• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why do people say 2001: A Space Odyssey is boring?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally i find people asking this question to be more confusing. You really can't see why people find it boring? Some of the scenes drag on for a really long time and can be pretty abstract. The story jumps around and can be very difficult to follow. The sequence at the end in particular overstays it's welcome and the vast majority of people who see this film will have no idea what the hell is going on.

I mean i love the movie but i don't bother showing it to my friends who haven't seen it because i know they will hate it (and the ones who have seen it find it boring). This is not a movie for everyone and i don't think there is anything wrong with finding the movie boring.
 
vX3ckPo.jpg
 
Toxi said:
How did 2001: A Space Odyssey enlighten you?

I personally think the pacing is fucked, but that's probably because my favorite part of the film happens before the entire terrible nine minute stream of colors followed by a decent ending. "Beyond the infinite" isn't mindbending, it's a bunch of meaningless flash that goes on for too long. The transition to the house is nice and abrupt, but it's not like the aging and rebirth imagery there is some crazy new idea.
Click to expand...

enlightenment in context of the story which just so happens to be a journey for the viewer as well.
it's a movie after all, not a philosophical treatise, so don't expect actual mindbending. Just pretend you're going between the layers like our boy, Bowman.
 
yepyepyep said:
Would you mind listing them? Not because I want to attack your taste but because I am curious.

That's fine if you don't think it is proper science fiction, but I'll reiterate again that most people do not appreciate it for its rigid scientific perspective. It's more of a science-fiction setting to explore Kubrickian themes.
Click to expand...

Candidates off the top of my head in no particular order:

Tower of Babylon, by Ted Chiang
Stories of your Life, by Ted Chiang
The Merchant and the Alchemist's Gate, by Ted Chiang
Embassytown, by China Mieville
Foundation, by Isaac Asimov
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, by Michel Gondry
The Fountain, by Darren Aronovsky
The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. Le Guin
Time of Eve, by Studio Rekka
The Book of the New Sun, by Gene Woolfe
Planetes, by Sunrise
Neuromancer, by William Gibson
1984, by George Orwell
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams
 
akira28 said:
enlightenment in context of the story which just so happens to be a journey for the viewer as well.
Click to expand...
I can understand what you mean by that. The titular Odyssey could be interpreted as the viewer's, especially with things like the vibrant-but-painful imagery of beyond the infinite.

kurbaan said:
How is this hard to understand? I love 2001 but cmon man first 30 mins is like monkeys jumping around with music. Then its like SLOW SLOW SLOW walking around a space station. Most people are not going to sit there in awe of the visuals. Literally nothing happens for half the movie.
Click to expand...
The funny part is, I have a hard time believing that the monkey scene was 30 minutes. I know it was long because people won't shut up about its length, but I actually thought that was paced pretty well and did an effective job at showing progress through visual storytelling. Maybe I just watch too many nature documentaries.
 
AdventureRacing said:
I mean i love the movie but i don't bother showing it to my friends who haven't seen it because i know they will hate it (and the ones who have seen it find it boring).
Click to expand...

Yea this isn't exactly the film you recommend to your friends. I was in a scifi film class in college and 2001 got the most negative reaction out of all the films we watched. This was a class with art majors and scifi geeks and most people were falling asleep or leaving near the middle. Afterwards there were quite a few 'boring' comments. This was a class where we were seeing films like Alphaville, La Jetee, 12 Monkeys, Blade Runner, and Metropolis. That left more of an impression on me than the film did.
 
mattiewheels said:
Every time this movie is brought up, every single time, there's always someone that chimes in about how this movie bored them to tears, or at least to pressing stop. I'm watching again, and I tear up about every five minutes due to how incredible it is. What is it? Are we at a point where appreciating a movie that's astounding, but slow-paced, might get forgotten in a way? I'm not implying you're dumb if you're not into it, I just want to hear that perspective...
Click to expand...
It took me three sittings to watch that movie.

It was good but, man was the first act boring.
 
I think a lot of great points have been made here - one thing I'll say is that an appreciation on the context of the film, how it was actually made, received and presented at the time (1968!!!) would given an appreciation of the film as a whole.

It is hard going though - it requires a more open minded and dare I say mature taste to understand what Kubrick is trying to convey (please, pleeeeeease dont take that negatively).

I remember watching 2001 back when I was in my early teens and never really got it. Fast forward to my more recent years and I think it's a great film both in terms of filmography, art and meaning.

The comparison with Lawrence Of Arabia is quite true, I know a lot of people who have seen it and were bored as fuck, where as I've only seen it once and adored it.

I have nothing against people who dont look for meanings, underlying messages in movies, but look to be entertained. 2001 just simply isnt one of those films.
 
Dan27 said:
one thing I'll say is that an appreciation on the context of the film, how it was actually made, received and presented at the time (1968!!!) would given an appreciation of the film as a whole.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I saw it when I watched this film about 8 years ago. I put myself at what I could interpret was the achievements at that time and was completely floored and impressed by the attention to details, production, and story. Even to today's standards, it's an impressive film. I would've been blown away if I watched this back in '68.

If you want to watch it: watch it alone, pitch black, wearing headphones. It is best that way.
 
I'm one of those people.

Don't get me wrong, movie looks amazing even today and Kubrick makes some damn fine cinema... but there are parts of the movie that are so heavy-handed and laborious. The first act is dreadful to sit through and the last act up to and through the alien hotel room make me fall the fuck asleep every time.

It's a fine movie for what he was trying to accomplish, but wow he needed someone telling him "can we please just shave off a few minutes here? Just a few?"
 
Dan27 said:
The comparison with Lawrence Of Arabia is quite true, I know a lot of people who have seen it and were bored as fuck, where as I've only seen it once and adored it.
Click to expand...

I don't think Lawrence of Arabia is a valid comparison. LOA is a much tighter film and at its core is a character study.
 
It's just not for everyone and people want to like it because its the cool thing to do. I really love it though.

But thats probably because i love all things space and this film just has this fascinating, dark and unsettling feeling with it.


Also because i'm one of the cool kids.
 
You have to have a certain level of intelligence to appreciate the movie.

Everyone who said said they like it for the pretty pictures are people who would also be amused at you holding up something shiny.
I'm only being half serious, ;)
 
LoA is not a good comparison. A ton of shit happens in LoA. There's a ton of characters, there's a ton of important dialogue, there's a ton of complex relationships between characters.

2001 is all visuals and sound. Almost nothing happens in each of the movements. Characters don't last the whole movie, they are replaced every 50 minutes. The most complex chapter is the Dave/HAL one, and that has less plot than, say, the story of LoA about Lawrence rescuing a man from the desert and then killing him. And that is just one of the many stories in LoA.

2001 is just slow, even for old movies standards. Take for example Dr Floyd talking to his daughter. That does absolutely nothing to move the plot and it goes on forever. It's only there to tells us that the Dr has a family, and is not like he needs the characterization at all. Family moments would be needed later for Dave and Frank, but for the Dr it's just a waste of time imho.

If you get bored by LoA, you probably just have a short attention span, sorry. If you get bored by 2001, well, I can understand it.

(love both movies)
 
LoA's problem was that it was simply way too long to watch in one sitting, but I enjoyed it a lot more than 2001.
 
Scullibundo said:
People have been largely conditioned to accept film as a passive viewing experience.

When a film like 2001 comes along and asks the audience to engage with the work on both an experiential and intellectual level - rather than holding their hand and rotely feeding them information, they become frustrated.
Click to expand...

Not frustrated, just bored. I also can't stand to watch YouTube how-tos. Sorry, you're going too slow. I want information at my own pace. Just give me text so I can read it quickly and do what I need to do.

Now, I like 2001. I appreciate it for what it is and I love the cinematography, but I get how it could easily be boring. At times it gets close to that for me. In fact, that's kind of the idea, the reason for the slow pace...and it has to be slow enough to accomplish its goals even for those who take a long time to get it.
 
At times, it is slow and little of interest to me happens.
I like it, don't get me wrong, but I think plenty of parts could be shortened to make it appeal to more people.

I have a feeling that at the time the movie did come out, the long scenes were in place to encourage comments or conversation with your fellow moviegoer. But modern moviegoers treat movies as a more solitary experience which makes a lot of the extended scenes just plain boring.

I guess what someone else said about people Ingesting info at different rates also makes sense. Kinda hilarious then that people complain about the viewers of 2001 not being homogeneous enough while simultaneously going on about how deep it is.
 
SquiddyCracker said:
At times, it is slow and little of interest to me happens.
I like it, don't get me wrong, but I think plenty of parts could be shortened to make it appeal to more people.

I have a feeling that at the time the movie did come out, the long scenes were in place to encourage comments or conversation with your fellow moviegoer. But modern moviegoers treat movies as a more solitary experience which makes a lot of the extended scenes just plain boring.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to appeal to more people. If he wanted to make it more appealing to general audiences, he would have made it so (he knew very well how to handle pace since this wasn't his first film). And just no on the second, every movie is a solitary experience (which is why people are encouraged to remain quiet).

I guess what someone else said about people Ingesting info at different rates also makes sense. Kinda hilarious then that people complain about the viewers of 2001 not being homogeneous enough while simultaneously going on about how deep it is.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with not being homogeneous, but what you suggested above is ludicrous.
 
The only thing I'd change (a little) is just cut a few min from the opening scenes with the apes. It's just outstays it's welcome even as it's getting it's point across.

But other than that, 2001 is a riveting movie.
 
Because it is boring at times? I liked the film when I watched it, but the thought of having to sit through the monkey scene again makes me reluctant to watch it again.
 
It's a fucking masterpiece and those who dare to call it "boring" are uneducated schmucks who deserve to be burnt at the stake for the betterment of humanity.
 
Interesting how with bigger tv the movie can make a comeback today. 70s to 90s TVs were very shit to reproduce the effect of watching 2001 in a big panoramic movie theater screen.
 
Some scenes drag on, and I can see why people don't finish it. It requires a lot of patience and isn't designed to necessarily entertain you.

I had to watch it a couple of times before I realized I liked it, and I probably wouldn't have bothered if my room mate didn't love to put it on when he was stoned. But to sum up the whole movie as boring is basically missing the entire point of it.
 
I like the movie, but you honestly can't see why people might find long scenes of spaceships rotating to classical music boring?
 
It's a challenging movie. To some who just want to watch it will appear boring. To others who want to be more deeply engaged on an analytical level, it's quite stimulating and thought-provoking.

It's a brilliant piece of cinema. One of the very best.
 
Nappuccino said:
The only thing I'd change (a little) is just cut a few min from the opening scenes with the apes. It's just outstays it's welcome even as it's getting it's point across.

But other than that, 2001 is a riveting movie.
Click to expand...

Of all the "long" sequences, the first act with the apes would be the one I wouldn't touch. It never "bored me". The ones that made me wish it could go a bit faster were the later ones.

Still, actually, I wouldn't change a thing. It's fine as it is.
 
Charles Foster Kane said:
And that's fine, but it's not like the film is that open ended either.
Click to expand...

The ending is the most nonsensical, vague, meaningless thing I've ever sat through.
It makes zero sense, and people who try to read meaning into it are tilting at windmills just to make themselves feel better.

There's about an hour of good movie in 2001. There's no coherent beginning or end, and the middle includes shit that just goes on for far too long. People who defend this shit and claim that people just don't like thinking anymore are ridiculous. If you expect me to imagine up my own beginning, ending, and overall meaning, why do I need to watch the movie at all? I may as well go buy a madlibs book, white out even more words, fill them in randomly, then throw it away because none of it will ever make any coherent sense.

The only watchable part of the film is actually the least consequential with regards to the overall meaning. I could literally sit at home scratching my nuts and contemplate humanity's origin, growth, and destiny. In fact I do that regularly, and I'm finished by the time I need to wipe my ass. 2001, however, is constipation manifest. You sit down, there's a lot of waiting, a lot of unproductive effort, and at the end you're left with nothing but wasted time.
 
Mudkips said:
The ending is the most nonsensical, vague, meaningless thing I've ever sat through.
It makes zero sense, and people who try to read meaning into it are tilting at windmills just to make themselves feel better.

There's about an hour of good movie in 2001. There's no coherent beginning or end, and the middle includes shit that just goes on for far too long. People who defend this shit and claim that people just don't like thinking anymore are ridiculous. If you expect me to imagine up my own beginning, ending, and overall meaning, why do I need to watch the movie at all? I may as well go buy a madlibs book, white out even more words, fill them in randomly, then throw it away because none of it will ever make any coherent sense.

The only watchable part of the film is actually the least consequential with regards to the overall meaning. I could literally sit at home scratching my nuts and contemplate humanity's origin, growth, and destiny. In fact I do that regularly, and I'm finished by the time I need to wipe my ass. 2001, however, is constipation manifest. You sit down, there's a lot of waiting, a lot of unproductive effort, and at the end you're left with nothing but wasted time.
Click to expand...

If 2001, were a painting you make it sound like it would be this:

painting-canvas-4qvbwm.jpg


But it's actually more like this:

cubism-pablopicasso-g7qly6.png


Sure, you are being invited to put your own meaning into it, but there is enough of a beginning and ending that you don't have to come up with your own plot or anything like that!
 
inm8num2 said:
It's a challenging movie. To some who just want to watch it will appear boring. To others who want to be more deeply engaged on an analytical level, it's quite stimulating and thought-provoking.

It's a brilliant piece of cinema. One of the very best.
Click to expand...

Dude, the extra 10 minutes of Dave's psycho trip are not stimulating or thought-provoking. The extra bits of monkey focus are the same. The loooong extended space porn shots are the same. You could convey the same thing without the laborious pacing which only serves to make it boring.

It's not that we doing get it from an analytical stand-point... we just also find it boring.
 
Nappuccino said:
The only thing I'd change (a little) is just cut a few min from the opening scenes with the apes. It's just outstays it's welcome even as it's getting it's point across.

But other than that, 2001 is a riveting movie.
Click to expand...

Nah, I love the apes segment, it's actually my favorite part. I love the whole movie, but maybe the moment that I like the least is the conversation with the little girl, not that it breaks my immersion though.
 
angular graphics said:
If 2001, were a painting you make it sound like it would be this:

painting-canvas-4qvbwm.jpg


But it's actually more like this:

cubism-pablopicasso-g7qly6.png


Sure, you are being invited to put your own meaning into it, but there is enough of a beginning and ending that you don't have to come up with your own plot or anything like that!
Click to expand...

The plot is entirely inconsequential and is used only as an extremely loose framework to tie together the monkeys and the star child / room bullshit at the end.

The only substantive part of the movie is the non-plot part. That's what people talk about when they say it's a great film, yet that's the part that's left almost entirely up to the viewer.
 
DarkFlow said:
ITT if you don't like this movie, you're automatically dumb.
Click to expand...

I feel like this is the way people are acting. Nobody is saying they don't understand it. The movie doesn't demand some unearthly amount of attention to be understood. The comments about people needing their hands held and being lazy make no sense.
 
Mudkips said:
The plot is entirely inconsequential and is used only as an extremely loose framework to tie together the monkeys and the star child / room bullshit at the end.
Click to expand...
How can you say this? I think it would be fairer to say that the movie has a larger overarching plot (the monkeys/the monolith being found on the moon/Dave's journey at the very end) and a smaller almost self contained plot (HAL going a bit crazy and two astronauts dealing with it.) Doesn't make the smaller self contained plot inconsequential.
 
I highly doubt you'd notice if the ape sequence was cut down or extended by 1 minute, 5 minutes, or maybe even 10 minutes. The postulation that the ape sequence was perfectly fine tuned to be exactly as long as it should be, no more, no less is laughably egotistical.
 
Haly said:
I highly doubt you'd notice if the ape sequence was cut down or extended by 1 minute, 5 minutes, or maybe even 10 minutes. The postulation that the ape sequence was perfectly fine tuned to be exactly as long as it should be, no more, no less is laughably egotistical.
Click to expand...

Nope, right around the time I was ready to gouge my eyeballs out from boredom, they ended it.

It was perfectly tuned to make me expect special things from the movie. Especially boring ones.
 
Mudkips said:
The plot is entirely inconsequential and is used only as an extremely loose framework to tie together the monkeys and the star child / room bullshit at the end.

The only substantive part of the movie is the non-plot part. That's what people talk about when they say it's a great film, yet that's the part that's left almost entirely up to the viewer.
Click to expand...

I can't say I agree. I didn't feel that eg there was no storytelling during the "monkeys" part. Sure, there were no words but you could take the two tribes change them to, oh I don't know, modern Country_A men and modern Country_B men in a war, and fill in appropriate dialog, and then it wouldn't be any different than any other movie.

Did I have to put my own meaning in what was the monolith that suddenly appeared? Yes.
Did I have to put my own meaning in what was going on with the two tribes? No.
 
Haly said:
2 of those interpretations are definitely anti-science, so in order for 2001 to still qualify as a "great sci fi movie", then it must be the third.
Click to expand...
What about god-like deities are anti-science? Nearly all science-fiction is anti-science because it does include some element of fiction.
 
Mudkips said:
The ending is the most nonsensical, vague, meaningless thing I've ever sat through.
It makes zero sense, and people who try to read meaning into it are tilting at windmills just to make themselves feel better.
Click to expand...
Yes that must be it, there's zero chances that other people might find meaning where you don't and are not able to comply to your sophisticate taste.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Why Does Costco Turn “Normal” People Into Maniacs?
2
80
1K
LyricalShrike replied
New, bizarre ad for Chris Nolan’s The Odyssey
20
343
[Sigma] replied
Why do they still allow that film format? Letterboxing
2
58
1K
VulcanRaven replied
The Odyssey (2026) Trailer
2 3 4
171
3K
P:axMagellanic replied
why do cats talk like people?
24
2K
Badlucktroll replied
Top Bottom