XPost: rec.arts.movies.current-films   
   From: neverland@GOODEVEca.net   
      
   In article ,   
   moviePig   wrote:   
   >On 8/11/2019 4:04 PM, Pete wrote:   
   >> In article ,   
   >> In fact, I wouldn't label 2001 pretentious.  Yes, it was obscure   
   >> in parts -- to some people more than others -- but Kubrick was aiming   
   >> out further than most filmmakers, and to me he succeeded.   
   >>   
   >I can accept 2001 as perhaps pretentious based solely on the opening   
   >credits wherein one of the head-slamming Zarathustra chords bangs "A   
   >Stanley Kubrick Film" onto the screen.  (It's pretty flagrant.)   
   >However, I'm also aware that the movie contains a great deal of wry   
   >humor, of which that may have been only the first instance.   
   >   
   >Extemporizing 'pretentious' as a presenter's unwitting exaggeration of   
   >his offering's importance, I'll admit that Kubrick probably thought his   
   >movie profoundly important ...but then so did I.  (And I'd argue that   
   >only the middle act was sci-fi.)   
      
   Hey -- *none* of it was "sci-fi"!  That's a horrible convenience word only   
   used by the ignorant messes... (:-))  *I* would argue though that *all*   
   of it was Science Fiction (or SF, if you prefer).  The first section was   
   definitely an 'SF' take on prehistory, and the last was maybe more   
   "unknown science", but still falls into the genre for me.   
      
   	-- Pete --   
      
   [OK, I know the word is in the thread subject, but still...]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)