Is 2001: A Space Odyssey overrated?

Poor music choice, fucking Blue Danuba was intended to be Austria's national anthem and represents the city of vienna, to me it would be comparable to lord of the ring having Born in the U.S.A. By Bruce springstein at the end when Aragorn unleashes the ghost.

You're dumb. Like really dumb.

Watch it again in a few years

I'm 27. Will I suddenly enjoy it more once I turn 30?

>because I am one of those few elected individuals capable of understanding Gnosis, the one, the meaning of change and the substance of the ever changing universe
Yet you didn't bother explaining these things because, in reality, you are pretentious and act like you "understand" something even though there isn't anything to understand.

It’s not about age, it’s about watching it and then watching it again when in the mood

First 25 minutes are amazing, the rest is shit.

it was mindblowing in 68, but we are all introduced to elaborate scifi concepts from birth, plus better pacing and dialogue, even in bad films. 10/10 in the moment, 6/10 in the 21st century.

You didn't ask nicely for further explanation and now that you sperged out and acted like a real jerk you are never going to get the answers spoonfed to you because everyone knows you can't handle the truth.

>i cant explain it to you because i dont know what it means, but i want you to think r/iamverysmart

Being rude is not a very effective way to beg for answers.

Wrong, the themes are eternal, and even the special fx are better than modern dogshit.

Attached: 2001 A Space Odyssey.png (2532x1170, 2.61M)

>herpderp
indiewire.com/2018/07/2001-a-space-odyssey-stanley-kubrick-explains-ending-video-1201981455/

Attached: 20220406_042952.jpg (720x678, 215.45K)

(kino) fx don't make up for 90% irrelevant dialogue in the 21st century.

I tried watching it 3 times over all my life and was bored to death.

It’s not irrelevant

Sure it's boring and slow and the plot is relatively shallow. The visuals are incredibly impressive though. The design of the futuristic technology was a more accurate prediction than anything else around that time.

You still have no idea what that means or how it applies to your own existence where you have clearly been captivated by ideas and ideals.

It's fun to watch I loved it.

The discussion of the people running the mission is just about the most interesting part.

>shallow
You niggas still haven’t watched this after the first 30 minutes

2001 is a visual movie meant to be seen on a really big screen. What did you watch it on? And I hope you watched the most recent 4k release.

most of the dialogue is spoonfed scifi concepts for a boomer audience (aka exposition). this doesn't translate over time

I said the plot is shallow, not the themes or ideas presented or anything. As far as the actual events that take place to advance the plot, there aren't many and they could be condensed to 20 minutes. But that's not the where the film holds its value. Plots are for flicks.

Then why did you have to post some excerpt from some external interview to larp like you understood what happened while you watched it?

because you faggots refuse to admit that im right about the dialogue, and that the ending makes no sense unless its explained.

I watched it on a 55" 4k tv in the dark, sitting about 4ft away. I thought it looked great, like I said in the OP I think the cinematography is really fantastic and I loved how much effort went in to making life in space feel real.

But outside of the visuals, I just don't think it lived up to my expectations going in to it. I'd always heard it's one of the best movies ever made and I just don't feel like it lived up to that, I guess.

In contrast I recently watched the 1957 version of the 3:10 to Yuma and I was genuinely blown away by that. It's still quite slow, but the characters, plot and physical effects had me far more engaged than anything in 2001. I know it's a bit of a silly comparison to make since they're so different, but I feel like 3:10 to Yuma is one of the best movies I've ever seen.

>dialogue is the only way something can be demonstrated on film
Go talk to your sewing circle if you are in such desperate need of conversation.

You are a brainlet. Based on what you've said here you missed nearly every major theme of the film. Saying you wish the HAL plot "went somewhere" is like saying "Why did Lawrence go back to the desert? Just stay home lol"

>As far as the actual events that take place to advance the plot, there aren't many and they could be condensed to 20 minutes.
And those moments mostly happen together. That’s the beauty of the kino.

Attached: HAL.jpg (1280x720, 46.26K)

you dont need to drag every scene 10 extra minutes every time to make that point

Movies aren't simply means of relaying information. Just read the wiki summary instead next time.

I think I understood some of the themes. Like the fact that one of the first things the proto-humans do with sapience is begin using violence against each other, whereas before the arrival of the monolith all they really do is scream at each other or get eaten by predators. The implication obviously being that further advancements in our knowledge leads to a greater ability to hurt other people.

I understand that the reason why the characters seem so emotionless aboard the Jupiter mission is because they're so far from humanity that they begin acting less human themselves.

I do stand my point that I think the whole plot with HAL is pretty lame. It's confirmed by mission control pretty early on that he's defective. HAL randomly disobeys commands like not rotating the pod so he can watch Dave and Frank's conversation. They affirm their plan to disconnect him and yet they still do what HAL says anyway, resulting in the deaths of almost everyone on board. Maybe I'm missing something here but their actions just didn't make sense to me.

I read the book and the movie is insulting to it
how about relaying ANYTHING in that extra hour wasted on nothing next time?

>the movie is insulting to it
The movie was made before the book came out user. The book was practically a fan fiction larp based on kubricks script

I'll only go so far as to say it's a visual masterpiece. Greatest movie is entirely subjective. I just watched Pans Labyrinth for the first time and I gotta say it's really mediocre to me. It's well made but I wasn't blown away by it.

>people are still falling for the big screen meme

The plot is the deepest one possible. About the destiny of humanity, evolution and the universe itself

nah ur a pseud lole

>mission control pretty early on that he's defective
It's not "confirmed", they assume he must be because this is the first time something "wrong" has ever happened with AI like HAL.
>HAL randomly disobeys commands
It's not random. HAL's disobedience is strictly and directly related to their approach with Jupiter and his inability to understand the mission.
>They affirm their plan to disconnect him and yet they still do what HAL says anyway
They have no reason to believe that HAL will attempt to kill everyone.
>Maybe I'm missing something here but their actions just didn't make sense to me
In what way?

I'm not even sure what your complaint is, or for what reason you think the whole point of the film is "pretty lame". You don't even seem to question at all why the film that has a scope so large it begins with the dawn of man chooses to have the majority of its story follow a malfunctioning AI. Did you ever stop to think why that is?

Low iq moron

>deepest one possible
genuinely kill yourself pseud
it's good, just not for everyone, certainly not the best film ever made as 90% of people on this board would have you believe.
perhaps if you were born in the 60s it would be

midwit cope

Serious question: do people like you drool when you watch movies? Or are you too busy stuffing your face with candy and popcorn.

>filtered

Why do pseuds get so ass blasted when you criticize this movie?

You’re a fucking retarded waste of space, go back.

that's rude, they were worked on together

bro it's my second favourite movie but theatre screens are still bad

ywnbaw

"They were worked on together" is Kubrick's nice way of saying "I had a script for a movie but I only ever adapt screenplays so I needed Arthur C Clark to legitimize it for me"

>aliens.jpg
you just don't get it bro

that's still rude to Clarke. maybe it'd hold if he was a no one, but at the time of collaboration he already was an established and influential writer. you're just dickriding Kubrick.

>HAL's disobedience is strictly and directly related to their approach with Jupiter and his inability to understand the mission.
No, it is because they gave him orders that conflict with each other, he was suppose to tell them everything they asked about, but also keep the final part of the mission a secret, so the only way to resolve that was to make sure they couldn't ask any more questions.