People only pretend to like it in order to appear 'smart' and 'cultured', in reality, it's a giant piece of shit for people who want to avoid masterpieces like Star Wars and Insterstellar.
>BUT DUDE LONG TAKES ARE FOR PATRICIANS You can have long quiet scenes that are both good and bad. Just because its long doesnt automatically make it good fucking hell.
>DUDE THOSE SCENES MAKE US APPRECIATE TECHNOLOGY AND SHIT a competent director would have directed those scenes in a way that doesn't put a hyperactive 5 year old to sleep. It's just shitty film making, no excuse.
>IT JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH LASER GUNS AND SJW PANDERING FOR YOU LIKING Fuck off. Before Sunrise was litterally just two people walking around a city, talking and it wasn't boring for a second. You know why? BECAUSE IT HAD A COMPETENT DIRECTOR!
>DUDE BUT THE AENDING WAS PRETTY LSD TRIPPIN LMAO So it's confirmed the drugs have destroyed your brains. 2001 fans are literally DUDE WEED LMAO tier
The only people who like it are pretending or retards who unironically think that Star Wars wasn't a masterpiece.
"Stanley Kubrick made the ultimate science fiction movie, and it is going to be very hard for someone to come along and make a better movie, as far as I'm concerned. On a technical level, it can be compared, but personally I think that '2001' is far superior." —George Lucas, 1977
Aaron Wood
It's one of the only movies that captures the feeling of awe and inspiration that you get reading a classic sci-fi novel, but I do completely understand people that don't like it. It's niche in a good way.
Samuel Lewis
>oh look, it's this thread again!
Hudson King
>George Lucas Reminder that he needs other people to make his movies good.
Brandon Sanders
t. buttblasted 2001 fan
Luke Flores
This was one of my first movies I ever watched when I finally finished my home theatre. I distinctly remember getting up and leaving the room multiple times to do stuff (get a a drink, take a shit, grab another cushion, etc.) and come back and the screen would be pretty much exactly the same.
I do think the film gave me some interesting things to ponder, but I think the whole "less is more" thing didn't make it that great in my opinion. I feel like I spent most of the movie waiting for shit to happen, and when it did it didn't feel like it was worth the wait.
Jason Nelson
t. Pleb
Luke Allen
Fuck off, Steven Spielberg has said the film completely floored him, and still does. I saw one quote from him where he allowed that he still doesn't fully understand it. George Lucas was in film school when 2001 was released, it humbled him, and HE doesn't claim to fully understand it. James Cameron said in an interview that 2001 revealed to him a whole new realm of what filmmaking was capable of doing. You can find expressions of awe about 2001 specifically, and Stanley Kubrick generally, from dozens of directors including guys like Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott, Francois Truffaut, Christopher Nolan, and even (IIRC) Frank Capra. You could also fill a small library with all the Ph.D. thesis papers that 2001 inspired.
If you think the film is boring, or if you think it's about just one simple idea that can be compressed into 20 or so words, or if you think the acting is poor (mind you, Kubrick was renowned for his casting choices, and infamous for shooting dozens of takes of every scene in order to get the performances EXACTLY right), or if you think the structure of the film is "disjointed", or if you think that the MUSIC is the only thing that "saved" the film from utter failure ... well, I'd contend you almost certainly have no meaningful understanding of this film whatsoever.
Jayden Myers
Is this what happens when niggers get internet and try not to chimp out about movies they don't understand?
Xavier Wilson
>You know a film is doing something spectacular when it has the same effect on you as quality heroine.
Thomas Clark
Is it bad that I love Star Wars, Interstellar and 2001?
Eli Walker
Someone this dumb wouldn't be literate. So, no. This is done for effect.
Parker Diaz
Yes, because 2001 is a piece of garbage.
Luke Hernandez
I tried explaining the movie (my interpretation of it, that is) to friends and family and when they in the end asked if we could watch something more "fun" I gave up and now I just watch and re-watch it alone (about once a year or two). Most people don't have the capability to focus for long enough to appreciate and/or understand what's happening on the screen and it's significance to the whole story.
Btw, I also like Star Wars and Interstellar, but not for the same reasons. Apart from being Sci-Fi, there are also some similarities between 2001 and Interstellar (in terms of visuals and choice of pacing for certain scenes), but the Films are telling completely different stories and tackle completely different issues. And Star Wars is not even Sci-Fi, it's an adventure in a fantasy setting, putting it in the same pot of masterpieces is just lazy (it's still a masterpiece, though, prequels and all).
Chase Phillips
>Not watching it on 70mm Pleb.
Jaxson Ortiz
He probably wanted a narrator conveniently summing up Dawn of Man and the reasons why they ventured into space during the first 3 minutes of the movie, then have the crew wake up to an alien tie-monolith attack, and after an epic battle in the asteroid belt of Jupiter (!) the last man standing (Dave) and his whacky AI assistant Hal decide to ram their phallic ship into the main monolith's landing bay and self-destruct, except Hal makes Dave go out with the pod to allegedly fix the hyperdrive, after which Dave tries to get back inside and asks Hal to open the bay doors, but Hal is like "I can't do that.. because you're my friend" and he then engages the hyperdrive and Dave makes that one face (you know the one) except this time he's crying and it all ends with America being great again.
Carson Stewart
Where in the world could I possibly watch it on 70mm nowadays, desu?
>appreciate technology and shit You fundamentally didn't understand the film if that's why you think it's praised.
Leo Foster
Neat, thanks.
Not sure if I'll go though, my own setup is bretty good and doesn't involve a half-a-day trip with no good seat and quiet audience guarantee.
Ayden Gonzalez
No setup can beat 70mm.
Ethan Cox
you're just unfamiliar with my levels of laziness.
Also, what's not to like with 120" 4k layzors, 5.1 dts audio and max comfy seating?
Jackson Morris
>Star Wars >a masterpiece
Pick one.
A New Hope was a groundbreaking sci-fi thriller in terms of special effects but did nothing else extraordinary. The mystique of A New Hope was diluted from an onslaught of sequels. Empire Strikes Back was a superb film but can you name its director? Nearly everyone who saw that film cannot name its director. That was the last good Star Wars movie. Each sequel has been worse than the last. Star Wars is nothing but a corporate distillation of all the most profitable and Hollywood-approved box-ticking at the time. The Star Wars franchise now represents the sleaziest corporate Hollywood studio cheese in the industry.
As for 2001: A Space Odyssey, I feel Stanley Kubrick is enormously overrated but that doesn't mean he isn't an outstanding director. 2001 transformed sci-fi from what was goofy and childish corn to a serious and thought-provoking art form. There were no sequels. It stands alone to be examined, and its quality has been enhanced with the passage of time.
Daniel Clark
>calling Star Wars and Interstellar masterpieces in the first line of your bait
lurk more, kid
Jordan Rivera
>Star wars just kys Op no need for anything else.
Jackson Kelly
OP doesn't even understand message frequencies
Hunter Young
>masterpieces like Star Wars and Insterstellar. Fucking kek (and I love Star Wars)
Juan Carter
>There were no sequels. There actually was: 2010: The Year We Make Contact.
Jayden Morgan
And it's good.
Chase King
Watch Stanley Kubricks masterpiece then we'll talk kid
Benjamin Ortiz
Not an argument
Ethan Turner
I'd make none of those arguments as to why the film is good.
