50% of the film consists of shots of spaceships slowly flying through space

>50% of the film consists of shots of spaceships slowly flying through space

brilliant
not boring at all

Other urls found in this thread:

scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There's a reason for it.

curing insomnia

Yeah... This is why I didn't bother to type it.

It's a bit slow and pretentious, yeah.

can you believe that there are people who legitimately are upset that such a perfect sleep aid exists?

not even space battles or laser sword duels?
probably not enough diversity for you either.

This movie only has three things going for it, a movie about the dangers of AI and 4th+ dimensional beings, and a ooooh clever shot of a bone turning into a spaceship. It spends like three hours divulging in this when I could have taken 15 mins on Wikipedia learning about AIs and multiple dimension. Seriously this movie isn't even about anything really, just a series of events.

stop posting

Pleb filter general?

But user, watching somewhat realistic futuristic space vessels was a pretty special thing when it came out.

Enough so that even Star Trek took it on with TMP (one of the better Trek movies).

>first 30 minutes is some monkey bullshit

literally one of the worst films Sup Forums has memed me in to watching, about 1 hour of solid content. The rest is edgy fluff trying to be deep.

but "you just don't get it"

yeah this. I slept like a baby.

You have to get into the mindset of a 1968 moviegoer seeing these special effects for the first time.

Remember this was a full decade before A New Hope.

A minute or two longer and I would've found those moments boring. Just as it is, however, it works.

>2001 is super slow with long shots of spaceships flying slowly through space
>it's considered a masterpiece and you're a pleb with ADHD if you don't like it

>Star Trek: The Motion Picture is super slow with long shots of spaceships flying slowly through space
>It is generally considered "boring" by the same "film experts" who praise 2001

How the fuck is this allowed?

>first 30 minutes is some monkey bullshit
you just dont get it

oh sure

I know people who don't like the film will think I'm a pretentious cunt for thinking this, but fuck it. It really comes down to the sense of scale an grandeur Kubrick conjures up. Not just "space is big" scale, but temporal scale, and the scale of the significance of events and the majesty of evolution when you consider the grand scheme of it and where it might lead. Now if contemplating these things doesn't hit you on an emotional level, it's not going to work for you. The pleasure of the film outside of the monolith exposition and HAL sections isn't in watching the events unfold, it's in the contemplation. In the same way a piece of music without lyrics or an explicit subject can absolutely nail a certain emotional space and amplify the feelings associated with it when you're in that frame of mind, 2001 really captures feelings associated with the sense of awe and wonder I get when you think about the grandeur of the universe and I think the leisurely pace is a necessary part of creating that contemplative space. I get that that isn't for everyone, but it's my personal all-time favourite.

kubrick had an opportunity to create his own score. the fact that he used licensed music should immediately discredit the integrity of the film

tried watching it with my mum but she wanted to watch something else after 10 mins because it was boring.

Literally the best movie of all time. Other movies should be measured by how less they are in comparison to 2001.

>kubrick flick
>ear rapes viewers with beethovan music
What did he mean by this?

yeah but i read somewhere they cut a lot of character development from TMP so they could do more fly by shots of the enterprise.

>mum

story checks out

It's mostly because Star Trek was based on a TV show for nerds, but Kubrick was already a respected director, and film is more prestigious than television.

you really don't

2001 is a film about Humanity, technology, evolution, and the unknown. Star Pleb is about meaningless fantasy.

what a dumb remark. Music was very important for Kubrick. But he was a director, not a musician.

>Dracula ad Twilight are about some vampire
>how can you like one and not the other

Is there even any Beethoven in there?
Surely you don't count Strauss and Ligeti as Beethovan, r-right?

>opens with literal I'm CIA/crashing this plane memes to pander to the Sup Forums crowd
>rest of the movie is a manchild dressed as a bat grunting autistically
Great movie guys.

Don't watch movies anymore, it only gives you more shit to talk about and then decent folk have to listen to your slack jawed drivel. I'm 90% sure you're 12 years old.

This is a legitimate criticism if you've only watched Nolan flicks

And what more is life than just a series of events?

Because Star Trek is dull as fuck. It's not as grand or well directed as 2001. It's not as exciting as Star Wars. It's not as creative or nuanced as Doctor Who. It's Sci-Fi's Harry Potter.

The fact that so many people still name Stanley Kubrick as the greatest or most significant or most influential director ever only tells you how far film still is from becoming a serious art.

Contemporary film makers never spoke highly of Kubrick, and for good reason. They could never figure out why his movies should be regarded more highly than their own. They knew that Kubrick was simply lucky to become a folk phenomenon (thanks to the Space Race, which had nothing to do with his film making merits). That phenomenon kept alive interest in his (mediocre) films to this day.

Kubrick sold a lot of copies of his films not because he was the greatest director but simply because his films were easy to sell to the masses they had no difficult content, they had no technical innovations, they had no creative depth. He shot a bunch of catchy 3-minute scenes with some decent cinematography. If somebody had not invented the Space Race in 1957, you would not have wasted two minutes of your time reading this post about such a trivial director.

I have a theory about the film.

The monolith is shown to induce some sort of evolutionary step. My theory is that HAL is the next evolutionary step of the human race (he mentions his superiority a few times). The aliens wanted HAL to travel out to the space monolith but the humans intervened.

On its own it doesn't seem like much of a theory, but seen in context to an earlier scene, the one where Floyd has a phone conversation with his daughter, it sort of makes sense.

He uses his rectangular shaped credit card to try and ring his wife, but she is unavailable and has to talk to his daughter instead. He obviously has some important information to talk to his wife about. He loves his daughter but she isn't mentally mature enough to understand yet.

So if you understand that Floyd = Aliens, Wife = HAL, Daughter = Humanity and Credit Card = Monolith, it gives context to what's happening in the film.

Atleast it has monkeys

thats why I don't even watch movies anymore

they are all trash. just visual masturbation and hieroglyphs give better stories anyway

>they had no technical innovations

this may be the most genuinely retarded thing I've read on this site in a long while.

Yet all shots in the space mean something. 10 of the last 15 minutes are in space and today the diversity of theories about it are like a million

are you really retarded ?

a series of unfortunate events

My favorite director is Ozu and I still found 2001 boring

scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html

great movie senpai

Seriously, there isn't even ONE explosion in the entire movie. What a piece of shit.

it's a movie bro. that's how a movie works

In the book, when Bowman becomes the starchild, the vey first thing he do its explode some satellites with nuclear bombs(supposedly the ones in the beginning), but Kubrick prefer not to include it on the film.

you should honestly leave this board

Yeah, that sounds retarded.