Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've not seen mentioned here:


2001: A Space Odyssey. . . . Literally the only people I've seen hate on it, have not seen it all the way through. Yes, the story is slower than an iceberg made of pure molasses. Yes, it is difficult to get through that pace for today's movie goers. . . Get past that, force yourself to watch it. The technical elements are all there. . . Everyone I think I've ever met who's seen it all the way through gets the "reward" the movie offers. The movie somehow just seems to stick in you.

The first Blade Runner movie. Among "experts" it is highly regarded for its technical elements (camera shots and the various other "science of filmmaking" things). The cast is well done and fit their roles easily. Much of the negativity I've personally seen levied at it are from people who simply don't like the type of movie (ie, they wouldn't like it for any reason simply because its sci-fi, or its some other categorical distinction)

Really? Given how weird the post Jupiter section of 2001 Space Odyssy is I thought that would be the bit most people would hate...

I’ve watched 2001 all the way through, and if I hadn’t been desperately passing time while stuck on a plane, I would have fast-forwarded at least half of the movie. I did not enjoy it.

I get that movies were slower-paced, but it really feels like a piece that the director just let go, and simply didn’t prune the completely unnecessary, while shorting time and explanation of more interesting parts. I think it’s a mess of a movie. It’s incoherent. There are some twinges of thought provoking material, but mostly in the “what the feth was that about” sort of way, rather than presenting an idea or perspective that was challenging.

2001 is *the* movie I consider to be over rated by almost everyone, though. I begrudge Kubrick on a personal level, for my wasted time that I had hoped would be spent on a good movie.

2001 always felt to me like half the story is missing and that they didn't actually start getting a plot together until there's a guy talking to HAL. It's not that its slow its that the beginning has multiple parts that don't naturally link together so you get a disjointed feeling. Plus when they do start to sort of link together its too late.

Now don't get me wrong I like slow; I love the Spaghetti Westerns. However I don't feel like 2001 is being slow to build atmosphere. It seems to be slow just to be slow sort of.


I think one thing that is important to remember is that it was a true 3D film originally . That in itself likely gave it huge accolades when seen on the original 3D screens of the time.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I've not seen mentioned here:


2001: A Space Odyssey. . . . Literally the only people I've seen hate on it, have not seen it all the way through. Yes, the story is slower than an iceberg made of pure molasses. Yes, it is difficult to get through that pace for today's movie goers. . . Get past that, force yourself to watch it. The technical elements are all there. . . Everyone I think I've ever met who's seen it all the way through gets the "reward" the movie offers. The movie somehow just seems to stick in you.

The first Blade Runner movie. Among "experts" it is highly regarded for its technical elements (camera shots and the various other "science of filmmaking" things). The cast is well done and fit their roles easily. Much of the negativity I've personally seen levied at it are from people who simply don't like the type of movie (ie, they wouldn't like it for any reason simply because its sci-fi, or its some other categorical distinction)

Huh. I know a lot of sci fi fans who dislike both of those. 2001’s human characters are more robotic than the computer—how could anyone find that off-putting? And Blade Runner hits a similar ratio of boring pacing to unlikeable characters.

 Overread wrote:
2001 always felt to me like half the story is missing and that they didn't actually start getting a plot together until there's a guy talking to HAL. It's not that its slow its that the beginning has multiple parts that don't naturally link together so you get a disjointed feeling. Plus when they do start to sort of link together its too late.

Now don't get me wrong I like slow; I love the Spaghetti Westerns. However I don't feel like 2001 is being slow to build atmosphere. It seems to be slow just to be slow sort of.


I think one thing that is important to remember is that it was a true 3D film originally . That in itself likely gave it huge accolades when seen on the original 3D screens of the time.

Yeah, I mean it was among the first but the art form wasn't really perfected until the arthouse 3d films like Spy Kids 3D started to come along and implement some of the ideas that experimenters like kubrick scratched the surface on.

But, you know, I guess as a historical piece you could go and watch it like you might watch Citizen Kane, Phantom Menace or Casablanca.

 Overread wrote:
Now don't get me wrong I like slow; I love the Spaghetti Westerns. However I don't feel like 2001 is being slow to build atmosphere. It seems to be slow just to be slow sort of.

Hah, yeah. With the spaghetti westerns it helps to establish setting, malaise, and tension: wide open deserts, hard-bitten killers and poor peasants squinting at eachother. With 2001 a lot of it is things (ships, people) slowly rotating through space.

No arguing that it was a groundbreaking film, but one of the effects of that seems to have been 'look at our SFX. Then look at them some more. Keep looking, we'll tell you when.' I wasn't aware it was originally in 3D - that does explain it a bit more.

I wasn't a fan of 2001 the movie either, but then, the book it's based on is too cerebral (like much of Clarke's works, TBH) to be made into film well. Currently reading Earthlight, which I think has a better concept to put to screen, at least so far.
I think Kubrick did about as well as can be expected given the source material, but that atill doesn't mean I think it's a particularly good film, the awe-inspiring opening sequence notwithstanding.

Another one who did not enjoy 2001 here.

Particularly given its constant mentions/laudits. I watched it and thought "eh...okay, not sure what the big deal is."

 Elbows wrote:
I watched it and thought "eh...okay, not sure what the big deal is."

Same for me too. Granted this was seeing it 2D, I'm sure seeing it 3D, especially back when it was newer, was a different affair. But I could just never really see why it was so amazing.

Then again I had a similar reaction to Avatar. The film was nice don't get me wrong and the CGI in its day top rate and still stands up well today. However it suffers from bad (in my view) story pacing which results in very little room for character development and a very rushed feeling story. The overall premise for the story is good, nothing world shattering, but good and its got its own twists and turns. It just didn't blow me away as an entire experience like it seems some people were blown away.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Huh. I know a lot of sci fi fans who dislike both of those. 2001’s human characters are more robotic than the computer—how could anyone find that off-putting? And Blade Runner hits a similar ratio of boring pacing to unlikeable characters.

I liked 2001 right up until the 'WTF just happened...???' ending. It made somewhat more sense after I read the book, but I haven't bothered to go back and rewatch the movie to see if it improves it.

Blade Runner I saw when I was about 17 or 18, and I found it tedious and largely incomprehensible. I've been meaning to give it another go before watching the new one, but haven't got around to it yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

Then again I had a similar reaction to Avatar. The film was nice don't get me wrong and the CGI in its day top rate and still stands up well today. However it suffers from bad (in my view) story pacing which results in very little room for character development and a very rushed feeling story. The overall premise for the story is good, nothing world shattering, but good and its got its own twists and turns. It just didn't blow me away as an entire experience like it seems some people were blown away.

I saw Avatar in the cinema, in 3D... and that was an awesome enough experience that the story really didn't matter that much. There was just so much pretty to look at.

No other 3D movie I've seen before or since has come close to being that amazing a spectacle.

I don't know how anyone could dislike "zone troopers."

I admit not a lot of people have seen it. it was not widely marketed.

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Huh. I know a lot of sci fi fans who dislike both of those. 2001’s human characters are more robotic than the computer—how could anyone find that off-putting? And Blade Runner hits a similar ratio of boring pacing to unlikeable characters.

I liked 2001 right up until the 'WTF just happened...???' ending. It made somewhat more sense after I read the book, but I haven't bothered to go back and rewatch the movie to see if it improves it.

Blade Runner I saw when I was about 17 or 18, and I found it tedious and largely incomprehensible. I've been meaning to give it another go before watching the new one, but haven't got around to it yet.

Blade-runner is made by a guy who thinks he has too much self importance.

I’ve never seen the original Blade Runner, that I recall, the the more recent sequel was not bad, and all I really knew about it was that humans don’t like synths... though it was not really explained beyond, “the new discrimination that’s socially acceptable.”

I do want to watch the original some time, but not a priority. Based on the second, I expect that the original had a *very* strong impact on anime, since the tropes of the 2nd Blade Runner were very familiar to Synth-Cop Anime movies I’ve seen.

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Huh. I know a lot of sci fi fans who dislike both of those. 2001’s human characters are more robotic than the computer—how could anyone find that off-putting? And Blade Runner hits a similar ratio of boring pacing to unlikeable characters.

I liked 2001 right up until the 'WTF just happened...???' ending. It made somewhat more sense after I read the book, but I haven't bothered to go back and rewatch the movie to see if it improves it.

Blade Runner I saw when I was about 17 or 18, and I found it tedious and largely incomprehensible. I've been meaning to give it another go before watching the new one, but haven't got around to it yet.

I have a fairly heretical view of Blade Runner. I saw the theatrical version with Dekker's narration intact, during my first year of college. I feel its pretty necessary for the film to make any sort of sense, otherwise its just a lot of wandering around for no apparent reason and very little context for anything that happens. It also lacks random unicorns, so, there's that as a bonus- even though I generally like movies with unicorns in them, they just don't fit.
But honestly, its a movie for those scenes and quotes that 'everybody' knows and parrots around a gaming table when they're only vaguely appropriate, much like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The rest of the movie is basically filler around those moments.

The sequel... didn't really manage to justify its existence or the amount of time it was wasting on things that lead nowhere and didn't matter. Part of it is simply the cliche of the spoiler, and the simplicity of 'what happens now.'

I'm starting to understand why so many recent Hollywood films seem so rushed and chopped up in the editing room if people keep telling them they don't like the slower portions of 2001 and Bladerunner

That was basically my thoughts on the Blade Runner sequel, It had some cool parts but in general there was too much plot and not enough of the brooding, moody sequences that I liked in the original.

I think there's a few issues to consider with films

1) Remember the director doesn't do all the chopping. Cinema groups that buy the films also chop them and can be really randomly brutal to a film just to get it to fit into a time slot for the maximum bums-on-seats for the cinema. Sergio Leone had huge problems with his films and the cinema group cutting them randomly. Apparently there's still film footage from Once Upon a Time in America held by different people/groups that was meant to be in the film that was cut and still hasn't been put back (because of rights arguments and the like).

2) TV to film plot pacing. I'd argue that we've a body of directors/writers who are used to writing storyboards and scripts for TV who then find themselves confused when trying to achieve the same for a film. Either they end up stretching out a TV episode format into a film - which often comes off ok if lacking some of the "big effects" one might want from a film; or they try squashing a whole season down into a film length resulting in a lot of rush

3) Films based on material outside of the film. I'd argue a good few comic films are like this in that there's very little in the film of character development and plot development, because its more made for fans of the franchise/series already. However sometimes these big films get marketed toward totally new markets of people which results in that block getting a very different feel to the film compared to those who have followed the series leading up to the film.

4) Too much. Just too much in one film. This often happens. We can see it in films like Suicide Squad. It's clearly not made following after other material in a strict sense (but sort of is because it is comics again); so its trying to introduce half a dozen or more lead characters at once. The result is a messy situation where no one character gets enough development time.






Honestly its clearly a generational thing with regard to the movies. There are clearly many skilled directors who know how to pace films and write them and construct them to fit in time slots; just as there are many who are clearly less experienced or have too many outside factors bullying in too much content and chopping things up randomly. It's nothing new, but I would agree that we seem to be getting a lot more of it. PErhaps its simply a sign that we've a newer generation of movie makers all coming through the system in various key stages (not just directors) at once.

 Kroem wrote:
I'm starting to understand why so many recent Hollywood films seem so rushed and chopped up in the editing room if people keep telling them they don't like the slower portions of 2001 and Bladerunner

That was basically my thoughts on the Blade Runner sequel, It had some cool parts but in general there was too much plot and not enough of the brooding, moody sequences that I liked in the original.

There are tons of films with a slower pace that are not boring, such as the mentioned Spaghetti Westerns. Blade Runner (the original, I liked 2049) just felt tedious, and I didn’t want to spend any extra time with those unlikeable characters. I’m not saying you’re wrong for enjoying the movie—it is a classic. I was only stating that it is not “immune to dislike” by any stretch.

Voss wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Huh. I know a lot of sci fi fans who dislike both of those. 2001’s human characters are more robotic than the computer—how could anyone find that off-putting? And Blade Runner hits a similar ratio of boring pacing to unlikeable characters.

I liked 2001 right up until the 'WTF just happened...???' ending. It made somewhat more sense after I read the book, but I haven't bothered to go back and rewatch the movie to see if it improves it.

Blade Runner I saw when I was about 17 or 18, and I found it tedious and largely incomprehensible. I've been meaning to give it another go before watching the new one, but haven't got around to it yet.

I have a fairly heretical view of Blade Runner. I saw the theatrical version with Dekker's narration intact, during my first year of college. I feel its pretty necessary for the film to make any sort of sense, otherwise its just a lot of wandering around for no apparent reason and very little context for anything that happens. It also lacks random unicorns, so, there's that as a bonus- even though I generally like movies with unicorns in them, they just don't fit.
But honestly, its a movie for those scenes and quotes that 'everybody' knows and parrots around a gaming table when they're only vaguely appropriate, much like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The rest of the movie is basically filler around those moments.

The sequel... didn't really manage to justify its existence or the amount of time it was wasting on things that lead nowhere and didn't matter. Part of it is simply the cliche of the spoiler, and the simplicity of 'what happens now.'

Spoiler:

If you're making 'synths' that are functionally identical to humans right to down to being able to think and feel like humans, and/or breed with humans, you're just making humans. All the bland industrial operations involved in making a device and using it like one are now simply monstrous and blatantly evil, so... stop. Its like nu-Battlestar Galactica, Westworld or Picard. Or the classic problem of Frankenstein, for that matter. These are blatantly people, so the creators/'normals'/whatever just need to stop being monsters to the new human variant and just accept them. Its really simple and straightforward and not particularly interesting. Slavery and dehumanization aren't complex and confusing moral gotchas anymore. Welcome to the 19th century

Gotta disagree just a little there.

well, to divert us from that dangerous line of thinking (cough eugenics cough)...

I propose.. Moana. my little girl loves it and I have to say I enjoy it too. the songs are catchy and theres lots of bright colours. I have a bunch of tattoos so she calls me Maui and I have to call her Moana. it brightens my day.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
well, to divert us from that dangerous line of thinking (cough eugenics cough)...

I propose.. Moana. my little girl loves it and I have to say I enjoy it too. the songs are catchy and theres lots of bright colours. I have a bunch of tattoos so she calls me Maui and I have to call her Moana. it brightens my day.

That's cute. I know a lot of new parents who unfortunately had their love of some of the recent disney movies kind of taken away from them by the fact that their children demanded them continuously played 24/7 for several years.

Never got around to seeing moana myself, but I have heard it's pretty good. I figure I've got plenty of years to go see every major kids' flick ahead of me, so I'll have time to catch up.

Voss wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Huh. I know a lot of sci fi fans who dislike both of those. 2001’s human characters are more robotic than the computer—how could anyone find that off-putting? And Blade Runner hits a similar ratio of boring pacing to unlikeable characters.

I liked 2001 right up until the 'WTF just happened...???' ending. It made somewhat more sense after I read the book, but I haven't bothered to go back and rewatch the movie to see if it improves it.

Blade Runner I saw when I was about 17 or 18, and I found it tedious and largely incomprehensible. I've been meaning to give it another go before watching the new one, but haven't got around to it yet.

I have a fairly heretical view of Blade Runner. I saw the theatrical version with Dekker's narration intact, during my first year of college. I feel its pretty necessary for the film to make any sort of sense, otherwise its just a lot of wandering around for no apparent reason and very little context for anything that happens. It also lacks random unicorns, so, there's that as a bonus- even though I generally like movies with unicorns in them, they just don't fit.
But honestly, its a movie for those scenes and quotes that 'everybody' knows and parrots around a gaming table when they're only vaguely appropriate, much like Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The rest of the movie is basically filler around those moments.

The sequel... didn't really manage to justify its existence or the amount of time it was wasting on things that lead nowhere and didn't matter. Part of it is simply the cliche of the spoiler, and the simplicity of 'what happens now.'

Spoiler:

If you're making 'synths' that are functionally identical to humans right to down to being able to think and feel like humans, and/or breed with humans, you're just making humans. All the bland industrial operations involved in making a device and using it like one are now simply monstrous and blatantly evil, so... stop. Its like nu-Battlestar Galactica, Westworld or Picard. Or the classic problem of Frankenstein, for that matter. These are blatantly people, so the creators/'normals'/whatever just need to stop being monsters to the new human variant and just accept them. Its really simple and straightforward and not particularly interesting. Slavery and dehumanization aren't complex and confusing moral gotchas anymore. Welcome to the 19th century

I like the voice over Blade Runner and enjoyed some of sequal - ubt for me the main couple

Withnail & I.

Either you love it or you haven't seen it.

the_scotsman wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
well, to divert us from that dangerous line of thinking (cough eugenics cough)...

I propose.. Moana. my little girl loves it and I have to say I enjoy it too. the songs are catchy and theres lots of bright colours. I have a bunch of tattoos so she calls me Maui and I have to call her Moana. it brightens my day.

That's cute. I know a lot of new parents who unfortunately had their love of some of the recent disney movies kind of taken away from them by the fact that their children demanded them continuously played 24/7 for several years.

Never got around to seeing moana myself, but I have heard it's pretty good. I figure I've got plenty of years to go see every major kids' flick ahead of me, so I'll have time to catch up.

Haha yeah, I'm getting a little sick of Frozen, but between those 2, postman pat, wallace and gromit and (the one I actually hate, peppa pig) theres at least some variety in what my daughter likes to watch.

Moana is quite a fun watch, Dwayne Johnson brings his usual charisma as Maui, and the story based on Polynesian folklore is easy to watch and quite interesting.

the_scotsman wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
well, to divert us from that dangerous line of thinking (cough eugenics cough)...

I propose.. Moana. my little girl loves it and I have to say I enjoy it too. the songs are catchy and theres lots of bright colours. I have a bunch of tattoos so she calls me Maui and I have to call her Moana. it brightens my day.

That's cute. I know a lot of new parents who unfortunately had their love of some of the recent disney movies kind of taken away from them by the fact that their children demanded them continuously played 24/7 for several years.

Never got around to seeing moana myself, but I have heard it's pretty good. I figure I've got plenty of years to go see every major kids' flick ahead of me, so I'll have time to catch up.

Having had kids like that, I would have to agree with QAR. . . . Moana is one of the few Disney movies that I can still put on and "enjoy" despite the number of times its been on repeat. The majority of other disney flicks lost any polish after 3 or 4 watchings, and become actively loathed after 10. . . The songwriting in Frozen, for instance, is just fething terrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I like the voice over Blade Runner and enjoyed some of sequal - ubt for me the main couple

Spoiler:

both dying was a big downer and I agree I really don't think the plot makes much sense - I build super robots, but want them to breed and take a couple of decades to mature - er what? Why would you want that?

Wallace had reprogrammed his synths for absolute obedience and loyalty to him. . . One would assume any "born" synths (if he could ever figure it out) would also be born with that programming pre-installed (but how!?)

But I don;t get what he gains by having synths born - apart from having to wait years for them to grow.

Or he can just mass produce them and upate as and when.

Maybe he is supposed to be verging on insanity and obsessed with really slowly breeding a techno-organic race that is subservant to him rather than just building the same?

 Mr Morden wrote:
But I don;t get what he gains by having synths born - apart from having to wait years for them to grow.

Or he can just mass produce them and upate as and when.

Maybe he is supposed to be verging on insanity and obsessed with really slowly breeding a techno-organic race that is subservant to him rather than just building the same?

IMHO, Wallace has a weird "god complex" where he wants to absolutely prove that he is better than Tyrell in every possible way. . . Not really dealt with visually in 2049 (IIRC, it does come up in the middling anime/shorts series that was done in the lead-up), but he's a corporate head, and generally there's a small consortium of a dozen or less corps that are "running" everything related to living on earth. Government, food, housing, everything. . . He apparently wants absolute control over ALL of it.

In a very deranged sort of way, having absolutely loyal, absolutely obedient robots that look and act exactly like people would be one "long con" game solution to him actually taking over and removing all other competition. . . It is quite weird, it is quite convoluted, but its also a bit mustache twirlingly corny. . . It's a weird damned if you do, damned if you don't inclusion thing in the films. . As a result, you get this sort of weird guy who is showing ambitions of power, but we don't really get any of the why behind it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
But I don;t get what he gains by having synths born - apart from having to wait years for them to grow.

Or he can just mass produce them and upate as and when.

Maybe he is supposed to be verging on insanity and obsessed with really slowly breeding a techno-organic race that is subservant to him rather than just building the same?

IMHO, Wallace has a weird "god complex" where he wants to absolutely prove that he is better than Tyrell in every possible way. . . Not really dealt with visually in 2049 (IIRC, it does come up in the middling anime/shorts series that was done in the lead-up), but he's a corporate head, and generally there's a small consortium of a dozen or less corps that are "running" everything related to living on earth. Government, food, housing, everything. . . He apparently wants absolute control over ALL of it.

In a very deranged sort of way, having absolutely loyal, absolutely obedient robots that look and act exactly like people would be one "long con" game solution to him actually taking over and removing all other competition. . . It is quite weird, it is quite convoluted, but its also a bit mustache twirlingly corny. . . It's a weird damned if you do, damned if you don't inclusion thing in the films. . As a result, you get this sort of weird guy who is showing ambitions of power, but we don't really get any of the why behind it.

Ok thanks - that kinda helps - its wierd when Wallace is whinning about not being able to make replicants quick enough but then wants to breed them - but I guess that fits in with his growing madness. He also seems to be there to carry on as its not like he can't make another Luv (or 30 of them) to go looking for what he wants.

Its a pretty enough film, but apart from K and Joi was a petty slow and empty film for me

I’d have to rewatch it to check, but I thought he touched on it. trying to sum up his thoughts here (or my recollection of them)

If you are manufacturing, you are limited to what you can make in your factories. Pretty linear growth, and presumably requires infrastructure.

Self-producing replicants are exponential. You have an engineered working (slave) class that can spread as fast as humanity across the stars.

By giving humanity an unlimited, self-producing, obedient and expendable labor force, you give them the stars.

 Nevelon wrote:
I’d have to rewatch it to check, but I thought he touched on it. trying to sum up his thoughts here (or my recollection of them)

If you are manufacturing, you are limited to what you can make in your factories. Pretty linear growth, and presumably requires infrastructure.

Self-producing replicants are exponential. You have an engineered working (slave) class that can spread as fast as humanity across the stars.

By giving humanity an unlimited, self-producing, obedient and expendable labor force, you give them the stars.

Yeah he said that but each biologically produced replicant also takes the sme time as a human to mature into a useful product? So unless to takes 16 years or more to make a replicant then its slower and also limited to succesful sexual reproduction - human sexual congress does not result in a child every time but again I suppose he can artifcailly inseminate but then your worker is not working as effectively for some period.

Hmmm Maybe he hoped to speed up the maturity process. You think he would look into creating just wombs that can produce them.