I’m trying to get a gauge of what people here are interested in.

  • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I can recognize 2001 as being incredible and inspiring for its time, but it doesn’t hold up very well. By modern standards, it is painfully boring and tedious.

    • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Disagree, I think 2001 is perfect. Yes it’s slow, but that’s intentional, it’s part of the feeling of the film.

      Modern standards don’t really apply, because I don’t think anyone nowadays is trying to do what Kubrick was, nor (obviously) was he trying to live up to any standards of future movie making.

      Each to their own of course, but wanted to put a friendly counterpoint :-)

      • eightpix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        2001 is timeless.

        Political intrigue, technological advancement, piercing the unknown, all drawn on the backdrop of an innocuous, normal exploration mission.

        Until things go awry.

        As directly inspired by 2001, I’d count a bunch of modern classics: Children of Men (2006), Sunshine (2007), Passengers (2016), the Expanse (TV series), and more.

        What Kubrick did write the story with Arthur C. Clarke, slow the pace to reflect the long-haul nature of the mission — let alone the slow pace of human development — and focus on the sheer scale of progress needed to achieve such exploration. He also ensured that the conflict was truly tangible and high-stakes. Simple and human in its genesis, but devastating in its execution. Then, confronting ET intelligence as truly “other.”

        Perfect.