Is this the ultimate pleb filter? I can't think of another movie that causes so much butthurt among the brainlets...

Is this the ultimate pleb filter? I can't think of another movie that causes so much butthurt among the brainlets. It mentally eviscerates anybody with an IQ below 120

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ou6JNQwPWE0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

nope. Kubrick is a filmmaker for young people. Sure 2001 is great and he had his moments elsewhere but he's a director beloved by people who have not seen too many films.

That being said, Eyes Wide Shut is a legit masterpiece.

lel i fell asleep during this movie

the music and incr4edible lack of pacing sent me right out

Exhibits A and B

>> It mentally eviscerates anybody with an IQ below 120

Yes, the ultimate pleb filter is to watch this artsy vomit instead of reading Clarke's superior novelization

I wouldn't have thought so but apparently

Fuck off. He has more than one masterpiece

Kek

It's fucking gorgeous, but don't mistake obfuscation for weird's sake for cerebral.

>trivializes Kubrick's filmography
>actually likes Eyes Wide Shut
C'mon, user.

>someone makes thread asking if Interstellar > 2001
>resounding yes
>buttmad babby makes this thread

clockwork

Eyes Wide Shut is the only masterpiece that he made. Any actual patrician will tell you that. Further proof of that claim is the fact that the plebs who love Kubrick so much always dislike Eyes Wide Shut.

Are you fucking kidding me? This board is shit

interstellar was an embarrassment, like Nolan was trying to go full Kubrick but instead fucking his shit up with cliché its legit a 4/10 5/10 at best. Not to mention all the exposition. Yea its a 4/10 at best

EWS is 10/10 but FMJ, 2001 and Strangelove are all brilliant too.

Just because Strangelove is easily accessible doesnt mean it's bad

I think Strangelove is pretty bad to be honest. The humor is relatively stale, the satire no longer feels all that biting, and I really don't think Kubrick had a knack for the farcical. The commentary on the Cold War offered by the movie is pretty superficial and worst of all the movie is just pretty dull.

FMJ is pretty solid but that's about it.

EWS towers above his other movies I would say. 2001 is the only one close to it.

They are two different pieces.

>we will never see Kubrick's cut of EWS

>or Kubrick's version of AI

A.I. is better than every movie that Kubrick made.

also, are you aware that Kubrick originally wanted to make A.I. only if they could actually create a robot child to give the performance of David? On top of that massive indication of retardation and fundamental misunderstanding of the film's pathos, Kubrick himself knew, thankfully, that Spielberg was the right choice for the project.

>Half hour of hyperbolic backstory
>Two hours of light exposition
>Half hour of Avant Garde
Yes a masterkino, Bravo. I understand the point, and what Kubrick was going for. I can respect that, but it doesn't necessarily mean its an enjoyable piece of cinema.

The film and the book influenced each other in the making. The ideas behind them are the same. Each mediums has different possibilities and limitations. The book had to be more story oriented, the film had to rely heavily on visual elements. It actually transcends Clark's vision that words only couldn't convey.

I consider 2010 to be a great book too, but the film has a more simplistic, story oriented approach that doesn't bring anything interesting to the table.

>you will never be a 17 year old impressionable youth first trying to wrap your brain around the universe high on LSD and going to one of the first theater screenings of 2001 in 1968 during the height of the space race and apollo program

>you will never be a 20 year old getting high on LSD while being the first human sent into space

I've read the book, it's obvious that Kubrick's philosophical contributions went over Clarke's head. Movie is so much better that the two aren't comparable in profundity.

Barry Lyndon, anyone ?

The book equivalent to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey is The Illumintus! Trilogy

no.

possibly the worst opinion of all time

Ultimate pleb filter is pic related. There is no interpretation you can read up on, no cheat sheet. But if you can't feel the pure kino, you're beyond tasteless.

once you grow up and have seen a few more movies you will be able to move on from the Kubrick fixation. truly.

>>or Kubrick's version of AI

Good.

Babbys first time watching a film

Here is your Pleb filter right here.

Make sure you get the new remaster, it's out on the 22nd, along with the rest of his films. The Mirror is fantastic as well, but I'd say that 2001 edges it out through the sheer impressiveness of its production. Tarkovsky was probably the more talented director, but Kubrick was better able to illustrate his ideas with studio bucks and had more time to get more takes.

Pretentious

The irony is that it still looks better than 95% of the shit cgi nowadays, despite the fact that it was made 50 years ago.

not really irony, but you're also not wrong

paths of glory > strangelove

All style no substance: the movie.

I've seen 2001 over 15 times and I still don't really understand its deeper meaning.

>inb4 tard

I didn't understand the movie so I mock it: The Simpleton

You ever notice how technology gets better over time? Well thats the meaning.

>tfw EWS and Strangelove are my #1 and #2 Kubrick respectively and someone always has to shit on one of them

his masterpiece to me, right after 2001, tastes and colors

No.

2001 doesn't have any philosophical answers, only questions about the nature of intelligence and the meaning of life.

So I've been looking for a deep answer to life's questions in a movie that only provokes these questions? Have I fallen too far into the intellectual art movie meme?

>novelization
I can't tell if you're memeing but it's not a novelization

>No.
Good goy

The point of the movie is that you should be looking for meaning, it's intended to make you ask questions that not only apply to the movie, but also to mankind as a whole. Clarke said of the film, "If you understand '2001' completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered.".

I think that it would be an understatement to call a filmmaker presumptuous for attempting to define the meaning of life. Therefore, most filmmakers that cover the subject attempt to condense the themes surrounding existentialism and create something to stimulate the mind and force the viewer to ask meaningful questions about themselves and the world.

interstellar is the best pleb filter. anyone who thinks it has something to offer other than its visuals and score is a pleb

What if I liked both films?

you can like both of them. in fact you can like anything without being a pleb. the important thing is how you argue WHY you like something

2001 was brilliant.

I liked interstellar for the score, visuals, physical reality (aside from love is 5th dimension crap), and the acting (aside from mcconaughey). It was also an interesting look into the future.

Am I pleb or patrician?

I dont like those labels too much but you reasoned it well. I personally just don't really get whose acting you liked. hathaways? damon's? the rest I'd agree on

>and the acting (aside from mcconaughey)

nigga what

rust was amazing

What performances did you like in Interstellar

I liked Damon's performance mostly. Everyone else was okay, but I couldn't understand mcconaughey at all.

That was the worst part for me. I really don't buy Matthew McConaughey as an astronaut.

there's nothing to understand.
Humans were violent mankeys, monolith helps them. *flashforward to da future* Humans are arrogant, lol imma give em tinnitus. Lol da robot is freaking out cuz its scared of something, cut to 9 minutes of entry level adobe premiere color effects. LOL HE WAS A BABY ALL DA TIME

It's overrated and most (not everyone) people love it because they've been told to love it. If Only God Forgives came out back then people would be sucking Refn's dick non stop

I couldn't get passed the first 30 minutes and I'm smarter than everyone on this board

>I really don't buy Matthew McConaughey as an astronaut.
to me he was more supposed to be something like this redneck guy who can fix up old cars and is really into driving, but in the future it's spaceships and not trucks he's on about.++might be headcanon though

Eyes Wide Shut is an awkward mess.

Kubrick has an incredible filmography. I'm kind of offended you shit on it, then call EWS a masterpiece lmao

>Humans are arrogant, lol imma give em tinnitus

It was a signal to activate the next monolith.

>cut to 9 minutes of entry level adobe premiere color effects

Senpai...

>passed

>Kubrick's philosophical contributions went over Clarke's head.
Nigga you do realise that Clarke dwarfed Kubrick intellectually? Clarke was a legitimate scientist and a contributing engineer, while Kubrick "went to film".

I watch a bunch of movies that I dont understand but still love. 2001 and stalker are good examples.

lol it's actually 9:27, please tell me what you think is the point of this scene
youtube.com/watch?v=ou6JNQwPWE0

>philosophical contributions

Dr. Strangelove and Barry Lyndon are the best Kubrick films, 2001 is overrated.

I love this scene up until about 6:30, because it goes from weird psycho space shit into flying over mountains with a filter on

It looks cool? I mean even if you didn't like the movie you can't deny that it looks nice.

Looks like youtube poop. What part of it was meant to "look nice"?

>please tell me what you think is the point of this scene

It's twofold. The stargate sequences are there to visually illustrate Bowman's passage through time and space.

The landscapes in strange colors represent the aliens bestowing universal perspective upon Bowman through some sort of scientific means. You see what he sees, ancient landscapes and primordial planets, billions of years old. The flowing liquids represent the big bang and matter shifting through the universe.

Read the second part of my above response.

No its Eyes Wide Shut followed by 2001 easily

It certainly isn't bad looking, but like this user said after a certain point it just becomes random filters over nature shots and eye close ups. It doesn't add anything to the scene that comes up next.

Well you don't have to like it, but you know people didn't have adobe back then. Or computers. You probably didn't know this, maybe you should ask your parents about it.

That is true. I guess he ran out of good shit and wanted to keep the vibe going for longer.

No, it's a somewhat abstract illustration of a plot event.

>The landscapes in strange colors represent the aliens bestowing universal perspective upon Bowman through some sort of scientific means

With all due respect but is that really what we're seeing here? It feels more like Kubrick going "LSD lmao" then actually showing/telling us anything

wrong. Kubrick is a filmaker for outsiders, those that think differently from the status quo. Kubrick himself was an outsider, and was quite strange in his personal life.

You know how the monolith at the beginning gives the apes rudimentary knowledge of tools? We don't get to see what that looks, sounds, or feels like because we're not apes, and any illustration of that would be insincere.

What we see Bowman experience in that portion of the sequence is the alien presence giving him perspective and wisdom on all of time and space. The audience gets to see this because we're humans like Bowman, and can therefore be subject to a symbolic representation of the presence's teachings.

Yeah I know what it was "supposed to be" according to some people who watched it but to be quite honest I believe Kubrick probably did some things just because they looked cool. He would have never admitted it, because people always demand an explanation and it is not intellectual to just do things out of a gut feeling.
For me the whole scene is about atmosphere, and it nailed a really spaced out feeling.

2001 is anything but spaced out, and if you really believe that was the intention, then you are actually a fucking moron like the OP implies.

The stargate sequence's purpose is fairly obvious, and if you can't understand what's going on and think it's just a fancy visual sequence for no reason, you have a fundamental inability to understand the narrative and themes.

Ok I'm kinda agreeing with you on this, but still that scene should've been shorter because it loses all it's impact

>think it's just a fancy visual sequence for no reason, you have a fundamental inability to understand the narrative and themes.
ok then tell us what we're supposed to be learning here then and don't quote some psuedo youtube analyst.

I read a lot of interpretations about the movie. I agree with the general idea of the monoliths guiding or helping the human race to take the next step on the evolutionary ladder but some things are just overinterpreted. Like I know that Bowman is transformed, but the exact process is just represented visually and thus can't be explained in detail. That is why I said the scene is about feeling. You can't explain the process of the tranformation, but you can capture a certain vibe that the audience can pick up.

Also you should be nicer to the only guy in the thread who isn't a troll, you don't seem more intelligent when you call other people "moron".

So a lot of posters are saying that the scene just makes them feel spaced out. The point of the sequence is to visually overwhelm the viewer in order to prompt a similar reaction as Bowman experiences on screen. You'll notice at the end of the sequence when he comes to his senses in the white room, he seems fairly shocked. This mirrors the viewer's reaction and does wonders for the perceived pacing of the film.

The visuals are there to illustrate time and space. We, like Bowman, are experiencing the big bang, billions of years of time and space, ancient primordial landscapes, and visions of all of this in eyes that aren't our own (hence the strange coloration). The star child at the end is as different from man as man was from the apes at the beginning because it's been imbued with this wisdom and perspective.

>The point of the sequence is to visually overwhelm the viewer
Then I guess it didn't work for me and some other anons.

>The star child at the end is as different from man as man was from the apes at the beginning because it's been imbued with this wisdom and perspective.
This kind of makes sense.

>We, like Bowman, are experiencing the big bang, billions of years of time and space, ancient primordial landscapes, and visions of all of this in eyes that aren't our own (hence the strange coloration)

Not really feeling this interpretation

>We, like Bowman, are experiencing the big bang, billions of years of time and space, ancient primordial landscapes, and visions of all of this in eyes that aren't our own (hence the strange coloration).

See this is what I would call overinterpretation.
When exactly is the scene put into the context of "the Big Bang"? Could be a wormhole, a travel sequence. Or just a thing that happens in Bowmans brain, or even what you said.
My point is we don't know for sure and just vehemently sticking to one interpretation and calling other people dumb seems kinda stupid to me.
Everybody experiences the movie differently, which is why Kubrick didn't just narrate the whole sequence in order to explain it. That would have ruined the atmosphere and thereby the impact on the audience.

2001 was the James Cameron's Avatar of its time, a magnificent theatrical experience that turns into a shallow snorefest in any other enviornment

Is there anything the book can tell us about the plot or other things? The first time I watched this movie I was hoping for a movie with an interesting plot and story and the lack of it kinda made it a dissapointing watch..

...

plebs won't even watch this movie

>Not really feeling this interpretation

You're right user I got you.

ah, now I understand the point of that sequence

>it's a blob of white paint in black ink
wow how exciting

Clarke is such a shit writer, hes self-indulgent as fuck
I couldnt read more than 20 pages of 2001