am I the only person who doesn't enjoy 2001: A Space Odyssey?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

i mentioned this in the scifi thread

maybe i'm alone, but I find it especially tedious. I always have to fastforward through those endless scenes of ship drifting through space. and i don't have a short attention span. hell, i can watch a three hour silent film without losing interest-no problem

i know it's supposed to represent the coldness of space and blah...blah..blah-but couldn't we at least get some dialogue? or have somnething happen?

it would be like making a movie on earth with 10 minutes of a car merging lanes

to me the movie is endless waiting

[Worst Username Ever]

1. Yes.

[Orsino]

2. Yes. We were just talking about you at the meeting.

What's wrong with that Adenoid fella?

I love the movie, but even I have to admit that it gets tedious. I can understand someone not connecting with it at all.

[Richardo]

5. I can understand - it's an acquired taste for some, but for me:

...It whanged me over the head in 1968 when I was 12 and hasn't let up since. I love that flick, and have seen it at LEAST 3 dozen times (most of those BEFORE at-home video/DVD rentals).

[deutsey]

3. From what I understand, there's a huge difference

between seeing it on TV and on the widescreen, as it was intended.

I found the same was true for Ben Hur, by the way. I always thought the movie was boring on TV except for the chariot race. Then I saw it on 35mm and was blown away by the race and even found the rest of the movie engaging. The campy acting seemed to come across better on the large screen than it does on TV.

[lenidog]

7. I have to agree with you

many moves lose so much when they are taken from the big screen to the small one. I mean I can't believe that people freak when they rent a video and its done in letterbox format. They seem to get this dumb idea that they are losing something when in fact they are gaining the other 2/3rds of the frame.

[MrScorpio]

4. You're a freak

I hope that it isn't contagious

[Technowitch]

6. I enjoy parts of it

But some of the sections... like that interminable ride to the moon, leaves me bored and itching for the fast-forward button.

[saracat]

8. One of the worst movies ever. Even its director said it was junk! He said

he couldn't believe people looked for "symbolism'! I will look for the quote. It means NOTHING and is the most boring movie ever made. IMHO!
on edit, I saw it on a widescreen in a movie theatre! Didn't help.I even saw it twicwe. We had free tickets.It did NOT improve.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

10. really?

that's interesting

[edbermac]

18. Kubrick NEVER said any such thing!!

"I tried to create a visual experience, one that bypasses verbalized pigeonholing and directly penetrates the subconscious with an emotional and philosophical content...I intended the film to be an intensely subjective experience that reaches the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does...You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film."

A link to what SK called the best interpretation of the film...

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0009.html

Boring? I guess that's why they make movies like Dumb and Dumber; something that's on your comprehension level...
:spank:

[saracat]

47. Yeah, he did. Something about a "meaningless pastiche".

BTW, read between the lines of the above quote as well.

"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film."

It doesn't "mean" anything".

And it isn't nice to insult fellow posters who happen to disagree with the artistic merit of a particular work. Art is subjective after all!

:spank: I will refrain from any speculation as to your intellect!

[4_Legs_Good]

63. I disagree with your point regarding his quote...

"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film."

I think that's the peak of art. He created something that you're free to interpret. If there was one single specific meaning, it would be propaganda, not art. It's the ability to interpret that makes something art.

There's an old saying

"If you hate an artist, ask him what his art means. If he hates you, he'll tell you."

david

[4_Legs_Good]

9. I'm pretty sure that you are

yes. Indeed.

david

[bif]

11. Yep

One of the best Sci-Fi films of all time.

[vptpt]

12. But it syncs up with that one Pink Floyd album

I forget which one....Saucerful of Secrets, Meddle, something like that. Not as well as Dark Side/Wizard of Oz, though.

Just sayin'...

[Dervill Crow]

13. I've never stayed awake for it.

[cheezus]

14. BO-RING!

I know, it's blasphemy. Guess what? I also think that Kubrick is overrated, in general

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

36. Overall, I think it is boring too,

but I think the beginning scene with the guys in the ape suits is a real hoot.

[GOPBasher]

15. Oh, here, here, here!

I hate that movie, and I can't understand why others like it. In fact, I'm totally dumbfounded by the fact that everyone thinks Stanley Kubric is so amazing. I've never liked any of his movies, besides Full Metal Jacket. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand them, I don't know. Most people say he's amazing, so I must be wrong. But I just don't get it. :shrug:

[NoSheep]

17. Did you see Lolita?

[GOPBasher]

42. No, not that one. Never heard of it. n/t

[NoSheep]

62. It's the best Stanley Kubrick IMO

[GOPBasher]

69. Well maybe I'd like that one, then.

But usually I don't like his movies. I know he must be good at what he does, though, because most people think he's great.

[bridgit]

16. i don't think you're alone & for that matter...

space exploration minus all the sound & fury of take off & something going horribly wrong is tedium personified; all that space in between events and so on & on & on etc...



check out clarke's 'childhood's end', a precursor to many a co-opted notion & one i wish they would turn into film

:shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood%27s_End

but even that one is woefully slight on the, "zap bang you're dead fall down" stuff everywhere in sci fi these days

[MisterP]

28. I have an almost visceral loathing for Arthur C. Clarke

[bridgit]

37. i somehow left you with the impression he's...

a fav if mine :shrug: not so

[MisterP]

39. I didn't really get that impression at all: sorry if I gave you any

impression that I got an impression (and round and round we go!)

[bridgit]

40. no worries...

:thumbsup:

[SoCalDem]

19. I have never sat thru the whole movie

First time I "saw" it , I fell asleep:) My date suggested that we leave..:) No gripes from me :)

[silverpatronus]

20. FINALLY! a kindred spirit

i take issue with most of kubrick's work, but this is particular i loathe. somebody told me that it was a 'classic' film and that i 'had' to watch it. that shoulda tipped me off. about 1/2 hour in i turned it off with a headache. what exactly is the point? why the entire monkey sequence? is there a plot?

as far as i'm concerned, kubrick was an over-bj'd hack, and this proved it to me.

[ContraBass Black]

56. It didn't make sense?

Try the book first. It's a lot easier to understand.

The "monkey sequence" was an alien monolith teaching pre-humans to use weapons. It gets to be critically important later in the movie.

[Ivan Sputnik]

21. Interesting that so many loathe it

when it is often called the greatest sci-fi film ever. I guess it's one of those films that your either "get" or you don't.

[silverpatronus]

22. i'll put star wars IV-VI AND the matrix movies above it

i'll put the fifth element above it too.

[Terran]

52. Oh please.

So those of us who don't worship this film are too dumb to understand it, is that it? Get real.

It's art. Liking it is a matter of taste and opinion.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. Not the only one at all...

I first saw it when it was released in theatres -- I was 8 years old at the time and in a theatre full of hippies smoking pot.

I thought I was going to die of boredom.

I have some residual Pavlovian thing from that viewing -- to this day I cannot sit and watch that film all the way through without wanting to pass out from boredom.

[ashmanonar]

26. heh, that's not boredom.

that's the residual of the pot...:D

[Hell Hath No Fury]

27. Could be...

maybe that's what turned me off to pot, too. :)

Growing up in San Francisco during the Summer of Love I was daily subjected to three smells that to this day make me gag: pot, patchouli oil (or however you spell it), and body odor.

That[/i[ is the 60s in a nutshell to me :D

[ashmanonar]

34. LOL

nice.

yea, i've been around a few neo-hippies in my day...honestly? take a shower. it won't make you any less believing in hippie beliefs.

:7

[mac56]

24. Me too!!!

I'm with you.

[ForrestGump]

25. Overblown, pretentious claptrap

Granted, I haven't seen it in about 20 years, but I saw it twice back then (gave it a second chance after my first viewing, that first viewing being on a movie screen, and decided that it was still an overrated piece of cinematic masturbation) and I'm in no hurry to see it again. Highly doubt that I'd think better of it now. I can't even remember much of anything about the film, actually. Did anything actually happen in the film?

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure beats the hell out of it, and they have ape-men, too. And Napoleon in a water park. Beat that, Kubrick...

[driver8]

29. Try watching it in Portugese...

I work for Warner Bros. as a sound editor in the feature mastering department. We re-master a lot of films for overseas distribution. I had the pleasure of sitting through this film in Portugese.

The effects in this movie are amazing for it's time...but this movie is BORING!

[jandrok]

30. @$$&*&$%##!!!!!! 2001 may be the best movie EVER made!

Certainly the best science fiction movie ever. Great material, excellent direction. It asks the BIG questions....who are we? Why are we here? What will become of us?

"My God...it's full of STARS!" Chills me to the bone even as I think about it. Nothing more eerie than seeing the pod creeping up on the monolith...watching as it "opens".....

More importanly, it stuck to true scientific principles in the way that it imagines space travel and technological advance.

Truly stunning work.

You poor unfortunate soul. My heart goes out to you and all like you.

[4_Legs_Good]

41. Time out here!!!

When did Dave actually say "My God, it's full of stars"?

I know that's the link up with 2010, but I don't recall ever hearing it in 2001. Maybe I just missed it, but I've seen the film many times.

Anyway, I agree, that it's one of the best films ever made. I don't know if I'd actually call it a sci-fi film, though, it kinda transcends genres.

david

[jandrok]

50. You're correct. Dave never says it in the movie.

It's carried over for 2010, and the book certainly makes a big deal out of the statement. Clarke certainly put the phrase there to help interpret the magnitude of the monolith's true nature. But Dave doesn't say it in the movie.

[Richardo]

53. He DOES say it in the book.

...which was being written at the same time they were filming the movie.

[jandrok]

54. Definitely in the book.

Titled one of the chapters, if I remember correctly. It sets the stage for the entire journey at the end of the story.

Ever read "The Sentinel"? That was Clarke's precursor short story to the whole 2001 phenomenon.

[Richardo]

55. I read *all* of ACC when I was in Jr High and High School

He was my favorite author back then. Good times. :D:thumbsup:

[jandrok]

60. Yeah. One of the most scientifically literate authors ever.

A great writer all the way around. He and Asimov were on a perch above everyone else of that era.

[4_Legs_Good]

61. Pffft!!!

The book is just a novelization!

I never took any of the books or the sequel very seriously. I think they all stand on their own as interesting bits of sci-fi, but I don't really put them on the same planet at 2001, which is an entirely different experience.

I would say the book (which is "based on the screenplay") as well as the 2010 movie, and the other books are "inspired by", but not actually on the same plane.

Anyway, I'm glad to know that I wasn't wrong about the Dave line in the movie.

david

[Richardo]

65. The book is NOT a novelization. It was written concurrently.

That's why the monolith is on a moon orbiting Saturn (Iapetus), not in orbit around Jupiter. Bowman pilots the pod to hover above the monolith, when he makes his famous exclamation.

Also, the novel ends with the Starchild exploding all the nuclear weapons in orbit around the Earth, because he preferred 'a cleaner sky'.

[4_Legs_Good]

68. Bah!

If I'm not mistaken the book claims "Based on the screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke".

Concurrently conschmurrently! Saturn, schmaturn!!!

Anyway, is it true that it was originally gonna be Saturn in the movie but the model was too difficult? Heh heh heh.

Well, whatever as far as the book/movie goes. As far as I'm concerned the movie is a stand alone piece.

Just like the latest slew of "Star Wars" movies are "inspired by the Star Wars trilogy", but are in no way definitively connected to them.

So say I, Master of the Universe.

david

[4_Legs_Good]

64. Cool, thanks!

I was afraid I'd totally missed it.

david

[VOX]

46. "Who are we? Why are we here? What will become of us?"

Kubrick covers every one of these elemental questions in the closing minutes of "Paths of Glory."

[jandrok]

49. It was actually Arthur C. Clarke covering that ground.

Kubrick directed and interpreted, and did so amazingly well.

2001 transcends science-fiction to explore deep philosophical questions. Look closely and you'll see elements of transcendentalism and mysticism in the movie and story. Remember also to take the movie in it's historical context. Made in the late 60's during a time of social and technological upheaval, it was jarring and uncomfortable to many folks. Still is today, apparently.

[xmas74]

31. It's an even better movie if you are on acid at the time.

Damn, I love that movie.

[amazona]

32. you mean like the original Solaris?

Quote: it would be like making a movie on earth with 10 minutes of a car merging lanes



Can't tell if you are joking or if you are actually unaware that such a movie was already made. There was a whole concept back then of "sculpting with time" or whatever. Maybe you had to be there.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[leftofthedial]

33. No, Dave. What are you doing, Dave?

How can you not enjoy this, Dave?

[mitchum]

35. No, you're not... it's a lava lamp of a movie

[InvisibleTouch]

38. I have fond memories of 2001.

I was about 4 when I saw it in the theater, and of course the story and the message went right past me, but it was an amazing experience none the less. Some 15 years later I finally watched it from an adult perspective, and while I agree that the ending drags on a bit, I still found it an incredible experience. You just have to be in the right mood.

By contrast, someone mentioned "Solaris" ... I haven't seen the original, but the recent version was beyond unspeakably dull. "2001" at least had gorgeous scenery during those long stretches where nothing seemed to be happening. Okay, "Solaris" had George Clooney, who might qualify as "gorgeous scenery" ... but even he couldn't save that muddled mess. Give me "2001" any day.

In general I prefer more action-oriented, space-operish sci-fi, though.

[amazona]

59. it was me and I meant the original Solaris

It is famous for its driving scene which goes on for a significant period of time without dialogue.

The remake was OK in my opinion but sort of missed the point in some ways.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Ellen Forradalom]

43. That's because you peaked a half-hour ago

Drop more acid.

[Bouncy Ball]

44. Yes, you are.

I love it, love it, love it. To me, the quiet scenes are rather meditative. It's so damn well done, in my opinion.

And you know, in space, it WOULD be totally quiet and not much action going on, unlike most movies that show EXPLOSIONS in space. :eyes:

[VOX]

45. No. When you think of Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove," "Paths of Glory,"

"Lolita," and "The Killing," "2001" is all the more disappointing. The Douglas Trumbull effects were cool in 1968, but over the long haul, they're no substitute for a good story, and one well-acted at that.

IMO, Kubrick's films from "2001" until his final, God-awful "Eyes Wide Shut" cannot match the energy and sharpness of his earlier work.

[Seabiscuit]

48. Apparently you're not the only one.

But did you see it in the theater when it was first released as I did?

If so, you might have been as blown away as I was. It was a breakthrough movie for its time. Kind of like Star Wars and The Lord of The Rings.

Movies like that don't happen too often.

[Terran]

51. Not the best sci-fi movie ever made, let's put it that way

Me, I do like 2001. But these people who think it's the best film ever made must be Kubrick partisans or something. It has a great deal of visual interest, but it takes more than that, IMO, to sustain a film as a complete work of art. It's gotta have a story, it's gotta move, and you're right, 2001 drags badly in that department.

[Mary in KC]

57. That movied bored me stiff.

[northzax]

58. you are not alone

others who didn't enjoy the movie include:

George W. Bush
Ralph Reed
Tom Delay
Roy Moore

so you're in good company. :)

[sundog]

66. sorry, I love it

:7

[SkipNewarkDE]

67. For a film about the fate of humanity

In terms of its evolution being influenced long before and continually on by some mysterious super-intelligent benefactor, it was one cold, hard, inhuman film. I found it kind of a strange irony that the computer was the most human thing about the movie, complete with insecurity, confusion, and madness - truly the only somewhat developed character in the story.

I like the film, but I think it is highly overrated, and somewhat tedious.