That’s what I’m thinking it must be. It was probably 2010-2011 when I watched it, and I just got so bored with the long shots of nothing, no dialogue, no conflict. It makes sense if they knew the audience would be in awe of the whole spectacle.
I watched part of a documentary on the making of the movie the other day, and it helped me appreciate some of the creative choices and see it how audiences would have viewed it when it was new. I need to give it another shot.
Some of that is also the director. It’s Stanley kubric. He really liked having his scenes sink in. I also found it effective to feel a sense of the vastness of space.
The movie is very philosophical. I think it is similar to blade runner 2049 in terms of slow pace sci fi setting not there for your entertainment but to get you to think.
I think while it could be something to watch for entertainment, I’m not sure that’s actually where it shines or what critics even value about it.
Maybe my attention span has been ruined, but Bladerunner 2049 was another that I just couldn’t get into. I can see that there’s something there, but I think I need to be in the right mood for a slow-paced movie.
That’s fair. Personally, between all the dreck I wind up watching as compromise with my partner and kids, getting to pick a movie purely for myself is really rare. If I get to pick a movie for myself, I almost always go for the slow-paced, artsy, philosophical media.
Don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy popcorn movies and sharing experiences with my family, but when I get time to myself, I’m not going for lighthearted action/comedy.
I think it’s apt to compare it with Star Wars. As someone who grew up with the prequels, I went back & watched the original trilogy on Disney+ and… oh boy, it was rough. I silently came to the conclusion that nostalgia has a massive effect on your perception.
Sorry to all the older OG Star Wars fans, but, they’re not very good; they aren’t even George Lucas’ best movies, I thought American Graffiti was tiers above Star Wars.
2001 still holds up because it’s still the most realistic space travel movie ever made. Very few movies come close, 2010 comes close by default, Ad Astra had moments, but it’s a very short list.
Parts of 2001 are more art than a movie telling a story. 2010 is a far better scifi movie overall and a favorite of mine. But there are critics of that one too that say it’s terrible. I always think back to when I was a kid and reading a newspaper review of the new movie out I hadn’t seen yet. “Star Wars is a failure and departure from the science fiction standard.”
Damn what didn’t you like about it?? It’s one of my favorite movies, I’ve had friends who didn’t care for it but never seen someone say they hate it haha
It’s been a while since I watched it, so I don’t remember specifics, but I felt like the end of the movie ruined the rest of it. She destroyed poor Jeremy Renner’s life!
I believe that movies based on books are generally not as good, or lacking in some substance, so I always try to read the novel version first before watching the film. This was the case for 2001: A Space Odyssey.
What I didn’t realize is that the movie and novel were created simultaneously. The novel is, in fact, a companion piece for the film, providing more context. So over the decades, I’ve watched as people struggled to understand the hidden meaning of this classic film. There are hundreds of articles written, or YouTube reviews posted, theorizing what the monolith is about, or what the big deal is with the giant space baby, etc. But if you read the book, it explains exactly what it is, right there!
If I had watched the movie on its own, I would’ve been totally lost. But reading the book first helped me understand the more “artsy” scenes, and the film actually makes sense from start to finish. It not only explains exactly what’s happening in each scene, in simple non-metaphorical language, but you also see the inner dialogue of the main characters. Where there are quiet scenes throughout the movie (the film itself is about 90% quiet scenes), there’s actual inner-monologues or exposition going on in the book.
So I’d highly recommend reading the book before you rewatch 2001: A Space Odyssey. You might get more enjoyment out of it.
The books are better for content, as is usually the case. There’s so much more you can do with words that can’t be translated well into visuals. I didn’t care much for 3001, but 2001,2010, and 2061 were good. Even though 2061 both messed up the warning from 2010 as well as the epilogue.
You’re in for a treat! Arthur C. Clarke wrote the book and is probably my favorite sci-fi author. If you like it be sure to check out his other books too.
Oh, I just had a flashback to when 2001 was broadcast on television when I was a kid!
I said the next day that I liked it, and damn I was cross examined in the school yard for it. Every detail that made anybody confused was enough to crucify twelve year old me for liking an awesome space thriller with trippy effects and ambiguous ending. I mean, I didn’t get all of it, but I got enough of the vibe. The ending was confusing, but I mean it arguably still is and intentionally so. Especially for the protagonist that goes through a portal and wakes up dead and… yeah, well, you decide for yourself and I’ll stick to mine.
Anyway, the judge was the popular kid that also claimed that in western movies, people that wanted to die were shot for real, so there.
I’ve had that with tons of ‘must see classics’. I’ll sit there and be like ‘I’ve already seen this a thousand times’. And while I of course appreciate the fact that the reason I’ve seen it so often is because that movie did it first back then, doesn’t mean that it’s impactful or interesting to me now.
This was me trying to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey
Either I didn’t get it, or I watched it too late to appreciate the ground-breaking effects. Maybe I’ll give it another try someday.
deleted by creator
That’s what I’m thinking it must be. It was probably 2010-2011 when I watched it, and I just got so bored with the long shots of nothing, no dialogue, no conflict. It makes sense if they knew the audience would be in awe of the whole spectacle.
I watched part of a documentary on the making of the movie the other day, and it helped me appreciate some of the creative choices and see it how audiences would have viewed it when it was new. I need to give it another shot.
Some of that is also the director. It’s Stanley kubric. He really liked having his scenes sink in. I also found it effective to feel a sense of the vastness of space.
The movie is very philosophical. I think it is similar to blade runner 2049 in terms of slow pace sci fi setting not there for your entertainment but to get you to think.
I think while it could be something to watch for entertainment, I’m not sure that’s actually where it shines or what critics even value about it.
Maybe my attention span has been ruined, but Bladerunner 2049 was another that I just couldn’t get into. I can see that there’s something there, but I think I need to be in the right mood for a slow-paced movie.
That’s fair. Personally, between all the dreck I wind up watching as compromise with my partner and kids, getting to pick a movie purely for myself is really rare. If I get to pick a movie for myself, I almost always go for the slow-paced, artsy, philosophical media.
Don’t get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy popcorn movies and sharing experiences with my family, but when I get time to myself, I’m not going for lighthearted action/comedy.
I think it’s apt to compare it with Star Wars. As someone who grew up with the prequels, I went back & watched the original trilogy on Disney+ and… oh boy, it was rough. I silently came to the conclusion that nostalgia has a massive effect on your perception.
Sorry to all the older OG Star Wars fans, but, they’re not very good; they aren’t even George Lucas’ best movies, I thought American Graffiti was tiers above Star Wars.
deleted by creator
2001 is one of those movies that’s really important historically, but doesn’t really hold up to modern standards.
Prior to 2001, there wasn’t really a market for non-schlocky SciFi movies, the whole genre was just cheap horror stories about aliens and monsters.
That movie opened the door to let us have more thoughtful genre flicks with much higher budgets.
2001 still holds up because it’s still the most realistic space travel movie ever made. Very few movies come close, 2010 comes close by default, Ad Astra had moments, but it’s a very short list.
Being realistic doesn’t automatically make something a good movie to watch. Much of reality is quite slow and boring.
Your opinion is just an opinion buddy
Parts of 2001 are more art than a movie telling a story. 2010 is a far better scifi movie overall and a favorite of mine. But there are critics of that one too that say it’s terrible. I always think back to when I was a kid and reading a newspaper review of the new movie out I hadn’t seen yet. “Star Wars is a failure and departure from the science fiction standard.”
there are definitely people back then who treat empire strikes back like people treat the last jedi
deleted by creator
I was going to say I think of it more as a piece of abstract art, than a movie.
Try watching it on LSD and see what you think
2c-e for me, blew my damn mind.
But so did The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension
I felt this way about Arrival. I absolutely hated it, and then found out it was super popular lol
Damn what didn’t you like about it?? It’s one of my favorite movies, I’ve had friends who didn’t care for it but never seen someone say they hate it haha
It’s been a while since I watched it, so I don’t remember specifics, but I felt like the end of the movie ruined the rest of it. She destroyed poor Jeremy Renner’s life!
Oh wow, I just watched this and absolutely loved it.
I believe that movies based on books are generally not as good, or lacking in some substance, so I always try to read the novel version first before watching the film. This was the case for 2001: A Space Odyssey.
What I didn’t realize is that the movie and novel were created simultaneously. The novel is, in fact, a companion piece for the film, providing more context. So over the decades, I’ve watched as people struggled to understand the hidden meaning of this classic film. There are hundreds of articles written, or YouTube reviews posted, theorizing what the monolith is about, or what the big deal is with the giant space baby, etc. But if you read the book, it explains exactly what it is, right there!
If I had watched the movie on its own, I would’ve been totally lost. But reading the book first helped me understand the more “artsy” scenes, and the film actually makes sense from start to finish. It not only explains exactly what’s happening in each scene, in simple non-metaphorical language, but you also see the inner dialogue of the main characters. Where there are quiet scenes throughout the movie (the film itself is about 90% quiet scenes), there’s actual inner-monologues or exposition going on in the book.
So I’d highly recommend reading the book before you rewatch 2001: A Space Odyssey. You might get more enjoyment out of it.
I had no idea it was also a book! Ok, that sounds like what I need to do.
The books are better for content, as is usually the case. There’s so much more you can do with words that can’t be translated well into visuals. I didn’t care much for 3001, but 2001,2010, and 2061 were good. Even though 2061 both messed up the warning from 2010 as well as the epilogue.
You’re in for a treat! Arthur C. Clarke wrote the book and is probably my favorite sci-fi author. If you like it be sure to check out his other books too.
The first Star Trek movie is kind of a more accessible version of 2001. It’s still pretty slow, but it at least has a semi coherent plot.
Would you believe that I adore that movie?
I think it’s better than a lot of people give it credit for.
Well now that I notice the username…nah.
Fwiw I’m with you on the film but turns out the book is great.
Oh, I just had a flashback to when 2001 was broadcast on television when I was a kid!
I said the next day that I liked it, and damn I was cross examined in the school yard for it. Every detail that made anybody confused was enough to crucify twelve year old me for liking an awesome space thriller with trippy effects and ambiguous ending. I mean, I didn’t get all of it, but I got enough of the vibe. The ending was confusing, but I mean it arguably still is and intentionally so. Especially for the protagonist that goes through a portal and wakes up
deadand… yeah, well, you decide for yourself and I’ll stick to mine.Anyway, the judge was the popular kid that also claimed that in western movies, people that wanted to die were shot for real, so there.
I’ve had that with tons of ‘must see classics’. I’ll sit there and be like ‘I’ve already seen this a thousand times’. And while I of course appreciate the fact that the reason I’ve seen it so often is because that movie did it first back then, doesn’t mean that it’s impactful or interesting to me now.
It was pretty mid.