2001: A Space Odyssey Sucks

[Red Iron Crown]

Loved 2001, and 2010 tied a lot of it together for those who hadn't read the books.

Can't believe someone called Kubrick one of the worst directors. He was simply brilliant, and very meticulous about accuracy (see stirrup-less horsemen in Spartacus, for example). He never made Hollywood turn-off-your-brain spoon-feed-every-concept-to-the-viewer movies, so if that's your thing or what you were expecting you'll be disappointed.

[Creature]

There are some movies that can be just covered with a blanket statement "it sucks" but any movie that's regarded as a classic surely does deserve a bit more than that. It's one thing not to like them. Godfather movies were a great example, personally I'm bored to tears with them. It doesn't mean they're not great movies though, it's just me not connecting with the art.

I don't really get how 2001 doesn't have a plot though. It has lots of plot. What it's missing is the standard, all-pervasive Hollywood 3-act structure where in act one groundwork is laid for the story, protagonist is introduced along with his list of Trait A, Trait B, Strenght X, Weakness Y, Quirky Habit Z and Personal Challenge To Overcome, in the end PLOT TWIST! to act two, where everything goes badly for protagonist, ending in PLOT TWIST!!, followed by act three where protagonist pulls trough, wins his Personal Challenge and if the movie is Deep or Dramatic, the protagonist dies or someone close to him suffers.

We've been seriously brainwashed to expect this structure from movies and of course it works really well in keeping viewers attention and it's not a bad structure in itself. But it does condition us to react badly to different kinds of movies.

For example 2001 moves in a completely different pacing. It concentrates much more on imagery, thoughts and ideas. Many things in the plot are left unknown and I mean properly unknown and mysterious, not the "The butler was the killer. OR WAS HE?!" type where the viewers task is to speculate on some possible outcomes that can be deducted directly from the movie but which are left slightly obscure. The characters are a bit boring because they're fairly normal, realistic people. And the final boss battle isn't an epic struggle where personal conflicts clash with the urgency of saving the world and conquering the objectified female reward. It's more about making a decision, pondering it's consequences and justification and acting on it.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Creature

[Tw1]

Kubrick does do rather arty stuff, which doesn't appeal to everyone. I haven't seen much of his, but from what I have, I believe the trick to understand it is to follow the emotions, and ponder, rather than follow the events with anticipation and intrigue.

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.

This. So much this.

It really annoys me when people don't take old films or TV shows for what they are, especially when they were well intended, and well done for the time.

Styles change. One of the things I like about television is the ability it gives you to glance into the past, and see what things were like.

It bothers me when people mock the clumsy-by-modern-standards effects in old stories. If they achieve what they need to do to tell the story, then they did their job. And maybe that raygun fired energy beams that just look like that.

With older sci-fi, often it's not about character interactions, but instead about the situations, or the concepts. I enjoyed Forbidden Planet, but the only really interesting characters where the professor and the girl, the rest were quite bland.

Remember, the earlier the sci-fi, the less that's already been done, both in terms of new ideas, and new plots.

I too would be amazed if an alien that looked like that was ever discovered.

This wasn't to bad for me. The song itself would almost stand up to more recent, comedic sci-fi, as a great way of showing an alien's simple "evil" nature.

[Red Iron Crown]

Remember, the earlier the sci-fi, the less that's already been done, both in terms of new ideas, and new plots.

That's so true. I convinced my teenaged niece to watch "Casablanca", she said she hated it because "almost every line is a cliche". Where did she think the cliches came from?

[vger]

With older sci-fi, often it's not about character interactions, but instead about the situations, or the concepts. I enjoyed Forbidden Planet, but the only really interesting characters where the professor and the girl, the rest were quite bland.

Interestingly, this may actually be just about the era of film that has the LEAST amount of creativity in storytelling.

Sure, we have a LOT of different plots, settings, and characters, but... just about EVERYTHING is a drama. Even in Transformers where it doesn't even make sense, the first plot point we're introduced to is, "How can I get in Megan Fox's pants?" The Battlestar Galactica reboot turned one of the most recognizable iconic alien races ever, into human clones, just for the sake of having some pervy human/cylon action.

That's not to say drama is a bad thing, or I don't like stories about characters. Classic Star Trek has that covered quite well, but not at the expense of everything else.

There seems to be a strange disconnect with wonder in the modern audience, perhaps brought on by CGI. You can't impress an audience with CGI, because all CGI effects are more or less done the same. Mechanical tricks, set designs, etc. are almost completely gone. When you knew that all of these things required an incredible amount of creativity and time to set up, that made it more mind-blowing. Perhaps this has even desensitized us not only to the effects, but the things they're depicting. Does exploring an alien world no longer appeal to us? Is it so mundane that we don't even want to get out there and see what's over the next hill? "Alright, we're here, that's cool, but I've got to find that hot astronaut I was talking to before liftoff."

Maybe I cant blame people much. Do kids even explore the woods anymore, or do they just read about it on their iPhones?

Edited May 26, 2014 by vger

[pebble_garden]

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

And don't forget my absolute favorite Kubrick film, Eyes Wide Shut, which blew my mind. Your mileage may vary, however. A lot of people don't care for it.

To properly appreciate 2001 you have to consider it in context. Before 2001, space movies had rarely attempted to be realistic, and lacked the budget and know-how to do so.

What Kubrick strove to do was burst through that perceptual barrier, overwhelm the audience with visual spectacle, and maintain long effects shots that were far more photorealistic than had yet been accomplished. And while Kubrick is always slow-paced and methodical, he deliberately used such laboriousness here to make the audience believe in the otherworldly scenes (distant pre-human past, spacecraft in freefall or spinning for gravity, unknowable alien hyperspace stuff).

The audience of the twenty first century is very different than that of 1968, when 2001 came out. We've become jaded by increasingly adrenalized, cg-powered effects showcases that must work harder to instill the same sense of awe. Because, after all, that's why people go to see movies: to take a thrilling ride, to lose themselves in novelty and wonder.

By the way I loved 2001, but it seemed dull on my last few viewings. I also have become jaded, it seems. (sad smile)

I'm 52, for the record. 2001 was a big part of my childhood. And I work in the field of cgi visual effects, by way of full disclosure.

Edited May 26, 2014 by pebble_garden

[vger]

On a side-note, since a few were griping about Star Trek the Motion Picture... a lot of people think it was paced as such because it was heavily inspired by 2001.

[razark]

That's so true. I convinced my teenaged niece to watch "Casablanca", she said she hated it because "almost every line is a cliche". Where did she think the cliches came from?

Oh, my gods, yes. I remember the first time I watched that one. It was a colorized version, so I turned the color down on the TV to watch in B&W. It felt like every single line was something I had heard before, and half the scenes I had already seen. I just hadn't seen everything in the right order.

I think that's the main reason so many "classic" movies don't play well today. Later film makers borrow shots, lines, plots, etc. from the really good stuff, so that when seen by a fresh audience today, all they see is the cliches that it spawned. That and the Hays Code. Some of those restrictions made things a bit predictable.

[Red Iron Crown]

On a side-note, since a few were griping about Star Trek the Motion Picture... a lot of people think it was paced as such because it was heavily inspired by 2001.

This is amusing considering your username and avatar. Of course v'ger will defend Star Trek: The Motion Picture!

[KerbMav]

His signature tells me he is just full of cultural references though.

And this is also one of these threads I would like to see the age of everyone next to there username, if only to underline mine prejudices.

[vger]

This is amusing considering your username and avatar. Of course v'ger will defend Star Trek: The Motion Picture!

I said a lot of people. I didn't say me.

If we're going to start going down that route, we're heading into pseudo politics where facts will automatically be dismissed as bias.

And this is also one of these threads I would like to see the age of everyone next to there username, if only to underline mine prejudices.

That might create more problems than it solves actually. Physical age seems to have very little relevance when it involves science enthusiasts, as demonstrated by the recent winner of that KSP LAN tournament.

Edited May 26, 2014 by vger

[Tw1]

Interestingly, this may actually be just about the era of film that has the LEAST amount of creativity in storytelling.

-snip-

There seems to be a strange disconnect with wonder in the modern audience, perhaps brought on by CGI.

Must.. resit.. urge to rant on local urban design issues... generic modern style... so bland...

Cough. Sorry, starting to get of topic there.

One thing that bothers me is when kids shows that used to use stop motion or actors in suits change to CGI. Most of my friends know of my plans to configure whatever tech we have to play loops of old shows in with the new...

[Rant]

CGI may be cheaper, and allow more nuanced expression, but having actual models or costumes for kids shows gives the audience an "I can do that" idea. It's closer to the way kids play with toys, giving them life of their own.

Thomas the Tank Engine used to be physical models and sets- I had (kinda still do) toys almost identical to the characters on screen.

Puppets, stop motion, suits, these all require the veiw fundamental skill for imagination: Suspension of Disbelief.

Often the intention with CGI is making thing that aren't real look as real as possible. While this is great for films like godzilla, where it's far more scary if the creature seems real, it does nothing to expand the imagination. CGI has a place, but it should not be everywhere.

One criticism I had with the Doctor Who fifth, and to an extent, the whole new series, is the limited range of ray gun rays. In the classic show, a large variety of raygun blasts were seen, achieved by simple, yet varied techniques.

In classic, TimeLords use these guns called "stasers" which caused a unique cross pattern to appear over the target. The cybermen for some time, used guns which fired a pulsing blue ring over the target.

In the new serieses, both have been using "blaster bolt" style weapons, as seen everywhere. It's a bit of a waste to me.

Physical age seems to have very little relevance when it involves science enthusiasts, as demonstrated by the recent winner of that KSP LAN tournament.

True, but it is a factor of interest when considering fiction-related interest, as what you saw while you where such age is a big shaper of preferences.

I'm 21, btw.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Tw1

[Godot]

2001: A Space Odyssey Sucks

He said Jehova ... stone him

I am with those who like the movie (and its successor).

It took decades till there were movies who would try to put a similar degree of realism (although with the limitations of its time) into SciFi

Edited May 26, 2014 by Godot

[vger]

CGI may be cheaper, and allow more nuanced expression, but having actual models or costumes for kids shows gives the audience an "I can do that" idea. It's closer to the way kids play with toys, giving them life of their own.

Thomas the Tank Engine used to be physical models and sets- I had (kinda still do) toys almost identical to the characters on screen.

Puppets, stop motion, suits, these all require the veiw fundamental skill for imagination: Suspension of Disbelief.

Often the intention with CGI is making thing that aren't real look as real as possible. While this is great for films like godzilla, where it's far more scary if the creature seems real, it does nothing to expand the imagination. CGI has a place, but it should not be everywhere.

I'm sure even after the most recent film, there are going to be G-fans, even in the U.S. who prefer the "Guy in a rubber suit stomping on model trains" approach. No matter how silly it looks, it has a certain charm to it.

Sometimes even terror doesn't make CGI necessary though. For my money, THEM! is still the scariest giant bug movie ever. The only drawback is how slow they move, but maybe that actually adds to it, because it takes into account how something that big might actually move (instead of scurrying across the landscape with an exact ratio of how fast normal ants move relative to their size). They grab people and smash their way through structures. It's an incredible sight, and all of it was done with puppets.

And gosh, I had never thought about what my childhood would be like if I had grown up in the CGI era. I was always trying to recreate Hollywood special effects with whatever pathetic resources I had at my disposal. Some of them came out pretty darned good for a 7-year-old. I must have spent thousands of hours experimenting with different techniques. And as a bonus, I was learning a lot of other things not exclusively related to film-making.

True, but it is a factor of interest when considering fiction-related interest, as what you saw while you where such age is a big shaper of preferences.

I'm 21, btw.

35 here. So... I was probably... 10 years old when I first saw ST:TMP. What's weird about my sci-fi tastes is, my favorite films as a child were the Star Wars ones. When watching other things I was often in the "needs more lasers" camp. But then there were some that held my attention regardless of sluggish pacing and often a lack of intense battles.

Forbidden Planet

This Island Earth

The Day the Earth Stood Still

The Time Machine

TRON

The Black Hole

There's more to this list, but these are the ones that stick out in my head because I still watch them frequently.

And, I can't try to add to much more insight into how the modern young audience reacts to old school entertainment, but there's this one little gem of a story. About a year ago, I had the opportunity to show "Flight of the Navigator" to a 10-year-old boy. He has ADHD, and I've seen it manifest in him plenty of times. He was practically raised on the New Trilogy era of Star Wars. That ought to give you an idea of what he normally expects from a movie. Lets cut now to the moment in the film when the kid gets called by the ship and makes his way into the hangar. That sequence lasts nearly five minutes, including a slow walk into the ship that seems to drag on forever. This boy's reaction to it? His mouth was hanging open the whole bloody time. He was completely hooked.

[DJEN]

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?

Blue and Orange. I can understand why.

It's a messy one.

[NASAFanboy]

It's my favorite movie.

I want a philosophical movie that actually makes you think for once, and this was it.

[IcarusBen]

There are some movies that can be just covered with a blanket statement "it sucks" but any movie that's regarded as a classic surely does deserve a bit more than that. It's one thing not to like them. Godfather movies were a great example, personally I'm bored to tears with them. It doesn't mean they're not great movies though, it's just me not connecting with the art.

I don't really get how 2001 doesn't have a plot though. It has lots of plot. What it's missing is the standard, all-pervasive Hollywood 3-act structure where in act one groundwork is laid for the story, protagonist is introduced along with his list of Trait A, Trait B, Strenght X, Weakness Y, Quirky Habit Z and Personal Challenge To Overcome, in the end PLOT TWIST! to act two, where everything goes badly for protagonist, ending in PLOT TWIST!!, followed by act three where protagonist pulls trough, wins his Personal Challenge and if the movie is Deep or Dramatic, the protagonist dies or someone close to him suffers.

We've been seriously brainwashed to expect this structure from movies and of course it works really well in keeping viewers attention and it's not a bad structure in itself. But it does condition us to react badly to different kinds of movies.

For example 2001 moves in a completely different pacing. It concentrates much more on imagery, thoughts and ideas. Many things in the plot are left unknown and I mean properly unknown and mysterious, not the "The butler was the killer. OR WAS HE?!" type where the viewers task is to speculate on some possible outcomes that can be deducted directly from the movie but which are left slightly obscure. The characters are a bit boring because they're fairly normal, realistic people. And the final boss battle isn't an epic struggle where personal conflicts clash with the urgency of saving the world and conquering the objectified female reward. It's more about making a decision, pondering it's consequences and justification and acting on it.

Okay, let me explain the lack of plot. The first act, about 25 minutes, is... monkeys. Okay. The first half of the second act is eyecandy, then it establishes our character, who we learn has a daughter. She's never mentioned again. Then we have a bunch of foreign scientists, who are never mentioned again. Then, the second half of act 2 is eyecandy, then an annoying lecture, then MORE EYECANDY, then... well, then they all die, which means that whole act was, say it with me, COMPLETELY POINTLESS!!!

Fail, Kubrick. Fail.

Finally, we have act 3, which is my favorite, because of, and only because of, HAL. After establishing our new cast, and having most of them die, we have act 4, which is MORE EYECANDY!!! Gah! In fact, act 4 is NOTHING but SFX.

As for the final boss battle, I very much liked that part. It sent chills up my spine. HAL is my favorite movie villain. It's a darn shame that he got stuck with this piece o' doggie doo.

[IcarusBen]

And in regards to the "you're not old enough to appreciate it" or "you need to appreciate it in context," I say phooey. Some of my favorite films are from that era. My problems with 2001 are that a lot of it's plot points don't contribute to the overarching plot. The third act on it's own could carry the film, if done correctly, but instead we get two hours and fifteen minutes of characters that do nothing, rubber suit monkeys that contribute nothing, and fancy SFX that mean NOTHING!

It could be that either a). I simply have poor taste or . your nostalgia goggles are malfunctioning. I hope it's b, but I bet it's actually a.

[Godot]

Okay, let me explain the lack of plot. The first act, about 25 minutes, is... monkeys. Okay. The first half of the second act is eyecandy, then it establishes our character, who we learn has a daughter. She's never mentioned again. Then we have a bunch of foreign scientists, who are never mentioned again. Then, the second half of act 2 is eyecandy, then an annoying lecture, then MORE EYECANDY, then... well, then they all die, which means that whole act was, say it with me, COMPLETELY POINTLESS!!!

Fail, Kubrick. Fail.

Finally, we have act 3, which is my favorite, because of, and only because of, HAL. After establishing our new cast, and having most of them die, we have act 4, which is MORE EYECANDY!!! Gah! In fact, act 4 is NOTHING but SFX.

As for the final boss battle, I very much liked that part. It sent chills up my spine. HAL is my favorite movie villain. It's a darn shame that he got stuck with this piece o' doggie doo.

I´d say that the apes and scientists are tools to carry on with the narrative (in order to explain to us, that there has been something found on the moon and that it is top secret and so on)

Sure, it could have been faster told with scrolling text (similar to Star Wars) where we are told that, unbeknownst to humans, their evolution was influenced by a monolith, that now, millions of years later, mankind had stations in space orbit and on Moon and that, in all secrecy (known only to a few top scientists and he government), a similar monolith on Moon has been found and that now a ship is on the way to Jupiter where, unknown to its human cargo, it should research another monolith that has been found orbiting Jupiter.

But somehow I would feel that the movie would miss something, if we would do it this way

[vger]

Well, to be fair, if I'd been doing the screenplay, I would have saved the monkeys for the final act as a cool reveal.

There's still a lot of mystery surrounding the monolith, but saving that for the end would have hit it even further out of the ballpark.

[IcarusBen]

Trust me, with act 4 ending it off, the monolith has at least 28 Canadian butt-tons of mystery surrounding it.

[Brethern]

And in regards to the "you're not old enough to appreciate it" or "you need to appreciate it in context," I say phooey. Some of my favorite films are from that era. My problems with 2001 are that a lot of it's plot points don't contribute to the overarching plot. The third act on it's own could carry the film, if done correctly, but instead we get two hours and fifteen minutes of characters that do nothing, rubber suit monkeys that contribute nothing, and fancy SFX that mean NOTHING!

It could be that either a). I simply have poor taste or . your nostalgia goggles are malfunctioning. I hope it's b, but I bet it's actually a.

After that fallout comment I'm with the guys telling you to get in the airlock.

[The Jedi Master]

Wait, there's a book?

Jokes aside, I only have two real complaints:

1.A little slow (as the OP stated).

2.Everyone wears ugly clothes. I know, it was the sixties, but still...

[phoenix_ca]

2001: A Space Odyssey has nothing on Solaris when it comes to pointlessly long scenes. What the hell was with that car scene? Really? What was it, fifteen minutes of just...driving around in a car? (Edit: Okay it was five minutes. It sure felt longer.)

[IcarusBen]

What is this get in the airlock thing people talk about? I don't know that line. If it's a meme, I can't figure it out, and if it's from the movie, I believe Hal told Dave NOT to go into the airlock.