2001: A Space Odyssey Sucks

[Camacha]

However, the movie is truly great, and you need to watch it seriously and almost meticulously.

As with any artform, you need to do some work. Just passive consumption will not get you far.

Kubrick's movies share his established style of wide angles, silence and details, which really require careful observation, but they're not perfect.

I feel that the first Alien movie borrows a lot in those respects, without copying too blatantly. It is quite a different movie, but the long, wide, slow shots have the same distinct feel and are obviously inspired by 2001.

I think it is funny that Alien borrowed quite a bit from 2001, but at the same time introduced major swathes of new stuff, which in its turn made it the new scifi standard. It is also striking how much the sequel, Aliens, is another movie completely. Much more a modern movie in the action kind of way. It has its own merits though.

[NovaSilisko]

Wow, this thread is still going?

2001 was fantastic to me, but the pace is too slow for some (like Icarus). I don't really mind methodical pacing, and still enjoyed it greatly. And yknow what - who cares? I say let people like and dislike what they want, as long as neither party complains to the other about liking or disliking something.

Edited May 31, 2014 by NovaSilisko

[vger]

Wow, this thread is still going?

I think the only way to ensure a thread with more replies than this, would be to post a thread with the title: "Space sucks"

I feel that the first Alien movie borrows a lot in those respects, without copying too blatantly. It is quite a different movie, but the long, wide, slow shots have the same distinct feel and are obviously inspired by 2001.

I think it is funny that Alien borrowed quite a bit from 2001, but at the same time introduced major swathes of new stuff, which in its turn made it the new scifi standard. It is also striking how much the sequel, Aliens, is another movie completely. Much more a modern movie in the action kind of way. It has its own merits though.

One of the reasons I like Alien and Aliens, but can't stand Alien3 and Resurrection. Not just the plot elements, but the complete lack of disregard for the feel of the universe. The first two felt like "real space" to me. It pushed the envelope of believability in places, but still felt like what I would expect being in space to feel like. Even hyper-sleep and terraforming are given some extra love so that they feel more like speculative technology instead of 'magic.'

Then after Aliens, everything turns into Syfy, and you have penal prison planets and a testbed for the Firefly series.

Edited May 31, 2014 by vger

[IcarusBen]

When you watch older movies, you need to watch them in the context of their time. The perfect example is Metropolis. It's a masterpiece by the standards back then. It's a childlish pile of crap by today's art standards.

I hate new flash and bang movies, with annoying characters and overexplaining things, with "everything must look cool", with LOUDNESS and frantic camera movements to conceal crappy CGI, but I do think that "2001" does partially suck.

Kubrick was an awesome director, but not even he could escape the need for dazzling people. Some of the technologies and movie magic seen in that movie were completely new, so he used them for the sake of using them. It was a bad move.

However, the movie is truly great, and you need to watch it seriously and almost meticulously. It's not something you watch with a bunch of friends over popcorn at your place.

Kubrick's movies share his established style of wide angles, silence and details, which really require careful observation, but they're not perfect.

I always watch movies three times to make sure I catch everything. When a movie is really good, I watch it a lot. But 2001 is so bad for me I could barely make it through the first watch. I simply and utterly stinks.

Now, if they EVER remake this movie, then they should solely focus on the third act, because for a while there, I enjoyed it. I love HAL as a character, and his death scene sent chills up my spine.

Hey, there should be a KSP movie about Jeb trying to shut down a rampant MechJeb! MGM, Dreamworks, Disney, work on it and get back to me in a few years.

[pxi]

There were two other books in the series.

I want to see 2061 and 3001 before we think about remaking the first one tbh.

[lajoswinkler]

I always watch movies three times to make sure I catch everything. When a movie is really good, I watch it a lot. But 2001 is so bad for me I could barely make it through the first watch. I simply and utterly stinks.

Now, if they EVER remake this movie, then they should solely focus on the third act, because for a while there, I enjoyed it. I love HAL as a character, and his death scene sent chills up my spine.

Hey, there should be a KSP movie about Jeb trying to shut down a rampant MechJeb! MGM, Dreamworks, Disney, work on it and get back to me in a few years.

Well, then it's about your taste. I don't think it's wrong. It's your taste.

I think it would be a disaster to remake it. The director who'd even speak about it would be utterly shunned by the academia. It's simply one of those movies you don't remake. Ever.

I'd like to see "2001" on big screen, but chances for that are slim. Maybe, if someone made a total digital restoration and enchanced the sound, it would be a big hit, but honestly, I have doubts about that. Hollywood has raised a pathetic global audience that readily gulps down crap it produces in copious amounts.

Nassault did something similar to what you're mentioning.

[Red Iron Crown]

2001 without the first two acts would be all wrong. The idea that we're primitives in comparison to the monolith makers is one of the central themes.

[Camacha]

2001 without the first two acts would be all wrong. The idea that we're primitives in comparison to the monolith makers is one of the central themes.

Yeah, that is quite a dangerous thing to say. It is rare, but from time to time a visionary comes by that does everything all wrong, which ends up being more right than anything you could ever imagine. Even then, there will always be a couple naysayers that cling to the old, of course.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's possible that a remake of 2001 consisting of just the third act could be good, but it wouldn't be 2001.

[IcarusBen]

The real question is; who would play all the major roles?

[Dispatcher]

I'm not fond of most remakes. To me, it demonstrates a lack of creativity; unless the original director (obviously living) were to do a remake in order to take advantage of better production technologies, or the remake were more true to its inspiration (i.e. novel, etc.).

[Dodgey]

Remake no, remaster on the other hand. I think that we have demonstrated that the film by general consensus is a very good one and a classic. It's just not your film, simple as that. To me it sounds like you are looking at the plot too superficially. But in any case it just isn't your type of film, not a bad film, just not your film.

[BagelRabbit]

Here is why I adore 2001.

In my opinion, it is The Most Technically Accurate Science-Fiction Film Ever Made, Given the Time that It Was Made In. It forecasted all sorts of wild technological innovations, from TV screens in the seatbacks of airplanes... to the iPad. I'm serious. Look it up. The actual spacecraft have an amazing amount of technological sophistication and would likely actually work in real life (with a few changes), as opposed to every single other science-fiction movie ever made. I won't even go into the poor designs and lack of foresight in 2010, but they serve as a view of what conventional science fiction was at the time. For someone who knows anything about space, 2010 is difficult to believe and unpleasant to watch.

2001's plot is slow but very present. Instead of Kubric forcing the plot down your throat, you have to discover (HA) what's happening yourself. This may take a while and a couple of watchings, but there is a heck of a lot going on behind the scenes, enough to write a book about (and there actually have been books written about it).

Pretty much every bit of 2001 is now cliché. The music is cliché, the monoliths are cliché, HAL is cliché, and the warp through space is cliché. But this is because the movie is so good! If the movie was really as poor as you're making it, it would have very quickly faded out of view. Ironically, today we see the film as a string of clichés precisely because Kubric was so avant-garde during his day that people remembered what he made. So you absolutely can't blame him for that.

I won't say that 2001 is my favorite film of all time but it's certainly way up there. I won't criticize you for disliking it; different strokes for different folks, after all. But I really admire the movie and urge people to watch it if they haven't already. Don't let this thread keep you from watching 2001.

[TheDarkStar]

Personally, I didn't like it because of how slow it was and how long the "flashing lights" scenes lasted. I had read the book beforehand, so I knew the plot, but there were scenes that dragged on way longer than they should have.

[IcarusBen]

Honestly, I never noticed how cliche it was. But remember, quality is like time, it's relative. I hate it, you like it, but there is no clear definition of good or bad.

[Dispatcher]

There are lots of movies out there. Many are hardly worth the time to watch. Others are well done and entertaining or informative. Some are original and cause reflection during that evening. But rarely one comes along which is nothing less than profound. Such a movie inspires thought which continues throughout one's life. To me, "2001" is such a movie.

[Dispatcher]

Whether one likes the movie or not, it sure inspires discussion.

I think its on this Tuesday evening on TCM, in the US.

[IcarusBen]

There are lots of movies out there. Many are hardly worth the time to watch. Others are well done and entertaining or informative. Some are original and cause reflection during that evening. But rarely one comes along which is nothing less than profound. Such a movie inspires thought which continues throughout one's life. To me, "2001" is such a movie.

It's just a problem when that thought is "this movie sucks...."

[IcarusBen]

Bingo. That's the problem right there in a nutshell. I'm sitting in a movie theatre. I don't have those notes, and I may not even have read the book. It's Kubrick's job to explain things to me or at least make the movie comprehensible. I shouldn't have to go find script notes to be able to say "ah ok, now I see what's going on."

He failed.

Now that I have read the books and the script notes, and I'm a compleat space nut I can say there were some nice realistic elements and SFX that literally defined the state of the art at the time. As far as I'm concerned, it's got the only realistic depiction of an AI I've ever seen. And I love those bits. I still say "it's full of stars" a lot.

But it's still not a good movie.

I read the book and I go "wow, damn, that's awesome" but I watch the movie and I (or people I've shown it to) go "er, wait, whut? hold on, explain things to me, what's going on here?"

This. This is my entire experience with 2001. I'm not even half an hour in and I'm like, whut?

[Creature]

Bingo. That's the problem right there in a nutshell. I'm sitting in a movie theatre. I don't have those notes, and I may not even have read the book. It's Kubrick's job to explain things to me or at least make the movie comprehensible. I shouldn't have to go find script notes to be able to say "ah ok, now I see what's going on."

As a kind of an intellectual boomerang I'm gonna ask why do you feel that movies need to be made exclusively comprehensible on first or second time watching? You don't expect this from a painting, a poem, a song or a sculpture nor always from a book. You're expected to stare at Mona Lisa's smile after centuries and still ponder what it's really about or you can read a poem over and over and over, find new thoughts rising and new feelings. And not to mention authors like Sartre who can easily pour a lifetime of thoughts in a book. If a movie is not easily understood, why exactly is it not a good movie?

I can agree that it's longwinded and difficult at times to watch and obviously the art of storytelling an conveying ideas through film has developed a lot in the last 40+ years. I can totally understand if someone doesn't like it. I don't like opera. It's incomprehensible, loud and boring with cliche stories.

However saying that Kubrick failed or that there's no plot is something that I think is a bit of an oversimplification. Just as I can't really say Pavarotti is a bad singer because I haven't got a clue what he's yodling about now. 2001 is not a movie made for quick entertainment, it's more philosophy and art and exactly as was inteded by the director. If Kubrick had failed, there would be no 10 page discussion. You couldn't get two pages from Transformers unless you start posting pictures of Megan Fox.

If you want to see a REALLY long winded and boring movie, go watch Stalker or any other Tarkovski movie.

[Dodgey]

^^^this, why is it that films are always expected to be clear, concise and entertaining. What is wrong with a film that at the end of it you can that was well made, I didn't really enjoy it as much as other films but it was very well made.

[Dispatcher]

It's just a problem when that thought is "this movie sucks...."

Obviously your OP was intended to invite "discussion", and your position on the movie is clear, as is the view of everyone who has posted in reply. So we each go away with the same opinion of the movie as we started with. That's fine; we also understand each other's opinions on the movie a little better. Thanks.

[IcarusBen]

As a kind of an intellectual boomerang I'm gonna ask why do you feel that movies need to be made exclusively comprehensible on first or second time watching? You don't expect this from a painting, a poem, a song or a sculpture nor always from a book. You're expected to stare at Mona Lisa's smile after centuries and still ponder what it's really about or you can read a poem over and over and over, find new thoughts rising and new feelings. And not to mention authors like Sartre who can easily pour a lifetime of thoughts in a book. If a movie is not easily understood, why exactly is it not a good movie?

I can agree that it's longwinded and difficult at times to watch and obviously the art of storytelling an conveying ideas through film has developed a lot in the last 40+ years. I can totally understand if someone doesn't like it. I don't like opera. It's incomprehensible, loud and boring with cliche stories.

However saying that Kubrick failed or that there's no plot is something that I think is a bit of an oversimplification. Just as I can't really say Pavarotti is a bad singer because I haven't got a clue what he's yodling about now. 2001 is not a movie made for quick entertainment, it's more philosophy and art and exactly as was inteded by the director. If Kubrick had failed, there would be no 10 page discussion. You couldn't get two pages from Transformers unless you start posting pictures of Megan Fox.

If you want to see a REALLY long winded and boring movie, go watch Stalker or any other Tarkovski movie.

The reason that a movie needs to be comprehensible on a first viewing is simple; you have no idea whether the audience will like your film, or if they'll want to rewatch it, so the message must be put forwards the first time watching.

Now, with 2001, not only do you need to watch the film multiple times, but you also need to read the book and the script notes to get the point of it all. If I don't even like the movie, what makes Kubrick think I'll want to read the book?

Again, had the third act been the main premise of the film, with it's chilling depiction of an AI, some excellent (if not slightly wooden) characters, and a sense of both paranoia and isolation, this film would've been so much better.

As for the cliches, this is the only place I can defend Kubrick. When this movie was released, none of the cliches in the movie were actually cliches.

[vger]

The reason that a movie needs to be comprehensible on a first viewing is simple; you have no idea whether the audience will like your film, or if they'll want to rewatch it, so the message must be put forwards the first time watching.

Different films handle ambiguity quite well to a certain degree. Perhaps nowhere near as high of a degree as 2001, but the withholding of information can give a film great longevity.

An example more contemporary: Star Wars. Original Trilogy, I mean. There's a saga that didn't need to go out of its way to explain every little nuance. It left so much to our imaginations, that fans were able to keep the fire going for decade and a half. Nobody knew how the war got started, but we could use what information we had to make an educated guess. People bickered about whether or not the Alliance was even the definitive 'good guy' in the whole ordeal. What exactly was "The Force?" Was it an intelligent entity like some kind of 'heartbeat of the universe?' A collective unconscious? Did it have "a plan?" How did Vader get hurt? How did Luke and Leia get hidden from him? People were gathering as much data as they could about the capabilities of Star Destroyers and the Death Star, trying to guess at what kind of resources and power would be required. Even how powerful a "death ray" would need to be in order to nuke a planet.

There's what you get when you leave things to the imagination. Or you could then surrender your intellectual property to the "insta-gratification" movement of modern society and, "Oh, by the way, it's because of Midichlorians."

2001 doesn't spell everything out for you because you're expected to analyze it yourself. Instead of just having you sit back and watch explorers do their science, Kubrick is inviting you to BE an explorer. Observe, hypothesize, and have fun doing it. You're even granted ample time

Edited June 1, 2014 by vger

[CyclonicTuna]

Everyone has their opinions, I don't see how yours needs a thread of its own.