WTF?!?!?!

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: whitecloak

Originally posted by: Sabot
The movie is amazing, if you didn't understand it you should watch it again, or end your life.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown:

If you didn't read the books, you won't get the movie. That's bad movie making, plain and simple. Yes, it was really well done. No, it is NOT a good movie.

:thumbsup:
One of Kubrick's biggest blunders, a movie that is beautifully filmed and chock full of both technical and scientific wizardry....and is almost incomprehensible without being explained by the book.

There's a lot of people who seem to believe that Kubrick could do no wrong and that if you didn't "get" the movie, it's because you are too stupid to understand. I am certain that these are the same pretentious people I see at the MoMA pointing at a Pollock painting and saying "Oh, yes, it has such a powerful message if you are enlightened enough to get it."

But I will tell it like it is:
Kubrick, having TRULY good films in his catalog, such as Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket to use as a basis for comparison, did not fare so well on this one. And this is OK - every filmmaker has his his fair share of good and not-so-good works. 2001 is at least redeemed by the fact that we can pick up the book and read it and then go back and watch the movie again and have it make perfect sense after that. But a movie that needs a companion book to comprehend it just cannot be considered a good movie overall.

 

[jalaram]

Jzero explains it the best.

In addition, people are so used to great effects in sci-fi films now that they don't realize the huge leap that 2001 A Space Odyssey was.

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: whitecloak

Originally posted by: Sabot
The movie is amazing, if you didn't understand it you should watch it again, or end your life.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown:

If you didn't read the books, you won't get the movie. That's bad movie making, plain and simple. Yes, it was really well done. No, it is NOT a good movie.

:thumbsup:
One of Kubrick's biggest blunders, a movie that is beautifully filmed and chock full of both technical and scientific wizardry....and is almost incomprehensible without being explained by the book.

There's a lot of people who seem to believe that Kubrick could do no wrong and that if you didn't "get" the movie, it's because you are too stupid to understand. I am certain that these are the same pretentious people I see at the MoMA pointing at a Pollock painting and saying "Oh, yes, it has such a powerful message if you are enlightened enough to get it."

But I will tell it like it is:
Kubrick, having TRULY good films in his catalog, such as Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket to use as a basis for comparison, did not fare so well on this one. And this is OK - every filmmaker has his his fair share of good and not-so-good works. 2001 is at least redeemed by the fact that we can pick up the book and read it and then go back and watch the movie again and have it make perfect sense after that. But a movie that needs a companion book to comprehend it just cannot be considered a good movie overall.

 

[Whitecloak]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: whitecloak

Originally posted by: Sabot
The movie is amazing, if you didn't understand it you should watch it again, or end your life.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown:

If you didn't read the books, you won't get the movie. That's bad movie making, plain and simple. Yes, it was really well done. No, it is NOT a good movie.

:thumbsup:
One of Kubrick's biggest blunders, a movie that is beautifully filmed and chock full of both technical and scientific wizardry....and is almost incomprehensible without being explained by the book.

There's a lot of people who seem to believe that Kubrick could do no wrong and that if you didn't "get" the movie, it's because you are too stupid to understand. I am certain that these are the same pretentious people I see at the MoMA pointing at a Pollock painting and saying "Oh, yes, it has such a powerful message if you are enlightened enough to get it."

But I will tell it like it is:
Kubrick, having TRULY good films in his catalog, such as Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket to use as a basis for comparison, did not fare so well on this one. And this is OK - every filmmaker has his his fair share of good and not-so-good works. 2001 is at least redeemed by the fact that we can pick up the book and read it and then go back and watch the movie again and have it make perfect sense after that. But a movie that needs a companion book to comprehend it just cannot be considered a good movie overall.

FYI, the movie was released before the book. The short story "Sentinel" had been published before the movie, though.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
i saw it as a kid and it was interesting, whereas 2010 is the most boring movie ever made.

I liked 2010. While it wasn't as good as 2001, it explains a lot of things that happened in 2001.

 

[alien42]

2001 has to be one of the best book/movie combos ever. The writing of the book and filming of the movie actually overlapped and if one reads the book first then all the 'silence' in the movie is filled with story from the book.

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: cavemanmoron

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Yeah that's it..
What's up with all the blank screens for 5 minutes?
One in the beginning, and one after it says "intermission"
WTF why is there an intermission in a movie? did they not have the pause button back in 68????

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
yes, they used to have intermissions in the middle of longer movies to allow for restroom breaks and trips to the snack bar

Uh they did not have vcr,dvd in 1968/69.

Noob.

uh MORON ALERT

they had Movie Thearters then, hence the tern SNACK BAR


o and read the books, much better then tha acid trip of a movie

YOU DON'T PUT PAUSE BUTTONS ON MOVIE THEATRES DUMBASS

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: whitecloak

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: EpsiIon

Originally posted by: whitecloak

Originally posted by: Sabot
The movie is amazing, if you didn't understand it you should watch it again, or end your life.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown:

If you didn't read the books, you won't get the movie. That's bad movie making, plain and simple. Yes, it was really well done. No, it is NOT a good movie.

:thumbsup:
One of Kubrick's biggest blunders, a movie that is beautifully filmed and chock full of both technical and scientific wizardry....and is almost incomprehensible without being explained by the book.

There's a lot of people who seem to believe that Kubrick could do no wrong and that if you didn't "get" the movie, it's because you are too stupid to understand. I am certain that these are the same pretentious people I see at the MoMA pointing at a Pollock painting and saying "Oh, yes, it has such a powerful message if you are enlightened enough to get it."

But I will tell it like it is:
Kubrick, having TRULY good films in his catalog, such as Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket to use as a basis for comparison, did not fare so well on this one. And this is OK - every filmmaker has his his fair share of good and not-so-good works. 2001 is at least redeemed by the fact that we can pick up the book and read it and then go back and watch the movie again and have it make perfect sense after that. But a movie that needs a companion book to comprehend it just cannot be considered a good movie overall.

FYI, the movie was released before the book. The short story "Sentinel" had been published before the movie, though.

FYI, the book was made before the movie. The release of the book and movie were supposed to be together. The published date of the book was 1968 a few months after the movie was released, but was essentially complete in 1966. Minor tweaking and getting a publisher delayed things.

Clarke would write several chapters and Kubrick would decide what he would use for the movie.

In fact, there is a lot of stuff not in the movie and a lot of chapters omited from the book. I have those chapters and it makes for a far more interesting book.

 

[Forsythe]

Are you kidding? Kubrick is one of the best directors ever! This movie is cool, and a movie can't be too slow, your brain can...

 

[joecool]

simply one of the greatest movies ever. ever time i watch it i see something new. the imagery is incredible, and the special effects so good the movie looks very contemporary. i love the closing shot, with the star child floating in space above earth ... cool!

 

[opticalmace]

Originally posted by: flyboy84
ive seen both movies and read all 4 books (2001, 2010, 2063, 3001). the second movie is crap (though roy scheider is cool...JAWS!). you have to go into 2001 expecting an "art film" not enternainment.

just a quick note, the third book was actually called "2061"
that is all

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
This movie has to be more weird than requiem for a dream.
WAAAY more weird. Probably because it was so incoherent.
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!

Perhaps 2001: A Space Travesty would be more to your liking