CURRENT YEAR: A SPACE ODYSSEY; A STANLEY KUBRICK JOINT

Literally this film summarized in 7 bullet points. I gotta admit that the visual effects are absolutely perfect, completely flawless, and the cinematography makes all the action on screen clear. But that's it, the rest is boring and gay.

First 3/4 of the film felt like a detailed and realistic looking but cold and boring documentation video of operating a space ship. What the fuck is this? I want to watch cinema, not documentary disguised as a flick.

Solaris (1972) did a great job at toning down the unnecessary technical aspects of the film and putting an emphasis on the humane conflicts. In 2001, it's like kubrick forgot that he was supposed to make a film with human characters in it, not a futuristic airport commercial with a cast consisting of nothing but supporting actors. The only remotely interesting character was HAL 900000, and it's not even a human.

The camera works are good, but I think Solaris had more colorful cinematography, like the part when the camera rotates and one of the actors suddenly re-appear in the other side of the camera, all in one cut. Or at the early scenes of the film when there is a beautiful sequence of gently swaying seaweed. Why should I care about some bland carton food the astronauts eat?

In the last quarter of the film (Jupiter And Beyond The Infinite chapter), it was like kubrick smoked a sack of weed, turned 360 degrees, and decided to take the film into a whole new direction. The whole chapter is insequential, it makes no sense. It's just a bunch of epileptic visuals that ended with the astronaut dying in a baroque bedroom and got turned into a floating space fetus because AYYYYLIUMS therefore it doesn't need a shred of logic or explanations.

I think this film was certainly a great visual spectacle, but a shit movie. Kubrick is like an autistic Fritz Lang and KKK Griffith wannabe that fails to understand the definition of art. I don't understand how people can like this film, for any reason other than the visuals of course.

yeah, it's shit

the only reason anyone cares about Kubrick is that his career coincided perfectly with the time when Baby Boomers were in their edgy teen/young adult years

...

Kubrik himself publicly admitted it was just a pretentious nonsense for the sake of it.

...

Here you go, why you're a fucking idiot

Not only shit, it's also pretentious as hell. It's divided into chapters and has an overture and intermezzo. It's literally Fedora Tipping: The Movie: The Reddit.

...

wew, a guy on the internet. Well done fam, 4/10

This faggot's so fucking asshurt.

...

The story is really simple. Some dumb nigger apes got brainwaved into smart humans by ayyroflmaos, they made spaceships, the re-discovered the ayylamao thingies, the sneaky AI malfunctions, space mission gone wrong, astronaut entered the ayylamo ship, and got brainwaved again but this time into space fetus, and got dumped into space. It's a simpleton plot for a shit movie.

Maybe you just didn't get it user. It's okay.

It's the gold standard of explaining 2001 to kids with learning disabilities. Bantz/10 + you'll learn something for a change.

I guess the message of the movie is "technological progress turns humans into bland space faggots who got cucked by their own computer".

Yup, Interstellar was much better and more intellectual than 2001, Nolan isn't a hack like Kubrick.

it really makes you think

Truly, RLM the post. How much longer do you guys need to realize that youtube celebrities are making you dumber?

STOP REVIEWING MOVIES LIKE THEY ARE VIDYA.

smfh tbqh fam

Okay you dunces, I'll let you in on a few things.

Arthur C Clarke invented the satellite. Look it up: geosynchronous orbit, space elevators, all the product of his science fiction that was later made "real" by NASA. Then go look up Kubrick's history with NASA and the Air Force going back to Dr Strangelove. Look up how he got the cameras to shoot Barry Lyndon. Google "front screen projection". Fill that warm diaper between your ears with something other than porn and capeshit.

Then ask yourself this: what is your concept of reality? Of the world and its boundaries? Of the nature of the universe? These are rhetorical questions but guess what, that movie - released in 1968 - has more to do with it by far than anything else in the last 100 years. Your worldview, literally, was provided by NASA who in turn appropriated it from Kubrick and Clarke. I could fill this post with links and citations but won't bother since it would be wasted on your ADD riddled, giant clown sized fedora wearing asses, just know that you don't know the first thing about which you speak.

Another art student assignment.

I've been reading through some Kubrick's commentary on 2001.

Here's where the problem lies. Kubrick doesn't understand man's destiny and role in the universe. In Kubrick's mind, man's destiny is to conquest and make technological progress, to evolve. This is a very narrow and limited view on the purpose of life.

Kubrick thinks that by showing fancy images of realistic space hardware, he can reach the deepest consciousness of human thought. Well, it is simply wrong. How can artificial things and stupid technical details affect human soul? The soul needs life, not cold machine.

Tarkovsky believes in poetic visual verbalization and hates intellectual deconstruction as well, but he knew his shit better. Instead of grandeur visual effects, Tarkovsky showed life and harmony, the things the soul is longing for. He created images that humans are familiar with, like trees, plants, flowing river, wives and husbands, sounds of nature, accompanied with simple and aesthetically pleasing Bach soundtrack. To tell his poetry, he tried to make his viewers feel familiar and comfortable with his films.

Those who are fed up with the fast lifestyle in concrete jungle will seek refuge among the greens. We are supposed to live with nature and faith, not with bland electronic devices and aliens shit. This is why Tark's films work better in articulating the audio visual experience to the audience. Tarkovsky knows the purpose of man, he knows what the soul of man is longing for whereas Kubrick doesn't.

Tarkovsky once said that humans should care about what will happen to themselves after a few decades of their lives ended. Kubrick on the other hand is still trapped in the "muh humanity and progress" narrative. Tarkovsky is a man of faith while Kubrick the Jew is a socialist and a materialist. Ironic, considering Tarkovsky made films in Soviet while Kubrick did it in the US.

Art is selfless. Art is supposed to shows life in the most natural way possible. The vision and values of Kubrick is not selfless, it was a pretentious and selfish Nietzschean value that Kubrick believed in. Kubrick is your typical Jew who wants to divert the purpose of man from submission to God, into believing in their own power. Satan is the king of this world, and Stanley Kubrick along with the entire Jewish oligarch in Hollywood worships him.


I don't know how some shady NASA conspiracy has anything to do with this film's quality.

reality is truly upside down. our brains (controlled by nasa and the magick brain of arthur c clarke) flip the images to maintain the illusion and keep us asleep

Sounds about right.

And 2001 isn't anything like this?

fuck off christfag

there were characters in 2001?

I honestly can't remember the name or face of a single one

2001: A Space Odyssey, A.K.A. 'What did he mean by this?: The movie'

you guys are crazy, its just a nice story about some monkeys having fun with a bone and man playing with his spaceship and then some trippy stuff happens to remind us that we are special.

Ok the purpose of 2001 in the novels was to push the Luciferian philosophy of child rapist Aurthur C. Clark.

Stanley Kubrick took it and turned it into an exploration of the limits of technological progress and the inevitable human confrontation with existentialism and the seeming pointlessness of being, culminating in the "need/desire" for the Nietzschean Übermensch, thus the "star child" at the end of the film and thus the theme "Also Sprach Zarathustra" which was composed by Strauss as an ode to Nietzsche's book of the same name. Whether or not that's bullshit depends on whether or not the philosophy is true or not. Some might say Nietzschean philosophy is nothing more than gussied up Luciferianism. As a Christian, I don't like Nietzsche or find his philosophy to be true, but I think Kubrick left 2001 open ended enough for people to define the monolith and the journey it brings however they please as he never actually defines where the monolith came from or what it even is. But it clearly makes one into some sort of transcendental super being. So if you think only God can do that, then the movie will conform to your worldview. If you think only the will to power will do that, then the movie will conform to your worldview. If you think only a Promethean romantic interpretation of Lucifer can do that, then the movie will conform to your world view. However you view it, there is no denying the movie was made carefully with skill and intelligence. To say it is a bad movie is to reveal you're a fucking retard.

shiggy you can't be serious, this is high level stupid
IMAGINATION =/= INVENTION


You fuck off. He can stay.

It all makes so much sense now. Especially since this is the biggest things pedos do is pretend children are adults and understand what is going on. Ever see that documentry about pedos where the interviewer is talking to one and he's convinced anytime a child does ANYTHING it's sexual consent? "The child looked at my knees. He's asking for it!"

Fuckin A.

Shut up and stop smoking crack.

You shut up and look it up yourself.

Concerning the child rapist thing. Why do you think Arthur C. Clark lived in Sri Lanka of all places? He was a "Sir" who had all the protections and connections that "Sir" Jimmy Savile had. The Sri Lankan government let him rape children there at the behest of the Freemasonic deep state in Britain. He was a "sex tourist" turned permanent resident.

Concerning the Luciferianism, he fucking spells it out in his novels with a sledgehammer, Jupiter literally becomes a sun called Lucifer. He's not even subtle.

that's a dangerous amount of projection, pedo.

...

What did he mean by this?

...

Both are freemasons.

I liked the movie but I have to agree, the only part of it that was good other than elder god tier visuals/music was anything to do with HAL, but that wasn't even the central plot. If I were in charge I would have made it more like System Shock and make HAL the antagonist and the whole movie would be about the protagonist shutting him down, not this vague shit about a mysterious rectangle.

Also OP I wouldn't blame it on Kubrick, the movie was a book originally so you can blame the hack fraud that wrote it for these problems (the ending of the book does have slightly more explanation though).

Kubrick read Arthur C. Clark's short story 'The Sentinel' and then went to him to expand upon it. The novel and the movie were made simultaneously and have many differences.

This tbh

Based Holla Forums
Try posting this on reddit and see the results. The tears will be amazing.

Wew. Are we invaded by contrarians?

This, man. Kubrick's a great director, but 2001 is one of the most boring movies I've ever seen.