My view of 2001: A Space Odyssey

[nova_explored]

that was a great website. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[doc_harra]

Over in ask the astronomer they were talking about reality, So that kind got me started over there, But this post must have been niggling in the back of my head, As I kind of tied it in as well, Must have been that time i dine those Mrooms and spanked my games console (was truly an awesome gaming god that night and got stats to prove) The game was Time Splitters Future Perfect multi player online for Xbox, super crazy mad cap insane visuals even when on the level but anyway, rfoshaug loved reading post opening, You got all that weirdness and all of those irregularity goings on nicely highlighted, As the facts of the film and the amount unfathomable happenings laid bare, Is always going to create uncontrollable spontaneous laughter, Full of mind boggling subliminal stuff that film ! , I can still hear "That Robot" throwing a fit, Its designed to give you the creeps so we wont be at the mercy Of, Like what Arnie said the inevitable, Unless thats how they want us to feel (still time to safe guard) Inevitable<br />was it the same people who done Clock Work Orange ?<br />LETS WORK TOGETHER

 

[lampblack]

The movie had great special effects -- for 1968. But I've always felt the plot was loosely constructed to the point of being almost nonexistent. Take away the special effects and Hal's psychological complexities, and there's not much left over.<br /><br />Arthur C. Clarke's novel was much clearer -- even doing a better job than the movie of exploring Hal's psychology. There is so much that's annoyingly under-explained in the movie -- stuff I (for one) would still be scratching my head about if I hadn't read the book first.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[dannyd]

Obviously 2001 is appreciated by many and true enough Clarke's book explicates the movie expertly. I agree that the movie is pure "art." For the likes of me it is a Sci/Fi analogue of the Mona Lisa - set to ethereal music no less! Today I think it rings sad with we 1960's types that we are not in 2006 seeing manned ventures to Mars and beyond. Back then I was naive enough to think that our progress in manned space exploration was well on its way. I know it is inevitable I just hate to miss out on it.<br />-dannyd<br />add: Rendevous With Rama is the best sci/fi book I've ever read - no doubt when the movie finally comes out it be dumbed-down just like Childhood's End was transmogrified into the cartoon-like Independence Day.

 

[dannyd]

I'm not a reader of fantasy worlds sci-fi. I like stories that are on the cusp of scientific reality - especially space exploration stuff like R with Rama and 2001 and its lesser sequels. I haven't read much sci-fi of late so I'm out of touch - can anyone recommend anything current that might suit me? <br />thanks - dannyd

 

[adzel_3000]

Hello,<br /><br />I have been reading this post and find it quite interesting. I opted to re-watch 2001 this weekend and tried to keep your points in mind.<br /><br />I have to say that what you derive from the 2001 might be garnered from your basis of comparison or, at the very least, your initial expectations. <br /><br />There has/had been a body of SF film before and after 2001. To say that 2001 was a watershed is accurate. It changed SF film in terms of a certain look and approach to storyline. It is both art and storytelling. <br /><br />Is it a good film? Maybe not, if you are looking for something swashbuckling or action-adventure. And maybe that is the point. SF as depicted in film is not necessarrally "literate" SF, ie, the stuff you read in mainstream books. <br /><br />Let me give you an example: many books from any decade you can choose tell both a good story but also work around an idea. AE van Vogt's classic "Slan" is an adventure novel that could become a typical SF film (it is almost a progenitor of The Matrix, IMHO) but at its core "Slan" is about the nature of reality and ultimately, it is a book about resurrection. Pretty deep stuff, not all of it would translate to the screen.<br /><br />I believe when Kubrick did 2001 he went for the deeper stuff from Clarke's short story, "The Sentinel." There's the basic SF story-line: odd alien object and subsequent journey to explore it further...very simplified, I know!<br /><br />But Kubrick and Clarke also looked at evolution and the meaning of being. There are three competing intelligences in the movie. Homo sapiens, AI (HAL), and the Monolith Builders. What HAL does to Discovery's crew isn't that far removed from what the ape-men do to each other at the waterhole. And the flash shot from bone to satellite shows the evolution not of technology, but of weaponry...that satellite is actually an orbiting H-weapon platform, a big possibility and concern at the time the film was made.<br /><br />So if you look at the film as

 

[5stone10]

By that measure, though, you would have only 2 classes of movies - action/adventure and high art.<br /><br />That's just not the case - even if current trends seem to indicate that this is the case.

 

[adzel_3000]

Hmmmm,<br /><br />Well, another question might be, could a Science Fiction movie like 2001 be made today? <br /><br />Without a series of explosions and a cute chick...possibly not.<br /><br />Most likely, if it were made, it would be an art/IMAX endeavor.<br /><br />IMO,<br /><br />A3K