2001: Am I the only one who doesn't Get it??
Adam Honse
decided to rent it at my local Tower Video. I as watch the movie, i try
to believe that some one would make a movie more in favor of silence
than words/plot. They did. The twenty minute monkey sequence at the
begining of the movie was rather stupid and entirlely to long. Then of
course the was the ride to the rotating space station. Blue danube is a
fine piece of music but I DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE WHOLE DAMN THING.
Jeez. Was the director trying to show off the special effects? enough
is enough. I can only watch so much stuff floating thru space. The
part where people did speak was fine, except the phone conversation w/
the kid. To long... Then there was that annoying noise when they were
on the moon looking at the Monolith. That damn singing/warbling during
any kind of space scene. Why was their a jump form the moon to the
jupiter mission? I think i should have starteded the movie at that
point insted of the begining. When replacing the little box on the
Satelite Dish why was nothing said when the pod hit the guy. better yet
why didn't we see anything GOD THIS MOVIE SUCKS, I kept thinking to
myself trying to watch it and not get annoyed enough to turn it off.
Maybe it would get better. Nope. After a couple more minutes Dave gets
back into the ship thru the air lock, whitch i thought was kinda cool.
But he had no helmet and then once he is inside he's got a helmet. Like
wesley snipes in blade "What the Fuck?" i said. Then i thought If HAL
controls everything on the ship then why is Dave able to open doors?
And after dave disables HAL what is the cut for. I don't have a clue
what the hell is going on as he moves thru space and then is transported
to some room. What the hell is going on?? I decided to fast forward to
another space scene if I could find one and then tryto watch it, but a
Fetus showed up floating thru space. This movie is to fucked so i
turned it off.
If you make a sci-fi movie make it a sci-fi movie. not a Damn Art House
movie. jeez to much empty symbolizim and not enough anything else.
Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
will never watch that movie again.
Of course that's just my opinion, I could be Wrong.
Adam Honse
Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
will never watch that movie again.
Neil Scott Nadelman
: Having never seen the movie and heard it was a MGM "Crown jewel" I
: decided to rent it at my local Tower Video. I as watch the movie, i try
: to believe that some one would make a movie more in favor of silence
: than words/plot. They did. The twenty minute monkey sequence at the
: begining of the movie was rather stupid and entirlely to long. Then of
..snip, snip, snip... ...blah, blah, blah...
: Of course that's just my opinion, I could be Wrong.
You can argue that 2001 is overlong and overly pretentious, but you
can't really just dismiss it like this. If you read the book by Arthur
C. Clark, you'll have every question you have answered. If you read it and
then go back to the movie again, you'll most likely see it in a new light.
2001 is one of the few movies ever made whih requires that you
also read the book. It's all visuals and no expository. The book has
all the expository.
--
----------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Neil Nadelman...@user1.channel1.com| The blood still pulses in my veins.
----------------------------------------| The sun, still at its zenith.
I fear nothing in life because | And I... I, Antonius Block...
I've already survived Theta-G! | Am playing chess with Death.
----------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Richard
read to comprehend this Art movie. Much like Forbidden Planet, this movie is
the starting point for most of what came after. (In that short story we
learn that an advanced civilization looking for potential development on
evolving planets placed a sentinel on the moon and when "man" evolved enough
to get to the moon and find the sentinel it would signal the advanced
civilization that it was time to make contact. (That would have not been an
art film but sure would have made a good flick on its own). (That signal was
the sound you heard). You need to read the NYTs or its mag. published at the
time the film was released to get a running interpretation of this film.
dot nyet
>If you make a sci-fi movie make it a sci-fi movie. not a Damn Art House
>movie. jeez to much empty symbolizim and not enough anything else.
>Of course that's just my opinion, I could be Wrong.
Adam, I might suggest a screening of The Dukes of Hazzard, or Smoky
and the Bandit. Might be just what you're looking for.
!Koi
>
> Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
> film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
> shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
> will never watch that movie again.
Perhaps this was Stanley Kubrick's homage to James Cameron.
<nudgenudegewinkwink>
~Joe
Mark & Zorica Drake
Troll.......
Arenarop
>Troll.......
Exactly! I can't believe everyone is taking this guy so seriously! It's
obvious to me that he's just baiting us. In fact, I'd bet money that this is
the same guy who started that other thread about trying to buy a VHS player at
Circuit City.
John Miles
>
> Troll.......
No, he's not trolling, and he's not the only person who was left
completely nonplussed by '2001.'
The only redeeming feature of '2001', IMHO, was that you could watch it
on fast-forward and not miss a thing, thereby saving yourself a couple
of hours' worth of cinematic ennui.
I am told that this particular movie must be viewed in the spirit of the
times for which it was made; i.e., with appropriate pharmacological
assistance. If that's the case, forget it -- I'd rather visit my
dentist than sit through '2001' again.
-- jm
------------------------------------------------------
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------
dot nyet
>Perhaps this was Stanley Kubrick's homage to James Cameron.
><nudgenudegewinkwink>
<g> he must be clarivoyant, considering 2001 was made over 25 years
before Aliens.
dot nyet
says...
Conidering his spelling ability, I'm not convinced he's smart enough
to know what a Troll is :)
Steve Gallant
>film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
>shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
By the way, that music is a classical piece from the Gayaneh Ballet Suite
by Aram Khatachurian. "2001" predates "Aliens" by about 18 years,
and the Ballet predates "2001" by another 27 years.
So I ask you, which came first? :)
Cheers,
Steve G. (aka Movie music buff)
Adam Honse
EPI
james horner often "steals" from other composers and this is one of his most
obvious lifts. the piece you are referring to is aram khachaturian's
"adagio from the gayane ballet". horner has used it in not only "aliens",
but "patriot games", "clear and present danger", the mask of zorro" , to
name a few.
harry
Adam Honse wrote in message <35ED8155...@spiritone.com>...
Paul McAdams
Adam - I'm willing to bet that this movie is older than you
are...that's not a flame, just that you have to understand that when
2001 was released, it contained alot of, at that time, new movie
technology, much the same way as Star Wars did when it was released.
Therefor, alot of lingering scenes to 'show off'. As to the
explaination of the monoliths, ending, etc., I suggest you read the
book, it makes more sense, and you may find yourself more appreciative
of the movie afterwards.
-Paul
Lord Vader
this movie is boring and not worth watching unless you are having trouble
sleeping then by all means watch it. The rest of the movie is great very
good use of the technology of the time quite intresting to watch.
EPI wrote in message <6sk9fo$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Darren Garrison
>Having never seen the movie and heard it was a MGM "Crown jewel" I
>decided to rent it at my local Tower Video. I as watch the movie, i try
>to believe that some one would make a movie more in favor of silence
>than words/plot. They did. The twenty minute monkey sequence at the
>begining of the movie was rather stupid and entirlely to long. Then of
>course the was the ride to the rotating space station. Blue danube is a
>fine piece of music but I DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE WHOLE DAMN THING.
>Jeez. Was the director trying to show off the special effects? enough
You know, every few years I decide that maybe I am being too harsh on
2001, that it HAS to be something other than the big turd that I think
it to be, that all of the people that praise this film HAVE to be on
to something. But then I watch it again, and see again how it is
still a 30 minute "Twilight Zone" skit fluffed out with music and
flashing lights.
Adam Honse
Adam Honse
Adam Honse
not.
Adam
Darren Garrison
wrote:
>On 2 Sep 1998 17:29:20 GMT, Adam Honse <aho...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
>Adam - I'm willing to bet that this movie is older than you
>are...that's not a flame, just that you have to understand that when
>2001 was released, it contained alot of, at that time, new movie
>technology, much the same way as Star Wars did when it was released.
>Therefor, alot of lingering scenes to 'show off'. As to the
>explaination of the monoliths, ending, etc., I suggest you read the
>book, it makes more sense, and you may find yourself more appreciative
>of the movie afterwards.
I read 2001, 2010, 2064 AND 3001. I still think that the movie 2001
is a festering turd. And after reading 3001 I think that ACC has long
since seen the end of his good writing days.
Scott Scurlock
>
Snip
>
> The only redeeming feature of '2001', IMHO, was that you could watch it
> on fast-forward and not miss a thing, thereby saving yourself a couple
> of hours' worth of cinematic ennui.
>
I agree. As far as Sci-Fi is concerned 2001 is a very pretentious "look
how deep I am" type movie. It's not as artsy and as ridiculously
pretentious as Bergman films but, at times, it tries. While I'm sure
many people truly enjoyed the film, I'd be willing to bet there are just
as many who didn't enjoy it, but in order to seem sophisticated, tout
it as a masterpiece and belittle those who disagree.
My $.02
Scott Scurlock
dot nyet
>eat my shorts
Precisely the response I expected. Better hurry, Daisy is on.
Scott Pickering
>to believe that some one would make a movie more in favor of silence
>than words/plot. They did. The twenty minute monkey sequence at the
>begining of the movie was rather stupid and entirlely to long. Then of
>course the was the ride to the rotating space station. Blue danube is a
>fine piece of music but I DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE WHOLE DAMN THING.
>Jeez. Was the director trying to show off the special effects? enough
>part where people did speak was fine, except the phone conversation w/
>the kid. To long... Then there was that annoying noise when they were
>on the moon looking at the Monolith. That damn singing/warbling during
>any kind of space scene. Why was their a jump form the moon to the
>jupiter mission? I think i should have starteded the movie at that
>point insted of the begining. When replacing the little box on the
>Satelite Dish why was nothing said when the pod hit the guy. better yet
>why didn't we see anything GOD THIS MOVIE SUCKS, I kept thinking to
>myself trying to watch it and not get annoyed enough to turn it off.
>Maybe it would get better. Nope. After a couple more minutes Dave gets
>back into the ship thru the air lock, whitch i thought was kinda cool.
>But he had no helmet and then once he is inside he's got a helmet. Like
>wesley snipes in blade "What the Fuck?" i said. Then i thought If HAL
>controls everything on the ship then why is Dave able to open doors?
>And after dave disables HAL what is the cut for. I don't have a clue
>what the hell is going on as he moves thru space and then is transported
>to some room. What the hell is going on?? I decided to fast forward to
>another space scene if I could find one and then tryto watch it, but a
>Fetus showed up floating thru space. This movie is to fucked so i
>turned it off.
>movie. jeez to much empty symbolizim and not enough anything else.
>
>film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
>will never watch that movie again.
>
>
>
>Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
>film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
>will never watch that movie again.
>
I think you've watched too much MTV. THIS movie requires you to think! Its a
piece of art to be respected and savoured, not rushed through like some Star
Wars sequence! I think too many action packed movies, like Star Wars, have
slanted your opinion. No wonder young folks get board with 2001. If you need
to understand what Kubrick was at least attempting to do in the film, read
Eberts review of 2001, or go to the 2001 site and read there reviews. If
still in doubt, read the book. Kubricks idea was to have the viewer come to
his conclusion as to the whole idea, instead of spoon feeding you
everything. No Kubrick wasn't copping out, but using his genious instead.
2001 is a rather original and brilliant movie if you just give it a chance
to filter in and make some sense. As a note most people need more than a few
viewings to start appreciating this film, even Ebert needed a few. Now he
conciders it one of the best movies he's ever seen, next to Citizen Kane.
dot nyet
>Don't diss the Dukes.
Why does this not surpise me ?
>i am always looking for a good movie,, 2001 is not.
Pehaps for some it isn't. But not for the reasons you stated.
dot nyet
godzi...@HSPAMearthlink.net says...
>I personally agree with Adam but only to a point the first 20 - 30 mins of
>this movie is boring and not worth watching unless you are having trouble
>sleeping then by all means watch it. The rest of the movie is great very
>good use of the technology of the time quite intresting to watch.
But it's pivotal to the plot, and the message. I suggest everyone
who didn't get it, read the book.
Sean Tudor
>Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
>film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
>shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
>will never watch that movie again.
Oh boy did you miss the point.
------------------------
Sean Tudor
Sydney, Australia
------------------------
This is my cannon, this is my gun
One is for bandits, and one is for fun
------------------------
vicious at magna dot com dot au
Brian Eberling
like it, it's just a conspiracy to get idiots like you to rent it. Sucker!
Dan Henderson
something that can only be experienced through the eyes and ears. It
broke ground because the public had never been treated (subjected?) to
this level of experimentation.
I saw this film on opening night in 1968 and it helped me grow as a
visual artist. It showed us that cinema is a unique language (not
just a way to tell a story).
Adam Honse <aho...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>Having never seen the movie and heard it was a MGM "Crown jewel" I
>decided to rent it at my local Tower Video. I as watch the movie, i try
>Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
>film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
>shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
>will never watch that movie again.
>
>Of course that's just my opinion, I could be Wrong.
>
>Adam Honse
>
Mike Davis
Adam Honse wrote:
> Having never seen the movie and heard it was a MGM "Crown jewel" I
> decided to rent it at my local Tower Video. <major snippage>
>
> .........will never watch that movie again.
>
> Of course that's just my opinion, I could be Wrong.
>
> Adam Honse
>
Adam,
Your first mistake was in renting a crappy video of this landmark film.
Watching this cinema masterpiece in pan & scan on some worn out videotape
should be against the law, not just a stupid way to judge this type of film.
Your second mistake was to not read the book first. Even though Clarke
participated in the making of the film, they obviously couldn't commercially
release a film that would be ten plus hours long. Some scenes in the film do
not make much sense if you have never read the book. It doesn't make it a
bad film, just assumes a certain intelligence level of the audience, be that
audience watching on letterbox laser or DVD, or on crappy pan & scan
videotape. Get my drift, or do you want me to spell it out for you?
All the best, Mike
--
Michael S. Davis Creative Media-Works
Computer/Audio/Video Convergence
"from Creative minds spring Creative solutions."
http://www.creativemedia-works.com
webm...@creativemedia-works.com
Member, International Webmasters Association http://iwanet.org
John Miles
Sorry, Charlie. Movies are not college engineering courses -- they
don't have prerequisites. "If you didn't get it, you should go back and
read the book" is not an adequate excuse for poor cinematic
storytelling. If the film can't stand on its own merits, then those
"merits" have to be called into serious question.
Roger Kendall
<bra...@uniserve.com> wrote:
>
>
>I think you've watched too much MTV. THIS movie requires you to think! Its a
>piece of art to be respected and savoured, not rushed through like some Star
>Wars sequence! I think too many action packed movies, like Star Wars, have
>slanted your opinion. No wonder young folks get board with 2001. I
I teach a class that deals with films, and 2001, which I do think is
high art, has them yawning from frame 1. I remember, as a high school
kid, almost knocked out of my seat from the start to the end. I saw
it at least five times in one month.
Now, kids laugh at it. The apes remind them of Planet of the Apes,
which they also see as a comedy.
And yes, it is a MTV generation!...no attention span over three
minutes (the average length of a rock tune), no desire to explore
ideas or see a movie beyond the visceral responses so typical of (as
others mentioned) Dukes of Hazard.
I can't get this age group to sit through Forbidden Planet,
either....very depressing. Now, someone should do a first rate film,
appealing to these brain-dead MTVers that shows the consequence of a
culture in decay.
FredricksJ
>film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
>shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
Oh God, you are dumb. Aliens borrowed from 2001. Get a clue, James Horner
borrows from every peice of music he ever wrote. And the music is classical so
get over it.
Plus have you ever seen the Going Through the Cloud sequence in Star Trek:The
Motion Picture? Now THAT was totally too long and boring!!
Jerry Gardner
> If you make a sci-fi movie make it a sci-fi movie. not a Damn Art House
> movie. jeez to much empty symbolizim and not enough anything else.
Someone mentioned that when 2001 first came out, stoned hippies would sit
on the floor of the theater in front of the first row and mummble "wow!"
and "groovy!" throughout the film. Now you know why.
--
Jerry Gardner | Bill Clinton has all the steely resolve of
email (ROT13): j6...@qanv.pbz | a kamikaze pilot on his 37th mission.
FredricksJ
movie was fine art.
Michael Neff
>Having never seen the movie and heard it was a MGM "Crown jewel" I
>to believe that some one would make a movie more in favor of silence
>than words/plot. They did. The twenty minute monkey sequence at the
>begining of the movie was rather stupid and entirlely to long. Then of
>course the was the ride to the rotating space station. Blue danube is a
>fine piece of music but I DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE WHOLE DAMN THING.
>Jeez. Was the director trying to show off the special effects? enough
>is enough. I can only watch so much stuff floating thru space.
This is all about pacing... Though even at the time many commented that
the movie was long, what was shown was more of what was considered a
visual treat, *at that time*. Keep in mind that people right about that
very year when it came out (around 1969) were following Apollo moon missions
live and tuning into radio accounts, etc. like that for long periods of
time too.
Though I enjoy the newer action movies today when I'm in the mood for that
sort of thing I can also appreciate the slower pace of movie like 2001
occasionally too. Though the effects aren't as overwhelming as they were
then and therefore contribute to many's impatience while watching it now,
it is still amazing to see how much of it has held up over the many years as
we approach that year very soon. I still have a greater problem with the
recent trends of many summer movies (not all of them!) being all just a
rollercoaster ride with no substance at all. It's still more realistic
in many respects than movies of today that take a lot of creative license
for certain things (i.e. all of the various space "sounds" that normally
wouldn't happen in a vacuum, the laws of physics for things such as why
Pierce Brosnan (aka James Bond) could jump horizontally greater than the
length of the radius span of a set of helicopter blades onto a helicopter
or why Tom Cruise can hang onto the top of a bullet train travelling at
full speed with his bare hands).
To give you a more recent idea to describe how people's acceptance of pace,
etc. has changed over the years. How many folks now play Zork, adventure,
or nethack on UNIX machines any more versus those same set of people who
would play Doom or Quake. Those now playing Doom or Quake I imagine wouldn't
have the patience of playing those older games anymore moreso than back in the
days when technology couldn't provide us the Doom's or the Quake's. Back
in those days, those games were very entertaining and definite time
wasters. Those games, along with others such as Civilization, etc. may not
be played as much anymore, but are still considered classics and not "junk"
by those who played them earlier.
>The
>part where people did speak was fine, except the phone conversation w/
>the kid. To long... Then there was that annoying noise when they were
>on the moon looking at the Monolith. That damn singing/warbling during
>any kind of space scene. Why was their a jump form the moon to the
>jupiter mission? I think i should have starteded the movie at that
>point insted of the begining. When replacing the little box on the
>Satelite Dish why was nothing said when the pod hit the guy. better yet
>why didn't we see anything GOD THIS MOVIE SUCKS, I kept thinking to
>myself trying to watch it and not get annoyed enough to turn it off.
>Maybe it would get better. Nope. After a couple more minutes Dave gets
>back into the ship thru the air lock, whitch i thought was kinda cool.
>But he had no helmet and then once he is inside he's got a helmet.
Note that Dave jumped into the pod quickly and didn't get his helmet on
then at the time and probably hadn't expected not being able to get back
in at the time through the normal pod doors. Inside, I'm sure he put on
a helmet from one of the suits still on the ship to protect himself from
HAL trying to find a way subsequently draining parts of the ship from
having air. That explain it?
>Like
>wesley snipes in blade "What the Fuck?" i said. Then i thought If HAL
>controls everything on the ship then why is Dave able to open doors?
I guess in this day in age we want to trust computers to control *everything*.
Both Dave and I would say no thanks!
>And after dave disables HAL what is the cut for. I don't have a clue
>what the hell is going on as he moves thru space and then is transported
>to some room. What the hell is going on?? I decided to fast forward to
>another space scene if I could find one and then tryto watch it, but a
>Fetus showed up floating thru space. This movie is to fucked so i
>turned it off.
>If you make a sci-fi movie make it a sci-fi movie. not a Damn Art House
>movie. jeez to much empty symbolizim and not enough anything else.
With today's computer graphics, I'm sure that the original 2001 might have
had a lot more elaborate treatment (kind of like parts of Contact or something
of that sort), but I still enjoy looking at these segments with an
appreciation of what was available technology wise and what the book described
what was happening at that point. As others have pointed out, reading the
book for this part of the movie is something that really helps.
Some have commented that they wish that Blade Runner had no narration in
its original release much like the Director's cut has now. However, I wonder
if others might have been more similarly lost when seeing it the first time
without that track in the background. Looking at it now without a track
isn't as intimidating having already seen it with the narration and is
perhaps more pleasant. I'm hoping that there's some decent commentary
tracks on the new 2001 DVD that might help folks like yourself a little.
>
>Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
>film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
>shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
>will never watch that movie again.
I think that had there been no 2001, there wouldn't have been that musical
sequence in Aliens either (which tells you who influenced who)!
- Mike
Jerry Gardner
> But it's pivotal to the plot, and the message. I suggest everyone
> who didn't get it, read the book.
But you shouldn't have to read the book to "get it". There's something
wrong with a film if so many people just don't get it without reading the
book.
Dune is the same way :-(
Jerry Gardner
> Plus have you ever seen the Going Through the Cloud sequence in Star Trek:The
> Motion Picture? Now THAT was totally too long and boring!!
On second and later viewings, yes, but the first time I saw ST:TMP, I was
on the edge of my seat for this entire scene--very suspenseful.
Adam Honse
I D I D N " T W A T C H I T O N V H S. I R E N T E D T H E D V D.
Adam Honse
Mike Davis wrote:
> Your first mistake was in renting a crappy video of this landmark film.
> Watching this cinema masterpiece in pan & scan on some worn out videotape
> should be against the law, not just a stupid way to judge this type of
> film....
Douglas Pippel
> Sorry, Charlie. Movies are not college engineering courses -- they
> don't have prerequisites. "If you didn't get it, you should go back and
> read the book" is not an adequate excuse for poor cinematic
> storytelling. If the film can't stand on its own merits, then those
> "merits" have to be called into serious question.
What isn't there to "get" about "2001"? If someone has trouble grasping
the plot of this film on the first viewing then perhaps they should stick
to "Barney's Great Adventure", or watch the sequel "2010" first. The
wonderful thing about "2001" is that the story is told by presenting a
series of events to the viewer instead of explicit explanations and
narratives. Cinematic storytelling at it's best - visually centered.
DP
Invid fan
> 2001 is PURE CINEMA. Clark wrote a great book but Kubrick created
> something that can only be experienced through the eyes and ears. It
> broke ground because the public had never been treated (subjected?) to
> this level of experimentation.
> I saw this film on opening night in 1968 and it helped me grow as a
> visual artist. It showed us that cinema is a unique language (not
> just a way to tell a story).
>
I think everyone who thinks they 'get' this movie should read the review by
Harlan Ellison. You won't be able to look at it the same way again :)
--
Chris Mack 'With a price on his head, the Carrot becomes a
'Invid Fan' desperado, aided only by a small band of adventuresome
coeds whose unquestioning loyalty has been won through
his romantic prowess in more peaceful times!'
"Like all guerrilla fighters...their clothes get torn...SEE?!!"
-Flaming Carrot
in...@localnet.com
John Miles
I'm not saying I didn't get it, just that "Read the book and it'll all
make sense" seems to be the favorite line of '2001' apologists. As we
say in Texas, that dog won't hunt.
!Koi
>
> Classicphoto@bellsouth. says...
> > But it's pivotal to the plot, and the message. I suggest everyone
> > who didn't get it, read the book.
>
> But you shouldn't have to read the book to "get it". There's something
> wrong with a film if so many people just don't get it without reading the
> book.
>
> Dune is the same way :-(
CP said "I suggest everyone who didn't get it, read the book."
This means that if you had trouble making sense of what you saw,
read the book and your questions will be answered.
This does not imply that you need to read the book to either
enjoy or "get" the movie. Some people are OK with not having
everything answered so there's something you can think about
when you're in a (boring) meeting at work.
~Joe
evermore
most of the population isn't used to thinking and analyzing a movie.
Jerry Gardner wrote in message ...
>Classicphoto@bellsouth. says...
>> But it's pivotal to the plot, and the message. I suggest everyone
>> who didn't get it, read the book.
>
>But you shouldn't have to read the book to "get it". There's something
>wrong with a film if so many people just don't get it without reading the
>book.
>
>Dune is the same way :-(
>
!Koi
>
> I can't believe I don't see more people jumping in to defend "2001." Why
> apologize for its length/pacing? And no, you don't have to read the book to
> understand what's going on.
What's to defend? If someone has decided they don't like it, the odds
are 100-to-1 that you might say something that makes them think again,
try it again, and then like it. It's OK with me is someone doesn't like
2001. I don't really think 2001 needs a defense.
~Joe
Wayne Bundrick
>I don't have a clue
'nuff said.
--
Wayne Bundrick
w a y n e b @ h o m . n e t
alan
several times because the STORY was so hard to discern. The language was
getting past me except to know as a young teen this was going to make a big
impression on all of us even if we simply did not get what we were seeing.
I read the later books and I felt that things were getting wierder with each
new book. Never did read the last one written in the series, and NEVER
will. Reminds me of the RAMA series of books. Each one kept getting
stranger and stranger. I gave up on those too.
alan
Dan Henderson wrote in message <35edc5f3...@news.mindspring.com>...
Ian Smith
should last a few seconds to make their point drag on for ever and ever (I
find the "black hole" sequence tedious and overlong to the extreme). The
words "pretentious", "boring" and "self-indulgent" are hard to defend. For a
film that lasts so long to be so unclear at its ending (let's face it if you
haven't read the book you haven't a clue what the hell it's all about)
smacks of a kind of arrogance IMO. Of course the ending comes across as
quite clever if you've read the book, but if you haven't you're out on a
limb. And at the end of the day the actual "plot" of the movie could be
written on the back of a very small postcard.
FWIW there's a lot I like about the film but I can perfectly understand
someone being very disappointed by it, given all the hype.
Ian
Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...
>> 2001 is one of the few movies ever made whih requires that you
>> also read the book.
>
>And also one of the few movies ever made which requires that the viewer
>use his/her BRAIN--to THINK about what's going on. If only Adam Honse
>used his.
>
> Brian
>---------------------------------------------------
>"Its origin and purpose...still a total mystery."
>-- Dr. Heywood Floyd, "2001: A Space Odyssey"
Bean
film is much like looking at a painting - you view it and then come away
with an emotional response to it.
However, I must take exception to your point that "Some scenes in the film
do not make much sense if you have never read the book. It doesn't make it a
bad film, just assumes a certain intelligence level of the audience if there
are scenes in the film that do not make sense because one has not read the
book I do feel that this indicates a shortcoming with the film."
I think this DOES represent a shortcoming with the film which should stand
on its own. Furthermore, a good film should still be good whether it is
viewed on VHS or LD or DVD (obviously the higher quality, widescreen version
is preferred). If I listen to a crappy sounding cassette dub of a great CD,
I can still appreciate the high quality of the writing presented. Same with
a movie - the script, plot, acting performances etc. are the SAME no matter
how many lines of resolution are being viewed.
Mr. Peabody
>Adam,
> Your first mistake was in renting a crappy video of this landmark film.
>Watching this cinema masterpiece in pan & scan on some worn out videotape
>should be against the law, not just a stupid way to judge this type of film.
>Your second mistake was to not read the book first. Even though Clarke
>participated in the making of the film, they obviously couldn't commercially
>release a film that would be ten plus hours long. Some scenes in the film do
>not make much sense if you have never read the book.
I believe that the book did not exist when the movie was made.
Instead, 2001 was made from a screenplay that was based on Clarke's
short story, The Sentinel. Clarke then wrote a book based on the
screenplay adding details to make it function as a book. These plot
details didn't exist in the movie not because there wasn't time, but
because they weren't meant to exist.
Mr. Peabody
Steve Snodgrass
> Adam, I might suggest a screening of The Dukes of Hazzard, or Smoky
> and the Bandit. Might be just what you're looking for.
You could be a little less patronizing. Not everyone shares your opinions. I
don't care for 2001 either, though I know it is heresy to say so. I *have*
read the book, and in fact I like the book. I just don't care for the movie.
At least it doesn't completely suck like Dune (another matter of debate), but
I found it to be pretty boring as well.
And you can't dismiss me a some kind of "action only" fan either. In fact I
just watched and enjoyed Kubrick's own "Spartacus" recently. And I love
unusual movies like Brazil and great foreign films like Jesus of Montreal
(any hope for a DVD on that one?).
When are people going to realize that everyone else has their own set of
preferences and they aren't idiots just beause they don't like one of your
personal favorites? Sheesh.
Rant mode now off, sorry. :-)
--
Steve Snodgrass * ssno...@fore.com * Crazed FORE Systems Unix Administrator
Quake/IRC ID: Pheran --- Geek Code: GCS/E s: a- C++ U++++$ L+ w PS+ b++ y+*
** Visit Pheran's DVD Review Index at http://trfn.clpgh.org/~ssnodgra/dvd/ **
"Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end." --Semisonic
Ian CW1
apologize for its length/pacing? And no, you don't have to read the book to
understand what's going on.
All I can say to these detractors is, don't ever try to watch "Once Upon a Time
in the West." The pacing is also slow, but the Stargate sequence isn't as well
done.
Regards,
Ian CW1
Darren Garrison
wrote:
>I do like this film though I have not read the book. To me, watching this
>film is much like looking at a painting -
To me, it is like watching paint dry.
Scott Pickering
>appealing to these brain-dead MTVers that shows the consequence of a
>culture in decay.
Yes. Its called Titanic....
Scott Pickering
>2001 was released, it contained alot of, at that time, new movie
>technology, much the same way as Star Wars did when it was released.
One of the comments about 2001 was that even today the effects shots like
the Discovery, etc. still hold up totally believable, not like some newer
than 2001 films.
Scott Pickering
>james horner often "steals" from other composers and this is one of his
most
>obvious lifts
Horner often steals from himself too as I've heard many incarnations of Star
Trek 2 music and others in later films. He seems to have a trend in music in
certain situations. He's still a decent composer though.
Scott Pickering
>
>What isn't there to "get" about "2001"? If someone has trouble grasping
>the plot of this film on the first viewing then perhaps they should stick
>to "Barney's Great Adventure", or watch the sequel "2010" first. The
>wonderful thing about "2001" is that the story is told by presenting a
>series of events to the viewer instead of explicit explanations and
>narratives. Cinematic storytelling at it's best - visually centered.
I agree. How the hell can one tell such a story about things beyond our
comprehension? Especially without seeming corny or non-believable? Look at
Contact- basically a new 2001, but it didn't come near the grand scale or
ideas of 2001.
For anyone not sure of 2001, I suggest reading Roger Eberts review at:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/old_movies/space_odyssey.html
Scott Pickering
Scott Pickering
>it to be, that all of the people that praise this film HAVE to be on
>to something
Your right. There's not many movies out there that elicit this kind of
response or discussion from people. 2001 happens to be one of them. That was
one of Kubrick's whole plan was to have everyone give their interpretation
of the film- as true art should be. Could you imagine a painting that tells
you exactly what its about and going on without letting you think about it?
Not very good art...
DonZipf
> "look how deep I am" type movie.
You have to remember the time and the culture in which 2001 was released. It
was the year before Apollo 11 went to the moon, and people were fascinated with
space and the prospect of getting off the planet. The space scenes are slow
and sans external sound effects to allow the audience to get the most realistic
experience of what it - one day - might be like, to allow us to immerse
ourselves in the fantasy.
And we loved it - or at least I did, when I saw it in the theater at the age of
8. Of course, I didn't understand the messages of the first and last parts,
but I really dug the middle part. Sure, it's an "art" movie; it was never
intended to be a Star Trek or Lost in Space kind of thing - that was the whole
point!
It makes no sense to judge 2001 by today's values; you have to view it through
the filter of 1960's popular culture. One must realize that - in those days -
there was a mass exodus of young educated people from traditional beliefs.
2001 addressed some of the questions being asked at the time: the origin of
man and the nature of human existence.
The DVD release of 2001 is allowing a whole new generation to see it for the
first time. It's inevitable that many of them won't get it; they don't have
the cultural frame of reference. They grew up with space travel as history,
rather than as the future.
Z.
Scott Pickering
>I think everyone who thinks they 'get' this movie should read the review by
>Harlan Ellison. You won't be able to look at it the same way again :)
Ok. Where does one find this review?
Scott Pickering
dot nyet
jmi...@pop.removethistomailme.net says...
>I'm not saying I didn't get it, just that "Read the book and it'll all
>make sense" seems to be the favorite line of '2001' apologists. As we
>say in Texas, that dog won't hunt.
Actually, many literary concepts are difficult to translate on screen,
especially in given the short amount of time most audiences will sit
through a movie. Perhaps some books shouldn't be filmed. 2001 may be
one of them, although I loved the book, and the film.
Scott Pickering
Scott Pickering
>sort of thing I can also appreciate the slower pace of movie like 2001
>occasionally too. Though the effects aren't as overwhelming as they were
>then and therefore contribute to many's impatience while watching it now,
>it is still amazing to see how much of it has held up over the many years
as
>we approach that year very soon.
Actually I think the effects have held up pretty damn good for 1968. The
ships still look totally believable, not like some later sci fi flicks. The
pacing was deliberate in 2001 as the space stuff was supposed to show the
dull existance of these astronauts.
I still have a greater problem with the
>recent trends of many summer movies (not all of them!) being all just a
>rollercoaster ride with no substance at all. It's still more realistic
>in many respects than movies of today that take a lot of creative license
>for certain things (i.e. all of the various space "sounds" that normally
>wouldn't happen in a vacuum
Yes its funny how you hear sounds in space when there shouldn't be. I
understand why they're there though- to impress you and keep your attention.
>To give you a more recent idea to describe how people's acceptance of pace,
>etc. has changed over the years. How many folks now play Zork, adventure,
>or nethack on UNIX machines any more versus those same set of people who
>would play Doom or Quake. Those now playing Doom or Quake I imagine
wouldn't
>have the patience of playing those older games anymore moreso than back in
the
>days when technology couldn't provide us the Doom's or the Quake's
I agree. The MTV generation. What can one do. Prescribe everyone Ritalin??
And no I did not smoke drugs ( or anything else ) to enjoy this movie. I am
not apart of the hippie generation. I wasn't even born when 2001 came out.
I'm just a fan of science fiction in all forms and can appreciate art, which
obviously some don't have the patience for.
. Then i thought If HAL
>>controls everything on the ship then why is Dave able to open doors?
>
>I guess in this day in age we want to trust computers to control
*everything*.
>Both Dave and I would say no thanks!
>
Yes its called manual overide!
This movie is to fucked so i
>>turned it off.
>>If you make a sci-fi movie make it a sci-fi movie. not a Damn Art House
>>movie.
Oh God. The total stereo typical belief of what a science fiction movie
should be like! There were reasons for his jumps in time in the movie. It
all adds up to something doesn't it? This whole movie is about mans
evolution which an alien race has helped in stages get to. That's what the
monolith is about. The next stage of our evolution was from being a physical
being into a creation sort of like God. A being of intelligent energy or
what have you.
dot nyet
>I believe that the book did not exist when the movie was made.
>Instead, 2001 was made from a screenplay that was based on Clarke's
>short story, The Sentinel. Clarke then wrote a book based on the
>screenplay adding details to make it function as a book. These plot
>details didn't exist in the movie not because there wasn't time, but
>because they weren't meant to exist.
I don't think this is accurate. The book preceded the film, although
the idea for the film may have been conceived at the same time. The storyline
is almost identical to that in the film with a few interesting differences
In the book the Discovery journeys to Saturn, not Jupiter as was orinally
planned for the film. Also the manner in which HAL attempts to kill Dave
Bowman is slightly different and perhaps could stimulate some discussion as to
whether the sequence of events that happened here in the book or the film is
more appropriate to the rest of the story.
dot nyet
>You could be a little less patronizing. Not everyone shares your opinions. I
>don't care for 2001 either, though I know it is heresy to say so. I *have*
>read the book, and in fact I like the book. I just don't care for the movie.
>At least it doesn't completely suck like Dune (another matter of debate), but
>I found it to be pretty boring as well.
>Rant mode now off, sorry. :-)
Steve, I don't have a problem with anyone not liking the film. It was
his reasons that were somewhat amusing. I was being a little facetious.
dot nyet
>>I think everyone who thinks they 'get' this movie should read the review by
>>Harlan Ellison. You won't be able to look at it the same way again :)
>Ok. Where does one find this review?
Doesn't matter. I think it's clear that the film made some profound
statements about man's insignificane in the vastness of the Universe.
I don't need anyone else to tell me what I think about it.
Scott Pickering
Darren Garrison
Personally, I prefer paintings with extreme realism-- so that I can
almost see the leaves on the trees blowing or the people breathing.
THAT, to me, is great art. Paintings with non-realistic themes just
do not much interest me.
dot nyet
cyn...@greenville.infi.net says...
>Personally, I prefer paintings with extreme realism-- so that I can
>almost see the leaves on the trees blowing or the people breathing.
>THAT, to me, is great art. Paintings with non-realistic themes just
>do not much interest me.
Diversity is what makes the world go round. But much of what was
accomplished in 2001 could be reality with current technology,
given the resources. As for Alien contact, we can only speculate.
But to debate our isolation in the universe is non-realistic.
Carl J. Danowski
that it was made in like 1960 something. In addition, the absolutely silent
space scenes (or ones where you just hear the astronaut breathing) are the
most realistic ever created. No bleeps, or noises or explosion
noises...just
like it would be in a real vacuum. I can see your point about it not being
fast-paced, but I think it just boils down to individual senses of taste.
Carl
Adam Honse wrote:
> Having never seen the movie and heard it was a MGM "Crown jewel" I
> decided to rent it at my local Tower Video. I as watch the movie, i try
> to believe that some one would make a movie more in favor of silence
> than words/plot. They did. The twenty minute monkey sequence at the
> begining of the movie was rather stupid and entirlely to long. Then of
> course the was the ride to the rotating space station. Blue danube is a
> fine piece of music but I DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE WHOLE DAMN THING.
> Jeez. Was the director trying to show off the special effects? enough
> is enough. I can only watch so much stuff floating thru space. The
> part where people did speak was fine, except the phone conversation w/
> the kid. To long... Then there was that annoying noise when they were
> on the moon looking at the Monolith. That damn singing/warbling during
> any kind of space scene. Why was their a jump form the moon to the
> jupiter mission? I think i should have starteded the movie at that
> point insted of the begining. When replacing the little box on the
> Satelite Dish why was nothing said when the pod hit the guy. better yet
> why didn't we see anything GOD THIS MOVIE SUCKS, I kept thinking to
> myself trying to watch it and not get annoyed enough to turn it off.
> Maybe it would get better. Nope. After a couple more minutes Dave gets
> back into the ship thru the air lock, whitch i thought was kinda cool.
> But he had no helmet and then once he is inside he's got a helmet. Like
> wesley snipes in blade "What the Fuck?" i said. Then i thought If HAL
> controls everything on the ship then why is Dave able to open doors?
> And after dave disables HAL what is the cut for. I don't have a clue
> what the hell is going on as he moves thru space and then is transported
> to some room. What the hell is going on?? I decided to fast forward to
> another space scene if I could find one and then tryto watch it, but a
> Fetus showed up floating thru space. This movie is to fucked so i
> turned it off.
> If you make a sci-fi movie make it a sci-fi movie. not a Damn Art House
> movie. jeez to much empty symbolizim and not enough anything else.
>
> Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
> film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
> shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
> will never watch that movie again.
>
> Of course that's just my opinion, I could be Wrong.
>
> Adam Honse
>
> Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
> film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
> shots of 2001 on the jupiter mission. I won't find it for you because I
> will never watch that movie again.
Greg Rogers
<webm...@creativemedia-works.com> wrote:
> Your second mistake was to not read the book first.
I respectfully, but totally, disagree. Don't ever read the book. The film
was made first, the book was written afterwords. This movie is a great
piece of art which doesn't require a map to appreciate it, just some
thought.
The first several times that I saw 2001, 30 years ago, was in a "true"
Cinerama theater (although 2001 was not filmed in the original Cinerama
process.) I still believe these were the most thrilling and one of the
defining film experiences in my life. Unfortunately, the original
visual/audio presentation was never approached in 35mm showings, and
certainly not in the miserable LD and DVD transfers.
Greg
--
**************************************************************
* Greg Rogers http://www.cybertheater.com *
* CyberTheater(tm): The Internet Journal of Home Theater *
**************************************************************
Darren Garrison
wrote:
>> >Your right. There's not many movies out there that elicit this kind of
>> >response or discussion from people. 2001 happens to be one of them. That was
>> >one of Kubrick's whole plan was to have everyone give their interpretation
>> >of the film- as true art should be. Could you imagine a painting that tells
>> >you exactly what its about and going on without letting you think about it?
>> >Not very good art...
>> >
>>
>> Personally, I prefer paintings with extreme realism-- so that I can
>> almost see the leaves on the trees blowing or the people breathing.
>> THAT, to me, is great art. Paintings with non-realistic themes just
>> do not much interest me.
>
>I can see why--then you'd have to use your brain. If you have one.
Hm. Since I do not share your tastes in movies or art, then I am
brainless. Gee, welcome to my kill file.
H Pearson
DIVX. You will be assimilated!
Ian Smith
Ian
Brian Barjenbruch wrote in message ...
>> >Your right. There's not many movies out there that elicit this kind of
>> >response or discussion from people. 2001 happens to be one of them. That
was
>> >one of Kubrick's whole plan was to have everyone give their
interpretation
>> >of the film- as true art should be. Could you imagine a painting that
tells
>> >you exactly what its about and going on without letting you think about
it?
>> >Not very good art...
>> >
>>
>> Personally, I prefer paintings with extreme realism-- so that I can
>> almost see the leaves on the trees blowing or the people breathing.
>> THAT, to me, is great art. Paintings with non-realistic themes just
>> do not much interest me.
>
>I can see why--then you'd have to use your brain. If you have one.
>
> Brian
>---------------------------------------------------
>"Its origin and purpose...still a total mystery."
>-- Dr. Heywood Floyd, "2001: A Space Odyssey"
Coddington, Paul
Like the action music from Aliens is almost identical to the Klingon theme
from Star Trek II? Hmm. He must have had a bit too much work that year :-)
PAUL CODDINGTON
pa...@mail.act.apana.org.au
http://www.geocities.com/athens/2488
PEC Pink Axolotl is a non-sensical disorganisation...
Coddington, Paul
Scott Pickering wrote in message <90479425...@neptune.uniserve.com>...
[snip]
>Actually I think the effects have held up pretty damn good for 1968. The
>ships still look totally believable, not like some later sci fi flicks. The
This is an interesting point - how many science fiction movies have
realistic special effects regarding spacecraft? One reason that 2001 still
looks good is that it is true to life - it's not just that spaceships don't
make noise in a vacuum, they also can't fly like airplanes in a dogfight
either.
I remember reading somewhere that all the optical mattes were done by hand
because bluescreen was not accurate enough back then (it left a blue fringe
around objects) - now that is serious effort.
!Koi
Nothin' but net.
James Lynn
It's a little odd to say that 'perhaps the book 2001 shouldn't have been
filmed' since without the film, there probably would have been no book.
Kubrick wanted to make 'a good SF movie' and went to Clarke. Clarke
suggested a movie based on a short story of his (The Sentinel) and the
two of them then collaborated on the story. Kubrick made the movie,
Clarke wrote the book, but both were a collaboration between them.
If anyone's interested in the making of both the book and the film, you
can do no better than read Clarke's own account - 'The Lost Worlds of
2001' which includes excerpts from his diary and chapters which were cut
from the novel. It's a great read.
Jim.
Michael Barry
Classic Photo <Classicphoto@bellsouth. dot nyet> wrote in article
<qgpH1.1548$D45.1...@news2.mia.bellsouth.net>...
> In article <35ef18a2...@news.greenville.infi.net>,
> cyn...@greenville.infi.net says...
>
> >Personally, I prefer paintings with extreme realism-- so that I can
> >almost see the leaves on the trees blowing or the people breathing.
> >THAT, to me, is great art. Paintings with non-realistic themes just
> >do not much interest me.
Have you considered artists such as Picasso or Cezanne? These two great
artists are not renown for realism, and in fact their greatest masterpieces
are quite abstract. Therefore can the common denominator of art be realism?
Does realism have anything to do with great art? Can you think of any great
painters that paint realistically (who are in the same league as the above
two)?
Michael Barry.
anakha
many people to join in is proof that 2001 worked. The point of the film was
to get people to think and discuss and figure out their own meaning from it.
Even the people who "didn't get it" are discussing (albeit in an insulting
and childish way) what they thought about the film. Sorry all of you, but
you just proved the point you were arguing against. I for one don't
understand very much of the film (i've only seen it once, last week) but it
definitely got me thinking. You could almost look at the film as a murder
mystery and try to come up with your own conclusion of what really
happened... you've been given the visuals and the general outline of what
went on. Now use your mind and figure out what you feel the story was
trying to say.
</rant> anakha
Scott Pickering wrote in message <90479255...@neptune.uniserve.com>...
>that it HAS to be something other than the big turd that I think
>>it to be, that all of the people that praise this film HAVE to be on
>>to something
>
AKortm1073
>I can't believe I don't see more people jumping in to defend "2001." Why
>apologize for its length/pacing? And no, you don't have to read the book to
>understand what's going on.
>
>
Okay, I jump in.
I love 2001. It's my favourite movie of all time. It's the only movie that
makes you FEEL what it's like to be in space.
Everytime I see it I get a touch of infinity.
(And no, I'm not a hippie and I never took any drugs.)
The book I find okay but unnecessary.
Andreas Kortmann
Jerry Gardner
> I'd have to disagree on this one. Dune was a crappy movie because they
> tried to squeeze several full length, very detailed
> novels into one movie, and it ended up just making no sense at all. Not
> to mention some hammy acting and shitty music from Toto.
Not quite true. While it is true that there are six novels in the Dune
Chronicles, the movie only touches, and was only intended to touch the
first, Dune.
The editing is what really makes Dune (the movie) suck. There is a
version of Dune that's occasionally shown on TV that is about an hour
longer than the theatrical version. Lynch disowned this version, however,
so it's still not what it could have been.
--
Jerry Gardner | Bill Clinton has all the steely resolve of
email (ROT13): j6...@qanv.pbz | a kamikaze pilot on his 37th mission.
Rob
<Classicphoto@bellsouth. dot nyet (Classic Photo)> wrote in message
5thH1.1605$gM3.1...@news4.mia.bellsouth.net...
>In article <35ED9587...@west.net>, mej...@west.net says...
>
>>Perhaps this was Stanley Kubrick's homage to James Cameron.
>
>><nudgenudegewinkwink>
>
>
><g> he must be clarivoyant, considering 2001 was made over 25 years
>before Aliens.
JJH
>Ian CW1 wrote:
>>I can't believe I don't see more people jumping in to defend "2001." Why
>>apologize for its length/pacing? And no, you don't have to read the book to
>>understand what's going on.
>>
>>
>
You'd only need to defend something if it's in jeopardy. 2001 is a
great film that will, I believe, continue to be called great for
several more generations.
The current generation believes that movies must forcibly capture your
attention and never let it go. This is why a movie like Titanic won
its Oscar. It doesn't require very much thinking on your part, and
every frame seems designed to elicit a response on an emotional level.
If you go into movies such as these with an analytical mind,
constantly looking for clues to the movie's meaning, you'd come out
with an empty feeling. This is mostly because there is no meaning to
discern. The idea of love is Cameron's theme, and he hits you again
and again and again with it. Absolutely no thinking is involved. These
movies are well done, but they certainly aren't great movies.
This is a generation which cannot bear going to a museum of art for
more than a half hour, if that. They won't marvel at the skill or
artistry of the painter. They won't sit at looking at a painting for a
half hour, let alone analyze it.
2001 is a film which requires you to be active, in mind. The pace of
the movie is as slow as it is in real life. As I hope there is meaning
in each and every person's real life, I hope that, sooner or later,
more of these people who just can't "get it" now would understand.
Rob
DVD and give it a try. I have to agree with you. I don't remember the last
time I was this bored watching a movie.
Rob
John Miles <jmi...@pop.removethistomailme.net> wrote in message
35EDA0...@pop.removethistomailme.net...
>Mark & Zorica Drake wrote:
>>
>> Troll.......
>
>No, he's not trolling, and he's not the only person who was left
>completely nonplussed by '2001.'
>
>The only redeeming feature of '2001', IMHO, was that you could watch it
>on fast-forward and not miss a thing, thereby saving yourself a couple
>of hours' worth of cinematic ennui.
>
>I am told that this particular movie must be viewed in the spirit of the
>times for which it was made; i.e., with appropriate pharmacological
>assistance. If that's the case, forget it -- I'd rather visit my
>dentist than sit through '2001' again.
>
>-- jm
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
>------------------------------------------------------
!Koi
>
> You know, I hadn't seen 2001 since I was a kid, and I thought I'd buy the
> DVD and give it a try. I have to agree with you. I don't remember the last
> time I was this bored watching a movie.
>
> Rob
OK. Lots of people seem let down by this movie and/or the DVD implementation.
I will purchase the 2001 DVD from the lowest bidder I get by the end of today.
Please include shipping in the US and the bidding starts at $15 or less.
I may buy multiple copies if the bidding warrants, so send 'em in.
~Joe
Craig Wiernik
help to
see it a number of times, but since they were both written together (the
book and the
movie) it doesn't matter whether you read the book or not. you can still
get the point
of this movie - see letter b.
b) this is a movie that requires you to think, very similar to a game like
riven or myst -
not everything you need or want to know is presented and you need to think
about what
you're watching.
c) this movie is one of the few movies to be made dictated by the laws of
science. Everything
you saw in the movie (except maybe the stargate sequence at the end) can be
proven
scientifically accurate, from the silence in space, to watching a spaceship
match it's rotation
to a space station (rotating to create gravity) before docking.
d) it is an art house film. science fiction dealt with a much broader range
of topics in the
days pre-star wars. it seems lately everything is space battles and big
monsters. while i
still enjoy this, it makes most sci-fi the same.
gattaca was also sci-fi, that also required you to think, though there is
much more
dialog and things are spelled out for you there. if we fail to respect what
2001 has done
for the sci-fi genre, we can't call ourselves movie fans.
more comments below - (and a spoiler or two)
Adam Honse wrote:
> The twenty minute monkey sequence at the
> begining of the movie was rather stupid and entirlely to long.
This scene sets up the movie for us. It also makes us think about what
actually happened
to cause humans to evolve. this is, of course, assuming you at least accept
darwin's theory
of evolution for what it is, a theory, and don't dismiss it on moral or
religious arguments. in
this case, the fact that the apes discover how to use "tools" is a huge step
up the
evolutionary ladder.
> Then of
> course the was the ride to the rotating space station. Blue danube is a
> fine piece of music but I DON'T NEED TO HEAR THE WHOLE DAMN THING.
> Jeez. Was the director trying to show off the special effects? enough
> is enough. I can only watch so much stuff floating thru space.
Do you get the NASA channel? The NASA channel shows live video feeds
fromshuttle missions. I had the pleasure of watching the astronauts fix the
Hubble Space
Telescope the first time around. Their actions were incredibly slow, and
deliberate,
knowing it's their lives out there on the line and not just a piece of
expensive equipment.
now imagine if a spaceship came barreling in to some espace station
somewhere, and
missed. think of how many people would die. again, score one for
scientific realism.
after all, science fiction is supposed to be based on science, after all.
> That damn singing/warbling during
> any kind of space scene. Why was their a jump form the moon to the
> jupiter mission?
If you had watched the whole movie, you learn later on that that loud
noisewas a radio signal, being sent towards jupiter. the signal caused the
air inside
their spacesuits to resonate, creating that loud sound.
> I think i should have starteded the movie at that
> point insted of the begining. When replacing the little box on the
> Satelite Dish why was nothing said when the pod hit the guy. better yet
> why didn't we see anything
a) there was no frame of reference from which to see the sceneb) sound waves
do not propogate through space - there is no medium (like air)
for them to travel to. that's why there was "some" truth in the "slogan"
from Ridley
Scott's Alien - in space, no one can hear you scream.
> But he had no helmet and then once he is inside he's got a helmet. Like
> wesley snipes in blade "What the Fuck?" i said. Then i thought If HAL
> controls everything on the ship then why is Dave able to open doors?
someone already said this - manual override. what happens if your computer
crashesor breaks down? you just hit the power switch. dave bypassed hal on
the emergency
airlock
> And after dave disables HAL what is the cut for. I don't have a clue
> what the hell is going on as he moves thru space and then is transported
> to some room. What the hell is going on?? I decided to fast forward to
> another space scene if I could find one and then tryto watch it, but a
> Fetus showed up floating thru space.
This is probably the only place where I agree with the people who say"you
MUST read the book." again, it's not a must, but it does clear things
up. still, if you see it enough, you start to understand the progression
of
evolution that dave goes through, from a normal human being to the "space
child"
> This movie is to fucked so i
> turned it off.
> If you make a sci-fi movie make it a sci-fi movie. not a Damn Art House
> movie. jeez to much empty symbolizim and not enough anything else.
>
you haven't explained why this isn't a sci-fi movie. is it because there
were nospace battles or laser beams?
> Also i did notice that there is some music form the movie Aliens in the
> film. Watch the opening scene in Aliens and then one of the interior
a) Aliens was at least 20 years after 2001b) the entire score is classical
pieces, written long before the movie was an idea
Movies are Art. Art is there to extract a reaction from whoever views it,
be it a
painting or a photograph, or whatever. The fact that so many people are
talking
about it does prove it's point. it's the same way when i get really pissed
'cause i'm
walking around an art museum, and hanging on the wall is a blank white
canvas, or
a circle of rocks on the floor - it evokes a reaction.
that's what a good movie does. you don't have to like every movie you see
for
it to do it's job.
just my humble $.02
craig
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Craig Wiernik Boston, MA
SPAM BLOCK IN EFFECT - to reply directly to me, remove
"nospam." from the return email address
Jason Brian Chapa
<post snipped>
That's okay, not everyone "gets" every movie. I recently rented
Bladerunner, due to "cult" status given to it. Man, I totally did not
enjoy it. I found it incredibly boring and kept thinking, "blah?
what's the point?" I'm not even going to attempt to rent 2001, cause
I know I'll have a similar reaction. I guess these are "you had to be
there" type of movies.
Jason Brian Chapa
JCh...@wf.quik.com
dot nyet
>The current generation believes that movies must forcibly capture your
>attention and never let it go. This is why a movie like Titanic won
>its Oscar. It doesn't require very much thinking on your part, and
>every frame seems designed to elicit a response on an emotional level.
>If you go into movies such as these with an analytical mind,
>constantly looking for clues to the movie's meaning, you'd come out
>with an empty feeling. This is mostly because there is no meaning to
>discern. The idea of love is Cameron's theme, and he hits you again
>and again and again with it. Absolutely no thinking is involved. These
>movies are well done, but they certainly aren't great movies.
Very well said.
dot nyet
>Over 25 Years?! Aliens was released in 1986, 2001 in 1968, no?
My error, sorry. I thought Aliens had been release later than that.
Suffice it to say, 2001 preceded Aliens, so there was no way Aliens
was plagerized :)
dot nyet
>You know, I hadn't seen 2001 since I was a kid, and I thought I'd buy the
>DVD and give it a try. I have to agree with you. I don't remember the last
>time I was this bored watching a movie.
>Rob
I can. I saw movie that had all of the pace of a made for television
mini-series. I think it was called Titanic.
Zeta
brilliant adaption of what is a classic series of novels. I've read
the first 3 novels and can safely say they did a great job of making
some meaning out of what is a very long and laboured series of novels.
Most movie makers are aiming for mass appeal after all and joe shmoe
isn't always going to 'get it' thus needing a little pointer from the
directors and scriptwriters. As for slagging off the music by Toto.
How dare you! The music is stirring and fits the feel of the movie
perfectly. Thsi coming from a 'rock' band who's one claim to fame was
Rosanna? I think they did a stirling job!
Its all subjective in the end of course. If you don't like it thats
your prerogative I guess :)
On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 03:23:23 -0400 (EDT), xh...@webtv.net (H Pearson)
wrote:
>But you shouldn't have to read the book to "get it". There's something
>wrong with a film if so many people just don't get it without reading
>the book.
>Dune is the same way :-( <<<
>
>I'd have to disagree on this one. Dune was a crappy movie because they
>tried to squeeze several full length, very detailed
>novels into one movie, and it ended up just making no sense at all. Not
>to mention some hammy acting and shitty music from Toto.
>
>2001 was intended to be vague. Kubrick wanted the viewers to make up
>their own minds, but he definitely got carried away. However, I have
>mixed feelings about this film. It is very boring most of the time and
>certainly over long, but it also has great strokes of genius for anyone
>who is able to use their little grey cells. I think the opening
>sequence is brilliant. But, if you don't understand that first 10
>minutes or so, the rest of the movie will make no sense at all.
>
>Howard Pearson
Jerry Gardner
> Hey now! Don't slag off Dune! Its was a GOOD movie! OK maybe not a
> brilliant adaption of what is a classic series of novels. I've read
> the first 3 novels and can safely say they did a great job of making
> some meaning out of what is a very long and laboured series of novels.
Good, yes, but it could have been a lot better. It is NOT an adaption of
a "series of novels", it is an adaption of only the first novel, Dune. It
has nothing to do with Dune Messiah, Children of Dune, God Emperor of
Dune, etc.
It is true that some elements of the movie are only referenced in some of
the later books (that Guild navigators live in tanks of melange gas is
one example that comes to mind), but these are minor and do not affect
the plot.
Rob Teichman
from Dave shutting down HAL to the "colored light sequence" requires
reading the book. Time and time again I see people mentioning the
"stargate" etc. There is absolutely no way to interpret the scenes as a
stargate. As a matter of fact the most logical assumptions would be that
Dave's air in the pod was depleted and he was dying. What we saw was his
mind (like HAL's) dying. BTW, if this was the only SciFi movie a person
watched and they never read a SciFi book how would they know about a
stargate, let alone what one does?????
I saw the movie when it first came out in 68 at a cinerama movie theatre
in New York. I blown away by the experience, however the ending always
baffled me. I went along with my death theory until I read the second
book 2010.
Berlioz
<craig....@nospam.fmr.com> wrote:
>a) it is not necessary to read the book to get the movie.
I agree here. My friends and I spent many hours discussing the
meaning and symbolic and metaphorical aspects of this film.
The book, in fact, doesn't do justice to the imagination.
Scott Pickering
I agree. :)
Scott Pickering
>This is an interesting point - how many science fiction movies have
>realistic special effects regarding spacecraft? One reason that 2001 still
>looks good is that it is true to life - it's not just that spaceships don't
>make noise in a vacuum, they also can't fly like airplanes in a dogfight
>either.
>
I know. Too many sci fi flicks seem to HAVE to show ships flying a million
miles an hour. The shuttle stuff in Armagedon was a complete JOKE! The
shuttle in real life could never go or manuever that fast, nor have the fuel
to do it. The shuttle in the film took a HUGE beating, and still flew ok. I
doubt the real life shuttle would ever stand up, especially since launches
are often delayed because of mechanical problems. And one last comment here-
to forget about the other stuff I mentioned, the shuttle in the film would
of burned up in the atmosphere. But it didn't. Did they forget the crash
landed the shuttle on the asteroid with everything scraping the bottom of
the shuttle? Remember one missing critical tile on the bottom would allow
the shuttle to burn up. And we all know how well they stay on! Most sci fi
flicks totally ignore realism in an effort to show off instead.
>I remember reading somewhere that all the optical mattes were done by hand
>because bluescreen was not accurate enough back then (it left a blue fringe
>around objects) - now that is serious effort.
Thank Douglas Trumbell and crew for that one. 2001 was definately ahead of
its time and set standards for films since. People seem to forget this.
Scott Pickering
So if this film is so terrible Adam, why do so many voice their opinion on
it? Sure not everyone likes it, which is ok, but how many films do you know
which show this large a reaction? Maybe this is why MGM conciders it one of
their best movies!
Citizen Kane is another.
Aaron Hurley
>>>and again and again with it. Absolutely no thinking is involved. These
>>>movies are well done, but they certainly aren't great movies.
However, I believe there is something to be said for the "emotionality" of
cinema. I am a pretty damn analytical person (as a visual effects software
engineer, you can ask my wife), but I thoroughly enjoyed "Titanic." I love
weepers. Judging by the box office take, I'm not alone. I like movies
where "thinking" is involved, but enjoy purely sentimental movies as well.
This reminds me of a line from another good weeper, "Immortal Beloved"
(say...when's THAT gonna' be on DVD) Beethoven asks his assistant about the
importance of music. The assistant grapples with poor, political answers
before Beethoven enlightens him. "Music makes you FEEL what the composer
feels. When you hear a march, you march. When you hear a waltz you dance."
(quote is from memory and surely not 100% accurate)
I don't have to "think" to enjoy the emotional content of a great Beethoven
symphony. I don't have to think to realize the inherent love shown by a
woman calmly reading her children sleep as their lives are about to end.
The deep pride and regret so easily realized as the designer of the ship
corrects the clock as his creation sinks around him does not require
thinking.
Is it "emotionally manipulative?" Absolutely. It is as pure and right as
the manipulation by a song played in a minor key. In fact, it is this very
ability to convey emotion and on a purely physical level that makes art
great.
Aaron
For the record, by saying that I don't think "thinking" is required to make
a "great" film, doesn't mean I like dreck like "Con Air" (though I have no
problem with "The Rock"). :)
Bean
>attention and never let it go.
come to this conclusion?
>This is why a movie like Titanic won its Oscar.
It won its Oscar because AMPAS members voted for it - the "current
generation" had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
<snip of other generalizations>
Titanic and 2001 are both great but great for very different reasons IMO.
Comparing them is like trying to compare Mozart with "Twist and Shout".
Sure, Mozart may be more intellectually challenging, but I'd rather have
"Twist and Shout" on at a party any day. Not all great art needs to fit the
same criteria.