|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 21, 2017 10:38:23 GMT
Incredibly boring and lack of cohesive plot. No characters to wrap around. Overlong scenes that exist specifically for artistic purposes only. I can understand how many people would find the first segment boring, but I think most of them are either used to fast-paced movies which don't require the paying of close attention, or are people who in general have some difficulty paying attention. I recommended 2001 to a friend who happens to have ADHD and he couldn't watch it because it was "boring". I disagree that it lacks a cohesive plot. It just doesn't come right out and tell you everything. Agreed, it doesn't tell you much, but it makes you think. Some people don't like movies that make you think, and that's legitimate; it doesn't mean they can't think. As for scenes being overlong, again I disagree because I feel that Kubrick films are edited well, and that everything he shows you looks great, especially from an artist's perspective. The human characters aren't the focus; the monolith is because the story is about the final evolution of Man. I think Kubrick's genius is in presenting the story as a mystery. Mistake number one is assuming that since someone doesn't like this film it must mean they have some type of attention disorder. It's an insulting foot to start out any conversation on so I'd advise you to not do that in the future if you desire any type of interesting dialog with posters. I have no problem a film not laying it all out for me or being particularly slow paced. I'm sure I've enjoyed plenty of films with both of those traits. In 2001 however I just felt the combination left a lot to be desired. The only link in the chain to me was the black stone. None of the events had enough ties, upon a single viewing, to one another for me to form any kind of chain of events or reasoning behind scenes. The only segment I found entertaining was the Hal one because well it was pretty well encapsulated, had character whose names I knew, and generally had a somewhat normal story structure that I could follow. The movie takes a lot of risks and I don't fault Kubrick for doing that. He's an artist after all...but I am generally surprised to see this movie so well loved by so many when to me it seemed pointless and dull. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 21, 2017 16:09:26 GMT
I can understand how many people would find the first segment boring, but I think most of them are either used to fast-paced movies which don't require the paying of close attention, or are people who in general have some difficulty paying attention. I recommended 2001 to a friend who happens to have ADHD and he couldn't watch it because it was "boring". I disagree that it lacks a cohesive plot. It just doesn't come right out and tell you everything. Agreed, it doesn't tell you much, but it makes you think. Some people don't like movies that make you think, and that's legitimate; it doesn't mean they can't think. As for scenes being overlong, again I disagree because I feel that Kubrick films are edited well, and that everything he shows you looks great, especially from an artist's perspective. The human characters aren't the focus; the monolith is because the story is about the final evolution of Man. I think Kubrick's genius is in presenting the story as a mystery. Mistake number one is assuming that since someone doesn't like this film it must mean they have some type of attention disorder. It's an insulting foot to start out any conversation on so I'd advise you to not do that in the future if you desire any type of interesting dialog with posters. I have no problem a film not laying it all out for me or being particularly slow paced. I'm sure I've enjoyed plenty of films with both of those traits. In 2001 however I just felt the combination left a lot to be desired. The only link in the chain to me was the black stone. None of the events had enough ties, upon a single viewing, to one another for me to form any kind of chain of events or reasoning behind scenes. The only segment I found entertaining was the Hal one because well it was pretty well encapsulated, had character whose names I knew, and generally had a somewhat normal story structure that I could follow. The movie takes a lot of risks and I don't fault Kubrick for doing that. He's an artist after all...but I am generally surprised to see this movie so well loved by so many when to me it seemed pointless and dull. There are many in depth reviews and analysis's for the film you can find on Google. As far as I can tell though the first space sequence is largely visual masturbation but I myself (and many others obviously) love that kind of stuff. I mean why it goes on so long. I take the meaning of the sequence to be technology is initially seen as something beautiful but later as something very harmful. It is one of the most impressively directed scenes in movie history imo. I saw this movie for the first time when I was 19 and I found it 100% engaging from the first shot to the last and I still do but I can certainly understand why people find it boring. I find the film utterly fascinating.
I agree with you that people shouldn't assume why some people may dislike the movie and I think the one reply to you is very rude (I also hate when people assume someone hates a movie like this because they have ADHD), though for you to be surprised that many movie lovers love watching scenes existing specifically for artistic purposes alone is quite surprising.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 20:12:02 GMT
I can understand how many people would find the first segment boring, but I think most of them are either used to fast-paced movies which don't require the paying of close attention, or are people who in general have some difficulty paying attention. I recommended 2001 to a friend who happens to have ADHD and he couldn't watch it because it was "boring". I disagree that it lacks a cohesive plot. It just doesn't come right out and tell you everything. Agreed, it doesn't tell you much, but it makes you think. Some people don't like movies that make you think, and that's legitimate; it doesn't mean they can't think. As for scenes being overlong, again I disagree because I feel that Kubrick films are edited well, and that everything he shows you looks great, especially from an artist's perspective. The human characters aren't the focus; the monolith is because the story is about the final evolution of Man. I think Kubrick's genius is in presenting the story as a mystery. I have no problem a film not laying it all out for me or being particularly slow paced. I'm sure I've enjoyed plenty of films with both of those traits. In 2001 however I just felt the combination left a lot to be desired. The only link in the chain to me was the black stone. None of the events had enough ties, upon a single viewing, to one another for me to form any kind of chain of events or reasoning behind scenes. The only segment I found entertaining was the Hal one because well it was pretty well encapsulated, had character whose names I knew, and generally had a somewhat normal story structure that I could follow. The movie takes a lot of risks and I don't fault Kubrick for doing that. He's an artist after all...but I am generally surprised to see this movie so well loved by so many when to me it seemed pointless and dull. You're hypersensitive for some reason. I was just kidding, but I posted what I did based on my experience with my friend. You didn't sound like the typical youngster who only likes action movies so I wondered. I don't really recall exactly how I felt about 2001 upon first viewing, except that I had certain questions which determined I get them answered. I hoped that reading Clarke's story would help and it did, but Kubrick creates his own stories, and the movie raises questions which weren't answered in the book. Curiously, I stumbled upon this thread late last night as 2001 was starting on TV. I had felt that all of my ancient questions had already been answered long ago, but last night reminded me of a final one, whether HAL predicts in error that the AE-5 unit (or whatever it's called) will fail or if that is part of his plan to sabotage the Jupiter mission. I've liked believing that HAL is not in error, that he realizes what the discovery of the monolith and subsequent trip to Jupiter will amount to for him. He realizes that mankind's evolutionary process is coming to its end and that it will make him obsolete. In this case, though, if HAL is not in error then why does he go out of his way to make himself look wrong? He can simply cut off Bowman's and Poole's air supply, then disconnect the others from life support. I think I've decided, due to the above argument, that HAL is indeed faulty and that this fact isasX included in the story to emphasize the idea of "human error", which is fundamental to mankind's need for evolution. The story's theory is that evolution is not satisfied till its subject is perfect. HAL knows that perfected Man will have neither need nor use for supercomputers. Man himself will be the ultimate computer. Right before HAL's prediction that the AE-5 unit will fail he had been expressing his concerns about the mission. We'd already been encouraged to believe that HAL is prideful (Pride; Lucifer's original sin which led to his fall and the subsequent fall of Man from his state of perfection). This reinforces the possiblilty that HAL is actually faulty. I just find HAL's discourse about the mission juxtaposed with his prediction that the AE-5 unit will fail suspiciously coincidental. Perhaps it was his prideful concern for himself that led to his mistake. |
|
cineastewest
Sophomore
Support the internet's most active film discussion forum - Preserve the IMDb forums here at IMDB v2
@cineastewest
Posts: 229
|
Post by cineastewest on Mar 21, 2017 20:14:10 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film. I think they should burn the sequel out of respect to "2001: A Space Odyssey." What a waste of film "2010: The Year We Make Contact" was. Just crap. |
|
|
|
Post by outrider127 on Mar 21, 2017 20:15:48 GMT
This whole sequence goes on a bit too long. Five minutes would have it done. Then again, it's Kubrick and I'm just a pleb.  I liked 2010 more--2001 was too boring, remarkably self-indulgent by Kubrick |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 20:28:14 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film. I think they should burn the sequel out of respect to "2001: A Space Odyssey." What a waste of film "2010: The Year We Make Contact" was. Just crap. IMHO and that of critics 2010 is a good movie, just not to be compared with 2001. Clarke's book "2010" is good, too, and likewise not to be compared with "2001". 2010 had great special visual effects, the story is well-translated from the book, and the acting is great. It's just that one can't make a viable sequel to certain movies, one can only do something else. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 22, 2017 1:42:41 GMT
You're hypersensitive for some reason. I was just kidding, but I posted what I did based on my experience with my friend. You didn't sound like the typical youngster who only likes action movies so I wondered.
If the 'add' comment werent so common a reaction i wouldve thought nothing of it. I feel like any time someone criticizes a slow paced film some jacko always comments about how they should just go watch transformers or that they only like nonstop action flicks. Its a ridiculous idea that someone can't legitimately criticize a slow paced film for being boring if they actually find it boring.
So if my reaction was a little heavier than you anticipated that's the reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 2:09:51 GMT
You're hypersensitive for some reason. I was just kidding, but I posted what I did based on my experience with my friend. You didn't sound like the typical youngster who only likes action movies so I wondered.If the 'add' comment werent so common a reaction i wouldve thought nothing of it. I feel like any time someone criticizes a slow paced film some jacko always comments about how they should just go watch transformers or that they only like nonstop action flicks. Its a ridiculous idea that someone can't legitimately criticize a slow paced film for being boring if they actually find it boring. So if my reaction was a little heavier than you anticipated that's the reason. Okay. You just don't appreciate people generalizing like that. I understand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 2:33:06 GMT
I love 2001, it's one of my all time favourite movies. And I especially love that it's ambiguous and difficult to understand - it took me several viewings to even start to get it, and I only really understood it when I read the book. Though even then, what Clarke intended and what Kubrick intended may be somewhat different things.
I can certainly see why people don't like it, though. And no, it's not because they're so stupid and they need to be watching Fast and Furious movies. It's just an unconventional kind of movie. It tells the story largely through imagery instead of dialogue or even story. That's not to say there's no story, because there is, it's just not something the film overly concerns itself with. If you're used to more conventional storytelling, or even just prefer conventional storytelling, 2001 really isn't going to be your thing. Nothing wrong with that, plenty of movies aren't my thing either.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Mar 22, 2017 16:11:35 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film. No, yet I do think ppl should watch 2010 so as to help wrap the brain around 2001's events. |
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Mar 22, 2017 16:15:33 GMT
2001 ASO, A+ my #17 all time, is a bit like Disney's Fantasia for me. It's a sensory experience more than much concrete.
As Kubrick & Clarke have said - if you can't process all that's occurring on screen, they've succeeded. We're not supposed to have a shared concrete explanation.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 22, 2017 22:58:05 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film. What was the sequel? |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 22, 2017 22:59:18 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film. I think they should burn the sequel out of respect to "2001: A Space Odyssey." What a waste of film "2010: The Year We Make Contact" was. Just crap.... never heard of that movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 22, 2017 23:00:32 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film. What was the sequel? 2010: The Year We Make Contact. |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 22, 2017 23:00:49 GMT
I think the issue with 2001 is that Kubrick didn't know how to explain the concept well. The concept of course being of an extraterrestrial civilization guiding man to his ultimate destination -- to evolve into the "starchild" or whatever. For someone who watches 2001 for the first time and knows nothing about the story, they'll think it's just some weird art movie. And also, the notion of a stargate or a wormhole was not something that the general public was familiar with until about maybe 10 or 15 years ago. So, anybody watching the stargate sequence before that time would probably think "What's the meaning all those colored lights?". Kubrick also didn't do a good job explaining the monoliths or their purpose(s). In the "Jupiter and beyond the infinite" segment, you just see David Bowman in a pod near Jupiter and then the stargate light show automatically begins, but I think in the short story that the movie was based on, Bowman actually enters into the monolith itself. not just the short story, it is all explained in the original screenplay, but kubrick just threw it out, fortunately for him this was the LSD era and people were watching the movie on drugs so they didnt care, the posters advertising the film even encouraged this ... some people. I am sure that most of the people viewing 2001: A Space Odyssey were not on drugs. |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 22, 2017 23:09:02 GMT
I viewed 2001: A Space Odyssey in the theater last year. (I had seen it once before, in November 2003, on Turner Classic Movies.)
I liked the film—I consider it "very good." It represents a tour de force visually and technically (especially for its time), the audio-visual counterpoint is incredible, and I did not mind the sequence in question. Also, the film is extraordinarily prescient—it predicted advances in technology decades before they fully occurred.
The reason why I do not consider the film "great" has nothing to do with the narrative and more with the characters—they are pretty much two-dimensional and engendered no emotional investment on my part. Maybe that was the point, and certainly the film's focus was on the power of the machines. Still, if one were invested in the characters, perhaps that theme would have been emotionally powerful in addition to visually stunning and intellectually curious.
I still feel that for all the impressive use of technology, and all the intellectual intrigue regarding technology, that occurs in outer space, the early prehistoric sequence involving the apes may have been the best. It is so atmospheric and visceral—naturally eerie.
|
|
|
|
Post by CookiesNCream on Mar 23, 2017 2:35:49 GMT
The film has some okay moment with great visuals, cinematography, and score. But I also found it was boring in some places too when it drags on. I get why that film was greatly appreciated and still holds up from today.
Glad there's no archibald in sight about this one...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 15:15:03 GMT
You know, I appreciate 2001 for what it was. Groundbreaking, like nothing else ever seen before at the time. Even today, the special effects are impressive. And let's be real. The movie isn't (atleast in my opinion) about a plot, characters, acting, dialogue, etc. It's all about the visuals. The movie is pretty much a 3 hour long painting.
I appreciated the visuals and thought it looked great- but to be honest, I don't care that much about special effects and cinematography in films. Sure, it's important, but I've always focused more on acting and dialogue, even more than plot. That's just how my tastes are. And in that case, 2001 was an absolute borefest. I did finish it, but I'm never going to watch it again.
|
|
