Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:45 AM
Cicero Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,313
2001: A Space Odyssey

I watched this about 1970. As a dumb teenager I thought it was great.

Tonight I tried to watch it again. The funereal pace drove me insane- I gave it aay after an hour.

Is this movie good, great, or way over rated?
  #2  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:55 AM
Petrobey Mavromihalis Petrobey Mavromihalis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Exo Mani
Posts: 902
I've had both experiences with it. Visually it's stunning, and a big screen helps you get lost in that. There are some interesting ideas in there. But, the plot is way slow. It was considered slow in the golden era of slow plots. So I think you have to be in a certain mood.

To answer the question: it's a great movie, if only for the visuals.
  #3  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:55 AM
Pushkin Pushkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Belfast Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,617
It's a bit different, not bad, but suffers from too many fans and detractors simultaneously promoting and putting it down.
  #4  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:59 AM
gladtobeblazed gladtobeblazed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 902
I watch this film about once per year, it's one of my favorites. I don't feel it's too slow paced, if anything more films should be paced like this.
  #5  
Old 11-16-2008, 10:10 AM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladtobeblazed View Post
I watch this film about once per year, it's one of my favorites. I don't feel it's too slow paced, if anything more films should be paced like this.
Oh god, no. Mr. Le Directeur wanted everyone to see his incredibly awesome special effects. At length. Interminably. The blunt ond of the stick is that they aren't that special, and are not that hot today. I tried watching this movie, but there's nothing to effin watch for the first hour. There is no plot, there are no actual characters, and nothing happens of note.
  #6  
Old 11-16-2008, 10:33 AM
gladtobeblazed gladtobeblazed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by smiling bandit View Post
There is no plot, there are no actual characters, and nothing happens of note.
That's part of the charm.

I don't so much watch the film as experience it. I'm also a fan of the original Solaris and Paris, Texas, both of which may be considered slow paced. While I certainly wouldn't want all films to be like this, I find that slower paced movies are more emotionally fulfilling than the fast paced films that have taken over modern cinema.
  #7  
Old 11-16-2008, 10:39 AM
smiling bandit smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16,932
There is no such thing as slow-paced or fast-paced, there is only appropriatepacing. 2001 does not have it, as the movie takes vastly too long to communicate what is, essentially, an extremely simply idea, and then commits the unpardonable sin of not communicating it very well. Kubrik stopped everything in the movie in order to do "something," but it would have been easy to run the mvie parallel to those bits.
  #8  
Old 11-16-2008, 11:44 AM
Quasimodal Quasimodal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: N / A
Posts: 1,444
Great.

The plot is shoestring, it's more about ideas...and BIG ideas at that. How many films take classical music to ennoble the visuals on screen. Usually the use of classical music is used to cheapen what happens on screen.

I'll argue some of the comments here. In regards to pacing, Kubrick want's us to take in and reflect on what is happening throughout the film. Think of it as more of a meditative experience. We exist outside the film, rather than within it like most movies.

The plot is almost secondary. In fact I think it's a shoestring for the ideas presented within the movie. The essential theme is will man evolve beyond his tools? A lot of the slowness of the movie focuses on the "tools" (spaceships etc) so we reflect and consider.

It may not be your cup of tea, but I was thrilled with it when I first saw it when I was 15, and I still love it today at 26.
  #9  
Old 11-16-2008, 12:04 PM
MichaelQReilly MichaelQReilly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 1,188
I can admire the movie for what was at the time a great a tremendous technical achievement. But other than that, it is so god damn slow that I really have no desire to ever see it again.
  #10  
Old 11-16-2008, 12:09 PM
Baldwin Baldwin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,376
A great movie, one of the best ever made -- but it really matters what medium you see it in. With a good 70-mm print projected onto a big screen, it's almost overwhelming, and timeless rather than lengthy. On a small tv, it just doesn't work the same way.
  #11  
Old 11-16-2008, 12:31 PM
Knorf Knorf is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Living the Dream
Posts: 8,583
Great. Absolutely great. I concur with the recommendation to see it in 70mm; that's the only way to fully appreciate such a visually-oriented movie.
  #12  
Old 11-16-2008, 12:32 PM
pulykamell pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 45,969
I've seen it once, about five or six years ago. I thought it was absolutely brilliant. The opening of the movie, where not a single word is spoken for about 20 minutes or so, is one of my all-time favorite openings (up there with "Once Upon a Time in the West.") It only started getting a little "out there" for me once the third part of the movie--the acid trippy part--began. But it seemed to make sense in context, and reading Arthur C. Clarke's novel years later, it made even more sense of what was going on here. I thought the movie was thrilling and exciting from a visual and cinematic standpoint. I was not at all disappointed by all the hype (whereas I found "A Clockwork Orange" less than worthy of all the praise.) I'd say 2001 is Kubrick's cinematic masterpiece.

Last edited by pulykamell; 11-16-2008 at 12:33 PM.
  #13  
Old 11-16-2008, 01:07 PM
WhyNot WhyNot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 33,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrobey Mavromihalis View Post
So I think you have to be in a certain mood.
I think you misspelled "...under the influence of kind green bud."

I kid. Sorta. I think it's a great movie that will only be loved by cinema geeks now that we've raised an entire generation in fast paced blipvert moviemaking. Yes, of course it's slow. It's all set at roughly the pace of the hominids in it - it moves quickly only when they do, and slowly when they're slow and deliberate. It doesn't impose an artificial energy or urgency to them in order to keep our adrenaline pumping for 2 hours.

Still, I love it. I might fall asleep while watching it more often than any other movie I love, but I still love it.
  #14  
Old 11-16-2008, 01:14 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 13,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldwin View Post
A great movie, one of the best ever made -- but it really matters what medium you see it in. With a good 70-mm print projected onto a big screen, it's almost overwhelming, and timeless rather than lengthy. On a small tv, it just doesn't work the same way.
I saw 2001 for the first time on the IMAX screen at Chicago's Navy Pier, and it was really impressive. On the small screen, there's at least one lengthy sequence near the end that seems to be there just to give you time to go to the bathroom, get a snack, clean the kitchen, and call your mother, but on the big screen it's hypnotic.

Anyone who felt the beginning of the movie is too slow is never going to make it through the ending, and is probably bound to be disappointed that the final scene doesn't really explain or resolve anything. But if one isn't up to watching a movie that has long sections with no dialogue, no real characters, or a clear plot, I think the middle portion (the HAL part) would stand alone as a worthwhile science-fiction film. I also think that most of the special effects have held up quite well.
  #15  
Old 11-16-2008, 03:54 PM
Red Barchetta Red Barchetta is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 4,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamia View Post
I also think that most of the special effects have held up quite well.
Most? I think they still represent the pinnacle of sci-fi effects. The models used are so much more convincing than any of the CG atrocities they used these days.
  #16  
Old 11-16-2008, 04:26 PM
CalMeacham's Avatar
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 43,138
It's not just the effects (which were awesome in its day and, in my opinion, still are). This was the first science fiction movie that really communicated the awe and majesty of the ideas, yet didn't feel puerile. The space ships looked like the lineal descendant of the space ships being built when it came out. (and still do, top my mnd. The Pan Am "Orion" Space Clipper looks like a future-generation Space Shuttle) To my knowledge, it's the first film to feature realistic-looking ships, with all the rough edges and paraphernalia hanging off them, rather than sleek aerodynamic forms. It's one of the very few films where outer space really IS silent, and the ships really do move the way they should in zero-g and airlessness, instead of swooping around and gliding like atmosphere ships.



But the pacing is glacial. The attempt to present ideas is really confusing. Harlan Ellison had lots of nasty things to say about its inability to communicate its ideas when it first came out, and I have to admit he's got a point. Still, I think 2001 is light years ahead of just about every other movie in translating the feel of good literary SF to the screen. To my mind the only competition it has is Forbidden Planet.

YMMV
  #17  
Old 11-16-2008, 05:00 PM
BMax BMax is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Salt Lake County
Posts: 1,809
I saw 2001 for the first time on a big screen in...probably 1974 or 75 with my father, a big fan of Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, et al from the 50's and 60's. I was probably 10 or 11 years old at the time.

It blew my mind. Yes, I could tell that the early hominids were people in chimp suits, but better chipm suits than I'd seen in film up to that point. Even without dialog I could see their desperation of living in a desert during a drought, the connection between their 'invention' of weapons, the importance of adding meat to their diet and the connection between their story, Dr. Floyd's moon visit and the Jupiter spaceflight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham
The space ships looked like the lineal descendant of the space ships being built when it came out. (and still do, top my mnd. The Pan Am "Orion" Space Clipper looks like a future-generation Space Shuttle) To my knowledge, it's the first film to feature realistic-looking ships, with all the rough edges and paraphernalia hanging off them, rather than sleek aerodynamic forms. It's one of the very few films where outer space really IS silent, and the ships really do move the way they should in zero-g and airlessness, instead of swooping around and gliding like atmosphere ships.
YES. they looked like updated Apollo craft. At the time I saw it, the Apollo missions were coming to an end, Skylab was in orbit, and the Space shuttle was in early planning phase. All the hardware in the film looked possible. Dave Bowman looked like a young version of the Apollo test pilot astronauts.

Dave powering down HAL9000 was an emotional experience for me, but I did find the “Star-Child” sequence slow, confusing and indulgent. Then again, I was only ten years old. Yes, it was slow-paced by today's standards. different era, different pacing. Still one of the best films ever made. Say what you will about Kubrick, he made at least three of my all-time favorite films. (2001, Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket)
  #18  
Old 11-16-2008, 05:16 PM
Lamia Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 13,350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Barchetta View Post
Most? I think they still represent the pinnacle of sci-fi effects. The models used are so much more convincing than any of the CG atrocities they used these days.
The reason I said "most" is because of the bit toward the end with the "alien" landscapes. See the last three images in this 2001 gallery. I don't know what it took to produce those effects at the time, but it's something a kid could do with Photoshop today.

I think everything else is great.
  #19  
Old 11-16-2008, 05:37 PM
Icerigger's Avatar
Icerigger Icerigger is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 3,398
My biggest impressions from 2001 was the feeling of loneliness. When we first see the Discovery along with the music and the eerie silence demonstrates to me just how vast silent and lonely outer space really is for human beings. I think 2001 should be thought of as a Rorschach test, what emotions do you feel while viewing the film? How does it make you feel?
  #20  
Old 11-16-2008, 06:32 PM
rowrrbazzle's Avatar
rowrrbazzle rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,665
I wasn't super-impressed by the images Lamia linked to, either, including the 4 just before that. I saw the movie in 1969 when I was 18, and those effects were polished versions of psychedelic imagery common at the time.

But the movie blew me away, anyway. In great par that was due to its use of classical music which I loved. And that's serendipitous, because it was very late in the production that Kubrick chose to use that music instead of the score composed for the movie. Alex North, the composer, didn't know that until he saw the movie at the premiere.
  #21  
Old 11-16-2008, 06:35 PM
Zebra Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LIC
Posts: 20,679
Dude, you have to be stoned to watch this movie.

I love this movie, but I'll admit that I usualy drift off to sleep during the journey through the monolith at the end.
  #22  
Old 11-16-2008, 06:40 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,137
I've never watched the entire film from start to finish in one sitting so that may say something about it. As a ten year old, it was probably a bit too slow paced compared to more action oriented SciFi fare like Star Wars or Star Trek.

My buddy and I caught in in a bar the other day though. No sound, but between the closed caption and remembering the movie, we could still follow along. The movie is still very visually and emotionally impressive. To echo what Icerigger said, very few space films actually convey the unforgiving vastness and lonliness of outer space. I mean you're really like "well..Dave certainly seems calm, but what is he going to do if HAL decides not to open the pod bay doors and just leaves him out there?"
  #23  
Old 11-16-2008, 07:49 PM
Götterfunken Götterfunken is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,121
An amazing film on every level--visuals, audio, concepts.

The big concept that seems to run through the film is the development and advancement of consciousness, from the very dawn of human consciousness (in the use of tools) to future travels into space (and beyond!). The conflict in the center of the film is the struggle between the astronauts and HAL--a man-made machine that has attained a level of self-awareness comparable to human consciousness, and which (like any consciousness) is desperate to defend itself against the possibility of annihilation.

Much of the film moves very slowly, admittedly--but I couldn't imagine it any other way. The slow process by which the primate tribe learns how to take back their water hole--the beautiful (but slow) journey to the moon--the Jupiter mission--the (apparently final) evolutionary leap taken by Bowman as the Starchild--it's meant, I think, for the viewer to contemplate these immense stretches of time and space, and how humans have used our minds (through technology) to bridge these gaps. Ultimately, though, consciousness itself is something that transcends technology, although what it consists of is still a mystery (just like the final scenes of the movie).

It probably helps to watch it stoned.
  #24  
Old 11-16-2008, 08:04 PM
Just Some Guy Just Some Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,444
The images are stunning and when the plot starts moving it sucks you in but that pacing is a real problem. The issue is that Kubrick takes the world and establishes the hell out of. He needs to convey the idea that we're viewing the earth at the dawn of humanity so he takes fifteen minutes of people in ape suits milling around. How to establish space travel? Watch a minute and a half long shot of a space ship slowly moving through frame.
  #25  
Old 11-16-2008, 08:37 PM
lissener lissener is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 17,197
Definitely not a plot-based movie. Not to be recommended for people who apply ratings according to the number of car chases in a movie. A good, nearly great film, though I prefer (if I had to choose, which thankfully I don't) Tarkovsky's response to it, Solyaris. An even greater film, and one with even fewer car chases. If you can't give yourself over to the movie, and allow it to dictate the pace of the experience, it will bore you to tears. That's what Rush Hour 22 is for.
  #26  
Old 11-16-2008, 08:49 PM
blondebear blondebear is online now
Shouting Grasshopper
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Meridian/280
Posts: 13,683
I saw it for my 14th birthday at a Cinerama theater. I still have the program. (Remember when big movie releases used to have programs?) 2001 just blew me away--I had seen "good" movies growing up, but Kubrick's epic was in another category altogether. It was truly a formative moment in my appreciation for what movies could be.
  #27  
Old 11-16-2008, 08:51 PM
Quasimodem Quasimodem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Georgia
Posts: 13,160
Nothing of any import to add, except that for its time, it was a great film.

Also just wanted to say hello to Quasimodal!

Q
  #28  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:28 PM
Musicat Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 20,810
I saw it several times in the original release in a Cinerama theater with a giant screen. I never thought it slow; just realisticly paced. But the ending made no sense at all, in the book or movie.

Most of the theatergoers I went with considered it mandatory to get stoned during the intermission so they were ready for the second half light show.

And it spoiled me for Star Wars, since 2001 was accurate with respect to the lack of sound in space, and Star Wars was junk.
  #29  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:35 PM
levdrakon levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
I think if you're 16 and drop acid, you're appreciation of the movie is outside of your primitive space-time continuum.

Not that I did that.
  #30  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:43 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by smiling bandit View Post
The blunt ond of the stick is that they aren't that special, and are not that hot today. I tried watching this movie, but there's nothing to effin watch for the first hour. There is no plot, there are no actual characters, and nothing happens of note.
And I hate Hamlet because of all those cliched lines.

I saw it first at the Capitol Theater in NY, where it opened, in Cinerama. I got it immediately, but then I had read all of Clarke and also read the Life Magazine article on it. I've seen it 30 times at least.

As for the effects, someone in the features on the new DVD release (much, much better than the first) said that 2001 is the ultimate in effects done without a computer. That's to control the stop motion, like Star Wars did, not even CGI. Just consider that nothing came close to its effects for 9 years, an eternity even back then.

Sure the pacing is slow, even back then, but on the other hand the average movie pacing was nothing like it is today. And it isn't called "Odyssey" for nothing. Odysseus didn't take a jump jet to get to Ithaca, after all.

2001 is about really big ideas. For instance, consider the parallel between the state of the earth in the first section and the second. Maybe the people in 2001 weren't at risk of dying out from hunger, but the first satellite shown the the Blue Danube was an orbiting bomb.

Maybe it didn't get the existence of a space station right, but the paranoid government in 2001 it got exactly right.
  #31  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:46 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musicat View Post
I saw it several times in the original release in a Cinerama theater with a giant screen. I never thought it slow; just realisticly paced. But the ending made no sense at all, in the book or movie.
It made perfect sense, especially if you're up on your Clarke. Remember, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. 2001 is the first, and maybe only, movie which didn't chicken our in this regard. Kubrick's decision not to show the aliens was one of his best.

I've always liked the light show fine unstoned, btw.

Last edited by Voyager; 11-16-2008 at 09:46 PM.
  #32  
Old 11-16-2008, 09:47 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldwin View Post
A great movie, one of the best ever made -- but it really matters what medium you see it in. With a good 70-mm print projected onto a big screen, it's almost overwhelming, and timeless rather than lengthy. On a small tv, it just doesn't work the same way.
There's something else that happens with this movie on TV, and it took me a long time to notice it.

For the first ~20 minutes, there is absolutely no camera movement. There are cuts from one shot to another, but the camera is always absolutely fixed. There's a scene where a large cat jumps down off an overhang and attacks one of the Australopethicines. Without letterboxing, the only way to show it is with pan-and-scan, and that introduces a movement that was never meant to be there.

I'm convinced that Kubrick shot it that way intentionally. It's a primitive world. Until the monolith shows up, there is not a smooth surface anywhere to be seen, or even imagined. Any sort of camera movement would have called attention to the mechanics of making the film.
  #33  
Old 11-16-2008, 10:34 PM
Just Some Guy Just Some Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Sure the pacing is slow, even back then, but on the other hand the average movie pacing was nothing like it is today. And it isn't called "Odyssey" for nothing. Odysseus didn't take a jump jet to get to Ithaca, after all.
On the other hand Homer didn't spend a third of the Odyssey on divine dinner party before Discordia threw in a golden apple, then another third on lengthy sections of how wonderful the Greek ships looked, and a significant portion of what was left on random words that don't form sentences.
  #34  
Old 11-16-2008, 10:50 PM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 41,955
I saw 2001 in April of 1968, in its first New York City run, probably in the first week it was released. It was rare in those days for there to be a big budget science fiction film, and since I had loved Dr. Strangelove, I wanted to see it. I had heard it was somewhat deep and mysterious and really looked forward to it.

I was unimpressed.

The pace was slow, but that didn't bother me as much as the lack of story )though the section with Dave and Hal was a nice little SF short film). And the last half hour, while technically advanced, was ultimately a pointless light show.

I later realized that the problem was this: Kubrick had painted himself into a corner. In order for the film to work, he had to say some deep truths about the universe. But he didn't have anything to say (it's a difficult job, so I'm not surprised). So he punted and gave us bright, shiny lights.

The film was clealy influential, especially since it is the blueprint for films today: forget about plot and characters, just show bright shiny lights (aka action sequences, special effect sequences, etc.) and razzle dazzle 'em.

I did see the film againin 1994. It didn't hold up all that well, though I didn't find it all that terrible. What was most amusing was the scene on the moon when the people are told to just trust the government to handle the situation, and they all nodded and didn't object.
__________________
"If a person saying he was something was all there was to it, this country'd be full of rich men and good-looking women. Too bad it isn't that easy.... In short, when someone else says you're a writer, that's when you're a writer... not before."
Purveyor of fine science fiction since 1982.
  #35  
Old 11-16-2008, 10:51 PM
lissener lissener is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 17,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Some Guy View Post
On the other hand Homer didn't spend a third of the Odyssey on divine dinner party before Discordia threw in a golden apple, then another third on lengthy sections of how wonderful the Greek ships looked, and a significant portion of what was left on random words that don't form sentences.
Dude, have you read Homer's Odyssey? Cuz, yeah, he kinda did just that.
  #36  
Old 11-16-2008, 11:42 PM
Avumede Avumede is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Queens
Posts: 965
This is my favorite film. It's about big ideas, but what's great about it is that the big ideas are different for everyone who watches it. For me, it's about the relationship of man and his tools, with HAL being the latest and greatest tool invented. This is why it makes sense that HAL tried to kill the crew. It was all about who got to make contact - man or tools. This is one interpretation, there are others.

But 2001 is great also because of the incredible cinematography. And also so many of the scenes are amazing enough that they are classic. The ape throwing the bone (and the edit following which is probably the greatest edit in movie history), the monolith on the moon, space station, lip reading, the pod bay doors, disassembling HAL, through the monolith, the hotel room, the earth. Some of those scenes have incredible tension, some have unusual beauty, and some have both.

This movie has the most accurate and most entrancing space-flight scenes. The most brutal murder in movie history. The only major movie with a completely surreal ending.

And, BTW, I recommend not seeing it stoned. Pot will induce the entirely wrong mood, but LSD is better. But sober is best of all.
  #37  
Old 11-16-2008, 11:48 PM
Just Some Guy Just Some Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by lissener View Post
Dude, have you read Homer's Odyssey? Cuz, yeah, he kinda did just that.
Yes, I have. Many times. He did nothing like that. The closest to what I described in Homer is the recitation of the Greek forces in The Iliad and that was a small portion of the work rather than the bulk of it. Homer didn't spend a significant amount of time on establishing things to the point that the reader just wanted him to get on with it.

He wasn't Virgil, after all.
  #38  
Old 11-17-2008, 12:25 AM
well he's back well he's back is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,491
I thought it was slow and boring even when I was one of those drug-taking college students in the early 70s. I do like the Hal section - I like my fiction plot based, thank you very much. That's my answer to the OP.
  #39  
Old 11-17-2008, 01:29 AM
Surbey Surbey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,227
great movie but I thought I was going to slit my wrists for the first thirty minutes into it. Those monkeys are boring.
  #40  
Old 11-17-2008, 09:04 AM
Pushkin Pushkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Belfast Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
As for the effects, someone in the features on the new DVD release (much, much better than the first) said that 2001 is the ultimate in effects done without a computer. That's to control the stop motion, like Star Wars did, not even CGI. Just consider that nothing came close to its effects for 9 years, an eternity even back then
9 years? There's a lot of CGI in the past few years alone that just doesn't cut in in comparison and not just the low budget TV shows. I thought the model work was great, the whole thing really did give the image (as mentioned above) of being deep in space, inside a functioning space ship.
  #41  
Old 11-17-2008, 09:23 AM
RealityChuck's Avatar
RealityChuck RealityChuck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 41,955
Yup, the special effect were advanced, but that's like raving about a film because it has great costume design.

If you notice the special effects, then, at some level, they have failed. And in 2001, they are just a cop out to hide the fact that Kubrick didn't really have anything to say.
  #42  
Old 11-17-2008, 09:30 AM
Pushkin Pushkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Belfast Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
Yup, the special effect were advanced, but that's like raving about a film because it has great costume design
I just took it as another part of the attention to detail that the director seemed to have in all his films. I always got that vibe from his films, there was something complete and detached about them, as if he didn't really care about the audience ever seeing them.
  #43  
Old 11-17-2008, 10:55 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
My biggest objection has always been the plot incoherence -- or, rather, that there are two more or less coherent and essentially unrelated plots stitched together -- one about a Higher Power guiding human evolution, the other about an AI driven homicidally mad by its own programming. Should've been two separate movies.
  #44  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:09 AM
Pushkin Pushkin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Belfast Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
the other about an AI driven homicidally mad by its own programming. Should've been two separate movies.
That's bugged me too and I never realised quite why. The whole thing is almost like an episode of Star Trek with it's A and B plots, coming together at the end with the minor and major threads twisting together again.
  #45  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:18 AM
WhyNot WhyNot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 33,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
My biggest objection has always been the plot incoherence -- or, rather, that there are two more or less coherent and essentially unrelated plots stitched together -- one about a Higher Power guiding human evolution, the other about an AI driven homicidally mad by its own programming. Should've been two separate movies.
Only if that's what you take from it. As Avumede said, this movie is about big ideas, but which big ideas seem to be up to the viewer. It's a Rorscharch movie!

I see it (sometimes) as a movie about tools, too, in the old "nothing is good or bad, only the use makes it so." Both the femur and the supercomputer are tools, but each one can be put to good (defense of the watering hole, maintenance of spaceflight) uses or ill (murder, and, uh...murder); each can cause humanity great grief. So I can tie the first two thirds together without a problem. The part I have trouble with is the final third. While I understand the monolith appears to the ape-people, I don't really grok why, or what the whole last third is about. Aliens? Gods? Super-evolved humans? Giant space babies? Whatever, man. That's the point at which I just hang on and enjoy the ride.

I also have a paper around here somewhere written for film class about how 2001 is all a gigantically scaled sex manual, from the opening shot of the Jupiterean breast to the phallic spaceship ejaculating the white spermatic pod to the inevitable conception of the Giant Space Baby. I swear, I wasn't on drugs at the time. And I got an A.

Last edited by WhyNot; 11-17-2008 at 11:18 AM.
  #46  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:19 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,334
You really really need to see it on a big screen so you can completely immerse yourself in the experience. No other movie conveys the vastness and loneliness of space. I find the effects to be awesome and trippy in a way a lot of action oriented SF movies fail at.
  #47  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:21 AM
Prelude to Fascination Prelude to Fascination is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 977
I've always loved this movie, but it's something I have to be in the mood to watch. Not fluff I can watch on a whim. I save Tom Hanks movies for that.
  #48  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:24 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,453
It was and is a science-fiction classic, with amazing visuals for its day, and the ideas couldn't be bigger: aliens help apes achieve higher intelligence and set up a "fire alarm" for when humanity eventually reaches the Moon? Cold War rivalries threaten First Contact? An all-powerful shipboard computer goes nuts? Awesome, but dear God it is slowwwwwwwwwwwwww. That's what Kubrick wanted and it serves his vision of the story, but let's face it, it's an acquired taste. It also should not, IMHO, be necessary for you to read the novelization and making-of books of the movie in order to fully understand it, and you really have to with Odyssey.
  #49  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:34 AM
Malthus Malthus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
My biggest objection has always been the plot incoherence -- or, rather, that there are two more or less coherent and essentially unrelated plots stitched together -- one about a Higher Power guiding human evolution, the other about an AI driven homicidally mad by its own programming. Should've been two separate movies.
I didn't see them as unrelated at all.

Different interactions between creators and creations of conciousness. The aliens (whoever they were) created us as much as we (humans) created HAL. Their whole set-up was in a way designed to prevent the sort of confrontation between Dave and HAL occurring between us and them ... whenever you enable true conciousness, you enable the possibility of madness, anger, suspicion, self-defence.
  #50  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:37 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthus View Post
I didn't see them as unrelated at all.

Different interactions between creators and creations of conciousness. The aliens (whoever they were) created us as much as we (humans) created HAL. Their whole set-up was in a way designed to prevent the sort of confrontation between Dave and HAL occurring between us and them ... whenever you enable true conciousness, you enable the possibility of madness, anger, suspicion, self-defence.
I never thought of it that way. That actually makes sense.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017