Pixar joins in on fat-bashing

1st November 2007

Pixar joins in on fat-bashing

*June 28 Update: This post was made during the film’s developmental stage. WALL-E has now been released in theaters and it appears as if Pixar has considerably reworked the show since the time of this post to tone down its negative and discriminatory portrayals of fat people. Still, stereotypes abound. For more information on this, see Daniel Engber’s “Fat-E” column on

Note the date of this post. The comments below reflect my views on Wall-E during its production stage in the fall at the time these posts were made. The film has changed considerably since then, therefore these are NOT my views of the version that has been released to the public. If you quote from this blog, be sure to note this important detail in your story or you will be deliberately quoting me out of context. If you would like my thoughts on the film released to the public, e-mail me at Rachel at the-f-word dot org.

I have to admit, Brandon and I found the movie Idiocracy to be mildly entertaining. It’s puerile, sure, but as social satire, Mike Judge’s dumbed-down dystopia as the result of dysgenics and cultural anti-intellectualism is not only clever and entertaining, but cautionary, as well.WALL-E Pixar Film exploits obese people

So, it might seem hypocritical my criticism of Disney/Pixar’s new film WALL-E slotted for a June, 2008 release.

The film, which is set 700 years in the future, portrays an environment so ravaged that humans have relocated to spaceships and have built robots like the main character WALL-E to collect trash.

But it’s not just the planet that’s trashed – humans themselves are nothing more than huge floating fat blobs who can only move because they sit in floating lounge chairs. Like Idiocracy, the film is being touted as an Orwellian cautionary tale as to the direction we’re going as a people.

A correspondent from CalorieLab (an anti-obesity, pro weight-loss site) enthusiastically viewed an early focus group screening of the film. He reported that the “very entertaining” film did indeed make a statement about the “fitness and the obesity crisis.” Given the nature of the CalorieLab website, I’m left to wonder if the rampant fat-bashing is what he found to be most entertaining.

“It shows a future in which mankind literally spends all day on a giant starship moving around in floating chairs, drinking liquified food from Big-Gulp-esque cups, and forever surfing (and chatting) on chair-mounted video screens,” says the source.

A section of the film reveals the history of mankind’s fall into sloth and fat: “There’s an amazing sequence where the camera pans over portraits of the previous captains of the ship – and we watch as they slowly devolve into amorphous blobs with each successive generation.”

The difference I see between a movie like Idiocracy (or classics like Player Piano, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, and 1984) is that these stories are grounded in very real and tangible conflicts, like class conflicts, rapidly advancing technology, the distribution of power, and/or threats to the social and cultural orders. No one group of people are made to blame – it’s a collective human downfall.

But WALL-E specifically singles out and targets obese people as the primary cause of mankind’s demise, further perpetuating the stereotype of the gluttonous, slothful fat person. Furthermore, the film suggests that, in their exaggerated laziness, obese people disregard not only personal health, but also that of the planets, and are held up as the cause for the destruction of the environmental landscape.

This is, despite mountains of evidence that show, as a group, fat people do not eat more than thin people, nor are they less active and that the so-called “obesity epidemic” has been greatly exaggerated by self-serving corporate interests. For more information on this, see any number of authors on the subject, including Gina Kolata, Paul Campos, or J. Eric Oliver, or Michael Gard and Jan Wright, or Glenn Gaesser, or Marilyn Wann, or Laura Fraser.

I really like Pixar, and I think their films’ messages of self-improvement are usually on spot. But frankly, I find the premise of this film to be neither entertaining nor positive. I also find it ironic that while Disney (who owns Pixar) says its working to promote diversity amongst its workforce, it’s simultaneously contributing to a culture that stigmatizes these differences.

If you’d like to voice your complaints or want to ask Pixar and/or Disney to clarify the issues raised, here’s some contact info:

Contact information for Pixar:

Pixar Animation Studios
122 Park Ave.
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 510-922-3000

The only email I could find for Pixar was for Invester Relations at

Pixar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney, so here’s contact info for Disney:

Press comments:

Disney CEO/President Robert Iger
500 S. Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521

Another site, Save Disney Shows, have set up an automated email form at where you can write one email and select a mass of Disney folk to send to.

Click to Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 1st, 2007 at 11:41 am and is filed under Arts and Music, Fat Bias, Pop Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

There are currently 34 responses to “Pixar joins in on fat-bashing”

Join the conversation! Post your comment below.

  1. 1 On November 1st, 2007, KarenElhyam said:

    I find that really troubling, because in their recent movie Ratatouille, I was really impressed by the character of the chef who had passed on, and would go on to be a ghostly inspiration to the main character. He was very fat, but not only was that never made an issue, he ended up being the moral compass for the film. It really broke from tradition. The bad guys were tiny and skinny, and the wise, Obi-Wan-like character was portly and loved food.

    It’s a shame this upcoming film is going to take such a drastic downturn from the positive portrayal in the previous film. I was really looking forward to this, too.

  2. 2 On November 1st, 2007, Becky said:

    Noooo, not Pixar! =(

  3. 3 On November 1st, 2007, Deniselle said:

    Very disappointing, but sadly not the first time I hear of a premise like this. It’s the same thing as people complaining about “corporate FAT cats”, or “fat capitalist pigs” who are ruining our world with their greed and/or gluttony. And destroying the planet. The huge diet industry, of course, is just helping us.

    I’ve actually been planning a dystopia about a future world (not too far in the future, maybe about 50 years) where obesity has been outlawed and people are monitored by the state and put into institutions if they’re “too fat”. Including children. My protagonist would be a slim woman whose sister has been taken into an institution as a child and hasn’t gotten out. I’m not sure if this would be too off-putting for any non-FA readers.

  4. 4 On November 1st, 2007, Wish said:

    Oh, this is so disappointing. I normally love Pixar’s movies; the only issue I’ve ever had with them is that all of the protagonists thus far has been male. But this really does just make me so sad, to see one of the best producers of family films in America feeding into stereotypes and further warping children’s minds.

  5. 5 On November 1st, 2007, Jessie Mae said:

    I think that Pixar may actually be having a large portion of Wall-E rewritten, so the offensive parts may not actually be in there when it hits theatres. I’ve heard that the movie doesn’t make a lot of sense in general, which may be part of why the trailers for it are so vague.

    Anyway, I certainly hope it will be changed. That kind of fat bashing is so disappointing. Plus from a story telling viewpoint, it seems really lazy.

  6. 6 On November 1st, 2007, Rachel said:

    Jessie- The CalorieLab article I linked to discusses this. It seems Pixar realizes that the key to financial profitability is to not offend a great majority of our audience.

    I can understand their angle on consumerism destroying the planet – but wtf do they have to take cheap shots at fat people to prove their point? Consumerism has nothing to do with one’s weight.

  7. 7 On November 1st, 2007, Jessie Mae said:

    Ah. I missed where the issue was addressed.

    I think that the use of fat people to represent consumerism is just lazy storytelling. Obviously consumerism isn’t related to weight, but because there is that false connection in existence in the minds of a lot of the general public, it’s an easy representation to use. It’s wrong, but it’s also something that people will catch on to. I’m not defending them. I think it’s reprehensible. But the process of putting out an animated movie has been sped up so much in the recent past that there are a lot of people willing to cut corners and fall back on plugging hateful stereotypes into their scripts rather than take the time to come up with a recognizable but true representations.

  8. 8 On November 2nd, 2007, Anne said:

    To me, the premise is as offensive as if they had cast the “lazy citizens” as black people floating around on watermelons perpetually eating fried chicken.

  9. 9 On November 2nd, 2007, AJ said:

    Anyone seen the film yet? No? Well then don’t necessarily believe the assessment of someone else who hasn’t seen the film either.

  10. 10 On November 2nd, 2007, Rachel said:

    AJ – No, I haven’t seen the film, but if you had actually read my post above, you’ll see that I quote someone who HAS seen the film.

    And furthermore, if you read on, you will see that Pixar is already wavering on their decision to depict future mankind as a lot of fat, irresponsible “blobs.” What better way to sway Pixar’s decision than to NOW voice our opposition to the perpetuation of fat-based stereotypes? There’s not much we can do AFTER the film has been released.

    It’s called common sense. You should really try some.

  11. 11 On November 2nd, 2007, Person said:

    >> AJ – No, I haven’t seen the film, but if you had actually read my post
    >> above, you’ll see that I quote someone who HAS seen the film.

    I don’t know, this sounds too much like broken telephone. You are interpreting something that someone else has already interpreted, without seeing the original source material. What if he was wrong? What if he never actually saw the film and made the whole thing up? What if he misunderstood something? What if he walked away from the screening with a different interpretation than you would if you’d seen it? I’d wait to see the film, then form a proper opinion based on first hand knowledge.

  12. 12 On November 2nd, 2007, Remi said:

    This sounds too much like bashing a book by people who haven’t read it. See Right, Christian and Potter, Harry.

    My understanding of the reason for the humans’ gelatinous appearance is their evolution in an environment without gravity. That is their bone mass is so reduced that people appear blob-like. The cause isn’t idleness or overconsumption (even if resource depletion and or pollution is the inital cause for earthlings to go into space) it’s the lack of gravity. Lacking skeletons, humans need robot assistants to do everything for them. The story is a comment on overreliance on others and technology to take care of us. We are service-based economy and the story as I understand it (again, without having seen it) is a distopian take on what happens when everything is served and nothing is earned.

    I hope we can give the movie a chance before trashing it or demanding script changes. Do you really like the idea of art being managed and determined by focus groups? Let the movie stand as is. If it is in fact offensive to you by all means protest. But to try to change the course of a creative work before completion seems a betrayal.

    Now if you do think movies (and such) should be filtered by multiple groups to screen out offensive material, then write your emails. Just don’t expect great quality.

  13. 13 On November 2nd, 2007, Rachel said:

    AJ – I hope we are wrong about the film. I would love to hear that the correspondent who saw the film was entirely off-base in his interpretation or was being disingenuous. I doubt that he is wrong, but let’s concede that he is. So, what harm then is done by sending letters of objection to Disney? Disney will see our letters, and if they are irrelevant, they will either ignore them or, in good customer service, will send the submitter a response clarifying the film’s position.

    But if his interpretations are accurate assessments of the film, it does little good to address the discriminatory nature of the film AFTER it has been released.

    Remi – That’s your take on the film. Others have the same right to interpret the film differently. Their interpretations are no less valid than yours. As for your so-called cries of censorship…

    Would you be so willing to let the film stand as is if it showed a stereotypical portrayal of black people as a mass of welfare-dependent, watermelon-eating, criminally-prone lazy bottom feeders?

    How about if it showed Jewish people as a group of greedy, rich bankers who abduct Christian children in order to drink their blood?

    And I guess if the film showed Hispanic people as a class of sneaky, taco-chomping, thieving, wife-beating, tax-evading, illegal-border-crossing Mexicans, that would be okay too, huh?

    This isn’t about censorship. This is about pointing out and objecting to the discrimination and stigmatization of groups of people. People, as in human beings with thoughts, feelings, emotions… do you not get it? This film has the very real possibility to hurt PEOPLE.

    Not to mention, these kinds of ideas contribute to a society in which teen girls would rather lose an eye or a limb than get fat. It is no coincidence that the rates of eating disorders are rising exponentially to the anti-obesity hysteria.

    If we don’t speak out, we are only passively accepting prejudice. While you might be okay with the further oppression of an already marginalized group of people, I’m not. Creative license is not a license to harm people.

  14. 14 On November 2nd, 2007, AJ said:

    Here’s a little common sense for ya, Rachel:

    The person who claims to have seen a preview (a small portion of the film — because the film isn’t even done yet) has misunderstood an element of the plot. These people are not FAT, as Remi clearly states. They are shaped like blobs.

    Also, I hope you enjoyed this opportunity to list all of these hurtful stereotypes that you hold about Blacks, Jews, and Mexican Americans. Did you really need to say all of these things to make your point?

  15. 15 On November 2nd, 2007, Remy said:

    At what point did I say I was “okay with further oppression of a marginalized group of people?”

    If you lack a skeleton, how exactly are you supposed to appear? Are Jellyfish (or representations thereof) now deemed offensive?

    You are saying it’s alright to change the course of a piece of art because you think the content might offend you. Here are some pieces of art that would be a little different if we followed that rule (and I am following the groups you listed):

    The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

    Merchant of Venice (of course Shylock’s “pound of flesh” could offend for multiple reasons)

    Touch of Evil

    And last did any of you see Ratatouille? How were obese characters portrayed in that Pixar offering? August Gusteau is clearly overweight and is an overwhelmingly heroic figure in the film. It is the thin characters who are largely made fun of (see the critic, Anton Ego and the head chef Skinner. Linguine is likable but is somewhat of a bufoon). Thin characters do not come off well. Food and it’s consumption are celebrated.

    Creative license actually is a license to offend. Without offense we have no tension. Without tension we have no art. We will not all agree who the villains are in art or who should be satirized, and if every creative work is subject to focus groups, nothing edgy will ever get made.

  16. 16 On November 2nd, 2007, Rachel said:

    AJ – The fact that the point continues to elude you only goes to show that nothing will make it clear enough.

    If you want to be ignorant, by all means, revel in it. But I’m done providing a platform for your inanity.

  17. 17 On November 2nd, 2007, Rachel said:

    Remi – What, are you and AJ attached at the hip? Post in pairs?

    You are saying it’s alright to change the course of a piece of art because you think the content might offend you.

    Sigh, again, you missed the point. And since I don’t think you will ever quite *get* the point, it’s little use trying to explain it to you in even elementary terms.

    You and AJ can continue your conversation on how wonderful and “edgy” it is to discriminate and harm groups of people on your own dollar.

  18. 18 On November 2nd, 2007, Abie said:

    I have it on good word from someone who has seen the movie that it’s
    fantastic. From what I understand, the film is not about obesity,
    it’s not about the destruction of the Earth, it’s a romantic comedy
    that speaks to the perseverance of the human spirit. Some people very
    well may find reasons to dislike anything. It’s easy to be overly
    sensitive, pick things apart and completely miss the point. I’d
    implore you to not jump to conclusions. I sincerely doubt that
    there’d be anything of poor taste in this movie.

    Pixar takes chances on stories. Instead of applying a formula and
    pumping out sequels (fat green ogre anyone?), they give us things that
    are new. It seems to me that they’re really taking a chance and doing
    something different with this movie. That’s to be commended,
    especially in this day. Not playing it safe. So, I propose we don’t
    judge a book by it’s cover and save the stone throwing for later.
    Otherwise, we jeopardize destroying something before really knowing
    what it’s about.

  19. 19 On November 2nd, 2007, Cindy said:

    How can you rally the troops based on third-hand information? Shouldn’t you be more careful about your sources?

    I’m body-positive / fat-positive too but your initial post just reeks of lazy scholarship.

    Norbit…I could understand why that film may be offensive to some.

    Wall-E? Hmmm. I don’t think you’re on the mark with this one.

    FWIW, you introduced the race analogies as part of your argument. When AJ called you on it, you dismissed him (her?) with words like ‘ignorant’ and ‘inanity’.


  20. 20 On November 2nd, 2007, Rachel said:

    Abie – Like I said, I sincerely hope that I and the sources I quoted are proven wrong on this one. Pixar has always shown itself to be a company of high standards, which makes both the alleged premise of this film to so surprising and explains why so many people are reluctant to believe it. But until we find out from Disney/Pixar whether the allegations are true, I’m not going to dismiss them, either. Frankly, I don’t see why you and a handful of others are opposed to asking Disney to clarify how it portrays fat people in this film. I think it’s perfectly rational to do so.

    Cindy – I dismissed AJ because he obviously didn’t get the point of why I made the analogies. These aren’t stereotypes I hold to be true, as AJ claims, they’re common stereotypes used to perpetuate the discrimination of various racial/ethnic classes – gee, much like that of the gluttonous, lazy fat person. I introduced them as an analogy, not a statement of fact. He, like you, failed to grasp the intent.

    And you say you’re body- and fat-positive yet you don’t object to stereotyping of fat people as lazy gluttons?


    Who needs the anti-obesity establishment to persecute fat people when we have so-called fat-positive advocates like you.

  21. 21 On November 2nd, 2007, Kate Harding said:

    Do you really like the idea of art being managed and determined by focus groups?

    I just have to single that out as especially hilarious, among several hilarious comments by your new trolls, Rachel. Because heaven knows, there’s no way the studio will be subjecting this to actual focus groups; it’s fat-positive blogs that are the enemies of art.

    Boy, it’s tough to determine who gets the Missing the Point Award of the day here. Such strong contenders, all around.

  22. 22 On November 2nd, 2007, Fillyjonk said:

    Good god. I want to chime in here, but I just can’t get over how incredibly worked up people are getting over the fact that Rachel dared to cast aspersions upon a cartoon. I’m talking people who are clearly spending their time looking for folks talking shit about a cartoon on the internet.

    Now, I really like Pixar and I hope this one turns out good. The idea of boneless jellyfish people is pretty cool to me. I don’t have any particular opinions about the film right now because HELLO CARTOON. Better things to troll the internet about, you know?

    But here’s what I do have a strong opinion about: offensive stereotypes are offensive no matter how good of an excuse you have. The crows in Dumbo? They’re an offensive stereotype. Sure, the film’s not ABOUT race relations, and the crows aren’t REALLY black people, and maybe Disney had a great back story laid out for why they looked and talked the way they did, something that had nothing to do with contemporary cartoonish stereotypes of blacks. But all that doesn’t really matter, does it?

    Similarly, if it’s very clear in the film that we’re talking about people who are boneless because of the lack of gravity, okay, that’s an interesting sci-fi concept. If we see blobbish people lolling on couches eating bonbons, then you will NEVER convince me that this has nothing to do with current offensive stereotypes about another group of people lolling on couches eating bonbons, just because the movie’s not about fat people. Doesn’t matter whether that’s the point or not; if it trades on an offensive image, no matter how good the justification, it’s offensive.

    In other words, if it turns out to be the latter scenario, Pixar may not be making a deliberate point about fatties. But they are making use of a widespread false and offensive stereotype to get laughs. Maybe that’s not how the film is, and I hope not, and I’m not going to boycott Pixar or anything until I see trailers and read reviews (note that Rachel is calling for no such thing). But neither will I let them off the hook if they make an offensive stereotype tangential to the plot instead of central.

  23. 23 On November 2nd, 2007, Quiwi said:

    To the person who originally posted this story, I agree that early intervention is much better than remaining silent after the damage has already been done. It’s amazing how people brush off potential discriminatory issues as nonsensical paranoia- when it doesn’t apply to them, of course. “Oh, it’s not so bad, fat people are seen as fat slobs anyway, no harm done. Besides, if we don’t insult people, I fear we’ll lose our ‘edge’ in artistic expression!!” Please. If anyone truly believes that, I implore them to please lay off the pipe, because they’re killing both of their common sense braincells.
    With freedom of expression comes responsibility, and that includes avoiding the blatant offense of a segment of people. Some people do take the possible implications of this film seriously. Yeah, I hope that Pixar’s intent truly is to entertain, not to offend, but I for one am sick to death of the so-called entertainment industry’s portrayal of fat folk as weak-willed, useless gluttons. I would like to help prevent the further prevalence of a very false assumption.

  24. 24 On November 4th, 2007, Jackie said:

    Hmm, this certianly sounds like a interesting contraversy. I think it does really depend on if Pixar is using people as blobs as an example of what would happen if people lived in space, or as a example of the negative stereotypes about fat people.

    Frankly, I’m kind of torn between the issue. The concept as Remi describes it, does sound interesting. I also have a hard time beliving Pixar has writers that are so stupid as to make something that is little more than fat-hate propaganda. I think I’ll need to see what develops further down the line to really tell if it’s something I can get offended over.

  25. 25 On November 4th, 2007, Jackie said:

    Well the more I hear about this film, I think it can be considered sizeist. I have a hard time really being certain about it.

    It seems they are claiming laziness is the downfall of mankind. Thin or fat people can be lazy. Perhaps the end result supposedly is everyone is obese, or appear obese due to lack of gravity.

    It seems more like a criticism on how people don’t really have communities anymore. How most people know more people on the net than they do in their own neighborhood.

    I also find it hard, given that some of the creators in Pixar are overweight themselves, that they would be willing to make such an egregious statement. Also, it says in the teaser that the film idea was conceived of 4 years ago, before the Obesity crises became as big of a deal that it is now.

    I mean, I’m willing to hear a response on this, because as a sci-fi fan, I am pretty open minded towards crazy ideas of what the future might bring. Perhaps the film is being unfairly dragged into the contraversy of sizeism, because reviewers are too ignorant to find another word to describe round people other than fat.

    I think the main concept behind the film, is that EVERYONE, fat or thin should become more involved with society and the issues surrounding helping keep the Earth green.

  26. 26 On November 4th, 2007, Rachel said:

    The whole “humans are fat blobs due to a lack of gravity” argument seems a bit more convoluted for audiences to swallow than, given the tone of the anti-obesity hysteria currently, portraying them as fat and lazy.

    I mean, do you really think that a general audience, upon seeing a fat blob “drinking liquified food from Big-Gulp-esque cups, and forever surfing (and chatting) on chair-mounted video screens” is going to first think “Oh, wow, so that’s what gravity does to humans!” or are they going to think “Wow, so that’s what the obesity epidemic will do to humans!”

    This interpretation isn’t based on the sole opinion of one possibly biased person who has seen the film. According to a review from, the clip:

    “showed a big plaza where dozens of these couch potato humans were moving about in their hoverchairs. The next clip showed one human attempting to roll out of his chair and falling on the ground. Humans are big and fat, but not quite blobs or mutants. Just fat humans.”

    Nor is it my perception only. As VPW notes at :

    “I haven’t seen the clip, but going from this source, it doesn’t seem that the human race will be evolving into a gelatinous jellyfish-like race with no bones. It just seems like the film is saying that fat people are so gluttonous and lazy that we will destroy the Earth.”

    In any case, I’m still waiting to hear back from Disney with a clarification on its portrayal.

  27. 27 On November 5th, 2007, Mike D said:

    Rachel – You mentioned blacks and hispanics in your example of potential predjudice. Race is something that you have no control over, like your gender, height or sexuality. (You also mentioned Jews, but religion is a whole different topic for debate.) The difference between this and weight is that everybody has some degree of control over their weight. While genetics definitely play a role, some part of your weight is tied to your level of exercise, diet, willpower and ability to understand this causal relationship.

    The depiction of humanity descending into a species of lazy, gluttonous, excessive consumers is not unlikley to be predjudicial against overweight people in today’s society. From my understanding (having not seen the film) the “people” in the film barely resemble people from reality. I also understand that the robot is meant to be the protagonist in the film and humans are the antagonist. Using fat, lazy blobs to represent people is most likely a story-telling tool to distance the audience from the bad guys, because it’s a less effective story if people identify with the bad guys.

    I think some people are being a bit precious and overly sensitive and I’d suggest hardening up.

  28. 28 On November 5th, 2007, Rachel said:

    The difference between this and weight is that everybody has some degree of control over their weight.

    Mike D – And your point is? It’s okay to discriminate against people because they “chose” to become fat and lazy? People choose religion, too, but you seem to give religious folk a pass. But since fat people just can’t seem to get this “causal relationship” of exercise, diet and willpower, they’re open game, right?

    Wrong. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how much you try to minimalize it. Let’s say someone did “choose” to become fat – are they any less deserving of basic human rights?

    And quite frankly, it’s beyond rude to come onto a eating disorders awareness and pro body-acceptance site and start spouting off about diet and willpower. Many of the people who visit this site regularly have willpower like you wouldn’t believe, Mike. In fact, my willpower almost killed me.

  29. 29 On November 5th, 2007, Quiwi said:

    To Mike D:
    People who are willing to speak up for something that they feel is wrong aren’t exactly spineless, perpetually fragile beings. People who remain silent and take no action, especially when they have been wronged, are called pushovers. Last I checked, people of size are pretty darn hard to knock down. When you hear and see every single day how much society hates your appearance, developing a thick skin comes pretty naturally.

  30. 30 On November 5th, 2007, Rachel said:

    If anyone has additional comments on the issue of Pixar’s film WALL-E, please make them at this follow-up post: Spineless

  31. 31 On June 25th, 2008, Spineless » said:

    [...] my post on Pixar’s upcoming film WALL-E has garnered strong reviews across the spectrum. I must admit, I was rather surprised by the hordes [...]

  32. 32 On July 2nd, 2008, Wall-E Madness « Boobs i haz dem said:

    [...] F-Word also had some negative things to say, and urged readers to write into Pixar about Wall-E, although the writer here is outraged because the feel the film makes the [...]

  33. 33 On July 11th, 2008, Wall-E revisited » said:

    [...] two posts — here and here – on Pixar’s Wall-E last fall drew strong reactions across the spectrum. At the [...]

  34. 34 On November 5th, 2010, Fat! Lazy! Humans! Destroy the Earth: Wall-E does not compute « Two Whole Cakes said:

    [...] her incisive and detailed analysis of how this sort of portrayal advances damaging fat stereotypes here & here. We pulled from the exact same article even, so I’m kind of stunned my google [...]

  • The-F-Word on Twitter

  • Categories

Socialized through Gregarious 42