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

What Pixar films have you seen? What films did you see before you posted your op?


Cars 2 came out after you posted and most consider that to be the worst Pixar film, I do too but even I'd give that film a C+.



Haley Reinhart: Actually had a Moment in Season 10
Maserati777

In my most humble opinion this movie is not bad but I agree with you it is unfair that 2001 has a much lower rating than this movie. But you must think of something if you ask an average person about 2001 he/she will say the movie is boring and will say that Wall-e is so cute and sweet. We have gotten to a time in which visuals and stealing the stories of old movies is the way to succeed and originality + powerful story is not enough to satisfy the public. You have to get use to it.

It doesn't steal from 2001: it references it. There's a BIG difference.

And the other answer is that IMDB's ratings are not really that well connected to the actual quality of the movies. 2001 was groundbreaking in hundreds of ways, and is one the best & most important films ever made. WALL-E is newer, has been seen by more, and has more mass appeal.

Honestly, IMDB rankings are little more valuable than the People's Choice awards. You don't really think Shawshank is the best movie ever made, do you? Inception was good, but it's a joke to even put it in the top 100. There are lots of these examples. You also have to consider that IMDB is largely a tool of the movie studios to help promote their industry--just like all the awards shows.

Anyway, you just can't take IMDB rankings seriously.

I love when imdbers ask these questions w/o bothering to look at the statistics. Well, maybe I shouldn't assume most of you know statistics. Wall-E's overall rating exceeds 2001's due to a sort of Self-selection Bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

Statistics ... (I assume these dont add to 100% b/c many ppl dont disclose. BY extension, I guess I am assuming those who didnt disclose are roughly equally distributed age-wise as those who did.)

Wall-E % of voters by age (roughly)
< 18 = 3%
18 - 29 = 60%
29 - 44 = 25%
45 & up = 5%

2001 % of voters by age (roughly)
< 18 = 1%
18 - 29 = 40%
29 - 44 = 30%
45 & up = 10%

Why does this matter? b/c voters under 29 almost always vote higher than older voters. So, Wall-E has more younger voters so it gets a higher OVERALL rating.

Extra credit problem: look at the rating of both Wall-E & 2001 for each of those 4 age groups. What do you see that may surprise you GREATLY?

as for girls ... as usual, males greatly outnumber females on imdb. In this case, males give Wall-E & 2001 almost the same rating. But, %-wise twice as many girls voted for Wall-E as for 2001 & they voted Wall-E MUCH higher than 2001. Another instance of self-selection bias.

fun with stats

It's a great film. One of Pixar's best, if not their definitive best.

Most great sci-fi works reference the work doug trumble did in 2001 and many others. They're so inventive and created a visual style that is so typically 'sci fi' that it's hard to look at any films after that don't in some way owe a lot to it.
It's like saying every gangster film owes something to The Godfather or every Western owes something to Sergio Leone.
They're in no way a rip off, just stylistically similar to the films that define those genre's. 2001 is a part of the sci fi 'gene', it'll always be present in any film that comes out after.

Look at Silent Running. Watched it recently and Wall-e definitely owes that film the most. It's as if they went out to make an animated film inspired by Silent Running. I have no problem with that.

It's higher rated here because the IMDB rating system is flawed. Any hyped and anticipated new film that comes out gets rated '10!!' by many many fanboys. The fact is, 2001 should be within the top 50 in terms of impact and the fact that audiences usually consider it one of the best of all time.

Wall-E is absolutely amazing and I have no problem with it being in the top 250, but it shouldn't be higher than 2001. In fact I don't think it should be higher than Silent Running.

Baron Frankenstein:
"To know death Otto, you have to *beep* life... in the gall bladder!"

Wall-E is much netter than 2001. Not even joking.

It totally depends on what subjective priorities you judge both movies from.

I like both movies for different reasons.


For me:

2001 was mostly an intellectual experience.
Wall-E was mostly an emoional experience.



Still 2001 is just flat out boring at times and Wall-E is just insanely annoying in it's moralising at times.

Neither is the movie to end all other movies. Period...


Technically I think both are masterpieces in their difference genres (and with respect to their different periods in time) so the judgement comes down to: How well am I entertained (intellectually or emotionally).

And thats a wholly unique individual subjective thing...

Heck, puppies make people cry of sadnesss or joy, others sneeze and yet others think: "omnomnom". Wholly dependent on how the 100.000.000.000 neurons are wired in your brain which in turn is dependent on your genetical makeup, physical changes and emotional experiences throughout your life.

I'd wager that mentally people are more different from one another than the mere genetical difference from man to amoeba.

Because it's a better movie? I can't sit through 2001. I don't know anyone who can. We've all tried and failed.

For my latest movie reviews and news:http://www.hesaidshesaidreviewsite.com/