Republicans just love big government.

[DaShi]

I was hoping that you could explain it to me. Please.

Or is this a DD thing where you post something you don't understand yourself?

[Elok]

Maybe for you. However, not just critics loved the movie. It was a commercial success. You're argument is absurd because you are complaining that the movie had conflict. Time and again, I've seen you criticize films for having the basic components of good storytelling. Every time you write a review for something, I groan at how out of touch you are with those aspects and how you somehow believe that your feelings are shared by the rest of the audience despite enormous evidence to the contrary.

Weighing a movie down with anti-corporatism is one of the basic components of good storytelling? I'm not opposed to conflict, I'm opposed to the villain being a clumsy stand-in for Wal-Mart, in the process making all the "human" characters significantly less human than the robots (who, despite their greater charm, are thrust into a helper status, acting in the interests of the far blander fatties in chairs). There would have been far greater conflict if the "villain" had been a living faction aboard the starship or something, instead of a rather mindless AI carrying on the orders of some long-dead CEOs. Where the movie succeeds, it succeeds in spite of the hippie crap.

Also, the Twilight series is a huge commercial success, so don't go throwing out that canard. The whole human race is free to disagree with me about any number of poor movies, but they'll still be poor movies AFAIC. And yes, I'm aware that I take greater offense at preachiness than most people.

[DaShi]

Weighing a movie down with anti-corporatism is one of the basic components of good storytelling? I'm not opposed to conflict, I'm opposed to the villain being a clumsy stand-in for Wal-Mart, in the process making all the "human" characters significantly less human than the robots (who, despite their greater charm, are thrust into a helper status, acting in the interests of the far blander fatties in chairs). There would have been far greater conflict if the "villain" had been a living faction aboard the starship or something, instead of a rather mindless AI carrying on the orders of some long-dead CEOs. Where the movie succeeds, it succeeds in spite of the hippie crap.

[facepalm] Seriously? You didn't get that the movie was about robots? The reason that there was no human faction was because it was a movie about robots: Robot heroes, robot villians, robot flash mobs. The humans were background characters. That they were less human than the robots was the point.

Also, the Twilight series is a huge commercial success, so don't go throwing out that canard. The whole human race is free to disagree with me about any number of poor movies, but they'll still be poor movies AFAIC. And yes, I'm aware that I take greater offense at preachiness than most people.

Yes, but it wasn't a critical success. My point is that your judgement of films maybe flawed. Just because you alone consider something a poor movie, doesn't make it so. And why do I now feel like I'm talking to child?

[Riesstiu IV]

Say, Oerdin. Why does the state of Texas have twice the rate of population growth as the national average?

Mexicans.

[giblets]

Say, Oerdin. Why does the state of Texas have twice the rate of population growth as the national average?

Because it's next to Mexico? Most of the growth is hispanics. Next question.

edit: crosspost

[DaShi]

I thought it was because of the high teen pregnancy rate. But still, what does any of this have to do with Oerdin's post?

[giblets]

I thought it was because of the high teen pregnancy rate. But still, what does any of this have to do with Oerdin's post?

Apparently the faster your population grows, the better the government is. So African countries have the world's best governments.

[DaShi]

They also have strict anti-homosexuality laws. Seems like Sloww has found the perfect place to retire.

[The Mad Monk]

For all the talk about "small government conservatives" they never ever decrease the size of government and always demand the government get more involved in people's private lives. They just want government to get bigger in places they like; remember that next time some wing nut starts ranting about "the constitution" or "smaller government".

So anyway Texas is being dumb, as usual, and is repassing a sodomy law which the SCotUS has already thrown out for being unconstitutional. If that wasn't enough of a waste of tax payer dollars they're also passing laws to outlaw gay marriage (which is already illegal in Texas but Republicans so badly want people to know they oppose it they're outlawing it a second time), to criminalize priests who marry homosexual couples even though such marriage ceremonies aren't legally binding in Texas, and they want to outlaw oral sex for both straights and gays (the SCotUS has also ruled laws against oral sex are unconstitutional). So when a Republican rants about their supposed love of the constitution and small government please remember what they actually do when they're in power; pass laws the SCotUS have already said are unconstitutional and expand government to put government into people's bedrooms.

Unless they are also setting up a special agency to look in people's bedrooms, I'm not sure what this has to do with increasing the size of government.

[Felch]

Apparently the faster your population grows, the better the government is. So African countries have the world's best governments.

Um, yes. Haven't you ever played SimCity?

[Elok]

[facepalm] Seriously? You didn't get that the movie was about robots? The reason that there was no human faction was because it was a movie about robots: Robot heroes, robot villians, robot flash mobs. The humans were background characters. That they were less human than the robots was the point.

Mm-hmm. Then why was the whole second half of the movie an attempt to get the humans back to earth? The movie should have been about robots, but it wasn't. Wall-E's desire to get EVE back took the backseat to helping a bunch of fat, tedious degenerates too clueless to help themselves. They clearly attempted to humanize some of the humans--John, Mary and the Captain--but largely failed because the anti-corporate screed required them to be dull-witted, passive victims (who all looked alike, to boot). And the villain who provided the so-called "conflict" was the least human of the robots--smart enough to be devious in following orders, but not enough to show real emotions or any independent motive for carrying out an order which, ultimately, made no sense.

Yes, but it wasn't a critical success. My point is that your judgement of films maybe flawed. Just because you alone consider something a poor movie, doesn't make it so. And why do I now feel like I'm talking to child?

Because you're almost as smug and condescending as Oerdin? I understand that these are matters of opinion, not scientific facts. And in my opinion, Wall-E was at best a mediocre film, especially compared to other Pixar films like Up or Finding Nemo or Monsters, Inc.

EDIT: I hear Toy Story 3 was awesome too, but I haven't seen it. It's next on the Netflix queue, as it happens, and should arrive Tuesday.

[DaShi]

Mm-hmm. Then why was the whole second half of the movie an attempt to get the humans back to earth? The movie should have been about robots, but it wasn't. Wall-E's desire to get EVE back took the backseat to helping a bunch of fat, tedious degenerates too clueless to help themselves.

Because they needed to create a conflict that people could relate to. However, the romance between Wall-E and EVE never took a backseat. All of Wall-E's actions were to win over EVE. EVE's motivations were to do a good job according to her directive.

They clearly attempted to humanize some of the humans--John, Mary and the Captain--but largely failed because the anti-corporate screed required them to be dull-witted, passive victims (who all looked alike, to boot).

Again, that was the point. It was the people who became mindless automatons. It took the actions of the robots to change that. Seriously, why aren't you getting this?

And the villain who provided the so-called "conflict" was the least human of the robots--smart enough to be devious in following orders, but not enough to show real emotions or any independent motive for carrying out an order which, ultimately, made no sense.

He represented the robot's adherence to their directives in the extreme. Wall-E, the malfunctioning robots, and EVE (eventually) all broke free from their "programming" to represent the individuality that humanity lost.

If anything, the autopilot's presence was the most anti-liberal message in the film (the idea of an unemotional nanny who knew what was best for everyone).

Because you're almost as smug and condescending as Oerdin? I understand that these are matters of opinion, not scientific facts. And in my opinion, Wall-E was at best a mediocre film, especially compared to other Pixar films like Up or Finding Nemo or Monsters, Inc.

And I've stated that your stated reasons for disliking the movies seem to be more along the lines of your misunderstanding them and inability to relate to the characters and themes at the level that the vast majority has.

You're complaints just remind me of high school kids who simply don't like something because it is popular.

[Asher]

Texas

[MRT144]

Say, Oerdin. Why does the state of Texas have twice the rate of population growth as the national average?

Too stupid to use contraception?

[Riesstiu IV]

I have yet to teach a class without a pregnant girl or a single mother. Yay Texas!