Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics.
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I'd say 2001 Space Odyssey. The film has its interesting parts but the pace is absolutely awful. It makes it unwatchable. I watched it a while ago and couldn't finish it. Multiple long dragged sequences showing off the ships where nothing happens. Everything is an excuse to drag the scene, even a goddamn elevator. By the time I got the HAL part I was fed up with it and couldn't go on. It has multiple parts (starting with the music at the start) where it seemed they had a script but had to have a movie yay long. Like a class film. So they took every opportunity to stretch it.
Some people say I don't get it because it's not Michael Bay. That I have to appreciate the art in those long drawn out scenes. Well, excuse me, but I wanted to watch a movie, not a painting. Also, I shouldn't be expected to be on acid while watching. A disclaimer would help.
As a huge fan of the movie (and books) I kind of agree. I have managed to watch it in full only handful of times. I usually fall asleep mid-movie.
Having said that, I still love it. It also helps me fall asleep sometimes, so win-win. But I get what you're saying.
One thing that's probably worth keeping in mind is that the movie was made before the manned moon landing in 1969. So many of the scenes are super interesting just from the realism POV. Today we're one click away from a HD video someone made at the international space station. Back then you had few grainy transmissions from space. Star Wars was almost decade later.
So yeah, seeing ship slowly floating across the screen in complete silence is boring, but it's also realistic. Same for many other scenes. Now you can play games that will render the same scene in real time on a potato-level PC, so the novelty of seeing "how space might look like out there" is just not there.
So in many ways it's like seeing the bullet time scene in Matrix for the first time vs seeing the bullet time scene in any random movie decade later.
Yeah if you read the book they actually tell you what's going on.
The book is amazing. I love the film too, but the book def helps fill in the gaps
The slowness is meant to represent the distance they are traveling, in both time and space. This was also made in 1968, the moon landing was in 1969. Compare Planet of the Apes to 2001 for a good comparison of what special effects were like in the same year.
The top block busters of that year https://www.imdb.com/list/ls068940380/
Most of them are long winded, it was the style of the time.
If you think of the movie as 3 parts. One, pre-man discovers tools (because the monolith changes one tribe). Two, Man must overcome the tools it has created. Three, man is absorbed by the aliens tool to become next-man.
Anyways, I understand why someone might not like it but it is one of my all time favorite movies and its worth watching later in your life as you might get different impressions on it if you are young now
I too recently watched this film for the first time. I didn't like it at all. The shock factor with HAL maybe kept people interested back then but it's a almost common theme today. I think Kubrick is overrated.
Holy shit, thank you. My husband thinks I'm crazy for not enjoying this film. We saw it for the first time at a special event thing at a theater because he'd always wanted to see it, and I was so fucking bored.
I remember falling asleep to some dude jogging in a gigantic circle, and I woke up and was like "Omg it's still playing."
HAL was neat. Have no idea what was going on with the giant space fetus.
I came out saying that it was the most boring yet gorgeous film I'd ever seen. Because I mean, it WAS fucking pretty.
This, like other movies, I think comes down to novelty. Some of the shit done in that movie was truly incredible... At the time. Some bits are still really interesting.
The jogging scene, for example, was done at a time when CG wasn't really an option. So then you ask the question... How did they do some of these shots? How is this guy seemingly running in a zero g circle but it's actually a real camera?
Cinematic transitions are another. The bone spinning into the space station was really cool. It's a shot that has permeated like every form of media. Now it kinda looks cheap and jarring.
HAL as an AI, an evil robot, was an extremely interesting. Now it's something that has been done so, so many times since.
As a sci Fi I still like it, the slow pace isn't something that bothers me. I enjoy movies that are capable of taking their time. So many movies move at breakneck speeds. The plot is really cool to me as well.
Otherwise, yes, it's not surprising that a modern audience finds this incredibly boring for all the points above.