2001 a space odyssey

Okay so I just watched my first Stanley Kubrick film, 2001 a space odyssey and honestly I was bored out of my mind. What the hell is the appeal? There was no story, nothing I haven't seen before in a sci-fi story, it was so slow, there were no real characters and a lot of things that took so much longer than they could/should have.

Attached: monolith.jpg (730x477, 281K)

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/title/tt0124010/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

This probably looks like a bait thread or something but i'm being sincere, currently watching youtube videos about it to try and understand what people see in the movie

>duh where’s the capes and the explosions and the women durrrrrr

Come on user, i'd rather you didn't respond than try to strawman me, I don't even like capeshit.

Okay I guess no one wants to talk about it, i'm going to watch the shining to see if there is something to Kubrick

Okay wait, first I want to ask what is deep about showing random images and expecting people to interpret good art?

Like there were things I liked about the movie, visuals, music (and lack of) but they weren't built around anything, I get that it's about the evolution of man but it doesn't feel significant

Also the atmosphere building was so slow when I was already feeling the atmosphere, it became absurd and I became distracted and bored.

Did you watch it on some tv/computer screen with tinny sound or did you go an see it at an IMAX with the music blasting at you and like 3 story tall visuals of it's gorgeous practical special effects?

That's how I saw it last year and it was honestly one of the best cinema experiences I've every had. Even having that intermission added to the experience.

I watched it on my computer screen and it was still one of the most beautiful movies i have ever seen. However visuals alone are not enough to carry a movie.

It sounds like you're just not that into a visual/thematic story-telling. You might just be the type of person who needs a character to anchor yourself to in a story. Nothing wrong with that, 2001 just isn't for you.

Have you heard the expressions of slow burn atmospheric

That's fair enough, I was just hoping to be blown away considering all the hype around it.

I guess there isn't really anything to discuss if it's just not my type of movie, oh well, hopefully I'll enjoy his other movies.

For sci fi kino you dont want to fall asleep to I would suggest Solaris

The problem with great movies is that they inspire entire generations of imitators, and then 30 years later people go back to the original and deem it "overrated" and "slow" because all the best tropes are worn out now.

It's not the director. If Kubrick made a movie just for you, I guarantee it would have plenty of violence, sex, humor and le complex interwoven script.

Attached: SqVb1rM.jpg (1200x675, 60K)

ignore everything after and including the light show and it's a great ai vs humans movie

First sequence in the movie is literally Kubrick stealth-pilling the public about our true origins.

2001 is the ultimate audio/visual experience on the big screen. There's not a lot of meat to the "story" and there is quite a bit of downtime that you could argue is pointless (like watching a ship drift over the surface of the moon for half an hour).

Congrads. You are what is termed a "moron". Nothing to be ashamed of. The movie is a great litmus test for this condition.

Movies don't exist in a bubble, it's still slow and boring if those ideas have all been done better by now.

Is it though? There isn't an amazing reason as to why the AI goes against its creators and we don't see that conflict for very long.

>movies don't exist in a bubble
profound

There are only 3 possible explanations

1. You have a low IQ
2. You are under age
3. This is bait

They haven't been done better, only imitated to death, and boring is a subjective quality. I find modern sci-fi dreck to be largely boring and vapid.

Just go away.

imagine seeing a film for the first time in theatres on LSD and that film is 2001.

It would be a pretty remarkable experience, one you probably wont ever forget and would be raving about forever.

Enough people did this to convince the entire world that this film was amazing, even though its trash unless youre on LSD.

Disprove this

>people liked a movie because hippies liked it
this isn't an easy rider thread

try watching it again in a few weeks. stuff like this isn't meant to be seen just once, and you might be surprised at what you get out of it a second time now that you have certain expectations in place.

Okay user, i will if I remember, thanks

Disprove isn't a word, that wouldn't make any sense. How can you unprove something that's been proven?

The word you're looking for is debunk. "Debunk my imbecilic statement."

But I thought bunk was bad

that's just kubrick style
watch any movies from him and it's all the same

try the shining and EWS, and then barry lyndon
2001 isn't something I enjoyed too much either, it was alright but nothing I'll ever watch again unlike those 3 I mentioned

This is bait

Im sorry that your ADD coombrain cant focus on anything for more then 15 seconds without flashing lasers or explosions

Attached: 1518504181296.jpg (455x675, 86K)

>nothing I haven't seen before in a sci-fi story
Kind of a brainlet take to judge this by 2019 standards.

It's really not, please explain why you think that, I just want to have a conversation

I watched the whole movie, there wasn't much to focus on

I wasn't bored for a minute. The sequel on the other hand is another story.

look brah, if you don't get it, you don't get it. please don't develop bitterness over your lack of (fundamental) appreciation and start shitting on 2001 every time it's mentioned henceforth

I'm not bitter and i'm not shitting on the movie, I just didn't really like it and I wanted to make this thread to try and understand why.

You didn't like it because you kept looking down every few seconds to refresh Yea Forums's catalog

what movies do you like?

That's not true user, I only tabbed out once during the scene where one of the guys went to check out the antenna thing because I was pinged on discord

There was a story though. It's not even kind of hard to follow.
>A weird monolith shows up
>It gives an ape the idea of how to use tools
>That tribe of apes dominate other apes
>simple tool use transitions to a post nuclear space age in a single shot
>Another monolith is found on the moon that indicates something in Jupiter/Saturn orbit (was originally saturn, but Kubrik couldn't get the rings to look right, and changed it to jupiter for the film)
>AI goes mad for tangential reasons to introduce conflict
>Man must not fight his own technology to survive long enough to find the monolith
>it transitions him from the post nuclear space age to transcendental existence over a single sequence
The fact that it is so long and slow is intentional. It's a story about the evolution of man from ape to space baby, which takes place over hundreds of thousands of years, and hundreds of millions of miles. It's called decompression.
Contrast with some piece of shit like interstellar, which is constantly tripping over itself to get to the next action paced set piece, and a movie about time and space feels like it takes place over the course of a weekend in someone's back yard.
The reason you've seen so many elements in other media since is because it was such hot shit that it reached a point of cultural osmosis.

I hope you mean the original?

Both are pretty good.
Neither capture the feel of the book which is far superior to either.

>it's a great ai vs humans movie
No it isn't, HAL did nothing outside his programming. If anything, HAL's actions are an example of man's hubris.

I hope you don't speak like this in real life

And you read the book in polish to appreciate the authors purpose, right? Not just some translation?

Were people to dumb to follow the plot and themes of space odyssey so they just call it meaningless cool images? graduate highschool kiddies. unironically. Not that you know what unironic means you dishonest faggot.

>AI goes mad
Wrong

Well, you'll be disappointed then, won't you?

>What the hell is the appeal? There was no story, nothing I haven't seen before in a sci-fi story

Your looking at it from the perspective of 2019.
You need to remember that this movie was originally released in 1968.
It's more than half a century old now.
In 1968, it was groundbreaking.

>graduate highschool kiddies
Shit, senior year HS in world mythology class my final presentation was about the monomyth as seen in 2001.

>originally released in 1968.
This. The year BEFORE apollo 11.

Apollo 1 must have been really good to get that many sequels, wow.

kek

>Apollo 1 must have been really good
Unironically it was a huge disaster.

Attached: apollo fire.jpg (608x461, 356K)

i liked almost all of it except the music. the music gave me a headache

What's going on in this picture?

it's a great ai vs humans movie

I'm always really happy when a movie doesn't really have women characters.

They stuffed the crew compartment full of all kinds of flammable material, pure oxygen, and live wires. Astronauts got in and were barbecued by a short circuit.

Single spark in an oxygenated environment with three astronauts strapped into their seats in a test run during apollo 1.
Go watch moon shot imdb.com/title/tt0124010/

Attached: the right stuff.jpg (1005x1500, 422K)

Checked but tom Wolfe isn't based at all