so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different form

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I honestly believe that Matthew wimped out, despite his claim to the contrary, when he stopped his response to Chase. I thought it ended there. And, by all rights, it did.

Now, on his site, he indicated that he is reviewing 2010. However, in his introduction to this review, he is back, continuing with his tirade that, basically "a movie needs plot and characters to be a movie, otherwise it's not a movie" (which is a lot like me saying that a rock song needs a guitar solo to be a rock song despite the fact Rush's Vapor Trails goes on for over an hour without one at all.)

He's a wimp, but since this saga is continuing, in a different form, I thought I'd share it with you.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I don't know about their debate at all, but I am fully ready to believe Confused Matthew wimped out just going by his terrible whiney voice. Doesn't make sense, but y'know.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I appreciate the help. LOL

Actually this thread is continuation, I guess, of this thread. Shades of the topic can be found in the thread about "Boring films and their viewing conditions" as well.

So, to answer the question about "who cares?" Maybe a lot of people, as discussion about 2001 might reveal a gap in the understnading of hard sci fi films, and of the differeence between modern editing and storytelling and the wya it used to be done.

Matthew hates 2001. He says it fails a sa movie, as it carries no plot and no real characters. If any other movie had so little plot and so little character development, it would likely be dissed by the critics.

Up to this point, he is right. And he is confused as to why 2001 would get a pass on these things. His new review will comment on why 2010 is criticized for having plot and characters and narrative despite the fact that having those things is usually a good thing.

Again, I'm with him.

Interestingly enough, even as a 6-year-old watching 2001, I realized that the film and its subject matter was a bit beyond conventions and it should be watched in a different light. The film was about how small man is, even after having evolved, compared to the scale of the universe. It might not make a good movie in the eyes of many, but no more than the fact that a musical makes no sense to me, or a Charlie Chapman film, but that does not mean it is inherently bad because it is different.

I think it is an interesting debate, and there are people who do care.

 

[Stevil2001]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

Is 2001 really hard sf? I mean, what's the scientific rationale behind a Giant Space Fetus?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I see what you are asking. It's hard sci fi in the sense that it is not a space adventure/ space romance, comic book style kind of thing. It was a serious look into a possible future, while making a statement as to human evolution, and the fact that this evolution might have been helped along by an alien species in the form of signposts. The fetus might be a more symbolic image, not a literal one. In any case, it is a movie about ideas..

You what is funny, is that in spite of it's rather sparing use of character and it's even more sparing use of human emotion, Bowman's simple breathing through his helmet as he begins his duel with HAL is more exciting and emotional than a lot of sequences in modern sci films that qualify as action sequences. By using plot and character so sparsely, Kubrick might have also made those elements more powerful.

That said, i like 2010 a lot, as a more traditional film. I do not think it deserves the criticism it got.

I think this debate is interesting because there are a lot of people who probably side with Matthew.

 

[Canadave]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

Is 2001 really hard sf? I mean, what's the scientific rationale behind a Giant Space Fetus?

Giant Space Condom breakage.

/ SCIENCE!

Seriously, 2001 is pretty hard overall, I think, but it definitely takes a sharp turn into the fantastic at the end.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

2001 is a "harder" sf movie than 99.9 percent of the sf movies ever made - but then, the vast majority of sf prose literature that's labeled "hard sf" disregards a good deal of science. Stuff that fits the most demanding definition of "hard science fiction" is close to non-existent and has been since at least the 1920s.

If Confused Matthew truly believes what he's claiming about what makes a "real movie" and what doesn't then one must conclude that he's seen and understood nothing except the most mainstream, commercial Hollywood entertainment - IOW, he's unqualified to express an opinion of any interest to adults.

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I've have to go with Jarod - who gives a shit what some random webmong thinks? You might as post links to TNZ for the authority they have.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

Part One of his 2010 review is on his site, www.confusedmatthew.com

 

[crouteru]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I don't think Confused Matthew is as smart as he thinks he is...

I like his Star Wars prequel reviews, but completely disagree with many of his other reviews, like Star Trek: First Contact, Back to the Future II and Minority Report.

I'm indifferent on 2001. I like it as a visual spectacle, but there is no story in there, but I'd still regard it as a movie because it was filmed as such.

Also, I sometimes find his voice insufferable, especially when he yells so loudly. I usually have to turn the volume down.

Oh, yeah, and his brother Stan is a bit of a moron!

 

[Base_Delta_Zero]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

Interestingly enough, even as a 6-year-old watching 2001, I realized that the film and its subject matter was a bit beyond conventions and it should be watched in a different light. The film was about how small man is, even after having evolved, compared to the scale of the universe. It might not make a good movie in the eyes of many, but no more than the fact that a musical makes no sense to me, or a Charlie Chapman film, but that does not mean it is inherently bad because it is different.

I think it is an interesting debate, and there are people who do care.

Hahahaha! Oh, wait, you're serious? Well, that is interesting that a six year old picked up on the deeper meaning of one of the most boring films ever made.

2010 was enjoyable. 2001, not so much. Both were movies, though, I'll give you that.

 

[bullethead]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I don't think Confused Matthew is as smart as he thinks he is...

Considering that he was utterly confounded by the idea that Naboo could have a queen while still being part of the Republic, it's safe to say that's true.

 

[RandyS]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

You guys are over-thinking this, Confused Matthew is nothing but a showman. He's not serious. If he was, why would he put down everything he reviews? Even when he likes something, he finds something to bitch about. That right there tells you he's not for real.

That being said, I saw his 2001 review the other night, and for the first time, I found myself in complete agreement with him.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I like his Star Wars prequel reviews, but completely disagree with many of his other reviews, like Star Trek: First Contact

What did he say about this movie? I don't want to go to the trouble of looking it up.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

You guys are over-thinking this, Confused Matthew is nothing but a showman. He's not serious. If he was, why would he put down everything he reviews? Even when he likes something, he finds something to bitch about. That right there tells you he's not for real.

That being said, I saw his 2001 review the other night, and for the first time, I found myself in complete agreement with him.

I wrote the following for a poster that couldn'y understand why 2001 is so heavily praised.

Surprised?
At a film that pleads with the audience to actually consider the great existential questions we face, such as why are we here and are we alone? At a film that doesn't spoon-feed any answers? at film that not only revolutionized sci fi but also horror? A film that actually depicted space as accurately as could be done at that time? A film that was surprisingly accurate in predicting what the moon's surface actually looked like?

You might not like the film. It might not have enough dialogue to keep you interested. It might not be edited like 'kick-ass' for people with microscopic attention spans. It might not feature any trendy music, or any cool one-liners. But are you really surprised as to why it is so highly regarded, or are you just trying to make yourself feel better for not being able to appreciate a different kind of film?

 

[crouteru]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I like his Star Wars prequel reviews, but completely disagree with many of his other reviews, like Star Trek: First Contact

What did he say about this movie? I don't want to go to the trouble of looking it up.

His biggest problems were that it felt like an episode of the series, the TNG characters had to act out of character to fit the storyline, Star Trek is not supposed to be an action franchise, and the Borg queen was a terrible villain.

Personally, I thought First Contact was the best TNG film, and perhaps one of the best trek films overall.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

not that anyone cares, but matthew has put part two of his 2010 review up.

I agree with much that he liked but I disagree that the emotional scenes were given the short shrift once Floyd left. They still use his letters home as a story-telling device but it was important to get to the sci-fi meat of the story. He compared it to Apollo 13, but that was a true event, this is not

 

[Set Harth]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

he is back, continuing with his tirade that, basically "a movie needs plot and characters to be a movie, otherwise it's not a movie" (which is a lot like me saying that a rock song needs a guitar solo to be a rock song despite the fact Rush's Vapor Trails goes on for over an hour without one at all.)

To make the analogy more accurate, you would need to be saying it in reference to a rock song that actually did have a guitar solo. This movie does in fact have plot and characters, like most films. It's a long-standing douchebag move to express one's dislike for a film by disingenuously and nonsensically claiming that it "had no plot". Ridiculous.

I like it as a visual spectacle, but there is no story in there

See above. You can't miss it. If you didn't like the story, just say that. Personal dislike of a story does not mean that the story fails to exist. There are exceptions, but it is rarely accurate to say that a movie "has no story".

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Re: so the Confused Matthew 2001 debacle continues, in a different for

I agree. I really do think the film has not only a story, but a great story, and a truly deep story, one that is shown and not "told". However, my analogy was for those who think that there is no story, or what story was there can be summed up in merely one sentence (although couldn't it be said that even the great traditional films have stories that can be summed up in one sentence; A cyborg is sent back from the future to kill the future mother of the resistance. A doctor falsely imprisoned for his wife's murder, escapes and leads his pursuers to the real perpetrators of the crime) but I will say that 2001 main goal is not to tell a story in the traditional sense, just like not all rock songs need to have a traditional structure to them.