I know I should love the film. My father worked on HAL for crying out loud! I have TRIED to watch it, but like most British productions of it's time there was a LOT of standing around and talking. Plus EVERY SINGLE space shot took MINUTE AFTER STINKING LONG MINUTE to go through. On top of that.....what did the ending mean? Was Dave now an old guy and now re-born? And if so....what?
Sorry, please explain it to me.
Even my Dad who helped build the computer could not explain the movie to me....
It helps to read the novels as they expand on things. You're on the right track with the ending guess. I just put it on for the background and appreciate how beautiful it looks. Personally I like 2010 a lot more, I kind of with they'd made the rest of the books into films but now they'd be Bayfide with explosions.
I had to watch the film 5 times before I liked it and now it's one of my favourite films of all time. Give it 4 more chances.
And your dad worked on HAL??? Iconic!
Yeah I didn't like it either until about the 8th time and then the ending finally hit me as being so obvious the entire time.
The visuals are fantastic. The story is dark. What's not to love?
Admittedly the pace is VERY slow and that's off putting to a lot of people who are used to the more standard formula. That's what I like about it though. In reality I imagine space is really cool for a day or two then it gets REALLY boring...Stormy320 said:
The ships move at realistic speeds, the people have realistic tasks, it's life in space.
I've tried to get through 2001 several times in my life, and couldn't do it; I'd either fall asleep or just lose interest. For whatever reason, a couple of months ago I decided to give it another try and finally made it through start to finish in one viewing. I wouldn't say I'm now a fan, but I appreciated it much more this last time I watched it than I had any of the previous times. But explain it? Not me; I'll leave that for someone who "gets" Kubrick.
Please elaborate on how exactly your father helped build the HAL computer. I am very keen to know more.
Meanwhile, you have to remember that "2001" is a product of its time... the mid-1960s. The blockbuster action movie had not been invented yet. "Star Wars" was still 10 years in the future.
So, in the context of the films that came before it, "2001" was extremely science-fictional and extremely well made. Most science fiction movies of the time did not take the material seriously (they were full of monsters and screaming women).
To REALLY understand "2001", try reading the novel by Arthur C. Clarke. The novel goes in some different directions than the film but the differences are mostly in the details.
But to cut to the chase and answer your question, what happens in "2001' is nothing short of the entire history of the human race. You know how the Engineers are supposed to have meddled in human history, in Ridley Scott's "Prometheus"?
Substitute big black rectangles for big albino bald guys.
In the time of monkeys, 4 million years ago, aliens come to Earth and leave the Monolith. It will educate the local apemen. They soon learn to use tools and weapons. The first murder is committed....
Smash cut to the "present day"... nuclear bombs orbit serenely above Earth.
Dr. Heywood Floyd is traveling to the moon to investigate a new mystery. A monolith, 4 million years old, left as a calling card by the aliens. It is an alarm clock of sorts. When exposed to sunlight, the lunar Monolith beams a tight radio signal to the planet Jupiter.
Or more specifically, to another monolith orbiting Jupiter, the "Stargate".
18 months later, Dave Bowman, the only survivor of the crew of the spaceship Discovery, finds the Stargate monolith orbiting Jupiter and descends to it in a space pod. Bowman is transported across the galaxy, seeing many mind-blowing sights along the way.
Ultimately he comes to rest inside what looks to him (and us!) like an antique hotel bedroom.
It was constructed by the aliens, who monitor Bowman's every move.
How long Bowman spends in the room is impossible to know. He seems to be being duplicated, at later and later ages.. the aliens are accelerating Bowman's evolution. Soon he lies dying on the bed. Yet another Monolith appears.
The final evolution occurs, and Bowman - now the Starchild, possessing powers he does not yet understand - finds himself approaching Earth once again.
He does not know what he will do next. But he will think of something.
Karl
I second that.
Maybe I sound old, but I am so tired of the wiz bang effects of today's movies and long for a different approach to films. 2001 makes you think and we still talk about it today.
No one will be talking about The Avengers and the new Total Recall in 30 years.
Sure they will. In the same way I talk about He-Man. Nostalgia.Stormy320 said:
As Kubrick once said if you have more questions about the film than answers then he was successful in what he set out to do.
NakedMoleRat said:
I know I should love the film. My father worked on HAL for crying out loud! I have TRIED to watch it, but like most British productions of it's time there was a LOT of standing around and talking. Plus EVERY SINGLE space shot took MINUTE AFTER STINKING LONG MINUTE to go through. On top of that.....what did the ending mean? Was Dave now an old guy and now re-born? And if so....what?
Sorry, please explain it to me.
Even my Dad who helped build the computer could not explain the movie to me....
Great synopsis, Karl!
Can't help but notice the entire Discovery/Hal thing is skipped over. And rightly so, because, despite it's arguably the most entertaining part of the movie it HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE STORY!
Also, the Star Gate sequence goes on about ten times too long. Okay, Doug Trumbull had really gotten his groove with slitscan. Okay, I said. ..........Okay, we get it. ................OKAYYYYYY!!!
phase pistol said:
As far as the story, yup, basically that^Orange_Blend said:
Alien meddlers leaped monkeys into sapient humanity.
Once mankind was able to reach the moon,
that meant "he" was ready for the next evolutionary leap; the Starchild.
Regarding the appeal of the movie in its day, part of it was this:
I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" in the theater as a young ladphase pistol said:
who was captivated by the grainy videotape images on TV of the real space program.
For myself and many others, 2001 was the first look on a clear, big-screen image,
of what real-life space travel was going to look like.
Yes! Bingo!
The Pan Am clipper,
Dr. Floyd talking on the phone in the space station as the image rotated by outside his window,
the Aries shuttle pod to the moon,
the moon bus;
THIS is what we (the audience of the late sixties) expect space travel will look like when we get there.
Forbidden Planet and Star Trek were "cool", but 2001: A Space Odyssey was "real"!
Mike
My Firefly/Serenity Collection:
SerenityMovie.net :: View topic - Firefly/Serenity Weapons Collection
Hey man, it was the 60's. In a certain state that was a REALLY entertaining sequence!Treadwell said:
Also, the Star Gate sequence goes on about ten times too long. Okay, Doug Trumbull had really gotten his groove with slitscan. Okay, I said. ..........Okay, we get it. ................OKAYYYYYY!!!
I disagree. To understand the film, try thinking about it. This, by the way, is not a dig at your post, phase pistol, which I truly appreciated, but a general rant/venting/spewing of vitriol. It bugs me that when a work of art in any medium asks its audience to switch on those lightbulbs for a second, the audience just scratches its collective head and asks "someone smarter" to explain it all. I mean, you're not going to void your warranty if you use your brain once in a while.phase pistol said:
So, in a word, just try thinking about what you've seen/read/listened to, and bear in mind that there is no right answer--this is art.
It's, like, the ultimate trip, maaaaan.Orange_Blend said:
Hey man, it was the 60's. In a certain state that was a REALLY entertaining sequence!
DING DING DING we have a winner give that man a cigar!
ProfKSergeev said:
The book provides lots of insight but isn't the definitive explanation of the film. After a certain point Clarke and Kubrik were not collaborating anymore, each going from the same starting point to create different end results in different mediums.
I'd be highly interested as well!phase pistol said:
Please elaborate on how exactly your father helped build the HAL computer. I am very keen to know more.
...
Have we seen the same movie? I only seen this oneNakedMoleRat said:
2001: A Space Odyssey (2012 Trailer Recut) - YouTube
I think Kubrick deserves about as much credit for the thought-provoking nature of "2001" as Spielberg deserves for the ideas in "Jurassic Park." These guys were filmmakers, not story authors.
With "2001" I think Kubrick was experimenting with being less focused on keeping its audience occupied & entertained. As if the movie exists outside the standard demands placed on commercial movies.
When he did "Clockwork" a couple years later I think he was just taking the idea farther. He went beyond merely just not making the movie fun. He made it purposely UN-fun for the viewer.
What? Didnt Kubrick write the script together with Clarke? And the latter wrote the novel at the same time?batguy said:
I love the film. Always have.
Reply with Quote
