I don't get it

i don't get it

DUDE ABSTRACT COLORS LMAO

i still don't get it

It's about how technology dehumanizes us, or something

read the book

just watch it again in like a year

Trust me, the parts you didn't get are remarkably stupid.

What is there to even "get"? It's not a complicated film.

Just read the books, there's not a real message, it's just speculative. Which is okay for scifi

well, clearly

read something good like foundation, or ringworld. Don't waste your time m80

It's a study of consciousness and it's evolution. When HAL the machine is free of humanity's biological impulses, it states that the being "as useful as possible is all that a conscious entity could hope to be."

Look at the future human characters, how each individual is a conscious entity which is involved in their chosen tasks with little care for things like family. Look also at the sterility of interactions; between father and child, between academic colleagues, when David Bowman's parents call him aboard an Jovian expedition vessel and tell him his car payments have been sorted out. All in the backdrop of the accomplishments and elegance of their future civilization.

It was way ahead of its time. I dont fully understand the movie but I understand what Kubrick was trying to do.

It wasn't meant for you, just move on.

Bullshit. It's science fiction at its best, shame Kubrik fucked it up cause MUH ART. Now you get pretentious fags like shitting up a good story cause of artfag shit. The book is a good scifi story, movie is just pretty pictures/effects with no substance. It's basically a shittier Avatar.

Aliens seeded the galaxy with cognitive accelerators. Basically they left shit around which would speed up civilizations so as to spread them to the stars, to reach a similar state of being as the aliens themselves. Kubrik shat the bed and muddled such a simple concept with artshit. It's the same shit with Prometheus, the director chose to omit stuff to bring an air of mystery to the film. In Prometheus I blame Lindelof mainly but with 2001 I blame this solely on the director.

The end movie ends up feeling shallow and padded with long, boring shots. It's eye candy mainly and science fiction second which makes it shit. Its supporters on this board also adore Alien 3 and shit on Aliens, which should tell you their level of scifi appreciation.

Its just an epic drama of adventure and exploration, whats not to get?

>Kubrik shat the bed and muddled such a simple concept with artshit

What the fuck are you talking about with "artshit"? What you described is exactly what happens in the film.

>movie is just pretty pictures/effects with no substance

This is like saying Mozart is "just pretty sounds with no substance". It's nonsense.

Would you guys really recommend the book? Up until now, I didn't even know it existed.
It's $7 for a paperback copy on Amazon.ca (originally $11), which honestly seems a little low.
Should I get it?

Long, slow takes of nothing at all happening, when such things should just be establishing shots. Lack of exposition, just throws you out there and expects you to understand shit. This is most prominent in the ending, when instead of showing Poole going through the wormhole-thing, transferring through a sort of station, and seeing glances of civilizations until he arrives at the fake room he just has Bowman go through an orbiting monolith. In the book he uses his power by destroying a nuclear weapon.

The main change, for me, is Kubrik just has HAL be a murdering AI instead of a conflicted AI. He didn't want to die so he tried to stop Bowman. Kubrik intentionally changed shit so it would look trippy and artistic. Fuck the overrated hack, his best movie is Spartacus and that he didn't even have full control over.

And no, Mozart and other classical composers didn't change shit just cause they wanted to for personal reasons (to my knowledge). A more proper analogy is Nicki Minaj fucking with Sir Mix-A-Lot's classic for 'artistic' reasons.

Fuck yes, get 2010 and 3001 as well if they are cheap (2061 I skipped and should really pick up myself). Better yet just go to your local library and check them out.

If you like science fiction you will enjoy them. They make the sparse plot of the movie look like dog shit, you won't be sorry you read them. It's the difference between looking at a slideshow of cookies and actually eating cookies.

>Long, slow takes of nothing at all happening
They're an end in and of themselves.
>when such things should just be establishing shots.
Because you said so? I think I'll trust Kubrick's judgment on this one, kiddo.
>Lack of exposition, just throws you out there and expects you to understand shit.
Literally nothing is hard to understand
>This is most prominent in the ending, when instead of showing Poole going through the wormhole-thing, transferring through a sort of station, and seeing glances of civilizations until he arrives at the fake room he just has Bowman go through an orbiting monolith.
At the moment that happens the viewer might not be getting the whole picture but by the end they do
>The main change, for me, is Kubrik just has HAL be a murdering AI instead of a conflicted AI. He didn't want to die so he tried to stop Bowman. Kubrik intentionally changed shit so it would look trippy and artistic.
HAL is conflicted in the film too, it's made clear he is murdering because of self-preservation.
>Fuck the overrated hack, his best movie is Spartacus and that he didn't even have full control over.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

2001 has always been, and will always be, the ULTIMATE moron-filter.

Read the book.

this. i'm laughing hard at the user who's saying Kubrick shat the bed on this one KEK

>it's made clear he is murdering because of self-preservation

Bullshit. You would expect HAL to be just a rogue AI and that is what is shown. Hell, his red eye-camera is a symbol for evil robots/AI. In the book (iirc) Bowman discovers why he was that way and why he acted the way he did. Still doesn't like him but the reader at least gets it that HAL wasn't evil, just conflicted and at least he is humanized. Better than EVIL ROBOT RARWARARARRRR.

Science fiction is what I focus mainly on reading and faggots like you piss me the fuck off. You saw a movie, heard it was great, and parrot shit without thinking. Tell me, have you seen 2010? Do you have any interest in the series, or just the sole movie? Cause I see faggots like you all the time. Don't make their own opinions and name-drop shit to seem superior without actually enjoying the damn shit. Might as well get a trip or better yet, go to plebbit if your ego likes that kinda fag shit.

I see the same shit in Alien threads. Faggots don't even see any shit within the universe, or other media (comics, books) yet think they are better people for saying they like something said to be the best (or act contrarian and say Alien 3 is the shit).

>the film didn't spell everything out for me WAAAAAHHHH

>Bullshit.

It's made clear that HAL becomes suspicious that the humans think he is malfunctioning and are aiming to shut him down. Therefore his actions make logical sense from his point of view. I never felt he was "evil".

>Tell me, have you seen 2010? Do you have any interest in the series, or just the sole movie?

No, I don't have any interest in the series, the book or the "universe" it is made in. It's hilarious that you're presenting it as if these plot details have ANYTHING to do with why 2001 is such and amazing and well respected film. They don't. Plot is largely irrelevant.

It's an artfag film. Though I'm falling for the bait of replying to you . . .

Everything in the film is important, like Chekov's Gun, Kubrick would not put something or frame it in a specific manner unless it was important to the film.

>MUH ART.
Isn't art what film is all about though?

Library! Yes! Go to the library! In 2061 they go to Europa, and it's pretty fun and feels like good ol' 70's sci-fi rigmarole. The only annoying thing is that Clarke tends to try to force the hard science aspect too much in each subsequent book, as substantial advances in science did occur between each book as it were written. So there seems to be some scientific asynchrony between each book.

But a thing to take into account is that Kubrick and Clarke both diverged in their vision for the story and their takes on the subject do vary.

Aspies like him don't really understand human emotion, to them the media they consume is more of a mental calculation than an experience.

Do you guys have any sci-fi recs? Either movies or TV shows, I don't care.
I haven't really seen a whole lot of things, Star Wars, 2001, Interstellar, Fargo XD, and the Martian are all I can really think of off the top of my head.
Also a lot of Doctor Who in middle school, but I can't stand it now.

I agree with you. But a thing that's even more terrifying (for HAL, and the viewer) is that they were not going to simply shut down HAL, they were going to perform a goddamned lobotomy! They wanted to take away all higher cognitive function away but leave the self-running peripheral system intact; to make him brain dead but alive.

>plot is largely irrelevant
>in a SCIENCE FICTION movie where the scifi aspects are used to tell a story

Way to prove my point, artfag. I bet your 'favorite' movie you saw only one or twice, and you had to slog through it.

1. He omitted shit crucial to the story. It would be like omitting Vader telling Luke he is his son and just cutting to Luke falling down. This doesn't seem like something to do in film.
2. The ending scenes were a cost-cutting measure mixed with Kubrik wanting shit to be visually appealing cause MUH ART. Fucking bullshit to do in scifi, where everything has a place/reason. 'Cause it was pretty' doesn't cut it, bro.

Film/movies are entertainment primarily. I like to have story along with shit I'm watching, if I was just pictures I'll go to a museum. This is why arthouse shit usually sucks, they focus too much on HOW it looks as opposed to utilizing the format to help the story.

I do agree that Clarke took shit kinda weird later on, the second movie finishes it off on a good note. I also know that Kurbik and Clarke differed in views, which is why I dislike the movie. World War Z was given shit for moving away from the book but 2001 is off limits cause Kubrik is like? Fuck that noise, son.

It's okay, a lot of people don't get it. It's still the ultimate pleb filter.
But what parts didn't you get ? Maybe I can help you out and clarify some stuff for you.

Humans meet aliens that went post singularity and exist in mass blocks of awareness. Ideas we don't comprehend are thrown at us, in such a way, human minds. Their goal, seemingly, to bring all life together until the fold of a brighter tomorrow, even if the costs themselves seem hard and violent.

The end is meant to be a series of what the fuck imagery. Which is kind of the point. An alien race so advanced showing someone, so many ideas, traveling through space and time in ways we don't have the slightest ideas of how they work.

Dismiss Kubrick for being boring, but.

It's really about, in the cold war era, moving past our political differences into a unified world, perhaps, one day on the step to being absorbed into these monoliths.

Peace of some sort.

Though this is just surface level.

Farscape and Stargate SG-1 are comfy, fun scifi shows

Battlestar Galactica is more serious, grimdark scifi

That new HBO show Westworld is good scifi too

Nothing happens: the flick

>where the scifi aspects are used to tell a story

And none of it is lacking in 2001. They are present to tell the story but thankfully Kubrick is not as autistic as you and he doesn't dwell on them.

What about science fiction is so special that makes plot suddenly so crucial anyway? What the fuck is "artfag" even supposed to mean? You do realize films are an art form? You're taking your nonsense to new levels.

I know this seems cliche to say, but if you think you have it figured out, nothing happens. Just rewatch it under the opposite opinion. Challenge to change your mind. If you can't really understand it, I don't know what to tell you.

It's a powerful film, in subtext, about cold war unity, in the face of an unknown alien future. Which reflects back at the zeitgeist at the time.

The problem is the context of the time is lost now.

Pretty much everything after HAL is deactivated.

>implying art and entertainment are somehow mutually exclusive

Are you trying to make yourself look like the most stereotypical pleb?

I assume you want space-fare and possibly some space opera, and not just films with science fiction elements? I'm going to tell you some non-obvious films to watch.

Dark Star: a John Carpenter space-comedy film with dumb space hippies. It's great and a fun lampoon.

Forbidden Planet: It's very fun in an ancient sort of way.

Message from Space: This is a BAD movie. Made to cash in on the success of Star Wars. It is very fun, but very bad at the same time.

Mars Attacks!: A lampoon on the alien invasion trope. Fucking GR8. Pierce Brosnan, Natalie Portman, Jack Nicholson, Martin Short, Tom Jones, and a bunch of other hollywood big dicks.

Maybe you're not supposed to "get" films. It doesn't make you dumb if you don't "get" a film. Films aren't just there to reaffirm things we already know. They're there to TEACH. If you didn't get it, maybe go back to it and see what themes you can extract.

>I assume you want space-fare and possibly some space opera, and not just films with science fiction elements?
I'd be fine with either, honestly. I'll check those out, thanks.

Thanks a lot!

The first part is good. Then it starts to go full LSD for half the film.
>wow so trippy Kubrick is such a genius omfg I've no idea what's happening but it's so deep

If you paid attention, I know this seems like a stretch.

But monolith alagory is throughout the film. Monitors? Shaped like a monolith. Panels? Shaped like a monolith. Hanger bays? Monolith. Everything related to computers and future gizmos, are in the shape of a monolith.

The monolith is both an interaction, a window, a portal, and how we interact with technology, and when technology interacts with us.

It's about growing. Maturation. On a level we can't explain.

It's hard to explain, but basically, it's just a film about first contact with alien life, who were our parents for a very long time. Meeting what made you who are you.

This is what I find depressing, the film portrayed humanity as so incredibly hopeful. By 2001 everything was supposed to be elegant, mildly British, dignified and respectable.

But I look at the current state of society and politics and get the sensation that humanity is slowly slipping away from the tangible ideal.

I blame postmodernism. God, I hate postmodernism.

I get the whole monolith thing, but what about Dave's pod landing in the room?

Read the book. I explains everything

Be more specific. Was it the Monolith ? The scene where Dave sees himself age ?

The Aliens put him in a room, for the rest of his life, comfortably, as things nobody human could experience relating to time, fold around him.

Dave became something else. Something beautiful.

Okay user. I honestly hated the fucking movie, but this user makes me want to read the book.

>Okay user. I honestly hated the fucking movie, but this user makes me want to read the book.

The book on a structural level is the same, like a draft for what the movie is. The movie is different.

But the idea is, they were making Dave into a God-Head. Teaching an animal to speak the language.

solyaris>2001

tarkovsky>kubrick

stanislaw lem>arthur c. clarke

prove me wrong

HAHAHA GOOD LUCJk

"The novel explains that HAL is unable to resolve a conflict between his general mission to relay information accurately and orders specific to the mission requiring that he withhold from Bowman and Poole the true purpose of the mission. With the crew dead, he reasons, he would not need to be lying to them. He fabricates the failure of the AE-35 unit so that their deaths would appear accidental."

>Dave became something else. Something beautiful.
That's the baby thing isn't it? Why did he came back to Earth? Could other people see a giant flying space fetus? What happened after that?

I admire both.

The scene of Dave's pod is about how, after having gone through all those travels, Dave is now ready to become a superior being.
To explain a bit more, 2001 is about a lot of things, but the main idea is the progress of the human race and how it can happen and the effects (good and bad) and the outcome of it.
Dave, after being transported through ethereal realms indescribable, went through the moment of transcendence. After said moment, he comes down out of the clouds in a moment of reflection.

The scene at the room is him looking back over his life and at the eventual end of his life. He is dying so he may be reborn.

As the days pass he finally lays down for the final rest and before him reappears the Monolith once more. The Monolith which acts as a symbol of humanity's progress and which heralds said events (the discovery of the tools). Dave extends his hand for one last trip, as death presides over him like the ultimate adventure. Then we see The Star Child, a reconfigured Dave, looking back at earth. He is no longer a fragile beast (the ape), nor the violent robotic man (the man he was on the ship) but the Ubermensch who has overcome the world.

>That's the baby thing isn't it? Why did he came back to Earth? Could other people see a giant flying space fetus? What happened after that?

In the book, he basically said "Hey, fuck all this shit you can destroy the world over you fuckin little children shits" And blew up satalites in orbit that could shoot down ICBMs. Just destroying all of them. If I remember, fucking with the economy. Than he vanished.

Than came back in the form of, I don't know, some sort of supernatural entity, something the monolith created. That promised "something wonderful would happen.

Honestly 2010 was a bit of a chore. The ideas presented in 2001 were good enough.

Aliens meet man for the first time in a million plus years, and their plans come to fruition. What the plans are, really are left to the audience or reader to decide. They're linguistics are totally different than our own. They are basically the closest thing man has met to god himself.

>about cold war unity

The book ends with Bowman detonating an icbm (iirc). The second one deals with the aliens using bowman as a means to study humans, and also with them trying to accelerate the evolution of another alien species (on Europa). Truly scifi things that deal with cold war shit more than what Kubrik botched.

Movies take many forms, an some artistic ones are shit because they stick to what looks good rather than what moves the movie along. But as I have said before, primarily it is a medium used for entertainment. If it makes you fucking want to kill yourself cause of the boredom, it failed at being a movie.

This doesn't I mean I dislike slow movies, when the slow pace is used for effect. 2001 is slow because Kubrik wanted it to and that's it. No Country For Old Men is slow, but it still manages to keep one interested. This is missing from 2001, sure it's pretty but what is happening? Dick, is what's happening. I have it on bluray (stole it from neighbor by breaking in his car while I was drunk one time) and tried to finish seeing in its entirety several times but failed. It's just fucking boring, which is a shame cause the book doesn't feel that way. Pacing issues and 'artistic discretion' ruined a perfectly fine scifi story.

2001 is also a book that follows 98% of the same shit. You are just bullshitting when the answers already exist.

No wonder faggots on this board wanted a shit Dune adaptation. One raping wasn't enough, they wanted an even bigger shitpie than sonic guns (weirding way was closer to martial arts than weapons).

>i-it's just boooring okay

>But as I have said before, primarily it is a medium used for entertainment. If it makes you fucking want to kill yourself cause of the boredom, it failed at being a movie.

I still don't understand why you're putting a barrier between art and entertainment. Do you realize that "entertainment" just means stuff that people enjoy watching/experiencing? Clearly 2001 is an artistic work. Clearly a lot of people are also entertained by it. Mostly because people find enjoyment in watching magnificent artistic works.

>This is missing from 2001, sure it's pretty but what is happening?

Why should a lot of things be happening? I wasn't bored at any point in the film. Maybe your brain is just missing something crucial.

>2001 is just a fucking boring movie okay I wasn't entertained by it that means it was a failure
Aaand into the trash it goes.

Solaris is better

2001 was crap. I think its main audience is people who like to feel superior to others if they don't like 2001.

You would think a scifi movie would actually be, you know, a scifi movie.

Ideally it would have explored social and political concepts of the future instead of hamfisting a bunch of symbolism in it.

Which is purposefuly omitted from the movie, and makes HAL just a rogue AI. Hell, in 2010 he sacrifices himself when jupiter turns into a mini sun.

Totally changes a character. I say that's a bad thing, the same people who praise the movie for doing shit like this also shit on others for slighter shit that was changed.

Wrong. All wrong. It was the aliens making him ready by showing him something familiar that he could relate to, I guess by studying him or something. He doesn't spend a shitlong time in there, he falls asleep and THEN gets transformed (in the book). All this interpretations are useless cause the book exists. It is the same basic story, which Kubrik shat on and thus you retards make up shit to sound smart. Visual shit is just symbolic, don't hold shit to actually being scifi.

God forbid something is objective for once.

The pace was shit, nothing hard to understand about that. I detest the movie EXACTLY cause it's more artistic than scifi. How would you feel if one of your favorite author's works were botched onscreen? And again, science fiction is my bread and butter. Sup Forums is praising a faggot's raping of something I actually like. Normally I just ignore artfag shit but this is pushing into my shit.

I don't pretend to be elitist or anything other than someone criticizing an adaptation. Lick em clean, son.

>T-T-T-THEY MUST BE PRETENDING TO LIKE IT! IT CAN'T BE THAT I'M JUST A MORON!

I tried watching it with a very open mind and even tried looking up explanations on what I was missing.

Turns out the movie was the equivalent of a blank canvas.

It was groundbreaking visuals back in it's day, making sense didn't matter

Also full of that snooty arty shit nobody admits they don't understand, so nobody will badmouth it out of risk of looking pleb

>The pace was shit, nothing hard to understand about that.
No, the pace was slow.
>I detest the movie EXACTLY cause it's more artistic than scifi.
These aren't mutually exclusive. Although I guess in your mind "scifi" just means COOL PLOT POINTS and EXPOSITION ABOUT SCIFI CONCEPTS and INTENSE COOL THINGS HAPPENING
>How would you feel if one of your favorite author's works were botched onscreen?
When GoT came out I was a fan of the books and they completely botched it. But I have far more reason to be pissed off than you, because they actually really made a mess of it. Kubrick on the other hand made one of the best films of all time out of what I assume is just a decent scifi novel. He made it transcendent.
>And again, science fiction is my bread and butter. Sup Forums is praising a faggot's raping of something I actually like. Normally I just ignore artfag shit but this is pushing into my shit.
I'm glad it got raped with artful filmmaking, there was a chance people like you could actually get a bit more civilized. But in your case it appears there was no effect.

>2001 was crap. I think its main audience is people who like to feel superior to others if they don't like 2001.

You figured it all out oh fuck

>even tried looking up explanations on what I was missing.

There's your mistake, thinking that people like it because of it's "deep" messages or whatever.

>All this interpretations are useless cause the book exists
Except the book and the movie are two separate entities as you are describing. If anything, Kubrick is doing a service to the story by omitting details and leaving for the audience to figure out his intentions for the movie instead of going "DUDE ALIENS LMAO" which is what the book does.
Kubrick adapted a book into a movie and twisted aspects of the original to fit in with his vision to make for a better movie. It's what he does. He did the same thing with Dr.Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange and The Shining and his movie surpassed the original products by a mile.
You are not actually making any argument as to why the movie is bad, you are just saying "IT WASN'T LIKE THE BOOK AND IT WAS BORING ARTSY CRAP"

The monolith triggers watershed evolutionary moments.
That's all there is to understand.
>monkeys
Sentience
>HAL
Sentience
>Dave
Star child shit

>>monkeys
>Sentience

animals are already sentient

>he thinks 2001 is something hard to understand

Maybe for illiterate tards/teens/gen z faggots, but this is a pretty easy plot. My gripe is it makes the story feel empty and shit cause it drags on so much. A whole lot of padding for no reason other than 'shit looks pretty and costs us money, fucking leave it in'.

I am also pissed at the Dune movie. Fucking changing shit for the sake of differentiating shit is retarded as fuck. And like said, pretentious faggots like make up shit to sound smart when it really is just a simple concept. They take obvious symbolism in the movie and make it out to be something grand and powerful. No, son. It really is just aliens elevating species to a higher state. And like BvS threads, the symbolism is used as a reason to make it seem a smarter movie than it really is.

>COOL PLOT POINTS and EXPOSITION ABOUT SCIFI CONCEPTS and INTENSE COOL THINGS HAPPENING

One of my favorite books is The Martian Chronicles. Nothing exciting happens and the focus in on the characters and human character in general, the setting is just a vessel for the narrative. I care for stories and flashy shit is just flavor. I dislike the Total Recall remake even though it has way better effects and technology than then original.

You seem like a name-dropper, user. Suck a chode.

>>he thinks 2001 is something hard to understand

Not what I was implying.

>No, son. It really is just aliens elevating species to a higher state.

So? What's the problem with a simple story?

>One of my favorite books is The Martian Chronicles. Nothing exciting happens and the focus in on the characters and human character in general, the setting is just a vessel for the narrative. I care for stories and flashy shit is just flavor.

Good thing film is a medium wherein the characters nor the plot need to be the focus.

I guess BvS and MoS are fine works then, making Superman and Batman killers cause of 'artistic license'. Peter Jackson making changes to the trilogy onscreen (apart from Bombadil) is okay, as is making The Hobbit a trilogy and padding it with stupid shit. I doubt I was ever such a contrarian faggot.

kek kubrick faggot numero uno

how does it feel earning minimum wage?

I don't earn a wage, I live on welfare. Check and mate.

Bet you feel real stupid now, don't you

>It really is just aliens elevating species to a higher state.
Thank god Kubrick cut that shit out from the movie then and made it a story about the evolution of men

oh shit, since ur an depressed faggot not even capable to get a job and butthurt as fug

fuck off miserable piece of shit

>plot is unimportant/unessential in film

A slideshow is a movie by your definition. What a retard, no wonder people laugh at pretentious faggots like you.

>hey user, I like (so and so) movie, what do you like?
>I like (name-drop a couple obscure artfag shit no one has seen), wanna come over and see some together?
>nah, stay alone and fap/cry yourself to sleep

And the user then goes online and posts about how 'plebs' don't like his random indieshit.

If you're not gonna tell a story visually, what the fuck is the point? I am honestly asking here. Nothing happening at all, no conflict, no resolution, no character arcs, no reason for the characters to act on anything. Just random shit onscreen with long takes of pretty landscapes.

So is the book, and several short stories that gave their elements to 2001 (book and movie). He just added trippy shit and omitted shit to make people think it was grander and more mysterious than it actually is. Again, Lindelof botched a perfectly good prequel and Prometheus was shit on, yet Kubrik is a genius for doing the same. Generation Z thinking, people.

It's one thing to create some artistic thing from scratch but Kubrik has a habit of botching already good works.

>he is comparing Kubrick taking a mediocre sci-fi novel and turning it into one of the greatest filmmaking achievements to Snyder turning Batman into a killer for the sake of violence
>he thinks those examples are even comparable to what Kubrick did for 2001
>he still makes no argument as to why 2001 is a bad movie

This movie really is the ultimate pleb filter

...

>He just added trippy shit and omitted shit to make people think it was grander and more mysterious than it actually is.
user, you've stated several times that you didn't like 2001 because you thought it was boring and because it wasn't exactly like the book. Kubrick omitting these details made for a much better experience. It's conservation of detail. It's a basic narrative thing that more often that not improves a story.
You present no argument as to why the book was better, even, or why the alien narrative is better than the ambiguity that the movie presents us with.

>Kubrik has a habit of botching already good works.
At least spell his name correctly if you are going this far for the sake of assuring yourself that your pleb contrarianism is justified.

Funny how Critics from the Greatest Generation in the 60's hated this piece of shit and called it out the atheist jew's flick for being an incomplete pile of garbage that's more pretentious than all of the dogshit that Andy Warhol made, but as soon as the 70's arrived, the (((((((((((((((Critics))))))))))))))) decided to change their mind and called this abortion a """masterpiece"""

>If you're not gonna tell a story visually, what the fuck is the point?

You can still tell a story, like 2001 does, but the "point" is aesthetic enjoyment. When Kubrick does a long shot of something with classical music playing in the background, that sequence is an end in and of itself. It doesn't need to add anything significant to the story, the sequence itself is enjoyable.

>Nothing happening at all, no conflict, no resolution, no character arcs, no reason for the characters to act on anything. Just random shit onscreen with long takes of pretty landscapes.

Nice strawman you cooked up, sport. Saying that plot is not the focus or is not that important is not the same what you just described.

Although Baraka and Koyaanisqatsi are pretty good films I must say. But things still "happen" in such films.

>Taking a long detail filled book into a light show is considered "of the greatest filmmaking achievements"
>Hurrrrrr dur, you are da pleb!!!
Kill yourself nigger

>the greatest generation hated this piece of shit abortion
>Generation Z thinking, people.

I didn't know underage posters pretending to be older were allowed on these boards.

Seriously, he was grasping at straws for the strawman. Part 1 of 2001 was the exposition (Dawn of Man to Moon Monolith), the conflict and climax was part 2 (Man and Machine), Part three was the resolution (Jupiter and beyond the Infinite).

>Lack of exposition, just throws you out there and expects you to understand shit.
If you're so fucking lazy you can't even be bothered to think for a fucking second, why do you even bother watching, reading or listening to anything at all? Do you think everything's supposed to be hollow "entertainment" that you use and throw away like you would with a fucking car or some shit?
>his best movie is Spartacus
That's his second worst.
>A more proper analogy is Nicki Minaj fucking with Sir Mix-A-Lot's classic for 'artistic' reasons.
>Sir Mix-A-Lot's classic
And it's not a good analogy, the novel and the film were developed at the same time, and Kubrick basically co-wrote the book.

Film is a visual medium, not all plot has to be revealed through dialogue but instead can come from the action of the scene itself.

>Sup Forums posters show their true colors as contrarian plebs lashing out agaisnt something they can't possibly understand

This is why I miss the capeshit discussions

>I want things spelled out clearly for me like in a book instead of thinking about movies
>dude it's just a light show the book had more depth

>his best movie is Spartacus
Opinion further discarded.

>I won't read the thread but here is a meme image

I have said this many, many times before: Kubrik took artistic license on a good story (nothing too grand but still an enjoyable work) and changed shit to make it seem better than it is, normies are confused (as they should be, like with Prometheus/BvS) and pretentious fags keep on putting the meme that 2001 is the best scifi movie out there (even though they don't see or read much scifi). Contrarians keep defending the changes and don't address the fact that as a movie it could use some much-needed cuts cause of pacing issues. Any criticism is seen as trolling or as plebshit like .

I like the story, dislike the botched movie. Same with the Dune movie, sure it has good aspects but as a whole it is flawed. I am sick of hearing parroting and name-dropping of movies like these just cause pretentious faggots want to seem smart or self-righteous. This grinds my gears endlessly and I'm not gonna hold back from talking shit.

Kuckbrik. With a penis floppily being sucked by him. You don't see the person, just the penis being sucked by Kuckbrik.

Exactly.

Music was initially a placeholder for a real score. Again, he thought it was more 'artistic' so he kept it in.

And thank you for proving my name-dropping point you artfags seem to have. Have a Kuckbrik sucking on a floppy dick image on the house, friend-o.

1990 here. I hardly played on the playground and stayed on the punishment tables reading not because I had to but because I wanted to read stories. So yeah, fuck you, guy.

I never said the movie lacked in plot, only that it was botched. Bruce Jenner got his dick chopped off but he still has his DNA that outs him as a genetic male.

Waste of trips. I ALREADY knew the story going in, I was massively disappointed by the shit adaptation.

>Calling anyone underage when you can't argue that real critics hate this shit film, but (((they))) change your mind
Capeshit and 2001 are in the same realm of garbage dumbfuck, also
>RedditLetterMedia
Wouldn't Plinket hate that this movie doesn't have interracial sex in this movie drone?

>' Kubrick told Clarke he wanted to make a film about "Man's relationship to the universe", and was, in Clarke's words, "determined to create a work of art which would arouse the emotions of wonder, awe ... even, if appropriate, terror." '

>Movies require more thought than books
>Lmao Broski, the book is shit cuz it has words, muh light show is better
It's pretty clear you are a mentally retarded dumbfuck that is possibility illiterate and you require your mommy to post your retarded ideas

>and pretentious fags keep on putting the meme that 2001 is the best scifi movie out there

What about all the world-renowned film directors like Martin Scorsese who also consider 2001 to be one of the best films ever made? Did they get their opinions from Sup Forums memes too?

>Music was initially a placeholder for a real score. Again, he thought it was more 'artistic' so he kept it in.

It was a placeholder for an original score. Turns out the classical music worked astonishingly well. I don't understand what the problem is here.