Quote Originally Posted by Auricauricle
"Special effects", as you correctly point, out can mar an otherwise good film and should not be the primary vehicle of a film (unless its a movie where they are ostensibly used for that purpose). Kubrick's use of such in 2001 was adjunctive. While folks can deride some of the shots that look rather contrived or dated, I think that more lenient critics will point out that Kubric was using the best brush available at the time to paint a story that is timeless (thanks Arthur Clarke!) and a movie that, by virtue of that story and presenting it in his uncanny and inimitable way, is a classic that can rest safely alongside the Mona Lisa, Les Miserables and other works that please and astound us even to this day.
There is the rub for movies. While the book by Arthur Clarke will/may stand the test of time, the movie however will not. As time goes on, the effects will continue to detract from the film. My children, and certainly their children will look back and think "what a silly old film, look at how goofy the effects are". The reason is exactly because it is a film based on "technology".

I'm not suggesting that the film itself isn't good. But unfortunatly, the medium itself will not stand the test of time.

That is exactly why other works of art DO stand the test of time. As much as life marches on and improves, a piano and a violin are....well, still a piano and a violin. Great works of art (paintings) are still painted on canvas with either watercolors, or oil paints.

That is exactly why they are great. Because the tools and methods are essentially the same. We can't say today's violins are "better" because they are not. Stratavarious anyone? The music is timless.

Film is dated.