MovieChat Forums > WALL·E (2008) Discussion > Why is it higher rated than 2001 when it...

Why is it higher rated than 2001 when it borrows so much from it?

posted 14 years ago by jd1995
65 replies | jump to latest

The fact that when it borrows so much from 2001 but is higeher rated is just stupid in my opinion, I know that it was much easier to understand and that 2001 isn't for everyone and I know that it was probably just paying homage to 2001: a space odyssey but it is just a bit much with the the same long openening without words and the villian basically being exactly the same as HAl. But I just think that imdb voters seem to have a preference towards pixar movies over other movies. I know they are quite enjoyable but they are not amazing movies with the odd exception. This is also the worst pixar movie I have seen in my opinion so I do not understand the rave reviews it gets.

No time for the old in-out, love. I've just come to read the meter!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TribeFan695 14 years ago

2001 had a glacial pace and nauseating visuals, two things this movie does not have.

[–] armanmarok 13 years ago

Exactly.

[–] hellblade 12 years ago

"2001 had a glacial pace and nauseating visuals"

I've never been to outer space, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly how it would feel to actually be there.

[–] rallyinthestreets 12 years ago

2001 has among the greatest visuals in cinema history. That is undisputable. Wall-E, meanwhile, after an intriguing first half hour or so, cops out and turns into a pretty generic Disney/Pixar narrative. Not impressive.

(**)

[–] mathknapp 14 years ago

Do I give a fair answer, or a sarcastic one?

The more sarcastic answer is that IMDB voters, by and large, are regular folks, not critics or cinephiles -- and WallE is a heck of a lot easier to watch than 2001. It's funnier, more exciting, faster paced, and appeals to a broader audience.

More fair? IMO, WallE is a better movie. You clearly don't like it, calling it the worst Pixar film you've seen. I'd go the opposite and call it the best Pixar film I've seen ... and by a significant margin. Somehow, WallE created one of the best movie romances I've seen in the last 15 years with animated robots. The humor was broad at times and subtle at others (the only life left on Earth is a cockroach?). In 2001 the long interludes without dialogue occasionally serve to make you forget that there actually is a story going on. In WallE, the long interludes without dialogue actually serve to enhance the story and your emotional connection to the characters. Yes, it does steal a ton from 2001, but WallE is a masterpiece in its own right. I'm OK with it being a case of the student passing the master.

[–] jd1995 14 years ago

Fair enough I see your point. I thought Wall-E was quite good when I first saw it in theatres, I hadn't seen 2001 at that point. It was only recently that I thought about how similar it was and that put me off it. I do see the good points in Wall-E and I see the negatives in 2001 and I just think the later is the better movie, but that is just my opinion and I see why you would disagree.

No time for the old in-out, love. I've just come to read the meter!

[–] JPfanatic93 14 years ago

Because it's basically more fun, less pretentious and less boring. And that's what attracts crowds and popularity these days.

[–] rallyinthestreets 12 years ago

I'd say Wall-E is less interesting, less exciting, and more boring than 2001 on account of the very generic narrative it falls into after its faaar more intriguing opening sequences.

(**)

[–] DisturbedPixie 13 years ago

How can you go from thinking it's quite good to thinking it's one of the worse Pixar films?

[–] BornTooCool 13 years ago

Pixar has made some of the best films of the past 15 years. They are just that consistent and good... So, looking at Toy Story (any of them), Finding Nemo (just amazing in so many ways), and the Incredibles, I could see someone putting it under those. And Up are incredible too, nearly perfect as a story--Up's problem was literally that it was too perfect a story and it felt contrived and too affective. Everyone cried at Up... all the dudes were trying to hide it when I saw it, and this was the first 10 minutes!

I think this new movie about feminine power will be their worst yet. That said, I never watched Cars...

[–] existance 13 years ago

The more sarcastic answer is that IMDB voters, BUY N LARGE, are regular folks, not critics or cinephiles -- and WallE is a heck of a lot easier to watch than 2001. It's funnier, more exciting, faster paced, and appeals to a broader audience.

Pun intended?

[–] deadbunny28 12 years ago

Thats something...for me I found parts of 2001 humorous, as a whole I got more laughs than I did from Wall-E...2001 was way more exciting, especially the ending-for Wall-E I had to keep myself from nodding off and trying to keep myself to keep caring...faster paced is not always a good thing, 2001 was paced rather well, especially considering its length, Wall-E I thought actually faltered when it's pace picked up...audience should broaden their appeal not the other way around...I feel my counter argument was fair...

[–] Towelie_Towel 14 years ago

Why is The Departed rated higher than the original "Internal Affairs" when it borrows, basically, the story and all that from it?

Wall-E just borrows references and themes from 2001, but from an animated love story with robots to a psychological and full of other themes movie is clearly a long way.

[–] viktor_habbohotel 14 years ago

2001 was the most boring movie I've ever seen, and trust me, I usually prefer the classics, but god damn, 40 minutes into that movie and literally nothing had happened, so I shut it off. Wall-e on the other hand managed to be entertaining all throughout the movie.

[–] dssadhyapak 9 years ago

True. 2001 was the most boring piece of s*it eve

[–] Tychoxz 14 years ago

A)WALLE doesn't "borrow so much" from 2001, it just pays homage with a few allusions. The entirety of WALLE is much distinct from 2001, just as Citizen Kane is from Toy Story.
B) To compare rating between films is largely stupid. There's no real difference between WALLE's 8.5 and 2001's 8.4!!! If the difference was by 2 points or larger I would concede that there is something there (even though the newer the film the more over-rated it is). Given they are both great movies I think their respective ratings are quite ok.
C) WALLE is a real horrorshow film, Pixar's best.

[–] jajceboy 14 years ago

Because Wall-E has something that appeals to the masses?
Because it is more understandable?
Because its funnier?
Because its better?

[–] dylank381 13 years ago

Just wanted to that your use of the word horrorshow without making a big deal out of it made my day. Thank you

"This is a $4000 sofa upholstered in Italian silk. Its not just a couch"
"ITS JUST A COUCH!"

[–] KnightSolaire 14 years ago

Wow, certainly did not expect responses such as these. Sure, Wall-E is an excellent animated film, perhaps Pixar's best I agree, but like the OP I too don't think it's fair to compare a film animated for children to one of the most influential films in cinema history. 2001: A Space Odyssey may be boring to some, it may not be as filled with innocent humor like Wall-E, but it is what it is, and that is one of the greatest and most innovative motion pictures ever made. After 50 years, it is still remembered and referenced in most sci-fi productions, and I'm not sure I can say the same for Wall-E.

"Don't cut me off like that, it's rude!"

[–] Grizzly_McThornbristle 13 years ago

I too don't think it's fair to compare a film animated for children to one of the most influential films in cinema history.

Why? Animated for children, or just people in general?

Life is a disease: sexually transmitted, and invariably fatal. - Neil Gaiman

[–] Maserati7777 13 years ago

The film may have been advertised for children, but it certainly wasn't made for children.

The film, like Up had elements about it that could only be noticed by adults.

Haley Reinhart: Actually had a Moment in Season 10
Maserati777

[–] splishsplash333 14 years ago

I think it's because 2001 is more intellectually stimulating, which is something many people might not 'get' and dismiss it as boring or weird. Wall-E has a more defined story, which makes it more family friendly, and family friendly movies tend to reach the masses. I saw Wall-E before I saw 2001, and I enjoyed 2001 more, but I still like both of them.
I assume from your username that you're a big Kubrick fan (as am I), so I understand the irritation that Wall-e received so much praise when much of it was inspired by another film. Kubrick was one of the most influential directors ever, and I think his style and techniques have made other filmmakers want to emulate it.

[–] arubi2 14 years ago

A lot of people, even veteran critics, hated 2001. Which is quite understandable, it's not for everyone. Wall-E is a film that all ages can enjoy.

This isn't the worst Pixar film, in my opinion it's the third best, just below Ratatouille and Toy Story 3. The history of film is all about influencing and borrowing. I don't see anything wrong with having similar plot lines or similar techniques employed.

Frankly these IMDB ratings are stupid and irrelevant. Trolls and haters can vote 1 star for a film any time just by having an email account. IMDB is a site where Inception, The Shawshank Redemption and Fight Club are considered the greatest films ever made whereas Bicycle Thieves, The 400 Blows and His Girl Friday rank lower and relevant films like Point Blank and Breathless don't even make the cut. Which goes to show how heavily this site is filled with fanboys and popcorn moviegoers.