I finally viewed 2001: A Space Odyssey

[louisak]

My view on 2001 is identical to Della’s. I tried the American* Solaris* but couldn’t take it.

Would you recommend I try the Russian Solaris?

If you didn’t like the Hollywood version, and you didn’t like 2001, you definitely won’t like the Russian version. Don’t bother.

 

[tomarin]

If you didn’t like the Hollywood version, and you didn’t like 2001, you definitely won’t like the Russian version. Don’t bother.

It’s a lot, for want of a better term, ‘trippier’ than 2001, as well as more expressionistic (or melodramatic) - i.e. the characters wear their hearts on their sleeves. Nevertheless it’s always compared to 2001 because it came out around the same time and is a kind of cosmic whodunit set in outer space, featuring astronauts/cosmonauts.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

If the whodunit part makes sense, it might be worth it for me to try. I’m a big Christie fan.

 

[CaptFun]

Yeah, it runs for 2 hours 27 minutes. It could have been cut by 27 minutes and lost nothing, IMHO. I won’t advise you to see it or not see it. Maybe you will enjoy it–I may not have the right mind set for it. I only watched it so I could say that I did.

This is funny. I saw it on a big screen in about the fall of 1969. And liked it.

Largely because of its now arcane special effects, the proximity to the first moon landing (JUST completed) and our tendency to ask … what’s next? From 1939 to 1969 we’d gone from biplanes to the moon with nuclear energy becoming possible along the way … so the idea of what life WILL be like in 2001 probably led to a lot of daydreaming and imagination during the lulls in the film … which, charitably put, developed its mysteries at a leisurely pace.

Putting a stopwatch on the waitress who brings the food through the ship wearing anti-gravity boots will reveal a bit of padding at that.

Probably the great redeeming feature of the film is the music and sound effects, the special effects, and visuals – but all these are best seen on big screen indoors.

We saw it a second time in a drive-in … remember those? … and uh, not as good.

On a TV these days I can see how it would look like stretching a half hour Twilight Zone anthology piece into an uber-long cryptic journey to (an ending you make up the meaning for yourself).

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzEyL9UtDk-NEia42k6DbmZd6-8UR_R1os9Nh7aclhxEiu5YPKZDSr2a0

OTOH … :clapping: for the good memories … the theater shaking as the sun “rose” from behind the Earth with the strains of “Also Sprach Zarathusta” thumping in my chest … and of course the uninterrupted musical masterpiece “The Blue Danube” enhanced by a sort of tribute to the progress of man (via the Space Program and projections of it).

I did like the HAL sequences. It did make the movie a bit of a cult film to those of college years (me at the time). Certain lines from the movie were used as laugh lines in our every day conversation.

***“I think you missed it Dave …” ***

^ delivered in Hal’s monotone voice … with a hint of Eddie Haskell in the solicitude … (since we NOW knew HAL was … evil … or at least not as nice as he talked).

There ARE a few LONG waits in the film as people walk, jog, etc. - though supposedly interesting in that we were looking at the future … when it came out.

Which is why fans of golf love the movie.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Astronaut Alan Shepard hits a golf ball on the moon.

 

[tomarin]

If the whodunit part makes sense, it might be worth it for me to try. I’m a big Christie fan.

Don’t take me too literally there.

 

[tomarin]

Largely because of its now arcane special effects, the proximity to the first moon landing (JUST completed) and our tendency to ask … what’s next?

Many of the models and sets were re-used for “Space 1999” and while that was not a very good series, I’ve rewatched some of the episodes recently and found the special effects surprisingly realistic, even by today’s standards (sometimes CGI looks weightless and fake).

 

[CaptFun]

Many of the models and sets were re-used for “Space 1999” and while that was not a very good series, I’ve rewatched some of the episodes recently and found the special effects surprisingly realistic, even by today’s standards (sometimes CGI looks weightless and fake).

maybe arcane was a bad choice of words on my part re: the special effects. At the time when they were NEW … they were more sensational (let’s say by way of amendment). In the many years since 2001 has been around … similar effects have become more commonplace and don’t QUITE pack the wallop of “I’ve never seen anything like THAT before!”. Because we HAVE (now).

 

[MrZoom]

Many of the models and sets were re-used for “Space 1999” and while that was not a very good series, I’ve rewatched some of the episodes recently and found the special effects surprisingly realistic, even by today’s standards (sometimes CGI looks weightless and fake).

Indeed. I’ve been rewatching the Star Wars movies (in preparation for the new one coming out). I’m through the first two prequels and boy, did Lucas go overboard with the CGI in some places.

Also, have you seen the trailer for Gods of Egypt? That looks like it’s going to be another mess of excessive CGI.

CGI can be a great tool when it’s used right. But in many cases, old-school special effects are just as good, if not better.

 

[edwest2]

The storytelling was quite good until the end.

The Monolith was a replacement for God. It was Nihilism personified, nothing more.

God doesn’t exist but alien thingamajigs do

Yeah, right.

Ed

 

[FollowChrist34]

The storytelling was quite good until the end.

The Monolith was a replacement for God. It was Nihilism personified, nothing more.

God doesn’t exist but alien thingamajigs do

Yeah, right.

Ed

I prefer to think of the monolith as symbolic of the life force - the source of knowledge, life - the mystery of it; the question of what it is. I think that makes for a more interesting film than if it is just an “alien thingamajigs.” I think Kubrick would be ok with me doing that.

I am not a fan of science fiction - I am realizing the more I read this thread that perhaps that is why I like but don’t love the movie. Not my genre. From my perspective there are people who go overboard with the significance (and quality) of this film - just as there are people who underrate it.

 

[Tim_D]

The storytelling was quite good until the end.

The Monolith was a replacement for God. It was Nihilism personified, nothing more.

God doesn’t exist but alien thingamajigs do

Yeah, right.

If you want stories about God, then read the Bible.

2001:ASO is a movie that is supposed to make the viewer think. I never thought that it was such an outrageous suggestion until I read some of the posts in this thread.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

I don’t think that being a scifi fan would move a person from like to love with this film.

I’m a huge scifi fan - books, films, TV. I don’t like all of it, but I like a wide range - from Cowboys in Space (with or without aliens) to Introspective Dystopias (with or without space travel).

But I do not like 2001.

I think it’s beautiful to look at and listen to - in small doses. I consider it to be a top-notch example of what a really good planetarium laser show can be.

But both times I’ve watched it, the screenwriter in me (I have a useless film degree from UCLA) wanted to tear my wounded brain out and scream, “The emperor has no clothes!”

Being a fan of good scifi only increased that desire.

 

[edwest2]

If you want stories about God, then read the Bible.

2001:ASO is a movie that is supposed to make the viewer think. I never thought that it was such an outrageous suggestion until I read some of the posts in this thread.

Allow me to be a bit more blunt - an alien thing, sentient or not, was created by an alien force/life form that decided to guide man from his primitive self to his more modern self. Without its guidance, and manipulation, we would not have been part of the story or creation of things that would take us to the next “level.” That is anti-theism.

In 2010, Jupiter, with the aid of multiplying monoliths, becomes a star named Lucifer.

Ed

 

[Tim_D]

Allow me to be a bit more blunt - an alien thing, sentient or not, was created by an alien force/life form that decided to guide man from his primitive self to his more modern self. Without its guidance, and manipulation, we would not have been part of the story or creation of things that would take us to the next “level.” That is anti-theism.

It was not the intent of the makers of the film to demonstrate a positive theistic position anymore than it was Mary Shelly’s intent when she conceived the story Frankenstein where mortal man creates human life outside of the realm of God.

Complaining of a lack of theism in 2001:ASO is like complaining about a lack of drama in a Three Stooges film.

In 2010, Jupiter, with the aid of multiplying monoliths, becomes a star named Lucifer.

The book/movie 2010 has nothing to do with the vision of Stanley Kubrick.

 

[Tim_D]

But both times I’ve watched it, the screenwriter in me (I have a useless film degree from UCLA) wanted to tear my wounded brain out and scream, “The emperor has no clothes!”

Let’s see; Stanley Kubrick produced the following critically acclaimed films:

The Killing
Paths of Glory
Spartacus
Lolita
Dr. Strangelove
2001: A Space Odyssey
A Clockwork Orange
Barry Lyndon
The Shining
Full Metal Jacket

And you as a “screenwriter” were involved in…???

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

The “emperor” in my quote was 2001, not Kubrick. I definitely could’ve made that more clear.

I also could’ve made it clearer that I’ve received absolutely no money from screenwriting, but I thought that was implied by “useless degree.”

Would my opinion be more valid if I had sold one of my scripts?

I once saw a documentary about celebrity thoughts on* 2001* - in fact, it made me decide to give the film a second chance. Most raved about it, but quite a few hated it. One celebrity was a convert: Woody Allen hated the movie for years, but one day re-watched it and suddenly saw the light.

I understand that *2001 *inspires deep thoughts in many people, but that in no way implies that the people who don’t appreciate the film are non-thinking. Perhaps I will reconsider my opinion of the film if I am ever presented with an example of what the film’s groundbreaking philosophical enlightment actually was.

 

[tomarin]

Gosh. Cue Roberta Flack’s “Where is the Love” …

Stanley Kubrick’s films are known for having a cold quality and for having a bird’s-eye, supra-human point of view that minimizes or reduces the human characters in the story (note how non-human Hal 3000 comes across as a more compelling, I almost want to say a more sympathetic character - could that be because Kubrick finds Hal more likable than his two human characters? - than the two astronauts played by no-name actors) and that iciness definitely turns some people off. While that tendency to turn movies into tableaux with tiny figures didn’t work in “Barry Lyndon” I would argue it did work in “2001” because it suited the subject matter which is space exploration and alien contact.

 

[Della]

Gosh. Cue Roberta Flack’s “Where is the Love” …

Stanley Kubrick’s films are known for having a cold quality and for having a bird’s-eye, supra-human point of view that minimizes or reduces the human characters in the story (note how non-human Hal 3000 comes across as a more compelling, I almost want to say a more sympathetic character - could that be because Kubrick finds Hal more likable than his two human characters? - than the two astronauts played by no-name actors) and that iciness definitely turns some people off. While that tendency to turn movies into tableaux with tiny figures didn’t work in “Barry Lyndon” I would argue it did work in “2001” because it suited the subject matter which is space exploration and alien contact.

Yes. I have no problem with a cold movie of this type–the kind of cerebral approach to mankind’s future envisioned in the film. The vision doesn’t particularly appeal to me on many levels, but that’s not my complaint about the film. Mine is that it’s overly long and pretentious. In parts it is thought-provoking, but overall not so much. The overarching theme, if there is one, is so obscure as to make it annoying rather than challenging–for me anyway.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Kubrick explains 2001  NOV 18 2010

One of the more common reactions to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is “wait, what the hell happened exactly?” In a 1969 interview with Joseph Gelmis, Kubrick explained the plot in a very straightforward manner:

You begin with an artifact left on earth four million years ago by extraterrestrial explorers who observed the behavior of the man-apes of the time and decided to influence their evolutionary progression. Then you have a second artifact buried deep on the lunar surface and programmed to signal word of man's first baby steps into the universe -- a kind of cosmic burglar alarm. And finally there's a third artifact placed in orbit around Jupiter and waiting for the time when man has reached the outer rim of his own solar system.

When the surviving astronaut, Bowman, ultimately reaches Jupiter, this artifact sweeps him into a force field or star gate that hurls him on a journey through inner and outer space and finally transports him to another part of the galaxy, where he's placed in a human zoo approximating a hospital terrestrial environment drawn out of his own dreams and imagination. In a timeless state, his life passes from middle age to senescence to death. He is reborn, an enhanced being, a star child, an angel, a superman, if you like, and returns to earth prepared for the next leap forward of man's evolutionary destiny.

** That is what happens on the film’s simplest level. Since an encounter with an advanced interstellar intelligence would be incomprehensible within our present earthbound frames of reference, reactions to it will have elements of philosophy and metaphysics that have nothing to do with the bare plot outline itself.**

Straight from the horse’s mouth. I now concede that the monolith was not intended to represent God or the life force, however, I hold to my basic position that this interpretation is acceptable in the context of what Kubrick was doing and what he thought the general audience would see as the film’s theme or significance, especially given the obscurity in the presentation of the basic storyline (minimal dialogue/background/character development. (see bolded text)

Anyway, I can’t help it if I understand the essence of life (“intelligence”) better than Kubrick does… He wouldn’t be the first artist to create something he didn’t fully understand himself. He’s lucky I am here to elucidate all of this.

 

[Bataar]

Straight from the horse’s mouth. I now concede that the monolith was not intended to represent God or the life force, however, I hold to my basic position that this interpretation is acceptable in the context of what Kubrick was doing and what he thought the general audience would see as the film’s theme or significance, especially given the obscurity in the presentation of the basic storyline (minimal dialogue/background/character development. (see bolded text)

Anyway, I can’t help it if I understand the essence of life (“intelligence”) better than Kubrick does… He wouldn’t be the first artist to create something he didn’t fully understand himself. He’s lucky I am here to elucidate all of this.

I agree with what you quoted, for the most part. With that in mind, the story would have been a lot better if they had the issue with HAL. Just have the crew of the Discovery find the monolith, have something go wrong that kills the crew other than Bowman and have him enter the monolith. Having HAL do what it does without any kind of explanation just throws a huge kink in the story that it does not need.

Also, we do not really know what the star child is or represents. We can have theories, but we don’t know. There’s no way to know if it’s a superior life form, if it’s an angel, a superman as is mentioned. It might be just a symbol that doesn’t exist at all. After watching /reading 2010, you know for sure, but not before that.