Pop Arena and QuantumJoker Vs. Confused Matthew's "2001: A Space Odyssey" Review (Part 2)

[sturmovikdragon]

Confused Mathew is being fairly objective, but in trying to be objective he has gotten himself into trouble by picking the wrong metrics to judge a movie by. He had subjectively decided on a definition of what makes a good movie, and then objectively applies it.  While his definition might correlate well with good and bad movies, it is still basically saying that a movie sucks if, for example, it has fewer than 5 lines per seen on average. CM uses bad metrics plain and simple.

[Bassbait]

@Kwinnky Actually, he liked Donnie Darko because it was far less complex. The oddness of the film didn't get in the way of the film for him. 2001 is ALL about oddness. It's ABOUT the interpretive elements. It's simply about ART. And it should be. Writing (CM's main idea about film), is an entirely subjective thing. 2001 was written subjectively, and should be viewed as such. CM refused to acknowledge this, and yet constantly broke his own rules of objectivity in the process.

[Bassbait]

It's a mistake? No way. I think that the AE-35 unit was a chess move. I think HAL is maintaining dominance over the ship by testing them. AE-35 was working fine, and in the middle of a conversation, he "calculated" that it was failing, and when they TESTED it, instead of replacing it, then he pretended like it was a miracle. Bowman and Poole got suspicious, and in order to maintain control, he had to eliminate them. HAL is an oppressor, a secret tyrant over the discovery, with a watchful eye.

[LightVSDarkness64]

8:30

GAH! That caught me off guard!

...Is that Victor? Where did you get that picture?

[poparena]

@LightVSDarkness64 Yeah, that's Victor. It's an old picture he put up on a forum both he and I used to go to, and it was the only picture of him I had at the time.