5 ms·

Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that’s supposed to be ome of the finest being called incompe

by ghusto 2y ago

Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that’s supposed to be ome of the finest being called incompetent, but I can’t see how it’s defendable. He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.

bondarchuk 2y ago
Cinemaphiles TRIGGERED by this simple critique! (come on man...)
latexr 2y ago
> Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case. > He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do. Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later? There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
- ghusto 2y ago
  > You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case. Yes, I know that. I don't see how it makes it a nonsensical comparison though. One form was done well, the other incompetently. It's not like they marketed it as "hey, you really need both for the full experience". >> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do. > Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later? To convey something in the audio/visual format. It doesn't get more basic. Whether that's for pure entertainment, artistic intent, whatever. > There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant. Neither is there anything saying that you're safe from criticism if your work isn't coherent either. There was a very clear, coherent story to 2001, and Kubrick failed to convey it.
garyrob 2y ago
> but I can’t see how it’s defendable Perhaps the key here is what YOU don't see, not the merit of the film. 2001 was ranked the 6th greatest movie of all time in the Sight and Sound poll, which is probably the world's most respected poll of industry professionals. And it was ranked #1 by their poll of directors: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time#rank-9 https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greates... Could it possibly be that these directors know something you don't? For my own part, it's been my favorite movie since I first saw it in 1968 and I've probably seen it 20 times since then.
- ghusto 2y ago
  Appealing to authority doesn't negate what I said. There was a clear narrative to the story, Kubrick failed to convey it. That is poor film making.
  - garyrob 2y ago
    Ooookay. You are the world's greatest expert in film-making. Thank you.
  - runsfromfire 2y ago
    He wasn’t trying to convey the story you wanted him to convey so it’s poor filmmaking? I’m not sure I understand your position. He’s a bad filmmaker because you preferred the book’s ending?
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    I’ve seen the movie a few times and no part of it is confusing. The movie and the story it tells is coherent and, I dare say, pretty obvious. It’s unfortunate that you were not able to follow it, both because of your obvious dissatisfaction and because now you’re making a lot of bad posts.
    - ghusto 2y ago
      This film is definitely a trigger for me, so I'll concede that I'm over-reacting. However, I do not believe the ending was easy to follow, not just because I didn't understand it, but because I've never heard anybody who's only seen the film say they understood it either.
WalterBright 2y ago
I've heard that 2001 was very much enjoyed by people who would come to the theater high. The visuals were a great trip for them, and helped make the movie a big success! P.S. I've seen the movie countless times (never high), and sometimes I'll put it on as simply moving wallpaper.
tacocataco 2y ago
Art is subjective. There is nothing wrong with having your own interpretation

by ghusto 2y ago

bondarchuk 2y ago

Cinemaphiles TRIGGERED by this simple critique! (come on man...)

latexr 2y ago

> Agreed, and I’d be comfortable calling this incompetence. You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case. > He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do. Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later? There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.

ghusto 2y ago
> You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case. Yes, I know that. I don't see how it makes it a nonsensical comparison though. One form was done well, the other incompetently. It's not like they marketed it as "hey, you really need both for the full experience". >> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do. > Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later? To convey something in the audio/visual format. It doesn't get more basic. Whether that's for pure entertainment, artistic intent, whatever. > There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant. Neither is there anything saying that you're safe from criticism if your work isn't coherent either. There was a very clear, coherent story to 2001, and Kubrick failed to convey it.

garyrob 2y ago

> but I can’t see how it’s defendable Perhaps the key here is what YOU don't see, not the merit of the film. 2001 was ranked the 6th greatest movie of all time in the Sight and Sound poll, which is probably the world's most respected poll of industry professionals. And it was ranked #1 by their poll of directors: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greatest-films-all-time#rank-9 https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greates... Could it possibly be that these directors know something you don't? For my own part, it's been my favorite movie since I first saw it in 1968 and I've probably seen it 20 times since then.

ghusto 2y ago
Appealing to authority doesn't negate what I said. There was a clear narrative to the story, Kubrick failed to convey it. That is poor film making.
- garyrob 2y ago
  Ooookay. You are the world's greatest expert in film-making. Thank you.
- runsfromfire 2y ago
  He wasn’t trying to convey the story you wanted him to convey so it’s poor filmmaking? I’m not sure I understand your position. He’s a bad filmmaker because you preferred the book’s ending?
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  I’ve seen the movie a few times and no part of it is confusing. The movie and the story it tells is coherent and, I dare say, pretty obvious. It’s unfortunate that you were not able to follow it, both because of your obvious dissatisfaction and because now you’re making a lot of bad posts.
  - ghusto 2y ago
    This film is definitely a trigger for me, so I'll concede that I'm over-reacting. However, I do not believe the ending was easy to follow, not just because I didn't understand it, but because I've never heard anybody who's only seen the film say they understood it either.

WalterBright 2y ago

I've heard that 2001 was very much enjoyed by people who would come to the theater high. The visuals were a great trip for them, and helped make the movie a big success! P.S. I've seen the movie countless times (never high), and sometimes I'll put it on as simply moving wallpaper.

tacocataco 2y ago

Art is subjective. There is nothing wrong with having your own interpretation