The point of this scene (dude's going through wormhole) could have been conveyed in 30 seconds. This scene didn't have to be 10 minutes long. It's pointless filler to fill up screen time as this film barely even had a plot.

lol no.

Lol, once again incapable of defending your stances so your retort is a mere, "lol no".

Shoosh evilhomer.

That accusation is just a tired old way of trying to troll us.

https://media.giphy.com/media/oWYo5f0wTJKbm/giphy.gif

Cena,

Maybe you should go back and re-watch it? It's a pretty dense film, but there's definitely a plot. In fact, it's so good it'd warrant reading a bit about it before re-watching it. It's a hauntingly beautiful, rich and mesmerising allegory about jerking off while drunk.

Cena are you straightedge? Not trying to be a dick, it's a sincere question.

Hell no, if I was straightedge I'd be CM_Punk_Mark. Are you implying that drug use is required to enjoy this film? I've never done any illicit drugs, but I drink. Sometimes I smoke a pipe of non-wacky tobaccy.

Definitely not, I don't think Stan was packing many bowls - it's not required. It's a great film.

I've been recently contemplating going EDGE XXX KORE, just to give it a go and see how it feels , see video in hopper.

Also, speaking of psychedelia, I PM'd you, OZ, about that drum machine. At least I think I did. Unlinke 2001, the DR-5 won't turn on unless you're high as fuck.

I rate this as one of my favourite movies, but to cena's credit this is not a sequence I ever look forward to.

"...could have been conveyed in 30 seconds..."

I guess it's like Beethoven's 5th. The whole thing is just da-da-da-daaaa over and over. He could have stopped after 5 seconds.

Agree with Cena I do. Back then ten minutes worth of slit scan was a big deal, so in its context I get it, but by today's standards this sequence is gratuitous, dull and the weakest part of an otherwise brilliant work.

Suburbanelf, terrible analogy. Music is much different.

Well said decoy. I'm passionate about my hatred for this film, but I'll admit it's a significant leap in sci-fi cinema. In a way it's like Birth of a Nation. Both films represented significant achievements in cinematic history, but by today's standards are quite boring.

Upon your enfeebled brow rests the globe spanning empire that is Hollywood remakes.

2001 definitely doesn't require drugs to appreciate and I don't expect it was made with the express purpose of that or anything, but it IS important to be aware of the larger cultural context that created it, insofar as it was a safe assumptionn that very high (no pun intended) percentage of the audience would be, well, very high, and the people who made it definitely knew that. That's a real factor behind a lot of cutting edge cinema from 68-72, really.


I do think a healthy supply of controlled substances would help you appreciate it without needing to actually follow it, though.

Yeah, you can tell me and Cena apart because I'm straightedge, he's not. *I'm* CM_Punk_Mark.

What I don't get about 2001, and this sequence in particular, is that it's not just "slow", it's also devoid of dramatic content. Not much happens. This clip is basically ten minutes of pure visual effects - visual effects which, admittedly, may have looked cool in the 19whatevers, but which really don't stand the test of time. It's essentially the same kind of fluff that modern CGI-obsessed directors like to pad their films with, much to the horror of film aficionados!

If contemporary film buffs can't sit through five minutes of badass-looking robots punching the piss out of each other, why are they willing to sit through ten minutes of lame space scenery?

I officially disagree with Cena, but 2001 sort of moves like a glacier, and you have to be up for that. Out of my great respect for this movie, I bought a DVD years ago, and then I never watched it.

Nevertheless

JMH, That sounds like an agreement with me. Your statement agrees with what I've been saying, that people don't really like this film, rather they like the idea of liking it. They merely nod their head and say, "Yup it's a masterpiece". If you really like 2001, you'd have watched your DVD, but you haven't, because it's a boring piece of garbage.

He "officially" disagrees with you. His agreement is off-the-record, and needs to be kept secret, lest the reprisals start.

He'll probably eventually buy the Bluray as well and never watch that either. It's the cinematic equivalent of an unread copy of War and Peace on one's bookshelf.
I didn't realize you were straight edge, Homer. Is this a recent thing?

Well, mostly straightedge! I have zero interest in the "straightedge scene", and I drink alcohol on rare occasions (never more than a shot or two in any one sitting - which is good, because I'm a mead-and-scotch kind of guy, and would go broke if I drank regularly). Always been like that, ever since I was little, and Nancy Reagan told me to Just Say No.

Never touched a cigarette, never smoked pot, don't even take aspirin for colds, but I had a morphine drip once while I was in the Emergency Room, and I feel kinda guilty about that. The good news is I don't judge people and am fine hanging out with drug users, just so long as they keep it at a level which doesn't negatively affect their lives.

I liked it the five times I saw it during the 70s and 80s. I'm glad I saw it. I'll probably see it again. It's on Netflix. I just saw a Clockwork Orange for the first time since the 80s and really enjoyed it.