2001: A Space Odyssey has been restored

[Destor]

Originally Posted by Seanny One Ball Have you got a list of directors you can cross reference that claim with? I'm sure you're confusing inspiration with source here. That's a hell of a claim to make and much harder for you to prove than for me to disprove. The burden would be on you.

For starters thats a poor attempt at semantics:

source
sôrs/Submit
noun
1.
a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained.
"mackerel is a good source of fish oil"
synonyms: origin, birthplace, spring, fountainhead, fount, starting point, ground zero; More
verb
1.
obtain from a particular source.

in·spire
inˈspī(ə)r/Submit
verb
1.
fill (someone) with the urge or ability to do or feel something, especially to do something creative.

These are clearly interchangeable terms and its a fools errands to argue any different.

Now with that said i hope you didnt think that would be a challenging challenge. This is the most inspirational film not called star wars. Like giving candy to a baby:

Steven Spielberg called it his film generation's "big bang." In other words a film so influential that it birthed the the entire universe of thought for the genre.

Lucas says it was "hugely inspirational", labeling Kubrick as "the filmmaker's filmmaker". And of course no Star Wars...what does scifi even look like? Thats all thanks to 2001.

Sydney Pollack refers to it as "groundbreaking" course groundbreaking iimplies nothing came before that did what it did.

William Friedkin states 2001 is "the grandfather of all such films". Grandfather of course is a colloquialosm used to describe what came first.

Ridley Scott stated he believed 2001 was the unbeatable film that in a sense killed the science fiction genre. Which is to say that the film is the absolute mecca. Dwarfing everything before or after it.

Film critic and film historian Michel Ciment wrote: "Kubrick has conceived a film which in one stroke has made the whole science fiction cinema obsolete."

And furthermore its not that script that people praise it for. Its the oustanding cinematography, its exceptional use of score (possibly the best of all time,) and it stunning visuals (nothing comes close prior.)

So if you judge a film by a single metric (monologues and dialogues make two i suppose) then yeah this might not be for you.

But its excellence exists outside of your appreciation.

[Seanny One Ball]

Originally Posted by Destor So if you judge a film by a single metric (monologues and dialogues make two i suppose) then yeah this might not be for you. But its excellence exists outside of your appreciation.

I just prefer films with a bit of substance to the script.
I'm not knocking anybody that likes it when directors put a big scrolling roll of beautiful imagery on the screen with virtually no audio storytelling. I just don't particularly like it.

Slik made a thread about a film you love and I happen not to love it.
Your reaction is very insecure. I imagined you were made of sturdier stuff, Destor.