2001 A Space Travesty
Joel Dearing
were doing a parody of 2001 with none other than Leslie Nielsen. I always
thought that Kubricks films should be above satirizing if only because most
of his films contain enough razer sharp satire as it is. I guess 2001 was an
exception though, but I still think it's folly to even try. Obviously it's
meant for the lo-brow crowd. Next we'll be getting a remake.
Mike Jackson
jdea...@telusplanet.net 01/18/2002 10:45 PM went on about :
> I don't know about you guys, but I was kind of offended when I saw that they
> were doing a parody of 2001 with none other than Leslie Nielsen.
Did you see the trailer for it? Looked gawd awful. They got Neilson
obviously so people would associate it with the Naked Gun/Hot Shots kinda
stuff, but they really had nothing...
Now consider if you really could come up with a script like "Airplane", then
it might have worked. Lloyd Bridges would have made a nice Floyd and Charlie
Sheen as Bowman, I could dig it... The problem is if you really parodied
"2001", I don't think most people would get the jokes because most of the
world seems indifferent to a great film.
If you parodied what most people actually seem to know about the film, it
wouldn't even amount to an SNL skit...
As a matter of fact I dimly remember (does anyone else?) when SCTV did or
rather started out with a "2001" parody in one of their shows and did a
fairly good job parodying the StarGate (complete with the solarized
landscape and eye-blinking) and cosmic hotel room bit with Martin Short I
think it was in rather elaborate old age make-up, but then it petered out
into a parody of some old 50s-60s sci-fi schlock with Eugene Levy playing
Ernest Borgnine playing a spaceman in costumes straight out of the racks
from "Forbidden Planet"... It was beyond awful from there...
> I always thought that Kubricks films should be above satirizing if only
> because most of his films contain enough razer sharp satire as it is. I guess
> 2001 was an exception though, but I still think it's folly to even try.
> Obviously it's meant for the lo-brow crowd. Next we'll be getting a remake.
I enjoyed the Zucker/Abrams/Zucker stuff myself, such as it was.
Maybe we can ALL agree that "2010" might be the better thing to parody!
"'Course, there's one good thing about a reactionary President, he's not
into health foods. This one's into pretzels."
"Surely Doctor Floyd, this phenomenon is too important for us to leave."
"We're getting out of here HAL, and don't call me Shirley!"
"Someday, the children of the new sun will meet the children of the old.
I think they're all going need lots and lots of sun block."
-----------------
Mike Jackson
Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
http://guide.net/~mental/
(228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
(228) 918-4596 Cellular
Pete
be a gentleman 87% of the time, Id like to sway from that and ask 'WTF do
you mnean parody of 2001 with Leslie Nielsen!"
He should be shot
So should the cast
And crew
Especially Director/Producer/Screenwriters
You dont mess with Kubricks work.
Sure I laugh when I see Bart dressed as Alex from ACO and see bits from 2001
in the Simpsons, but its done well and without criticism
This is like walking into the Louvre, going up to The Mona Lisa, taking a
brush with yellow paint and painting a smiley face over it.
Messing with precious art..... may it be a direct to video release that
shames all those created
--
Pete
"I think Im having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time, I think I've
forgotten this already!"
"Joel Dearing" <jdea...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:PR628.58655$O3.10...@news1.telusplanet.net...
Gorn Captain
Hal 9000 lookalike. (The ads went by too fast for me to determine if "Hal" was
CGI or not.)
The movie itself plays like a rejected Naked Gun script, chucked into a blender
with Airplane II, plus a dash of Men In Black. The few 2001 gags in the movie
pass in the first twenty minutes. Seeing Leslie Neilsen as the starchild has
left some very deep scars on my soul. ;)
A shame that Mystery Science Theater 3000 isn't around anymore to rip this
stinker of a film to shreds as it deserves.
Xfoliate
>From: Gorn Captain Note...@CestusIII.com
finally someone who actually has seen this movie trashes it. it was annoying as
hell to see everyone bad mouth it but never saying anything about the movie...
ooh the trailer looked bad. i think we all know enough about trailers to know
that that is not what the movie is like. um... have you guys not seen the
simpsons parody kubrick? they do it often... kubrick is not above parody... how
can anyone be above parody?
matt
JeffD
I was offended when MAD magazine did their spoof of "2001" in 1968.
I was offended when Wish Bone salad dressing did a commercial in '69 or
'70 with heads of lettuce rising from behind to "Thus Spake Zarathustra"
(very, very clever).
I was offended when I first found out that they were actually going to
show "2001" on TELEVISION, back in '76. (I had always thought somehow --
in fact, I was *sure* -- that 2001 would be the ONE film that would be
"safe" from ever being put on the tube. I guess I thought that just
its sheer enormity -- its profundity -- would preclude it from being
selected by any network TV programmer who had even the *slightest* sense
of taste or proportion, or aesthetic judgement. (How naive of me, even
back then.) I was also amazed that Kubrick actually allowed it, assuming
he had any control over that.
I was offended when I watched it on television.
I was offended when I heard somebody was making a SEQUEL. I remember
thinking, "for...for... what??" (especially since, for years after
"2001", A.C. Clarke went around saying (rightly) that a sequel was
"unnecessary" and that the film speaks for itself. $$$$$ ;)
I was offended by some recent yuppie car commercial that used the 2001
Zarathustra theme too, as well as the current one with "HAL" (turns my
stomach, which turns the channel).
I was offended 33 years ago when I was walking out of the theatre lobby
after first seeing "2001", and listening to/seeing the number of people
giggling, smirking, and making stupid little comments. I can vividly
recall being confused by their reaction (I was 14 at the time); to me it
seemed totally incongruous with what I (and they) had just seen -- and
I didn't "understand" the movie at all then. But I *felt* the meaning
somehow -- in my stomach and in my throat, and I knew that I had just
just experienced something very important and powerful, and beautiful,
and deeply moving and profound. And I thought my lack of "understanding"
it was >MY< fault, and not the movie or the person who made it. I had
never experienced a film anything like it before. (Of course, there was
no way for me to know back then that when the year 2001 actually came, I
*still* wouldn't have experienced anything like it.)
I was offended when I tried to tell my friends that they should see this
"2001: A Space Odyssey", and when most of the ones who'd already seen it
said it was a "stupid" movie. And I remember how painfully frustrating it
was when I couldn't clearly explain to them WHY is *wasn't* a stupid
movie; how I couldn't verbalize it or have it make sense to them (or me).
There have been countless parodies of the "2001" over the years, Joel -
especially involving the opening theme. Trivialization in a shallow,
affected, trivial mass culture. No matter though, because no amount
of "spoofs" or parodies can ever diminish or trivialize the power of
Kubrick's "2001"; its magnificent poetic visual beauty or its profound
intellectual, spiritual, and philosphical depth. I've always
felt similarly to John Lennon when he said that "2001" should be shown
continuously on the walls "in a temple".
It's 4:00 AM and I'm rambling now.
Best,
Jeff D.
JeffD
>
> Good day to you Joel, this is the first Ive heard of this, and while I may
> be a gentleman 87% of the time, Id like to sway from that and ask 'WTF do
> you mnean parody of 2001 with Leslie Nielsen!"
>
> He should be shot
> So should the cast
> And crew
> Especially Director/Producer/Screenwriters
>
> You dont mess with Kubricks work.
> Sure I laugh when I see Bart dressed as Alex from ACO and see bits from 2001
> in the Simpsons, but its done well and without criticism
>
> This is like walking into the Louvre, going up to The Mona Lisa, taking a
> brush with yellow paint and painting a smiley face over it.
>
> Messing with precious art..... may it be a direct to video release that
> shames all those created
> Pete
What he said.
Pete
news:20020119032456...@mb-co.aol.com...
>
> finally someone who actually has seen this movie trashes it. it was
annoying as
> hell to see everyone bad mouth it but never saying anything about the
movie...
> ooh the trailer looked bad. i think we all know enough about trailers to
know
> that that is not what the movie is like. um... have you guys not seen the
> simpsons parody kubrick? they do it often... kubrick is not above
parody... how
> can anyone be above parody?
>
> matt
Pardon me for being somewhat patriotic to Kubrick ;)
As I said I like what the Simpsons do because at least they have an idea and
use it well. I myself laugh my ass off at the 2001 rip off where homer is
the moneky who learns nothing more from the Monolith then to lean against it
and sleep.
Im a man of mixed emotions, sometimes conservative sometimes wild.
I like my art Impressionalist and not Modern/PopArt etc . ie Kubrick over
Warhol
I like my movies to have meaning and depth that lasts decades and
generations ie Kubrick over say, the guy who made Chicken Park.
All I meant is that there are somethings that should be left as they are and
not undermined too far.
And seeing as 2001 is what it is (my mere words this time of night cant
elaborate) I like it kept as it is.
Of course by your statement no-one _really_ is able to be above parody, but
you muyst agree the premise of this movie is stupid no ?
Instead of being sharp and cleverly done its as I dare say a cheesy rip to
try and make money. And that usually ends in a stink of a mess
Like Jurassic Park 3, except there really was no comedic effort in it.
Except the fact she got the Navy and Airforce to that little island in 3
hours after her 3 year old kid holds a phone, googles "Dinosaur man!" and
hears "uggh uggggh arrgh" on the phone
Hands up who else was left mentally scarred by this ? ;D
Back On Topic, I just feel Kubrick should really have his works left as they
are cinema masterpieces, in ewssences works of art to some degree.
Thats what I love about art, you can debate the hell out of it and yet youre
neither right or wrong, its all subjective
Try telling that to Bohemian artists in Montmartre though...
Delta5Qmp
being offended that the south park guys made a joke about him. 2001 is not
hurt, Space Travesty will be forgotten in a month, many 2 year olds probably
laughed at some of its jokes. The film wasnt even a spoof of that film exept
for using Zerathustra and some one liners.
See "being there" for a good spoof moment, one of the few 2001 has warranted.
Still, no reason to get so offended over such a little nothing.
-RE
Mike Jackson
01/19/2002 3:05 AM went on about :
Wow.
Here's how to cope with that; see, most of the people walking around out
there are complete morons.
Really! Oh they look reasonable enough at times, but it ain't true...
How else do you explain such things as two President Bushs, Snapple, Jerry
Springer, Country & Western music and most of what passes under the world
'culture'?
It's millions and millions of minds blissfully devoid of the ravages of
intelligence that's how.
And now let us pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
cause it's all bugger down here on earth!
pitch audio
I caught the film on Comedy Central after hearing about it being made
some time ago. It's nothing offensive, but it sure as hell is stupid.
I agree with delta; the film will be forgotten about in a month. No
need in getting all worked up about it, its just another stupid Leslie
Neilsen film that 3 people will laugh at and the rest of the world
will never even see.
GS George
Joel Dearing
annoying as
> hell to see everyone bad mouth it but never saying anything about the
movie...
> ooh the trailer looked bad. i think we all know enough about trailers to
know
> that that is not what the movie is like. um... have you guys not seen the
> simpsons parody kubrick? they do it often... kubrick is not above
parody... how
> can anyone be above parody?
>
> matt
The simpsons use small in-jokes that seem respectful of the source material.
But a 90 min. movie? I just don't think it would hold together. Besides, I'm
just not that much into comedies any more, as many have degenerated into
extreme vulgarity, scatalogical references, and repetition as a substitute
for good writing. If I want to laugh, I'll watch the old Monty Python
episodes. Or maybe Blazing Saddles.
As I said, I think Kubrick was very much a satirist as it was and his films
don't need to be turned into some kind of cheap Zucker formula movie. I used
to enjoy the 'airplane!' series and the first 'naked gun', but somewhere
along the way that type of comedy has lost it's freshness, and originality.
At least for me it has.
Joel Dearing
"Mike Jackson" <men...@digiscape.com> wrote in message news:B86E6804.99CD%
> As a matter of fact I dimly remember (does anyone else?) when SCTV did or
> rather started out with a "2001" parody in one of their shows and did a
> fairly good job parodying the StarGate (complete with the solarized
> landscape and eye-blinking) and cosmic hotel room bit with Martin Short I
> think it was in rather elaborate old age make-up, but then it petered out
> into a parody of some old 50s-60s sci-fi schlock with Eugene Levy playing
> Ernest Borgnine playing a spaceman in costumes straight out of the racks
> from "Forbidden Planet"... It was beyond awful from there...
>
I remember that too. I also remember a funny skit that was a parody of
Towering Inferno, except at the top of the building was a nuclear reactor.
Martin Short played a character named Johnny Nucleo who had absorbed too
much radiation. At the end the top of the building blasts off, and Short is
looking out the door and comments:"Hey! That's looks like joisy(jersey)." in
his best brooklyn accent. I laughed at that one.
> > I always thought that Kubricks films should be above satirizing if only
> > because most of his films contain enough razer sharp satire as it is. I
guess
> > 2001 was an exception though, but I still think it's folly to even try.
> > Obviously it's meant for the lo-brow crowd. Next we'll be getting a
remake.
>
> I enjoyed the Zucker/Abrams/Zucker stuff myself, such as it was.
>
I liked the two Airplane! films and the first Naked Gun, but I feel the
market is over saturated with that style of comedy now. Never even wanted to
see Spyhard or Wrongfully Accused, or any others for that matter.
> Maybe we can ALL agree that "2010" might be the better thing to parody!
>
Here, here!!
Joel Dearing
"JeffD" <fre...@webspan.net> wrote in message
news:3C4934...@webspan.net...
>
> I was offended when MAD magazine did their spoof of "2001" in 1968.
Me too. But they skewer everything so it doesn't really count.
> I was offended when Wish Bone salad dressing did a commercial in '69 or
> '70 with heads of lettuce rising from behind to "Thus Spake Zarathustra"
> (very, very clever).
>
Never saw this, just a hair before my time.
> I was offended when I first found out that they were actually going to
> show "2001" on TELEVISION, back in '76. (I had always thought somehow --
> in fact, I was *sure* -- that 2001 would be the ONE film that would be
> "safe" from ever being put on the tube. I guess I thought that just
> its sheer enormity -- its profundity -- would preclude it from being
> selected by any network TV programmer who had even the *slightest* sense
> of taste or proportion, or aesthetic judgement. (How naive of me, even
> back then.) I was also amazed that Kubrick actually allowed it, assuming
> he had any control over that.
>
> I was offended when I watched it on television.
I have the DVD, I would never watch 2001 with commercial breaks. "And now a
word from our sponser..."
> I was offended when I heard somebody was making a SEQUEL. I remember
> thinking, "for...for... what??" (especially since, for years after
> "2001", A.C. Clarke went around saying (rightly) that a sequel was
> "unnecessary" and that the film speaks for itself. $$$$$ ;)
>
Yes, Hyam's tried but ultimately failed.
> I was offended by some recent yuppie car commercial that used the 2001
> Zarathustra theme too, as well as the current one with "HAL" (turns my
> stomach, which turns the channel).
I'll bet.
> I was offended 33 years ago when I was walking out of the theatre lobby
> after first seeing "2001", and listening to/seeing the number of people
> giggling, smirking, and making stupid little comments. I can vividly
> recall being confused by their reaction (I was 14 at the time); to me it
> seemed totally incongruous with what I (and they) had just seen -- and
> I didn't "understand" the movie at all then. But I *felt* the meaning
> somehow -- in my stomach and in my throat, and I knew that I had just
> just experienced something very important and powerful, and beautiful,
> and deeply moving and profound. And I thought my lack of "understanding"
> it was >MY< fault, and not the movie or the person who made it. I had
> never experienced a film anything like it before. (Of course, there was
> no way for me to know back then that when the year 2001 actually came, I
> *still* wouldn't have experienced anything like it.)
>
> I was offended when I tried to tell my friends that they should see this
> "2001: A Space Odyssey", and when most of the ones who'd already seen it
> said it was a "stupid" movie. And I remember how painfully frustrating it
> was when I couldn't clearly explain to them WHY is *wasn't* a stupid
> movie; how I couldn't verbalize it or have it make sense to them (or me).
I have friends that would be put to sleep in five minutes by 2001. It's
simply just not for everyone. I know one of my friends would rather watch
monster truck races than watch this film. But I don't fault him for that.
I'm a film lover and he is not. No point in beating him over the head with
it.
> There have been countless parodies of the "2001" over the years, Joel -
> especially involving the opening theme. Trivialization in a shallow,
> affected, trivial mass culture. No matter though, because no amount
> of "spoofs" or parodies can ever diminish or trivialize the power of
> Kubrick's "2001"; its magnificent poetic visual beauty or its profound
> intellectual, spiritual, and philosphical depth. I've always
> felt similarly to John Lennon when he said that "2001" should be shown
> continuously on the walls "in a temple".
I agree. That's why in my original post I wrote I was 'kind of' offended. I
know I'll never watch 2001 A Space Travesty, because it's just not my bag.
Just like my friend wouldn't watch 2001 ASpace Odyssey. Still, I know if I
did watch it, I would most likely leave the theatre pissed off.
> It's 4:00 AM and I'm rambling now.
>
> Best,
> Jeff D.
Have a good one.
Joel Dearing
"Mike Jackson" <men...@digiscape.com> wrote in message news:B86EC58D.9A08%
> And now let us pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
> cause it's all bugger down here on earth!
You would think that there would be in this amazing and expanding universe!
JeffD
That's a great little musical sequence in that film!.
Jeff
Joel Dearing
> That's a great little musical sequence in that film!.
>
> Jeff
I also like the penis song from that movie by Eric Idle.
"Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis?...Isn't it frightfully good to have
a dong?"
Linda Bentley
whatever leslie nielsen has managed to defecate onto film. i for one have
always enjoyed the simpsons episodes that use scenes from kubrick films.
they have done some very entertaining things w/ a good number of kubrick
films, including 2001.
chris
Joel Dearing <jdea...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:PR628.58655$O3.10...@news1.telusplanet.net...
JeffD
> >
> > Jeff
>
> I also like the penis song from that movie by Eric Idle.
>
> "Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis?...Isn't it frightfully good to have
> a dong?"
"Now...did we cover 'Vaginal Juices'"?
"Well you're all dead now, so SHUT UP!"
Kubrick1
>
>I have friends that would be put to sleep in five minutes by 2001. It's
>simply just not for everyone. I know one of my friends would rather watch
>monster truck races than watch this film. But I don't fault him for that.
>I'm a film lover and he is not. No point in beating him over the head with
>it.
Good point. There's room for cavier and french fries in the world. Many out
there feel that 2001, or any film, belongs in the latter category.
JeffD
You're right; "offended" isn't really the right term. More like
"extremely irritated", as far as the examples I gave. In the case of
"Being There", or things like references in The Simpsons, they're more
like little "homages" IMO --- not some trite, goofball, commercial crap.
It's just a very personal thing with me as far as "2001" goes. For me,
I guess the film really was/is akin to a "religious experience" - or,
spiritual rather, and a particular life landmark if you will. So I've
never had much patience when it's mindlessly "dissed" or given the
respect I think it deserves as an important work of art.
Best,
Jeff D.
JeffD
Yes, the "It's Just A Movie" thing. But it stems from the fact that
most films *are* "just movies", and so when the infrequent one comes
along that is intellectually challenging, artistically done, etc., it's
labeled "pretentious" or something. How DARE a commercial movie try to
make a "statement" (in anything but the most shallow, pedestrian way at
least) -- >especially< with a non-narrative structure, through visuals
and music and sound. "I watch a movie to be entertained! Why should
I have to think? -- I *think* all day!" (as if your typical ant-like
workaday world bus-i-ness/commerce activities are actually in any way
"deep" or profound or something, and a strain on the right brain --
a side which seems to be dead in more and more people.) Maybe that's it:
people are actually only *semi*-conscious. What did Kubrick once say --
something about most people living their lives day to day "in a sort of
grey nothingness"?
Jeff D.
Xfoliate
>you muyst agree the premise of this movie is stupid no ?
>Instead of being sharp and cleverly done its as I dare say a cheesy rip to
>try and make money. And that usually ends in a stink of a mess
>Like Jurassic Park 3, except there really was no comedic effort in it.
well naked gun was stupid and that was funny... or at least i thought so. the
point of leslie neilsen movies is to be stupid though... that's the vein of the
comedy in them. creepshow... not so funny... but that's different.
matt
Xfoliate
>But a 90 min. movie? I just don't think it would hold together. Besides, I'm
>just not that much into comedies any more, as many have degenerated into
>extreme vulgarity, scatalogical references, and repetition as a substitute
>for good writing. If I want to laugh, I'll watch the old Monty Python
>episodes. Or maybe Blazing Saddles.
but you know the only poster to actually watch the space travesty movie said
that the 2001 gibs are done rather quick. respectful satire? bleh?
matt
Tansal Arnas
<fre...@webspan.net> wrote:
> Yes, the "It's Just A Movie" thing. But it stems from the fact that
> most films *are* "just movies", and so when the infrequent one comes
> along that is intellectually challenging, artistically done, etc., it's
> labeled "pretentious" or something. How DARE a commercial movie try to
> make a "statement" (in anything but the most shallow, pedestrian way at
> least) -- >especially< with a non-narrative structure, through visuals
> and music and sound. "I watch a movie to be entertained! Why should
> I have to think? -- I *think* all day!" (as if your typical ant-like
> workaday world bus-i-ness/commerce activities are actually in any way
> "deep" or profound or something, and a strain on the right brain --
> a side which seems to be dead in more and more people.) Maybe that's it:
> people are actually only *semi*-conscious. What did Kubrick once say --
> something about most people living their lives day to day "in a sort of
> grey nothingness"?
>
> Jeff D.
Nice rant! I sometimes wondered why people end up hoarding together into
little groups with common interests, and I think it's because if a lack of
acceptance by people. So people end up huddling together where they are
accepted by one another. Such as this newsgroup. How many people do each
of you know personally where you could afford to say even the slightest
interesting comment about a Kubrick movie without getting a blank stare or a
disparaging remark flung upon you? I've noticed that by wonderful
coincidence I find myself surrounded more by people who share my love of
movies than those that do not.
If I'm allowed to go on a brief rant here, I am appalled by the disdain that
the common person has for the arts when they shamelessly enjoy them all the
time. Millions of people go to the movies, listen to music, etc., but then
seem to have no qualms in criticizing those fields as worthless. It's,
apparently, a more meaningful "real" life to be a "typical ant-like workaday
world bus-i-ness/commerce" person, and all else be damned. This presents
itself in many ways, naturally, not least of all with the government pulling
more and more money from arts programs, while giving handouts to
corporations that continue to screw over their employees. Bah!
Tansal
Joel Dearing
I'm sure you know that there's a difference between a simple joke and
satire. They aren't really the same thing. We could discuss at length which
Simpsons references to Kubrick movies are, but I digress. Simply put, I
personally don't think that Zucker brothers Airplane! type humour is really
all that funny anymore, as most of the gags are recycled over and over
again. Like another poster said, if they really put some effort into the
writing and avoided the lame ka-ka jokes they might have had something. As
it is, apparently they just used a few cheap references to 2001 and then
used the rest of the film for their same old shtick, which is exactly what I
assumed it would be. Sometimes you can judge a book by it's cover. I guess
in my original post I should have said I don't like the idea of them doing a
parody of 2001 'unless' they were going to do it right with some real effort
to entertain those that really love the original.
Joel Dearing
> You're right; "offended" isn't really the right term. More like
> "extremely irritated", as far as the examples I gave. In the case of
> "Being There", or things like references in The Simpsons, they're more
> like little "homages" IMO --- not some trite, goofball, commercial crap.
> It's just a very personal thing with me as far as "2001" goes. For me,
> I guess the film really was/is akin to a "religious experience" - or,
> spiritual rather, and a particular life landmark if you will. So I've
> never had much patience when it's mindlessly "dissed" or given the
> respect I think it deserves as an important work of art.
>
> Best,
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Kubrick1
>accepted by one another. Such as this newsgroup. How many people do each
>of you know personally where you could afford to say even the slightest
>interesting comment about a Kubrick movie without getting a blank stare
>or a
>disparaging remark flung upon you? I've noticed that by wonderful
>coincidence I find myself surrounded more by people who share my love of
>movies than those that do not.
Face it, if you mention Kubrick, the name sounds familier to most people, but
they can't tell you what films he directed. Its good to surround yourself with
people who want to discuss similar things. People say that films are
meaningless, others say that sports are meaningless--"oh that's beneath me."
People like what they like. To say that somebody is a "moron" because they do
or do not like a certain movie is absurdity on stilts, the epitimy of
closemindedness.
Thrawn
off after 10 minutes. It would've been sooner, but I was eating and
didn't feel like getting up.
2001 "jokes"
Leslie as starchild in the BEGINNING of the film!?
Monolith in space for no reason.
Ape making noise in front of a monolith and god says "shut up you
stupid ape" and pushes it over on him.
Ship spinning around to Blue Danube and gravity lifting the
stewardess' dress so you see her ass.
Tons of sex jokes that just fall so flat. See the constellations -
"Sagitarius, Stifficus..."
The moon rises over the earth - and it shows some guys' ass.
There's nothing like making a film for an audience of none.
Viddy Well!
Alex Thrawn
www.malcolmmcdowell.net
Delta5Qmp
Theres still the upside to a film expected to make no money, like Mishima: A
life in 4 Chapters, which was, for all it's unsellability, Schrader was given
absolute artistic controll, anda beautifull film was made. Admittedly, Space
Travesty was NOT the next Mishima, nor was that what you meant, but hey- Can I
use that as my NewsGroup Signature quote?
-RE
"There's nothing like making a film for an audience of none" -Alex Thrawn
Mike Jackson
thra...@yahoo.com 01/20/2002 12:22 AM went on about :
> This film is beyond bad, in fact it is unwatchable. I had to turn it
> off after 10 minutes. It would've been sooner, but I was eating and
> didn't feel like getting up.
So it's not so bad that it makes eating impossible?
> 2001 "jokes"
> Leslie as starchild in the BEGINNING of the film!?
They knew you probably wouldn't sit through the film to the end and paid
lots of money for that effect. Probably over $40...
> Monolith in space for no reason.
And hazards to navigation to boot. Also probably uninsured, so good luck
filing a claim if you hit one at warp 9...
> Ape making noise in front of a monolith and god says "shut up you
> stupid ape" and pushes it over on him.
Now, that does make sense. Ever go through the monkey house at the zoo
without earplugs?
> Ship spinning around to Blue Danube and gravity lifting the
> stewardess' dress so you see her ass.
This film not suitable for zero-g environments?
> Tons of sex jokes that just fall so flat. See the constellations -
> "Sagitarius, Stifficus..."
Like Jack Horkheimer says, "Keep - looking - up!"
> The moon rises over the earth - and it shows some guys' ass.
The crack of dawn of man?
> There's nothing like making a film for an audience of none.
Sounds like a travesty...
Xfoliate
>satire. They aren't really the same thing. We could discuss at length which
>Simpsons references to Kubrick movies are, but I digress. Simply put, I
>personally don't think that Zucker brothers Airplane! type humour is really
>all that funny anymore, as most of the gags are recycled over and over
>again. Like another poster said, if they really put some effort into the
>writing and avoided the lame ka-ka jokes they might have had something. As
>it is, apparently they just used a few cheap references to 2001 and then
>used the rest of the film for their same old shtick, which is exactly what I
>assumed it would be. Sometimes you can judge a book by it's cover. I guess
>in my original post I should have said I don't like the idea of them doing a
>parody of 2001 'unless' they were going to do it right with some real effort
>to entertain those that really love the original.
well if anything i thought people would like the fact that the effort of
kubrick to make his films "pop" has paid off. he always wanted his films to
have a mass audience and people who do riffs off kubrick works can only be a
good thing to me because it shows you how he has invaded the conscience of the
pop world. wasn't that what he wanted to do? do you really think people will
take 2001 less seriously because of leslie nielsen? if the movie 2001 is really
as powerfull as you think it is a leslie nielsen movie can't diminish that. wow
you don't like the jokes he makes. the fact that he's even making jokes in the
context of a kubrick movie is a good thing. why don;t you guys watch the movie
and then post how bad you think it is.
matt
Xfoliate
>I guess the film really was/is akin to a "religious experience" - or,
>spiritual rather, and a particular life landmark if you will. So I've
>never had much patience when it's mindlessly "dissed" or given the
>respect I think it deserves as an important work of art.
>
>Best,
>Jeff D.
i personally like making fun of peoples religious experiences. that deserves
sarcasm and satire more than anything else. it's like people getting pissed
about others making fun of their religion. if your religion is so powerfull you
shouldn;t have a problem if someone else doesn;t feel the same way. satire
should be directed at "high values" first and formost.
matt
Joel Dearing
> well if anything i thought people would like the fact that the effort of
> kubrick to make his films "pop" has paid off. he always wanted his films
to
> have a mass audience and people who do riffs off kubrick works can only be
a
> good thing to me because it shows you how he has invaded the conscience of
the
> pop world. wasn't that what he wanted to do?
If you say so...
do you really think people will
> take 2001 less seriously because of leslie nielsen?
No , I don't. I just know that I wouldn't like it, just like I know that I
don't have to go go into a shithouse to know what it smells like, you dig?
if the movie 2001 is really
> as powerfull as you think it is a leslie nielsen movie can't diminish
that.
No arguement here. I never said it would diminish Kubrick's work. But it is
kind of like taking a piece of music by Bach and turning it into a hip hop
or country song. Recycle, recycle, recycle...anything for a few more bucks.
Plus like I said before, I'm just not into that type of comedy anymore.
That's just me.
Here is the kind of thing that does make me laugh, just so you know I'm not
against satire or humour in general. In Monty Python's Meaning of Life
there's a scene where this protestant couple is talking about the difference
between their religous beliefs and that of catholics.(not verbatim and not
meant to offend any catholics in the room)
Mr. P: "Bloody catholics filling up the world with bloody babies they can't
afford to take care of every time they have sex."
Mrs. P: "Well, we have two children and we've had sex twice."
Mr. P: "Yes, but you're missing the point. You see when a catholic has
sexual congress they cannot take actions to prevent issue. Where as we,
being protestants, can take precautions."
Mrs. P: "What? You mean lock the door?"
wow
> you don't like the jokes he makes. the fact that he's even making jokes in
the
> context of a kubrick movie is a good thing.
Why is that such a good thing?
why don;t you guys watch the movie
> and then post how bad you think it i
Why does it offend you if someone doesn't like a movie based on the premise
of it without actually seeing it? It's not like Pat Proft or Jim Abrahams
have come up with anything new in the last five years.
Joel Dearing
> i personally like making fun of peoples religious experiences. that
deserves
> sarcasm and satire more than anything else. it's like people getting
pissed
> about others making fun of their religion. if your religion is so
powerfull you
> shouldn;t have a problem if someone else doesn;t feel the same way. satire
> should be directed at "high values" first and formost.
People shouldn't get offended about having their religion made fun of
because it's really no skin off their asses, but some do because they see
sacrilige and blasphemy as tremendously serious offences against god(of
course, you have to believe in god first of all to understand this). I can't
see how capitalizing on this for your own amusement would be very
entertaining unless you are the type who can't resist fanning the flames.
You must not be very religious, and neither am I(anymore), but why would you
purposely try to provoke someone? It's different for hollywood because they
don't believe in anything except the almighty dollar, and if there is a god
they would be the first to burn. So my question is, what do you believe in?
What is sacred to you? If you say there is no god and nothing is sacred then
I bid you good day and will trouble you no more about this, because to argue
from two such extreme points of view is useless. There would never be a
resolution. Let's avoid that , k?
Also I feel that it is necessary to say that Stanley Kubrick, though very
talented, was just a man like any of us. Elevating his films to the status
of religious experience is a dangerous thing at best. No one should be put
that high on a pedestal.
Wordsmith
I suppose they figured no one in the states would get the references
to SK's film (in addition to its just being a bad movie), hence the
limited release. Frank Drebin in orbit? He was funny enough on earth
in the *Police Squad* spoofs. Is the maxim original? It's great.
Wordsmith :)
JeffD
>snip
>
> Also I feel that it is necessary to say that Stanley Kubrick, though very
> talented, was just a man like any of us. Elevating his films to the status
> of religious experience is a dangerous thing at best. No one should be put
> that high on a pedestal.
"Dangerous"? I used the phrase "religious experience" since it might be
easier for people to understand -- and then I said "spiritual" (and it's
also why I put it in quotes). This has nothing to do with any god thing, or
any actual religion. But many have said throughout the years that the film
was, for >them<, a sublime, deeply moving experience on a spititual
and philosphical level - more often subconciously. The fact that the term
"spiritual" is co-opted by religion/religionists doesn't change the actual
meaning of the word, at least in my mind.
Yes, Stanely Kubrick was just a man. But in my view, he was a very
exceptional one (and more than just very "talented") He was an auteur -- a
good thing, despite what others may think, and an extreme rarity -- at least
insofar as "commercial" filmmaking is concerned. He was a *master* in the
craft of FILM, as well as its art, and could've easily made films all by
himself, without assistance, had he enough eyes, arms, legs, and time. He
*knew* enough about the various fields within filmmaking to do
so expertly. Howm any other filmmakers can that, itself, be said off?
As importantly -- and probably more importantly -- Kubrick was a true
Renaissance man; his range of interests - and *knowledge* about those
interests - was, in a word, *exceptional*, especially in this (rather
mediocre) day & age. Not only is this rare among "just" common, everyday
men, it is obviously RARE among filmmakers. And I think most of the
greatest art is produced by artists who have the most >wide-ranging brains<
so to speak. Like Stanley Kubrick. Because of this, in my view, Kubrick's
death was an IMMENSE loss to the world, in culture and art in general, and
therefore to humanity -- if only because there are so few like him.
So, you'll excuse me if I think he should be on a "pedestal". I don't
"worship" anyone or anything. But being the admirer of Kubrick that I am --
and being a part of humanity -- I took his death personally.
Best,
Jeff D.
JeffD
>
> >It's just a very personal thing with me as far as "2001" goes. For me,
> >I guess the film really was/is akin to a "religious experience" - or,
> >spiritual rather, and a particular life landmark if you will. So I've
> >never had much patience when it's mindlessly "dissed" or given the
> >respect I think it deserves as an important work of art.
> >
> >Best,
> >Jeff D.
>
> i personally like making fun of peoples religious experiences. that
> deserves sarcasm and satire more than anything else
...said the 8th-grade boy.
> it's like people getting pissed
> about others making fun of their religion. if your religion is so
> powerfull you
> shouldn't have a problem if someone else doesn't feel the same way.
I will admit to often being amused when a "believer" takes undue offence
at some comment (be it innocent or otherwise) -- as if the "creator" of,
say, the Andromeda Galaxy actually *needs* their defense or even gives a
shit.
> satire
> should be directed at "high values" first and formost.
Can't even comment on that.
> matt
Jeff
Joel Dearing
>
> "Dangerous"? I used the phrase "religious experience" since it might be
> easier for people to understand -- and then I said "spiritual" (and it's
> also why I put it in quotes). This has nothing to do with any god thing,
or
> any actual religion. But many have said throughout the years that the
film
> was, for >them<, a sublime, deeply moving experience on a spititual
> and philosphical level - more often subconciously. The fact that the term
> "spiritual" is co-opted by religion/religionists doesn't change the actual
> meaning of the word, at least in my mind.
Look, I loved 2001 and I have heard also that some people find watching it a
profound experience but I am not one of those people. I found it to be very
intelligently written, performed and visualized but possibly most
importantly, I thought it was definitely plausible. And nothing more. I like
what Steven Spielberg said about 2001. He said that watching it, he was
struck that it wasn't so much science fiction as it was science eventuality.
But ultimately, my philosophy when it comes to film is to always remember
that in the greater scheme of things these movies are relatively
inconsequential. That's not a jab against the creativity and intellectualism
of the people that make them or the people who watch them. But you have to
put it into perspective. I mean, look around you. There are terrible things
happening in this world everyday. Look at what greed and hate and money can
make some people do to one another. Think about all the bloodshed over the
centuries in the name of religion and progress and expansion. Look at how
racism still divides us as a society. Is there ever any good news on T.V.
anymore? And witness the petty arguements that go on in some of these
newsgroups that sometimes escalate into full scale character assassinations.
I think it is dangerous to place a film, or anything for that matter, on
such lofty footing. And by saying that I'm not trying to sermonize to anyone
or trivialize their passion for all things Kubrick, I'm just saying that by
idolizing something a person may be losing sight of some of the REALLY
important things in life. If you are looking for spirituality, then start by
looking within yourself, not out at a movie screen where someone else is
feeding you their idea of it.
> Yes, Stanely Kubrick was just a man. But in my view, he was a very
> exceptional one (and more than just very "talented") He was an auteur --
a
> good thing, despite what others may think, and an extreme rarity -- at
least
> insofar as "commercial" filmmaking is concerned. He was a *master* in the
> craft of FILM, as well as its art, and could've easily made films all by
> himself, without assistance, had he enough eyes, arms, legs, and time.He
> *knew* enough about the various fields within filmmaking to do
> so expertly. Howm any other filmmakers can that, itself, be said off?
I don't disagree with you about this. He was very fluent in the technical
aspects of film making. But he didn't invent the process.
> As importantly -- and probably more importantly -- Kubrick was a true
> Renaissance man; his range of interests - and *knowledge* about those
> interests - was, in a word, *exceptional*, especially in this (rather
> mediocre) day & age. Not only is this rare among "just" common, everyday
> men, it is obviously RARE among filmmakers. And I think most of the
> greatest art is produced by artists who have the most >wide-ranging
brains<
> so to speak. Like Stanley Kubrick. Because of this, in my view,
Kubrick's
> death was an IMMENSE loss to the world, in culture and art in general, and
> therefore to humanity -- if only because there are so few like him.
> So, you'll excuse me if I think he should be on a "pedestal". I don't
> "worship" anyone or anything. But being the admirer of Kubrick that I
am --
> and being a part of humanity -- I took his death personally.
I just thought he was a really great film maker whose films managed to be
insightful, emotionally provoking yet entertaining all at the same time. A
cut above the norm. I wish that he could have made more. As far as his death
having a substantial impact on the world in general, well I think that's
going a little too far. After all, he took most of his base material from
novels he liked, and developed his love of camerawork because of
encouragement from his father so why don't you give them some credit too?
gh
<men...@digiscape.com> wrote:
> but then it petered out into a parody of some old 50s-60s sci-fi
> schlock with Eugene Levy playing Ernest Borgnine playing a
> spaceman in costumes straight out of the racks from "Forbidden
> Planet"...
Excuse me, but "Forbidden Planet" is not sci-fi "schlock". Have you
really seen it?
G
Mike Jackson
g...@NoSpam.thankyou 01/21/2002 9:17 PM went on about :
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was, but rather meant that they were
wearing the same costumes quilted costumes space uniforms that originated in
"FP". Come to think of it those costumes seemed to have turned up later in a
lot schlock sci-fi stuff as well as "The Twilight Zone" I think... You do
remember those costumes that Leslie Nielson and the ship crew wore in "FP"?
That's the ones I'm talking about.
JeffD
>
> "JeffD" <fre...@webspan.net> wrote in message
> news:3C4B7E...@webspan.net..
> >
> > easier for people to understand -- and then I said "spiritual" (and it's
> > also why I put it in quotes). This has nothing to do with any god thing,
> or
> > any actual religion. But many have said throughout the years that the
> film
> > was, for >them<, a sublime, deeply moving experience on a spititual
> > and philosphical level - more often subconciously. The fact that the term
> > "spiritual" is co-opted by religion/religionists doesn't change the actual
> > meaning of the word, at least in my mind.
>
> Look, I loved 2001 and I have heard also that some people find watching it a
> profound experience but I am not one of those people.
Alright, so... then you're not. It was for me.
> I found it to be very
> intelligently written, performed and visualized but possibly most
> importantly, I thought it was definitely plausible. And nothing more. I like
> what Steven Spielberg said about 2001. He said that watching it, he was
> struck that it wasn't so much science fiction as it was science eventuality.
Despite Spielberg's admiration of Kubrick, and based on some of the comments
he's made about his films (more recently in his little EWS DVD commentray), I
think it's pretty obvious that he just doesn't "get"
Kubrick's films on anything but a pretty superficial level (his comment
you sight is just another example). For me, the science-fiction and technology
aspects of the film were just secondary, and not the thing(s)
which provided the "experience" of the film for me (and alot of others)
-- the "metaphysical drama" as I think Kubrick himself once called it.
If "all" you got from the film was what you stated, then it's about as
useless for me trying to verbalize what I consider the (much) deeper
aspects of the film than it was 400 moons ago, in trying to do so with
my fellow 8th graders (and no insult intended). As I said, it's a very
personal thing -- but so is any individuals reaction to a work of art.
And the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" >IS< a work of art, despite its
it's secondary existence simply as a commercial product.
> But ultimately, my philosophy when it comes to film is to always remember
> that in the greater scheme of things these movies are relatively
> inconsequential.
So what? Most movies, and most books, and most music, and most literature, and
most etc. are inconsequential in the "greater" scheme of things. But
true works of art in those (and other) mediums, I would say are >not<
at all "inconsequental" -- even IN that greater scheme. One might say
they are actually part OF it. You can take that philosophy to an
extreme too, since your very LIFE is "relatively inconsequential" in
relation to the greater scheme of things.
> That's not a jab against the creativity and intellectualism
> of the people that make them or the people who watch them. But you have to
> put it into perspective. I mean, look around you. There are terrible things
> happening in this world everyday. Look at what greed and hate and money can
> make some people do to one another. Think about all the bloodshed over the
> centuries in the name of religion and progress and expansion. Look at how
> racism still divides us as a society. Is there ever any good news on T.V.
> anymore? And witness the petty arguements that go on in some of these
> newsgroups that sometimes escalate into full scale character > assassinations.
I agree completely. But I also think all this is a big jump from the subject,
and irrelevent -- in all but the MUCH greater "scheme of things" that you
decided to bring into this and go on about.
> I think it is dangerous to place a film, or anything for that matter, on
> such lofty footing.
I think truly great works of art are lofty; the best ones are. They are concrete
manifestations of the mind, "soul" and spirit of the particular artist, coming
out through a certain medium. The person experiencing the
art either "connects" with it (and, by association, the artist) or they don't.
And if they do, it's often in a way that is difficult to explain/verbalize it
to those who don't. It is a gut, emotional, subconscious and, yes, "spiritual"
thing.
> And by saying that I'm not trying to sermonize to anyone
> or trivialize their passion for all things Kubrick, I'm just saying that > by
> idolizing something a person may be losing sight of some of the REALLY
> important things in life.
Well, if you're talking about somebody like the 15-year-old who idolizes EMINEM,
maybe you have a point. I've already said that I don't "worship"
anyone or any institution, and my almost life-long admiration for Stanley
Kurbrick certainly doesn't equate with "idolatry", regardless of what it
may sound like to *you*, or anyone else who regards Kubrick simply as "very
talented" movie-maker. And, unlike many people, *I* never did lose sight of
what's REALLY important in life, as you emphasize it.
> If you are looking for spirituality, then start by
> looking within yourself, not out at a movie screen where someone else is
> feeding you their idea of it.
Now you >are< sermonizing. You don't know me from a hole in a toilet
divider. I've never had to "look" for spirituality; I've always had it,
and I've always known who I was, for whatever reason(s). I think it could
possibly be your own narrow (religious?) definition of it that makes you
take the unwarranted and presumptuous leap in assuming that I "fed" off
someone else's idea of it -- in this case, a filmmaker. Not everyone is
a lemming. In the case of '2001', it is the fact that I -- and MANY others -
*connected* with the deeper themes and subtexts in the film - subconsciously
(often the way the best art works on an individual) or otherwise, because
there was some thing >already within us< which allowed those underlying
themes/ideas to be *received* in the first place, and to RESONATE internally -
*spiritually*, while simultaneously making a direct connection with the artist
himself - who's mind/"spirit" is behind that conveyance - reflected off of
that "canvas" & into our eyes, minds and being - and especially powerful as it
was done so obliquely, almost completely through magnificent visuals, music and
sound -- the true (albeit little used) language, and ART of film.
If my eyes have always welled-over with tears (accompanied by that horrible
pain/lump-in-the-throat) during certain scenes in "2001" - consistently, since
the 2nd time I ever saw it - is it something spiritual that is resonating
within me, that I've "connected" with in some way, or would you call it merely
some neurotic, emotional response on my part (early man discovering the use of
his "tool", and the last 3-4 minutes of the film, beginning with the elderly
Bowman, trying to reach out and touch the monolith at the foot of his death
bed). Or is someone who has a similar reaction to a Bach organ fugue being
"fed" their tears by JSB's ghost, or could they be responding on some sort of
inner spiritual level & connectedness on their own? There's certainly nothing
"sad" about the piece; the sheer beauty of its complexity & sound strikes a
certain chord in that person which is already there, and is not really
describable (versus those individuals that it does nothing for - except cringe,
maybe). In a way, your last statement reminds me of certain non-readers who say
(often smugly) something like: "I don't read. What are books anyway, except
just somebody else's opinion". Puhleease.
> > Yes, Stanely Kubrick was just a man. But in my view, he was a very
> > exceptional one (and more than just very "talented") He was an auteur --
> a
> > good thing, despite what others may think, and an extreme rarity -- at
> least
> > insofar as "commercial" filmmaking is concerned. He was a *master* in the
> > craft of FILM, as well as its art, and could've easily made films all by
> > himself, without assistance, had he enough eyes, arms, legs, and time.He
> > *knew* enough about the various fields within filmmaking to do
> > so expertly. Howm any other filmmakers can that, itself, be said off?
>
> I don't disagree with you about this. He was very fluent in the technical
> aspects of film making. But he didn't invent the process.
In didn't say he invented it. What's the point? But his knowledge and
involvment with all the other aspects/crafts of film BESIDES directing
was ex-cep-tion-al. More importantly was the use of the mind behind the tools;
not only combining a unique style with content, but content and substance that
was deep and multilayered -- yet that could still be enjoyed superficially,
as mere entertainment fodder by your ayerage Joe Slackjaw. *That* is genius.
Fucking brilliant! (Still, I've often wondered through the years, if Kubrick
was able to make just ONE film without any commercial restraints or cares
whatsoever -- what that would've been like.)
"But he didn't invent the process" ? (Jeesuz, come on.) Nor did Bach invent
the organ.
> > As importantly -- and probably more importantly -- Kubrick was a true
> > Renaissance man; his range of interests - and *knowledge* about those
> > interests - was, in a word, *exceptional*, especially in this (rather
> > mediocre) day & age. Not only is this rare among "just" common, everyday
> > men, it is obviously RARE among filmmakers. And I think most of the
> > greatest art is produced by artists who have the most >wide-ranging
> brains<
> > so to speak. Like Stanley Kubrick. Because of this, in my view,
> Kubrick's
> > death was an IMMENSE loss to the world, in culture and art in general, and
> > therefore to humanity -- if only because there are so few like him.
> > So, you'll excuse me if I think he should be on a "pedestal". I don't
> > "worship" anyone or anything. But being the admirer of Kubrick that I
> am --
> > and being a part of humanity -- I took his death personally.
>
> I just thought he was a really great film maker whose films managed to be
> insightful, emotionally provoking yet entertaining all at the same time. A
> cut above the norm. I wish that he could have made more. As far as his death
> having a substantial impact on the world in general, well I think that's
> going a little too far.
There will be NO MORE Stanley Kubrick films. That is a "loss to the world in
culture and art in general, and therefore to humanity" (read what I wrote that
you're quoting). In my view, his loss *is* immense, and that his death may not
have a substantial impact on the "world in general", would only be because the
world is a DUH -- especially when it comes to alot of things that are
......really important.
> After all, he took most of his base material from
> novels he liked,
Again, so what? For the most part, he gutted them anyway and added his own
"text", subtexts, ideas and vision, creating his own unique cinematic work,
ultimately superior to the base story that spawned it.
> and developed his love of camerawork because of
> encouragement from his father so why don't you give them some credit too?
Because I wasn't discussing his father. Besides which, the father's gift of
a camera would've meant little if the son had no interest in photography or
inclination to pursue it. But, yes, I'm sure some of what made Stanley
Kubrick Stanely Kubrick was his parents (his father seemed to be quite a
progressive, and as a doctor was into natural or "holistic" medicine long
before it was fashionable -- at least in the U.S. And the parents were
cultured -- a very positive influence, I'm sure).
I don't know exactly what the contention is here. "2001" didn't have quite the
sublime effect on you that it had me or others (and you are, I think, in the
majority in that regard, and I learned a loooong time ago that there's no
use arguing about it since it involves "incompatible wavelengths", for lack
of a better phrase. And, again, no insult implied or intended; it's not
even a value judgement for that matter - it just *is*, I believe.) For
whatever reason, you also seem to have a problem/misunderstanding with my
use of the term "spiritual". I can only explain it in the way I did above;
nothing to do with a god/religion/superstition context. And as far as what you
consider an undue "reverence" for someone who was "just a man" (as opposed to
*what*, may I ask - unless he was a woman?), I just think great artists - like
Stanley Kubrick - are worthy of some sort of "reverence" given the quality
of their body of work -- which is so obviously a >product< of the *quality* of
their mind. At least 3 of his films I consider great works of art, and true
masterpieces.
There is yet another scene in "2001" that affects me now like the others I
mentioned always have. As magnificent as it is, it has only been fairly
recently that the opening sequence makes me cry, as hard as I try not to. It's
when "A STANLEY KUBRICK PRODUCTION" flashes on under the title.
"A very talented man" indeed.
Jeff D.
Thrawn
it came out on its' own...
"but hey- Can I use that as my NewsGroup Signature quote?"
Thanks - I'm honored!
"So it's not so bad that it makes eating impossible?"
As in throwing up? No it has no effect at all. Imagine staring at a
blank wall and after 10 minutes you can say you saw space travesty.
"They knew you probably wouldn't sit through the film to the end and
paid
lots of money for that effect. Probably over $40..."
Yeah, it was a bad CG effect. TRON was more advanced.
"And hazards to navigation to boot. Also probably uninsured, so good
luck
filing a claim if you hit one at warp 9..."
The space shuttle is going to the moon and there is a monolith
spinning wildy. If you didn't know 2001, you wouldn't have know/cared
what it was."
"Now, that does make sense. Ever go through the monkey house at the
zoo
without earplugs?"
But, by having god in the film it takes away the mystery of the
monolith. If the ape went up and touched it and it fell on him by
itself, that would've been decent. Side note: 2001 had better ape
suits than this film.
"This film not suitable for zero-g environments?"
He did try to go to the bathroom, but there was a German Hoffbrau band
in there!? The other joke was he sneezed and it shot around the cabin
and went in a girls top...yawn.
> Tons of sex jokes that just fall so flat. See the constellations -
> "Sagitarius, Stifficus..."
"The crack of dawn of man?"
Something...other jokes you might aprreciate were unexplained
mysteries of the universe and flshing pics of Rodman and Michael
Jackson (the other one).
"Sounds like a travesty..."
A space travesty!
There was an entire horror of a sequence where terrorists take over a
burger mart and he accidentally hits a post and drives thru the window
(same basic role as in Naked gun) and can't tell the terrorists from
the hostages. And the pole he hit didn't fall down, it somehow flew
through the air and went through the roof.
"I suppose they figured no one in the states would get the references
to SK's film (in addition to its just being a bad movie), hence the
limited release. Frank Drebin in orbit? He was funny enough on earth
in the *Police Squad* spoofs. Is the maxim original? It's great."
You've heard of a film going straight to video?
This is a new one called - "Straight to Comedy Central."
Joel Dearing
I think he(Spielberg) was paying Stanley Kubrick a great compliment when he
said that. Mostly because just about everything that came before 2001 was
just goofy Flash Gordon type space serial adventures, but Stanley took a
hardline science approach which lifted the genre to an unheard of level of
plausibility. Something that had never been achieved before. Kubrick did say
to Aurthur C. Clarke:"I want to make the proverbial 'good' science fiction
film." What do you suppose he meant by that?
> If "all" you got from the film was what you stated, then it's about as
> useless for me trying to verbalize what I consider the (much) deeper
> aspects of the film than it was 400 moons ago, in trying to do so with
> my fellow 8th graders (and no insult intended).
None taken. I could read alot more into it that I choose to. I was raised in
a philsophical/reigious atmosphere, so I know all about the value of
contemplation and introspection. I just don't apply it to film or art in
general. Does that make me a less thoughtful person?
As I said, it's a very
> personal thing -- but so is any individuals reaction to a work of art.
> And the film "2001: A Space Odyssey" >IS< a work of art, despite its
> it's secondary existence simply as a commercial product.
I can accept that you and many others feel that way. I don't even really see
it as a 'commercial product', being that it is so far outside the realm of
what is considered mainstream.
>
> > But ultimately, my philosophy when it comes to film is to always
remember
> > that in the greater scheme of things these movies are relatively
> > inconsequential.
>
> So what? Most movies, and most books, and most music, and most literature,
and
> most etc. are inconsequential in the "greater" scheme of things. But
> true works of art in those (and other) mediums, I would say are >not<
> at all "inconsequental" -- even IN that greater scheme. One might say
> they are actually part OF it. You can take that philosophy to an
> extreme too, since your very LIFE is "relatively inconsequential" in
> relation to the greater scheme of things.
Anytime I need a lesson in humility I just go outside on a clear night and
look up at the stars and think about how inconsequential everything really
is and how utterly self absorbed people in this world can be.
> > That's not a jab against the creativity and intellectualism
> > of the people that make them or the people who watch them. But you have
to
> > put it into perspective. I mean, look around you. There are terrible
things
> > happening in this world everyday. Look at what greed and hate and money
can
> > make some people do to one another. Think about all the bloodshed over
the
> > centuries in the name of religion and progress and expansion. Look at
how
> > racism still divides us as a society. Is there ever any good news on
T.V.
> > anymore? And witness the petty arguements that go on in some of these
> > newsgroups that sometimes escalate into full scale character >
assassinations.
>
> I agree completely. But I also think all this is a big jump from the
subject,
> and irrelevent -- in all but the MUCH greater "scheme of things" that you
> decided to bring into this and go on about.
It's relevant because that's why I don't place an overly great amount of
value on 'art'. I can appreciate it, but I prefer to contemplate my own
existence and how it is effected by everyday life and the motivations behind
the things that make me say and do the thinks I do.
>
>
> > I think it is dangerous to place a film, or anything for that matter, on
> > such lofty footing.
>
> I think truly great works of art are lofty; the best ones are. They are
concrete
> manifestations of the mind, "soul" and spirit of the particular artist,
coming
> out through a certain medium. The person experiencing the
> art either "connects" with it (and, by association, the artist) or they
don't.
> And if they do, it's often in a way that is difficult to explain/verbalize
it
> to those who don't. It is a gut, emotional, subconscious and, yes,
"spiritual"
> thing.
I can understand what you are trying to say. It's intangible, something that
you instinctively feel, right?
>
>
> > And by saying that I'm not trying to sermonize to anyone
> > or trivialize their passion for all things Kubrick, I'm just saying that
> by
> > idolizing something a person may be losing sight of some of the REALLY
> > important things in life.
>
> Well, if you're talking about somebody like the 15-year-old who idolizes
EMINEM,
> maybe you have a point. I've already said that I don't "worship"
> anyone or any institution, and my almost life-long admiration for Stanley
> Kurbrick certainly doesn't equate with "idolatry", regardless of what it
> may sound like to *you*, or anyone else who regards Kubrick simply as
"very
> talented" movie-maker. And, unlike many people, *I* never did lose sight
of
> what's REALLY important in life, as you emphasize it.
Ok, I have to admit that maybe I said too much when I wrote that. You
certainly have the right to conduct yourself anyway you see fit.
Again, I kind of regret saying that. I quit religion a long time ago so that
I could broaden my mind beyond what people tried to tell me I should think
and feel. Ever since then I haven't had much use for 'spirituality' in any
form. Maybe now you're getting a bit clearer picture of who I am.
I can agree with you about music. Bach especially. So there's something we
can agree on.
Yeah, you have a point there. But you make it sound like no one else can or
has ever been able to approach the level of craft that Kubrick demonstrated
with film, light, color, etc., which I think is nonsense.
No, I think alot of people have more pressing things to do in their lives
than to sit around and wax poetic about Stanley Kubrick or art. Does that
make them dullards?
>
>
> > After all, he took most of his base material from
> > novels he liked,
>
> Again, so what? For the most part, he gutted them anyway and added his
own
> "text", subtexts, ideas and vision, creating his own unique cinematic
work,
> ultimately superior to the base story that spawned it.
Oh for god's sake, this really is too much. I can't respond rationally to a
statement like this. Was a Clockwork Orange superior to the novel? Not a
fucking chance. He watered it down for christ's sake. In the book, Alex was
15 and in the scene where he meets the girls in the record store and takes
them home those girls were only like 12 years old. And in the book he raped
them. They didn't have concentual sex to the tune of the William Tell
Overture on 78 speed. It was no comedy number. That added a much darker
dimension to the story and completely changes our perspective of Alex and
makes you feel like he deserved every bit of the Ludovico treatment and
more. Plus Kubrick left the entire last chapter out. Don't get me wrong, I
liked the movie as a spin on the book, but it will never be superior to what
Anthony Burgess wrote. Period.
> > and developed his love of camerawork because of
> > encouragement from his father so why don't you give them some credit
too?
>
> Because I wasn't discussing his father. Besides which, the father's gift
of
> a camera would've meant little if the son had no interest in photography
or
> inclination to pursue it. But, yes, I'm sure some of what made Stanley
> Kubrick Stanely Kubrick was his parents (his father seemed to be quite a
> progressive, and as a doctor was into natural or "holistic" medicine long
> before it was fashionable -- at least in the U.S. And the parents were
> cultured -- a very positive influence, I'm sure).
>
> I don't know exactly what the contention is here. "2001" didn't have
quite the
> sublime effect on you that it had me or others (and you are, I think, in
the
> majority in that regard, and I learned a loooong time ago that there's no
> use arguing about it since it involves "incompatible wavelengths", for
lack
> of a better phrase. And, again, no insult implied or intended; it's not
> even a value judgement for that matter - it just *is*, I believe.)
I totally agree with you here.
For
> whatever reason, you also seem to have a problem/misunderstanding with my
> use of the term "spiritual". I can only explain it in the way I did
above;
> nothing to do with a god/religion/superstition context.
Fine with me. I think you made your point clearly enough.
And as far as what you
> consider an undue "reverence" for someone who was "just a man" (as opposed
to
> *what*, may I ask - unless he was a woman?
Is it really necessary to start mincing words now? Would you rather I said
"just a person"?
), I just think great artists - like
> Stanley Kubrick - are worthy of some sort of "reverence" given the quality
> of their body of work -- which is so obviously a >product< of the
*quality* of
> their mind. At least 3 of his films I consider great works of art, and
true
> masterpieces.
>
> There is yet another scene in "2001" that affects me now like the others I
> mentioned always have. As magnificent as it is, it has only been fairly
> recently that the opening sequence makes me cry, as hard as I try not to.
It's
> when "A STANLEY KUBRICK PRODUCTION" flashes on under the title.
>
> "A very talented man" indeed.
Ok Jeff, first of all, thanks for addressing my post in as much detail as
you did. You put up a fair arguement and your rebuttals are well thought out
for the most part. I understand what you mean about 2001 being a 'spiritual'
experience for you and apparently alot of others too. People find that
quality in alot of different ways so really, who am I to jump on you about
it, right?
There are very specific reasons why I don't place as high a value on the
cinematic art form as you do. But that doesn't mean that I only see films on
a purely visceral, 'What the hell?!? I didn't come here to think', kind of
level. Don't think that I can't understand where you are coming from in
regards to 2001 and Stanley Kubrick. But I'll bet that there are alot of
highly intelligent people that are artistically diverse and cultured who
hated this movie. I would also be willing to bet there are just as many
average people who enjoyed it thoroughly in many different ways. And I know
there are those who are completely indifferent. There is no wrong way to
enjoy this film. Just because it didn't have the same impact on me as it did
on you doesn't mean I didn't get it. If I wanted to, I could go on as much
about the philosophical ramifications and metaphysical underpinnings as you
could.
So don't lump my into the 'other' group just yet.
Mike Jackson
thra...@yahoo.com 01/22/2002 2:25 AM went on about :
> Boy this is weird...I posted this into the other travesty thread and
> it came out on its' own...
It depends on the newsreader you use, in Google or Outlook Express/Entourage
if the subject name changes (you added "beyond bad" to the subject line)
then it doesn't recognize it as being in the same thread anymore, or so it
seems...
>> "but hey- Can I use that as my NewsGroup Signature quote?"
>
>> Thanks - I'm honored!
>
>> "So it's not so bad that it makes eating impossible?"
>
> As in throwing up? No it has no effect at all. Imagine staring at a
> blank wall and after 10 minutes you can say you saw space travesty.
The problem is that these spoof movies tend not only to take on the primary
movie they are spoofing, but also throw in other similar films as well. For
example "Hot Shots" parodied not only "Top Gun" but threw in things like
"Rambo" and "Dances with Wolves"
From the trailer for for "Travesty" I couldn't tell what the other films
were it was attempting to spoof. It looked like it was just recycling other
Naked Gun gags like bits with the Queen of England and such. IT was a waste
of bandwidth just downloading that trailer, much less the time spent
watching it.
>> "They knew you probably wouldn't sit through the film to the end and paid
>> lots of money for that effect. Probably over $40..."
>
> Yeah, it was a bad CG effect. TRON was more advanced.
I'm not so sure that enough people really even have seen "2001" to even get
the StarChild thing is from some other film.
>> "And hazards to navigation to boot. Also probably uninsured, so good luck
>> filing a claim if you hit one at warp 9..."
>
> The space shuttle is going to the moon and there is a monolith
> spinning wildy. If you didn't know 2001, you wouldn't have know/cared
> what it was."
>> "Now, that does make sense. Ever go through the monkey house at the zoo
>> without earplugs?"
>
> But, by having god in the film it takes away the mystery of the
> monolith. If the ape went up and touched it and it fell on him by
> itself, that would've been decent. Side note: 2001 had better ape
> suits than this film.
SK's film still has better ape costumes/make-up than most other movies,
although one has to give Rick Baker cudos for his work on the makeup and
effects he's done.
>> "This film not suitable for zero-g environments?"
>
> He did try to go to the bathroom, but there was a German Hoffbrau band
> in there!? The other joke was he sneezed and it shot around the cabin
> and went in a girls top...yawn.
Part of that was in the trailer I saw. Again, it's a question of even those
people who are passingly familiar with "2001" might not remember the zero-g
toilet instructions scene probably wouldn't make the connection. That looked
more like just more of Nielson's tomfoolery...
>> Tons of sex jokes that just fall so flat. See the constellations -
>> "Sagitarius, Stifficus..."
>
>> "The crack of dawn of man?"
>
> Something...other jokes you might aprreciate were unexplained
> mysteries of the universe and flshing pics of Rodman and Michael
> Jackson (the other one).
Believe me, since I share my name with the world's greatest reclusive freak,
there ain't many Michael Jackson jokes I HAVEN'T heard yet...
>> "Sounds like a travesty..."
> A space travesty!
> There was an entire horror of a sequence where terrorists take over a
> burger mart and he accidentally hits a post and drives thru the window
> (same basic role as in Naked gun) and can't tell the terrorists from
> the hostages. And the pole he hit didn't fall down, it somehow flew
> through the air and went through the roof.
That sounds more like a parody of the "Naked Gun" movies than anything else.
They are just trying to recycle those as though they didn't understand what
those movies were parodying In the first place.
>> "I suppose they figured no one in the states would get the references to SK's
>> film (in addition to its just being a bad movie), hence the limited release.
>> Frank Drebin in orbit? He was funny enough on earth in the *Police Squad*
>> spoofs. Is the maxim original? It's great."
>
> You've heard of a film going straight to video?
> This is a new one called - "Straight to Comedy Central."
Somebody said it was too bad MST2K wasn't still around to bag on it. I'm not
even sure they could could heckle it into being funny...
Maybe just training a camera on John Stewart of "The Daily Show" done up
like the Ludovico treatment scene watching it would though...
derek
> Oh for god's sake, this really is too much. I can't respond rationally
> to a > statement like this. Was a Clockwork Orange superior to the
novel? Not a fucking chance. He watered it down for christ's
sake. In the book, Alex was 15 and in the scene where he meets
the girls in the record store and takes them home those girls
were only like 12 years old. And in the book he raped them. They
didn't have concentual sex to the tune of the William Tell
Overture on 78 speed. It was no comedy number. That added a much
darker> dimension to the story and completely changes our
perspective of Alex and makes you feel like he deserved every
bit of the Ludovico treatment and more. Plus Kubrick left the
entire last chapter out. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie
as a spin on the book, but it will never be superior to what
Anthony Burgess wrote. Period.
Interesting if not revelatory observations in this thread (not
intending to demean them) but I would comment on the above.
Really I find the comparison between the two forms to be nearly
always inapt. (Not inept). It's a longstanding practice with
adpatations to decide whether the book or the film was better,
but it strikes me as a pointless exercise. I think the most one
can do is determine whether or not the filmmaker did something
interesting with the themes and ideas from the book and whether
or not that treatment lived up to the challenge presented by
those ideas and themes. At another level, one could debate
whether or not the film competently realised the visual world
suggested in the expository aspect of the literary work.
I hated the films Bonfire of the Vanities and Simon Birch, basec
on Tom Woolfe's BotV and John Irving's A Prayer for Owen Meany,
buit not because the films were 'inferior' to the book, but as
films they failed to deliver the standard of ideas presented in
the books. Changes to plot are immaterial IMO, even if for no
other reason than the film doesn't have the capacity to yield the
amount of information that the literary narrative can. The
destruction of ideas and the failure to explore the most
intersting themes I would say is more effective comparison.
Otherwise the comparison seems somewhat pointless to me, since
the two mediums require such a different emphasis of approach;
the book can do things the film can never hope to, just as the
film can 'clarify' a visual world in the way the book never can.
We can only construct our own visual expectations from a book and
thes ewill always differ from person to person.
'Faithfulness' in an adptation is pointless I think - though it's
something many people adhere to rigorously. I think that because
of the different nature and requirements of the two mediums, the
filmmaker can never do more than use the literary work as
inspiration for a narrative which will echo some of what the
author intended. In some works this means simply portraying the
plot cinematically. In some cases it means trying to nail
complex themes and ideas and completely reworking them so they
can be realised in a picture story lasting about two hours.
Even though Burgess disliked some of what Kubrick brought to his
adaptation of ACO, he admitted on more than one occasion that
whatever else he felt, Kubrick's film was "a brilliantly realise
fantasy of my work."
As with any adpatation, there is no reason why Kubrick should
have accurately followed every detail in Burgess' narrative. I
know it's common to argue this isn't 'being faithful' but for me
this faithful thing carries no weight; it's an unrealistic
expectation and while it goes against the grain of popular
thought it seems a completely hollow argument to me.
Discussing his adaptation of Lolita, Kubrick said that there was
no way a film could match the literary complexity or height of
Nabokov's work, but the film certainly extracted of the most
fascinating elements of Nabakov's manuscript and wove them into a
parallel story which provided for an equally compelling
consideration of the themes.
Similarly, with ACO I don't think Kubrick lost any of the book's
'darkness'; although the film is more ironic, it is in the irony
that Kubrick unlocks the darkness expressed through exposition in
Burgess' work.
To me it's a bit like asking whether a horse is superior to a
water buffalo. They may both be used to plough, but in contexts
so different that the comparison is pointless. What matters is
how adequately they serve the needs of the relevant crop.
Derek
Joel Dearing
"derek" <de...@xtra.com> wrote in message
news:R4m38.1652$Lv.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
Well though out Derek. However, I still feel that in some ways all film
adaptions of novels lose something in the translation. It's the nature of
the beast. Maybe it's because when a person reads a novel, the
visualizations of the "mind's eye" don't match the expectations of the film.
This is certainly no fault of the film maker as everyone comes away with
something different from a story.
As I said, I did enjoy ACO immensely as an interpretation of Burgess' novel,
and I have to concede that to film it verbatim would have probably condemned
it to an X rating or the profitless arthouse circuit. I also must say that
that no film I have seen has ever really accomplished the feat, as most
would have to be several hours long to encompass an entire novel word for
word. Plus most novels are filled with passages of detailed descriptions and
internal monolouges that would be tedious on film. I understand this and
sympathize completely.
It just amazes me that a film could be deemed 'superior' to the novel that
spawned it. The fact is, without the novel the film would never have come
together in the first place. How could anyone give the director that much
credit? Wasn't it the writer's wit, imagination, and creative use of
language that inspired Kubrick's in the first place?
Obviously Kubrick must have had alot of respect for Burgess' work to want to
make a film out of it. I don't think that his execution of the material was
in any way an improvment on the novel, nor does it reflect this upon
veiwing, as far as I'm concerned.
Joel Dearing
> news:3C4D05...@webspan.net...
> > > > "Dangerous"? I used the phrase "religious experience" since it
> Oh for god's sake, this really is too much. I can't respond rationally to
a
> statement like this. Was a Clockwork Orange superior to the novel? Not a
> fucking chance. He watered it down for christ's sake. In the book, Alex
was
> 15 and in the scene where he meets the girls in the record store and takes
> them home those girls were only like 12 years old. And in the book he
raped
> them. They didn't have concentual sex to the tune of the William Tell
> Overture on 78 speed. It was no comedy number. That added a much darker
> dimension to the story and completely changes our perspective of Alex and
> makes you feel like he deserved every bit of the Ludovico treatment and
> more. Plus Kubrick left the entire last chapter out. Don't get me wrong, I
> liked the movie as a spin on the book, but it will never be superior to
what
> Anthony Burgess wrote. Period.
>
gh
<men...@digiscape.com> wrote:
> Come to think of it those costumes seemed to have turned up later
> in a lot schlock sci-fi stuff as well as "The Twilight Zone" I think... You do
> remember those costumes that Leslie Nielson and the ship crew wore in
> "FP"? That's the ones I'm talking about.
True, a lot of the props and costumes from that great film were pimped
all around Hollywood. Look at where poor Robbie the Robot ended up.
G
Mike Jackson
g...@NoSpam.thankyou 01/22/2002 11:28 PM went on about :
Yeah, which is why all those wonderful "2001" props went to oblivion to
prevent such, but I still hope one or two more might turn up someday.
I can't say I was always too fond of Robby though...
Xfoliate
>> deserves sarcasm and satire more than anything else
>
>> matt
>...said the 8th-grade boy.
>
>Jeff
wow, harsh words there jeff.
matt
Xfoliate
>see how capitalizing on this for your own amusement would be very
>entertaining unless you are the type who can't resist fanning the flames.
well satire is a good tool to test limits. especially free speach. i should be
able to say my piece even if it is a polar oposite to someones religious
experience... that's all i meant. what if someones religious experience offends
me? why is it my fault if i say something and it offends someone but the person
with the experience can do no wrong?
>You must not be very religious, and neither am I(anymore)
not religious.
>Also I feel that it is necessary to say that Stanley Kubrick, though very
>talented, was just a man like any of us. Elevating his films to the status
>of religious experience is a dangerous thing at best. No one should be put
>that high on a pedestal.
exactly. well at least people are watching a space travesty and making comments
now. i can understand feeling a certain way after seeing a trailer but to
outright condemn it without having watched it is retarded. and someone said in
another post i know what a shit house smells like without having been in one
and that's the same thing... but you know what shit is already so that analogy
doesn't apply... i should really find the post and make that comment there
though... nevermind. also i would like to say that having made comments about a
space travesty is making us all a little bit more like the comic book store
owner from the simpsons. we are all dorks for having cared enough to make a
comment on it on the internet. everyone go read another book and maybe you'll
get some of that cred back.
matt