The film really has little to nothing to say, and it’s not just the dialogue. What little it does say is not coherent. How can a film contradict itself so many times? Humanity and human innovation is a result of alien intervention which by the way, was ridiculous and cliche even in 1968. So at the end why is there the…

I’ve actually watched this film 3 times. Each time forcing myself to stay awake. I dislike the film even more now.

Objectivity in film is limited at best. This is not a discussion of technique, but of the narrative itself. Some people liked A Space Odyssey some people did not. This has been the case since 1968. My gripe is how can a film that got mixed reception now be presented as a masterpiece? This is media hype and outright…

My criticisms are criticisms that were stated right after people saw this film in 1968. I am stating nothing new or even controversial for that matter.

Huh? People have been calling this film terrible since 1968 when it was released. I’m stating nothing new.

I see why you had to invoke marvel which was completely irrelevant, in your attempt to defend a dated and terrible film. Fanboys are terrible.

2001 is not abstract at all. It is the simplest and most solid narrative ever. The black obelisk affects life transforming it because... uh... “let’s just watch these space craft and uhhh isn’t this a nice light show, isn’t it profound?..”

A Jodorowsky movie is not a typical movie. His films are also not boring or incoherent either. 2001 is not nearly the weirdest or unconventional movie released in that time period. 2001 A Space Odyssey definitely had a story. It also definitively had a beginning middle and end. All of it boring and incoherent.

Someone finally made that boring film into something somewhat watchable. The film is so boring and incoherent that I probably still wouldn’t watch it again, even with the neat filter.

The progress of civilization at work.

I just wanted to let you know that this is one of the worst articles you have ever written. Why do you peddle this transhumanist technobabble? Is it because you get paid to? If that’s the case I understand, but if you really believe this stuff I hope you understand that we are currently living the years that futurists…

In 2089 some publication is going to release another headline stating fusion is just another couple of decades away.

Yeah more “diversity” in the energy sector might actually help instead of all the white males and asians using tech from the energy sector to continue to create weapons of mass destruction. Do any of you really think considering the history and culture of white males that hypothetically speaking if this nuclear fusion…

Nuclear fusion power is just another energy myth. It is impossible and will forever remain impossible to contain such energy at stable temperatures let alone stable pressures to power cities which are, and here’s the kicker are completely unsustainable. We’ll have nuclear fusion right around the time we all upload our…

I don’t get how someone can look at this and become depressed or dismayed. It’s amazing, the scale is almost preposterous, almost as if someone or something, or someones or somethings, have conspired to keep lifeforms isolated to their local space forcing them to deal with the issues on the world they inhabit.

You might as well ask why do we have nations in the first place? Meanwhile the earth has no borders. If we can’t solve that simple terran, human problem, we can all forget about any space travel that is rational and sane, let alone cost effective. It seems no one is in any rush to solve the nationalism problem anytime…

What do you mean by “true AI”? Does that imply there is something called “false AI”? The very fact that AI fanatics can’t even keep consistent with the rhetoric they use already makes the whole idea of “AI” suspect. Not to mention the very problem of “AI” being impossible because no one even knows what “NI”(natural…

“Wrong. You can’t even know that. Actually, there are studies that conclude that even the observable/observed part of the universe might not have the same laws, same cosmological constants everywhere.”

“The burden of proof lies on you, who made the explicit statement that nowhere in the universe has metal ever became sentient. If you can’t prove that (which obviously would require total knowledge of all the universe and its history, which you obviously don’t posses”

Most of Dvorsky’s articles are only macabre comedy. “Survive the destruction of our universe”? Not only is this question absurd and nonsensical, because according to physics nothing is created or destroyed, but no matter how many times you were able to jump from one universe to death or rather entropy is physical law,…