Why is "2001: A Space Odyssey" considered such a good movie?

[Zaydos]

Was the programming conflict actually elucidated in the movie? I haven't seen it in a while, but I remember it only being explained in the book.

Nope.

HAL says the mission is too important for Dave to endanger as part of justification, and we do learn there was a secret pre-recorded briefing, and that HAL knew the contents, but nothing that actually indicates that it's why HAL went murderous. We just know HAL began to malfunction, for unknown (irrelevant) reasons and then when HAL learned that Dave and Frank were planning to kill HAL to prevent HAL from jeopardizing the mission HAL decided to kill the crew.

So while there's some things that could hint at it, it's definitely outside what people would get without the now common knowledge of background materials. That said it's not needed as a reason; the Dawn of Man segment already showed how proto-man went from peaceful herbivore to murderous carnivore for the purposes of survival, and it plays on that theme. Couple that with the questions already in the film about whether HAL can feel emotion, and HAL's pleads of fear as Dave kills him, and you've got emergent AI who is more alive than his creator's give him credit for, slipped up for some reason, and now humans are trying to kill him, so he in self-preservation moves to kill them before they can go through with their planned murder. The Dawn of Man short preps the mind for intelligence leads to murder, for it being the thing that separates the thinker from the beast (because that's what proto-man does immediately after the monolith enlightens them to tool use is murder one of their own). In fact that prepping is the only thing that I can think of that really justifies the Dawn of Man segment and even then it needs to be cut in like half. It really needs to be cut in half.

I may have just re-watched the theatrical release (not the initial preview release, but the version where they cut 20 of the 40-60 minutes that needed to be cut) for the first time in ~10 years. Not in one sitting (people came and were noisy so I had to stop, and then when I finally restarted I developed a sinus headache and had to break to make and drink tea). That said... Dawn of Man far too long. Moon trip is space ballet, lovely art, managed to get me to stop reading the D&D module I'm prepping to run (which actually beats out most movies for ability to hold attention) but failed to entertain. The HAL part is almost but not quite masterful space horror. The umm... Psychedelic Wormhole makes less sense going in with foreknowledge of what it's supposed to be (seriously what's with the barren desert landscapes for 5 minutes? WHAT IS THAT??? Is that the alien world? Do they live in the American west? Why is there world just badlands?). Then there's the mindscrew room... and you know what this might constitute Lovecraftian horror, I mean they're pulling a migo on him or something (ok I've looked up enough before to know it's more of a re-hashing of Childhood's End which was not that good of a book but I like the migo-space zoo idea better because it makes more sense with what's seen).

Over all... if 2001 ended as strong as it built up in the HAL part it'd be wonderful, as it is... it's art. It's intellectually riveting, I mean I will actually stop doing other things and watch it plain out, but it's not entertaining. It's weird. That said I am tempted to re-watch it actually with a notebook and going through all the little things I can notice as artistic choices and analyzing them, contemplating how they build on each other and play on each other, and just taking it apart. This would probably be more fun than most blockbusters. Still don't like Kubrick's Shining.

[Crow]

Did anybody here watch 2010?

[Rodin]

Did anybody here watch 2010?

I did. It wasn't bad, although I must admit I recall little of it. Very different from 2001, much more of a traditional movie. About all I can remember of the plot is that the monoliths turn Jupiter into a second sun, which is somehow a good thing and not a catastrophic change in the orbits and temperatures of the planets in the solar system. Oh, and Dave was some sort of incorporeal energy being that delivered cryptic messages.

[Donnadogsoth]

Did anybody here watch 2010?

Perceived it. Fun. What I call "slatternly literal". 2001 was a religious-like movie, it had the science fiction covering a core of numinous awe. 2010 was a science-fiction movie with a numinous shellac. Good try, not a bad movie, but only 16.67% compared to the original. I'd like to see the original TSR modules (Star Frontiers?) for 2001 and 2010, stupid, never bought them when I had the chance.

[Emperor Demonking]

Emperor Demonking's post NOT brought to you from "words have meaning" school of thought.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

And whether you enjoyed something or not is not in fluenced by our hypothetical super-neuroscientist's personal feelings or opinions. We could build a learning machine to sift out people from the enjoyment pile to otherwise.

Since you and I seem to have different understanding of what "objective" means, your pretense that you were correcting my post becomes meaningless. You might as well have said "no it is not, because in my mind objective is a synonym of subjective, and therefore you are wrong".

No, you was wrong. The definition you gave for objective is my definition of objective. You were simply wrong when you claimed 'whether you enjoyed your time with the film or not.' is not an obbjective standard. Regardless of who 'you' is, we can objectively tell whether he enjoyed his time with the film or not.

Also, two more considerations:
First, you can enjoy some things some times and not enjoy them other times, so even when reduced to a single person, enjoyment is not an objective measure.

A film of a nature that prompts people on average to watch it when in a state where they are less likely to enjoy it could quite sensibly be described as worse than one which encourages being watched at the perfect time. And our unfeeling computer machine given enough funds could sift the two type apart.

Second, you moved the goal posts a long way to go from the claimed "enjoyment is an universal objective standard of measure of film classification" which I was answering to "enjoyment is a personal objective measure of film classification", which seems to be your position.

Grey Wolf

I don'ty see anything more universal in hustlertwo's position than mine.

[Donnadogsoth]

Nope.

HAL says the mission is too important for Dave to endanger as part of justification, and we do learn there was a secret pre-recorded briefing, and that HAL knew the contents, but nothing that actually indicates that it's why HAL went murderous. We just know HAL began to malfunction, for unknown (irrelevant) reasons and then when HAL learned that Dave and Frank were planning to kill HAL to prevent HAL from jeopardizing the mission HAL decided to kill the crew.

HAL was smart enough to realise that the mission would render him obsolete, as per the ending; that the men would eventually turn him off as unnecessary and dangerous. HAL therefore decided to kill the crew before they realised this and moved to deactivate him. He tried to kill them before they realised that he would try to kill them because he knew they would deactivate him because he would try to kill them.

...because that's what proto-man does immediately after the monolith enlightens them to tool use is murder one of their own...

As I recall the first thing they do is kill the proto-swine for food.

(seriously what's with the barren desert landscapes for 5 minutes? WHAT IS THAT??? Is that the alien world? Do they live in the American west? Why is there world just badlands?).

Echoing the Dawn of Man sequence.

[Bohandas]

I did. It wasn't bad, although I must admit I recall little of it. Very different from 2001, much more of a traditional movie. About all I can remember of the plot is that the monoliths turn Jupiter into a second sun, which is somehow a good thing and not a catastrophic change in the orbits and temperatures of the planets in the solar system. Oh, and Dave was some sort of incorporeal energy being that delivered cryptic messages.

It doesn't change he orbits because they didn't change ut's mass. They just compressed it until fusion started. Why it stayed compressed I don;t know.

[Frozen_Feet]

This whole "is art objective?" tangent can be solved by acknowledging the following:

1) as number and quality of scientific observations and theories grows, more and more of mind-dependent attributes become subject of hard scientific inquiry.
2) this mean subjective is not antonym of objective. Instead, subjective is a subset of objective facts which have to do with the mind.
3) hence, something can be both subjective and objective. For example, color perception is both, involving well-known physical and biological principles such as wavelength of light and mind-dependent aspects such as vocabulary.
4) however, agreeing upon there being an objective standard for art does not entail anyone here knows it.

Saying a solution exists is trivial. Finding out that solution is not.

[Zaydos]

HAL was smart enough to realise that the mission would render him obsolete, as per the ending; that the men would eventually turn him off as unnecessary and dangerous. HAL therefore decided to kill the crew before they realised this and moved to deactivate him. He tried to kill them before they realised that he would try to kill them because he knew they would deactivate him because he would try to kill them.

He sent them on an EVA to fix the module before they realized anything was up, but he could have killed Frank then without Dave any the wiser if he was actually already planning to kill them. HAL outright says he came to the decision when they were talking about disconnecting him, so in the film at least the obsolescence fear isn't there, you've just got HAL malfunctioning for an unexplained reason. That said the reason doesn't need to be explained.

As I recall the first thing they do is kill the proto-swine for food.

Well first is they start smashing skulls with bones, then they kill tapirs for food, and then 3rd they kill one of their own, but start killing things is the immediate result.

Echoing the Dawn of Man sequence.

Artistically that makes some sense, except that you changed from African Savannah full of life to the most lifeless parts of Nevada so even then it seems odd, but as far as coherent plot goes it's even more confusing with the background info on what the aliens are supposed to be doing than without that knowledge.

That said one thing I really liked which goes a long way to make the space ballet more than just 'look it's pretty' is that it creates a stark contrast to the deathly silence of the space scenes in the HAL segment. You have this one part which combines imagery and music which are themselves at least to some extent sublime, and works to push the human spirit bubbling up, just a work of beauty with music of hope over the background, and then you have the coldness of deep space with HAL, and you reap benefits for psychological effect when HAL starts killing.

It may not be the most fun movie, and I'd probably watch Alien again over it (actually I watch Alien about 1/year but) but Kubrick showed an artist's skill. And yes I selected Alien in full knowledge of how it took massive cues from 2001, you'd not have Alien without 2001.

[Bohandas]

It may not be the most fun movie, and I'd probably watch Alien again over it (actually I watch Alien about 1/year but) but Kubrick showed an artist's skill. And yes I selected Alien in full knowledge of how it took massive cues from 2001, you'd not have Alien without 2001.

In this respect 2001 is like an old mouse with only one button. An important advance but pretty much the poorest crudest possible implementation of it.

[Lethologica]

In this respect 2001 is like an old mouse with only one button. An important advance but pretty much the poorest crudest possible implementation of it.

To elaborate on this analogy and make it more accurate, it's like if in a world full of mousepads, Kubrick designed a mouse--but he designed it as a replica of an actual mouse, with fur and ears and eyes and limbs and all, to the extent that actually operating the mouse was awkward and cumbersome, and it wasn't even clear at first glance what part of the mouse was a button. But it was really good at evoking the idea of a mouse, and you had to appreciate the style of his mouse, even if Logitech came along and made sleeker mice that were better at the job of moving and clicking.

[Kitten Champion]

Your mouse analogies confuse me.

Anyways, I believe the question of this thread "Why is 2001 considered such a good movie?" has been addressed. Whether one agrees with those reasons or not seems pretty immaterial and really rather... overambitious when you get down to it. I've yet to see an occasion where a person's opinion on a work has changed from plus to minus or vice versa through argument on the internet, at best you can provide someone with a neutral opinion a certain insight, context, or new paradigm for looking at a particular work to gain or lose appreciation for it. The only exception I've personally born witness to was when plagiarism/ripping-off was pointed out, where obviously the work you liked hadn't changed objectively but the ownership of the ideas therein had.

[Donnadogsoth]

He sent them on an EVA to fix the module before they realized anything was up, but he could have killed Frank then without Dave any the wiser if he was actually already planning to kill them. HAL outright says he came to the decision when they were talking about disconnecting him, so in the film at least the obsolescence fear isn't there, you've just got HAL malfunctioning for an unexplained reason. That said the reason doesn't need to be explained.

The potential for HAL to kill existed but required precipitation. Call Dave and Frank's decision to disconnect HAL the material cause needed for the efficient action of HAL to kill.

Artistically that makes some sense, except that you changed from African Savannah full of life to the most lifeless parts of Nevada so even then it seems odd, but as far as coherent plot goes it's even more confusing with the background info on what the aliens are supposed to be doing than without that knowledge.

Oh, boy, no, not the "aliens" or whatever. That's not what the film's about. It's a mystical journey, miraculous even but to taint it with the literality of the sci-fi fandom looking for "aliens" (terrforming? laser beams?) is missing the point. The landscapes echo primeval Africa to make a point about the alien-ness of beginnings. The Savannah was an alien thing at the start of man, by virtue of his evolutionary leap courtesy of the Monolith (again, it doesn't matter what the Monolith is, it's just a Symbol); now man begins his second "leap" courtesy of the same.

That said one thing I really liked which goes a long way to make the space ballet more than just 'look it's pretty' is that it creates a stark contrast to the deathly silence of the space scenes in the HAL segment. You have this one part which combines imagery and music which are themselves at least to some extent sublime, and works to push the human spirit bubbling up, just a work of beauty with music of hope over the background, and then you have the coldness of deep space with HAL, and you reap benefits for psychological effect when HAL starts killing.

Good point.

[Lethologica]

Your mouse analogies confuse me.

I can't speak to Bohandas' intentions, but to me the functionality of the mouse ~ the movie's ability to entertain and the aesthetics of the mouse ~ the artistic intent of the movie.

[Bohandas]

The idea was that it introduced a lot of new techniques and devices and motifs, but since they were so new they were therefore unrefined and weren't even anywhere close to being perfected yet and thus thus it did a poor job of them.

[Zaydos]

The potential for HAL to kill existed but required precipitation. Call Dave and Frank's decision to disconnect HAL the material cause needed for the efficient action of HAL to kill.

Agreed. My point was just that HAL's initial malfunction was unrelated to a desire to kill the crew. That said the cause of his initial malfunction is 100% irrelevant and unnecessary for the movie to be good. There are enough possible answers (a bit of cosmic radiation fried a sensor, conflicting programs causing his brain to break down, just having been faulty to begin with) that it doesn't weigh on suspension of disbelief (computers malfunction even ones with previously spotless track records) especially given some of the malfunctions that happened with real space shuttles.

Oh, boy, no, not the "aliens" or whatever. That's not what the film's about. It's a mystical journey, miraculous even but to taint it with the literality of the sci-fi fandom looking for "aliens" (terrforming? laser beams?) is missing the point. The landscapes echo primeval Africa to make a point about the alien-ness of beginnings. The Savannah was an alien thing at the start of man, by virtue of his evolutionary leap courtesy of the Monolith (again, it doesn't matter what the Monolith is, it's just a Symbol); now man begins his second "leap" courtesy of the same.

It's really not about the aliens which is why Kubrick gave us the confusing end. That said the landscape fails to echo primeval Africa, it echoes the extremely different American west, where as the Savannah at the beginning of the film was a perfectly natural thing to man even before the Monolith came (or at least there is nothing to noticeably indicate otherwise, and arguably man became alien to the Savannah due to it, which actually works better). And that's the thing, I can see arguments for what Kubrick might have been trying to evoke with the end, but unlike the first two segments I'd say it failed to successfully evoke them. That said I probably should give Kubrick credit for the artistic integrity that this was intended as more than a smokescreen.

Good point.

Thanks.

The idea was that it introduced a lot of new techniques and devices and motifs, but since they were so new they were therefore unrefined and weren't even anywhere close to being perfected yet and thus thus it did a poor job of them.

See I'd not even say that. It introduced a lot of new techniques and devices and motifs, but except for the end (which the only ways to do better I am aware of rely on the preexistence of motifs and devices which rest upon a foundation set by Star Trek and 2001), I'd not even say it did a poor job with them. It was a painting/ballet as much as a movie, though, and if you go in to watch it as a movie it comes off uneven due to that, but what it used it used perfectly for the purpose it was using them. It's just that it wasn't intended for pointing and clicking, and the fact that it does point and click is just a happy accident. So I find Lethologica's analogy better.

That said it doesn't make 2001 a great movie, it doesn't make it not one. It makes 2001 really a niche movie both mood and audience, the fact that its had the success it has, though, shows the niche is there. Nolan tried to fill it with Bad 2001 I mean Interstellar, the Martian is similar but both make more concessions to being a movie, honestly I'd say the closest film I can think of to it is Fantasia.

That said even if 95% of the time if you pick up 2001 it'll be a bad movie for you, the 5% of the time where it'll perfectly hit the spot justifies it. Even so I'd not put it on a top 10 list.

That said I'd love to see 2001 on the big theater screen. It doesn't need it (too many recent films do), but like A New Hope I bet it'd be real magic on one (I still remember the theatrical special edition of A New Hope as a kid and even with the 'improvements' of the special edition it was perhaps the most magical and impressive film I've ever seen in a theater).

[Aedilred]

To elaborate on this analogy and make it more accurate, it's like if in a world full of mousepads, Kubrick designed a mouse--but he designed it as a replica of an actual mouse, with fur and ears and eyes and limbs and all, to the extent that actually operating the mouse was awkward and cumbersome, and it wasn't even clear at first glance what part of the mouse was a button. But it was really good at evoking the idea of a mouse, and you had to appreciate the style of his mouse, even if Logitech came along and made sleeker mice that were better at the job of moving and clicking.

And now I'm reminded of this...

[Donnadogsoth]

Agreed. My point was just that HAL's initial malfunction was unrelated to a desire to kill the crew. That said the cause of his initial malfunction is 100% irrelevant and unnecessary for the movie to be good. There are enough possible answers (a bit of cosmic radiation fried a sensor, conflicting programs causing his brain to break down, just having been faulty to begin with) that it doesn't weigh on suspension of disbelief (computers malfunction even ones with previously spotless track records) especially given some of the malfunctions that happened with real space shuttles.

I'd consider the malfunction as giving HAL the AI equivalent of the Kubrick Stare.

It's really not about the aliens which is why Kubrick gave us the confusing end. That said the landscape fails to echo primeval Africa, it echoes the extremely different American west, where as the Savannah at the beginning of the film was a perfectly natural thing to man even before the Monolith came (or at least there is nothing to noticeably indicate otherwise, and arguably man became alien to the Savannah due to it, which actually works better). And that's the thing, I can see arguments for what Kubrick might have been trying to evoke with the end, but unlike the first two segments I'd say it failed to successfully evoke them. That said I probably should give Kubrick credit for the artistic integrity that this was intended as more than a smokescreen.

Yes, I meant that the Monolith's interference made the Savannah alien to man.

The third segment's landscape is showing us the idea of a world, rather than abstract forms. It's a way of grounding the audience in the idea that there will be another Monolithic transformation of man.

[MLai]

but like A New Hope I bet it'd be real magic on one (I still remember the theatrical special edition of A New Hope as a kid and even with the 'improvements' of the special edition it was perhaps the most magical and impressive film I've ever seen in a theater).

Wut? By the time ANH received its "Lucas CGI enhancements" and came into theatres, it was a bog-standard average sci-fi film to any kid. Only the bearded kids with nostalgia goggles would consider it "most magical and impressive".

[Bohandas]

And now I'm reminded of this...

that's hilarious

[DeadpanSal]

We've changed topics a bit (sort of by free association at this point), but I've wanted to bring up something for a while and have only now had a keyboard to make it easy. It's been brought up that people who like 2001 forgive its lack of clarity by saying that the subtext being glossed over to displace concrete explanation with visuals liken the result to a tone poem or the video equivalent of ballet. Something rooted in images and sound and maybe omitting a reason altogether. 2001 doesn't make sense without the book (and The Shining makes less sense with the book). And in the end, we end up with something that ends up with a - positive or negative - visceral reaction. Some are moved by the ambiguous events at the end, others say its a pointless lightshow.

That brings me to the intent of some other works, such as Fantasia or FLCL. Works that are essentially music videos that have light throughlines that bring together a piece, but largely exist as an excuse to inundate the viewer with sights and sound. The better example, I find in the Mad Max series, which is explained as being directed as though it were a silent movie, but still contains dialogue. In fact, George Miller even supplies a cut of Fury Road that doesn't contain the vocal track. Are the similarities good in your take? Is Miller's pace and genre something that detracts and makes his directing thesis, though aligned with what makes 2001 good, lesser? I'd like your thoughts on directing as poetry and 2001 contrasted with Miller's approach.

[Fawkes]

The approach isn't exactly the same, but yes, I'd say the comparisons are appropriate. And I don't think that, at least by critical standards, Mad Max: Fury Road is treated as lesser. The film was nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, and it won six. (Incidentally, 2001 had four nominations and one win.) The original three Mad Max films are very much cult classics and critical darlings, especially Road Warrior (98% on Rotten Tomatoes!). So I don't really think any detraction taking place.

[Faily]

Been lurking at this thread for a while now, guess it's time to say something...

I really like 2001. It's not my favorite film, and I've only seen it once (though this discussion has made me want to re-watch it), but I remember it being enjoyable to watch. A movie that would catch my interest and lure me in without the use of heavy-handed plots or fast-paced events.

2001 moves at a slow pace, but I find that to be part of its appeal (mind you, I enjoyed fast-paced action too). Poetry in motion, as someone mentioned, is an accurate description for 2001. From its moments of silence, to the more booming notes of Strauss, it is poetry.

I can see why some people wouldn't like it based on those things, but it's still a movie I recommend that people see at some point, because I think it is a well-done movie in all the technical aspects, it defined how we would view space in Hollywood movies for a long time, and it's direction is good. I mostly consider this something of an art-film, but I also consider Zhang Yimou's Hero to be an art-film (something my teachers agreed with when we were doing an in-depth study in art as a storytelling-medium).

Art is entertainment, but is also supposed to invoke thoughts and feelings; the "psychedelic" ending of 2001 is a beautiful piece of art, imo. The whole movie feels like art in motion, with music.

I recommend watching CineFix's lists that include 2001. I could only think of these two without going through all the lists again, but there is Most Beautiful Movies, and Practical Movie Effects.

[Thrudd]

For more examples of low/no dialogue films that relay a message with only visuals and sound, people should check out "Baraka" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCrLsjn9lwI,
and "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXyxi-jnKxw

Good as films? Entertaining? Art? I don't know. They are both definitely moving in their own way, as 2001 can be.


Also, here's a 2001 (and 2010) inspired piece of music that I love https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJGKTMp1hQ

[Thrudd]

Been lurking at this thread for a while now, guess it's time to say something...

I really like 2001. It's not my favorite film, and I've only seen it once (though this discussion has made me want to re-watch it), but I remember it being enjoyable to watch. A movie that would catch my interest and lure me in without the use of heavy-handed plots or fast-paced events.

2001 moves at a slow pace, but I find that to be part of its appeal (mind you, I enjoyed fast-paced action too). Poetry in motion, as someone mentioned, is an accurate description for 2001. From its moments of silence, to the more booming notes of Strauss, it is poetry.

I can see why some people wouldn't like it based on those things, but it's still a movie I recommend that people see at some point, because I think it is a well-done movie in all the technical aspects, it defined how we would view space in Hollywood movies for a long time, and it's direction is good. I mostly consider this something of an art-film, but I also consider Zhang Yimou's Hero to be an art-film (something my teachers agreed with when we were doing an in-depth study in art as a storytelling-medium).

Art is entertainment, but is also supposed to invoke thoughts and feelings; the "psychedelic" ending of 2001 is a beautiful piece of art, imo. The whole movie feels like art in motion, with music.

I recommend watching CineFix's lists that include 2001. I could only think of these two without going through all the lists again, but there is Most Beautiful Movies, and Practical Movie Effects.

Oh, I definitely think Hero could be considered an art film. It certainly is not a conventional action or martial arts film. An older film in that vein is Wong Kar-Wai's "Ashes of Time", from the 90's.

[Zaydos]

Yeah gonna agree Hero is an art movie. I mean it has other aspects to it, but it really plays as art (and is breathtaking).

[DeadpanSal]

Hero is an amazing example. Well shot, great movie with so much color used brilliantly. And I'm pretty sure I loved the soundtrack.

But to me, the soundtrack is 70% of a movie.

[hustlertwo]

I think it's important to make the distinction between "films I don't really like" and "bad films".

Of the seven Kubrick films I've seen, I think I only really liked two of them, in the sense that I'd go back and rewatch them of my own volition (and indeed I have): Doctor Strangelove and Spartacus. But even though I may not have particularly enjoyed the others, I can still recognise that they at the least contain scenes and sequences which are masterpieces of cinematography. The boot camp sequence in Full Metal Jacket is near-flawless, and were it not for the second part of the film where they head out to Vietnam the film would rise considerably in my estimations. A Clockwork Orange is brilliantly shot and edited and it's only really the subject matter and some of the scenes that I find inherently pretty disturbing and which put me off the film. The match cut linking the first and second story segments of 2001 is so elegantly perfect that to the casual viewer it doesn't even attract attention.

2001 certainly has its flaws: that it's pretty deliberately inscrutable gets it a bit of a frowny face from me. But there is also something to be said for not spoon-feeding the viewer. The Interstellar comparison was made earlier and I think it's apt. Nolan may be the closest thing we have to Kubrick at the moment (a director with auteuristic tendencies who gets to play with big budgets) and in relative terms he made a complete pig's breakfast of it.

Some of it is doubtless down to a gulf in expectations. The bit with HAL is the most conventional, arguably only conventional, part of the film, and viewed through that lens it's easy to see how the conclusion could be drawn that "it's the only part of the film with value." Certainly it's the most watchable part of it to a 21st-century (and probably contemporary) viewer. However if one takes a step back and looks at the film as an abstract story of the evolution and development of humanity then that's actually the part of the film which is most expendable.

There's often a problem with artists that as their reputation and influence grows they start to outgrow the safety constraints placed on them by the infrastructure of the medium in which they work. Contrary to what seems to be popular conception, relatively little in the way of great art is produced by one guy working free from all external influence and pressures. Publishers and studios become reluctant to cut them down to size and impose themselves on the creator's process. Most infamously, these days, A Song of Ice and Fire has ballooned to the point of deadline-busting, bookshelf-breaking immensity almost certainly in part because the series' popularity means the editors are unwilling really to put the hammer down on GRRM and don't prune the manuscripts sufficiently, leaving the books to sprawl where earlier instalments were pretty tight. Harry Potter suffered from something similar in its middle years, although the bloat was reined in a bit in the last couple of books (not films).

Similarly, my two favourite Kubrick films are the two earliest of his I've seen (I've not seen Lolita to completion), working within the constraints of the late studio system with Spartacus and with a big and powerful ego in Strangelove, which likely helped sharpen up his direction and editing and cut away some of the more indulgent stuff. A few years later, he has something more approaching free rein over his projects; he doesn't have someone on his shoulder to sift out the visionary from the esoteric, so it gets jumbled up together.

I've actually heard Kubrick touted as the greatest director of the 20th century (at least when it comes to Anglo-American cinema) and while I'm not sure myself I can certainly see where such arguments are coming from, for who else is there in competition? Coppola is obvious, but Part III was mediocre and I'm not sure whether Apocalypse Now is a work of genius or a trainwreck that somehow gives the illusion of being genius. Sergio Leone rarely if ever put a foot wrong, by my estimation, but his body of work is small. Spielberg may be the greatest blockbuster director of all time, but his films rarely if ever achieve the status of "art", in my opinion, and he has a couple of turkeys to his name. Some of the criticisms that one can level at Kubrick can be levelled at Orson Welles, too, and in any case Welles is always going to be a bit of a might-have-been, maybe-was as a director, certainly in the absence of a director's cut of Ambersons. John Huston made some great films, but he was also partially responsible for one of the worst films I've ever seen, which is hard to forgive. David Lean, maybe? What about Elia Kazan? Hitchcock? I think Kubrick merits comparison with any of them.

Spielberg as the best of the 20th could be said, perhaps. Though the early 21st has done little to boost his legacy, weighted down by stinkers like War of the Worlds or mediocre efforts like The Terminal.

Despite my disdain for 2001, and some of Kubrick's other arthouse endeavors like Eyes Wide Shut, I actually agree he has a claim at the title. Even 2001, with all its many, many flaws and long stretches of crap, boosts his legacy by proving that a bad Kubrick film can still be important to the industry as a whole, even if it is just by serving as a stepping stool of inspiration to boost other films up.

I agree that Hero is an art film. Like so many of its ilk, it's boring.

More fun pot stirring for this thread: I like Sunshine way better than both of the films that were its primary influence, 2001 and the original Alien (which is vastly inferior to Cameron's rocking sequel).

Also, Aedilred, are you dropping from the Ludus game? I understand if so, it's a massive timesink to manage that thing, I am sure. But you should probably make a proper post letting everyone know.

[Lethologica]

I agree that Hero is an art film. Like so many of its ilk, it's boring.

More fun pot stirring for this thread: I like Sunshine way better than both of the films that were its primary influence, 2001 and the original Alien (which is vastly inferior to Cameron's rocking sequel).

From which I conclude only that your tastes are genre-specific. Alien and Aliens are good films in different genres, you disdain most films of a particular genre, that sort of thing.

Let's do one more for luck: what's your take on Terminator vs. Terminator 2?

[hustlertwo]

Not so pat an answer as that, I'm afraid; though I will be the first to admit I have a predilection for action films, that alone cannot make the difference. Unlike 2001, I actually do like the first Alien, and tend to watch it when it's on. But though interesting, it is plagued by several overused horror tropes even at the time the movie came out, and too much screen time is wasted with Ash, to say nothing of the hokey special effects involved with him. And Cameron has proven several times over he is a master at blending action, drama and just the right amount of levity. And the tension he builds in the first hour and a half makes a mockery of any similar tension-building attempts in #1.

Do have to say, that end bit with Weaver's briefest of briefs is a great scene for reasons that have nothing at all to do with film criticism...

Oh, and T2, but as with my favoring Aliens, that's hardly an uncommon answer. Both are probably more universally loved than their progenitors. First one is really good, though. Beats out 3, which I felt got a bid of a bad rap but was still uneven, and of course Salvation and Genisys aren't even worthy of compare to their forebears, with Genisys coming out the better of the two by a hair as the best of the worst.