What I did not like about Wall-E? His eyes.

Pixar's Feature Films WALL•E
#21

So, you don’t like WALL-E’s eyes because they’re too blantantly human? But it’s okay for the animators at Pixar to change what fish look like so we can relate to them in Finding Nemo? Surely it is exactly the same thing?

If the Incredibles was about a family of amoebas with no facial features whatsoever, I’m pretty sure that most people (not only children) would find it difficult to relate to them. In the same way that the monsters of Monsters, Inc. could have been completely weird and out of this world, yet Pixar made it so that most of the monsters had at least some human features, because otherwise as an audience, we’d feel completely lost.

#22

The fact that people need ‘human’ eyes to relate to does not mean everyone is stupid. It means they’re human. It is an automatic reaction for a human to be offput by the look of a non-human creature- which is exactly why monsters and aliens are scary. The fact the spiders have small beaty eyes with no pupils scares people. The fact that mice often have red eyes scares people. It doesn’t mean they’re stupid, it means they’re human. If WALL-E had different eyes, he wouldn’t be scary, but people wouldn’t be able to put themselves in his shoes because they would think “Oh, he’s just a robot.” Just like people think about animals with non-‘human’ eyes like “Oh, it’s just a lizard.” or “Oh, it’s just a fish.” I had hoped my other explanation of this was clear enough. Even you and your friends are not immune to this rule- no one is. People like me who have come to love animals like reptiles and fish have realized that snakes aren’t scary, etc. but our first reaction was to think of them as inferior, stupid, scary animals with no personality or feelings which is not true- but it is the automatic reaction.

So again, WALL-E’s eyes could have been different, but then the filmmakers would have had to spend that much more time trying to convince you that he is human-like despite his soulless robot eyes. This would have made the movie more complicated and would have bogged down the message.

Furthermore, what is wrong with him being cute? Most everyone else loves it, not because they are stupid, but because most people like cute… WALL-E is a LOVE story. The whole film is SUPPOSED to be cute, so it makes perfect sense that his design is cute. If the movie was supposed to only be a robot space adventure where they save earth like superheroes, it might make more sense to make it less cute. But love stories are all about being sweet, so that’s what WALL-E is.

So if you and your friends don’t like cute: Don’t watch WALL-E.

#23

Agreed, and the good thing is its a love story that is pure and without reason. Its an honest love that literally anyone can relate to. Its more than a romantic love. Its way more than that. Its a wonderful story. But just because its cute doesnt mean that something is kiddish and your to “manly” to see.

#24

This thread reminds me of a few of my friends I drag to see Pixar movies, who say they’re going to be dumb because they’re “kiddy”, “cutesy”, or “family friendly”. They prove themselves wrong every time, it’s really funny actually, they end up liking them. Why does G rated always mean a movie is going to be dumb, just because it doens’t have any objectionable content doesn’t mean that only kids will enjoy it!!

#25

This is one thing I hate. People always think anything animated is for kids. Eight Crazy Nights was animated. DEFINITELY not for kids.

Why should WALL•E be for kids? I seriously think most kids wouldn’t be able to understand most of the stuff that goes on in the movie.

This is why every time I go into my video rental store and see Ratatouille in the kids section, I get angry.

#26

Please, if you are the only person siding with, I need someone else defending my position. I am very surprised that I am the only bugged my Wall-E’s characterization.

There have been so many robots that people have related to in the past that do not have those big sappy eyes. Yes, cartooning 101 is a good example of what NOT to do. Cliche, Cliche, Cliche. Pixar is far past that.

Edited. I combined both of your posts. – Mitch

#27

Following the book does not = cliche. You can follow the book and still be innovative and original. I always hate when people call something ‘formulaic’ like it’s a bad thing. Formulaic is a good thing. Cliche is not, but I think you’re misusing the word. WALL-E is not by any means cliche.

#28

Pure love without reason. Hmmm. Between a man and a woman ROBOT. Don’t get me started about this. This could be its own thread.

Since when is not wanting to see a movie, “immature”?

I think Wall-E is cliche (the robot, not the movie). Even that picture on this thread of him staring into the deep blue space is lifted straight from E.T.

Wow, the whole film is supposed to be cute? All those obese people drinking their breakfast, lunch, dinner, and every snack in between is real cute, don’t you think?

Edited. I combined all of your posts. – Mitch

#29

Its not. Its your preference.
I think the issue is more that your calling Wall-E a movie for kids and only kids.
It might be to “cute” for your friends or even you.

#30

First of all, no where in any of my previous comments did I say that Wall-E was a movie for kids and only for kids. No where. I think it is a movie that appeals to all ages. My only gripe is with Wall-E’s eyes. That is all. You know this is a Pixar forum to celebrate all things Pixar. I am a visual artist myself and when I look at art, I just don’t put a smile on my face and think how wonderful everything is. I look critically. With Wall-E and other Pixar films, I am amazed at their technical and creative imaginations. So to talk about a negative aspect of the film to me is not an indictment of Wall-E. I am not against Wall-E. I am for Pixar. There is so many ways that something can be expressed on film and be powerful. Look how expressive the Hal9000 was in 2001: Space Odessey. It was just a red circular glow but became the most menacing villain, both unfeeling machine and human at the same time. In the case of Wall-E, like I said before, his eyes are too cutesy to be a trash collector, too big, too expressive, while everything else about him, from his eyes down, follows a form follows function philosophy. The story was so compelling that even if he didn’t have any eyes, I am sure Wall-E would still be able to just as effectively convey emotion and that his audience would be able to empathize with his character. Pixar is known for thinking and doing things outside the box. I don’t think the rules for eyes in Cartooning 101 should have to apply here. It is a formula Disney has effectively used for 75 years. So yes, by now, it is a cliche.

#31

Being ‘edgy’ for the sake of being ‘edgy’ does not an ‘edgy’ film make. I’m a visual artist too, and I don’t think WALL-E’s eyes are cliche, and I have my reasons for believing so. There are a LOT of artists here too, and you’re not the only one who knows what they’re talking about. A lot of people here have been giving great reasons for WALL-E’s eyes being the way they are and just because you’re not liking any of them doesn’t mean the people suggesting them are only suggesting them because they think you’re trying to discredit Pixar. We’re all fans here, but that doesn’t mean our opinions are any less valid. We can love WALL-E and have legitimate answers to your questions too.

It seems like you’re saying if something is used more than x number of times, no matter what it is, it becomes cliche. On the contrary, all good movies follow a specific formula. When they don’t, they make no sense, and people may like them as entertainment, but most people don’t like those movies as much as they love the really great ones (that are great because they follow storytelling rules). You said you agree the the film WALL-E is not cliche, but WALL-E follows the age-old storytelling pattern of the ‘Hero’s Journey’ or Heroic Cycle. By your definition, would this make it cliche? I’d guess that nearly half of all films ever made follow the Heroic Cycle and almost all mythologies from ancient times do. It’s something that’s been around forever, but it never gets old.

There are a few basics we all learn as artists about character design and most of these basic rules we just can’t ignore. I believe one of these is that emotional eyes are one of the most important ingredients to making a good character for animation. You can convey so much with a simple eye twitch, blink or even just a wink. WALL-E’s eyes are the way they are because they did need to be, because without his expressive eyes his character and the film would have suffered.

#32

I actually think davidhunternyc makes some valid points. Character design can always be extraordinarily varied and different, especially in concern to robots. And clearly there were options when designing Wall-E, however, as it was, Stanton’s first thought was of binoculars. That stayed the test of time at Pixar for whatever reason, and if Wall-E were designed differently, he would be a different character. And maybe that’s what you wanted. I was just trying to say that I always thought of Wall-E as practically designed, but yes I suppose it is obvious that he is a character; he doesn’t just pick up trash. Perhaps all he needed to be inherently was a cube on wheels. However, to rationalize it for you, I think the trend of commercial design by BnL did lend itself to giving their robots some character. Perhaps Wall-E should be on the furthest end from that, not having to be in contact with humans, but one could imagine that BnL would be superficial enough to design Wall-E with “eyes” just for promotional material; just to show people, “hey, this adorable l’il scamp will clean up earth while you’re away!” But even then, if you look at Wall-E in his traditional “blank stare” mode, he does seem a lot more industrial, practical and inanimate. I think the animation is so much of the character in that sense. The robot in the movie that had the least character would probably be Auto, and that was for a reason. I guess I am kind of siding with everyone else, but I think it really just boils down to character design. IMO, Pixar didn’t do anything goofy, and was impressively realistic/practical with their designs, but they did take character into consideration. And Wall-E just wouldn’t be Wall-E if he were different. He had to have a noticeable personality. So I guess if you can design him while keeping this in mind, and make it 100% realistic, go for it. I know that’s never a practical thing to tell people, but hey, it’s the best I got.

I want to add that his eyes did serve many practical functions, ie: detecting storms and his general surroundings. That actually would be important for a robot in that position, as I believe at least one other person has mentioned. In addition, Wall-E was designed by a person at some point, and I mean within the reality of the film. Why would he need to look as practical or utilitarian as possible? Maybe that’s not what you’re arguing he should’ve been, but I’m just saying, people do tend to design stuff with character. Apple’s a good example of this, and I’d be willing to bet that if they built a roving robot of some sort, it would have some form of eyes. And why aren’t you complaining about EVE? Her eyes were more obviously designed as eyes than Wall-E’s. They’re just aniamted images that emote! No practical purpose at all. I’m sure that faceplate of hers could operate just as well without those animated images. So just face it, either within or out of the reality of the film, someone designed these robots, and for whatever reason, they gave them faces of some sort. Why? Who knows, but it’s what they are. Because really, robots don’t need to emote, and if all they had to emote was with their forms, it would be a lot more difficult to make them believable characters. I know Pixar did it with lamps, though, but in this case they would have to design something equivalent to the practicality of a lamp, but that no one has seen before, and have it carry a film. Why would you ask them to do that? But that would be an impressive task if it were ever accomplished. I would praise that film likewise.

Anyhoo, there’s really not much you can say about it, I just sort of argued that the film is the way it is because it is, but you know what? There’s a lot more to the film than Wall-E’s eyes. You kind of have to accept that that’s who he is and just appreciate the film for what it is. I’m not saying it’s a perfect film and you can’t offer criticism, but that you don’t like that the main character had eyes? Really, the only thing you can do to back up your argument is to offer a good hypothetical alternative, and then we can say, “Hey, yeah, that would be cool!” But even then, when we see the film, we’re seeing it for what it is, and there’s a reason we appreciate it for what it is. So this post might have gotten somewhat derailed at multiple points, but I think that last statement sums up my opinions fairly well. Hey, I’m taking you’re criticism pretty legitimately here! Never would have thought about this if it weren’t for you.

#33

Sorry if someone already said this, but Pixar makes your emotionally attached to anything. In this case, it was Wall-E understanding his emotions with eye movements.He doesn’t need to talk (except a few noises and saying “EVA”) to be liked. Same with the cockroach, and Lamp from Luxo Jr. I bet they could make a can of coke with strong emotions if they tried, haha.

His eyes just stress how he feels. Which would have ruined the movie if they took out.

-EIA-

#34

I think you’ve said all there is to be said, ominousorb. : )

#35

Seriously? That post got so long I was wondering if I actually hit on anything. =P

#36

all good movies follow a specific formula.

Well, unfortunately, most everyone agrees with you.

#37

O.K. I am going off the beaten track here. Did anyone see, “Y Tu Mama Tambien”? In the movie, there are three people who climb into this big rusty car from the 70’s and head out for a journey across Mexico. Their destination is this beach along the Pacific that is supposed to be paradise on earth. They drive for days through the desert with the hot sun beating down, along dusty, trash ridden roads. The characters, after a while, thought that they would never arrive and they just became, hot, bothered, and bored. This sequence in the film was very interesting to me, because it was really quite long. To the point where the theater audience also became hot, bothered, and bored. In fact, I saw many people texting on their blackberries. But what was entirely interesting to me was that I realized I was feeling the exact same emotions of the characters on the screen. I was so bored, I thought I was going to die. It was remarkable. When “WE” finally arrived at the beach, I was so thrilled, I couldn’t wait to jump in the ocean. So how does this relate to my original point about Wall-E’s eyes. Well, at the beginning of the film, Wall-E goes through his routine of collecting trash; his directive. In fact there are so many other Wall-E’s that have been used up and just lay about the road rusting to rot. We could imagine what their lives must have been like. Just monotonous and routine. Every day picking up trash. Wall-E is no different from these other robots and the movie does a fairly convincing job of showing us this side of him. But do I for an instant believe it? No. Because his design is not meant to just collect trash, such as the later Wall-R’s. I can not empathize with Wall-E’s character as a machine, as a trash collector. I can not empathize with his directive. Why? Because his eyes were designed to be expressive, to do more than his directive. His eyes are made to swoon, to flirt, to laugh, to cry. Many people have said that when Wall-E goes lifeless at the end of the movie, it shows that machine aspect to him that I say is missing. To me, that lifelessness at the end, is more like a lifeless body, than a lifeless machine. Just as I said before about Hal in 2001: Space Odessey, I can relate to Hal as a cold unfeeling machine but at the same time as a calculating villain. A contradiction. A paradox. The stuff of great film. Wall-E never had me believing he was a machine, at any moment. I was never convinced of his directive. He looks like a stuffed animal for children, a kids-meal toy for McDonald’s. I would have loved to have seen the machine side of Wall-E. A machine, built by humans, that somehow raises itself out of it circumstances, but at the same time, never becoming more than it is. Yes, a contradiction of character. The eyes ruin it for me… I thank the stars that Edna said no to capes.

#38

Are you saying he shouldn’t be designed to be expressive? How’s that going to sit with the animators?

But regardless, I think I can kind of grasp what you mean. You just wanted to believe that this robot was not designed as a character, but a tool, right? You basically wanted it to go that extra step into realism. I think I ran over this topic plenty in my previous post, so what exactly did I say that you disagree with? I’m willing to believe my argument is half-baked, but you really need to convince me first. Are sure that if you saw Wall-Es picking up trash you couldn’t believe it? Because I would go as far as to say that I could. It’s got everything it needs: it rolls on rough terrain, it has maneuverable arms with clamps at the end to pick up trash in various forms, and it’s got two maneuverable cameras on a stick it can use to determine it’s surroundings. Maybe it doesn’t need two, but hey, it gives him depth perception.

AAAAAAnyway, I feel like this really isn’t the issue. It is a cartoon first and foremost. It has a distinct art style that borders on realism, sure, but even so it’s a vision which comes from within a person’s head. It is not intended to aim entirely for realism. It’s supposed to support a vision of some sort, regardless of that vision’s placement in reality, and that’s why cartoons are such a brilliant medium. I’m just saying that there is something to it, and there’s a reason Wall-E is the way he is. It’s not because the art designers said “Trash robot, great, but you know what it needs so we can make toys of this guy? Adorable l’il puppy dog eyes. Robots don’t sell unless they’re cute, this guy needs to be so cute you wanna buy toys of him. Alrighty, that looks marketable, send it out!” It didn’t originate as some sort of marketing ploy, it originated as someone’s idea. And this was his idea, and you might just have to live with that. I understand you might not like that he is a character, but there is some realism you are able to bypass when you make art. And even saying all that, as I’ve mentioned before, I think Wall-E was brilliantly designed, because even as a character, I do believe him as a machine inherently. That means nothing to you, of course, because you view him differently (which is perfectly acceptable, it would be horrible if all people thought the same way on things,) but I’m just saying, some people actually can get lost within the reality of the film, even though it might not be 100% our reality. It’s called film making.

#39

I’m glad you’ve stuck it out to explain to us what you actually meant. Discussions often get muddled up with unimportant details and now I see that I didn’t fully understand what your problem was with WALL-E’s eyes.

I personally see WALL-E’s eyes as believably purposeful. I like what someonme else here said- thinking about the people at BNL who created WALL-E (if we’re talking within the realm of the film), I can see the designers giving him a cuter look to to assure the humans leaving earth that the little bots cleaning up their mess could be trusted to do the job. WALL-A’s (from the Axiom) did not need a cute design because no humans were meant to see them. In this way I think my numerous points about different animal eyes v. ‘human’ eyes are still relevent. People place more trust in eyes they can ‘recognize’. So designing WALL-E’s eyes 100% realistically would not be 100% realistic. Robots do not NEED to be aesthetically pleasing to do their jobs, and neither do cars, or appliances, or any of the things we create- but being human is about being more than functional. Because of this, it makes sense that WALL-E was made to look a bit more human, with parts of him designed for more stylish reasons than functional needs. Look at the robots we HAVE designed- Asimo, Qrio. These robots do not need to look human to do their jobs but humans just like to make everything look ‘pretty’. So you’re right, WALL-E’s design is not one that only takes into consideration his function. He is stylized to a very minute extent. But THAT in itself IS realistic. His design would only bother me if he was purple with sprinkles in his paint and neon light racks all up and down his body. THAT would be unrealistic, because he is after all a trash compacting robot, and no one would waste the money on making a trash compctor look THAT cool- but humans can’t help but spice things up and of course they’ll even try to make a trash compactor look relatively nice. But look at him as a whole, he looks like a miniture construction vehicle. He’s painted like a bulldozer.

This itself reinforces one of the themes of the film. “I don’t want to survive, I want to LIVE!” Humans don’t just survive. They LIVE, they create… They plant flowers around their houses, and they paint pretty pictures to hang up in their homes. Do they NEED to do this? No. But it makes them happy to. WALL-E did not design himself. A human designed him, and therefore he looks more human than he needs to.

Lastly, when I said this: “All good movies follow a specific formula.” I did not mean “All movies should be and are exactly the same and are only good if they are all alike.” When I talk about a film’s formula, I am talking about it’s skeleton. Every human has a skeleton. When a human’s skeleton has exra parts or is missing pieces, we usually consider them disabled in some way. If someone’s born with a tail, it’s harder for them to sit. If someone’s born with an extra limb, it makes it harder for them to use their others. It is the flesh and skin and what we choose to decorate our bodies with that makes us all different. Movies that take storytelling rules into consideration have a healthy skeleton- it is not too big or too small for the story the creator is trying to tell, it does not have extra limbs leading off to pointless tangents, it is not missing limbs or pieces (plotholes)- it is whole and serves the function of the film. Of course there are different skeletal structures- just as the skeletal structure of someone from Africa or Asia is different than the skeletal structure of someone who is of European decent. But still, everyne has a skeleton. There are some great ideas for films out there that are given to bad storytellers who do not give the film a skeleton, there is no structure for the story, and it caves in upon itself.

#40

Well, first of all, thank you for looking at my post and not automatically seeing what is false about it, but for at least wrestling with what may be true about it. It might not be true for you, and certainly not for everyone else who has posted a reply. But at least you have considered an opposing view. I thank you for that.
My position is that Wall-E is as cute as Hello Kitty. Which to me is at odds with his directive as a trash collector. And yes, I would have liked Wall-E to be characterized more realistically. I am not talking China Town or Mean Streets here. What about somewhere in between. A character that is just not as sweet as a candy bar. A little more realistic. Fine, keep the binocular shaped eyes, but maybe reduce the size by 30%. - I am not saying to do this, but it is just a hypothetical. Yes, I agree with you that Wall-E has everything it needs. Its just the excess that bothers me. I think someone asked why Eve doesn’t bother me. Well, I have to choose my battles. Wall-E is the main protagonist in the film. But briefly, Eve’s eyes would have been a software decision to make them expressive. Whereas her ovoid shape is sleek and simple. Her face; an empty screen. When her eyes are turned off, she can look like a pure machine. At other times, she can look kind or evil depending on what the software is doing. She can be that cuddly cutesy thing but she can also be the Terminator. It all depends on a software decision. With Wall-E, his huge eyes involve both hardware “and” software design issues. Wall-E can was never designed to be anything other than E.T. dressed in metal. This compounds all the comments I brought up before.[/list]