02 May 11
Originally posted by wormwoodI know! I wish it was. Was it just coincidence the computer went nuts... or was it an important part of the plot?
the movie is not about a murderous computer killing humans in space.
I really wish the bone-swinging monkeys came back and beat the crap out of the guy when he was old and dying in bad in the white room.
P-
02 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Phlabibitwell, for something to have a personality it's required to act against your will or expectations. otherwise it's just a machine, devoid of personality. -think of an old car that doesn't start. you'll immediately assign it characteristics, mood and even a will. you say the car doesn't 'want' to start, start calling it names (as if it's all his fault), and maybe even later think the car got 'angry' because of name calling etc. -none of that happens with a piece of machinery that behaves EXACTLY as expected, it's just a machine. you won't congratulate it for functioning expectedly well (but you would if we were talking about a child doing a chore). the most you'll say about a correctly functioning object is: "it's functioning within specifications".
I know! I wish it was. Was it just coincidence the computer went nuts... or was it an important part of the plot?
now, when you look at life on earth. the big picture, from single-celled ancestors to more complex, then via animals, primates, humans, and all the way to the conscious machines we're creating. the whole journey life has taken over billions of years. and then you introduce an error in the machine, that child of man. well, now you're getting somewhere. instead of making a glorified hammer, a mere tool, in many ways just as primitive and devoid of will like the bone in the hand of our prehistoric ape ancestor.
02 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitAgreed. I hated that stupid movie.
Is this one of those movies no one likes but pretends to like so they can seem cultured or a true sci-fi fan of some kind? I don't think there ever was or will ever be a movie more boring than this one. The package should have a warning like you see on some medications, "may cause drowsiness, do not operate heavy machinery!" with the sleepy eye guy right ...[text shortened]... ok shop and lives in his mother's basement.
I rate this movie F minus minus.
P-
02 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitWatch it on mushrooms and it all becomes clear. 😉
Is this one of those movies no one likes but pretends to like so they can seem cultured or a true sci-fi fan of some kind? I don't think there ever was or will ever be a movie more boring than this one. The package should have a warning like you see on some medications, "may cause drowsiness, do not operate heavy machinery!" with the sleepy eye guy right ...[text shortened]... ok shop and lives in his mother's basement.
I rate this movie F minus minus.
P-
02 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Phlabibit1984
The Jetson's view of the future was even worse. The show takes place In The Future circa 1999.
I can't think of any movie or TV show names off hand right now, but when they show 'The Future' they now make it 2224 or 2190 to avoid this.
P-
Let's see how good this explanation is:
http://kubrick2001.com/
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
02 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitWell, there's your problem, then. You want space westerns, not science fiction. Fine; go watch Avatar or Star Wars part XXIV. I won't argue with you. But don't say a film which is a justified classic in its genre is bad just because you don't like the genre. You might as well criticise Gunfight at the OK Corral because there isn't enough romance.
I know! I wish it was. Was it just coincidence the computer went nuts... or was it an important part of the plot?
I really wish the bone-swinging monkeys came back and beat the crap out of the guy when he was old and dying in bad in the white room.
Richard
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitI will respect most, the opinions of those who watched the first moon landing live on TV, and who saw this movie on its first release -- as I did both. There is a parallel in the context of these two events that cannot possibly be appreciated by those who were not there.
Is this one of those movies no one likes but pretends to like so they can seem cultured or a true sci-fi fan of some kind? I don't think there ever was or will ever be a movie more boring than this one. The package should have a warning like you see on some medications, "may cause drowsiness, do not operate heavy machinery!" with the sleepy eye guy right ...[text shortened]... ok shop and lives in his mother's basement.
I rate this movie F minus minus.
P-
That said, the second half of this movie was way too long.
03 May 11
Originally posted by JS357Yes to the first, no to the second. I didn't see it in a theater at all. Maybe you're right.
I will respect most, the opinions of those who watched the first moon landing live on TV, and who saw this movie on its first release -- as I did both. There is a parallel in the context of these two events that cannot possibly be appreciated by those who were not there.
That said, the second half of this movie was way too long.
03 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueWhat excites you most about this movie? The 7 minute walk to the moon craft, or the 12 minute flight to gather his dead friends body?
Well, there's your problem, then. You want space westerns, not science fiction. Fine; go watch Avatar or Star Wars part XXIV. I won't argue with you. But don't say a film which is a justified classic in its genre is bad just because you don't like the genre. You might as well criticise Gunfight at the OK Corral because there isn't enough romance.
Richard
Perhaps it was the 8 minutes of shifted colors of the Grand Canyon on his way to 'infinity'?
I know sci-fi, this was sci-fail.
Will you next tell me Blade Runner is not a 'true sci-fi' movie but rather a 'space western'? Give me a list of movies that fit the criteria of sci-fi by your definition, please.
P-
03 May 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitSounds like an issue of patience with the viewer- I didn't find any of those things annoying.
What excites you most about this movie? The 7 minute walk to the moon craft, or the 12 minute flight to gather his dead friends body?
Perhaps it was the 8 minutes of shifted colors of the Grand Canyon on his way to 'infinity'?
I know sci-fi, this was sci-fail.
Will you next tell me Blade Runner is not a 'true sci-fi' movie but rather a 'space wes ...[text shortened]... Give me a list of movies that fit the criteria of sci-fi by your definition, please.
P-
03 May 11
1 edit
Here are some honest reviews of the movie.
"Inside the 141 minute bore that is 2001 - there's an excellent 60 minute movie trying to get out. The movie's middle part with HAL the computer is actually quite good, but the rest of the movie is simply dull. Lots of "Blue Danube", light shows, Monkeys, and Space Ships. The human characters are cardboard cutouts and there is no plot. Kubrick takes a short story by Clarke and pads it out to 141 minutes. There are some interesting visuals - but if I want great visuals I'll just look out the window."
"Whatever else movies do, they do not postulate definitions; if they try they die. What possible religious revelation could be vouchsafed by a movie whose only memorable character was a gay computer? At this distance, within two years of the title's prediction, 2001 looks dated and bloated; watching the flight attendants on the moon shuttle, I only wish that Kubrick had had the courage to call it 1968: A Bad Year for Hats."
"No doubt some people will try to explain 2001's plot and why its a great film. But just as a joke that has to be explained isn't funny, a movie that has to explained and diagrammed isn't good."
http://rcocean.blogspot.com/2009/04/2001-space-oddessy-sucks-or-overrated.html