Triggers cinemaphiles to hear a director that’s supposed to be ome of the finest being called incompetent, but I can’t see how it’s defendable. He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case.
> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later?
There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
Yes, I know that. I don't see how it makes it a nonsensical comparison though. One form was done well, the other incompetently. It's not like they marketed it as "hey, you really need both for the full experience".
>> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
> Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later?
To convey something in the audio/visual format. It doesn't get more basic. Whether that's for pure entertainment, artistic intent, whatever.
> There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
Neither is there anything saying that you're safe from criticism if your work isn't coherent either. There was a very clear, coherent story to 2001, and Kubrick failed to convey it.
Perhaps the key here is what YOU don't see, not the merit of the film.
2001 was ranked the 6th greatest movie of all time in the Sight and Sound poll, which is probably the world's most respected poll of industry professionals.
And it was ranked #1 by their poll of directors: https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/directors-100-greates...
Could it possibly be that these directors know something you don't?
For my own part, it's been my favorite movie since I first saw it in 1968 and I've probably seen it 20 times since then.
I’m not sure I understand your position. He’s a bad filmmaker because you preferred the book’s ending?
P.S. I've seen the movie countless times (never high), and sometimes I'll put it on as simply moving wallpaper.