PDA

View Full Version : 2001: A Space Odyssey "explained"



semi-sentient
2003-Aug-30, 04:35 AM
http://www.kubrick2001.com/2001.html

This has to be one of the most well done Flash movies I've ever seen. It offers a great deal of insight into the meaning of the movie, some of which I already knew, and some of which I never considered. This movie could almost be used as a prelude to The Matrix, when man still had control. Anyway, check it out.

Pinemarten
2003-Sep-08, 01:40 AM
Good link. My curiosity is satiated after many decades.

Edited for stupid typo.

Madcat
2003-Sep-11, 08:59 PM
Read the book too, it's great.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Sep-12, 03:35 AM
And if you like the book, read the sequels.

The Lawyer
2003-Sep-12, 02:54 PM
I have to object to the Supreme Canuck's suggestion. Spend Your money on 2001 then resume Your life thinking of Arthur C. Clarke as a great (the greatest) science-fiction writer. Read 2010, it's still good but no match compared to 2001. Read 2061, start wondering if the mind of a genius can be sent on vacation. Read 3001, You are to busy to avoid dying because of boring to ask yourself why he wrote that book. Seriously, 2061 and 3001 are rather weak. The most interesting points have been made in 2001 and 2010.

However, I originally intended to post in this forum because of something completely different. Has anyone seen One: A Space Odyssee? Go watch it at http://www.spiteyourface.com/one/film.html. They summarized the movie in one minute with Lego. It's fun. They also did a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail in Lego.

ToSeek
2003-Sep-12, 04:06 PM
I have to object to the Supreme Canuck's suggestion. Spend Your money on 2001 then resume Your life thinking of Arthur C. Clarke as a great (the greatest) science-fiction writer. Read 2010, it's still good but no match compared to 2001. Read 2061, start wondering if the mind of a genius can be sent on vacation. Read 3001, You are to busy to avoid dying because of boring to ask yourself why he wrote that book. Seriously, 2061 and 3001 are rather weak. The most interesting points have been made in 2001 and 2010.



I get the feeling that Clarke has gone the way of Heinlein, reaching a certain point and then all but incapable of writing anything worthwhile thereafter. I recently read two novels of his bound together: Deep Range and Ghost from the Grand Banks. The former is a classic from his early days, the latter's main distinction is all the times Clarke pats himself on the back for how clever he is.

informant
2003-Sep-12, 05:30 PM
One thing I liked about The Ghost from the Grand Banks - and other recent novels by Clarke, including 2061 - was the sense of humour. Clarke has a subtle sense of humour which does not show in earlier novels like 2001 or Rendezvous with Rama. I thought that was an interesting revelation.
Although I agree with most of what the earlier posters wrote, I realized with some surprise, when I browsed through some book reviews at amazon.com, that there will almost always be someone for each possible opinion. I've read reviews by people whose favorite novel in the series is 2061, or even 3001!
In any case, if your goal is to understand 2001 a bit better, you don't need any of the sequels.

doltish
2003-Sep-12, 09:50 PM
I've never had the urge to see the movie so bad...

That flash animation was great. It always helps to see explanations for things like that even if you've already grasped the overall meaning...

Madcat
2003-Sep-12, 09:50 PM
Actually, that's really funny. I read 2001, 2010, and 2061 because they were given to me by my Father, who found them in the Attic. I didn't even know there was a 3001.

Alex W.
2003-Sep-13, 12:15 AM
Amusingly, I read 3001 first, finding it in a book shop in my small town. I then set about tracking down the other books (and specifically the editions by the same publisher, so that the classy cover art matched). As fate would have it, I read the entire saga backwards.

Madcat
2003-Sep-13, 05:31 AM
And you know, you sig looks like a continuation of this thread now. :)

Geoff394
2003-Sep-13, 07:19 PM
I definitely think that the book is the Cliff/Coles notes for the movie. It was the book that explained the tube like ship the bone 'becomes' in the wonderful transition shot is an orbiting weapons platform therby completely changing the context of the shot.

Madcat
2003-Sep-13, 07:45 PM
Doesn't the bone turn into a PanAm flight? :-?

Geoff394
2003-Sep-13, 08:02 PM
No. It's actually a big tube like 'ship'. Kubrick removed the 'weapons platform' reference for reasons that are still unknown.

Interesting that you should ask though ... I used think that too! :D

Alex W.
2003-Sep-13, 08:43 PM
And you know, you sig looks like a continuation of this thread now. :)

Yeah, it's quite good for that. Its true origins are shrouded in obscurity...

informant
2003-Sep-15, 02:27 PM
This earlier thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7014&highlight=2001) might be of interest. :)

kucharek
2003-Sep-15, 02:34 PM
No. It's actually a big tube like 'ship'. Kubrick removed the 'weapons platform' reference for reasons that are still unknown.

Interesting that you should ask though ... I used think that too! :D

And Kubrick showed some humour with this one (http://www.palantir.net/cgi-bin/image.cgi?pics/danube02.jpg). See the German flag? 8-[

[Edit]Argh.. Direct link doesn't works...
Go to http://www.palantir.net/2001/gallery/danube.html and select the top left one.

mike alexander
2003-Sep-15, 09:27 PM
Too bad you can't see it in Cinerama anymore. It loses so much. I saw it opening night in Cleveland on the big curved screen. Fifth row center, so the screen essentially took up your entire visual field. Kowabunga.

Geoff394
2003-Sep-16, 03:36 AM
FYI there's a great documentary on the making of 2001 (made in 2001 of course) and a look at the astronomy and science involved.

http://www.foolishearthling.com/2001.htm

Apparently the only one that Clarke agreed to be interviewed about.

Madcat
2003-Sep-16, 04:31 AM
I wonder if Cinerama is anything like IMAX. If it is, your dream is rather likely to be a reality at some time or another.

mike alexander
2003-Sep-16, 11:59 PM
Cinerama was IMAX's daddy (or granddaddy). Special squoosh lens.

In fact, the ORIGINAL Cinerama used three synched projectors to fill the screen. Am I dating myself here.

Wait. Didn't 'Napoleon' use that, too? Back in the 20's?

Donnie B.
2003-Sep-17, 01:46 PM
Cinerama was IMAX's daddy (or granddaddy). Special squoosh lens.

In fact, the ORIGINAL Cinerama used three synched projectors to fill the screen. Am I dating myself here.

Wait. Didn't 'Napoleon' use that, too? Back in the 20's?
If you're dating yourself and it doesn't work out, do you have to break up with yourself? :P
But seriously... I saw 2001 at least three times in Cinerama theaters -- the original, three-projector kind -- in first release. Eat your hearts out, kids! :P

pmcolt
2003-Sep-17, 03:44 PM
Jealousy. I've only ever seen the movie on a TV screen. When this thread started, it finally spurred me to go out and get the DVD. Which required trips to about three stores before finding one that actually had it in stock. :evil:

mike alexander
2003-Sep-17, 04:05 PM
I don't even know if 2001 is worth watching on a TV screen. The aspect ratio of the original film was so wide that there is almost continuous panning for a full-screen print, and a wide-screen version makes the image too small. And many of the motifs have been so overused in the intervening generation that a lot of the original impact is lost.

And remember, all the special effects were done by optical printing-no computer graphics.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Sep-18, 11:55 PM
When I watched it the other day I was surprised by how good the planet graphics were compared to, say, Alien. Astounding. I really want to see it in IMAX.

ToSeek
2003-Sep-19, 03:24 PM
I don't even know if 2001 is worth watching on a TV screen. The aspect ratio of the original film was so wide that there is almost continuous panning for a full-screen print, and a wide-screen version makes the image too small. And many of the motifs have been so overused in the intervening generation that a lot of the original impact is lost.

And remember, all the special effects were done by optical printing-no computer graphics.

Even the "computer graphics" (as shown by HAL) aren't computer graphics, but straight animation.

informant
2003-Sep-19, 03:26 PM
That's very interesting! I had no idea. Although it makes sense once you think about the state of computer science in the late sixties.

Geoff394
2003-Sep-22, 11:24 PM
Most of the cool effects you see at the end of the film is Douglas Trumbull's 'Slit Scan' technique. It's not quite animation but a photographic effects technique using time exposure of a painting.

Incidentally, if you read the book the planet is Saturn I think. They used Jupiter in the movie because the effects department had problems with the concentric rings of Saturn.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Sep-23, 01:38 AM
Yep. That's what Clarke says in the intro.