@Invidia said:

@movie_nazi

2049 is friggin' awesome. In many ways superior to the original.

The ORIGINAL will still always be a favorite though due to it's also being the FIRST BORN FILM.

As for HAL ...

If you removed his RED EYE ...

NOTE the way that he also looks like a MINI MONOLITH:

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/65/78/54/657854784a31e7aded3ff95cb4545985.jpg

HOLY. FREAKING. SNOT.

Dude or dudette, I had to see for myself...

We are told the monolith's dimensions have a ratio of 1x4x9 (the squares of 1, 2 and 3)

I just measured the image of HAL.

The ratio is exactly (1?)x4x9

Again, too much of a "coincidence". Kubrick planned this carefully. I'm learning all sorts of new crap here. Thanks!!

Kubrick was a brilliant filmmaker; even I grant that,. When I bought the DVD of 2001, I was expecting to really like it. After all everything I heard about this cinematic masterpiece was how good it was. But the hoped-for enjoyment turned into disappointment, and I couldn't even finish it the first time I watched it.

Just on the off-chance that there was something wrong with my disc, I went to the IMDb boards for this film, and found out that my DVD was fine. I was just absolutely positively assured that I'd like--no, LOVE--the film as it just oozed goodness. So, I gave it another chance, this time, sitting through the most boring, and to me pointless film I had ever seen.

Whatever it was that Kubrick was trying to say, was lost to me thanks to the glacial pace and like I said earlier, at least to me, lack of plot

On other websites if someone said they did not care for this film, they were called trolls or their intelligence was questioned. This is not fair.

I did not like 2001. I am not a troll, and not liking it certainly means nothing about how intelligent I am or am not.

It just means that I didn't care for the film.

Invidia, this person apologizes profusely for his excessive use of first person pronouns and he assures you that he realizes that **he **should have gotten your permission to post.

On second thought, maybe not. Maybe he just realized what a jerk you are. And maybe he doesn't give a rat's furry butt what you think.

loved it , but then I saw it in the early 1970s ,after I read the book and Bowie came out with SPACE ODDITY.

@psl said:

loved it , but then I saw it in the early 1970s ,after I read the book and Bowie came out with SPACE ODDITY.

I'm glad that you liked it. However, as [b]someone[/b] has said repeatedly, opinions on it will differ.

Why people don't like 2001 ASO I can understand and I do understand that people might find it a bore or too long .And I think that largely comes from the notion that most SF films are flashy full of action or serve up interesting plot points.And 2001 ASO isn't that it's a movie not about the story or characters ,but it aims more at being an experience it is pure cinema in it's most purest form .For me and I do understand others might disagree 2001 ASO is the pinnacle of movie making it's one of the very rare moments when a(commercial) movie becomes art.It's a movie where the future is dark,emotionless,cold and sterile but also it provides hope in mankind being reborn into starchildren plus a lot of other obvious and also not so obvious allegories(depending on how one interprets the images ).

@Gary O. said:

@psl said:

loved it , but then I saw it in the early 1970s ,after I read the book and Bowie came out with SPACE ODDITY.

I'm glad that you liked it. However, as [b]someone[/b] has said repeatedly, opinions on it will differ.

I would hope opinions would differ, otherwise it could not be considered one of the best Sci-Fi ever made

@Nexus71 said:

Why people don't like 2001 ASO I can understand and I do understand that people might find it a bore or too long .And I think that largely comes from the notion that most SF films are flashy full of action or serve up interesting plot points.And 2001 ASO isn't that it's a movie not about the story or characters ,but it aims more at being an experience it is pure cinema in it's most purest form .For me and I do understand others might disagree 2001 ASO is the pinnacle of movie making it's one of the very rare moments when a(commercial) movie becomes art.It's a movie where the future is dark,emotionless,cold and sterile but also it provides hope in mankind being reborn into starchildren plus a lot of other obvious and also not so obvious allegories(depending on how one interprets the images ).

I can appreciate that. As an art form, it perhaps worked, but not as a story.

Liked it better after reading the novel by Arthur C Clark.

@GaryO said:

@Nexus71 said:

Why people don't like 2001 ASO I can understand and I do understand that people might find it a bore or too long .And I think that largely comes from the notion that most SF films are flashy full of action or serve up interesting plot points.And 2001 ASO isn't that it's a movie not about the story or characters ,but it aims more at being an experience it is pure cinema in it's most purest form .For me and I do understand others might disagree 2001 ASO is the pinnacle of movie making it's one of the very rare moments when a(commercial) movie becomes art.It's a movie where the future is dark,emotionless,cold and sterile but also it provides hope in mankind being reborn into starchildren plus a lot of other obvious and also not so obvious allegories(depending on how one interprets the images ).

I can appreciate that. As an art form, it perhaps worked, but not as a story.

Like true art it can be viewed from various perspectives and have various interpretations it doesn't spoon feeds the viewer of what it means it challenges the viewer in what manner he one could view the images therefore it doesn't become stale or predictable and one can find new things each time one watches the movie.