> You do know that in the case of 2001, the movie and book were done simultaneously, right? There’s no failure of adaptation because it wasn’t one. It makes no sense to fault the movie by comparing with the book in this case.
Yes, I know that. I don't see how it makes it a nonsensical comparison though. One form was done well, the other incompetently. It's not like they marketed it as "hey, you really need both for the full experience".
>> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
> Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later?
To convey something in the audio/visual format. It doesn't get more basic. Whether that's for pure entertainment, artistic intent, whatever.
> There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
Neither is there anything saying that you're safe from criticism if your work isn't coherent either. There was a very clear, coherent story to 2001, and Kubrick failed to convey it.
Yes, I know that. I don't see how it makes it a nonsensical comparison though. One form was done well, the other incompetently. It's not like they marketed it as "hey, you really need both for the full experience".
>> He failed at the _one thing_ a film is supposed to do.
> Which is what? Entertain? Make a profit? Be culturally relevant to an extent that is still felt decades later?
To convey something in the audio/visual format. It doesn't get more basic. Whether that's for pure entertainment, artistic intent, whatever.
> There is no rule which says a movie has to be a coherent linear story that spoon feeds you to be significant, good, or artistically relevant.
Neither is there anything saying that you're safe from criticism if your work isn't coherent either. There was a very clear, coherent story to 2001, and Kubrick failed to convey it.