Why does Interstellar have a higher rating than 2001.

People are stupid.







Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

That is an excellent question. I can only theorize that since it came out way back in 1968 a lot of people have never seen it, which is a shame.

That is an excellent question. It can only be attributed to human error.


😎


"Dave, my mind is going."

A few years later, who's still raving about Interstellar? Yet half a century later, 2001 is just as magnificent & beautiful as ever.

It is better

2001 is sublime. Who cares what it's rated?

Your point is well-taken, though; new films come out and get hopped up on ratings boards by people who just watched it and are jonesing on it still (or fanboys 10-voting), and it is a little depressing seeing mobs voting stuff up or down without anything running through their heads except for some Mountain Dew Code Red.

Interstellar is a much easier movie to understand. Most people hate how much work 2001 asks them to do.

Probably because it was newer, and when people saw it they were enthused about it and rated it highly, whereas 2001 is very old now and people seeing it see the flaws in it ... meaning that the slowness of the movie - for those older audiences that were not used to seeing stuff like this could have to time to appreciate it and think.

2001 for decades was my favorite movie, but if I go back to watch it now it is very slow and hard to watch.

Interstellar was interesting, and it was the 2001 of its time - or as close as possible, but in terms of realism or an actual believable plot - no ... it was pretty bad. The whole subplot of the government saying the moon landing was fake was really stupid.

Good points though ... sad to see that pointed out.