>It's 2017 and this still hasn't been topped what

>>83533285
it's perfect

Reboot when?
>grittier
>darker
>better CGI
>add a villain for more climactic ending
>trailer that goes WOOOOMPH. WOOOOMPH.

gonna be great

>>83533285
but there has been a lot of trash released since then

>>83533509
fuck yeah, maybe hal should have an android body too and turn that section into a slasher, would be epic.

>>83533550
>Dave stands off with the HAL cyborg on the bridge
>"What are you doing Dave"
>pulls out railgun
>"SING A SONG ABOUT THIS MOTHER FUCKER!"

>looking in hollywood
there's your mistake

dis mubi b overated mane

>>83533285
It's one of the greatest movies of all time, but it's not completely perfect. The only two things I would change are: 1) improve the graphics in the "light trip" section a bit so it's not obvious how the effects were made, and 2) remove the "baby in space" shot and end the movie at Bowman on the bed reaching out to the monolith

>>83534033
You can't change the ending man! Sacrelige!

The only thing I would really change is, the noise the monolith on the moon makes. It is just way too fucking loud. I can get that it is so loud it hurts the character's ears, without having it actually be so loud that it hurts my ears.

File: int_wps_1920_farm.jpg (3MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1200px

>>83533285

>>83533285
ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED

>>83534033
the whole movie is about human evolution though, you need the space babby. you could maybe do it a bit differently though

>>83534130
>everything wrong with modern sci fi: the movie

File: starchild-2001-space-odyssey[1].jpg (141KB, 1169x684px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1169x684px

Man come on why would you ever remove this shot? It's iconic!

>>83534180
>implying it didn't have some of the best science behind it

sure the plot of "love transcends all dimensions" was dumb, but the use of relativity was great and when Matt Damon blows his ship up and it cuts to the exterior shot where it's completely mute is fucking pure kino

>>83534093
I actually like how painful that sound is. I think it's a masterstroke by Kubrick. He shows how powerful the monolith/aliens/whatever is by literally hurting his audience, removing the distance between the audience and the work of art.
>>83534093
>>83534172
As for the ending, don't get me wrong, normally I wouldn't second guess Kubrick. In this case, though, I think the "baby in space" is just a bit too concrete despite its weirdness. It moves the viewer's mind towards irrelevant material questions like "is that an actual baby floating over Earth" and "why the fuck would that happen?" and away from the mystic, cosmic build of the movie. I think 2001 is about as close as movies come to creating actual spiritual experience, so I wish the movie ended on a mystic note.

>>83534274
Seeing this shot again might make me rethink my standpoint, though... the mirroring of baby-earth raises a possible interpretation: that the earth as a whole is meant to be a baby.

>topping retardedly long and empty scenes

Stop. This movie wasn't even that good when it was released.

>>83534341
I've always taken the last 3rd of the film as a dream-like metaphor representing his rebirth into a creature that transcends the dimensions of time and space giving him a near-omniscient perspective on everything. So the giant space baby looking down on earth to me is a good representation of his new perspective. But that is just my personal interpretation, I would never argue that it's more correct than someone else's.

>>83534384
Well, it's no Batman vs Superman that's for sure.

>>83534445
you just brought up something that used to confuse me when i watched this when i was younger, that the space baby was huge
this is really the only fix the movie needs, just a way to show that baby is small

File: space babby.png (724KB, 1169x684px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 1169x684px

>>83534546
we got this

>>83534384
The long and empty scenes in the "dawn of man" sequence impose a vivid depiction of how desperate and animalistic the lives of our ancestors may have been, how vulnerable they were before technology, how small in the enormous dangerous wilderness.
The long and empty scenes as Discovery flies towards Jupiter impose a realistic depiction of space travel, the distances and voids, on the viewer. Because of this build up, when Discovery finally arrives at Jupiter one feels how enormously remote from Earth the location is.

I wouldn't call it perfect. It's supreme film but it can get a little dry at spots


I would say The Godfather is the closest thing to a perfect film

>>83534622
Not him
I like the long scenes you mentioned
I will admit that the boardroom scene on the moon is dull as hell and way too long, also the scene where he's retrieving Frank's body in the pod is awfully long. I don't think I would change them, they're part of the pace of the film, but after seeing the film a number of times they're pretty damn tedious to sit through.

File: jackieboy.jpg (33KB, 263x267px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 263x267px

>>83534384

File: Eye21.jpg (99KB, 1600x812px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1600x812px

>>83534130

>>83534691
I like the boardroom scene. I actually think it's probably not very realistic - in reality, even hardened bureaucrats would probably be awed by such a tremendous discovery. Perhaps they are in the scene too, so awed that they can do nothing other than go through the bureaucratic motions. One way or another, I find the scene to be effective because the dry quiet performances by the humans allow the center focus of the scene to be the discovery of the monolith itself, and this gets my mind going as a viewer. Indeed, the quiet performances emphasize the magnitude of the discovery by contrast, the way that sometimes when something astonishing has happened to one, one might be surrounded by many people in public but they seem muted and receded into the background in comparison to what is going through your mind.
As for the scene with Dave retrieving Frank's body, I also like this one because of the contrast between Dave's desperation to help his friend and the slow methodical nature of the technical things that he must do in order to accomplish the goal. It really seems like the way a trained astronaut might act under pressure.
I have a pretty high tolerance for slow scenes, though, since I love watching good cinematography.

>>83535404
I think they are both realistic scenes and well done. The boardroom scene is totally how it would be, not movie-like at all. Very bureaucratic and pretty dull, on purpose. It's just on repeat viewings that I find them to be a slog because I'm thinking about the cool scenes that come after them.

>>83535823
Not >>83535404, but I totally agree, as much as I love the scene where Dave is retrieving Frank, it is a tad slow.
Though, in my opinion, 2001 isn't a movie to be watched way too many times, maybe once every 3 years at best

>>83533509
So Alien?

>>83533285
Because modern Hollywood is determined by profit
The old Hollywood was driven by nepotism and Judaism.
Kubrick was a fucking eccentric creative genius who got into Hollywood by familiar connections

That'll never happen again

>>83534622
>>83534691
>>83535404
You niggers
THESE ARE ALL THE SAME SCENES

You see what Kubby C is doing?
It's all the fucking same.
It's just changing the superficial layer.

>>83536615
wat

>>83536866
I don't want to spell things out to you because I expect you're not an idiot.
And I don't want to spend time explaining it

Ok, so what is the transition between the proto-human scene and the "modern" scene?

>>83536905
the bone and the ship?

>>83536927
Yeah, and what's that saying?

>>83536953
dunno lol

>>83536568
Kek. Nice disinfo. Nice try Schlomo.

>>83534663
>but it can get a little dry at spots

disagree, every shot is extremely engaging

>>83536976
It's that they're the same
A bone or an incredibly complex spaceship. They're all the same in the eyes of the Starchild

The slow moon meeting is the exact same thing as the squabbling apes in the opening.

File: 7497353_2_l.jpg (31KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x450px

>>83537044
deep

>>83536615
Kek, what makes you think we don't get that?

>>83537532
If I were illiterate, I'd have your opinion too

File: 2010.jpg (773KB, 1947x2918px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 1947x2918px

Anyone else really like 2010?

>>83533285
Kubrick was both very obsessive and very brave.

Question for hardcore Kubrick fans.

This was before Apollo. When and how exactly did Kubrick get as redpilled as he was?

>>83537576
Huh? That doesn't answer my question.

>>83537608
>Will I dream?
:'(

I found 2001 quite boring. I assume I'm a pleb.

>>83537700
Because if you niggers understood what I said, you wouldn't have posted questions above that forced me to answer them

>>83537738
That's the most emotional scene in all of film precisely because of how inhuman it is

Kubrick is a fucking genius

If he doesn't go down in history like Rembrandt or any of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, then it's a shame

>>83537743
http://saturndeathcult.com/crimes-of-the-saturn-death-cult/stanley-kubrick-and-the-saturn-death-cult/

https://jaysanalysis.com/2010/06/11/2001-a-space-odyssey-esoteric-analysis/

enlighten yourself

>>83537680
Anyone? I always thought Kubrick was redpilled after he agreed to film the 'Apollo landing'.

But this would prove otherwise.

>>83537895
Not him, but whether or not someone understands what the similarities present in those different scenes and their length tell about the theme of the film has nothing to do with being able to read your post.
Also the person you replied to (>>83537576
) had no opinions in his post.
>>83537933
Have you seen Rob Ager's stuff?
http://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20analysis%20new.htmlhttp://www.collativelearning.com/2001%20analysis%20new.html

>>83538064
>whether or not someone understands what the similarities present in those different scenes and their length tell about the theme of the film has nothing to do with being able to read your post.
I disagree
I fucking flat out said that the all the scenes meant the same

What more needs to be said? It's fucking obvious

>>83534130
>
it's fucking garbage

File: 1490312271737.png (137KB, 409x431px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 409x431px

>>83538130
Yeah, so obvious that books and university courses have been made to understand it. You don't think that's a bit of an egotistical perspective to hold?
I don't even disagree with you on that interpretation btw.
And not that it's monumental to what Kubrick wanted his film to convey, but in the novel countless distinctions are made between modern man and the two "others" in the story, all the while the apes and the star-child/aliens are constantly being compared. I'd give examples but they're clear from the first reading.

File: venom-topher-grace.jpg (46KB, 500x355px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x355px

>>83538323
>>83538130
>all this Usenet spacing

>>83538323
Fuck off
I think it's obvious even if you're a rube and have no experience to fuck all
Kubrick is blatant as fuck with the bone to satellite transition.
It's all the same.
You see?
Bone turns to machine
Apes screaming turns to people talking around a desk.
The same.

Also the Clarke novel is shit
The only good Clarke shit is when he's young.

>>83537895
What specific questions are you referring to?

>>83538455
Some bitch asking why some scenes are so long while understanding why the ancient shit took so much time

>>83538498
Ah. Then it's actually just one person you took issue with. But you accused everyone in the thread of failing to understand.

>>83538439
Yeah, I already get all that.
I wasn't criticizing the argument of your posts, just how you conducted yourself really.

>>83538532
>>83538553
Sorry mates
I'm a bit in my cups

I'm sure you get all the shit that Stan wanted you to get

>>83537933
Ugh. Occultists tend to be so tiresome. They see a genuinely spiritual, mystical work of art like 2001 and begin trying to make a new fictional universe out of it where they autistically systematize a bunch of stuff they themselves project on it and bring in retarded numerology, the astronomical theories of ancient people who had no telescopes, and so on...

>>83538592
No worries. I think even the guy who finds some scenes a bit tiresome might understand them, though. An example: Apocalypse Now is one of my favorite movies of all time, but I find that the helicopter attack on the village scene drags a bit. However, I appreciate the scene and I don't think that I fail to understand it.

>>83538609
I mean I kind of agree with you but Kubrick is one of those guys you're talking about. He was a big Ancient Aliens fag

>>83534282
agreed on the sound, its uncomforatble disconcerting and if loud enough actualy hpysically painful, its perfect. I kinda like your idea of the ending, now that we know how it actually ends, if they did it your way from the start it would probably be less satisfying on first viewing, all you'd be asking is 'wtf happened to him?'

>>83537933

>https://jaysanalysis.com/2010/06/11/2001-a-space-odyssey-esoteric-analysis/

This guy is nuts kek

>>83537608
I dont love it but its a good send of for ole HAL and I have a soft spot for Roy Schnieder

File: greenpill.png (217KB, 500x536px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 500x536px

>>83539332
>I will say that the God concept is at the heart of 2001 but not any traditional, anthropomorphic image of God. I don’t believe in any of Earth’s monotheistic religions, but I do believe that one can construct an intriguing scientific definition of God, once you accept the fact that there are approximately 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, that each star is a life-giving sun and that there are approximately 100 billion galaxies in just the visible universe. Given a planet in a stable orbit, not too hot and not too cold, and given a few billion years of chance chemical reactions created by the interaction of a sun’s energy on the planet’s chemicals, it’s fairly certain that life in one form or another will eventually emerge. It’s reasonable to assume that there must be, in fact, countless billions of such planets where biological life has arisen, and the odds of some proportion of such life developing intelligence are high. Now, the sun is by no means an old star, and its planets are mere children in cosmic age, so it seems likely that there are billions of planets in the universe not only where intelligent life is on a lower scale than man but other billions where it is approximately equal and others still where it is hundreds of thousands of millions of years in advance of us. When you think of the giant technological strides that man has made in a few millennia—less than a microsecond in the chronology of the universe—can you imagine the evolutionary development that much older life forms have taken? They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities—and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans.

Is this a decent gestalt of 2001? Seems alright imo

>>83539392
its hardly original, every sci-fi writer has had the same idea for about 100 years

>>83539442
yeah but they wrote like a bunch of nerds, Kubrick made a visual milestone

>>83533285
This shitty meme movie has been topped by anime for the longest time now.

>>83539298
What makes you think he was an ancient aliens fag?

>>83537974
Try using adult language and people might answer.

>>83539465
true, still even edgar rice burroughs had the same thing in later barsoom novels, kubricks interpretation is among the best though

>>83539598
Which word do you object to?

Redpilled?

Seems awfully pedantic anon.

baka.

Any anons know?

When was Kubrick 'approached'?

File: Kubrick.jpg (68KB, 450x411px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 450x411px

>>83539532
>Playboy: Even assuming the cosmic evolutionary path you suggest, what has this to do with the nature of God?

>Kubrick: Everything—because these beings would be gods to the billions of less advanced races in the universe, just as man would appear a god to an ant that somehow comprehended man’s existence. They would possess the twin attributes of all deities—omniscience and omnipotence. These entities might be in telepathic communication throughout the cosmos and thus be aware of everything that occurs, tapping every intelligent mind as effortlessly as we switch on the radio; they might not be limited by the speed of light and their presence could penetrate to the farthest corners of the universe; they might possess complete mastery over matter and energy; and in their final evolutionary stage, they might develop into an integrated collective immortal consciousness. They would be incomprehensible to us except as gods; and if the tendrils of their consciousness ever brushed men’s minds, it is only the hand of God we could grasp as an explanation.

http://dpk.io/kubrick

>>83539501
Like what anime?
The core of what is great about 2001, in my mind, is that it actually brings about a spiritual experience when I watch it. Not a religious experience, in the sense of organized religion, but a mystical experience that is completely compatible with known scientific fact. The scenes with the monolith make my hair stand on end. It's like I'm literally watching a trans-human entity, contacting the sublime. There's a transcendent combination of fear, awe, and mystery. I can't think of any other movie that compels such an experience.

>>83539633
I think your trying to reply to this guy >>83539573
you drunk brah?

>>83539465
Kubrick was great but some of it should have been left on the cutting room floor, some of it rewritten entirely like the beginning and end.

>>83539660
dude don't respond to obvious bait

File: 1389722698424.jpg (115KB, 573x493px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 573x493px

>2017
>Stephen King is still mad that Kubrick made a better The Shining than him
Think about it for a minute and have a good laugh.

>>83539690
wow too bad he didn't ask you, now we have a total hackjob

>>83539666
My bad

>>83539701
But he isn't still mad. He actually appreciates the movie more now.

File: HAHAHAHAHA.jpg (12KB, 277x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 277x200px

>>83539737
>37 years later
>still mad

http://deadline.com/2016/02/stephen-king-what-hollywood-owes-authors-when-their-books-become-films-q-a-the-dark-tower-the-shining-1201694691/

>>83539634
That's an interesting article. Thanks for linking it. It doesn't seem to me that it shows Kubrick believed in ancient aliens, though. He seems to have been speculating about such possibilities, not stating that he believed such contact had actually taken place.

>>83539852
yw bro, he's just putting it very intelligently imo

>>83534663
*part 2

>>83539852
>Salisbury also points out that a number of astronomers have observed strange flashes of light, possibly explosions of great magnitude, on Mars’s surface, some of which emit clouds; and he suggests that these could actually be nuclear explosions. Another interesting facet of Mars is the peculiar orbits of its twin satellites, Phobos and Deimos, first discovered in 1877—the same year, incidentally, that Schiaparelli discovered his famous but still elusive Martian “canals.” One eminent astronomer, Dr. Josef Shklovsky, chairman of the department of radio astronomy at the Shternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow, has propounded the theory that both moons are artificial space satellites launched by the Martians thousands of years ago in an effort to escape the dying surface of their planet. He bases this theory on the unique orbits of the two moons, which, unlike the thirty-one other satellites in our solar system, orbit faster than the revolution of their host planet. The orbit of Phobos is also deteriorating in an inexplicable manner and dragging the satellite progressively closer to Mars’s surface. Both of these circumstances, Shlovsky contends, make sense only if the two moons are hollow.

This is full retard

File: srslynigger.jpg (44KB, 340x480px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 340x480px

>>83539951
>he's not a two hollow moon and nuclear explosion on Mars guy

>>83539897
I guess this part:
>Playboy: In 2001, such incorporeal creatures seem to manipulate our destinies and control our evolution, though whether for good or evil—or both, or neither—remains unclear. Do you really believe it’s possible that man is a cosmic plaything of such entities?
Kubrick: I don’t really believe anything about them; how can I? Mere speculation on the possibility of their existence is sufficiently overwhelming, without attempting to decipher the motives.
Could be read as supporting the idea that Kubrick may have actually believed in the reality of past contact with extraterrestrials, although I suspect that he probably didn't.

>>83539820
he said he'd let him do it again, even though yea it seems he's still butthurt, also says he'd like Von Tries to have a shot at adapting something of his, which would be pretty interesting

>>83533509
HAL was a villain, even kubrick said it. He made him crazier and less sympathetic than in the book because he wanted to shill his conspiracy theory that IBM was trying to take over the world

>>83533509
>grittier and darker

wut? Most movies these days are lighthearted and quippy.

>>83534280
The movie was terrible and when you find out who the aliens are everything stops making sense (even though literally everything about their society and how NASA was operating didn't make sense to begin with)

>>83534033
Regarding point 2
>wants to fuck up the point of the movie
>clearly doesn't understand the point of the movie

>>83534445
Not to be rude but I don't think that was what Kubrick was aiming for.

Technology is a huge theme of the film, and we see how man (well, man as ape) first incorporated "technology" into their life through the use of bone-as-tool. Before it's inception, the apes (man) lived in harmony with nature, but after they began to see nature as something to control, to conquer. which they would do through their newfound technology. We then see a parallel between this bone and and future technology through the satellite-bone match-cut. Then there's Hal, who shows us the danger of an over-reliance on technology and gives us good reason to distrust technology and not depend on it so much. The astronauts in the film are extremely cold and feel more like machines than they do humans, it is as if we lost our humanity somewhere along our timeline. And the final scene, with the Star Child, is man abandoning technology and once again embracing nature, recognizing he is one with it and it is one with him, suggesting a future in which there is a restored unity between Man and Nature. Since space babby can now freely float through space without need for external technology, he has an innate oxygen chamber via his amniotic sac and is still an individual lifeform, not exactly omniscient, but has regained his humanity and connection to his surroundings.

just my opinion at least, sorry for rambling

>>83540308
The point of the movie is up for debate.

>>83540312
>Before it's inception, the apes (man) lived in harmony with nature
Not really. They were scared shitless and stressed out all the time struggling to survive drought and terrifying predators

>>83540387
that's from Kubrick himself bruh

http://dpk.io/kubrick

incase you missed it earlier

>>83540539
Hmm. I read the whole thing, but I don't see anything about harmony with nature. Maybe I missed it, though.

File: Al-Swearengen-deadwood-16934275-2560-1707.jpg (659KB, 2560x1707px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 2560x1707px

>>83540575
oh you're right, sorry friend!

>>83540387
True, but they were still living in accordance with nature, even if that meant they struggled against everything it dealt them.

What initially seemed like such a great gift, technology, later became the very cause of man's demise, by stripping him of his humanity and bringing him at ends with artificially-intelligent machines that he made the mistake of putting too much faith in.

But by the end of the film, man-as-StarChild is now able to both live within nature, and also be equipped to face the challenges it throws at him, without needing to use technology to achieve that end anymore, because he has now been born with the "natural technology" to handle it itself, he has reached the end of the evolutionary process. Truthfully there's too little information shown to us of the Star Child to know its full capabilities and purpose, people say he should have left the space babby out of the film, but I think he should've actually shown a bit more of it. Just a tiny bit more.