts of arsenic I swallow every day as a threat to my life. Marxist and environmentalist ideas, like all evil ideas, are powerless--they're only prevalent now because of the cultural idea vacuum. Maybe you should relax before you give yourself a nervous breakdown.

As for "big box" stores: there is already an increasing trend toward so-called "one-stop shopping" to lose market share because it is actually impossible to stock EVERYTHING, and when people have easy access to more specific products that suit their desires, they tend to pursue that instead of the more generic options. I don't think Big Box stores will completely go away under capitalism, but I don't know. I do know that the *existence* of Big Box stores right now is a mess of free elements mixed with government interference. Some are propped up by the government via eminent domain land grants, some are pushed out by the government when they would otherwise move into a neighborhood. It's a mess. Therefore it is safe to say that any aspect of current culture is NOT a hallmark of capitalism BUT is precisely a hallmark of a mixed economy and you cannot call ANY feature of modern culture a hallmark of capitalism.

[JASKN]

Here is a relevant quote to this discussion from WALL-E's director, Andrew Stanton: (Found through Wikipedia, here is the original link)

Wall-E is the only one still truly living. And what is the ultimate purpose of living? To love. And WALL-E falls head over heals with a robot named EVE. Now, Wall-E’s feelings aren’t reciprocated because, well, she has no feelings. She’s a robot, cold and clinical. WALL-E is the one who has evolved over time and garnered feelings. So, in the end, it’s gonna be WALL-E’s pursuit to win EVE’s heart, and his unique appreciation of life to become mankind’s last hope to rediscover its roots. In short, it’s going to take a robot's love to help make the world go round.

[Grames]

Excuse me? Ideas have power precisely BECAUSE people respond to ESSENTIALS instead of ancillary issues! This is why an attempt to defend capitalism on the basis of altruism is doomed to *fail*. A movie that passionately depicts the acquisition and defense of values is not going to successfully put across marxist or environmentalist ideas because the thematic premise of the movie is *SELFISH*.

The movie is filled with contradictions, for which I am grateful.

In the contest between capitalism and altruism, altruism wins so long as it is identified as moral and capitalism merely practical. People recognize morality is more essential, more fundamental. Given the mish-mash of different values and value systems presented in this movie, only the raw statistical majority of screentime featuring Wall.e favors one set of values over another, so I don't agree that what is essential in this movie is cut and dry. Especially considering the target audience of kids, teenagers, young adults most of whom will not necessarily pick up only the essential.

No, I don't regard any vague odor of marxism or environmentalism as poisonous any more than I regard the minute amounts of arsenic I swallow every day as a threat to my life. Marxist and environmentalist ideas, like all evil ideas, are powerless--they're only prevalent now because of the cultural idea vacuum. Maybe you should relax before you give yourself a nervous breakdown.

Given the history of the 20th century, how can you possibly say all evil ideas are powerless? Metaphysical meditations are cold comfort when your country is invaded, or when rounded up into a concentration camp.

[Unknown Idealist]

As for "big box" stores: there is already an increasing trend toward so-called "one-stop shopping" to lose market share because it is actually impossible to stock EVERYTHING, and when people have easy access to more specific products that suit their desires, they tend to pursue that instead of the more generic options. I don't think Big Box stores will completely go away under capitalism, but I don't know.

On Jul 6 2008, 10:09 AM, you wrote, “The modern ‘big-box store’ culture we have now is a result and hallmark of a mixed economy. . .” Now if the factors leading to the existence of big-box stores are removed under laissez faire, why should we suppose this form of enterprise would endure? Why wouldn’t big box stores completely go away under capitalism? And if they don't go away once government intervention is withdrawn, we would certainly have to question the assumption that they are entirely the result of intervention.

I do know that the *existence* of Big Box stores right now is a mess of free elements mixed with government interference.

So is education, medicine, agriculture, banking and virtually everything else. However, I'm not prepared to state that big colleges, big hospitals, big farms and big banks could only exist in a mixed economy.

Some are propped up by the government via eminent domain land grants, some are pushed out by the government when they would otherwise move into a neighborhood. It's a mess. Therefore it is safe to say that any aspect of current culture is NOT a hallmark of capitalism BUT is precisely a hallmark of a mixed economy and you cannot call ANY feature of modern culture a hallmark of capitalism.

Fine, we will eschew the word "hallmark." The essential point is that there is nothing about a giant retail store per se that is non-capitalistic. In fact, the notable feature of big boxes, having a superabundance of the latest products at affordable prices is one of capitalism’s great blessings. In the context of Wall-E, the film offers no evidence to support the belief that Buy N' Low enjoyed eminent domain land grants or any other government-forced privilege. An even more important point is that both Buy N' Low and the Axiom ship represent a system where people can easily get and consume an enormous array and quantity of goods. And this is precisely what environmentalists hate about capitalism.

Just one example of this mindset:

#3. Environmental Exploitation/Over-Production- There are no more needs in our society, yet corporations have convinced Americans to continually desire and upgrade the newest, greatest fads, while disposing of perfectly good products that are no longer in style. We produce more food, housing, and other goods than we need, yet we continue to feel pressure to work hard to keep our jobs, all in the name of profitability. We have turned into a disposable nation, where it is cheaper to buy a new printer or monitor, than it is to have it repaired. One only needs to watch the recent documentary, Super Size Me, to recognize that we have become an over-indulgent nation. We continue to consume vast quantities of our natural resources, with literal [sic] regard for environmental concerns. http://markheimonen.blogspot.com/2004/07/c...n-and-over.html

There’s the theme of Wall-E right there.

[JMeganSnow]

There’s the theme of Wall-E right there.

"Background" and "theme" are not the same thing, in art or in life.

[ChristopherSchlegel]

We (kid, wife, & me) just saw Wall-E, which we loved! So I thought I'd make a couple of observations that haven't been fully fleshed out.

Not to pick on you, Unknown Idealist, but I wanted to use your post as a jumping off point.

Just one example of this mindset:

There’s the theme of Wall-E right there.

As Jennifer properly noted, this is a background feature of the movie and not the theme. Of course, it bothered me to see it in the movie at all. But I think it is important to note that the makers of movies are not generally philosophers or intellectual giants. I think what you get in Wall-E is fairly typical in it's blind acceptance of certain false premises: Marxism, environmentalism, etc. It's the background "static" uncritically accepted as true by "most average people" in modern day society.

I think it is fairly amazing that even though Pixar has those stale bromides in their mindset, they are still able to make a charming, beautiful, moving movie about the passionate, uncompromising pursuit of values! And make no mistake, that is the theme of this movie. The entire story revolves around a very straightforward love story between Wall-E and Eve.

No one yet has mentioned the utterly brilliant use of old footage from Hello, Dolly! It was on a VHS tape in the movie that was obviously Wall-E's most cherished possession. It was really touching how he loved watching it, and tried to imitate it. It was how he learned about romantic love! Remember how Eve grabbed it and spooled out the tape trying to figure out what it was?! That whole scene was genius. That was such a pivotal scene in the movie.

Also interesting was the play on words in names. Buy 'N Large was obviously "buying large". But it could also be "by and large". As in "people are by and large good (or capable of good)", or "people will do the right thing by and large (eventually)". The ship was named Axiom. As if it is "axiomatic" that humans will survive. While this is not axiomatic, considering the mixed premises in the background of the story, this is actually quite a benevolent attitude. Much more than other sci-fi movies that project a human future that is much darker than this one.

I think someone else mentioned the whole first act was done largely without dialogue due to the nature of Wall-E being a robot and mostly alone. I think this was extremely well done. Bravo, to Pixar for another job well done.

[Unknown Idealist]

As Jennifer properly noted, this is a background feature of the movie and not the theme.

I disagree. The underlying theme is man's survival and man's dignity, which are supposedly threatened by his wasteful lifestyle. Man the despoiler of the planet is evil. Wall-E the robot, the conserver and recycler, is good.

Of course, it bothered me to see it in the movie at all. But I think it is important to note that the makers of movies are not generally philosophers or intellectual giants. I think what you get in Wall-E is fairly typical in it's blind acceptance of certain false premises: Marxism, environmentalism, etc. It's the background "static" uncritically accepted as true by "most average people" in modern day society.

I certainly didn't see that background static in The Incredibles or Ratatouille.

I think it is fairly amazing that even though Pixar has those stale bromides in their mindset, they are still able to make a charming, beautiful, moving movie about the passionate, uncompromising pursuit of values!

Values like conserving our resources, being good to the environment, cutting back on our rate of consumption, and the rest of the enviro-litany.

No one yet has mentioned the utterly brilliant use of old footage from Hello, Dolly! It was on a VHS tape in the movie that was obviously Wall-E's most cherished possession.

Message: stop spending, spending, spending and be satisfied with what you have.