I appreciated this article, because as much as I loved Wall-E, it is refreshing to read something examining a point of view other than pure unadulterated awe. Additionally, I followed most of the links, and found the "Junkfood Science" article especially interesting. And I did walk out of the theater behind an overweight blonde man with a buzz cut--wearing a red jacket--and I did draw a comparison between the man and the John character in the film, and I felt awful about it, and for him, if he felt singled.

Yet, I have to agree with most of the others posting and say, this article is really stretching the facts to find a devil's advocate position for popular response to Wall-E.Obesity rates are increasing as our lifestyles become more sedentary; obesity rates being higher in the poorest areas corresponds to those area's lack of access to affordable health food and relying on packaged foods (plus a lack of leisure time to devote to yogilates and a slew of other factors that mainly relate to lifestyles, rather than genetics--neither of which has much to do with willpower, but rather, the circumstances into which one is born); the dual threats of environmental damage and an overreliance on technology, as well as the subsidiary threat of obesity, can all be linked without absolutley relying on each other--all threats may become a reality if things continue as they are in today's world.

Books like 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451 chose several vices threatening humanity and exagerrated them. They were also controversial, so perhaps it's a testament to Wall-E's quality? But it's unfair to say that a movie is dangerous for implying that people may eventually become fat and lazy, or that eventually, the world may be covered in trash. That is where we are headed, and it's far far far more dangerous to deny the path we are on than to fantasize about where it may lead.