So there have been a few Wall-E postings before but I found this article/clip about the idea behind the design of Wall-E…clearly Pixar does their homework. I love these behind the scenes types of things. I am looking forward to seeing how they put it all together.
Thanks for the link. I am really looking forward to this movie. I am already in love with Wall-E.
I’m seeing it in… <checks watch> …five hours. I’m pretty excited, this looks like a good one.
Whoever made Short Circuit should sue.
I’ll bet that WALL-E’s eyes are a tribute to #5.
if WALL-E exclaims “no disassemble!” or “Hey Laserlips. Your mama was a snowblower”, I’m throwing a tomato at the screen.
According to director Andrew Stanton the main inspiration was a pair of binoculars that could appear happy or sad depending on how you hinged them.
Thanks for this! 
I am completely in love with Wall-E already and am counting the days until the 27th.
My personal rule is: It it is a Pixar film, see it the first day.
Even the weakest Pixar film (Cars, for me) is still better than virtually all animated films and most films of any type.
Exactly what I came in to say. Aren’t the robots, like, IDENTICAL?
No. Other than the stereo vision and tank treads, they have no real resemblance.
Johnny 5 has no “body” between his tank treads. There’s just a cylinder that connects to another vertical cylinder, then an “elbow” that connects to another cylinder to which are mounted his two arms and head.
Wall-E is a box with tank treads attached near the bottom, arms attached to the upper sides and a head attached to the top.
Any robot intended to work in a human world is going to have stereo cameras and general purpose “arms”. Tank treads are optional, but it’s much less energy consuming than wheels and is the best option in a rough environment. The shades on Johnny 5’s cameras are a silly affectation
Its a good thing each movie’s promotional materials are so different, or I’d be really confused which character was which.
Pixar is like sex. There’s good Pixar and there’s bad Pixar, but even the bad Pixar is still pretty good.
Gee, you’re right, different head, different body, different arms, and vaguely similar tank treads. Impossible to tell them apart once you look at them both.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved the Short Circuit movies, but the only way these two look alike is if you haven’t seen anything for one of the movies in about 10 years, or if you’re not terribly detail oriented. They’re about as similar as R2D2 and a Dalek.
And if they do look similar, eh, so what? They’re both robots, and both designed to be cute and anthropomorphic to varying degrees. The plots of the movies look fairly different to me, and that’s the important part here as long as Pixar keeps up it’s thus-far pretty stellar record for quality in movie making.
Just got back from it, and it’s really good. I don’t know where I’d rank it just yet, since it’s still so fresh for me, but it’s definitely one of their better movies. I will say one thing: I was surprised at how much live action footage there was in it for a Pixar movie.
The trailer bugs me. I’m turned off by the scenes that appear to show him falling in love with a “female” robot. That makes no sense.
It’s contrary to everything we know about sentient robots!
Anthropomorphic toys? No problem. Anthropomorphic insects? Sure. Anthropomorphic fish? Sign me up. Anthropomorphic vehicles? Yup. Anthropomorphic rats? Here’s my ticket. Anthropomorphic robots? No dice, sparky. That wouldn’t make sense.
All the Pixar films get released in my part of the world three whole months at least after the US.
I blame Disney for such unholy madness.
That robot is about the cutest damn thing I’ve ever seen.