PDA

View Full Version : 2010 vs 2001



The Saint
2006-Feb-03, 09:41 PM
Just saw 2010.

No comparison with 2001.

No menace, poorer special effects, poorer models, even much poorer computer screen displays, poorer acting, poorer plot, poorer science eg the noise of Discovery's engines in space, unlike the total silence of the original. There's 16 years between the films. How do you explain such a decline?

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-03, 09:54 PM
Dunno. Were the directors different?

Dragon Star
2006-Feb-03, 09:56 PM
:rofl:

Lonewulf, that nearly gave me a heartattack....

Oops, never mind that....

I never saw the movies, so I wouldn't know. Probably to save money.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-03, 09:57 PM
For the record, I edited my post. While funny, I was informed it was pushing the line. For those that don't know what I posted originally: Good.

Dragon Star
2006-Feb-03, 09:58 PM
For the record, I edited my post. While funny, I was informed it was pushing the line. For those that don't know what I posted originally: Good.

Yea, thats why I striked it, no worries.(it was funny though) :shifty:

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-03, 10:00 PM
2010:

Directed by
Peter Hyams

2001:

Directed by
Stanley Kubrick

Manchurian Taikonaut
2006-Feb-03, 10:02 PM
better people worked on 2001 space odyssey : screenplay Arthur C. Clarke, directed by Stanley Kubrick


plus after 2001 a heap of other sci-fi came out such as Omega Man, Dark star, Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Logan's Run, Ridley Scott's Alien, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind

By the time 2010 came out in 84 it was already difficult to live up to other epic science fiction dramas

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-03, 10:06 PM
I wouldn't necessarily place all of the blame on the director. Who picked him, in the first place?... Who decided on 2010's budget?...

But another reason was that you just can't match a film like Kubrick's 2001. It was simply one of a kind.

01101001
2006-Feb-03, 10:26 PM
I wouldn't necessarily place all of the blame on the director. Who picked him, in the first place?... Who decided on 2010's budget?...


The producer.

Hire Kubrick, and you get an artist -- Spartacus, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket.

Hire Hyams, and you get a moviemaker -- Capricorn One, Outland, Timecop, The Presidio, End of Days.

Doodler
2006-Feb-03, 10:31 PM
I wouldn't necessarily place all of the blame on the director. Who picked him, in the first place?... Who decided on 2010's budget?...

But another reason was that you just can't match a film like Kubrick's 2001. It was simply one of a kind.


I'm sorry, but 2001 sucked, badly...you could delaminate your teeth by falling asleep with your mouth open in front of the screen it sucked so hard.

Aside from the "lets all drop acid for the grand finale" finish, there was so little momentum to the filmography itself that events from the 1999 segment to the 2001 segment seemed like someone had cut the heart out of the story, leaving a disjointed splicing of two completely separate films.

And this isn't the only movie that Kubrik did that felt like it was filmed with all the air sucked out of the room. Kubrik couldn't even film an orgy, who's uncut version was NC-17, with enough interest to keep a horndog like me from falling asleep. (see Eyes Wide Shut)

Say what you will about 2010's special effects budget, the story, the characters and the acting were an order of magnitude more human than the first one. If I can forgive Red Dwarf and Doctor Who for providing honest entertainment on near zero special effects budgets, I can forgive 2010 for the same reason.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-03, 10:33 PM
I liked Eyes Wide Shut. We just have different taste. :)

jt-3d
2006-Feb-03, 10:37 PM
While I don't share Doodler's passion about the subject, I too liked 2010 better than 2001. 2001 is a bit slow but the space part getting up to the moon was pretty cool. 2010 just has more action in it. I guess that's why I prefer it. John Lithgow's heavy breathing was a bit much though.

01101001
2006-Feb-03, 11:35 PM
I'm sorry, but 2001 sucked, badly...you could delaminate your teeth by falling asleep with your mouth open in front of the screen it sucked so hard.
And, of course, your opinion is the only one that matters and therefore 2001 is rank and nobody should have liked it.

SkepticJ
2006-Feb-03, 11:48 PM
No menace, poorer special effects, poorer models, even much poorer computer screen displays, poorer acting, poorer plot, poorer science eg the noise of Discovery's engines in space, unlike the total silence of the original. There's 16 years between the films. How do you explain such a decline?

How about when Jupiter was hungy? How about The Monolith killing, or at least turning a guy into a "god"?
I don't think so. Some of the stuff in 2001 was drawn, drawn! It shows to, badly. I love 2001, but they really should have only used models.
No, first time actual computer effects were shown. The graphics for the first film, mentally accept it or not, were drawn animations. Yep, they fooled me too, until I did some research on them.
I think the acting is great.
Plot has more going on, and didn't bore me a bit.
Yeah, that's one of the few things I don't like about the film, they should have cut the sound out of it.
I don't think it's a decline, save for the sound in space bit.
I like them both. 2001 is better, but, in my opinion, they're both good.

Charly
2006-Feb-03, 11:53 PM
No, he is right. 2001 sucked [Removed].

2010 is better on almost every level.

Anyone who judges how good a film is based on engine noise in space needs serious help.

2001 is just a series of breathtaking model shots and documentry level acting. There is no real story to speak of. No plot. Its the ultimate student film. So throughly pretentious, as are the fanboys who declare it a masterpiece.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-04, 12:12 AM
How about when Jupiter was hungy? How about The Monolith killing, or at least turning a guy into a "god"?
I don't think so.
I liked both films. I just happen to think that 2001 is much, much better than the sequel.

Wolverine
2006-Feb-04, 01:38 AM
No, he is right. 2001 sucked [Removed].

Please watch your language, Charly.

3. Language

No cursing. This goes along with being polite. This website is read by a lot of kids, including young school kids who want to learn about astronomy, space, and space exploration. The Universe is a marvelous place, full of beauty and wonder, and if you despoil it by using bad language you will quickly invoke the ire of the administrators and moderators. Think of the language used on TV during an after-school special and you'll get the idea.

Huevos Grandes
2006-Feb-04, 02:44 AM
I liked Eyes Wide Shut. We just have different taste. :)

Sicko.




Just kidding ;)

Doodler
2006-Feb-04, 03:07 AM
And, of course, your opinion is the only one that matters and therefore 2001 is rank and nobody should have liked it.

Just putting my .02 in the pool. Take it however you want.

01101001
2006-Feb-04, 04:08 AM
Just putting my .02 in the pool. Take it however you want.
Taken with all the respect it deserves.

Well, it's a science board. How about some persuasive argument, using facts instead of assertions.

Do it like Charly's cogent analysis, except leave out the foul language and ad hominem. Oops. That leaves nothing. Uh, well, you know what I mean.

Perhaps, just realize that when it comes to art, it's chacun à son goût and your goût doesn't mean my goût is wrong.

Reasonable: I didn't like it. My reasons are these...

Unreasonable: It sucked, badly.

The Saint
2006-Feb-04, 06:34 AM
The music made 2001. It was made before the moon landing, the actors moved like real astronauts, speech was terse and clipped as it was in those eras, before humanity became over wordy, aping soap operas like "Dallas", "Dynasty" and "The Bi-ch!

The zero-g effects were v.good. Even Hal's voice and dialogue was better in 2001. It's murdering of the sleeping crew, without any sound, movement, acting or dialogue is one of the most dramatic moments in cinema! But how were the graphics on the computer monitors (eg when the Pan Am shuttle joins the space station) so much better in 2001 than in 2010? Did the computer chip even exist in 1967 when it was filmed?

Romanus
2006-Feb-04, 07:50 AM
I love 'em both, and feel a one-to-one comparison is unfair; they're completely different movies, with different aims and cinematic contexts. To paraphrase a teacher of mine, said originally in relation to art styles: Sometimes I'm in the mood for Chinese, and other times, Mexican.

SkepticJ
2006-Feb-04, 08:33 AM
But how were the graphics on the computer monitors (eg when the Pan Am shuttle joins the space station) so much better in 2001 than in 2010? Did the computer chip even exist in 1967 when it was filmed?

Because they were drawn animation, not computer graphics, as I already said. Yes, computer chips existed in the 60s, they just weren't powerful enough to render simple computer graphics in times scales less than decades.

The Saint
2006-Feb-04, 08:49 AM
All the over-moralising, overdone Russian accents, plus Helen Mirren didn't help 2010. There were barely any women in 2001.Even the bit part Soviet Leonard Rossiter towered. The model of Discovery was 50' long!

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-04, 11:38 AM
I like Helen Mirren. Roy Scheider was who I thought overacted is some places. But he had the leading role.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-04, 03:36 PM
I wouldn't necessarily place all of the blame on the director. Who picked him, in the first place?... Who decided on 2010's budget?...

But another reason was that you just can't match a film like Kubrick's 2001. It was simply one of a kind.

Who said I'm putting the blame on anyone? In my opinion, 2001 was okay (though I was a little young to really understand it, and I would have to see it again to really get a lot of it), and 2010 was pretty darn good in a lot of the issues brought up.

But nonetheless, you have two different directors. Two different directors means two different directing styles. By definition, someone out there is going to like one, and not the other (and someone out there is going to have the reverse opinion; and someone else is going to like both; and someone else is not going to like both).

The styles are different. Simple as that.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-04, 04:13 PM
Ah, I hadn't realised your opinion about the films (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=672636&postcount=2) was different from The Saint's opinion (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=672621&postcount=1).

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-04, 04:45 PM
Ah, I hadn't realised your opinion about the films (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=672636&postcount=2) was different from The Saint's opinion (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=672621&postcount=1).

I figured. S'why I posted an explanation.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-04, 05:14 PM
Since you had already figured I might have misunderstood your post due to the ambiguous context in which it was made, it would have been nice if you had used a less outraged tone in your explanation.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-04, 05:17 PM
Since you had already figured I might have misunderstood your post due to the ambiguous context in which it was made, it would have been nice if you had used a less outraged tone in your explanation.

Okay, first of all, I admit I'm an emotional person and it really shows in the forum (too many times to count), and I need to work on that.

But why do you detect an "outraged tone" in my explanation? I wasn't really angry when I posted it, and I'm not angry now.

I was just pointing out that I wasn't putting the blame on directors, or anyone. I thought the styles were different. I went further to simply explain why I posted up about the different directors, which was more in responce to the OT ("Why were the two movies different/why was one different than the other").

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-04, 05:21 PM
This sentence, written right after a quote of my first post, seemed a little outraged to me:


Who said I'm putting the blame on anyone?Please note: 'outraged', not 'angry'.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-04, 05:52 PM
Please note: 'outraged', not 'angry'.

"outraged" has always meant "worse than angry" to me.

From Dictionary.com:


tr.v. out·raged, out·rag·ing, out·rag·es

1. To offend grossly against (standards of decency or morality); commit an outrage on.
2. To produce anger or resentment in: Incompetence outraged him. See Synonyms at offend.

Whenever I heard "outrage" or "outraged" used, it's always meant something a little more than simply being "angry". For instance, an outraged swordsman is much more likely to commit murder than a simply angry swordsman. Anyways, all of that is more or less irrelevant.

What is relevant is that I wasn't outraged and I wasn't angry, and I'm still not.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-04, 05:58 PM
I used the word in the sense of "offended", which I tend to regard as a milder emotion than anger.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-04, 06:04 PM
I used the word in the sense of "offended", which I tend to regard as a milder emotion than anger.

It doesn't seem to be used that way in vernacular use. So there was a bit of miscommunication. Anyways, I don't want to derail the thread with this, so this'll be my last post on the issue. :)

soylentgreen
2006-Feb-04, 06:46 PM
This sentence, written right after a quote of my first post, seemed a little outraged to me:

Please note: 'outraged', not 'angry'.

It doesn't seem to be used that way in vernacular use. So there was a bit of miscommunication. Anyways, I don't want to derail the thread with this, so this'll be my last post on the issue. :)

Well, if nothing else, you gentlemen have given this thread a microcosmic example of one of the points the filmmakers of 2010 were trying to make. ;)

2010 has human beings at its core, as opposed to the sterile observational style of 2001. The sequel was able to reach a wider audience by doing that. Two sides of the same coin, I've always thought.

The film was made when tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were at their worst in years. It's only natural for that to be reflected in the films from that moment.

Sure, the "can't we all just get along?" message seems a bit heavy-handed today, but Reagan's administration was no less heavy-handed in it's tenor when dealing with the russians. When the people who should be looking out for our collective welfare start addressing nuclear war by saying "dig a hole, get some doors to lay over it, pile up dirt on top...and with enough shovels, everyone will make it." ( :eek: ) it's time to ease up on the subtlety.

I think they captured the ideological madness of the time quite well in 2010. While not as "serious" as some would like, it still told a cracking good tale with a nice appeal to reason. Plus it's always great to see Helen Mirren. It's also nice to see Keir Dullea again(aside from the Law & Order episode last week, he just doesn't seem to do much lately...a shame.). The final scenes between Bowman and Floyd and Bowman and H.A.L are quite moving...I'm a grown man and I'll admit it :o !

Grand_Lunar
2006-Feb-04, 09:15 PM
I own both of these films. Each has their high points and low points.

2001's main faults are the pacing (though not too bad at all parts. The approach and landing on the moon still seems long to me) and some of the appearences, mostly for the Earth. The appearence of the lunar surface is dated (it's not sharp as depicted, but, well look at Apollo photos and compare the two), as is Jupiter.
However, the scene from lunar orbit is really great. It looks like what I've seen in my telescope...without the light pollution of course!
And the look of Jupiter itself is strikingly similar to images from the Pioneer probes. At least, IMO.
I watched the film a couple of nights ago, and noticed one thing. Or rather, a feeling. During the scenes of Discovery's approach to Jupiter, there is an erie ambience created from the music as well as the tension of what might happen. It's quite a feeling to get with such a depiction of a planet I feel I am familar with!

I liked 2010's protrayl of Jupiter and Io. Europa's appearence is dated, now that we've gotten a closer look with Galileo.
One low point for my (given that's its a sequal of '2001) is the whole sound in space routine. If someone was going to alter the film, THAT aspect should go!
Also, there's that Cold War theme about it. While noble, it's small in comparison to the theme in 2001; the theme of where humanity is heading.

I've done some thinking about your comment, The Saint. From what I recall, in '2001' there are at least nine women present (that are modern humans anyway, since I'm not going to try and guess at the man-apes): the three Russian women (all whom are doctors), the stewardess on the space plane, the one in the elevator, the one at the desk, the two stewardess on the lunar lander, and two at the meeting that Floyd attends at Clavius.

In 2010, we have Floyd's wife, Tanya (the Leonov's CO), Irina (the one that holds onto Floyd during the aerobraking), Jessie Bowman, Betty, and two hospital nurses (one with the group talking about Jessie Bowman, the other at the desk). Seven altogether. Eight if you want to count SAL-9000.
Perhaps you should've checked your numbers.


Its the ultimate student film.

I'd love to see a student film that can replicate what was done in '2001'.
It is FAR above any student film. The meanings are hidden, and the ambience it creates is exempalary (sorry if I spell that wrong).

As someone once said, the aims of '2001' and '2010' were different.

Also recall that when Clarke and Kubrick made '2001', there was no intention of a sequal. Clarke wrote '2010' only after the Voyager missions revealed Jupiter's true nature.

Dave Mitsky
2006-Feb-04, 09:32 PM
I liked Eyes Wide Shut. We just have different taste. :)

It was a complete and utter disappointment to me.

Dave Mitsky

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-04, 09:36 PM
I suppose I had an advantage in that I had no special expectations before I saw it.

odin
2006-Feb-05, 06:06 PM
The monkey intro in 2001 went on to long but apart from the it was very good, in my top 5 fave films. 2010 was ok, Helen Mirren was great. I wish they would make films from the 2061 and 3001 books.

Inferno
2006-Feb-05, 11:29 PM
I love both films but for completely different reasons. 2001 is a great cinemtatic piece of art. It's one of those movies that must be seen on the big screen to truely appreciate it. 2010 on the other hand is more of a traditional movie, with more chracters and story. It's one of the most underrated sequels IMO.

In the end I prefer 2001, but we are talking about Stanley Kubrick here, a movie maker genius if there ever was one.

Charly
2006-Feb-05, 11:55 PM
Hmmm, I still hold up my original argument that 2001 had almost no plot.

Monkeys - obelisk
moon - obelisk
Flight to Jupiter
Computer goes mad
Computer kills crew
Dave kills computer
Dave drops acid

Did I leave anything out?

These may all be momentus occasions, but have no context. They have so little meaning that they could mean anything at all.

This is why the fiilm fails to entertain for me. Its very artistic. In fact it spends a little too much time showing off.

The music is great, and fits well with what is on screen. But muic with nice images does not constitute a great film. No is it great entertainment because there is no sound in space.

Inferno
2006-Feb-06, 01:00 AM
Interesting that you think it has "so little meaning". Personally I've always found 2001 full of meaning and ideas. So much there to contemplate, both during the film and long after it's ended.

There may have been little plot, but there were still layers upon layers. But I don't hate people who don't like it. I didn't like it much to begin with either. But I've come to love it.

soylentgreen
2006-Feb-06, 03:23 AM
Personally I've always found 2001 full of meaning and ideas. I didn't like it much to begin with either. But I've come to love it.

Same here for me, Inferno. Over many years, with intellectual and emotional growth, I've "grown into" it...and it's precise impact on me has "evolved".

Interestingly, as he's shown in his other films, I think that was Kubrick's plan for 2001 from the beginning. The idea of him consciously making a film that you simply liked or didn't like in one, or even a few, viewings just doesn't make sense. Even his earliest films bear out his willingness to create something that might forsake instant gratification(his wallet or your mind ;) ) for a more long term reward. Just my feelings, though.


ps. As the original has grown on me over the years, the gulf between it and 2010 has diminished as well.

Inferno
2006-Feb-06, 04:51 AM
Kubrick was notorious for making films people either loved or hated. Right up until the end with Eyes Wide Shut he managed to split audiences.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-06, 06:49 AM
Well, let's test that. Does anyone here hate (or know anyone who hates) Dr. Strangelove?

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-06, 11:41 AM
Well, let's test that. Does anyone here hate (or know anyone who hates) Dr. Strangelove?

My mom likes it.

I've never seen it.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-06, 12:48 PM
I watched the film a couple of nights ago, and noticed one thing. Or rather, a feeling. During the scenes of Discovery's approach to Jupiter, there is an erie ambience created from the music as well as the tension of what might happen. It's quite a feeling to get with such a depiction of a planet I feel I am familar with!That's one of my favorite parts in the film, because it depicts so well the vastness of space. The Discovery, which looks like a big ship in previous scenes, feels like an insect amid the moons of Jupiter.


Interesting that you think it has "so little meaning". Personally I've always found 2001 full of meaning and ideas. So much there to contemplate, both during the film and long after it's ended.

There may have been little plot, but there were still layers upon layers. But I don't hate people who don't like it. I didn't like it much to begin with either. But I've come to love it.Same here. 2001 has lots of meaning, and (contrary to some reviews I've read) a plot, too. But you have to look for them. They aren't just handed down to you on a platter. We are too used to films which hand us down all the information on a platter.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-06, 05:26 PM
I've never seen it.

Gah! What? You should. It is perhaps the funniest film ever made. And the humour is smart, not like the drek we get today.

Of course, that's my opinion. ;)

Doodler
2006-Feb-06, 06:08 PM
Taken with all the respect it deserves.



Well, it's a science board. How about some persuasive argument, using facts instead of assertions.



Do it like Charly's cogent analysis, except leave out the foul language and ad hominem. Oops. That leaves nothing. Uh, well, you know what I mean.



Perhaps, just realize that when it comes to art, it's chacun à son goût and your goût doesn't mean my goût is wrong.



Reasonable: I didn't like it. My reasons are these...



Unreasonable: It sucked, badly.



Fair enough. The one, single, solitary thing about 2001 that makes it completely unwatchable is the incredibly plodding pace of the story. I can respect the attempt to mimick an actual spaceflight operation, but the overarching feeling of the movie left me with one underlying theme "Get one with it!!". Kubrick and Clarke are both notorious plodders in their stories, Kubrick on film, Clarke in print. To be fair, I like some of the material that both of them have created separately. I liked 2063 and 3001 (Here I admit freely I have never read the first two. Feel free to throw old vegetables at me :)) , even though the lingering problem was evident in them, and Full Metal Jacket was the best of the flurry of Viet Nam movies out within a couple years of each other (Hamburger Hill and Platoon being the others). I just think 2001 was a synergy of their shared plodding style that combine to create the only science fiction movie I cannot watch beginning to end without falling asleep on.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-06, 07:04 PM
Kubrick and Clarke are both notorious plodders in their stories, Kubrick on film, Clarke in print. To be fair, I like some of the material that both of them have created separately. I liked 2063 and 3001 (Here I admit freely I have never read the first two. Feel free to throw old vegetables at me :)) But then what makes you describe Clarke as a plodder?

Another question: how many times did you watch 2001?

Doodler
2006-Feb-06, 07:25 PM
But then what makes you describe Clarke as a plodder?

Another question: how many times did you watch 2001?

Clark tends to dwell on a particular nit, and pick it to death. 3001's constant revisitation of Deism and Theism is probably the most blatant. I understand he's not an action writer, so maybe its just a bit of adrenaline junkie-ism from me. But even the Rama books just seemed to drag out the "dead space" between points where the story would progress. In some cases, like Rama, these served to weave a very descriptive picture of life on the ship. In 2063, his descriptions of events from the Halley landing to the Galaxy's unexpected sailing cruise on Europa's ocean, were more of an anchor that dragged on the story that just filled pages between chapters dealing with the real story.

Doodler
2006-Feb-06, 07:27 PM
Oh, and to date, my record with 2001 1/.5/.75/.75. I did actually make it through the first time, the .75s are right about the time the lightshow starts.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-06, 09:04 PM
3001's constant revisitation of Deism and Theism is probably the most blatant. I understand he's not an action writer, so maybe its just a bit of adrenaline junkie-ism from me. But even the Rama books just seemed to drag out the "dead space" between points where the story would progress. In some cases, like Rama, these served to weave a very descriptive picture of life on the ship. In 2063, his descriptions of events from the Halley landing to the Galaxy's unexpected sailing cruise on Europa's ocean, were more of an anchor that dragged on the story that just filled pages between chapters dealing with the real story.His earlier novels were better written, including (IMO) 2001, 2010, and Rendezvous with Rama. I place the Rama sequels in a different category, because they seem to reflect Gentry Lee's writing style more than Clarke's.


Oh, and to date, my record with 2001 1/.5/.75/.75. I did actually make it through the first time, the .75s are right about the time the lightshow starts.I can understand why you might not like the light show, although I find it beautiful. :D
I asked the question because, the first time I watched 2001, it felt too drawn out to me, too. But, the second time around, it flowed quite nicely. And, when I rewatch it nowadays, I sometimes find myself wishing it would last longer...
I think our mind needs some time to adjust to the pace of 2001, because it doesn't follow the usual conventions of storytelling. For example, dialogue is minimal, and, as one insightful review I once read noted, often banal. The story is mostly told with images, and music. We're not used to that kind of language in a film, but we can learn it.

tofu
2006-Feb-06, 09:39 PM
I'm sorry, but 2001 sucked, badly.


I think it depends on what you want in a sci-fi movie. If you want explosions and laser battles, then you will probably think that 2001 sucked.

2001 is about facing your fears, fear of the unknown, fear of failure, fear of an enemy nation. Every character, even homo habilis there at the beginning, has a fear of some kind to overcome.

You probably got bored in the first 10 minutes of the movie, right? The guys in ape consumes jumping around, how boring is that? That's because you're expecting to be shown or told everything and demanding to be entertained. There's nothing wrong with that I guess, but 2001 is the wrong movie for you. What you are *supposed* to do during that first scene is think. You're supposed to think about how much it sucks to be a dumb animal, to live in squalor and ignorance, and to have no capability to reason. When homo habilis bares his teeth at a fellow hominid, you are supposed to pity him because that's all he'll ever be. When something new comes into his world (the obelisk) he doesn't have the capacity to think about it, he only has base animal emotions.

But then in the next scene, when he's looking at the thigh bone, for the first time in billions of years of evolution, he THINKS! He figures something out! He discovers how to use a tool! And now his species can defend themselves against predators, they can have better food, they can lift themselves up from the squalor they live in, and all the great advances of the human race, everything that we've ever accomplished, is built on that one event - that actually happened (minus the obelisk of course) at some point in the very distant past. It's a great and wondrous thing.

and the music begins to play, and the camera pans up to show a space station. At that point, if you're actually thinking about what you're seeing, you stand up and cheer. Because that's us. We made it! We're more than just dumb animals!

That's what you're supposed to get, and that's just the first 10 minutes of the movie. There is deep symbolism like that throughout if you're willing to think while watching it.

Explosions and laser battles are cool, there's no doubt about that, but 2001 is deep.

Doodler
2006-Feb-06, 09:52 PM
Actually, some of my favorite science fiction is anything but random action and special effects. And the comparison about the movie's underlying theme being boring to me is bogus. I did actually like 2010 a lot, and its underlying theme was pretty much the same, without the sonorous lack of anything interesting going on.

Maybe that's a better way of saying it. I couldn't really relate to the first because the theme was expressed in a manner that was too abstract to me, where the follow up was something a little more concrete that I could grasp.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-06, 09:54 PM
I'll agree with that. I love the premise of 2001, but it's a bit slow and, er, trippy for me.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-06, 10:19 PM
Just one nitpick, Tofu: the apes in 2001 were supposed to be australopithecus (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=674282&highlight=australopithecus#post674282).

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-06, 10:27 PM
That makes sense. Habilis was a branch that didn't lead anywhere. They just died off.

Inferno
2006-Feb-06, 10:29 PM
Interesting that some have said they wished 2061 and 3001 were turned into movies. I hated those books. Good ideas, but very poor execution. 2061 zooms through it's story in no time flat. Each chapter is like 3 pages long at most. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I like a bit of description and pacing.

3001 starts off ok, but then comes up with the most unclimatic climax of all time. The human race may be in trouble, or may not, and even if it is, it won't be so for thousands or millions of years.

Nethius
2006-Feb-06, 10:40 PM
I liked 2010 better then 2001

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-06, 10:42 PM
That makes sense. Habilis was a branch that didn't lead anywhere. They just died off.There seems to be some dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis) over whether H. habilis was an ancestor of ours, or not.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-07, 12:16 AM
Hm. Looks like my history textbook was outdated. Thanks.

Gruesome
2006-Feb-07, 06:58 PM
The following is merely my opinion, perception, conclusion, determination, estimation, position, comment, observation, reflection, outlook, perspective, point of view and/or viewpoint. So back off if you disagree.

2001 is awesome. Of course Stanley Kubrick could take a dump on a piece of film and I'd think it was genius. The slow pace is what makes it great. The opening is three minutes of music over a black screen, as if to suggest a long passage of time before our pregenitors roamed the earth.

2010 is almost unwatchable. A feeble attempt to recreate the genius of Kubrick that didn't even get out of the gate. Bleh.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-07, 07:03 PM
The opening is three minutes of music over a black screen, as if to suggest a long passage of time before our pregenitors roamed the earth.Not a disagreement, but a note: many people have never seen that opening (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19760).

Gruesome
2006-Feb-07, 07:21 PM
Not a disagreement, but a note: many people have never seen that opening (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=19760).

Yikes! I can just imagine some TV executive chopping off the beginning for time, not understanding the opening's significance.

I can't say I remember the opening when the flick came out, but that's only because I was 3 in '68. However, the DVD has it in all it's glory. Yay!

Metricyard
2006-Feb-07, 07:26 PM
Yikes! I can just imagine some TV executive chopping off the beginning for time, not understanding the opening's significance.


No brainer actually. 3 minutes of blank screen, 3 minutes of commercials.

Yep, plenty of commercials can fit in three minutes. Advertising wins over artistic significance.

weatherc
2006-Feb-07, 08:04 PM
Three minutes of black screen as an opening. Hmmm.

"My God! It's full of [bad word deleted]!"

Kubrick's photo should appear next to the word "pretentious" in the dictionary, just for that opening alone.

Doodler
2006-Feb-07, 09:29 PM
Three minutes of black screen as an opening. Hmmm.

"My God! It's full of [bad word deleted]!"

Kubrick's photo should appear next to the word "pretentious" in the dictionary, just for that opening alone.

:lol:

pmcolt
2006-Feb-07, 09:33 PM
2001 was a work of transhumanist art; no real action to speak of, but thought-provoking, pretty to look at, and required a bit of interpretation on the part of the viewer.

2010 didn't even attempt to imitate 2001; it was a straight-up sci-fi space movie, complete with spaceships, aliens, talking computers, and two-dimensional stock characters. I didn't mind watching it, but it's not on my list of all-time great movies.

I haven't read 2061 or 3001, but if either of them are ever made into movies, I hope the director can hit a happy medium between the '2001' style and the '2010' style.

Daryl71
2006-Feb-07, 09:37 PM
Three minutes of black screen as an opening. Hmmm.

"My God! It's full of [bad word deleted]!"

Kubrick's photo should appear next to the word "pretentious" in the dictionary, just for that opening alone.

Has it really been that long sinces movies have had an overture and opening music? Because they aren't actually part of the movie itself. Unless there are people out there who think that Ben-Hur's opening scene is a ten-minute shot of the Sistine Chapel's roof, or have complained about the blatantly pretentious eight-minute still-life painting bringing Gone with the Wind to a crashing stop?

So, basically, movies over two hours long had overtures and intermissions to give the audience time to scramble to the bathroom and concession stand. As to why they're left on home video and DVD? Beats me. The 1993 VHS release of 2001 had the words "overture", "entr'acte", and "exit music" plastered across the frame during those parts, in a blatantly anachronistic font. I still roll my eyes at that little bit of retroactive editing.

Swift
2006-Feb-07, 10:06 PM
I know I'm coming to this party late, but here is my 1.73 cents worth...

I like both movies, but as others have pointed out, there are almost completely different movies.

One of the reasons I love 2001 is I saw it when it first opened in 1968 as a birthday present. I was 10, completely in love with space, Apollo, etc. and here was a vision that in less than 40 years we would have space stations and a base on the moon! By current standards the special effects are a joke, but at the time they were absolutely amazing. I'll admit, as a 10 year old I didn't "get" a lot of it, but I was enthralled. To really understand the story, the apes, the monolith, etc., you really need to read the book, and then see the movie. And yes, I know by today's standards a movie that isn't completely understandable to the average 8 year old (read the book!!!!????) is complete commercial blaspheme.

2010 was, as other pointed out, definitely a more "modern" movie. It was a little heavy on the moralizing, (the soliloquy about everyone looking up at the new "sun" and loving their fellow humans is stomach turning). I still think the bit about "easy as cake" and "piece of pie" is funny. One thing I find strange/interesting is that in the book the pending war was, IIRC, between the US and China, and the Russians were allies with the US. I never figured out why that was changed.

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-07, 10:11 PM
One thing I find strange/interesting is that in the book the pending war was, IIRC, between the US and China, and the Russians were allies with the US. I never figured out why that was changed.In the book, they seemed to be in a state of cold war with China, not pending war. Having the Russians as allies of the U.S. against China was a nice twist (and slightly prophetic), unfortunately lost in the film adaptation.

Doodler
2006-Feb-07, 10:15 PM
I know I'm coming to this party late, but here is my 1.73 cents worth...

I like both movies, but as others have pointed out, there are almost completely different movies.

One of the reasons I love 2001 is I saw it when it first opened in 1968 as a birthday present. I was 10, completely in love with space, Apollo, etc. and here was a vision that in less than 40 years we would have space stations and a base on the moon! By current standards the special effects are a joke, but at the time they were absolutely amazing. I'll admit, as a 10 year old I didn't "get" a lot of it, but I was enthralled. To really understand the story, the apes, the monolith, etc., you really need to read the book, and then see the movie. And yes, I know by today's standards a movie that isn't completely understandable to the average 8 year old (read the book!!!!????) is complete commercial blaspheme.

2010 was, as other pointed out, definitely a more "modern" movie. It was a little heavy on the moralizing, (the soliloquy about everyone looking up at the new "sun" and loving their fellow humans is stomach turning). I still think the bit about "easy as cake" and "piece of pie" is funny. One thing I find strange/interesting is that in the book the pending war was, IIRC, between the US and China, and the Russians were allies with the US. I never figured out why that was changed.

Drama and relativity to the time it was actually filmed.

AGN Fuel
2006-Feb-07, 10:54 PM
Drama and relativity to the time it was actually filmed.

...together with a 78% focus group response wondering why the US would be at war with the crockery. ;)


I like both movies FFIW, except for Roy Schneider who puts in one of the hammiest performances ever captured on celluloid.

Inferno
2006-Feb-07, 11:34 PM
By current standards the special effects are a joke, but at the time they were absolutely amazing.

Really? I think the effects are still highly impressive. Much better than the over use of cgi we got fed in the recent star wars prequels. I'm still left wondering how they did some of those zero-g scenes!

Daryl71
2006-Feb-07, 11:51 PM
Really? I think the effects are still highly impressive. Much better than the over use of cgi we got fed in the recent star wars prequels. I'm still left wondering how they did some of those zero-g scenes!

I saw 2001 at the Hartford Cinestudio, the only 70mm theater in Connecticut, back in February 2002. I was blown away by how well the special effects had aged, even the ones that looked dated on VHS. I remember being completely in awe for most of the movie, scared silly when the pod turned around and killed Frank Poole, and spent a good portion of the Stargate scene gripping my armrests! Sigh, it's a shame this movie doesn't transfer to home video that well...

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-08, 12:10 AM
Kubrick's photo should appear next to the word
"pretentious" in the dictionary, just for that opening alone.
But he pulls it of, unlike most other filmmakers.

Hmm, you shouldn't watch the work of Peter Greenaway.
You won't like it.

Melusine
2006-Feb-09, 07:04 PM
For those in the US, Turner Classic Movies is showing "2001" tomorrow night (9/10) at 9:00 p.m. CST, if you want to watch it for free and commercial free. "Dr Strangelove" is showing after that for you night owls.

I've tried watching "2001" a couple of times and I didn't make it to the end both times. I'm not easily bored, but it couldn't keep me awake. I like other Kubrick films, but this one just doesn't do it for me...it's terribly boring (agree with Doodler). I'll try again tomorrow night and see if I feel differently the third time around. :shifty:



But he pulls it of, unlike most other filmmakers.

Hmm, you shouldn't watch the work of Peter Greenaway.
You won't like it.
I like some of Greenaway's films. They may be disgusting or push the limits in some ways, but they are always sumptuously filmed that it's hard to turn away. He was mainly a painter...an artist with an A...so I can see how some would think "pretentious." Many Brits are embarrassed by him.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-10, 12:52 AM
I didn't mean to imply that Greenaway makes rubbish.
Just that his work is pretentious.
One does not exclude the other.

Ilya
2006-Feb-10, 02:35 AM
I know this is a sacriledge of sorts, but I never liked 2001 AT ALL. Everyone praises it for scientific accuracy (no sounds in vacuum, Bowman does not explode, etc.), but as far as I am concerned that is the ONLY good thing about it. Everything else is just... bad in a bizarre way. Here is what I mean:

The movie consists of 4 parts.

Part 1: People in ape suits

There is a very long opening sequence of pre-human primates having a war and discovering the alien artifact. As apes often do, they go bananas. One of the primates throw a bone up in the air, and suddenly it's far into the future - 2001 (of course, 2001 was in the future when the book and film were made). Except for the brief appearance of the artifact, this sequence is way too long and doesn't add anything to the story.

Part 2: The artifact on the moon

A man is called to a meeting on the moon, and uses a commercial spacecraft to get to a space station, and on to the moon. Another sequence that could have been only a couple of minutes long, because there's not really any story to tell here. A man takes the bus to the moon. But there is food to be served, flight attendants walking slowly on velcro, totally impractical rotating or upside-down doors to be walked through (slowly while the room rotates with them) and endless docking sequences. But finally the man gets there. "Blue Danube" music is neat, but far too long.

In his meeting it becomes clear that an alien artifact has been found on the Moon (not on Earth, where the primates discovered it, but on the Moon. Is it the same artifact? Is there another somewhere on Earth? Why hasn't that one been discovered? We don't know).

They walk outside on the Moon and looks at the artifact, accompanied by some of the most horrible music ever. It becomes clear that the artifact sends a radio beam aimed at Jupiter (is it still aimed at Jupiter when Jupiter is below the lunar horizon as seen from the artifact? Is the signal sent straight through the Moon? Does the writer know that Jupiter's position on the sky varies as seen from the Moon? We don't know).

It's decided that an expedition will be sent to Jupiter to investigate.

Part 3: HAL

On the ship headed to Jupiter, there are 2 astronauts and 3 experts. These experts never wake up from their cryo tubes, so they're not important.

And then there's HAL 9000, the computer that has never ever failed. And then of course it fails. HAL reports a malfunction in a communications module. In an endless sequence accompanied by an irritating high-pitched noise, the astronaut with the very yellow space suit maneuvers his pod aft to the part of the ship where the component is. He then spacewalks to it, replaces the component and brings the faulty component inside. It's then discovered that the component is not malfunctioning at all, so HAL must have made a mistake!! The two astronauts lock themselves inside a pod where they plan to unplug HAL if he goes bananas (if he has made one mistake, you never know with those pesky computers).

Unfortunately, HAL reads their lips through the pod window. I don't know if people in the 60's were exceptionally slow in their heads, but this lip-reading is really made obvious over a long time, so even a 3-year-old would have gotten the point.

HAL sees a need to protect himself, so when the very yellow astronaut goes back outside with the component, HAL controls the pod behind him and propels him out into space.

Dave Bowman rushes out in another pod (forgetting the helmet of his very red space suit). He grabs the very yellow astronaut with his pod, but without the ability to open the pod doors to get him inside (remember he forgot his helmet), the very yellow man dies. In the meantime, HAL kills the experts in the cryo tubes.

So it's time to get back inside. Only problem is that HAL refuses to open the hatch on the spacecraft. After a way too long "discussion" with HAL ("HAL. HAL. Do you read me HAL. HAL, do you read me. HAL. Open the hatch, HAL. Do you read me, HAL. HAL. Do you read me, HAL. Open the hatch, HAL. HAL..." and on and on and on), Dave decides to enter via an emergency hatch. With no helmet on, it gets a bit hairy, but Dave manages to get inside, and shuts down HAL by carefully removing about 100 memory units, one by one. HAL starts to sing, but soon dies, so the voyage to Jupiter can continue.

So the entire sequence with HAL is completely useless in telling the story of the artifact. It's just a classic must-have 1960's sequence where computers are dangerous beasts that can't be trusted, no matter how human they seem to be.

Part 4: The problem of chemical dependency

Finally Dave gets to Jupiter. The artifact appears, and out of space comes a strange light. Dave is taken on a fantastic journey through lights and strange landscapes (or actually normal landscapes in really strange colors). Once in a while we see Dave's face, and he seems to be in pain or very scared or something, because his eyes look really crazy. This sequence is very very long, but ends abruptly when Dave and his pod suddenly are in someone's bathroom.

Dave gets out of the pod and walks to another room, where he sees himself as an old man, eating. Just take your time with that food, Old Dave, no need to rush just in order to get this crappy movie to an end. Old Dave sees Normal Dave, but then Normal Dave disappears, and Old Dave sees Very Old Dave lying in a bed, about to die. Very Old Dave sees the artifact and Embryo Dave. How do you recognise Embryo Dave as being Dave even when he's not yet born? Those mad eyes. That guy had crazy eyes even before he was born! So we see Embryo Dave hovering over the bed of Very Old Dave, by the artifact, and then suddenly Embryo Dave is in Earth Orbit. Theme music, end titles and one of the worst movies in history is at an end.

Had Dave just smoked a new weed so it was all a dream or a trip? Or did it happen? Or did what happen? What is the movie trying to tell us (except that computers are evil?)?

It's not epic, it's not grand, it's just simply stupid.

Inferno
2006-Feb-10, 02:49 AM
You have to remember what science fiction movies were like before 2001. 99% were just cheesy B monster flicks. This was one of the first (if not the first) to take the subject seriously. It wasn't simply meant to be a movie. It was meant to be a movie experience. More than just plot with bug eyed monsters. It's an experiment in tension, suspense, effects, and grand ideas.

pmcolt
2006-Feb-10, 03:28 AM
It was meant to be a movie experience. More than just plot with bug eyed monsters. It's an experiment in tension, suspense, effects, and grand ideas.

It certainly is. I just sat down and watched the DVD again this evening.

Someday I'd just love to see this movie in an actual cinema, right up on the big screen.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-10, 02:15 PM
It's not epic, it's not grand, it's just simply stupid.

Well, opinions are like butt holes... Everyone has one, and they all stink.

You think it's "stupid". I don't quite understand why; I detected no lack of intelligence in the film. I wouldn't say that the directors were on the lower mental average, nor would I call the them of the story to be about stupidity.

You dislike it for it's content, it's pacing, and think that all in the film needs to contribute to the knowledge to the film. Or something. Well, I think that the symbolism of the bone become a spaceship was incredible; it's a symbol of the tool. If the primate never learned how to use tools, we never would have advanced to a space ship. That's a ton of symbolism in that one gesture; maybe it was a little long, but that's a matter of personal perception. For some people, watching the moon missions is incredibly exciting, and for others, it's boring and too long-paced.

In short, I don't agree with you, and making a statement as harsh as that is going to encourage me to say that.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-10, 04:01 PM
The film would have been seriously diminished
if any of the parts had been left out.
There is a grant arc from the first use of a tool
(as a weapon), to Man reaching his final(?) destiny.
It has a lot of religious/mythological undertones.
And that is just one aspect.

This movie is in a class of its own.

Melusine
2006-Feb-11, 06:53 PM
I didn't mean to imply that Greenaway makes rubbish.
Just that his work is pretentious.
One does not exclude the other.
Point taken, and I'm glad you mentioned Greenaway and "pretentious" because it got me thinking about how I appreciated some experimental movies of the 60s and early 70s, such as "Last Year At Marienbad," "The Exterminating Angel," Roeg's "Walkabout," et al, and like "2001" they were considered pretentious by some--what's it about?, there's no plot, too much symbolism, etc. If I liked those, how or why did I miss the boat with "2001"? I have revised my "terribly boring." I decided to look at 2001 last night in the same way as I did those films and realized that my first two viewings were on TV when I was laying on the couch tired. Roger Ebert once said something to the effect that sometimes you like a film because you saw it on a rainy day in Paris in some little theater all alone, and conversely, sometimes we don't like films because we are not in the optimum state of mind or physicality--we're just not open to it. To me, 2001 is like a ballet, pleasurable, but lulling, which is not good if you're tired.

I still think the the beginning ape sequence could have stood some editing-it was a bit too slow. I was wondering why Kubrick chose to put tapirs, zebras and all, in that rocky outcrop setting with no vegetation. The artificiality mildly annoyed me, though the animals appear as isolated as the men in space do later. Too, he used a montage of cutting shots to show continuity of time in that whole sequence, (Roeg did that too) and I'm not fond of that method-too obvious. Later when Dave is aging in that room with the sort of baroque furniture, he uses abstract cutting which is much more interesting.

In past viewings, I never got much past Dr. Floyd. The sterile atmosphere and Dr. Floyd's lack of emotion, his Stepford-doctor-like mannerisms disturbed me. Even when he's exchanging pleasantries or talking to his daughter, he seems methodical, robot-like, his language precise (I know people like that), and cold. I didn't allow myself to stay awake enough to continue on with that discomfort to Dave, who lacks emotion as well. Even when he's mad at HAL he's very controlled. HAL is the most enigmatic of them all. And when HAL watches them talking in the pod, it's the one true moment of creepiness in the film.

Anyway, once past the early part of the film, it really is like watching a ballet, and I settled into the pacing and just let it unfold. I would like to have seen it on a large screen. There's one shot I really like of the astronaut floating off into space and Dave goes to retrieve him in the pod. I was thinking of this (http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/125658main_pao_s114e6642_lores.jpg) NASA picture I love, but Kubrick uses a great wide-angle shot there (and since we tend to look from left to right), the astronaut floating amidst the vastness of space is palpable. I fooled around with the NASA photo to do the same thing. We're spoiled by NASA photos nowadays, so I can understand how theater-goers were blown away when it opened, so much that they laid down on the theater floors to experience the trippy sequence. :-)

So, I'm glad I saw it again in an unzombie-like state. It has me thinking about different interpretations and how the film "speaks" to the viewer. It's not going on my Top Ten, but none of the films I mentioned above are; however each manipulates the viewer, they don't manipulate the viewer's conclusions, so they're worth contemplating.

Too bad my store doesn't have 2010. Now I'm really curious. [babble over]

Charly
2006-Feb-12, 12:47 AM
Ilya - Great post!

Halcyon Dayz & Lonewulf, the bone to ship shot does not forgive the previous 20 minutes of pretentious rubbish. And dont give me that "final destiny" rubbish. If anything, its just a clever shot that has the most boring contrivance in sci-fi. Is that bit in the book? Are they saying that the Monolith made apes more intellegent, because i really cant see what this does for the story in context to the rest of the film. Its like a gratuitous shower scene. There is no hidden meaning.

Anyway, it would have been even better if they had morphed a toilet roll holder into the space station.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-12, 12:55 AM
The novel 2001 by Arthur C. Clarke was based
on the film script written by Kubrick & Clarke which
was based on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel".

Yes, it is in the book.
And in the film there obviously is a connection between
the appearance of the monolith and the ascent to sentience.
It is IMO the most crucial scene of the film.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-12, 01:35 AM
Ilya - Great post!

Yeah. Calling something stupid, as long as it agrees with you, is always a perfect way to make a point. By the way, since I didn't agree with the post, I dub it "stupid". That's a fun adjective.


Halcyon Dayz & Lonewulf, the bone to ship shot does not forgive the previous 20 minutes of pretentious rubbish.

?? I never said it "forgave" anything. You see, you didn't like the previous 20 minutes. I didn't mind it. It didn't annoy it, it didn't bother me. It made a point.


And dont give me that "final destiny" rubbish.

Okay? I won't give you any "rubbish", I'll merely give my opinion. My opinion is that the film was a good one. It's art, and some people like it, some people don't. I liked it. You didn't. Should I call you stupid for liking it? Or is it just okay to call the subject matter stupid for not liking it?

I also see the word "pretentious" thrown around a lot, directed toward the director.

pre·ten·tious -- adj.

1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious.

The first definition can't be true, because I saw no claim in the film.

The second definition might fit, but I don't see how it would be an insult? Extravagant doesn't mean it's "bad". But it seemed rather minimalist to be called extravagant, but that's just me.


If anything, its just a clever shot that has the most boring contrivance in sci-fi.

Er, okay. Clever shot: Yes. Most boring contrivance: Nah. But it doesn't matter what I'd say, does it? You hate it, so you can't admit that some people might actually like it.


Are they saying that the Monolith made apes more intellegent, because i really cant see what this does for the story in context to the rest of the film. Its like a gratuitous shower scene. There is no hidden meaning.

Uhmmmmm...

If you can't see the hidden meaning, and catch it within the syntax of the film, then it won't matter what I say on the subject. Suffice it to say that it suggested that the intelligence of the chimps came from supernatural origins, and it pushed forward the questions that led to the end of 2001, and into 2010. But whatever.

MrClean
2006-Feb-12, 02:19 AM
2001 was over-rated. 2010 was an alright movie of the same calibur without all the baliwho.

Alien and Aliens were still much better movies.

Oh, and I'll never sit and listen to 15 minutes of heavy breathing again.

Daryl71
2006-Feb-12, 02:24 AM
Alien and Aliens were still much better movies.


Sausage is waaaayyyy better than whip cream! :mad:

Charly
2006-Feb-12, 02:29 AM
So the monolith really did make us intelligent? That doesnt really make sense to me, unless it explains it in the book. I have the biggest problem with that.

What was the one on the moon doing, or the one around Jupiter?

To me, if something can be that open ended to mean anything, it means nothing. And the whole Monolith thing is just too weird. So explain it me.

Charly
2006-Feb-12, 02:33 AM
Sausage is waaaayyyy better than whip cream! :mad:

Depends who you are licking it off of.

Doodler
2006-Feb-12, 02:43 AM
Whoa tiger, a little descriptive, doncha think?

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-12, 02:55 AM
So the monolith really did make us intelligent? That doesnt really make sense to me, unless it explains it in the book. I have the biggest problem with that.

.......why bother? It obviously went over your head. If you've seen 2010, you'd see that that's the main question. Where did the monoliths come from? Why did they grant intelligence to those that looked upon them? It was part of the movie's beauty, and if you don't understand that, then there's no point in trying to explain it.



To me, if something can be that open ended to mean anything, it means nothing. And the whole Monolith thing is just too weird. So explain it me.

Your bidding is my command, master. Or... not. Seriously, if you don't get it, then there's no point to it. It's like trying to explain why a portrait is so beautiful; after a while you're just talking about the artisticness of brush strokes, and the majority of people just get bored of the description.

If you can't enjoy the whole, then you're not going to enjoy it piecemeal. And if it means nothing to you, then that's just fine. It means nothing to do. Forgive me if I don't really care.

Daryl71
2006-Feb-12, 03:03 AM
So the monolith really did make us intelligent? That doesnt really make sense to me, unless it explains it in the book. I have the biggest problem with that.

Wasn't it Arthur C Clarke himself who said that any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic? Seeing as the apemen were eating ruffage before they encountered the monolith, and eating meat and bashing eachother over the heads the next morning, it seems reasonable to suppose that it made us intelligent in a way that seems magical to us puny humans.

Frankly, if something like that is so incomprehensible, what kind of ex-po-sis-tion would have explained it? I'm thinking Dr. Floyd and company sitting around and drinking tea, speaking in riddles a-la The Matrix. Or the "ge-wilickers, Mr. Professor!" who explains everything to the stupid adults like in a 50's B movie.

Melusine
2006-Feb-12, 03:23 AM
Ilya - Great post!

Halcyon Dayz & Lonewulf, the bone to ship shot does not forgive the previous 20 minutes of pretentious rubbish. And dont give me that "final destiny" rubbish. If anything, its just a clever shot that has the most boring contrivance in sci-fi. Is that bit in the book? Are they saying that the Monolith made apes more intellegent, because i really cant see what this does for the story in context to the rest of the film. Its like a gratuitous shower scene. There is no hidden meaning.

Anyway, it would have been even better if they had morphed a toilet roll holder into the space station.
Charly, I had two negative viewings (actually partial viewings), and except for what I think is a too long ape sequence, third time was a charm. I'm still thinking about it and I'm now reading essays online to see others' thoughts.

The bone to ship is a good transitional shot. Onward to higher intelligence, physically higher into space, the advancement of time, man's evolution...film is supposed to spell things out visually. I don't see a problem here.

The monolith...I just watched this http://www.kubrick2001.com/. Call it a Visual Cliff Notes version of 2001. Maybe it will help you understand that the monolith in the begining has everything to do with the context of the film. :-)

Edit: add parenthetical comment

Daryl71
2006-Feb-12, 03:29 AM
The bone to ship is a good transitional shot. Onward to higher intelligence, physically higher into space, the advancement of time, man's evolution...film is supposed to spell things out visually. I don't see a problem here.
:-)

It's not directly implied in the movie, but the first few satellites we see are actually orbiting platforms for nuclear weapons. If you look realllyyy close at that shot, the first satellite (sorry, I'm probably butchering the spelling!) has a German flag on it, and the last one has a Soviet Air Force insignia. Bones to bombs. Nothing changes, eh?

Just a useless bit of trivia! :)

Charly
2006-Feb-12, 03:36 AM
.......why bother? It obviously went over your head. If you've seen 2010, you'd see that that's the main question. Where did the monoliths come from? Why did they grant intelligence to those that looked upon them? It was part of the movie's beauty, and if you don't understand that, then there's no point in trying to explain it.

Your bidding is my command, master. Or... not. Seriously, if you don't get it, then there's no point to it. It's like trying to explain why a portrait is so beautiful; after a while you're just talking about the artisticness of brush strokes, and the majority of people just get bored of the description.

If you can't enjoy the whole, then you're not going to enjoy it piecemeal. And if it means nothing to you, then that's just fine. It means nothing to do. Forgive me if I don't really care.

I seem to have hit a nerve, or else you wouldnt be getting all upset. Its just a film.

Being beautiful or artistic is my greatest problem with a film which so many people proclaim to have great meaning. I ask you to explain the concept, not how it was made.

I watched 2010 and it didnt explain anything really, just raised other questions. The monolith represented an alien intelligence. Thats really as far as it went. It didnt explain what one was doing burried in the moon or in orbit around Jupiter. They didnt grant intelligence to anyone else.

Daryl71
2006-Feb-12, 03:47 AM
I'm not trying to get on anyone's nerves, or come across as a snob, but...

The director Nicholas Meyer, in his commentary for Star Trek II, of all things, said that music has no image, and a painting does not move. Only movies, and I paraphrase him "have the hideous capacity to explain everything and render the audience passive."

How does what go about explaining, in a believable manner, something that is incomprehensible? In this case, self-interpretation would be a logical choice, and it's easy enough to narrow down the possible answers to a select few.

Charly
2006-Feb-12, 04:08 AM
CharlyThe bone to ship is a good transitional shot. Onward to higher intelligence, physically higher into space, the advancement of time, man's evolution...film is supposed to spell things out visually. I don't see a problem here.


I agree, it is a good shot. There are lots of beautiful shots. Star Trek the Motion Picture had the lots of beautiful shots, but got universally panned.

Interesting link about man and his tools. The other thing I found really hard to understand is why they would turn off Hal after one mistake, and then why he would turn psychotic because he couldnt continue his mission.

Its like the writer didnt really know exactly what the film was about either, so he made everything in it a mystery open to interpretation a dozen ways. I hate this in a film. Sorry, but I like to have all of the answers. I dont care if they are obvious or not, but there has to be a definitive one. The only film I have seen that is worse than 2001 for this is Donnie Darko.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-12, 04:10 AM
Guess what. I love Donnie Darko. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/frech/c010.gif

Melusine
2006-Feb-12, 04:11 AM
It's not directly implied in the movie, but the first few satellites we see are actually orbiting platforms for nuclear weapons. If you look realllyyy close at that shot, the first satellite (sorry, I'm probably butchering the spelling!) has a German flag on it, and the last one has a Soviet Air Force insignia. Bones to bombs. Nothing changes, eh?

Just a useless bit of trivia! :)
I'm chuckling because I just noticed your signature. :doh:

Thanks for the tidbit--I couldn't see that. I was watching it on TCM, and with it shrunken down to widescreen on my 27" TV, I couldn't tell. Too, TCM's print wasn't pristine. It's been at the museum theater here before; I'll have to keep an eye out for it.

Charly
2006-Feb-12, 04:28 AM
Guess what. I love Donnie Darko. http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/frech/c010.gif

Man, I hate that film :D

Dave Mitsky
2006-Feb-12, 02:19 PM
Just for the record, "2001" is on Roger Ebert's list of the top ten films of all time.

Dave Mitsky

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-12, 03:01 PM
I seem to have hit a nerve, or else you wouldnt be getting all upset. Its just a film.

I just don't get why people have to call something "stupid" if they don't like it. It's a harsh word. It's like an issue of sour grapes. "It wasn't made for my palate of taste, so I call it stupid. HAH! Take that!"

Inferno
2006-Feb-12, 10:26 PM
Interesting link about man and his tools. The other thing I found really hard to understand is why they would turn off Hal after one mistake, and then why he would turn psychotic because he couldnt continue his mission.



The Hal type computers had never made a single error. Ever. So when Hal does, even a simple one, the astronaughts are very afraid. What else could go wrong? Also watch again when this failure occurs. What is happening just prior to this? As for Hal turning psychotic, well, was he? Or was he just trying to save himself from being turned off? From being killed? Seems almost like a nature response from an intelligent creature.

Inferno
2006-Feb-12, 10:32 PM
I watched 2010 and it didnt explain anything really, just raised other questions. The monolith represented an alien intelligence. Thats really as far as it went. It didnt explain what one was doing burried in the moon or in orbit around Jupiter. They didnt grant intelligence to anyone else.

2001 is one of those movies you shouldn't have explained to you. Part of the enjoyment is each time you watch it you slowly unravel another part of the mystery. You slowly come to your own conclusion.

Having said that...... The monolith was deliberately buried in the moon. What does this mean? That in order to uncover it, the creatures of Earth must have reached a level of intelligence to creature space vehicles to reach the moon. It was like an alarm clock for the aliens. That high pitch sound the monolith makes is it beaming a signal to the other monolith around Jupiter. A signal being sent back to the monoliht makers saying: "There are intelligent life on Earth".

The one around Jupiter was like a relay station and a space gate. It sends the signal (and indeed Dave himself later) to somewhere else in the universe. Perhaps the aliens home planet or maybe even a different dimension or level of conciousness.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-12, 10:43 PM
As for Hal turning psychotic, well, was he? Or was he just trying to save himself from being turned off? From being killed? Seems almost like a nature response from an intelligent creature.

Yeah, that's true. But 2010 had an interesting explanation for why he went crazy. Basically, he was told by diplomats to lie, and he wasn't programmed to lie. Or not.

The whole "fighting for survival" thing makes sense, too, but how much so? I mean, he wasn't necessarily programmed with that responce...

Ehhh, I dunno. Lemme alone! :p

Daryl71
2006-Feb-12, 11:04 PM
Yeah, that's true. But 2010 had an interesting explanation for why he went crazy. Basically, he was told by diplomats to lie, and he wasn't programmed to lie. Or not.


And of course, Dr. Floyd didn't know anything about this, even though in the pre-recorded message near the end of 2001, he says only HAL and the hibernating astronauts know about the monolith. Can't have a tarnished hero in Hollywood, now? Someone said that Schneider's Floyd was a snarky bureaucrat - who could wrestle silverback gorillas to the ground. Continuity, schmontinutity! :rolleyes:

AGN Fuel
2006-Feb-12, 11:06 PM
Yeah, that's true. But 2010 had an interesting explanation for why he went crazy. Basically, he was told by diplomats to lie, and he wasn't programmed to lie. Or not.

The whole "fighting for survival" thing makes sense, too, but how much so? I mean, he wasn't necessarily programmed with that responce...

True, but that raises questions about an intelligent computer that has the capacity to learn and adapt. Even though not programmed for such a response, is this something that could develop as a result of the way it has been programmed? At what point does the computer cease being a computer and start being a lifeform in it's own right? (I don't see this as being the message from this scene btw, it's just an interesting side topic).

For me, I thought that whole sequence was chilling from the perspective that HAL calmly and logically evaluated that the mission could be accomplished with a greater chance of success with the elimination of the humans. Man has been made redundant by the very tools that he created - in a process that stemmed from that first prehistoric bone...

Frankly, I thought the explanation in 2010 was a cheap cop out. It was an opportunity for HAL to 'redeem' himself. Why is that necessary? HAL's behaviour in 2001 was frightening, but a perfectly logical extension of why he had been created in the first place. To successfully complete the mission.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-12, 11:22 PM
Interesting note: all of the deaths in the movie occur between the first use of tools by "man," and the destruction of the most advanced piece of technology that we have.

Just something to chew on...

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-13, 03:53 PM
Frankly, I thought the explanation in 2010 was a cheap cop out. It was an opportunity for HAL to 'redeem' himself. Why is that necessary? HAL's behaviour in 2001 was frightening, but a perfectly logical extension of why he had been created in the first place. To successfully complete the mission.That explanation was already present in Clarke's 2001 novel, however.
I think the reason why an explanation is necessary is because of Asimov's laws of robotics. They are never mentioned in Clarke's book or Kubrick's film, but I think they were assumed. Clarke, in particular, would have been aware that it made no sense to put an intelligent, almost all-powerful computer in charge of a spaceship, if you weren't sure that you controlled it.
In ordinary circumstances, Hal would have submitted to human authority, no matter what (2010 reaffirms this point). But something unexpected made him go insane.

Doodler
2006-Feb-13, 04:58 PM
2001 is one of those movies you shouldn't have explained to you. Part of the enjoyment is each time you watch it you slowly unravel another part of the mystery. You slowly come to your own conclusion.

Having said that...... The monolith was deliberately buried in the moon. What does this mean? That in order to uncover it, the creatures of Earth must have reached a level of intelligence to creature space vehicles to reach the moon. It was like an alarm clock for the aliens. That high pitch sound the monolith makes is it beaming a signal to the other monolith around Jupiter. A signal being sent back to the monoliht makers saying: "There are intelligent life on Earth".

The one around Jupiter was like a relay station and a space gate. It sends the signal (and indeed Dave himself later) to somewhere else in the universe. Perhaps the aliens home planet or maybe even a different dimension or level of conciousness.

3001 spells out the monolith's roles a little better.
MAJOR SPOILER ALERT!!








First thing's first, the monoliths are machines, simply very advanced machines. The creators of the monoliths are no longer around. The end theme for the monoliths is much like the theme guiding 2001. Autonomous machines run amok. Where HAL was given bad instructions not in keeping with his primary programming, the monoliths have simply been left with no real guidance at all beyond their original programming. Left for so long without new directives, they've started developing their own.

The Olduvai and Tycho monoliths are specific monitors for humans. Olduvai elevated human intelligence where the Tycho monolith signaled to the progression of human intelligence into spaceflight. The Jupiter monolith was directed to monitor the progress of two other biospheres. One in Jupiter's atmosphere, one in Europa's oceans.

From this point, the monoliths begin acting under directives not given to them by their creators. One, after millions of years observing the progress of both of the Jovian biospheres, the monoliths made a decision. In 2010, they ignited Jupiter into a sun for the Europans to have a chance at the same progress the humans did. Their analysis was, of the two resident biospheres, the Europans had a higher probability of pursuing the same development path that their creators did (what's inferred here, and that their creators had directed them to cultivate such life, as they did when they raised human intelligence. So the monoliths destroyed the Jovians in favor of the Europans. The large monolith inserted itself on Europa much like the smaller monoliths did, and it guided the development of a fast evolving species on the surface of Europa. The understanding here was that Lucifer (Jupiter was renamed after ignition) wasn't going to last long, things had to be accelerated for the newly freed Europans to get them into a more stable and sustainable environment before the sky went dark again.

Apparently, the assimilation of Dave Bowman in 2001 had something to do with this. From what I gathered, the monoliths used him as something akin to a devil's advocate, a biological intelligence akin to their creators that they could tap from time to time for advice and analysis. His implication in 2010 that "something wonderful" was going to happen implies he had at least a peripheral supporting role in the decision the monoliths arrived at.

The second thing that happened 2001, when the Tycho monolith reported the arrival of humans, it also transmitted an update on the human condition at the time. This was relayed to the superior station 450ly away for analysis. From the story of 3001, the monolith's decision about humans wasn't exactly positive. Read it for more details.

It wasn't the best book Clarke's ever done, but it at least offers up some explanations for the actions of the monoliths. It actually left open a possibility of a 4001, but I won't hold my breath.

Melusine
2006-Feb-13, 05:52 PM
Interesting link about man and his tools. The other thing I found really hard to understand is why they would turn off Hal after one mistake, and then why he would turn psychotic because he couldnt continue his mission.


I get that you like to have movies spell things out, but Inferno is right, the fun is thinking about it. You also said you don't want to know about the "how," but it's the "how" that propels the viewer to their own conclusions. If I take my earlier statement that the humans are emotionless, robot-like, and that HAL is more enigmatic...why is this so? What does it mean that HAL is more "human" than the humans? What does that mean in the context of man's evolution in the film? You just let your mind wander from there. I was reading these interesting essays (http://www.palantir.net/2001/meanings/essay00.html), and it appears there are different generational conclusions to HAL. Unfortunately, I now know what 2010 says about it, but I had different ideas. (That link has some interesting tidbits such as this guy, who at the end of the movie, ran down the aisle and crashed through the screen. :eh: )

I didn't pick up on the chess scene--I bet Supreme Canuck did.


Just for the record, "2001" is on Roger Ebert's list of the top ten films of all time.

Dave Mitsky
I couldn't find his Top Ten on his site; he has his Top 100, which is a very good list, though I'd take away a couple and add a few. His review of 2001 is judiciously undetailed. In in his 1987 Movie Home Companion, he lists his Top Tens and why. I like this:



2001. One of the greatest stores of powerful, mysterious images in all of film history. What the film means, what is says, no longer matters to me so much (although like all critics I have a detailed explanation, if you have an evening to spare sometime). What is important here is the sense of wonder. The bone transforms itself into a spaceship, the Strauss waltezes are incongruously appropriate for the sexually charges moment when the ship penetrates the space station, and the appearances of the monolith are so disturbing that you realize the utter strangeness of man's right angles and straight lines amid the careless jumble of nature.


Eliot said he would show us fear in a handful of dust, and Stanley Kubrick shows us infinity iin a bedroom, a glass of red wine, and a few green peas. The ending sequence of the film is so great because it does not dare to imagine what other intelligences would look like; he shows us a man placed by them, whatever they are, in a room of man's own tradition--and that is so much more frightening than any fantastical alternative. The sequel, 2010 is a superior space action picture, and I praised it for that. But in explaining the mysteries of 2001, it diminishes them. e.e. cummings, who said he's rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance, wrote in those words the definitive view of both pictures.


In fact, he wrote in those words the definitive review of a lot of pictures.

I love that e.e. cummings quote.

Doodler
2006-Feb-13, 06:01 PM
His review of 2001 sounds like a primer on religious experience. Don't think about it, just enjoy the visions in your head. :hand:

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-13, 06:05 PM
I didn't pick up on the chess scene--I bet Supreme Canuck did.

Yep. Since when does a computer make a mistake in chess? Foreshadowing...

Disinfo Agent
2006-Feb-13, 06:24 PM
The bone transforms itself into a spaceship, the Strauss waltezes are incongruously appropriate for the sexually charges moment when the ship penetrates the space station, and the appearances of the monolith are so disturbing that you realize the utter strangeness of man's right angles and straight lines amid the careless jumble of nature.Professional critics... :rolleyes:

Melusine
2006-Feb-13, 06:32 PM
His review of 2001 sounds like a primer on religious experience. Don't think about it, just enjoy the visions in your head. :hand:
Not at all, because he clearly says he could spend a whole evening talking about it (that isn't a review, btw, it's one of ten blurbs about his Top Ten films). In his actual 1968 review of the movie he touches on the specifics of the film. He also starts it off with that cummings quote. The quote is the point of why it's one of his top films. I'm not religious, and I didn't read it that way. I'm also aware that people read religious meanings into 2001, but I didn't read it that way either. There's no right answer in how one perceives a film, not even the director's intention matters; if he's good, he'll make you feel something, just as if we both viewed Van Gogh's Starry Night, we'd probably have different thoughts.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-13, 06:47 PM
Introspection can sometimes be better than explanation.

Charly
2006-Feb-13, 10:22 PM
I get that you like to have movies spell things out,

No, what I like is for movies not to leave things open to too much interpretation. If there is a message, its nice to have a clue to what it is. 2001 is vague to the point of being useless, unless you have the wider context of the books (3001).

Does 2001 stand on its own without having read any of the books or having seen the sequel? I know fans will say it does, but I am certain most of you were as confused as I was on seeing it for the first time. I just didnt enjoy it.

Inferno
2006-Feb-13, 10:34 PM
Remember the books are merely Clarke's interpretation of the story. Not necessarily the same as what Kubrick intended.

Kubrick asked Clarke to write a novel for 2001 so he'd have something more substantial than a screenplay to work with, but while Clarke was writing Kubrick got impatient and started making the film anyway (hence some of the differences between book and film, eg Saturn v Jupiter as the location for the giant monolith). So the result is that Kubrick had his spin, while Clarke has his.

Doodler
2006-Feb-13, 10:36 PM
Introspection can sometimes be better than explanation.

I can reflect more effectively on subjects when I have something concrete on which to base them. There is a point where transcendentalism gets a little too lofty for a mind anchored in reality to follow (which is why I think this movie was meant to be watched on acid).

Charly
2006-Feb-13, 10:38 PM
I just don't get why people have to call something "stupid" if they don't like it. It's a harsh word. It's like an issue of sour grapes. "It wasn't made for my palate of taste, so I call it stupid. HAH! Take that!"

Lets be honest.... (was it me who said it was stupid)?

There is a restriction on the descriptive language you can use in this forum, so stupid is probably the least offensive term you can use to show your displeasure.

I have been told off a few times for naughty words on here, and I am trying my best to be as clean as a whistle, as I love this forum. But there isnt much room to manoeuvre, so its best to limit your vocabulary to "lame", "stupid" or "George W Bush" if its really silly.

Can we use "Gorram" in the Firefly threads?

Skipjack
2006-Feb-23, 04:33 AM
I liked 2001 better than 2010, but then 2001 is also quite depressing for me...
I love the design on the ships in 2001 and I love the technology.
Everything seems very very close to being actually doable (one almost has the impression that one is seeing an alternative now that shows how things could have been, given sufficient funding and political will).
The depressing part is that we are not in that alternative reality depicted there, but in the one we are in now. No moonbase, no large spacestations, no nuclear powered spaceships :(
Oh well...
Still 2001 keeps me hoping and dreaming...
CU
Skipjack

TheGalaxyTrio
2006-Feb-23, 05:25 AM
The producer.

Hire Kubrick, and you get an artist -- Spartacus, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Lolita, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket.

Hire Hyams, and you get a moviemaker -- Capricorn One, Outland, Timecop, The Presidio, End of Days.


Actually, Capricorn One was pretty good.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-23, 02:53 PM
Lets be honest.... (was it me who said it was stupid)?

There is a restriction on the descriptive language you can use in this forum, so stupid is probably the least offensive term you can use to show your displeasure.

I have so many responces to this that would not be acceptable on this forum.

Here's one: "I didn't like it" is a nice way to put it. "It wasn't my style" is another. "I don't like movies that move slowly" is yet another. "I like loud explosions more..." is a way to put it.

"It's stupid", "It's lame", "It's moronic", "The director is an idiot", "The people who star in it are idiots", "I don't see why it was produced in the first place", "MAN, what were they THINKING?!" are all ways to rile up people. But, since it's apparently okay to use the word "stupid" to explain an idea, concept, or movie, I thus vote your review and post as "stupid". Moving on.


I have been told off a few times for naughty words on here, and I am trying my best to be as clean as a whistle, as I love this forum. But there isnt much room to manoeuvre, so its best to limit your vocabulary to "lame", "stupid" or "George W Bush" if its really silly.

Can we use "Gorram" in the Firefly threads?

Maybe you need to expand your vocabulary? www.dictionary.com

mid
2006-Feb-23, 04:11 PM
Does 2001 stand on its own without having read any of the books or having seen the sequel? I know fans will say it does, but I am certain most of you were as confused as I was on seeing it for the first time. I just didnt enjoy it.

Well, I love 2001, and I've never read the book. I've seen 2010 once, decided that I preferred my understanding of 2001 to Hyams & Company's, and haven't bothered again. I've a vague memory of having read 2061 and not liking it, and I know that I didn't bother picking 3001 up.

But then, I'll also admit that I'm confused about some elements of 2001. I don't think anyone will claim they weren't at least at first. The real question is whether or not you enjoy being confused - I do, which is why I like the works of Lynch, Miyazaki and others, too. I don't need to know all the answers straight off.

Doodler
2006-Feb-23, 05:04 PM
I have so many responces to this that would not be acceptable on this forum.

Here's one: "I didn't like it" is a nice way to put it. "It wasn't my style" is another. "I don't like movies that move slowly" is yet another. "I like loud explosions more..." is a way to put it.

"It's stupid", "It's lame", "It's moronic", "The director is an idiot", "The people who star in it are idiots", "I don't see why it was produced in the first place", "MAN, what were they THINKING?!" are all ways to rile up people. But, since it's apparently okay to use the word "stupid" to explain an idea, concept, or movie, I thus vote your review and post as "stupid". Moving on.

While there are some substantial limitations on self expression based on the understood audience for this forum, we're not exactly trying to impress the publisher of the New Yorker Magazine, either. Gut level expression, and Deus knows I'm a poster of a good chunk of it since the days of BABBling, has never been squelched, even on the science forums, so long as it was reasonably inoffensive and defended with some intelligence, whether the poster ended up right or wrong. Getting riled up is an action on the part of the reader, not the poster. People can be entirely too sensitive to strong feelings that oppose their weltenschtaug.

If someone feels the urge to pimpslap 2001 as a load of cinematic tripe from the heart without an undergraduate level write up as to why, like a LOT of people have done with junk like Cube 2 or Arma-god-is-it-over-yet, they can. A high profile name attached to a piece of work doesn't make it immediately deserving of respect. And deities above know that Clarke's attached his name to a few stinkers in his time.

mid
2006-Feb-23, 05:17 PM
The difference being that we've had the eloquent destructions of those other films already, and so I for one don't mind people saying things like that about Armageddon (which I still regard as a fun film) - if we had to do long-winded defences of our opinions about it every time things would get really tedious.

I don't think that coming in to a thread that is seriously discussing the implications of Kubrick's film and calling it stupid (particularly when what little backup to the statement demonstrates an almost willful attempt to ignore the point) is very helpful.

Take the Alien discussion going on; after a few heated exchanges I'm finding the difference of opinion really interesting. Both the pro-Alien3 people like myself and the anti-Alien3 people like James have perfectly good reasons for our opinions.

One note that I'll draw on from it for here, though, is that it very much depends on what you want from the film. I disagree that 2001 is "stupid", quite the reverse in fact. But if you want answers, it isn't going to give them to you by the time the credits are rolling. Not everyone is happy with that, and that's fine.

edit - oh, and another reason why I don't mind people calling Armageddon stupid is that it is. I just don't think that's a bar to being entertaining. My cat's not exactly a genius, and I love her, too.

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-23, 05:28 PM
While there are some substantial limitations on self expression based on the understood audience for this forum, we're not exactly trying to impress the publisher of the New Yorker Magazine, either. Gut level expression, and Deus knows I'm a poster of a good chunk of it since the days of BABBling, has never been squelched, even on the science forums, so long as it was reasonably inoffensive and defended with some intelligence, whether the poster ended up right or wrong. Getting riled up is an action on the part of the reader, not the poster. People can be entirely too sensitive to strong feelings that oppose their weltenschtaug.

Does it really even matter if it's allowed on the board? It's still not helpful, it does rile people up, and quite frankly, you've been allowed to get away with calling people "retards". I still don't get why it's okay to call people "retards", but hey, whatever...

"reasonably inoffensive" indeed.


If someone feels the urge to pimpslap 2001 as a load of cinematic tripe from the heart without an undergraduate level write up as to why, like a LOT of people have done with junk like Cube 2 or Arma-god-is-it-over-yet, they can. A high profile name attached to a piece of work doesn't make it immediately deserving of respect. And deities above know that Clarke's attached his name to a few stinkers in his time.

But 2001 wasn't a stinker. Oh, sure, you think it is, because it's slow and you're obviously not able to understand it. "If I don't understand it, it must not be good!"

Jeesh, I remember when I liked posting and reading on the BAUT. I'm about BAUTed out in my life now, though.

It was a "pleasure", peeps.

Skipjack
2006-Feb-23, 11:53 PM
Honestly, I dont fully understand 2001 either, I have my theories about what Kubrick wanted to say with it, but I am not sure whether they are right.
Anyway, I still like the movie, as I said before.
I love the feeling about the tech in it not being tooo far in the future. I am still sure that almost everything in it would be pretty much doable given the funds and the will to do it (or could at least be done within a reasonable timeframe if the funding and will to do it were there).
CU
Skipjack

publiusr
2006-Mar-08, 09:59 PM
We are closer to 2010 now than 2001.

And still no ring station.

vonmazur
2006-Mar-08, 10:19 PM
I think Strother Martin said it best: "What we have heah, is a failure to kommunikate..." (Cool Hand Luke)

2001 is about failure to communicate....ie; The officials decide to send Discovery to Jupiter, but do not tell the crew what the mission is about, they just tell HAL, HAL goes nuerotic.....There are many other examples of this in the film, Heywood talking with his daughter on the picphone, lying to the Soviets in the lounge, etc..

Dale in Ala

Swift
2006-Mar-08, 10:47 PM
We are closer to 2010 now than 2001.

And still no ring station.
We also have no PanAm. Maybe there is a connection? ;)

Charly
2006-Mar-12, 06:39 AM
I have so many responces to this that would not be acceptable on this forum.

Here's one: "I didn't like it" is a nice way to put it. "It wasn't my style" is another. "I don't like movies that move slowly" is yet another. "I like loud explosions more..." is a way to put it.

"It's stupid", "It's lame", "It's moronic", "The director is an idiot", "The people who star in it are idiots", "I don't see why it was produced in the first place", "MAN, what were they THINKING?!" are all ways to rile up people. But, since it's apparently okay to use the word "stupid" to explain an idea, concept, or movie, I thus vote your review and post as "stupid". Moving on.



Maybe you need to expand your vocabulary? www.dictionary.com

You are funny. How does a dictionary help? You are thinking of a thesaurus.

I never called it stupid.

You cant have read my review. You went to all this trouble, and now you have shown yourself up. I justfied my reasons for not liking it. So whos stupid?

mickal555
2006-Mar-12, 02:12 PM
I've yet see 2001- its not in any local video stores...

Mellow
2006-May-03, 01:52 PM
Interesting thread, this. I've seen both films and enjoyed both. I have to be honest in that I think the 2001 feels a bit pretentious, but since it was made in the late 60's I'm not surprised about its general introspective tone. I suspect that by the time 2010 was made, audiences were demanding more story/action and that's what they received.

For what it's worth, I really enjoyed a sense of tension as Jupiter was slowly eating all the monoliths in 2010, who knew that they were just intersolar charcoal brickettes.

I woud have appreciated a little more narrative in 2001. But loved it anyway.

SolusLupus
2006-May-03, 02:15 PM
Since I'm of my wits, and less stressed out... (which is kinda funny, 'cause finals are close, but I just can't bring myself to stress myself out over them)


You are funny. How does a dictionary help? You are thinking of a thesaurus.

Why? It would just give you other terms for "stupid", which is not a word that was originally meant to be used to say, "I didn't like this..."

And quite frankly, I don't care if I'm of amusement to you or not.


I never called it stupid.

When did I say you did? Explicitely state where I said, specifically, that you were the one that used that word.

No, you defended the action of using that word. I defended my opinion of why I do not like it being use. Of course, I got rather aggressive with my tone as I grew frustrated. I apologize for that.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised at the lack of originality from people like Doodler. They claim that the only word they can think of is "stupid" to communicate their idea of dislike for the film. Is that really how limited you feel?