If 2001: A Space Odyssey were released today...

[Jack Nevada]

It seems like ToL is becoming one of the internets most hated movies (alongside Scott Pilgrim) but I still think its breathtaking

[Darth Homer]

2001 is the perfect example of how both Hollywood movies and audiences' tastes have deteriorated since the 60's. It would flop now not because of it's big ideas but because of the lack of action and "sexy stars". Can anyone think of the last time a film became a blockbuster without action, comedy or a cast full of beautiful people? Me neither.

[Ozymandias]

It seems like ToL is becoming one of the internets most hated movies (alongside Scott Pilgrim) but I still think its breathtaking

I don't speak for everyone, but to me it was literally like watching paint dry. The film just wasn't entertaining to me in any way and I don't think the comparison to 2001 works at all. The film just felt more like a statement than a movie, and some people will like that. Atleast for me the big bang and origin of life on earth sequence would make an excellent screen saver.

[Tom Ace]

Mass/mainstream audiences would HATE it. Everyone would hail the special effects but words like 'pretentious' and 'overrated' would be thrown around like candy wrappers. But some critics/viewers would recognize for the gem that it is.

Yes, words like "pretentious" and "overrated" would be accurately used to describe it, and some critics would tout it as a gem. The movie was crap. It had some good special effects, and touched on some good topics, but it was much, much too long and slow. I wouldn't have gotten through it if not for the fact that I could fast forward.

[Tom Ace]

2001 is the perfect example of how both Hollywood movies and audiences' tastes have deteriorated since the 60's. It would flop now not because of it's big ideas but because of the lack of action and "sexy stars". Can anyone think of the last time a film became a blockbuster without action, comedy or a cast full of beautiful people? Me neither.

I don't think this is the perfect example of that, and I think the idea that "tastes have deteriorated" since then is a bit over the top. First of all, 2001 had a lot of special effects, so in that way it was your normal summer blockbuster you see today. Yes, it was much different in other content, but people went to see it because it was so new and different, much like they went to see Avatar. Look at the other top movies of 1968:Funny GirlThe Odd CoupleBullittPlanet of the ApesMovies with lots of effects and action or comedy do well in theaters these days because they appeal to a broad range of people. Also, the people they appeal to are those who are more likely to go to theaters: young people. Anecdotally, I only go to 1-3 movies a year in general. I tend not to see comedies in theaters because there's no need. I tend to see the big movies that I can't wait for and that are good for seeing in theaters, which means I go to big action movies mostly. However, at home I watch all kinds of other movies. For instance, one of my favorite movies from the past few years is Lars and the Real Girl. Along with that, these days if I don't catch a movie in theaters, I can watch it at home 4-6 months after it debuts in theaters. So, if there's a big event movie like 2001 that people are talking about, I don't have to go to theaters to satsify my curiosity. It has nothing to do with the general taste of the population. People still like good intellectual movies. They just tend to watch them at home, which they couldn't do 40 years ago.

[GamingFreak]

There would certainly be lots of walkouts in cinemas.

Edited August 6, 2012 by GamingFreak

[Ozymandias]

There would certainly be lots of walkouts in cinemas.

There certainly would be, but I think it would mostly be people who adore shit like Superheroes, Twilight, and Transformers. 2001 has some of the most memorable scenes I've ever seen in film like the creepy Black Monolith that shows up in each chapter of the film and the Star Child(both of which are still enormously debated a lot to this day) along with tons of other shit. James Cameron, Ridley Scott, and Steven Speilberg are all on record saying its 1 of their top films.

[Hatebox]

Yes, words like "pretentious" and "overrated" would be accurately used to describe it, and some critics would tout it as a gem. The movie was crap. It had some good special effects, and touched on some good topics, but it was much, much too long and slow. I wouldn't have gotten through it if not for the fact that I could fast forward.

Did you read my sig and decide to parody it?

[pinocchio]

I don't speak for everyone, but to me it was literally like watching paint dry. The film just wasn't entertaining to me in any way and I don't think the comparison to 2001 works at all. The film just felt more like a statement than a movie, and some people will like that. Atleast for me the big bang and origin of life on earth sequence would make an excellent screen saver.

Fact is, 2001 was a huge hit in the sixties. Domestic one of the most successful movies of the decade.

[pinocchio]

And of course if the movie would be released today it would be a flop.

[Tom Ace]

Did you read my sig and decide to parody it?

No, I didn't even notice your signature. It's a little ridiculous to say that using certain words to describe something means you can't articulate yourself. If a film gets a lot of love from a lot of people, and you don't think it deserves it, that's what we call overrated. If a film has an exaggerated sense of its own importance, it's called pretentious. As you can see by the rest of my comment, I'm quite capable of articulating everything wrong with the movie, but those words would probably also describe it.

[Darth Homer]

Movies with lots of effects and action or comedy do well in theaters these days because they appeal to a broad range of people. Also, the people they appeal to are those who are more likely to go to theaters: young people. Anecdotally, I only go to 1-3 movies a year in general. I tend not to see comedies in theaters because there's no need. I tend to see the big movies that I can't wait for and that are good for seeing in theaters, which means I go to big action movies mostly. However, at home I watch all kinds of other movies. For instance, one of my favorite movies from the past few years is Lars and the Real Girl.Along with that, these days if I don't catch a movie in theaters, I can watch it at home 4-6 months after it debuts in theaters. So, if there's a big event movie like 2001 that people are talking about, I don't have to go to theaters to satsify my curiosity. It has nothing to do with the general taste of the population. People still like good intellectual movies. They just tend to watch them at home, which they couldn't do 40 years ago.

That's the whole problem, though. The dumbing down of popular culture means that "intellectual" movies don't stand a chance at the box office anymore. Many of them don't even get a theatrical release. People just want to see movies on the big screen that are like a roller coaster ride. Which is fine, but cinema used to be more than that.If 2001 was made now I'm sure the studio would give Kubrick notes that he needed to add a sexy female scientist to the crew and have at least one big action scene. If a director wants full creative freedom in today's Hollywood, they have to deliver big action sequences along with the smart plot (Chris Nolan), keep the budget low (Woody Allen) or just fund the movie themselves. That's why, even though there are still great movies being made, the Golden Age of Hollywood will never return.

[Tom Ace]

That's the whole problem, though. The dumbing down of popular culture means that "intellectual" movies don't stand a chance at the box office anymore. Many of them don't even get a theatrical release. People just want to see movies on the big screen that are like a roller coaster ride. Which is fine, but cinema used to be more than that.If 2001 was made now I'm sure the studio would give Kubrick notes that he needed to add a sexy female scientist to the crew and have at least one big action scene. If a director wants full creative freedom in today's Hollywood, they have to deliver big action sequences along with the smart plot (Chris Nolan), keep the budget low (Woody Allen) or just fund the movie themselves. That's why, even though there are still great movies being made, the Golden Age of Hollywood will never return.

You seem to have missed my whole point. It's not that the movies you approve of aren't being made and aren't successful. They're just not big blockbusters, and they've rarely been blockbusters at any point in time. That's why I pointed to the other big movies of 1968, which were comedies, musicals and your typical "blockbuster" fare. There is no dumbing down, and dominating the box office isn't all there is. Films without lots of comedy or explosions still get made and are still popular.

[Ozymandias]

Fact is, 2001 was a huge hit in the sixties. Domestic one of the most successful movies of the decade.

I was talking about Tree of life there. 2001 is one of my favorite movies.

[Ozymandias]

You seem to have missed my whole point. It's not that the movies you approve of aren't being made and aren't successful. They're just not big blockbusters, and they've rarely been blockbusters at any point in time. That's why I pointed to the other big movies of 1968, which were comedies, musicals and your typical "blockbuster" fare. There is no dumbing down, and dominating the box office isn't all there is. Films without lots of comedy or explosions still get made and are still popular.

I disagree to a certain point. Big budget PG-13 popcorn movies dominate now, I don't think thats very debatable. Yeah, you get really ambitious movies making over 100m every now and then, but for the most part studios consider them to be "risks" and they often don't get funded. When 2001 and Planet of the Apes were the most successful movies of the 60s, you know the industry has changed a lot, and for the worse.I'd LOVE to see At the Mountains of Madness and other Lovecraft work get made into movies, but that will never happen unless some huge director like James Cameron is doing it.

[Hatebox]

No, I didn't even notice your signature. It's a little ridiculous to say that using certain words to describe something means you can't articulate yourself. If a film gets a lot of love from a lot of people, and you don't think it deserves it, that's what we call overrated. If a film has an exaggerated sense of its own importance, it's called pretentious. As you can see by the rest of my comment, I'm quite capable of articulating everything wrong with the movie, but those words would probably also describe it.

Saying something's 'overrated' has nothing to do with its quality though. If I said The Godfather was overrated I still wouldn't be saying how good I thought it was. 'Pretentious' is also too vague to be a useful criticism, because you have to actually assess and convey what you believe the director's intentions were and then say why you thought the film fell short of them.

[Hatebox]

As far as the topic goes, I worry about more 'medium' budget, adult movies being made. At the moment it seems either 100m+ blockbusters or <40m movies are greenlit. It's very debatable whether even something as recent as Fight Club, which had a 63m budget in 1999 would get the go ahead today.

[Ozymandias]

You seem to have missed my whole point. It's not that the movies you approve of aren't being made and aren't successful. They're just not big blockbusters, and they've rarely been blockbusters at any point in time. That's why I pointed to the other big movies of 1968, which were comedies, musicals and your typical "blockbuster" fare. There is no dumbing down, and dominating the box office isn't all there is. Films without lots of comedy or explosions still get made and are still popular.

I agree with what you said in context, but then again opinions are like assholes, to quote Dirty Harry. One thing I do hate and I often see is when people call a movie "self-absorbed". That one I think is just downright stupid. People often say that when they didn't like a particular movie because its not for them and they prefer something else even though nothing is wrong with it objectively.Kubrick on 2001:2001 is basically a visual, nonverbal experience that avoids the spoken word in order to reach the viewer's subconscious in an essentially poetic and philosophic way. The film is a subjective experience which "hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting". Edited August 11, 2012 by Shpongle

[pinocchio]

I was talking about Tree of life there. 2001 is one of my favorite movies.

Uh, sorry.

[Tom Ace]

I disagree to a certain point. Big budget PG-13 popcorn movies dominate now, I don't think thats very debatable.

I already covered this. They dominate because they appeal to a broad range of people, and these days the moviegoing audience is a lot younger than it used to be. That doesn't mean other films aren't popular too.

Yeah, you get really ambitious movies making over 100m every now and then, but for the most part studios consider them to be "risks" and they often don't get funded. When 2001 and Planet of the Apes were the most successful movies of the 60s, you know the industry has changed a lot, and for the worse.

No, that doesn't mean the industry has changed a lot, and it certainly doesn't mean it's changed for the worse. How is Planet of the Apes not a big-budget PG-13 popcorn movie? 2001 was popular because of the effects, not necessarily because everyone loved the movie. Again, it's not much different from Avatar. A whole lot of people went to see it, but most people didn't think it was a great movie all around.

I'd LOVE to see At the Mountains of Madness and other Lovecraft work get made into movies, but that will never happen unless some huge director like James Cameron is doing it.

Why not? A lot of movies get made without big directors.