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

First, I urge voters to judge the film on its own merits not on the fact that Stanley Kubrick was the director. A. My opponent’s arguments: 1. Major influence. The fact that the movie was a stepping stone to other, much better movies, is not, by itself enough reason to vote for 2001: ASO as “the greatest sci-fi film of all time. " Just because a brick is a stepping stone to making a building doesn’t mean that a brick is a greater accomplishment than Notre Dame or the Coliseum. Yes I guess you need 2001: ASO to make Blade Runner, but Blade Runner is still a better film. (BTW: I hardly think inspiring Kanye West is much to brag about…).2. Art. Art is a hard to define concept, but as Pro has not defined "art", I shall supply a definition: Art: “noun 1 [mass noun] the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power . . . ”[1] 2001: ASO may have a lot of beauty, but its slow pace detracts severely from its emotional power. It’s one of those movies that you can watch without your heart ever beginning to race or your emotions ever becoming that invested at all. It’s too brainy a film. One of the problems with 2001: ASO is that it gets lost in its own “artsyness”. There is only so much staring at stuff floating in space one can take before you need to hit the fast forward button. B. The weak points of 2001: A Space Odyssey: Despite the heaps of praise given to this movie, it suffers from many major flaws.1. Style over substance. This is a movie where “things looking cool” is more important than anything actually happening. This is a movie where the vast majority of time -nothing is happening-, nothing is being said, and nothing is being done. It’s, for the most part, a movie about nothing. You could fast forward through most of the movie without missing much. When parts of the plot are actually happening, they do so at a snail’s pace. Which leads to my next point.2. Slow pace. This is how the movie starts: First, the ridiculous landscape shots opening that takes forever. Landscapes, landscapes, landscapes, 1:45 seconds of landscapes… Then, Monkeys! Monkeys doing nothing… for a very long time, and then enter the monolith! And you would think “ok now this is it, now the movie is going to start! ” But what do you get? Stuff floating in space… a space station in space, a spaceship in space, 4 minutes of stuff in space. As noted earlier, even beautiful scenes stop being interesting when they last forever. There is only so much time a person can devote to staring at the sunrise.3. Lack of coherent plot for 1/3rd of the movie. 10 minutes into the film, the film plot hasn’t started yet. The actual plot starts 22 minutes and 42 seconds into the film when the guy explains that he’s headed for Clavius. Not a single line of dialogue in all that time. Then, after that, you’d think “ok 22 minutes into the film, the plot is definitely starting now…” but what do you get? More stuff floating in space! 7 more minutes of stuff floating in space… That little bit of plot development on the station? That was just a teaser! The whole plot is one character going from one place to another place. How much travel footage do you actually need to see? What movie or director today would get away with a 22 minute travel scene with no dialogue? 40 minutes of stuff floating in space later you finally find out about the cover-up on Clavius. 40 minutes! A third of the movie has basically gone by with no plot development at all. The vast majority of this movie is composed of unnecessary fat that would have been cut out of any other movie, but because it’s a Kubrick film, it’s a masterpiece.4. The movie is extremely boring and sleep inducing. How could the greatest Sci-Fi movie of all time be so incapable of inspiring even the slightest amount of interest for most of the film? The slow pacing, the snail’s pace of the plot and the constant views of stuff floating in space make for a very slow movie. The music in the background is perfect, for going to sleep as you are hypnotized by a spinning space station or the 20 minute psychedelic trip into the monolith.5. The movie fails to show what the world became and has aged poorly. It’s 2012… very little of the world of today actually resembles the world of 2001 ASO. It’s more of a quaint “look at how they thought the world would be like” piece. This is a movie that you couldn’t show a younger generation and expect most of them to actually remain interested in it past the first few minutes of landscapes and things floating in space.6. The movie lacks a compelling message. What is the message of 2001: ASO? That humanity is still in its infancy in the future world of 2001? That’s a message, but it’s not quite a very deep observation. C. Other films more deserving of the designation “the greatest Sci-Fi film ever. ” The following movies are more entertaining, written better and deliver their messages in a more coherent manner than 2001: A Space Odyssey. They are greater as defined by Pro. Metropolis (1927). Metropolis is a much older Sci-Fi film than 2001: ASO and yet it manages to have a tighter pace, better plot and to touch just as many important themes of the time, such as division of labor, government and the dangers of technology. In terms of influence, without movies like Metropolis, there would be no 2001: A Space Odyssey. And here at least, is a brick with some substance that is actually capable of entertaining its audience. Blade Runner. A dark movie touching on many of the major topics in science fiction, from environmental collapse, to overpopulation, to artificial intelligences running amok, to genetic engineering. This movie with Harrison Ford at the helm is extremely entertaining and considerably more engaging than 2001: ASO. Avatar. A fast paced, action packed movie with a hard hitting message disguised by millions of dollars of special effects. This is a movie that teaches as much as it entertains. It shows the harms of one culture imposing its will on another and of appreciating the simpler things in life. This is a film with enormous mass appeal and is executed brilliantly and it will probably outlast 2001: ASO in terms of what future generations will think of it. It will likely have greater impact. Star Wars Original Trilogy. The original SW trilogy is fun, exciting and a much better example of how to effectively use style over substance. Certainly greater in terms of the impact it has had on a generation of the world when compared to 2001: ASO. Thanks for reading my argument, and I urge voters to vote Con. [1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...