Anyone else this guy or girl is evil…I for one do.
aishamusic.com/Judiciary_Rep … _walle.htm
Am I also the only one that see’s Wall-e Looks nothing like Johnny 5t…at all. The personality’s WAY different too.
No… Johnny 5 and Wall-E don’t look alike at all. They may have similar “eyes” and movement, but that’s it…
Also, just because Pixar came up with a clownfish character doesn’t mean they copied after every single character that happened to be a clownfish before it.
Really now? Accusing Andrew Stanton of not being creative? Wow…
Meh. That’s the internet for ya. Every has a say, no matter what the facts are.
First off, I love Johnny 5. 
And yes, the eyes and feet are similar, but hey - Short Circuit wasn’t very popular - not the best but has it’s moments, and I can only hope the release of WALL-E inspires people to go out and rent/buy it. It’s cute.
And if anything, the might’ve been inspired by Johnny 5, and if so I don’t find that harmful. Short Circuit’s in the past - it came and went, it wasn’t the best, and WALL-E won’t hurt it any, just bring attention to it. Hopefully, good attention, none of this comparing garbage - can’t stand that. xP Happens a lot when it comes to Pixar on this forum.
I beleive I’ve seen this article before. Couldn’t stand it. REALLY getting sick of all the “WALL-E is just like Short Circuit!” comments.
Oh yeah I remember hearing about this Nemo thing a few months after it came out. Whatever! If anything is remotely similar to anything else, people say there’s a chance it was copied. The same thing happened to George Harrison (former Beatle) when he was sued in the 70s because 3 notes in one of his songs was the same as in another song. And he was found guilty! Guilty of “unintentional plagarism”. The sad thing was, after that George got rid of all his radios so that couldnt happen again.
I don’t find it evil, i find it just plain weird…like putting this in the Finding Nemo forums! 
hey, hey, hey That Article has Nemo in it too 
Oh, I get it.
LOL, looks like the WALL-E fans took the article and ran away with it. Sorry. ^^;
Yeah, Nemo, uh… I have to actually see the so called plagiarized material for myself. I don’t believe this guy tho.
i found this on youtube a while ago.
do some people have such little lives that they will spend all day trying to embarrass something great? whats worse, some people actually believe them.
I had seen this also some months later after FN was officially first released in theaters during the end of May 2003.
This topic just goes to show how minor discrepancies such as this play out to be a very big deal for one person who had once brought about their own work to others, while another side such as this of FN showed out alot in the world.
I see no real relevance to this problem at all between FN and Le Poisson. They may seem to be identical, but how are they actually relative to each other given what was stated about the beginning of Pierrot in this article?
And then of course, Calvez wanted to try banning FN from being shown anywhere in France which was a huge mistake.
This Author’s works would probably still exist well today, but putting blame on Finding Nemo is surely not the way this guy should take.
Either way, I very well know for sure that Mr. Stanton did not make his primary reason for making his dream of Finding Nemo come true at Pixar, “to make money”.
In short, I’m assured that the characters of FN, such as Dory and the rest, were not marked off or copied from Calvez’s work; They were created, ‘their own’.
Wow, I suddenly gained an urge for deduction.
Disclaimer: Every statement I write below are of non-biased intentions. They are merely deductions of the truth, bearing no ill hatred or negative feelings toward either party of this feud.
First off, let me review some of the posts here.
-
To start, Fairly Odd New Yorker, by claiming that a franchise was ‘inspired’ by another, you are claiming that the creator, in this case, Stanton, is not a very creative person. Yes, he might be ‘creative,’ but not to such an extent that he could create a franchise without using some ‘inspirations’ from another franchise as part of his materials. If he was extremely creative to an amazing level, he would had used completely original stuff.
-
A classic created in the past should be kept a classic, it should not be and will be affected by having possibility of ill feelings - be them sprouting from the truth or not - being gained from arguments such as these - it would just put it under a bad light.
-
Bringing attention to FN will just create unnecessary assumptions filled with ill feelings. They might not be true, but they do and do not have the need t exist. In other words, if no references or so-called ‘inspirations’ were made in the first place, then you would be right as you stated in point 2 - “won’t hurt it any.”
I’ve read the article, and as a Pixar fan, I find it to be rather distasteful. Nevertheless, to stand on the side of the truth, I have to point out that despite the severity of the author’s tone and unnecessary biasness,
WALL-E and Short Circuit are both of robotic origin - be them artificial intelligence or whatnot, I don’t care - it means that the idea was definitely inspired (see point 1 in explanations towards Fairly Odd New Yorker’s post above) to some extent, regardless of its size.
In the old days, people would use that kind of phone which is bulky, untrendy and rugged:
Just because I redesigned it from that to this:
after years of brainstorming and ideation, doesn’t mean I didn’t gain inspiration from it. It might be true that Stanton’s work might not have been inspired from Short Circuit, period, but that does not erase the fact that the probability exist.
Let’s not forgot those ‘wheels,’
At most, one without biasness of any sort could merely give the benefit of doubt, but not confirm it. If Stanton was to claim that my statements were inaccurate, I would have to trust him, because 1) I like his productions and 2) I have faith in him. But that’s it. I cannot confirm anything, no truth or claims are ultimate, the probability still exist, until the event quote by a renowned detective of my interest occurs:
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains however improbable, must be the truth.”
That’s one thing both of us share - we all dig Holmes the man. 
Now who’s being biased here? There are more than “3 notes” of similarity displayed here. 
And as I said, whether intentional or not, the damage is there. It doesn’t matter if Short Circuit is able to hold up its greatness or not, WALL-E has the liability to damage its [Short Circuit] rep.
I’ll have to disagree with this one. I’ve watched the video, pretty decent footage of Mike there - he cracks me up, not wee… whatshisface. However, I had been more biased to Pixar than he ever had to either party. Sure, he admitted that Wee-guy cracked him up, but note that he did not claim any vile statements about Monster Inc. and its respective characters, and of course, its amount of humor.
People - like me - are not trying to embarrass anything, period. I guess we just have the desire to search for the ultimate truth. If the truth is that a clown has a great inept, probably undiscovered talent in entertaining anyone, no matter how people embarrasses him (or her), no matter what people thinks about him, that does not decrease his talent, just his credibility, but that’s only because of human thoughts not associated with his great talent of entertaining. If he/she is to prove himself/herself innocent, he/she has to provide sufficient evidence for it. Even after he/she does so, not everyone would step out of their cynical bubble. In the end, that video did not make attempts in embarrassing him if people choose to be cynical.
In conclusion:
I love WALL-E and Finding Nemo. To me, the report is… ludicrous and ultimately, hilarious.
The reason the background of that book matches the poster of the contradicted film mention is because… Clownfishes live among sea anemones…
“Dirty” and “dishonorable” were unnecessary, and they definitely have the potential for bringing the inaccurate message to the public regarding the report’s purpose and the author’s intentions, if they were even inaccurate at all in the first place!
All I know about the plot of the book is that it has the similar element of the protagonist losing his parent to a predator. Accepted. It can be considered as fairly similar (and forgiven) with the kind of storyline that appeared in the beginning of FN.
I trust Disney and Stanton, but that’s being biased. I don’t know the staff of Disney or Pixar that well, wouldn’t know if they had decided to lie (heck, it wasn’t until recently that I learned of innocent Walt Disney’s depression and attitude towards his staff); you do, but I don’t know you well and you are Pixar fanatics filled with intense hatred for this report at the moment, decreasing your credibility, unfortunately.
But in my personal opinion, I feel that Stanton would had never do such a thing and that it was all a misunderstanding. Nevertheless, damages were caused, lawsuits were filed, and unnecessary accusations, made. Cynicism has brought us here today. So, I advise all to just let this pass, as this - trust me - will not go anywhere that’s good.
I’m all for Short Circuit, but this guy probably just hates Pixar in general, and will do whatever he can to screw them over.
Not like it’ll make any difference to their sales or popularity, of course
Can someone please remind this guy that the ideas for A Bug’s Life, WALL-E, Monsters Inc., and Finding Nemo were all developed at a lunch meeting between Andrew Stanton, John Lasseter, Pete Doctor, and Joe Ranft in 1994?
That’s right, one year before Pierrot Le Poisson Clown was written!
Maybe the author of this article should get their facts right before making accusations!
Consider this retweeted.
They discussed Nemo in '94?
So… THEY say anyway.
Dundundun. -Cheesy horror music. Thunder rolls-
Hypothetically, IF they did steal an idea, it would be pretty much wouldn’t be THAT much of a stretch to think they would lie and say they came up with it during that conversation if they had a full idea of what they were doing (plagerising).
I’m not saying of course that I think they totally took the idea from someone else, but it’s still a possibility and the '94 conversation thing is not a valid form of evidence. If they were bad enough to completely steal a whole story, it wouldn’t be a stretch for them to lie about it to cover tracks.
Once AGAIN, I’m not saying they did that either (before you dogpile me and shout at me for ‘dare disgracing pixar’s honour’ or whatever), but it’s just not all that valid point against the idea when you think about it. If they could lie about one they could lie about the other after all.
But there are only so many stories anyway, I admit I have to look into it myself, but it seems kind of doubtful to me, pretty much as doubtful as Megamind being Dreamworks ripping off the Incredibles or something like that.
A lost kid and a parent trying to find them, and on the journey under going character development? It’s not that much of a stretch for someone else to use fish in two seperate stories of a similar nature.