Finally. I thought I was going crazy seeing how this movie was essentially the 60s equivalent of the Avengers, an event movie everyone went to see that was the biggest movie of the year. My father said he went to see it at a drive in theater when he was like 8. And then the movie itself is like arthouse cinema. I like it, but I find it hard to imagine the average person having the patience to sit through the whole thing. Unless normies in the 60s were just built different.
>>216722480I can understand being filtered before they actually get on the space ship but after that it's totally gripping the whole way through.
>Woman has shit tasteHow is this news?
>>216722480It took me like three tries to get past beginning monkey scene
>>216722530The whole part after he kills HAL is potentially even more filtering than the monkeys, like 20 minutes straight of flashing lights and no dialogue. I feel like people only survived it because if you can handle the monkeys of course you can finish the whole movie.
>>216722480I totally understand her feeling, I have the same problem with Blade Runner and LOTR : each time I end up falling asleep or quitting
>>216722480she's right though. i watched it and cant remember shit.took me three tires to watch salems lot. i would always fall asleep midway.
>>216722823>falling asleep>>216722826>fall asleepMoon did that for me. Sam rockwell. Thing is I like sci fi but t really is just boring.I watched it over the period of a week, would fall asleep and carry on from where I remembered and fall asleep again.>>216722530>totally grippingIt is not, its boring.2010 on the other hand is great
>>216722480She's so fucking based
>>216722480It's arthouse, so it's slow by default, very weird too, but definitely it's good, watched only once
When did /tv/ posters get so comfortable admitting they were plebs?
>>216722480>Unless normies in the 60s were just built different.It's this.
>>216722823Blade Runner felt like there was a side plot with Deckard's partner they accidentally cut out of the movie
what is le dope
i watched this thing when i was 8 or 9 years old and was glued to the screen, can't understand how people get filtered when it has spaceships, a techno thriller plot, a haunted house ghost story in space with a cosmic mystery that pulls you in like a magnetit honestly just exposes people's complete lack of innate wonder, has shit to do with being slow or intellectual.
>>216724007Same here, I was probably 11 and it was playing on PBS and I was in from the opening MGM logo. Not liking this movie is just ridiculous.
>>216722480good to know you are both average retards
Didn't find it slow outside the 3 minute long blackscreen intro but was filtered by the plot>Monkeys use the weapons to kill other monkeys>Humans in space don't turn on eachotherAre the humans and HAL turning on eachother supposed to mirror the monkeys? If so that's underwhelming
>>216722823I don't find those movies comparable at all. Blade Runner and Lord of the Rings both have stories that aren't hard to follow even if they are also atmospheric movies.2001 is both slower and more confusing.
>>216723792I dunno bro, usually I FELL asleep after 15mins but last time I lasted one hour and I still can't remember what happened
>>216724626>Monkeys use the weapons to kill other monkeys>Humans in space don't turn on each otherWhat?? Why would that be what it's about? The movie isn't about weapons, it's about technology. You missed the point of the most famous jump cut in film history.
While I will agree that people lack patience these days, the movie is poorly paced. Don't be some artsy fartsy who automatically associates slow with deep or profound. The movie is good from the introduction of the crew until shutting down of HAL. Everything before and after are excruciatingly slow scenes of apes or special effects porn. A lot of the scenes are meta showcases of film making or "look it's the future" and don't help the story at all. Prime example is the video phone call with his daughter. That's cool for 1970, but it's lost on 2025. The interview on the tablets is a better use of showcasing technology while storytelling. You get to show off the tablets while also getting some exposition about the mission, the crew, and HAL. Or him running through the centrifuge. Everything with the HAL subplot is the best part of the movie. The acid trip, the apes, and all the dragged out establishing shots and tech porn needed to be reigned in.
we all have that one movie we just can't get through
>>216724794>The movie is good from the introduction of the crew until shutting down of HAL.I completely agree with this. I enjoyed Solaris more and it has that infamous driving scene which was way too long. I think 2001 had too much of it feel like that driving scene with things simply not being interesting to justify such a slow dragging pace.
>>216724754It's not made abundantly clear in the film itself, but the second object in that jumpcut is meant to be a kind of space-based laser, with it representing a jump from the "first" weapon to the newest.
>>216722480>Unless normies in the 60s were just built different.For normies back then, it was carried by the special effects. You'd go for the space ships, but you had to endure the "boring" stuff. I put "boring" in quotes because back then even that stuff was stunning to see on the big screen. Heck, even the big screen itself was enough to be excited; it could just be literal shit on screen and you'd be hyped.
>>216724794>special effects pornExactly, and that is how normies enjoyed it in the 60s.>While I will agree that people lack patienceand it was their patience that got them through the poorly paced bits; they knew they'd be rewarded with the porn soon enough. And of course back then there wasn't as much to compete with your attention. 10 minutes of "basically nothing" wasn't a problem. These days most will take out their phone and then it's all over.
>>216722480well, that's a woman talking, why did you expect?
*what
>>216725012That detail was cut from the script, and for good reason. If it's a space weapon, then it's a bit on the nose. But if it's a satellite, then it's more nuanced. Human progress was driven by conflict, and as bad as that is, look where it got us. The fact we still kill each other with the fruits of our progress is a conclusion I can draw on my own; I don't need to film to tell me that like I'm some drooling window licker.
>>216725144>And of course back then there wasn't as much to compete with your attention. 10 minutes of "basically nothing" wasn't a problem. These days most will take out their phone and then it's all over.There's nothing to compete these days either, in your phone there's just white noise
>>216722480I feel this way about Solaris
>>216722480>>216722823I find both 2001 and Blade Runner to be incredibly gripping, the latter being a serious contender for my all time favorite kino, but I almost fell asleep watching Avatar, and I was a teenager back when it was new. Normies confuse me.
