PDA

View Full Version : 2001 - a space odyssey


Mr. Bas
19-01-2004, 15:55:34
Finally watched the movie yesterday. I quite like most of Kubrick's movies, but I'm not so sure about this one.... To be honest, I don't have a clue what the hell was going on, especially during the last half hour. Is it supposed to make some sense or is it just some acid-inspired nonsense? Enlighten me.

Mr. Bas
19-01-2004, 15:56:44
And let me be the first to say:

Film forum!

Funkodrom
19-01-2004, 15:59:20
No, it doesn't make sense. If you read the book it makes a little bit more sense but not much.

Debaser
19-01-2004, 16:03:26
Anyone remember that Lego version I posted a link to ages ago? That was much better than the actual film.

Someone did explain the whole purpose of the film me once, but I can't remember what they said. I remember it made sense though.

King_Ghidra
19-01-2004, 16:38:03
that lego version was funny, but bollocks was it better than the real thing.

i don't understand why people find it necessary to understand every detail of the end. You know the black slab symbolises some kind of evolutionary progress or milestone. I always saw it that the crazy shit was just that, kubrick's attempt to articulate the next stage in human evolution, whatever that might be, and from the looks of it it's supposed to be some kind of super intelligence/consciousness that we can't really conceive of in our mental paradigm.

Gramercy Riffs
19-01-2004, 16:40:07
All I managed to work out was that the guy at the end was God.

Visually stunning though.

King_Ghidra
19-01-2004, 16:41:24
the guy at the end is god?!! where the fuck does it say that?!

Funkodrom
19-01-2004, 16:45:46
I thought it was that the guy at the end is "some kind of super intelligence/consciousness that we can't really conceive of in our mental paradigm" which basically makes him indistinguishable from a god to us puny humans.

protein
19-01-2004, 16:52:41
Surely there's no place for god in a sci fi flick like that? You would have thought that humans would have moved on from stupid ancient superstitions.

Scabrous Birdseed
19-01-2004, 16:54:22
Yup. All you need to know about 2001 is that it's on the Vatican's "approved films" list... Very stupid, very simplistic, very boring.

Gramercy Riffs
19-01-2004, 16:54:42
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
the guy at the end is god?!! where the ---- does it say that?!

I said it was all I managed to work out from it, not that it was correct in anyway.

It's not offered as an explanation.

King_Ghidra
19-01-2004, 17:03:32
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
Yup. All you need to know about 2001 is that it's on the Vatican's "approved films" list... Very stupid, very simplistic, very boring.

on that basis, we can add this post to the vatican's approved list too

Nav
19-01-2004, 17:03:58
The guy at the end is definately not god. It's written by Arthur C. Clarke.....

King_Ghidra
19-01-2004, 17:05:12
Originally posted by Gramercy Riffs
I said it was all I managed to work out from it, not that it was correct in anyway.

It's not offered as an explanation.

Well fair enough. I can't say either way what it really is intended to be, but i tend to go on the protein line of 'this is sci fi, there is no god'

zmama
19-01-2004, 17:07:13
No god(s) in Sci fi? We must have read different books.

Debaser
19-01-2004, 17:08:52
I figured that the guy at the end is supposed to represent, not God exactly, but some kind of 'Spirit of Life', and that scene represents (in a crazy 60's psycadelic way) Bowman leaving his physical body and life, and becoming 'at one with the universe'. (In a later book in the series he comes back to help people on earth).

Originally posted by King_Ghidra
that lego version was funny, but bollocks was it better than the real thing.


I wasn't actually serious about that.

Funkodrom
19-01-2004, 17:08:54
Definitely.

Mr. Bas
19-01-2004, 17:17:20
I think it's clear that the astronaut has somehow entered the next stage in human development in the end, triggered by that black monolith... What happens before that seems just like psychedelic nonsense to me, like described in phil's first post here.

Nills Lagerbaak
19-01-2004, 17:25:56
Well, having read 2030 (I think.....the final one anyway), Mr. Clarke does in effect say that the monolith was put there by God. After saying that advanced civilisations do turn into somekind of matter moving round space/time, he says there is still some kind of being that rules them all...God.
I was absolutely gutted after I finished that book, but at least there can be no ambiguity about what that old fart is saying now.

Debaser
19-01-2004, 17:33:09
3001 is the final one, and there is also 2061 before that.

Arthur C Clarke has also catogorically stated that none of his works feature what we would define as 'God', ie: one supreme being controling everything.

Sorry to piss on your fire.

Nills Lagerbaak
19-01-2004, 19:35:15
Erm, I suggest you read 3001 then (easy to get your numbers muddled up with this series)

You'll find that he lied.

Sean
19-01-2004, 20:44:07
The Epilogue only contains references to ‘We’. I honestly can’t remember any mention of a single God in the text.

Noisy
19-01-2004, 20:52:43
Baaaaaasically, after he gets tramsmitted through the star gate, the really cool dudes at the other end try to reconstruct an analogue environment from the totality of his experience that will allow them to communicate with him.

Or something.

Scabrous Birdseed
19-01-2004, 21:20:42
I can't believe people like this movie. And in the other thread someone was dissing Solaris, which totally stomps over 2001 in every way.

COMPARISON CHART

Atmosphere:
Solaris - Tense
2001 - Accute Boredom

Time spent on images of space flight:
Solaris - 7 seconds
2001 - At least an hour by my reckoning

Special Effects:
Solaris - Few. One model set I believe. Different tints.
2001 - Lots and Lots and Lots. Back/Front projection, moving cameras, tons of empty whizz-bang.

Philosophical questions raised:
Solaris - What is a human being? Can a simulacrum for happiness be true happiness? What are the limits of empiricism? Are our collective perception of someone equal to their essence?
2001 - Is there a god?

Answers:
Solaris - Uncertain
2001 - Yes (as revealed in the first 20 minutes)

Pyschologically complex characters:
Solaris - At least two
2001 - None

20-minute trip sequences of astounding crapness:
Solaris - None
2001 - One

20-minutes atmospheric rides through Tokyo that actually serve a function in the film:
Solaris - One
2001 - None

Music:
Solaris - Abstract
2001 - Now! Classical Hits

There is really no contest.

Sean
19-01-2004, 21:26:51
Time spent on waiting. The interminable waiting. The sweat on the actors from the studio lights. The waiting. The waiting for something to happen:
Solaris - 2 days.
2001 - 1 day 23 hours.

Scabrous Birdseed
19-01-2004, 21:33:25
But Solaris it's waiting while their faces look strained, struggling with the horror that they have experienced that they nevertheless are existentially ambivalent to, whereas with 2001 it's waiting while a waitress serves drinks to the entirity of Am Der Schönen Blaunen Donau.

Sean
19-01-2004, 21:34:19
You just repeated yourself, surely?

Sir Penguin
19-01-2004, 21:38:08
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Erm, I suggest you read 3001 then (easy to get your numbers muddled up with this series)

You'll find that he lied.

Similar to how a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, but is still not magic; a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from arbitrary acts of Godhood, but is still not arbitrary acts of Godhood.

SP

King_Ghidra
20-01-2004, 09:47:07
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed

Philosophical questions raised:
2001 - Is there a god?


Absolute nonsense. Please provide some evidence for this ridiculous claim.

Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed

Music:
Solaris - Abstract
2001 - Now! Classical Hits


You're dismissing Kubrick's entire output now. All of his great films use well-known classical scores.

Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed

There is really no contest.

True. You are the undisputed uber-troll.

Scabrous Birdseed
20-01-2004, 10:52:17
I've racked my mind and I can't think of any other Kurick score that uses well-known classical pieces except Clockwork Orange. That film, however uses them ironically. 2001 uses the pieces sincerely, it's as if "Surfin Bird" in Full Metal Jacket had been used to illustrate blissful surfing in a beautiful lagoon or something.

Scabrous Birdseed
20-01-2004, 10:54:15
BTW, you're right, the question isn't even raised. It's more of a statement- "There is a God".

King_Ghidra
20-01-2004, 11:16:33
hmm?? what about barry lyndon?

i still don't get the god thing. Where are you people getting this god idea from? (and don't say the books).

Debaser
20-01-2004, 11:26:01
I think people are confusing a higher plain of existance that's beyond our comprehension (or whatever) with one absolute god.

Funkodrom
20-01-2004, 11:31:27
I do too.

Scabrous Birdseed
20-01-2004, 11:51:19
Confuse a higher plane of existence with a monotheistic god? Easy mistake to make. "God", "The Gods", "Spirit of Nature", whatever, it's all incongruous subphilosophical bollocks with basically the same escapist purpose. Why not base your belief in something higher on ourselves and the spirit of friendship and understanding instead? Or the spirit of Rock 'n' Roll? :D

(Re: Score- I emphasised "well-known" for a reason. Barry Lyndon uses a score appropriate for the setting consisting mostly of lesser-known pieces of classical music that you haven't heard a million times before.)

DaShi
20-01-2004, 11:52:55
"There is only one truth, and one God."

Yes, me.

King_Ghidra
20-01-2004, 12:21:13
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
(Re: Score- I emphasised "well-known" for a reason. Barry Lyndon uses a score appropriate for the setting consisting mostly of lesser-known pieces of classical music that you haven't heard a million times before.)

But isn't the mere presence of a score in a film enough to transport it from the realm of 'lesser known pieces of classical music' to 'Now! Classical Hits'?

I'm sure the majority of people know the tune the blue danube from 2001 more than they do as part of the work of Strauss.

Does using Iggy Pop or Lou Reed in Trainspotting make it less effective than an original score? Nonsense. The only thing that matters is that the scenes in which the music is used are effective in their own right as a combination of sound and image.

The particular scene featuring the blue danube is incredibly iconic, as anyone who ever played Elite will testify :D

Scabrous Birdseed
20-01-2004, 12:29:00
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
But isn't the mere presence of a score in a film enough to transport it from the realm of 'lesser known pieces of classical music' to 'Now! Classical Hits'?

There's a distinct difference between using loads of classical pieces for flavour (which loads of films do, take The Truman Show for instance) which means you'll probably remember them briefly afterwards, and building sequences entirely around complete pieces of already well-known music which means you sit through the film saying "oh, that's the blue danube waltz. Oh wait, they're not gonna play the whole thing are they? Fuck!"

Anyway, using a track that's a hit is way different from trying to push mildly obscure music into becoming a hit using a film. Or something.

I've not seen trainspotting so I can't comment on the use of Iggy and Lou in that film.

Funkodrom
20-01-2004, 12:29:20
You know that music was picked because Kubrick was listening to it whilst editing and a student came in and said something like "wow, great choice of music for this scene" and so it came to pass...

RedFred
24-01-2004, 19:03:15
I think some of the 2001 criticism is a bit harsh. When it came out it was the most amazing SFX movie ever. I wouldn't call it a great film but it was entertaining and certainly better than the book. The whole series of books starting with 2001 really sucked.

MDA
24-01-2004, 19:21:25
I remember Rama as a better series. Not outstanding, just better than 2001.

Nills Lagerbaak
26-01-2004, 15:36:13
Originally posted by Debaser
I think people are confusing a higher plain of existance that's beyond our comprehension (or whatever) with one absolute god.


Ok, what I meant was I thought C Clarke copped out of writing a satisfactory ending. Maybe he doesn't use the word "God", but he more or less ends the series of books by saying, oh and by the way there was this great being before all of this happened, but we know nothing about him.
Agreed there really isn't much practical difference betwixt a god and something we don't really understand, but this is Sci-Fi and I want an explanation for things, no matter how far fetched. I guess he got fed up of the series at the end.

Sir Penguin
26-01-2004, 20:57:19
Definitely. And he made 3001 suck ass to keep people from demanding another sequel.

SP

QtFLW@Work
26-01-2004, 23:08:24
You know, I'd say I think Douglas Adams did that with Hitchhiker, but it'd probably make zmama cry again, so I won't.

:D

Scabrous Birdseed
26-01-2004, 23:24:59
Originally posted by RedFred
When it came out it was the most amazing SFX movie ever.

Yup. the problem is it's not 1969 any more and nothing ages faster than SFX...

RedFred
27-01-2004, 21:43:20
Not 1969. Damn. Should I loose my afro, peace chain and bell bottoms? Or are they coming back?

But I don't disagree SB. Some of Kubrick's other work stands up better.

Gramercy Riffs
27-01-2004, 21:48:21
SFX's do age fast but alot of the older produced stuff looks much better than most CGI's.

Chris
06-02-2004, 04:30:15
Originally posted by Funkodrom
You know that music was picked because Kubrick was listening to it whilst editing and a student came in and said something like "wow, great choice of music for this scene" and so it came to pass... That is basically it, Kubrick didn't like the score, but he did like the music put in to indicate what kind of music should match certain scenes, and left it that way.

The movie is boring as hell, to bad HAL didn't kill them all sooner.

RedFred
06-02-2004, 22:21:01
Very few SFX movies have great acting. Hard to really get into it for an actor when you are staring at a blank screen.

A few are well acted though. I thought the three main actors in Sphere did a great job. As did many of the actors in Blade Runner.

Sir Penguin
08-02-2004, 21:02:02
I just read an interesting article/review of 2001. Somewhere in there (or in the comments) it was mentioned that the different stages of the movie showed how as humanity advanced, people became more individualistic and distant from each other. The starchild in the end was supposed to be the next stage in human evolution, when individual humans would be separated by interstellar distances. Anyway, I thought that was neat.

http://www.bureau42.com/view/1788

SP

the_fibber
08-02-2004, 23:57:29
Ok, let's get a few things straight here:

Atmosphere:
2001 - Accute Boredom

I wasn't bored. I found it very interesting to watch. Alright it's slower than your average pick these days, but I'm sorry, your average picture these days is just that, extremely boring. I was more bored in rollercoaster action films than I was in 2001. Perhaps it would be boring if one was waiting for something to blow up or have sex with something else.

2001 is all about atmosphere. The creation of portrait of the future. Ignore all the mumbo jumbo about trying to work out what it MEANS, just watch the damn film!

Time spent on images of space flight:
2001 - At least an hour by my reckoning

Well shucks, IT IS A MOVIE ABOUT A JOURNEY IN SPACE! A "flight" in space, if you will. So it would seem natural to me to include space flight. And it all goes towards creating the atmosphere, that they are completely alone in space, just them and Hal.

Special Effects:
2001 - Lots and Lots and Lots. Back/Front projection, moving cameras, tons of empty whizz-bang.

Still an awful lot less than episode two though.

Philosophical questions raised:
2001 - Is there a god?

Ignore this. I can't stress this enough. IGNORE THE BLOODY PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS! Just watch the film already. Worrying about what a film is trying to "tell" you is just bullshit. Not just with this film, with any film. If a film needs to "tell" you something, it will just tell you. If it doesn't tell you, you don't need to know it. All this deep and inner meaning concept, especially in the cinema, is the biggest crock of shit to ever be concieved, and I would like to stres that it was not invented by movie makers, but rather by movie analysers, who should one and all be shot.

Answers:
2001 - Yes (as revealed in the first 20 minutes)

And another thing. Why does everyone have to be "uncertain"? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THINGS JUST BEING AS THEY ARE? You think 2001 answered your question in the first 20 minutes? Good. Now shutup and start watching the movie instead of analysing it.

Pyschologically complex characters:
2001 - None

Yeah. Duh. Which was whole point. You really did miss it, didn't you? The human characters were MEANT to be dull, fairly mindless. The whole point was that the computer HAL 9000, posessed more humanity than the two human characters put together. Speaking of which, you think Hal isn't a psychologically complex character? If you mean he didn't sleep with his mother and his puppy wasn't run over by a truck when he was five, which meant he harboured deep and personal scars for the rest of his life, then no, HAL isn't a psychologically complex character. If you mean does he posess emotion, and thought and rationally plausible action, then YES HE IS.

20-minute trip sequences of astounding crapness:
2001 - One

Again, I wasn't bored, I didn't think it was crap.

I'll ignore the Tokyo question simply because I havn't seen Solaris.

Music:
Solaris - Abstract
2001 - Now! Classical Hits

And? I can't stand sodding abstract 20th century dischordal shit. It's not music, it's just noise. Load. Of. Crap. So what if you've heard the music before? So what? Does that instantly mean it's crap just because you have heard it before?

And for the record, if anyone's seen 2001 on a small tv and then decided it was pathetic, they should see it at the cinema, because I will agree it doesn't work on a small screen.

Sir Penguin
09-02-2004, 00:57:44
One of the comments for the review I posted said that if you saw 2001 on a large theatre screen and then decided it was pathetic, they should see it on a CinemaScope screen, because it doesn't work as well on a flat screen. :)

SP