Why the fuck do people like this

Why the fuck do people like this

because it is good

whats wrong with it?

No, it's overrated reddit trash

Because of its Lovecraftian elements

is that moby

"overrated" is not a criticism
it's a fantastic movie with amazing cinematography, structure, acting, and meaning

"lol lets put lights INSIDE the helmet shining into the astronauts eyes"

literally why

I dont know, im just some faggit on a image board.

>this is what Sup Forums considers as a flaw

>structure, acting, and meaning
Nope.

nice response. thank you for Correcting the Record

>im a retard and I like my movies to make no logical sense

stick to capeshit

I can appreciate the FX and everything and the cinematography but Jesus Christ this movie seems like it has less actual direction than fucking Caddyshack.

I think it's one of those movies that blew minds when it came out, and now this myth that it's a fantastic movie has continued on so you fucking lemmings just sit and say "It's a great movie" when in reality you're just saying what you heard someone else say about the film.

Fucking disgusting

Nothing is good and nothing is bad. There is only enjoyable when it comes to movies.

>less actual direction
this is one of the most highly directed films in history. how dumb are you? it's a simple three act structure with all three acts being tied together extremely directly and obviously

fuck off beta autist

to fit in

what if I actually like it though? Does that blow your fucking mind? anybody who thinks people pretend to like movies to fit in is a legitimate retard. it's the easiest way to spot one, for two reasons:
A) None of these movies are actually that complex, deep, or difficult to enjoy. You claiming that not only do you not enjoy it but that you deem it *unenjoyable* and cannot fathom people enjoying it puts you on the bottom spectrum of intelligence for eternity
B) Movies are not like songs or paintings that are digested in 5 minutes or so. These are longer and require relatively significant dedication to consume, yet aren't long enough like books where it's not so hard to pretend you read them because the odds of running into a conversation where you'll get your cover blown is relatively slim. Nobody actually sits through three hour films they don't enjoy and then pretend to like it afterwards

It's comfy.

>DUDE EVOLUTION IS LIKE A SPERM RACE LMAO

No user. I'm right and everyone else is just pretending to like it. I'm literally too retarded to understand the simple concept of taste.

>cinematography
fine
>structure
No
The film's comprised of about 40 minutes of the runtime actually matters, while the rest is space porn and a 10 minute lsd simulator. You cannot convince me a supercut of the film's actual plot would be any worse than the full thing.
>acting
When Dave finds out HAL caught onto their plan and locks him out of the station, his "shouting" sounds more like moderate concern than "holy shit this computer is leaving me to rot in space"
In general, the two main astronauts only show a little bit more emotion than HAL himself, and HAL's a fucking robot.
Acting is the last fucking thing I'd call a strength of this movie, especially when "acting" is only happening for less than a third of the fucking runtime
>meaning
"meaning" only matters when a film can actually garner enough intrigue to make you pay attention to all of the details that contribute to such a meaning. Sure there's some pretentious fucks who'll walk into any old movie and look for reasons that the curtains would be blue, but it's simply poor writing to make such an attitude a requirement to enjoy the film on any level.
On top of this, practically everything is left for interpretation.
Leaving elements of the story, themes, message, or what-have-you to interpret is fine; a lot of Kubrick's better films do exactly that. I'm sure whatever the fuck Kubrick was trying to say with this was some profound shit, but aside from the basic message of "this is what happens when we rely too much on technology" you're given very little substantial material to go off of. The final 20 minutes of the film has been dissected to hell and back but since it's left so incredibly vague none of the conclusions to be made about it feel valid.

>None of these movies are actually that complex, deep, or difficult to enjoy

This movie was retardedly complex. It's almost like it was attempted to be complex in a simple kind of way. Not sure what he INTENDED to get through to an audience but it was definitely not CLEAR. That's the honest viewpoint. Shit is there are people that LOVE to seem like they're smart enough to make sense out of some senseless shit because they feel like geniuses when everyone can't make sense out of senseless shit.

>Nobody actually sits through three hour films they don't enjoy and then pretend to like it afterwards

Who says people need to see it to say they like it?. Probably most the people who didn't see it in theatres quit paying attention halfway through and probably stop watching. For those that fell for the meme and wanted to see if they were smart enough to follow just take credit for watching the entire thing and say they loved it to fit in.

all of it matters, even the 10 minutes LSD trip
I'm done talking to you. you are a brainlet; a dumbass. You are actually beneath me. You are not worth paying attention to.
You are too dumb for movies. Think about that. Think about it really long and hard, as much as you possibly can. Think about what went wrong in your life that stunted your mental development to the point where you lack the mental capacity to sit there and watch movies.

abloobloo

>the two main astronauts only show a little bit more emotion than HAL himself, and HAL's a fucking robot
That's literally the point you absolute retard

This.

user, I dont like this movie, but you're arguing a dumb point. The whole idea for the shot is to show us Daves reaction to what he was experiencing. Theres literally nothing controversial about this part.

>I'm done talking to you
That was my first response to you, I'm not the first user you replied to

This response does validate my assumption that most of the film's fanbase is composed of pretentious twats that get off to the idea that anyone who disagrees with them is a "brainlet" that "can't even watch movies". Perhaps you should think about what went wrong in your life that stunted your mental development to the point where you lack the critical thinking skills to back up any of this movie's decisions in pacing or structure

>Sup Forums ""criticism""
AAHAHAHAHAHAH

nothing wrong with radiohead

I'm not going to say that now it's a great movie, but I feel like it suffers from the Seinfeild effect where it's comparatively worse to things it inspired since it came out.

If you look at it in context of when it came out, it's an amazing movie with effects that look VERY good and a plot that, especially for the time, is very interesting and unique. The HAL plot was very cool considering it was a unique idea at the time.

Now, of course, I'd argue that a movie like Arrival shits on it in every way but that's because Arrival got an additional 50 years of technology and influence to be made.

>lack the critical thinking skills to back up any of this movie's decisions in pacing or structure
I do, I just don't have time to explain it to somebody as retarded as you. I already said it fairly basically right herewhy the movie is straightforward as well as interesting

Oh I know, I just like to argue

Willing to believe this, care to elaborate?
The post you linked doesn't explain much either, you're just saying "there is no problem, you're the problem". I actually cited things that I believe back up my point, or at least tried to make my claims more complex than "it's shit because it is". If I'm such a brainlet, why can't you do that at least??

Because it looks incredible, even after several decades. Every shot is crisp, clean, and aesthetic.

Why is eye-candy frequently heralded as a serious competitor for the greatest film of all time? It has to be more than that.

>Arrival shits on 2001
Ok

>entry level cinema goes over my head
the absolute state of Sup Forums

rofl (rolling on the floor laughing)

fine, I'm going to spend 5 minutes reading and replying to your post only to come to the same conclusion I did from the very first line: you are retarded
>You cannot convince me a supercut of the film's actual plot would be any worse than the full thing.
what kind of implication is this? that the only meaning in film is from plot events? do you seriously think that the only meaning in film comes from "things happening" and not the method or the way in which they are presented? that is some of the dumbest shit anybody can possibly think about cinema.
>his "shouting" sounds more like moderate concern than "holy shit this computer is leaving me to rot in space"
just because it's not overdramatic doesn't mean that it's not good. his tone is extremely calm, commanding, yet worried. It tells us a lot about the character, far more than some useless screaming would do. He's talking to a robot and nobody can hear him, screaming is useless. How can you possibly suggest that the scene would be better if he was screaming? That would be meaningless, whereas what we have actually is meaningful.
>In general, the two main astronauts only show a little bit more emotion than HAL himself
this is not a criticism. this is your demand that the characters be written a certain way and you're upset that they were not. There is plenty of interest in scientific based, hardly emotional men on a deep space mission in a film that's fucking about the evolution of man through technology.
>"meaning" only matters when a film can actually garner enough intrigue to make you pay attention to all of the details that contribute to such a meaning
what a great description of what gives 2001 meaning
cont.

The cinematography is so good it fucking hypnotizes you, that's why.

Yeah actually I'm just now remembering how underwhelmed I was by it after I finally got around to seeing it

A friend gave it to me on tape in like 2009 but I didn't actually watch it until like 2012 and it was pretty pointless. Best part about it was the effects which still hold up by today's standards.

>why is eye candy in a visual medium heralded as a serious competitor for the greatest film of all time?

Hm, I don't know, let me think about that for a second.

moving pictures, you simp. everything beyond that is glorified drama play garbage.

...

>practically everything is left for interpretation
what do you mean by everything? the plot is exceptionally simple and linear with only a few things "left for interpretation"
theres like 1 major symbol in the film and its used three times in contexts that all have a very obvious theme to it. The ending is ambiguous but it is not hard to pull out a general, intended meaning from it. especially since it is thematically link to, you know, the rest of the fucking movie
>"this is what happens when we rely too much on technology"
if thats how simply you have broken down the films theme then I honestly just feel bad for you. Remove the petty, useless, and childish notion of it being a storybook morale and think about it like
>humans have over time developed alongside their technology, from the dawn of civilization and will continue into the future
that's what a theme is. it is an idea that allows for the director to explore, engage, question, and in some cases assert. Here Kubrick is mostly exploring. Meaning is found in seeing apes turn violent on eachother with technology in the same film where a computer turns violent against mankind. There is meaning because it causes you to THINK about what's happening, but that seems way too hard for you
>you're given very little substantial material to go off of.
that's because you are fucking stupid enough to watch the film thinking that "The film's comprised of about 40 minutes of the runtime actually matters"

I was right. disassembling this post only told me what I knew at the beginning; you are stupid, have no patience, have no critical thinking skills, have no analytical skills, have no taste for visual media, and aren't worth anybody's time to discuss films with

what's "reddit"?

if you think it's about technology being bad you're a brainlet

it's about sacrifice and technology evolving the human condition

It's good but Kubrick is not a god or whatever by any means

Where is my fucking that the 2001 poster spammed a few months ago?

what about the fist half of the movie ?

it's a simple story that kubrick went and purposely told it in a not so direct way to make it more about the meaning of it, instead of just sci fi things happening in space
>watching the entire thing and say they loved it to fit in.
and those people can be easily unmasked just by asking them why they liked it, I don't know why be so bothered by them

Found it

The scenes are unnecessarily long and if it came out today it would be criticised for it, I dont care that it was the "first to do it", it did it wrong. It was so basic how he filmed the apes, I see more complex filmaking from a wildlife documentary.

>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

Personally I think people who say it's in their top 10 are either lying or retarded.

>Arrival shits on it in every way
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>Martin Scorsese is lying or retarded
what a fucking shitty pasta

Well, it's beautiful, suspenseful and mysterious. You can think a lot about it and the ending doesn't ruin the experience.

I love it because I watched it as a child, was slightly scared of it and dreamed weird space shit for months after.
I'm still waiting for another movie able to make me feel it as intense as 2001 managed.

Because its good.

you said it, people who didn't like it are hyperactive 5 year olds
>likes before sunrise
>thinks memelater is better than kubrick
12 YEARS LMAO

>Sup Forums in 2017

>I don't know why be so bothered by them
because he isn't bothered by them. He's bothered by people who actually like the movie because it threatens the notion that he isn't an idiot

No i said it was so boring even a hyperactive 5 year old who can't sleep and is easily amused would be put to sleep by it

>This movie is shit
Why?
>Reddit!

>Shit is there are people that LOVE to seem like they're smart enough to make sense out of some senseless shit
For me it's the other way around. I like movies that make me feel like there is a sense, a masterplan behind it all but I'm just not able to fully grasp it.
I just want to sit there an question everything, in awe of things that are bigger than I am.
My only form of religion, I want to keep it.

That said, I can understand why people who aren't into that kind of drug might find it boring or aimless.

2bh when I first got internet access back in 1997-98, there was already 2001 threads full of these same posts in practically every forum vaguely related

>t. the Gravity audience.

>visual arts fags
People who value visuals over actual plot are the biggest fucking brainlets.

the only thing reddit is the assertion that modern pop "sci"-fi like interstellar or arrival are better films than 2001

Turned it off after the shitty room service that went on for ten minutes. First it's a 20minute silent documentary on monkeys then it's a 10minute segment on somebody delivering food. It's incredibly boring and loves to over extend pointless scenes.

>I value writing over visuals in a medium that's one distinguishing characteristic is movement of imagery
Go read a book if you want plot, user.

Really? Visuals and sound can express abstract feelings and aesthetics that words simply can't. What's the point of film if not to utilize visuals and sound to evoke abstract feeling and thought from the subject?

Pretty much this, it's the same with Avatar except 2001 was pre social media so it's stuck

I liked Interstellar, I thought it had a bit of that 2001 vibe even though it wasn't really comparable. Arrival was a turd though, I don't know why anyone would even bring it up.

So when the landing gear took three minutes to come out and it took the waitress ten minutes to deliver dinner what advanced emotions should an intellect be feeling?

I did that too the first time. Retried much later and loved it. I guess it takes a particular mood to enjoy it.

Are there people who didn't like 2001 but liked stalker?

it's the better medium anyways, but relying to heavily on visuals in film gives it a pretentious and empty feel. Not that I would expect a moron like you to understand.

>his "shouting" sounds more like moderate concern than "holy shit this computer is leaving me to rot in space"

This is good though. He's a trained astronaut, keeping his cool is way more realistic than the crying and screaming we get in most space movies.

>The final 20 minutes of the film has been dissected to hell and back but since it's left so incredibly vague none of the conclusions to be made about it feel valid.

Thats the point... Make your own ending, if there was a concrete conclusion some people would feel dumb for not getting it. Sounds a bit paradoxical but once your out of your brainlet phase it'll make sense.

Brainlets, when will they learn?

action flicks full of CGI are pretentious?

Why do you think I was talking about 2001 specifically? Also those scenes are showcases of visual effects and camerawork, the point of them being to wow the audience and make them believe that what they're seeing is real. You have to keep in mind that at the time this movie was made, most people had never seen anything like it.
>what advanced emotions should an intellect be feeling?
>advanced emotions
Do you think before you type this shit?

Besides, people can watch the "sequel" if they want a concrete conclusion

It does a good job of pulling you into its world.
The opening scene is a sobering reminder that we are just biological creatures and all the trials and tribulations that we suffer are cosmically insignificant.

>but relying to heavily on visuals in film gives it a pretentious and empty feel
This means absolutely nothing. Explain yourself

>Relying on visuals is pretentious
Relying on biblical allegories is pretentious

>pretentious and empty feel
That's what Happened to me with interstellar.

Wow so you guys must really think Avatar is a good movie then right? Is this what it means to be a patrician

>Look pretty pictures it's a "kinography" an audiovisual experience
You got fucking memed

>You have to keep in mind that at the time this movie was made
This is where you're wrong. When watching a movie if you need to give it a crutch based on its time that's just an excuse. I could film a lightbulb turning on in slow mo and extend it out for ten minutes then say "oh well it's for people from before there were lightbulbs so they'll appreciate my shitty over extended shots"

>Wow so you guys must really think Avatar is a good movie then right?
No. Why don't you stop being purposefully retarded and say something that isn't a terrible attempt at flippancy?

>Kubrick intended 2001 to be an entirely nonverbal experience
>The story is told entirely through visuals, the plot told by people talking is secondary
>Almost 50 years later and people still struggle with this

They are intelligent whereas you are not

Avatar wasn't aesthetically pleasing though. It had good CGI that's it.

Avatar was a perfectly fine film, what's your problem?

It's the epitome of visual storytelling on an epic scale.

This. Pretentious fags here got memed.
They probably hate 3D movies and digital and love film at 24fps yet claim to love visual experience

>When watching a movie if you need to give it a crutch based on its time that's just an excuse
That's not me giving it a crutch. You asked what the point of those scenes was and I told you. Kubrick's intent was to wow the audience and make them believe what they were seeing is real. How did you lose track of your own line of questioning within a single post?

No, I said I was underwhelmed by it and the best part was how it looked. It was very thin on plot. A guy travels to the moon to see a domino. A different guy overcomes a rogue AI and becomes a space baby.

ep*c strawman
>lol, who needs actual character development when you have aw*some graphics!!
>dude the visuals are the main character!!

Avatar's visuals have aged like milk. 2001's still hold up today.