2001: A Space Odyssey vs. Star Wars

Okay I admit, I goofed big time. I could have sworn I've seen Star Wars at 100% last time I checked. I swear to God. I notice that one of the negative reviews were from last year too.

Still doesn't change what I said before though.

Oh well, at least you admit it this time.

:sadfroge: 

Mecha wrote:

Jack the Spectre wrote:

Mecha wrote:

Why is it a better film? Because it's more artsy or something?

Star Wars clearly has better SFX, score, and characters.

The visual effects in 2001 were far more groundbreaking. The score is debatable, I don't think either score is absolutely mindblowing but I will say that 2001's is FAR less hokey, and as for characters, I don't think any villain can beat HAL 9000, not even Darth Vader.

lol, nope. The SFX were far more groundbreaking in Star Wars. Even the wide variety of aliens looked amazing. While in 2001, you can obviously tell that the apes were just guys in costumes. Also hokey? The score in Star Wars was more consistent and actually fit with the tone of the film. As for HAL being a better character than Darth Vader, HA! Darth Vader is listed at #3 on AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains. While HAL is at #13.

You're isolating tiny aspects of the visuals. Given what Kubrick had to work with, the way he staged some of the scenes in 2001 makes it far more impressive (also the fact that Kubrick worked on the effects almost singlehandedly as opposed to the team that worked on SW). Also the AFI lists are garbage because they a) only mainly consider Hollywood films and b) only consider American movies. So I really don't take their opinion without a grain of salt.

Star Wars is entertainment. 2001 is art.

Jack the Spectre wrote:

Mecha wrote:

Jack the Spectre wrote:

Mecha wrote:

Why is it a better film? Because it's more artsy or something?

Star Wars clearly has better SFX, score, and characters.

The visual effects in 2001 were far more groundbreaking. The score is debatable, I don't think either score is absolutely mindblowing but I will say that 2001's is FAR less hokey, and as for characters, I don't think any villain can beat HAL 9000, not even Darth Vader.

lol, nope. The SFX were far more groundbreaking in Star Wars. Even the wide variety of aliens looked amazing. While in 2001, you can obviously tell that the apes were just guys in costumes. Also hokey? The score in Star Wars was more consistent and actually fit with the tone of the film. As for HAL being a better character than Darth Vader, HA! Darth Vader is listed at #3 on AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains. While HAL is at #13.

You're isolating tiny aspects of the visuals. Given what Kubrick had to work with, the way he staged some of the scenes in 2001 makes it far more impressive. Also the AFI lists are garbage because they a) only mainly consider Hollywood films and b) only consider American movies. So I really don't take their opinion without a grain of salt.

Star Wars is entertainment. 2001 is art.

Of course they only accept American films. They're called American Film Institute for a reason.

So just because Star Wars isn't high art like 2001, that makes it less of a film? Bullshit! Star Wars has made more of an impact and opened the imaginations of millions everywhere. Even inspiring directors like James Cameron and Peter Jackson to get into filmmaking. The only reason you think 2001 is a better film is because it's more of an art film. That's it. You're willing to put aside something that impacted you when you were younger for art, instead of thinking for yourself. Don't get me wrong, 2001 is truly a great film, but it doesn't come close to the personal experience I had with Star Wars. The fact that you thought 2001 was a better film immediately after watching either means you put aside films you enjoy most for art, or you just don't have a childhood. If you like 2001 better, then cool. But saying it's a better film because it's high art is a bullshit reason.

As for the visuals, it not about the big set pieces. It's about the creativity of creating these visual effects, and Star Wars has a lot of that.

This is bait, you cannot be this fucking dumb Mecha.
"well 2001 is a better movie, but I liked Star Wars when I was a kid and had a great personal experience, so Star Wars is better even though I said 2001 was better"

I never said 2001 was a better movie. Learn to read.

Star Wars. Hands down IMO. While I will not deny that 2001 is a fantastic movie and that the impact that it had on movies as a whole cannot be understated, that doesn't change the fact that the film is just very slow, and very boring at times.

So what if Star Wars had an impact on me as a kid? That means absolutely nothing to me. I'm unaffected by nostalgia.

This isn't really about nostalgia. If you really like 2001 better than Star Wars, then fine. I respect that. But don't be ashamed of liking a blockbuster more than high art film.

I'm not. I genuinely think 2001 is better. I may ENJOY Star Wars more, but I find 2001 to be more beautiful and intellectually stimulating.

Star Wars, because it's Star Wars.

2001, easily.