![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JOTfBrM.jpg "maxresdefault[1].jpg")
There are scenes that benefit from being extremely drawn out as they take their time to let the moment breathe.
And then there are scenes that benefit in absolutely no way from being as incredibly long as they are. Nothing. There's not even anything interesting going on in moments where it's just black space. It's as if the movie is treating the fans like retards screaming "DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW REAL SHIT IS IN SPAAAACE?!"
You can achieve that message, maintain the slowpace, and still cut out a whole lot of fat out of this movie. A fan edit would make wonders out of this.
sorry you're a pleb if you don't enjoy watching a space station slowly rotate for 4 minutes
>you're watching the art and dance of physics in action!
Not enough explosions. It was solaris all over again.
Tbqh, it probably took them so long to make those setpieces back in 1968 that they just tried to film them as long as possible.
Oh good it's not just me. I actually love slower movies too
>>67839517
Same. I prefered the technical work on BvS, though Transformers 2 is still my favourite.
>>67840625
for supposedly being smarter people, kubrickfags are shit at arguing why their edgefests are good
>>67840625
get a better rebuttal.
>>67840660
>edgefests
are you serious? Name one edgy film
>>67839517
eh there's really only one actual editing mistake, during the worm hole/"star gate" scene with all the colors and shit. I think you just have ADD or something. slow =/= bad
>>67839658
They're even set to a waltz, you pleb.
>>67841552
no, but drawn out equals bad.
>>67841405
While I do love Kubrick, A Clockwork Orange is some pretty edgy shit.
>>67841405
A Clockwork Orange is the mascot of edge
plus Dr. Strangelove has that DUDE THE WORLD'S ENDING BUT MEIN FUHRER I CAN WALK LMAO edge
>>67841594
i understand it was a waltz but the fact is I understood that within the first minute so the next 3 was just unnecessary wanking. plus it's such an empty statement
>SPACE IS LIKE A DANCE LMAO
ok?? and?
>>67841719
>>67841837
how is a clockwork orange edgy? did you miss the whole point of the film
>>67841957
>how is a clockwork orange edgy
>>67842021
you do realize showing a character reveling in his violent actions doesn't actually mean the director condones those actions, right? is every war movie ever now edgy too?
>>67839517
The version OP prefers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSGsh9so_dA
Retarded reasoning Kubrickfags usually use to justify this shit is
>it was SUPPOSED to be boring because real space travel would be mostly boring!
>>67842078
it's not just Alex's violence, the bombardment of sex and violence to get off the very simple point that Alex is an asshole was edgy, plus the overall cynicism of the world's morality
>Asshole oppressive government vs perverted dumb masses vs free will of being able to rape and murder
to sperglord /r9k/ fags that want to justify some sense of superiority over everyone else it might seem like quality, but to everyone with a brain it's just edge.
>>67839517
I think it's one of Kubrick's inferior efforts. I get to where Dave's jogging on the treadmill and I have to quit every. Single. Time.
>>67842251
y... you know it was based off a book, right?
>>67842312
no shit? does that make it less edgy?
>m-muh lost chapter
how the hell does that make the movie any less edgy?
>>67839517
>capekino shitposting
>HURR DIS UNIVERSALLY ACCLAIMED FILM IS ACTUALLY BORING TRUST ME I DON'T HAVE ADHD
This board is pure shitposting teenagers.
>tfw just want to talk about films with non-retards
>>67839517
Kubrick has more than a few shit tier movies that no one will admit to being shit because he's supposedly a great. These include:
Barry Lyndon
The second half of Full Metal Jacket
Eyes Wide Shut
>>67839517
>assuming you know more than the filmmaker
Here we go again
>>67842117
good god, that's horrible
I do think 2001 could be a lit more... brisk, though.
>>67842427
>i don't understand them
>therefore they are shit
Volumes have been written about Barry Lyndon.
And FMJ was divided into thirds, not halves, newfag.
>>67842436
Criticism is not reserved for filmmakers. Every asshole on the street is entitled to an opinion. You're not required to care.
>>67842427
Holy shit fuck off with your poor baits. Alternatively, kill yourself.
>>67842426
>2001 has long sequences that could have been cut down because absolutely nothing of consequence happens
>EDGY TEENS OTHER PEOPLE SAID IT'S GOOD SO IT'S CLEARLY GOOD
>>67842472
I haven't studied film or anything. I'll rephrase.
Everything after Sgt. Hartman is killed in the bathroom isn't compelling. It all seems like falling action after that.
Barry Lyndon was dry, dull, and overly long for me. I did not like any of the characters. I appreciate the film techniques that Kubrick used, such as natural lighting, but all in all it was meandering.
>>67842554
>i was bored, therefore this is the fault of the filmmaker.
False.
>>67842494
What do you disagree with? I'm willing to be persuaded, provided you have a good argument.
>>67842594
What did you like about Barry Lyndon?
>>67842554
Holy fucking kill yourself. At least >>67842526 is obviously baiting. You seem sincere in your garbage opinions. Fuck off back to /v/.
>>67842598
What's the point? You made it clear that those acclaimed movies were shit for you based on mere subjective "arguments". If the film itself didn't change your take, why would someone's post would?
As >>67842594 says, it's not the filmmaker's fault that you are simply a pleb. I'm not trying to meme, but that's the cold, mere truth.
>>67842681
I am sincere in my opinions. And I have not been given a single counterargument for them.
>>67842714
Elucidation on something I may not have grasped or understood, I guess. I saw Eyes Wide Shut when I was 18, Full Metal Jacket when I was 16. I may not have been mature enough to understand everything those movies were implicating.
>>67842681
not bait, you're just too much of a drone to refute anything that goes against your precious "patrician" self-moniker
>>67842526
The only instances where I'll agree this is the case are the opening sequence and the landscape shots during the warp section.
The opening could have been cut by probably half, we didn't need to spend 25 minutes watching people jump around in gorilla suits.
The landscape shots during the warp should have been cut as well, not because they made it last too long but because they felt out of place with the rest of the imagery.
>>67842824
And still, no responses as to why I'm so wrong about these movies.
>>67839517
you know you're a pleb when you overthink kubrick
>>67842938
Trim a few seconds when he's floating outside the ship and that general area and I agree. Nothing dradtic, it just needs trimming. Every second counts in a shot
>>67839517
Back to IMDb pleb
2001 was designed as a visual spectacle for theatres in the 60s which is why it seems a lot slower paced today. Other old movies like Ben Hur have a similar pace as the emphasis was placed on the quality of the images, not on rapid fast paced editing. But I agree with you that the first half needs trimmed a bit, Kubrick had a habit of making his films slightly longer than they needed to be. The Shining was originally longer as well but he edited it down before most people could see it.
>>67839517
Watch the movie on acid. I recently did and had an absolute blast.
I found myself much more empathetically open to the struggles of a highly civilized society and shear desperation of life to be able to continue its own existence.
What you say about the emptiness is not particularly new, as others have told me the same thing. I will admit that the acid helped a lot, but listening to Strauss' music back the beautiful ballet of sophisticated technology nearly brought tears to my eyes. Particularly the scene of the passenger ship pirouetting into the space station.
>>67839517
>thinking the length of the cuts are there to serve some mechanical "purpose"
Long static cuts set a certain tone and make the shots more intimate for the viewer. You're being forced to absorb every detail of this shot, you get the sense everything you're seeing is important. It may not necessarily BE important, but it's all about the mood and the tone, it's like that for entertainment purposes, that's Kubrick's idea of razzle dazzle.
>>67842078
To be fair, it was filmed in such away as to visually hint at Alex being the hero, but to also be fair, that was the point, to show it from Alex's warped point of view because HE believed he was the hero.
Pleb audiences just can't wrap their heads around challenging subjective narratives, something pretty commonplace in literature.
>>67843129
This t b h
>>67843063
because no one gives a fuck about your opinion, and I don't have to convince you to like a movie if you just don't like it
>>67844405
To be fair, audiences generally disliked the pace of the film when it was released and it almost flopped in theatres. It only became a hit when it was rebranded/marketed as a drug trip type movie which attracted hippies/stoners and such.
>>67844742
citation needed
>>67844670
I'm not asking you to convince me, all I'm requesting is a counterargument. You know, like a dialogue. You could almost call it a discussion.
>>67840369
Not like "2001 is to slow and drawn out" is like the most often made criticism in the history of cinema
>>67842427
kys
>>67839517
Wrong, you just have the attention span of a goldfish. It's not your fault; you're probably a millennial who's been sitting in front of a computer screen since he learned how to read, but you need to appreciate that your brain is damaged and its impacting your appreciation of cinema.
2001 is entirely about movement, mood, and technical grace. The narrative is mostly irrelevant and serves as the setting for Kubrick's experimentation with image and sound. Complaining about the pacing is strange because the goal is not to keep you on the edge of your seat and invested in the story from moment to moment; rather, the goal is to transcend time constraints and examine each of those individual visual moments, recognizing its craftsmanship and abstract content.
The editing is already perfect. Do not touch it. There's not a single awkward cut or scene that doesn't belong, and every detail is precise and in place. Chopping up those gorgeous pans and wide shots in order to move the story along is not only sacrilegious and aesthetically offensive, but it would also destroy the entire mood of the picture and defeat its purpose for existing.
Why don't you edit it then OP
>>67841837
>DUDE THE WORLD'S ENDING BUT MEIN FUHRER I CAN WALK LMAO edge
You completely misunderstood this scene.
He was their last hope of understanding and comprehension, but he was a total lunatic and losing control in that scene.
They were necessarily doomed, from the outset, to be destroyed by their "fail safe machine".
>>67839517
You have the benefit, or misfortune, of having seen the effect this movie had on cinema and then looking back.
As an oldfag, I can tell you this movie was mind-blowing when it came out, and faster pacing would have been too much.
>>67842251
>>67842402
Stop posting any time. The fucking book was about the author's fear of a future where young hooligans are free to prey upon everyone, and the only possible solution is some brutal mk Ultra-tier government program.
>>67847306
>As an oldfag, I can tell you this movie was mind-blowing when it came out
How fucking old are you? In your 50s?
/tv/ doesn't like Kubrick because his work became popular
>>67847535
>/tv/ doesn't like Kubrick
Most of /tv/ loves Kubrick (not 2001 necessarily), the rest are contrarians that just try to get a reaction out of those people
