Posts by Richard Howard2

driftingeagle27 said:Some folks—if you'll excuse my bluntness—might find this movie utterly unwatchable. I won't argue with them. However, to be fair to Clarke, we really ought to sort out the chronology here, shouldn't we? As far as I can tell, the order went something like this:

2001 book and film released concurrently
2010 book, and only then the film
afterward, just the books

To follow up on that: the subsequent books are 2061 and 3001. I haven't touched the second or third. Does anyone happen to know what those are?

Personally, I find 2001 to be an excellent film. I love revisiting it; it possesses such a superb atmosphere and a sophisticated, serious sense of SF that seems to have vanished from modern cinema. Nowadays, everything feels like pure naivety, and frankly, it’s exhausting.

Oh, when will we finally see a proper new space opera again?!!

BTW, would anyone agree that 2001 is the greatest film ever made?

Jacob Flores76 said:The first one isn't bad, obviously, but the second one (2010) might be the biggest pile of garbage I've ever laid eyes on. Just a total dump. A horrific movie...

First off, the very concept of filming a sequel to something like Odyssey is madness for several reasons. The film simply DOES NOT NEED a sequel. Plus, there's no Kubrick, which brings up that point again—that even Clarke's work won't be presented in the same way it was in the original film (let's just say it's quite different from the book...)

Secondly, the actual idea behind this movie is... ugh.

........

For starters, the core premise of the film actually stays true to the book.

Second, why is the movie itself bad? I mean, setting aside the fact that its mere existence feels like an insult to the original...

I just finished rewatching 2010: The Second Odyssey on DVD, after quite a few years away from it.

Here is what I am actually grappling with: I want to know how you all view the fact that the original film wasn't even meant to have a sequel, yet this follow-up manages to stay true to the book while operating under a completely different concept.

So, we have this contradiction: the movie isn't really a continuation of the Odyssey, but then again, it isn't bad either. So, where does that leave us? This question has been weighing on my mind for a while now.

(Just please, spare me the immediate conclusion that the film is absolute garbage on its own merits...🙂)

It is common knowledge that Vangelis composed the vast majority of his repertoire specifically for film scores, largely because in this day and age, that sort of music can only truly survive within such mediums. However, he wasn't composing to serve as mere elevator background noise meant to fill a void—that is entirely beside the point. We are discussing instrumental music here. In our current era, all instrumentalists are essentially condemned to a similar fate. The fact that his work might end up playing in a lobby isn't a metric of its actual worth, regardless of what some of you might mistakenly believe.

Do you honestly expect him to be fighting for space on the top charts in the United Kingdom or the United States, competing head-to-head against J. Lo, Christina Aguilera, and the rest of them?

Daniel Bailey7 said:I guess... since you don't have anything intelligent to say anyway...

On the contrary, I do have something intelligent to say (I’ve said it before, and I will certainly say it again):

1. This forum isn't a place for discussing electronics, which is perfectly fine in itself.

2. However, when an electronics topic does happen to slip through, it usually results in nothing but mindless bashing, which is also not okay.

3. The vitriol directed at electronics reaches such heights that people are personally insulted—their tastes labeled "stupid" or their intelligence questioned—which is absolutely unacceptable.

There is zero tolerance or empathy here; it's just constant sniping. Does any actual discussion occur on this platform? I wouldn't go so far as to say yes.

And now, for the final insult: after everything I have attempted to articulate, all I receive is the comment: "I guess... since you don't have anything intelligent to say anyway."

Did any of my points actually penetrate your consciousness, Daniel Bailey7?

funky said:Hey guys, anyone here struggling with some unpaid bills? 😁

Hardly. This whole thing is just a one-sided dispute on his part. It isn't polite to be rude, but honestly, how am I supposed to make him understand that...

I didn't exactly expect you to have the nerve to actually say it.

The two of us both know damn well you were hoping for it, even if nothing came of it...

feralgardener502 said:Now listen closely to me, you unrefined little brat.
Up until this point, I have maintained a relatively civil demeanor within this thread—with the possible exception of my opening post—but I can certainly tolerate a certain level of initial irritation.

Oh no, I’ve gone and offended the Almighty...🙄

If you were actually someone capable of holding a rational discussion, there might be something worth saying, but I know you aren't. Therefore, I won't even bother attempting to prove a point or offer a rebuttal to you. Just keep hurling insults left and right; I already know exactly what kind of person you are, and frankly, engaging with you is a pointless waste of my time.

So, farewell, you hotheaded nuisance...🙂

Blue Eyes said:Well, obviously, since Jeunet directed both films... his style is unmistakable.

Yeah, just like with Alien: Resurrection. 😁 😁 😁

I used to be impressed by Amelia, but I'm not anymore.

I did a little digging beneath the surface and realized it's just saccharine overindulgence—it feels like the whole movie was designed solely to manipulate the viewer's emotions rather than actually convey any profound meaning. Sure, there's some substance there, but excessive sentimentality is still excessive, much like Lord of the Rings...

Ha, well, I guess you people didn't realize that nowadays, those mindless blockbusters are what everyone considers "the best," right?

feralgardener502,

Your previous statement was so incredibly foolish and utterly baseless—just a complete lack of insight and basic understanding—that I honestly doubt any comment of mine could actually help you...

As far as I'm concerned, you win. I’d just prefer not to have to read your posts anymore...

feralgardener502 said:Take Vangelis, for instance. To my mind, he holds more interest than any other artist out there.

What exactly is it about his work that captures your attention?

And conversely, what is it that fails to interest you? I believe I stated quite clearly earlier that we ought not to be debating such matters...

Daniel Bailey7 said:Well, I suppose so... 🙄

😘

😘

Daniel Bailey7 said:And don't call me "honey"... we aren't exactly on those terms. 😠 😁

And here I was, thinking we were friends:

you clearly have absolutely zero understanding of music

🙂

feralgardener502 said:Look, let's be clear.
Whether I chime in or not is one thing, but by dragging Vangelis and Jarre into this specific conversation, you’ve essentially missed the entire point.

The reality is that both Jarre and Vangelis are, to put it bluntly, boring. If there were a death penalty for musical crimes against taste, those two would be first on the list.

[Fine, I’ll concede... Vangelis might deserve twenty years of hard labor in some freezing Alaskan prison camp. He occasionally manages a decent melody here and there, unlike Jarre, who isn't even worth the contempt.]

Vangelis is actually more interesting to me than any other performer.

By that logic, Pink Floyd and Radiohead are also "boring"—just a bunch of dead men walking. And if I really wanted to get personal about what counts as boring, we could talk about Metallica, Nirvana, Tricky, or even Mozart and Bach. Honestly... really now...

Whether someone finds an artist tedious or not shouldn't even be up for debate...

Daniel Bailey7 said:hmmm... we've already picked apart Vangelis and Jarre, but what is that pathetic attempt by Oldfield to hang around with the "electronic crowd"? (not that he shouldn't have been laid to rest ages ago, 🙂 )

it's clear you've completely lost your grip on musical reality 😁😁 😁

and what about the modern classics? maybe Moby, Sash!, or that Italian fellow... oh right, Robert Miles 😁😁😁

Vangelis is only just now, after thirty years, showing a total lack of inspiration. Oldfield was only ever decent during his initial Tubular Bells phase, and Jarre was only relevant during his first Oxygen era.

Classics like Moby, Sash!, and Robert Miles?

Modern classics? There is no such thing as a modern classic, darling...

And I have absolutely no desire to even dignify those names with a comment...

feralgardener502 said:"For instance, I could arguably call Vangelis the Mozart of the Classical Era, or rather, the Mozart of electronic music."

Yeah, right.
And Yanni is basically Bach.

Bach. Bachahah. Bwachahcahcahcahhac.

Give it a rest.

Vangelis and Jarre are just tedious, self-indulgent hacks who built their entire careers on maybe two and a half decent melodies. It’s frankly pathetic if you actually consider them—along with all that pompous New Age nonsense—to be representative examples of electronic composers.

Of that lot, even though he’s the most saccharine, my favorite is Yanni.

Go listen to what Stockhausen and Schaeffer were doing fifty years ago, then think about that again...

Oh, look who finally decided to show up....🙄

All we need now is one more statement from you to complete the full picture of this entire thread...

Are you referring to naturalism, or am I misinterpreting something? I’m not particularly well-versed in that particular subject matter.

driftingowl27 said:Without getting bogged down in any heavy theoretical debates, I just want to pose a question: Would you actually enjoy watching American films that are nothing but misery porn? You know—stories filled with poverty, social outcasts, people living on the absolute fringes of society, combined with rampant debauchery and drug abuse... just relentlessly bleak, heavy, dark, and emotionally devastating?
If yes, why?
If no, why not?

But isn't that exactly what we watch in American cinema all the time? 😁 😁 😁

I mean, honestly, aren't most movies being made these days exactly like that?

It is high time we wrap this thread up and return to our usual programming on this forum, devoid of any electronic influence... just as we have grown accustomed to. We have thoroughly exhausted the subject at hand. To be blunt, electronic music does not belong here. Please ensure all content that falls outside the realms of metal and rock is removed, as this remains, fundamentally, a Music forum.

Frank Howard79 vomits:
🙂

Thanks for the enlightenment, oh great musical guru. 🙏 🙄