I just saw this. I watched it twice in a row over two days

I just saw this. I watched it twice in a row over two days.

I had casually heard it hyped my entire life and just dismissed it as >lol nerds circlejerking over an old sci-fi movie. Oh how I was wrong.

It took a minute for my 2017 brain to become acclimated to its pace. Initially I unironically thought I accidentally torrented the original planet of the apes. I even took a nap after the first initial scenes because like a faggot I got bored. I was internally bashing the first scene like "a bunch of monkeys, this is boring." The moment it set in that the scene depicted the dawn of man, the usage of tools that kick started human evolution I nearly shit myself. Its like zooming in on the mona lisa's nose and thinking "who gives a fuck its just a nose" then zooming out to realize you are looking at a piece of art. Similarly its like listening to an unremarkable note from a Bach fugue then listening to the entire thing in context. Absolutely mind blowing.

Now I understand why people think the he directed the moon landing. It wasn't that the moon landing was in itself so unbelievable, but that 2001 was just so amazingly realistic and that Kubrick's directing ability in a way overshadowed NASA's perceived competency.

I very rarely rewatch movies, but I see myself watching this film periodically for the rest of my life. I am 27 years old and the effect it had on me makes me want to watch every Kubrick film in chronological order, the man was an artist. I've seen the shining and a clockwork orange and loved them but 2001 was the man's magnum opus.

My personal favorite is Barry Lyndon, but 2001 is my second favorite.

...

tl;dr
Solaris was better

>I am 27 years old
No you're obviously not. Why are you lying on the internet?

2001 is the greatest film ever made.

So too is Eyes Wide Shut.

yeah i rarely rewatch movies and this is most likely the best movie of all time

>I watched it twice in a row over two days.

Obviously that's not enough to really absorb all it's details and visuals, you should watch it at least 5-10 times more to really be able to appreciate it.

>27 years old
Wew OP, I saw this movie when I was 15, what took you so long? (Besides being a faggot)

Like I said I was aware of its existence for a long time but just dismissed it as a star trek tier sci film.

I want to force it onto my wife and future children but I'm pretty sure they won't have the capacity to appreciate it due to Hollywood being such a fucking joke now with movies like Why Him and the like. This trash conditions future generations to enjoy trash just like big macs condition people to enjoy trash.

I am currently mourning the state of film in general.

I'm aware this entire thread is >blog but I'm hoping to make conversation out of it.

not gonna lie, I watched it first time a month or two ago and its changed the way I think of reality and my own consciousness completely.

I dismissed earlier as just another boring pretentious flick and even until the last hour of the movie I was bored, now it's one of my favorite films ever.

nice block post

>>>/reddit/

Good review, I feel like watching it for the first time

Official Kubrick Kino rankings

1. Space Odyssey
2. Eyes Wide Shut
3. Strangelove
4. Full Metal Jacket
5. Barry Lyndon
6. Shining

44059. A Clockwork Orange

>full metal jacket not 2
Shit taste

>2. Eyes Wide Shut
...........................

>makes me want to watch every Kubrick film in chronological order
all the cringe in this post and you haven't even watched his movies, jesus fucking christ

I found it overrated. Not much happens really.

Interstellar is the modern 2001, and a much better one.

and try to catch it at a theater, it is usually played once a year

i thought it was ok.

if such a thing could be made today i wouldn't think twice about 2001. but since it could not be made today, i have a little respect for such an artsy film. i don't really consider it extremely profound, not even more than regular people watching movies like jurassic park or star wars or something. it's a tenuously OK movie.

you're retarded. you don't know how old he is. no. shutup. you don't know how old he is.

no it fucking isn't, and doesn't even say anything about the human condition
it's just a emotional ride of visuals and "it's necessary"

...

What does 2001 even say about the "human condition"? I

>I want to force it onto my wife and future children but I'm pretty sure they won't have the capacity to appreciate it due to Hollywood being such a fucking joke now with movies like Why Him and the like. This trash conditions future generations to enjoy trash just like big macs condition people to enjoy trash.
>I am currently mourning the state of film in general.

I can smell your unwashed thrift store fedora over the internet.

>Sup Forums has a short attention span
What a suprise

Lmao, fucking retard that something this simple has to be explained to you.

Like any idiot could have realized, eventually mankind will make contact with aliens far beyond our comprehension in advancement, once we reach them, they'll put on a light show, and then we'll be reborn as a fetus that can travel through space. A very profound commentary on the "human condition," if I might say, and anyone can say who isn't a complete moron.

I think the cinematography is on point for 2001. Pause the film at any point and the shot will look sexy as hell.

Most people find it boring because the pace is slow, but that's kind of missing the point.

>eventually mankind will make contact with aliens far beyond our comprehension in advancement,

lmao dude that's also exactly what happens in Interstellar.

Interstellar is a poor man's Arrival.

The plot is so retarded not even the space scenes can make up for it.

>The protagonist just happens to live at a half day's driving range of the NASA base... and it just happens to be the NASA pilot NASA desperately needed for their most important mission ever... but they didn't search for him.
>muh "love is interdimensional"

>Pause the film at any point and the shot will look sexy as hell.
The ape scenes look embarrassingly dumb, in motion or still.

And what exactly happens? We get the ability to control gravity and create worlds? Stupid. A fetus that can space travel? Genius, but you're probably to stupid to get it.

>The protagonist just happens to live at a half day's driving range of the NASA base... and it just happens to be the NASA pilot NASA desperately needed for their most important mission ever... but they didn't search for him.

> I didn't understand half the film.

kthx.

that's not profound. and that's definitely not a good interpretation of the film. it's facile.

2001 only says anything about the human condition if you want it to, and you have to be retarded to think that what you see in it is what everyone see's in it or what was put into it.

it's a highly generic, symbolic movie, and anyone can read anything into it that they want. like a crystal ball. it means nothing so people can do what they wish with it.

>definitely not a good interpretation of the film
That's literally what happens, faggot. Read the book if you're to stupid too understand what's on screen.

>Stupid. A fetus that can space travel? Genius

By acknowledging this you are effectively proving my first point: that both movies talk about the condition of humanity.

So stop backpedaling and changing goalposts now.

>the ability to create world

ugh... speaking of retards...

no, that's what YOU see happen. you're just not bright enough to realize that it's only your personal illusion and that everyone else has their own.

I actually wasn't that first poster. I'm merely pointing out how profound is the vision that 2001 presents: a light show, followed by going in some hotel room, followed by a transformation into a space traveling fetus. It really makes you think.

you can literally interpret ALL movies EVER MADE to be 'about the human condition'. this isn't even 101 level analysis, this is 0105 level pre-introduction stuff.

>Like I said I was aware of its existence for a long time but just dismissed it as a star trek tier sci film.
If you liked 2001 you'll like Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Congratulations.

>The moment it set in that the scene depicted the dawn of man, the usage of tools that kick started human evolution I nearly shit myself.
What's so mindblowing about that? You may be retarded if you're amazed by something as simple as that.

So the fact that this depicts as straightforward as was technically possible almost everything in the novel is a pure coincidence? Seems like it isn't and you can determine what is literally happening by looking at the novel. For instance, the LSD trip? That was representing the aliens moving Bowman across the universe and all the worlds he was seeing, at least as described in the book.

you say it's straightforward. that's just what you see. other people see it as not straightforward at all. you're just completely un-self-aware of exactly how much you're reading into things. kinda cute.

>you say it's straightforward.
No, I didn't. I'm not splitting hairs: I chose my words carefully. Read what I wrote again. The fact that just about nobody who didn't read the novel knew what was going on in the last 10 minutes, (or whenever the LSD trip starts), indicates how unstraightforward it was, but it was straightforward if already knew what was happening and as straightforward as the technology would allow. I'm not even going to say whether it was a good idea.
>other people see it as not straightforward at all.
Correctly so.
>you're just completely un-self-aware of exactly how much you're reading into things
I'm I'm reading into the scenes depicted in the movie which are completely consistent with what happened in the book and best way of depicting them for the time.
>kinda cute
Avoid making homosexual comments like these.

>I'm reading into the scenes depicted in the movie which are completely consistent with what happened in the book and best way of depicting them for the time.

nobody is required to read a book in order to understand a movie. interpretations have to be implicit or it's just extended universe fan-fiction. which is, of course, simply someones personal fantasy based on the piece of art. this personal experience is the point of art.

you are splitting hairs. there is no LSD in the movie. "woah man it's like a drug trip", yeah, okay, maybe it is. and maybe it isn't, too. maybe someone thinks it's shrooms. or maybe someone thinks that it's the period of reflection before death, absorption into brahma-rahuptasana as ecstasy and rebirth. and those are all equally supported and unsupported by the material. it's not like, 'HAL locked bowman out'. HAL objectively locked bowman out. the obelisk in no way objectively represents fucking anything, and unless you have extensive studies in kabbalah and esoteric symbolism, you're not even in a position to speak about it as if your interpretation is enlightening at all.

you are literally writing fan fiction about what you think the movie is about, and you think that because you 'have good reason to believe so' that no one has good reason to believe otherwise or to disagree. it's incredibly myopic and self-absorbed.

>nobody is required to read a book in order to understand a movie.
I didn't say they were, but that doesn't mean it isn't extremely implausible that despite the fact that the depiction in the movie somewhat approximates what the scene that is happening in that book at that point, it somehow isn't representing that. Even aside from what's depicted in the book, I don't know what would be a better explanation of what's happening. It could be the aliens transitioning him into the suite, but doesn't make as much sense.
> this personal experience is the point of art.
By this logic, art that doesn't have anything that isn't explicit misses the point, which is idiotic.
> interpretations have to be implicit or it's just extended universe fan-fiction.
Well, it's not literally that because I'm referring to the scene as literally described in the book, so you picked a very inapt hyperbole.
> there is no LSD in the movie.
I never said there was. I was just using some term to describe what anybody would know what it was I was referring to.

>yeah, okay, maybe it is.
Holy shit, are you really assuming that I was literally saying that it was an LSD trip, even after I said what I though it was and referenced the book to back up my "interpretation"? What was the point of this paragraph but to attack an interpretation I didn't actually propose?
>you are literally writing fan fiction
No, I'm referring to the novel, which literally isn't "fan fiction,"
>the obelisk in no way objectively represents fucking anything
It's objectively an artifact that was buried four million years ago, which sent a "extremely powerful radio emission aimed at Jupiter." This is all explicitly stated in the narrative.

yeah i get it dude. you have a strong belief that 2001 is about so and so and you have reasons for thinking so. so write a fucking english/film class essay on the topic.

all art is explicit and that's not the point. the point is what you get out of it.

i think you're just arguing to argue at this point.

stop referencing the book. it's literally fan fiction as far as the movie is concerned, and you literally can't justify a single thing said about the movie by it.

>you have a strong belief that 2001 is about
Not really. I'm just referencing the book, which isn't "fan-fiction," to explain a scene.
> so write a fucking english/film class essay on the topic.
There's not much to say. The book describes what happens and what's depicted in the film is consistent with it. Nobody who would have read the book would doubt what that scene is depicting.
>all art is explicit and that's not the point
So all art is missing the point?
>the point is what you get out of it.
Not necessarily. It might be the expression of the artist as an end itself, in which the interpretation by other people is irrelevant. What most people probably got from that scene is confusion and boredom from the monotony, and possibly annoyance at the director being so pretentious to put something so self-absorbed and incoherent, and if you had read the book, you probably felt all those things as well except confusion.
>it's literally fan fiction as far as the movie is concerned
It's literally not literally fan fiction, as fan fiction by definition is derivative of another work, while both works were actually written in tandem. It's arbitrary to suggest that the movie would deviate from the novel when there's no other plausible explanation for what's happening.
> you literally can't justify a single thing said about the movie by it.
You seem to rely on literally a lot without actually justifying your claims. I am relying on probabilities, as much as anyone does even when they rely on things that explicitly happen in the film. I would say it's wholly improbable, (but I suppose possible), that the scene does not depict exactly what was described at that point in the story, even when what it describes is as identical as possible to what's depicted in the film within artistic license.

it's your explanation. you have a right to make that explanation. but others can disagree and there's no way to know who is right. your interpretations, based on anything, no matter what, are just that. an interpretation. EVEN WHAT STANLEY KUBRICK BELIEVES THE MOVIE IS ABOUT, is not 'authoritative'. even the person who made the movie has no more right than anyone to decide 'what it means'.

your head is up your ass if you think otherwise.

>'2001' is about the human condition

if you think so. and only if you think so. and only for you. because you think so. and if you think not, then not so.

>I am 27 years old
and you never watched 2001 until now?
WTF is this shit?! LURK MOAR. STOP POSTING. STOP MAKING THIS BOARD EVEN SHITIER THAN IT ALREADY IS

>but others can disagree and there's no way to know who is right
I guess that can apply to anything. It's possible that, to take at random an example, the country of Spain doesn't actually exist, and that nobody who has actually been there can say it exists, as it might be a massive conspiracy carried out by tens, if not hundreds of millions of people across centuries. This, of course, isn't really plausible. It's also possible that, using an example more relevant, that the obelisk wasn't four million years old, or that they were speaking of an entirely different obelisk. This, of course isn't plausible either. If the book was written after the fact, or was literally fan-fiction, then the idea of its descriptions having no weight might have validity, but it does have weight as much as reading a previous version of the script. It's not "definitive," but plausibility that it's depicting something else is quite low.
> decide 'what it means'.
Oh, that. I haven't spoken about that for some time, and when I did, it's in just. I'm only talking about what's being depicted, not what it's "about."
>if you think so.
I don't. I think it was pretty clear when I stopped baiting or shitposting and started actually arguing for my "interpretation," which is based on trying to determine what Kubrick was literally trying to depict, and that it was so incoherent indicates how incredibly overrated and pretentious the movie was.

>The Shining below FMJ

dropped

A wild pleb appeared

in jest*