1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why is 2001: A Space Odyssey such a highly regarded movie?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Dida, Feb 12, 2012.

  1. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,696
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Side note, I'll highly recommend Moon. It borrows a lot from, and builds upon, 2001. It's like 2001 modernized. Sam Rockwell got snubbed by the Oscars.
     
  2. de Maistre

    de Maistre Comte

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    289
    Ritalin?
     
  3. bathsheba666

    bathsheba666 Fast 'n Bulbous

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    10,012
    Location:
    London
    Brilliant film. More the likely reality of space exploration than, say, Starship Troopers.

    But, reading the OP, it's pleasing to echo a sense of his distaste at seeing monkeys uncomprehendingly gibbering around a monolith.
     
  4. _random_

    _random_ Jewel Runner

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    6,793
    Location:
    Behind the man behind the throne
    This, seriously. I love Jeff Bridges and all, but Sam Rockwell in Moon would be one of my all-time favorite performances. Granted, I'm not quite at "movie buff" status yet, but I know brilliance when I see it.
     
  5. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    Frankly, YMMV on this rule. At some point or another, my scifi-loving buddies from undergrad and high school have discussed this movie, and we have had maybe 10-20% liking the film. I guess the rest of them are just posers and pretending to like scifi to pick up chicks.

    Yeah, any one who disagrees with the your mainstream opinion of the movie clearly doesn't enjoy film. :mischief:
     
  6. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,939
    Location:
    Scotland
    Here's the answer to your question, Dida: it's highly regarded because it lets you make grand, sweeping generalisations about anything you feel like. :mischief:
     
  7. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,696
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    I've never seen someone dislike 2001 for reasons that are not biased by modern viewing of the film. Not taking that into context is like judging a painting for techniques developed after the painter died.
     
  8. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,329
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    Hahahahaha. I love this thread.

    Ahem. Well, seriously, whether you like this movie or not doesn't necessarily imply anything. But the OP makes it sound like the problem is mainly with the viewer's expectations, and they can't really be blamed on the movie. Also, the obsession with plot and character development is such a... petit bourgeois funny thing :mischief:
     
  9. Theige

    Theige American Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    Messages:
    3,935
    Location:
    New York
    Eh, it just lets us (people who like it) make people who don't like it feel like a-holes. :p
     
  10. stormerne

    stormerne is just a Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2001
    Messages:
    3,428
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    It's all about context. In the 1960s, 2001 was a groundbreaking film. Now it would not be so. After all, even though it was produced in 1968, it was based on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel" that was written in 1948. (I remember I read the story before watching the movie; I preferred the story!)

    However, the best and most enduring artworks do not try and communicate a message or anything else. Those that do are short-lived in their appeal because once you've grasped the intended message there's little reason to repeat the experience. The best artworks are more enigmatic and provide an opportunity for the viewer's unique interpretation - which may vary from person to person, and from time to time with the same person.
     
  11. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    Could you explain that a little better? Are you suggesting that everyone who sees it now just doesn't like it because the special effects aren't up to snuff? That everybody nowadays has to say it's good because of some influence it has on subsequent films?

    I don't think 2001 stands up, and people are giving Kubrick a pass because the rest of his stuff is good so this movie just has to be good as well. If they were honest with themselves, they'd rather watch something else.
     
  12. Joecoolyo

    Joecoolyo 99% Lightspeed

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    茨城県
    I liked it.
     
  13. Tahuti

    Tahuti Writing Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    9,492
    Gender:
    Male
    So you doubt it's impossible to sincerely like this film?
     
  14. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    Nope. Not what I'm getting at.
     
  15. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton How much Parmesan to put on your umbrella?

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,120
    It's been some time since I have seen it, but as I remember it, this movie lives and dies with the viewers willingness to actively put effort into appreciating it (for its level of abstraction and at times extraordinary slow-pacedness - which leaves room open for own interpretations and thoughts, or frustration). Some may think that this makes it automatically a bad movie, others argue that once one has made this effort, one will also appreciate it (and that people who don't are bound to be kind of inferior :rolleyes:).

    In my personal opinion, this movie is in deed not a master piece, exactly because one has to make said effort to appreciate it. If I try really hard, I think I can appreciate virtually everything, so that to me is a clear deficiency rather than a sign of quality. However, if one does make this effort, I also can see a certain enjoyment and interesting experience this movie has to offer in a rather unique way. And it surely has some interesting and engaging elements. So while not great, it at least is an interesting movie.
     
  16. Dida

    Dida YHWH

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,425
    Yes, and the ape scene is still ********, regardless of its meaning or importance. At least I got some laugh out of this one, some other scenes in the movie isn't even funny.

    I was never big on special effect. In fact I think the special effects in 2001 is still pretty awesome despite it being made so long ago. It's the lack of character and coherent story that caused me to dislike this movie. If one has to read some other article/book to know what the movie was talking about, it is an automatic failure. A movie that has no story is not a movie at all. Now 2001 has a story, but it is incomprehensible, pretentious and ridiculous.

    The star-gate scene was possibly the worst part of this movie and one of the most boring. The ape scene at least had shrieking, bone-wielding monkeys, this one just consisted of moving streaks of lights, and minutes upon minutes of it. I can imagine people in the 1960s may have considered the effect amazing, but it is no big deal today and I don't see how we need to see 10 minutes of that. The guy is going through a star-gate or wormhole of somewhat, I get it, now stop wasting my time and show me something interesting!
     
  17. jtb1127

    jtb1127 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    2,498
    Location:
    Arlington, Virginia
    How is a scene ********?
     
  18. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,635
    Location:
    the golf course
    it ends with the sequel 2010 ;)
     
  19. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,696
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    It's not the special effects. If you judge 2001 by that standard, and ignore it was filmed in the late 60s, then your opinion on film is completely irrelevant.

    What I mean is that people think of going to the movies as entertainment, and 2001 isn't a very entertaining film. So if you're judging by a standard of passive watching instead of thinking, it's a bad film.
     
  20. Dida

    Dida YHWH

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,425
    That's like saying we shouldn't consider a car to be bad because it can't move. A car's purpose is to get from point A to point B; a movie's purpose is to entertain. Now a movie may entertain in many ways, some are funny, others may be epic, but in the end a movie that doesn't entertain, or that is downright boring as in the case of 2001, is definitely bad.
     

Share This Page