Poll: 2001 vs Interstellar

strawpoll.me/10959676

You should stop posting on Sup Forums if you don't think 2001 is better. I mean it.

And you need to think for yourself. I mean it.

2001 only considered good for its accurate depiction of outer space which was depicted prior to man actually going to space, and that's it. The whole movie was anticlimatic and doesn't have any punchline, the director deviated from the source material and made it "open to interpretation" which is a hidden middle finger to those who praised it for m-m-muh aesthetics. A lot of vital source material was left unadapted and ambiguous (that dead ape was important for god's sake) just to make it looks symbolic.
So yeah. HA HA to you.

And interstellar is good?

>"hi, I don't understand surrealism"

save it

Can you not speak in memes?

>which was depicted prior to man actually going to space
Gagarin was the first man in space in 1961, buddy.

Nope. But definitely better than 2001, that's OP's question, right?

>those who praised it for m-m-muh aesthetics

no.

>implying Soviet was kind enough to share any of their space programs reports to the rest of the world back then
>also memecenter.com

>aesthetics=surrealism

are you implying surrealism didn't rely on aesthetics to become surreal?

not purely you dumb fuck

which is what you're implying

>muh le disco in space is so kino meme

real reasons to vote Interstellar

>being a contrarian
>being a plen

fpbp

purely or not, my point was made. should I rephrase it to "m-m-muh aesthetic of surrealism"?

>Poll: chocolate vs feces
What kind of poll is that? Think better next time you create a thread.

>2001
>cold mechanical movie produced by the human computer
>precise direction, sets and performances
>not a wasted second of bad dialogue or action sequences
>space is eerie, vast, and hostile the whole time, and much of the movie is the cold silence of the void
>ends with one of the most visually-experimental sequences of the time and leaving the ending open to interpretation

>Interstellar
>directed by the self-inflated hot-air balloon
>contains only a few interesting visual elements that get very little screentime, the rest of the movie is actor's faces
>every line of dialogue is exposition just in case you didn't understand what was happening because the movie is just so deep
>soundtrack by Zimmer contains only a few moments of actual emotion
>a hackneyed story that contains a dustbowl for some reason and has the brother of a scientist turn into a mean retard for some reason
>ending is an absolute wonder of how anyone was stupid enough to think it up, full of more holes than the swiss cheese brain of Nolan himself
>at least the tesseract was a practical set

interstellar tells a better story

2001 is seriously just visuals

Interstellar sucked. I honestly don't understand why people like it. Like, at all. It's fucking cliche boring nonsense that offers nothing original or new outside of some interesting visuals. A movie that has to deal with travelling very far through space doesn't automatically make it a great film. It makes it fucking Transformers in space.

There was nothing subtle or understated about this piece of shit.

>prior to man actually going to space
So you're one of them retards then, eh?

This. I love 2001 the book cause it is scifi as fuck, but fuck the movie. Slow and like this user said, the movie ending is 'artistic' instead of 'scifi'. Get the artistic shit outta my scifi, leave that shit for yuropoors and their movies. Also, pacing of the movie is all out of whack, which adds to the slow feel of the movie.

I did not enjoy Interstellar, the entire movie felt like jump-cuts of exposition that gave it a really disjointed feel which took away any chance of suspension of reality, considering the acting was barely believable (especially Hathaway)

the movie felt like a school play on high school physics with a big budget, and please don't even bring up the tesseract

>could have scooped the entire water planet out of the movie and i wouldn't have noticed
the influence from 2001 is very obvious, and I'm not really particularly a fan of 2001

2001 can be a very tedious crawl if that sort of film isn't familiar to you or even you're favorite, but the pacing is in my opinion perfect for what the film is trying to put across

space travel while possible is an unfamiliar, laborious pioneering into the unknown, and that technology (classic theme in sci-fi) is a double-sided sword (and overall the subject matter in 2001 is observably more meaningful and more diverse than the factoid list that is Interstellar)

/thread

>interstellar tells a better story

LOL, no.

>Implying that Soviet did not rub the Gagarin to the Wests face and paraded him around the world telling stories about weightless feeling at space and all of other stuff which he felt at trip

oh look another contrarian pleb on Sup Forums

Interstellar did a good job of capturing just how vast and lonely space is. They didn't even physically leave the solar system in 2001 so you never got the feeling that if you were lost out there you'd be fucked. The docking scene in Interstellar captures this perfectly. Also the raw emotion and loneliness that was watching him watch 20 years of messages from his daughter, watching her slowly lose hope that he will return and finally stopping all together

>muh hivemind

People only pretend to like 2001 because they think it makes them look intelligent. Little do they know that liking this movie is one of the best ways to out yourself as a pleb.
Interstellar was superior in every way.

>TNot a visionary, Nolan plays one at the movies: He knows how to game the system. Since his sub-Resnais time-tricks in 1998’s Memento, Nolan (co-writing with his brother Jonathan) has aced Hollywood’s geek appeal. These British boys still share adolescent sci-fi fantasies but inflate them with “deep thoughts” (read that the way Frankie Pentangeli says “Big deals!” in The Godfather, Part II): Farmer Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) and his Midwestern family struggle during an apocalyptic dust storm, but he can’t shake his astronaut past and stumbles upon a secret NASA project (the Lazarus Mission) to explore other planets in order to escape Earth’s ecological crisis.

>This hackneyed conceit proves the Nolan brothers perfect drones in a wasteful industry devoted to recycling already familiar concepts — whether comic-book superheroes or space travel — that the Nolans taint with juvenile cynicism. From the all-American nickname Coop, a widower with two kids chasing military aircraft through a cornfield, to speculation about ghosts that shifts into a two-year space mission towards Saturn with a talking computer alongside, Nolan piles up clichés like no director since the now unpopular M. Night Shyamalan. (The real template for Interstellar is not 2001: A Space Odyssey but Signs.) To recycle that old rock-critic syllogism: If I don’t need Shyamalan teaching me how to enjoy Spielberg why should I let Nolan teach me how to watch Shyamalan?

>Nolan’s a depressive Shyamalan who traffics in doomsday scenarios, catering to Millennial pessimists. “Isn’t science about admitting what we don’t know?” Coop’s daughter asks, but Interstellar lacks awe. Nolan’s imagination is so cramped he can’t depict natural American vastness comparable to Albert Whitlock’s memorable F/X dust storm in Bound for Glory. He opens with a Reds-style old-folks doc to evoke senility and Depression-era gloom, eventually leading to a cosmic odyssey of murder, death, anguish, and pseudo-scientific gobbledygook. Dark Knights in Orbit. There’s no spiritual quest; it all lacks edifying, Christian love. Interstellar’s first cosmic image of the Earth as orb is accompanied by a pointless Hans Zimmer organ chord, but it’s visually unimpressive — Nolan doesn’t know how to do majestic. Unlike Godard, Resnais, Spielberg, or Kubrick, he doesn’t have a cinematic eye.

>Nolan sure is a nihilist, though. His scenario, “The last people to starve will be first to suffocate,” offers typically dire teenage imagining. The closest he gets to religion is when Coop rescues a stranded astronaut (uh, oh, Matt Damon — prepare for secular point-making). Damon’s Astronaut Mann enthuses, “You have literally raised me from the dead.” Insightful Coop responds: “Lazurus.” Not really, guys. This weak pass at Significance goes nowhere. Mann’s real, contradictory purpose is his murderous proclamation: “We are the future!” (Read that also like Frankie Pentangeli saying “Big Deals!”) This mad pronouncement reverses Man of Steel’s Jor-El story and trades its Moses/Christ evocation for Dark Knight nihilism.

He liked:

>Grown Ups
>Jonah Hex
>G.I. Joe
>G.I. Joe 2
>Battle: Los Angeles
>The Green Hornet
>Clash of the Titans
>Indiana Jones 4
>Transformers 2
>Death Race
>Fantastic Four: Rise of Silver Surfer
>I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
>Takers
>Taken
>Transporter 3
>Resident Evil: Afterlife
>Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

He disliked:
>The Tree of Life
>There Will Be Blood
>Black Swan
>The Social Network
>Tangled
>The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
>The Road
>The King's Speech
>Synecdoche, New York
>Transformers
>Toy Story 3
>Eastern Promises
>Stardust
>The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
>Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
>Tales from the Golden Age
>Let Me In
>All Marvel movies
>The Dark Knight
>Mother
>The Hurt Locker
>Blue Valentine
>Up
>Hellboy 2

He also compared Hannah to Kick-Ass because they both have a young female character, thinks I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry is a modern classic, thinks Live Free or Die Hard is the best Die Hard, compared The Road to Resident Evil, thinks Clash of the Titans is better than the LOTR Trilogy, prefers Transformers 2 to Transformers, and thinks CJ7 is deeper and more profound than There Will Be Blood.

>Nihilism has become a mere box-office reflex for Nolan — a joke that finally undermines Interstellar when Nolan goes soft (“Love transcends dimensions of time and space,” self-pitying Coop learns). Confused? It was evident from the Dark Knight films that Nolan had no clear idea what he wanted to say; now he just gets maudlin. This sap must be nihilism’s flip side; an equally vacuous, corrupt manipulation. And what has moved critics to Titanic/Avatar levels of hyperbole is that Nolan’s loud, flat, gigantic apparatus revives yuppie privilege: “When you’re a parent, you’re a ghost for your children’s future.”

>Interstellar never explores colonization, good vs. evil, or metaphysics — not even when Coop gives a watch to his petulant daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy); she tosses the memento in anger, not faith like the rejection of Time in Borzage’s great spiritual tearjerker Three Comrades. Nolan’s parent-child premise becomes a Benjamin Button farce (with Ellen Burstyn reprising her cameo as old Murph from the seniors doc at another point in the film). It lacks the cross-generational, cross-time resonance of that good Jim Caveziel–Dennis Quaid film, Frequency. Brian DePalma’s outward-looking cosmos-politan affirmation in Mission to Mars gets refuted by Nolan’s nuclear-family solipsism. And at the crucial juncture when adult Murph’s (Jessica Chastain) last-ditch efforts to save her family are contrasted with Coop’s, Nolan forgets to intercut the two stories, dragging out another hour. So long panache, adios to “genius.”

>Critics who follow weak praise for Goodbye to Language with hosannas for Interstellar are disingenuous. You can’t celebrate Godard’s rigorous, ecstatic examination of art and morality and then lead audiences to Nolan’s trite, overblown, unbeautiful, and non-resonant epic. One’s for movie-lovers, the other’s for sheep. When Godard says goodbye to language, theculturerepresentedby Interstellariswhathemeans.

I LOVE BOTH 2001 AND INTERSTELLAR!
FUCK YOU TEAM CHOOSING FAGS!

see

>still hasn't fixed that he liked the hurt locker
>that his praise for silver surfer was that it was "The least offensive summer blockbuster"
>implying anything of those disliked are actually good movies
>implying those he liked are bad

Thou art both a pleb and a lazy pleb

Can someone tell me what they liked about the pretentious pile of dogshit called 2001?

the thing that triggers me the most in Interstellar is that it's so fucking anthropocentric it actually bends laws of physics and logic to fit 'muh emotions', not to mention that people who were supposed to be scientists and rationalists dedicated to saving the world are all fucking teenage girls on their periods

2001 shows us the universe of cold, unloving and alien things, starting with the alien monolith, space void itself and ending with HAL

even though it's not 100% scientifically accurate it doesn't treat the viewer like a complete idiot and has the thing that separates good sci-fi from bad sci-fi - it actually makes you confront the world outside of the one you know

Interstellar doesn't have it and that's why it's bad - because it doesn't show anything more than regular hollywood emotional bullshit but it pretends to be more than that and puts that in a space setting while outright ignoring the aliennes of the outer space and of the new worlds/laws of physics

seriously, anybody who has finished high school and doesn't feel offended by this movie (both by the dumb plot and even dumber 'science') is a fucking retard

>pure ad hom

>liking Stanley "DUDE I'M DIRECTING LMAO" Kuckbrick

Interstellar was one of the gayest movies I've ever seen so if 2001 is comparable in any way I guess I'll pass on ever seeing it

Shit taste is shit taste.

>liking Christopher "THE BIGGEST SINCE THE SILENT ERA LMAO" Nothanks

wow youre pretty dumb

they hired astrophysicists to work on the movie and confirm everything they did was as accurate as possible

I thought the physicist was just there for the black hole to look realistic

the only similarities is that they both depict space more realistically than star wars and they are both longer than average movies. they're COMPLETELY different.

This bait is good but delivery was p. atrocious.

>not feeling fucked if you reached Jupiter and the beyond

>a critic has credibility if they like shit movies

This is you. kys

>pure ad hom

No. Nolan sat down with multiple Space Wizards and talked about everything he was going to do and shoot.
He then told them to tell him to correct him if it was wrong because he didn't want to look like a tard.

The only "incorrect" thing would be surviving the black hole and the 5th dimension part

>Nolanfags seriously believe this

>MUH DEEP AND MEANINGFUL VISUALS MEANS GREAT SCIFI

Read the book before you talk of great scifi. The movie is a slog and draws out a very simple and short plot. The effects are the best thing, ironically you crossposters dislike Cameron for doing the same thing.

It was an obvious rip off
hollywood cannot create anything new after all

The 'bad crops' angle was done in place of post-ww3 setting. Blight of our crops is a realistic concern, see bananas and the potato famine-thing the Irish went through a couple centuries back.

2001
> Puts people to sleep

Interstellar
> Emotion trumps science

They're both trash.

Sunshine>2001>interstellar

Faggots

very funny, we can always eat algae, mushrooms and what now

stupid americans think corn blight is end of the world because they eat nothing but corn

>they eat nothing but corn
You forgot corn SYRUP.

good taste

Nah nigga, how bout this

Alien>Pandorum>Sunshine>Galaxy Quest>Silent Running>2001>Event Horizon>Dark Star>Barbarella>Solaris(Soderbergh)=Solaris(Tark)>Interstellar

Just look at all these non-responses, holy shit you guys are simpleminded

Should have made poll between Interstellar vs. martian vs. gravity t.b.h.

Obv interstellar is best but no point in comparing it with 2001

Nolan > Kubhack

Interstellar has cunny so it is better by default