After watching Moon and 2001, loved Moon and was bored the hell out of my mind by 2001's snooby pretentiousness, except for the 3rd Act with Hal, which was great and should have been the entire movie, but after watching Moon it was very similar to what I wanted 2001 to be.
I loved the Isolationism aspect and I also loved Gerty, aka a more benevolent spin on HAL.
What does Sup Forums think of Moon?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
It's nothing like 2001. Also 2001 isn't pretentious or snooby, you're just retarded.
Moon is just a well made low budget space movie.
Also please no pretentious cunts trying to interpret 2001 here.
It represents the evolution of the human kind. Monolith ---> HAL ---> Giant Space Baby
Blah blah blah.
Snobbiness doesn't excuse the movie for being boring and uninteresting as fuck.
you cant compare, two completely different movies, they fit the sci-fi category for sure, but the themes are different.
back2reddit.png
What an embarrassing opinion to have.
>Fun fact
David Bowes son directed moon
Bowie*
Warcraft was so bad it's making his earlier stuff like Moon bad retroactively.
A 15 minute Acid trip and 15 minutes of gorillas grunting.
Yeah... At the very least each of those sequences could have been 10 minutes shorter.
I think it's a boring movie, I've read the analysis, the simbolism doesn't make it any more painful to watch.
Moon managed to explore the Human condition, while not being loud, essentially having 1 actor on screen and keep me very much interested throughout.
Also I'm only drawing similarities between 2001 act 3 and Moon, fuck the other acts anyway.
>2001 isn't pretentious or snooby, you're just retarded.
This, now nuke this thread PLEASE.
Moon was good but Oblivion was better.
Act 3 and Moon share similarities.
They're two completely different beasts
So either you didn't really put too much thought to your analysis on the films, or this is bait
That's unfortunate that you think 2001 is pretentious since it's far from being anything close to that
Regardless, here's your (You)
2001 has stood the test of time while Moon is already fading from memory.
You do realize Reddit shills 2001 all the time, and never rarely mentions Moon?
I think you might be understanding contrarianism incorrectly
2001 is art, cinematic art. It allows images on screen long enough for their beauty and impact to sink into you. The vastness of space, the vastness of time, the desolation of the moon. The eerieness of a living world that consciousness hasn't dawned on yet. If you don't like it, then how very unfortunate for you.
I can't imagine Duncan Jones got loads or control on that. It looks like a the kind of thing the studio couldn't help but get elbows deep in
The gorillas is blatantly its own story about the tribe struggling to find food. Way to argue against you being called a retard.
I didn't like that movie. It felt like it was made by some high school student with a small budget, the only thing I really enjoyed was the score. Maybe im too dumb to understand it
Again, what does the 15 minute LSD trip serve?
The effect would have been the same if it was half as long.
Does it really take the audience 10 extra minutes to understand that he is transcending human understanding.
The same with the Apes. They discover the monolith which causes them to develop intelligence use tools and beat the rival group of Apes, later evolving into humans.
This movie is literally Snob 101, an interesting idea doesn't excuse boredom.
The LSD scene wasn't me pondering the movie. It was me figuring out the idea behind the imagery 2 minutes in, waiting another 5 to figure out if they are gonna throw another curveball and fastforwarding through the rest.
The movie would have been objectively better if act 1 and 4 were cut shorter.
it's not even about quality or pretentiousness they're completely different film you fucking mongoloid
No shit, and finding the monolith, getting the intellectual capacity to beat the rival group, and win out.
The act could have been cut short by half that. Display the same sequence of events and ideas.
It's actually about a 10 minute Acid trip.
Again I'm exclusively talking about Act 3.
I don't give a shit about the other acts.
Act 3. Isolationism Scifi Movie + AI
Moon. Isolationosm Scifi Movie + AI + Cloning.
Fucking mongoloids can't even read the OP. I tried to Title the thread as such to draw similarity only to act 3, but there is only so much you can put in the title.
It honestly feels like 30.
That scene doesn't need to be longer than 2 minutes.
It adds NOTHING to the film. You are literally a pretentious snob if you think otherwise.
If you do. I encourage you to rewatch the scene, and think about how you totally aren't waisting your time being spoon fed a simple idea with 20 different light filters over 10 minutes.
It's more like Solaris.
kill your self
Dude, I get it
High school really, really, really sucks
and being 16 is shitty
Wait a few years, come back to see the movie later.
You'll appreciate it more then.
On the off-chance that you're not below the age of 19, and you're still interested on why
so many people are calling you a mouthbreathing shitstain, go read a book. Really.
There are tons of articles, books, docs, all written by professionals that dedicated their lives
to doing this shit. They'll explain it better than anyone on this site, and you'll gain a new
appreciation for cinema through it as well.
Godspeed
Anyone else think Moon was just good? Not great or amazing, just pretty good
1st I'm 20.
2nd I hold the belief that the movie should be able to stand on it's own two legs not requiring extra reading material.
And this comes from smb who loves extra reading material, I literally spend hours by studying source material to production to everything if I like the movie and i did the same with 2001.
HOWEVER I'm not going to like a movie retroactively after reading the concepts, simbolism and everythig that goes with it.
Act 1 dragged, but I was kinda behind the Ape act even though I think it could have been shorter while conveying the same ideas I was "okay" with it.
Act 2 Dragged a bit, but had redeeming qualities
Act 3 was what I wanted 70% of the movie to be, with Act 1,2 and 4 filling out the other 30% instead of the other way around.
Act 4 - The LSD scene was unnecessarily long, it singlehandedly made it a movie I wouldn't recommend to somebody.
TLDR: Accompanying material should never be enough to retroactively enjoy a movie or even make it good. By this logic every bad movie adaptation is good because it has a good source reading material.
Also trying to bring somebody down a peg by insulting their intelligence/assuming they are a kid really shows you can't actually argue the point.
I bet you fucks, are the kind of people who claim Ulysses is a good book. A movie can have interesting concepts, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be captivating at the same time.
2001 isn't a captivating movie, and if you say it is, you are lying. 2001 definitely fails when it comes to being captivating.
Reminder, a movie doesn't need to be flashy or loud to be captivating and it also doesn't need to be stupid to be captivating.
It's a movie for the self important and the people who like to feel intelligent.
It makes them feel intellectually superior for liking the movie instead of validating themselves in an actual productive manner.
OP, 2001 is a movie that inspires lesser filmmakers to make pretentious snobby shit movies.
>snooby pretentiousness
Buzzwords for people with only half a brain working.
See trips Liking 2001 doesn't make you any dmarter than you actually are, it won't magically raise your IQ by liking a movie.
Please learn how to use a comma.
God damn...
There is nothing pretentious about 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I'm sorry... That's just everybody who claims its a perfect masterpiece even some of the overly drawn out scenes.
10 minutes of light filters... I've literally had people argue that, that scene was perfect. Apparently if it had been 11 minutes or longer it would have been TOO long, but 9 or less wouldn't have been enough of light filters.
It was just perfect, to the T. They test screened it with millions of movie snobs and found that if
youtube.com
Had been a second too long or too short it would have been bad, but this movie the genius that it is, got it down to the T.
Not a second too long or too short.
Seriously, give me an objective reason why cutting out 4-5 minutes from that scene would habe detracted from the movie, I'd argue it would have made it better.
I never said I was smarter. Just that OP and you and that trip is a hell of a lot dumber than the unwashed plebs of china.
It's funny how kubrick shills have no arguments and rely only on insults