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!

[–] DavidTL 13 years ago

Ok, lets say Walle is a Pixar remake in animation of 2001.
Remakes can still be better than the original.

And actually Walle has 231,686 votes and 2001: A Space Odyssey has 184,267, 47,419 votes less than Walle so that also is another reason.
If maybe it had the exact same votes maybe it would be the same or higher.

On Rotten Tomatoes they both have 96% (as of 6th August 2011, todays date as I write this)

The average rating for 2001 is 8.9/10 and the average rating for Walle is 8.5/10.

2001 has 52 "fresh" reviews and two "rotten".
Walle has 220 "fresh" and 9 "rotten".

Kind of a big differnece in "fresh" and slightly more rotten for "Walle".

Walle is also a newer film and they can keep track of mostly all the reviews much more than they could keep track of all of the 2001 reviews from 43 years ago.
Maybe if they do a big re-release people might go and give 2001 a new review and it might become popular again.

Also 2001 is practically a silent movie like Walle but is 2 hours, 20 minutes and Walle is 90 minutes. Both films are rated at a very low certificate but Walle is more child friendly and kids would enjoy it more. Even adults will probably enjoy Walle more.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mathknapp 13 years ago

This is why I sometimes get sick of posting on IMDB boards. You "mean no disrespect" but specifically call me a lazy-boy turd from Idiocracy for the grand sin of ... having my own opinion. How horrible and awful.

2001 changed the lives of Scorsese and Spielberg? Good for them. The movie spoke to them in a way it didn't to me. Does this mean that they are the only ones who are allowed an opinion in the matter? No.

This is the beauty of film, art, and intelligent debate that the greatness of a work is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly, to some extent there are universally accepted hierarchies (that The Godfather is a greater work of art than, say, Armageddon, for example), but who is to say that The Godfather is necessarily better or worse than say, On The Waterfront? Or how Lawrence of Arabia compares to, say, The Sound of Music? I'm sure you have your opinion, and perhaps you could even draw a consensus of many critics, but who is to say that means all critics and all viewers have to agree with that consensus? The fact that in Lawrence and Sound of Music I picked two films from such disparate genres only complicates the matter further.

Regarding 2001 and WallE specifically, while the influence of 2001 on WallE is undeniable, the two are from the same genre only on the surface. While they are both "sci-fi", WallE is at heart a family film and a romance. 2001 is highly stylized, and I suppose could be considered somewhere between a mystery and a thriller. As a romance, WallE works better than almost any other traditional romance movie I've seen. The low grade morons who abandon Earth in the movie are themselves a commentary on our society and where it may be headed. It is a brilliant piece of storytelling (you try getting 6 year olds to watch a wordless movie for 45 minutes and have them both enjoy it and understand it). 2001 is very artistic. It is very symbolic. Considering when it was made, the effects are marvelous. It is certainly a tremendously influential film, and deserves bonus points for that. But if you walk into the movie 45 minutes late, you still have not met the lead character, nor have you missed an appreciable amount of the plot. Yes, I'm sure you could lecture me about the artistic significance of the opening scenes ... but I see little way around the fact that it is poor storytelling, despite its merits in other areas. Much of the emotion and fear that could have been drawn out of the climax of 2001 (Open the pod bay doors HAL, and all that) was lost for me because the pace of the movie was so slow. I didn't need a car chase, and I realize in many scenes they move slow for authenticity in a zero-g environment but ... there's only so long I can hold onto the excitement of the scene.

In my own opinion, in the long line of Pixar successes that have been largely successful both popularly as well as critically, WallE stands not only at the head of the Pixar class, but with a significant margin between it and the rest of the pack. In my own opinion, WallE is brilliant in its own right, in a way that Ow My Balls will never be. Do I personally rate WallE higher than 2001? Yes. Do you have to agree with me? Most assuredly you do not, but I'd thank you for not counting me as an idiot because I happen to form my own opinions that disagree with your own.

[–] bubba_blais 13 years ago

poor storytelling? no real plot? very symbolic? are you still talking about 2001???

[–] oh_no_mrbill 11 years ago

But if you walk into the movie 45 minutes late, you still have not met the lead character, nor have you missed an appreciable amount of the plot.

I don't believe any one person (or computer) is the "lead character" in 2001. To me, the entire human race is the main character of the movie. That's why it begins with "Dawn of Man". Kubrick is telling the story of all humanity, and the plot consists of the history of man and a vision of what the future might hold. It also tackles the great questions: How did we get here? Where are we going? Is there purpose or meaning in human life? Is there a higher being that helped mankind to evolve? 2001 is not a plot-driven movie; it's much more like poetry.

[–] kaydenpat 10 years ago

Apart from insulting people, what are you producing?

And everyone doesn't have to love or even like 2001. You sound like a pretentious idiot.

[–] Madhaxman 13 years ago

Some one seems complete hurt by Wall-E. Wall-e surpasses its family friendly becomes a dystopian movie exploring the degragation of meaning in a world where everything is easy and no one has to face the consequences to their own actions.

Wall-E is on the TSPDT top 250 of the 21st century, so yeah, its still liked. Not as much as 2001, but not many films are. Wall-e is more accesable, which is why its above 2001 on this site

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] timothysimon 13 years ago

i am completely on the side of 2001 here..

to say it redefined filmmaking is an understatement. as an achievement it is hardly comprehensible how it was made in 1968. magical, difficult at times, thought-provoking, stunning. it dared to experiment and while its not one of my favourite films, i like it a lot and admire it.

as for wall-e, i hold the unpopular opinion that it is staggeringly overrated. everyone goes on about the romance aspect of it. i've seen similarly constructed romances in so many other animated films and lesser live action films. it is incredibly flat emotionally. the visuals are lovely and a great achievement but the film left me very cold. it is a very standard story and has been done so so so so many times. i have rated it 5/10 on imdb and stand by that. toy story is a much better pixar film. up is also well overrated.

2001 and walle cannot be compared.

"gentlemen make your lives extraordinary"

[–] TribeFan695 13 years ago

I'd like to know specific examples of this movie's story being done before. Seriously, I can't think of any.

[–] timothysimon 13 years ago

well the bare bones are:

wall e falls in love with eve.
eve is taken away from wall e
wall e decides to try and find her as his love is so strong for her
he spends a while searching
in the end it does work out. he saves the humans from their obesity and that new planet.
he and eve go about rejuvenating the planet.

i'm not saying i didn't actually enjoy the film. 5/10 really isn't terrible in my books. i don't think i was ever bored until the last segment when it became too predictable and the visuals were such that it was great to look at even if the story wasn't as impressive as i had hoped.

a lot of films fit the frame of this one. going back as far as chaplin and almost certainly earlier than his films. i'm thinking of city lights, modern times. hitchcock films like north by northwest, the graduate is quite a good example i think. there are a lot in my opinion but you may disagree with some of these films i've listed.
you could call the genre "love conquers all" and i'm not saying i dislike the genre but i was saying i've seen it done better. actually having thought more about the film, i think the romance at the beginning is rather sweet, it is just the storyline which seems to have been added in for the children is really quite contrived and dull.

i like imdb and i'm not here to insult the community but i don't take the rankings of the top 250 as much anyway, i see it as a good list to try out new films and see if i like them. it does well to resemble the taste of the majority of film fans and shows what kind of films they like currently. for example it is clear drive has been received very well as it shot into the 250 and looks like one i'd like to see.

the "they shoot pictures don't they?" top 1000 films is an excellent list in my opinion as it is compiled by hundreds and hundreds of critics and filmmakers and has a wonderful range of cinemas represented

"gentlemen make your lives extraordinary"

[–] TribeFan695 13 years ago

Well, the Chaplin influence hasn't been denied by the filmmakers, but it doesn't mean the film is completely derivative. None of his films put the romance in the context of a sci-fi/adventure.

I just can't see how any romance that contains a scene like "Define Dancing" can be described as flat.

[–] timothysimon 13 years ago

the characters are undoubtedly quite human andfor me the focus of the film is about their emotions and how they react with each other and their surroundings. so the fact it is in a scifi setting shouldn't make much difference. when walle began his search for eve I lost some interest because the rest of the film was suddenly mapped out. and I wouldn't have minded that if I had been more invested in the story of walle and eve but unfortunately I didn't have much affection for either, it seemed to be a relationship based on nothing but first sight and actually I found the repeated cries of "waaallleeeeeee" and "eevvaaaa??" to be a bit anooying. I am glad if you enjoyed the film though but on this occasion I don't feel like I'm missing too much and of late I've seen some wonderful films

"gentlemen make your lives extraordinary"

[–] Dr_Kronner 13 years ago

It's more enjoyable?

Kubrick made 2001 intentionally slow to simulate the loneliness of space.

2001 is great, but Wall-E is the better watch.

Please, check out our site - http://grizzlybomb.com/

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moserneely 13 years ago

Wow, kudos to everyone. This was a great thread with a lot of well written posts arguing both sides. Was a good read.

I'm in the "2001 is better but less appealing to the masses" camp. 2001 is actually my favorite movie, but WALL-E is in my top 5. I love 'em both.

[–] heat_effect 13 years ago

Because 2001 is fvcking boring, despite having a message.

[–] gtbarker 13 years ago

Because 2001 is old and Wall-E is newer and therefore better. That's the way the dumb old world works these days and that's also why the dumb old world doesn't work as well as it used to.

[–] cdan900 13 years ago

It doesn't really borrow anything from 2001 - one of the most overrated and nonsensical sci-fi movies ever made. Apart from the special effects (at that time) there's absolutely nothing impressive, interesting or clever about 2001, on the contrary, it's a complete mess, for people with low IQ's who like to use terms like "thought-provoking" when things don't make any sense whatsoever.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]