Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
No good movie is boring. To me a boring movie is bad.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why do people say 2001: A Space Odyssey is boring?
- Thread starter mattiewheels
- Start date
- Status
Fudgepuppy
Banned
It wouldn't be as fantastic as it is if it hadn't take its time.
The ending about mankind reaching its end and beginning anew, just wouldn't have worked if they didn't take their time and make the viewer experience the grander picture.
With that said, not all scenes are fantastic, which does at first viewing make it feel a lot longer and more aimless than it really is.
The ending about mankind reaching its end and beginning anew, just wouldn't have worked if they didn't take their time and make the viewer experience the grander picture.
With that said, not all scenes are fantastic, which does at first viewing make it feel a lot longer and more aimless than it really is.
Rosenskjold
Member
To you it is. But are there any good arguments that boring is bad?
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
Yeah, it's boring. If it's boring it's unengaging.
Boring could easily equate to bad, not that hard to see.
Are there any boring movies you'd call good?
Rosenskjold
Member
What if the movie was made with the intention of being boring?
I don't think boring/entertaining has anything to do with good/bad. One is a matter of personal engagement or entertaiment, and the other is an argument on quality.
goldenpp72
Member
This is my second most hated movie of all time next to Suckerpunch. The entire movie is WAY too slow and focuses on each of its scenes about 100x longer than it should. The entire plot and purpose of the movie could be condensed into one really good 30 minute stint, and is instead super long and drawn out.
It has some interesting ideas and visually holds up pretty well today, but good lord, showing shuttles moving about in space for 5 minutes, a black screen for 2 minutes, monkeys learning for 20, and then the part near the end where it just shows his face and 'trippy effects' for what feels like FOREVER, it seems like a movie you'd need to be heavily intoxicated to feel enjoyment out of.
Anyone who doesn't think the movie would benefit from being edited down a good bit, i'd love to hear their deep and meaningful explanation to why that trippy colors scene needed to last like 10 minutes.
It has some interesting ideas and visually holds up pretty well today, but good lord, showing shuttles moving about in space for 5 minutes, a black screen for 2 minutes, monkeys learning for 20, and then the part near the end where it just shows his face and 'trippy effects' for what feels like FOREVER, it seems like a movie you'd need to be heavily intoxicated to feel enjoyment out of.
Anyone who doesn't think the movie would benefit from being edited down a good bit, i'd love to hear their deep and meaningful explanation to why that trippy colors scene needed to last like 10 minutes.
That means, the movie worked. Lol.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
No movie is made with the intention of being boring. It could be the slowest film, but still be engaging.
No entertaining movie is bad either (in a way) because it engages its audience. That's why we have the term good bad. A movie can be technically bad, but if it fun, it's good (or worth it). The truly bad films are those that are bad and/or boring.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
You're right guys. I'm implying I'm on some mature high horse instead of being annoyed by the fact that there is clear evidence that today's always-on, instant gratification culture can't pay attention to things.
Movies are shorter, TV shows are afraid of having long story arcs, mixed with the nature of on-demand entertainment, social media, and so on.
But no, please inform me of how wrong I am, oh wizened sages. I never said I feel old or am somehow more "mature", I just hate the fact that people these days can't sit still through five minutes of fucking exposition without flipping to facebook or pinterest or whatever on their phones.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
I'm not saying it's on the same level as 2001, but people seemed to have had a pretty harsh reaction to Only God Forgives, when they were obviously big fans of Drive and wanted a normal-paced, more straightforward flick. Instead, it was this glacially-paced thing that takes place in some weird space that isn't necessarily reality.
There's a clear plot, a very very simple one of course, but I heard a lot of complaints about how nothing happened, people staring at each other doing jackshit, etc. A lot of people aren't open to movies with very different rules than they're used to, and I wonder if we'll get to a point when no one will use cache to make something like that anymore.
There's a clear plot, a very very simple one of course, but I heard a lot of complaints about how nothing happened, people staring at each other doing jackshit, etc. A lot of people aren't open to movies with very different rules than they're used to, and I wonder if we'll get to a point when no one will use cache to make something like that anymore.
Rodney McKay
Member
Are there any good arguments that bad is bad?
If there aren't, then is there an argument that life is life?
Is real, real?
Does existence even exist?!
...
The answer to those questions is yes. Pretty much everything relating to art is subjective (so yeah, I guess some people may like Boredom), but it's the consensus of opinions of the art community that definitively* mark something as being good or bad (so I can say that someone who likes boring things because they are boring is a weirdo).
*not actually 'definitively' since consensuses change all the time, ala Van Gogh. But some core adjectives like dull/vapid/boring will always** be used with a negative connotation.
**maybe not always. The fucking dictionary now says that 'literally' can also mean 'not literally' so who the fuck knows how stupid people will get in the future.
Anyways, I like 2001, but I do think there are definitely some long spots that may or may not actually benefit from being as long as they are. Haven't watched it in years and never in a strictly "art" perspective, so maybe my opinion has changed over the years.
Angry Fork
Member
I thought so the first time I watched it, I almost hated it. Then I got more into other films from different directors, expanded my horizons, then came back and watched it again and loved it. It's a kubrick thing imo. I feel like you need to already be a fan of films as a whole from every genre in order to appreciate his movies. Barry Lyndon and to a lesser extent Clockwork Orange are the same way.
I do agree the space shuttle scenes go on too long, but I feel that's only because it's been there done that for us. I find it to be technically impressive but that isn't enough to hold my attention the way it did audiences back then. That's about the only thing I want to fast forward through.
I do agree the space shuttle scenes go on too long, but I feel that's only because it's been there done that for us. I find it to be technically impressive but that isn't enough to hold my attention the way it did audiences back then. That's about the only thing I want to fast forward through.
Napalm_Frank
Member
My sister had to watch like 20 movies for some examn with bunch of classic films and this was one of them. She said it was the most boring movie she has ever seen and couldn't finish it.
I am intriqued to try it myself sometime since some of the movies I saw her watch were sooooo fuckin boring.
I have one supposedly classic movie that bored me to tears: Blade Runner.
I am intriqued to try it myself sometime since some of the movies I saw her watch were sooooo fuckin boring.
I have one supposedly classic movie that bored me to tears: Blade Runner.
it does though, "boring" is a pejorative with irrefutably negative connotations. also, engagement and quality should go hand in hand, I cannot think of a single example of a text (film, tv, literature, music) where I wasn't engaged and also thought it was good. art is a form of communication and if you're not engaged you're not being communicated to.
if you want to say that a movie intentionally alienates the viewer and is intentionally slowly paced, then...you say that. because under those circumstances you can still be engaged. "boring" has concrete implications of disengagement and lack of enjoyment.
Lord of the Rings (books): It's a great work but you couldn't get me to read it again if you paid me.
Night on the Galactic Railroad (animated film): Same deal. Thought it was great. Do not want to sit through it ever again.
You can appreciate something for its artistic and technical merits even though it fails to engage you personally.
I agree though some sense of mixed feelings is also possible. There is some material that both has things about it that you find boring and things about it that you find interesting and engaging. The later good aspects might even be really good.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
I think maybe Blade Runner wasn't originally as quiet and ponderous as it is in the version people know, since there was a kind of pulpy Harrison Ford narrating things in the first cut.
I might've preferred to see that version rather than the one we have now, because all I could think of when watching it is how they just threw the tone and themes of the book out the door.
If you're going to go in a different direction might as well go all the way.
Would that appreciation of its merits (to a smaller degree than others) not be some level of engagement? I never said there wasn't a grey area.
I've tried to watch a couple Fassbinder movies lately. Haven't hooked me. I'm engaged with some parts, and I can see what other people are clicking with. But I haven't been gripped all the way yet. So, I can appreciate many of their artistic merits (use of mirrors and slow motion and music), that is, be engaged with those elements, but still not appreciate the text as a whole because I haven't found a way to get synapses firing (engage) when it comes to the summed product or with other specific elements.
Basically sounds like what you're describing.
If something is actually truly great, I want to watch it again. I want to see how changes in my thought processes over time alter my one-side convo with the text. I want to see if the technical aspects are as strong as I remember. If I look at a movie and think "I never want to watch that again" I will not consider it great.
(an exception would be psychologically trying works; I've been putting off a review of The Thin Red Line for probably a year now because I know it'll be completely emotionally exhausting. Those I can understand putting off revisits. But not never revisiting.)
Right like I said I don't think I disallowed for a gradient of opinion. You can be engaged in parts and not in others.
Reasonable. I, however, prefer to separate my judgement of a given work into two parts: one that is very objective and detached, and one that is very subjective and personal. This way, I can better understand the artistry and the process of creativity, while also furthering my understanding of myself by questioning why a work fails to engage me even when it excels at some area or another. If you find a work that is
praised by critics, but doesn't really register on your personal radar, doesn't that say something about you? I think it's worthwhile to think about what differentiates you from others.
right, you're not contradicting me or anything here. understanding the artistry and in turn explaining why you yourself don't resonate with a work is criticism. I never ruled out objective appreciation of elements of a work.
Neat, so we're in agreement.
SymbolicGamer
Banned
2001: A Space Odyssey is so far the only movie to make me fall asleep. I'm not even joking. I don't mean I fell asleep watching the movie while I laid in bed. I mean middle of the day, wide awake before the monkeys, out like a light 15 minutes after Ric Flair's theme song. This wasn't some random occurrence either. It's happened to me four for five times. One of these days I'm going to sit down with a pack of Monsters and actually watch that movie all the way through. Also, I don't know if it's related but I just yawned. Maybe just thinking about 2001 makes me sleepy.
I don't know, but Kubrick's movies certainly do tend to require a lot from the viewer: investing brains, time and knowledge to fully appreciate them. So are Bergman's , so are Kurosawa's, so are Fassbender's, Godard, Truffaut. I guess it's too much for some people
It's one of the greatest films ever made. I can't believe there are people saying it could have been cut for length. It's one of the few movies where every frame has its purpose. It's supposed to be a meditative and carefully paced film. Kubrick knew what he was doing when he made it. He made it the exact length he wanted it to be. If you don't like it, fine, but don't start saying parts of it should have been cut. Personally I could have had 20 more minutes of rotating ships, apes and trippy LSD effects.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
I'm a big fan, but I understand that it's not for everyone. I think it's far stranger that someone would tear up every five minutes, actually.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
The ending of the movie is not "meaningless" in any sense of the word. Both the apes and the ending with the monolith/Star Child are fundamentally important, both to the film's narrative and to the meaning it conveys. Indeed, the ending is actually pretty straightforward when really considered and is built up to for 2.5 hours. If you're not willing to watch and consider the movie in good faith, that's on you, not Kubrick nor the rest of the crew involved in its making.
2001 is a science fiction movie, but the very fact that it doesn't get so bogged down in the technical details of the science (though its fictive depiction of space travel is, for its day and even today, some of the most accurate ever put to film) and is more interested in the philosophical implications of said science is at the very heart of its greatness. It's art, not genre. The book you describe may or may not be good (sounds like Slaughterhouse Five-Lite, to me, but plot descriptions can be misleading), but even if it's non-linear, your description makes it seem a good deal more conventional, and your quote of it is much more New Agey than anything in 2001.
You're right, by the way, to suggest that the movie's themes are at least partly spiritual. Kubrick himself said that he considered the movie "an agnostic prayer". However, it also sounds like you have not really engaged with what's IN the movie - the scene where Bowman unplugs HAL features better characterization and drama than 99% of fiction I've ever read or watched, for example - and instead have judged it negatively for failing to match the kinds of conventions and aesthetics that you, personally, prefer. You're free to do so, of course, but I promise you that you're missing out on a work of art that, like Melville or Shakespeare, will be as relevant centuries from now as it was the day it was released, for its depths, its universality, and its skillful artistry on ALL levels, including writing.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
I'm curious as to what you believe this straightforward ending is, in your words?
I really disapprove of this categorization of fiction into tiers like "art" and "high art". I'll be the first to admit that not all works are equal in terms of their value to society but to call something great because it's "art", or something "art" solely because it's great (while implying that other things will never be as "art" as it) is extremely arrogant. It just reeks of meaningless rhetoric awash with buzzwords you often see in reviews of media today. Either construct a real argument or don't bother.
And regarding this part specifically:
Where are you even getting this from? What is the "science" that Kubrick is so intent on exploring on a philosophical level. Space travel? Aliens? AI? Evolution? All of the above? You're typing words but not saying anything of substance.
I'll say it right here that I don't enjoy Shakespeare all that much. And you're wrong on the second front. Shakespeare's reputation now is far beyond the recognition Shakespeare recieved while he was alive. This is true of so many artists now considered "masters" in their respective forms that I find it difficult to take you seriously when you so easily overlook common history.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
On a literal level? Bowman confronts the monolith, is transported by it (through means beyond his, or the audience's, understanding) to some sort of alien habitation, where he lives out his days until, upon his death, he is either reborn as, or serves as the basis of, the Star Child - the aliens' next iteration of human advancement/evolution.
On a slightly higher level? Man, after having finally recreated the aliens' feat of engendering consciousness - and doing so using the tools that, seemingly, the aliens' monolith TAUGHT them to use - is shown that, for all his triumphs, all his innovations, there are still unfathomable depths awaiting discovery, unimaginable places yet to be reached - both outwardly and, perhaps even more important, inwardly.
I find that, for the most part, the monoliths' importance as "symbolism" is vastly overstated. In the film, they simply ARE, and are more imposing for that fact. Really, they're a device, a layer of artifice to allow Kubrick to condense the slow (and, in actuality, rather dull) process of change and innovation into something with direct emotional immanence.
Sorry if you were offended, but I simply use it to distinguish works that place the interpretation of reality via skillful artistry - part of which is the avoidance and/or subversion of cliches, which 2001 most definitely does - from works that stick closely to broad formulas (monster movies), stock character types (Westerns, noir), or general aesthetic parameters (which sci-fi, with its many categories and subgenres, definitely seems to engage in). That doesn't mean genre works can't be great, in their own way, but great art, even if technically part of a genre, transcends such things by offering more to the percipient, in terms of depths and artistry, and does so in a way that is objectively tangible, even immanent.
I majored in theatre in college. I'm aware that Shakespeare wasn't the most popular playwright in his day, though many of his contemporaries - like the more popular Ben Jonson, even if he did have his criticisms, as well - DID consider him a master. However, the reason his reputation has grown is that his best works - Hamlet, Macbeth, etc. - stand far and away above any works, dramatic or otherwise, produced to that point. So much so, in fact, that many of his outright BAD works, like "Titus Andronicus", are often judged as "great" despite being manifestly rather poor. Indeed, what you're arguing proves my point completely - great art stands the test of time, regardless of the popularity of the artist in their own time.
Here's another one: Melville was totally obscure in his own day. Moby-Dick sold poorly and was thrashed by critics. It was only rediscovered later because its towering artistic achievement overwhelmed and could not be ignored. Meanwhile, many of the most-acclaimed and -popular novels of the 1800s now languish in total obscurity or are even held up as manifest examples of poor artistry (see: James Baldwin's words on "Uncle Tom's Cabin").
Edit: The science examined = "all of the above". If the movie is "about" any one thing in particular, it's about the common philosophical principle that links ALL of those branches of science, though it also gives proper weight to each, individually.
Alright, this conclusion I can understand. I won't bother reiterating my previous complaints here so I'll just say that on a personal level I disagree with what Kubrick and Clarke are saying about humanity. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, this mystification of life.
If I'm reading this right you're saying that 2001 is "about" the natural curiosity and ambition of humanity, which expresses themselves in the form of weapons and technology.
I can see that. Again, it's more philosophy than science but if we accept that Kubrick had more of an interest in the human condition than actual science, then it works.
(Still salty over people calling it great sci-fi but whatever, I'm bored of arguing that front.)
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
There's a difference between mysticism and wonderment. You're making the film out to be "What the Bleep Do We Know?", but it's alot closer to, say, popular science writers like Loren Eiseley or Carl Sagan, in terms of outlook. There's nothing really anti-materialistic in the view the movie espouses. On the simplest possible level, it's simply a reminder that, no matter how far we progress, there will always be things we don't, and perhaps can't, understand or comprehend.
But regardless, I don't think you should let disagreement with the film so color your ability to enjoy its achievements. I don't agree with the philosophical view of, say, Bela Tarr's "The Turin Horse", but that doesn't mean I don't think it's a great movie.
I feel that message is missing a second part, which is that we should always strive to learn more, and never write something off as impossible to understand. It just feels defeatist.
I recognize 2001's achievements in cinematography, but it isn't a topic that is so dear to me that I can honestly say I enjoyed 2001. I have no doubt that if my love of 2D animation was replaced by love of cinematography I'd be with you defending 2001 against the detractors.
But I'm not.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
The message doesn't really preclude this. Indeed, the movie is basically predicated on the notion that humans will continue to strive farther and farther, regardless of all they don't know.
I'm not so sure about that. The movie ends before we can see if the star children are the final form of humanity or if they will still strive for greater heights. The way its depicted, the length of the lights sequence and the alien room, all screams "this is the end". I guess you could argue that since the star child is in a "fetal" form there is, logically, an adult form but I don't know how much stock I would put into such an interpretation. It seemed pretty final.
Were I to change to movie in order to make the neverending cycle of transcendence clear, I would refer to the first scene (apes? I don't know, I don't remember how the movie opened) in the star child scene. Maybe Kubrick feels that such an ending would lock in the message when he wants it to be open ended, or that such a storytelling gimmick is too mundane and conventional for him. Okay, but I really hate not knowing the "one true interpretation". Not just for 2001 but for any work of fiction.
Fitting, since it parallels our debate over the movie. Some people are content with ending on the unknowable. Me, I want something solid and tangible at the end of all things.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
I'm glad you had nothing to do with the film then. Having everything explained and detailed with little room for wonderment seems uninspired. It's fine in some films, but I welcome well implemented ambiguity.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
I wanna see this edited-down version that some people have in mind, that sounds like it would be hilarious to watch. Get it down to under an hour, now we're talking.
The manga has its merits but I didn't enjoy it as much as the anime because my favorite character, Yuri, got shafted.
I prefer the book which not only seemed like a more interesting journey but I thought some of the 'imagery' also rivaled the movie (Grand Central Station in space), and it was a more concrete and entertaining storytelling experience while stilling having plenty of mystery and awe behind it. You can also finish the book in 1-2 sittings without feeling bored or fatigued.
The film was and is one hell of an achievement especially when you consider that it was released before Star Trek and Star Wars, but the movie is definitely slow in pace and the ancient aliens, stunning cinematography, and evil robot stuff has been played out quite a bit for newer audiences. It'd be like watching Godfather after seeing Goodfellas, The Sopranos, etc. first....just won't have the same impact as it once did but you can still appreciate and be a fan of the work. Even newer movies like the SW prequels were pretty damn boring and struggled to make the audience care what was happening on screen
The film was and is one hell of an achievement especially when you consider that it was released before Star Trek and Star Wars, but the movie is definitely slow in pace and the ancient aliens, stunning cinematography, and evil robot stuff has been played out quite a bit for newer audiences. It'd be like watching Godfather after seeing Goodfellas, The Sopranos, etc. first....just won't have the same impact as it once did but you can still appreciate and be a fan of the work. Even newer movies like the SW prequels were pretty damn boring and struggled to make the audience care what was happening on screen
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
They are very different films. I don't see how watching Goodfellas first would hurt the impact of The Godfather (specially since it has aged wonderfully).
Mikey Jr.
Member
Slow-paced?
There is a difference between slow paced and nothing happening for minutes at a time.
So yeah, I would say some parts bored me. Like watching a ship travel through space for 5 minutes.
- Status