How would this masterpiece be received if it were released today?

>>81600563
It would be overshadowed by Interstellar for like 30 years. What was the point of this thread?

>>81600563
Low box office
pleb critics say its boring
all critics are plebs now
word of mouth says it's a boring mess

>real kino lovers would still jerk off to it, because it's timeless GOAT

>>81600563
Sheboons on CNN would complain there are not enough trans-racial genderqueer otherkin in the crew.

Not very well. Soundtrack is too subdued and not bombastic enough, no tear jerker personal drama. no obvious clear cut ending.

>>81600625
>the power of love and Texas:the flick
>overshadowing the evolution of mankind top the next step via the defeat of AI: the masterpiece
>ever
kys

>Director Stanley Kubrick is back in form and delivers a tour de force that has something for everyone, but ultimately the film takes itself too seriously and falls flat. Stanley has made a love letter to the triumph of spirit.

>>81602023
Why are these kids from reddit who speak in memes here?
I have to read posts like this 3 times to understand what they're saying behind those 29 layers of memes. what the fuck

The general public would say it's boring, many of them would fall asleep at least once during a viewing, but I think the special effects would be praised infinitely considering it has no CGI in it.

>>81602023
>but but guys forget all that space science stuff, it's the power of love guys!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK0z87WrhGo

>>81600563
Where is the romance! The large set-piece action events! I'm disappointed to be honest with you, my family.

>>81602160
The romance was between David and HAL

>>81602124
git gud fag

>>81602096
Fuck, that's too real.

Can a sci fi movie even be serious anymore?

>>81602185
OH MY GAAAAAAAWWWD

>>81602151
are you saying Interstellar was scientifically accurate?

File: hqdefault[3].jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>81602271
I'm saying it was cheesy.

>>81602023
Let's be honest, audiences wouldn't be able to sit through 2001, which was my main point.

>>81602610
I disagree. I like fast-paced action movies and I was fully engrossed the entire film.

>>81602798
The majority of people are kind of stupid though, at least in the US.

>>81602798

There's always an exception, but we're talking about general audiences, do you really think they would be able to sit through a 3 hour movie where the first 20-30 minutes dont have any dialogue?

>>81603828
In this current social climate? Probably would if it had people of color in it, dialogue or not.

Oh wait...

>>81603828
WALL-E

>>81602798
You are living in a total bubble, you have no idea how stupid people really are, do you?

I wasn't even received well upon release. Critics hate it when it came out. I doubt it would be any different now.

>>81604038
You have no idea how simplistic the story is and how visually stimulating the movie is. Anyone can enjoy this movie.

I like how 2001 faggots love to secretly suck their own cocks when they say stupid people wouldn't enjoy this film, as if they themselves are such geniuses. There's nothing special or particularly intelligent about 2001. Can't wait for all the butthurt replies

>>81604027

That's an animated film though, where the protagonist is a cute character and most of his scenes on Earth is him messing around for comical value, this keeps the kids entertained and the parents kinda interested.

With Space Odyssey, we get apes screaming at each other and mostly not doing much for about 20 min.

Again, do you think audiences have the patience to sit through that?

>>81604077
>Critics hate it when it came out.
No they didn't.

>>81604038
Compared to 1968 there is a much larger percentage of scientifically literate people in the world. We are collectively becoming smarter and more knowledgeable. This meme that everyone was smarter back in "the good old days" is just that. A meme.

>>81601952
>not bombastic enough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwxYiVXYyVs
>no obvious clear cut ending
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXS8P0HksQo

>>81600652
>Low box office
>pleb critics say its boring
>word of mouth says it's a boring mess

that is exactly what happened in it's original release back in 68


>>81604191

>Critics hate it when it came out
>No they didn't

yes they did, it got more of a mixed reception though

>>81604510
$56,715,371 is by no means a low box office on a $12 million budget. Roger Ebert gave it a 4/4. Word of mouth was that it was trippy as fuck and people were all getting high to go see it multiple times. It was the 60s.

>>81600563
not nearly enough nigger and muslims.

Lead would be a transgender somalian muslim woman

>>81604510
>that is exactly what happened in it's original release back in 68
You must be trolling. It was the highest grossing film of the year.

>>81604348
>We are collectively becoming smarter and more knowledgeable.

This is also a meme. The Flynn effect in industrialized countries stopped decades ago. I believe it's reversing now too.

I'm pretty sure /tv/ would hate it

>15 minutes of monkeys running around because DUDE EVOLUTION LMAO
>space shit with cheesy classical music
>some windows media player visualization for no reason
>giant floating space baby
>I just want a realistic hard sci-fi movie!

>>81605084
How the fuck is 2001 not hard sci-fi?

>>81600563
Would be an outcry that women are under represented, and that Black people is present only in the first part of the movie

>>81600563
people would be bored to death desu

classical music for the soundtrack? near 30 mins of silence at some points? no dubstep or quips?

>>81605112
You fuckers would dismiss the whole third act for not being "hard sci fi" and "why does every sci fi film has to go le deep blablabla"
The stargate sequence, Bowman becoming old, the floating space baby, all of that would be shat on here.

You know it to be true.

>>81605296
>all of that would be shat on here
If it's not shat on now, why would the release date change anything.

>>81605555
Because 2001 is already cemented as a cinematic masterpiece, it's like shitting on Shakespeare.
But if a new movie comes out, there is no firm overall consensus about it, even if it get's early critical acclaim it doesn't matter because "critics were wrong at first even with 2001, time will tell it's quality" etc.

>>81600563
>not fun
>not enough action
>can't understand what's going on
>boring
it'll flop in the box office and get a 5 percent rotten on the tomatometer.

What about some of Kubrick's other films? What about The Shining with the same cast as of 2017