2001: A Space Odyssey Sucks

[IcarusBen]

I watched this 2hr 15min long piece of crap and I must say, I hated it. The plot was non-existent, the acting was wooden, the first 30% of the film contributes nothing, and while the special effects are great, they're overshadowed by the fact they're too long!

Give me an hour and a half and I'll give you the exact same plot with all the major details and it would still be too long!

At least it looks and sounds good. The science is valid, the music is great, and (thankfully) Hal was simply epic. But that doesn't make up for the other 70-80% of the movie sucking so badly.

What does the KSP community think?

[vger]

Have you seen the airlock yet? Come check it out, it's really neat.

[sal_vager]

I like it, and the sequel, the books are better however

And yes, step into this lovely airlock, don't worry about a suit, you won't need it where you're going....

[Tex_NL]

2001: A Space Odyssey is a masterpiece!

To modern standards it does indeed look slow and tedious but don't forget this movie is nearly 50 years old (1968). You simply can not compare it to modern fast paced, computer generated action flicks.

[IcarusBen]

Really? You guys liked it? I do really like one line, though.

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

[vger]

Depending on your age, if you've been raised on only 90's and beyond, yeah you're going to find it pretty bizarre. But a LOT of the best classic sci-fi is pretty dry, and isn't trying to keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time.

[Spartwo]

Depending on your age, if you've been raised on only 90's and beyond, yeah you're going to find it pretty bizarre. But a LOT of the best classic sci-fi is pretty dry, and isn't trying to keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time.

But I really liked it (although that may be down to loving Clarks books)

[Nachtwind]

3 words: Best movie ever

But ok.. there are no dockfights with x-wings, no lasercannons and only half a dozen murders..

[regex]

Check out Dark Star. Now that's a classic.

[Nachtwind]

Oh, that Alien ^^

[vger]

Edited May 25, 2014 by vger

[IcarusBen]

I don't need edge-of-seat action in my movies. Les Miserables, my favorite film of all time, is a long and slow film. The problem is that 2001 has two hours, but it doesn't use them for anything. It's like the producers were given a bunch of money and instead of a decent plot, decent actors or anything like that, they used it on fancy SFX and orchestral pieces. Now, good effects and great music are always nice, but they shouldn't have to carry the film. LesMis is 156 minutes long, and I'd say a good 130 of those minutes are dedicated to plot, and the 26 not dedicated to plot are scattered evenly throughout the film.

The plot is what's important to me. When I talk about 2001, I typically explain it with this:

Let me explain the plot, or rather, lack thereof.

[Nuke]

its one of those movies thats worth watching. once. its not one of those ones you can watch over and over again. some movies are just like that. doesn't mean its not a great movie though.

[IcarusBen]

its one of those movies thats worth watching. once. its not one of those ones you can watch over and over again. some movies are just like that. doesn't mean its not a great movie though.

In my mind, classic =/= good. Star Trek: the Motion Picture? Sucks. Treasure Island? Sucks. Fallout 1? Compared to the rest of the series, sucks. And yet all of these are considered classics. Now, that doesn't mean that "classic" and "good" are mutually exclusive, it just means that the former does not mean the latter. Mary Poppins? Excellent. Star Trek II? Excellent. Spaceball Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? Ex-cell-lent!

[Dispatcher]

"2001" is not only classic; its one of the best science fiction movies ever. And the book is good.

[Dodgey]

Aside from glorious spaceship (four letter word for gentleman's literacy, damn censors) it is a very niche film, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I only wish I could find a copy of silent running so I could finally watch it.

I mean it's 45 years old, I don't know what you can really expect. It's from a different time.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Dodgey

[Canopus]

Instead of saying it sucks (which it doesn't), you could have just said that it doesn't fit your taste.

[Vanamonde]

Kubrick never does anything in a hurry, and the movie is pretty much incomprehensible if you haven't read the book. But that being said, I think 2001 is a masterpiece. The weightless sequences are good not just for their time, but even compared to most modern movies. There's no sound in space and Discovery cruises with the engines off, as all KSP players understand that they must be. And what about the scene where Dave (or is it Frank) jogs 360 degrees around the centrifugal habitation cylinder? That special effect is absolutely indetectible, even when you know how they did it.

It's not perfect, but it is an amazing and fascinating accomplishment.

[KOCOUR]

What? Are you serious? 2001 is an masterpiece. They dont do great films like this anymore. Except "Moon" i love that film.

[Nuke]

In my mind, classic =/= good. Star Trek: the Motion Picture? Sucks. Treasure Island? Sucks. Fallout 1? Compared to the rest of the series, sucks. And yet all of these are considered classics. Now, that doesn't mean that "classic" and "good" are mutually exclusive, it just means that the former does not mean the latter. Mary Poppins? Excellent. Star Trek II? Excellent. Spaceball Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? Ex-cell-lent!

id say the "worth watching once" category is different from "classic" or "good" categories. it contains good movies, horrible movies, new movies, old movies, etc.

star trek: tmp is also one of those worth watching once kind of movies. it was long and drawn out, it seemed to crawl. but its effects were pretty good for '79, and its not the worst trek movie (points at nemesis).

[Uncle Mort]

Personally, I think Stanley Kubrick is one of the worst directors on the planet.

You have to be joking!

Full Metal Jacket

The Shining

Barry Lyndon

A Clockwork Orange

2001: A Space Odyssey

Dr. Strangelove

Lolita

Spartacus

Paths of Glory

[bsalis]

2001: A Space Odyssey Sucks!?

Blasphemy!

Ok, I admin it is a bit slow. However, don't let that put you off from watching 2010, which is a more regular movie in style.

[Dodgey]

.......(points at nemesis).

hush hush. We don't talk about that.

[pxi]

Yes, 2001 has not aged well, and the books are far better. I have never liked the last 20 minutes of acid trip at all. In the book it makes sense. On the screen? Not at all... there's too much missing for you to do better than "huh?"

There's a plot in there somewhere, but it's very carefully hidden. You have to dig and guess and piece it together more than a murder mystery. Personally, I think Stanley Kubrick is one of the worst directors on the planet.

It's worth hunting down a copy of the screenplay. There's a huge amount of notes describing what is going on in the final part of the movie.

I actually loved 2001 when I saw it for the first time, particularly for the high-strangeness of the last part.

[KerbMav]

2001 does not suck, it is differently awesome.

Some things become clearer after watching 2010, some things only wikipedia can answer, the rest demands reading the books (which I have not done yet still.)

And I agree, there are movies you got to see, even if only to understand the references in other movies.

The Godfather - it took me ages to get to see it, and I was mildly disappointed - not that it is a bad movie, but it lacked originality for me because every other gangster movie borrowed from this Mother.

I only wish I could find a copy of silent running so I could finally watch it.

If you are ever on this side of the globe, you can have mine - but wrong region code probably.