This film has no plot
Its just random bullshit.
shareI agree. Two + hours for what?
share
MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > This film has no plot
Funniest f*ing comment on the Internet!
shareIts just random bullshit.Well, the last act is (despite what others may think).
I'm torn on this film, but will say that I love it far more than I don't. I just wish there was a bit more exposition in the last act to wrap it up.
When I was in HS, I had to laboriously translate Latin declensions for assignments, and hated it. I see some films in the same manner. When I pays my money to watch a movie, I want to be entertained. I don't want to spend the rest of my life debating what the writer or director meant.
Still, when it's on TV, I'll watch the first two hours, and then put on something more entertaining, like QVC for instance. share
So plots containing more then one layer frightening you? Better stay at Tom & Jerry cartoons :) .
shareNot frighten me... bore me. Kubrick himself said that if viewers understood the ending with one viewing, he didn't do his job.
I'm the the one who's paying, so I demand to be entertained - otherwise, I'll watch Tom and Jerry. If someone wants to pay me by the hour, I'll give this some thought. Otherwise, no movie, poem, or book should cloak it's plot in mystery.
Movies arent there to entertain only. Sometimes to let you even think!
shareThat's fair - if we know beforehand. Back when I first saw it, the internet didn't exist so I went in not knowing what to expect. My buddies and I left saying what the fuck happened?
I still enjoy the movie until it goes off the rails in the last half hour, but if the movie was released today, I wouldn't pay to see it.
This isn't just a movie. It's a novel by Arthur C. Clarke, one of the most revered of sci-fi authors, and nominally the inventor of the telecommunications satellite. Many of us had read the novel before we saw the movie. So there was no mystery for us.
Most younger viewers don't realize that this was one of only a handful of space travel movies with high-end special effects to that time. While watching the shuttle approach the space station to the strains of the Beautiful Blue Danube Waltz may bore current viewers, we in the theater in 1969 had literally never seen anything like it before. It was awe inspiring.
And once you get to HAL, only a tunnel-visioned action junkie could fail to appreciate the tension and the drama.
Many of us had read the novel before we saw the movie. So there was no mystery for us.
I saw it first run and was mesmerized. I still think the special effects are astounding by any metric. I happen to love the pacing and the acting is first rate. The creepy sentient computer system was mind blowing at the time.
But no, I didn't read the novel before I saw it nor will I read it now. I haven't read Gone With The Wind yet either but enjoyed that film immensely. Probably 90 percent of all movies filmed are based on a novel, which most people don't read before seeing the film.
If having read the novel was a prerequisite for seeing the film, viewers should have been warned. I didn't understand what happened at the end of the movie so I felt bewildered and cheated.
But I watch it every time it's on TV and bail when it hits the LSD final act. I like 2010 better as a whole because at least Dr. Floyd's exposition speech at the end explains the ending, at least as far as Dr. Floyd's limit of understanding is.
share
Was going to say the same thing myself
shareTom & Jerry cartoons are pretty sophisticated though. Definitely layers going on.
shareThere's more purpose and meaning in this film than the entire Marvel cinematic universe.
shareDoesn't make it interesting to watch.
shareIt's more rewarding to me than watching superheroes escape sudden death only to make quips about pop culture items from the 90s, there are dozens of those released every year and only one 2001 released 50 years ago. For me its uniqueness makes it interesting and important.
shareCool story, bro, but I wasn't comparing it to superhero films.
I do feel however that this movie gets too much Kubrick shielding.
You could argue it has interesting themes, but in my opinion, it's needlessly long and meandering (on purpose).
Something being unique and regarded as important doesn't have to translate to an enjoyable viewing experience.
I'm glad it did for you though.
Fair enough, but that was what my initial post was referring to. The final 30 minutes is mainly inverted landscape shots, that is true and it does go on. I hear you, there are plenty of old classics I'm not personally a fan of. I wouldn't say I have a refined taste in cinema, but this is a highly enjoyable viewing experience for me, I say that without pretension.
shareIt's not just teenagers that would find it boring. I think the arty-types assume that if you dislike it, you must be young and/or unintelligent or low-class.. No.
They likely don't know what's going on either, but play along to part of the elite-crowd.
They likely don't know whats going on either, but play along to part of the elite-crowd.
I find this sentiment tends to be a major factor in how this rift between the "art-crowd" and the "down to earth" is created in the imaginations of the self considered "down to earth", and it's toxic, chronic and self-reproducing.
When a film defies expectations of what films should do in some way, or its impact is other than the predicted "entertainment value" – essentially when a person is stuck on a limited personal lens for assessing films – it has to be that it's either entertaining or it's boring, or it makes sense or else it's nonsense, (and ultimately it has to be that you "liked" it or you "disliked it",) etc. – the result is frustration and confusion, and quasi-critical negative statements coupled with the above sentiment are the easiest release for that energy. They decide that they didn't "get it", that it shouldn't be so much "work" to "get it", and the whole thing snowballs into this mental concoction of in-crowd/outsider, intellect-strata. It is the person having this defense reaction who is creating that non-real heirarchy! It's so clearly a defense mechanism, and it's unfortunate that so many people stop their line of processing what they've experienced at that point.
If anything separates the two major mindsets regarding """"art-films"""", perhaps it's that one person finds themselves reacting in ways other than what they preconceive as positive or the expected and continues to ask themselves questions about and be with these feelings, and another person stops at that point and transmutates their unresolved feelings via defense mechanisms into sentiments like the above. It's a bummer that more people don't trust themselves and love their inherent intuition a little bit more when it comes to the arts. share
At the end of the day I think the conversation of why people read and react to films the way they do – it's always more about you and the factors that shape your perception than the film – is more interesting than attempting to prove value lies within the film itself and pit value judgements against one another. How far can we really go with that? But often it's the people who are stuck in these defense activated places who aren't interested/willing to begin to unpack their feelings at all and the result of that will always be the bulwark of a "final verdict". You could just be having more interesting conversations than that (within yourself and with other people) if you're willing to open it up a little bit.
shareI have no idea what you're talking about. But..cool, man. I'll make sure to utilize your verbose reply in my class on existentialism and to essay physiology in social-sciences 101.
If i want purpose and meaning. Ill watch a episode of Star Trek.
shareHere's the plot:
Monkey tribe is given mission by slab. Thousands of years later, descendants of that monkey tribe accomplish that mission when Dave Bowman becomes the Star Child.
Rather simple plot, once you see what it is.
what was the mission for the monkey tribe?
shareEvolve...
shareoh right.
share"evolve"
wernt they going to do that anyway? all the other animals did.
Im pretty sure human beings didn't evolve from Apes because there was some grant slab nearby telling them too. Its kind of stupid when you think about it. Its like the History Channels "Alien Did it" Guy. Why did human evolve from apes, Aliens did it. Human Beings didn't evolve overnight. It took hundred of thousand of years. Im pretty sure if Aliens were involved that would have gone a lot faster.
share1. Mistake 1: You have no grasp of the term "plot".
2. Mistake 2: You lack the intelligence to grasp the meaning and storyline of one of the most revered Sci Fi masterpieces in film history. And you do not even try.
3. Mistake 3: It's about human evolution and finding the "intelligence" (The Creators, God, Aliens whatever). It's very interpretative a film, if you see or find nothing but "random bullshit" that just mirrors your mind.
4. Advise: You may want go home and rethink your life, or watch some superhero cartoons if you are unable to do the latter.
I was gonna do some sarcastic reply in your same itemised stlye re being a keyboard warrior and belittlimng strangers across the internet .... but im not clever enough. Lets move on to my actual thoughts on your thoughts .
Imagine this film is a Jackson Pollack painting
Imagine the OP saying , as he did, "Its just random Bullshit"
Then you come along and say (about the painting) :
You have no grasp of art
You lack the intelligence to grasp the meaning of this famous piece of art
Its about %xyz% . Its very interprative
Go home and rethink your life - because if you cant appreciate pretentious bullshit that looks like an attack of diarrhea your life is not worth living and you're a moron.
I for one could live quite happily without "modern art" et al
Congrats however on equating superhero cartoons with worthless stupidity
Perhaps it can become the new "go watch transformers"
Then we can drop the cartoon bit to include all bullshit superhero films...
It wont stop them churning them out though :(
This movie was co-conceived and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. A movie was done and a book was done by each of their craft. Because of the co-creation, it is my opinion that both mediums were to be consumed together. The movie requires no exposition because the book provides the exposition. The movie is simply the visual story version of the book with the intention that the audience has already read it.
For example, the monolith on the moon emits a high pitch frequency and the scene shows the monolith in foreground and the sun in the back. The next scene they are heading to Jupiter without any exposition. In the book, all of this is exposed stating the high pitch sound is due to the fact the monolith was dug up and hit by sunlight. The direction of the frequency was Jupiter.
So think about it now from this perspective. Does Kubrick need to expose all of this in the film, if you already read the book? Also, does a drawn out scene of Dr. Floyd traveling from Earth to a space station advance the story that much?
And to answer your question above, no they would not have evolved. As the ape discovers he could use a bone as a weapon after encountering the monolith. The ape kills the jaguar and they conquer the other ape tribe because of this. Thus, the new founded intelligence grants them the ability to evolve further from their primal instincts. Did the jaguar evolve? No. It was just the apes.
"This movie was co-conceived and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. A movie was done and a book was done by each of their craft. Because of the co-creation, it is my opinion that both mediums were to be consumed together. The movie requires no exposition because the book provides the exposition. The movie is simply the visual story version of the book with the intention that the audience has already read it."
Wrong.
This movie was co-conceived and co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke. A movie was done and a book was done by each of their craft. Because of the co-creation, it is my opinion that both mediums were to be consumed together. The movie requires no exposition because the book provides the exposition. The movie is simply the visual story version of the book with the intention that the audience has already read it.
So the movie's intended audience was time travelers?
2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C. Clarke. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film.share
The movie stands on its own & is complete in itself. The concurrent novel is interesting, if not Clarke's best work, but utterly unnecessary to appreciate & understand the film.
shareMaybe it's a film and not a movie 😉
Many excellent movies are light on plot... Especially European ones...
Open your mind and explore other aspects of cinema... Movies that are more about themes, ideas and such... or about mood and atmosphere, where the filmmaker, like any good artist, wants to communicate his sensibility to us, or to impart and idea or feeling...
This is what separates 'the cinema', from TV... 😎
And it is in movies across genres from existential sci fi like 2001 to war epics like Dunkirk or the beautiful and sensitive American Honey... Films that make us think or feel... Films that move us and tell us something about the human condition... Not just empty stories filled with incident and exposition... Open your mind and enjoy...
Yes. I like popcorn movies too. One can enjoy both...