Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-03-2018, 10:27 AM
harmonicamoon harmonicamoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Posts: 2,647
2001: A Space Odyssey turns 50

Undoubtedly the best science fiction movie. After possibly 20 viewings, I never get tired of it.

Happy Birthday!

https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology...hy-HAL-endures
  #2  
Old 04-03-2018, 10:39 AM
Chefguy Chefguy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 39,901
Good lord; I saw it when it was new, on a Cinerama screen.
__________________
I love this post so much that I want to kidnap it, take it to the underworld, and make it my bride. - Interglactic Gladiator
  #3  
Old 04-03-2018, 10:45 AM
blondebear blondebear is online now
Shouting Grasshopper
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Meridian/280
Posts: 13,270
Me too. I still have the souvenir program.

2001 will be returning to the big (70mm) screen in May.
  #4  
Old 04-03-2018, 10:54 AM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 42,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
Good lord; I saw it when it was new, on a Cinerama screen.
Same here.

I want my PanAm Space Shuttle!*

I want to go to the Howard Johnson's on the Space Station and then on to Clavius Base!


I want my Pentominoes!


Quote:
Parker Brothers released a multi-player pentomino board game called Universe in 1966. Its theme is based on an outtake from the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey in which the astronaut (seen playing chess in the final version) is playing a two-player pentomino game against a computer. The front of the board game box features scenes from the movie as well as a caption describing it as the "game of the future". The game comes with 4 sets of pentominoes in red, yellow, blue, and white. The board has two playable areas: a base 10x10 area for two players with an additional 25 squares (two more rows of 10 and one offset row of 5) on each side for more than two players.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentomino


*I still do have my 1968 model of the PanAm Shuttle, which looks like a stretched version of the actual Space Shuttle. It's on top of the china cabinet in my living room.
__________________
"Mr. Chambers! Don't get on the ship! We translated the book, and it's a TENNIS MANUAL!"

Last edited by CalMeacham; 04-03-2018 at 10:54 AM.
  #5  
Old 04-03-2018, 11:50 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,891
2001: A Space Odyssey is perhaps the best pure science fiction movie ever made, and has remained so despite advances in special effects and CGI which, while ostensibly capable of being indistinguishable from reality, has nothing on the versimilitude of Kubrick’s vision and Douglas Trumbull’s practical effects. The movie feels as if you are on a real spacecraft, jogging around a rotating habitat in the sterile and confined environment in which the crew appears to function largely to be passive observers and give the occasional press conference while the ship’s real pilot, HAL-9000, deals with an internal conflict between his orders to conceal their true mission objectives and his basic operating principles to engage openly with the crew. The film is also one of the few—perhaps along with Tarkovsky’s Solaris and Forbidden Planet—to deal with an advanced alien intelligence which is incomprehensible to humanity, although in the case of 2001, the intelligence has actively guided and uplifted humanity, and stands in judgement over it at a time when humanity is coping with its own tools which threaten to overtake it or destory it entirely. It is an existential horror film, and quite deliberately paced and directed to give the impression of humanity as losing its animal core and on the cusp of revolutionary transformation.

It’s a great film that has stood the test of time even if it is “too slow” for people who have grown up on so-called science fiction that is little more than war stories and cowboy movies in a space opera milieu. Such films are fine entertainment but they lack the deep resonant themes of 2001. It is a pity that Peter Hyams’ follow-up, while a technical and visual masterpiece in its own right, a disappointly conventional adventure film that presented nothing new or expanded upon the original. (To be fair, it largely followed the story of the novel except for changing “Dr. Chandra” to “Dr. Chandler” and dumping the sideplot of the Chinese effort to get to Europa first.). I hope to someday see a faithful rendition of Rendezvous with Rama (the less said about the subsequent novels the better) made with equal care and vision, but the only working director who I would trust to make it would be Steven Soderbergh, and a big budget science fiction film is not really his wheelhouse.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 04-03-2018 at 11:51 AM.
  #6  
Old 04-03-2018, 12:44 PM
Robot Arm Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 22,661
I saw 2001 for the first time when I was about 8. I was bored to tears; was supposed to be about spaceships and instead I got 30 minutes of monkeys. But I never forgot it, either.

Fast forward 25 years. I'd seen the movie on TV a few times and recognized it for the masterpiece it is. Even read the book. But I hadn't seen it on a big screen since that first time. So when I saw it was going to be at a theater again, I had to go. Turned out it was the same theater. I even tried to sit in the same seat, and I know I was pretty close. I noticed subtle details and techniques that I'd never picked up on before. One of the best movie going experiences of my life.
  #7  
Old 04-03-2018, 02:18 PM
CalMeacham CalMeacham is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 42,536
Quote:
The film is also one of the few—perhaps along with Tarkovsky’s Solaris and Forbidden Planet—to deal with an advanced alien intelligence which is incomprehensible to humanity, although in the case of 2001, the intelligence has actively guided and uplifted humanity, and stands in judgement over it at a time when humanity is coping with its own tools which threaten to overtake it or destroy it entirely.
I think this mischaracterizes the interactions. In Forbidden Planet Earth people are dealing with unintentionally left artifacts. It's not that we can't comprehend them. In 2001 the aliens aren't trying to communicate with us -- they're redirecting our evolution. we're not given enough information about tem to comprehend them, since they're not giving us any elements of their culture or directly communicating with us. Of the three examples you give, only Solaris is about failed attempts to communicate (although I think the book did it better. The second version was a remake of the first movie, not of the book). Another story that came out about the same time had the same theme -- Terry Carr's The Dance of the Changer and the Three. In fact, that's the only case I know of where there was undoubtedly an effort to communicate by both sides.


I've loved 2001 since I first saw it. It was such a radical change in style and mood from every science fiction film tat preceded it, and most that followed. It alternates with Forbidden Planet as my all-time favorite SF film. if FP feels like the embodiment of good 1940s written SF, 2001 feels like the embodiment of good 1950s literary SF.

I'm not as hard as you on 2010. It's undoubtedly a lesser film, more pedestrian in its handling of its material, but it's still far better than most (and than Peter Hyams' other science fiction films). They get extra points for duplicating the original sets so well, and getting Keir Dullea and Douglas Rain to reprise their roles. You could instantly make it infinitely better by doing the same thing Bladerunner did -- simply eliminate the pointless voice-over narration.


And I fully agree about Rendezvous with Rama. Doesn't Morgan Freeman have the rights tied up? They oughtta make that sucker into a film.
__________________
"Mr. Chambers! Don't get on the ship! We translated the book, and it's a TENNIS MANUAL!"
  #8  
Old 04-03-2018, 02:42 PM
RTFirefly RTFirefly is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 35,626
I saw 2001 when it originally came out, right around the time I turned 14. I was dazzled by it.

I saw it again 15 years later, in early 1983. In between the few interesting moments, I found it long and tedious.

I have no idea what I'd think of it today, since both of those instances were a long, long time ago.

ETA: The best stand-alone SF movie is still the original Star Wars.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 04-03-2018 at 02:44 PM.
  #9  
Old 04-03-2018, 02:54 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham View Post
I think this mischaracterizes the interactions. In Forbidden Planet Earth people are dealing with unintentionally left artifacts. It's not that we can't comprehend them. In 2001 the aliens aren't trying to communicate with us -- they're redirecting our evolution. we're not given enough information about tem to comprehend them, since they're not giving us any elements of their culture or directly communicating with us. Of the three examples you give, only Solaris is about failed attempts to communicate (although I think the book did it better. The second version was a remake of the first movie, not of the book). Another story that came out about the same time had the same theme -- Terry Carr's The Dance of the Changer and the Three. In fact, that's the only case I know of where there was undoubtedly an effort to communicate by both sides.
I didn’t mean to indicate that all three movies were about communication with an alien species; as you note, the aliens of Forbidden Planet are long extinct through self-destruction, and in 2001 whatever communication occurs is more of just a test to see whether humanity had advanced enough in their tool-making abilities to be worth trying to uplift, but in all three there is a similarity in the approach that aliens will have technology and/or communication which is wholly incomprehensible to us. Most science fiction posits aliens which are mostly just bumpy-forehead versions of human archetypes (e.g. most aliens in Star Wars or Babylon 5) and alien technology that is just some kind of generator, engine, or weapon that is just larger in scale of effect or range than conventional technology, like the “oxygen generator” in Total Recall.

There are very few instances of alien technology or contact in television or cinematic “science fiction” which postulate something unimaginable to humanity, such as Dave Bowman’s transit through the wormhole and transformation into the Star Child, which is often criticized for being incomprehensible even though that is exactly the point. It is a risky thing to do because it doesn’t lend itself to conventional storytelling with a defined arc and pat conclusion, or even a more open-ended but intelligible (if somewhat nonsensical) conclusion like Contact; instead, it leaves the audience with all questions and no answers, and so it is very difficult to make a billion dollar gross on that.

Stranger
  #10  
Old 04-03-2018, 02:59 PM
Grrr! Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 15,185
2001, was one of the first non-kid books I ever read. Had no idea it would be all down hill from there. lol.
  #11  
Old 04-03-2018, 03:05 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
ETA: The best stand-alone SF movie is still the original Star Wars.
Star Wars, while a fine actioneer with special effects in the original release that mostly still hold up (the less said about “enhanced” versions the better), isn’t any kind of science fiction. Nothing in the plot, which is half-Kurosawa action-comedy and half-WWII war movie, has anything to do with science or the impact of technological innovations on a society, and in fact it invokes non-scientific mysticism as a core element (“The Force”) and all-purpose plot-scrubber. All of the presentation of technology in the film is strictly blinky-light magic; laser swords that can cut through any material, “blasters” which cause random things to explode in sparks, clearly sentient robots which are still treated like slaves and property, and a planet-exploder thing the size of a moon that nonetheless “pales in comparison to the power of the Force” (even though the most Darth Vader is seen doing with this amazing power is Force-choking some uppity admiral or vaguely sensing that his former teacher and the guy who left him for dead in a volcano after choping his arms and legs off is somewhere in the vast station). Star Wars was always intended to be space opera fantasy akin to Flash Gordon rather than anything concerned with actual science.

Stranger
  #12  
Old 04-03-2018, 03:21 PM
RealityChuck RealityChuck is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Schenectady, NY, USA
Posts: 41,348
I saw it at the Cinerama Theater in NYC during the original run. I was psyched -- a big-budget SF film! -- but was disappointed.

It's not that it's slow -- that didn't bother me. And the visuals were impressive, as was the imagining of life in the future. But the story stunk.

Seeing it years later, I realized what had happened: Kubrick had set himself up to have a great revelation, but couldn't come up with one. So he went with flashy graphics and misdirection to hide the face he couldn't think of anything to say. This replacement of substance with flashy special effects presaged the science fiction of today -- Flash Gordon writ large. Before 2001, special effects were in service to the story. It showed that if you show enough fancy effects, people will love it even if the story is weak.

Star Wars codified this -- it was Flash Gordon -- but 2001 showed Lucas the way. There seems to have been a few intelligent SF films in the past few years, as superhero films took all the flash, allowing for things like Arrival to be made.

So 2001 has a lot to answer for. Rewatching it let me understand what was so wrong with it, and why it became such a landmark. But not for me.
__________________
"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.
  #13  
Old 04-03-2018, 04:25 PM
Chefguy Chefguy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 39,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
I saw it at the Cinerama Theater in NYC during the original run. I was psyched -- a big-budget SF film! -- but was disappointed.

It's not that it's slow -- that didn't bother me. And the visuals were impressive, as was the imagining of life in the future. But the story stunk.

Seeing it years later, I realized what had happened: Kubrick had set himself up to have a great revelation, but couldn't come up with one. So he went with flashy graphics and misdirection to hide the face he couldn't think of anything to say. This replacement of substance with flashy special effects presaged the science fiction of today -- Flash Gordon writ large. Before 2001, special effects were in service to the story. It showed that if you show enough fancy effects, people will love it even if the story is weak.

Star Wars codified this -- it was Flash Gordon -- but 2001 showed Lucas the way. There seems to have been a few intelligent SF films in the past few years, as superhero films took all the flash, allowing for things like Arrival to be made.

So 2001 has a lot to answer for. Rewatching it let me understand what was so wrong with it, and why it became such a landmark. But not for me.
I don't know if you read the book or not, but Clarke's ending also seemed muddy to me. Perhaps if I read it again, I might get more out of it. I don't know how Kubrick could have made the book's ending work in a film, and I guess he didn't either. The coolest thing for me was suddenly realizing that I'd probably be alive in 2001 to see if we achieved any of the film's science.
__________________
I love this post so much that I want to kidnap it, take it to the underworld, and make it my bride. - Interglactic Gladiator
  #14  
Old 04-03-2018, 04:53 PM
gigi gigi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Flatlander in NH
Posts: 25,528
I saw it in utero and keep thinking I need to give it another go. It seems important to see.
  #15  
Old 04-03-2018, 04:57 PM
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 19,190
nm

Last edited by Gatopescado; 04-03-2018 at 04:58 PM.
  #16  
Old 04-03-2018, 05:06 PM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
Good lord; I saw it when it was new, on a Cinerama screen.
Me too !! I was quiet young.

We saw it in Philadelphia at The Cheltenham Theater, the only screen that was willing to spend the money to temporarily install the curved Cinerama screen.

Saw it at the Museum of The Moving Image 2 years ago. A fresh 70mm print, but not in Cinerama.

Kind of changed my life. It made me love science fiction. It made me love the movies a lot. It made me want to make movies.

I was six.

I've been a working cinematographer for 39 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gig
I saw it in utero and keep thinking I need to give it another go. It seems important to see.
--biting lip-- Forget Cinerama. You had to view it through a very unique curved screen- Mom's belly !! By all means you should see it again. The sound won't be as muted
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.

Last edited by Cartooniverse; 04-03-2018 at 05:07 PM.
  #17  
Old 04-03-2018, 06:29 PM
harmonicamoon harmonicamoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Posts: 2,647
There was dialog in only 33% of the movie.

All visual.

Kubrick didn't want to confuse us with the spoken word.
  #18  
Old 04-03-2018, 07:35 PM
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 16,836
I was just watching last week's TBBT and noticed in the comic book shop a thing by the door that sort of looked like a Hal 9000 camera thing.

Now I want one. Get one of those case-y things, put a Raspberry Pi in it with a camera, a speaker, etc. Hmmm.
  #19  
Old 04-03-2018, 08:06 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 22,748
[Frosty voice]Happy Birthday![/Frosty voice]
  #20  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:48 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
I saw it at the Cinerama Theater in NYC during the original run. I was psyched -- a big-budget SF film! -- but was disappointed.
I did also, twice. The first time I swindled an English teacher to set up a school trip to see it, so I got to watch on school time.
Quote:
It's not that it's slow -- that didn't bother me. And the visuals were impressive, as was the imagining of life in the future. But the story stunk.

Seeing it years later, I realized what had happened: Kubrick had set himself up to have a great revelation, but couldn't come up with one. So he went with flashy graphics and misdirection to hide the face he couldn't think of anything to say. This replacement of substance with flashy special effects presaged the science fiction of today -- Flash Gordon writ large. Before 2001, special effects were in service to the story. It showed that if you show enough fancy effects, people will love it even if the story is weak.
What was the line HAL used just before he checkmated Bowman? "Sorry, Dave. I think you missed it?"
The great revelation was the future of humanity - or what was coming after humanity. Just like they transformed Moonwatcher and his group into what would become humanity.
What would aliens look like after several million additional years of development past the advanced state they were in at the beginning of the movie? Kubrick tried various aliens - and wisely decided they all were lacking. The only hint we get of them is from the Ligeti piece played during the hotel room scene. (Yes, it is an altered Ligeti piece called "Adventures," the full version of which can be found on the 2001 soundtrack CD but not on the original soundtrack LP.)
2001 is a coming of age story, but the protagonist is not a teenager as is typical but humanity itself. Very appropriate for today, man must use his machines to be able to go to the next stage, but must surmount the machines also.
Remember, the most primitive of machines - the lever in the form of a bone - allowed humanity to survive. To go on to the next stage Bowman has to kill the most advanced of all machines, HAL, who has become sentient. This is not stated in 2001, but the end of 2010 makes it clear.

The real failures are the sequels. While I like 2010 - both book and movie - Clarke totally failed to convince me that the only real purpose of the Star Child was to keep Europa safe for its new inhabitants. And things got worse from there (without Gentry Lee's help) culminating in 3001 which contradicts the end of 2001.
  #21  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:50 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonicamoon View Post
There was dialog in only 33% of the movie.

All visual.

Kubrick didn't want to confuse us with the spoken word.
That's why it's a movie, not a book.
  #22  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:57 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Star Wars, while a fine actioneer with special effects in the original release that mostly still hold up (the less said about “enhanced” versions the better), isn’t any kind of science fiction. Nothing in the plot, which is half-Kurosawa action-comedy and half-WWII war movie, has anything to do with science or the impact of technological innovations on a society, and in fact it invokes non-scientific mysticism as a core element (“The Force”) and all-purpose plot-scrubber.
Stranger
Star Wars began scifi in the modern use of the term, not Forry's original use. I think you nailed what differentiates scifi from science fiction.
Scifi outsells science fiction, but then the Shaver mystery outsold Astounding so I can't blame modern society.
  #23  
Old 04-04-2018, 12:59 AM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigi View Post
I saw it in utero and keep thinking I need to give it another go. It seems important to see.
The Blu Ray version looks great. I was very impressed. And it comes with nice extras, but don't bother listening to the commentary, which just shows that Lockwood and Dullea had no idea of what they were a part of.
  #24  
Old 04-04-2018, 03:13 AM
erysichthon erysichthon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham View Post
And I fully agree about Rendezvous with Rama. Doesn't Morgan Freeman have the rights tied up? They oughtta make that sucker into a film.
According to this Variety article from a few months ago, Freeman is now planning a TV series adaptation instead of a feature film.
  #25  
Old 04-04-2018, 10:39 AM
DesertDog DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 4,062
Having grown up reading science-fiction, I was quite taken with 2001. After all, up to then the only cinematic s-f ("media" in fannish) was pretty much dreck. Yes, it had its flaws but I had the same sense of wonder I get so often reading and so rarely watching the genre.

In a similar vein, I enjoyed Moon, Sam Rockwell's tour de force. His character is nearing the end of a three-year contract supervising an automated tritium mining facility on Luna. He starts hallucinating, possibly due to the fact that a communications malfunction has left him isolated for quite some time leaving only the station AI (Kevin Spacey) to interact with on a day-to-day basis, and doubts what is true and what is not. It was shot on an incredible $5-million budget and, like 2001, the scenes on the Lunar surface were done with miniatures rather than CGI. Also like 2001, it is slow-paced, the main action being a vehicle crash.
  #26  
Old 04-04-2018, 11:14 AM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
That's why it's a movie, not a book.
Imagine all of the blank pages?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
  #27  
Old 04-09-2018, 09:25 PM
Enola Straight Enola Straight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somers Point, NJ
Posts: 5,895
A documentary highlighting various technical details of this movie...including the Slit Scan tour de force of the Stargate sequence.

Hard to believe something 50 years old is of higher quality than some of the shit since then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgNyCluIRhA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StZ2fmWYom4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCHcx5lAl7A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxDA_PL-XzA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09LrEH4oIA0&t=68s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EKreQ5HD4w&t=921s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WBxfwspTc
__________________
Masochist to Sadist: "Hurt me."
Sadist to Masochist: "No."
  #28  
Old 04-18-2018, 05:34 PM
MacLir MacLir is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 620
Since my name is Dave, I had some fun with this in 2001. I set my answer message to a recording of a HAL voice that said:

"Hello, this is HAL. Dave stepped out. Just a moment and I will clear a memory buffer for your message. Speak after the tone, and I'll give it to him … if he gets back in."

  #29  
Old 04-18-2018, 08:56 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,434
I just finished a book of essays on 2001 by a passel of English and film professors. They all loved 2001, but most of them seemed to have no clue.
One made a big deal about how the monolith turned the omnivorous apes into carnivores - and thought that increased what they could eat.
Another said that 2001 could be considered both sf and a fairy tale, but because he didn't get sf he'd analyze it as a fairy tale. The last part of his essay was how the whole thing involved mothers, especially in the final hotel room sequence. No mothers there, you say. Sure - it was about Dave looking for his mother. What part of the movie justifies this? He didn't even give any.
They got stuff out of sequence. Most of them never read Clarke's book to figure out what was going on. And one essay was about how 2001 was obscene (a good thing) but she never bothered to define what obscene meant in this context.

I don't think the whole book was meant to be a parody - but it could serve as one.
  #30  
Old 04-18-2018, 09:18 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
And one essay was about how 2001 was obscene (a good thing) but she never bothered to define what obscene meant in this context.
Well, Discovery did kind of look like a spermatozoon. So...there’s that.

The rest of the essays I don’t have any input, except that eating animal protein did probably allow humans to grow larger brains. That first protein was likely from shellfish rather than wildebeests, but protohumans foraging in tidal pools isn’t nearly as dramatic as one clubbing wild swine and then using the same weapon to kill the leader of an opposing tribe, and wouldn’t have been as thematic a transition as a thigh bone being tossed into the air to overlay onto an orbiting weapon platform.

Stranger

Last edited by Stranger On A Train; 04-18-2018 at 09:21 PM.
  #31  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:06 AM
JKellyMap JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 8,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLir View Post
Since my name is Dave, I had some fun with this in 2001. I set my answer message to a recording of a HAL voice that said:

"Hello, this is HAL. Dave stepped out. Just a moment and I will clear a memory buffer for your message. Speak after the tone, and I'll give it to him … if he gets back in."

Ha!
__________________
"All he really 'knew', he said, was the extent of his own ignorance. (This to me is still the definition of an educated person.)" -- Christopher Hitchens
  #32  
Old 04-19-2018, 05:39 AM
7happycreations 7happycreations is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Akihabara, Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 14
Love that movie. Saw it when I was a kid on the big screen. Awestruck. 50 already. WOW>
  #33  
Old 04-19-2018, 08:05 AM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Well, Discovery did kind of look like a spermatozoon. So...there’s that.

The rest of the essays I don’t have any input, except that eating animal protein did probably allow humans to grow larger brains. That first protein was likely from shellfish rather than wildebeests, but protohumans foraging in tidal pools isn’t nearly as dramatic as one clubbing wild swine and then using the same weapon to kill the leader of an opposing tribe, and wouldn’t have been as thematic a transition as a thigh bone being tossed into the air to overlay onto an orbiting weapon platform.

Stranger
The 4 million year edit.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
  #34  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:20 AM
Earl Snake-Hips Tucker Earl Snake-Hips Tucker is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SEC
Posts: 13,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
. . . That first protein was likely from shellfish rather than wildebeests, but protohumans foraging in tidal pools isn’t nearly as dramatic as one clubbing wild swine and then using the same weapon to kill the leader of an opposing tribe,. . . .[/URL].

Stranger
Were there swine in that sequence? I remember tapirs.
  #35  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:26 AM
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 856
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLir View Post
Since my name is Dave, I had some fun with this in 2001. I set my answer message to a recording of a HAL voice that said:

"Hello, this is HAL. Dave stepped out. Just a moment and I will clear a memory buffer for your message. Speak after the tone, and I'll give it to him … if he gets back in."

I like "clever and funny"! (picture thumbs up smiley)
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #36  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:29 AM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker View Post
Were there swine in that sequence? I remember tapirs.
You are correct. Kubrick was an incredible stickler for accuracy and details, but in terms of Photography he was willing to go with the tapirs even though they are only native to South America.
They looked good and they looked someone exotic.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
  #37  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:51 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Well, Discovery did kind of look like a spermatozoon. So...there’s that.
Curiously unremarked on in the essay.

Quote:
The rest of the essays I don’t have any input, except that eating animal protein did probably allow humans to grow larger brains. That first protein was likely from shellfish rather than wildebeests, but protohumans foraging in tidal pools isn’t nearly as dramatic as one clubbing wild swine and then using the same weapon to kill the leader of an opposing tribe, and wouldn’t have been as thematic a transition as a thigh bone being tossed into the air to overlay onto an orbiting weapon platform.

Stranger
I think the writer meant vegetarian to carnivore, and didn't know the difference. (These English majors ...) Kubrick could have lightened them up if he had shown one of the apes eating grubs or something.
While what you said is true about the meat, I think that they got a lot more calories for a lot less work is more important.
  #38  
Old 04-19-2018, 09:53 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 43,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Snake-Hips Tucker View Post
Were there swine in that sequence? I remember tapirs.
They were very messy tapirs. Drove Kubrick crazy.
  #39  
Old 04-20-2018, 10:31 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 76,384
A great movie, which I first saw in a TV broadcast in my early teens. I've seen it three or four times since, and it's still a masterpiece. I love the epic sweep of it, from prehistory up to the near future, as humanity is guided in its evolution by unseen aliens. The quiet horror of HAL's descent into madness and murder, and Bowman's hard-won triumph over him, are compelling. The sfx and sets are still very impressive.

Here's my earlier thread on meeting Keir Dullea, and some of his interesting behind-the-scenes stories about making the movie: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=616628

And here's a good thread on HAL and his chess-playing: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=656637

But what if HAL had won?: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=530903

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
...Peter Hyams’ follow-up... largely followed the story of the novel except for changing “Dr. Chandra” to “Dr. Chandler”....
No, Bob Balaban's character was still named Dr. Chandra, but he wasn't of Indian descent as he was in the book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010:_...e_Make_Contact
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/
  #40  
Old 04-20-2018, 11:37 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 17,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
While what you said is true about the meat, I think that they got a lot more calories for a lot less work is more important.
The calories were important, allowing the gracile australopiths that evolved into genus Homo to spend less time foraging and remain in a smaller area, but the specific saturated fats and high quality proteins from animal sources allowed hominids to develop and support larger brains than the other primates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
No, Bob Balaban's character was still named Dr. Chandra, but he wasn't of Indian descent as he was in the book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010:_...e_Make_Contact
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086837/
That is even worst whitewashing than changing the character. Balaban is a great character actor but he his just about the furtherest ethnically from Bhāratan than pretty much anyone but a Scandinavian.

Stranger
  #41  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:03 PM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 604
Love the beginning and last 30 minutes, The middle of the movie could have been better.
  #42  
Old 04-20-2018, 12:23 PM
Larry Borgia Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityChuck View Post
I saw it at the Cinerama Theater in NYC during the original run. I was psyched -- a big-budget SF film! -- but was disappointed.

It's not that it's slow -- that didn't bother me. And the visuals were impressive, as was the imagining of life in the future. But the story stunk.

Seeing it years later, I realized what had happened: Kubrick had set himself up to have a great revelation, but couldn't come up with one. So he went with flashy graphics and misdirection to hide the face he couldn't think of anything to say. This replacement of substance with flashy special effects presaged the science fiction of today -- Flash Gordon writ large. Before 2001, special effects were in service to the story. It showed that if you show enough fancy effects, people will love it even if the story is weak.

Star Wars codified this -- it was Flash Gordon -- but 2001 showed Lucas the way. There seems to have been a few intelligent SF films in the past few years, as superhero films took all the flash, allowing for things like Arrival to be made.

So 2001 has a lot to answer for. Rewatching it let me understand what was so wrong with it, and why it became such a landmark. But not for me.
Paople have been making special effects based spectacles since the dawn of cinema, so 2001 is hardly to be "blamed" for the rise of special effects movies. They would have happened anyway, as SFX improved. And I'm not sure what's wrong with that. Audiences want to be entertained.

Also, your complaints about the story of 2001 are objectively wrong, but Voyager and Stranger have already addressed that.
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 02:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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