776
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by Blaze@lemmy.cafe to c/movies@lemm.ee
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago

I cannot stand 2001 A Space Odyssey

It's glacially paced, there's like 1 good scene with HAL and Dave and the rotating set is neat with him running around the edge. It's about 20 minutes of decent movie padded to an agonising two and a half hours of pretentious nonsense.

People go "oh, but it was groundbreaking at the time!" We'd had Star Trek for two years by that point. It really was not that groundbreaking.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago

I feel like you have to go in knowing it's extremely slow and methodical, it really gives room to breath and take in the sights and such. Idk it's a very interestingly shot movie and I wish more were like it, seems like people's attention spans aren't long enough though.

[-] kalpol@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Also seeing it in a real theater makes a big difference

[-] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

Seeing it in a real theatre while stoned makes a huuuuuge difference. "It's full of stars!!"

[-] Zacpod@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Or at home on LSD.

[-] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club 3 points 2 weeks ago

Both of those movies are on my watchlist. My family saw 2001 A Space Odyssey and they HATED it.

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

exactly how i feel about it too. the 5 minute long segment that was just nature footage with weird visual filters was also particularly hard to watch.

i also found the whole obelisk thing super repetitive. i was hoping that they would go into more detail about the obelisks, and explore the topic more. but it ended up feeling like they were asking the question “what’s a list of weird times and places where we could put an obelisk”, and that was the extent of it.

[-] MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

We’d had Star Trek for two years by that point. It really was not that groundbreaking.

Star Wars came out 9 years after 2001 (edit: and the original series Star Trek doesn’t have near the realism of 2001). The visuals absolutely were groundbreaking -- they still hold up, and look better than all but a handful of space movies that came out before about the 90s.

Your point with the pacing is fair, but I think about half that is an artifact of the time or a byproduct of watching it on a couch with a smartphone instead of in a theater.

this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
776 points (97.4% liked)

movies

1816 readers
305 users here now

Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.

🔎 Find discussion threads

A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome

Related communities:

Show communities:

Discussion communities:

RULES

Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.

Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.

Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.

2024 discussion threads

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS