MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > I can't be the only one who thought this...

I can't be the only one who thought this movie was stupid.


Before anyone leaps down my throat about having no attention span, slow movies are some of my favorites. I like all genres and styles (including artsy) and I think that the part of this movie with Dave and HAL was very interesting and well done and they could have made a whole movie about it. But the more I think about it the more I feel that if this movie came out today, nobody would call it visionary or one of the greats, and they would be correct. I get the feeling that people are only pretending to understand it. I'm pretty good with finding allegory and metaphors and the meaning of imagery and things like that in film, but to me this seemed just too bizarre and dull. Is it just because it was Kubrick that everyone praises it, or is there something that I truly am just missing about this movie?

reply

Before anyone leaps down my throat

I won't. I'll just dismiss your opinion as uninformed and meaningless. And here's why:

#3 on the GamesRadar List
http://www.gamesradar.com/50-best-sci-fi-movies-ever/

#2 on the Guardian List
http://www.theguardian.com/life/news/page/0,12983,1290764,00.html

#2 on the Christian Science Monitor List
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2014/0730/The-25-best-science-fiction-movies-of-all-time/2001-A-Space-Odyssey

#2 on the IGN List
http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/09/14/top-25-sci-fi-movies-of-all-time?page=5

#1 on the TimeOut List
http://www.timeout.com/london/film/the-100-best-sci-fi-movies#tab_panel_10

#1 on the Esquire List
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/g2419/100-best-sci-fi-movies/?slide=100

#1 on the Film 4 List
http://www.film4.com/special-features/top-lists/top-50-sci-fi-movies

And those are just a few of the lists dedicated to science fiction. On lists open to all kinds of cinema, 2001 still ranks high.

#2 as rated by 358 Directors
http://lifehacklane.com/greatest-films-of-all-time/

#3 on the BBC 100 Greatest American Films List
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150720-the-100-greatest-american-films

#3 on the They Shoot Pictures Don’t They List
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000.htm

#9 on the Hollywood Reporter List
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/100-greatest-films-all-time-714192/9-2001-a-space-odyssey


#15 on the Infoplease List
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0760906.html

#22 on the AFI List
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/100-greatest-films-all-time-714192/9-2001-a-space-odyssey

#24 on the AMC List
http://www.amc.com/movie-guide/tim-dirks-top-100

#26 on the Entertainment Weekly List
http://www.filmsite.org/ew100.html





Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

Oh, I know it's a beloved film, I don't deny that it is well made, and I'm really impressed by you taking the time to get all those sources! Respect :) I'm in the obvious minority of people who didn't really enjoy it, but it is my opinion and I would ask that, as uninformed and meaningless as it might seem, you recognize it as exactly that: an opinion, and as it is merely a matter of taste we are discussing, ad hominems aren't necessary.

reply

MotherMemories wades through a creepily obsessive pool of drowning thoughts.

"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.

reply

it is merely a matter of taste we are discussing

Indeed. I hope, for your sake, that you strive to broaden your tastes. What you may be missing about this film is that it is utterly unique in the annals of film. There has never been anything like it before or since. It strikes me you approach it as you would any one of a host of other films which aren't unique in the way this film is. But you'll never get anywhere judging a totally unique film by the standards of films which aren't especially unique.

Let me put it in another way. You are probably "deciphering" this film as if it were in one language where in truth it's in an entirely different one. Let's say you watched a movie in a foreign language you didn't understand at all, and it was a movie without subtitles. Apart from how it looked, and what few physical clues you might pick up from the performances, how much would you get out of it?

2001 is just such a film. Its advantage is the language it's in is one of almost pure visual information, something that anyone can grasp whatever language they speak, so long as they apply their mind to that language. If you stop trying to understand the movie solely from its dialogue and actively plug your mind into its rich visual information, IMO you'd get a whole lot more out of it.

ad hominems aren't necessary

I said your opinion was "uninformed and meaningless." This isn't a description of you as a person. If it were, that would make the comment an ad hominem. But it's not; it only describes an opinion you've presented.

Opinions aren't written in stone. They aren't "who you are."


Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

P.S. Here's Kubrick's own explanation:

GELMIS: The final scenes of the film seemed more metaphorical than realistic. Will you discuss them -- or would that be part of the "road map" you're trying to avoid?

KUBRICK: No, I don't mind discussing it, on the lowest level, that is, straightforward explanation of the plot. You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.

That is what happens on the film's simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.

GELMIS: What are those areas of meaning?

KUBRICK: They are the areas I prefer not to discuss because they are highly subjective and will differ from viewer to viewer. In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it. If the film stirs the emotions and penetrates the subconscious of the viewer, if it stimulates, however inchoately, his mythological and religious yearnings and impulses, then it has succeeded. (Gelmis, The Film Director as Superstar, 1970, p. 304.)


Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

That's pretty straightforward, thanks!

reply

But, the creator's words can never be trusted. Things get out of hand in the laboratory and become not what was originally planned. People must walk forth on a clear and sunny day in order to whisk away the fog and see the end result of the director's emergence from the filmy bog.

"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.

reply

P.S. Here's Kubrick's own explanation:

---

But as Kubrick says THAT is the basic [made for Americans, bums on seats, keep Clarke happy] explanation and is NOT what the movie is about.

Kubrick then hints at the REAL issues of the "God Thing" while making fun of the American "baby steps" into space, so that is where you start if you want to actually understand the Big Picture.

But first one MUST blow away the ego thing [which Kubrick serves up with spades]

Night puts the appropriate quote on the blackboard in The Happening, ie Waspish

Poor egotist he has no way of knowing
But he's good as anything going

Being humble is NOT what Americans are Carefully Taught in school so Kubrick really takes that one for a ride starting with his highly intelligent apes

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

In this sense, the film becomes anything the viewer sees in it.


And THIS is why this is one of my favorite films.


_______________________
What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin' on here?

reply

Why do you need reassurance from other sources about what you like? Form an opinion of your own.

reply

[deleted]

Being on a bunch of lists doesn't mean jack, unless you're content to let other people decide things for you.

reply

I understand it and I live in a catfish swamp where the alligators romp.

"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.

reply

[deleted]

SFMZ, you're a darn good assistant too! The next time I watch this on my SmartPhone, I'll have you over for some WhiteLightnin' and we'll give some to the alligators. They'll light up like StarGators, gnawing on my fresh 'mators.

"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.

reply

Before anyone leaps down my throat about having no attention span, slow movies are some of my favorites. I like all genres and styles (including artsy) and I think that the part of this movie with Dave and HAL was very interesting and well done and they could have made a whole movie about it. But the more I think about it the more I feel that if this movie came out today, nobody would call it visionary or one of the greats, and they would be correct. I get the feeling that people are only pretending to understand it. I'm pretty good with finding allegory and metaphors and the meaning of imagery and things like that in film, but to me this seemed just too bizarre and dull. Is it just because it was Kubrick that everyone praises it, or is there something that I truly am just missing about this movie?


ellanegri, if you don't understand the movie, there are countless of interpretations to be found on the net. Or ... you might want to give it another chance in 5 years or so. IMO, this is one of the few movies ever made that actually gets better the more you watch it.


Alex

reply

I did look online quite a bit, actually :) But I wasn't very satisfied with the theories. Maybe that's what Kubrick was going for.

reply

I understand not getting/liking it...but stupid? What do you look for in a film?

Life isn't satisfying - no monolith magic for us, I'm afraid. Only in films, only in dreams..


Maybe take some drugs (weed, booze...lsd if you're bold enough) and watch it again. It will blow your mind.



Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride

reply

It may be that I was expecting something more of a story going into it and the film took me completely off guard. I felt that it had little continuity and, yes, not much point. There seemed to be little themes in each segment (for lack of a better word) of the movie but no central idea or message. But when I came on here and looked at explanations elsewhere online as well to try and find what it was supposed to mean, I didn't get the impression that anyone else knew either and then questioned what the point of making the movie in the first place was. It's been a while since I saw it though.

Of course you don't have to be a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to understand it. I'm merely questioning whether there is anything to understand in the first place.

reply

You're supposed to understand that 'understanding' is the figment of a most imaginative imagination.

"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.

reply

[deleted]

There seemed to be little themes in each segment (for lack of a better word) of the movie but no central idea or message.


Even if you believe there is no depth or meaning behind the imagery, even then the movie is hardly "stupid". A stupid movie is a movie that explains itself to the audience. A stupid movie is a movie that talks down to the viewer. At least 2001: ASO treats the audience with respect. We each have to come up with with our own answers. You might not see anything in it but others clearly have. You say you were disappointed in the 'answers' that you have found on the internet. Can you be more specific? What exactly disappointed you?




Alex

reply

I think specifically the fact that the concept seemed to be so open to interpretation that there wasn't much continuity in the responses. I love open ended movies, but I do like there to be enough laid out in the film to come to an intelligent conclusion; movies that leave you with questions but don't expect you to interpret the entire film. Again, I am in the obvious minority of people who didn't get much out of this so maybe I just didn't catch some of what the movie was trying to convey.

I think you're right and "stupid" was the wrong term to define this.

reply

the concept seemed to be so open to interpretation

That's just it...it ISN'T really "open to interpretation," at least not in the way it seems you (and so many who approach the movie carelessly) mean. There's a long tradition of people addicted to distorting films to their own purposes, and 2001 has been a favorite of theirs. This doesn't mean the movie itself is "vague" or "open-ended." It only means these people haven't been either honest or perceptive in their approaches to it.


Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

these people haven't been either honest or perceptive in their approaches to it

---

Yes it should be obvious why the hosties walk upside down but you might need to explain it to me AssMemories

Is it dishonest to walk normally?

http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/

reply

The nature of art itself is open-ended; it means one thing to the artist, musician, poet, film-maker, author, etc. who created it and goes on to provoke a search for meaning in everyone who experiences the art. People will argue endlessly which film is art and which film is just a shallow entertainment, then argue what each film actually means. The argument is pretty much the goal of the art, and the argument is what makes the art, and its creator, immortal. The more argument produced, the "greater" the art, like Mona Lisa's smile. (Argument itself isn't mean or violent, it's just putting forth points of view and defending them.)

If you don't care for the argument, it's perfectly okay to be content with your own understanding of 2001 or any other film, and questioning whether it has any meaning at all fits right in line with the creators' intent. Hope this helps you along your journey?

__________
7even days

reply

Thanks for your response :) It was very clear and polite, and didn't make me regret starting this thread like I have several times.

reply

Ellanegri, this film is full of thought provoking information, even in the "slow" parts. It uses images and music far more than dialogue to deliver that information.

Take the opening credits, they last one minute and twenty eight seconds. In that time we see and hear an opening fanfare that highlights the wonders of the cosmos in a spiritual way, the title - 2001 the first year in a new millennium, the music is part of a tone poem written about Thus Sprake Zarathrustra a work in which Nietzsche postulates that humans have within them the ability to be greater than they are.

So, in 1:28 without a word spoken or a person appearing on screen, we know that this is not Buck Rodgers, we are going to be exploring big questions, we will have much to do with transitions, and ultimately it's going to be about humanities' place in the universe. The whole film is that tightly packed with information, and it's presented beautifully. There really hasn't been anything quite like it before or since. That's why it's a classic and is revered as much as it is.




reply

I suppose calling it a classic because of it's uniqueness is a good way to explain it; thanks! I think really it was just a bit too unique for me personally, and I was so interested in the HAL storyline that I wanted more of it and not just a small portion of the film.

reply

The HAL storyline is the most accessible. Something to think on if you will. At the basic plot level the movie tells the same story four times. The HAL sequence is the third of the four.


reply

What are those four? I only count three.


Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

I know. Sometimes I think of it as three and other times four. There are three that complete the full cycle with a very transformative encounter with a monolith, and a forth that comes to a semi-conclusion.
1) The austrolopothiciens
2) The Dr. Floyd segment
3) The travel to Jupiter and HAL segment
4) The final transformation segment


reply

The Dr. Floyd segment

Erm...what?


Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

Yes, that's the incomplete one that I sometimes think doesn't stand alone. The segment between the jump cut and the start of the Discovery journey. It ends with a monolith encounter, but not with a dramatic transformation. It does contain the other plot elements though.

reply

That's because the moon sequence is still apart of the 'Dawn of Man' sequence - Kubrick is asking you to juxtaposition the moon monolith/ape monolith sequences.



Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride

reply

It does contain the other plot elements though.

I can't find anything even vaguely analogous between HAL and Dr. Floyd. What are you thinking of that you believe IS analogous?


Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

Very broad strokes plot level stuff.

Floyd
Establish humanity's current level of existence
Establish humanity's current challenges
Conflict with Russians
Encounter with monolith

HAL
Establish humanity's current level of handling long term existence in space
Establish humanity's current challenges in environment
Conflict with HAL
Encounter with monolith

Of course the details develop in more or less detail and emphasize different things but the basic progression is very similar.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Looks like your post got deleted twice. When I tried to reply to your replacement I got a post deleted message.

I agree with that deleted post. I did not intend to indicate that Floyd himself personally established any of the conditions I'd mentioned. I was simply using his name as a title for the segment of the film that he is in.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I was so interested in the HAL storyline that I wanted more of it and not just a small portion of the film

The HAL storyline is seeded throughout the entire film. This is just one of many reasons that to appreciate this movie, you have to look at it with eyes different from what you've ever used before.


Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.

reply

It doesn't sound like you necessarily think the movie is "stupid," only that it isn't really your cup of tea. Nothing wrong with that. Personally I think it's the greatest expression of cinematic art ever, but that's just me.

Here's a short film about 2001 that I would encourage you to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7-VnIqKhM

CHUCK ANZIULEWICZ
http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz

reply

Its because it was made by Kubrick that everyone praises it. Its dull, boring and pretentious. If this film wasn't made by Kubrick, then everyone will see right through it and laugh at how stupid and pretentious it is.

reply

[deleted]

'If it wasn't made by Kubrick..' this is the most stupid idea I've read - it could ONLY be made by Kubrick, if it wasn't made by Kubrick, it wouldn't be made.



Buy The Ticket, Take The Ride

reply

"Its because it was made by Kubrick that everyone praises it."

Not in my case. When I first saw it at the drive-in, when I was all of nine years old, I didn't even know who Stanley Kubrick WAS. The movie changed my Universe that night.

CHUCK ANZIULEWICZ
http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz

reply

[deleted]

Stupid is what stupid watched😀

reply