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

Greg of "Pop Arena" and Youtube's QuantumJoker discuss Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and try to break down Confused Matthew's review of the film.

Parts 1 through 4 will be on this channel, parts 5 through 9 will be on QuantumJoker's channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/QUANTUMJOKER

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Confused
• Matthew
• 2001:
• Space
• Odyssey
• Stanley
• Kubrick
• discussion
• review

[sturmovikdragon]

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

[Bassbait]

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

[almanacofsleep]

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

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

[Bassbait]

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

[Paveliptic]

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

[rdecredico]

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

[confusedmatthew]

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

[Franc28]

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

[confusedmatthew]

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

[Franc28]

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