2001: Can this end well?

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

So, here is how it happened:

Some time ago, Confused Matthew posted a negative review of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Here it is.

Then, a youtuber called Chase decided to call him on his review, with a nine part response.

You can see that here

I largely agree with him, save for small points, which are:
1) His opening was summarily accusatory, as he possibly sets up a straw-man or two here.
2.) His put-down of the LOTR films was unfair. The films have many of the same beats and same themes of the books, and for him to put down those films out of hand is to the same thing that he is accusing CM of doing with 2001. This is what I wrote to Chase (with no response yet) about this point:

You rightly criticize CM for saying that 2001 is about nothing, yet you commit the same fallacy regarding Lord of the Rings. I mean the books are very well respected, and, in addition to laying the ground rules for all fantasy that followed (this is true regardless of whether or not you like them) just as 2001 set the ground rules for science fiction, yet what is the story of books. A group walking to a volcano. Have you ever considered the obvious themes of the books and the films, themses like leaving the comfort of your home, self sacrifice, drug addiction (Golem), preserving of nature over industrialism, and the cost of war.

3.Chase spends a lot of time giving 6 reasons why Matthew failed in assigning meaning to Howard the Duck. However, Matthew was clearly being sarcastic. His point (which both you and I, as lovers of 2001 could disagree with) was that anyone can assign a random meaning to any film, and that's what he did with HtD. Try hard enough, and you can make anything seem profound. That's the point CM was making.

Now, the time has come for Matthew to respond, which he started doing here.

Of course, it's only the first part, the introduction, and it is here that Matthew calls Chase on all his Strawmen or potential straw-men.

However, once Chase gets deeper into the film itself, especially the points he makes in the final part of the response, will be more difficult for Matthew to respond to.

 

[JarodRussell]

I'm curious why I should give a damn about a bitch fight between two youtube hobby reviewers?

 

[iguana_tonante]

 

[RandyS]

I'm curious why I should give a damn about a bitch fight between two youtube hobby reviewers?

Particularly since Confused Matthew hates everything, including the stuff he likes.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, he is confused.

 

[Rii]

I'm curious why I should give a damn about a bitch fight between two youtube hobby reviewers?

 

[Teelie]

I've never really been able to watch 2001. Every time I try it just bored me to sleep, one time literally. I'll have to give it a try again sometime and have a coke or something caffienated to keep me awake until it's over. That's just my way of saying I think the movie is overrated but it's not fair given I haven't been able to stay awake watching it either.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

I'm confused. Who the hell is Matthew and why should we care about his idiotic ranting?

 

[Myasishchev]

CM's pretty cool. Chase needs to work on his screen presence and editing the fuck out of his opinions till they are a proper size (ten minutes).

I mean, I'll watch an hour and a half of (say) Spoony or Brad Jones complaining about something firsthand, but an hour and a half of some guy with no track record and no hook complaining about somebody else's opinion of something is... well, even my time is more valuable.

For a comparison, when Matthew disagrees with Roger Ebert (someone, with all respect to CM, possibly more worth citing just to disagree with), he disagrees for about sixty seconds, tops.

 

[Rii]

I've never really been able to watch 2001. Every time I try it just bored me to sleep, one time literally. I'll have to give it a try again sometime and have a coke or something caffienated to keep me awake until it's over. That's just my way of saying I think the movie is overrated but it's not fair given I haven't been able to stay awake watching it either.

I sat through a screening of Dr. Caligari last week. Longest 70 minute film ever.

 

[Kelthaz]

I don't like Confused Matthew as a reviewer, but I did enjoy his review of 2001. It wasn't perfect, but he touched on a lot of points that I agreed with. I found his review rather cathartic.

Anyway, I'm interested in Chase's response, but 90 minutes is fucking insane. I'll only put that much time into Spoony and RedLetterMedia.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I don't like Confused Matthew as a reviewer, but I did enjoy his review of 2001. It wasn't perfect, but he touched on a lot of points that I agreed with. I found his review rather cathartic.

Anyway, I'm interested in Chase's response, but 90 minutes is fucking insane. I'll only put that much time into Spoony and RedLetterMedia.

Well, I definitely think that you should watch Chase's review. At least watch the last, briefest part.
Indeed, despite a few careless statements that Chase made (which I mentioned above) Chase is largely on target, and has a far more of a good handle on what makes a great film. Compared to him Matthew is merely a child.

In other words, for those people who have no attention span for a film like 2001, I implore you to watch Chase's review. For those of you who think they can't get through a 90 minute review unless the narrator makes serial killer jokes, I implore you to watch Chase's review.

I was recently reading this article about the generation gap with regards to Inception, and it is interesting, because I believe it's true. But here's the thing: 2001 is historically a far more significant milestone in science fiction film making than any other film, and the divide between who likes it and who doesn't like it seems to be generational. I'm not saying it is, but it does seem to be. With some exceptions with open-minded viewers, many younger people don't have the attention span to stomach the film. I posted both reviews (Chase and Confused Matthew) because they, together, hit on both sides, why the film can be both hailed as great by some and yet completely dismissed by others, and the analysis by both reviewers touches on it. Interestingly enough, I was always fascinated with 2001, even as a small child. When it was on, I always knew that I was in the presence of a different kind of film, and that I would have to be in a different state of mind when watching it - it wasn't like the popping in Star Wars or some action movie, getting out the popcorn, and prepping myself for a good time. Yes, even as a kid, I knew that this film touched on something deeper. I might not have understood all the questions the film asked, I might not have been able answer many of it''s questions, but I was always intrigued by it. Every time I saw those apes simply touching the monolith to gain insight, I knew Kubrick was really touching on something that was profound. He didn't need dialogue to do it, either.

 

[JoeZhang]

who the fuck are these people?

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

youtube movie reviewers!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

and now it gets more interesting

 

[Mistral]

While I'm sure its a fascinating fight I engage in too many Internet squabbles to take the time to read and understand someone else's. Sorry.

 

[scotpens]

I've never really been able to watch 2001. Every time I try it just bored me to sleep, one time literally. I'll have to give it a try again sometime and have a coke or something caffienated to keep me awake until it's over. That's just my way of saying I think the movie is overrated but it's not fair given I haven't been able to stay awake watching it either.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're too young to have seen 2001 in a theater, on the big Cinerama screen, when it premiered in 1968. It was AWESOME.

 

[Char Aznable]

Why does anyone give a shit about what Confused Matthew thinks?

 

[RandyS]

Why does anyone give a shit about what Confused Matthew thinks?

Because he's funny.

 

[Set Harth]

I was recently reading this article about the generation gap with regards to Inception, and it is interesting, because I believe it's true.

Read the comments section below the article. It's full of people like me who can offer themselves as counterexamples to the article's premise.

In other words: it's not age.