2001 - What am I missing?
- Thread starter Art Andrews
- Start date
I think 2001 might get made today, but not a big studio, no way.
It would have to be like how "Moon" got made.
I agree and I agree that Bay style shaky cam crap is what sells and seems to be what is taught in film schools these days. Anything like 2001 would have to be done by some small production company. It would be nice to see the later books in the series made into movies and given modern model making supplemented by cgi but not overtaken by it they'd be amazing. I actually love the visuals of 2001 even more than the storyline.
Then again half the time i'm too busy ogling the spaceships in movies to really pay attention to the stories (most of which are lacking) of scifi movies.
Onli Won Kanomi
New Member
Great insight Colin and one I'd never thought of either.
One thing I like about 2001 is that it has more than one subtext, more than one context, more than one meaning; every time I see it I get something new from it. To me that multilayering of subjective meaning is an element of true art.
One thing I like about 2001 is that it has more than one subtext, more than one context, more than one meaning; every time I see it I get something new from it. To me that multilayering of subjective meaning is an element of true art.
Tree of Life is a big budget, unlikely film that got made. It happens.
I think the core of a good Sci Fi yarn is that the "What ifs?" stay with you
long after.
And I think a lot of us over a certain age ache for that, growing up with
a lot of Sci Fi that did that.
long after.
And I think a lot of us over a certain age ache for that, growing up with
a lot of Sci Fi that did that.
Java
Sr Member
:thumbsup
When you're making a movie about things beyond the imagination of man you either leave things "open to interpretation" or you portray things that should be wondrous as mundane.
---------------
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
Look at the sci-fi films that came before "2001."
The cream of the crop consisted basically of the following: "Metropolis," "King Kong," "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," the George Pal stuff, "Forbidden Planet"... and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting.
All terrific films to be sure, but let's face it; "2001" represented (and still represents) a quantum-leap forward in just about every regard.
The cream of the crop consisted basically of the following: "Metropolis," "King Kong," "The Day the Earth Stood Still," "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," the George Pal stuff, "Forbidden Planet"... and maybe a couple others I'm forgetting.
All terrific films to be sure, but let's face it; "2001" represented (and still represents) a quantum-leap forward in just about every regard.
In almost anything I do and anyone I interact with, I always want to know "why." I am not satisfied with what you did but want to know why you did it. If you showed me a piece of your work, I don't want mystery or to interpret it. I want to know why you painted this here or added that there because your why is going to be infinitely more interesting to me than anything I came up with. I already know myself. I already know how my mind thinks and works. Having me apply my interpretation to your artwork is just the same old, same old. But having you tell me why you did this or that opens me up to something new and completely different from me. It opens me up to you. Without that why, your artwork is just a thing. Once you explain it to me, I can appreciate it so much more because I can see you in it and your reasoning and logic and will be infinitely more fascinated by it because chances are good that your reasons are completely different from what mine would have been.
This is not to say that anyone who likes to put their own interpretation on a piece of art is wrong, but I don't like doing that. It is no fun to me and it isn't enlightening in any way for me. And as Star Wars Chick would tell you... if I ask and you don't actually have a why for what you did... you are in trouble, which is what I have issue with when it comes to many pieces of "art." I don't think there is a why or any deeper meaning. I just think the artist made "something" and was counting on the confusion, mystery and lack of clarity to transform what is essentially nothing at all to "art." I hate that.
Well, you're making assumptions and projecting your values onto their work. You are assuming their intentions and deciding that this necessarily makes their work less valuable.
It is okay that you don't find value in it, but you cannot say that there is no meaning at all. You also cannot assume the artists intention to "cheat".
Some art is the pure expression of thought. Thought can be extremely abstract. Experience can even be very abstract. There are so many transient concepts in the world that cannot be explained by reason because there is also the constant presence of paradox. So the meaning of a painting cannot be "reasoned" out. As a psychologist, I appreciate abstract expression. It gives me ways to interpret a person, but I have to do some legwork. It's like in therapy. A patient never simply tells you what is wrong. They don't know what is wrong. If they did, they wouldn't need you.
So, again, it's okay not to like it but please do not make a general assumption that their form of expression has no value or meaning because you don't care for it.
It is okay that you don't find value in it, but you cannot say that there is no meaning at all. You also cannot assume the artists intention to "cheat".
Some art is the pure expression of thought. Thought can be extremely abstract. Experience can even be very abstract. There are so many transient concepts in the world that cannot be explained by reason because there is also the constant presence of paradox. So the meaning of a painting cannot be "reasoned" out. As a psychologist, I appreciate abstract expression. It gives me ways to interpret a person, but I have to do some legwork. It's like in therapy. A patient never simply tells you what is wrong. They don't know what is wrong. If they did, they wouldn't need you.
So, again, it's okay not to like it but please do not make a general assumption that their form of expression has no value or meaning because you don't care for it.
And this is why I am not an artist
... not to mention I don't have a single artistic bone in my body!I can't say if an artwork has value or not for the whole world, but if I can't make heads or tails of it, it has little value to me as a viewer.
Java
Sr Member
The original question you posted Art was "What am I missing"
I think the answer is "most of it".
This, from a guy named "Art"
I think the answer is "most of it".
And this is why I am not an artist
This, from a guy named "Art"
And this is why I am not an artist
I can't say if an artwork has value or not for the whole world, but if I can't make heads or tails of it, it has little value to me as a viewer.
That's the cool thing though, there are things that just entertain and that is great.
I always think about how brain surgeons come home and probably watch sitcoms or standup comedy. They need something different. They are still massively more skilled at something than I am, but they are into less intellectual entertainment.
Or it can go a different way. There is stuff for everyone!
That's kind of sad, actually.
I'd like to think that our imaginations are always expanding. A science fiction film that spells everything out will become dated far more quickly than one that forces the viewers to use their imaginations.
---------------
Not sad to me at all.
There is nothing wrong with allowing your imagination to run free, but for me, I am more interested in expanding my understanding than my imagination. Doesn't make me right, but it is simply what I prefer.
If it comes down to me imagining what you meant or knowing what you meant, I'll take knowing every time.
Carson Dyle
Sr Member
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
-- Albert Einstein
All due respect Art, if you think you're going to achieve some higher level of understanding by listening to some artist explain his intensions rather than trusting your own instincts to discern those intensions for yourself you will never come to "know" anything worth remembering. At least not where art, music, literature, or affairs of the human heart are concerned.
Kubrick was loathe to dissect his own works, but if after reading and watching the following you still regard Kubrick as the sort of intellectually shallow weenie who needed to rely on "confusion, mystery, and lack of clarity" to smoke-&-mirror his way out of having to deal with meaningful cinematic narrative, then I'll happily cede the point...
http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q12.html
http://rocketaholic.blogspot.com/2011/02/2001-space-odyssey-interview-w-arthur-c.html
Last edited:
