Why is "2001: A Space Odyssey" considered such a good movie?

[Bohandas]

Why is "2001: A Space Odyssey" considered such a good movie?

It falls short in so many ways. It moves at a tedious pace. All the sets and props are drab and dull to match. And most importantly of all, it doesn't make a bit of sense; the plot starts out incomplete and by the end of the film is abandoned altogether in favor of what appears to be the director's hamfisted attempt to reproduce an LSD trip on film (apparently this is supposed to represent the protagonist being transported to an alien world and having his brain uploaded, but I only know that because I read the book. There's no way that you could get this just from watching the film).

What gives!?

[Yuki Akuma]

It was made in 1968.

[Bohandas]

I kind of get where you're coming from, but considered logically we have a much bigger need for a non-chemical acid substitute now than we did then, as I understand it was a lot easier to acquire back then. And at any rate, what was the point of the rest of the movie with the rogue AI then?

EDIT:
Or did you simply mean that by the standard of their time the special effects were very good? I was already aware of that, which is why I elected not to mention how terrible they are by our standards.

[MLai]

I was already aware of that, which is why I elected not to mention how terrible they are by our standards.
What are you talking about? The SFX is awesome. It still looks better than, say, Attack Of The Clones.
When I watched it as a kid (skipping around the "fun" parts) I thought it was a modern movie, not one I'm watching decades after it's made. There was no way I could reconcile it as coming out the same year as Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, or Barbarella.

[Kitten Champion]

It's a fantastically shot - meticulously composed with fanatical precision in its every aspect - epic that attempts to convey grandeur, terror, and possibility of the cosmos with dense imagery and a wonderful score. A vision realized beyond anything before it and much of what followed.

[Darth Ultron]

Why is "2001: A Space Odyssey" considered such a good movie?



2001, like most of Arthur C. Clarke's work, was more intellectual and less escapist. In order to properly appreciate it, you have to adjust your expectations accordingly. In other Sci-Fi movies the plot is spelled out for the lowest common denominator audience. The 2001 movie was largely non-verbal and slow-paced, which is a complaint of modern viewers who want a literal explanation of the plot and demand constant action to drive the story. Kubrick deliberately deleted narration in the final film’s cuts which gives the movie an extra-terrestrial observed quality. The movie relies more on its visual clues, classical music score, imagination, and mystery. Realistically, manned interplanetary space travel would involve long periods of waiting and anticipation, interrupted by brief flurries of intense activity.

This is an awesome movie, and was an SF groundbreaker. This is mainly due to Kubrick's visual style. He did multiple things that no one had done before. For example, no sound in space. Most SF films previously had ignored the fact that sound doesn't propagate in a vacuum. Kubrick did things like playing the Blue Danube Waltz, and having you listen to the astronauts' breathing inside their helmets. His depiction of zero gravity was a first. Remember, this is pre-CGI, and making a guy walk through a doorway and turn upside down while he was doing it was non-trivial at the time. He added neat little touches like Pan Am (a major airline at the time) running the shuttle going up to the space station.

The trick to enjoying and appreciating the movie 2001 is to read the book first, then watch the movie. If you do, it is one of the great SF movies of all time. And the last few pages of the book are awesome in a way that the movie can't be.

[Lethologica]

2001 is a VFX and SFX masterpiece for its time that holds up pretty darn well, and its cinematography massively influenced future work in and around that genre.

Pacing, on the other hand, really is just a matter of age. Stories are told faster now, on every level.

As for the plot, well, it's four distinct short stories. There's the silent movie about alien uplift of humanity; there's the trip to the moon that's really an excuse for spaceflight porn; there's the iconic malevolent AI short story; and the last part reprises the uplift story via acid trip. Not making sense is a charge I can understand, but it's entirely complete.

ETA: How exactly would one have 'fixed' the last part? We've had 40 years to come up with a way, and the best we could do was that garbage scene in Interstellar where McConaughey and a robot are expositing at each other as fast as they can in order to distract us from the movie.

[DeadpanSal]

I'm a screenwriting major. And I hate Kubrick.

This movie is so anti-paced that every shot cuts at least nine seconds after it should have. The ideas are great, but steamrolled by the terrible direction and auteur baloney that I think it's too removed from the source material to be enjoyed. Compare it to what he did with Stephen King's Shining and you get an idea who Kubrick is. He took King's cautionary autobiographical tale about a man who destroys his family with his addiction and made it into some dull, uneven spectacle that occupies the corpse of the original like some kind of 4Kids import. He destroys everything he adapts and his stylistic choices are just self-obsessed wank. In the movie of the Shining, Kubrick goes out of his way to give the family a different car than the one in the book, and then has them drive past a wrecked car that is the model of the one in the book. I mean, this guy was a hardcore jerk who makes a point to uproot the spotlight from the source material and make it into something that shines with his ego.

The book is better. The movie is good for its time, but would have been better if literally anyone else had worked on it. Paul W.S. Anderson could have made something with more subtlety.

[DigoDragon]

2001, in my opinion, is more like watching art than a movie. Yeah, the pacing is pretty dead, but some of the shots are beautiful visually. And as Darth Ultron noted, it is more an intellectual kind of film.

For more of an up-front story and action pacing, its sequel (2010) is not that bad.

[Ruslan]

Many great movies from the past are, by today's standards, unwatchable. They are there to be studied, to inspire, to influence, but not to be watched.
It's not the fault of the movies, which still remain, as they have been, a work of genius. It's us that have changed.

[Ramza00]

I'm a screenwriting major. And I hate Kubrick.

This may seem out of left field, but what is your opinions of HBO's / David Chase's Sopranos.

I bring it up for it is a different style of storytelling for tv except really it isn't in much the same way people say Kubrick movies were different than other movies yet it isn't.

Chase also loves his homages to Kubrick.

So do you have any opinions of the Sopranos?

[MLai]

As for the plot, well, it's four distinct short stories. There's the silent movie about alien uplift of humanity; there's the trip to the moon that's really an excuse for spaceflight porn; there's the iconic malevolent AI short story; and the last part reprises the uplift story via acid trip.
So according to this movie, humanity's development is currently in mid-late Stage II: Commercialized Spaceflight. We still have to survive our own AI Uprising stage before a space-baby messiah will come visit us. Sounds about right.


Compare it to what he did with Stephen King's Shining and you get an idea who Kubrick is. He took King's cautionary autobiographical tale about a man who destroys his family with his addiction and made it into some dull, uneven spectacle that occupies the corpse of the original like some kind of 4Kids import. The book is better. The movie is good for its time, but would have been better if literally anyone else had worked on it.
Are you saying that The Shining TV movie is better than Kubrick's The Shining? That satisfies your requirement of "If literally anyone else had worked on it."
Stephen King's stories have always been better when the director disrespected the source material. Always.

[dps]

2001, in my opinion, is more like watching art than a movie. Yeah, the pacing is pretty dead, but some of the shots are beautiful visually.

Pretty much this. It isn't a traditional movie. A few points:

First, it ISN'T an adaption of Clarke's book. The movie and the book were a joint project, and you're supposed to read the book and see the movie to experience the total work. That's a big part of why the movie is so light on narrative--you're supposed to get that from the book. I don't think the movie by itself really works as a movie, but then again, it's not supposed to. It's not really a movie as we normally think of one; it's essentially an experiment in multi-media.

Second, the pacing is very slow, even by 1960's standards. Check out some other movies that came out that year; many of them are slow-paced by moderns standards, but are nowhere near as slow as 2001. Yes, the FX is ahead of its time, and many of the shots are beautiful, but as Master of Aeons, said, a lot of them go on much longer than they need to, or should. I went to Wikipedia and pulled up a list of films released the same year, and besides 2001, there are 21 movies that I've seen on the list. I don't think that modern audiences would find any of those 21 unwatchable (well, except for a couple that are just bad and audiences didn't find particularly watchable in 1968. either).

Third, no matter what the films other faults, HAL is one of the best antagonists in film history, and just a great character overall.

[MLai]

Third, no matter what the films other faults, HAL is one of the best antagonists in film history, and just a great character overall.
Especially once it starts rapping.

[Bohandas]

I'm a screenwriting major. And I hate Kubrick.

This movie is so anti-paced that every shot cuts at least nine seconds after it should have. The ideas are great, but steamrolled by the terrible direction and auteur baloney that I think it's too removed from the source material to be enjoyed. Compare it to what he did with Stephen King's Shining and you get an idea who Kubrick is. He took King's cautionary autobiographical tale about a man who destroys his family with his addiction and made it into some dull, uneven spectacle that occupies the corpse of the original like some kind of 4Kids import. He destroys everything he adapts and his stylistic choices are just self-obsessed wank. In the movie of the Shining, Kubrick goes out of his way to give the family a different car than the one in the book, and then has them drive past a wrecked car that is the model of the one in the book. I mean, this guy was a hardcore jerk who makes a point to uproot the spotlight from the source material and make it into something that shines with his ego.

The book is better. The movie is good for its time, but would have been better if literally anyone else had worked on it. Paul W.S. Anderson could have made something with more subtlety.

That's the impression I've gotten of Kubrick as well, and also that his stuff is insufferably pretentious, even moreso that James Cameron's later work.

[Bohandas]

2001 is a VFX and SFX masterpiece for its time that holds up pretty darn well, and its cinematography massively influenced future work in and around that genre.

Special effects are not sufficient to prop up a bad movie.

Why is it Stanley Kubrick is hailed as a genius for using special effects to hide bad storytelling, but when Michael Bay does it he gets lambasted for it?

[-D-]

Special effects are not sufficient to prop up a bad movie.

Why is it Stanley Kubrick is hailed as a genius for using special effects to hide bad storytelling, but when Michael Bay does it he gets lambasted for it?
Kubrick uses great cinematography and meticulous attention to details.

Michael Bay uses explosions.

Other than that, I agree. Kubrick films often fail as stories, but are held by stronger visual/aural side. Odyssey 2001 makes no sense unless you know story before hand.

[MLai]

Why is it Stanley Kubrick is hailed as a genius for using special effects to hide bad storytelling, but when Michael Bay does it he gets lambasted for it?
Every Frame A Painting explains Bayism. And once he explains it, you realize it's really not that complicated.

[Lethologica]

Special effects are not sufficient to prop up a bad movie.
And I claim that 2001 is not a bad movie. Just as I claim that the special effects are not bad even though you claimed that they are. That seems to have been dropped, though.

That said:


Why is it Stanley Kubrick is hailed as a genius for using special effects to hide bad storytelling, but when Michael Bay does it he gets lambasted for it?
Because Michael Bay only has one cinematographic trick and didn't invent any part of the playbook, so his movies aren't visually interesting either, just loud. See here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q) for more on that (and also just because that guy is pretty on point with his film analysis in general).

EDIT: Ninja'd on the EFAP shout-out.

[Razade]

Special effects are not sufficient to prop up a bad movie.

Why is it Stanley Kubrick is hailed as a genius for using special effects to hide bad storytelling, but when Michael Bay does it he gets lambasted for it?

I think it's pretty easy on a couple levels. One, Kubrick never lived in an age of computers. He shot everything in practical effects. Everything was hand crafted, everything he used was real. You can't say the same about Bay.

Look at this scene from Eyes Wide Shut (possibly NSFW) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_b-zpSnoHs) The use of music. The wide panning shots. The perspective used when characters are just walking. There's tension, we understand without dialogue that the character is in peril.

Now look at one of Bay's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN6q-v6rr84). I think it speaks for itself.

[MLai]

Now look at one of Bay's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN6q-v6rr84). I think it speaks for itself.
LOL it's hilarious how Michael Bay can't help but do everything EFAP accuses him of doing, no matter what film it is. And even a novice like me can't un-see it.

[Bohandas]

ETA: How exactly would one have 'fixed' the last part? We've had 40 years to come up with a way, and the best we could do was that garbage scene in Interstellar where McConaughey and a robot are expositing at each other as fast as they can in order to distract us from the movie.

For one, I'd make every attempt to depict it literally, clinically, and from the outside. Not what appears to be a metaphorical representation of Bowman's impression of it. How though, I'm admittedly not sure, as the aliens are implied to be advanced beyond the need for components that are large enough to be visible to the naked eye or that require direct physical contact, so the part about being uploaded couldn't be done in any of the obvious ways like having him hooked into a matrix-esque pod or showing a group of robot arms disassembling and cataloging his brain neuron by neuron.

Perhaps he could be shown turning into a ball of energy which is then absorbed into the second monolith. After which a monolith appears in orbit above the Earth in place of the star child from the original.

And none of that multiple Bowmans of different ages weird BS. The second monolith would appear in the hotel mockup in a timely fashion

As for the gate sequence, it would be pared down to around 30 seconds, definitely not more that a minute at absolute maximum, and would be combined with the trope of dots appearing on a map (in this case a map of the galaxy or of the large scale structure of the universe) to represent travel.

[Lethologica]

Uh. Well, let's at least start with a closer approximation of the events of the movie, which are described here (http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/14978):


I don't want to because I think that the power of the ending is based on the subconscious emotional reaction of the audience, which has a delayed effect.

Well, I can tell you what literally, at the lowest level of plot, happens. Bowman is drawn into a stargate. He is taken into another dimension of time and space, [B]into the presence of godlike entities who have transcended matter and who are now creatures of pure energy. They provide an environment for him, a human zoo, if you like. They study him. His life passes before him. He sees himself age in what seems just a matter of moments, he dies, and he's reborn, transfigured, enhanced, a superbeing.
The movie is about as literal a representation of this as was possible at the time.

Insofar as the ending is unclear, I think it's the part I bolded. The absence of any representation of the godlike entities who sent the stargate makes the events of the reconstructed room unmotivated and apparently random. But representing those godlike entities would have been a significant technical challenge for Kubrick, and would likely have aged poorly, so it's not surprising that he decided to forgo any explicit representation.

Side note: an Indiana Jones-style map traversal? Eww.

[LaZodiac]

Special effects are not sufficient to prop up a bad movie.

Why is it Stanley Kubrick is hailed as a genius for using special effects to hide bad storytelling, but when Michael Bay does it he gets lambasted for it?

Because it's not bad storytelling just because you don't understand it. To use an example, if you pay close attention to the chessboard at the start of the space portion of 2001, you'll notice that HAL's comment on checkmate in however many moves is actually wrong. IS this a mistake in prop placement or an intentional hint at the robot's duplicity due to the nature of the mission, slowly causing his three laws compliant brain to go nutbars? It's clear from the rest of the movie's exquisite planning and all the thought put into it that it's clearly intentional, you just need to keep an eye open for it. And I got all this from just watching the movie, the one time I did.

Meanwhile Micheal Bay has a character justify his statutory rape of a character by having a lamented copy of the Texan law that say "naw it's cool".

[DeadpanSal]

So do you have any opinions of the Sopranos?

I never saw Sopranos, but I read an article about the end. Just as a quick generalization, I think I'd appreciate the creative intent but I didn't like the genre. Similarly, I liked Six Feet Under as an expression but thought it wasn't altogether a good story. Just really well made.



Are you saying that The Shining TV movie is better...

Whoa, whoa let's not get carried away! The TV movie is terrible. Just . . . gah. But I think the plot makes more sense at least. There are actual payoffs to the ability to Shine and complete character arcs, as well as a mystery that culminates in some way. And I think the ending twist where Torrance has "always been the caretaker" is just pointlessly cryptic and doesn't offer anything than a shallow, hard to actually qualify "Oooooo." It's like if the ending to The Sixth Sense had been utterly random, like if Crowe had been Cole's evil teddy bear. After you left the theater and the spooky had went away, you might think to yourself, "That wasn't all that well set up and doesn't hold up to its own logic. Was there some sort of stable time loop we're supposed to accept? Is that what the Shining ability is, to take dead people and move them back in time? To me, it's like if Kubrick's first draft was immediately printed in a Phantom Menace minute and no one ever gave him the note, "What happened to these 40 set ups from the beginning?"

The Shining movie is just a spooky premise, a dead woman in the bathtub laughing, a cut that makes no sense, followed by an ending that addresses nothing and then an Old Timey Photo Club picture from his yearbook. As bad as showing the topiary monsters was, at least there was a payoff somewhere in the paltry ABC budget.


Third, no matter what the films other faults, HAL is one of the best antagonists in film history, and just a great character overall.

HAL vs Dave is really the only valuable part of the movie. And that, in the care of a director that doesn't just turn off the monitor to look at himself in the reflection and then yell cut after he remembers his job, could have been told in a tight half hour.


Special effects are not sufficient to prop up a bad movie.

Why is it Stanley Kubrick is hailed as a genius for using special effects to hide bad storytelling, but when Michael Bay does it he gets lambasted for it?

Because Michael Bay is considered to be making movies for kids and that's stigmatized and naturally viewed as an inferior expression and Kubrick created mature, respected art. They're pretty much the same though. If you go nuts with effects and tell stories that people won't understand, they'll elevate your work into art. If you go nuts with effects and do some disposable fun, they'll denounce you as childish. If you stick to the middle of the road and use effects in the same way, they'll tell you Jurassic Park was the defining movie of the era.

...

But on the ending, I like it. I think it's a great concept and maybe [too] artfully done. Clarke's amazing premise is only lessened through the eyes of Kubrick and the concept of Show Don't Tell taken too far. If it's meant to be debatable, make it unexplained. But I don't think that's the intention. I think it's instead supposed to be alien and impossible to comprehend. I mean, we're talking about something that happens on the other end of a dimension that man isn't meant to know. My problem with it is that it makes too much sense when you look at it. The kaleidoscope is dated, too specific and a lazy metaphor. Blinking in different colors is meaningless. And then there's more padding that is just more of a lightshow than anything credible. The ending of Evangelion holds up to better scrutiny than Kubrick's depiction of the final dimension.

"My god it's full of stars!" makes sense. I can see that scene playing out. That's the line from the book. Dave didn't say, "My god, it's like an arthouse threw up and then someone off camera made that stretching out movement and then someone else forced me to look at a magic eye painting until my mom picked me up at the end of the lesson. 'What'd you learn, Dave?' 'DON'T LEAVE ME ALONE WITH HIM MUM'."

[Bohandas]

Now that I think of it, I think a well-executed version of the 2001 ending would very much resemble the ending 9f Contact

[eggynack]

The Shining movie is just a spooky premise, a dead woman in the bathtub laughing, a cut that makes no sense, followed by an ending that addresses nothing and then an Old Timey Photo Club picture from his yearbook. As bad as showing the topiary monsters was, at least there was a payoff somewhere in the paltry ABC budget.

I disagree entirely. The movie is about an abusive husband/father and his family that go to a hotel that just kinda happens to maybe be haunted. The Shining barely verges towards supernatural, with only a couple of things difficult to explain through simple insanity (the biggest being Jack escaping the locked room, which I understand is supposed to definitively state that the film actually has supernatural stuff). The core revelation of the "All work and no play" thing isn't that Jack is crazy. That's obvious. It's that Jack has been crazy from the moment he arrived at the hotel, and was probably crazy long before that. Isolation just kinda excacerbated that. Thus, the movie is only barely about spooky and supernatural imagery. Most of it is an entirely cogent story about an abusive father, his somewhat frail and weak willed wife, and their maybe or maybe not going crazy son. Also, as I recall, the twist was a payoff to Jack's earlier conversation with the ghost of the past caretaker, who said that Jack was the caretaker. Not my favorite part of the movie, but not completely out of left field.

Edit:

Because Michael Bay is considered to be making movies for kids and that's stigmatized and naturally viewed as an inferior expression and Kubrick created mature, respected art. They're pretty much the same though. If you go nuts with effects and tell stories that people won't understand, they'll elevate your work into art. If you go nuts with effects and do some disposable fun, they'll denounce you as childish. If you stick to the middle of the road and use effects in the same way, they'll tell you Jurassic Park was the defining movie of the era.

Feh. Kubrick movies are beautiful. Every element meticulously put together to create a level of aesthetic perfection rarely seen in films. Bay films are mostly just kinda loud, and big, and epic, in a way that pays no consideration for what a scene actually demands. . And it has nothing to do with Bay's movies sometimes being for kids. Cause, y'know, other movies that reach that kind of pure aesthetic beauty are works from the golden age of disney and basically anything Miyazaki has done. In other words, films primarily intended for children. Beauty is about more than spectacle. It's about using the imagery in a film to bolster the emotional resonance that you're creating with the other elements. Jurrasic Park was frequently beautiful too, actually. It uses the sense of scope that Bay uses in most shots in his films but only when it fits the purpose of the scene. Spielburg knows when to hold a shot, when to slow things down, when to make things small and delicate instead of big and crazy. In the end, it's not about making something people don't understand, because, as I noted, I understand the very vast majority of, say, The Shining, or A Clockwork Orange. It happens to be about what you said, that one set of movies is putting the effort into creating true art, whether for children or adults, and the other is arbitrarily going nuts with effects for your disposable fun.

[DeadpanSal]

I disagree entirely. The movie is about an abusive husband/father and his family that go to a hotel that just kinda happens to maybe be haunted. The Shining barely verges towards supernatural, with only a couple of things difficult to explain through simple insanity (the biggest being Jack escaping the locked room, which I understand is supposed to definitively state that the film actually has supernatural stuff). The core revelation of the "All work and no play" thing isn't that Jack is crazy. That's obvious. It's that Jack has been crazy from the moment he arrived at the hotel, and was probably crazy long before that. Isolation just kinda excacerbated that. Thus, the movie is only barely about spooky and supernatural imagery. Most of it is an entirely cogent story about an abusive father, his somewhat frail and weak willed wife, and their maybe or maybe not going crazy son. Also, as I recall, the twist was a payoff to Jack's earlier conversation with the ghost of the past caretaker, who said that Jack was the caretaker. Not my favorite part of the movie, but not completely out of left field.

I don't think that explains anything. It might make you feel better about the events, but you'd be suggesting that Jack is simply crazy and that everything has a more grounded answer than the supernatural. Which to me, means that his alcoholism and interactions with the ghosts are incidental because he's just imagining them as part of his psychosis. If isolation and his own insanity are the relevant parts of the plot, it explains less. It also completely undercuts every bit of importance from the ability to shine. The movie, The Shining has nothing to do with Shining. It's focused on a father who (by your take) needs no excuse to kill his family and his son's supernatural abilities do nothing and he just lets himself die.

And a twist being a payoff to something that someone said earlier in the movie doesn't make the twist credible. If I say the final sentence I write here is going to be rhododendron and nothing I say here has anything to do with flowers and doesn't lead to the reveal that I said rhododendron, then I'm just saying it because I think it's cool. It is the opposite of a payoff. It's cutting to a dog shifting its eyes just before the credits.



Edit:
Bay films are mostly just kinda loud, and big, and epic, in a way that pays no consideration for what a scene actually demands. . And it has nothing to do with Bay's movies sometimes being for kids.

The entire answer isn't as simple as a dichotomy in the demographics. Part of the answer is that Bay is loud and hamfisted, yes. But we also are more likely to reject Bay out of hand just because we would never submit Transformers as high art. Things for kids can be (and more times than not are) incredibly beautiful and well crafted. But we do have a stigma in film criticism that says that there is art and then there is trash. Stuff for kids are mostly thrown in the trash without a thought. Look how well Kubo and the Two Strings is performing. Look how often someone will vote whatever's Disney for Animated Film of the Year. Yes, Michael Bay is seen as trash and Transformers and Pearl Harbor belong in the trash, but a part of why we'd kick him back into the trash before looking at his next movie is because he's associated himself with kids media. Nobody in the film industry watched Avatar and said "Man, I thought that'd be about airbenders and I was disappointed." They called it genius. Nobody watched The Last Airbender and said "The kids cartoon was better." No, they said, "This is why cartoons don't get adapted into movies." It goes further than the unfair dichotomy and stale biases, but I'm just going to suggest that somewhere when Michael Bay moved from Armageddon to TMNT, a film critic poured himself a brandy and said, "Rhododendron."

[Bohandas]

Most of it is an entirely cogent story about an abusive father, his somewhat frail and weak willed wife, and their maybe or maybe not going crazy son.

Unfortunately, it's supposed to be a horror film.

EDIT:
As kind of a wild tangent, speaking of things that are supposed to be horror movies but lose the thread, can anybody out there tell me what's supposed to be scary about the movie Frankenstein? As far as I can tell it seems to be straight science-fiction with no horror elements in it.

[DeadpanSal]

Unfortunately, it's supposed to be a horror film.

EDIT:
As kind of a wild tangent, speaking of things that are supposed to be horror movies but lose the thread, can anybody out there tell me what's supposed to be scary about the movie Frankenstein? As far as I can tell it seems to be straight science-fiction with no horror elements in it.

Not to argue against my own stance, but even though The Shining is a bad movie, it's still horror. It's just more random with its horror than I'd like. Instead of jump scares, it has a woman in a suit laughing for three minutes. I wouldn't say it's scary but it might be disturbing. And it might have the necessary requirements for a slasher movie (guy with edged weapon, someone dies, someone who got chased survives).

Frankenstein is horror because it's grandfathered into the genre. It's a story that plays on the fear of technology getting out of control. Instead of what we think of in terms of now (such as sentient and lethal programs or genetically engineered monsters), it's playing on the now obsolete fears that electricity was god's territory and that it would lead to devastation. And because it's not our full on, post-1990s grade horror, the monster doesn't do anything more than just submit itself for evaluation. It's less of a thriller and more of a result of horror, and then a sort of boring tale about his master being the actual threat to humanity. We wouldn't get explosions and lens flares for another few decades.

[eggynack]

Unfortunately, it's supposed to be a horror film.

It's still a horror film. It's just not that supernatural of a horror film. The Shining is a movie about the horrors of isolation, domestic abuse, and alcoholism. Mostly, anyway. There's also the supernatural horror element, cause the movie strongly implies that there totally are ghosts and such. But even without the ghosts, it's still horror. Maybe even more effective horror. I tend to think that the movie would have been stronger without confirmation that this ghost stuff is real, because that'd make it even scarier. Think about it. Our world likely doesn't have ghosts, and incredibly likely doesn't have ghosts that interact with our world, so we have less to fear from a story where ghosts manipulate the protagonists/antagonists into violence. Scarier is a story, like this one, where the horror comes from incredibly practical and normal stuff that could absolutely happen in real life.

[DeadpanSal]

Wait a second. You're actually suggesting that the movie The Shining, named after the supernatural ability of the main character's son, which is proven in multiple scenes, is not supernatural.

I don't think you have the right read of that movie at all.

[eggynack]

Wait a second. You're actually suggesting that the movie The Shining, named after the supernatural ability of the main character's son, which is proven in multiple scenes, is not supernatural.

I don't think you have the right read of that movie at all.
It's a pretty common read, at least, again, up to that scene where a ghost helps Jack escape a locked room. Even Kubrick himself has said so (http://genius.cat-v.org/stanley-kubrick/interviews/ciment/the-shining). I haven't read it, but the original book apparently makes the supernatural elements way more explicit, and more significantly, the seemingly primary cause of Jack's problems. Meanwhile, Jack from the film is mostly an abusive ass at the beginning of the movie, and was probably even crazy before the hotel. Again, consider the classic "All work and no play" scene. Jack is shown writing really early into coming to the hotel, and acts cruelly towards his wife about it. Said reveal means that, even in those early scenes, Jack wasn't writing anything of import at all, and was just whiling away his time in insanity. And that was before the ghostly stuff got really serious, as I recall.

So, yes, some of the events in the movie are definitely supernatural and aren't reasonably explainable in any other fashion. But most of The Shining isn't so definitively supernatural, and said maybe supernatural elements are mostly important as an outgrowth of Jack's already present crazy. The supernatural is largely secondary to a more realistic story of a family torn apart by isolation and abuse in a creepy hotel.

[Razade]

Unfortunately, it's supposed to be a horror film.

EDIT:
As kind of a wild tangent, speaking of things that are supposed to be horror movies but lose the thread, can anybody out there tell me what's supposed to be scary about the movie Frankenstein? As far as I can tell it seems to be straight science-fiction with no horror elements in it.

It's a psychological horror film. Horror doesn't mean jump scares and monsters and blood. Just because you didn't find it scary doesn't mean it isn't Horror.

[DeadpanSal]

It's a pretty common read, at least, again, up to that scene where a ghost helps Jack escape a locked room. Even Kubrick himself has said so (http://genius.cat-v.org/stanley-kubrick/interviews/ciment/the-shining). I haven't read it, but the original book apparently makes the supernatural elements way more explicit, and more significantly, the seemingly primary cause of Jack's problems. Meanwhile, Jack from the film is mostly an abusive ass at the beginning of the movie, and was probably even crazy before the hotel. Again, consider the classic "All work and no play" scene. Jack is shown writing really early into coming to the hotel, and acts cruelly towards his wife about it. Said reveal means that, even in those early scenes, Jack wasn't writing anything of import at all, and was just whiling away his time in insanity. And that was before the ghostly stuff got really serious, as I recall.

So, yes, some of the events in the movie are definitely supernatural and aren't reasonably explainable in any other fashion. But most of The Shining isn't so definitively supernatural, and said maybe supernatural elements are mostly important as an outgrowth of Jack's already present crazy. The supernatural is largely secondary to a more realistic story of a family torn apart by isolation and abuse in a creepy hotel.

Wow. No, Even if Stanley Kubrick wants to pretend he reads the source material with that stance, it doesn't hold up. The entire movie is supernatural. You can't deny the ability to shine, because both **** Halloran and Danny have the ability and show that the ability works. There is more than one instance of Shining in the movie, and with the actual payoffs in place, the story unfolds that Danny shines, the Overlook shines and calls him to use his power. This is nothing to say that the movie and TV series actually gives Jack Torrance an actual arc as he descends into madness and attempts to redeem himself with a payoff about the boiler room job. That's the problem with your read, it actively dismisses the evidence within the script (which is more than what you cited) and drops all need for payoffs. You have the setup of the job. You have the setup of the Shining ability within Danny. You have the setup within the boy's split personality. You have the setup with Jack and **** being at the start of separate arcs. In your read, you just want do see a crazy person stay crazy and dismiss all of the supernatural elements of the film even when there's proof that it doesn't hold up to its own logic.

That's because I'm pretty sure that Kubrick didn't actually read the book. As far as I understand what actually happened, Jan Harlan was the one who read it and gave him a synopsis. Kubrick himself never read it and never read King's adaptation. Instead, he was just looking for a vessel for what he would write anyway. And he made it disjointed and incomprehensible on purpose. Does that make it good? No. I would say if you try to make a story to confuse people, you aren't doing your job as a creator. I mean look at this:

At the end we see a photograph of a ballroom in 1923, and there is [Jack Torrance] because he’s always been the caretaker. You explain to me why! There is no explanation. A famous Kubrick sentence is, “Never try to explain something that you don’t understand yourself.”

Does that sound like the sane logic of someone making art? Because to me it sounds like a troll getting a laugh at being applauded for making high art when his only objective was to confuse. You can swallow his defense and clap when you have no idea what's going on and feel good about it, but as for me I'm going to make the bewildered face when I'm bewildered and ask for someone to show me something made with the intention of sane and logical entertainment. If I wanted to try to wrap my head around a script that served no internal purpose, I'd much rather check out David Lynch.

EDIT: His name is Richard. I'm not swearing. Holy heck, text parser.

[DigoDragon]

Insofar as the ending is unclear, I think it's the part I bolded. The absence of any representation of the godlike entities who sent the stargate makes the events of the reconstructed room unmotivated and apparently random. But representing those godlike entities would have been a significant technical challenge for Kubrick, and would likely have aged poorly, so it's not surprising that he decided to forgo any explicit representation.

Now that I think of it, I think a well-executed version of the 2001 ending would very much resemble the ending 9f Contact

One point I will give 2001 to its credit-- not seeing the aliens in any way other than through their monoliths is one of the best representations of creepy aliens I've ever "seen" in cinema. Every time one of those black blocks shows on screen, they play that eerie sound and I get the shivers. They're watching humanity through those things, and we cannot watch them back because we cannot comprehend them. Contact wasn't bad though. It's a more warm, friendly kind of alien that we see as it takes the shape of something we can understand. Because they want to be friends and are just waiting for humanity to mature.

Aliens in 2001? Yeah, we're just a science experiment.

[MLai]

Aliens in 2001? Yeah, we're just a science experiment.
Don't worry they went through the ethics board.


Wow. No, Even if Stanley Kubrick wants to pretend he reads the source material with that stance, it doesn't hold up. The entire movie is supernatural. You can't deny the ability to shine, because both...
The Shining did have payoff, just not "victory over the baddies" type of payoff that you seem to be waiting for. It pays off by feeding the audience dread and anticipation through the psychic eyes of the child. It pays off by accelerating events into motion. It pays off by twist-killing a character Game-Of-Thrones style.

Without the ability, there wouldn't be much ghosts in the movie at all, since then nobody would see them.

[Bohandas]

In Kubrick's defense, Doctor Strangelove was pretty good.

[eggynack]

Wow. No, Even if Stanley Kubrick wants to pretend he reads the source material with that stance, it doesn't hold up.
Irrelevant. What matters is that this is the view of the book, the possibly flawed view of the book, that informed his film making. He thought the movie wasn't that


The entire movie is supernatural. You can't deny the ability to shine, because both **** Halloran and Danny have the ability and show that the ability works.
The shining does indeed become rather undeniable by certain points in the movie. The ghosts, however, are less definitely present. And even the shining isn't all that relevant. Again, it's not strictly that the movie isn't somewhat supernatural. It's that the movie tends to be way more about all these other things

This is nothing to say that the movie and TV series actually gives Jack Torrance an actual arc as he descends into madness and attempts to redeem himself with a payoff about the boiler room job. That's the problem with your read, it actively dismisses the evidence within the script (which is more than what you cited) and drops all need for payoffs. You have the setup of the job. You have the setup of the Shining ability within Danny. You have the setup within the boy's split personality. You have the setup with Jack and **** being at the start of separate arcs. In your read, you just want do see a crazy person stay crazy and dismiss all of the supernatural elements of the film even when there's proof that it doesn't hold up to its own logic.
The movie does have an arc and payoff. The arc is Jack growing more insane from his base level of insanity, and his wife and son gaining/having the courage to escape and defeat him, in spite of their terror. Consider, whether it's consistently unambiguously there or not, what does the presence of the supernatural do to actually disrupt my claims? I would contend that it doesn't do much of anything. The ghosts could all be actually there all the time, and the story would still be mostly about that perfectly ordinary stuff I said, just cause that's the primary focus of the movie. I mean, you're talking about how these supernatural elements don't have that much focus, and doesn't that say something to you? That maybe the movie isn't about those things?



That's because I'm pretty sure that Kubrick didn't actually read the book. As far as I understand what actually happened, Jan Harlan was the one who read it and gave him a synopsis. Kubrick himself never read it and never read King's adaptation. Instead, he was just looking for a vessel for what he would write anyway. And he made it disjointed and incomprehensible on purpose. Does that make it good? No. I would say if you try to make a story to confuse people, you aren't doing your job as a creator. I mean look at this:
I wouldn't be surprised by Kubrick not having read it. My understanding of the differences between works supports that claim well enough. However, your continued contention that the movie is incomprehensible seems crazy to me. It's really a pretty linear movie, outside of a couple of weird and ambiguous things that take up barely any space and that mostly serve to support the growing insanity in the hotel.

At the end we see a photograph of a ballroom in 1923, and there is [Jack Torrance] because he’s always been the caretaker. You explain to me why! There is no explanation. A famous Kubrick sentence is, “Never try to explain something that you don’t understand yourself.”
It is indeed a weird scene. Somewhat ambiguous in nature. But having ambiguities does not preclude something being art. Cause, one of the cool things about ambiguities is that there actually always a lack of explanation. Instead, sometimes you get a whole bunch of explanations, and the open nature of the thing gives you more potential meaning. So, that scene, for example. Explanations, you demand? Maybe it's meant to imply that the ghost's of Jack's past have fully consumed him. Maybe it's a message about cycles of abuse being passed down along generations. Maybe it's an even more general claim about Jack being something of an archetype rather than something separate from an archetype, something that has always existed and always will. A presence more than a man. Maybe it's literal. After all, that would match up with stuff said earlier in the film. Maybe it's almost literal, and Jack is a reincarnation and some such. And, because the movie was ambiguous, it gets to have all those meanings simultaneously. Such is the power of ambiguity. The risk, of course, is that an individual viewer may find none of those meanings, but Kubrick just tends to demand a lot of thought and attention, and another cool thing about ambiguity like that is that it rewards rewatches, to angle you towards a particular meaning, and rewards serious thinkery.


Does that sound like the sane logic of someone making art? Because to me it sounds like a troll getting a laugh at being applauded for making high art when his only objective was to confuse. You can swallow his defense and clap when you have no idea what's going on and feel good about it, but as for me I'm going to make the bewildered face when I'm bewildered and ask for someone to show me something made with the intention of sane and logical entertainment. If I wanted to try to wrap my head around a script that served no internal purpose, I'd much rather check out David Lynch.

Even assuming it is meaningless, even if it were a laugh at our expense, does that really magically eliminate all the other great stuff in this movie? It's not like the entire film is ambiguous. It's mostly straightforward, aside from the open question of whether any particular thing is supernatural or not. You keep coming back to this one scene, but that scene takes up a pretty small amount of time. A whole movie isn't made incomprehensible by a weird and open ending, especially one that doesn't have much impact on the core plot.

[Lethologica]

The entire answer isn't as simple as a dichotomy in the demographics. Part of the answer is that Bay is loud and hamfisted, yes. But we also are more likely to reject Bay out of hand just because we would never submit Transformers as high art. Things for kids can be (and more times than not are) incredibly beautiful and well crafted. But we do have a stigma in film criticism that says that there is art and then there is trash. Stuff for kids are mostly thrown in the trash without a thought. Look how well Kubo and the Two Strings is performing. Look how often someone will vote whatever's Disney for Animated Film of the Year. Yes, Michael Bay is seen as trash and Transformers and Pearl Harbor belong in the trash, but a part of why we'd kick him back into the trash before looking at his next movie is because he's associated himself with kids media. Nobody in the film industry watched Avatar and said "Man, I thought that'd be about airbenders and I was disappointed." They called it genius. Nobody watched The Last Airbender and said "The kids cartoon was better." No, they said, "This is why cartoons don't get adapted into movies." It goes further than the unfair dichotomy and stale biases, but I'm just going to suggest that somewhere when Michael Bay moved from Armageddon to TMNT, a film critic poured himself a brandy and said, "Rhododendron."
Bay wasn't "pretty much the same" as Kubrick when they were both making films for adult audiences, and he isn't "pretty much the same" aside from his target audience now. Your decision to seize on the stigma of films for younger audiences as a primary or even relevant consideration doesn't reflect a serious consideration of their actual similarities and differences.

[Flickerdart]

Does that sound like the sane logic of someone making art?
Since when are artists known for their sanity and logic? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsIncomprehensible)

[BWR]

Am I the only one here who actually liked 2001?
I've seen it three times or so. Yes, it's slow-paced, and no, I don't always feel in the mood to see it (mostly I don't) but it's a beautiful piece of film and the pacing works great for the story.

[Crow]

It's a fantastically shot - meticulously composed with fanatical precision in its every aspect - epic that attempts to convey grandeur, terror, and possibility of the cosmos with dense imagery and a wonderful score. A vision realized beyond anything before it and much of what followed.


2001, like most of Arthur C. Clarke's work, was more intellectual and less escapist. In order to properly appreciate it, you have to adjust your expectations accordingly. In other Sci-Fi movies the plot is spelled out for the lowest common denominator audience. The 2001 movie was largely non-verbal and slow-paced, which is a complaint of modern viewers who want a literal explanation of the plot and demand constant action to drive the story. Kubrick deliberately deleted narration in the final film’s cuts which gives the movie an extra-terrestrial observed quality. The movie relies more on its visual clues, classical music score, imagination, and mystery. Realistically, manned interplanetary space travel would involve long periods of waiting and anticipation, interrupted by brief flurries of intense activity.

This is an awesome movie, and was an SF groundbreaker. This is mainly due to Kubrick's visual style. He did multiple things that no one had done before. For example, no sound in space. Most SF films previously had ignored the fact that sound doesn't propagate in a vacuum. Kubrick did things like playing the Blue Danube Waltz, and having you listen to the astronauts' breathing inside their helmets. His depiction of zero gravity was a first. Remember, this is pre-CGI, and making a guy walk through a doorway and turn upside down while he was doing it was non-trivial at the time. He added neat little touches like Pan Am (a major airline at the time) running the shuttle going up to the space station.

The trick to enjoying and appreciating the movie 2001 is to read the book first, then watch the movie. If you do, it is one of the great SF movies of all time. And the last few pages of the book are awesome in a way that the movie can't be.

I sort of want to agree with these. All I know is that when I watched it, once it was all over I thought "Man, that was awesome, and unlike anything else I've seen; at the same time."

[DigoDragon]

Am I the only one here who actually liked 2001?

I've seen it about 6-7 times. I kind of like it as background sound when I'm doing art, since it's mostly just that-- sound. :3

[Calemyr]

I think there are supernatural elements to the Shining, but that they aren't the horrifying element. Yes, Danny's Shining ability lets him see all manner of screwed up scenes, giving him the clear feeling that something's not right. Yes, the ghosts play the father like a piano, using his alcoholic tendencies, familial frustrations, and professional letdowns to wind him up like a toy soldier and send him off on everyone in a mile radius. There is a lot of supernatural elements at play.

But the horror isn't supernatural. The Shining isn't meant to terrify, it's meant to unsettle. The horrifying thing is watching a clearly flawed but worryingly realistic father figure get twisted more and more until he hunts his own family down with a butcher knife and a fire ax, laughing and referencing late night television memes as he does it. And since you've spent the movie unsettled, it makes watching this truly mundane horror of a broken paternal figure turned implacable killer that much more brutal.

Does it work? Probably not so much, anymore. People look at the Shining elements and brush them off as cheap scares, setting a stage of jaded disappointment instead of mounting discomfort. But I believe it did work at the time.

[eggynack]

Does it work? Probably not so much, anymore. People look at the Shining elements and brush them off as cheap scares, setting a stage of jaded disappointment instead of mounting discomfort. But I believe it did work at the time.
I watched it for the first time in the last few months or so. I thought it was pretty great.

[dps]

I think Kubrick was a great director, but that doesn't mean that everything he did was a great film. IMO, 2001 isn't a great movie, or even a good one. But as I said, it's not supposed to be a standalone work the way a traditional movie is.

[Metahuman1]

Meanwhile Micheal Bay has a character justify his statutory rape of a character by having a lamented copy of the Texan law that say "naw it's cool".

... ... ...

WTF?! Which movie was that?!

[Darth Ultron]

... ... ...

WTF?! Which movie was that?!

Transformers: Age of Extinction. This is a really odd thing as way too many of Bay's movies have a pedophilia joke or comment...that it can't just be a random coincidence. .

and the Transforms one makes no sense at all. They could have just said ''the girl is 19'' and dad could still be all upset and it would not have effected the movie at all......you know other then wasting time with dumb human drama when people want to see robots....

Just like them two brothers, er, whatever their names are obsessed with putting ''the origin and explanation for vampires'' in all their movies...

[DeadpanSal]

Bay wasn't "pretty much the same" as Kubrick when they were both making films for adult audiences, and he isn't "pretty much the same" aside from his target audience now. Your decision to seize on the stigma of films for younger audiences as a primary or even relevant consideration doesn't reflect a serious consideration of their actual similarities and differences.

I'm not trying to explain everything with that. But I do think a portion of our viewpoint comes from the bias that only adult material can be art. Even if Bay were to use the same techniques as Kubrick, we'd see it as lesser. Or if we actually gave him credit, we'd say it was wasted. I mean, he's responded to critics by saying "I make movies for teenage boys. Oh, dear, what a crime." You can say it's not the aspect of the argument you want to discuss, but you would have to lie to say it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.


Since when are artists known for their sanity and logic? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrueArtIsIncomprehensible)

Let's go with that. Every read of The Shining doesn't explain more than 70% of the events in the script, so I would say Kubrick is Incomprehensibility Incarnate. It doesn't make him good. It just means that more people are going to defend him without foundation.

[eggynack]

I'm not trying to explain everything with that. But I do think a portion of our viewpoint comes from the bias that only adult material can be art. Even if Bay were to use the same techniques as Kubrick, we'd see it as lesser. Or if we actually gave him credit, we'd say it was wasted. I mean, he's responded to critics by saying "I make movies for teenage boys. Oh, dear, what a crime." You can say it's not the aspect of the argument you want to discuss, but you would have to lie to say it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I love kids stuff. Bay just kinda sucks, for the most part. Again, My Neighbor Totoro is sitting right there, utterly beautifully, beloved by just about everyone, mostly for children. Spirited Away too. Most of Miyazaki's movies, really. And lots of other movies too. I'd also add on Pixar stuff to the aforementioned Miyazaki and golden age disney (and rennaisance disney, to a lesser extent, cause those movies trade some aesthetic beauty for some faster pacing and arguably more interesting plotting). I don't think Pixar movies are that great in terms of looks, but it's more than valid to look to it as an example of broadly embraced stuff that's ostensibly for kids. I'ma add some Dreamworks stuff too. They've really had their moments.

I don't need to point at that stuff to disprove your claims, however. I mean, kids stuff that's liked is good, but it's not like it's definitive. What's more definitive is just comparing Michael Bay to Michael Bay. Particularly, his more kid oriented content to his more adult oriented content. I'm not all that inclined to sit around actually mathing out his movies right now, though you can definitely do that if you want. I'ma just do a loose look. So, let's start at the top and bottom, basing the numbers on Rotton Tomatoes. I'll stick only to movies he directed, cause I'm not as sure that his style would pass through to produced movies. His highest rated movie is The Rock, with a pretty low 66%, and his lowest is Transformers: Age of Extinction, with a really 18%. This ostensibly supports your contention, as the spread looks as you claimed, but the rest of the movies don't exactly support it in the same fashion. After all, the first Transformers got a relatively high 57%, and, say, Pearl Harbor and Bad Boys II got mid-20's. Really, Michael Bay hasn't directed that many movies that are kinda kid oriented. Most of his movies are aimed at adults. Most of his movies are ranked really lowly. Pointing to this minor element seems like missing the point. That his movies suck. While Kubrick's movies are pretty great.



Let's go with that. Every read of The Shining doesn't explain more than 70% of the events in the script, so I would say Kubrick is Incomprehensibility Incarnate. It doesn't make him good. It just means that more people are going to defend him without foundation.

That description I gave, the one purely about domestic abuse, covers way more than 70% of the movie. The really crazy supernatural stuff only really happens towards the end, and most of that supernatural stuff isn't incomprehensible so much as weird. Like, ghost weird. You were talking about the tub scene, but, like many of the supernatural things in the movie, it's perfectly linear. Guy encounters some weird ghostly event, weird stuff happens with said ghost, and then the scene ends. Nothing more really needs to be said. More can be said, but it's not necessary for a cogent and coherent plot. I honestly don't see what about this movie is confusing you. It came across as really simple to me.

[Lethologica]

I'm not trying to explain everything with that.
The reason I'm using quotation marks is because I'm using your words: you said that Kubrick and Bay were "pretty much the same" once you factored out the stigma of Bay working on films for youth audiences. This changed as soon as you were challenged on it, though.

At any rate, I'll stipulate that Bay's choice of audience has a non-zero weight, but the use of that fact to disregard or marginalize the very real differences between Bay's use of effects and Kubrick's in your answer to Bohandas' question is the only deceptive thing in the discussion.

[Liquor Box]

I'm not a fan of this movie either.

[Kitten Champion]

Bay's Transformers movies aren't aimed at kids. They're aimed at +20 year old men with 80's nostalgia boners and, of course, China. The entire way they're written and shot -- the crude adult humour, the sexualization of their female characters regardless of age, the military pandering and expensive car masturbation, Sam Witwicky as the late-teen-come-20-something-douche-bro protagonist -- these are not indicative of a franchise aimed at children.

TMNT was, presumably, but Bay didn't direct that, it was left to a hack who apes his style under his production company.

Maybe Transformers should have been kids movies, ya'know, like Iron Giant but with a Vietnam allegory at its heart, but they ain't.

[eggynack]

Maybe Transformers should have been kids movies, ya'know, like Iron Giant but with a Vietnam allegory at its heart, but they ain't.
Oh yeah, The Iron Giant. Really pretty movie, I think, and broadly loved. Also, gotta say, I found Transformers way more incomprehensible than The Shining. What was even going on half the time in that movie? It was just like one giant explosion sometimes.

[Tvtyrant]

I haven't seen The Shining since I was a kid, but I thought it was pretty clear at the time that everyone involved was going crazy and the supernatural stuff was hallucinations. Like the old The Haunting (which the remake ruined by making it actually about ghosts instead of psychology).

[DeadpanSal]

That description I gave, the one purely about domestic abuse, covers way more than 70% of the movie. The really crazy supernatural stuff only really happens towards the end, and most of that supernatural stuff isn't incomprehensible so much as weird. Like, ghost weird. You were talking about the tub scene, but, like many of the supernatural things in the movie, it's perfectly linear. Guy encounters some weird ghostly event, weird stuff happens with said ghost, and then the scene ends. Nothing more really needs to be said. More can be said, but it's not necessary for a cogent and coherent plot. I honestly don't see what about this movie is confusing you. It came across as really simple to me.

Come on, seriously? I have to give you a blow by blow and take apart your read of the movie to show that it definitely explains less than 70%? It doesn't hold up to your analysis because the movie is not totally shown from Jack Torrance's point of view. If it were, as was the case in Vanilla Sky or Jacob's Ladder, I would totally buy your anaylsis. Instead, we are constantly taken out of the character's eyes and shown things that exist outside of his psychotic standpoint. This being scenes that clearly define the paranormal, such as - after setting up so much of Danny's ability to shine - we hear Badword Halloran using his own ability to Shine to speak in Danny's head. And then they sit outside together and both give credibility to the idea that Shining exists. That is one clear example that supernatural forces are at play, and cannot be explained as being the work of Jack's madness. Later, Danny is haunted by several apparitions, the twins, the woman in a corpse suit. These exist only in his eyes. That means that Danny sees real ghosts on his own. He isn't told about ghosts by his father and then pretends they are there. These are separate points of view that don't intersect with your analysis. This also leads into the question of whether Danny's bruise was caused by the ghosts, or the film is properly lying to us about how it happened. Since it doesn't get addressed in any way, I leave the point with the supernatural as any writer worth an asterisk would have implied both possibilities more strongly.

Later, when Danny is scared, he uses his abilities to contact Cursecurse Halloran and forces him to come to his rescue. This has no possible explanation that takes place in Jack's head. When Jack is locked in the room by the actions of a sane person, the door is unlocked. By your own and Kubrick's admittance, this cannot be explained by anything less than supernatural forces. In the end, everyone is able to see the ghosts, even the mother, which means that they are more than Jack's delusions. And when the movie ends on a picture of Jack Torrance in the past, there is absolutely no way to interpret it aside from reincarnation (a supernatural event), a time loop (also supernatural), or that the movie is so completely in Jack's head that nothing we have ever had on screen exists and the movie is pointless because there is no truth to any of it. Being that Kubrick can't himself explain what he did, I would go with that as the most plausible explanation. Jack Torrance wasn't crazy, Kubrick was. There you have definitively more than 30% of the movie that has no suitable explanation with the premise that Jack is crazy. I would say that the supernatural aspect of the movie is at a set 50%. The only straightforward parts of it are Shelly Duvall's character and Jack's rampage as a non-superpowered murderer. The rest of the film can only exist because it has a definite magical endoskeleton which holds up the more blatant story of a man who just wants to bash in his wife's head.


The reason I'm using quotation marks is because I'm using your words: you said that Kubrick and Bay were "pretty much the same" once you factored out the stigma of Bay working on films for youth audiences. This changed as soon as you were challenged on it, though.

At any rate, I'll stipulate that Bay's choice of audience has a non-zero weight, but the use of that fact to disregard or marginalize the very real differences between Bay's use of effects and Kubrick's in your answer to Bohandas' question is the only deceptive thing in the discussion.

I'm being slanderous when I say that Kubrick and Bay are the same. I know they're different. I just think they hold equal weight as d-bag auteurs. Which of them would I say is empirically better? Well, at least Kubrick had a good tone in the first half of Full Metal Jacket. I wouldn't think Bay is capable of restraint.

[Donnadogsoth]

Why is "2001: A Space Odyssey" considered such a good movie?

It falls short in so many ways. It moves at a tedious pace. All the sets and props are drab and dull to match. And most importantly of all, it doesn't make a bit of sense; the plot starts out incomplete and by the end of the film is abandoned altogether in favor of what appears to be the director's hamfisted attempt to reproduce an LSD trip on film (apparently this is supposed to represent the protagonist being transported to an alien world and having his brain uploaded, but I only know that because I read the book. There's no way that you could get this just from watching the film).

What gives!?

First, the book is too literal and not a good guide to the nature of the film.

Second, if we have a sense of perspective there's no sense being disparaging about the production values. Our favourite films are going to look just as pathetic in fifty years.

Third, the film is a mood picture with the theme of human development. It starts out with the mysterious (monolith) miracle of the development of man's mind which leads him to create the first machine (the bone club). Fast forward two million years and, after we're treated to an interlude of the most delightful combination of Romantic music and spacecraft ballet, man finds a mysterious clue to his origin on Luna (monolith). Spurred by that to travel to Jupiter, we find that man is at risk of becoming enslaved by his machines which he has by now created in the image of his own mind (HAL 9000). He must struggle and overcome his machines and achieve a new level of sentience in communion with the mystery (monolith) from the dawn of man. This overcoming and the dawning of a new age of man is symbolised by the living fetus with its eyes open.

[Lethologica]

Bay's Transformers movies aren't aimed at kids. They're aimed at +20 year old men with 80's nostalgia boners and, of course, China. The entire way they're written and shot -- the crude adult humour, the sexualization of their female characters regardless of age, the military pandering and expensive car masturbation, Sam Witwicky as the late-teen-come-20-something-douche-bro protagonist -- these are not indicative of a franchise aimed at children.

TMNT was, presumably, but Bay didn't direct that, it was left to a hack who apes his style under his production company.

Maybe Transformers should have been kids movies, ya'know, like Iron Giant but with a Vietnam allegory at its heart, but they ain't.
Master of Aeons is probably thinking of teens. Transformers' target audience is 12-38 according to advertising--the old end is '80s nostalgia, and the young 'uns are frankly no strangers to crudeness, sexualization, drooling over cars, brotagonists, etc.

[DeadpanSal]

Plus what edgy bit of superviolence aimed at 25-30s isn't more aggressively snatched up than by teenage boys? Just look at Deadpool's actual viewership. 12-35 is a pretty big range. Call them kids or call them teens. Either way, they're the ones that pay for Bay's next movie.

And holy heck, I'd love to have seen Brad Bird make the Transformers movies!

[eggynack]

Come on, seriously? I have to give you a blow by blow and take apart your read of the movie to show that it definitely explains less than 70%? It doesn't hold up to your analysis because the movie is not totally shown from Jack Torrance's point of view. If it were, as was the case in Vanilla Sky or Jacob's Ladder, I would totally buy your anaylsis. Instead, we are constantly taken out of the character's eyes and shown things that exist outside of his psychotic standpoint. This being scenes that clearly define the paranormal, such as - after setting up so much of Danny's ability to shine - we hear Badword Halloran using his own ability to Shine to speak in Danny's head. And then they sit outside together and both give credibility to the idea that Shining exists. That is one clear example that supernatural forces are at play, and cannot be explained as being the work of Jack's madness. Later, Danny is haunted by several apparitions, the twins, the woman in a corpse suit. These exist only in his eyes. That means that Danny sees real ghosts on his own. He isn't told about ghosts by his father and then pretends they are there. These are separate points of view that don't intersect with your analysis. This also leads into the question of whether Danny's bruise was caused by the ghosts, or the film is properly lying to us about how it happened. Since it doesn't get addressed in any way, I leave the point with the supernatural as any writer worth an asterisk would have implied both possibilities more strongly.

Later, when Danny is scared, he uses his abilities to contact Cursecurse Halloran and forces him to come to his rescue. This has no possible explanation that takes place in Jack's head. When Jack is locked in the room by the actions of a sane person, the door is unlocked. By your own and Kubrick's admittance, this cannot be explained by anything less than supernatural forces. In the end, everyone is able to see the ghosts, even the mother, which means that they are more than Jack's delusions. And when the movie ends on a picture of Jack Torrance in the past, there is absolutely no way to interpret it aside from reincarnation (a supernatural event), a time loop (also supernatural), or that the movie is so completely in Jack's head that nothing we have ever had on screen exists and the movie is pointless because there is no truth to any of it. Being that Kubrick can't himself explain what he did, I would go with that as the most plausible explanation. Jack Torrance wasn't crazy, Kubrick was. There you have definitively more than 30% of the movie that has no suitable explanation with the premise that Jack is crazy. I would say that the supernatural aspect of the movie is at a set 50%. The only straightforward parts of it are Shelly Duvall's character and Jack's rampage as a non-superpowered murderer. The rest of the film can only exist because it has a definite magical endoskeleton which holds up the more blatant story of a man who just wants to bash in his wife's head.
I never denied that The Shining exists. Didn't even really deny that the ghosts exist. And, to the extent that the supernatural could plausibly be in the head of characters, it's in the head of multiple separate characters. His whole family is driven kinda mad by the isolation and abuse. His son especially (compared to the wife, not compared to Jack). Anyways, the shining is more established as a real thing in-world than the ghosts, which tend to have effects that could be traced to mortal folk. And, in either case, Kubrick and my contention is that the fact that the movie is supernatural is entirely unambiguous. There are ghosts and such. But the non-shining aspect as ambiguous until later.

My claim isn't that the supernatural isn't there. It's that it's mostly unimportant. It kinda serves to underscore the more mundane aspects of the movie, moving between metaphor and suspense factor rather seemlessly. And, again, what here is hard to understand? You just listed a lot of things that happen, and all of them are really easy to understand. The kid has some form of psychic ability. There. Most of those things you listed, resolved in a moment. It's established well throughout the movie, so it's not like it comes out of left field. Entirely linear supernatural effects. One might as well say that E.T is incomprehensible because no one can explain all this alien stuff. What about this movie, aside from the ending, is hard to understand? What doesn't make perfect and absolute sense? You keep listing really simple things, and a lot of the time you explain them in the way they're meant to be understood, as creepy ghost stuff. What's the problem?

[DeadpanSal]

That's...not how film works. Credibility isn't something you selectively throw around at your discretion to fix a movie with no internal logic.

ET works because we're told "This is an extra terrestrial. He will do things you will need to suspend your disbelief for at moments where we will cue." The Shining works because we're told "Danny has a supernatural ability that will make the supernatural come about more strongly." I think you took that note and wrote something different saying, "This character is crazy, so I don't have to pay attention to anything that actually happens that contradicts what I want to see."

[eggynack]

That's...not how film works. Credibility isn't something you selectively throw around at your discretion to fix a movie with no internal logic.

ET works because we're told "This is an extra terrestrial. He will do things you will need to suspend your disbelief for at moments where we will cue." The Shining works because we're told "Danny has a supernatural ability that will make the supernatural come about more strongly." I think you took that note and wrote something different saying, "This character is crazy, so I don't have to pay attention to anything that actually happens that contradicts what I want to see."
No, in the movie, it works because we're told, "Ghosts and stuff exist in this universe, particularly in this creepy old hotel, and they're probably the ghosts of past people that have died in this hotel. Also, the hotel drives folks crazy." They don't sit down and explain everything about how and why the supernatural works. They don't have to. In point of fact, not revealing the underlying reasoning increases the horror of it. That's how the best horror operates. Things are shrouded in mystery, leaving the supernatural as this vast and murky presence. it's not hard to follow. It's just not all completely explained. "There are ghosts here sometimes," is about as far as they have to explain it, and anything else about past hotel issues or psychic resonance is bonus. Along those lines, the movie has tons of internal logic. Said logic being, a psychic force called the shining exists, and ghosts might exist, until later when they definitely do exist. Straightforward and simple logic.

[DeadpanSal]

Logic with an asterisk and a plot guide isn't logic, it's a fan theory.

[eggynack]

Logic with an asterisk and a plot guide isn't logic, it's a fan theory.
What asterisk? There are ghosts. It's explicitly established by the film that there are ghosts. It's also explicitly established by the film approximately how The Shining operates. It's also explicitly established, even earlier, that the hotel drives people crazy. What really needs explaining that isn't explained? I came into the movie pretty close to completely dry, with my only real experience being the Simpsons episode, and the whole thing made perfect sense to me. It's a perfectly logical movie. Weird, but logical.

[DeadpanSal]

Said logic being, a psychic force called the shining exists, and ghosts might exist, until later when they definitely do exist. Straightforward and simple logic.

That isn't a straightforward answer. That's "This explanation makes sense until here, and then this one works here, and then the end is like ??? I got nothing."

Look, I'm glad your fan theory makes sense to you and explains the movie in a way that makes it enjoyable for you. But there is no way to follow a movie where you have to accept that every viewpoint is distorted and that everything about mise en scène is irrelevant. The simple fact is that Kubrick didn't have an answer to the plot reasonings. We even cited it. Instead, people have filled in his plot holes with fan theories that explain no more than 70% of the movie. I choose not to be satisfied with your answer. Even if you can explain most of everything, the ending is an intentional non-sequitur.

There is absolutely nothing that can account for the events of the movie, and the answer is not to remove the supernatural to explain more. That only adds to the plot holes. So I can't give your theory a pass. Not even Kubrick can give your theory a pass. And that is because there is an illogical throughline to everything that holds the movie together. Some people may prefer to have a horror that can't make sense, but I think a better example of that is Jacob's Ladder. There are questions left at the end of it, but it doesn't fall apart more than it needs to within its own universe and rules. This movie cannot be explained by a succinct explanation that doesn't, like yours, contain more than one caveat and addendum.

[eggynack]

That isn't a straightforward answer. That's "This explanation makes sense until here, and then this one works here, and then the end is like ??? I got nothing."

What? No, you don't understand. The ghosts are always ghosts, or maybe some are craziness and others are actually ghosts (this is left purposefully unclear) but there are definitely always ghosts in existence within the universe. However, the audience can't be completely sure there are ghosts until later. It's left kinda open whether it's ghosts until it's confirmed by circumstance that ghosts are a thing. It's completely straightforward. Sometimes things are left mysterious for awhile, and then explained. Or are you gonna start claiming that all mysteries are horrible crimes against filmmaking.


Look, I'm glad your fan theory makes sense to you and explains the movie in a way that makes it enjoyable for you.
There aren't really fan theories at work here. Some things in the movie are open to interpretation, but their being open to interpretation isn't a factor that reduces the overall linearity and explicability of the film.


But there is no way to follow a movie where you have to accept that every viewpoint is distorted and that everything about mise en scène is irrelevant. The simple fact is that Kubrick didn't have an answer to the plot reasonings. We even cited it. Instead, people have filled in his plot holes with fan theories that explain no more than 70% of the movie. I choose not to be satisfied with your answer. Even if you can explain most of everything, the ending is an intentional non-sequitur.
What reasonings didn't he have answer to? Do you mean Jack being locked in the room? His explanation for that was that that was the point at which the presence of ghosts became clear rather than just open to interpretation. Beyond that, the fact is that what things are unexplained, the reason for the ghosts, the source of the shining, don't really need to be explained. This is a universe where those things are, and that's really the end of it. Not knowing the source of ghosts doesn't make the movie not straightforward.



There is absolutely nothing that can account for the events of the movie, and the answer is not to remove the supernatural to explain more.
I didn't remove the supernatural from the movie. The supernatural is there. My point was that it's not central to the film, and large swaths of it remain ambiguous for a lot of the movie's running time.

So I can't give your theory a pass. Not even Kubrick can give your theory a pass.
Again, not really a theory. Just an explanation for why the supernatural elements aren't given that much import. The movie doesn't spend a lot of time explaining ghosts because they're not the point of the movie.


And that is because there is an illogical throughline to everything that holds the movie together.
What illogical throughline is that? That the supernatural is a thing? That's not illogical at all. Or, it's not illogical in a film. More illogical in reality, I suppose.

[DeadpanSal]

*squints*

Look, man. I already showed you the ways that applying logic to the movie doesn't stick. And you've said "Their craziness did it!" And also "A ghost did the other stuff!" It makes it really muddled and illogical. I've shown how that doesn't make sense and you would rather use some sort of mental duct tape to explain what I've highlighted as being impossible to explain. And now we're arguing in circles.

I can't explain to you how logic works, how movie making needs to work under its own unstated rules, and how a retroactive fan theory runs counter to good filmmaking. I'm not going to pull the wool off of your eyes and no matter how many times you assert that the ambiguity is a feature and not a detraction, I'm never going to like it. I've made bulletpoints of how the movie doesn't hold itself together. And they seem to be the parts you like.

So yeah. Kudos to you and your film. I still don't like it.

[eggynack]

*squints*

Look, man. I already showed you the ways that applying logic to the movie doesn't stick. And you've said "Their craziness did it!" And also "A ghost did the other stuff!" It makes it really muddled and illogical. I've shown how that doesn't make sense and you would rather use some sort of mental duct tape to explain what I've highlighted as being impossible to explain. And now we're arguing in circles.
How is that muddled and illogical? There are ghosts and crazy. It's two things. Two things is only one fewer thing than three things, where three things is what the movie has, cause also psychic stuff. Except the crazy and psychic stuff is as much as stated explicitly in the movie, and the ghosts are revealed slowly to be absolutely present, so everything there is fits together, and it's all explained. So what's illogical? The only thing that's not clear is whether any particular event should be categorized as crazy or ghosts, and that's not so much illogical as it is creating a sense of unease, blurring the boundaries between our senses and our minds.


I can't explain to you how logic works, how movie making needs to work under its own unstated rules, and how a retroactive fan theory runs counter to good filmmaking. I'm not going to pull the wool off of your eyes and no matter how many times you assert that the ambiguity is a feature and not a detraction, I'm never going to like it. I've made bulletpoints of how the movie doesn't hold itself together. And they seem to be the parts you like.
Your statements here are ridiculous in the context of all my explanations of how none of this fits the definition of a fan theory at all, and of how the movie follows the unstated rules quite well. Whether the ambiguity adds to the movie's quality or detracts from it is another question, but the ambiguity definitely doesn't detract from the underlying logic of the movie. It could detract from your experience, and that's fine by me, but to say the movie doesn't make sense just seems ludicrous.

To be perfectly honest, I've always felt that the thing that detracted most from The Shining were those scenes that made it explicit that these were definitely ghosts. Mostly the scene where Jack is locked in. A lot of the horror of the movie comes from how little these characters can trust their senses. Ghosts are, if anything, more comforting than simple insanity, because it implies a simple outside force attacking us rather than the pain of self-destruction, though I'm of the opinion that leaving the possibility of ghosts open too is best cause that means we can't even trust that we can't trust our senses. Fortunately, the few scenes of definitely supernatural don't preclude arbitrary other elements being mundane, so the whole effect still works quite well. Either way, none of this stuff hurts the logic of the film. It doesn't matter whether any particular story object is mundane or ghostly, as long as both possibilities are left open by the construction of the story.



So yeah. Kudos to you and your film. I still don't like it.

I'm fine with you not liking it. People have opinions. It's your reasoning that's absurd. The Shining, for all its weirdness, has a really straightforward and sufficiently well explained plot. You're disliking the movie for a fault that is not present within it.

[Crow]

Apparently some people just need everything to be spelled out for them. Those people, like all people, aren't going to like certain movies.

Some people think the theatrical release of Blade Runner was the best one, and the director's cuts ruined it. Or vise versa. If you are one of those who needed to know Deckard was a replicant, you probably don't like 2001.

[DeadpanSal]

There's a difference in wanting to have everything explained to me and the necessity of me having to explain what the director didn't even answer himself. I can allow for a mystery or two. Plot holes aren't part of how to make something spooky in my book.

[eggynack]

Apparently some people just need everything to be spelled out for them. Those people, like all people, aren't going to like certain movies.

Move along.
I'm honestly just not sure what isn't being spelled out by this movie. Is it the exact proportion of ghosts to crazy? Cause, if so, you can just read the whole movie as ghosts and be fine. Is it the underlying mechanism behind ghosts? That's a weird criticism, but I guess it's technically not a thing that gets blueprinted out for the audience. Is it that Kubrick somehow insisted that everything in the movie is secretly just crazy, when in reality there's ghosts sometimes? Cause, if he has said that, I haven't seen it, and even in that case that's more Kubrick being wonky than his movie being weird. I'm mostly fine with negative criticism of stuff I like. It's obviously not my favorite thing in the world, but it's normal. What I'm less fine with is this weirdly empty criticism that seems to have no basis.

Honestly, I'm becoming half-convinced that Master's argument is supposed to act as some kind of microcosm for his position on the film. Like, his stance is weird, ambiguous, non-linear, and lacking in a basis, and my annoyance at those things implies that I should be equally annoyed at The Shining. That'd deserve some serious credit were it the case, though he'd still have to prove that the movie is those things after finishing the creation of that weird meta-argument.

Edit:
There's a difference in wanting to have everything explained to me and the necessity of me having to explain what the director didn't even answer himself. I can allow for a mystery or two. Plot holes aren't part of how to make something spooky in my book.
What plot hole? If you've said it before, just say it again, exactly, so that it's clear what we're talking about.

[Rodin]

Am I the only one here who actually liked 2001?
I've seen it three times or so. Yes, it's slow-paced, and no, I don't always feel in the mood to see it (mostly I don't) but it's a beautiful piece of film and the pacing works great for the story.

I've only seen it the once, but I really enjoyed it when I did. I wasn't a fan of the mind-screw ending, but other than that I thought it was great.

I also really enjoyed The Shining, which I saw only after both reading the book and watching the mini series. Out of the three, Kubrick's version is actually my least favorite, because it deviates so heavily. I thought the mini series did a better job of sticking to the source material with the biggest change being to the ending, where they actually improved over King's original one. I am a sucker for redeemed characters, and the way they handled it was fantastic compared to the grimmer ending of the book.

[Zaydos]

While I'm torn on 2001 (it's a beautiful piece of art and the part with HAL is fun, the ending is horrid, and as a story it's 2nd rate), I actually preferred the mini-series to Kubrick's The Shining, Kubrick took a character teetering on the edge of madness and coping with past alcoholism and abusive behavior who had a mix of redeeming and irredeemable traits which made him complex and simplified him into just an unlikable abusive workaholic.

Never thought of blaming 2001 on Kubrick before, it just watched so much like a Clarke story and I haven't ever liked Clarke as much as Heinlein or Asimov; too much 'it's sufficiently advanced technology I don't have to explain it' (Clarke is one author who the harder his sci-fi the better I like it), though I'll admit my reading of Clarke has been limited in part due to 2001 and in part due to my father's reading habits (since my easiest access to old Sci-Fi was his old collection and it didn't have much Clarke).

[Lethologica]

Some people think the theatrical release of Blade Runner was the best one, and the director's cuts ruined it. If you are one of those who liked the director's cuts better, you probably don't like 2001.
I don't know what you mean by this, tbh. But I'm not familiar with the Blade Runner version orthodoxy, I just liked the version I watched in class.

[Fawkes]

Re: The Shining, I second everything eggynack said. Especially the part about not understanding what the heck Master of Aeons is talking about.


In Kubrick's defense, Doctor Strangelove was pretty good.

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a masterpiece.


I don't know what you mean by this, tbh. But I'm not familiar with the Blade Runner version orthodoxy, I just liked the version I watched in class.

Blade Runner's theatrical cut had some studio-mandated changes that director Ridley Scott wasn't happy with. Most notoriously, the theatrical cut added in a bunch of narration, where Harrison Ford very unenthusiastically over-explains everything that happens in the movie, removing any of the movie's subtleties and ambiguities. The ending narration also explains away the lingering problems and doubts that the characters are left with, stopping just short of saying 'and then they lived happily ever after'.

See also: Terry Gilliam's Brazil.

[Crow]

Re: The Shining, I second everything eggynack said. Especially the part about not understanding what the heck Master of Aeons is talking about.



Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is a masterpiece.



Blade Runner's theatrical cut had some studio-mandated changes that director Ridley Scott wasn't happy with. Most notoriously, the theatrical cut added in a bunch of narration, where Harrison Ford very unenthusiastically over-explains everything that happens in the movie, removing any of the movie's subtleties and ambiguities. The ending narration also explains away the lingering problems and doubts that the characters are left with, stopping just short of saying 'and then they lived happily ever after'.

See also: Terry Gilliam's Brazil.

I'm mixed up then, because I remember a director's cut with silly narration, and a theatrical release with all the ambiguity. I could be misremembering though, because there are way too many cuts of that movie.

[Zaydos]

I'm mixed up then, because I remember a director's cut with silly narration, and a theatrical release with all the ambiguity. I could be misremembering though, because there are way too many cuts of that movie.

I first watched Blade Runner on a vhs recorded off of TV and it was the theatrical release (I think since it had scenes missing that are the other big difference the director's cut confirms Deckard's a replicant thus removing huge amounts of ambiguity and rendering half the questions of the film moot) with the voice over missing. I was also a small child too young to really appreciate it for anything other than pretty.

Actually on that note the first time I watched Legend was the theatrical cut with scenes missing recorded off of TV. I think the first time I watched Alien was the actual whole movie.

[Crow]

I think the final cut ends with the elevator closing, so you don't get the happy ending or the "official" replicant confirmation.

Too many cuts dangit.

[-D-]

While I'm torn on 2001 (it's a beautiful piece of art and the part with HAL is fun, the ending is horrid, and as a story it's 2nd rate), I actually preferred the mini-series to Kubrick's The Shining, Kubrick took a character teetering on the edge of madness and coping with past alcoholism and abusive behavior who had a mix of redeeming and irredeemable traits which made him complex and simplified him into just an unlikable abusive workaholic.

Problem with Kubrick's The Shining is that Jack starts crazy and ends crazy. The Shining mini series Jack had an arc (a downward one). As in, you can believe he is normal, or trying to be and the house brought the worst in him. You can't believe Jack was ever sane in Kubrick's version.

I love Lynch and incomprehensibility, but everything about 2001 was WTF is this. With Lynch you know something is off. He sets up the mood and follows through. In Kubrick's Space Odyssey, it starts weird, but then becomes normal, and ends up WTF is this.

[eggynack]

Problem with Kubrick's The Shining is that Jack starts crazy and ends crazy. The Shining mini series Jack had an arc (a downward one). As in, you can believe he is normal, or trying to be and the house brought the worst in him. You can't believe Jack was ever sane in Kubrick's version.
Valid point, but to a large extent it's just a different story. Y'know, a story about this crazy being revealed as opposed to one about watching it develop. I think both stories have their place. It's not like there's no point if the crazy was always there. The point is largely in the family dealing with the crazy, and maybe Jack trying to manage it even as it consumes him more and more.

[-D-]

Valid point, but to a large extent it's just a different story. Y'know, a story about this crazy being revealed as opposed to one about watching it develop. I think both stories have their place. It's not like there's no point if the crazy was always there. The point is largely in the family dealing with the crazy, and maybe Jack trying to manage it even as it consumes him more and more.
Yeah, but the book was closer to mini series than to the book.

That's kinda the point. Kubrick might as well made his original story and called it Overlook Fever or something and the addition of supernatural really doesn't do much for the movie, except serve as decor.

[DeadpanSal]

To be fair, if it wasn't associated with The Shining, I'd like Kubrick's movie more. In the industry, we call that the Silent Hill 4 effect.

[Metahuman1]

Transformers: Age of Extinction. This is a really odd thing as way too many of Bay's movies have a pedophilia joke or comment...that it can't just be a random coincidence. .

and the Transforms one makes no sense at all. They could have just said ''the girl is 19'' and dad could still be all upset and it would not have effected the movie at all......you know other then wasting time with dumb human drama when people want to see robots....

Just like them two brothers, er, whatever their names are obsessed with putting ''the origin and explanation for vampires'' in all their movies...

... ... ... ... ...


i am suddenly incredibly gratified that I did not waste time or money on that movie all over again.

[Calemyr]

... ... ... ... ...


i am suddenly incredibly gratified that I did not waste time or money on that movie all over again.

It did have Optimus Prime riding a T-Rex dinobot. That's gotta be worth something. Not much, but something.

But, yeah. "I'm sleeping with your daughter despite the fact that I'm 19 and she's 17. But it's okay, because we've been sleeping together for years and there's a law that makes it legal if we were both under-age when we started. Look, I got the law in question laminated so I could flash it whenever anyone questions me!" The whole thing is so pointless. But that's Bay in a nutshell.

[Starbuck_II]

How is that muddled and illogical? There are ghosts and crazy. It's two things. Two things is only one more thing than three things, where three things is what the movie has, cause also psychic stuff. Except the crazy and psychic stuff is as much as stated explicitly in the movie, and the ghosts are revealed slowly to be absolutely present, so everything there is fits together, and it's all explained. So what's illogical? The only thing that's not clear is whether any particular event should be categorized as crazy or ghosts, and that's not so much illogical as it is creating a sense of unease, blurring the boundaries between our senses and our minds.



Did you just say "two things is only one more thing than three things"...
I think the film has gotten to you. It's craziness I mean.

Did you mean that statement: or did you mean "two things is only one less thing than three things"?

[Bohandas]

It did have Optimus Prime riding a T-Rex dinobot. That's gotta be worth something. Not much, but something.

But, yeah. "I'm sleeping with your daughter despite the fact that I'm 19 and she's 17. But it's okay, because we've been sleeping together for years and there's a law that makes it legal if we were both under-age when we started. Look, I got the law in question laminated so I could flash it whenever anyone questions me!" The whole thing is so pointless. But that's Bay in a nutshell.

I'm pretty sure that's really a law in a lot of places, that they have to be several years apart in age.

[LaZodiac]

I'm pretty sure that's really a law in a lot of places, that they have to be several years apart in age.

IT is a real law, it's the Romeo and Juliet law. The basics of it are far more disturbing. As long as you're above 13, if you're within 2 years of your partner anything is basically okay. Perhaps frowned upon, 100% super ****ing creepy, but totally legal.

[Lethologica]

I'm pretty sure that's really a law in a lot of places, that they have to be several years apart in age.
That doesn't make it less pointless in the movie. If anything, it's a way to indicate that the guy's a dislikable jagoff. Which would be a point, just expressed with typically Bay tasteless loudness.

[LaZodiac]

That doesn't make it less pointless in the movie. If anything, it's a way to indicate that the guy's a dislikable jagoff. Which would be a point, just expressed with typically Bay tasteless loudness.

Except that moment is meant to be a joke at Marky Mark's dad character's expense, like "haha, overbearing authority figure, our love is pure". It's a moment where we're supposed to be on the side of the guy with the card. It's only in the movie for that reason. It affects nothing else and if they had both been 19 they would of had to cut one joke.

[Lethologica]

Except that moment is meant to be a joke at Marky Mark's dad character's expense, like "haha, overbearing authority figure, our love is pure". It's a moment where we're supposed to be on the side of the guy with the card. It's only in the movie for that reason. It affects nothing else and if they had both been 19 they would of had to cut one joke.
Oh. Well, then scratch my charitable guess.

[Bohandas]

Except that moment is meant to be a joke at Marky Mark's dad character's expense, like "haha, overbearing authority figure, our love is pure". It's a moment where we're supposed to be on the side of the guy with the card. It's only in the movie for that reason. It affects nothing else and if they had both been 19 they would of had to cut one joke.

I haven't seen tne film but I think the authority figure being told off like that would be legitimate;y funny.

[Lethologica]

The scene is easy to find online. You can decide for yourself.

[Tyndmyr]

Apparently some people just need everything to be spelled out for them. Those people, like all people, aren't going to like certain movies.

Some people think the theatrical release of Blade Runner was the best one, and the director's cuts ruined it. Or vise versa. If you are one of those who needed to know Deckard was a replicant, you probably don't like 2001.

Nonsense. I liked the ambiguity, and hated having it spelled out. I dislike excessive narration.

I also dislike 2001.

There is a difference between ambiguity and a longass light show. The light show doesn't bring other possibilities and questions to mind. It's just a light show. "artistic", but not actually informative. The HAL substory, that was good. The rest of it, ehhhh.

[Bohandas]

There is a difference between ambiguity and a longass light show. The light show doesn't bring other possibilities and questions to mind. It's just a light show. "artistic", but not actually informative. The HAL substory, that was good. The rest of it, ehhhh.

Plus, even in the film Bowman explicitly says "It's full of stars" not "It's full of lava lamps and kaleidoscopes"

[Bohandas]

You know, you could probably make a good Lucky Charms commercial out of that ending...

"oh my god, it's full of stars..." and then the other marshmallow shapes appear as well, and we see him eating a bowl of them in the space hotel, and the sad thing is that if you haven't already read the book (to know what the real ending means) this would actually make a lot more sense as an ending

EDIT:
...And then a giant Lucky Charms box appears at the foot of his bed and we see the leprechaun staring down at the earth from space and it still makes more sense than the real ending

[nyjastul69]

You know, you could probably make a good Lucky Charms commercial out of that ending...

"oh my god, it's full of stars..." and then the other marshmallow shapes appear as well, and we see him eating a bowl of them in the space hotel, and the sad thing is that if you haven't already read the book (to know what the real ending means) this would actually make a lot more sense as an ending

EDIT:
...And then a giant Lucky Charms box appears at the foot of his bed and we see the leprechaun staring down at the earth from space and it still makes more sense than the real ending

I don't know that I agree with you, but I love that. Frickin 'illarious. Nice job.

When I first watched 2001 I didn't really get it. I was 12 or so. Years later, around adulthood, 20 or so, the movie had a whole different impact. It's a pretty creepy movie that has some fantastic moments. It has pacing issues IMO, but those don't really detract from overall experience for me. I think it's a landmark movie that everyone should see if for no other reason to say 'I don't like it'.

Edit to address Kubrick v. Bay: I've only seen a few Bay movies. I've also only seen a few of Kubrick's work. Pound for pound,as a director, Kubrick's far superior to Bay.

To whit, has Bay done anything that can compare, as a work of art, to what Kubrick did with Full Metal Jacket? I do not think so. As much as the song Lyla by Derek and the Dominos, is 2 songs in one, so is FMJ 2 movies in one. Until Bay makes something as awesome as FMJ, he pales in comparison.

[Donnadogsoth]

You know, you could probably make a good Lucky Charms commercial out of that ending...

"oh my god, it's full of stars..." and then the other marshmallow shapes appear as well, and we see him eating a bowl of them in the space hotel, and the sad thing is that if you haven't already read the book (to know what the real ending means) this would actually make a lot more sense as an ending

EDIT:
...And then a giant Lucky Charms box appears at the foot of his bed and we see the leprechaun staring down at the earth from space and it still makes more sense than the real ending

[snort]

You're a sinner. You're sinning against Kubrick.

As I wrote, the movie makes perfect sense when viewed as an allegory for human development, light show and all. Never read the book; don't care to.

[eggynack]

To whit, has Bay done anything that can compare, as a work of art, to what Kubrick did with Full Metal Jacket? I do not think so. As much as the song Lyla by Derek and the Dominos, is 2 songs in one, so is FMJ 2 movies in one. Until Bay makes something as awesome as FMJ, he pales in comparison.
A way stronger claim than that can be made. I haven't seen the worst of Kubrick, and neither have I seen the best of Bay, but consider that the worst rated Kubrick movie, as per Rotten Tomatoes, is Eyes Wide Shut with a 74, while the best rated Bay movie is The Rock with a 66. So, far from Bay reaching the peaks of Kubrick, he hasn't even reached the nadir. I'm not saying it's a perfect metric by any means, but it just goes to show the ridiculous gap that exists between these two film makers. Bay isn't in Kubrick's league at all. Hell, he's not even in the league below Kubrick, where above average directors go, or the league below that, where things are strictly average. He's hanging out at very much below average, hitting average at his peaks and falling to very bad at his valleys.

[Fawkes]

Especially once it starts rapping.

Yo, I'm HAL 9000 and I'm here to say,
I've been reading your lips in a major way!

[Calemyr]

A way stronger claim than that can be made. I haven't seen the worst of Kubrick, and neither have I seen the best of Bay, but consider that the worst rated Kubrick movie, as per Rotten Tomatoes, is Eyes Wide Shut with a 74, while the best rated Bay movie is The Rock with a 66. So, far from Bay reaching the peaks of Kubrick, he hasn't even reached the nadir. I'm not saying it's a perfect metric by any means, but it just goes to show the ridiculous gap that exists between these two film makers. Bay isn't in Kubrick's league at all. Hell, he's not even in the league below Kubrick, where above average directors go, or the league below that, where things are strictly average. He's hanging out at very much below average, hitting average at his peaks and falling to very bad at his valleys.

He, Uwe Boll, and M. Night Shyamalan run a poker table on that tier, in honor of Ed Wood.

[eggynack]

He, Uwe Boll, and M. Night Shyamalan run a poker table on that tier, in honor of Ed Wood.
Nah, Ed Wood is different. He had this beautiful and sincere love for the art of film, even if he didn't personally have immense talent for it. I still contend that Glen or Glenda is actually a good film.

Edit: I also really liked The Last Airbender, even if it's mostly in an ironical sense. Wound up watching it twice for the awesome humor value.

[Fawkes]

I don't think Shaymalan belongs at that same table, either. His lows are just as low as Bay and Boll, but M. Night at least has the capacity to make actual good movies. Unfortunately, he only made two and then just stopped.

And really, even when he makes a bad movie, he usually is at least making an attempt to make something artistic and interesting. A failed attempt, but an attempt nonetheless.

[eggynack]

I don't think Shaymalan belongs at that same table, either. His lows are just as low as Bay and Boll, but M. Night at least has the capacity to make actual good movies. Unfortunately, he only made two and then just stopped.

And really, even when he makes a bad movie, he usually is at least making an attempt to make something artistic and interesting. A failed attempt, but an attempt nonetheless.
Yeah, I was assuming it was referring to post-good Shaymalan. I dunno that I'd call Airbender a real artistic attempt though. Thing had its moments where you could see some theoretical intentionality, but mostly it was exposition and not paying off a live action water fish monster. And also showing a villain getting drowned by four anonymous water benders. I tend to draw a distinction between movies like Airbender, which I laugh at for its badness, and movies like The Room, which I laugh at but also think is just a genuinely great film. I must say, however, that I don't have much experience with Shyamalan, so he may have hit that kinda sincere attempt but mediocre film level in between his highs and lows.

[The Glyphstone]

For that matter, Bay himself doesn't fit in, because unlike some of the others, he's never made the (public) mistake of considering his own films to be good. He makes explosion-filled LCD shlock action flicks, that earn impossible amounts of money, and he's not the least bit ashamed of any of it.

Boll's the only one there who makes terrible films and thinks he's making art.

[Fawkes]

Yeah, I was assuming it was referring to post-good Shaymalan. I dunno that I'd call Airbender a real artistic attempt though. Thing had its moments where you could see some theoretical intentionality, but mostly it was exposition and not paying off a live action water fish monster. And also showing a villain getting drowned by four anonymous water benders. I tend to draw a distinction between movies like Airbender, which I laugh at for its badness, and movies like The Room, which I laugh at but also think is just a genuinely great film. I must say, however, that I don't have much experience with Shyamalan, so he may have hit that kinda sincere attempt but mediocre film level in between his highs and lows.

Yeah, I haven't seen Airbender, so I can't pass judgment, but the impression I got from reviews was that it was a real low-effort sellout moment for Shyamalan. Probably not a coincidence that it was the first movie he directed that was based off of someone else's story.

[Legato Endless]

For that matter, Bay himself doesn't fit in, because unlike some of the others, he's never made the (public) mistake of considering his own films to be good. He makes explosion-filled LCD shlock action flicks, that earn impossible amounts of money, and he's not the least bit ashamed of any of it.

Boll's the only one there who makes terrible films and thinks he's making art.

Even ignoring Bay's lack of pretension, his film's aren't that bad. Yeah, Michael Bay makes bombastic sexist genre trash, but his films don't actively assault your hope for the human race. Uwe Boll's peers are more on the line of Seltzer and Friedberg, Raja Gosnell and the folks we'd have all forgotten but for Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Edit for Typo

[Fawkes]

Even ignoring Bay's lack of pretension, his film's aren't that bad. Yeah, Michael Bay makes bombastic sexist genre trash, but his films don't actively assault your hope for the human race.

Counterpoint: Transformers 2.

[Bohandas]

Nah, Ed Wood is different. He had this beautiful and sincere love for the art of film, even if he didn't personally have immense talent for it. I still contend that Glen or Glenda is actually a good film.

You know, I wasn't going to bring this up but I think you all have forced me to, I think that Plan 9 From Outer Space actually makes a lot more sense than Kubrick's 2001. The whole thing actually makes perfect sense if you simply assume that the main alien antagonist is an incompetent who has gotten his position through cronyism or nepotism or something

[Razade]

You know, I wasn't going to bring this up but I think you all have forced me to, I think that Plan 9 From Outer Space actually makes a lot more sense than Kubrick's 2001. The whole thing actually makes perfect sense if you simply assume that the main alien antagonist is an incompetent who has gotten his position through cronyism or nepotism or something

Yeah, now you're just being absurd for the sake of it.

[eggynack]

You know, I wasn't going to bring this up but I think you all have forced me to, I think that Plan 9 From Outer Space actually makes a lot more sense than Kubrick's 2001. The whole thing actually makes perfect sense if you simply assume that the main alien antagonist is an incompetent who has gotten his position through cronyism or nepotism or something
I haven't seen Plan 9 in awhile, and I didn't watch it as closely as I'd like, but I wouldn't be surprised were that the case. Sensicalness isn't an especially great metric of quality, however. Most so bad it's good movies hold together rather well on a macro level, with issues mostly popping up in the form of weirdness in individual scenes. Like, you might question why the protagonists leave their worth-killing-for gas tank on the side of the road in Birdemic, but that doesn't make the movie hard to follow, and the result is that Birdemic is going to rank higher than the much superior, say, Exterminating Angel, or Eraserhead, in terms of ease of following. Y'know, movies that are great, but weird by intent.

[thatSeniorGuy]

As talk of Michael Bay has popped up, I'll leave this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wYtG7aQTHA) for your amusement (Bay and Kubrick pop up towards the end of the video).
ETA: lyrics not appropriate for work.

[zimmerwald1915]

Counterpoint: Transformers 2.
That movie exists solely to hang a Sword of Damocles over the WGA. The next time their contract comes up, all the Producers have to say is "Transformers 2," and they'll win every concession they've wanted for the past forty years.

[MLai]

Except that moment is meant to be a joke at Marky Mark's dad character's expense, like "haha, overbearing authority figure, our love is pure". It's a moment where we're supposed to be on the side of the guy with the card. It's only in the movie for that reason. It affects nothing else and if they had both been 19 they would of had to cut one joke.
Wait, y'all were being serious when you said the guy actually had a laminated card of this???

[Fawkes]

Wait, y'all were being serious when you said the guy actually had a laminated card of this???

See for yourself. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz9OgW4JAJ8)

[nyjastul69]

A way stronger claim than that can be made. I haven't seen the worst of Kubrick, and neither have I seen the best of Bay, but consider that the worst rated Kubrick movie, as per Rotten Tomatoes, is Eyes Wide Shut with a 74, while the best rated Bay movie is The Rock with a 66. So, far from Bay reaching the peaks of Kubrick, he hasn't even reached the nadir. I'm not saying it's a perfect metric by any means, but it just goes to show the ridiculous gap that exists between these two film makers. Bay isn't in Kubrick's league at all. Hell, he's not even in the league below Kubrick, where above average directors go, or the league below that, where things are strictly average. He's hanging out at very much below average, hitting average at his peaks and falling to very bad at his valleys.

I'm not concerned with any Rotten Tomatoes metric. Well said though. To be fair to Bay, I generally use enjoy what he does. I love popcorn movies. I like shutting my brain off and watching explosions and such. Sometimes I want an 'art' movie, sometimes I wanna see bombastic explosions. I don't wanna come across as hating Bay. He definitely isn't Kubrick though.

[eggynack]

I'm not concerned with any Rotten Tomatoes metric. Well said though. To be fair to Bay, I generally use enjoy what he does. I love popcorn movies. I like shutting my brain off and watching explosions and such. Sometimes I want an 'art' movie, sometimes I wanna see bombastic explosions. I don't wanna come across as hating Bay. He definitely isn't Kubrick though.
I definitely don't think it tells you absolutely that all Kubrick movies are categorically better than all Bay movies. Not even sure that that's my personal opinion. Still, it implies how massive the gulf between the two directors is, and gives a general idea of what kinda comparisons you can make when looking at them. Because, while Rotten Tomatoes obviously doesn't prove that perfect inequality, what it does mean is that I could say, "All Kubrick movies are better than all Bay movies," and I'd have a leg to stand on in the argument. Not specifically because I could cite RT as a source, but just because that's where analysis could plausibly lead when you start with those numbers as a basis.

[MLai]

I don't wanna come across as hating Bay.
After what he's done to some of my childhood memories, and what he has said regarding how much he cares, and the attitude he has shown towards people who watch his movies (directly or through his work), I think it's perfectly fine to genuinely hate him.

And oh my god, it really is laminated.

[Tyndmyr]

For that matter, Bay himself doesn't fit in, because unlike some of the others, he's never made the (public) mistake of considering his own films to be good. He makes explosion-filled LCD shlock action flicks, that earn impossible amounts of money, and he's not the least bit ashamed of any of it.

Boll's the only one there who makes terrible films and thinks he's making art.

That's pretty fair. Not everyone gets to make the amazing art pieces. There's a market for people who just want to see explosions.

Nothing wrong with metaphorically making hamburgers at McDonalds, so long as you don't act like doing so makes you a gourmet chef.

[nyjastul69]

After what he's done to some of my childhood memories, and what he has said regarding how much he cares, and the attitude he has shown towards people who watch his movies (directly or through his work), I think it's perfectly fine to genuinely hate him.

And oh my god, it really is laminated.

The only thing I can do is agree. Oh my god, it really is laminated. That *is* some serious creepypasta. I haven't seen the movie , but I watched that (ob)scene.

[DeadpanSal]

That's pretty fair. Not everyone gets to make the amazing art pieces. There's a market for people who just want to see explosions.

Nothing wrong with metaphorically making hamburgers at McDonalds, so long as you don't act like doing so makes you a gourmet chef.

McDonald's is a well oiled, precision machine that makes perfectly crafted, somewhat edible food (and sweet, sweet McGriddles). I wouldn't say that Michael Bay is the Ronald McDonald of the fast food world. I'd save that for someone mild and inoffensive, but well established and inescapable, like a Spielberg or Chris Columbus. Michael Bay is Taco Bell's Dorito Taco. You don't know who would eat it and you don't want it, but you saw your little brother eat nine in one night and you never want to talk to him ever again.

I guess that makes Stanley Kubrik a White Castle.

[LaZodiac]

Kubrick is that fancy restuarant that serves really good food that you just don't have any interest in unless it's "your taste" like beef tongue and haggis.

[zimmerwald1915]

Kubrick is that fancy restuarant that serves . . . beef tongue
Beef tongue is classic deli food. I guess you could be describing Katz's or somewhere similarly overpriced, but I still wouldn't call those places "fancy restaurants."

[LaZodiac]

Beef tongue is classic deli food. I guess you could be describing Katz's or somewhere similarly overpriced, but I still wouldn't call those places "fancy restaurants."

Okay pretend I said raw fish eggs or whatever the analogy stands (and is stupid anyway).

[Crow]

Beef tongue is classic deli food. I guess you could be describing Katz's or somewhere similarly overpriced, but I still wouldn't call those places "fancy restaurants."

I used to have to eat beef tongue all the time, back when it was dirt cheap. Apparently there is some kind of tongue shortage among cows now, because they are expensive these days.

[warty goblin]

Kubrick is that fancy restuarant that serves really good food that you just don't have any interest in unless it's "your taste" like beef tongue and haggis.

Beef tongue is excellent, so is pork tongue. It doesn't even taste like organ meat, it's just a rather flavorful muscle meat with a somewhat unusual texture. It's very mild, even more so than heart, and heart is a pretty mild meat as meats that aren't skeletal muscles go. I've had beef stomach as well, kinda chewy and not the prettiest thing I've ever eaten, but it tastes fine. I'd take it over liver.

[Kantaki]

I used to have to eat beef tongue all the time, back when it was dirt cheap. Apparently there is some kind of tongue shortage among cows now, because they are expensive these days.

Maybe they are breeding tongueless cattle to increase the price?:smallbiggrin:

But the fancy restaurant is a pretty good simile to 2001.
Looks great- could even be called art -but there is very little food/film.
Great if you want to look at something „artisan”, bad if you are hungry/want to watch a movie.
I exaggerate, but honestly? All I remember from 2001 are the bone-juggling monkey and and the drug-induced hallucination that somehow got captured on camera.
I'm pretty sure something happened between those scenes, but I don't remember anything. And not just because it has been a while since I watched it.

[Lethologica]

Maybe they are breeding tongueless cattle to increase the price?:smallbiggrin:

But the fancy restaurant is a pretty good simile to 2001.
Looks great- could even be called art -but there is very little food/film.
Great if you want to look at something „artisan”, bad if you are hungry/want to watch a movie.
I exaggerate, but honestly? All I remember from 2001 are the bone-juggling monkey and and the drug-induced hallucination that somehow got captured on camera.
I'm pretty sure something happened between those scenes, but I don't remember anything. And not just because it has been a while since I watched it.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."

Another point in favor of the analogy to fancy restaurants--they usually serve a lot of specialized courses with only a little food per course along some general theme. 2001 is, again, a number of short films with very specific aims along the general theme of human development and exploration.

[hustlertwo]

Rabid anti-intellectualist that I am, I had similar discussions/debates with people in my film classes at school, as well as in the Cinematic Arts group when we chose what movies showed at the Tate. My stance was always that 2001 is a vitally important movie, but boring as crap. Unlike other terrible movies, we cannot wish it gone, because themes and stylistic choices from this movie paved the way for countless better films in the ensuing 50ish years. But that does not change the fact that the first time I tried to watch it, I fell asleep. The second, I simply wished I had.

Movies can educate, inspire, and enlighten. But if they do not entertain, they cannot truly be considered 'good'. We call them entertainment mediums for a reason. Their primary purpose is to help us fritter away our leisure time. So, while Bay's first Transformers movie is not as well-made as 2001 to be sure, it is undeniably the more fun of the two and thus calling it better is not wrong. Which, I should say, is also why I think Verhoeven is one of the unrecognized and underrated auteurs of the modern age. But that's a separate discussion.

[warty goblin]

Rabid anti-intellectualist that I am, I had similar discussions/debates with people in my film classes at school, as well as in the Cinematic Arts group when we chose what movies showed at the Tate. My stance was always that 2001 is a vitally important movie, but boring as crap. Unlike other terrible movies, we cannot wish it gone, because themes and stylistic choices from this movie paved the way for countless better films in the ensuing 50ish years. But that does not change the fact that the first time I tried to watch it, I fell asleep. The second, I simply wished I had.

Movies can educate, inspire, and enlighten. But if they do not entertain, they cannot truly be considered 'good'. We call them entertainment mediums for a reason. Their primary purpose is to help us fritter away our leisure time. So, while Bay's first Transformers movie is not as well-made as 2001 to be sure, it is undeniably the more fun of the two and thus calling it better is not wrong. Which, I should say, is also why I think Verhoeven is one of the unrecognized and underrated auteurs of the modern age. But that's a separate discussion.

I enjoyed, had more fun with, and in general was more entertained by 2001 than Transformers. I mean I enjoyed Transformers, but only because I was a RA at a summer program for the vile offspring of very wealthy people. All my terrible charges went to see something else, so I decamped to Transformers for ~2 hours of horrible goblin-child free relaxation, and it was good. But I'd happily watch 2001 again under absolutely no duress.

[Flickerdart]

Kubrick is like a molecular gastronomy restaurant, where you're served a deconstructed sandwich that's actually a series of four gelatin cubes served on a long, narrow marble slab.

[BWR]

So, while Bay's first Transformers movie is not as well-made as 2001 to be sure, it is undeniably the more fun of the two and thus calling it better is not wrong..

I wouldn't call any of the Transformers movies 'fun'. At best there were some decent action sequences but hardly 'fun'. Mostly they are painful attempts at humor and poor excuses for characterization and overuse of a highly limited use of the camera. 2001 is interesting and amazingly well put together.

[Zaydos]

I find 2001 extremely boring and I'd still watch it twice in a row before I'd watch Transformers again (I might try one of the later Transformers films before I re-watch 2001 2 more times but that's more of a 'I haven't seen it' + Bile Fascination going on).

Mostly because 2001 has pretty at least, and Transformers, I saw once and there is nothing to draw me back besides Peter Cullen's voice.

[hustlertwo]

I was mostly using Transformers since it had already been brought up, not out of true love for it, though I did enjoy it more than I suspected when it was first announced. Still surprised that many people would rather slog through this spacey snorefest again, though.

How about the original RoboCop? Or Der Arnold's excellent Commando?

[Frozen_Feet]

IT is a real law, it's the Romeo and Juliet law. The basics of it are far more disturbing. As long as you're above 13, if you're within 2 years of your partner anything is basically okay. Perhaps frowned upon, 100% super ****ing creepy, but totally legal.

You can chalk this to differing cultural values, but calling any of that "disturbing" sounds hopelessly detached from reality. To me, a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old dating is a mundane non-issue on the level of "rocks exist" and the only reason to ever dwell on it would be to poke fun at how moronic people's attitudes can get about it.

[eggynack]

You can chalk this to differing cultural values, but calling any of that "disturbing" sounds hopelessly detached from reality. To me, a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old dating is a mundane non-issue on the level of "rocks exist" and the only reason to ever dwell on it would be to poke fun at how moronic people's attitudes can get about it.
True, though I think he's 20 in the movie, and it looks like he was 22 outside the movie. Bit of a larger gap. Also, he comes across as pretty old for some reason. This weird grizzled vibe. Anyway, I don't think any of this is the point. Just having that age gap is theoretically not the worst. What's weird is how much attention the movie calls to it. It's like Transformers is getting on some kinda Romeo and Juliet law soap box. One can say that it was intended as a joke, but it didn't read that way when I watched the clip. It read more like, "Ha, the man can't keep me down in terms of the age gap between me and the woman I'm sleeping with." There's a message out of that scene, and out of the two main possibilities it felt like Bay went for the creepy one. In particular, it could have been, "Love can transcend even a decent few years of age difference," and instead it was, "Love can overcome even the fact that my lover is an abstract law, because this one law is the greatest thing ever, and I'ma bed young ladies left and right to stick it to the man, with my fancy laminated card in hand." The situation isn't disturbing. The scene is disturbing.

[Lethologica]

hustlertwo, I disagree that you can essentialize movies as entertainment, except by defining entertainment such that anything that can keep our eyeballs on it for two hours is entertaining, and by that measure I would disagree that Transformers is more entertaining than 2001.

[BannedInSchool]

You can chalk this to differing cultural values, but calling any of that "disturbing" sounds hopelessly detached from reality. To me, a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old dating is a mundane non-issue on the level of "rocks exist" and the only reason to ever dwell on it would be to poke fun at how moronic people's attitudes can get about it.

Because of age binning for school grades that "two-year" by number difference could happen between people in adjacent grades, I think. By the calendar the difference would be less than two full years, and for some time during the year they'd be only one off in number of "years old". I think saying "one year difference in school max" is more clear and practical than requiring comparing birthdays, and requiring everybody to be less than one calendar year apart in ages and in the same grade seems overly strict. That still means the seniors should leave the freshmen and sophomores alone. :smallsmile:

[LaZodiac]

You can chalk this to differing cultural values, but calling any of that "disturbing" sounds hopelessly detached from reality. To me, a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old dating is a mundane non-issue on the level of "rocks exist" and the only reason to ever dwell on it would be to poke fun at how moronic people's attitudes can get about it.

Okay so to clarify I don't actually mind it PERSONALLY, I just think bringing it up in a movie, like that, is just...insane and stupid and potentially disturbing to a lot of people. Legal age in Canada is 16, for instance, so it's not actually that big a deal, but the movie MADE it a big deal, so we need to actually look at it as it.

[Bohandas]

You can chalk this to differing cultural values, but calling any of that "disturbing" sounds hopelessly detached from reality. To me, a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old dating is a mundane non-issue on the level of "rocks exist" and the only reason to ever dwell on it would be to poke fun at how moronic people's attitudes can get about it.

I second this.

[Lethologica]

Everyone in the scene had moronic attitudes about it, is the thing. And not in such a way that the director's clearly playing them as buffoons for our benefit, either.

[Closet_Skeleton]

2001 a Space Odyssey is a interesting failure of a film that gets thrown to the top of lists of 'good SF films' in order to make the critic look smart. It flopped massively on release and only got saved due it it fitting into a hippie zeitgeist.

Its actually a tired mysticism film with little to no 'intellectual content' based on themes that were trendy and not entirely spent when it was written but still horribly cliche even then (seriously, Clarke did the whole 'apocalypticism but with aliens thing back in 1953 with Childhood's End and it was hardly new as a idea even then). It only seems to be due to the grandfather clause that its plot holes aren't ridiculed in the same way to how people treat Signs, a film that in a similar way pretends to be a SF film while only making sense as a religious one.

The other actually good reason it gets put on lists other than exaggerated erudition is that like all niche appeal movies, when its a person's sort of thing it tends to be REALLY there sort of thing. I don't hate it myself, its just that while I can appreciate the updating of the philosopher's stone motif just can't take the 'alien god' **** seriously. There's probably a few bit of unintended imperialist apologetic in there as well but I've stretched what should be stated here far enough.

[Donnadogsoth]

2001 a Space Odyssey is a interesting failure of a film that gets thrown to the top of lists of 'good SF films' in order to make the critic look smart. It flopped massively on release and only got saved due it it fitting into a hippie zeitgeist.

Its actually a tired mysticism film with little to no 'intellectual content' based on themes that were trendy and not entirely spent when it was written but still horribly cliche even then (seriously, Clarke did the whole 'apocalypticism but with aliens thing back in 1953 with Childhood's End and it was hardly new as a idea even then). It only seems to be due to the grandfather clause that its plot holes aren't ridiculed in the same way to how people treat Signs, a film that in a similar way pretends to be a SF film while only making sense as a religious one.

The other actually good reason it gets put on lists other than exaggerated erudition is that like all niche appeal movies, when its a person's sort of thing it tends to be REALLY there sort of thing. I don't hate it myself, its just that while I can appreciate the updating of the philosopher's stone motif just can't take the 'alien god' **** seriously. There's probably a few bit of unintended imperialist apologetic in there as well but I've stretched what should be stated here far enough.

Can you recommend any vigourous mysticism films?

[Crow]

LOL @ Closet Skeleton. The conspiracy has been exposed! It turns out the move sucks after all.

[hustlertwo]

hustlertwo, I disagree that you can essentialize movies as entertainment, except by defining entertainment such that anything that can keep our eyeballs on it for two hours is entertaining, and by that measure I would disagree that Transformers is more entertaining than 2001.

OK, then if the primary purpose of films is not to entertain, what is it?

[eggynack]

OK, then if the primary purpose of films is not to entertain, what is it?
I don't think films have a primary purpose. A film can have a primary purpose, certainly, but any two movies can have completely different primary purposes. Entertainment is quite often a secondary purpose that facilitates the primary purpose by getting you to watch that purpose happen, but even then it's not strictly necessary. For example, The Act of Killing is primarily about informing people about the nature of the Indonesian genocide, and open up conversation about it that was previously closed off. Granted, it happens to be an occasionally amusing movie about genocide, but that doesn't mean it was the creator's main goal in making the thing.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

OK, then if the primary purpose of films is not to entertain, what is it?

The same as the purpose of any other art form.

GW

[Fawkes]

OK, then if the primary purpose of films is not to entertain, what is it?

What an obtuse question. Art, of any medium, can have any number of purposes. To entertain, to educate, to motivate, to express something, to make you feel something.

Don't pigeonhole art.

[hustlertwo]

So would you consider something like The Human Centipede to be a successful film? Or Antichrist? Few, if any, would call them entertaining. And would you then argue that there is no such thing as a bad movie, since all films have someone who liked something about them? Having just watched the Fantastic Four reboot, I find that sort of mentality troubling. There has to be some sort of standard to objectively say a movie is good or bad. And I can think of none better than the determiner of whether you enjoyed your time with the film or not.

[Bohandas]

OK, then if the primary purpose of films is not to entertain, what is it?

Well, a documentary's purpose is to educate. This isn't a documentary though.

[eggynack]

So would you consider something like The Human Centipede to be a successful film? Or Antichrist? Few, if any, would call them entertaining. And would you then argue that there is no such thing as a bad movie, since all films have someone who liked something about them? Having just watched the Fantastic Four reboot, I find that sort of mentality troubling. There has to be some sort of standard to objectively say a movie is good or bad. And I can think of none better than the determiner of whether you enjoyed your time with the film or not.
Why would there be an objective standard as to whether a movie is good or bad? What does that even mean? Human Centipede was probably successful for a few people, and unsuccessful for a lot of others. In any case, you can get a lot of different things out of a movie. Narrowing it down to some easy to define metric is pointless. Why would I peg all of my stance on a movie on how much I enjoyed it? That's so ridiculously limiting.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

There has to be some sort of standard to objectively say a movie is good or bad.
No, there isn't.


And I can think of none better than the determiner of whether you enjoyed your time with the film or not.
That is not an objective standard. It's a subjective one.

GW

[hustlertwo]

Why would there be an objective standard as to whether a movie is good or bad? What does that even mean? Human Centipede was probably successful for a few people, and unsuccessful for a lot of others. In any case, you can get a lot of different things out of a movie. Narrowing it down to some easy to define metric is pointless. Why would I peg all of my stance on a movie on how much I enjoyed it? That's so ridiculously limiting.

So if you were asked which movie was better, Pluto Nash or Empire Strikes Back, would you simply say "It depends on who you are?" No.

You can do other things with a film beyond just entertain. Educate, enlighten, elucidate. Even things that don't start with 'e'. But if you're boring they will fail, because your audience is not invested enough to get the message if their mind is wandering or they're wishing they were doing something else.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So if you were asked which movie was better, Pluto Nash or Empire Strikes Back, would you simply say "It depends on who you are?" No.

You are actually claiming, in all seriousness, that all 7 billion people on this planet would agree on what film is more entertaining than any other. When this thread alone has shown people completely disagreeing on whether one film is enjoyable or not.

Your argument is demonstrably false.

Grey Wolf

[Fawkes]

So if you were asked which movie was better, Pluto Nash or Empire Strikes Back, would you simply say "It depends on who you are?" No.

No, because I would assume the person asking me was asking for my subjective opinion, because I understand how conversations work. But is someone specifically asked me to rank them 'objectively', I would ask them what the heck they meant, because there's no way to objectively rank art. The closest thing would be to assess the (entirely subjective) opinions of a large group of people through aggregated reviews, but that's not an objective comparison of value.

[eggynack]

So if you were asked which movie was better, Pluto Nash or Empire Strikes Back, would you simply say "It depends on who you are?" No.
Indeed no. Instead, I would say that the term "better" is one that's intrinsically meaningless, making the larger question also meaningless. That or the thing about how I'm assuming that either my opinion, or a general consensus, is being requested. Neither of those things, however, implies any sort of objective truth about betterness.


You can do other things with a film beyond just entertain. Educate, enlighten, elucidate. Even things that don't start with 'e'. But if you're boring they will fail, because your audience is not invested enough to get the message if their mind is wandering or they're wishing they were doing something else.
You don't have to be entertaining to not be boring. People can be engaged on other levels. Plenty of people, myself included, are engaged simply by the fact that they're learning new things.

[Bohandas]

I don't think films have a primary purpose. A film can have a primary purpose, certainly, but any two movies can have completely different primary purposes. Entertainment is quite often a secondary purpose that facilitates the primary purpose by getting you to watch that purpose happen, but even then it's not strictly necessary.

The thing is that 2001 is praised as good sci-fi and good in general, not as a good art film. It's more likely to be put up along side something like The Empire Strikes Back than something like Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1964_film)); It's more likely to be considered beside Age of Ultron than beside L'Age d'OR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Age_d%27Or).

EDIT:
Even if we acknowledge it as a good art film it is still terrible by the standards of the genres and supergenres that it is more typically cited as an example of (sci-fi, entertainment, etc.)

[Thrudd]

Art it may be, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to like it. Even basically universally recognized and respected artists have their critics, and the most famous pieces aren't loved by everyone. 2001 is pretty widely hailed as a fantastic piece of art, and there's plenty of room for it to not be to everyone's taste. That's just how art goes.

[eggynack]

The thing is that 2001 is praised as good sci-fi and good in general, not as a good art film. It's more likely to be put up along side something like The Empire Strikes Back than something like Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1964_film)); It's more likely to be considered beside Age of Ultron than beside L'Age d'OR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Age_d%27Or).
A movie can be multiple separate things, and being considered good sci-fi does not preclude being a good art film. And, in fact, I'd consider 2001 something of a hybrid of the two. Sci-fi treated as an art film. I certainly don't often think of 2001 and Star Wars in concert with each other, and to the extent that people put them on the same list, it's more because genre is an easy way to categorize a thing. Because, yes, 2001 is sci-fi, and if someone loves the movie, and is composing a sci-fi list, they'll probably put the movie on the list. It's just also an art film.

[Lethologica]

The thing is that 2001 is praised as good sci-fi and good in general, not as a good art film. It's more likely to be put up along side something like The Empire Strikes Back than something like Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1964_film)); It's more likely to be considered beside Age of Ultron than beside L'Age d'OR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Age_d%27Or).
2001 is far more likely to be contrasted with TESB as different poles of what the SF genre can be. No one sensible is going to apply space-opera criteria to 2001, beyond "has pretty shots of space", which 2001 inarguably fulfills.

[Thrudd]

The thing is that 2001 is praised as good sci-fi and good in general, not as a good art film. It's more likely to be put up along side something like The Empire Strikes Back than something like Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1964_film)); It's more likely to be considered beside Age of Ultron than beside L'Age d'OR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Age_d%27Or).

Someone who would put 2001 and Star Wars into the same category for comparison should not be taken seriously as a film critic. They are so completely different in every way it isn't funny. Yes, they both can be called "science fiction", but that category the way it is commonly used is so broad as to be pointless. It's basically saying "these movies are about outer space and spaceships or aliens or sciency stuff." That's like saying all movies that have cities and police officers are basically the same thing. So which movie is better, "The Other Guys", or "The Departed"?

[Lethologica]

So would you consider something like The Human Centipede to be a successful film? Or Antichrist? Few, if any, would call them entertaining. And would you then argue that there is no such thing as a bad movie, since all films have someone who liked something about them? Having just watched the Fantastic Four reboot, I find that sort of mentality troubling. There has to be some sort of standard to objectively say a movie is good or bad. And I can think of none better than the determiner of whether you enjoyed your time with the film or not.
There is no universal standard across the medium. The more similar two films are, the more one can say that one is directly better than another, because more expectations about the movies are shared, so reasonable standards can be established. Comparing disparate movies can only really be done by saying that they rank favorably or poorly among their comparables. Fantastic Four is bad for a superhero movie, 2001 is good for an artsy SF film, so 2001 is better than Fantastic Four.

Some films have more comparables than others. IDK if there are really comparables for The Human Centipede. On the flip side, something Pixar does really well is broaden their storytelling to engage with multiple sets of expectations--so Toy Story is not just "good for a kids' film," for example.

One may also have opinions about whether some kinds of film are better than others, but that's much more subjective.

[Emperor Demonking]

No, there isn't.


That is not an objective standard. It's a subjective one.

GW

No it isn't. Whether you enjoyed it, or not, is objective fact. If science isn't able just to look at your brain to find out if you enjoyed it yet, then that's a limit of 2016.

[Lethologica]

No it isn't. Whether you enjoyed it, or not, is objective fact. If science isn't able just to look at your brain to find out if you enjoyed it yet, then that's a limit of 2016.
Science can probably look at your brain and figure out whether you're enjoying your chocolate ice cream. For that matter, science can probably predict whether you'll enjoy chocolate ice cream by looking at your taste buds. We still call ice cream flavor preference subjective, because different people enjoy different things.

[Bohandas]

A movie can be multiple separate things, and being considered good sci-fi does not preclude being a good art film.

True, but being a good art film does not automatically make it good sci-fi, and that was my point. Most of the points cited in its favor seem to have to do with it's beauty and profundity. Beauty does not make good sci-fi, and while profundity has a place, most of the supposed profoundness lies outside of segments where profundity would be most appropriate and furthermore is often not accessible without the film having to be explained to you.

[SuperPanda]

Objective criteria for what makes good art:

I'm a literature teacher with a post-graduate degree in applied linguistics - the consensus for the body of written art is: while there might be no objective measure of what makes a thing art that does not mean its constituent parts cannot be objectively examined and evaluated. Construction, innovation, adherence to convention and subversion of it can all be examined... Its just that by calling something art or making judgements on "goodness" of it the objectivity must accept varying levels of subjectivity.

In the context of this conversation though there has been no attempt to operationalize "better movie" or "enjoyment" to a meaningful degree to it remains very subjective.

Re: 2001, Star Wars, and "Good Sci-fi"

Text doesn't convey the right emphasis. I'll use italics to represent the stress.

Star Wars is good sci-fi. The emphasis is on good, with sci-fi being a softener added to warn people that space ships are involved rather than real world issues. Superhero films, some star-treks (not much) and star wars fall in here. Films most people will say are good despite being sci-fi.

2001 is good sci-fi without the softener the focus is on that this is good at being what sci-fi is suppose to be. The martian, 2001, Gravity, Apollo 13* and films like that are here because part of what makes them good is that they are also good sci-fi. (Apollo 13 is actually Sci-non-fi in that its a dramatized non-fiction but I doubt the average viewer would make the distinction).

It is the "science" elements of the sci-fi that makes Gravity or The Martian into a "good" film while it is Campbell's monomyth which makes Star Wars good and the laser swords are the sugary icing on that cake.

So I agree that if 2001 is being compared to Empire Strikes Back it should only be to point out the differences in extreme within speculative fiction movies generally called "sci-fi" because they belong in different genres (commonly called hard and soft sci-fi).


Re Enjoyment is not subjective:

True-ish.

1. Whether or not something was enjoyed is a fact that can be recorded.
2. Enjoyment cannot be externally measured and relies on an individuals judgement of whether or not their experience was enjoyable.
3. That judgement is subjective.
4. Many factors external to the film itself can affect enjoyment (Anecdotally: I hated serenity when I saw it because of who I saw it with - I watched it again years later and though it was good). These varriables cannot be controlled for the experiment.
5. X people saw a film and Y people enjoyed it gives us a correlation rather than a causation - we don't know if the film or other variables caused the enjoyment and even within the film we're not sure which parts caused enjoyment.
6. Not everyone knows why they enjoy something in a work of art making self reporting on the above unreliable.

This is why the critical examinations of art mediums typically look at tools, Technics, Tropes and the like and compare the skill in which they are executed. Quality of special effects, framing of shots, use of transitions, sound design, characterization, Thematics - while not 100% objective it is possible to approach objectivity in talking about them - though doing so requires study of those things at a close level in general and specific instances.

[Lethologica]

True, but being a good art film does not automatically make it good sci-fi, and that was my point.
You can rewrite the labels however you like. Call 2001 artsy SF, or call it an artsy film that happens to be set in the future, in space, with man using (and fighting) futuristic technology to make contact with aliens. It doesn't change the quality of the movie, or the expectations one would set for it, or the degree to which it's comparable to other films.


Most of the points cited in its favor seem to have to do with it's beauty and profundity. Beauty does not make good sci-fi,
It sure doesn't hurt.


and while profundity has a place, most of the supposed profoundness lies outside of segments where profundity would be most appropriate and furthermore is often not accessible without the film having to be explained to you.
Sorry, which segments are inappropriately profound, and which are inappropriately not-profound? That's a new one.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

No it isn't. Whether you enjoyed it, or not, is objective fact.

Emperor Demonking's post NOT brought to you from "words have meaning" school of thought.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Since you and I seem to have different understanding of what "objective" means, your pretense that you were correcting my post becomes meaningless. You might as well have said "no it is not, because in my mind objective is a synonym of subjective, and therefore you are wrong".

Also, two more considerations:
First, you can enjoy some things some times and not enjoy them other times, so even when reduced to a single person, enjoyment is not an objective measure.

Second, you moved the goal posts a long way to go from the claimed "enjoyment is an universal objective standard of measure of film classification" which I was answering to "enjoyment is a personal objective measure of film classification", which seems to be your position.

Grey Wolf

[The Fury]

Maybe they are breeding tongueless cattle to increase the price?:smallbiggrin:


That does it! This thread is now completely tasteless!

Right, 2001 and Kubrick-- I've seen 2001 once, I didn't care for it. Visually, it's interesting but I thought the scenes were way too long and drawn out for what they needed to do. Or what I think they needed to do? It's a difficult movie for me to comment on. I liked some of Kubrick's movies though, Dr. Strangelove was my favorite.


See for yourself. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz9OgW4JAJ8)

:smallyuk: Well, it did have that little zinger at the end:

Dad: "Romeo and Juliet, huh? Know how those two ended up?"

Girl: "In love."

Dad: "Dead."


In the movie of the Shining, Kubrick goes out of his way to give the family a different car than the one in the book, and then has them drive past a wrecked car that is the model of the one in the book. I mean, this guy was a hardcore jerk who makes a point to uproot the spotlight from the source material and make it into something that shines with his ego.


Not really crucial to your point, but I don't remember that at all. I even tried to look up an image of a wrecked car from the movie. My Google-fu is weak maybe? Do you have a screencap of this?

[theNater]

This is why the critical examinations of art mediums typically look at tools, Technics, Tropes and the like and compare the skill in which they are executed. Quality of special effects, framing of shots, use of transitions, sound design, characterization, Thematics - while not 100% objective it is possible to approach objectivity in talking about them - though doing so requires study of those things at a close level in general and specific instances.
I want to expand on this by saying that those tools and techniques form a language, which has a grammar, so you can call one film "better" than another in the sense of adhering more accurately to the rules of that grammar. That doesn't necessarily make it more evocative, of course.

For example I can say "Roy Greenhilt struck Xykon in the head, causing Xykon's skull to fall off" or I can say "Roy and Xykon fought, and he knocked his block off". The first sentence adheres more closely to the rules of English grammar, and is objectively "better" in that sense. Does that make it more enjoyable? Not really.

What does that mean for 2001 and Transformers? It's been long enough since I've seen either that I can't support this super strongly, but I think an argument can be made that 2001 is basically poetry. It does not follow traditional grammatical structure, choosing instead to follow a different, carefully plotted other structure, which can be disconcerting to those not used to it. Transformers, on the other hand, is more similar to someone saying "that guy done farted!", in an attempt to get a laugh. While more accessible, it's still worse at following grammatical rules, because it's just ignoring them rather than adhering to an atypical rule set.

[DeadpanSal]

I don't really know when, but it's brought up in a Kubrick documentary. Room 231.

[Bohandas]

For example I can say "Roy Greenhilt struck Xykon in the head, causing Xykon's skull to fall off" or I can say "Roy and Xykon fought, and he knocked his block off". The first sentence adheres more closely to the rules of English grammar, and is objectively "better" in that sense. Does that make it more enjoyable? Not really.

The subjects of the pronouns in the second example sentence are unclear (unless you've already read the first one).


2001 is good sci-fi without the softener the focus is on that this is good at being what sci-fi is suppose to be. The martian, 2001, Gravity, Apollo 13* and films like that are here because part of what makes them good is that they are also good sci-fi. (Apollo 13 is actually Sci-non-fi in that its a dramatized non-fiction but I doubt the average viewer would make the distinction).

It is the "science" elements of the sci-fi that makes Gravity or The Martian into a "good" film while it is Campbell's monomyth which makes Star Wars good and the laser swords are the sugary icing on that cake.


2001 has neither of those things. 2001 only has this:


http://img.astroawani.com/2014-03/51395638721_freesize.jpg


combined with this:


http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/2256/26/16x9/960.jpg


(which, now that I think of it, actually sounds a hell of a lot more enjoyable than the movie that was actually made)

[Metahuman1]

IT is a real law, it's the Romeo and Juliet law. The basics of it are far more disturbing. As long as you're above 13, if you're within 2 years of your partner anything is basically okay. Perhaps frowned upon, 100% super ****ing creepy, but totally legal.

That's not even what that law was aimed at. It's more intended for "Well, the two 17 year olds are dating, one parent doesn't approve of there 17 year old seeing the other 17 year old, so when the other 17 year old turns 18, despite the fact that there's only a few months gap in the age in actual practice, they call the cops to have them arrested and charged and if possible convicted as a child molester in order to get rid of them and teach THERE child not to date people whom they, the parents, do not approve of.".

That's literally the kind of case that brought that law into being in the first place. *sigh.*.

[DeadpanSal]

The subjects of the pronouns in the second example sentence are unclear (unless you've already read the first one).



2001 has neither of those things. 2001 only has this:


http://img.astroawani.com/2014-03/51395638721_freesize.jpg


combined with this:


http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/2256/26/16x9/960.jpg


(which, now that I think of it, actually sounds a hell of a lot more enjoyable than the movie that was actually made)

I WOULD WATCH THE HECK OUT OF THAT MOVIE.

I'm starting a Kickstarter campaign.

[Thrudd]

The subjects of the pronouns in the second example sentence are unclear (unless you've already read the first one).



2001 has neither of those things. 2001 only has this:


http://img.astroawani.com/2014-03/51395638721_freesize.jpg


combined with this:


http://i.onionstatic.com/avclub/2256/26/16x9/960.jpg


(which, now that I think of it, actually sounds a hell of a lot more enjoyable than the movie that was actually made)

The elements which are generally thought to make 2001 a good science fiction is the realistic depiction of space travel (thanks mostly to Clark's involvement). The ship was based on actual NASA designs, the length of the journey was appropriate to get to Jupiter and the astronauts' activities were realistic, radio communications took the correct number of minutes from the ship back to earth, there is no sound in space, the technology was believable for the time period in which the film was made (has dated in a similar way to most other stories written in the 50's and 60's), it depicted plausible interaction with believable AI and included an Asimov-like programming conflict problem. It has nothing to do with the pace or style of filming, but the scientific accuracy and plausibility of the content. Even the god-like aliens with magic-level technology are also plausibly depicted, in a way. They are so remote and incomprehensible that Dave's experience of them and ascension to a post-physical state is depicted as a psychedelic light show.

Yes, it is slow, languid, glacial. Yes, you could see it as pretentious and boring. Yes, the ending is unexplained and almost incomprehensible if you didn't read the book. But it is good science fiction in the sense that it has good science behind much of what is shown. It depicts realistic space travel and astronauts with artistry and a classical score. If you aren't in the mood for sitting down to an orchestral concert accompanied by science fiction visuals with some dialogue interludes, then the film probably won't be enjoyable.

[Aedilred]

I think it's important to make the distinction between "films I don't really like" and "bad films".

Of the seven Kubrick films I've seen, I think I only really liked two of them, in the sense that I'd go back and rewatch them of my own volition (and indeed I have): Doctor Strangelove and Spartacus. But even though I may not have particularly enjoyed the others, I can still recognise that they at the least contain scenes and sequences which are masterpieces of cinematography. The boot camp sequence in Full Metal Jacket is near-flawless, and were it not for the second part of the film where they head out to Vietnam the film would rise considerably in my estimations. A Clockwork Orange is brilliantly shot and edited and it's only really the subject matter and some of the scenes that I find inherently pretty disturbing and which put me off the film. The match cut linking the first and second story segments of 2001 is so elegantly perfect that to the casual viewer it doesn't even attract attention.

2001 certainly has its flaws: that it's pretty deliberately inscrutable gets it a bit of a frowny face from me. But there is also something to be said for not spoon-feeding the viewer. The Interstellar comparison was made earlier and I think it's apt. Nolan may be the closest thing we have to Kubrick at the moment (a director with auteuristic tendencies who gets to play with big budgets) and in relative terms he made a complete pig's breakfast of it.

Some of it is doubtless down to a gulf in expectations. The bit with HAL is the most conventional, arguably only conventional, part of the film, and viewed through that lens it's easy to see how the conclusion could be drawn that "it's the only part of the film with value." Certainly it's the most watchable part of it to a 21st-century (and probably contemporary) viewer. However if one takes a step back and looks at the film as an abstract story of the evolution and development of humanity then that's actually the part of the film which is most expendable.

There's often a problem with artists that as their reputation and influence grows they start to outgrow the safety constraints placed on them by the infrastructure of the medium in which they work. Contrary to what seems to be popular conception, relatively little in the way of great art is produced by one guy working free from all external influence and pressures. Publishers and studios become reluctant to cut them down to size and impose themselves on the creator's process. Most infamously, these days, A Song of Ice and Fire has ballooned to the point of deadline-busting, bookshelf-breaking immensity almost certainly in part because the series' popularity means the editors are unwilling really to put the hammer down on GRRM and don't prune the manuscripts sufficiently, leaving the books to sprawl where earlier instalments were pretty tight. Harry Potter suffered from something similar in its middle years, although the bloat was reined in a bit in the last couple of books (not films).

Similarly, my two favourite Kubrick films are the two earliest of his I've seen (I've not seen Lolita to completion), working within the constraints of the late studio system with Spartacus and with a big and powerful ego in Strangelove, which likely helped sharpen up his direction and editing and cut away some of the more indulgent stuff. A few years later, he has something more approaching free rein over his projects; he doesn't have someone on his shoulder to sift out the visionary from the esoteric, so it gets jumbled up together.

I've actually heard Kubrick touted as the greatest director of the 20th century (at least when it comes to Anglo-American cinema) and while I'm not sure myself I can certainly see where such arguments are coming from, for who else is there in competition? Coppola is obvious, but Part III was mediocre and I'm not sure whether Apocalypse Now is a work of genius or a trainwreck that somehow gives the illusion of being genius. Sergio Leone rarely if ever put a foot wrong, by my estimation, but his body of work is small. Spielberg may be the greatest blockbuster director of all time, but his films rarely if ever achieve the status of "art", in my opinion, and he has a couple of turkeys to his name. Some of the criticisms that one can level at Kubrick can be levelled at Orson Welles, too, and in any case Welles is always going to be a bit of a might-have-been, maybe-was as a director, certainly in the absence of a director's cut of Ambersons. John Huston made some great films, but he was also partially responsible for one of the worst films I've ever seen, which is hard to forgive. David Lean, maybe? What about Elia Kazan? Hitchcock? I think Kubrick merits comparison with any of them.

[Bohandas]

it depicted plausible interaction with believable AI and included an Asimov-like programming conflict problem

Was the programming conflict actually elucidated in the movie? I haven't seen it in a while, but I remember it only being explained in the book.

[theNater]

The subjects of the pronouns in the second example sentence are unclear (unless you've already read the first one).
Indeed; proper association of pronouns with antecedents is the primary grammatical failing of the second sentence. However, some people will enjoy the sentence regardless, whether because they intuit the correct meaning, intuit an incorrect meaning which they find satisfactory, or because they find humor in the poor grammar. I suspect that many fewer people will enjoy the first sentence, despite its "better" construction, because it lacks panache. That is, in fact, the point: there is an objective measure of "betterness" which is not the same as "enjoyablity".

[Fawkes]

Some of the criticisms that one can level at Kubrick can be levelled at Orson Welles, too, and in any case Welles is always going to be a bit of a might-have-been, maybe-was as a director, certainly in the absence of a director's cut of Ambersons.

Few things in this world depress me as much as the knowledge that I'll never be able to watch the full version of The Magnificent Ambersons.

For those of you who haven't heard of it, Ambersons was Welles's follow-up to Citizen Kane. After creating a rough edit, Welles went to Brazil to work on another movie. While he was in Brazil, the studio re-edited the film, shot an entirely new ending, removed about 40 minutes from his cut and destroyed the discarded footage.

[Lethologica]

Was the programming conflict actually elucidated in the movie? I haven't seen it in a while, but I remember it only being explained in the book.
The exact nature of the error is not explicitly laid bare. That there is an error, basically leading HAL to see the human astronauts as detrimental to the mission, is made sufficiently clear.

[Zaydos]

Was the programming conflict actually elucidated in the movie? I haven't seen it in a while, but I remember it only being explained in the book.

Nope.

HAL says the mission is too important for Dave to endanger as part of justification, and we do learn there was a secret pre-recorded briefing, and that HAL knew the contents, but nothing that actually indicates that it's why HAL went murderous. We just know HAL began to malfunction, for unknown (irrelevant) reasons and then when HAL learned that Dave and Frank were planning to kill HAL to prevent HAL from jeopardizing the mission HAL decided to kill the crew.

So while there's some things that could hint at it, it's definitely outside what people would get without the now common knowledge of background materials. That said it's not needed as a reason; the Dawn of Man segment already showed how proto-man went from peaceful herbivore to murderous carnivore for the purposes of survival, and it plays on that theme. Couple that with the questions already in the film about whether HAL can feel emotion, and HAL's pleads of fear as Dave kills him, and you've got emergent AI who is more alive than his creator's give him credit for, slipped up for some reason, and now humans are trying to kill him, so he in self-preservation moves to kill them before they can go through with their planned murder. The Dawn of Man short preps the mind for intelligence leads to murder, for it being the thing that separates the thinker from the beast (because that's what proto-man does immediately after the monolith enlightens them to tool use is murder one of their own). In fact that prepping is the only thing that I can think of that really justifies the Dawn of Man segment and even then it needs to be cut in like half. It really needs to be cut in half.

I may have just re-watched the theatrical release (not the initial preview release, but the version where they cut 20 of the 40-60 minutes that needed to be cut) for the first time in ~10 years. Not in one sitting (people came and were noisy so I had to stop, and then when I finally restarted I developed a sinus headache and had to break to make and drink tea). That said... Dawn of Man far too long. Moon trip is space ballet, lovely art, managed to get me to stop reading the D&D module I'm prepping to run (which actually beats out most movies for ability to hold attention) but failed to entertain. The HAL part is almost but not quite masterful space horror. The umm... Psychedelic Wormhole makes less sense going in with foreknowledge of what it's supposed to be (seriously what's with the barren desert landscapes for 5 minutes? WHAT IS THAT??? Is that the alien world? Do they live in the American west? Why is there world just badlands?). Then there's the mindscrew room... and you know what this might constitute Lovecraftian horror, I mean they're pulling a migo on him or something (ok I've looked up enough before to know it's more of a re-hashing of Childhood's End which was not that good of a book but I like the migo-space zoo idea better because it makes more sense with what's seen).

Over all... if 2001 ended as strong as it built up in the HAL part it'd be wonderful, as it is... it's art. It's intellectually riveting, I mean I will actually stop doing other things and watch it plain out, but it's not entertaining. It's weird. That said I am tempted to re-watch it actually with a notebook and going through all the little things I can notice as artistic choices and analyzing them, contemplating how they build on each other and play on each other, and just taking it apart. This would probably be more fun than most blockbusters. Still don't like Kubrick's Shining.

[Crow]

Did anybody here watch 2010?

[Rodin]

Did anybody here watch 2010?

I did. It wasn't bad, although I must admit I recall little of it. Very different from 2001, much more of a traditional movie. About all I can remember of the plot is that the monoliths turn Jupiter into a second sun, which is somehow a good thing and not a catastrophic change in the orbits and temperatures of the planets in the solar system. Oh, and Dave was some sort of incorporeal energy being that delivered cryptic messages.

[Donnadogsoth]

Did anybody here watch 2010?

Perceived it. Fun. What I call "slatternly literal". 2001 was a religious-like movie, it had the science fiction covering a core of numinous awe. 2010 was a science-fiction movie with a numinous shellac. Good try, not a bad movie, but only 16.67% compared to the original. I'd like to see the original TSR modules (Star Frontiers?) for 2001 and 2010, stupid, never bought them when I had the chance.

[Emperor Demonking]

Emperor Demonking's post NOT brought to you from "words have meaning" school of thought.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.


And whether you enjoyed something or not is not in fluenced by our hypothetical super-neuroscientist's personal feelings or opinions. We could build a learning machine to sift out people from the enjoyment pile to otherwise.



Since you and I seem to have different understanding of what "objective" means, your pretense that you were correcting my post becomes meaningless. You might as well have said "no it is not, because in my mind objective is a synonym of subjective, and therefore you are wrong".


No, you was wrong. The definition you gave for objective is my definition of objective. You were simply wrong when you claimed 'whether you enjoyed your time with the film or not.' is not an obbjective standard. Regardless of who 'you' is, we can objectively tell whether he enjoyed his time with the film or not.


Also, two more considerations:
First, you can enjoy some things some times and not enjoy them other times, so even when reduced to a single person, enjoyment is not an objective measure.

A film of a nature that prompts people on average to watch it when in a state where they are less likely to enjoy it could quite sensibly be described as worse than one which encourages being watched at the perfect time. And our unfeeling computer machine given enough funds could sift the two type apart.


Second, you moved the goal posts a long way to go from the claimed "enjoyment is an universal objective standard of measure of film classification" which I was answering to "enjoyment is a personal objective measure of film classification", which seems to be your position.

Grey Wolf

I don'ty see anything more universal in hustlertwo's position than mine.

[Donnadogsoth]

Nope.

HAL says the mission is too important for Dave to endanger as part of justification, and we do learn there was a secret pre-recorded briefing, and that HAL knew the contents, but nothing that actually indicates that it's why HAL went murderous. We just know HAL began to malfunction, for unknown (irrelevant) reasons and then when HAL learned that Dave and Frank were planning to kill HAL to prevent HAL from jeopardizing the mission HAL decided to kill the crew.

HAL was smart enough to realise that the mission would render him obsolete, as per the ending; that the men would eventually turn him off as unnecessary and dangerous. HAL therefore decided to kill the crew before they realised this and moved to deactivate him. He tried to kill them before they realised that he would try to kill them because he knew they would deactivate him because he would try to kill them.


...because that's what proto-man does immediately after the monolith enlightens them to tool use is murder one of their own...

As I recall the first thing they do is kill the proto-swine for food.


(seriously what's with the barren desert landscapes for 5 minutes? WHAT IS THAT??? Is that the alien world? Do they live in the American west? Why is there world just badlands?).

Echoing the Dawn of Man sequence.

[Bohandas]

I did. It wasn't bad, although I must admit I recall little of it. Very different from 2001, much more of a traditional movie. About all I can remember of the plot is that the monoliths turn Jupiter into a second sun, which is somehow a good thing and not a catastrophic change in the orbits and temperatures of the planets in the solar system. Oh, and Dave was some sort of incorporeal energy being that delivered cryptic messages.

It doesn't change he orbits because they didn't change ut's mass. They just compressed it until fusion started. Why it stayed compressed I don;t know.

[Frozen_Feet]

This whole "is art objective?" tangent can be solved by acknowledging the following:

1) as number and quality of scientific observations and theories grows, more and more of mind-dependent attributes become subject of hard scientific inquiry.
2) this mean subjective is not antonym of objective. Instead, subjective is a subset of objective facts which have to do with the mind.
3) hence, something can be both subjective and objective. For example, color perception is both, involving well-known physical and biological principles such as wavelength of light and mind-dependent aspects such as vocabulary.
4) however, agreeing upon there being an objective standard for art does not entail anyone here knows it.

Saying a solution exists is trivial. Finding out that solution is not.

[Zaydos]

HAL was smart enough to realise that the mission would render him obsolete, as per the ending; that the men would eventually turn him off as unnecessary and dangerous. HAL therefore decided to kill the crew before they realised this and moved to deactivate him. He tried to kill them before they realised that he would try to kill them because he knew they would deactivate him because he would try to kill them.

He sent them on an EVA to fix the module before they realized anything was up, but he could have killed Frank then without Dave any the wiser if he was actually already planning to kill them. HAL outright says he came to the decision when they were talking about disconnecting him, so in the film at least the obsolescence fear isn't there, you've just got HAL malfunctioning for an unexplained reason. That said the reason doesn't need to be explained.


As I recall the first thing they do is kill the proto-swine for food.

Well first is they start smashing skulls with bones, then they kill tapirs for food, and then 3rd they kill one of their own, but start killing things is the immediate result.


Echoing the Dawn of Man sequence.

Artistically that makes some sense, except that you changed from African Savannah full of life to the most lifeless parts of Nevada so even then it seems odd, but as far as coherent plot goes it's even more confusing with the background info on what the aliens are supposed to be doing than without that knowledge.

That said one thing I really liked which goes a long way to make the space ballet more than just 'look it's pretty' is that it creates a stark contrast to the deathly silence of the space scenes in the HAL segment. You have this one part which combines imagery and music which are themselves at least to some extent sublime, and works to push the human spirit bubbling up, just a work of beauty with music of hope over the background, and then you have the coldness of deep space with HAL, and you reap benefits for psychological effect when HAL starts killing.

It may not be the most fun movie, and I'd probably watch Alien again over it (actually I watch Alien about 1/year but) but Kubrick showed an artist's skill. And yes I selected Alien in full knowledge of how it took massive cues from 2001, you'd not have Alien without 2001.

[Bohandas]

It may not be the most fun movie, and I'd probably watch Alien again over it (actually I watch Alien about 1/year but) but Kubrick showed an artist's skill. And yes I selected Alien in full knowledge of how it took massive cues from 2001, you'd not have Alien without 2001.

In this respect 2001 is like an old mouse with only one button. An important advance but pretty much the poorest crudest possible implementation of it.

[Lethologica]

In this respect 2001 is like an old mouse with only one button. An important advance but pretty much the poorest crudest possible implementation of it.
To elaborate on this analogy and make it more accurate, it's like if in a world full of mousepads, Kubrick designed a mouse--but he designed it as a replica of an actual mouse, with fur and ears and eyes and limbs and all, to the extent that actually operating the mouse was awkward and cumbersome, and it wasn't even clear at first glance what part of the mouse was a button. But it was really good at evoking the idea of a mouse, and you had to appreciate the style of his mouse, even if Logitech came along and made sleeker mice that were better at the job of moving and clicking.

[Kitten Champion]

Your mouse analogies confuse me.

Anyways, I believe the question of this thread "Why is 2001 considered such a good movie?" has been addressed. Whether one agrees with those reasons or not seems pretty immaterial and really rather... overambitious when you get down to it. I've yet to see an occasion where a person's opinion on a work has changed from plus to minus or vice versa through argument on the internet, at best you can provide someone with a neutral opinion a certain insight, context, or new paradigm for looking at a particular work to gain or lose appreciation for it. The only exception I've personally born witness to was when plagiarism/ripping-off was pointed out, where obviously the work you liked hadn't changed objectively but the ownership of the ideas therein had.

[Donnadogsoth]

He sent them on an EVA to fix the module before they realized anything was up, but he could have killed Frank then without Dave any the wiser if he was actually already planning to kill them. HAL outright says he came to the decision when they were talking about disconnecting him, so in the film at least the obsolescence fear isn't there, you've just got HAL malfunctioning for an unexplained reason. That said the reason doesn't need to be explained.

The potential for HAL to kill existed but required precipitation. Call Dave and Frank's decision to disconnect HAL the material cause needed for the efficient action of HAL to kill.


Artistically that makes some sense, except that you changed from African Savannah full of life to the most lifeless parts of Nevada so even then it seems odd, but as far as coherent plot goes it's even more confusing with the background info on what the aliens are supposed to be doing than without that knowledge.

Oh, boy, no, not the "aliens" or whatever. That's not what the film's about. It's a mystical journey, miraculous even but to taint it with the literality of the sci-fi fandom looking for "aliens" (terrforming? laser beams?) is missing the point. The landscapes echo primeval Africa to make a point about the alien-ness of beginnings. The Savannah was an alien thing at the start of man, by virtue of his evolutionary leap courtesy of the Monolith (again, it doesn't matter what the Monolith is, it's just a Symbol); now man begins his second "leap" courtesy of the same.


That said one thing I really liked which goes a long way to make the space ballet more than just 'look it's pretty' is that it creates a stark contrast to the deathly silence of the space scenes in the HAL segment. You have this one part which combines imagery and music which are themselves at least to some extent sublime, and works to push the human spirit bubbling up, just a work of beauty with music of hope over the background, and then you have the coldness of deep space with HAL, and you reap benefits for psychological effect when HAL starts killing.

Good point.

[Lethologica]

Your mouse analogies confuse me.
I can't speak to Bohandas' intentions, but to me the functionality of the mouse ~ the movie's ability to entertain and the aesthetics of the mouse ~ the artistic intent of the movie.

[Bohandas]

The idea was that it introduced a lot of new techniques and devices and motifs, but since they were so new they were therefore unrefined and weren't even anywhere close to being perfected yet and thus thus it did a poor job of them.

[Zaydos]

The potential for HAL to kill existed but required precipitation. Call Dave and Frank's decision to disconnect HAL the material cause needed for the efficient action of HAL to kill.

Agreed. My point was just that HAL's initial malfunction was unrelated to a desire to kill the crew. That said the cause of his initial malfunction is 100% irrelevant and unnecessary for the movie to be good. There are enough possible answers (a bit of cosmic radiation fried a sensor, conflicting programs causing his brain to break down, just having been faulty to begin with) that it doesn't weigh on suspension of disbelief (computers malfunction even ones with previously spotless track records) especially given some of the malfunctions that happened with real space shuttles.


Oh, boy, no, not the "aliens" or whatever. That's not what the film's about. It's a mystical journey, miraculous even but to taint it with the literality of the sci-fi fandom looking for "aliens" (terrforming? laser beams?) is missing the point. The landscapes echo primeval Africa to make a point about the alien-ness of beginnings. The Savannah was an alien thing at the start of man, by virtue of his evolutionary leap courtesy of the Monolith (again, it doesn't matter what the Monolith is, it's just a Symbol); now man begins his second "leap" courtesy of the same.

It's really not about the aliens which is why Kubrick gave us the confusing end. That said the landscape fails to echo primeval Africa, it echoes the extremely different American west, where as the Savannah at the beginning of the film was a perfectly natural thing to man even before the Monolith came (or at least there is nothing to noticeably indicate otherwise, and arguably man became alien to the Savannah due to it, which actually works better). And that's the thing, I can see arguments for what Kubrick might have been trying to evoke with the end, but unlike the first two segments I'd say it failed to successfully evoke them. That said I probably should give Kubrick credit for the artistic integrity that this was intended as more than a smokescreen.


Good point.

Thanks.


The idea was that it introduced a lot of new techniques and devices and motifs, but since they were so new they were therefore unrefined and weren't even anywhere close to being perfected yet and thus thus it did a poor job of them.

See I'd not even say that. It introduced a lot of new techniques and devices and motifs, but except for the end (which the only ways to do better I am aware of rely on the preexistence of motifs and devices which rest upon a foundation set by Star Trek and 2001), I'd not even say it did a poor job with them. It was a painting/ballet as much as a movie, though, and if you go in to watch it as a movie it comes off uneven due to that, but what it used it used perfectly for the purpose it was using them. It's just that it wasn't intended for pointing and clicking, and the fact that it does point and click is just a happy accident. So I find Lethologica's analogy better.

That said it doesn't make 2001 a great movie, it doesn't make it not one. It makes 2001 really a niche movie both mood and audience, the fact that its had the success it has, though, shows the niche is there. Nolan tried to fill it with Bad 2001 I mean Interstellar, the Martian is similar but both make more concessions to being a movie, honestly I'd say the closest film I can think of to it is Fantasia.

That said even if 95% of the time if you pick up 2001 it'll be a bad movie for you, the 5% of the time where it'll perfectly hit the spot justifies it. Even so I'd not put it on a top 10 list.

That said I'd love to see 2001 on the big theater screen. It doesn't need it (too many recent films do), but like A New Hope I bet it'd be real magic on one (I still remember the theatrical special edition of A New Hope as a kid and even with the 'improvements' of the special edition it was perhaps the most magical and impressive film I've ever seen in a theater).

[Aedilred]

To elaborate on this analogy and make it more accurate, it's like if in a world full of mousepads, Kubrick designed a mouse--but he designed it as a replica of an actual mouse, with fur and ears and eyes and limbs and all, to the extent that actually operating the mouse was awkward and cumbersome, and it wasn't even clear at first glance what part of the mouse was a button. But it was really good at evoking the idea of a mouse, and you had to appreciate the style of his mouse, even if Logitech came along and made sleeker mice that were better at the job of moving and clicking.

And now I'm reminded of this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_hiLXLbTc

[Donnadogsoth]

Agreed. My point was just that HAL's initial malfunction was unrelated to a desire to kill the crew. That said the cause of his initial malfunction is 100% irrelevant and unnecessary for the movie to be good. There are enough possible answers (a bit of cosmic radiation fried a sensor, conflicting programs causing his brain to break down, just having been faulty to begin with) that it doesn't weigh on suspension of disbelief (computers malfunction even ones with previously spotless track records) especially given some of the malfunctions that happened with real space shuttles.

I'd consider the malfunction as giving HAL the AI equivalent of the Kubrick Stare.


It's really not about the aliens which is why Kubrick gave us the confusing end. That said the landscape fails to echo primeval Africa, it echoes the extremely different American west, where as the Savannah at the beginning of the film was a perfectly natural thing to man even before the Monolith came (or at least there is nothing to noticeably indicate otherwise, and arguably man became alien to the Savannah due to it, which actually works better). And that's the thing, I can see arguments for what Kubrick might have been trying to evoke with the end, but unlike the first two segments I'd say it failed to successfully evoke them. That said I probably should give Kubrick credit for the artistic integrity that this was intended as more than a smokescreen.

Yes, I meant that the Monolith's interference made the Savannah alien to man.

The third segment's landscape is showing us the idea of a world, rather than abstract forms. It's a way of grounding the audience in the idea that there will be another Monolithic transformation of man.

[MLai]

but like A New Hope I bet it'd be real magic on one (I still remember the theatrical special edition of A New Hope as a kid and even with the 'improvements' of the special edition it was perhaps the most magical and impressive film I've ever seen in a theater).
Wut? By the time ANH received its "Lucas CGI enhancements" and came into theatres, it was a bog-standard average sci-fi film to any kid. Only the bearded kids with nostalgia goggles would consider it "most magical and impressive".

[Bohandas]

And now I'm reminded of this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa_hiLXLbTc

that's hilarious

[DeadpanSal]

We've changed topics a bit (sort of by free association at this point), but I've wanted to bring up something for a while and have only now had a keyboard to make it easy. It's been brought up that people who like 2001 forgive its lack of clarity by saying that the subtext being glossed over to displace concrete explanation with visuals liken the result to a tone poem or the video equivalent of ballet. Something rooted in images and sound and maybe omitting a reason altogether. 2001 doesn't make sense without the book (and The Shining makes less sense with the book). And in the end, we end up with something that ends up with a - positive or negative - visceral reaction. Some are moved by the ambiguous events at the end, others say its a pointless lightshow.

That brings me to the intent of some other works, such as Fantasia or FLCL. Works that are essentially music videos that have light throughlines that bring together a piece, but largely exist as an excuse to inundate the viewer with sights and sound. The better example, I find in the Mad Max series, which is explained as being directed as though it were a silent movie, but still contains dialogue. In fact, George Miller even supplies a cut of Fury Road that doesn't contain the vocal track. Are the similarities good in your take? Is Miller's pace and genre something that detracts and makes his directing thesis, though aligned with what makes 2001 good, lesser? I'd like your thoughts on directing as poetry and 2001 contrasted with Miller's approach.

[Fawkes]

The approach isn't exactly the same, but yes, I'd say the comparisons are appropriate. And I don't think that, at least by critical standards, Mad Max: Fury Road is treated as lesser. The film was nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, and it won six. (Incidentally, 2001 had four nominations and one win.) The original three Mad Max films are very much cult classics and critical darlings, especially Road Warrior (98% on Rotten Tomatoes!). So I don't really think any detraction taking place.

[Faily]

Been lurking at this thread for a while now, guess it's time to say something...

I really like 2001. It's not my favorite film, and I've only seen it once (though this discussion has made me want to re-watch it), but I remember it being enjoyable to watch. A movie that would catch my interest and lure me in without the use of heavy-handed plots or fast-paced events.

2001 moves at a slow pace, but I find that to be part of its appeal (mind you, I enjoyed fast-paced action too). Poetry in motion, as someone mentioned, is an accurate description for 2001. From its moments of silence, to the more booming notes of Strauss, it is poetry.

I can see why some people wouldn't like it based on those things, but it's still a movie I recommend that people see at some point, because I think it is a well-done movie in all the technical aspects, it defined how we would view space in Hollywood movies for a long time, and it's direction is good. I mostly consider this something of an art-film, but I also consider Zhang Yimou's Hero to be an art-film (something my teachers agreed with when we were doing an in-depth study in art as a storytelling-medium).

Art is entertainment, but is also supposed to invoke thoughts and feelings; the "psychedelic" ending of 2001 is a beautiful piece of art, imo. The whole movie feels like art in motion, with music.

I recommend watching CineFix's lists that include 2001. I could only think of these two without going through all the lists again, but there is Most Beautiful Movies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj73aDoeFdk&list=PL1AXWu-gGX6IcOGt0yaA9Cd_hkt_TwQlC&index=27), and Practical Movie Effects (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEAihk8QaVc&list=PL1AXWu-gGX6IcOGt0yaA9Cd_hkt_TwQlC&index=51).

[Thrudd]

For more examples of low/no dialogue films that relay a message with only visuals and sound, people should check out "Baraka" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCrLsjn9lwI,
and "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXyxi-jnKxw

Good as films? Entertaining? Art? I don't know. They are both definitely moving in their own way, as 2001 can be.


Also, here's a 2001 (and 2010) inspired piece of music that I love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJGKTMp1hQ

[Thrudd]

Been lurking at this thread for a while now, guess it's time to say something...

I really like 2001. It's not my favorite film, and I've only seen it once (though this discussion has made me want to re-watch it), but I remember it being enjoyable to watch. A movie that would catch my interest and lure me in without the use of heavy-handed plots or fast-paced events.

2001 moves at a slow pace, but I find that to be part of its appeal (mind you, I enjoyed fast-paced action too). Poetry in motion, as someone mentioned, is an accurate description for 2001. From its moments of silence, to the more booming notes of Strauss, it is poetry.

I can see why some people wouldn't like it based on those things, but it's still a movie I recommend that people see at some point, because I think it is a well-done movie in all the technical aspects, it defined how we would view space in Hollywood movies for a long time, and it's direction is good. I mostly consider this something of an art-film, but I also consider Zhang Yimou's Hero to be an art-film (something my teachers agreed with when we were doing an in-depth study in art as a storytelling-medium).

Art is entertainment, but is also supposed to invoke thoughts and feelings; the "psychedelic" ending of 2001 is a beautiful piece of art, imo. The whole movie feels like art in motion, with music.

I recommend watching CineFix's lists that include 2001. I could only think of these two without going through all the lists again, but there is Most Beautiful Movies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj73aDoeFdk&list=PL1AXWu-gGX6IcOGt0yaA9Cd_hkt_TwQlC&index=27), and Practical Movie Effects (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEAihk8QaVc&list=PL1AXWu-gGX6IcOGt0yaA9Cd_hkt_TwQlC&index=51).

Oh, I definitely think Hero could be considered an art film. It certainly is not a conventional action or martial arts film. An older film in that vein is Wong Kar-Wai's "Ashes of Time", from the 90's.

[Zaydos]

Yeah gonna agree Hero is an art movie. I mean it has other aspects to it, but it really plays as art (and is breathtaking).

[DeadpanSal]

Hero is an amazing example. Well shot, great movie with so much color used brilliantly. And I'm pretty sure I loved the soundtrack.

But to me, the soundtrack is 70% of a movie.

[hustlertwo]

I think it's important to make the distinction between "films I don't really like" and "bad films".

Of the seven Kubrick films I've seen, I think I only really liked two of them, in the sense that I'd go back and rewatch them of my own volition (and indeed I have): Doctor Strangelove and Spartacus. But even though I may not have particularly enjoyed the others, I can still recognise that they at the least contain scenes and sequences which are masterpieces of cinematography. The boot camp sequence in Full Metal Jacket is near-flawless, and were it not for the second part of the film where they head out to Vietnam the film would rise considerably in my estimations. A Clockwork Orange is brilliantly shot and edited and it's only really the subject matter and some of the scenes that I find inherently pretty disturbing and which put me off the film. The match cut linking the first and second story segments of 2001 is so elegantly perfect that to the casual viewer it doesn't even attract attention.

2001 certainly has its flaws: that it's pretty deliberately inscrutable gets it a bit of a frowny face from me. But there is also something to be said for not spoon-feeding the viewer. The Interstellar comparison was made earlier and I think it's apt. Nolan may be the closest thing we have to Kubrick at the moment (a director with auteuristic tendencies who gets to play with big budgets) and in relative terms he made a complete pig's breakfast of it.

Some of it is doubtless down to a gulf in expectations. The bit with HAL is the most conventional, arguably only conventional, part of the film, and viewed through that lens it's easy to see how the conclusion could be drawn that "it's the only part of the film with value." Certainly it's the most watchable part of it to a 21st-century (and probably contemporary) viewer. However if one takes a step back and looks at the film as an abstract story of the evolution and development of humanity then that's actually the part of the film which is most expendable.

There's often a problem with artists that as their reputation and influence grows they start to outgrow the safety constraints placed on them by the infrastructure of the medium in which they work. Contrary to what seems to be popular conception, relatively little in the way of great art is produced by one guy working free from all external influence and pressures. Publishers and studios become reluctant to cut them down to size and impose themselves on the creator's process. Most infamously, these days, A Song of Ice and Fire has ballooned to the point of deadline-busting, bookshelf-breaking immensity almost certainly in part because the series' popularity means the editors are unwilling really to put the hammer down on GRRM and don't prune the manuscripts sufficiently, leaving the books to sprawl where earlier instalments were pretty tight. Harry Potter suffered from something similar in its middle years, although the bloat was reined in a bit in the last couple of books (not films).

Similarly, my two favourite Kubrick films are the two earliest of his I've seen (I've not seen Lolita to completion), working within the constraints of the late studio system with Spartacus and with a big and powerful ego in Strangelove, which likely helped sharpen up his direction and editing and cut away some of the more indulgent stuff. A few years later, he has something more approaching free rein over his projects; he doesn't have someone on his shoulder to sift out the visionary from the esoteric, so it gets jumbled up together.

I've actually heard Kubrick touted as the greatest director of the 20th century (at least when it comes to Anglo-American cinema) and while I'm not sure myself I can certainly see where such arguments are coming from, for who else is there in competition? Coppola is obvious, but Part III was mediocre and I'm not sure whether Apocalypse Now is a work of genius or a trainwreck that somehow gives the illusion of being genius. Sergio Leone rarely if ever put a foot wrong, by my estimation, but his body of work is small. Spielberg may be the greatest blockbuster director of all time, but his films rarely if ever achieve the status of "art", in my opinion, and he has a couple of turkeys to his name. Some of the criticisms that one can level at Kubrick can be levelled at Orson Welles, too, and in any case Welles is always going to be a bit of a might-have-been, maybe-was as a director, certainly in the absence of a director's cut of Ambersons. John Huston made some great films, but he was also partially responsible for one of the worst films I've ever seen, which is hard to forgive. David Lean, maybe? What about Elia Kazan? Hitchcock? I think Kubrick merits comparison with any of them.

Spielberg as the best of the 20th could be said, perhaps. Though the early 21st has done little to boost his legacy, weighted down by stinkers like War of the Worlds or mediocre efforts like The Terminal.

Despite my disdain for 2001, and some of Kubrick's other arthouse endeavors like Eyes Wide Shut, I actually agree he has a claim at the title. Even 2001, with all its many, many flaws and long stretches of crap, boosts his legacy by proving that a bad Kubrick film can still be important to the industry as a whole, even if it is just by serving as a stepping stool of inspiration to boost other films up.

I agree that Hero is an art film. Like so many of its ilk, it's boring.

More fun pot stirring for this thread: I like Sunshine way better than both of the films that were its primary influence, 2001 and the original Alien (which is vastly inferior to Cameron's rocking sequel).

Also, Aedilred, are you dropping from the Ludus game? I understand if so, it's a massive timesink to manage that thing, I am sure. But you should probably make a proper post letting everyone know.

[Lethologica]

I agree that Hero is an art film. Like so many of its ilk, it's boring.

More fun pot stirring for this thread: I like Sunshine way better than both of the films that were its primary influence, 2001 and the original Alien (which is vastly inferior to Cameron's rocking sequel).
From which I conclude only that your tastes are genre-specific. Alien and Aliens are good films in different genres, you disdain most films of a particular genre, that sort of thing.

Let's do one more for luck: what's your take on Terminator vs. Terminator 2?

[hustlertwo]

Not so pat an answer as that, I'm afraid; though I will be the first to admit I have a predilection for action films, that alone cannot make the difference. Unlike 2001, I actually do like the first Alien, and tend to watch it when it's on. But though interesting, it is plagued by several overused horror tropes even at the time the movie came out, and too much screen time is wasted with Ash, to say nothing of the hokey special effects involved with him. And Cameron has proven several times over he is a master at blending action, drama and just the right amount of levity. And the tension he builds in the first hour and a half makes a mockery of any similar tension-building attempts in #1.

Do have to say, that end bit with Weaver's briefest of briefs is a great scene for reasons that have nothing at all to do with film criticism...

Oh, and T2, but as with my favoring Aliens, that's hardly an uncommon answer. Both are probably more universally loved than their progenitors. First one is really good, though. Beats out 3, which I felt got a bid of a bad rap but was still uneven, and of course Salvation and Genisys aren't even worthy of compare to their forebears, with Genisys coming out the better of the two by a hair as the best of the worst.

[Faily]

I agree that Hero is an art film. Like so many of its ilk, it's boring.




HERESY!

*ahem*

:smallwink:

I think I've seen Hero like... over a dozen times? Not counting all the times I saw scenes from it during the study of art-films.

It has such a beautiful balance of story, beautiful scenery and imagery, awesome score, good acting, all wrapped into one neat-package. Unlike 2001, Hero runs a much tighter plot. 2001 is more like a serious of events happening during the course of the movie, compared to Hero which is telling a story (in different variations like in Rashomon, another great movie).

[Zaydos]

Hero I enjoyed both times I watched it, more in the theater than on home tv (naturally given its use of imagery to the maximum), but I will admit it left less of an impact than 2001 while simultaneously being more entertaining (not necessarily more riveting). Beautiful film. Beautiful.

And personally I'd pick Alien of Aliens 5 times in 6, Aliens is a good film, but it's a little too mindless and doesn't get me pulled in like Ridley Scott's use of aesthetics and the horror plot of Alien. I'd be tempted to say it's just an I prefer genre X (horror) to genre Y (action) except that I'd probably go Terminator 2 or Predator over Aliens as well, it's closer, but I'd judge it as worse for its genre than Alien for its. Not a bad movie by any stretch.

With Terminator and Terminator 2 I'd again go Terminator over 2, both are fun movies, but I like the overall aesthetic and atmosphere of T1 better and Arnold was better in T1 than T2 and is the best thing in either movie; that said I'd actually call T1 and T2 very, very close except that T2's ending makes no sense with the way time travel worked in T1 which bothered me even as a kid and bothers me more each time I watch it.

Also this talk about art films and great directors is making me want to watch Akira Kurosawa (Yojimbo is my favorite, but Rashomon, Ran, and The Seven Samurai would be better examples of what this conversation is making me yen for... which are simultaneously the things that being toned down/absent makes me prefer Yojimbo to them in general).

[Bohandas]

I will say this for Kubrick, I think that if Kubrick had directed Inception instead of Christopher Nolan that he would have done a hell of a better job with it than Nolan did (ignoring the fact that Kubrick was dead by that point). Kubrick's movies have a dreamlike quality to them no matter what they're about, whereas Nolan's dreamscapes came off as entirely prosaic even when the characters were walking upwards at a ninety degree angle

[Bohandas]

Hero I enjoyed both times I watched it, more in the theater than on home tv (naturally given its use of imagery to the maximum), but I will admit it left less of an impact than 2001 while simultaneously being more entertaining (not necessarily more riveting). Beautiful film. Beautiful.

And personally I'd pick Alien of Aliens 5 times in 6, Aliens is a good film, but it's a little too mindless and doesn't get me pulled in like Ridley Scott's use of aesthetics and the horror plot of Alien. I'd be tempted to say it's just an I prefer genre X (horror) to genre Y (action) except that I'd probably go Terminator 2 or Predator over Aliens as well, it's closer, but I'd judge it as worse for its genre than Alien for its. Not a bad movie by any stretch.

With Terminator and Terminator 2 I'd again go Terminator over 2, both are fun movies, but I like the overall aesthetic and atmosphere of T1 better and Arnold was better in T1 than T2 and is the best thing in either movie; that said I'd actually call T1 and T2 very, very close except that T2's ending makes no sense with the way time travel worked in T1 which bothered me even as a kid and bothers me more each time I watch it.

All I know is that James Cameron's films have been getting continually worse since Terminator 2

[DeadpanSal]

A good kubrick for gauging my interest in an Alien movie is simple counting. If there's one or two Aliens and it's a huge deal, I'm happy (see Alien 1 and 3). If there's a lot of them and somehow the stakes are exactly as tense, I'm less than happy (Aliens, Alien Ressurection, any VS movie). The xenomorph is a hard to kill terrifying monster. But as the Conservation of Ninjutsu states, the more enemies in a scene, the easier they are to kill. So they come off somewhat cartoonish to me when there's more than one.

[Donnadogsoth]

A good kubrick for gauging my interest in an Alien movie is simple counting. If there's one or two Aliens and it's a huge deal, I'm happy (see Alien 1 and 3). If there's a lot of them and somehow the stakes are exactly as tense, I'm less than happy (Aliens, Alien Ressurection, any VS movie). The xenomorph is a hard to kill terrifying monster. But as the Conservation of Ninjutsu states, the more enemies in a scene, the easier they are to kill. So they come off somewhat cartoonish to me when there's more than one.

Yeah but he makes up for it with the Queen.

[DeadpanSal]

Oh yeah. Totally.

But then there was the hybrid being "better" than the Queen, and all the depreciation of the xenomorph species as a whole... Maybe this reset will help things? I never saw Prometheus but don't assume it helped the franchise.

[Fawkes]

A good kubrick for gauging my interest in an Alien movie is simple counting.

Heh. Nice one.

[Zaydos]

I will say this for Kubrick, I think that if Kubrick had directed Inception instead of Christopher Nolan that he would have done a hell of a better job with it than Nolan did (ignoring the fact that Kubrick was dead by that point). Kubrick's movies have a dreamlike quality to them no matter what they're about, whereas Nolan's dreamscapes came off as entirely prosaic even when the characters were walking upwards at a ninety degree angle

Don't get me started on Inception. I enjoyed Interstellar but Inception... it was a bad ripoff of Dream Master (the book) with all the stuff that actually made the novel/la interesting gutted of meaning in exchange for 2nd rate action scenes and 2nd rate heist plot and a plot which ran on stupidity. I enjoyed the 80s made for TV Dream Master film (about going inside of the president's dream to fight the assassin sent to kill him in his dreams) better and it was not a good film.

I will admit I'd have enjoyed Inception better if it hadn't been hyped as this new and completely original concept and such good sci-fi it's like the best sci-fi movie ever, or at least since 2001/The Matrix. Even then, though, it was a film I have to actively turn off my head to watch.


Oh yeah. Totally.

But then there was the hybrid being "better" than the Queen, and all the depreciation of the xenomorph species as a whole... Maybe this reset will help things? I never saw Prometheus but don't assume it helped the franchise.

It didn't. I mean I can't remember Resurrection or 3 well enough to compare it to them, but Aliens was far, far better, and Alien is just incomparably better.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Late to the thread, but I'll provide my own opinion to the thread's main question before giving a couple of responses to things that caught my eye.

Stanley Kubrick makes good movies. 2001 was made by Stanley Kubrick. Ergo, 2001 was good.


Stephen King's stories have always been better when the director disrespected the source material. Always.

Maximum Overdrive. Not sure if it counts, I don't know how much the director respected the source material.


Movies can educate, inspire, and enlighten. But if they do not entertain, they cannot truly be considered 'good'. We call them entertainment mediums for a reason. Their primary purpose is to help us fritter away our leisure time.

There's at least a couple different metrics I can think of for how I judge a movie's quality. Both of which technically qualify as this. But I think it helps to state them as separate things so we can know what we're talking about.

Entertainment: if it's fun/interesting to watch whatever the characters in the movie are doing. The plot is interesting or there's a captivating concept that draws attention. Movies where explosions frequently happen can easily work on this basis alone if they're done well. It does not need explosions or action sequences, only something that is watchable. Movies like this are fun primarily at the time the movie is seen.

Art: if there's an interesting concept, characters or plot. One possible way (but not nearly the only way) a movie could work as art is that characters make choices that depend heavily on motivation and maybe they make mistakes. Eventually, the choices they take could lead to their downfall, or they could realize the error of their ways and make a change. Movies like this are primarily fun to think about after I have seen them.

No movie fits purely in to one or the other category. But in my view a movie can be pretty bad in regards to one metric and great in the other and end up being something I enjoy. (TV shows can be thought of in this way too. I consider documentaries to be their own thing.)

I tend to judge a movie as "good" based on whether or not I would recommend viewing it to a hypothetical stranger. To do that, it generally needs to pass both those metrics. There's a lot of movies I've enjoyed over the years, but not nearly as many that I consider to be "good" in this way.

[Fawkes]

Maximum Overdrive. Not sure if it counts, I don't know how much the director respected the source material.

I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. :smalltongue:

[Closet_Skeleton]

Can you recommend any vigourous mysticism films?

No. I haven't watched enough and I'm not a mystic. I wouldn't know if 'vigour' is even relevant to mysticism.

I'm a big fan of The Matrix but its sophomoric 'baby's first gnosticism' at its core. If by 'vigour' you mean energy then its a film with a lot of energy (despite its lead) but that's in the action not in the ideas. My interpretation of that film is that its goal is 'lets make mystical philosophy cool to young adults', which makes it a paradox of a film since mysticism is supposed to be the opposite of superficial stuff like being cool.

Dark City is slightly deeper than The Matrix but I hate the acting and the monotony.

I only watched a third of Pi and only the second half of Brazil.

I can't remember anything about Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring

Martyrs goes further than just showing introductory concepts but I can't recommend Torture Porn even when that unpleasantness is necessary to the whole 'vision quest' concept.

In theory the potential synaesthic nature of audio-visual media should make them superior for mysticism purposes over books but its to get a lot of depth of ideas into a film. Probably because making a Hollywood film is more networking and logistics than anything else so film makers don't have much time for mysticism in the way that other artists often do.

Oddly, despite Philip K Asterixes being heavily adapted and a massive mystic not many of those films seem that mystic.


LOL @ Closet Skeleton. The conspiracy has been exposed! It turns out the move sucks after all.

I didn't say it sucks. Its a failure by most objective standards but you could just as easily argue that one cannot make a truly sublime movie that doesn't. Or at least you can say that rules make safe movies but great movies usually have to break a few.

You can have objective standards for art, you just have to decide on them first. That's what critical schools basically are. What you can't have is one objective standard that beats all others.

A useful standard is that "a good film succeeds it achieving what it set out to do". I don't think 2001 does, but I can't just dismiss the ambition.

[Legato Endless]

Not so pat an answer as that, I'm afraid; though I will be the first to admit I have a predilection for action films, that alone cannot make the difference. Unlike 2001, I actually do like the first Alien, and tend to watch it when it's on. But though interesting, it is plagued by several overused horror tropes even at the time the movie came out...

That's a strange comparative critique considering Cameron slots into Aliens some of the broudest and most repetitive tropes of action films to have ever existed.

[The Fury]

I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not. :smalltongue:

Have you seen Maximum Overdrive? It's hilarious! The director pretty clearly respected Stephan King's source material too. I mean, hey just check out who the director is. (It's Stephan King.) Though one thing I thought was sort of weird:

If machines start to come alive and be evil, (or just jerks if it's an ATM,) why then do cars not come alive too? I mean, trucks come alive and they're not fundamentally that different. Hey, if cars started coming alive that'd be a great opportunity for a Christine cameo! After all, she's already evil.

[Aedilred]

Spielberg as the best of the 20th could be said, perhaps. Though the early 21st has done little to boost his legacy, weighted down by stinkers like War of the Worlds or mediocre efforts like The Terminal.

Despite my disdain for 2001, and some of Kubrick's other arthouse endeavors like Eyes Wide Shut, I actually agree he has a claim at the title. Even 2001, with all its many, many flaws and long stretches of crap, boosts his legacy by proving that a bad Kubrick film can still be important to the industry as a whole, even if it is just by serving as a stepping stool of inspiration to boost other films up.

I agree that Hero is an art film. Like so many of its ilk, it's boring.

More fun pot stirring for this thread: I like Sunshine way better than both of the films that were its primary influence, 2001 and the original Alien (which is vastly inferior to Cameron's rocking sequel).

I hadn't considered the separation between Spielberg's 20th-century and 21st-century work, but you make a good point. I think the career watershed was slightly earlier than 2001, coming around the mid-90s. Before that, he made Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun and Schindler's List - as well as the first two Indy films, Hook, E.T. and Jurassic Park.

After that, he made Jurassic Park 2, A.I., Minority Report, The Terminal, War of the Worlds, Munich, Indy and the Crystal Skull and Saving Private Ryan. None of those films are terrible, but they have a tendency to lose the plot and - aside from Minority Report which hits many of the same marks as LA Confidential pretty much note for note and so hangs together but feels like a rehash - fall to pieces in their final act pretty much without exception.

I think he's actually picked up a little in recent years - WarHorse was schmaltz, but Bridge of Spies was good and I've heard good things about Lincoln.



I think I've seen Hero like... over a dozen times? Not counting all the times I saw scenes from it during the study of art-films.

It has such a beautiful balance of story, beautiful scenery and imagery, awesome score, good acting, all wrapped into one neat-package. Unlike 2001, Hero runs a much tighter plot. 2001 is more like a serious of events happening during the course of the movie, compared to Hero which is telling a story (in different variations like in Rashomon, another great movie).

I have to admit that when I saw Hero my takeaway from it was that it was basically Rashomon but set in China and with an attempt at being more EPIC. I also felt there was too much focus on the fight scenes, which I know is meant to be kind of the point in the film, but some of them were pretty unnecessary, it slowed things to a bit of a crawl at times, and made the film feel flabby. Upon a rewatch my opinion was largely unchanged: it's too pretentious and arty-farty to be a really good martial arts film, but places too much emphasis on the preposterous and crowd-pleasing martial arts for me to take it seriously as an art film. Having said that it's still in a different postcode to House of Flying Daggers.

Compare Fury Road which I think was thorougly excellent and a serious contender for greatest action film of all time, in my book, as well as one of the finest films of last year in any genre. It knew what it was and refused to apologise for that or try to obfuscate it by pretending to be "arty", concentrating instead on being as good as it could possibly be within its chosen genre.


Also, Aedilred, are you dropping from the Ludus game? I understand if so, it's a massive timesink to manage that thing, I am sure. But you should probably make a proper post letting everyone know.
Oh no, you've tracked me down in another thread!

It was never my intention to do so, but I was pretty fried when I proposed the two-week round and then I've spent most of the last month feeling like I've been beaten up one way or another, so it's never seemed a good time. Plus the longer it's dragged on the bigger a hurdle it seems to be to return to the game. I've always wanted to return, but I know if I do I have to commit to it for seven more weeks, so I've kept putting it off. Hence why I haven't posted saying I'm definitively quitting or returning. I know this hasn't been all that fair on the players, for which I apologise, but knowing that has just added to the general guilt over the situation and made it harder to make a proper decision.

[Rodin]

Have you seen Maximum Overdrive? It's hilarious! The director pretty clearly respected Stephan King's source material too. I mean, hey just check out who the director is. (It's Stephan King.) Though one thing I thought was sort of weird:

If machines start to come alive and be evil, (or just jerks if it's an ATM,) why then do cars not come alive too? I mean, trucks come alive and they're not fundamentally that different. Hey, if cars started coming alive that'd be a great opportunity for a Christine cameo! After all, she's already evil.

The answer to your question is cocaine. Lots and lots of cocaine.

[Fawkes]

The answer to your question is cocaine. Lots and lots of cocaine.

Fun fact: Stephen King has pretty much no memory of writing Cujo.

[DeadpanSal]

If you read On Writing, King confesses to coming out of a stupor having written books he has no memory of. And also says that one book is a copy of another of his own and he doesn't know how he got away with it.

[The Fury]

Has anyone else done that? I remember coming across stuff I've made but don't actually remember making, it was a really weird and disconcerting experience. Also, a little disappointing that I don't black out and become some kind of creative genius.

[Zaydos]

I was talking to a friend about making a D&D class once while I had a fever, then talk to them again about it a few weeks later and decided I'd go make it... and found that I'd made it and posted it.

[Lethologica]

I have to admit that when I saw Hero my takeaway from it was that it was basically Rashomon but set in China and with an attempt at being more EPIC. I also felt there was too much focus on the fight scenes, which I know is meant to be kind of the point in the film, but some of them were pretty unnecessary, it slowed things to a bit of a crawl at times, and made the film feel flabby. Upon a rewatch my opinion was largely unchanged: it's too pretentious and arty-farty to be a really good martial arts film, but places too much emphasis on the preposterous and crowd-pleasing martial arts for me to take it seriously as an art film. Having said that it's still in a different postcode to House of Flying Daggers.

Compare Fury Road which I think was thorougly excellent and a serious contender for greatest action film of all time, in my book, as well as one of the finest films of last year in any genre. It knew what it was and refused to apologise for that or try to obfuscate it by pretending to be "arty", concentrating instead on being as good as it could possibly be within its chosen genre.
*blinks* Fury Road was arty as all get-out. It was just arty in a way that served the basic goal of being an action film. I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you here or just clarifying that "as good as it could possibly be within its chosen genre" involves a significant degree of art, but either way, I think it has to be said.

I don't know if I disagree with you about Hero, either, but I do think the artiness is a crucial component of wuxia film, or at least a major subsection of wuxia, and not in itself orthogonal/detrimental to the aims of a martial arts film.

[The Fury]

I was talking to a friend about making a D&D class once while I had a fever, then talk to them again about it a few weeks later and decided I'd go make it... and found that I'd made it and posted it.

Man. The best I got were some sketches and notes for something resembling a 2D beat 'em up.


*blinks* Fury Road was arty as all get-out. It was just arty in a way that served the basic goal of being an action film. I don't know if I'm disagreeing with you here or just clarifying that "as good as it could possibly be within its chosen genre" involves a significant degree of art, but either way, I think it has to be said.


I dunno about that. Fury Road was definitely unique-looking as action films go, but what about it makes it especially arty? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm actually curious. I guess it did have some interesting choices writing-wise as well. Like making much of the characterization implicit, rather than explicit and generally opting to not over-explain anything. Though it was definitely strong on pacing, which I guess is important for an action film.

[Zaydos]

Man. The best I got were some sketches and notes for something resembling a 2D beat 'em up.

I don't think it was well made, but it was something. Really, though, I think Phillip K. the forum's filter censors his last name beats pretty much everyone. I mean he'd just go on amphetamine binges and hammer out books.

[Lethologica]

I dunno about that. Fury Road was definitely unique-looking as action films go, but what about it makes it especially arty? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm actually curious. I guess it did have some interesting choices writing-wise as well. Like making much of the characterization implicit, rather than explicit and generally opting to not over-explain anything. Though it was definitely strong on pacing, which I guess is important for an action film.
Those are elements of it. It's just such a relief to see a creative team use all parts of a movie to tell a story and create an aesthetic experience, instead of taking a metaphorical hammer to every nail storytelling task. Like, yes, it's the pacing, but it's also how the pacing was crafted--the way half the movie is actually sped up or slowed down in harmony with the pace of the story, the way disciplined central framing of action allows for rapid coherent cutting, that sort of thing (I don't have an informed POV on how the audio elements contributed, but it didn't win Oscars in sound editing and mixing for nothing). Yes, it's implicit characterization, but so much else is also left implied, about the setting and the themes, layers of meticulous storytelling on top of the base layer of pulse-pounding thrills. And yes, it's the unique look, with everything stripped away that doesn't (a) create the aesthetic and (b) tell the story.

There's an NPR interview with the film editing lead of Fury Road, Margaret Sixel, and this excerpt occurs near the end:


SHAPIRO: It seems remarkable for a movie like "Mad Max" to have as many Oscar nominations as the film does, which isn't to say the film isn't deserving of them. But a two-hour car chase - as I said, it's not typical Oscar bait. Were you expecting this kind of recognition? What was your reaction?

SIXEL: I have to be honest. We were never expecting it while we were cutting it because it being an action film. But everybody took this film so seriously - the production designer, the visual effects people, the sound people, music. You know, it was art for a lot of people.

So in hindsight, no, I think that must be evident when people watch the film. Everyone tried to push the envelope a little, so when I look back now I think, yeah, you know, we did all try to make something unique and different, and we didn't copy anybody.
That's what it is about the movie that makes it artsy, to me: the way its craftsmanship goes above and beyond on every level. There's no compromising. In that respect you could say Fury Road was simply so good at being an action film that it became art.

(Sorry, it's an excuse to fanboy over Fury Road, I'm taking every inch and then some.)

[Bohandas]

If you read On Writing, King confesses to coming out of a stupor having written books he has no memory of. And also says that one book is a copy of another of his own and he doesn't know how he got away with it.
He actually says that in his memoir? I remembered hearing something to that effect and almost posted it here but I then I thought against it because I figured the person who told me about it (I no longer remember who or what I initially heard about it from) had probably gotten it from an old tabloid or something.

[Fawkes]

He actually says that in his memoir? I remembered hearing something to that effect and almost posted it here but I then I thought against it because I figured the person who told me about it (I no longer remember who or what I initially heard about it from) had probably gotten it from an old tabloid or something.

King has been very open about his substance abuse problems, both in his memoirs and in interviews. To my knowledge, he's been sober since the late 80s. On Writing doesn't really leave anything out.

On Writing is very good, both as a memoir and as an examination of the craft.

[Aedilred]

Although it's probable that the terminology is inadequate, I think there is a distinction between a film that is consciously "arty" and a film which is simply so good at its intended purpose that it achieves the aesthetic distinction of "art" (or "good art", if you prefer; all films are to an extent "art" even if they're awful).

It's hard to put my finger precisely on what I mean by "arty" in this context - really what I'm getting at is the arthouse sensibility underpinning the film philosophy - but I usually know it when you see it. Such films tend to be slower, with longer, more languid scenes, and meticulously choreographed cinematography which is at the heart of what the picture is all about (though they're not necessarily slow: Requiem for a Dream, for instance, went the opposite direction with an aggressively rapid shot selection). The setting and scope and atmosphere of the picture tends to take priority over plot. As a result such pictures tend to feel slightly distant, as if they've been made to be observed and admired rather than to be enjoyed. Often you'll come away thinking "what the hell was that all about?", not in the sense that the plot is garbled or badly explained, as in a crappy action film, but just because it seems to meander around and go nowhere.

I suppose a decent example of what I'm talking about is Drive. It was actually marketed as an action film, but on watching it rapidly becomes obvious that it's aspiring to be art (which caused a degree of controversy among people who went expecting a typical action film and found it slow and boring). It's hard to say precisely what it is that makes it "arty", but it is.

I don't get that impression with Fury Road. Like you suggest, I think it's just a film that was really well executed in every department and consequently became a work of art. I don't think anyone was aiming at any stage to be in contention for the Palme d'Or:

In that respect you could say Fury Road was simply so good at being an action film that it became art.



A great director(/editor) can seamlessly blend the entertaining and the artful elements of a production, or produce an entertaining film that is so good in every way that it achieves artistic status (as with Fury Road). But it's easy to get the balance wrong: a film becomes arch, or pretentious, or boring, visibly self-conscious. Many great films have been made which don't quite get the balance to perfection, but nailing it absolutely is hard.

Sergio Leone managed it with Once Upon a Time in the West and arguably The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but I think Once Upon a Time in America stumbled too far over the arty side of the line. Polanski did it with Chinatown, I'd say. I think Kubrick did it maybe twice and then slid down the art slide. Coppola did it twice, some might argue three, times. Hitchcock managed it at least once (I don't like Vertigo as much as some, though). I think one of the reasons Tarantino is such a frustration to some critics is that his early films demonstrate he has the ability to pull it off and in his early career seemed to be trying to do exactly that (Pulp Fiction comes remarkably close to doing so; Jackie Brown isn't that far off either) but he seems to have lost either interest or confidence in doing so, and tends now to chicken out of attempting it.

[Closet_Skeleton]

That's what it is about the movie that makes it artsy, to me: the way its craftsmanship goes above and beyond on every level. There's no compromising. In that respect you could say Fury Road was simply so good at being an action film that it became art.

I'd go for a more 'self-expression' based definition. So if an art film is slow its because that's what the auteur* wanted, if the auteur just wants to make a very good action film and that's his personality than that's what you might get.


I don't know if I disagree with you about Hero, either, but I do think the artiness is a crucial component of wuxia film, or at least a major subsection of wuxia, and not in itself orthogonal/detrimental to the aims of a martial arts film.

Wuxia is basically "circus folk trying to put on an opera" so yes.


I have to admit that when I saw Hero my takeaway from it was that it was basically Rashomon but set in China and with an attempt at being more EPIC.

Except that Rashomon is "life sucks for the disadvantaged and everyone is just operating under an egocentric perception filter that lets them live with that" while Hero is "the stability of nationalism might need a egomaniac tyrant to enforce it but it sure beats civil war".

Hero is about active deception for a higher cause while Rashomon is just as much about self-deception for base interest. Though despite its comparative cynicism Rashomon does share with hero a kind of sympathy that refuses to demonise any member of its cast even when it actively dislikes them. On the other hand, Hero kind of has a obsession with dehumanising crossbowmen.

*yes, auteurs are a concept of film criticism not of film production, but 'art' in this sense is a response not an element of creation

[hustlertwo]

I hadn't considered the separation between Spielberg's 20th-century and 21st-century work, but you make a good point. I think the career watershed was slightly earlier than 2001, coming around the mid-90s. Before that, he made Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun and Schindler's List - as well as the first two Indy films, Hook, E.T. and Jurassic Park.

After that, he made Jurassic Park 2, A.I., Minority Report, The Terminal, War of the Worlds, Munich, Indy and the Crystal Skull and Saving Private Ryan. None of those films are terrible, but they have a tendency to lose the plot and - aside from Minority Report which hits many of the same marks as LA Confidential pretty much note for note and so hangs together but feels like a rehash - fall to pieces in their final act pretty much without exception.

I think he's actually picked up a little in recent years - WarHorse was schmaltz, but Bridge of Spies was good and I've heard good things about Lincoln.



I have to admit that when I saw Hero my takeaway from it was that it was basically Rashomon but set in China and with an attempt at being more EPIC. I also felt there was too much focus on the fight scenes, which I know is meant to be kind of the point in the film, but some of them were pretty unnecessary, it slowed things to a bit of a crawl at times, and made the film feel flabby. Upon a rewatch my opinion was largely unchanged: it's too pretentious and arty-farty to be a really good martial arts film, but places too much emphasis on the preposterous and crowd-pleasing martial arts for me to take it seriously as an art film. Having said that it's still in a different postcode to House of Flying Daggers.

Compare Fury Road which I think was thorougly excellent and a serious contender for greatest action film of all time, in my book, as well as one of the finest films of last year in any genre. It knew what it was and refused to apologise for that or try to obfuscate it by pretending to be "arty", concentrating instead on being as good as it could possibly be within its chosen genre.


Oh no, you've tracked me down in another thread!

It was never my intention to do so, but I was pretty fried when I proposed the two-week round and then I've spent most of the last month feeling like I've been beaten up one way or another, so it's never seemed a good time. Plus the longer it's dragged on the bigger a hurdle it seems to be to return to the game. I've always wanted to return, but I know if I do I have to commit to it for seven more weeks, so I've kept putting it off. Hence why I haven't posted saying I'm definitively quitting or returning. I know this hasn't been all that fair on the players, for which I apologise, but knowing that has just added to the general guilt over the situation and made it harder to make a proper decision.


I hadn't considered the separation between Spielberg's 20th-century and 21st-century work, but you make a good point. I think the career watershed was slightly earlier than 2001, coming around the mid-90s. Before that, he made Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun and Schindler's List - as well as the first two Indy films, Hook, E.T. and Jurassic Park.

After that, he made Jurassic Park 2, A.I., Minority Report, The Terminal, War of the Worlds, Munich, Indy and the Crystal Skull and Saving Private Ryan. None of those films are terrible, but they have a tendency to lose the plot and - aside from Minority Report which hits many of the same marks as LA Confidential pretty much note for note and so hangs together but feels like a rehash - fall to pieces in their final act pretty much without exception.

I think he's actually picked up a little in recent years - WarHorse was schmaltz, but Bridge of Spies was good and I've heard good things about Lincoln.



I have to admit that when I saw Hero my takeaway from it was that it was basically Rashomon but set in China and with an attempt at being more EPIC. I also felt there was too much focus on the fight scenes, which I know is meant to be kind of the point in the film, but some of them were pretty unnecessary, it slowed things to a bit of a crawl at times, and made the film feel flabby. Upon a rewatch my opinion was largely unchanged: it's too pretentious and arty-farty to be a really good martial arts film, but places too much emphasis on the preposterous and crowd-pleasing martial arts for me to take it seriously as an art film. Having said that it's still in a different postcode to House of Flying Daggers.

Compare Fury Road which I think was thorougly excellent and a serious contender for greatest action film of all time, in my book, as well as one of the finest films of last year in any genre. It knew what it was and refused to apologise for that or try to obfuscate it by pretending to be "arty", concentrating instead on being as good as it could possibly be within its chosen genre.


Oh no, you've tracked me down in another thread!

It was never my intention to do so, but I was pretty fried when I proposed the two-week round and then I've spent most of the last month feeling like I've been beaten up one way or another, so it's never seemed a good time. Plus the longer it's dragged on the bigger a hurdle it seems to be to return to the game. I've always wanted to return, but I know if I do I have to commit to it for seven more weeks, so I've kept putting it off. Hence why I haven't posted saying I'm definitively quitting or returning. I know this hasn't been all that fair on the players, for which I apologise, but knowing that has just added to the general guilt over the situation and made it harder to make a proper decision.

Too harsh about Private Ryan. That movie is gold. Proves that, unlike 2001, a movie can be both incredibly impactful on the entire industry and darn good. Does not have to be either/or. You are right about Lincoln. I wish the scope was not so narrow, but it was an excellent movie. All respect to Spielberg, though, Day-Lewis owned a lot of that success. The man is a beast. I still think his lovable jingoistic Butcher from Gangs of New York is one of the most compellingly watchable 'villains' in modern film.

Fury Road was excellent. Strip away all pretense, and heck, even most normal movie trappings like major plot points, character development, and scenes set at speeds under 80 miles an hour. We were promised a two hour car chase, we got it, and I loved it. Few could argue against it being the apex of the series; Road Warrior may have been influential in shaping the look of modern postapocalyptic media, but that doesn't change that compared to the kinetic fury (pun intended) of its modern offspring, it's a plodding dinosaur, full of fat and ripe for slaughter. Movie deserved the awards love so rarely given to action films.

Unrelated tidbit: finally saw Captain America Civil War; good but not the best in the series, but I have to applaud that airport scene. It had been talked up so much I never thought it would match the hype, but it did.

As for the other, Aed...

I can definitely understand that. And by now it hardly matters anyhow. But in the future, I would suggest just making a post telling people where you're at once you think you've passed the part of no return. DM drops are insanely common here; I joined maybe 8-9 games this year, and of those, exactly two did not lose the DM. And one of those still had a month-long hiatus that caused another player to drop and might still lead to the overall death of the game. DMing is always a timesink, and triply so for a labor-intensive game like the Ludus sim. I do realize this crept up slow, just putting off continuing until it was too late, so maybe I'm just saying things to you I wish other DMs who dropped were still around to hear.

It was a lot of fun while it lasted, though. When things calm a bit I might ask the others if they want to do a big tournament or super battle royale to end it all in a true epic orgy of bloody combat.

[Fawkes]

Oh, I missed the snipe at Saving Private Ryan the first time 'round. Yeah, Saving Private Ryan's a masterpiece.

[Aedilred]

Private Ryan is the best of Spielberg's late/middle period by some distance, but I think it's robbed of the status it should have enjoyed by the infamously sappy epilogue (and prologue, for that matter). There are other issues with Private Ryan too: the archetypal characterisations of the squad soldiers, the artificial dialogue, and so on, but that's the big one. In a way it's typical of where Spielberg went off the tracks a little: he loses the ruthlessness and discipline to cut the film to remove the elements that inhibit its greatness. It's a tendency that becomes more pronounced over time with his films almost from that point on (it's not quite the bridging film, since the inexplicable JP2 predates it).

[hustlertwo]

Inexplicable is a good word for JP2. It feels so much like a cheap cash-in I constantly forget it is actually from the same director, who with the first delivered one of the purest summer blockbuster experiences in cinematic history to date.

[Gnoman]

That is simply because it is a cheap cash-in. The first Jurassic Park was based on an already successful novel that was intended to be entirely self-contained. The author was heavily pressured by both fans of the book and Spielburg (who wanted material for a second movie) to write the only sequel in Crichton's entire literary output. The quality of the book suffered badly from the fact that Crichton really didn't know how to write a sequel (hence the blatant reuse of several concepts from the first instead of something more ambitious), and the movie made it worse by the way it hacked at the already weak plot as opposed to the careful pruning needed for the more solid original.