Pop Arena and QuantumJoker Vs. Confused Matthew's "2001: A Space Odyssey" Review (Part 3)

[sturmovikdragon]

FYI the landscapes weren't painted backdrops, but a really advanced front projection system.

[Bassbait]

I'd really like to re-stress that CM has almost no grip on objective merits of a film. I have to say, that objective has ENTIRELY to do with verifiable facts. CM got this WAY off. Him claiming his reviews are "objective" is impossible. Again, Fiction = NOT OBJECTIVE. 2001 = fiction. So that's what I like least about it. The whole "landscape" thing is artistic, subjective, and has nothing to do with objectivity. You can't objectively view the film, because it's entirely subjective. It's fiction.

[rdecredico]

You fellows are still stuck on the surface of a two-dimensional world and have not moved away at all from a linear narrative of the film. You've simply offered a variation of a superficial theme.

[confusedmatthew]

Again, I hate to respond in such brief to a discussion that was clearly made with a lot of time and effort, which is why I go out of my way not to respond to these (I cant respond to everyone and I don't want to leave anyone out), but this was truly remarkable to me. Thank you both again for the time and effort you put into your response.

[confusedmatthew]

If the repetition of the word landscape got on anyone's nerves, good! Becfause there is no difference between hearing landscape over and over again and SEEING landscape over and over again. QuantumJoker's irritation over the repetition of the word "Landscape" now matches my own irritation over the repetition of the landscape scene its self. So now I am forced to pose the question "Why be irritated by one and not the other? whats the difference?"

[QUANTUMJOKER]

@confusedmatthew

I feel as if the repetition of 'landscape' shots does confer a thematic purpose to the film, as explained in our rebuttal. It simply seemed as if, in repeating 'landscape' over and over again, you didn't realize the significance of the shots in establishing the arid, hostile terrain as the stage for human evolution.

In any case, I don't mean offense by any of this. Thank you so much for responding, man!

[confusedmatthew]

@QUANTUMJOKER I took no offense at all. On the contrary, I greatly appreciate every response anyone takes the time to make. Thank you both for your consideration of my review. You rock.

[Franc28]

@confusedmatthew Uh, basically you liked this review and not Melendez's because this review is "nicer" to you and doesn't outright say that your review was moronic... even though it was.

[confusedmatthew]

@Franc28 I don't recall saying that I didn't like Melendez response. In fact I commented on it personally thanking him for the reply.

[Franc28]

@confusedmatthew And yet he basically discredited you as a reviewer and as an intelligent human being. If you liked it, you must be a masochist.

[confusedmatthew]

@Franc28 The reason I liked this response more than Chase' is because this response was not about me, but rather about my review. While I disagree with both response videos, I came away from this one with an understanding of where Pop Arena and QuantumJoker are coming from on the issue. I didn't learn anything from Chase' review other than the fact that he does not seem to like me personally. I didn't come away from his response with anything other than that understanding.

[Bassbait]

@confusedmatthew I noticed some points that Chase makes that are valid, in fact, much more valid than some of your statements. Your "objective" view of the film completely disregards the facts. You are just looking at the film for it's screenplay, it seems. You can seriously apply your review to any movie and it'd be the same. I could say that Citizen Kane was just "some guy with money", and it would pretty much be the same review. I would be completely ignoring the greatness of the movie though

[Paveliptic]

@QUANTUMJOKER well lke mathew quoted in the end from one of the writers that we are not supposed to understand the movie, so the landscape is repetative and up for any opinion, for mendez its show how alone we are for mathew it is a repetative bore. so on and so forth.

[almanacofsleep]

@confusedmatthew "Why be irritated by one and not the other? whats the difference?"

Because one has a point and the other misses it completely.

[confusedmatthew]

This actually amazes me. It is the first time I feel that something I intended to do in a review was actually pulled off. The repetition of the word "landscape" was not intended to be funny. it was intended to indicate that there is nothing on the screen but landscape. Every cut is a cut to another scene of "landscape". I did not make this up, it was right there on the screen. (cont)