User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 8:56:52 PM EDT
[#1]
That's the understatement of the day. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 8:59:56 PM EDT
[#2]
The film is actually rather brilliant. What most people (and it seems you) have a problem with is the way Kubrik represents abstract ideas. It is one of those "what do space aliens" look like things. You can have a great movie going and then....you show the aliens and they are lame. Rather than use "guys in rubber suits" for his abstract ideas he uses seriously weird imagery. But his strange visuals are still way better than aliens in rubber suits and they keep his films from being as dated. The downside of course is when these visuals which are meant to convey abstract ideas end up obscuring them completely for some folks. And that is why a lot of people have to watch Kubrik films a handful of times before they can appreciate them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:01:17 PM EDT
[#3]
You think something like Matrix is better? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:01:55 PM EDT
[#4]
+1 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:02:55 PM EDT
[#5]
You'd HATE one of these...  ... and no doubt find Altered States uninteresting. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:12:35 PM EDT
[#6]
I have seen it. First time I saw it was pretty funny, but second go around was good. Don't get me wrong, I love off beat movies and got Netflix to go for the volume of titles I wanted to see. Though this movie seemed rather pointless and tried to be something it wasn't. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:17:08 PM EDT
[#7]
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:21:06 PM EDT
[#8]
No. But I do think that Star Wars was better, and I'll tell you why. Not because of the explosions and special effects, but because of the story. 2001 was a series of discombobulated cinematic shots with lots of dead air and very little story. Most of the movie was like watching grass grow, and then he basically tortures you with sensory overload when the guy enters the monolith. That's pretty much all there is to it. Like Max_Mike said, it has not focus. It's an artsy indy film in outer space where everything is representitive of something and you have to look beyond what you're seeing to find the meaning of it. It's not entertaining. It's boring until he throws in the acid trip, then it becomes painful to watch. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:21:31 PM EDT
[#9]
They are not 'non-action' scenes. They are abosultely pointless and serve no purpose. AND DON'T SAY THAT'S THE BEAUTY. GO TAKE YOUR LSD AND FUCK YOUR COUCH STONER BOY!  They are pointless because they are pointless! 10 minutes of flickery lights down a vortex isn't going to make the movie make any more sense or add to the 'thinking' factor. If flickery lights give you something to think about, go to a doctor... It seemed like it was litterally a bunch of random ideas, loosely connected, and came off as only a stunt to show SE's. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:23:45 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:25:40 PM EDT
[#11]
I thought that was almost as boring as the damn movie! It's a freakin' conspiracy!!! |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:32:14 PM EDT
[#12]
The film was revolutionary at the time. Now with notions like "cosmic seeding" being an actual possibility, the idea that aliens came down here and "evolved" us seems less spectacular. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:33:05 PM EDT
[#13]
I love that move. I also love 2010.
They ROCK dude. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:39:34 PM EDT
[#14]
Actually that is not true. Their purpose is to "try" and represent an abstract concept that we have no first hand understanding of. Try and represent what "God" would ACTUALLY look like. Try and represent what the beginning of time was like. Try and represent what an alternate universe would be like. See the problem? Realizing that and direct representation of these "abstracts" would end up being hokey, Kubrick chose to go with the imagery you find random and sporatic. This saves him from being "wrong" until the day comes that we come to understand one of these "abstacts" firsthand, which will be some time in the future. You really have to get past these images if you want to appreciate what the movie is actually about. Quite honestly, they bore the shit out of me as well. Once you've seen them they have no sustaining interest. It is only the concept of the film and the story that let me watch 2001. When he starts into 10 minutes of goofy lights I grab a snack. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:42:08 PM EDT
[#15]
The idea that there's like, these good guys with blaster guns and space ships fighting an interglactic (that's five syllables) battle against bad guys in plastic suits who want to conquer the universe. I mean come on dude! Good guys versus bad guys? Space ships and guys in weird rubber space alien costumes? "Droids"? Hell man it's a revolutionary sci-fi movie! And it's not just a deep story too - it's got lots of explosions and robots and it still makes you think too! Remember that scene when they went into "hyperspace" and how the stars all turned into lines? Whoa man I kept thinking about that concept for days afterwards. Oh and I even learned what a parsec was too. Oh man dude, you just don't know great science fiction. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:45:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Sorry, but no. 1 x 4 x 9 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 9:56:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Oh yeah, like a movie that starts out with a bunch of monkey's playing with bones, and climaxes with a white guy (who is practically mute), in a white suit on a white spaceship eventually getting sucked into a rock video is soooo much better. Oh, and let's not leave out the scene where you hear a guy in a rubber suit (surprise, surprise) breathing heavy for about 5 minutes. That's a REAL Sci-Fi movie because it's cerebral. Intelligent people don't need alot of lines or activity to entertain them (or even keep them awake). Just show them some white backgrounds and a few neon lights and they're good to go (kind like moths now that I think about it). |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2006 11:18:21 PM EDT
[#19]
"Daddy, I want a bushbaby"
Kubrick films are long and internal or hyperactive. I think 2001's appeal has diminished for the masses now that men in space is an everyday (tourist!) event. The timing, audio, and cuts between images are outstanding and always a joy to watch. How about we transition to a discussion of The Killing and Paths of Glory? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 8:09:42 AM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2006 10:37:31 AM EDT
[#21]
Now that is Kubrick at his best when he had budgets he could not over do things on. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 6:06:07 AM EDT
[#22]
I agree, there just seems to be more character and story focus. Curse of the auteur I guess, having to have a finger in every pot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 6:14:25 AM EDT
[#23]
a very good movie. Can seem a bit slow at times, and yes, some of it can be a "hey, what just happened" moment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 6:32:28 AM EDT
[#24]
One of my favorite movies, all time.
If you don't look past the obvious imagery, it's just a beautiful movie that jumps from age to age with the Monoliths signifying something but you don't know what. The book really was so open ended - without the heavy meaning Kubrick put into it - that I didn't particularly care for it. And I'm a HUGE Clarke fan. I still get goosebumps at the significance of the moment the sunlight hits the Monolith in Tycho crater! I can't wait to get a bigscreen television to watch it again and again. Trivia: Evidently they had a whole new orchestral score done for the movie but Kubrick liked the placeholders they used (Also Sprach Zarathustra... shivers) so much he left them in! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 6:54:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Please explain.....never heard of a Floyd tie-in to this one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 9:54:41 AM EDT
[#26]
It's very typical of a Clarke story; that man's beginning and ultimate destiny lies in space. I guess he's not a fan of the earth and mankind in general, at least as it exist now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 9:57:07 AM EDT
[#27]
Kubrick was a genius.
Still trying to figure out the Kidman/Cruise thing, though.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:02:23 AM EDT
[#28]
"I'm sorry, I can't do that Dave" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:06:23 AM EDT
[#29]
I agree that the movie is crap, but I think the computer is funny.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:08:49 AM EDT
[#30]
It seems hugely more intelligent and thoughtful than watching the latest guy with the wrinkled forehead fighting some predictable monster. I should add that it is a far more impressive movie when seen on a big screen. In order to get the full effect you need to be immersed in it. If you have only seen it on TV, then you haven't really seen it. One of the effects it really did well was to give you the feeling that you were standing at the edge of space, which tends to make you reflect on your own tiny position in this vast universe. The "awe" factor sets you up emotionally and then he tells a story that is a lot more interesting than some guy riding a dubbed-in iguana. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:21:14 AM EDT
[#31]
Because Stanley Kubrik was one of the best Directors EVER!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:23:53 AM EDT
[#32]
Paths of Glory Dr. Strangelove 2001 Spartacus Full Metal Jacket Those are my favorites -- not necessarily in that order. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:50:31 AM EDT
[#33]
 Monsters don't have a damn thing to do with what I am talking about... Classic science fiction… the interaction of SCIENCE on humans their actions and reactions. How SCIENCE effects human interaction. For example the interaction of and consequences of the robots in Asimov’s robot stories. Contrary to the spaceships, and pretty pictures of space the ONLY real science fiction in 2001 is the interaction with HAL. Matter of fact 2001 is more contrary science than anything else… it seems to have slipped everyones grasp the movie is about intelligent design. You could substitute sailing ships for space ships, islands for planets and moons and do the same story. 2001 is movie that made non-science the focus of science fiction. I saw 2001 in its original release and several times on the big screen and was greatly impressed. It is a great movie, a technical master piece… but great science fiction it is not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 10:56:35 AM EDT
[#34]
Actually there was a special not too long ago that documented the many things depicted in 2001 that actually came to be. It was rather interesting. But arguing that 2001 or Kubrick sucked simply because you don't care for the style doesn't make it true. I personally feel about the same way with respect to Van Gogh. I just don't appreciate his art, I think it is weird and I don't understand people who have a jism attack over it. But I'd destroy my own credibility if I tried to argue he had no artistic ability and that his paintings suck. I simply don't like or appreciate them. You seem to not like or appreciate Kubrick. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 11:40:19 AM EDT
[#35]
Can anybody read. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 11:59:25 AM EDT
[#36]
The book and movie confuses rather than clarifies what it means to be human. The dignity of man is removed, and it was an early attempt at "Intelligent Design"- a mix between Darwinian Evolution and Theistic Creation. It's a bad compromise of both.
Apart from the visionary technical aspect of it, it is pure fantasy from a philosophical perspective. And by that I mean that its philosophy and moral statements are unfounded, based on nothing more than the author's imagination, and as such they are empty. However the work does have merit in the fact that it forces the thoughtful viewer/reader to grapple with fundamental yet often avoided questions: what does it mean to be human, what is mankind's past and future, and is there an intelligence higher and influential on man's? Good questions, but I reject the answers provided. Better and more supported ones exist. But it is good to provoke folks to initiate the search. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 12:24:38 PM EDT
[#37]
Whether it's time-travel, space-travel, alien invasions, artificial-intelligence, extra-dimensional existances or whatever - the real heart of every science fiction story is NOT the "science" but rather the way those eternal struggles and themes are played out. You can take the "science" out of EVERY science fiction story and the heart of the story will still remain but that doesn't make it any less science fiction. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 12:29:06 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 12:34:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Don't understand it? Well then, I guess that you had to be there!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 1:37:33 PM EDT
[#40]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 1:37:36 PM EDT
[#41]
I don't think you're wrong thinking the movie was self-indulgent. Kubrick's a bit different and not as accessible for some tastes and I think he always leaves a little out. Likening the movie to the Odyssey might be a stretch. Technically the movie was pretty brilliant and way ahead of it's time. Even if you weren't "getting it" it was fun to watch (especially in 68). As time moved on the Special Effects did too. Nearly ALL films are paced much quicker today and have more cuts and high tempo music. Sometimes you just have to have the right frame of mind to watch a "slow" film. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 2:07:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Yes. Your complete quote is this. I saw 2001 in its original release and several times on the big screen and was greatly impressed. It is a great movie, a technical master piece… but great science fiction it is not. It was the second part that I addressed. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 2:08:48 PM EDT
[#43]
"Slow" has nothing to do with it. This film was not "slow". It was filled with so much filler, no focus, and the 'look what I can do with SE' thing got old REAL quick. If you're on an acid trip, it makes good viewing, BUT PAAALLLEEEASSEEEE. Kurbrik was being an egotists as usuall. The novelty of SE wore off when IT WAS USED FOR ALMOST TWO HOURS STRAIGHT. Maybe neat then, I understand, but to try to watch it as it is, is a big pain in the ass. How can I take a film seriously and try view it as a work if you show flickery lights for 10 mintues and a 40 minute montogue of the moon. If you like flickery lights, I have a flashlight. You can have it. Infact, I got a video camera too, make a movie and have every drone in the world view it as something amazing and a true art. It make even get ranked as high as the one piece of 'art' with a crusifix in a jar of urine. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 2:14:20 PM EDT
[#44]
The creators of the movies in 30 seconds with bunnies should do a 2001 animation www.angryalien.com |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 2:14:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Well apparently you cannot read... if you can please explain where sucked came from in anything I said. I didn't say "sucked" it or imply it as you said, I stand by it is not great science fiction… but I never implied or said suck you made that up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 2:18:21 PM EDT
[#46]
Aha, now I understand your objection. The first part of my reply was to you specifically. "Actually there was a special not too long ago that documented the many things depicted in 2001 that actually came to be. It was rather interesting." This was to address that it was actually rather good science fiction. The other part of my reply was a general reply to those who think it "sucked" but wasn't addressed to you specifically. I do that sometimes and I really need to be more specific. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 2:32:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Start the song "Echoes" off the album "Meddle" at the start of the chapter "Jupiter and beyond the Infinite". It is pretty neat. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 3:01:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Ok good enough on the sucked... But if you want to use predictions as a measure what about the very very very many more that have still not come true 4 years after 2001… Like… Large scale human presence in space… Large useable space stations… Reliable reusable space transport… Moon bases… Human exploration of other bodies in the solar system… Human deep space exploration… Commercial hotels in space… Picture phones every where… Computers that you can converse with… Ect… Ect… Ect… This mean Krubrick planted enough possibilities in the movies to hit a few and this really has nothing to do with my point the movie really has very little to do with science… if anything the movie is anti-science. Other than HAL science had almost no impact on the story, IMO for a story to be labeled great science fiction the science must drive the themes in the story… it does not in 2001. The science in 2001 is a backdrop. 2001 is science fiction that only pays passing interest to science. You could remove all of these predictions and the science that goes along with them and substitute sailing ships and an evil second mate for HAL… the science in 2001 has little impacts on the core story. The monoliths are not science as is none of the ending. Take Blade Runner for example which use science and scientific creations to address many of the same issues 2001 use what is effectively intelligent design (no science) to address. We will have to agree to disagree IMO 2001 is a great movie… but just passing science fiction. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 3:52:13 PM EDT
[#49]
H.G. Wells missed a LOT of them too but I don't think anyone is gonna question if his stuff is good sci fi. That said "Computers that you can converse with" do exist and "Picture phones every where" are easily webcams. The space shuttle was arguably "Reliable reusable space transport" and we did have a few "Large useable space stations." Star Trek was ALSO brilliant sci fi and most of that still doesn't exist. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2006 4:05:33 PM EDT
[#50]
Also Fantasia. 
|
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
