For fucksake how the fuck did you watch this shit without falling asleep Sup Forums ?

for fucksake how the fuck did you watch this shit without falling asleep Sup Forums ?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey
rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/2001-an-odyssey-not-to-be-missed
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Taste, and appreciation for art.

what fucking art is repeating the same scene again and again

Sure. Why not. No point in throwing pearls before swine.

By only watching from where we first see humans till when the sfx overdose starts.

Because it's kino.

The shots, the music, Hal, the ambience. It's a fucking good movie.

Don't forget, it's from 1968. It's 50 years old.

by having an IQ above 85

tfw too intelligent

Your pic. Every shot is perfectly framed and aesthetically appealing enough to be hung up on a wall.

you can all say what you want but just admit it's so fucking boring

Theres an alarm that goes off for like five fucking minutes 2/3rds of the way through so plebs like you can't complain they slept through it.
You're literally more of a pleb than Kubrick could have predicted would someday exist.
Congratulations on bringing the average down a peg or two.

>art.
If I had to describe this film in 1 word it would be this. I think it was Kubricks only attempt at a true work of art, rather than just making a good kino.

2001 isn't a 10/10, but it's art imo.

meant for you

LSD was good back when this movie first came out.
It's a film for acid heads.

To be honest, I fell asleep 2 times before finishing the movie but it's great anyway.

Don't watch it if you can't appreciate anything more than Adam Sandler flicks

>tfw I have to do a film presentation on this movie for my English class
>tfw I have fallen asleep both attempts

The only reason I chose this movie was because it was the only Stanley Kubrick movie I haven't seen. That and David Lynch's Inland Empire were the only movies I haven't seen on the list. Wishing I chose inland empire instead.

It's basically like a Christmas family dinner.
Nobody likes it but everyone pretends to be cool with it for some reason.

REEE WATCHING FILMS MAKE ME SMART

No, but being a pleb makes you a pleb.

If this movie was made like 30years later y'all wouldn't be saying muh art n muh kubrick

2kino4u

Not being a pleb. Every single shot in this film is fucking perfect, how do you fall asleep with that?

I don't give a shit how well constructed a shot is, if it goes on for far too long. How can anybody possibly defend that sfx sequence when he's pulled into the portal?

I watched it once when I was 18. Despite loving sci-fi, I hated it. I watched it again when I was 23... Still hated it. I watched it again last week (26). I managed to survive by watching it at 4x to 8x speed, with dialog at 1.2x speed. Nothing of value was lost. It was okay. Could have deleted some dialog, and remove the stupid ending.

People claim it's art, but it's just pseudo-intellectual masturbation with some nice music and visual effects

because the shot is so fucking long

Your argument would have gone better if you hadn't posted such a fucking GOAT image. That shot alone is kino af.

If you can't appreciate the film for what it was then nobody ITT is gonna be able to convince you otherwise.

Watch it again when you're a bit older.

is this the whole movie?
if it is it really does look like a snorefest

It's eyecandy lads

DUDE LSD LMAO

>t.person with acapacity of introspection equal to that of a gnat

it's quite an engaing movie

>I managed to survive by watching it at 4x to 8x speed
Why not just stop watching at that point retard? You're not getting any enjoyment out of it anyway.

I'm sorry you're not engaged by astronauts having to deal with a robot AI that's trying to kill them.

I'm also sorry that you've seen too many sci-fi movies and can't appreciate how perfect every set is.

>I managed to survive by watching it at 4x to 8x speed, with dialog at 1.2x speed. Nothing of value was lost. It was okay. Could have deleted some dialog, and remove the stupid ending.

Nobody is that stupid.

>Despite loving sci-fi, I hated it
That's impossible. Or at least you're too jaded and convinced yourself it's not worth you're time. There's people walking on the ceiling on a space plane heading to a moon colony for christ sake, it's borderline masturbatory for science fiction.

I think a more important question is how the fuck did you fall asleep watching this? It's really good.

There were no laser beams being fired so it isn't real sci-fi

>How can anybody possibly defend that sfx sequence when he's pulled into the portal?
Its all practical and in camera. Stop being such an ignorant cock or fuck off backto Sup Forums.

I think 2001 got a little out of hand by the time the finished product came out
Clarke's vision for 2001 was better, but Kubrick sacrificed so much of it for visual appeal and impact that it comes off as forced at times

>Skipping the apes
We're reaching levels of pleb that shouldn't even be possible!

sounds like you fell for the quick cut post-2008 meme

try not having add

Is 2001: A Space Odyssey the Alinea of the film world?
All about the technique and the presentation, at the expense of coherence and practicality?

can someone explain what the movie means? what are the monoliths? why does the movie end with the guy just eating dinner? I dont get it

The monoliths are aliens (or tools thereof; doesn't matter), which advance the evolution of a chosen creature of earth (the apes).

The entire space portion of the movie is just a repeat of what we saw during the ape portion of the movie.

...

>this is the average Sup Forums poster

How did this get so many replies? I can come up with the same bullshit for literally any other movie

>the first appearance of the monolith
>the cut of the bone into the spaceship
>every spaceship in a seamless model designed with scientific accuracy in mind
>the Pan-Am space plane
>the floating pen
>the stewardesses walking on walls, then the roof, then into a room upside down from the previous room with the pilots
>all those computer consoles
>dat wonderful 60s vision of the future
>the moon colony
>the lobby with the red chairs with the Earth visible in the window
>the prediction of Skype
>the intrigue of a monolith just buried into the moons surface
>the 2nd appearance of the monolith
>literally every single shot of the interior of the discovery
>the fucking rotating set
HOW FUCK DO YOU NOT LOVE THAT SHIT?
>the prediction of tablets
>the conflict of HAL between the astronauts and how much sense it made in the end
>when dave explodes into the ship in total silence then hearing the thunder ship re-pressurizing
>HAL's brainroom and the idea of a robot being afraid to die
>the last 20 minutes that don't give you shit and make you have to think about the movie

yeah it's pretty good

All of this could've happened fucking faster and at a snail's pace

Okay. Please explain how The Avengers translates into a complex yet perfect metaphor for childbirth, and how that metaphor relates to the story.

Beat me to it by 5 minutes!

>can't even pay attention to a 2 and a half hour movie

Jesus Christ

It couldn't, it gives you more time to appreciate it.

No.

There's no problems with coherence. Even in the end where nothing is explained, the camera movements and blocking lead perfectly into each other. When Dave is in the weird room you can tell what the interest in the scene is every time. It cuts to what he's looking at, and then when the old version of him walks to the camera, it cuts to the other side of the interior room with an empty doorway to show the younger version doesn't exist anymore.

>Practically
What do you mean by this? The rotating sets are perfectly executed.

>unironically hating 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Is this the end of Sup Forums?

Are the plebs taking over?

No, Kubrick wouldn't have cared about that, I don't think.

The reason the scenes are slow is simple: To demonstrate how helpless and ill-suited non-evolved humans are for existence in space.

See: the musical choices during the first space scenes.
Every moment that humans are in space is a ballet where if you stumble, you die.

the movie doesn't makes you smart, but you have to be smart to understand it.

tfw too intelligent

I noticed the best movies are between 50 and 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. The 90% and over ones are usually a little boring.

below 30% are godtier masterpieces

It's literally the best movie ever made and I never get tired of watching it.

I wouldn't tend to think that rule applies to old movies getting all retrospective reviews unless you're going to say Taxi Driver and Empire Strikes Back are boring.

I've watched it a few times throughout my adult life and I think my appreciation for it has grown over time.

It's just such a rich, textural experience. Everything is so deliberate and meticulous. It's a film steeped in metaphor, and it rewards patience.

Its a bit of a weird contradiction that a movie can move so slowly yet you still miss so much shit that you only catch on later viewings.

I watched it early in the day after a good nights sleep. I didn't have any coffee I think because I wasn't on that train yet.

It's THE psychedelic movie. Kubrick may claim that he never done LSD and it's perfectly possible but 2001 fitted perfectly with the zeitgeist.
It's a movie about the change the humanity needed but also hopes of space travel.

Do it.

It messes with your sense of time. Given the importance of time as a theme, I'm inclined to think this was on purpose.

Hey, speaking of noticing things on subsequent viewings: Did you notice that the monolith on the moon started sending its signal on a timer rather than as a reaction to being surrounded by people?

That fact has
>implications

In 2 and a half hours you can: build a shed, learn rudimentary latin or domesticate a animal. Doesn't sound like so little time now does it?

If you value your time so highly, you shouldn't be watching movies at all.

Is your ADD to the point that if a movie doesn't have explosions, you start thinking about your unfinished shed?

You are required to have an IQ of above 100 to watch it.

>youre required to be a pretentious """"intellectual"""" to watch it

Im sick of all the bullshit in this thread so I found this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey

I found these passages interesting:
>The book reveals that these aliens travel the cosmos assisting lesser species to take evolutionary steps. Bowman explores the hotel room methodically, and deduces that it is a kind of zoo created by aliens—fabricated from information derived from intercepted television transmissions from Earth—in which he is being studied by the invisible alien entities. He examines some food items provided for him, and notes that they are edible, yet clearly not made of any familiar substance from Earth. Kubrick's film leaves all this unstated.

>Physicist Freeman Dyson urged those baffled by the film to read Clarke's novel:

After seeing Space Odyssey, I read Arthur Clarke's book. I found the book gripping and intellectually satisfying, full of the tension and clarity which the movie lacks. All the parts of the movie that are vague and unintelligible, especially the beginning and the end, become clear and convincing in the book. So I recommend to my middle-aged friends who find the movie bewildering that they should read the book; their teenage kids don't need to.

No, it sent its signal when it was struck by sunlight (for the first time since it was buried there eons ago).

It's ok but (as often) Kubrick is trying too hard to impress with technichal prowesses, while the writing is bullshity and thin, and the ideas and the creativity lacking. Every shot is beautifully crafted but also symetrical, orthodox and uninspired, for example.

That's completely plausible if the moon was an isolated case, but every monolith appearance happens under not just the sun, but an ALIGNMENT.

Hence the monolith being on a "timer", because the three monoliths encountered in our solar system evolve the apes, send the signal to Jupiter, and open a wormhole at specific times.

>the ideas and the creativity lacking.
Compared to what? A modern anime that ripped off 2001?

are you fucking daft? the ape scene gives me shivers every time.

Dick shivers I bet. Degenerate.

I bet you're one of those people who say Better Call Saul is moving too slow.

The hulk represents a penis, the black widow represents a vagina, and captain america represents sperm. The battle with loki represents the fertilisation process, and the nuke into the wormhole represents how the baby ruins the couple's lives.

Better call Saul is moving too slow

and they say marvel movies are for kids baka

But hulk, widow, and cap had nothing to do with the nuke-baby.

in 2001, the penis-ship carries the astronaut-sperm TO the vagina-portal to create the baby-baby

Compared to someone like Parajanov for instance, whose means where ridiculously poor, but who discovered novelties in editing and camera movement, and even a new way to consider movies as animated tableaux. Kubrick was a talented craftsman but nothing groundbreaking, while Parajanov was a true auteur and a creator.

Almost every shot is there for a reason.
The symetrical almost too logical shots inspires a very apolienal view, like HAL himself(a pure apolineal being).
It not until the desconection of HAL when everything becomes weird, the sterile,grey and logical shots of the ship are constrasted whit the colorful and weirdness of the stargate sequence.

Hulk shoves captain america into the black widow's vagina to create thor, who is a god. You're just not cultured enough to appreciate the intellectual genius that is marvel's avengers.

It's a great movie but it's so overrated.

>build a cuck shed

What else have you accomplished? Surely you don't derive your ego from your ability to interpret films?

>learn rudimentary latin in 2 and a half hours

Sure you could. I bet you think you can be fluent with a month of study

What about ironman?

>and the ideas and the creativity lacking

Whew lad, you have to be 18 to post here.

By watching it in a theater instead of on a tiny screen.
rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/2001-an-odyssey-not-to-be-missed

inb4 "lolEbert". Yeah, sure, but he's 100% right about this movie. The images and soundtrack don't have nearly the same impact on some dinky laptop or whatever the fuck Sup Forums uses. "Requiem" in particular is terrifying when it's filling a cavernous room.

>Gets frustrated with the exercise and starts writing his own porno
Look, the saying is, "You can make anything perverted".
The saying is not, "You can make anything into a complex metaphor about childbirth that actually makes sense in context"

Just because a metaphor involves a penis doesn't mean its a dirty joke.

Not be a teenager.

Rudimentary like asking for directions, ordering food and introducing yourself

No... I don't think this one should come back.

When did Cptn America come out of the Hulk and enter Black Widow?

Yeah sure, you can write shit about any film, but don't expect it to make sense when you're just shitposting, lel.

That's just learning to parrot a few lines, not actually learning the language.

Anyone can look up basic phrases of any language and commit them to memory in 2 minutes. Doesn't mean they have even a rudimentary understanding of the language.