My view of 2001: A Space Odyssey

rfoshaug · Jan 5, 2006

Sorry for the double post, but it was suggested that I moved this post over from Free Space to Sci-fi. My view of "2001: A Space Odyssey" is that it is a very bad movie. I don't want to ruin the experience of the movie for people who like it, and of course people are perfectly welcome to like the movies they like regardless of my opinions. But still - I just don't get 2001. I think it's an extremely bad movie, and I'm surprised of the amount of people that think this is the greatest sci-fi movie of all times. So here's my post from the "Worst movie ever"-thread from the Free Space section: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> -2001: A space odyssey (this one was horrible) Blasphemy!!! <hr /></blockquote> I know that claiming "2001: A space odyssey" to be a horrible movie is blasphemy and that many people think it's the greatest sci-fi movie ever made and a grand journey through man's evolution etc etc. But let me sum up "2001: A space odyssey", so maybe you see what I mean: The movie consists of 4 parts. Part 1: People in ape suits There is a very long opening sequence of pre-human primates having a war and discovering the alien artifact. As apes often do, they go bananas. One of the primates throw a bone up in the air, and suddenly it's far into the future - 2001 (of course, 2001 was in the future when the book and film were made). Except for the brief appearance of the artifact, this sequence is way too long and doesn't add anything to the story. Part 2: The artifact on the moon A man is called to a meeting on the moon, and uses a commercial spacecraft to get to a space station, and on to the moon. Another sequence that could have been only a couple of minutes long, because there's not really any story to tell here. A man takes the bus to the moo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

Leovinus · Jan 5, 2006

Part 1: People in ape suits There is a very long opening sequence of pre-human primates having a war and discovering the alien artifact. As apes often do, they go bananas. One of the primates throw a bone up in the air, and suddenly it's far into the future - 2001 (of course, 2001 was in the future when the book and film were made). Except for the brief appearance of the artifact, this sequence is way too long and doesn't add anything to the story. Actually, the primates are not having a war. There is very little food to be had and very little water. The ape-men are unaware that food aplenty surrounds them -- they are vegetarians and just don't understand that the animal life among them provides all the food they need. There are a couple of tribes there and the stronger tribe wins access to the water. Note that no violence takes place before the appearance of the monolith -- the stronger tribe simply roars and waves arms at the other tribe and intimidates them away. Then the monolith appears -- obviously alien in origin. It was placed there overnight while the ape-men slept. Who placed it there? Obviously visitors from outer space. This is made very clear in the book which you should probably read. The monolith teaches the ape-men how to use tools and specifically how to make weapons to kill animals. This lesson, while ensuring the survival and evolution of mankind (who were on the verge of extinction), also condemned mankind to a never-ending violent history. When the lesson was complete, the monolith was taken away by the aliens who placed it there. To say that this sequence adds nothing to the story is to entirely miss the point. IT IS KEY TO THE ENTIRE STORY. When the bone (humanity's first weapon) is thrown into the air, the bone turns into an ORBITING NUCLEAR WEAPON in the future of 2001. We are then shown many other countries' orbiting nuclear weapons. What has happened? The les <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Leovinus · Jan 5, 2006

Still on Part 1 (ape men): Also note that the ape war doesn't start until after the lesson is learned. What worked to kill the pigs also worked to kill the fellow ape-man to win access to the water hole. The bone is the tool. It can be used for good or ill. Man becomes dependent on his tools which can at first save him (the bone to acquire food) or it can be his undoing (the orbiting nuclear weapons and HAL). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Leovinus · Jan 5, 2006

I wouldn't even call it a war: I call it the first murder. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Leovinus · Jan 5, 2006

In the book, the star child appeared over earth causing the orbiting nuclear warheads to be activate. Bowman swept them away with a thought. This was not shown in the movie. Indeed, one was never told that the orbiting objects were nukes at all in the movie. Just one more reason to read the book. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mattblack · Jan 5, 2006

You are not the first and wont be the last to call 2001 a bad movie. If you don't like it for stylistic preferences, because you were born after the 1960s, fine. I look upon it as a hypnotic, beautiful piece of art. Oddly enough, I've usually enjoyed the book more than the movie. Watch 2010 and some of the pieces of the jigsaw may fall into place for you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

Leovinus · Jan 5, 2006

Another thing about 2001 is that they tried to make it REALISTIC. Hence, no whooshing spaceships -- no sound at all in the vacuum of space. No instant communications with Earth -- the time delay with light speed was included. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nacnud · Jan 5, 2006

This is going to sound trite but read the book if you don't understand. Try again. If you still don't get it well there is always Batman Begins. For your information I've never read 2001 and only seen the film once and it was very clear what was going on. Sometimes it's nice to eat with a knife and fork rather than be spoon fed.

5stone10 · Jan 5, 2006

Sometimes it's nice to eat with a knife and fork rather than be spoon fed. This is one of the main themes of all Kubrick films with the possible exception of Spartacus. Moral, plot-line and interpretive ambiguities. Recall that Kubrick spent years in pre-production developing his scripts and story boarding [in the case of A.I. and Eyes Wide Shut, 20 or more years of development]. With Kubrick and Clarke collaborating on 2001, the script is dense - though at first glance it might appear shallow. There are several good examples of this paradox mentioned by the other posters in this thread. Its a real intellectual challenge to make sense of the 2001 storyline. It took me many years to reconcile an adequate interpretation of 2001 that fits with my worldview. This is why I appreciate Kubrick - because his films are the furthest thing from 'Eye Candy'.

Aetius · Jan 5, 2006

I didn't enjoy "2001" at all, but I can definitely say that "Eyes Wide Shut" was suck-tacular. It's a dark day when a naked Nicole Kidman can't make me like a movie.

5stone10 · Jan 5, 2006

Your loss !!

bobw · Jan 6, 2006

When Dave took HAL's brain apart HAL regressed to an authentic state, too. The Daisy song is actually one of the first examples of a computer synthesized human voice. I heard it in a high school presentation in '68 or '69 but the song was made in '61. Arthur C. Clark heard the song at Bell Labs. I thought that was a nice touch. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bangstrom · Jan 6, 2006

The trick has always been to watch the movie stoned and dig it as a light show.

Aetius · Jan 6, 2006

ZG, your opinion I respect. I'll give it another watching sometime. Maybe I really will like it better the next time around. "Eyes Wide Shut", on the hand, I'll just fast forward to Nicole Kidman. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

rfoshaug · Jan 6, 2006

I now understand that there are some underlying points that I didn't get the first time I saw the movie. And I'd like to thank you all for your insights. As ZeroGeezus correctly points out, I have heard that 2001 should be the greatest sci-fi ever, so I finally saw it. I started out with an open mind, but as the movie progressed, it became more and more clear to me that this was not my kind of movie. Before watching the movie, I knew the basic storyline - that an alien artifact is discovered on the Moon that prompts an epic journey to Jupiter, where things happen that may change our view of humankind. But I feel that 2001 is a good opportunity wasted. It might have been a very good movie, but is in my opinion ruined by bad directing or screenplay, and by an ending that I feel would better have been watched under influence of some chemical. A lot of the scenes are way too long, like that man travelling to his meeting on the moon or when Dave talks to HAL to get inside after the yellow man dies. And speaking of having points spoon-fed: The sequence when HAL reads their lips, and the sequence where HAL kills the people in their cryo tubes, those sequences are really spoon fed. Kubrick, who trusts his audience enough to get the finer points of why we see Dave as and old man and an embryo, doesn't trust that we understand that HAL reads their lips after just a few seconds of spoon feeding. So I think there are some filmatic issues there that Kubrick could have done a lot better. Of course it's an old movie, and some filmatic techniques were not as developed then as they are now. But still I think the worst part of the movie is that light show sequence at the end, which ends with Embryo Dave orbiting Earth. I haven't read the book, so I didn't know that Dave became a Star Child capable of wiping out nukes with his mind. The movie does nothing to explain any of this. I've always thought that a movie should be able to stand on it <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

serak_the_preparer · Jan 12, 2006

I know that claiming "2001: A space odyssey" to be a horrible movie is blasphemy and that many people think it's the greatest sci-fi movie ever made and a grand journey through man's evolution etc etc. Blasphemy? I don't know. I see similar attitudes expressed about criticism of the Star Wars movies. (And Star Trek, as well as other icons from the world of celluloid scifi.) Did you know an attempt has been made to have the Jedi faith officially recognized as a religion? But even religious dogma is not always immutable. Science fiction dogma even less so. Though this remains a matter of opinion, it seems to me that science fiction arises as the myth-making impulse in human nature responds to a new worldview dominated by science rather than the supernatural. Forbidden Planet becomes a cinematic 23rd century retelling of Shakespeare's The Tempest (see, for instance, Space.com's own Parallax Reviews: 'Forbidden Planet', Forbidden Fruit by Ingrid Richter). Blade Runner returns to the themes and questions raised long ago in Shelley's Frankenstein, whose other title, notably, is A Modern Prometheus. Prometheus and Pygmalion both create artificial life - Pandora and Galatea - incurring responsibility for the joys and woes their creations bring. Shelley's novel also referred directly to Milton's Paradise Lost (quoted in the novel and an influence upon the Monster himself) - Blade Runner likewise taps into this myth. With The Matrix, the arrival of cyberpunk on the big screen via Blade Runner is given a postmodern update which recalls mythic echoes found in Ridley Scott's film, elements of the Prometheus and Christ myths where either figure suffers greatly on behalf of humanity an

5stone10 · Jan 13, 2006

A lot of the scenes are way too long, like that man travelling to his meeting on the moon or when Dave talks to HAL to get inside after the yellow man dies. The problem with the 'Long Scene' criticism [a common complaint] is that every one of Kubrick's final six films, and I'd also include Lolita, contain extended, drawn-out scenes. Many of his scenes in these movies are 15 minutes or longer. This is one of Kubrick's M.O.s. Not many directors incorporate drawn-out sequencing into their moviemaking. Scorsese does. But all this criticism indicates is boredom on the part of the viewer. Being bored is not a good enough criticism ! If you really want to watch some 'long scenes', watch Kubrick's interpretation of Thackery's 'Barry Lyndon'. There literally is no "action" whatsoever throughout 95% of the film. But it is still a great movie.

rfoshaug · Jan 16, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Being bored is not a good enough criticism<hr /></blockquote> I think it is. I mean, it's okay that not all movies are action movies and that you shouldn't expect a lot of action at all times. But when this is combined with (in my opinion) horrible music, or no music at all, and it doesn't tell any story or add anything to the movie (you see a white spacecraft moving very slowly from one edge of the screen to the other), then I and a lot of other people get bored. And when the viewer gets bored, that viewer thinks that it's a bad movie. I also think that the characters in the movie don't seem real. Even Dave, who gets to be a superior being. They have no depth at all. They just read their lines and walk where the director has told them to walk, but you don't get to know them, and they just don't seem like real people. Dave never seems scared, not even when HAL refuses to let him inside the ship. And that's probably a part of why I find this movie quite boring. The scene where Dave just sits there and says "HAL, open the hatch. HAL. HAL. Do you read me HAL." and so on, he just keeps saying his lines, but you don't get any sense that he's scared, or sorry that the yellow man died, or angry at that damned computer that won't let him in. So this sequence becomes boring even though it could have been a good sequence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

Leovinus · Jan 16, 2006

Dave and Frank were intentionally done that way -- to make them seem more mechanical and less human than HAL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rhodan · Jan 16, 2006

Dave and Frank were intentionally done that way -- to make them seem more mechanical and less human than HAL. I thought it made them look more real. Astronauts are -I imagine- not the loud flamboyant types.

spacefire · Jan 17, 2006

Gordo Cooper as portrayed in "The Right STuff" was pretty cocky-flamboyant, but never during the MISSION! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

Aetius · Jan 17, 2006

"The Right Stuff", now THERE was a great movie. I think I've watched that film about fifty times.

rhodan · Jan 17, 2006

Well, I've seen the movie only once I believe, but I also read Tom Wolfe's book, and most of the first astronauts were former test pilots, dare-devils and drinkers (with John Glenn being a noteable exception), from a very macho culture. That seems to be less the case with present day space farers.

JonClarke · Jan 17, 2006

I rewatched 2001 the other day and I was struck and how much more accurately reflects the reality of spaceflight. I am also amazed at how anyone could find the music awful. The Blue Danube and Thus Spake Zarathustra are perfect. What else could you use to accompany the Dawn of man, the birth of the Star Child, or orbital rendezvous? I think the film is defective in some ways, however. A flawed masterpiece if you will. It really could have be done with some narration. Subtle and cryptic are all very well, but at times Kubrik moved into obscurantism. I believe one was prepared, but not included. The whole through the stargate section has not worn well. Avante garde as it was in 1968, the effects creak in some places and it is way too long, even by the standards of the time. Kubrik was a technical master of his craft, but his ability to tell a story was subordinated to style in this one Arthur Clarke's brilliant and subtle story was to some extent lost by this. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

hracctsold · Jan 17, 2006

I was in college, in a dorm, when the soundtrack from 2001 first come out, and still remember getting a cassette of it. I may still have it somewhere I think. But it was your mention of the song Thus Spake Z. that reminded me of a funny incident in our dorm. I was in a somewhat small college, and our dorm was 3 & a half floors large. One of the heat intake vents had an opening on the bottom half floor, and someone sneaked up to it and placed that song in a cheap player in it and turned it on. You know the song starts out small, with what I call the space bees or something, then goes very loud. This did cause a LARGE reaction at 3 in the morning. The person in charge was who we called the dorm mom, or Mrs. B, and it woke her up from a sound sleep. People told me it was a sight to see her strom out of her apartment still dressed for bed and go down to the room to turn that tape off. But I was such a sound sleeper on the third floor that I never heard about it until the next day. Yes, it was strange no one wanted to claim that player as their own that night. But we had such characters there that someone was always doing something against the rules. And there was never the lack of excitment in that dorm. Oh the things you can learn outside of class there at school.

My view of 2001: A Space Odyssey

rfoshaug

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

mattblack

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

nacnud

Guest

5stone10

Guest

Aetius

Guest

5stone10

Guest

bobw

Guest

bangstrom

Guest

Aetius

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

5stone10

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

Leovinus

Guest

rhodan

Guest

spacefire

Guest

Aetius

Guest

rhodan

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

hracctsold

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page