Very few things happen before the Jupiter mission, and they're all mentioned in the later dialogue.
The only exception being the revelation of the Monolith at the very end - but here's the funny thing, it just sent a radio signal, it didn't boost the astronauts' intelligence, or anything of the sorts - so it could've just as well been some kind of radio transmitter, and then mentioned as "the sign of intelligent life" on that message video.
So really, the movie between the Ape Intro (and CM did say "with the exclusion of the intro" when talking about how "useless" the movie has been up to this point) and HAL9000 is really more like a prequel, or backstory, as far as necessity are concerned.
So really, the movie between the Ape Intro (and CM did say "with the exclusion of the intro" when talking about how "useless" the movie has been up to this point) and HAL9000 is really more like a prequel, or backstory, as far as necessity are concerned.
4:57 I'm sure advancing all the space travel technology was "difficult" as usual, but where in the film does it say that reaching Clavius was somehow exceptionally difficult?
But that's just a minor detail. "Something important on a moon" is just a barebone on the script, and CM's silly exaggerations aside, the point really is that 2001 consists of few plot points and lots of "experience" and "style" inbetween.
5:20 SPACE REEL!! What does this have to do with Kubrick's writing skills?
... eating scenes from 2001 would JUST ruin the experience (and possibly the "symbolism"), not the plot.
Kevin Smith's quote was just facetious - since when is death a prerequisite for an arc? And if they HAD died, you could cut everything out until their death scene.
Um, what? 2001 (90% of the film, the HAL chapter excluded, consisting of routine activities and space shots) doesn't consist of fat, but LOTR is "nothing but fat" (sure, with dialogue, character development, a plot, actually actively discussed subjects)??
Sorry, no - all of those things constitute the SUBSTANCE of a movie, the fat is all the REST.
Cutting all of it out wouldn't just ruin "the experience", it would, for starters, cut out the PLOT. Cutting the endless space shots and...
@TheNapoleonnerd That's weird, because I remember there being quite a lot of dialogue in 2001. And I remember there being quite a lot of plot. Something about monoliths placed on earth, the moon, and orbiting jupiter at least 40 million years ago, deliberately buried, found by apes and humans, and something about a machine trying to kill some people? Huh, I guess the film was just a blank screen though, there wasn't any dialogue or plot, despite all evidence to the contrary.
That said, I will concede that Matthew has some points with which I agree, but fewer than Chase's. Obviously I won't agree with EVERY point Chase makes, but I do with most of them.
Sad to see you go Chase. If you are looking out from beyond the infinite with Mr Kubrick, I hope you know how much enjoyment you gave the youTube community.
As Matthew only reached number four before finding out about Chase's passing (and respectfully leaving the rest alone), I'd have to assess my conclusion about which was the better take here, and I would have to say that I tend to agree more with Chase by this point. As a whole, Matthew refuses to accept that a narrative can be told without dialog or voice over, and in fact it takes little imagination to see a story developing with 2001 based on the visuals and cinematography.
Right on the money... the trouble with CM, and this is all the more evident if you watch the first part of his NCfOM review, is that he analyzes movies as if they are supposed to be novels. This is very common, however... most reviewers do the same thing. They think about movies strictly in terms of character, dialogue, theme, etc. 2001 should not be viewed with such a mindset.
Chase got carried away with the rants. But he IS spot on about this film. It's a masterpiece! It's was trend setting. Anyone who doesn't appreciate this movie as a literary work on a movie screen, I think you're not up to par with the intellect of this film. Does every film have to have almost non-stop dialog to be good?
This film is on the scale of a symphony on screen. Just because one can't appreciate it doesn't mean it wasn't good.
I love how the majority of the rating of these videos slowly move towards your side of the argument. You provide such great arguments for CM review of 2001.
2001... the book is boring, the movie is boring... simple as that, the ONLY thing that is cool about it.... is HAL.. give up man... you aint convincing anyone, because EVERYONE knows it is a boring movie.... stop defending this movie... it is BORING....... it is THE most boring movie i have ever seen... lol
@johnnyrockerfella so just because you're not smart enough to grasp deeper meaning, you assume that none is there. either accept that it is something beyond your intelligence as any mature person who does not understand it would do or accept that you are pathetic. it's right there plain and simple you cannot deny it. you clearly aren't smart enough to understand 2001. so you say its boring yet it has been praised by geniuses. is there anyway in hell that you're the smarter one here?
@jordanb7624 deeper meaning... is a very poor excuse, for something that is boring, i mean this movie is boring... but, i will admit the part where HAL comes in is very cool.. but dude, its boring man, and i couldnt care less if so called genius's declare how good it is.. im not a sheep man, i make up my own mind on things..
Nice work. I don't mind if people dislike 2001; that's why we have films like Star Wars (which I also enjoy, incidentally). But rather than try to voice why they dislike 2001, reviewers like Confused Matthew should just shut up and go back to beating off to the Matrix. They don't get 2001 and they never will.
@rutgerhauer666 CM doesn't really care for The Matrix. And The Matrix is actually a very highly intelligent film even though there are errors. 2001, however, is the greatest film ever made, so there's no competition. But The Matrix is the deepest movie non-Kubrick for a long time, along with Mulholland Drive, Primer, and a few others. Inferior to 2001, respectable in it's own right.
Smug assholery seems appropriate in this area. I used to be a frequent watcher of Confused Matthew until I realized that he really is confused. He doesn't seem to grasp subtle elements in film, nor does he understand what makes a good film. I'm on his side about Independence Day vs Armageddon and I see his point about the Lion King, but most everything else he makes beyond those reviews fall short of quality. Thanks for telling it like it is, Chase!
@muticere I think he's in over his head. He understands how to analyze certain basic film elements, but then refuses to analyze those SAME elements when dealing with other kinds of films. With 2001, it's like he watched it once 10 years ago. Rented it again, and WITHOUT WATCHING IT, uploaded it to his computer to get footage for the review. Then he skipped to the parts he needed to make his terrible point, and ignored the most pivotal dialogue moments in the entire film.
You are SERIOUSLY going to make the argument that 2001 doesn't have fat and that the length WITHOUT DIALOGUE THERE is fine, but the length in Lord of the Rings, a BEST PICTURE WINNER, WITH DIALOGUE, THAT is just fat?
What's more, that's entertaining action, fat, and nothing more?
You harp on about how many interpretations you want to give for 2001, ALL of which are subjective...and yet you'll knock ANOTHER "classic" film and say it's just action?
Silent films STILL had dialogue, sir...hence dialogue BOXES?
Really, I'm not saying you have to agree with CM--though in 2001's case I do to a certain extent, /i feel it is FAR overrated for many of the reasons CM gives--but you can AT LEAST drop the condescending tone, ESPECIALLY when your logic, which your tump up so mjuch, is incredibly flawed.
You have proven one thing, Mr. Chase:
With your banal and insulting remarks, you have proven how much a fool dialogue can show a man to be...
Uh…didn’t silent films still have dialogue? It was written dialogue, but still dialogue. Every time you make a point out your interpretation of what this movie was supposed to be about and about Kubricks style and how this movie was received I keep hearing Matthew’s objection in the back of my head, “What does it have to DO with the STORY!”
I think you're making points a lot of people would agree with. However you need to avoid personalising the criticism of CM's review and concentrate on your arguements not on CM. I had a lot of issues with CM's review and did wonder if CM really watched 2001 or not. I respect 2001, but am not stricly a fan of the movie. While 2001 is often deliberatly slow, lacks expositon and has a relatively coldly objective view of humanity, I don't think these are necessarily barriers to appreciating 2001
@AgentTripleH Obviously that's why you didn't write it. Because 2001, as we all know, ended up fading into obscurity, without a single critic to praise it or a single viewer to like it. It ended up being a colossal failure and inspired absolutely nobody.
The point is, dialogue CAN'T save 2001. 2001 doesn't need saving. It is cemented in history as an important AND great film, so what you should have said, was "dialogue could actually make me feel less stupid for not getting the film"
@Bassbait i love u too^^ i love how u have to insult ppl just because they dont like one of ur loved films.
i respect 2001 for it imagesand the atmosphere of those shots. BUT If i want to think about Evolution there may be many many better ways to do it, than watch 2001. It doesnt provide anything new. At all. So maybe there is a higher existance, which we rlly dont understand (and maybe not). thanks boring movie! but thats just my opinion, u can have ur own. For me, dialouge could save it.
@AgentTripleH Sorry if you took that as an insult, because at this point, I'm expecting every person who comments on here to be a CM fan with the braindead reasons of "it's boring, and nothing happens". I can admit that to people with a short attention span and a lack of interest in good movie making, it's fair to call it "boring", but that's kind of insulting to fans of the movie, and saying "nothing happens" is just plain WRONG.
@Bassbait u shouldnt expect everyone to be the same ;) the world is way more complex^^ And i am not braindead, or try to find braindead reasons. I simply didnt find it that great. For the most time i waited for the next scene to begin or was asking myself if the movie rlly had to try so hard to be clever. but that was just how i felt.
@AgentTripleH Yes, but see, when you say "had to try so hard to be clever", that's where you're wrong. 2001 is not stretching out it's worth. It's not like they were so desperate for inspiration that they had to go to the bottom of the barrel. Kubrick CHANGED THE ENTIRE GENRE. Everything he did in the film, by that standard, is objectively "clever", because he was doing so much in the film that revolutionized everything from film to science itself. The film's "cleverness" is exponential.
@Bassbait if you are refering to the visual aspects only u are certainly right. I was refering to the story elements, which are very few. I could have liked it, if there was a more complex story going on rather than just random philosophical statements (that arent even mentioned, u have to figure them out) about live and evolution. If they somehow discoverd those statements while there was an actual story going on i would have liked it.
@AgentTripleH Actually, the story is deeply layered. The thing is, depending on how attentive you are of the film, you'll notice implicit details that tell you what really happens. For example, HAL may never have killed the men in the cryogenic suits, as implied by the quite obvious scene in which it significantly calls attention to the "emergency revival procedures". The story is IMMENSELY complex, it's just too complex for some people to handle, and it seems like you are one of those people.
@Bassbait "Changed the entire genre" isn't necessarily a compliment, nor does it justify all. For example, Jurassic Park fundamentally changed the genre in the modern age. It was the first to make a major, successfully, extremely profitable use of CGI. Not to mention the fact that the science of palaeontology is still receiving dividends from its popularity. It is by one of the acknowledged Great Directors. So does that put JP above criticism?
@CoryTheRaven Actually, JP didn't change the genre, it changed move technology. Sure, Avatar is doing the same crap, that doesn't make either of them good, regardless of the fact that James Cameron and Steven Spielberg are great directors. No. They didn't change the entire genre. 2001 changed ALL of Science Fiction. It also revolutionized film technology in a way far more useful than CGI. He pioneered motion controls in a time when THEY WERE IMPOSSIBLE. But he found a way.
@Bassbait So JP DIDN'T change the genre because it was about the technology, but 2001 DID change the genre because it was about the technology.
See, now you're just crapping on JP because you personally don't happen to like it. Whatever your feelings about it, JP did objectively revolutionize moviemaking by demonstrating the usefulness and profitability of CGI in a way that has changed cinema across the board, even beyond Sci-Fi.
I said, JP didn't change the GENRE. What genre? SCIENCE FICTION. Just because it revolutionized movie making doesn't mean it advanced the genre with it's storytelling and ideological elements. 2001 changed SCIENCE FICTION. I agree that JP changed MOVIEMAKING TECHNOLOGY, as did 2001, but 2001's accomplishment was much more difficult and much more rewarding for movies as a whole. I never said I don't like JP, you're making stuff up.
@Bassbait And again, you guys have to resort to ad homs...
2001 absolutely changed the technology and the visual elements of Sci-Fi, but it is severely overstating the case to say it changed Sci-Fi's storytelling or ideology. It is far, far from the first film to raise questions of technology, technological society, human identity and our place in the universe. If you watch any Sci-Fi from before 1968, then you might notice that it doesn't say anything really new.
@CoryTheRaven Oh, you got me good. Except that it isn't true. I said you were acting like an idiot. I wasn't straight attacking your intelligence, I was just saying that you are being dumb, not that you ARE dumb. Although, to be fair, CM did it IN HIS REVIEW.
And yes, it did change sci-fi's storytelling. Every modern Machine take-over movie is directly inspired by this film (Matrix, Terminator), and also Alien although it's not a machine. Every new Sci-fi is just a 2001 rip off.
@Bassbait Ah, technically you didn't ad hom me because you didn't like me applying your same criteria to a film you think is beneath you, thus making me an idiot.
Thing is, 2001 is not the first "machine or alien takes over, challenging our sense of identity" movie. By this same criteria, 2001 is itself a stylistic and thematic rip-off of any given Sci-Fi movie by Fritz Lang. It was already done. You can say "not THIS way, not THIS age", but that still undermines it.
@CoryTheRaven Yes, I can say, not the way that they he did it. He set it up where the humans were babies in technology's care, similar to The Matrix, and similar to Alien (note: I forgot about the "crew expendable" plot element of that film. It's a parasitic relationship where human kind has stopped progressing and machines have started progressing on their own. HAL9000 is just the beginning of what would ultimately be like the future of The Terminator, which was then cut short by Dave.
@Bassbait And like I said, that was already done. But I was also being redundant when I mentioned Fritz Lang because very nearly everything that was done in film was done in the silent era (and mostly by Germans). Even the really great, really important innovations to film in the 30's were basically just taking German stuff and introducing it to Hollywood (which is why I would conceed the the most Officially Good film of all time is Citizen Kane).
@CoryTheRaven Citizen Kane is GREAT, but not the greatest, not by a long shot. Why? Because it completely cancels out it's worth within the first scene of the movie:
The whole plot is that They try to figure out the meaning of Kane's last word: Rosebud. However, NO ONE WAS AROUND TO HEAR THEM. So technically, he was a tree that fell down when no one was around to hear him. So that gaping plot hole destroys the possibility of it being the greatest of all time. I still debate that 2001 is.
@Bassbait Maybe the nurse heard it in the hall? I dunno'... I'm also not particularly married to Citizen Kane, though I think Orson Welles as a whole is awesome. And keep in mind that if it wasn't for King Kong, Citizen Kane wouldn't even have happened.
@CoryTheRaven Yes, Orson Welles is great. F For Fake is a great film. However, Orson Welles once stated that Kubrick was going to go off to become one of the greatest film makers around, as he had the same ambition as Welles (Welles was such a self-indulgent jerk. That's fact right there).
Toy Story also has a great artistic integrity: It lacks man power. Where is Andy's dad? Sid's dad is the only father figure in the movie, and he is sleeping in his only scene, showing a haunting realism.
@Bassbait As for its storytelling and ideological influence, CM brings up two examples in a later responses2responses: Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the Matrix sequels. Personally, I think he's being unfair on the Matrix sequels there, because I happened to like #2 and thought it had plenty of interesting philosphical material. You may now ad hom me for liking an Officially Bad movie. His point, however, is that other movies that apply 2001's lugubrious methods tend to be panned.
@CoryTheRaven Again, you are making things up. You assume, because I am a fan of 2001, that I have a ridiculous standard for movies. The sequels to the Matrix are some of my favorite movies, and yes, that includes Revolutions.
Oh, and you are wrong. Is The Shining panned? Is Eraserhead panned? Is A Clockwork Orange panned? Is Barry Lyndon panned?
NO. 2001's methods apply to all Kubrick films, which are all praised, as well as Lynch, who gets mixed results depending on the movie.
@Bassbait Actually, Clockwork Orange is a great example of Kubrickian film that reigns it in a bit and makes a much tighter film. I liked it, and Dr. Strangelove, and even Eyes Wide Shut (God help me). 2001? Meh.
And Eraserhead is definitely mixed. I liked it, but I can also acknowledge in the context of the criteria CM laid out for what he considers a film, it may not qualify as a film. Art yes, film no.
But that take slow and overlong and apply it to Star Trek and it's criticized.
@CoryTheRaven 2001 is Kubrick's foundation of his later films. ACO is secretly 2001 in disguise. I suggest you read some analysis, because you can find many 2001 elements in ACO, such as pyramid symbols, and all-seeing eye symbols (Alex's eye, HAL9000's eye). Kubrick's later films are all one big project, each relating to another: Note that Alex's hairdo when he is a "normal person" is almost exactly like Danny Torrance's and Young Bullingdon from Barry Lyndon.
@CoryTheRaven I basically have a chart for his later work:
2001 = all about the subliminal, allegorical, and philosophical themes.
His movies afterwards = still just as subliminal and allegorical, but reaching a wider appeal through more charismatic performances
FMJ = the ultimate culmination of Kubrick's work as a director of the subliminal, allegorical, and philosophical, as well as a director of film as entertainment. FMJ didn't sacrifice artistic integrity or entertainment value.
@Bassbait "I'm expecting every person who comments on here to be a CM fan with the braindead reasons of "it's boring, and nothing happens"."
It's not an either-or... It can be brilliant and symbolic as well as overlong and masturbatory. I get what Kubric was trying to do and say in the first hour, but he could have accomplished it in a much tighter way. You don't necessarily lose philosophical heft by not taking almost a minute to open a door. There're those "I get it, can we move on" moments
@CoryTheRaven Sorry, but there's still a problem there. Kubrick isn't there to cater to your personal tastes, as Roger Ebert has once said. Kubrick's usage of really long scenes is emphasizing something narrative wise in that scene. If you are talking about, for example, the stewardess scene, it's emphasizing a womb-like structure, and a baby look to her, giving symbolism of birth, which will then be repeated later on in the film. Most "boring" scenes are of the most vital importance to the film
@Bassbait Neither am I here to cater to Kubrick's personal excesses. You still didn't really address what I said, which is that you can have your layers of symbolism and your non-spoon-fed themes and still pace it so it doesn't take almost a minute to open a door. Well, I suppose it would be necessary if you were trying to communicate that our celestial future is dull, slow, sterile, boring and emotionally dead, but I haven't heard you guys try to argue that's what 2001 is about.
@CoryTheRaven I did address that. Did you not pay attention? I said that when he does that, he is highlighting an important element in that scene. Why should a film be criticized for taking a bit more time on something that is supposed to be IMPORTANT?
Actually, you just explained a major theme of 2001. Our future is supposed to be dull, slow, sterile, and lifeless. That's a major point. As far as we have come with technology, life is now completely lifeless because of it. Good job with that.
@Bassbait No you didn't address it. You did say it was long because it was important, but that's not really a defense. It's just like BECAUSE I USE CAPS IT'S IMPORTANT!! There are ways of emphasizing things in film that don't require cheap tricks like forcing me to look at it for 20 minutes.
@Bassbait I'm actually not defending JP as such. What I did say is that by the same criteria you're attempting to use for 2001, JP has the qualifications of a great, genre-changing, real-life transforming film. The only reason you have to crap on it is that you don't like it or think it's worthless or beneath you or whatever. For the record, I do like it, but liked JP2 more because I thought it raised more interesting questions about genetic engineering. Neither of them are the best movie ever.
@CoryTheRaven Just as a movie fan, what do you think is the best movie ever?
Anyways, I'm not being against you, I'm just arguing with you. The fact that you like Reloaded shows that you aren't just a blind follower of CM, but I think you need to give more respect to Kubrick and 2001 than you do, because I just see it as you missing the point, which is hard to explain in a way that you won't end up being frustrated with. It takes DEDICATION to watch a film like 2001, just like it does to make.
@Bassbait Like I said, I get what Kubrick was doing and saying with 2001. I have zero problems in the getting-it department. I just don't think it's done as tightly or as well as it could have been, which entitles it to criticisms of being dull, indulgent, boring and overlong.
@CoryTheRaven Also, Eraserhead is, as Lynch said, a spiritual experience. He's not concerned with plot as much as emotions. Your plot of the movie is defined by the movie's emotions. The movie makes you understand how Henry feels, not what happens to Henry, and that's the beauty in the film. The plot isn't essential to making a good movie, and Eraserhead hit the mark of a GREAT movie without using plot hardly at all!
@CoryTheRaven And then, as for 2001, I still think you missed the point. Remember that he skimmed the film from 171 minutes (almost 3 hours) to 140 something minutes. He trimmed it down to only what he felt was ESSENTIAL to his meanings. It's his artistic visions, and to quote Roger Ebert: "We don't just see Kubrick's movie, we see it in the frame of mind he insists on"
@Bassbait To which CM replies "his frame of mind sucks balls", make of it what one will.
By contrast, Matrix 3 included everything the Wachoskis considered essential to the story they wanted to tell. They were certainly in a position to do it, and they were duly criticized for it because, for as much as I like the trilogy as a whole, I have to admit that those long stretches of time in Zion were really not necessary. Sometimes filmmakers are wrong about their own films.
@Bassbait My answer depends on what you want it to be best at.
If you want a clinic on how to make an engaging, entertaining, well-paced, sheer-joy-to-watch-over-and-over-again movie, then I would say the original King Kong.
If you want a movie as a work of pure art, irresepective of plot, character, dialogue, etc. (eg: what CM would say is not a film), that may be harder for me to answer. My heart wants to say Fantasia, but I am also a fan of Vampyr and Eraserhead...
@CoryTheRaven No. I mean, a film that contains ALL. Influence, innovation, storytelling, originality/freshness, artistic value, moral dilemmas with care and thought put into the movie, meticulous design, fine tuning of everything. It has to be FULL of AWESOME, and achieves the vision of the director, as well as avoids too many logical errors.
By my standards, which I just stated, 2001 is number one, but I would say that Toy Story could also qualify, as could other Kubrick movies.
@Bassbait Mary Mother of... TOY STORY?!? Right, right, I was the one who criticized trashing something's influence just because you don't personally like it...
Hmm... bestest of all time... I don't think I can because I don't think any one movie accomplishes all that. That or I'll just say "fuck it" and go with Bride of Frankenstein.
@CoryTheRaven Way to insult instead of bringing up a point about why you disagree. Toy Story balanced everything just right to be accessible to kids and adults, and show artistic merit with the emotional stress it brings to it's characters. Maybe you have a bias against it (I highly expect you do), but Toy Story is a great movie, and that's even evidenced by it's 100% rating on RT, which means that no critic disagreed on it's worth as a film. It's not just a kid's movie, it's so much more.
@Bassbait I didn't insult you. I expressed disbelief. You were the one who called me an idiot, and if calling me names while accusing me of insulting you when I don't is how you conduct a debate, then fuck off.
I am biased against Toy Story, I admit. I think it's an alright film, if formulaic. And that is what I can say after disentangling it from how it's forumla proceeded to completely ruin North American CGI feature animation. I get it Pixar. I get it.
@CoryTheRaven Again, I'm sorry if you didn't mean it as an insult, but I didn't call you an idiot. I said "you are being an idiot", or maybe "you are acting like an idiot". I was saying that you are showing idiotic attributes, not that you ARE one, because I was trying to point out that you need to take a different approach. As for Toy Story, it defined a formula that later films would follow. Films like Finding Nemo suck to me, but Toy Story was a fresh movie. BTW, it was a CG movie, not CGI.
If 2001 fans can get their nickers in a bunch and feel like CM was personally insulting you because he didn't like your favorite movie ("The worst thing you can say to someone is that their favorite band sucks"), then I'm entitled to feel insulted because you "technically didn't call you personally an idiot, just your opinions and how you were expressing them, as a surrogate for having a real counterargument for your point".
@CoryTheRaven I did have a counterargument, and again, you seemed to ignore it. Now I'd like to know what point you were talking about that I somehow ignored. Please tell me.
Sorry, but CM wasn't saying that my favorite movie sucks, he was telling people not to watch it, instead of saying "I wouldn't recommend it", he said "ONLY LISTEN TO ME, AND NOBODY ELSE: TURN IT OFF".
That's just horrible, for any reviewer to do. He is saying his thoughts as facts, and STATED SO in his review.
@Bassbait What I said is that trying to laud 2001 because it "changed the genre" is not really a defense, using an example of another film that I know you guys don't like (because chase trashed it) and how it also changed the genre (and, in fact, all of cinema). Your reply was that JP only changed the technology of filmmaking while 2001 changed the technology of filmmaking. I called you on it, and you "technically didn't call me an idiot"...
@CoryTheRaven Uh, you got it all wrong. In fact, you've been selecting certain words out of everything I've said and ignored all others. I specifically said how 2001 changed the genre of Sci-fi, and then said as a bonus, that even if JP changed technology, 2001 did also, as a counterexample that it not only changed the genre, but also the technology.
@Bassbait I said that JP changed not only the genre, but filmmaking across the board. You said that was "only" technology (presumably like how sound or animation didn't change filmmaking), but 2001 changed the whole genre... and then gave me examples of technology.
@CoryTheRaven Again, it didn't change the genre in any way. I gave you examples of technology and genre, and you ignored the genre ones that I mentioned. You are acting like an idiot by ignoring everything I say except what you think I was implying. Sorry, but you are being an idiot, and so I'm saying you are one.
@Bassbait I accurately recapitulated what you said and all you have to back yourself up are insults.
Newsflash: 2001 fans look down their noses at non-2001 fans. The whole of chase's reply could be boiled down to a three-minute montage of him looking pittyingly at the camera. You could just get right to the point by calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot from the outset.
You should learn to conduct yourself in a grown up manner. It's a movie asshole.
The last "stanza", for starters, says to act mature, and yet, you say "asshole" in the same stanza (note, I haven't used language like that until now, as a quote).
Then the next part:
NEWSFLASH: YOU ARE STEREOTYPING. You are assuming that all fans of 2001 look down the nose at non-fans. HOWEVER, I am not looking down, on, say, ALL OF MY FRIENDS, who don't like the film, or my parents, or my siblings, and none of them are fans.
And furthermore, you've been backing yourself up with nothing but insults. If you noticed, there were moments in which I put down the stick of 2001 defending to ask your personal preference about movies to get to know you better, and then when I say something nice about Toy Story, you act demeaning and condescending. You backed yourself up with insults, stereotyped again and again, and then cemented your hypocrisy by preaching to me about grown up manners followed by mindless insults.
@Bassbait Sure man, whatever you need to make people who don't like your favorite movie into Bad People who are hurting society and whatever.
I poked holes in your guys arguments and you called me an idiot for no reason other than thinking the movie I used as an example is beneath you. You started it, you called me names, and I told you in no uncertain terms that you were being a dick and you should really shape up.
@CoryTheRaven I never said or implied that JP was beneath me, I never said that people who don't like 2001 are hurting society or are bad people. I never called you names, besides saying that you are an idiot, which you clearly are if your arguments have no basis in reality (seriously, you keep making a LOT of stuff up, like that I said JP was beneath me, which I never did).
I'm no stereotype, you're just an idiot who has no clue of how an argument is formed. You need help.
@CoryTheRaven Again, what does this have to do with anything? You are just completely ignoring everything I've said. Have you even bothered to address that I never said or implied that JP was beneath me, or that I never said that people who don't like 2001 are hurting society or are bad people?
Or are you self-centered, somehow to a point where most things that are in opposition to your own mindless opinions breeze right past you? It's like you're plugging your figurative ears in an argument.
@Bassbait Dude, when I brought up JP, your "argument" was to shout NUHUH! and call me an idiot. Ever since you've been trying to make out like you're some kind of master debater and pinacle of rational civility vs. my being a poohead. YOU are the one who dismissed what I said, YOU are the one who started in with the personal insults and YOU are the one who tried to turn this into a matter of who has the superior tastes in film. Seriously guy, stop being such a fucking dick about a movie.
@CoryTheRaven Ok, so let's agree that 2001 is the best, I have superior thinking and arguing abilities, and that Stanley Kubrick is the undisputed greatest filmmaker ever, 2001 showing the pinnacle of those abilities.
And let's also agree that JP lacks influence and innovation on the level of 2001, regardless of how enjoyable it is.
@CoryTheRaven I didn't hear a no, so I guess the answer is yes...
At this point I'm just bored, so say whatever you want, either make a point or don't. This has been a fun waste of time, considering that I really didn't have much to do for the past few days.
@CoryTheRaven Of course I'm bored. I'm bored of arguing with a bigot, so instead, I choose to annoy you for amusement. You can easily spot the point at which I chose to do that. Still, why are you responding anyway?
@CoryTheRaven Bigot, as in you refuse to acknowledge opposing opinions. Every time I tried to argue a point, instead of arguing it back, you continued using things I said a while prior in order to make a point that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. In other words, you were ignoring all of my opinions, which makes you a bigot. Either way, if you argue against that, you've proven me right, which is the ultimate jerk move.
@Bassbait I've acknowledged your opinion, I just disagree with it. In the mean time, all you've done to respond to mine is say "nuhuh" and call me names. By your criteria, that would make you the bigot, except that I don't feel inclined to cheapen the word by applying it to fights about movies. I would just consider you insecure and defensive.
@CoryTheRaven See, you proved me right. Sorry, but calling you a bigot is perfectly fine when denotative. Just because it's supposed to be an extremely negative word doesn't mean that it's definition isn't appropriate. You ignored most of the points I tried to make and instead selected the "name calling", which I barely did (idiot and bigot is only 2). I'm definitely not insecure at all, because I have a steadfast opinion on 2001, so any of stupid attacks like this on 2001 will only help it.
Somehoe or other, you figured that no matter what I said I proved you right, so that's small potatoes.
Of course you are insecure, and demonstrated as much. When you're attempting to troll someone, you never tell them so. If you're trolling effectively, you don't have to. You just play them like a fiddle and then sit back to enjoy it...
@CoryTheRaven Nah, I reply to just about every comment I get, regardless of who it's from. I never end a conversation, I can drag a conversation to death. It's fun for me, but you're getting boring, because you keep trying to turn things around to make it look like 2001 isn't the greatest film of all time (which is impossible to do, because there has not been one acceptable criticism of the film, unlike, say, Citizen Kane)
@Bassbait What I find interesting is your need for it to be the best movie ever. Given what you've revealled about yourself in the last few exchanges, I have to admit that I was unfair in basically telling you "it's just a movie, get over it". To you it's not "just a movie": it's one of the things upon which you've crafted this sense of your identity as a person of intelligence and good taste. It's something you NEED to be right about and defensive about because your self-image is tied to it.
@CoryTheRaven Again, I don't need it to BE the best movie ever. I need it to be acknowledged, at least by the people with the capacity to understand, as the best movie ever, or at least a great movie. When it's considered BAD, then that's the closest thing to insulting I can find. Also, I was always quite ahead when it came to school, and seeing 2001 didn't change that. 2001 didn't affect my tastes or my intellect, it affected my love of movies, and that's when I became a fan of Kubrick.
@Bassbait See, that's just it. You can't just say that you like 2001 and state why. You have this evangelistic need to have 2001 considered A Great Movie. So some guy on the Interwebs thinks its boring - which is a perfectly valid complaint - so what!? Because you're using it to demonstrate what a smart guy you are. To not acknowledge it's greatness is to not acknowledge yours, which is the only possible way thinking its bad could be considered a personal insult...
@Bassbait ... It even contextualizes why you decided to throw "bigot" at the wall to see if it stuck. You know what are worse insults? Being attacked for your race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion. THAT is insulting. People actually get beat up and raped and killed because of those things. They are victims of actual bigotry.
You're whining because some people don't like this super-smart movie that your super-smart self is totally into.
People who are offended for an attack on their race, gender, orientation or religion ARE insecure.
The best attack is on their personality, because that's the most important thing to a person, and their integrity too. Calling someone a Hypocrite or Bigot is much more offensive than what you said. If someone said crap about all 4 of those things, I would just laugh. It's funny, it's not enough to be taken seriously. The people who do are IDIOTS.
@Bassbait Wha' huh?!? Did you seriously just... Wow... Being offended at being gaybashed or having your civil rights taken away in a vote or getting kicked out of your apartment after having your partner over is just insecurity, but someone criticizing YOUR favorite movie is, like, TOTALLY SERIOUS BUSINESS!!1!.... I can't... just... No, I'm literally speechless. There is literally nothing I can say after that.
@CoryTheRaven You're being an idiot. You said "insults". Insults are not nearly the same thing as discrimination. I can say "you're gay", but that doesn't mean that I'm going to kick you out of your apartment for being such.
So, judging by your ignorance, I do win, because you can't see the difference between words and actions. If I were gay, someone saying "Go to hell queer" wouldn't bother me at all. What would bother me is if I was kicked out of my house, but that's not an insult. You lose.
@Bassbait Personally I would find that rather burdensome. But then I don't try to project an image of myself through my tastes in film. My favorite movie happens to be the one I just enjoy the most, and I don't really care what other people think of it.
You though... You're trying to prove something by latching onto 2001. You need to have other people acknowledge that it's the best and, therefore, you're a smart person by liking it. A denial of it is an insult to you. Interesting.
@CoryTheRaven So I decided to watch Kubrick's other movies, and realized that the astounding amount of depth to each and everyone is UNMATCHED, 2001 being my personal favorite of the examples to choose from. I enjoy 2001 more than any other movie, and I study it more than any other movie. If I hated it, I wouldn't watch it. I'm not trying to PROVE 2001 is good, because it is. I'm trying to prove that there's something that people aren't understanding with the movie.
@Bassbait ... But when you have to TELL someone how annoyed you must be making them, it screams of desperation, insecurity, and a need to prove to them and to yourself that you "won". If you really did win, you don't need to tell the other person that.
@Bassbait ... so then you tried to backpeddal into telling me how it, like, changed the whole genre man, not just the effects (which was all you mentioned in "rebuttal"). I replied it did not, to which you replied that 2001 totally invented the idea of portraying humanity as infants nurtured by technology, which is pretty small potatoes coming off of "the greatest movie of all time"...
@CoryTheRaven Actually, that's a huge step up in storytelling. Again, this is a plot element that has become nearly essential to Sci-fi classics to follow (Alien, The Matrix, and to a lesser extent The Terminator).
And I thought you didn't care about how it changed the genre, so why are you trying to argue that point anyway?
@Bassbait It's one more item thrown into the stew of themes that Sci-Fi deals with, and I would even have to see a citation on how 2001 invented the technological womb before I even conceeded it (Terminator, BTW, is just a steroid-pumped Maria).
My concern with how it changed the genre is how you guys use that as an argument for why 2001 is worthy of religious devotion. My reply is that A) it's not necessarily, and B) the case is overstated.
@CoryTheRaven I never said 2001 is worthy of religious devotion. You are actually stereotyping, which is what Chase even said you shouldn't be doing. Good job on that. You are being an idiot. Maybe listen to what the other side has to say before making really bold and moot statements. Maybe you would be fine giving me some criteria for why films would be worthy of religious devotion, and I'll show why 2001 would be in the case you make, instead of REFUSING to bring up any arguments.
@Bassbait So far, you still have not effectively rebutted my point, which is that "it changed the genre" is not necessarily a defense of something as a good film. JP also changed the genre, even changed filmmaking and the business of filmmaking, moreso than any other film in the last 20 years, not to mention the scientific dividend. But you don't buy it because you think JP is tacky and beneath you or whatever, and if I wasn't "technically not an idiot", I wouldn't be so crass as to bring it up.
@CoryTheRaven Yes it is. AGAIN, JP DIDN'T CHANGE ANY GENRE. JUST FILMMAKING TECHNOLOGY.
Ok, that's it. You're an idiot. Face it, you are using the same argument over and over again without and reason why it has any worth to it. JP can be ignored, it has little worth in a conversation related to 2001. JP pioneered CGI, which isn't all that important to film making. I never said JP was beneath me, you are just being an idiot, and making stuff up. Might as well call you an idiot at that point.
@Bassbait Uh... I know you think I'm an idiot. You already said that. And I think it's hysterical that you guys can feel personally insulted that someone doesn't like your favorite movie and then actually personally insult people who disagree with you. You guys have done nothing but catcall and look down your noses at anyone not "enlightened" enough to "get" why they should fellate Kubrick. Fuck dude, people don't like your favorite movie. They're not slapping your mom or anything. Grow up.
@CoryTheRaven Again, you're stereotyping. It's not that you aren't worthy of Kubrick or something, it's that you have no logical opinion, because you only address straw man arguments and completely ignore the fact that YOU AREN'T BRINGING ANY ARGUMENTS UP. You are just insulting and ignoring. Maybe you should try not beating around the bush and instead of saying "Saying it changed things isn't an argument", you should say what WOULD be an argument. You're being an idiot.
@Bassbait As for CM saying not to watch it, that is his perogative. He is only saying explicitly what reviewers are supposed to say implicitly as their job. Reviewers give an opinion about whether or not a movie is worth watching. CM only said explicitly "no, don't." So what? Contrary to chase's earnest gaze at the camera, CM is not hurting society by giving his opinion. The accusation transcends laughability with how ridiculous it is.
@CoryTheRaven And, to add to that, Pixar movies are heavily influenced by Kubrick himself (Wall-E is influenced extremely by 2001. Also, "To infinity and beyond!")
Toy Story shows a synthetic world in which nothing feels synthetic. Toy Story is a story of fake beings becoming much more than they believe. It's a true classic, and I don't see any GENUINE criticism you could bring up with that film.
@Bassbait If you want a movie that is incredibly moving, powerful and with Important Things to Say, I'm going to come out of left field and say the original Gojira.
If you want an effects movie, a movie by someone who knows how to use them and innovate them to make films crossing the emotional spectrum, then goodness, I would recommend any given movie by Karel Zeman. If I had to narrow it down to one, I would say Baron Prášil.
If you want my favorite movie, it would be the 1925 Lost World.
@CoryTheRaven If I were to factor in all objective merits of a film, Kubrick's late work would be near the top of the list for great films, because Kubrick was one of the biggest pioneers for the film industry, and although he lacks the need to satisfy everyone's personal needs (see how you don't really like 2001, yet you said that you like ACO? That's how Kubrick works), he can still make an artistic vision exactly how he envisioned it, and create an experience unlike any other.
@CoryTheRaven As a last note, when you said that we weren't trying to argue that the celestial future is dull, that's because it was never brought up. Chase actually DID mention that in his 9 part video, although I'll have trouble finding it for you. I've said, time and time again, that a major theme of 2001 is that the advancements in technology have destroyed emotional connection between humans, leaving an utterly dull life. I have a video that EXPLAINS that. So, yes, that is a theme of 2001.
@Bassbait So one of the major themes of 2001 is that shows how technology has made our lives dull, slow, boring, meaningless, etc. CM observes that 2001 is itself an example of technology making a dull, slow, boring, meaningless movie.
So he apparently, and quite clearly and viscerally, understood what the film was about (at least in part). He was right.
So then what is your complaint? That he simply doesn't like dull, slow, boring, meaningless movies?
@CoryTheRaven Meaningless is the grossest thing you could say about the movie. No, meaningless is NOT what I was saying. There is tons of meaning in the movie, as shown by the long, dull, slow, boring aspects of the film. CM said that that stuff doesn't even exist. The whole film is a black screen to him.
He wasn't right, objectively speaking, and you don't need to defend him. My complaint is that he doesn't understand how a movie like this works, and so he has NO credibility.
the only time I tried watching 2001, I stopped at the upside down stewardess scene. i was so bored. I also think Star Wars set up a lot of modern sci fi, and also star trek, not 2001. to use an anaology, 2001 was like wolfenstein 3D, but star wars was like doom.
the sequence did not blow my mind, it was BORING. nothing was happening, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.
@TheAlmightySmurf You are right. The only thing that can compare to 2001 is staring at a fucking wall for 2 hours. 2001 sucked! NOTHING HAPPENED! It was a non-movie.
Confused matthew did not get personal, but myself, I'll say that 2001 lovers are pseudo intellectual snobs!
NOTHING HAPPENED.
Gratuitous special effects. If a movie was 2 hours of sex, that is gratuitous sex. 2 hours of pointless voilence, gratuitous violence. 2 hours of effects? and nothing happens! NOTHING!
@slmrcs A LOT happens. There are three distinct narrative threads, all linked by a common interjection. It isn't two hours of gratuitous effects; it's 2 hours of thought-provoking, dizzyingly hypnotic, surrealistic wonder. If you don't agree with me, fine. To infer that everyone who does enjoy the movie is wrong, well, that's just ignorant.
@slmrcs Can you read? I clearly stated that it doesn't matter who likes what. You're the pretentious snob here, not I. You're the one who is generalizing (" I'll say that 2001 lovers are pseudo intellectual snobs!").
@slmrcs I know... I have to keep reminding myself that in real life I'm pretty indifferent to 2001. The religious fervor of the true believers who need you to convert or go to Hell is so deeply obnoxious that it's almost making me not WANT to like the film.
@slmrcs "Empire" is about nothing, and it was intended. 2001 is about something.
THINGS HAPPEN.
You know what doesn't exist in 2001? Explanation. 2001 doesn't need to spoon feed you. Things happen, but why? That's for you to decide. Otherwise, you can say nothing happened in every film. For example "If I made a 2 hour film about people talking, then NOTHING HAPPENS!"
Speaking of pseudo-intellectuals, I would like you to actually THINK.
A rant is a speech or text that does not present a calm argument; rather, it is typically an enthusiastic speech or talk or lecture on an idea, a person or an institution.
in other words, you are not fooling those of us who are truly of an intelligence level above the average. You are a disgrace to true geniuses everywhere. I see through you. take the words of Socrates Biblically and know thyself.
"the movie is about the consequences blah blah blah" SAYS WHO? Where the fuck in the movie does this become clear? Why must everything be ambiguous? I will tell you why: Because he didn't have a story in mind and wanted people to think he did by telling people to "figure it out themselves".
@aarondirebear AGAIN, THERE IS A STORY. A STORY IS THIS:
"Who, What, When, Where".
Why is what does not need to be part of a story. The "why factor" is what determines the ambiguity of the film. If there is no who, what, when, or where, there is no film, and there can't BE a why. The film is ambiguous because he didn't want to go a certain way. He wanted people to figure out the WHY, but the Who, What, When, and Where are ALL established. Thanks for showing how intelligent you are.
@Bassbait Thanks for showing how much of a prat you are for falling for the scam and defecating the same tired arguments again. Pwned. Kthxbai. And furthermore, fuck your couch.
@aarondirebear Thanks for not even bothering to argue any points about why 2001 is a bad film, but instead "defecating the same tired arguments again."
Saying it's about nothing is ultimately the same argument that every idiot makes, without any reason why. 2001 is a phenomenal film, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it's simplicity, so stop acting like it should.
Furthermore, what scam? Are you saying that you were lying or are you just an idiot?
@Bassbait The scam is the idea that a movie being ambiguous automatically makes it profound, deep, and important. Pretentious prats like you are the scum of the earth. You are an idiot who thinks he is intelligent, while I am a truly intelligent person who sees right through you, who sees right through Stanley Kubrick, and who doesn't take very kindly to pretentious fools.
Seriously, stop acting like it's some kind of crusade. You're just being an anti-conformist nut. Just because this film is popular and you don't get it, you take it out on the people who at least try to understand the film's deeper meanings. Sorry, but Kubrick always did extensive research while making his films. He knew all about symbolism involving pyramids, and if you watch his other films, you will find that the profoundness of 2001 is not a scam.
@aarondirebear Sorry, but am I a hipster? No. Not even close. In fact, I think you're a "section 8". It seems that you have no attachment to any arguments about the film itself. Saying "nothing happens" is no argument at all. Stuff definitely happens. It's almost impossible to make a film without a plot. 2001's plot just doesn't make sense to you because you refuse to pay attention.
Plus, where did you even get "pretentious hipster"? You're just throwing in buzzwords at this point.
I don't believe you are right to keep suggesting that because 2001 has little dialogue early on that it should be appreciated as a silent film mainly because it leaves so little for the viewer to latch onto as an actual plot. I appreciate the symbolism and ideas the movie presents but that is not the same as being invested in the film's plot. If I felt invested in the plot I'd feel more inclined to piece together the symbolism. IMO it's not good writing to try and convey ideas like that.
6:43 No.
Very few things happen before the Jupiter mission, and they're all mentioned in the later dialogue.
The only exception being the revelation of the Monolith at the very end - but here's the funny thing, it just sent a radio signal, it didn't boost the astronauts' intelligence, or anything of the sorts - so it could've just as well been some kind of radio transmitter, and then mentioned as "the sign of intelligent life" on that message video.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
So really, the movie between the Ape Intro (and CM did say "with the exclusion of the intro" when talking about how "useless" the movie has been up to this point) and HAL9000 is really more like a prequel, or backstory, as far as necessity are concerned.
The same canNOT be said about "any other movie"!
6:58 How so?
8:45 Gattaca is more closely related to "movie".
9:13 Shutter Island leaves "questions" open.
What "questions" does 2001 "leave open"?
"WTF was that" doesn't count.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
So really, the movie between the Ape Intro (and CM did say "with the exclusion of the intro" when talking about how "useless" the movie has been up to this point) and HAL9000 is really more like a prequel, or backstory, as far as necessity are concerned.
The same canNOT be said about "any other movie"!
6:58 How so?
8:45 Gattaca is more closely related to "movie".
9:13 Shutter Island leaves "questions" open.
What "questions" does 2001 "leave open"?
"WTF was that" doesn't count.
twooffour 2 weeks ago
4:57 I'm sure advancing all the space travel technology was "difficult" as usual, but where in the film does it say that reaching Clavius was somehow exceptionally difficult?
But that's just a minor detail. "Something important on a moon" is just a barebone on the script, and CM's silly exaggerations aside, the point really is that 2001 consists of few plot points and lots of "experience" and "style" inbetween.
5:20 SPACE REEL!! What does this have to do with Kubrick's writing skills?
twooffour 2 weeks ago
... eating scenes from 2001 would JUST ruin the experience (and possibly the "symbolism"), not the plot.
Kevin Smith's quote was just facetious - since when is death a prerequisite for an arc? And if they HAD died, you could cut everything out until their death scene.
Why was this nonsense argument included??
3:55 Camera effect = category: style.
4:22 Historical influence =/= actual movie.
What if it had been a silent reel showing people work in space? It still could've had the same influence
twooffour 2 weeks ago
3:00-3:30
Um, what? 2001 (90% of the film, the HAL chapter excluded, consisting of routine activities and space shots) doesn't consist of fat, but LOTR is "nothing but fat" (sure, with dialogue, character development, a plot, actually actively discussed subjects)??
Sorry, no - all of those things constitute the SUBSTANCE of a movie, the fat is all the REST.
Cutting all of it out wouldn't just ruin "the experience", it would, for starters, cut out the PLOT. Cutting the endless space shots and...
twooffour 2 weeks ago
No. silent films did have dialogue, you idiot. Just watch one and something significant to the plot will happen, unlike 2001.
TheNapoleonnerd 4 months ago
@TheNapoleonnerd That's weird, because I remember there being quite a lot of dialogue in 2001. And I remember there being quite a lot of plot. Something about monoliths placed on earth, the moon, and orbiting jupiter at least 40 million years ago, deliberately buried, found by apes and humans, and something about a machine trying to kill some people? Huh, I guess the film was just a blank screen though, there wasn't any dialogue or plot, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Bassbait 2 weeks ago
That said, I will concede that Matthew has some points with which I agree, but fewer than Chase's. Obviously I won't agree with EVERY point Chase makes, but I do with most of them.
Sad to see you go Chase. If you are looking out from beyond the infinite with Mr Kubrick, I hope you know how much enjoyment you gave the youTube community.
SequentiallyCompact 8 months ago
As Matthew only reached number four before finding out about Chase's passing (and respectfully leaving the rest alone), I'd have to assess my conclusion about which was the better take here, and I would have to say that I tend to agree more with Chase by this point. As a whole, Matthew refuses to accept that a narrative can be told without dialog or voice over, and in fact it takes little imagination to see a story developing with 2001 based on the visuals and cinematography.
SequentiallyCompact 8 months ago
Why did he have to act like a smug dick through the whole thing?
Ceesec 9 months ago
@Ceesec He is fighting fire with fire. Some people deserve being insulted and looked down upon and CM is one of them.
Blomsternisse 8 months ago 2
wasting time on this stupid analogy
jonathan4055 10 months ago
Right on the money... the trouble with CM, and this is all the more evident if you watch the first part of his NCfOM review, is that he analyzes movies as if they are supposed to be novels. This is very common, however... most reviewers do the same thing. They think about movies strictly in terms of character, dialogue, theme, etc. 2001 should not be viewed with such a mindset.
jumpoutatree 10 months ago
Chase got carried away with the rants. But he IS spot on about this film. It's a masterpiece! It's was trend setting. Anyone who doesn't appreciate this movie as a literary work on a movie screen, I think you're not up to par with the intellect of this film. Does every film have to have almost non-stop dialog to be good?
This film is on the scale of a symphony on screen. Just because one can't appreciate it doesn't mean it wasn't good.
InquiringMind63 10 months ago
I love how the majority of the rating of these videos slowly move towards your side of the argument. You provide such great arguments for CM review of 2001.
10kokesly 11 months ago 3
@10kokesly This might be because most of those who get this far actually like what Chaze is saying.
alesv77 10 months ago
2001... the book is boring, the movie is boring... simple as that, the ONLY thing that is cool about it.... is HAL.. give up man... you aint convincing anyone, because EVERYONE knows it is a boring movie.... stop defending this movie... it is BORING....... it is THE most boring movie i have ever seen... lol
johnnyrockerfella 11 months ago
@johnnyrockerfella so just because you're not smart enough to grasp deeper meaning, you assume that none is there. either accept that it is something beyond your intelligence as any mature person who does not understand it would do or accept that you are pathetic. it's right there plain and simple you cannot deny it. you clearly aren't smart enough to understand 2001. so you say its boring yet it has been praised by geniuses. is there anyway in hell that you're the smarter one here?
jordanb7624 8 months ago
@jordanb7624 deeper meaning... is a very poor excuse, for something that is boring, i mean this movie is boring... but, i will admit the part where HAL comes in is very cool.. but dude, its boring man, and i couldnt care less if so called genius's declare how good it is.. im not a sheep man, i make up my own mind on things..
johnnyrockerfella 8 months ago
Oh my God, confused matthew owned you so bad
StWesley 1 year ago
Nice work. I don't mind if people dislike 2001; that's why we have films like Star Wars (which I also enjoy, incidentally). But rather than try to voice why they dislike 2001, reviewers like Confused Matthew should just shut up and go back to beating off to the Matrix. They don't get 2001 and they never will.
rutgerhauer666 1 year ago
@rutgerhauer666 CM doesn't really care for The Matrix. And The Matrix is actually a very highly intelligent film even though there are errors. 2001, however, is the greatest film ever made, so there's no competition. But The Matrix is the deepest movie non-Kubrick for a long time, along with Mulholland Drive, Primer, and a few others. Inferior to 2001, respectable in it's own right.
Bassbait 2 weeks ago
Oh it's a rant now i thought it was a responsel, MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND!!
captainjjb84 1 year ago
Smug assholery seems appropriate in this area. I used to be a frequent watcher of Confused Matthew until I realized that he really is confused. He doesn't seem to grasp subtle elements in film, nor does he understand what makes a good film. I'm on his side about Independence Day vs Armageddon and I see his point about the Lion King, but most everything else he makes beyond those reviews fall short of quality. Thanks for telling it like it is, Chase!
muticere 1 year ago
@muticere how could you argee about the lion king?
iwantausernamenow333 11 months ago
@muticere I think he's in over his head. He understands how to analyze certain basic film elements, but then refuses to analyze those SAME elements when dealing with other kinds of films. With 2001, it's like he watched it once 10 years ago. Rented it again, and WITHOUT WATCHING IT, uploaded it to his computer to get footage for the review. Then he skipped to the parts he needed to make his terrible point, and ignored the most pivotal dialogue moments in the entire film.
Bassbait 2 weeks ago
Someone is very pleased with themselves.
Hint: That person is you.
I would have enjoyed your responses without all the smug assholery.
AngryRabbi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"This is true of every movie ever made"
pancakeday2006 1 year ago
Also......
WOW.
You are SERIOUSLY going to make the argument that 2001 doesn't have fat and that the length WITHOUT DIALOGUE THERE is fine, but the length in Lord of the Rings, a BEST PICTURE WINNER, WITH DIALOGUE, THAT is just fat?
What's more, that's entertaining action, fat, and nothing more?
You harp on about how many interpretations you want to give for 2001, ALL of which are subjective...and yet you'll knock ANOTHER "classic" film and say it's just action?
Double standard?
obiwanobiwan13 1 year ago
Silent films STILL had dialogue, sir...hence dialogue BOXES?
Really, I'm not saying you have to agree with CM--though in 2001's case I do to a certain extent, /i feel it is FAR overrated for many of the reasons CM gives--but you can AT LEAST drop the condescending tone, ESPECIALLY when your logic, which your tump up so mjuch, is incredibly flawed.
You have proven one thing, Mr. Chase:
With your banal and insulting remarks, you have proven how much a fool dialogue can show a man to be...
obiwanobiwan13 1 year ago
Lol, what a douche bag, CM completely owned him in his response.
Garlog64 1 year ago 2
@Kwinnky Makes you look lika jack ass, Chase.
thegmanofEAP 1 year ago
Comment removed
LeonSKennedy828 1 year ago
Uh…didn’t silent films still have dialogue? It was written dialogue, but still dialogue. Every time you make a point out your interpretation of what this movie was supposed to be about and about Kubricks style and how this movie was received I keep hearing Matthew’s objection in the back of my head, “What does it have to DO with the STORY!”
Warblade118 1 year ago
Comment removed
Warblade118 1 year ago
I think you're making points a lot of people would agree with. However you need to avoid personalising the criticism of CM's review and concentrate on your arguements not on CM. I had a lot of issues with CM's review and did wonder if CM really watched 2001 or not. I respect 2001, but am not stricly a fan of the movie. While 2001 is often deliberatly slow, lacks expositon and has a relatively coldly objective view of humanity, I don't think these are necessarily barriers to appreciating 2001
DOMuricu 1 year ago 2
dialogue would distract??? LOL! Dialogue could actually save 2001.
AgentTripleH 1 year ago
@AgentTripleH Obviously that's why you didn't write it. Because 2001, as we all know, ended up fading into obscurity, without a single critic to praise it or a single viewer to like it. It ended up being a colossal failure and inspired absolutely nobody.
The point is, dialogue CAN'T save 2001. 2001 doesn't need saving. It is cemented in history as an important AND great film, so what you should have said, was "dialogue could actually make me feel less stupid for not getting the film"
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait i love u too^^ i love how u have to insult ppl just because they dont like one of ur loved films.
i respect 2001 for it imagesand the atmosphere of those shots. BUT If i want to think about Evolution there may be many many better ways to do it, than watch 2001. It doesnt provide anything new. At all. So maybe there is a higher existance, which we rlly dont understand (and maybe not). thanks boring movie! but thats just my opinion, u can have ur own. For me, dialouge could save it.
AgentTripleH 1 year ago
@AgentTripleH Sorry if you took that as an insult, because at this point, I'm expecting every person who comments on here to be a CM fan with the braindead reasons of "it's boring, and nothing happens". I can admit that to people with a short attention span and a lack of interest in good movie making, it's fair to call it "boring", but that's kind of insulting to fans of the movie, and saying "nothing happens" is just plain WRONG.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait u shouldnt expect everyone to be the same ;) the world is way more complex^^ And i am not braindead, or try to find braindead reasons. I simply didnt find it that great. For the most time i waited for the next scene to begin or was asking myself if the movie rlly had to try so hard to be clever. but that was just how i felt.
AgentTripleH 1 year ago
@AgentTripleH Yes, but see, when you say "had to try so hard to be clever", that's where you're wrong. 2001 is not stretching out it's worth. It's not like they were so desperate for inspiration that they had to go to the bottom of the barrel. Kubrick CHANGED THE ENTIRE GENRE. Everything he did in the film, by that standard, is objectively "clever", because he was doing so much in the film that revolutionized everything from film to science itself. The film's "cleverness" is exponential.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait if you are refering to the visual aspects only u are certainly right. I was refering to the story elements, which are very few. I could have liked it, if there was a more complex story going on rather than just random philosophical statements (that arent even mentioned, u have to figure them out) about live and evolution. If they somehow discoverd those statements while there was an actual story going on i would have liked it.
AgentTripleH 1 year ago
@AgentTripleH Actually, the story is deeply layered. The thing is, depending on how attentive you are of the film, you'll notice implicit details that tell you what really happens. For example, HAL may never have killed the men in the cryogenic suits, as implied by the quite obvious scene in which it significantly calls attention to the "emergency revival procedures". The story is IMMENSELY complex, it's just too complex for some people to handle, and it seems like you are one of those people.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait that is your subjectiv (and in my opinion, wrong) opinion ;)
AgentTripleH 1 year ago
@Bassbait "Changed the entire genre" isn't necessarily a compliment, nor does it justify all. For example, Jurassic Park fundamentally changed the genre in the modern age. It was the first to make a major, successfully, extremely profitable use of CGI. Not to mention the fact that the science of palaeontology is still receiving dividends from its popularity. It is by one of the acknowledged Great Directors. So does that put JP above criticism?
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Actually, JP didn't change the genre, it changed move technology. Sure, Avatar is doing the same crap, that doesn't make either of them good, regardless of the fact that James Cameron and Steven Spielberg are great directors. No. They didn't change the entire genre. 2001 changed ALL of Science Fiction. It also revolutionized film technology in a way far more useful than CGI. He pioneered motion controls in a time when THEY WERE IMPOSSIBLE. But he found a way.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait So JP DIDN'T change the genre because it was about the technology, but 2001 DID change the genre because it was about the technology.
See, now you're just crapping on JP because you personally don't happen to like it. Whatever your feelings about it, JP did objectively revolutionize moviemaking by demonstrating the usefulness and profitability of CGI in a way that has changed cinema across the board, even beyond Sci-Fi.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Sorry, you are being an idiot.
I said, JP didn't change the GENRE. What genre? SCIENCE FICTION. Just because it revolutionized movie making doesn't mean it advanced the genre with it's storytelling and ideological elements. 2001 changed SCIENCE FICTION. I agree that JP changed MOVIEMAKING TECHNOLOGY, as did 2001, but 2001's accomplishment was much more difficult and much more rewarding for movies as a whole. I never said I don't like JP, you're making stuff up.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait And again, you guys have to resort to ad homs...
2001 absolutely changed the technology and the visual elements of Sci-Fi, but it is severely overstating the case to say it changed Sci-Fi's storytelling or ideology. It is far, far from the first film to raise questions of technology, technological society, human identity and our place in the universe. If you watch any Sci-Fi from before 1968, then you might notice that it doesn't say anything really new.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Oh, you got me good. Except that it isn't true. I said you were acting like an idiot. I wasn't straight attacking your intelligence, I was just saying that you are being dumb, not that you ARE dumb. Although, to be fair, CM did it IN HIS REVIEW.
And yes, it did change sci-fi's storytelling. Every modern Machine take-over movie is directly inspired by this film (Matrix, Terminator), and also Alien although it's not a machine. Every new Sci-fi is just a 2001 rip off.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Ah, technically you didn't ad hom me because you didn't like me applying your same criteria to a film you think is beneath you, thus making me an idiot.
Thing is, 2001 is not the first "machine or alien takes over, challenging our sense of identity" movie. By this same criteria, 2001 is itself a stylistic and thematic rip-off of any given Sci-Fi movie by Fritz Lang. It was already done. You can say "not THIS way, not THIS age", but that still undermines it.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Yes, I can say, not the way that they he did it. He set it up where the humans were babies in technology's care, similar to The Matrix, and similar to Alien (note: I forgot about the "crew expendable" plot element of that film. It's a parasitic relationship where human kind has stopped progressing and machines have started progressing on their own. HAL9000 is just the beginning of what would ultimately be like the future of The Terminator, which was then cut short by Dave.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait And like I said, that was already done. But I was also being redundant when I mentioned Fritz Lang because very nearly everything that was done in film was done in the silent era (and mostly by Germans). Even the really great, really important innovations to film in the 30's were basically just taking German stuff and introducing it to Hollywood (which is why I would conceed the the most Officially Good film of all time is Citizen Kane).
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Citizen Kane is GREAT, but not the greatest, not by a long shot. Why? Because it completely cancels out it's worth within the first scene of the movie:
The whole plot is that They try to figure out the meaning of Kane's last word: Rosebud. However, NO ONE WAS AROUND TO HEAR THEM. So technically, he was a tree that fell down when no one was around to hear him. So that gaping plot hole destroys the possibility of it being the greatest of all time. I still debate that 2001 is.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Maybe the nurse heard it in the hall? I dunno'... I'm also not particularly married to Citizen Kane, though I think Orson Welles as a whole is awesome. And keep in mind that if it wasn't for King Kong, Citizen Kane wouldn't even have happened.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Yes, Orson Welles is great. F For Fake is a great film. However, Orson Welles once stated that Kubrick was going to go off to become one of the greatest film makers around, as he had the same ambition as Welles (Welles was such a self-indulgent jerk. That's fact right there).
Toy Story also has a great artistic integrity: It lacks man power. Where is Andy's dad? Sid's dad is the only father figure in the movie, and he is sleeping in his only scene, showing a haunting realism.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait As for its storytelling and ideological influence, CM brings up two examples in a later responses2responses: Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the Matrix sequels. Personally, I think he's being unfair on the Matrix sequels there, because I happened to like #2 and thought it had plenty of interesting philosphical material. You may now ad hom me for liking an Officially Bad movie. His point, however, is that other movies that apply 2001's lugubrious methods tend to be panned.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Again, you are making things up. You assume, because I am a fan of 2001, that I have a ridiculous standard for movies. The sequels to the Matrix are some of my favorite movies, and yes, that includes Revolutions.
Oh, and you are wrong. Is The Shining panned? Is Eraserhead panned? Is A Clockwork Orange panned? Is Barry Lyndon panned?
NO. 2001's methods apply to all Kubrick films, which are all praised, as well as Lynch, who gets mixed results depending on the movie.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Actually, Clockwork Orange is a great example of Kubrickian film that reigns it in a bit and makes a much tighter film. I liked it, and Dr. Strangelove, and even Eyes Wide Shut (God help me). 2001? Meh.
And Eraserhead is definitely mixed. I liked it, but I can also acknowledge in the context of the criteria CM laid out for what he considers a film, it may not qualify as a film. Art yes, film no.
But that take slow and overlong and apply it to Star Trek and it's criticized.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven 2001 is Kubrick's foundation of his later films. ACO is secretly 2001 in disguise. I suggest you read some analysis, because you can find many 2001 elements in ACO, such as pyramid symbols, and all-seeing eye symbols (Alex's eye, HAL9000's eye). Kubrick's later films are all one big project, each relating to another: Note that Alex's hairdo when he is a "normal person" is almost exactly like Danny Torrance's and Young Bullingdon from Barry Lyndon.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait 2001 may be the dry run for his later films, in which case I'd say he got better over time.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven I basically have a chart for his later work:
2001 = all about the subliminal, allegorical, and philosophical themes.
His movies afterwards = still just as subliminal and allegorical, but reaching a wider appeal through more charismatic performances
FMJ = the ultimate culmination of Kubrick's work as a director of the subliminal, allegorical, and philosophical, as well as a director of film as entertainment. FMJ didn't sacrifice artistic integrity or entertainment value.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait "I'm expecting every person who comments on here to be a CM fan with the braindead reasons of "it's boring, and nothing happens"."
It's not an either-or... It can be brilliant and symbolic as well as overlong and masturbatory. I get what Kubric was trying to do and say in the first hour, but he could have accomplished it in a much tighter way. You don't necessarily lose philosophical heft by not taking almost a minute to open a door. There're those "I get it, can we move on" moments
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Sorry, but there's still a problem there. Kubrick isn't there to cater to your personal tastes, as Roger Ebert has once said. Kubrick's usage of really long scenes is emphasizing something narrative wise in that scene. If you are talking about, for example, the stewardess scene, it's emphasizing a womb-like structure, and a baby look to her, giving symbolism of birth, which will then be repeated later on in the film. Most "boring" scenes are of the most vital importance to the film
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Neither am I here to cater to Kubrick's personal excesses. You still didn't really address what I said, which is that you can have your layers of symbolism and your non-spoon-fed themes and still pace it so it doesn't take almost a minute to open a door. Well, I suppose it would be necessary if you were trying to communicate that our celestial future is dull, slow, sterile, boring and emotionally dead, but I haven't heard you guys try to argue that's what 2001 is about.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven I did address that. Did you not pay attention? I said that when he does that, he is highlighting an important element in that scene. Why should a film be criticized for taking a bit more time on something that is supposed to be IMPORTANT?
Actually, you just explained a major theme of 2001. Our future is supposed to be dull, slow, sterile, and lifeless. That's a major point. As far as we have come with technology, life is now completely lifeless because of it. Good job with that.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait No you didn't address it. You did say it was long because it was important, but that's not really a defense. It's just like BECAUSE I USE CAPS IT'S IMPORTANT!! There are ways of emphasizing things in film that don't require cheap tricks like forcing me to look at it for 20 minutes.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven You're exaggerating by saying 20 minutes.
Also, I said that I addressed it in a video of mine long before you brought it up, as did Chase in this video. I use caps because I like to, it's fun.
As for cheap tricks. What? It's no cheap trick. It's not like, say, CGI or something...
maybe next time defend an actually good movie (again, I'm not saying I don't like it, I'm just denying it's worth as a film)
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait I'm actually not defending JP as such. What I did say is that by the same criteria you're attempting to use for 2001, JP has the qualifications of a great, genre-changing, real-life transforming film. The only reason you have to crap on it is that you don't like it or think it's worthless or beneath you or whatever. For the record, I do like it, but liked JP2 more because I thought it raised more interesting questions about genetic engineering. Neither of them are the best movie ever.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Just as a movie fan, what do you think is the best movie ever?
Anyways, I'm not being against you, I'm just arguing with you. The fact that you like Reloaded shows that you aren't just a blind follower of CM, but I think you need to give more respect to Kubrick and 2001 than you do, because I just see it as you missing the point, which is hard to explain in a way that you won't end up being frustrated with. It takes DEDICATION to watch a film like 2001, just like it does to make.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Like I said, I get what Kubrick was doing and saying with 2001. I have zero problems in the getting-it department. I just don't think it's done as tightly or as well as it could have been, which entitles it to criticisms of being dull, indulgent, boring and overlong.
Best movie evar... to be continued...
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Also, Eraserhead is, as Lynch said, a spiritual experience. He's not concerned with plot as much as emotions. Your plot of the movie is defined by the movie's emotions. The movie makes you understand how Henry feels, not what happens to Henry, and that's the beauty in the film. The plot isn't essential to making a good movie, and Eraserhead hit the mark of a GREAT movie without using plot hardly at all!
Bassbait 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven And then, as for 2001, I still think you missed the point. Remember that he skimmed the film from 171 minutes (almost 3 hours) to 140 something minutes. He trimmed it down to only what he felt was ESSENTIAL to his meanings. It's his artistic visions, and to quote Roger Ebert: "We don't just see Kubrick's movie, we see it in the frame of mind he insists on"
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait To which CM replies "his frame of mind sucks balls", make of it what one will.
By contrast, Matrix 3 included everything the Wachoskis considered essential to the story they wanted to tell. They were certainly in a position to do it, and they were duly criticized for it because, for as much as I like the trilogy as a whole, I have to admit that those long stretches of time in Zion were really not necessary. Sometimes filmmakers are wrong about their own films.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@Bassbait My answer depends on what you want it to be best at.
If you want a clinic on how to make an engaging, entertaining, well-paced, sheer-joy-to-watch-over-and-over-again movie, then I would say the original King Kong.
If you want a movie as a work of pure art, irresepective of plot, character, dialogue, etc. (eg: what CM would say is not a film), that may be harder for me to answer. My heart wants to say Fantasia, but I am also a fan of Vampyr and Eraserhead...
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven No. I mean, a film that contains ALL. Influence, innovation, storytelling, originality/freshness, artistic value, moral dilemmas with care and thought put into the movie, meticulous design, fine tuning of everything. It has to be FULL of AWESOME, and achieves the vision of the director, as well as avoids too many logical errors.
By my standards, which I just stated, 2001 is number one, but I would say that Toy Story could also qualify, as could other Kubrick movies.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Mary Mother of... TOY STORY?!? Right, right, I was the one who criticized trashing something's influence just because you don't personally like it...
Hmm... bestest of all time... I don't think I can because I don't think any one movie accomplishes all that. That or I'll just say "fuck it" and go with Bride of Frankenstein.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Way to insult instead of bringing up a point about why you disagree. Toy Story balanced everything just right to be accessible to kids and adults, and show artistic merit with the emotional stress it brings to it's characters. Maybe you have a bias against it (I highly expect you do), but Toy Story is a great movie, and that's even evidenced by it's 100% rating on RT, which means that no critic disagreed on it's worth as a film. It's not just a kid's movie, it's so much more.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait I didn't insult you. I expressed disbelief. You were the one who called me an idiot, and if calling me names while accusing me of insulting you when I don't is how you conduct a debate, then fuck off.
I am biased against Toy Story, I admit. I think it's an alright film, if formulaic. And that is what I can say after disentangling it from how it's forumla proceeded to completely ruin North American CGI feature animation. I get it Pixar. I get it.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Again, I'm sorry if you didn't mean it as an insult, but I didn't call you an idiot. I said "you are being an idiot", or maybe "you are acting like an idiot". I was saying that you are showing idiotic attributes, not that you ARE one, because I was trying to point out that you need to take a different approach. As for Toy Story, it defined a formula that later films would follow. Films like Finding Nemo suck to me, but Toy Story was a fresh movie. BTW, it was a CG movie, not CGI.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Two technicalities.
If 2001 fans can get their nickers in a bunch and feel like CM was personally insulting you because he didn't like your favorite movie ("The worst thing you can say to someone is that their favorite band sucks"), then I'm entitled to feel insulted because you "technically didn't call you personally an idiot, just your opinions and how you were expressing them, as a surrogate for having a real counterargument for your point".
Also, CG vs. CGI = irrelevant
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven I did have a counterargument, and again, you seemed to ignore it. Now I'd like to know what point you were talking about that I somehow ignored. Please tell me.
Sorry, but CM wasn't saying that my favorite movie sucks, he was telling people not to watch it, instead of saying "I wouldn't recommend it", he said "ONLY LISTEN TO ME, AND NOBODY ELSE: TURN IT OFF".
That's just horrible, for any reviewer to do. He is saying his thoughts as facts, and STATED SO in his review.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait What I said is that trying to laud 2001 because it "changed the genre" is not really a defense, using an example of another film that I know you guys don't like (because chase trashed it) and how it also changed the genre (and, in fact, all of cinema). Your reply was that JP only changed the technology of filmmaking while 2001 changed the technology of filmmaking. I called you on it, and you "technically didn't call me an idiot"...
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Uh, you got it all wrong. In fact, you've been selecting certain words out of everything I've said and ignored all others. I specifically said how 2001 changed the genre of Sci-fi, and then said as a bonus, that even if JP changed technology, 2001 did also, as a counterexample that it not only changed the genre, but also the technology.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait I said that JP changed not only the genre, but filmmaking across the board. You said that was "only" technology (presumably like how sound or animation didn't change filmmaking), but 2001 changed the whole genre... and then gave me examples of technology.
Make of that what one will.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Again, it didn't change the genre in any way. I gave you examples of technology and genre, and you ignored the genre ones that I mentioned. You are acting like an idiot by ignoring everything I say except what you think I was implying. Sorry, but you are being an idiot, and so I'm saying you are one.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait I accurately recapitulated what you said and all you have to back yourself up are insults.
Newsflash: 2001 fans look down their noses at non-2001 fans. The whole of chase's reply could be boiled down to a three-minute montage of him looking pittyingly at the camera. You could just get right to the point by calling anyone who disagrees with you an idiot from the outset.
You should learn to conduct yourself in a grown up manner. It's a movie asshole.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Ok, this is the height of hypocrisy:
The last "stanza", for starters, says to act mature, and yet, you say "asshole" in the same stanza (note, I haven't used language like that until now, as a quote).
Then the next part:
NEWSFLASH: YOU ARE STEREOTYPING. You are assuming that all fans of 2001 look down the nose at non-fans. HOWEVER, I am not looking down, on, say, ALL OF MY FRIENDS, who don't like the film, or my parents, or my siblings, and none of them are fans.
Bassbait 1 year ago
And furthermore, you've been backing yourself up with nothing but insults. If you noticed, there were moments in which I put down the stick of 2001 defending to ask your personal preference about movies to get to know you better, and then when I say something nice about Toy Story, you act demeaning and condescending. You backed yourself up with insults, stereotyped again and again, and then cemented your hypocrisy by preaching to me about grown up manners followed by mindless insults.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Sure man, whatever you need to make people who don't like your favorite movie into Bad People who are hurting society and whatever.
I poked holes in your guys arguments and you called me an idiot for no reason other than thinking the movie I used as an example is beneath you. You started it, you called me names, and I told you in no uncertain terms that you were being a dick and you should really shape up.
You ARE a stereotype.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven I never said or implied that JP was beneath me, I never said that people who don't like 2001 are hurting society or are bad people. I never called you names, besides saying that you are an idiot, which you clearly are if your arguments have no basis in reality (seriously, you keep making a LOT of stuff up, like that I said JP was beneath me, which I never did).
I'm no stereotype, you're just an idiot who has no clue of how an argument is formed. You need help.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait *eyeroll*
Do you people actually take yourselves as seriously as you make yourselves out to?
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Again, what does this have to do with anything? You are just completely ignoring everything I've said. Have you even bothered to address that I never said or implied that JP was beneath me, or that I never said that people who don't like 2001 are hurting society or are bad people?
Or are you self-centered, somehow to a point where most things that are in opposition to your own mindless opinions breeze right past you? It's like you're plugging your figurative ears in an argument.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Dude, when I brought up JP, your "argument" was to shout NUHUH! and call me an idiot. Ever since you've been trying to make out like you're some kind of master debater and pinacle of rational civility vs. my being a poohead. YOU are the one who dismissed what I said, YOU are the one who started in with the personal insults and YOU are the one who tried to turn this into a matter of who has the superior tastes in film. Seriously guy, stop being such a fucking dick about a movie.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Ok, so let's agree that 2001 is the best, I have superior thinking and arguing abilities, and that Stanley Kubrick is the undisputed greatest filmmaker ever, 2001 showing the pinnacle of those abilities.
And let's also agree that JP lacks influence and innovation on the level of 2001, regardless of how enjoyable it is.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Pft! You already thought that.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven I didn't hear a no, so I guess the answer is yes...
At this point I'm just bored, so say whatever you want, either make a point or don't. This has been a fun waste of time, considering that I really didn't have much to do for the past few days.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait It's adorable that you have to assume a victory to yourself after your arguments and namecalling run out!
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Sounds like you're just upset because you lost! You already said that I was better than you!
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Goodness, for someone who claims to be bored you're sure intent on trying to get the last word.
So far you've run through smug denials, insults, turnabouts, feigning boredom and declaring "Mission Accomplished". Anything else you want to try?
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Of course I'm bored. I'm bored of arguing with a bigot, so instead, I choose to annoy you for amusement. You can easily spot the point at which I chose to do that. Still, why are you responding anyway?
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Oh my, I'm a bigot now? Against who?
Why am I responding? I never claimed to be bored ^_^
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Bigot, as in you refuse to acknowledge opposing opinions. Every time I tried to argue a point, instead of arguing it back, you continued using things I said a while prior in order to make a point that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. In other words, you were ignoring all of my opinions, which makes you a bigot. Either way, if you argue against that, you've proven me right, which is the ultimate jerk move.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait I've acknowledged your opinion, I just disagree with it. In the mean time, all you've done to respond to mine is say "nuhuh" and call me names. By your criteria, that would make you the bigot, except that I don't feel inclined to cheapen the word by applying it to fights about movies. I would just consider you insecure and defensive.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven See, you proved me right. Sorry, but calling you a bigot is perfectly fine when denotative. Just because it's supposed to be an extremely negative word doesn't mean that it's definition isn't appropriate. You ignored most of the points I tried to make and instead selected the "name calling", which I barely did (idiot and bigot is only 2). I'm definitely not insecure at all, because I have a steadfast opinion on 2001, so any of stupid attacks like this on 2001 will only help it.
Bassbait 1 year ago
Somehoe or other, you figured that no matter what I said I proved you right, so that's small potatoes.
Of course you are insecure, and demonstrated as much. When you're attempting to troll someone, you never tell them so. If you're trolling effectively, you don't have to. You just play them like a fiddle and then sit back to enjoy it...
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Boooooooooooriiiiiiiing...
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait If it was, you wouldn't keep replying. It's quite gratifying to know that you don't know how to quit me ^_^
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Nah, I reply to just about every comment I get, regardless of who it's from. I never end a conversation, I can drag a conversation to death. It's fun for me, but you're getting boring, because you keep trying to turn things around to make it look like 2001 isn't the greatest film of all time (which is impossible to do, because there has not been one acceptable criticism of the film, unlike, say, Citizen Kane)
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait What I find interesting is your need for it to be the best movie ever. Given what you've revealled about yourself in the last few exchanges, I have to admit that I was unfair in basically telling you "it's just a movie, get over it". To you it's not "just a movie": it's one of the things upon which you've crafted this sense of your identity as a person of intelligence and good taste. It's something you NEED to be right about and defensive about because your self-image is tied to it.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Again, I don't need it to BE the best movie ever. I need it to be acknowledged, at least by the people with the capacity to understand, as the best movie ever, or at least a great movie. When it's considered BAD, then that's the closest thing to insulting I can find. Also, I was always quite ahead when it came to school, and seeing 2001 didn't change that. 2001 didn't affect my tastes or my intellect, it affected my love of movies, and that's when I became a fan of Kubrick.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait See, that's just it. You can't just say that you like 2001 and state why. You have this evangelistic need to have 2001 considered A Great Movie. So some guy on the Interwebs thinks its boring - which is a perfectly valid complaint - so what!? Because you're using it to demonstrate what a smart guy you are. To not acknowledge it's greatness is to not acknowledge yours, which is the only possible way thinking its bad could be considered a personal insult...
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@Bassbait ... It even contextualizes why you decided to throw "bigot" at the wall to see if it stuck. You know what are worse insults? Being attacked for your race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion. THAT is insulting. People actually get beat up and raped and killed because of those things. They are victims of actual bigotry.
You're whining because some people don't like this super-smart movie that your super-smart self is totally into.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven You see, that's dead wrong:
People who are offended for an attack on their race, gender, orientation or religion ARE insecure.
The best attack is on their personality, because that's the most important thing to a person, and their integrity too. Calling someone a Hypocrite or Bigot is much more offensive than what you said. If someone said crap about all 4 of those things, I would just laugh. It's funny, it's not enough to be taken seriously. The people who do are IDIOTS.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Wha' huh?!? Did you seriously just... Wow... Being offended at being gaybashed or having your civil rights taken away in a vote or getting kicked out of your apartment after having your partner over is just insecurity, but someone criticizing YOUR favorite movie is, like, TOTALLY SERIOUS BUSINESS!!1!.... I can't... just... No, I'm literally speechless. There is literally nothing I can say after that.
You win man, you win.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven You're being an idiot. You said "insults". Insults are not nearly the same thing as discrimination. I can say "you're gay", but that doesn't mean that I'm going to kick you out of your apartment for being such.
So, judging by your ignorance, I do win, because you can't see the difference between words and actions. If I were gay, someone saying "Go to hell queer" wouldn't bother me at all. What would bother me is if I was kicked out of my house, but that's not an insult. You lose.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Personally I would find that rather burdensome. But then I don't try to project an image of myself through my tastes in film. My favorite movie happens to be the one I just enjoy the most, and I don't really care what other people think of it.
You though... You're trying to prove something by latching onto 2001. You need to have other people acknowledge that it's the best and, therefore, you're a smart person by liking it. A denial of it is an insult to you. Interesting.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven So I decided to watch Kubrick's other movies, and realized that the astounding amount of depth to each and everyone is UNMATCHED, 2001 being my personal favorite of the examples to choose from. I enjoy 2001 more than any other movie, and I study it more than any other movie. If I hated it, I wouldn't watch it. I'm not trying to PROVE 2001 is good, because it is. I'm trying to prove that there's something that people aren't understanding with the movie.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait ... But when you have to TELL someone how annoyed you must be making them, it screams of desperation, insecurity, and a need to prove to them and to yourself that you "won". If you really did win, you don't need to tell the other person that.
So good job on that champ!
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@Bassbait ... so then you tried to backpeddal into telling me how it, like, changed the whole genre man, not just the effects (which was all you mentioned in "rebuttal"). I replied it did not, to which you replied that 2001 totally invented the idea of portraying humanity as infants nurtured by technology, which is pretty small potatoes coming off of "the greatest movie of all time"...
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Actually, that's a huge step up in storytelling. Again, this is a plot element that has become nearly essential to Sci-fi classics to follow (Alien, The Matrix, and to a lesser extent The Terminator).
And I thought you didn't care about how it changed the genre, so why are you trying to argue that point anyway?
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait It's one more item thrown into the stew of themes that Sci-Fi deals with, and I would even have to see a citation on how 2001 invented the technological womb before I even conceeded it (Terminator, BTW, is just a steroid-pumped Maria).
My concern with how it changed the genre is how you guys use that as an argument for why 2001 is worthy of religious devotion. My reply is that A) it's not necessarily, and B) the case is overstated.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven I never said 2001 is worthy of religious devotion. You are actually stereotyping, which is what Chase even said you shouldn't be doing. Good job on that. You are being an idiot. Maybe listen to what the other side has to say before making really bold and moot statements. Maybe you would be fine giving me some criteria for why films would be worthy of religious devotion, and I'll show why 2001 would be in the case you make, instead of REFUSING to bring up any arguments.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait So far, you still have not effectively rebutted my point, which is that "it changed the genre" is not necessarily a defense of something as a good film. JP also changed the genre, even changed filmmaking and the business of filmmaking, moreso than any other film in the last 20 years, not to mention the scientific dividend. But you don't buy it because you think JP is tacky and beneath you or whatever, and if I wasn't "technically not an idiot", I wouldn't be so crass as to bring it up.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Yes it is. AGAIN, JP DIDN'T CHANGE ANY GENRE. JUST FILMMAKING TECHNOLOGY.
Ok, that's it. You're an idiot. Face it, you are using the same argument over and over again without and reason why it has any worth to it. JP can be ignored, it has little worth in a conversation related to 2001. JP pioneered CGI, which isn't all that important to film making. I never said JP was beneath me, you are just being an idiot, and making stuff up. Might as well call you an idiot at that point.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Uh... I know you think I'm an idiot. You already said that. And I think it's hysterical that you guys can feel personally insulted that someone doesn't like your favorite movie and then actually personally insult people who disagree with you. You guys have done nothing but catcall and look down your noses at anyone not "enlightened" enough to "get" why they should fellate Kubrick. Fuck dude, people don't like your favorite movie. They're not slapping your mom or anything. Grow up.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Again, you're stereotyping. It's not that you aren't worthy of Kubrick or something, it's that you have no logical opinion, because you only address straw man arguments and completely ignore the fact that YOU AREN'T BRINGING ANY ARGUMENTS UP. You are just insulting and ignoring. Maybe you should try not beating around the bush and instead of saying "Saying it changed things isn't an argument", you should say what WOULD be an argument. You're being an idiot.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait As for CM saying not to watch it, that is his perogative. He is only saying explicitly what reviewers are supposed to say implicitly as their job. Reviewers give an opinion about whether or not a movie is worth watching. CM only said explicitly "no, don't." So what? Contrary to chase's earnest gaze at the camera, CM is not hurting society by giving his opinion. The accusation transcends laughability with how ridiculous it is.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven And, to add to that, Pixar movies are heavily influenced by Kubrick himself (Wall-E is influenced extremely by 2001. Also, "To infinity and beyond!")
Toy Story shows a synthetic world in which nothing feels synthetic. Toy Story is a story of fake beings becoming much more than they believe. It's a true classic, and I don't see any GENUINE criticism you could bring up with that film.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait If you want a movie that is incredibly moving, powerful and with Important Things to Say, I'm going to come out of left field and say the original Gojira.
If you want an effects movie, a movie by someone who knows how to use them and innovate them to make films crossing the emotional spectrum, then goodness, I would recommend any given movie by Karel Zeman. If I had to narrow it down to one, I would say Baron Prášil.
If you want my favorite movie, it would be the 1925 Lost World.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven If I were to factor in all objective merits of a film, Kubrick's late work would be near the top of the list for great films, because Kubrick was one of the biggest pioneers for the film industry, and although he lacks the need to satisfy everyone's personal needs (see how you don't really like 2001, yet you said that you like ACO? That's how Kubrick works), he can still make an artistic vision exactly how he envisioned it, and create an experience unlike any other.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven As a last note, when you said that we weren't trying to argue that the celestial future is dull, that's because it was never brought up. Chase actually DID mention that in his 9 part video, although I'll have trouble finding it for you. I've said, time and time again, that a major theme of 2001 is that the advancements in technology have destroyed emotional connection between humans, leaving an utterly dull life. I have a video that EXPLAINS that. So, yes, that is a theme of 2001.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait So one of the major themes of 2001 is that shows how technology has made our lives dull, slow, boring, meaningless, etc. CM observes that 2001 is itself an example of technology making a dull, slow, boring, meaningless movie.
So he apparently, and quite clearly and viscerally, understood what the film was about (at least in part). He was right.
So then what is your complaint? That he simply doesn't like dull, slow, boring, meaningless movies?
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@CoryTheRaven Meaningless is the grossest thing you could say about the movie. No, meaningless is NOT what I was saying. There is tons of meaning in the movie, as shown by the long, dull, slow, boring aspects of the film. CM said that that stuff doesn't even exist. The whole film is a black screen to him.
He wasn't right, objectively speaking, and you don't need to defend him. My complaint is that he doesn't understand how a movie like this works, and so he has NO credibility.
Bassbait 1 year ago
the only time I tried watching 2001, I stopped at the upside down stewardess scene. i was so bored. I also think Star Wars set up a lot of modern sci fi, and also star trek, not 2001. to use an anaology, 2001 was like wolfenstein 3D, but star wars was like doom.
the sequence did not blow my mind, it was BORING. nothing was happening, NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.
slmrcs 1 year ago
@slmrcs Comparing one of the most substantial films in the history of cinema to a silly, harmless FPS game is fucking absurd.
TheAlmightySmurf 1 year ago
@TheAlmightySmurf You are right. The only thing that can compare to 2001 is staring at a fucking wall for 2 hours. 2001 sucked! NOTHING HAPPENED! It was a non-movie.
Confused matthew did not get personal, but myself, I'll say that 2001 lovers are pseudo intellectual snobs!
NOTHING HAPPENED.
Gratuitous special effects. If a movie was 2 hours of sex, that is gratuitous sex. 2 hours of pointless voilence, gratuitous violence. 2 hours of effects? and nothing happens! NOTHING!
slmrcs 1 year ago
@slmrcs A LOT happens. There are three distinct narrative threads, all linked by a common interjection. It isn't two hours of gratuitous effects; it's 2 hours of thought-provoking, dizzyingly hypnotic, surrealistic wonder. If you don't agree with me, fine. To infer that everyone who does enjoy the movie is wrong, well, that's just ignorant.
TheAlmightySmurf 1 year ago
@TheAlmightySmurf why do people who love 2001, need everyone else to love it?
slmrcs 1 year ago
@slmrcs Can you read? I clearly stated that it doesn't matter who likes what. You're the pretentious snob here, not I. You're the one who is generalizing (" I'll say that 2001 lovers are pseudo intellectual snobs!").
TheAlmightySmurf 1 year ago
@slmrcs I know... I have to keep reminding myself that in real life I'm pretty indifferent to 2001. The religious fervor of the true believers who need you to convert or go to Hell is so deeply obnoxious that it's almost making me not WANT to like the film.
CoryTheRaven 1 year ago
@slmrcs "Empire" is about nothing, and it was intended. 2001 is about something.
THINGS HAPPEN.
You know what doesn't exist in 2001? Explanation. 2001 doesn't need to spoon feed you. Things happen, but why? That's for you to decide. Otherwise, you can say nothing happened in every film. For example "If I made a 2 hour film about people talking, then NOTHING HAPPENS!"
Speaking of pseudo-intellectuals, I would like you to actually THINK.
Bassbait 1 year ago
A rant is a speech or text that does not present a calm argument; rather, it is typically an enthusiastic speech or talk or lecture on an idea, a person or an institution.
zackthecameraman 1 year ago
Chase, you and tomatoes have something in common by your own admission.
aarondirebear 1 year ago
in other words, you are not fooling those of us who are truly of an intelligence level above the average. You are a disgrace to true geniuses everywhere. I see through you. take the words of Socrates Biblically and know thyself.
aarondirebear 1 year ago
"the movie is about the consequences blah blah blah" SAYS WHO? Where the fuck in the movie does this become clear? Why must everything be ambiguous? I will tell you why: Because he didn't have a story in mind and wanted people to think he did by telling people to "figure it out themselves".
aarondirebear 1 year ago
@aarondirebear AGAIN, THERE IS A STORY. A STORY IS THIS:
"Who, What, When, Where".
Why is what does not need to be part of a story. The "why factor" is what determines the ambiguity of the film. If there is no who, what, when, or where, there is no film, and there can't BE a why. The film is ambiguous because he didn't want to go a certain way. He wanted people to figure out the WHY, but the Who, What, When, and Where are ALL established. Thanks for showing how intelligent you are.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait Thanks for showing how much of a prat you are for falling for the scam and defecating the same tired arguments again. Pwned. Kthxbai. And furthermore, fuck your couch.
aarondirebear 1 year ago
@aarondirebear Thanks for not even bothering to argue any points about why 2001 is a bad film, but instead "defecating the same tired arguments again."
Saying it's about nothing is ultimately the same argument that every idiot makes, without any reason why. 2001 is a phenomenal film, but it doesn't beat you over the head with it's simplicity, so stop acting like it should.
Furthermore, what scam? Are you saying that you were lying or are you just an idiot?
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait The scam is the idea that a movie being ambiguous automatically makes it profound, deep, and important. Pretentious prats like you are the scum of the earth. You are an idiot who thinks he is intelligent, while I am a truly intelligent person who sees right through you, who sees right through Stanley Kubrick, and who doesn't take very kindly to pretentious fools.
aarondirebear 1 year ago
@aarondirebear Well, good luck with that!
Seriously, stop acting like it's some kind of crusade. You're just being an anti-conformist nut. Just because this film is popular and you don't get it, you take it out on the people who at least try to understand the film's deeper meanings. Sorry, but Kubrick always did extensive research while making his films. He knew all about symbolism involving pyramids, and if you watch his other films, you will find that the profoundness of 2001 is not a scam.
Bassbait 1 year ago
@Bassbait The pretentious hipster is calling ME an anti-conformist nut?
aarondirebear 1 year ago
@aarondirebear Sorry, but am I a hipster? No. Not even close. In fact, I think you're a "section 8". It seems that you have no attachment to any arguments about the film itself. Saying "nothing happens" is no argument at all. Stuff definitely happens. It's almost impossible to make a film without a plot. 2001's plot just doesn't make sense to you because you refuse to pay attention.
Plus, where did you even get "pretentious hipster"? You're just throwing in buzzwords at this point.
Bassbait 1 year ago
The subtext of this rant is chock-full of "LOOK AT ME! I'M AN INTELLECTUAL!"
Emperor's new clothes, man. Emperor's new fucking clothes.
villeppi 1 year ago
"We have to think for our self" Read as "We have to write the movie for him"
TGGeko 1 year ago
I don't believe you are right to keep suggesting that because 2001 has little dialogue early on that it should be appreciated as a silent film mainly because it leaves so little for the viewer to latch onto as an actual plot. I appreciate the symbolism and ideas the movie presents but that is not the same as being invested in the film's plot. If I felt invested in the plot I'd feel more inclined to piece together the symbolism. IMO it's not good writing to try and convey ideas like that.
Nightman221k 1 year ago