it's shite
boring as hell, like watching paint dry
shareI've never read such heresy and blasphemy in my life! Anyone who thinks 2001 is "shite" (rather than "THE shite") is shite themselves.
share
MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > it's shite
"boring as hell"
You only say that because you are a child. The movie set new standards for special effects, and audiences of the day were in awe. The sequence with HAL was riveting and tense.
When I was young, I listened to the people who said this was great, and tried very hard to convince myself they were right.
No matter how i tried and how many discussions of this film I entered, I failed to like it. Nowadays, I'm okay with that, it's really a cold and barely coherent film with a few good scenes in it.
It's quite coherent, beautifully structured & paced, with a true sense of the vastness of Time & Space & our place in all of it.
shareWhen I was young, I listened to the people who said this was great, and tried very hard to convince myself they were right.
No matter how i tried and how many discussions of this film I entered, I failed to like it. Nowadays, I'm okay with that, it's really a cold and barely coherent film with a few good scenes in it.
I agree with you.
BTW, I'm not a troll; I just didn't care for this dull, plodding monstrosity. share
If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you, and no shame or crime in that.
For me & for many others, it's a masterpiece that grips us from start to finish, evoking a true sense of awe & wonder, one that that's an intensely aesthetic, thought-provoking, emotionally moving experience.
Thank you for your courtesy. I'm glad that you enjoyed it, but like you say, it just didn't work for me.
On the boards for one of my all-time favorite films, I frequently read that someone hated the movie. While I disagreed with them, and said so, I did not attack them nor did I call them names or question their intelligence. Yet for this film, all of this happened to me.
It's just a film, folks.
Again, thanks for the courtesy.
A little courtesy goes a long way, doesn't it? :)
I see no reason people can't honestly disagree about beloved films, without having to get nasty or insulting.
You have evidence hell is boring?
shareI disagree.
shareEdit out about an hour of it and it might not be so bad. 3½ minutes' worth of a black screen at the beginning obviously could have been left on the cutting room floor, and the 3-minute intermission could have been left out of the home video releases. There was a lot of filler throughout the movie, like watching people eat and exercise, and 15 minutes of grunting and screaming polyester "apes" was 12 minutes too long.
The ending was pure nonsense, like someone putting the weird underdone-potato-induced dream they had last night on film, and it certainly didn't need to be 18 minutes long.
This movie only had one interesting character (HAL 9000), and they should have done more with "him."
True.
I watched this movie many years after it came out. I'd read a write up about it and it was described as a computer killing off the crew of a spaceship one by one whilst on a mission to Jupiter.
Now I like these ten little Indians type of movies so thought I'd give it a viewing. I was disappointed. I tried again years later, but as you say, it could do with about an hour edited out.
It needs that time to establish the immensity & vastness of space, as well as to point out how much of human life does seem to be "filling time" more than anything else.
Also, audiences back then weren't put off by longer, slower, reflective films that require the viewers to immerse themselves in the experience.
Each of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was over 3 hours long yet modern audiences in general had no problem with that.
For me what maxim recoil states is correct regarding Space Odyssey
If it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work for you, and that's fine.
I would point out that the LotR films are filled with action & new things constantly, and move at a faster pace. I thoroughly enjoy them, but they are a very different viewing experience than 2001.
Nothing nonsensical about the ending, if you're open to pure visual poetry that conveys far more than any traditional exposition ever could.
And the scenes of people eating, exercising, etc., have a very real &b specific purpose. But you have to be a patient viewer, not expecting everything to come hurtling at you immediately. I know that modern movies have trained viewers to expect that from everything, but it hampers the ability to appreciate deeper, slower art, to which there are no shortcuts.
"Nothing nonsensical about the ending"
The ending was pure nonsense, as I've already said and explained in another post that you read.
"if you're open to pure visual poetry that conveys far more than any traditional exposition ever could."
There's no such thing as "visual poetry". Poetry is, by definition, composed of words.
"And the scenes of people eating, exercising, etc., have a very real &b specific purpose."
Yes, their purpose was filler, given that there wasn't much of a story/plot to fill the time with.
"But you have to be a patient viewer, not expecting everything to come hurtling at you immediately. I know that modern movies have trained viewers to expect that from everything, but it hampers the ability to appreciate deeper, slower art, to which there are no shortcuts."
First, that's a generic "argument" that could be applied to any movie that's full of tedious filler. Second, old vs. modern has nothing to do anything. The vast majority of successful movies, regardless of their age, have little to no "filler" content.
It's just that what you consider "filler" is considered anything but "filler" by many who love the film.
Again, "visual poetry" is a metaphor, not a literal definition. Haven't you ever heard a skilled & graceful Olympic athlete described as "poetry in action" for instance? And again, the ending is "pure nonsense" to you, not to others.
I think we're simply two very different personality types who experience the world in two very different ways. Yours is just as valid as mine, but yours doesn't permit you to see beyond its limitations. There is more, far more, to life & the experience of life than textbook definitions, however useful they are in their own domain.
Obviously, we're neither one of us going to convince the other of our personal viewpoints, no matter how much we go at it. And in the end, it all comes down to our personal experience & viewpoint of this or any film anyway. I've actually enjoyed this discussion, because I've found it interesting to hear your take on the film. It shows just how differently two people can experience the same thing.
"It's just that what you consider "filler" is considered anything but "filler" by many who love the film."
Anything that doesn't advance the plot is filler.
"Again, "visual poetry" is a metaphor, not a literal definition. Haven't you ever heard a skilled & graceful Olympic athlete described as "poetry in action" for instance?"
That sense of the term has nothing to do with the context in which you used it. You used the term "visual poetry" as though "visual poetry" is, in and of itself, a method of conveying information, rather than merely being the comparison part of a metaphor.
"And again, the ending is "pure nonsense" to you, not to others."
No, it's objectively pure nonsense. Anything that doesn't have a standardized method of interpretation is nonsense. It's only possible for something to make sense if the method of interpretation is standardized, rather than being a method that's only known to the author or to no one.
"I think we're simply two very different personality types who experience the world in two very different ways. Yours is just as valid as mine, but yours doesn't permit you to see beyond its limitations."
There's no validity to that "seeing beyond its limitations" if it's not in accordance with a standardized method of interpretation, i.e., it's just making stuff up / ascribing your own meaning.
There's more to a film than plot. There's tone & ambience, which also advance & enhance it. In the case of 2001, what you call "filler" does add to it, and immeasurably so. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean that it's not there, because it is there for countless of viewers. Just not for you.
But again, we're talking subjective experience. That's what you don't seem to grasp. If the film doesn't meet your standards & definitions, well, that's your experience, and I won't try to deny that it's your own personal truth. But I do feel as if you've imprisoned yourself in a rather narrow, rigid worldview that can't accept that others have different experiences of this film that are equally valid to them.
And Art, of all things, is least bounded by rigid textbook definitions. It creates new ways of seeing & experiencing by going beyond those definition.
Why is it so important to you that others accept your definitions & perceptions of this film? I don't expect to convince you of my viewpoint, I don't need to convince you of it. I'm just pointing out that there areother viewpoints, as valid for those holding them as yours is for you. Variety is the spice of life. :)
"There's more to a film than plot. There's tone & ambience, which also advance & enhance it."
Setting "tone and ambience" should be peripheral to advancing the plot, rather than being the focus of the scene.
"But again, we're talking subjective experience. That's what you don't seem to grasp."
That's ironic, considering it's you who is failing to grasp that your subjective "understanding" of the ending doesn't support your objective assertion that the ending makes sense. Again, in order for something to make sense, it has to be decipherable via a standardized method of interpretation, and a personal (subjective) method of interpretation is exactly the opposite of standardized.
You seem to have lost sight of the point of contention here, which is your assertion that the ending makes sense.
The ending makes sense to me. It always did. It made sense to countless other viewers as well. It just doesn't make sense to you. Your worldview applies to you, not to others. The world & human existence itself are both far more than standardized definitions. Clearly, you don't believe that, or for some reason are simply unable to see it. That's your subjective opinion & you're entitled to it, But it is only your opinion, not Universal Truth.
share"The ending makes sense to me."
That's a different assertion than, "The ending makes sense." "The ending makes sense to me" is the same thing as saying, "I made up my own interpretation."
"It just doesn't make sense to you."
It doesn't make sense, period. In order for you to refute that, you have to provide the standardized method of interpretation by which the ending can be understood.
"Your worldview applies to you, not to others."
Nothing I've posted has anything to do with my "worldview."
"The world & human existence itself are both far more than standardized definitions. Clearly, you don't believe that, or for some reason are simply unable to see it. That's your subjective opinion & you're entitled to it, But it is only your opinion, not Universal Truth."
These are more non sequiturs on your part. Stick with trying to establish that the ending objectively makes sense (which is the point of contention), and that will help you avoid posting more non sequiturs.