Confused Matthew's "2001: A space Odyssey" review in 5 seconds

[twooffour]

Basically, he's right with this review - aside from the HAL chapter (which is basically a spin-off inside the movie), barely anything really happens in terms of actual story.

The characters are tabulae rasae, the plot is paper thin, and most of what you see really is "filler".

The way he treats the intro, as well as the finale, is somewhat unfair, but generally he's accurate.

I just find it stupid how this seems to upset him so much. Watchin 2001, it's pretty obvious that what you see...

[twooffour]

@twooffour

... was the intention.

Normal movies only show the relevant stuff, this one drags on its "establishing shots" for minutes, and shows its characters engage in boring routine activities.

It's like a subversion, "look, this is what really happens during a normal, boring workday/travel".

Why does he constantly yell at it as if it were some kind of failure, or plot, or "waste of time"? "Why, oh why would Kubrick do that?"

[twooffour]

@twooffour

Then, of course, the irony is that just as you can trim down 2001 (- HAL9000) to maybe 10 minutes, you can do the same with this review and cut out all of his yelling at the empty space shots.

Except in the film's case, it's actually aesthetically appealing and atmospheric, while CM's whining and yelling is just annoying.

Someone like Plinkett could've made this worthwhile by inserting random nonsense stories from his fucked-up life, but Matthew is just obnoxious here.

[twooffour]

@twooffour

Oh, and yea, the "about nothing" is obviously nonsense.

Probably a hyperbole, but still nonsense - if "nothing" plays any role in 2001, it's the big pile of nothing inbetween more relevant events and activities.

Like, you're on a travel, and effectively "nothing" happens during the travel - but you travel from one important conference to another.

That's the "nothing" 2001 is "about", to an extent.

[twooffour]

@twooffour

Or rather "partially".

[twooffour]

Heh, NC's so funny... :D

[054martinm]

@fireguy789 he thinks moulin rouge, watchmen, megamind and independence day are good

[Chaostos]

with such dialogue that movie would atleast be funny...for 5 seconds.

good job !

[Bassbait]

You a 2001 fan? Because I completely agree. His whole review amounts to setting up only to have it fall apart. Just like Emo Phillips or the TV show Arrested Development, CM prepares for a point he's going to make, and then the preparation makes the point become ironically pointless. He claims to review a FICTION film on objective merits. He explains that "crap floating in space" is nothing happening, when he just explained what was happening. It's a comedy routine.

[RoyHavenstone2]

@Bassbait I wouldn't exactly call myself a fan of 2001, since I've never seen the film in it's entirety. CM's review of 2001 just came off to me as annoying from the perspective of a casual movie goer (ie my perspective), and so I wanted to satirise the style of his review. In short, this video was just trying to make a joke.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

Yes, you can review a fiction film on objective merits.

Crap floating in space is nothing happening, except crap floating in space. Get the hurt out of your butt.

[Bassbait]

@twooffour Actually, that's all speculation. You are reading into the film by saying that. Confused Matthew proved my point for me. He explained a scene in Back to the Future by reading into the scene, explaining what is being said, what is doing what and what he THOUGHT was the internal thought process of the characters. I can narrate those "crap floating in space scenes" as "Heywood Floyd, while sleeping, is flying aboard a space ship to a space station on his way to Clavius" and I'd be RIGHT.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

Yea, suppose so.

Sure, "nothing happens" during those shots, but if you just accept this as a "slow-moving" film, they're the equivalent of the establishing shots in Star Wars, or something like the mountains in LOTR or the Day after Tomorrow intro (although that one had credits... but who cares).

Shit happens AFTER those shots, right?

I like how he keeps blubbering "layandscape, layandscape", but then sums up the much longer lasting (and more memorable) ape scenes as "doing...

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

"... nothing". Pretty fucking dumb.

They're doing plenty of stuff, fighting over territory, social behavior, etc. - sure, one could say it's the same stuff apes do in real life (or documentary movies), but still, stuff is going on.

You see some intelligence, and some warmth, but also scary aggression and violence, with plenty of fun subtle details.

Then the monolith appears, and one tribe discovers the use of tools.

Sure, kinda cheesy (chimps can use tools), but still. Considering

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

... how slowly evolution REALLY took place, seeing that "step" happening in a long, tedious, and of course completely dialogue-free way, was more than fitting.

So yea, pretty disingenuous the review, although I agree that any "artsy" film should also be viewed from a "naked emperor perspective" - disregarding "interpretation" and trying to evalute it as objectively as it gets.

Just a needed perspective in general.

[Bassbait]

@twooffour I hear what you mean - art films can't just be good because they're art. But some films absolutely CAN'T be judged on story-telling standards (experimental films), and some films require judging a film for MORE than just story-telling standards (2001). I think on a story level, 2001 is the greatest movie ever made. But on a level BEYOND that, it has an infinite strength to it that makes it a masterpiece that transcends movie-making.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

Um, how is it paragon of storytelling, when it treats the "storytelling" part in such a minimalist, subversive way?

Isn't that a bit wide-eyed of you?

There are only two types of story able to compete in the "best storytelling evah" competition, and it's:

a) a straightforward story making use of well-known structures and archetypes, but doing it REALLY well, and

b) a complex narrative with rich characters, playing with perspectives and narrative techniques;

[Bassbait]

@twooffour That's why it is the greatest story - it tells so much with so little. It spans millions of years, covers the archetypes of good and evil from the beginning of man to the end, and still makes it ambiguous as to what is really good or evil. It's the grand mythology of Science Fiction and covers many core Sci-fi concepts without getting too deeply involved in any of them. With 40 minutes of dialogue it tells a much stronger story than hours of dialogue could hope to do.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

"It spans millions of years"

Nah, it's like the 5th Element - an intro in "ancient times", and then the main plot continuing what's been set up.

Nothing special about that.

"covers the archetypes of good and evil from the beginning of man to the end, and still makes it ambiguous as to what is really good or evil"

What "archetypes" of evil are there except from HAL (who doesn't cover 'em all) and the aggressive apes?

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

Sorry man, you sound way too woolly to respond to properly, but maybe I should clarify something:

Concepts / mythology / world building =/= storytelling.

Like some people claim Tolkien had constructed an excellent "mythology", created an intricate fictional universe, etc., but his storytelling left desire for improvent.

Avatar is an even better example, it's pretty mediocre and sappy storytelling, but the "mythology" built there is pretty impressive.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

if it leaves any "blanks" to be filled, whether by real-life knowledge or experienc / or knowledge of other works, or interpretation in terms of plot and message, it has to be full of evidence and clues establishing that connection, or arguing for concrete solutions.

How does 2001 meet any of these criteria?

Its human characters are flat; the plot so full of "symbolism", you're left guessing rather than working directly from what you've seen.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

It is, in many ways, an "anti-story", or "anti-movie" - it doesn't mean it's bad, but if it specifically subverts storytelling, you can't praise it for excellent... storytelling.

It's as if a composer wrote an "ambient" piece verging on sound art, there to create an "atmosphere" and inducing "mental impressions", and you'd praise it as having the "best structure" or "best counterpoint".

Why?

[Bassbait]

@twooffour It doesn't specifically subvert storytelling. It tells a lot. It tells a story of human kind's evolutionary cycle, an unseen being's influence on human development, humankind's initial need for technology and eventual fight with the technology it created.

It's as if a concept album telling a very strong story had symbolic lyrics to tell the story, and you'd pretend like there's nothing to be told because what's being said doesn't make sense to you.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

"It tells a story of human kind's evolutionary cycle, an unseen being's influence on human development, humankind's initial need for technology and eventual fight with the technology it created."

All of those are interesting "cliff notes", and there's too many woolly implications and way too little tangibility to make those cliff notes into a proper form of "storytelling".

What "evolutionary cycle"? The ominous space fetus doesn't complete any "cycle".

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

You're left to guess what the fuck that was.

The "initial need for technology", again, a standard SF trope - man builds technology that does harm, or AI that turns on its creators.

The HAL bit was probably a very good example of "storytelling"; how the apes used their first tool (NOT technology) as a weapon, linking intelligence to violence basically, was a nice touch - done atmospherically, but pretty paperthin as a statement.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

Most animals use their exceptional skills as "weapons" at some point, and weaponry is and always has been a large area of human inventiveness, technology and science.

So, um, the first ape uses the bone as a cop stick, and then cut to (imaginary) laser weapons?

And then we get a rebellious AI?

It's a nice "artistic" way of pointing to something, cutting from the bone to the space ships, but you need to actually work with ideas and developments in order to have "storytelling".

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

Then, the monolith... okay, what does it do? Inspire the apes to use tools... then "make contact"... and doing some weird acid fetus thing at the end. What happened there, exactly?

Again, a bunch of powerful images and impressions, a lot can be read into it, a lot can be felt, a lot of associations drawn, but as a piece of STORYTELLING, there's way too little going on, the basic cliffnote ideas don't get much tangible development, and a lot of what's going on is COMPLETELY BONKERS.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

"Some epic shit", basically. It's not like Shutter Island, where there are like 8 ways of viewing the final twist and ambiguous lines (each based on some logical chain), no, you can read 100 things into the ending.

It's much more abstract art than "storytelling" at this point, and praising the ending for "telling a story about the next step in mankind's evolution" is like praising a piece of ambiguous concept art for its use of shadow and perspective.

[Bassbait]

@twooffour Why should I bother responding to the 10 comments you posted? You're just going to increase your output exponentially. So I'll say this - the film has a very strong plot and it makes no sense why people think it's too abstract. It wasn't too abstract with the monkeys, it wasn't too abstract with Heywood Floyd's mission to Clavius, it wasn't too abstract with Bowman and HAL9000, and while it was very abstract with the ending, it makes sense in context.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

"it wasn't too abstract with Heywood Floyd's mission to Clavius, it wasn't too abstract with Bowman and HAL9000"

No, it wasn't, but what WAS there?

Nothing really happens in the Clavius episode, a lot of routine activities and smalltalk are shown, and the plot is basically - guy with a secret is on a mission. They've discovered something "heavy", then the monolith is shown.

Apparently, someone had buried it under the ground...

then, a lot more happens with HAL, but....

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

.... it's largely disconnected from the main plot.

HAL is the only one who knows about the "intelligent life outside of Earth", but the reason he starts fucking with everything is because he cares about "the mission" and is in danger of being disconnected... it could've been any important mission, and the plot would've been the same there.

So, how does the ending make sense "in this context"?

Monolith is dug up... it sends radio signal... a mission is sent to Jupiter... ACID.

[Bassbait]

@twooffour I can't stand having 80 different comments to deal with. I just don't like the whole character count thing. I'll PM you.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

Fine.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

It tells very little - it's like some epic shit is going down, but it's told from the perspective of some janitor, and only half an hour of his life is shown, 80% of which is small talk.

So tell me, if you understand, how does the Monolith "work in the film"? (It inspires the apes, and presents a mystery to the astronauts; at the end, well.)

How were things explained, and what things?

Evidence from the movie, please.

[Bassbait]

@twooffour If you didn't think the ending made any sense, fine. Maybe you have no understanding of how the monolith works in the film, or how Kubrick's storytelling style works. Maybe you didn't take any notice of how the story went down or how things were explained. But I did, and I know for sure that the story isn't just a series of abstract ideas. It's a very strong, well told story. And the way it's told matches what's being told.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

"It's as if a concept album telling a very strong story had symbolic lyrics to tell the story, and you'd pretend like there's nothing to be told because what's being said doesn't make sense to you."

Or maybe it's like a System of a Down text - intriguing, lots of interpretations fit it, but it's a really small amount of lines with unclear meaning.

[twooffour]

@Bassbait

... of which some are "following orders", others have "tribal mentality", or think just about themselves, and again others are sociopaths, or out-of-touch idealists, and some other party (let's say Imperialists) are playing God.

And actually TELL A STORY.

Does anything of this sort happen here?

[FandubFTW]

*checks CM's Bio*

okay lets see

hates Space Odyssey

hates Lion King

hates Back to the Future 2

likes Independence Day

"sigh" yeah thats pretty much right

and like Galdoneyesstudios already said

its funny cause its true

[RoyHavenstone2]

@FandubFTW I think his defence for Independence Day is its visuals, and he liked the characters in it. But then again this is the same guy who, despite not liking the first twilight movie, holds it in a higher regard than the Lion King.

[FandubFTW]

@RoyHavenstone2

LOL yeah he tries to tell me that the Characters in Independence Day have more depth then the Characters in The Lion King

Boy thats like trying to confess me that Piss tastes better then Limo XD

[Retardretroguy]

@FandubFTW I've never thought about it that way. Makes me think that even the people who like crap, actually think about it (to some extent)

[elite01171]

@FandubFTW and hates the star wars prequils

[FandubFTW]

@elite01171

well i also didn't liked 1 and 2 that much

but i thought 3 was a great Movie

[elite01171]

@FandubFTW ya agreed but i liked the battle at the end of number 2

[xsonicsd]

@KingSolidSteve

Hehe yeah xD

..and welcome back Roy xD

[Pandoora]

lol



[GaldonEyeStudios]

Its funny because its true.

[RoyHavenstone2]

@GaldonEyeStudios Well said, my friend.

[RoyHavenstone2]

@KingSolidSteve Thanks, Steve! :)