Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/4/2006 5:18:22 PM EDT
If it's so great, then what's the meaning here? What makes this so great? Just seemed so random and unplanned. I thought it was a total piece of crap. No wonder people walked out of the theatres when this was played in 68'. Granted, people then didn't see space as we do now, but good God, you can't make a 150 minute movie out of it. I sat and watched a movie that was 2 hours of special effects of floating mark-ups and only 30 minutes of any meat.

So you had a rock that took man from an ape to an intelligent being, we find it, send out an exploration team to Jupiter, the ship's computer deep-6's, they finally get to Jupiter, go into some sort of vertex, and we end up with a giant fetus...

Can anyone else not see this is a broken down and rather aimless film? Most people say you need to think to enjoy this film. HOW? All I saw were 2 hours of special effects and nothing even then happened.


AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF WE HAVE A MOVIE FORUM, IT GETS USED JUST AS MUCH AS THE AK MAINTANCE PAGE.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:19:42 PM EDT

Best

SciFi

Film

Ever

Made

<­BR>Period.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:20:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TrollAccount:
Best

SciFi

Film

Ever

Made

<­BR>Period.




I like your forum name.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:20:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TrollAccount:
Best

SciFi

Film

Ever

Made

<­BR>Period.




I

agree
­



wholeheartedly
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:23:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:24:06 PM EDT
Well, I saw it on its first release in theater (I was 11 at the time) and I didn't have a fucking clue about what I saw but I knew it was cool.

Reading Clarke's novel when I was a bit older cleared the whole thing up and my next viewing was FAR more enjoyable.

The film was SOOOOO far ahead of its time in the accurate portrayal of space and spaceflight that it left people dumbfounded.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:24:13 PM EDT
To have an opinion, you must back it with SOMETHING.

How is this film so great?

Why is it so great in your eyes?

Oh wait... this is ARFCOM... trying to prove your point is evil!
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:25:24 PM EDT
read the books
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:25:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 5:27:39 PM EDT by home_with_kids]
Spoilers? oh my god you ruined it for me. Just please, please, please don't tell me how the Wizard of Oz ends.

2001 A Space Odyssey was the LSD-fueled interpretation of "seminal" director (Kubrick)'s take on a short story by an LSD-fueled author (Clarke). No one ever though it made any sense (the movie, anyway. The original short story was okay).

Although you have to credit him with realizing that space is a vacuum and you won't hear the ships engines from 100 yards to the starboard.


Edited to add: I see at least 5 people thought it made sense. My worldview is shaken.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:27:26 PM EDT
Book's better.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:36:05 PM EDT
Agreed with those that say you need to read the book... it really does help to explain things.

FWIW, I first saw the movie when I was a kid on a class field trip (don't ask why, I still have no idea), and shown in Cinerama.

I was totally blown away even if I didn't understand the movie/plot at the time.

Plot/story line aside, at the time (and even to this day), 2001 set a new standard for movie special effects.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:36:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 5:41:21 PM EDT by TrollAccount]

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
Why is it so great in your eyes?

Technically.
One example: It dealt with zero-gravity aboard a spaceship like no space sci-fi film has ever done. It also integrated realistic technology advances (communications, AI, etc.) in a most intelligent way without ever resorting to lasers and rayguns for the masses.

Philosophically.
One example: It blurred the idea of what "human" was in a way that scientific philosophers like Daniel Dennet have later fleshed out and explored in similar patterns. It offered a landscape for the audience to THINK for a long time about what they're being offered rather than just react to what they saw.

Artistically.
One example: Silence during Bowman's transformation scenes focuses audience attention more powerfully than explosions, sweeping musical scores or corny sound effects that EVERY other sci-fi film includes ever can.

The Finale.
It speaks for itself. It is a masterpiece. Pure and perfect.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:39:20 PM EDT
dont forget the pink floyd tie-in
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:39:22 PM EDT
Wow! 2001 is with out a doubt why Cinema was invented. Put down the popcorn shut up and pay attention.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:41:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eggrolly:
dont forget the pink floyd tie-in



I did it for the hell of it. It worked as well, maybe a bit better than Wizard.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:42:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eggrolly:
dont forget the pink floyd tie-in



I thought that was the "Wizard of Oz"?

www.everwonder.com/david/wizardofoz
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:43:08 PM EDT

Be vewy vewy quiet... he's watching...





Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:45:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:

Originally Posted By eggrolly:
dont forget the pink floyd tie-in



I thought that was the "Wizard of Oz"?

www.everwonder.com/david/wizardofoz



Ummagumma
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:46:01 PM EDT
"Open the pod bay door please Hal"
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:50:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:52:50 PM EDT
"He taught me this song. 'Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do.'"

"I can feel my mind going."

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:54:57 PM EDT
Kubrick talked to real science people to get the designs right

A&E (i think) said that Nixon was shown the film and was told to pick any one thing from the film to make a reality,,,,,,,,,,
he chose the shuttle from the beginning
that was the start of the shuttle program

still one of my all time top ten films
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:55:30 PM EDT
HAL:
"Sorry to interrupt the festivities,
Dave, but I think we've got a
problem"
GM
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:57:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JeffB:
"Open the pod bay door please Hal"



I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 5:58:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:

<snip>


AND I DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF WE HAVE A MOVIE FORUM, IT GETS USED JUST AS MUCH AS THE AK MAINTANCE PAGE.





thats pretty funny actually
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:41:52 PM EDT
I saw some doctumentary on Kubrik years ago. They pointed out some of the hidden meanings in 2001. One that I remember was that the proportions of the monolith's dimensions were the same as a movie theatre screen that it was shown on at that time. So, in essence, the monolith, like the movie, projected images into the brains for people to understand and come up with different ideas or possibilities.

FAR OUT MAN!
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:46:34 PM EDT
read the books--it will make more sense

it is odd, but interesting


the movie of 2010 has more "action" and more recognizable actors--i like it, too
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:52:20 PM EDT

Fantastic movie.

Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:56:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 7:57:49 PM EDT by SoCalJBT]

Originally Posted By TrollAccount:
Best

SciFi

Film

Ever

Made

<­BR>Period.




How

right

you

are,

sir.

I

feel

sorry

for

t­hose

who

don't

get

it.

Maybe

they

should

read

the

book.

ETA: I've seen it literally at least 100 times. It's my favorite sci fi ever. Seriously, read the book and will explain things that are hard to understand just from the movie.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:57:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 7:57:47 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:59:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
2001: A Space Odyssey explained



Nice find!
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:00:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 8:02:52 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Read the book.

I first saw the movie when I was five. I'm not saying I fully got it at that age, but its meaning was clear to me when I was in my teens, anyway.


If you don't get it after reading the book, I can't help you.


The movie is a personality test of sorts. It takes a certain type of person to understand it fully,
and it takes another certain type of person to get up and walk out on it.


I don't think I'm likely to get into any deep conversations with the "walked out" crowd. I find them
to be both shallow and dense.

CJ



OH PLEASE…

I like the movie, great movie… beautiful to look at it. I got the meaning just fine having said that…

It is a great example of what happens when you get a self absorbed director with a lot of money and a lot of drugs… unfocused, self indulgent, the intellectual equal of masturbation.

To assign some sort personality test is pretentious and absurd.

It is not even good science fiction… good fantasy more than science fiction. IMO it was a watershed event in science fiction that took the heart out of the movement and moved it elsewhere, science fiction has never recovered.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:05:50 PM EDT
2001 I'll give it 2 1/4 stars..

Nothing was better than "Space Balls""
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:06:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 8:07:10 PM EDT by ixy]
i must disagree

coming as you are from a Buck Rogers view of scifi, i suppose 2001 would be an unwelcome reality shock, as the director was striving for a level of realism never before achieved

sorry you didn't get death beams or scantily clad women swinging on ropes

2001 was not a fantasy adventure story, more of a scifi with a philosophical angle
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:10:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:


It is not even good science fiction… good fantasy more than science fiction. IMO it was a watershed event in science fiction that took the heart out of the movement and moved it elsewhere, science fiction has never recovered.



Blasphemy, I say!

Not good sci fi?

How about the whole implication that intelligent life was brought about by the monolith?

How about the integrity loop that HAl 9000 was put into by having conflicting instructions?

How about the forward looking things like the moon base, the artificial gravity on the space station, the find of TMA1?

You must be kidding. 2001 set the bar for sci fi, and it set it damn high.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:11:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 8:14:38 PM EDT by OBird]
I think I more or less "got" the movie, but I'm not really too impressed with the meaning.

What I AM extremely impressed with is the film itself. Most people think I'm a nut for saying this, but 2001 is one of only two or three movies that has ever scared the crap out of me. It's scary because the things that scare us most are the things we don't directly see (think of the movie "Signs": it was kinda-sorta scary when you didn't actually see the aliens, but when you see them it's just a boring movie). All we ever see of the villian is a red light. All we ever see of the "main charater" is a black rectangle.

There is just something about the mixture of classical music (Thus Spoke Zoraster, The Blue Danube, etc.), the eerieness, the special effects, everything about this movie makes it a masterpeice. I would also like to say that the special effects are incredible. Even to this very day, I honestly feel they still rival the cutting edge of SF. Fake CG jar jar binks crap has nothing on this film's visuals. I have also always been grateful for this movie actually being realistic with gravity, sound, the lenght of space travel, etc.

If the "meaninglessness" bothers you, try watching it with that part of your brain turned off. Just don't let it mean anything, or let it mean whatever you want. In the end, I really don't think it's all that important.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:11:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 8:12:36 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By ixy:
i must disagree

coming as you are from a Buck Rogers view of scifi, i suppose 2001 would be an unwelcome reality shock, as the director was striving for a level of realism never before achieved

sorry you didn't get death beams or scantily clad women swinging on ropes

2001 was not a fantasy adventure story, more of a scifi with a philosophical angle



Not got a damn thing to do with Buck Rogers or adventure stories.

I cut my teeth on Asimov, Clarke, early Heinlein and classic science fiction... 2001 is more a self indulgent philosophical exercise than science fiction. 2001 is a technical masterpiece but not good science fiction.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:13:06 PM EDT
"Just a moment....just a moment.........I've just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit."
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:19:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 8:26:07 PM EDT by Spade]

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
2001: A Space Odyssey explained




Yeah, that's good.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:32:15 PM EDT
first time I saw it I feel asleep then I read the book and liked it alot better.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:32:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By N1Rampage:
If it's so great, then what's the meaning here? What makes this so great? Just seemed so random and unplanned. I thought it was a total piece of crap. No wonder people walked out of the theatres when this was played in 68'. Granted, people then didn't see space as we do now, but good God, you can't make a 150 minute movie out of it. I sat and watched a movie that was 2 hours of special effects of floating mark-ups and only 30 minutes of any meat.

So you had a rock that took man from an ape to an intelligent being, we find it, send out an exploration team to Jupiter, the ship's computer deep-6's, they finally get to Jupiter, go into some sort of vertex, and we end up with a giant fetus...

Can anyone else not see this is a broken down and rather aimless film? Most people say you need to think to enjoy this film. HOW? All I saw were 2 hours of special effects and nothing even then happened.



I guess it depends on your expectations. For me, seeing the movie inspired me to read the book.

All I can say is, if you don't get it,... then you don't get it. Go watch Spaceballs, I'm sure that will be much more appealing to you.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:36:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:
Go watch Spaceballs, I'm sure that will be much more appealing to you.



Aren't we being a little narcissistic tonight. So self-absorption over a flick that is only popular because others say it is.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:39:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:

All I can say is, if you don't get it,... then you don't get it. Go watch Spaceballs, I'm sure that will be much more appealing to you.





Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:39:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By ixy:
i must disagree

coming as you are from a Buck Rogers view of scifi, i suppose 2001 would be an unwelcome reality shock, as the director was striving for a level of realism never before achieved

sorry you didn't get death beams or scantily clad women swinging on ropes

2001 was not a fantasy adventure story, more of a scifi with a philosophical angle



Not got a damn thing to do with Buck Rogers or adventure stories.

I cut my teeth on Asimov, Clarke, early Heinlein and classic science fiction... 2001 is more a self indulgent philosophical exercise than science fiction. 2001 is a technical masterpiece but not good science fiction.



true, it lacked action, but it did have tech, a human reaction, a philosophical aspect and a moral
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:47:11 PM EDT
I read the book first, actually. Loved it, enough to re-read it a few times, along with all of the sequels. I agree that 2001 is excellent science fiction.

The movie was boring as hell. Cut about an hour of effects shots set to classical music out and it might be a decent flick. I was impressed when I saw the hand drawn sequence of Bowman's journey from the monolith. Five minutes of it just bored the crap out of me. Even while I was baked. Stuff like that was simply self-indulgent of Kubrick and hurt the film.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:47:16 PM EDT
Mind-bending... not for the ADD generation.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:49:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 8:50:31 PM EDT by N1Rampage]

Originally Posted By DScott:
Mind-bending... not for the ADD generation.



Making ANYONE watch a 10 minute scene of flickery lights or watching a 40 minute montogue of moon travel will make ANYONE go into A.D.D. mode.

Once again, big stuff for back then in the graphics department, but a bit WAY too over done.

I just sped through the movie to see how many of these pointless object moving or random scenery, it was a total of about 1 hour and 40 minutes.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:50:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 8:51:42 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By DScott:
Mind-bending... not for the ADD generation.



+1

For someone who grew up reading classic sci-fi, and rarely watching TV or movies, it was absolutely amazing.


I don't know how old the other people in this thread are, and I don't mean to dispariage anyone - but I can certainly see how it would bore the crap out of people who are used to faster-paced Hollywood blockbusters with huge explosions, giants insects, etc. (I love those movies too, btw.)
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:53:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ixy:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By ixy:
i must disagree

coming as you are from a Buck Rogers view of scifi, i suppose 2001 would be an unwelcome reality shock, as the director was striving for a level of realism never before achieved

sorry you didn't get death beams or scantily clad women swinging on ropes

2001 was not a fantasy adventure story, more of a scifi with a philosophical angle



Not got a damn thing to do with Buck Rogers or adventure stories.

I cut my teeth on Asimov, Clarke, early Heinlein and classic science fiction... 2001 is more a self indulgent philosophical exercise than science fiction. 2001 is a technical masterpiece but not good science fiction.



true, it lacked action, but it did have tech, a human reaction, a philosophical aspect and a moral



NOT ACTION... it lacked focus the 2 are not the same thing.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:55:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TrollAccount:
Best

SciFi

Film

Ever

Made

<­BR>Period.




You've obviously been either stranded on a deserted island, locked in a bomb shelter or trapped in a cave since the 60's.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:55:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By ixy:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By ixy:
i must disagree

coming as you are from a Buck Rogers view of scifi, i suppose 2001 would be an unwelcome reality shock, as the director was striving for a level of realism never before achieved

sorry you didn't get death beams or scantily clad women swinging on ropes

2001 was not a fantasy adventure story, more of a scifi with a philosophical angle



Not got a damn thing to do with Buck Rogers or adventure stories.

I cut my teeth on Asimov, Clarke, early Heinlein and classic science fiction... 2001 is more a self indulgent philosophical exercise than science fiction. 2001 is a technical masterpiece but not good science fiction.



true, it lacked action, but it did have tech, a human reaction, a philosophical aspect and a moral



NOT ACTION... it lacked focus the 2 are not the same thing.



and again i agree, however i prefer to say it was open to interpretation, a space art film
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top