Why Does Everyone Love "2001: A Space Odyssey"?
 

Ready for a rant?

This is a serious question. I'm not attempting to flame anyone or troll; I'm actually serious. Why is this movie so highly regarded?

I saw this film for the first time a few years ago, and still remember it... for how inanely boring and unbelievably bizarre it was. After watching, I simply asked myself, "Why?" Why did I sit and endure almost 2 hours of pure LSD-trip insanity with the intriguing nature of a pencil sitting on a chair?

I never understood what anything meant when I first watched it. I had to be told by my uncle about what the monolith meant, why we were shown 10 minutes of spaceships floating to The Blue Danube, why we were subject to almost 20 minutes of a 60s psychedelic trip into the colors of the wind, and why we were shown a gargantuan baby with absolutely no warning whatsoever, except to tell non-book readers, "HA! Didn't see that coming, did ya?"

I understand it all. I know every symbolic meaning to this film. Why? Because I attempted to like it. I did. I attempted to understand the long, drawn-out phases of events that were as compelling as watching security camera footage from a grocery store at 3 am. I attempted to grasp the "epicness" that everyone so fervently talked about. I tried.

"The message is what matters," most would say.

...No, it's not. Some would call me an idiot, assuming I'm the kind of guy who enjoys fast-paced, mindless movies that has no deep quality at all. But just this isn't true. I see so much when I watch film. I've seen over a thousand films in my lifetime; I'm a movie buff; I have a very diverse taste.

But I cannot understand why "2001" is so highly praised. What is there to praise? Camera angles? "Absorbing the moment?" "Beauty?" "Beauty" is only beautiful for so long before it ends up outright mind-numbing. And I'm NOT insensitive. I can look at a sunrise for an hour. I can. But what is the cinematic point of looking at it for that long on a screen?

A message is only compelling when it's accompanied by some sort of plot, but there is no observable plotline (or storyline, for that matter) in "2001: A Space Odyssey." None. You can't call "evolution of man" a plot; it isn't. You can't call "progression into the future" a story. It isn't; it's an idea. Moreso, in "2001," it's merely a depicted idea, but nothing more than depiction.

Now, I'm going to get blasted for this on here. I'll be crucified for it. "'2001' is one of the most brilliant sci-fi films ever created!!! What's wrong with you?!!?!??!?!?!1 You are just too dumb to get it." I can hear the insults and retaliation coming forth already.

But I'm posting this topic because I am actually, genuinely curious to know why everyone here regards it so highly. I want to know what you guys like about this film. Is it merely the "beauty?" If so, I applaud your ability to sit through nothing but stationary shots of space for 20 minutes at a time. I'm truly amazed. No really: I'm truly amazed. But really, tell me why you like it. I'm dying to know why.

yeah i also don't understand why it's considered such a great film so i decided to watch it one day when it was showing on TV. i recorded it and watched it another day.... about 15-20 minutes in i got bored and deleted it :D

The only thing i like about it so far is the epic intro music. :P

First off, I'll *strongly* recommend the 2001 *novel* to anyone here. Clarke knows how to tell this stuff, and does a simply awesome job keeping the reader engaged. And contrary to what most people think, the novel was not based on the film. In fact, in the novel, the destination planet *isn't* Jupiter (no spoilers, I hope! ;))

Regarding the movie: 2001 is illustrative of some fascinating locations and scenarios, but, as a piece of storytelling, is rather difficult to like (for me). Pace is a huge problem. Particularly once you've already seen it, watching it again without your thumb firmly planted on the fast-forward/skip button is almost impossible. Some of the segments are just incredibly long relative to the amount of actual story you glean from them. This is, of course, intentional, but it does make a taste for the movie a somewhat exclusive thing.

There are many reasons why it is considered one of the greatest movies of all time. Remember that up until 2001, space was shown in very absurd ways. Kubrick tried to be as realistic as possible with it in terms of design, the physics of it, etc. For instance, there is no sound in space. He is one of the few that shows that. He made space travel look more plausible with the space station like ship, the clothing, etc. He was showing stuff on there that was still in planning and testing phases at MIT and NASA. The special effects were also ahead of its time as well.

When it comes to the message of it, I agree that it is less clear but that is also typical of the time period. I admit that it is a bit dated but if you were to imagine someone living in 1967-1968 when it came out, you would have been blown away considering that scifi usually was treated with campiness unless its a movie like Forbidden Planet. 2001 tried to be philosophical but to those who never read the book, the ending in particular would make many people scratch their heads. I know I did. I admit that some of the scenes are very, very long like the big snooze inducing scene with the ships while the Blue Danube Waltz is playing. Also keep in mind that back in the 1960's, they were more accustomed to slower paced movies unlike today where most movies move at a frenetic pace.

In spite of the snooze moments, it does have an important message about technology and life and death. Unlike previous scifi films that treated progress and technology as very wonderful things, 2001 does get the message across that technology and progress are not always a good such as the case with Hal who has no moral conscience just a machine's brain who ultimately kills mostly everyone. One could argue that Hal is evolving into another kind of intelligence who is self aware and it was only trying to protect itself but then other moral issues are brought up. It is a film that can make one think but the argument can also be made that it is just a pretentious piece of crap. Either way, it is still a great movie although I admit that it isn't on one of my favorites and I don't think I will be watching it over and over again.

Movies with intelligence behind them back then were uncompromising in artistic intent. They expected you to work at understanding them. You said you had to be told by your uncle what the monolith meant; audiences then were more accustomed to thinking about puzzles like that and coming up with their own answers. Jerome B. Agel's book "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" contains a selection of letters from fans and their imaginations simply ran riot over what was going on; their interpretations are breathtaking in extent.

2001 is a movie for people who prefer more questions than answers. The book answers them. 2010 reduced it from the sublime to the mechanistic.

Kubrick 2001: The space odyssey explained

This should clear up some things.

Shouldn't movies, by definition, have the answer embedded just clearly enough so that an average audience could grasp its intent? Why did it have to be explained with long, drawn-out scenes that bored one to death? I understand this was made in the 60s, and that people may have been accustomed to such films, but as I said, I'm a movie buff. I've seen all sorts of films from the 60s, and none of them are as slow-paced as "2001."

Even Kubrick's "Spartacus," released 8 years prior, showed quite a long scene towards the end battle where the Roman army was gathering, but was still a bit intrguing because it intercut with shots of other people, and lines were said. That's what made it interesting. "Avatar" does the same thing: it shows you the beautiful vistas of Pandora's stunning landscape while intercutting with plot elements. That's how film is done concerning capturing the public's attention while still holding their interest. With "2001" you have none of that. What happened?

It's like holding to the argument that the 1931 version of "Dracula" is a "classic." "It's a fine representation of the 'horror' genre at its best." But Stoker purists (including me, but not only me) would tell you that it sucks. It strays very far from the novel, is incredibly boring beyond belief, doesn't show anything like the book describes (but rather has it talked out), and contains some of the worst acting in history. They, surprisingly, recommend "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (Coppola's version) because it's claimed to be much truer to the novel, and it's far more engrossing. I listened, watched, and agreed. It was.

What does this mean, though? In my opinion, it means that you can't simply pass off a film for being a "product of its times." Films like that, for the most part, normally die quite quickly. But classics like the '31 version of Dracula, "2001," and a slew of other films that just aren't good by today's standards of artistic filming, remain in the favored eye of the public because they were thought of highly in their day. This is not a good trend.

Well i personally love it. :P I can't really explain why, i guess it has something to do with the way it can be interpreted in so many different ways.. i personally see it either as a depiction on the stages of our evolution or as a exploration of our place in the universe. I've watched it several times, and every time i see a different message in it.
As for the baby, which was a big 'wtf?!' moment for alot of people (including me the first time i saw it), i see it as being symbolic of how, even though we believe ourselves to be an 'advanced' species, we are still only in our infancy. The book probably says otherwise, but thats just how i see it.

I guess its just one of those things you either love or hate :)

By whose definition? Why should everything be at the level of "average"? Why not have something that's beyond the average grasp?

I don't know enough about the '31 Dracula to comment, but I hardly think you've proven your case that 2001 isn't good by today's standards, and I'm sure there's a raft of people educated in the art of film who'd disagree with you. I'm not educated in that, so I can't produce any kind of erudite arguments of disagreement.

It's different from today's standards, for sure, but many works are different from today's standards without becoming less great. It takes a pile of notes larger than the text to understand what Shakespeare is saying these days but that doesn't make his work any less brilliant.

To my mind, there is a purpose to the "boring bits". For one, they draw a stark contrast between the mechanistic sterile lives modern Man lives - I don't need to justify that one to this audience - and the tough but vital existence of our primitive forebears. Are we doomed to sink further into becoming appendages of our machines, or can we transcend that fate? This is the sort of thing that the mind of the appreciative 2001 viewer churns on when it is "boring."

To look at it another way: Kubrick is a master of story, and was already so by 1968. He was fanatical about his craft and never did anything without a very good reason. If he does something that looks boring, there must be something to discover underneath.

I've never seen it. But I can tell you that I hate it and it sucks!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, I have been educated in the art of film (and rightly so, considering my major is related to it), and I'd rather rely on actual, empirical reasons behind storytelling than vague references that signify imagery and random thought about the universe. I'm not trying to be pretentious or anything, but I am saying that just because a message may be behind the whole thing doesn't make it "correct" in film. There's a reason why no other film has done the same thing. My contention is: it's because it simply doesn't work.

Kubrick made "Eyes Wide Shut," which I thought was a terrible film. Was it because I "didn't understand it" or "didn't possess enough of a 'mental capacity' to appreciate it?" Was it because I "have a lack of seasoned movie-going experience to draw a proper opinion of it?" I've been accused of all of these for criticizing both "Eyes Wide Shut" and "2001." I resent that, coming from others.

Storytelling... Stephen King is a storyteller. Steven Spielberg is a storyteller. Christopher Nolan is a storyteller. Cameron Crowe is a storyteller. Frank Herbert was a storyteller. James Cameron is a storyteller.

Kubrick... is more of a visionary, but not a storyteller. I realize how many people -- educated people -- I'm going against in this assertion. I realize my bounds, but I stand by what I say, nevertheless. No offense taken from anyone who may enjoy/like Kubrick's films (particularly "2001"); I'm not against anyone for liking any film. But what I am against is praising a film as "a great work in the history of filmmaking" when there are clearly fundamental mistakes with it. Where's the plot? Where's the storyline? Where's the intrigue? You can get a mind-blowing sci-fi film like "Moon," which possesses many elements of "2001," but more-importantly, contains a story and plot, along with characters you care about.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply referring to the many films before and since that have been rightly praised for their storytelling ability. "2001" contains almost none of the fundamentals of filmmaking. Was this because it was and is "ahead of its time?" I don't believe so. I think it's because Kubrick was merely invisioning his idea of the future on screen, and had absolutely no plan to turn it into a story. To my knowledge, he just filmed some footage and spliced it together in chronological order in a way he thought "meaningful." I've read the script to "2001;" it's as absorbing as reading stereo instructions. There's no point except to contemplate the idea it presents; that's not, according to the many books I've read, what film is about. Film is the visual art of storytelling. That's what it is. That's its primary purpose. You may have ideologies presented in them, but they're still stories.

As far as Kubrick's reasons may go, I don't personally know them. From what I can deduct, however, is that the reasons he may have done certain things may have been "good reasons" for him, but not according to the other great storytellers of the world. Many of them have praised "2001," I understand. But it comes to reason that such praise may be hypocritical, considering how no one else will ever do the same thing.

Before I had read beyond the title of this thread, my immediate thoughts were "Because I love the music and I love thinking about what it all means!" Yeah, I actually like the lack of obvious explanations for everything. I like using my imagination to figure it out, and I like hearing other people's explanations too.

Also, I actually enjoy the long, drawn-out scenes and the occasional slow pace. Sometimes, slow-paced movies are good when you're in the mood for them. Oh, and the waltzing spaceships scene with the "Blue Danube"...brilliant! IMO, anyways.

Overall, I can give these various hints, but I don't know if I'm fully able to explain why I love 2001: A Space Odyssey. Don't think I can do the same for Avatar either. :) With both films, it's just a feeling I have.

I understand where you are coming from Woodsprite. I've heard all the rave reviews and my dad insisted that I watch it and I did watch and I intended to like it. Of course for it's time it would of been groundbreaking and all that but I think they drew the scenes out way too long. The monolith was interesting, I still need to understand it a bit more in relation to the evolution of humans but the only bit I seemed to enjoy watching was the devious Hal the ships computer and the apes. >.<
Overall I would understand anyone who devoted the entire movie length to shutting their eyes and going for a nap instead.

No idea - I really dislike the movie, actually. The book is okay - but my favourite is 2010 (of which there is no movie of. Nope. No movie, because if there was a movie, I'd have to burn it for BUTCHERING the book).

But the movie 2001....eh. So boring.

The novel of 2010, like 2001, is indeed quite good. Many wonderful things, such as... ...which are nowhere in the movie. Really, the movie of 2010 could be remade without offending too many people. They should do that. :)

2010 is actually one of my all time favourite books :) I LOVE it. Friendship and science geekery and yes. But, the movie? Kill. It. With. Fire. They butchered it.

Honestly, I've never got around to seeing it. I've always meant to read the book before I did (films of books are almost always worse), but still haven't read the book yet (yeah, I know, I should...)

In the case of 2001, the film and the book were created concurrently. The inspiration for the movie was Arthur C. Clarke's short story "The Sentinel," but that covers only a fraction of the movie. Clarke and Kubrick agreed to mirror credits on the movie and book; the book came out very soon after the movie and contains a couple of minor differences.

I'd recommend seeing the movie first. Reading the book provides explanations for what's in the movie; once you have those you can never see the movie without being aware of those explanations and it is much harder to come up with your own creative interpretation.

2010 was the "Midichlorian" treatment for an earlier generation...

No. This is what separates "aesthetics" from "poetics."

I think you're looking at this in an overly-structured way. I'll pose this question so you can understand what I mean by that: Why is it that movements like Dadaism, especially in film, were considered groundbreaking?

Maybe because no one had ever seen such methods before. Maybe it was like Treebeard's logic among the public, "Well, that doesn't make much sense to me... but then, you are very small. Perhaps you're right." Actually, we find that to be the case with many issues around the world; not just film.

Hah, so funny you should bring up Treebeard. I was about to make the comparison that I, for instance, find The Lord of the Rings immensely boring. (Bet that just lost me some friends.) I could go into detail about just how turgid I think it is, but I am forced to believe by the number of highly intelligent people whom I respect that love LOTR to pieces that it is in fact not just a piece of cr*p.

That doesn't mean that I have to force myself to appreciate it; I'm not short on things that I do like. I'm just not going to assume that it's bad just because I don't like it.

Treebeard is the man.

Well, here my part as a simple minded being.. The movie is just Awesome :) And i guess the higher your brain functions are, the more you can think about it :)

For me... Enjoyment :D

I am ambiguous about that movie. I did not mind the narrative techniques like long scenes - they give a sense of the timeframes the universe operates and at which real space travel works. Also obviously they wanted to let you appreciate the design of the set and all that. What I disliked was that overly long scene with the visual effects near the end. Part of it was of course because I did not understand the meaning of it, but that was inten tional, but part was just seeing visuals without anything to think about - maybe taking a bit of LSD before the movie makes it more interesting :LOL: ;) - given the time of its origin.
I liked the realistic depiction of space travel and of course I liked the AI gone mad. What I did not like so much was the thing with the monoliths. The story there goes a bit like that they represent leaps in evolution of humankind. I have several problems with that. The film did a good job depicting a certain philosophy in that respect though - my disagreement is more with the philosophy behind it. My issues with that are that the film wants to present certain steps in history as "evolutionary leaps" like the invention of weapons or flying to the moon. I disagree that these are so clearly defined steps. The other assumption is that there is a linear, progressive development in humans, from ugly and dumb stone age ape-men to enlightened space-beings. I do not believe in a directed evolution in that sense. But nevertheless as I said, the film did present the philosophy it wanted to very well.

I recall reading once that the human race was on the verge of extinction at some point in prehistory - don't recall how long ago, when something happened that caused its population decline to reverse dramatically and we have never looked back. No one understands what made the change. This is my vague recollection FWIW.

Hehe, maybe a black monolith?
Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However, that point was within the past 100.000 years, probably around 70.000 years ago - there are a couple of theories about that - what caused it and what followed from that. In any case, this is not even 50% of the timeframe of homo sapiens and only a fraction of the history of humans in general. At that time, much of the later tools and techniques were already present (like hunting equipment, stone and bone tools,...).
Still, it is interesting.

Volcanic winter, caused by the worlds so far biggest known eruption to date withing the history of humans, Toba - Indonesia.

http://science.nasa.gov/media/medial...anicwinter.jpg

Volcanic winter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I came back to this thread after only reading the first few posts to see ^^that^^ and I'm thinking "WTF?"

2001 A Space Odyssey? Volcanic Winter? :) Anyway don't mind me I'm just pointing out how hilariously random that was to me. Carry on.

Just wanted to fill in the gaps ;)

Surprised? Remember what forums you're on... :xD:

Hehe - yeah that was a diversion with the volcanoes.
Anyways - back OT - I find it interesting that the movie holds two seemingly contradictory ideas. One is obviously a criticism of too much technology that threatens to overtake humans as a species. I know some members of this forum and people like Kevin Kelly think that this is actually a good thing, but in 2001 it was obviously not so and the attempts of Hal9000 to "take over" were stopped, symbolically standing for a general takeover of the machines (though in reality probably people would just built a Hal9001 that is "inherently safe" just to discover that that was not so later :P ).
2001 seems to favour a human evolution that does not involve a technological singularity or humans becoming cyborgs or even AIs as the next step in evolution. For that reason Hal9000 is stopped and the human keeps going to evolve into some sort of "light beeing" (following the New-Age ideas of ascension and spiritual shedding of the physical).
On the other hand, the story leading to this conflict tell a different story. In that story, a technological develoopment, a high tech world, flying to the moon and to Jupiter are depicted as required steps to reach that enlightenment which in the end however shows humans that they do not need all of this in the end at all. This is a bit puzzling. I guess the view behind that is, that humans only learn from mistakes or that the setting for this enlightenment/ascension requires a technological development as a prerequisite - if only to int he end point to the dangers of it. So I think in a way it is contraditory, but within the general story it makes sense of course.

To use alien beings setting up monoliths as basically the driving force behind all of this development is something I find a bit weakening. It implies that humans could not do it themselves and by that it denies humans the capabilities to do this. Of course that could be meant as a symbol rather than actual alien artefacts though.

So why do people like 2001? I think it is exactly because one can see basically several of the narratives people tell themselves in it. People hoping for human ascension get their share, people critical about technology get theirs and technology enthusiasts also get theirs. And this is what makes this movie actually a lot like Avatar in a way, because there also a storyline and setting was created that includes a multitude of stories and cultural narratives in it. Also people critical of technology are adressed who then dream about being Na'Vi and people dreaming of spaceships and biotechnology also get their share and a number of other narratives are included - there are too many to list them now.
Powerful movies that are liked by many do have this in common. They are masterpieces in that they manage to fit all of these narratives, stories, symbols and myths into one movie even if some of them contradict others. That way almost all viewers can find their own way of seeing the world represented, can identify with the movie and can like it, ignoring or accepting the aspects of the movie that do not adress them.

Often this is achieved by not explaining a number of things, like in 2001 and of course also in Matrix - some things are left open, that is the easiest method of allowing all sorts of people to like that movie, because each can use the own fantasy and imagination to fill in the blanks in a way that suit his own personal narrative. Avatar managed somehow to not leave too much open but still capture many people, that is interesting, though of course fans do not give up on still using their own fantasy and make fanfiction even though there are no major point left open :D

I'm just going to wade in here not having read the rest of the thread and state that I believe that as science fiction films go 2001 is visually, thematically and scientifically almost without parallel. It's just that good.
Kubrick and Clarke set out to make 'the proverbial good science fiction movie' and they really succeeded. Those interested in concept/themes had plenty to muse upon. The visual effects heads got some the greatest and most stunning images ever presented in a science fiction film. The hard-SF fans got one of the most accurate depictions of spaceflight ever put to celluloid. I particularly enjoy the beautiful, touching and (most significantly) physically plausible paean to the technological progress of man that is the docking with the orbiting Space Station. Allegedly Patrick Moore was the guy who suggested using The Blue Danube!

I would disagree with the idea that people in the 60’s were super intelligent puzzle crackers based on all of the drug induced products of that time. Besides, if today in the “information age” we can have such a broad overcastting of simpletons I would imagine that a movie of such “depth” back in those days would have been viewed as groundbreaking only in terms of the concept of space inhabitance and the “special” effects. As far as the “story” goes it’s a real snooze. If there were ever a film that would make a suicidal person actually do it this would be the film to do it. Now for me when I first saw it on DVD a decade ago I actually fell out of my chair into the floor in hysterical laughter because of that last bit where it’s flashing up all sorts of random things. My first thought after viewing it was that the maker of this movie was either stoned out of his mind or entering the final stages of psychosis.

I have no idea why this movie is held in such high regard or how anyone could enjoy it. I eventually just threw the movie in the trash because I couldn’t find anyone who would take it. It’s pretty bad when at the end of the day at a yard sale this is the only item left and you had it marked as “free.”

I would imagine that if 2001: A Space Odyssey was to play in theaters right now the numbers would show how insignificant it is. Fans would have their choice of seats though. Hell, they could probably fit all the fans in one theater.

2001 did not make much money on its original release. However, a certain Mr. J Cameron of Canada saw it 14 times...

One of the reasons why I don't totally agree with Cameron concerning certain topics. ;)

I liked it. XD

Really? People love it?

I mean, sure it looks good for something in that time, but it drones on for ages. I found the most interesting part was the apes at the start. :/

It was mysterious. And I think it had great atmosphere.