The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Jul 3, 2012 17:39:46 GMT -5
yeah, I started reading 2010 once, but just got too busy and never finished it. Next time I read 2001, I'll try and finish up the series.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,464
|
Post by bob on Jul 3, 2012 22:35:57 GMT -5
I'm very curious to see what everyone thinks that the monolith is and represents.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Jul 3, 2012 22:54:25 GMT -5
Only one part of the film made any logic storyline wise and everything else was just pointless padding that they tried to say flows with the rest of the film and fails miserably. All I have to say is "Board Meetings...............IN SPACE!!!!!!" What doesn't make sense to you? (granted, I've also read the book twice). It doesnt have to make sense, it just should not bore me to tears. I feel like this is one of those movies that the director is like, I'm not supposed to be entertained by this movie (an arguement I hate because movies are a form of entertainment (it was the same argument used by fans of Funny Games)). I should not be looking at my the clock and wondering when this movie is going to end (why I now give movies 30 minutes to keep me watching). The first time I watched that movie, I fell asleep. I watched it again because so many people wanted me to try it again and I did last year. The only interesting parts was the whole HAL subplot..........everything else was a waste of time and the HAL part was too short to warrant waiting through the other nonsense.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Jul 3, 2012 23:16:14 GMT -5
I'm very curious to see what everyone thinks that the monolith is and represents. To me, the Mololith is almost like a "footprint" of sorts, and also, outside intervention, which overall signifies presence. It signifies the presence of an outside force, in this case, Jovians(or more specifically, inhabitants of one of Jupiter's moons). The Following has a bit of spoilers for those who haven't seen the film/read the book:On Earth, the presence of outside forces literally brought on the Dawn of Man. On the Moon, since there was no intelligent life, it "waited" until it was discovered by some, at which point it made it's presence known, which made Man want to discover its source. Once Man finds the source, Dave is able to rematerialize into the "Star Baby", serving as Earth's ultimate protector(In the book, the Star Baby sequence is longer, with Dave as the Baby actually preventing nuclear war between the US & USSR). It serves as the ultimate catalyst of man. It is what starts mankind. It is what causes man to explore the outermost reaches of their solar system(and mind). It is also what allows Man to transcend beyond the physical into the metaphysical. All in all, it represents change, but change caused by an outside force. End of SpoilersAnd Seth, you & I are gonna have to agree to disagree on the point that films have to be entertainment(I choose to look at films from more of an Art standpoint, especially by an auteur like Kubrick). Sure, films can (and do) entertain, but they also can me made in an effort to illuminate an issue, to ask questions, or simply to document something, among other things, none of which are necessarily tied to entertainment. And I was only bringing up it making sense(which it does. It makes an incredible amount of sense. It's been proven by NASA time and time again that a lot of it makes incredible sense, especially for a movie from the '60s ) because you brought it up.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Jul 3, 2012 23:51:23 GMT -5
I love this movie. Along with Forbidden Planet, it revolutionized the space genre as we know it. The special effects still hold up very well and the narrative is great too. I don't care that the plot was minimal because THAT WAS THE POINT. It gives you the isolated feelings that you would get in space and the spectacle is the technology itself. HAL is one of the greatest villains ever produced on screen and the ending sequence was fascinating as well. I'd consider it Kubrick's most influential piece, if not his best movie overall. The fact that it didn't even get nominated for Best Picture is a f***ing travesty, let alone win.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Jul 3, 2012 23:57:43 GMT -5
I love this movie. Along with Forbidden Planet, it revolutionized the space genre as we know it. The special effects still hold up very well and the narrative is great too. I don't care that the plot was minimal because THAT WAS THE POINT. It gives you the isolated feelings that you would get in space and the spectacle is the technology itself. HAL is one of the greatest villains ever produced on screen and the ending sequence was fascinating as well. I'd consider it Kubrick's most influential piece, if not his best movie overall. The fact that it didn't even get nominated for Best Picture is a f***ing travesty, let alone win. Seems like a common theme in Kubrick's career is that his films are increasingly more appreciated as time goes on. Many of (what I feel are) his best works were more or less viewed as "meh" to "slightly above average" in their heyday.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Jul 4, 2012 0:00:50 GMT -5
Also a gripe is the seemingly endless scene where Dave turns into the Star Child. Yeah the colors in the path were pretty, but as shown in the Star Trek motion picture..........you ruin the moment by keeping on it.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Jul 4, 2012 2:46:55 GMT -5
Well, to be fair...Star Trek tried WAY too hard to be 2001 and failed miserably. You can't dazzle people with a technique that was over a decade old at that point. The one thing you have to remember, but 2001 was very revolutionary when it came out. You have to at least appreciate it for that, even if you didn't care for the movie.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,464
|
Post by bob on Jul 4, 2012 16:48:05 GMT -5
To me the monolith is something that gives whoever finds it the ability to have the next step in evolution and progress and deeper understanding, which would explain why it's in Full Metal Jacket as a commentary on war.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Jul 4, 2012 16:50:18 GMT -5
The whole scene was still in the end pointless. Just because you have the innovation and technology to do something doesnt mean you should.
Sorry, you are never going to get me to say 2001: A Space Odyssey was a masterpiece. Hell Dark Star a film that John Carpenter did while less budgeted and I still dont like, was in my mind, better than 2001: A Space Oddysey
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Jul 4, 2012 17:07:31 GMT -5
Fantastic movie, nearly universally acclaimed. I can see how it isn't for everyone though. My wife would pretty much not shut up about how slow it was. "Is it broken? Is this the whole movie? How much longer is this?"
The only part that drags on a bit is the light show. It could easily have been cut in half without lessening any of the impact.
The 2010 movie isn't bad either to my recollection, though it is much more of a conventional movie.
Favorite Kubrick film though is EASILY Dr. Strangelove.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,464
|
Post by bob on Jul 6, 2012 20:39:11 GMT -5
Think about this: If there was no 2001 there would be no Blade Runner, Star Wars franchise, Aliens franchise, Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Contact by proving that big-budget "serious" science-fiction films can be commercially successful.
2001: most influential movie ever?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Jul 6, 2012 22:05:56 GMT -5
Think about this: If there was no 2001 there would be no Blade Runner, Star Wars franchise, Aliens franchise, Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Contact by proving that big-budget "serious" science-fiction films can be commercially successful. 2001: most influential movie ever? I don't know about THE most, but it's definitely up there.
|
|
CaptainFall
Samurai Cop
'Fascinating is the word of the day'
Posts: 2,151
|
Post by CaptainFall on Jul 7, 2012 3:44:24 GMT -5
The Star Child part with all the lights would have been amazing watching it at the time in a cinema. It had more of an impact then which might explain why it's so long.
Definitely up there for me as one if the not the most influential film of all time. What was there like it before it?
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Jul 7, 2012 4:15:57 GMT -5
The Star Child part with all the lights would have been amazing watching it at the time in a cinema. It had more of an impact then which might explain why it's so long. Definitely up there for me as one if the not the most influential film of all time. What was there like it before it? Just to preface this, probably should have stated earlier, but I did my Film Studies Thesis on Kubrick's filmography in relation to history. It was definitely a different stab(or at least in the mainstream US) at science fiction. There were good sci-fi films at the time, but a lot of them followed the same theme of a hyper-masucline guy and his love interest encountering, and subsequently overcoming aliens face-to-face. 2001 was a definite watershed moment in the genre, at least as far as it's depiction on film. Before it, the films made tended to skew more towards science-fantasy rather than harder sci-fi. However, one must keep in mind that the same year that 2001 was released(1968), another, arguably equally influential film was also released: The Planet of the Apes. 2001 definitely had major influence in multiple regards. It's effects are still unmatched by many modern films, and it's harder, more contemplative plot changed exactly what it meant to be a science-fiction film(and really was the start of the sci-fi/science-fantasy split).
|
|
|
Post by nocomments87 on Jul 7, 2012 12:25:25 GMT -5
This movie is visual eye candy at its finest, and one which, as intended by Stanley Kubrick, allows you to come up with your own interpretation of the movie. To me, the monolith represents a constant in a changing and evolving universe, but at the same time, it is the tool which causes the changes in the first place...almost god-like. Some people believe that religion is man-made (a discussion we won't even go further on, to keep with the rules of the board), but the monolith is most certainly not man-made. It's a mystery to all who sees it; simple in appearance, but advanced in its presence. Where did it come from? Was it always there? Did aliens send it to this world? {Spoiler}According to the book, the answer to the last question is yes. Something else that is constant in our evolving world: classical music. No matter how many genres are out there, and no matter how drastic music has evolved, there is one style of music that never changes, and it's that style that people will always be familiar with...classical music. This is why the use of classical music in 2001: A Space Odyssey is a perfect fit. I couldn't think of anything else that would even fit. The ending, to me, seems to be life evolving as well. We see life going full circle...from the apes in the beginning, to the humans in space, to the artificial being (HAL), and then, life, as we know it, is "born again". Life is constantly changing, but everything must have a beginning. The "star child" is that beginning. It's certainly not a movie for everyone, but it is a movie worth checking out, just for the experience. It's also a movie I can highly recommend for the Blu-ray buyers...the quality is amazing! 9/10
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on Jul 7, 2012 13:07:09 GMT -5
Nothing happens: The movie Now I can see what they were going for here, but you don't need to have 10 minutes flying scene followed by some info dump followed by another 10 minute flying scene. The entire 45 minutes at the start could have been told in 10 flat and nothing would have been lost, well other then spaceships very slowly going places. Pink Floyds 'Echoes' matches up quite well with the Beyond the Infinite chapter tho' that's cool. It's also fun to spot homages in other media.
|
|
stealthamo
King Koopa
Something stupid
#AJAll
Posts: 11,247
|
Post by stealthamo on Jul 7, 2012 21:13:25 GMT -5
I just finished watching this for the first time, so I figured I'd give my own perspective. Personally, I tend to find Kubrick's films as a bit overrated. I have a tendency to go into a movie of his I haven't seen with high expectations, but they usually end with me being a bit disappointed. Don't get me wrong, they're still good, but the messages he gives don't necessarily click to me.
Personally, I feel like this is one of Kubrick's best films, though I still have some issues with it. Mainly because it seems to drag on. The thing is, outside of the light show at the end, I can't really give any examples. It's a culmination of all these scenes going on a bit too long, and it just bothered me for some reason. Though the light show was by far the worst offender. You could've gotten the same result by showing 2-3 minutes of footage instead of 10 in my opinion.
That being said, I still feel like the story of the film still delivers, for the most part. I'm not sure why, but I wasn't too big on the second section of the movie, TMA-1. But other than that, all of the sections are very good. Like others have said, these scenes are all memorable. I knew so many parts of this movie before I even watched it from all of the parodies and references to it from others TV shows and movies.
And obviously, the thing that stands out the most about the movie are the visuals. I watched the film on Blu-Ray, and it astounds me that this movie was made in 1968 with how crisp everything looked on the screen, and how you were able to ready everything on the screen clearly. And even though it dragged on and on, the light show near the end looked amazing as well.
All in all, this was a good movie, but that's about it. It is an iconic movie, in many aspects, but I still feel like it could have been done better. If I were to give it a rating, I'd probably give it an 8/10.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,464
|
Post by bob on Jul 12, 2012 21:55:00 GMT -5
so to continuing the discussion...I've heard from people that nothing makes sense to them except the middle section with Hal
but, the beginning and the end are the key to the whole movie, without the monolith at the start to whole end makes no sense
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,464
|
Post by bob on Jul 14, 2012 11:29:36 GMT -5
So here's something I didn't know until I explored the extra features on my blu-ray copy of the movie: that 2001 was trying to predict the future.
|
|