I see some people got my previous post deleted. I guess truth hurts.
This movie is as entertaining as staring at a wall. It's one of the worst movies ever made.
It was so bad I couldn't even finish it.
Just like all Kubrick movies, this dull crap is the cure for insomnia.
LOL! This movie always stumps the dummies!
shareThe OP is right. This film was dull pretentious nonsense. I didn't care for it at all, and the fact that I didn't like it is not a reflection on my (or the OP's) intelligence; I just did not care for the film.
shareNo worries, Gary. Lots of Marvel comic book movies on the way!
shareA serious response is intended here. How is liking or not liking a particular film a reflection on intelligence?
shareNot a direct reflection in itself, but it gives an idea that is accurate in most cases. Personally, I think intelligence is not the only factor here, it also has to do with artistic sensibility. So if you have a group of people to whom it is obvious that something is a great piece of art, and they meet someone who is completely unreceptive to it, of course they'll find him dull. If he cannot perceive and appreciate a piece of art, it's safe to assume it relates to other spheres of his life. I also think that there's a correlation between intelligence and artistic sensibility, and I noticed this from personal experiences, just like I'm sure many others did - that's probably why we have this prejudice.
Now, it's not necessarily as simple as liking something or not liking it. It's also about why. If OP or yourself gave at least one good reason and showed some understanding of the movie, maybe we'd take you seriously. But instead you say you just "didn't care for it". It was boring, pretentious, nonsensical... to YOU, and you state it as an objective fact. Guess what - we believe you. We believe it was nonsensical to you just like pattern of geometric shapes in IQ test is nonsensical to an idiot, or just like serious philosophical discussion is pretentious in his eyes.
To say that just because someone does or does not care for a particular piece of artwork they lack intelligence is extraordinary. And yet this is what is happening here. The OP and I are being called (or it is implied that) we are less intelligent than those who think highly of it. And the only basis on which you judge this is on our not caring for a film that most seem to be quite fond of.
This is absurd.
Whether or not we like this or any film, it is a matter of opinion, and to say or imply that we are not as intelligent as those who like it is nonsense. It is just as nonsensical as saying that those who like a particular piece of art are the ones who lack intelligence.
This is nothing more than a personal attack.
Well I explained myself but you didn't get the whole point. It's a reasonable prejudice based on experience. For all I know you and OP might be very smart and it wouldn't shock me, but it seems less probable.
shareI'm with you, but I think going into the world of art as an example was a mistake.
I think liking ,or not , a piece of art says nothing about your intelligence as its so very subjective...
Whereas , to answer Gary's question , if you like
Transformers
Disaster movie
Epic movie
Battleship
The emojie movie
almost any movie with "movie" in the title bar "The kentucky fried movie"
then you're a f****g idiot . not to generalise. Ok its a big generalisation and not accuratte in every case. but generally.
And this particular movie , being quite an aquired taste could be "boring" even to intelligent people who are also sci-fi fans. some but not all .
There is a difference between "not liking" a specific movie, and make an arrogant troll post with the simple purpose to shit on people who love the movie. Clearly op js the latter category. You I feel like you simply gave your opinion.
What KD367 said was arrogant and not really reflective of how things work. Yes there is some correlation between appreciating fine art and intelligence BUT it's not an absolute rule.
I personally don't find 2001 so thrilling, but concider it a cinematic masterpiece.
It is slow, and not much characters, but the special effects are still much better than your typical Star Wars fare, so it is not the worst movie ever made or anywhere close. I loved it as a kid, it inspired me, as did the book. When I watch it now it is painfully slow and I don't really get much out of it. That doesn't mean it is a terrible movie, or that Kubrick's movies in general are bad. I don't care much for Strangelove, but Spartacus and Paths Of Glory are still very good.
shareThe special effects were spectacular, I admit that, but in spite of them the film was still boring. BTW, I liked Strangelove, Spartacus, and Paths of Glory.
shareI can testify personally that the movie was not boring when it first came out in 1968. That has to count for something. It is sort of like someone who has ADHD saying that Charlie Chaplin movies are boring ... or something who has seen the Mona Lisa in so many pictures and contexts going to the Louvre and saying it is boring ... anyone who counts just would not care.
shareI didn't care much for this one either, though I like a lot of Kubrick's stuff. Dr Strangelove might be my favorite.
shareIt may be your truth, and I can even see why you don't like it.
What I don't understand is why people have to be so negative
and insulting. For example, I don't like the movies "Psycho" or
"Citizen Kane" and would go so far as to justify them as 1/10
rating, but what people do not appreciate is your dull and pretentious
reviews, and insults. Even if 2001 bores you, or you cannot
understand it, it is not anywhere near the worst movies ever
made. The fact is that people like you make the internet a worse
place and you really add nothing.
Along those lines, I was just thinking how unfortunate it is that Kubrick is mainstream. Once you have a popular hit, like "The Shining", that everyone & his brother has seen, you attract an audience who will hate you for doing anything "boring". Such is the nature of pop cinema, pop music, and pop culture. I'm reminded of the band Genesis who became a top 40s hit machine in the 80s, and new fans would slam on the "pretentious boring" stuff they did for the first 5 years of their career. I'm not sure why fans react with hate--my guess is they feel like it's a dig at their intelligence if they don't "get it". There are plenty of movies I don't get. I had to watch 2001 about 3 times before it really clicked. Never hated it, although I did have my moments of wtf is this.
shareI hated "The Shining". Partially because I read the book, and even the book to me just did not matter. I am not a fan of horror movies though. I like your Genesis comparison. Being a kind of sideways fan of Genesis who never bought one of their albums but who always, or mostly liked what I heard that they did, I could appreciate both styles of their music. Fans are funny. If I watch 2001 now there are moments I still really like, but it does move soooo sllloooowwww. I never get tired of the visions of the future. In fact all my life since 2001 in 1968 I looked forward to the 21st century. Finally when it got here with the Conservative backlash, George W. Bush and 9-11 it felt more like 1984 delayed, and it's only gotten worse. As a kid when I saw it, the whole movie was so amazing the weird ending did not bother me. I cannot say I came to any understanding of it until I read both the novel ( adapted from the movie ) and the "Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey". It had a huge effect on my life. I started reading a lot of science fiction books. Finally got up enough courage to try Carl Sagan's non-fiction "Intelligent Life In The Universe" and got through most of that. Took math and science and get into tech. This is a movie one has to have some understanding of to appreciate, so when someone without a clue says it is garbage, more is the pity for them.
shareI never get tired of the visions of the future. In fact all my life since 2001 in 1968 I looked forward to the 21st century. Finally when it got here with the Conservative backlash, George W. Bush and 9-11 it felt more like 1984 delayed, and it's only gotten worse.
Interesting that you picked "The Time Machine" ... recall the Eloy ( the 99% ) and the Morlocks ( the 1% ) and how society diverges; what happened when everything collapsed. I've always thought that was going to be very prescient. There is always a chance we will learn in time, but there is literally no precedent for it in history. A book talking about this is "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. What is crazy is that there are plenty of people who "get it", but they are locked out of power and have less and less representation every day.
shareThanks, I'll definitely check out "Collapse", as this topic is really interesting (and why not? It's our ultimate fate). I agree a divergence is happening. Not just on a political level where it's most obvious, but on a physical (dietary) level, and even on a spiritual level (meaning general attitude toward life).
The human race seems to be splitting into 2 distinct subspecies: one prefers the more visceral caveman/fear/bacon-eater type of existence, where the other is the hippie/love/tofu-eater. I'm using comical extremes, but we all exist somewhere in the middle slowly approaching one or the other pole. You can see how, technologically, politically and physically, this divergence would give us the Morlocks (cavemen) who possess all the power and machines of oppression vs. the Eloi (hippies) who are harmless & gentle but totally powerless. It's funny that HG Welles predicted this long before the 60s where we saw that divergence really kick in.
Back to 2001, I've always maintained that Kubrick is making the same sort of statement in a very subtle and cynical way. The mild apes lose, the violent apes win. Fast forward a million years later... is Bowman a caveman or a hippie? He's a caveman, just like the violent ape, because he mercilessly kills Hal in order to survive. So, in HG Wellesian fashion, Kubrick echoes the statement that nice guys finish last, douchebags win the evolutionary game.
Hmm...You seem to be stuck in this weird modern way of thinking that assumes that violently removing those who posses a threat to your survival is always a bad and primitive thing. I mean, sure it is primitive, but in a same sense that breathing is. I'm especially refering to your "douchebags" remark here.
My thinking is that if you want to preserve anything good in this world, you sometimes have to resort to violence. Let's say you have your perfect peaceful "hippie" ape society that also reaches great heights in art and science, but there also exists a violent group of apes that are keen on destroying the hippie apes and erasing all their progress. Now, here's a moral dillema: Is it more moral:
A) not to violently defend your hippie ape utopia because in that case at least you don't get down to your enemy's level, or
B) defend it and preserve all the beauty of your society so that it isn't simply lost in time [spoiler]like tears in rain[/spoiler]?
Or to put it in another words, is the nice guy really nice for passively letting barbarians destroy all that is good and is the douchebag really a douche for simply surviving?
this weird modern way of thinking
No, I think this "weird modern way of thinking" is just a short term fad of our time and it won't be so popular in the future just like it wasn't in the past. You seem to mean something more general by that phrase. Sure, I'm all for new abstract ideas, but not if they're foolish (that's at least what I think of idea that violence is sooo universally bad that destroying something that wants to destroy you to survive is douchebaggery).
Now, let's take your idea of a "better" species that has "more intellectual ways of dealing with conflict". Do you not aknowledge that this only goes for the internal conflicts of the said species? If this enlightened species encounters one that doesn't quite accept their non-brutish ways, how should they deal with it, assuming it represents a real threat to them? How does the "better" species ensure that it really stays better if faced with danger of getting themselves killed and their women raped, no matter how enlightened they are?
I believe you're viewing the situation from the prism of kill-or-be-killed.
Let me put it this way, if we're talking about the concept of a superior being.
"God"
Is your idea of "God" a creature that will destroy everything that poses any sort of threat?
Or is your idea of "God" a forgiving, benevolent force that gives every living creature a chance to mend its ways?
You don't have to answer, since gods are simply reflections of ourselves. But if you really want to understand my point, give it some thought.
My idea of God is not quite either of your two options. Or it's actually both in a way...I guess I'll have to explain. First, we have to decide what we mean by (G)god - God that is omnipotent creator/source of everything (or even God that IS everything?) or classical gods that represent elements of nature and human nature, which are what you recognised as "simply reflections of ourselves".
Well here's my take: Classical (pagan) gods are subcategory of the one God. As we know, gods represent different, sometimes opposing elements such as love, hatred, war, chaos, order, death, life, youth... Understanding these gods as parts of the universal God makes much more sense than understanding God as either all-benevolent or a vengeful destroyer.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus
Another category of God is dualism - understanding that two fundamental opposites exist. Now here's finally what my idea of God is: The existance relies on a friction between opposites, that's why THE God is a category that contains all opposites and, well, basically everything. The God can't be only one of the opposing fundamental forces because one can't exist without the other. The God is beyond good and evil.
There are 2 levels of "god" we can discuss. On the whole, I agree that the "Cosmic Everything" is neither good nor evil. This "god" is physics, gravity, nature and all those emotionless forces that govern and define existence.
But my original question, and the question rhetorically posed by this film, is not necessarily "what is god" but "what is the next level of evolution" to a superior being?
As brux pointed out, at the end of Arthur C Clarke's book 2001, the first thing the starchild does is destroy all the nukes on earth. Can't get any more black & white anti-violence statement than that.
So if you're arguing that the elimination of violence is, in some way, counterproductive to evolution and that we should retain savage bone-swinging instincts in all their emotional grunting glory, then sure you can have that opinion, but you're at odds with the message of this film and most people's idea of an "evolved species"
So I repeat the question with more clarity. If we are to be visited by superior alien beings, will they come with guns blazing, or will they come with logical minds that espouse intellect rather than muscle?
You're misrepresenting my argument and also replacing my hypothetical scenario with another one.
"If we are to be visited by superior alien beings, will they come with guns blazing, or will they come with logical minds that espouse intellect rather than muscle?"
If they are indeed spiritually superior, of course they'll be against needless violence, I've never disagreed on that.
But let me twist it back into my question from previous quotes: If barbaric humans still decide to attack them for some selfish reason (assuming alien technology is not that great that humans wouldn't pose any sort of threat to them), will they defend themselves accordingly? Of course, this scenario requires many conditions, most important of which is that aliens can't just escape. So as I said, if all other options are gone, is violent option something superior species would ignore?
"we should retain savage bone-swinging instincts in all their emotional grunting glory"
Of course not. But violence isn't just unhinged brutality. Human hitting a wasp is also violence and it's not really an act of emotional grunting glory.
My main argument is reason. Reason is what superior species would surely operate on and value highly. When visiting Earth, do they have any reason to act violently? You could possibly list some, but non-violent option is more reasonable in the end. However, if they find themselves in the situation I proposed above, what are the reasons NOT to use violence? There surely are PLENTY of reasons to use it. There's almost no reasons not to. I mean, should they embrace their savage instincts in all their emotional grunting glory and wipe out humanity for disrespecting them? Doesn't sound very reasonable. Should they swat down a couple of bothersome pilots flying nuclear warheads to their position to survive (again, if they have no other option)?
Of course not. But violence isn't just unhinged brutality. Human hitting a wasp is also violence and it's not really an act of emotional grunting glory.
Oh no, damnit, I knew I should have specified it more because you'd surely make a twist of it where I hit the wasp for no good reason. Ok, it's a venomous, hyper-agressive breed of wasp that wants to kill me. That's more appropriate for where I was getting at.
As for the starchild's anti-nuke solution - you're forcing me to view it only and only trough the prism of violence vs nonviolence. I prefer to view it as a REASONable way to deal with a threat that could wipe out all humanity, and then some. Needless violence and destruction is against reason. Unfortunately I haven't read Clarke's book, but I can safely assume that in reality many would be opposed to someone's initiative to destroy all nukes. Starchild (or maybe someone else with the same goal in mind, but slightly less evolved) would maybe have to deal with them, guess what - violently, in a way. For example, many interest groups would want to assasinate him. In such situation, maybe starchild would want to keep the madman keen on killing him in a prison, at least until he finishes his business of nuclear disarmament. Of course, even that would be an act of violence, but also a reasonable one.
"...idea that the next level of evolution would be nonviolent."
I want to ponder on that now. YES it would tend to be, but WHY? In my opinion, certainly not because of the principle (i.e. nonviolence at all cost), but because it's reasonable. Isolated society of supreme beings would definetly be non-violent, but problems arise in interactions with other species. In that case, it would tend to be non-violent, but ready to use it when absolutely necessary (e.g. at least stun that violent ape that wants to kill you so you can later help him reach your level). If eventually everyone they interact with reaches their level, they'll all live in peace ever after. YAAY.
So... cap limit, damn (cont.)
...So...We almost do agree that the next level of evolution would be nonviolent, but the point of contention is that you find violence to be this principaly bad unholy concept that is NEVER justified, while I argue that it CAN be for "the greater good" (stunning ape example). Yeah, and also to clarify that there's a diference between the next step in evolution and the final step (divinity). Here we too almost agree -"In both parables, violence is necessary but we see the protagonist growing out of it". Only difference is that I think the next step won't be enough to completely grow out of it.
shareAh I get you know. And sorry, I totally misread your argument thinking you were anti-nonviolence and in favor of Draconian law (which does have its appeal but I won't comment).
Yes indeed, we totally agree that the next step in evolution will be toward rationality, logic and efficiency. It sounds like you're describing something like the Martians in "Stranger in a Strange Land" ...they are neither good nor evil, and they keep to themselves, but if you come at them with a knife they'll vaporize you and then resume knitting or whatever they were doing.
In my head I see that as the most rational and efficient form of existence. But in my heart I want to believe in a truly benevolent consciousness. Pure fantasy, I know, but when I picture the perfect world that has meaning--as opposed to a universe that simply operates efficiently like a machine--I have to envision some sort of benevolent intentions. Jumping to the sequel 2010, that's what we see: an intelligence that provides for the solar system, while still warning of dire consequences if you step out of line, but there's no question that it's a nurturing force.
IF there are superior beings (big "if") I'd like to think they are "nice". Sounds stupid to say that, but what's the alternative: a cold unfeeling universe where nobody has any purpose other than to look out for number 1? (Sadly all indications point to yes)
Throughout history, the rationale of one being cornered and needing to engage in self-defense has been used to justify bloody wars and conquest.
The concept of justifed self defense can be subject to abuse by those with supeiror powers and used as an outlet for primitive behaviour. Supeiror evolutionary or alien beings could recognize this broader danger from releasing and justifying violent primal urges and choose to sacrifice themselves instead. But this doesn't solve the dilemma if their whole culture and race was to be wiped out from this sacrifice and if the antagonizing force was to continue unabated in wiping out other beings and cultures. A thorny middle ground could be sought and supeiror evolutionary beings would be better equipped to navigate that too.
Alternatively, advanced reasoning power and incomprehensible brain power (to us) of advanced outer beings could influence and teach antagonizing forces that there not a threat.
Retromogul, you've touched on the great dilemma of existence: when one embraces the ethical/evolutionary high ground, one becomes vulnerable to those who don't. As you said, it would be almost like sacrificing oneself.
Are you familiar with the Fermi Paradox? It essentially says that given the innumerable stars & planets in the universe, and given the inconceivable amount of time that the universe has existed: the universe should be teeming with life by now. Why isn't it?
Scientists haven't agreed on an answer, but maybe it's something along the lines of what you said. A truly evolved species wouldn't be so quick to kill all its threats and may even sacrifice itself to allow a "subordinate" species to live.
Check out Space: 1999 "Space Brain" which poses this scenario. (On a side note, I've always said Space:1999 is about the closest thing TV has ever given us to 2001:A Space Odyssey)
Fascinating. I was kind of aware of the concept. Would one of the answers to the Fermi Paradox be that "subordinate" speices failed to advance and also died out in some way? I think I heard Stephen Hawking touch on that in regards to the probability of a lack of life forms out there.
My own view ranges to other life forms having died out, beings remaining at an inaccessible distance in space, not wishing to visit us due to our primitive nature (find this less likely than the others), and/or existing as beings beyond physical forms of our understanding.
I'll definitely check that series out as I completely missed it on its first run.
Just be sure to start with Season 1 since Season 2 sorta turns into a major cheese fest :/
But yes, you nailed both of the 2 widely proposed solutions to Fermi. The more depressing one is that civilizations fail or destroy themselves before they achieve interstellar travel. The optimistic one is that there are superior lifeforms but they choose not to visit or interfere with civilizations that are in development (sorta Star Trek prime directive stuff). But now I'm wondering if there could be a 3rd explanation, that superior beings either sacrifice themselves or are easily destroyed by more savage lifeforms--that would be the most depressing of all!
It certainly is a depressing prospect along with the theory that alien civilizations destroyed themselves before discovering interstellar travel. I really do hope there is life still out there and that we will encounter it somehow.
shareVery interesting interpretation, but in the end the Star Child seems to go against your bigger douchebag theory. Perhaps "douchebaggery" is a necessary state, or competition promoted a certain development if only of ways of making war. I tend to think that this theory is self-promoting and self-fullfilling. After we developed science and came to whatever low level of consciousness we attained, we continue to develop and expand our understanding ... we are not staying still and we are not devolving. I don't think we need douchebaggery, and in fact it must stop at a certain point or we will destroy ourselves.
shareEntirely valid interpretation. When I was more optimistic I had that interpretation: True, Bowman killed his enemy, but it was done in a more methodical, logical and "civilized" way than simply bludgeoning another ape to death because it was after the same food source. Some evolution had occurred in primates. Following that further, it could be assumed that savagery was on its way out (as you said, it's a necessary state, but it can be tempered with rationality).
I'm still torn on that subject, but knowing that Kubrick himself was a pretty cynical person (Clockwork Orange, nuff said), I think his message may have been not so optimistic. Who knows. All I know is the Hal death scene was probably meant to disturb us on some level. Why else would Hal's death be portrayed with such pathos, singing a children's song with his dying breath? I'm certain that on some level, we're supposed to question whether Bowman's actions were morally "evolved", or did he kill Hal simply because he was trying to save his own butt?
Switching tracks to Clarke's interpretation in the book, it leaves us with the same mystery. The last line is: "He was master of the world but not quite sure of what to do next. But he would think of something."
This could be interpreted as benevolent as well as malicious. In fact, in the old imdb board there was a looooong argument over whether the star child was shown with a smile or a malicious smirk at the end. Damn that Kubrick.
HAL was not a person. I don't really know if HAL was meant to be a person in the sense of a sentient being. Could be, but in that case why was his programming over-riding his intelligence? There is a conflict in the nature of HAL. I think he was just a computer, but movies love to anthropomorphize things.
Also, Bowman basically shut HAL off, he did not kill him because he could and was switched back on in sequels, but a machine could do that - HAL was a machine. Maybe the point was to show that we are misled into thinking our creations are human.
The last line ... good point. I think it is that correct, intelligent, action takes a lot of thought, contemplation and then introspection. None of which humanity right now does. We study nature, learn its tricks and then try to find ways to make money from it, as per our capitalist system, whether it makes sense or is dangerous or not. GMO food is a perfect example of that. If you are a reader you might want to check out "Altered Genes, Twisted Truth" by Stephen Drucker. This is a book where I finally learned what genetic engineering is all about and how they do it, and that they do not understand DNA like they think they do. I'd go so far as to say humans are not really an intelligent species.
I got no idea of malevolence ... because if you are talking about the book I am sure you also remember that the Star Child destroyed all the nuclear weapons on Earth as his first action.
Actually I forgot that part about the nukes. Ok, agreed Clarke's vision is optimistic. But I still think Kubrick was a pessimist or at best a cynic, based on every other movie he made. So I think the Hal death scene was definitely meant to bother us.
I think Kubrick was challenging our notion of sentient beings. Hal was the most "human" character in the film, and Kubrick did that on purpose. Recall Hal wishing the astronaut happy birthday and the astronaut's cold response. There's a reason why Kubrick did that and other scenes. Not once did any human show any real emotion (for which a lot of haters slam this movie, but it was deliberate).
In Clarke's book, we learn that Hal's flipout was due to his programmers putting a conflict in his "moral" sensibilities. On the one had, he was supposed to be honest, but on the other hand he was supposed to conceal information.
Putting the two together, I think it was both Kubrick's and Clarke's intention to show us that Hal was basically a child, messed up by his flawed human programmers. His death is sad, and some might even argue that Hal, not Bowman, is the protagonist and tragic hero of the story. To me, that ambiguity is what makes 2001 such a landmark work. What other story, other than Old Yeller, proposes the idea that a non-human character is the one we should be sympathetic toward?
> I think Kubrick was challenging our notion of sentient beings.
Same with AI.
But the whole point was that HAL is turn-off,turn-on able and reprogrammable ... he is not human, conscious or sentient I think, and yet we in the audience cannot help but make him so. Maybe that is what the long death scene was, showing the layers of HAL, the machine
Totally possible... again praising the ambiguity of this film... maybe Kubrick's intention was to show us how emotions & sentimentality (assigning good guy & bad guy roles) can manipulate us. Might be time for me to watch it again.
shareOr that modern life squashes people to the point that you cannot tell them from machines?
sharemodern life squashes people to the point that you cannot tell them from machines?
I really want to resist your interpretations of HAL as a person, child, or whatever. To whatever extent that is, and 2001 was done before there really was a computer industry or AI, or even any concept of that. I think real AI, a sentient being, is mostly likely hundreds of years off. The real danger is the biological AI ... us!
shareThe real danger is the biological AI ... us!
I've seen the remake of Galactica. Sure a lot better than the original series. In terms of a coherent story I am not sure it made a lot of sense, but it was interesting and entertaining. I don't think we can know what the direction of evolution is, and whether speculated on by man or machine it is arrogance and folly to think one can tell.
I think Arthur Clarke was involved in the 2001 sequels. They have to make the computers like humans to keep people interested.
In the original I never got the impression that HAL was anything other than a computer, on the level of today's Siri for example.
One of the greatest, if not the greatest, masterwork in cerebral SciFi history. A bona fide classic in filmmaking that ranks top in most professional rankings.
Thanks for the trolling.
To those that like this film, knock yourselves out. I am glad it was a film that you enjoyed. I'm not bashing it; I'm just saying that someone not caring for it is not a reflection on that person's intelligence.
shareI'm just saying that someone not caring for it is not a reflection on that person's intelligence.
>> I'm just saying that someone not caring for it is not a reflection on that person's intelligence.
I would say that sounds good and fair, and maybe for most movies mostly fair to say, ... but, in the case of a movie classic from a very famous direction held in high-regard, it is at the very least emotionally UN-intelligent, and the insulting tone infers that this is more or less trollish. To me an intelligent person does not start an intelligent discussion that way, nor does an intelligent person spend their time that way - all other things being equal.
I haven't questioned anyone's intelligence because they did or did not like this film. Others have. And yet the ones who simply said they did not like it are the trolls.
Yeah, right.
Like I say, if you liked it, I'm glad. I did not. And because I did not enjoy it, it is inferred that I lack intelligence.
I did not infer you lack intelligence at all ... don't point that accusation at me. I got that you were talking about other people and made a comment on it.
shareyep it was a really boring and long film that I lost interest in.
I say I would give 2001 a 3/10 lucky I never bought it on blu ray.
Agreed. Most movies I like at least a little, but this one, I cared for very little. And I like most of Kubrick's films, Dr. Strangelove, for example, or Paths of Glory. Full Metal Jacket was good as well, but to me 2001 was a total disaster and was nothing more than pure tedium.
Kubrick has been hit or miss with me. The films I mentioned above were, I thought, good (2001 excepted).
Other films by Kubrick that I did not particularly care for were The Shining, and A Clockwork Orange. I am ambivalent about Eyes Wide Shut. Now, on The Shining, I thought the Garris version was slightly better but neither film version really was all that great. For that matter, the book by Stephen King, whom I greatly admire as a writer, did not appeal to me either.
This is not to say that 2001 did not have its good points. It did; the special effects were spectacular and if I am thinking of the right one (it has been a few years since I have seen the DVD) the musical score was outstanding as well. But going against these good points was the film was very dull in my view, and over-long.
That said, I admit that my view of 2001 does not agree with how most people see this film. It is, however, sincerely held and just because my view differs with most others does not mean, as some have said, that I am less intelligent than those who like the film; nor does it mean that I am a troll as others have indicated.
> nothing more than pure tedium.
It kind of tickles me to hear you say that. This movie was way before
the first moon landing. What you ... or contemporary people view as
tedium I think was done deliberately because people absorbed things
slower back them. Notice that movies and TV were much slower.
TV had the same people, disconnected plots from episode to episode,
single-threaded stories. The data density of today's TV shows and what
people are used to and intuitively absorb is much faster and much more.
There was so much gee-whiz factor in that movie at the time that it
just waltzed slowly through its paces so people had time to enjoy it
even if they did not completely get it ... that was the brilliance and
irrationality of the movie.
I get that it is slow. That's true. It is hard for me to watch, and impossible
for me to get kids to watch today. That's too bad.
It is time to end the rancor that my presence here seems to cause. Not necessarily you, but others take my not caring for the film as either a sign of mental deficiency or that I am a troll. I am not mentally deficient nor am I a troll, and my not liking the film says nothing about my attention span.
That said, the best thing for me is bow out of the discussion. That people say such things merely due to someone not liking a film is very sad.
Yeah those are typical stereotype troll arguments, but often in reaction to people who express themselves insultingly or too aggressively. Somehow people attach to and associate themselves with some movie and get very defensive, and harsh languages doesn't help. Believe me ... I am very critical of most movies.
Another popular ruse is to accuse the person of having bad taste and only liking some subset of movies, like Michael Bay movies, or Marvel Comic Book movies.
A while back I posted a similar thing as you about why I thought "Citizen Kane" was much over-rated. I didn't say it was the worst movie ever, and when I first saw it I quite "liked" it, but that it does not hold up today. I almost got run out of town by Citizen Kane fans.
check out The Killing from 1956
shareI watched it on DVD and I have to say is wasn't the worst movie ever made, but I have to ask "What was the point???"
shareI agree with you. It is stunning cinematography, but Kubrick always really focused more on style than substance...
Someone on Letterboxd.com said this film was like Transformers but for the arthouse crowd. I agree with them.
I do still think this film is a worth a watch, just that it is overrated.
Dalton40 is right. Unlike him, I have finished it, and also read the book. I don't have any problem getting what it's about. "Like staring at a wall" is an excellent simile for watching this film. Pretentious, silly, boring, and astronomically overrated.
share