ITT: timeless films that will make sense to the average viewer even in the year 3017

...

2001 A space odyssey

The Tree of Life

Inland Empire

2001 A space odyssey

The Dark Knight Rises

The Tree Of Life

...

2001 A space odyssey

Speed Racer

White Chicks

2001 A space odyssey

Star Trek Beyond

Cowboys And Aliens

What if the people of the future live in a dystopian world where no one knows we evolved from monkeys

Rogue One, but of course we will all be living on like Death Stars and Starkiller bases by then and so it'll seem more like a coming-of-age flick and not be considered hard science fiction anymore.

2001 A space odyssey

2012

Dracula 2000

2001 a space odyssey

Birdimic 2

Mega shark vs Giant octopus

2001 A space odissey

Barry Lyndon

Lawrence Of Arabia

2001 A space odyssey

Young Thug - Check (Visual)

Marcianito 100% real bailando cumbia no fake

days of thunder

Drive
Problem Knight Rises Two

2001 A space odyssey

Beavis and Butthead Do America

Lord of the Rings

2001 a space odissey


Ghostbusters (2016)

Children of men

After reading the book, the film becomes little more than a very well crafted container: It's pretty and neat to look at it, but open it up, and it's empty. There is none of Clarke's vision of how a being we'd call God would communicate with us across unfathomable time spans, or teach us, or lead us into higher consciousness. Stripped away by Kubrick is the sense that this being truly wants us to be in its image, and that the whole breadcrumb trail of monoliths was designed to do just that. And completely erased is the notion that David Bowman, as Star Child, is now one with the Universe, in some Zen-like way, and also much more like something we'd called a god.

Don't get me wrong, 2001 is still one of my favorite films, but to get the full meaning and understand the full weight of why 2001 has been called "the perfect science fiction story," you must read the book. Clarke marries science, mysticism, theory, and fantasy in ways like no other. Unfortunately, Kubrick stripped away the mysticism and theory and left us what is, in comparison to the book, only a glimmer at something bigger.

Kubrick touched the monolith, but Clarke went inside.

pleb

2001: A Space Odyssey

Alien

Back to the Future

They're companion pieces moron.

The book explains things the Film leaves vague, the film tells things from the book visually.

They were produced at the same time, and the film came out before the book.

It's like saying The Phantom Menace novelisation is better than the Phantom Menace because it explains bits more.

>but to get the full meaning and understand the full weight of why 2001 has been called "the perfect science fiction story," you must read the book.

false. In its purest form Sci-Fi as a genre is about high science and its impact on all facets of life down to the lowest dregs of society.

Keeping that in mind the reason why 2001 is the perfect sci fi is because it looks at science and technology from so many different angles, It looks at space travel, it looks at AI it looks at other dimensions, evolution, exploration advancement. Its a story about discovery and survival and shows that anyone can go on a journey through time and space to discover themselves and a place for themselves in a universe we don;t fully understand. It breaks down man and his relationship with technology and the universe in a degree that no other movie (except for mayyyyybe the matrix) even comes close to.

Thats why its the best sci fi of all time and thats totally irrespective of the arthur C clark book