Why is this movie touted as the greatest film of all time?
Whether or not you like it, it's no where close to the greatest film of all time. There's so many genres and styles to compare it to that each exceed in their own way.
Is this the fedora in movie form?
Other urls found in this thread:
cosmoetica.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
>genre
what exact sci-fi movies do you think are better?
...
Are you the Fedora of human beings op?
you're the ultimate fedora for holding a perspective that is against 2001. needlessly contrarian
Brazil, Bladerunner, Metropolis, and Akira,
interstellar
/thread
Obviously Star Wars, do you even have to ask?
DUDE RIC FLAIR'S ENTRANCE MUSIC LMAO
I don't think it is the best film of all time.
But it is one of the greatest of all time because it made space probs cool in a kino and subtle way that normies wil never get, it did it better than any movie ot videogame did even now and the best thing about this fact is that the film isn't even about space probs kek
It also doesn't give a fuck about your expectations, the fact that you are here complaining about it shows the brilliance of the film itself.
the movie was a good product of its time and nothing more.
I'm still convinced it's a movie for dumb people to feel smart like Ex Machina or It Follows
Bookfag here.
It should have been billed as a two part exercise: watch the movie and read Arthur C Clark's book.
I think movie first then book, but I am also open to counter- arguments.
As for "best movie of all time"? It's not.
It was interesting, ambitious and innovative. But I don't consider it to be the best.
...
It is unquestionably, from a technical standpoint, one of the very best movies ever made. The effects and Kubrick's camera work still hold up 50 years later.
what do you think about star wars?
OP'sBrain.jpg
What is your favorite movie friend?
OP, you need to watch more patrician cinema because you don't understand 2001 that well.
Nolan, leave.
how do these make dumb people feel smart
the book was interesting, I don't think the movie portrayed the ending in a way that was digestible instead going for a vague faux-philosophical premise
the book makes it very clear that he becomes a god and the rebirth wasn't literal
>Why is this movie touted as the greatest film of all time?
I'm pretty sure NOBODY has ever made this claim, and if they did, it would be exagerating for effect to say its fantastic.
It's a great film with great cinematography.
Nobody here would claim it's objectively the best.
You're arguing with a strawmen you've created in your head. Congratulations.
The film came before and the book was a merely a companion piece Kubrick agreed to, to get Clarke off his back. It's not something I'd look to for clarity when it comes to the meaning of the film.
What the fuck is this list. If it's trying to imply genuinely good cinema like Fury Road, Birdman, Rear Window is shit and equates to Adam Sandler films you're just being contrarian.
If this list is trying to imply Adam Sandler films are on the level of Videodrome, then you're just retarded.
Is this next level meta ironic bait?
did it?
well I guess that's why it goes out of its way to explain a lot of stuff that should be easily inferred
...
Is this a continuation of next level meta ironic bait?
Only boards I go to are Sup Forums, Sup Forums, and some times Sup Forums when I'm feeling edgy.
I'm getting baited hard huh?
Clarke was a pretty substandard writer that Kubrick kept on a leash like he did with a lot of the writers he worked with so it would seem like he was telling their story but his films would be radically different. Watch any interview with Clarke he is pretentiousness defined. You can hear a lot more about it in Kubrick: A Life In Pictures.
>Why is this movie touted as the greatest film of all time?
It is?
I thought most people go with Shawshank Redemption?
Maybe not the greatest of all time, but certainly one of the best, of its time.
there are very few quality sci-fi writers, the genre sort of takes what it can get.
even Asimov isn't a very good writer, his books are more like vehicles to help convey his ideas about the future rather than telling a good story.
Here's the only good review of that I've read of it that totes as one of the greatest films ever: cosmoetica.com
the fact that you even responded shows how much of a newfag you are, lurk more
>reviews of the work mostly revolve around complaints about positive public reception, insults aimed at those who enjoyed the work, and terms of zero critical worth
>very little actual analysis or critique regarding the work's value as art and the work's use of form and content that doesn't factor in unnecessary outside influences
It was way ahead of its time and the visuals still hold up today. That being said, not my favorite Kubrick film. That would have to go The Shining, with EWS second.
Come here at least 4 times a week for the past two years.
This isn't some common meme or something. This is just fucking retarded. Like yourself.
>calls 2001 fedora
>lists movies on the fedora tier list
i love you
>"Pauline Kael called it “monumentally unimaginative” and dinged Kubrick for casting his own daughter Vivian as NASA scientist Dr. Floyd’s kid. Andrew Sarris called it “a disaster” and “one of the grimmest films I have ever seen in my life.”2 Ray Bradbury called it an “interminable journey” with “no well-directed scenes.” Roger Ebert described it as a failure on the human level, but praised its precision and its props: “The stars look like stars and outer space is bold and bleak …
I always found Pauline Kael's review in particular to be particularly funny. She hated most of his films.
2010 was pretty good desu
school starts soon, go prepare your supplies
Why would you lie about how much you go on Sup Forums? There's zero point.
Out of all the blurbs, Bradbury is the only one to actually address the artistic qualities of the movie itself, and when he does, he's objectively wrong.
>defending your credibility in a thread with a lifespan of about 30 minutes on an anonymous image board
yup, definitely a newfag
>There's zero point
Yup, I agree
does arguing with a strawman you've created help your low IQ rationalize things?
>Bookfag here
The book is shit though, and not even in a manner of how certain adaptations surpass their source material, the book is literary trash.
Even the fucking comic has more worth, due to Kirby art.
The monolith is supposed to be black not white though.
The camera work is god tier
Brazil's definitely a contender.
>casting his own daughter Vivian
This is sincerely such a bullshit reach. The character is on-screen on screen for less than 3 minutes, and plays no significant role than to demonstrate the isolation of space and how even electronic 'face to face' communication, which was a surprisingly now accurate depiction of what was initially meant to represent phones, is a pale imitator of human contact.
The daughter character is just there to illustrate a point, it's not like Kubrick shouldve hired a more talented five year old for the role. If anything, he probably didn't want to deal with all the paperwork for essentially nothing, plus diva parents and getting a kid he's never met before to read some lines.
In all likelihood, he just picked his daughter because it was the easiest choice to make, in regards to doing more important production work.
Could you explain how reading the book improves the experience? Interested in picking it up.
Why is this movie touted as the greatest film of all time?
>cinematography
>set design
>costume design
>atmosphere
>immersion
>SFX
>interesting themes
>>humanity coping with their own technology
>>humanity faces the emptiness of space
>>humanity realizes they aren't alone in the universe
>space exploration is cool as fuck
It's kind of a two points of view on the same/similar story kind of thing
You're not selling me on it user
If you hold 2001 as the single greatest movie of all time you are indeed a fedora
No. You're a real simple cunt.
Well, the best comparison would be how Apocalypse Now and Lance/Kilgore surf-themed slash fiction are two different perspectives on the same story.
I always liked 2010 more
it's too popular that's why I don't like it
Absolutely not better in any way.
You're a fedora for not realizing the subtle genius of 2001.
Female critics are the fucking worst.
Pauline Kael's one of the best ever critics.
This is very true, but I disagree with her analysis and opinion on a good amount of movies.
Still an example of a critic who actually knew what they were doing, and for the vast majority of the time, what she was talking about.
>Shaq's Steel
Well at least i know that list is fake for sure, thanks user.
user please, shaq is a man of many talents