But he didn't become space baby.

No, Interstellar is mostly pre-modern.

And also with lots of cliches, and much fuzzier direction.

2001 is just about perfect, other than needing some editing down at the beginning.

You'd have to be 15 or retarded to think that.

I mean, no. The entire scene where McConaughey is in the wormhole is directed the exact same as Bowman deactivating HAL. He literally ripped off of Kubrick and got away with it.

2001 is trash.

>>68100082
They have nothing in common other than space

>>68100208

>just about perfect

The ending of that movie is almost like a crazy man's rambling in his death bed.

Then for the rest of his life Kubrick dodges the question of what is the film really about because he clearly knows it was space race propaganda.

>>68100559
Even though it was based on a book that Kubrick didn't write, which is quite explicit in the meaning of the story.

>>68100559
>the ending of that movie is almost like a crazy man's rambling in his death bed.
you're referring to interstellar, right?

>>68100633

The Kubrick denies that, says it was only loosely based and that he wants people to interpret as they want.


In other words

> I fucked it up, it has no meaning, but since everyone is praising the living shit out of it, let's just roll with it, k?

>>68100999
>The Kubrick denies that, says it was only loosely based and that he wants people to interpret as they want.
Source?

>>68100633
It wasn't, the book was pretty much merchandising and Kubrick disagrees with Clarke about the movie.

>Kubrick: I don’t agree with that statement of Arthur’s, and I believe he said it facetiously. The very nature of the visual experience in 2001 is to give the viewer an instantaneous, visceral reaction that does not—and should not—require further amplification. Just speaking generally, however, I would say that there are elements in any good film that would increase the viewer’s interest and appreciation on a second viewing; the momentum of a movie often prevents every stimulating detail or nuance from having a full impact the first time it’s seen. The whole idea that a movie should only be seen once is an extension of our traditional conception of the film as an ephemeral entertainment rather than as a visual work of art. We don’t believe that we should hear a great piece of music only once, or see a great painting once, or even read a great book just once. But the film has until recent years been exempted from the category of art—a situation I’m glad is finally changing.