2001: A Space Odyssey. free discusision

What are your thoughts on the movie? What did you take from it?

I didn't really take into perspective the movie's scope until I watched this guy's philosophical analysis of it which is truly insightful. If you like the movie then I highly recommend you watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QipHzWqc9OU

In the video he discusses the mechanisms which caused humans to evolve in the beings we are today and puts the events of the movie into perspective. A truly brilliant analysis.

*One of the key takeaways I took from the analysis in the video is that Floyd is capable of deception without breaking down. HAL represents pure, new consciousness while Floyd is able to deceive the world for it's greater good without breaking down. HAL in 'glitches' in this respect when he tries to lie. Floyd manipulates the population (including his family) in order to take the human race to a better place. He balances progressiveness with morality.

Boring as hell and way too long.Person0

I tried watching this so many times, but I just simply can't get into it.

i read the book and really liked it. tried to watch the movie once...didn't stick, idk, maybe i should give it another shot.

been a while since i read the book, so i'd have to go back n reread it to give more thoughts

[QUOTE="Person0"]Boring as hell and way too long.Aljosa23

I tried watching this so many times, but I just simply can't get into it.

Hallenbeck77

Well, I guess if you aren't into it then you aren't into it.

i read the book and really liked it. tried to watch the movie once...didn't stick, idk, maybe i should give it another shot.

been a while since i read the book, so i'd have to go back n reread it to give more thoughts

rocinante_

I tried watching this so many times, but I just simply can't get into it.

Hallenbeck77

It's been a long time since I've seen the movie. The copy I had I gave away because I didn't pop it into the PS3 like I once used to.

It's a really good movi, though probably not purely for its entertainment factor. Rob Ager has a really good video and text analysis I recommend reading, it brought a lot more meaning to the movie for me.

Hate the movie.

Stanley Kubrick is a fantastic director, but his amazing camera work can't stop the moving from being boring as all hell.

On top of that, people can analyze the movie all they want but I don't even think Kubrick knew WTF message he was trying to convey with the movie and I think people just like giving the movie alot more meaning than it actually had.

On top of that, no movie should take a bunch of over-analysis to "enjoy"...

seems like on of those movies people watch just so they can say they've seen it, not because they enjoy it

HAL is IBM

Like it, beautifully shot, breathtaking cinematography. Much better than A Clockwork Orange (another Kubrick film) IMO. Master_Live

[QUOTE="Master_Live"]Like it, beautifully shot, breathtaking cinematography. Much better than A Clockwork Orange (another Kubrick film) IMO. MrGeezer

I thought it was pretty intense.  My blood pressure was up for most of the film.  The sense of isolation is pervasive through the whole film.  Also HAL is really disturbing.

I thought it was pretty intense.  My blood pressure was up for most of the film.  The sense of isolation is pervasive through the whole film.  Also HAL is really disturbing.

GummiRaccoon

I thought it was good, but the wormhole scene goes on way too long.

[QUOTE="Master_Live"]Like it, beautifully shot, breathtaking cinematography. Much better than A Clockwork Orange (another Kubrick film) IMO. MrGeezer

You act like because it's artsy that makes it good....

And no, long stretches of no dialogue, no action, and nothing of importance happening are the definition of BORING!

Sorry, but space stations floating around to classical scores is not entertaining in the slightest and there is so much damn time wasted on that shit too.

Kubrick made plenty of great films that included very fine film technique and were quite artsy in their visuals while also being entertaining, a great example of that being A Clockwork Orange, there very film the poster you quoted tried saying was an inferior film.

Well guess what, A Clockwork Orange does a wonderful job of being entertaining while simultaneously CHALLENGING the viewer to consider some very interesting questions on morality and freedom of choice. It shocks you and is actually HARD TO WATCH in the first half hour of so while it builds up this absolutely despicable character in Alex, but then it turns things on it's head by showing Alex get punished while completely defenseless and asks you "is this right?" A LOT of people on here (including me) make comments on here at times that basically ask for the heads of scumbag people who do terrible things, and A Clockwork Orange challenges us in that way of thinking by putting such a severe punishment on a defenseless scumbag on screen.

As someone who loves film both as entertainment and art, I find 2001 seriously lacking as a film. Any artistic merit it MIGHT have is completely outweighed by it's being one of the most boring and uninteresting films I have ever seen in my entire life and I would argue other sci-fi films such as the original version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" are MUCH more thought provoking than 2001 and are also FAR more entertaining than 2001.

I really get sick of this crowd that goes around touting 2001 as one of the greatest things since sliced bread and acts as if anyone who doesn't like the movie "just doesn't understand it".

You know what? Any movie that requires people to go and read explainations and all these fan theories JUST TO BE APPRECIATED is just poorly made plain and simple. A well made film will make you think WITHOUT needing a complete explaination of what it is trying to say. To need some explaination for some plot threads is one thing, but the whole meaning of the film is buried underneath so much damn unexplained symbolism that people need a person to flat out lay the entire meaning of the film jsut to be able to "appreciate" it which is just pathetic.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Master_Live"]Like it, beautifully shot, breathtaking cinematography. Much better than A Clockwork Orange (another Kubrick film) IMO. LostProphetFLCL

You act like because it's artsy that makes it good....

And no, long stretches of no dialogue, no action, and nothing of importance happening are the definition of BORING!

Sorry, but space stations floating around to classical scores is not entertaining in the slightest and there is so much damn time wasted on that shit too.

Kubrick made plenty of great films that included very fine film technique and were quite artsy in their visuals while also being entertaining, a great example of that being A Clockwork Orange, there very film the poster you quoted tried saying was an inferior film.

Well guess what, A Clockwork Orange does a wonderful job of being entertaining while simultaneously CHALLENGING the viewer to consider some very interesting questions on morality and freedom of choice. It shocks you and is actually HARD TO WATCH in the first half hour of so while it builds up this absolutely despicable character in Alex, but then it turns things on it's head by showing Alex get punished while completely defenseless and asks you "is this right?" A LOT of people on here (including me) make comments on here at times that basically ask for the heads of scumbag people who do terrible things, and A Clockwork Orange challenges us in that way of thinking by putting such a severe punishment on a defenseless scumbag on screen.

As someone who loves film both as entertainment and art, I find 2001 seriously lacking as a film. Any artistic merit it MIGHT have is completely outweighed by it's being one of the most boring and uninteresting films I have ever seen in my entire life and I would argue other sci-fi films such as the original version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" are MUCH more thought provoking than 2001 and are also FAR more entertaining than 2001.

I really get sick of this crowd that goes around touting 2001 as one of the greatest things since sliced bread and acts as if anyone who doesn't like the movie "just doesn't understand it".

You know what? Any movie that requires people to go and read explainations and all these fan theories JUST TO BE APPRECIATED is just poorly made plain and simple. A well made film will make you think WITHOUT needing a complete explaination of what it is trying to say. To need some explaination for some plot threads is one thing, but the whole meaning of the film is buried underneath so much damn unexplained symbolism that people need a person to flat out lay the entire meaning of the film jsut to be able to "appreciate" it which is just pathetic.

"I need constant cuts to keep my attention"

You act like because it's artsy that makes it good....

And no, long stretches of no dialogue, no action, and nothing of importance happening are the definition of BORING!

Sorry, but space stations floating around to classical scores is not entertaining in the slightest and there is so much damn time wasted on that shit too.

Kubrick made plenty of great films that included very fine film technique and were quite artsy in their visuals while also being entertaining, a great example of that being A Clockwork Orange, there very film the poster you quoted tried saying was an inferior film.

Well guess what, A Clockwork Orange does a wonderful job of being entertaining while simultaneously CHALLENGING the viewer to consider some very interesting questions on morality and freedom of choice. It shocks you and is actually HARD TO WATCH in the first half hour of so while it builds up this absolutely despicable character in Alex, but then it turns things on it's head by showing Alex get punished while completely defenseless and asks you "is this right?" A LOT of people on here (including me) make comments on here at times that basically ask for the heads of scumbag people who do terrible things, and A Clockwork Orange challenges us in that way of thinking by putting such a severe punishment on a defenseless scumbag on screen.

As someone who loves film both as entertainment and art, I find 2001 seriously lacking as a film. Any artistic merit it MIGHT have is completely outweighed by it's being one of the most boring and uninteresting films I have ever seen in my entire life and I would argue other sci-fi films such as the original version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" are MUCH more thought provoking than 2001 and are also FAR more entertaining than 2001.

I really get sick of this crowd that goes around touting 2001 as one of the greatest things since sliced bread and acts as if anyone who doesn't like the movie "just doesn't understand it".

You know what? Any movie that requires people to go and read explainations and all these fan theories JUST TO BE APPRECIATED is just poorly made plain and simple. A well made film will make you think WITHOUT needing a complete explaination of what it is trying to say. To need some explaination for some plot threads is one thing, but the whole meaning of the film is buried underneath so much damn unexplained symbolism that people need a person to flat out lay the entire meaning of the film jsut to be able to "appreciate" it which is just pathetic.

LostProphetFLCL

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

You act like because it's artsy that makes it good....

And no, long stretches of no dialogue, no action, and nothing of importance happening are the definition of BORING!

Sorry, but space stations floating around to classical scores is not entertaining in the slightest and there is so much damn time wasted on that shit too.

Kubrick made plenty of great films that included very fine film technique and were quite artsy in their visuals while also being entertaining, a great example of that being A Clockwork Orange, there very film the poster you quoted tried saying was an inferior film.

Well guess what, A Clockwork Orange does a wonderful job of being entertaining while simultaneously CHALLENGING the viewer to consider some very interesting questions on morality and freedom of choice. It shocks you and is actually HARD TO WATCH in the first half hour of so while it builds up this absolutely despicable character in Alex, but then it turns things on it's head by showing Alex get punished while completely defenseless and asks you "is this right?" A LOT of people on here (including me) make comments on here at times that basically ask for the heads of scumbag people who do terrible things, and A Clockwork Orange challenges us in that way of thinking by putting such a severe punishment on a defenseless scumbag on screen.

As someone who loves film both as entertainment and art, I find 2001 seriously lacking as a film. Any artistic merit it MIGHT have is completely outweighed by it's being one of the most boring and uninteresting films I have ever seen in my entire life and I would argue other sci-fi films such as the original version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" are MUCH more thought provoking than 2001 and are also FAR more entertaining than 2001.

I really get sick of this crowd that goes around touting 2001 as one of the greatest things since sliced bread and acts as if anyone who doesn't like the movie "just doesn't understand it".

You know what? Any movie that requires people to go and read explainations and all these fan theories JUST TO BE APPRECIATED is just poorly made plain and simple. A well made film will make you think WITHOUT needing a complete explaination of what it is trying to say. To need some explaination for some plot threads is one thing, but the whole meaning of the film is buried underneath so much damn unexplained symbolism that people need a person to flat out lay the entire meaning of the film jsut to be able to "appreciate" it which is just pathetic.

MrGeezer

There was alot of words typed here but they don't really carry any meaning.

And part of my issue with the movie is I don't even feel like Kubrick HAD an idea of what he was trying to accomplish with this movie, especially considering what I have read in interviews where he discusses the movie. Just like what I read in your reply post hear, I see alot of words but there is a lack of weight and meaning behind them. They sound nice and everything, but they lack meaning and importance.

It is the ultimate example of pretentiousness to me when people bring up issues with the movie like I did and the response is just "you don't get it" (which really is I guess the most meaning I could make out of your reply). Kubrick himself sounded like he was talking out of his ass when asked about the movie. Talking about it being a "non-verbal, emotional experience that shouldn't be explained" and quite frankly even WITH the explaination of what the movie is about it is still a shit story after the fact.

I get the plot and understand what takes place throughout the movie. This idea of it's glaringly awful storytelling being defended because it's "art" is just a silly logical fallacy that gets passed around by artists when they can't be asked to properly tell said story. You don't need to spell everything out in giant flashing letters, but considering everyone I have ever talked to has had to read up afterwards just to figure out WTF they had just watched that just shows that the storytelling sucks in the movie, and I'll be damned if people try and just say "it's art" when a movie this poorly paced and having storytelling as bad as 2001 is made as if that is a proper defense.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

You act like because it's artsy that makes it good....

And no, long stretches of no dialogue, no action, and nothing of importance happening are the definition of BORING!

Sorry, but space stations floating around to classical scores is not entertaining in the slightest and there is so much damn time wasted on that shit too.

Kubrick made plenty of great films that included very fine film technique and were quite artsy in their visuals while also being entertaining, a great example of that being A Clockwork Orange, there very film the poster you quoted tried saying was an inferior film.

Well guess what, A Clockwork Orange does a wonderful job of being entertaining while simultaneously CHALLENGING the viewer to consider some very interesting questions on morality and freedom of choice. It shocks you and is actually HARD TO WATCH in the first half hour of so while it builds up this absolutely despicable character in Alex, but then it turns things on it's head by showing Alex get punished while completely defenseless and asks you "is this right?" A LOT of people on here (including me) make comments on here at times that basically ask for the heads of scumbag people who do terrible things, and A Clockwork Orange challenges us in that way of thinking by putting such a severe punishment on a defenseless scumbag on screen.

As someone who loves film both as entertainment and art, I find 2001 seriously lacking as a film. Any artistic merit it MIGHT have is completely outweighed by it's being one of the most boring and uninteresting films I have ever seen in my entire life and I would argue other sci-fi films such as the original version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" are MUCH more thought provoking than 2001 and are also FAR more entertaining than 2001.

I really get sick of this crowd that goes around touting 2001 as one of the greatest things since sliced bread and acts as if anyone who doesn't like the movie "just doesn't understand it".

You know what? Any movie that requires people to go and read explainations and all these fan theories JUST TO BE APPRECIATED is just poorly made plain and simple. A well made film will make you think WITHOUT needing a complete explaination of what it is trying to say. To need some explaination for some plot threads is one thing, but the whole meaning of the film is buried underneath so much damn unexplained symbolism that people need a person to flat out lay the entire meaning of the film jsut to be able to "appreciate" it which is just pathetic.

LostProphetFLCL

There was alot of words typed here but they don't really carry any meaning.

And part of my issue with the movie is I don't even feel like Kubrick HAD an idea of what he was trying to accomplish with this movie, especially considering what I have read in interviews where he discusses the movie. Just like what I read in your reply post hear, I see alot of words but there is a lack of weight and meaning behind them. They sound nice and everything, but they lack meaning and importance.

It is the ultimate example of pretentiousness to me when people bring up issues with the movie like I did and the response is just "you don't get it" (which really is I guess the most meaning I could make out of your reply). Kubrick himself sounded like he was talking out of his ass when asked about the movie. Talking about it being a "non-verbal, emotional experience that shouldn't be explained" and quite frankly even WITH the explaination of what the movie is about it is still a shit story after the fact.

I get the plot and understand what takes place throughout the movie. This idea of it's glaringly awful storytelling being defended because it's "art" is just a silly logical fallacy that gets passed around by artists when they can't be asked to properly tell said story. You don't need to spell everything out in giant flashing letters, but considering everyone I have ever talked to has had to read up afterwards just to figure out WTF they had just watched that just shows that the storytelling sucks in the movie, and I'll be damned if people try and just say "it's art" when a movie this poorly paced and having storytelling as bad as 2001 is made as if that is a proper defense.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] *shrugs* Some people look at an abstract painting and say, "this is $hit. There aren't any people, there aren't any animals, there aren't even any representational objects. It's just a bunch of lines and shapes! So why should I care about it?" Or some people look at a Sally Mann photograph and say, "wtf is this $hit? It's just some chick pissing! Why should anyone care about this?" Well, for starters, perhaps because it's aesthetically pleasing and engaging from a visual design standpoint. Whether or not you like it or find it entertaining is another matter. But taking into account what the artist was aiming to accomplish, this is about as well done as I've ever seen in a mainstream movie. Wishing that it was a different movie entirely doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the movie. I don't walk into a romantic comedy and then complain about there not being enough action. EDIT: Or to put it this way...stop judging things for not being for what you want them to be. Accept them for what they are, then judge them based on how effective they are at being what they are.chaplainDMK

There was alot of words typed here but they don't really carry any meaning.

And part of my issue with the movie is I don't even feel like Kubrick HAD an idea of what he was trying to accomplish with this movie, especially considering what I have read in interviews where he discusses the movie. Just like what I read in your reply post hear, I see alot of words but there is a lack of weight and meaning behind them. They sound nice and everything, but they lack meaning and importance.

It is the ultimate example of pretentiousness to me when people bring up issues with the movie like I did and the response is just "you don't get it" (which really is I guess the most meaning I could make out of your reply). Kubrick himself sounded like he was talking out of his ass when asked about the movie. Talking about it being a "non-verbal, emotional experience that shouldn't be explained" and quite frankly even WITH the explaination of what the movie is about it is still a shit story after the fact.

I get the plot and understand what takes place throughout the movie. This idea of it's glaringly awful storytelling being defended because it's "art" is just a silly logical fallacy that gets passed around by artists when they can't be asked to properly tell said story. You don't need to spell everything out in giant flashing letters, but considering everyone I have ever talked to has had to read up afterwards just to figure out WTF they had just watched that just shows that the storytelling sucks in the movie, and I'll be damned if people try and just say "it's art" when a movie this poorly paced and having storytelling as bad as 2001 is made as if that is a proper defense.

Okay? A lot of people like Michael Bay movies but they don't go around trying to say that anyone who doesn't like Michael Bay's movies just doesn't "get them".

I don't care if people like the movie. I care about the fact that people who DO like the movie try and act like it is some Godsend piece of art that people who don't like it just don't understand it and the whole trying to justify the glaring issues with the movie by saying "it's art".

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

There was alot of words typed here but they don't really carry any meaning.

And part of my issue with the movie is I don't even feel like Kubrick HAD an idea of what he was trying to accomplish with this movie, especially considering what I have read in interviews where he discusses the movie. Just like what I read in your reply post hear, I see alot of words but there is a lack of weight and meaning behind them. They sound nice and everything, but they lack meaning and importance.

It is the ultimate example of pretentiousness to me when people bring up issues with the movie like I did and the response is just "you don't get it" (which really is I guess the most meaning I could make out of your reply). Kubrick himself sounded like he was talking out of his ass when asked about the movie. Talking about it being a "non-verbal, emotional experience that shouldn't be explained" and quite frankly even WITH the explaination of what the movie is about it is still a shit story after the fact.

I get the plot and understand what takes place throughout the movie. This idea of it's glaringly awful storytelling being defended because it's "art" is just a silly logical fallacy that gets passed around by artists when they can't be asked to properly tell said story. You don't need to spell everything out in giant flashing letters, but considering everyone I have ever talked to has had to read up afterwards just to figure out WTF they had just watched that just shows that the storytelling sucks in the movie, and I'll be damned if people try and just say "it's art" when a movie this poorly paced and having storytelling as bad as 2001 is made as if that is a proper defense.

LostProphetFLCL

Okay? A lot of people like Michael Bay movies but they don't go around trying to say that anyone who doesn't like Michael Bay's movies just doesn't "get them".

I don't care if people like the movie. I care about the fact that people who DO like the movie try and act like it is some Godsend piece of art that people who don't like it just don't understand it and the whole trying to justify the glaring issues with the movie by saying "it's art".

Actually, we just enjoy the movie. You kinda came in here and started complaining that you don't understand it. It is an artsy movie that needs a certain degree of interpretation, and I'm sorry if it offends you that some people just enjoy that. I (and probably most people) don't consider themselves superior or intelligent just because they like artsy movies, we just consider ourselves people that like artsy movies. 

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] You need to improve your reading comprehension if you think his post was a bunch of "words without meaning". You might not enjoy it, but a lot of people love the movie. It's not considered a cult classic because everyone hates the movie. chaplainDMK

Okay? A lot of people like Michael Bay movies but they don't go around trying to say that anyone who doesn't like Michael Bay's movies just doesn't "get them".

I don't care if people like the movie. I care about the fact that people who DO like the movie try and act like it is some Godsend piece of art that people who don't like it just don't understand it and the whole trying to justify the glaring issues with the movie by saying "it's art".

Actually, we just enjoy the movie. You kinda came in here and started complaining that you don't understand it. It is an artsy movie that needs a certain degree of interpretation, and I'm sorry if it offends you that some people just enjoy that.

And this ladies and gentleman is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to the pretentiousness among fans.

FYI I have stated multiple times that I get the movie and understand what it's about and your post here is exactly what I was talking about in regards to what the issue with this fanbase is. EVERYTIME you bring up issues with this movie this is the response you get. You just don't "get it". I still can't believe that people here want to gloss over this huge issue of needing to be explained just to have any grasp of what happens in the movie. I have yet to talk to the person who has seen the movie and understood it immediately without any explaination, and that whole concept is hilarious considering Kubrick talks of the movie as one that is NOT supposed to be explained. That's not art, that is shit storytelling and funny enough in this case the whole explaination thing apparently goes AGAINST the artists purported vision with the movie.

Another FYI, perhaps it's not that you don't get Michael Bay movies, but you recognize how sinplistic and shallow they are? I have no trouble turning off my brain and enjoying big blockbusters, but it is jsut too much for me to do that with Michael Bay movies personally. IDK cause it isn't like The Avengers and Man of Steel are shakespeare or anything. Maybe just that the characters are better, there is some funny dialogue, and perhaps the stories are still solid albeit fairly simplistic in those movies,

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"]

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

Okay? A lot of people like Michael Bay movies but they don't go around trying to say that anyone who doesn't like Michael Bay's movies just doesn't "get them".

I don't care if people like the movie. I care about the fact that people who DO like the movie try and act like it is some Godsend piece of art that people who don't like it just don't understand it and the whole trying to justify the glaring issues with the movie by saying "it's art".

LostProphetFLCL

Actually, we just enjoy the movie. You kinda came in here and started complaining that you don't understand it. It is an artsy movie that needs a certain degree of interpretation, and I'm sorry if it offends you that some people just enjoy that.

And this ladies and gentleman is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to the pretentiousness among fans.

FYI I have stated multiple times that I get the movie and understand what it's about and your post here is exactly what I was talking about in regards to what the issue with this fanbase is. EVERYTIME you bring up issues with this movie this is the response you get. You just don't "get it". I still can't believe that people here want to gloss over this huge issue of needing to be explained just to have any grasp of what happens in the movie. I have yet to talk to the person who has seen the movie and understood it immediately without any explaination, and that whole concept is hilarious considering Kubrick talks of the movie as one that is NOT supposed to be explained. That's not art, that is shit storytelling and funny enough in this case the whole explaination thing apparently goes AGAINST the artists purported vision with the movie.

Another FYI, perhaps it's not that you don't get Michael Bay movies, but you recognize how sinplistic and shallow they are? I have no trouble turning off my brain and enjoying big blockbusters, but it is jsut too much for me to do that with Michael Bay movies personally. IDK cause it isn't like The Avengers and Man of Steel are shakespeare or anything. Maybe just that the characters are better, there is some funny dialogue, and perhaps the stories are still solid albeit fairly simplistic in those movies,

I absolutely love this movie, but I have to say, it makes way more sense if you've read the book first. A lot of things aren't explained very well in the movie, so I understand that people don't get it.

Many people don't know that the film has a sequel: 2010. Also a great movie.
There are also 2 more books in the series, 2061 and 3001, read them if you love science fiction. 

And no, long stretches of no dialogue, no action, and nothing of importance happening are the definition of BORING!

LostProphetFLCL

Nah. This is surely a subjective case, and you're obviously leaning towards one side. One of the reasons I love the film so is how it tell's a great deal with zero dialogue. 

Sorry, but space stations floating around to classical scores is not entertaining in the slightest and there is so much damn time wasted on that shit too.

LostProphetFLCL

Good thing a film's primary concern isn't to entertain.

As someone who loves film both as entertainment and art, I find 2001 seriously lacking as a film. Any artistic merit it MIGHT have is completely outweighed by it's being one of the most boring and uninteresting films I have ever seen in my entire life and I would argue other sci-fi films such as the original version of "The Day The Earth Stood Still" are MUCH more thought provoking than 2001 and are also FAR more entertaining than 2001.

LostProphetFLCL

It's amusing that you consider that 2001 just might have some artistic merit. You know, if a film completely shattered the way special effects are presented, stripped away conventional structure, reinvented what felt like a dry genre, and has one of the greatest jump-cuts in cinematic history doesn't have some merit, then, please, explain why, because all your petty remarks simply boil down to: I was bored. That's not much of a criticisim. 

I really get sick of this crowd that goes around touting 2001 as one of the greatest things since sliced bread and acts as if anyone who doesn't like the movie "just doesn't understand it".LostProphetFLCL

Bit hypocritical, no?

You know what? Any movie that requires people to go and read explainations and all these fan theories JUST TO BE APPRECIATED is just poorly made plain and simple. A well made film will make you think WITHOUT needing a complete explaination of what it is trying to say. To need some explaination for some plot threads is one thing, but the whole meaning of the film is buried underneath so much damn unexplained symbolism that people need a person to flat out lay the entire meaning of the film jsut to be able to "appreciate" it which is just pathetic.

LostProphetFLCL

Now this.. this is just stupid. You're essentially saying that we all must be on the same intellectual level, and anyone that attempts to do something that requires thought should just stop. No one should apply an analytical proccess to one of the greatest art forms. Nah. Let's just take everything at face value and not appreciate those that attempt to do something grand.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Master_Live"]Like it, beautifully shot, breathtaking cinematography. Much better than A Clockwork Orange (another Kubrick film) IMO. LostProphetFLCL

 

 

And this ladies and gentleman is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to the pretentiousness among fans.

FYI I have stated multiple times that I get the movie and understand what it's about and your post here is exactly what I was talking about in regards to what the issue with this fanbase is. EVERYTIME you bring up issues with this movie this is the response you get. You just don't "get it". I still can't believe that people here want to gloss over this huge issue of needing to be explained just to have any grasp of what happens in the movie. I have yet to talk to the person who has seen the movie and understood it immediately without any explaination, and that whole concept is hilarious considering Kubrick talks of the movie as one that is NOT supposed to be explained. That's not art, that is shit storytelling and funny enough in this case the whole explaination thing apparently goes AGAINST the artists purported vision with the movie.

Another FYI, perhaps it's not that you don't get Michael Bay movies, but you recognize how sinplistic and shallow they are? I have no trouble turning off my brain and enjoying big blockbusters, but it is jsut too much for me to do that with Michael Bay movies personally. IDK cause it isn't like The Avengers and Man of Steel are shakespeare or anything. Maybe just that the characters are better, there is some funny dialogue, and perhaps the stories are still solid albeit fairly simplistic in those movies,

LostProphetFLCL

From what I'm reading your argument seems to be "If you don't understand a movie on the first viewing then it's shit"

I have never seen it actually. Seems like a movie to smoke some weed beforehand to.

I have never seen it actually. Seems like a movie to smoke some weed beforehand to.

The_Lipscomb

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] Yeah, generally if you don't like a movie someone else likes you don't get it. I don't get Michael Bay movies because all I see is flashy explosions, but someone else sees more in that, or he just enjoys flashy explosions.

Actually, we just enjoy the movie. You kinda came in here and started complaining that you don't understand it. It is an artsy movie that needs a certain degree of interpretation, and I'm sorry if it offends you that some people just enjoy that.

chaplainDMK

And this ladies and gentleman is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to the pretentiousness among fans.

FYI I have stated multiple times that I get the movie and understand what it's about and your post here is exactly what I was talking about in regards to what the issue with this fanbase is. EVERYTIME you bring up issues with this movie this is the response you get. You just don't "get it". I still can't believe that people here want to gloss over this huge issue of needing to be explained just to have any grasp of what happens in the movie. I have yet to talk to the person who has seen the movie and understood it immediately without any explaination, and that whole concept is hilarious considering Kubrick talks of the movie as one that is NOT supposed to be explained. That's not art, that is shit storytelling and funny enough in this case the whole explaination thing apparently goes AGAINST the artists purported vision with the movie.

Another FYI, perhaps it's not that you don't get Michael Bay movies, but you recognize how sinplistic and shallow they are? I have no trouble turning off my brain and enjoying big blockbusters, but it is jsut too much for me to do that with Michael Bay movies personally. IDK cause it isn't like The Avengers and Man of Steel are shakespeare or anything. Maybe just that the characters are better, there is some funny dialogue, and perhaps the stories are still solid albeit fairly simplistic in those movies,

No they don't... :(

Maybe you need to watch more films if you honestly think that every film has bad storytelling...

 

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

 

 

And this ladies and gentleman is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to the pretentiousness among fans.

FYI I have stated multiple times that I get the movie and understand what it's about and your post here is exactly what I was talking about in regards to what the issue with this fanbase is. EVERYTIME you bring up issues with this movie this is the response you get. You just don't "get it". I still can't believe that people here want to gloss over this huge issue of needing to be explained just to have any grasp of what happens in the movie. I have yet to talk to the person who has seen the movie and understood it immediately without any explaination, and that whole concept is hilarious considering Kubrick talks of the movie as one that is NOT supposed to be explained. That's not art, that is shit storytelling and funny enough in this case the whole explaination thing apparently goes AGAINST the artists purported vision with the movie.

Another FYI, perhaps it's not that you don't get Michael Bay movies, but you recognize how sinplistic and shallow they are? I have no trouble turning off my brain and enjoying big blockbusters, but it is jsut too much for me to do that with Michael Bay movies personally. IDK cause it isn't like The Avengers and Man of Steel are shakespeare or anything. Maybe just that the characters are better, there is some funny dialogue, and perhaps the stories are still solid albeit fairly simplistic in those movies,

DharmaMember77

From what I'm reading your argument seems to be "If you don't understand a movie on the first viewing then it's shit"

It's more the issue of the movies storytelling being SO BAD that people need to read up on explainations just to have the slightest grasp of what happened which again is just crap storytelling. It's one thing to have subtle subtext you might not catch the first time or maybe some plot intricicies you might not catch at first, but when your ENTIRE PLOT needs to be completely explained to the vast majority of viewers upon finishing the movie, you really need to re-evaluate the storytelling in your film.

I also think the film is terribly paced, boring, and the story it can't be bothered to tell properly really is not interesting in the slightest even when you do iunderstand it.

The movie is not thought provoking, doesn't ask us any hard questions, doesn't give us an introspective on society or anything of that nature. In spite of that it's fan base acts as if it is one of the most intelligent movies ever made that challenges the audiences and that is too much intellectually for most people to grasp.

FYI challenging the audience to NOT fall asleep during the movie is NOT the way you should be challenging the audience....

One of my favorite sci-fi films. The visuals are amazing. 

[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]

 

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

 

 

And this ladies and gentleman is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to the pretentiousness among fans.

FYI I have stated multiple times that I get the movie and understand what it's about and your post here is exactly what I was talking about in regards to what the issue with this fanbase is. EVERYTIME you bring up issues with this movie this is the response you get. You just don't "get it". I still can't believe that people here want to gloss over this huge issue of needing to be explained just to have any grasp of what happens in the movie. I have yet to talk to the person who has seen the movie and understood it immediately without any explaination, and that whole concept is hilarious considering Kubrick talks of the movie as one that is NOT supposed to be explained. That's not art, that is shit storytelling and funny enough in this case the whole explaination thing apparently goes AGAINST the artists purported vision with the movie.

Another FYI, perhaps it's not that you don't get Michael Bay movies, but you recognize how sinplistic and shallow they are? I have no trouble turning off my brain and enjoying big blockbusters, but it is jsut too much for me to do that with Michael Bay movies personally. IDK cause it isn't like The Avengers and Man of Steel are shakespeare or anything. Maybe just that the characters are better, there is some funny dialogue, and perhaps the stories are still solid albeit fairly simplistic in those movies,

LostProphetFLCL

From what I'm reading your argument seems to be "If you don't understand a movie on the first viewing then it's shit"

It's more the issue of the movies storytelling being SO BAD that people need to read up on explainations just to have the slightest grasp of what happened which again is just crap storytelling. It's one thing to have subtle subtext you might not catch the first time or maybe some plot intricicies you might not catch at first, but when your ENTIRE PLOT needs to be completely explained to the vast majority of viewers upon finishing the movie, you really need to re-evaluate the storytelling in your film.

I also think the film is terribly paced, boring, and the story it can't be bothered to tell properly really is not interesting in the slightest even when you do iunderstand it.

The movie is not thought provoking, doesn't ask us any hard questions, doesn't give us an introspective on society or anything of that nature. In spite of that it's fan base acts as if it is one of the most intelligent movies ever made that challenges the audiences and that is too much intellectually for most people to grasp.

FYI challenging the audience to NOT fall asleep during the movie is NOT the way you should be challenging the audience....

Film is a "show me don't tell me" medium. It's not that hard to pay attention to the images and understand the story on a surface level. Just out of curiosity are there any silent movies you enjoy (outside of the comedies)

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]

From what I'm reading your argument seems to be "If you don't understand a movie on the first viewing then it's shit"

DharmaMember77

It's more the issue of the movies storytelling being SO BAD that people need to read up on explainations just to have the slightest grasp of what happened which again is just crap storytelling. It's one thing to have subtle subtext you might not catch the first time or maybe some plot intricicies you might not catch at first, but when your ENTIRE PLOT needs to be completely explained to the vast majority of viewers upon finishing the movie, you really need to re-evaluate the storytelling in your film.

I also think the film is terribly paced, boring, and the story it can't be bothered to tell properly really is not interesting in the slightest even when you do iunderstand it.

The movie is not thought provoking, doesn't ask us any hard questions, doesn't give us an introspective on society or anything of that nature. In spite of that it's fan base acts as if it is one of the most intelligent movies ever made that challenges the audiences and that is too much intellectually for most people to grasp.

FYI challenging the audience to NOT fall asleep during the movie is NOT the way you should be challenging the audience....

Film is a "show me don't tell me" medium. It's not that hard to pay attention to the images and understand the story on a surface level. Just out of curiosity are there any silent movies you enjoy (outside of the comedies)

So now we are going to act as if the audio dimension of films isn't extremely important? That is just a downright stupid notion and I would argue that the addition of sound in film is probably the greatest innovation film ever experienced beyond it's original inception of course.

And as I said you do not need to spell things out, but once again if the VAST majority of people are watching your movie and not having ANY grasp as to what happened, you have failed in the storytelling department. I pay attention to the images but in 2001 there is nothing putting those images together into a story until you read the explainations of them and considering I have yet to meet the person who didn't need the movie explained after the first viewing there is obviously some serious storytelling issues that fans like to act is ok because "art".

As for the silent movie question, I can't say there is but alot of that is lack of exposure and my lack of interest in those older periods of film. The silent films (may have seen 2 hnestly can't remember) that I have seen I just didn't like at all. Mind you the plots made perfect sense, but I just didn't care for the movies.

I will say I do love watching foreign movies in subtitled form and absolutely HATE watching dubbed versions of foreign movies, so I don't mind having to "read" a movie.

[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

It's more the issue of the movies storytelling being SO BAD that people need to read up on explainations just to have the slightest grasp of what happened which again is just crap storytelling. It's one thing to have subtle subtext you might not catch the first time or maybe some plot intricicies you might not catch at first, but when your ENTIRE PLOT needs to be completely explained to the vast majority of viewers upon finishing the movie, you really need to re-evaluate the storytelling in your film.

I also think the film is terribly paced, boring, and the story it can't be bothered to tell properly really is not interesting in the slightest even when you do iunderstand it.

The movie is not thought provoking, doesn't ask us any hard questions, doesn't give us an introspective on society or anything of that nature. In spite of that it's fan base acts as if it is one of the most intelligent movies ever made that challenges the audiences and that is too much intellectually for most people to grasp.

FYI challenging the audience to NOT fall asleep during the movie is NOT the way you should be challenging the audience....

LostProphetFLCL

Film is a "show me don't tell me" medium. It's not that hard to pay attention to the images and understand the story on a surface level. Just out of curiosity are there any silent movies you enjoy (outside of the comedies)

So now we are going to act as if the audio dimension of films isn't extremely important? That is just a downright stupid notion and I would argue that the addition of sound in film is probably the greatest innovation film ever experienced beyond it's original inception of course.

And as I said you do not need to spell things out, but once again if the VAST majority of people are watching your movie and not having ANY grasp as to what happened, you have failed in the storytelling department. I pay attention to the images but in 2001 there is nothing putting those images together into a story until you read the explainations of them and considering I have yet to meet the person who didn't need the movie explained after the first viewing there is obviously some serious storytelling issues that fans like to act is ok because "art".

As for the silent movie question, I can't say there is but alot of that is lack of exposure and my lack of interest in those older periods of film. The silent films (may have seen 2 hnestly can't remember) that I have seen I just didn't like at all. Mind you the plots made perfect sense, but I just didn't care for the movies.

I will say I do love watching foreign movies in subtitled form and absolutely HATE watching dubbed versions of foreign movies, so I don't mind having to "read" a movie.

The addition of sound was a great accomplishment but even Fellini has stated that there is nothing sound films have done that silent films haven't already done in the past (Aside from musicals which is why that was the most popular genre during the early 30's)

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

And this ladies and gentleman is a perfect example of what I was talking about in regards to the pretentiousness among fans.

FYI I have stated multiple times that I get the movie and understand what it's about and your post here is exactly what I was talking about in regards to what the issue with this fanbase is. EVERYTIME you bring up issues with this movie this is the response you get. You just don't "get it". I still can't believe that people here want to gloss over this huge issue of needing to be explained just to have any grasp of what happens in the movie. I have yet to talk to the person who has seen the movie and understood it immediately without any explaination, and that whole concept is hilarious considering Kubrick talks of the movie as one that is NOT supposed to be explained. That's not art, that is shit storytelling and funny enough in this case the whole explaination thing apparently goes AGAINST the artists purported vision with the movie.

Another FYI, perhaps it's not that you don't get Michael Bay movies, but you recognize how sinplistic and shallow they are? I have no trouble turning off my brain and enjoying big blockbusters, but it is jsut too much for me to do that with Michael Bay movies personally. IDK cause it isn't like The Avengers and Man of Steel are shakespeare or anything. Maybe just that the characters are better, there is some funny dialogue, and perhaps the stories are still solid albeit fairly simplistic in those movies,

LostProphetFLCL

No they don't... :(

Maybe you need to watch more films if you honestly think that every film has bad storytelling...

It was a shit film.

I pity people who don't see the greatness of 2001.

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] Why am I pretentious if I like this movie? Every movie has tonnes of plot issues and weird design choices, but if you enjoy the movie as a whole you'll ignore them. I never said it's without flaws, I just said I liked it and you didn't like it. What exactly is your problem that you attack people's opinions of enjoying 2001? chaplainDMK

No they don't... :(

Maybe you need to watch more films if you honestly think that every film has bad storytelling...

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

No they don't... :(

Maybe you need to watch more films if you honestly think that every film has bad storytelling...

Person0