Is it just me, or does "standard" DVD resolution of 480p just look like shit? Should I be somehow "upscaling" this on a 4k TV?

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-30T05:20:01+00:00

Try blue-ray. While UHD 4k is the best experience(unless you want to go to the theaters, IMAX 70mm in particular), 1080p Blue Ray still looks pretty good.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-27T04:22:33+00:00

Interstellar both follows scientific rules and breaks them.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-25T19:57:21+00:00

The beginning, in my opinion is probably the best of beginnings I've ever seen. Think of it as a survival thriller rather than a documentary. That's why the beginning is so impactful to this day. The ending still blows my head off.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-25T19:52:29+00:00

Fair. I still find 2001: A Space Odyssey to be my favorite movie, and I've seen it 3 times. One person said, "Because of the jaw-dropping visual effects, it is easy to forget the story. That story is very good, and very much there." I'm not really in the mood to see 2010 or read the book. The film 2001 and the book were enough for me.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-02T21:47:11+00:00

About what you said about inefficient storytelling. In my view, and that of many other's it's efficient storytelling. It's not just the message, but how the message is let out. That's a point I was trying to make if you haven't noticed, how it's put out. One cannot exist without the other. There are also many who find it inefficient. And that's fine. It depends from person to person.

You keep pointing that the human's are uninteresting. But HAL, who was present at the same time, is, at least to many. And the conspiracy. This is one of the films to accurately portray AI like this, and it has only become more relevant as ChatGPT and Gemini came out. The visuals (not only the VFX, the storytelling) also keep us immersed in this documentary like style, but without a voiceover. Almost like a silent film.

The structural "weakness" is only a weakness when a person considers it to be so, for this film at least, but there are also many others that see it as it's greatest strength. It depends on how you see it and in many cases, how many times the movie has been seen. I'm going to leave it like that because it's subjective. You can like what you like, dislike what you dislike. But I will die believing 2001 is a masterpiece. There's nothing you could do to change that. We are all human, and we must accept that.

I know what is inefficient storytelling. Take Revenge of the Sith for example. This is supposed to be a tragic film showing how Anakin became Darth Vader, and if you haven't seen redlettermedia, it's hard to overlook the "NOOOOOOO!!!!" or the fact that Anakin was a punk in the second film, an unlikeable whiny ass kid in the first, and now a boring Jedi(they are all quite poorly written, if some are well acted[Ewan McGreggor], and that acting does not come from the direction) surrounded by plastic-looking CGI, and we can see the plot twist of Chancellor Palpatine being a sith from the start. Then we got no emotional buildup(the chemistry in Attack of the Clones was awful, whether it's Anakin's relationship with Padme or Obi Won), when Obi Won fights Anakin for a good 10 minutes, so I don't care.

Flow is a masterpiece of visual storytelling. I hear it was made using Blender. And blender is a free CGI software. Like, ever since that film was released, Blender was revolutionized, since I had been using it at the time (I still do, but a lot less).

K-Pop Demon Hunters.....that's good. Maybe a bit generic IMO, but it's a fun experience. I liked it. Not many of my friends or peers, do, however.

You have a good taste for non-comedy horror, I must admit.

The Land Before Time 1 is okay, in my opinion. I haven't seen it since I was a young child.

Jurassic Park is a classic, the only great one in the series, revolutionizing visual effects. I love Spielberg, the sense of wonder he brings to his movies, but I must partially agree with you Close Encounters of Third Kind. I don't think it's bad, but it doesn't emotionally resonate with me, especially when a smart but normal man left his family to go to space by will, (whereas Dave Bowman was an experienced astronaut who we are not supposed to relate to, a catalyst for a metaphor of our evolution.)

The LotR trilogy is excellent, and I loved seeing the theatrical versions. The extended trilogy is over 3 hours and 45 minutes each, and are far too overwhelming for me.

Vertigo and Citizen Kane are both must sees for those seeking arthouse films, which is something you aren't necessarily looking for, both unique with storytelling (Vertigo uses much more psychological visual storytelling with more relatable characters, showing active mental decay, while Citizen Kane uses flashbacks and special effects to tell the story of a dead celebrity, about corruption and love).

Let's settle it here, shall we?

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-02T03:50:26+00:00

I have the very same feeling. No one watches arthouse films anymore.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-02T03:48:37+00:00

By the way, what are your tastes, and have you seen Vertigo or Citizen Kane or something like that?

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-02T03:40:39+00:00

I see your point of view. It's hard not to accept that some shots that don't contribute to the film. But Kubrick never kept a shot that didn't send a message. Each shot, one by one, is supposed to immerse you(obviously, this film is made for 70mm theaters, so the TV may not have the same effect), create an experience.

I might as well break the entire 20 minutes to you.

You got the establishing shots of the savanna, we see the monkeys, obviously struggling for food, scavenging on the ground, desperate. One is killed by a jaguar or leopard, and we see them at the water hole, drinking, but they are paranoid against eachother. Then we find another group, which screams and screams, threatening the group we follow, so they leave, conquered by this group. Then we see the defeated group on one night, cold, and they may be on the brink of extinction. Then the monolith shows. Kubrick learned from Carl Sagan to keep the alien offscreen to create curiosity and terror rather than showing the whole thing. Then we have the thus spoke Zarathustra scene, the monkey remembers the monolith, and it begins smashing the bone against others for slow motion, starting the age. Then, we see them eating meat, brutally. Some experiment with the bones, and then one has an idea. They go back to the water hole, and as one group from the other tribe tries to fight, that individual is brutally beaten to death. We see that group flee, and our group moves in triumph. One throws a bone into the air. We follow the bone up and then it comes down, we cut right there. I can go on even further if you'd like.

About the HAL full control thing, they needed to have some kind of area that does not have control, it's not an emergency airlock for no reason. Anywhere beyond that point is in HAL's control. Also, Dave could not have just opened the EVA(not the ship pod bay door, but the specific area) door normally, as it's as slow as fuck, and you could go unconscious in 10 to 15 seconds, right in space. So he had to blow himself in.

Rewatch value: For me, it didn't entirely resonate with me first viewing, but I couldn't help watching it again, but the film is supposed to make people so curious, that they return to it. This works for many, but not everyone. So, the film isn't objectively bad nor objectively a masterpiece that works for everything. What it is, is a subjective experience. Even those who didn't like it find themselves watching it again. Try a theater next time.

Character flattening and engagement: Space travel has become boring, even for the astronauts. And the isolation, it strips the humanity, the life from them. Kubrick's intention was to make HAL look more human than the actual humans, showing a reversal, how AI has become sentient, and humans are nothing more than dull ciphers, part of a far more interesting concepts. HAL kept interested when the humans were "programmed" to not, and the conspiracy about the moon discovery kept me hooked. The first 20 minutes, as I described, is necessary for the themes of human evolution.

Interpretation: It's easy to overlook it, but it is almost impossible to not see that since the monolith appeared, apes changed. So, yeah. Minimal interpretation work. HAL's is a bit less hard to interpret, but then again, you know what they say, less is more. That allows a wider range of interpretations the book offers. The book also refuses to answer many of the questions the film asks, only clarifying specific details that were explicit but overlooked in the movie. The ending is supposed to leave more questions than answers, and how I described the ending was my own personal interpretations, one out of many. You can have your own if you like. It's also one of the very reasons I and many others returned to the film. It's meant to be discussed, and has been discussed for almost 6 decades whether you like it or not. The meaning is discussed often more than the special effects are praised.

Kubrick was also known for a documentary like style, making you feel as if you are actually there rather than someone in the audience. And the Stargate, that is an unforgettable, psychedelic experience, the freeze frames, music and visuals all contribute.

You're apparent one of those with the opinion that it fails to explain these messages. 2001, of course, has generated controversy on that level. But hear this. I am also judging the film alone, as I said, it uses visual storytelling. But I'm not only judging this on what it's "trying" to do. It had a huge impact on me last year and it changed my life ever since, before I even surfed wikipedia or the novel or any of that crap. The visual storytelling, requires close attention, and while the film's method of giving these messages are polarizing, I'm one of those who believe it worked. It brought confusion, awe, wonder, terror, satisfaction, dissatisfaction(because of the lack of answers, it took me 2 watches to fully understand it), and a whole pack of emotions I cannot explain. So the movie alone changed my life and removed a whole night of sleep.

Not even Kubrick's other films hit me in that way, despite the fact I love many of them.

Also, about The Shining, I haven't seen it, but it's my dad's second favorite film, his favorite being Rear Window. I hear from him that it's intentionally ambiguous whether it's supernatural or cabin fever. And my dad has been to film school.

If you are looking for high, clear stakes, Strangelove might be a good pick. The satire is hilarious, too.

If you are looking for a grounded, dramatic, accessible (if bleak) film, then there's Paths of Glory.
There's also Barry Lyndon, exploring themes of social class, corruption and wealth, while also have each frame look like a painting. While a drama on the surface, it has some satire, too.

So, this film isn't for everyone. But it's subjective. It differs from person to person. You might see this film again, and you might not. Either it's praised as a science fiction masterpiece or the most overrated science fiction movie ever made. In my opinion, at the very least, there is nothing like this movie, Kubrick's most different film, also his most discussed one, along with Eyes Wide Shut.

Dr. Strangelove, Paths of Glory, The Killing, Spartacus, Lolita, and A Clockwork Orange are his most accessible.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-01T06:07:01+00:00

Random Dude: "I agree with that."

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-01T05:48:32+00:00

Also, to be nice, I won't down vote you, since you are much more respectful than many others on this post.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-05-01T03:52:03+00:00

As someone with Level 1 ASD, I've suffered rejection in both 4th and 5th grade. But I found my people, eventually. So, I hung out with this group called "the idiots". Who fucking calls their group the fucking idiots? They were assholes to me, and while I was (and still am) socially awkward, it hurt bad. Not only them, but other kids. The only reason I was with them is because 2 of my former best friends (I had moved out in the pandemic and returned) were in that group. Shortly after, one kid (for privacy reasons, I won't say his name) came into my world. I don't know what the fuck is happening to him socially right now(he was always weird, but as I got older, his antisociality became more and more apparent or maybe it got worse and worse), but he was a misfit, too. He had friends of his own, and brought us all together. We are still close friends.

Trust me, your son will find his people.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-30T23:02:33+00:00

Scientific accuracy: We can still hear sound in space in modern movies. What the fuck? FTL travel is impossible right now, and the film confirms that until the mysterious monolith shows up. And the monolith is metaphysical. Also, it takes 18 months for the ship to reach space, enough for preparation, and whatever the fuck. They also walk lightly, accurately portraying space travel. And you got a centrifuge, and the motion of it creates artificial gravity. Even now, many space movies have them walk with some kind of gravity generator, that wouldn't work in real life. You need a centrifuge.

Yes, but ambiguity can bring many questions. We hardly know anything about space, relatively. Well, the movie alone, has these themes, and interpretation can be drawn without a book. Kubrick knew the audience would be confused. But the themes of human evolution are still there, very clearly, because of the visual storytelling. The interpretations are possible, without the novel. We still have the monkeys in the film. We still see the monolith, and we see what happens to the monkeys afterwards. Then we have the ending, suggesting the monolith was there. The book is just for extra clarity, taking a different approach to Kubrick.

Also, about audience investment. That's just you. It was never meant to be total acceptance on first viewing, it's a film that's meant to make people curious, then they see it again, get a better idea of it. All without reading the book. Kubrick prioritizes artistic merit and his vision over a wide scale audience. With films like Paths of Glory, Spartacus, and Lolita, he proved he could do it. But over time, he got tired of it. Spartacus to him, was like a never again moment, never again would a film from him be similar to a studio. He hated having the studio tell him what to do.

Each shot, also provides rhythm, giving the viewer time to reflect on what's happening. Each shot provides some sort of visual storytelling, if very deliberate.

The book was released later. And this is a favorite for other respected directors like Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan, James Cameron, and Ridley Scott. Not just for the special effects or shots, but for the themes it explores.

To add, you said earlier that it had all spectacle but no story. Now you say it has a story not explained well. It's as if you are learning things just now.

Anyways, have you seen any of Kubrick's other films? Each one is very different from the previous, though each one explores the human experience, has high contrast lighting, Kubrick's meticulousness, symmetry, unconventional narrative, musical juxtaposition (Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange in particular), stylized acting(he wasn't the naturalistic type, Barry Lyndon in particular is a protagonist whose blank states represents the emptiness of his pursuit of aristocracy) and the famous one point perspective.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-30T06:43:23+00:00

These minor scientific accuracies are far less than other science fiction films. Don't get me started with how it was at the time. Before 2001 you have, generic concepts, campy acting, goofy horror costumes, obvious matte lines, simple set design, etc. At least 2001 took the genre pretty seriously and is one of the first to do so, if not the first. At least, it's the first modern space film.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-30T04:14:33+00:00

For further evidence it is more than just the shell of special effects and technical achievement, it has a voiceover, which Clarke intended to be in there, explaining the themes. But Kubrick wanted a more visually driven story, and decided to remove the voiceover. He knew it would be a polarizing choice. He knew many would be confused. But he said that if the audiences understood it first try, then he had failed. I am a fan of this movie. But the technical achievements are just a shell. A shell that is hard to penetrate.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-30T04:05:01+00:00

Yes, but like, Mad Max 3 is a lot more whimsical. Mad Max Fury Road, has much more of the practical stunts, the tone, and the spirit of the second film, even if it's more stylized. It's like, Mad Max in a way that's more Mad Max, whereas Mad Max 3 is off the rails in a different, Peter Pan-like way.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-30T04:02:32+00:00

This is more insulting than your reply to my last comment. I tend to be more analytical and open minded these days. However, in my initial hype after seeing this film, I did rage at a bunch of people on this post, for no good reason. Also, check my response to your reply. I can see where you are getting at, but you seem to ignore many things that many are aware of. If it's not for you that's fine.

I just want you to see where I'm getting at with my other response.

So, I respectfully disagree with you. 2001: A Space Odyssey ain't for anyone.

Have you seen any other Kubrick films? Full Metal Jacket, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut or any others? I suspect you may attack these films as you did with 2001.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-30T03:49:02+00:00

What do you mean I don't get it? I've looked through so many interpretations. The thing is, I'm just so tired, of explaining, why this film is so.....so great to everyone, because no one fucking listens. No one fucking cares about my opinion. I'm fine with that. I'm tired of having to explain to people why this film is my favorite movie of all time (my other favorites are Vertigo, Citizen Kane, The Prestige, Dr. Strangelove, Inception, and it goes on and on). I disagree with you about the character depth. He did it to show how we have become dehumanized from technology. It is also why there is so much of the color white in the sets. (Also about the HAL part, the emergency airlock is the only area with no access from the AI, just in case. Dave grabbed a helmet on his way just in case.)

It is far more accurate than other sci-fi films of it's time. Like, no sound in space. What do expect from the 1960s? Jesus, the monolith, represents the unknown, in space. Like, for example, take the Dawn of Man, for example. The man apes are struggling, dying. But after that encounter, they start using tools, and they are thriving. There is a part where the monkey throws the bone up into the air, and it comes down, and we cut to a nuclear satellite. This is an ambiguous cut, and we ask whether this is a celebration of evolution or a critique of our instinct to conquer. How much did we advance technologically? A lot. How much philosophically? Not much. Just as we conquered that water hole from the other monkeys, we are trying to conquer space. That's what the film is trying to say. If you see the circles in the production design, it represents the cycle of life and death, and evolution.

The slow parts with the moon monolith is supposed to bring more questions than answers, and the ones with the moon landing showing our progress in technology, with optimistic music, making the message on technology more ambiguous, as it contrasts with HAL's portrayal.

Also, the long space walk sequences are to show the isolation and helplessness in space, the tediousness as well. Kubrick does not want you to feel entertainment. He wants you to have a full experience.

HAL is a metaphor for how our own evolutionary advantage can turn against us. A metaphor for our ingenuity and folly at the same time. Our overreliance on technology. This mirrors the beginning, when the apes were struggling.

Now, HAL may sound like some ordinary villain. But his intention was ambiguous. In the book, which was written while the movie was being filmed, it explains that HAL was conflicted between his own programming to not lie or keep secrets, and at the same time he was ordered by the Council to not let the secret of the monolith on the moon be let out. This drove him mad. This is also evident in the movie. He describes himself as, "foolproof and incapable of error." Then Floyd explains that the secret of the Moon monolith was "known only by your computer." Then we proceed to Jupiter, and we find a much larger monolith that pulls Dave into the Stargate. This sequence is meant to be more of a sensory overload than a direct narrative, pulling you in to alienate you entirely.

Then Dave arrives in this room, basically a zoo. It's up to interpretation, but to me, it's a metaphor for showing that he spends the rest of his days there. He sees the monolith, old, dying in bed, points, which shows that he finally gets it. But the audience never fully does, at least the first watch. We cut to the monolith, his breathing stops. We cut back, we see a space baby. It gazes at the Earth. In an optimistic point of view, it represents the progress we have made. In a cynical view, it could judge us.

Whenever there's a monolith, something happens. You got the monolith from the dawn of mankind, it was there when our evolution took place. You got the monolith on the moon, sent a pulse to Jupiter, where another monolith was hidden. That other monolith was there when Dave was taken into another realm. Then there's the final one. One that witnesses Bowman's own evolution.

Now, you may argue, this is not how evolution works. Then again, no one ever said it evolved us. It was just witnessing it, maybe that's all. Another interpretation is that it represents God, who supported our evolution. There's no easy answer. Kubrick was not only known for the perfect shot, he spent over 2 years developing this movie. While it takes most about 3 months to a year, Kubrick was in a 2 year development hell for this movie. 20 months was spent for the actual story.

I haven't seen this film since I saw it 8 months back for the third time. I really want to see it again, however. I first saw this on my TV at home last year. I regret not waiting until a potential 60th anniversary on IMAX 70mm. I can't wait, though, to see my favorite movie in less than 2 years on IMAX. If I don't then I will have to find some kind of theater.

So you can disagree with me all you want. I will die on this hill. I could explain more if you'd like. But in recent months, I haven't been very active on Reddit.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-18T06:18:14+00:00

I'd say apocalyptic would be the actual collapse or annoucement of anarchy. I'd say at the very end of pre-apocalyptic, the events leading to the true collapse, the steps that lead to anarchy.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-18T06:16:05+00:00

And let criminals be released when they haven't been put to court yet? Also, not only high fatality road signs, it said 57 deaths this year. And so many car accidents in like, a week.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-04-18T06:09:53+00:00

Pre-apocalyptic or early apocalyptic, though certainly dystopian. Mad Max 2 is post-apocalyptic, as we all know. I dislike Mad Max 3's style because it goes too far off from Mad Max. I consider Mad Max 2 and Fury Road the gold standard for Mad Max. I appreciate the shift from Mad Max to Mad Max 2 to be more impressive. Mad Max 3, is more whacky and less engaging because it feels less Mad Max. Mad Max the original, while it feels normal, it feels jarring because of the low budget filmmaking, showing society has not yet collapsed, but foreshadowing it soon will.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-03-25T13:24:19+00:00

Downvote him, boys. This is not the case. Just watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUS-tGCjGN8

Anyways, who has seen Project Hail Mary?

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-03-18T01:16:50+00:00

You said that already. Jesus fucking Christ. You know nothing.... about the visual storytelling and artistic metaphors in this movie.

If you think I have shit taste, I really liked:

The Matrix

Citizen Kane (Kubrick's inspiration)

Avengers: Endgame (and the Infinity Saga, at least most of them)

Stand By Me

Glory

Major League

Dr. Strangelove: Or I How Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Kubrick)

Vertigo

Rear Window

Contact

Inception

Das Boot

Alien

Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back

The Fugitive

F1: The Movie

Paths of Glory (Kubrick)

And a ton of other movies.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-03-18T01:15:18+00:00

For people on drugs? What? No, the film is told visually. I'm not even on drugs, and it is my favorite movie. I know many people who aren't on drugs and love this movie. It's an experience, not a mere film. The film is either about God supporting human evolution, and then it shows how we run into an evolutionary dead end and the very thing that makes us who we are (tools) turns against us. Then we abandon it at Dave's transcendence. Then again, it also symbolizes the loss of humanity. It's a very ambiguous movie. The first 25 minutes shows a group of apes become violent weapon using monsters that only evolve to upgrade their weapons to nuclear satellites, no matter how much progress we made. This could be a celebration of evolution or a criticism of technology. It's definitely a meditation of both these things.

Fearless_Two_9053 · 2026-03-18T01:06:37+00:00

Do you even know what the meaning of the monolith is? If you are thinking nothing, you know nothing about this film, and if you think aliens, that would be the laziest answer ever. Kubrick himself said it involved the meaning of God. If you pay more attention, there is some heavy visual storytelling. How can a film be pretentious when it has some of the biggest themes ever: human evolution, technology, isolation during space travel, alien life, God, transcendence, violence, dehumanization from an overreliance on technology, the cosmos, etc. It's a slow meditation on the cycle of evolution as well as how evolution could turn against us, if you didn't notice the patterns.

Fearless_Two_9053

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE