for fucksake how the fuck did you watch this shit without

Taste, and appreciation for art.

>>82121716
what fucking art is repeating the same scene again and again

>>82121742
Sure. Why not. No point in throwing pearls before swine.

By only watching from where we first see humans till when the sfx overdose starts.

>>82121631
Because it's kino.

The shots, the music, Hal, the ambience. It's a fucking good movie.

Don't forget, it's from 1968. It's 50 years old.

>>82121631
by having an IQ above 85

>>82122005
tfw too intelligent

>>82121631
Your pic. Every shot is perfectly framed and aesthetically appealing enough to be hung up on a wall.

you can all say what you want but just admit it's so fucking boring

>>82121631
Theres an alarm that goes off for like five fucking minutes 2/3rds of the way through so plebs like you can't complain they slept through it.
You're literally more of a pleb than Kubrick could have predicted would someday exist.
Congratulations on bringing the average down a peg or two.

>>82121631
>art.
If I had to describe this film in 1 word it would be this. I think it was Kubricks only attempt at a true work of art, rather than just making a good kino.

2001 isn't a 10/10, but it's art imo.

>>82122147
meant for you >>82121716

LSD was good back when this movie first came out.
It's a film for acid heads.

To be honest, I fell asleep 2 times before finishing the movie but it's great anyway.

>>82121631
Don't watch it if you can't appreciate anything more than Adam Sandler flicks

>>82121631
>tfw I have to do a film presentation on this movie for my English class
>tfw I have fallen asleep both attempts

The only reason I chose this movie was because it was the only Stanley Kubrick movie I haven't seen. That and David Lynch's Inland Empire were the only movies I haven't seen on the list. Wishing I chose inland empire instead.

>>82121631
It's basically like a Christmas family dinner.
Nobody likes it but everyone pretends to be cool with it for some reason.

REEE WATCHING FILMS MAKE ME SMART

>>82122350
No, but being a pleb makes you a pleb.

If this movie was made like 30years later y'all wouldn't be saying muh art n muh kubrick

File: 2001 A Space Odyssey Zoetrope.webm (3MB, 1280x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x576px

2kino4u

File: 9tGtfvs.jpg (266KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1920x1080px

>>82121631
Not being a pleb. Every single shot in this film is fucking perfect, how do you fall asleep with that?

>>82122442
I don't give a shit how well constructed a shot is, if it goes on for far too long. How can anybody possibly defend that sfx sequence when he's pulled into the portal?

>>82121631
I watched it once when I was 18. Despite loving sci-fi, I hated it. I watched it again when I was 23... Still hated it. I watched it again last week (26). I managed to survive by watching it at 4x to 8x speed, with dialog at 1.2x speed. Nothing of value was lost. It was okay. Could have deleted some dialog, and remove the stupid ending.

People claim it's art, but it's just pseudo-intellectual masturbation with some nice music and visual effects

>>82122442
because the shot is so fucking long

File: 2001 running.gif (1MB, 260x110px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 260x110px

>>82121631
Your argument would have gone better if you hadn't posted such a fucking GOAT image. That shot alone is kino af.

If you can't appreciate the film for what it was then nobody ITT is gonna be able to convince you otherwise.

Watch it again when you're a bit older.

>>82122432
is this the whole movie?
if it is it really does look like a snorefest

File: 2001_2-590x308.jpg (38KB, 590x308px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 590x308px

>>82122491
>>82122501
It's eyecandy lads

>>82122491
DUDE LSD LMAO

>>82121631
>t.person with acapacity of introspection equal to that of a gnat

it's quite an engaing movie

>>82122495
>I managed to survive by watching it at 4x to 8x speed
Why not just stop watching at that point retard? You're not getting any enjoyment out of it anyway.

>>82121631
I'm sorry you're not engaged by astronauts having to deal with a robot AI that's trying to kill them.

I'm also sorry that you've seen too many sci-fi movies and can't appreciate how perfect every set is.

File: d5c.jpg (36KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 625x626px

>>82122495
>I managed to survive by watching it at 4x to 8x speed, with dialog at 1.2x speed. Nothing of value was lost. It was okay. Could have deleted some dialog, and remove the stupid ending.

Nobody is that stupid.

>>82122495
>Despite loving sci-fi, I hated it
That's impossible. Or at least you're too jaded and convinced yourself it's not worth you're time. There's people walking on the ceiling on a space plane heading to a moon colony for christ sake, it's borderline masturbatory for science fiction.

>>82121631
I think a more important question is how the fuck did you fall asleep watching this? It's really good.

>>82122774
There were no laser beams being fired so it isn't real sci-fi

>>82122491
>How can anybody possibly defend that sfx sequence when he's pulled into the portal?
Its all practical and in camera. Stop being such an ignorant cock or fuck off backto /v/.

>>82122774
I think 2001 got a little out of hand by the time the finished product came out
Clarke's vision for 2001 was better, but Kubrick sacrificed so much of it for visual appeal and impact that it comes off as forced at times

>>82121965
>Skipping the apes
We're reaching levels of pleb that shouldn't even be possible!

>>82122501
sounds like you fell for the quick cut post-2008 meme

try not having add

File: 069723e5a6fb408dba38b72825e4862c.jpg (115KB, 960x677px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 960x677px

>>82122838
Is 2001: A Space Odyssey the Alinea of the film world?
All about the technique and the presentation, at the expense of coherence and practicality?

can someone explain what the movie means? what are the monoliths? why does the movie end with the guy just eating dinner? I dont get it

>>82123075
The monoliths are aliens (or tools thereof; doesn't matter), which advance the evolution of a chosen creature of earth (the apes).

The entire space portion of the movie is just a repeat of what we saw during the ape portion of the movie.

File: fkKDP3j.jpg (173KB, 1086x813px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1086x813px

>>82123075

>>82121631
>this is the average /tv/ poster

>>82123169
How did this get so many replies? I can come up with the same bullshit for literally any other movie

File: 1457433475780.png (40KB, 275x200px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 275x200px

>the first appearance of the monolith
>the cut of the bone into the spaceship
>every spaceship in a seamless model designed with scientific accuracy in mind
>the Pan-Am space plane
>the floating pen
>the stewardesses walking on walls, then the roof, then into a room upside down from the previous room with the pilots
>all those computer consoles
>dat wonderful 60s vision of the future
>the moon colony
>the lobby with the red chairs with the Earth visible in the window
>the prediction of Skype
>the intrigue of a monolith just buried into the moons surface
>the 2nd appearance of the monolith
>literally every single shot of the interior of the discovery
>the fucking rotating set
HOW FUCK DO YOU NOT LOVE THAT SHIT?
>the prediction of tablets
>the conflict of HAL between the astronauts and how much sense it made in the end
>when dave explodes into the ship in total silence then hearing the thunder ship re-pressurizing
>HAL's brainroom and the idea of a robot being afraid to die
>the last 20 minutes that don't give you shit and make you have to think about the movie

yeah it's pretty good

>>82123261
All of this could've happened fucking faster and at a snail's pace

>>82123254
Okay. Please explain how The Avengers translates into a complex yet perfect metaphor for childbirth, and how that metaphor relates to the story.

>>82123169

Beat me to it by 5 minutes!

>can't even pay attention to a 2 and a half hour movie

Jesus Christ

>>82123331
It couldn't, it gives you more time to appreciate it.

>>82123008
No.

There's no problems with coherence. Even in the end where nothing is explained, the camera movements and blocking lead perfectly into each other. When Dave is in the weird room you can tell what the interest in the scene is every time. It cuts to what he's looking at, and then when the old version of him walks to the camera, it cuts to the other side of the interior room with an empty doorway to show the younger version doesn't exist anymore.

>Practically
What do you mean by this? The rotating sets are perfectly executed.

>unironically hating 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Is this the end of /tv/?

Are the plebs taking over?

>>82123366
No, Kubrick wouldn't have cared about that, I don't think.

The reason the scenes are slow is simple: To demonstrate how helpless and ill-suited non-evolved humans are for existence in space.

See: the musical choices during the first space scenes.
Every moment that humans are in space is a ballet where if you stumble, you die.

>>82122350
the movie doesn't makes you smart, but you have to be smart to understand it.

>>82123701
tfw too intelligent

I noticed the best movies are between 50 and 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. The 90% and over ones are usually a little boring.

File: Screenshot_2017-04-28-01-22-50-858.png (194KB, 719x412px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 719x412px

>>82123791
below 30% are godtier masterpieces

It's literally the best movie ever made and I never get tired of watching it.

>>82123791
I wouldn't tend to think that rule applies to old movies getting all retrospective reviews unless you're going to say Taxi Driver and Empire Strikes Back are boring.

>>82121631

I've watched it a few times throughout my adult life and I think my appreciation for it has grown over time.

It's just such a rich, textural experience. Everything is so deliberate and meticulous. It's a film steeped in metaphor, and it rewards patience.

>>82124014
Its a bit of a weird contradiction that a movie can move so slowly yet you still miss so much shit that you only catch on later viewings.

I watched it early in the day after a good nights sleep. I didn't have any coffee I think because I wasn't on that train yet.

It's THE psychedelic movie. Kubrick may claim that he never done LSD and it's perfectly possible but 2001 fitted perfectly with the zeitgeist.
It's a movie about the change the humanity needed but also hopes of space travel.

>>82123254
Do it.

>>82124075

It messes with your sense of time. Given the importance of time as a theme, I'm inclined to think this was on purpose.

>>82124247
Hey, speaking of noticing things on subsequent viewings: Did you notice that the monolith on the moon started sending its signal on a timer rather than as a reaction to being surrounded by people?

That fact has
>implications

>>82123341
In 2 and a half hours you can: build a shed, learn rudimentary latin or domesticate a animal. Doesn't sound like so little time now does it?

>>82124382
If you value your time so highly, you shouldn't be watching movies at all.

Is your ADD to the point that if a movie doesn't have explosions, you start thinking about your unfinished shed?

You are required to have an IQ of above 100 to watch it.

>>82124620
>youre required to be a pretentious """"intellectual"""" to watch it

Im sick of all the bullshit in this thread so I found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey

I found these passages interesting:
>The book reveals that these aliens travel the cosmos assisting lesser species to take evolutionary steps. Bowman explores the hotel room methodically, and deduces that it is a kind of zoo created by aliens—fabricated from information derived from intercepted television transmissions from Earth—in which he is being studied by the invisible alien entities. He examines some food items provided for him, and notes that they are edible, yet clearly not made of any familiar substance from Earth. Kubrick's film leaves all this unstated.

>Physicist Freeman Dyson urged those baffled by the film to read Clarke's novel:

After seeing Space Odyssey, I read Arthur Clarke's book. I found the book gripping and intellectually satisfying, full of the tension and clarity which the movie lacks. All the parts of the movie that are vague and unintelligible, especially the beginning and the end, become clear and convincing in the book. So I recommend to my middle-aged friends who find the movie bewildering that they should read the book; their teenage kids don't need to.

>>82124358
No, it sent its signal when it was struck by sunlight (for the first time since it was buried there eons ago).

It's ok but (as often) Kubrick is trying too hard to impress with technichal prowesses, while the writing is bullshity and thin, and the ideas and the creativity lacking. Every shot is beautifully crafted but also symetrical, orthodox and uninspired, for example.

>>82124738
That's completely plausible if the moon was an isolated case, but every monolith appearance happens under not just the sun, but an ALIGNMENT.

Hence the monolith being on a "timer", because the three monoliths encountered in our solar system evolve the apes, send the signal to Jupiter, and open a wormhole at specific times.

>>82124896
>the ideas and the creativity lacking.
Compared to what? A modern anime that ripped off 2001?

>>82121965
are you fucking daft? the ape scene gives me shivers every time.

>>82125046
Dick shivers I bet. Degenerate.

>>82123331
I bet you're one of those people who say Better Call Saul is moving too slow.

>>82123335
The hulk represents a penis, the black widow represents a vagina, and captain america represents sperm. The battle with loki represents the fertilisation process, and the nuke into the wormhole represents how the baby ruins the couple's lives.

>>82125198
Better call Saul is moving too slow

>>82125204
and they say marvel movies are for kids baka

>>82125204
But hulk, widow, and cap had nothing to do with the nuke-baby.

in 2001, the penis-ship carries the astronaut-sperm TO the vagina-portal to create the baby-baby

>>82125034

Compared to someone like Parajanov for instance, whose means where ridiculously poor, but who discovered novelties in editing and camera movement, and even a new way to consider movies as animated tableaux. Kubrick was a talented craftsman but nothing groundbreaking, while Parajanov was a true auteur and a creator.

>>82124896
Almost every shot is there for a reason.
The symetrical almost too logical shots inspires a very apolienal view, like HAL himself(a pure apolineal being).
It not until the desconection of HAL when everything becomes weird, the sterile,grey and logical shots of the ship are constrasted whit the colorful and weirdness of the stargate sequence.

>>82125283
Hulk shoves captain america into the black widow's vagina to create thor, who is a god. You're just not cultured enough to appreciate the intellectual genius that is marvel's avengers.

It's a great movie but it's so overrated.

>>82124382
>build a cuck shed

>>82123701
What else have you accomplished? Surely you don't derive your ego from your ability to interpret films?

>>82124382
>learn rudimentary latin in 2 and a half hours

Sure you could. I bet you think you can be fluent with a month of study

>>82125386
What about ironman?

>>82124896
>and the ideas and the creativity lacking

Whew lad, you have to be 18 to post here.

File: cute_cat_open_mouth.jpg (212KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1000x665px

>>82121631
By watching it in a theater instead of on a tiny screen.
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/2001-an-odyssey-not-to-be-missed

inb4 "lolEbert". Yeah, sure, but he's 100% right about this movie. The images and soundtrack don't have nearly the same impact on some dinky laptop or whatever the fuck /tv/ uses. "Requiem" in particular is terrifying when it's filling a cavernous room.

>>82125386
>Gets frustrated with the exercise and starts writing his own porno
Look, the saying is, "You can make anything perverted".
The saying is not, "You can make anything into a complex metaphor about childbirth that actually makes sense in context"

Just because a metaphor involves a penis doesn't mean its a dirty joke.

>>82121631
Not be a teenager.

>>82125469
Rudimentary like asking for directions, ordering food and introducing yourself

>>82125508
No... I don't think this one should come back.

>>82125204

When did Cptn America come out of the Hulk and enter Black Widow?

Yeah sure, you can write shit about any film, but don't expect it to make sense when you're just shitposting, lel.

>>82125577
That's just learning to parrot a few lines, not actually learning the language.

Anyone can look up basic phrases of any language and commit them to memory in 2 minutes. Doesn't mean they have even a rudimentary understanding of the language.

>>82125236
>>82125198
It is too slow. Breaking Bad was the perfect pace. I expected more from Vince Gilligan.

File: multicolor_2001_space_odyssey_desktop_2115x1010_hd-wallpaper-835886[1].jpg (247KB, 2115x1010px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 2115x1010px

>microsoft screensaver, the movie
overrated af

>>82125627
>Anyone can look up basic phrases of any language and commit them to memory in 2 minutes.
You're kinda proving his point.
If what he's talking about could be done in 2 minutes, how much more could be done in 2 and a half hours?

>>82125345
Maybe, but most of Kubrick's other movies are shot in the same kind of dully beautiful way. That's what I was trying to express when I said he was too orthodox for my taste. And one could say the same thing for the gimmicky technichal prowess, for example Barry Lyndon and the use of natural sources of light and NASA lenses. He's always trying so hard.

>>82124724
>dude it makes sense if you read the Expanded Universe
I'm not reading some third-rate jackoff's fanfiction. Kubrick failed as a filmmaker to put the content in the film, and the film is worse for it.

>>82125686
Not a whole lot. He's essentially saying you can have a basic conversation in two and a half hour.

You might be able to parrot a line, but it doesn't mean you're going to understand what the other person even says.

Plus he's just talking about actually speaking. What about reading and writing? That's necessary for even a rudimentary understanding of a language. He was being insanely hyperbolic.

if you could learn to even have a basic conversation in a few hours more people would know a foreign language.

>>82125508
See >>82125332

>>82125759
>He's always trying so hard.

And that's a bad thing?

If you don't try hard you get Hangover 2.

File: 1343050393446.jpg (44KB, 300x303px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 300x303px

>>82125523
>tfw when bought tickets to watch it in an orchestra hall scored by a live orchestra

Can't fucking wait

>>82125833

Noice. I wonder if they'll honor the intermission.

>>82125828
In my opinion it is, because someone who tries and succeeds doesn't give you this kind of feeling. I feel like the amazing special effects of 2001 were Kubrick's way of compensating for a lack of truely fresh ideas regarding cinema as a visual medium.

File: seems.legit.jpg (39KB, 437x421px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 437x421px

>>82121631
because I am old enough to remember its release

>>82125979
I hope so, I miss intermissions in movies. I loved it when I went to go see the Hateful Eight.

>>82125759
What the fuck it trying to hard?
It there something like trying a bit when creating art?

>>82126056

Well, that's just your opinion, man.

gl hf

>sunrise music with horns and timpani
>AI turns on the crew
>monkey evolution scene
>a computer so smart it plays chess
>leaving the spaceship to go into space

All this shit is so overdone. Is 2001 A Space Odyssey the most memey movie ever?

Watched it in highschool when it was a million times more interesting than learning about the earths crust

I literally watched this at age 16 and it kept me hooked throughout. Do you all have the attention span of a 16 year old girl or is it just an American thing

jesus you fucking plebzillas

>>82123950
Taxi driver is pretty boring

>>82121631
Everyone I've ever known has fallen asleep to this movie upon their first viewing, including myself.

>>82121631
Well, not everyone deals well with art, that's ok Op...

>>82126509
18+.

Seriously. Get out.

>>82123261
>the cut of the bone into the spaceship
The greatest match cut in cinematic history.

>>82123331
>A movie about the vastness of time and space
>Moves too slow
Interstellar might be more your speed.

>>82125833
Damn, i wish we had that in my country!

I still cant believe 2001 is made from 1968

This movie is really far ahead from its time.

>>82125784
Clarke wrote the novel in tandem with the script, based on an earlier short story (The Sentinel IIRC).

The two compliment eachother really well, and if you're a pleb that can't into visual narrative it literally spoon feeds you.

>>82121631
It was ok, but it should've been longer. Especially the beginning.

>>82123008
>Is 2001: A Space Odyssey the Alinea of the film world?

no but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond film in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.


Perhaps the die was cast when Clarke vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the film; he made sure the the film would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for his books.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Clarke's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of 2001 by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Arthur C Clarke at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "2001: A Space Odyssey" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King

>>82127330
You could've tried harder with your Potter copypasta

People actually think this is boring? Watch Tarkovsky's Solaris then. You'll know what boring means.

>>82127448
kys

>82127485
no (you)

File: 1492616758639.jpg (40KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x480px

>>82127465
DELET THIS

plebs can't handle Tarkovsky long shots

File: 1487404256114.jpg (98KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 960x960px

>>82121631
I'm an adult not an 6 year old that falls asleep at random intervals

>>82127465
>Tarkovsky's Solaris is boring

End your life, faget.

>>82121631
Acid will keep you wake during it.

>>82121631

https://youtu.be/AXynF2RQJPs
https://youtu.be/OPzlwT6DsBc
https://youtu.be/NlvMXL2zNUY
https://youtu.be/EAs8DK7AvHU
https://youtu.be/MSo6s_xrj4c
https://youtu.be/mpWMnlMIWAU

>>82123008
theres no issue with coherence

sorry it wasn't fucking Guardians of the Galaxy. I'll necromance Kubrick back from the dead and tell him to put more quips and epic talking raccoons in it for you for the next one

>>82127751
>>82127689
I love Solaris, but let's face it if people find 2001 then Solaris woukd be worse.

>>82127465
hell even Stalker had extremely long fucking shots of like a guy laying in some grass talking in Russian for like 15 minutes straight

>>82127895
* Find 2001 boring. Fucking typing on phone.

>>82127895
Fair enough. I think people expect something different from 2001 because it gets all the accolades, so they expect it to be more like a modern movie, when it is a really meditative Kubrick film. Most of his other work other than maybe Paths of Glory or Barry Lyndon is much faster paced.

File: 1470026231660.png (407KB, 517x601px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 517x601px

>>82127880
>tfw we will never have Zombie Kubrick directing capeshit

File: 7D.jpg (315KB, 500x993px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 500x993px

we're programmed to just watch shit on the surface level, to have everything spelled out for us, to be spoonfed and to be beaten over the head with the morals most of the time. How many of us can say we fully understood it the first time around? The first time I watched it I was like "meh, overrated." But once you give it another chnace and start to notice things you start to understand how we're meant to look past the surface, you get drawn in and start to peel back the layers. Then you start to understand how his movies even relate to each other. I'm still fascinated by his movies to this day.

>>82128248
>But once you give it another chnace and start to notice things you start to understand how we're meant to look past the surface, you get drawn in and start to peel back the layers.

I think this is what fascinated me about 2001/The Shining when I watched it as a kid. I could sense that there were things going on beneath the surface that made it so much more than it appeared at first glance, even if I wasn't smart enough to pinpoint what those things were.

It was the creepy feeling that things moving behind the scenes that made me like it.

File: ZZyDYuc.jpg (291KB, 623x347px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 623x347px

>>82128350
yeah, in 2001 we see a scene that appears like a continuity error: a woman has a blue sweater on the back of her chair, next shot the sweater is gone. But in the next scene if you listen to the announcements in the background (as the characters are speaking) you will hear a voice on the speakers saying that a blue sweater has been found and turned in to the lost and found.

And we know Kubrick was detail oriented to the point of OCD. So what Is Kubrick telling us? That any following continuity errors are purposeful?

>>82121631
how do you live without having killed yourself already

>>82128620
>That any following continuity errors are purposeful?
Of which there were several.
pic unrelated btw

>>82121631
the plot is whatever, wew evolution.

it's a visual masterpiece though.