My view of 2001: A Space Odyssey

mattblack · Jan 18, 2006

AWFUL MUSIC?! Give me a break man! Who said that? Sheesh. No rap or metal? Aw, diddims... But seriously, Kubrick's choice of music is now iconic. And many of the specials effects films of today have no real story or originality: just 'empty' spectacle. <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>

rfoshaug · Jan 18, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />AWFUL MUSIC?! Give me a break man! Who said that? <hr /></blockquote> I'm afraid I did. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> If they'd at least have some rap or metal... No, seriously, I personally don't like the music in 2001, but this is of course a matter of musical taste. And I don't like rap or metal either. Actually, I think that the movie with the best music among all the movies I have seen is "The Thin Red Line". It is played with a classical orchestra and has that classical sound, but doesn't become as pompous and megalomaniac and loud as most classical music, including the music from 2001. But as I said, this is only a matter of personal musical preference. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I suspect you are quite young. That could be part of your perception problem....the youth of today, growing up with video games as their primary entertainment, expect much more action and visual effects than people of my generation. I could see why such a thoughtful, artistic, and intellectual film could seem boring to people brought up on special effects multimedia extravaganzas.<hr /></blockquote> I'm 29 years old. Don't know if "your generation" is those who were old enough to watch 2001 in the cinema when it was new, or if you're old enough to remember when "The blue Danube" was created. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But I don't think that this is a question of age or generation. I don't necessarily expect effects multimedia extravaganzas (although Alien vs Predator was good fun to watch), but I am used to watch newer movies than 2001. I do expect to see good acting and believable characters (totally absent in 2001). I do understand that the people were made extra cold and "mechanical" to make HAL seem more human, but for me, it just kills the sense of realism in the movie. It's also way too obvious when HAL is introduced and we're presented with th <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

telfrow · Jan 18, 2006

I also remember the clouds of marijuana smoke outside the box office and the hippies popping MJ brownies during intermission, preparing themselves for the "light show" near the end of the film. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

JonClarke · Jan 18, 2006

Didn't happen when I watched it! Mind you, by the time I got to see it in the theatre most of that generation were dead from the chemicals...... Mind you I noticed some odd smells floating round in a screening of Solaris about the smae time. But that was in a definitely art house theatre <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> 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>

telfrow · Jan 18, 2006

Well, I'm old enough to have seen it in its first release in theaters, so I remember it well. And I'm not saying I was one of those kids eating the brownies. No sir, not me. <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

CalliArcale · Jan 18, 2006

The biggest single problem with 2001 was the decision to delete the narration over the opening and closing segments. They consequently are very beautiful, go with the book wonderfully, but make absolutely no sense whatsoever unless you already know what's going on. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> There are other sequences where dialog was deleted as well -- more on that in a moment. There was actually an original score composed for 2001, but Kubrick didn't like it. He rejected it, and then went to find what public domain stuff he could get to fill the gaps. There's some wonderful music in it now, and everybody remembers both "Also Sprach Zarathustra" (although most people know it only as the theme from 2001) and "The Blue Danube" as a result. But it led to some other changes which may not have been as wise. For instance, the Blue Danube plays for Dr Floyd's flight from Earth to the space station, and then from the space station to the Moon. The latter segment didn't originally have music at all. You may notice you see the actors talking, although there is no sound. They aren't just going "watermelon, watermelon" -- they had actual dialog for these scenes! Important dialog, too. A good bit of exposition was lost as a consequence, and I don't think the audience really understands quite how much political attention is on the find at Tycho Crater. It's still established, but really only in passing, as if the scriptwriter fully intended it to be explained better elsewhere -- which was in fact the case. I do like the special effects (they still hold up well; it remains one of the most accurate depictions of space travel in the cinema) and the cinematography is absolutely fabulous. There's some wonderful acting too; Keir Dullea is perfect as Dave. And I love the voice of HAL. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Perfectly done. But there are things that could've been better, and alas, this is something I find in many of Kubrick's films. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

hansolo0 · Jan 19, 2006

I completely agree with you Rfo, 2001 stinks! I think Crazzyeddie mostly has it right about the hippies! There was a show I saw on tv recently about why 2001 was so popular, and they did attribute a lot of it to the drug induced hippies (made more sense to them I guess). It was also a pretty new phenomenon. I think it also portrayed a lot of ideals in space, the spinning giant space stations, the ships traveling to the moon like a trip to europe. Going to Jupiter and finding the mystery part was kind of interesting , but what they did with it was not. Oddly enough I did kind of like 2010, anyone else agree/disagree? It was cool to have two suns at the end, and I kinda like Roy Scheider.

rfoshaug · Jan 19, 2006

Watch your mouth, whipper-snapper, and show some respect for your elders. Sir, yes Sir! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> But that doesn't stop me from marveling at what a beautiful work of art this film was in almost every way I can think of. That's good. Different people like different movies, and I certainly don't want to destroy the experience of the movie for those who like it. Then you might of course ask why I started this thread in the first place. It started when I listed 2001 in another thread ("The worst movies ever"), and I was asked to explain why. Then it was suggested that I moved that post to a new thread so that the worst movies ever thread would not be an off-topic discussion just about 2001. It's no doubt that this movie was unlike any other movie ever seen in 1968 and that it set quite a few new standards for sci-fi movies. Of course the MJ brownies would have helped anyone appreciate the light show ("wow, that's far out, dude"). <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

JonClarke · Jan 21, 2006

Most people who respect 2001 are not hippies. For good reason. Not only was it by far and away the most technically competent SF film of the time (and of all time), how many other films do you know deal with the origin and destiny of humanity? The films has flaws, as have pointed out, and also Calli If think if Calli and my advice had been followed (and Arythur Clarke's more to the point) it would not been a flawed masterpiece, but a truly great work. I also like 2010 very much. It is not one of the greats, but a very competent film all the same that ties up many of the loose ends. I know Clarke was very happy with it, I don't know what Kurbrick thought! I really liked how it showed the utter stupidity of exporting nationalism into space. 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>

owenjm · Jan 25, 2006

Check out this great site. It explains a lot! www.kubrick2001.com

5stone10 · Jan 26, 2006

I am also amazed at how anyone could find the music awful. The Blue Danube and Thus Spake Zarathustra are perfect. Also, the Gayane Ballet Suite Adagio. A wonderful piece perfectly situated during one of the opening sequences aboard Discovery. This piece was 'borrowed' for several other films, most notably the opening scene of Aliens.

rhodan · Jan 26, 2006

Although the music is great, the element which makes this movie a classic, is its silence. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

5stone10 · Jan 26, 2006

I think that the movie with the best music among all the movies I have seen is "The Thin Red Line". You like Terrance Mallick but not Stanley Kubrick?? Mallick and Kubrick as directors are cut from very nearly the same cloth.

JonClarke · Jan 31, 2006

Everyone knew that HAL was self aware and suprahuman in intelligence. So HAL did not become smart, nor were people unware of his abilities. This is clear in both the book and the fim. HAL malfunctioned because of conflicting instructions between open disclosure and concealment of information, between truthfulness and lying. This is made very clear in the book, and also in both the book and the film of 2010. 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>

telfrow · Jan 31, 2006

IIRC, the nature of the instructions and HAL's conflict are discussed, at length, in 2010. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

JonClarke · Feb 1, 2006

That's what I said <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

telfrow · Feb 1, 2006

<img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> Hey, it was 6 am when I posted that. Hadn't had my morning coffee. Blurry eyes. Foggy brain. I missed the last part of the final sentence. (At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

rfoshaug · Feb 10, 2006

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

spayss · Feb 11, 2006

I saw this movie when it first came out and thought it 'OK'. Sometimes there's a genre of literature that many don't read. I read many sci-fi books before the movie came out and 2001 wasn't special or jump out as a story better than many other lesser known books. I'm not a fantasy reader but have heard some fantasy keener comment the same on 'Lord of the Rings'...what's the big deal on that particular story. (I found the book and the movies boring) Brittany Spears is popular. Is she a good artist? I don't equate 'popular' or topical with the best a genre has to offer. Often, like 2001, it's just that it resonates with an audience that isn't all that keen and the movie seems a novel idea or inspiring. They don't realize that the plot has been done 100 times before in lesser known works that only science fiction readers know of. I found 2001 ok but almost idiotic in some spots. Like 99% of science fiction it isn't about the future as much as some hackneyed commentary on present society.

JonClarke · Feb 12, 2006

"Sometimes there's a genre of literature that many don't read.... I'm not a fantasy reader but have heard some fantasy keener comment the same on 'Lord of the Rings'...what's the big deal on that particular story. (I found the book and the movies boring)" I suspect this is more a comment on your own tastes than the book. Since LOTR is consistently ratest in many surveys round the world as reader's favourite book, has had a profound influence on general culture, and is a very diverse readership find it both profound and inspirational it is safe to say that LOTR is certainly the most popular fictional work of the 20th century years and arguably one of the greatest. As for 2001 (the point of this thread), in what sense can either the book or the film be considered "some hackneyed commentary on present society"? 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>

spayss · Feb 12, 2006

Unlike yourself, I don't equate great literature or film with box office hype and sales. I suppose 'Survivor' is much loved by the public and revered around the world..I can't argue with your taste but popular is just not always my cup of tea. You and I just have different definitions of 'great'. Mcdonalds outsells my favorite restaurant a million to one but I prefer the latter.

rainofsteel · Feb 13, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> rfoshaug wrote: 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. <hr /></blockquote> I agree with virtually all your comments (except about the music), although I have a slightly different take on the movie. -------------------------------- The movie can be succinctly deconstructed: <ol type="1"><li>Early primates discover the use of tools. <li>A space shuttle flies up to and docks at a space station. It is supposted to represent the progress of evolution and intelligence as the lineage of mankind jumps from jawbones to space shuttles. Ok, I'll concede this is an excellent representation. The movie goes downhill from here. <li>People walk around the space station and exchange greetings and smalltalk.<li>OTV lands on Luna.<li>On Luna, there is a big meeting where those present exhange greetings, sans smalltalk. <li>Short flight across Lunar surface. <li>The only hint about what is going on is dropped during the flight. <li>The scene at the small monolith. Not one word exchanged. No information provided. <li>Spacecraft (Discovery) sailing through space. <li>Crew arrives at Jupiter (sometime during all this), and discovers the really big monolith. <li>HAL-9000 gradually goes mad (probably from all the loud heavy breathing of crew in pressure suits*). <li>The now-mad HAL-9000 murders every crew member except Dave Bowman, though this exception isn't from a lack of zealous effort. <li>After heroically surviving HAL-9000's murder attempt, Dave disables HAL. <li>Alone aboard the Discovery, Dave decides to have an up-close-and-personal with the monolith, for no apparent reason. <li>The monolith opens up, Dave utters his famous quote, and</li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></ol>

CalliArcale · Feb 14, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Like 99% of science fiction it isn't about the future as much as some hackneyed commentary on present society.<hr /></blockquote> My opinion: If science fiction is strictly about the future and nothing else, then it is not a good story. It is merely speculation about the future and has no other value. It can be about the future and still be a good story, but to do that it has to also be about something else: it has to be about people. All good stories are about people, on some level. Since a great deal of human nature is persistent across time and across cultures, it is thus inevitable that no matter how futuristic the setting of a story, if it's a good story it will have relevance to our present society. Ancient stories, such as "Oedipus Rex", still have applicability after all. Why shouldn't futuristic stories also apply? Of course, sometimes it is really just a parody of present society, or some sort of mirror on it. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but it can become irritating if this is clearly an ulterior motive on the part of the storyteller (i.e. if the parody is there to convey a message but does not support the story very well). I don't think "2001" is meant as a commentary on society in the 1960s. I think it was honestly meant as a look at where mankind might have been in thirty-five years. And it doesn't make much commentary on anything unique to the time of its authorship, really. The set design is clearly heavily influenced by 1960s art and architecture, but I don't think we can blame it for that. It's inevitable. Frankly, I prefer it when movies simply go with current styles rather than trying to create a hypothetical future look; the latter always ends up looking silly. There is reference to Cold War tensions, but I don't think it's fair to blame Clarke or Kubrick for not anticipating the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

JonClarke · Feb 14, 2006

I agree, greatness is not determined by short term popularity or hype. Notr is it just determined by personal tatste. For example, I recongise War and Peace a s a great novel, although I did not particularly like it. In the case of 2001 has been recognised as a very significant film and book for nearly 40 years. It has set the bench mark in many ways for SF films. This is not short term popularity or hype. 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>

nova_explored · Feb 15, 2006

probably the most philosophical piece of art, in any form. also the greatest study of the human condition...next to hamlet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

My view of 2001: A Space Odyssey

mattblack

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

hansolo0

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

owenjm

Guest

5stone10

Guest

rhodan

Guest

5stone10

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

telfrow

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

spayss

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

spayss

Guest

rainofsteel

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page