Professional =/= cold and emotionless, and certainly doesn't mean unrelatable.
What we got from the astronauts in 2001 was frigid and flat, maybe for effect. They were living months on that thing, jogging, sleeping, ****ting, going ON and OFF shift. In a ship that was largely on computer guidance. Im not expecting The to be partying or drinking. But wanting a little relatability is not Me asking them to be unprofessional.
You were the one making the argument from authority, and the "believe me" was the giveaway.
Now that I've thrown you the counterexample and common sense reasoning, you offer back more credentials to back up the "believe me". It's just the sandbag version of the same argument.
Why do you keep quoting me as "dbag"? Is that really necessary? Its at least the second time you've done it. First you quoted me as "d***" then "dbag" and now "dbag" again.
And again instead of talking about the movie, you're insisting on talking about me. Since when did *I* become the topic of this thread?
since you starting quoting me a 808billbo which clearly isn't my name. if you want respect, give respect. understand?
you are the one making this thread personal, accusing people of saying you are "brainwashed" for not liking the movie. when u debate on a personal level, the arguments you receive will be on the same plane.
and i don't think i even attacked you on a personal level. you mentioned you liked James Cameron, and I explained why I think you like him. how is that an attack on you?
you also mentioned you find nothing in cinema timeless. that isn't me attacking you. that is you losing credibility on your own terms.
True. I guess the concept of "where did our intelligence come from/what purpose does it serve/why are we here?" isn't thought-provoking at all. Good point.
It's not about that, it's about asking what certain scenes of the movie represent, how they connect to the overall themes or ideas.
For instance, during the LSD ending, there's a scene about a bunch of floating octahedra. Ok, so Dave is currently experiencing some sort of jumpstarted evolution that will transform him into star-foetus/advanced life-form/whatever. How does this theme, this idea, connect with the scene with the octahedra?
The octahedra could mean anything. They could be alien spaceships, pure mathematical objects, sulfur hexafluoride molecules or potato. And something that can mean anything...ultimately means nothing.
It's unreasonable to ask the audience to think for itself in these circumstances, no matter how grandiose the theme might be.
And the implication is that not enjoying the glacial pace of 2001 is an indication that "unfortunately", I am one of those "brainwashed" people, while you, by virtue of enjoying this movie, are NOT one of those "brainwashed" people.
It's one thing to be a strong proponent of the movie. But unless you or your family member made it themselves (and it's therefore a very "personal" thing), I don't see why you have to attach some kind of FLAW to people who don't like it like you did.
I can't conceive of any reason why slow paced films are frowned upon other than the conditioning of modern cinematic techniques. Maybe I'm wrong...
Fine, I'm too "brainwashed" to get what the imagery ending of the movie was really about. I need it spelled out for me. Explain what the ending is about and why it was important for me to sit through.
I thought I did. It's a story about God, creation, evolution, intelligence, and, most importantly, the great big "why". You know, the same thing that The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was about but with less two-headed people. In Hitchhikers the answer was "42". In 2001 the answer is mostly up to the viewer.
Three Days of the Condor, nothing. I know a teenager who had a hard time sitting through Die Hard.
Die Hard.
So his father, older brother and I mocked his masculinity savagely to keep him awake through the thing. It was for his own good. He'll thank us in ten years.
But until that incident, I didn't really realize that, yeah, compared to modern films, the greatest Christmas action movie of all time is relatively slow.
Die Hard? That boy should be ashamed. Seven Samurai is a fantastic movie, but at 3.5 hours anyone who falls asleep gets a pass. But Die Hard is paced really well. I miss when movies had actual tension. Alien was fantastic for just that reason. The Thing (1982) was the same way - it was less about the horror and more about the dramatic tension.
Some classic movies aren't very interesting to me. Stanley Kubrick is very hit or miss. I like Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, but I hated A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The Rocky movies are long but ultimately pretty fulfilling, not to mention endlessly quotable (You evah fight a dinasah, Rock?).
Then there are older movies (mainly 70s and 80s) that are loveable just for how over the top they are, and not just Over The Top.
Ultimately, the more slower paced movies come down to whether or not the bits of story and action are worth the journey to get there.
Why do you keep quoting me as "dbag"? Is that really necessary? Its at least the second time you've done it. First you quoted me as "d***" then "dbag" and now "dbag" again.
And again instead of talking about the movie, you're insisting on talking about me. Since when did *I* become the topic of this thread?
since you starting quoting me a 808billbo which clearly isn't my name. if you want respect, give respect. understand?
I mistyped your name as 808Billbo instead of 808Billdo once because thats how i read it. Any other time I typed it that way was a typo. And when I figured out I mistyped it, I even went to the trouble of re-editing the post a while ago to get you name right.
I generally type out the name & brackets for small quotes because it's far easier to do that on an iPhone than to use the quote button & try to select and remove big blocks of text.
you are the one making this thread personal, accusing people of saying you are "brainwashed" for not liking the movie.
The original topic was that the op didn't like 2001 and he just didn't get it.
A good percentage of the pro-2001 comments have suggested that the movie is not appreciated by people today, because those people have ADD, short attention spans, are brainwashed by their electronics, etc.
Well I said I didn't like the movie too much, I found the achievement technically impressive for the time, I found the pacing too slow, I found actions and dialog of the characters portrayed were cold and dull, and there was no acting performance to engage me.
I don't think it's because I have ADD. I like a lot of slow paced movies, including films in black and white. The movie was just not for me. I love thinking about space, I love downloading and looking at Hubble photos. I am happy to sit down and speculate about life on other planets. But watching the psychedelic light show and the embryo at the end of 2001 is one bit of "visual poetry" I just didn't get much from. And the movie itself was way way too slow for me until the part where HAL starts going whacko... Dave finally became a person of interest when his life was on the line. Dave jogging and Dave eating and Dave reading computer screens did nothing for me. Seeing an upside down guy eating in a spaceship was a novelty in 1968. In the 1980s when I first watched this, Not so much. In 2012, it's an unimpressive visual
I appreciate that the movie sparked some people's imaginations and is considered a milestone film for many reasons.
@( N_S ): clearly you have a separate beef with me, and I'd be happy to take it offline. Your choice.
I am convinced that you have authority in the area of astronauts, and apologize for any slight, intentional or unintentional.
But I don't think you've articulated a convincing case for the "cold and emotionless" behavior of these astronauts in the NOT so "confined" Odyssey, which was bigger than a decent sized townhouse. Cold, emotional, and Professional under crisis, is what I expect. But that doesn't make them boring and robotic every minute of every day. The atmosphere in that movie was glacial, as was the pace. They lived together for months, the ship was under largely computer control, they had times when they needed to focus, they had downtime, and they even had time and room to jog. This is not the same thing as being cramped in an Apollo spacecraft or even the space shuttle or even space station.
But I concede I could be completely wrong, because that is a given.
Quote from ( N_S ) »
PS: Also, that 2001 computer guidance sure seemed to pay off in the movie
(1) it didnt "pay off" because not paying off served the plot.
(2) the astronauts being more or less "cold and emotionless" would have had no impact on that malfunction happening. Kubrick could have had them juggling, as you suggested, and HAL was still gonna start killing them.
It's not about that, it's about asking what certain scenes of the movie represent, how they connect to the overall themes or ideas.
For instance, during the LSD ending, there's a scene about a bunch of floating octahedra. Ok, so Dave is currently experiencing some sort of jumpstarted evolution that will transform him into star-foetus/advanced life-form/whatever. How does this theme, this idea, connect with the scene with the octahedra?
The octahedra could mean anything. They could be alien spaceships, pure mathematical objects, sulfur hexafluoride molecules or potato. And something that can mean anything...ultimately means nothing.
It's unreasonable to ask the audience to think for itself in these circumstances, no matter how grandiose the theme might be.
This has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't matter what was happening in the transition phase because that scene was meant to convey a transformation. The actual visuals aren't meant to convey anything specific beyond that transformation. You're argument has no real point because it's the scene after that transformation that is important.
The original topic was that the op didn't like 2001 and he just didn't get it.
A good percentage of the pro-2001 comments have suggested that the movie is not appreciated by people today, because those people have ADD, short attention spans, are brainwashed by their electronics, etc.
Well I said I didn't like the movie too much, I found the achievement technically impressive for the time, I found the pacing too slow, I found actions and dialog of the characters portrayed were cold and dull, and there was no acting performance to engage me.
Ok, you just said the pacing was slow. How else is anyone supposed to interpret that other than a lack of patience? Maybe not on your part because of all the thousands of black and white films you enjoy (:D), but the OP certainly seems like he is bored by slower paced films. How is that not a form of entertainment ADD? It's not as if 2001 was accidentally paced slow; it was a deliberate function of the creation of the film. It is paced that way to make a point. It's not Kubrick's fault that this intention/tone is lost on a modern generation. It's Michael Bay's fault.
A lot of debate here, but one thing I would like to mention is that 1 of reasons the computer went mad was because 'GOD' messed with it, so it directly related to the overall story of the film.
Ok, you just said the pacing was slow. How else is anyone supposed to interpret that other than a lack of patience?
The problem is that calling it a "lack of patience" on my part is stating that a flaw lies with me for not ENJOYING the movie.
If I go to the DMV and find it annoying to have to wait in line for 2 hours, how is anyone else supposed to interpret that other than a lack of patience on my part?
If we discuss a movie that I love and you find boring, is it fair for me to try to turn it around and say it's a "lack of basic empathy" on your part? Because the movie's "clearly great"?
I think it's great that you find the languidly beautiful space scenes set to music to capture your imagination and sweep you away into really being there. Watching two spaceships take 20 seconds to come together with music accompanying it is beautiful to you. There's nothing wrong with you for that. But what I see is two detailed models being slowly brought together against a background of black sheet metal with holes cut to it, while listening to an exerpt of classical music.
I think it's great that you see a guy jogging in a giant centrifuge wheel and suspended your disbelief and have a sense of wonder and imagine yourself as an astronaut exploring deep space. I think the special effects were fantastic for the time. But what I see is a guy jogging in a wheel, and doing mundane things in a stark white set, surrounded by white ikea furniture... I "get" that I'm supposed to be immersing myself in the mundane boredom of space travel, but it didn't transport me. So because of that difference in our experience, I found the movie to be very slow, scene after scene of models being slowly brought together and spun around, in front of black sheet metal backdrops, set to music.
For a huge section of the movie, nothing is happening except the special effects and some guys jogging and doing mundane things slowly. If the special effects don't manage to "transport you into space", and your dream is not to be an astronaut, then this movie can be really, really slow.
That does not make this my failing.
Maybe not on your part because of all the thousands of black and white films you enjoy (:D), but the OP certainly seems like he is bored by slower paced films. How is that not a form of entertainment ADD?
ADD is a disorder. Characterizing it as "entertainment ADD" implies there's something wrong with the person who didn't enjoy the movie.
Hardly seems fair to use like/dislike of 2001 as the measuring stick "entertainment ADD". You are patient because you like it. I am impatient because I dislike it?
And that wouldn't even be the accurate analogy anyway. Saying somebody has a form of "entertainment ADD" would mean that they couldn't sit through the movie.
Some of us here are saying we DIDN'T LIKE the movie.
It's not as if 2001 was accidentally paced slow; it was a deliberate function of the creation of the film. It is paced that way to make a point. It's not Kubrick's fault that this intention/tone is lost on a modern generation. It's Michael Bay's fault.
Funny you should bring up Michael Bay (a director I loathe, and have written hundreds of thousands of characters crapping on). I find his movies boring for the same reason I found 2001 boring.
First off, I know I might get grief for this, so let me preface this by saying 2001: A Space Odyssey is an important film, a far better executed film, and a film that (though boring) I enjoyed farm more than the TRANSFORMERS movies.
However, the reason I find them boring is the same. The story itself and human drama is not intrinsically entertaining to me, and the "special FX Porn" is not MY flavor of "special FX porn". Most of the entertainment value you are supposed to get out of the movie is based on the special effects: (1) in 2001, strip away the special effects, what are you actually left with? If this was the same story, except it was just on the open ocean? Would this be entertaining? Dudes in confined quarters doing very mundane things on boat in the dawn of sea exploration? (2) Transformers, you strip away the special effects, what are you left with? A terrible story, bad comedy... Would this be entertaining?
I think maybe a big difference we see about 2001 is that I actually think the film is about something. dcartist, I think you don't allow the message in because you hate the way it's delivered.
I think maybe a big difference we see about 2001 is that I actually think the film is about something. dcartist, I think you don't allow the message in because you hate the way it's delivered.
again, it must be about something *I've*missed.
I know the movie is "about something". I read the book as well. And multiple analyses of the movie after I watched it to try to see if I'd just missed something. It's science fiction.
What message have I failed to "allow in"?
Isn't it possible that I can understand the themes of the story and still simply not be gratified or entertained by the movie experience of "space travel porn" itself?
Isn't it just possible that this work of speculative fiction doesn't seem very earth shattering or special to me? It's not like there aren't a zillion books about extraterrestrials coming to earth, helping man to evolve, or about man evolving to a higher plane, etc. etc.
I know the movie is "about something". I read the book as well. And multiple analyses of the movie after I watched it to try to see if I'd just missed something. It's science fiction.
What message have I failed to "allow in"?
I would believe you if you'd stop saying things like this:
Isn't it possible that I can understand the themes of the story and still simply not be gratified or entertained by the movie experience of "space travel porn" itself?
Writing it off a "space travel porn" isn't helping convince me of your point of view. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you simply write off the entire film as fluff?
I would believe you if you'd stop saying things like this:
you should believe me because I have read the book. Which is quite literal in its explanations of what happens. There is certainly no "difficult to understand high order graduate level concept" that you either "get" or don't "get"
Writing it off a "space travel porn" isn't helping convince me of your point of view. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you simply write off the entire film as fluff?
i am not writing off the film as fluff.
But when I speak of much of the movie being "space travel porn" I am using the modern definition 2 of "porn". It's not sexual and Its not fluff. But you enjoy watching spaceships against a background of luxurious stars moving slowly to dock to classical music, because it sparks your imagination. Thus it holds your attention for a long time, even during these long parts where there is very little new going on in terms of film narrative.
2. television shows, articles, photographs, etc., thought to create or satisfy an excessive desire for something, especially something luxurious: the irresistible appeal of food porn; an addiction to real-estate porn.
Frankly I am into space porn too, but only the real stuff. Every time i stumble across Hubble pics during any surfing session or work, I have to drop everything and look at them, highest res possible. I'm also into "food porn" and my wife likes real estate porn, she can literally look at house hunters international for hours, even with the sound turned down.
Slow pan over a spaceship against a background of stars to Waltz music, and my wife would be bored senseless and pulling out her iPhone. Slow pan over a bunch of old English mansions & estates to the same music, and my wife is captivated and engaged.
I've never stated that the whole movie is "space porn".
But watching two ships docking in space for several minutes to the tune of Blue Danube Waltz (just as an example) may be thrilling if you're into "space porn"...
...and a bit boring if you are not into "space porn". And you are spending several minutes in a movie theater listening to waltz music and watching two models slowly be brought together in front of a piece of black sheet metal with holes punched in it.
There is intellectual value in the film, yes. But there is not necessarily a lot of intellectual value, entertainment, or narrative information going on during a 6 minute docking sequence, if you're not into "space porn".
I didn't even HATE the film. I just found a lot of it boring and its my least favorite Kubrick film that I've watched. I get its importance. I get it's themes.
But for much of the first hour+ of the movie, it's watching Kubrick's stark, white, ikea-like version of space ship interiors, dull characters not saying awhole lot, and not a lot of narrative information being offered per minute. Its thrilling if you like watching space and space ships... "space travel porn" (which I think is a fairly accurate term for the situation).
If you're not actually AWED by the sight of these two models slowly coming together against a backdrop of fake stars to waltz music, if you're not actually buying into the idea of this being two spaceships and imagining yourself as a deep space astronaut, wouldn't you be bored too?
I didn't dismiss the movie as being JUST "space porn". I'm saying that a large part of the movie can certainly be perceived that way by a person who is not into "space porn".
But its so unfair for you to tag ADD or "lack of patience" on any people who were bored by over an hour plus of spaceships in space, astronauts jogging and eating upside down, and two spaceships taking several minutes to slowly come together, to the strains of Blue Danube waltz.
Personally I like me some space porn, and don't think it's that derogatory.
Ok, that is the shot I'm talking about. At no point in that shot do they ever betray where real world gravity is located. Is the foreground set spinning or the set at the end of the hall? Are both sets spinning?
Ok, that is the shot I'm talking about. At no point in that shot do they ever betray where real world gravity is located. Is the foreground set spinning or the set at the end of the hall? Are both sets spinning?
I don't know! It's pretty dang amazing, IMO.
I'm pretty sure they start with the background spinning and the foreground stationary, and switch as the actors cross between them.
Don't get me wrong, it's an elegantly executed and very convincing bit of movie magic. But I think you're overstating your case just a bit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm pretty sure they start with the background spinning and the foreground stationary, and switch as the actors cross between them.
Don't get me wrong, it's an elegantly executed and very convincing bit of movie magic. But I think you're overstating your case just a bit.
You do understand the logistics involved in what you are suggesting, right? Two independently spinning sets rigged to start and stop at a precise time, while two people climb between them without betraying to the audience where gravity really is...
Ok, that is the shot I'm talking about. At no point in that shot do they ever betray where real world gravity is located. Is the foreground set spinning or the set at the end of the hall? Are both sets spinning?
I don't know! It's pretty dang amazing, IMO.
Its slick, but it's very simple.
You have F (foreground section) attached to B (background section), and capable of being rotated by a motor relative to A.
The camera is fixed to F.
You use the motor to spin F relative to B, so that B appears to be rotating at a constant angular motion relative to the camera and F at all times.
You spin B relative to the ground in the first half of the shot, to maintain F's orientation to the ground. (Interestingly, because the astronauts are leaning against the walls in the cramped hallway on each side of F rather than standing upright, and the camera is fixed to F, you don't even have to have a perfect counter-rotation Even if it's a bit slow or a bit fast, as long as you recover F back to middle without going too far, the shot looks good)
When they step onto section B (which they do simultaneously), you stop the rotation of B. The motor spinning F relative to B just has to keep going, but now F & the camera rotate relative to the ground (and relative to B) for the second half of the shot.
At least that's how I'd do the shot. I think that's the cleanest way, but maybe there's even a cleaner way.
What we got from the astronauts in 2001 was frigid and flat, maybe for effect. They were living months on that thing, jogging, sleeping, ****ting, going ON and OFF shift. In a ship that was largely on computer guidance. Im not expecting The to be partying or drinking. But wanting a little relatability is not Me asking them to be unprofessional.
You were the one making the argument from authority, and the "believe me" was the giveaway.
Now that I've thrown you the counterexample and common sense reasoning, you offer back more credentials to back up the "believe me". It's just the sandbag version of the same argument.
since you starting quoting me a 808billbo which clearly isn't my name. if you want respect, give respect. understand?
you are the one making this thread personal, accusing people of saying you are "brainwashed" for not liking the movie. when u debate on a personal level, the arguments you receive will be on the same plane.
and i don't think i even attacked you on a personal level. you mentioned you liked James Cameron, and I explained why I think you like him. how is that an attack on you?
you also mentioned you find nothing in cinema timeless. that isn't me attacking you. that is you losing credibility on your own terms.
My Mafia Stats - My Helpdesk
G Omnath, Locus of Mana U Arcum Dagsson BUG The Mimeoplasm GW Gaddock Teeg X Karn, Silver Golem
It's not about that, it's about asking what certain scenes of the movie represent, how they connect to the overall themes or ideas.
For instance, during the LSD ending, there's a scene about a bunch of floating octahedra. Ok, so Dave is currently experiencing some sort of jumpstarted evolution that will transform him into star-foetus/advanced life-form/whatever. How does this theme, this idea, connect with the scene with the octahedra?
The octahedra could mean anything. They could be alien spaceships, pure mathematical objects, sulfur hexafluoride molecules or potato. And something that can mean anything...ultimately means nothing.
It's unreasonable to ask the audience to think for itself in these circumstances, no matter how grandiose the theme might be.
I can't conceive of any reason why slow paced films are frowned upon other than the conditioning of modern cinematic techniques. Maybe I'm wrong...
I thought I did. It's a story about God, creation, evolution, intelligence, and, most importantly, the great big "why". You know, the same thing that The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was about but with less two-headed people. In Hitchhikers the answer was "42". In 2001 the answer is mostly up to the viewer.
Die Hard? That boy should be ashamed. Seven Samurai is a fantastic movie, but at 3.5 hours anyone who falls asleep gets a pass. But Die Hard is paced really well. I miss when movies had actual tension. Alien was fantastic for just that reason. The Thing (1982) was the same way - it was less about the horror and more about the dramatic tension.
Some classic movies aren't very interesting to me. Stanley Kubrick is very hit or miss. I like Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, but I hated A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The Rocky movies are long but ultimately pretty fulfilling, not to mention endlessly quotable (You evah fight a dinasah, Rock?).
Then there are older movies (mainly 70s and 80s) that are loveable just for how over the top they are, and not just Over The Top.
Ultimately, the more slower paced movies come down to whether or not the bits of story and action are worth the journey to get there.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I generally type out the name & brackets for small quotes because it's far easier to do that on an iPhone than to use the quote button & try to select and remove big blocks of text.
The original topic was that the op didn't like 2001 and he just didn't get it.
A good percentage of the pro-2001 comments have suggested that the movie is not appreciated by people today, because those people have ADD, short attention spans, are brainwashed by their electronics, etc.
Well I said I didn't like the movie too much, I found the achievement technically impressive for the time, I found the pacing too slow, I found actions and dialog of the characters portrayed were cold and dull, and there was no acting performance to engage me.
I don't think it's because I have ADD. I like a lot of slow paced movies, including films in black and white. The movie was just not for me. I love thinking about space, I love downloading and looking at Hubble photos. I am happy to sit down and speculate about life on other planets. But watching the psychedelic light show and the embryo at the end of 2001 is one bit of "visual poetry" I just didn't get much from. And the movie itself was way way too slow for me until the part where HAL starts going whacko... Dave finally became a person of interest when his life was on the line. Dave jogging and Dave eating and Dave reading computer screens did nothing for me. Seeing an upside down guy eating in a spaceship was a novelty in 1968. In the 1980s when I first watched this, Not so much. In 2012, it's an unimpressive visual
I appreciate that the movie sparked some people's imaginations and is considered a milestone film for many reasons.
@( N_S ): clearly you have a separate beef with me, and I'd be happy to take it offline. Your choice.
I am convinced that you have authority in the area of astronauts, and apologize for any slight, intentional or unintentional.
But I don't think you've articulated a convincing case for the "cold and emotionless" behavior of these astronauts in the NOT so "confined" Odyssey, which was bigger than a decent sized townhouse. Cold, emotional, and Professional under crisis, is what I expect. But that doesn't make them boring and robotic every minute of every day. The atmosphere in that movie was glacial, as was the pace. They lived together for months, the ship was under largely computer control, they had times when they needed to focus, they had downtime, and they even had time and room to jog. This is not the same thing as being cramped in an Apollo spacecraft or even the space shuttle or even space station.
But I concede I could be completely wrong, because that is a given.
(1) it didnt "pay off" because not paying off served the plot.
(2) the astronauts being more or less "cold and emotionless" would have had no impact on that malfunction happening. Kubrick could have had them juggling, as you suggested, and HAL was still gonna start killing them.
This has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't matter what was happening in the transition phase because that scene was meant to convey a transformation. The actual visuals aren't meant to convey anything specific beyond that transformation. You're argument has no real point because it's the scene after that transformation that is important.
Ok, you just said the pacing was slow. How else is anyone supposed to interpret that other than a lack of patience? Maybe not on your part because of all the thousands of black and white films you enjoy (:D), but the OP certainly seems like he is bored by slower paced films. How is that not a form of entertainment ADD? It's not as if 2001 was accidentally paced slow; it was a deliberate function of the creation of the film. It is paced that way to make a point. It's not Kubrick's fault that this intention/tone is lost on a modern generation. It's Michael Bay's fault.
If I go to the DMV and find it annoying to have to wait in line for 2 hours, how is anyone else supposed to interpret that other than a lack of patience on my part?
If we discuss a movie that I love and you find boring, is it fair for me to try to turn it around and say it's a "lack of basic empathy" on your part? Because the movie's "clearly great"?
I think it's great that you find the languidly beautiful space scenes set to music to capture your imagination and sweep you away into really being there. Watching two spaceships take 20 seconds to come together with music accompanying it is beautiful to you. There's nothing wrong with you for that. But what I see is two detailed models being slowly brought together against a background of black sheet metal with holes cut to it, while listening to an exerpt of classical music.
I think it's great that you see a guy jogging in a giant centrifuge wheel and suspended your disbelief and have a sense of wonder and imagine yourself as an astronaut exploring deep space. I think the special effects were fantastic for the time. But what I see is a guy jogging in a wheel, and doing mundane things in a stark white set, surrounded by white ikea furniture... I "get" that I'm supposed to be immersing myself in the mundane boredom of space travel, but it didn't transport me. So because of that difference in our experience, I found the movie to be very slow, scene after scene of models being slowly brought together and spun around, in front of black sheet metal backdrops, set to music.
For a huge section of the movie, nothing is happening except the special effects and some guys jogging and doing mundane things slowly. If the special effects don't manage to "transport you into space", and your dream is not to be an astronaut, then this movie can be really, really slow.
That does not make this my failing.
ADD is a disorder. Characterizing it as "entertainment ADD" implies there's something wrong with the person who didn't enjoy the movie.
Hardly seems fair to use like/dislike of 2001 as the measuring stick "entertainment ADD". You are patient because you like it. I am impatient because I dislike it?
And that wouldn't even be the accurate analogy anyway. Saying somebody has a form of "entertainment ADD" would mean that they couldn't sit through the movie.
Some of us here are saying we DIDN'T LIKE the movie.
Funny you should bring up Michael Bay (a director I loathe, and have written hundreds of thousands of characters crapping on). I find his movies boring for the same reason I found 2001 boring.
First off, I know I might get grief for this, so let me preface this by saying 2001: A Space Odyssey is an important film, a far better executed film, and a film that (though boring) I enjoyed farm more than the TRANSFORMERS movies.
However, the reason I find them boring is the same. The story itself and human drama is not intrinsically entertaining to me, and the "special FX Porn" is not MY flavor of "special FX porn". Most of the entertainment value you are supposed to get out of the movie is based on the special effects: (1) in 2001, strip away the special effects, what are you actually left with? If this was the same story, except it was just on the open ocean? Would this be entertaining? Dudes in confined quarters doing very mundane things on boat in the dawn of sea exploration? (2) Transformers, you strip away the special effects, what are you left with? A terrible story, bad comedy... Would this be entertaining?
I know the movie is "about something". I read the book as well. And multiple analyses of the movie after I watched it to try to see if I'd just missed something. It's science fiction.
What message have I failed to "allow in"?
Isn't it possible that I can understand the themes of the story and still simply not be gratified or entertained by the movie experience of "space travel porn" itself?
Isn't it just possible that this work of speculative fiction doesn't seem very earth shattering or special to me? It's not like there aren't a zillion books about extraterrestrials coming to earth, helping man to evolve, or about man evolving to a higher plane, etc. etc.
I would believe you if you'd stop saying things like this:
Writing it off a "space travel porn" isn't helping convince me of your point of view. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you simply write off the entire film as fluff?
i am not writing off the film as fluff.
But when I speak of much of the movie being "space travel porn" I am using the modern definition 2 of "porn". It's not sexual and Its not fluff. But you enjoy watching spaceships against a background of luxurious stars moving slowly to dock to classical music, because it sparks your imagination. Thus it holds your attention for a long time, even during these long parts where there is very little new going on in terms of film narrative.
http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=porn&o=0&l=dir
Frankly I am into space porn too, but only the real stuff. Every time i stumble across Hubble pics during any surfing session or work, I have to drop everything and look at them, highest res possible. I'm also into "food porn" and my wife likes real estate porn, she can literally look at house hunters international for hours, even with the sound turned down.
Slow pan over a spaceship against a background of stars to Waltz music, and my wife would be bored senseless and pulling out her iPhone. Slow pan over a bunch of old English mansions & estates to the same music, and my wife is captivated and engaged.
But by referring to 2001 as "space porn" you are ignoring the intellectual value of the film.
But watching two ships docking in space for several minutes to the tune of Blue Danube Waltz (just as an example) may be thrilling if you're into "space porn"...
...and a bit boring if you are not into "space porn". And you are spending several minutes in a movie theater listening to waltz music and watching two models slowly be brought together in front of a piece of black sheet metal with holes punched in it.
There is intellectual value in the film, yes. But there is not necessarily a lot of intellectual value, entertainment, or narrative information going on during a 6 minute docking sequence, if you're not into "space porn".
I didn't even HATE the film. I just found a lot of it boring and its my least favorite Kubrick film that I've watched. I get its importance. I get it's themes.
But for much of the first hour+ of the movie, it's watching Kubrick's stark, white, ikea-like version of space ship interiors, dull characters not saying awhole lot, and not a lot of narrative information being offered per minute. Its thrilling if you like watching space and space ships... "space travel porn" (which I think is a fairly accurate term for the situation).
If you're not actually AWED by the sight of these two models slowly coming together against a backdrop of fake stars to waltz music, if you're not actually buying into the idea of this being two spaceships and imagining yourself as a deep space astronaut, wouldn't you be bored too?
I didn't dismiss the movie as being JUST "space porn". I'm saying that a large part of the movie can certainly be perceived that way by a person who is not into "space porn".
But its so unfair for you to tag ADD or "lack of patience" on any people who were bored by over an hour plus of spaceships in space, astronauts jogging and eating upside down, and two spaceships taking several minutes to slowly come together, to the strains of Blue Danube waltz.
Personally I like me some space porn, and don't think it's that derogatory.
http://m.io9.com/5394972/the-ultimate-space-porn-a-648-megapixel-image-of-our-galaxy
And I can probably look at it for 6 minutes while listening to waltz music.
But I'm not going to assume that EVERYBODY has to like it or find it the least bit entertaining.
Ok, that is the shot I'm talking about. At no point in that shot do they ever betray where real world gravity is located. Is the foreground set spinning or the set at the end of the hall? Are both sets spinning?
I don't know! It's pretty dang amazing, IMO.
I'm pretty sure they start with the background spinning and the foreground stationary, and switch as the actors cross between them.
Don't get me wrong, it's an elegantly executed and very convincing bit of movie magic. But I think you're overstating your case just a bit.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You do understand the logistics involved in what you are suggesting, right? Two independently spinning sets rigged to start and stop at a precise time, while two people climb between them without betraying to the audience where gravity really is...
That's still amazing.
You have F (foreground section) attached to B (background section), and capable of being rotated by a motor relative to A.
The camera is fixed to F.
You use the motor to spin F relative to B, so that B appears to be rotating at a constant angular motion relative to the camera and F at all times.
You spin B relative to the ground in the first half of the shot, to maintain F's orientation to the ground. (Interestingly, because the astronauts are leaning against the walls in the cramped hallway on each side of F rather than standing upright, and the camera is fixed to F, you don't even have to have a perfect counter-rotation Even if it's a bit slow or a bit fast, as long as you recover F back to middle without going too far, the shot looks good)
When they step onto section B (which they do simultaneously), you stop the rotation of B. The motor spinning F relative to B just has to keep going, but now F & the camera rotate relative to the ground (and relative to B) for the second half of the shot.
At least that's how I'd do the shot. I think that's the cleanest way, but maybe there's even a cleaner way.