2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest Sci-Fi film ever.

The difficulty of debating against highly acclaimed movies. Now, the problem with taking on a work of art that is generally considered a masterpiece is that there is a societal pressure to conform to the judgment that this work “cannot” be criticized, that it “cannot” be disliked. If such a work is disliked by someone, it is the most common argument that it is because the person “doesn’t get the deeper meanings of the work. ” It’s a move that shuts down conversation and closes all possible avenues of debate. However, if one looks at a film or a work of art objectively, it should be able to stand on its own merits, and not on this pressure to conform to the idea that the work is a great work of art. When one goes to other “greatest” works of art, one is not left wondering whether the work is the greatest, one is hit over the head completely with the very strong impression that such a work is a truly great work. Despite some of the technical achievements of 2001: ASO, Pro must concede that there is much to criticize about the film. In fact Pro concedes several points about the datedness of the film and the fact that the film has an extremely slow pace. For example, if one were to look at the Sistine Chapel, or the David, or Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia one can clearly see these works are at the apex of their respective fields. No one would fall asleep a few minutes after arriving at the Sistine Chapel… yet when watching 2001: ASO it is quite literally possible that a large percentage of watchers may actually physically fall asleep in their chairs. If other great works of art can be enjoyed why are people falling asleep why can’t 2001: ASO be enjoyed in the same way. On the meaning and message of 2001: ASO. Pro attempts to gloss over the shortcomings of the film by arguing for deeper meanings and symbolism… and true there are highly symbolic moments in the film. But there are also a tremendous number of scenes in this film that do not have any symbolic meaning at all. There are gratuitous special effects scenes lasting 20 minutes or more where no real deeper meaning is being explored. It’s just Kubrick showing off his amazing space station visuals, floating shuttles or psychedelic effects. What is the symbolism behind the spinning station? It must be really deep, because the viewer just wasted 20 minutes of his life looking at it. Just because allusions to Nietzsche are thrown around doesn’t mean 2001: ASO is the greatest sci-fi film of all time when it fails so much on the visceral end (plus the whole socialist theory of the superman is junk philosophy at best, especially now that every fascist and communist government has either failed, fallen or become full blown capitalist in all but name). The whole cathedral of long winded, nonsense, unsupported, far right and far left theories that dominated the pre-war and cold war eras is completely outdated by now, and should have been painfully dated by the time of 2001: ASO. 2001: A Space Odyssey is the Finnegan’s Wake (James Joyce) of Sci-Fi films. It’s a work of art yes, it’s probably something your teacher would assign out of spite, and it’s probably the one you’d put down and just go with the synopsis. It’s long, complex and hard to get through. It’s the kind of work that mostly appeals to hard-core art critics and philosophy graduate students. Consider the medium being used. Pro talks about the modern audience being incapable of enjoying the slow pace of the film, and compares the film to a book. Now putting aside the fact that there are still quite a large number of books sold and read every year in this country, the comparison to a book goes right to the heart of what is wrong with 2001: ASO. Let’s say the first 1/3 of a the Fellowship of the Ring book by JRR Tolkien was done in the same way as the first 1/3 of A Space Odyssey. By that I mean that you had really awesome descriptions of Frodo travelling from one place to another… without dialogue… for 192 pages. Just trees, forests, lakes, mountains, all described in painful detail, for 192 pages. Would you feel like you were reading the greatest work in its genre? No… you would probably quit around page 40 at most and put the book away, forever. Even if it had some really cool symbolic stuff going on in middle of the book. It’s one thing to ask for patience from your audience but it’s an entirely different thing to ask them to just stand by for plot development for a third of the work. Even the gigantic John Galt Speech that lasts 70 pages from Atlas Shrugged isn’t as hard to get through as that first third of 2001: ASO. Is 2001: ASO the greatest Sci-Fi film of all time? There are many ways in which this argument could fail, as all that needs to happen is for one film to edge out 2001: ASO as best for the argument to become invalid. This is the problem with absolute statements; they are very hard to prove absolutely. Let’s look at more movie options for those who were unconvinced from round 2: Inception. Just an amazing piece of work that makes you want to watch it over and over again just to figure out what the heck is going on. This is a film with symbolism that doesn’t get bogged down in its own artsyness. It succeeds viscerally as well as intellectually, something that 2001: ASO fails to do. District 9. District 9, is a pretty freaking awesome movie that touches on some difficult racial themes punctuated by highly awesome special effects on par with any other sci-fi movie. Also, one of my personal favorites. The Matrix (the first one…). A great reality twisting film, with visuals just as amazing for their time as those of 2001: ASO. Aliens. An incredibly dark film about the potential horrors of space. Really fun to watch. Highly influential on subsequent works. Ghost in the Shell. Ditto. The Watchmen. The Watchmen film also has plenty of allusions to Nietzsche to appease Pro since that seems to be the major redeeming quality of 2001: ASO for him. But it manages to have them without getting bogged down in long drawn out scenes of nothing. Some other Pro points from round 2… Metropolis. Alright HG Wells didn’t like it, but he also thought it was plagiarized from his work. [1] The majority of film critics are quite positive; with a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (2001: ASO only managed a 96% rating). Ebert on metropolis "[g]enerally considered the first great science-fiction film, ``Metropolis' (1926) fixed for the rest of the century the image of a futuristic city as a hell of scientific progress and human despair. "[2] It’s kind of shocking that a silent film could be more engaging than a 1960s film with full color and sound, but there you have it. Blade Runner. Pro asked which version of Blade Runner I meant… I meant the 1982 Ridley Scott/Harrison Ford version… I’m not sure which other versions Pro thought I meant. This is a great film that strongly contends for the top spot against 2001: ASO. Avatar. Avatar has very strong, over the top, special effects, but they are there to convey a strong message of tolerance and understanding. It’s a film that preaches a counter-cultural message to a mass audience that is camouflaged with visual effects. One final note, on Transformers. Pro does an excellent job arguing against Transformers, a film which I did not raise in my round and which I did not propose was better than 2001: ASO. Is it truly that great an achievement that 2001: ASO is better than Transformers? This argument by Pro is straw man at best (though the Transformers films are still easier to sit through than 2001: ASO…). Conclusion: Just one of these films being better than Space Odyssey is all it would take for Pro to lose the argument. I urge voters to consider these movies well before making their vote. Please vote Con! [1] . http://erkelzaar.tsudao.com.... [2] . http://rogerebert.suntimes.com....