Originally posted by rparmar No doubt because it wasn't designed as a product. (No wonder people don't understand 2001 -- it wasn't selling anything!)
Your definition of product and mine differ, is all.
Quote: I hardly know where to begin.
If it didn't work for you as a movie, might I ask if it worked for you as something else? A religious experience? A discourse on food consumption? A technological demonstration?
Nope, didn't work as any of those things any more. Guess I used to many words for you. Is this better?
"It didn't work for me." Quote: (But perhaps all this would be better in another thread?)
Almost certainly, but frankly I can't be bothered to discuss it in another thread. It's more effort than the movie itself deserves. *removes tongue from cheek*
Can we simply agree that your opinion of it differs from mine, that we're both free people who are allowed to form our own opinions, and that we should just move on? It was a throwaway comment that I'm more than entitled to make, and I wasn't frankly expecting a diatribe in response to it.
Originally posted by jeff knight Robin, you are so right. I thank you for defending Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick.
So your assertion is that anybody who disagrees with you has ADD? Interesting debating style.
I submit that were you to sit through some of the movies I've watched (and greatly enjoyed), you wouldn't claim I had ADD.
And at this point, I consider the topic to be closed, folks. I won't be taking the bait and replying to any more off-topic rants about 2001 on this thread. I'm entitled to my opinion, and I'm not trying to ram it down your throats. Do me the same courtesy. End of.