this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
108 points (99.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43948 readers
740 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
2001 is divisive. I love that movie, but I know so many people that find it insufferably slow.
I think it's just too "spacious" for lack of a better term. It only presents the bare minimum in plot and focuses almost entirely on the cinematography. But just think about it in the context of 1968. This was during the height of the space race, and the film explores the core concept: what is the destiny of humanity and where did we come from? It's so fucking massive in scope that the only way to do it justice is to just give the viewer space to digest.
As such it asks a lot from the viewer to fill in the gaps and use the film as more of a meditation than a passive viewing experience.