2001 - What am I missing?

[DARTH SABER]

Wasn't there supposed to be an ending in which the Star Child returns to Earth and destroys all the Nations orbital weapons?

That was inthe book I think...haven't read it in a long time though.

 

[Michael Bergeron]

Watched 2001 the first time: Fell asleep 1/2 way through

Watched 2001 a second time: Fell asleep 1/2 way through

Watched 2001 a third time: Hated it

Watched 2001 a forth time: Disliked it

Watched 2001 a fifth time: LOVED it.

It's like whiskey, you grow a taste for it.

 

[Cameron]

This movie is partially responsible for my life's direction. Well the movie and my father. My father took me along to see this movie over 10 times the year it was out. He was determined to understand the story and he was amazed by the effects. As a product of the space race era I was obsessed with all things space. This movie was the first real presentation (to me) of what space travel could be like in the near future and the technological tools that could enable it. As a child I set my sights on building a real HAL and that led me to computer engineering. I am now an engineer working on cutting edge technologies that one day could lead to HAL...and sometimes I think it already has . Funny how a movie can change your life.

Miss you dad and thanks for the movies!

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

So who wants to go on this one way trip to ascension Bowman took?
If you had the chance...
Would you go?

Hmmm....in old age yes, no question. Before, I dunno... there's still lotsa unreformed hairless ape stuff I'd like to do, primarily to unreformed hairless ape women (I'm assuming Star Children are above all that, lol).

Gotta admit, the fact that it's just a movie and that I can't undergo Bowman's ascension is as painful to me as the planet Pandora's fictitiousness is to some of the more sappy Avatar freaks...(sigh)

 

[Art Andrews]

And yet to some degree I do share Art's general desire to know something of an artist's intentions, and indeed something of their intelligence... As a teenager, I only began to appreciate a lot of Modern Art - the more impenetrable works of Picasso, Miro, Klee, Duchamp - when I read about it. And when viewing today an impenetrable piece of contemporary art I am often clueless as to whether I'm looking at the product of a fine intelligence and sensibility, or the work of a cretinous, dim-witted chancer, as exemplified by Britain's alleged greatest artists, Damien Hirst and Tracy Emin.

THIS! I think some people are misunderstanding me to say that I just want to be entertained and not to think and that is far from the truth. In fact, I am often annoyed by films that are nothing but fluff. I think some are also misunderstanding me to be saying that I want to be spoon-fed every last detail. Not true either. However, I feel that having the artist explain SOMETHING about what they are offering really helps me appreciate it much more.

This has really turned into an interesting discussion and it just occurred to me that many of you are interested in 2001 for the ideas it presents and for the subject matter itself. As much as it might appall you, what I feel like you are saying is that Kubrick did that thing we see people do here from time to time... where they throw out a tidbit followed by the one-word command; DISCUSS! Your interest lies in the ideas of man's past evolution and what the future may hold. I can certainly appreciate that, but when I look at something like 2001, I am not nearly as captivated by the subject matter as I am by the creators and understanding why they made the choices they made. I am more interested in what THEY think about the subject matter and how that influenced what we see on screen. Why does this interest me? Because they clearly have a very different perspective than I do and I am interested in understanding it to see how it matches up with what I think and if I might need to alter what I think a bit because aspects of their reasoning is superior. Me just thinking about the subject more without understanding of their reasoning just seems, as I posted before, like doing the same old tired laps around my own mind. I want a fresh perspective, but I don't want to have to guess what it is, I want to know.

 

[Art Andrews]

Art you sound very literal and linear in your approach both as a photographer and an observer of art. It's just how you are wired, and there is nothing wrong with that -- you are who you are.

I loved Memento... that has to count for something towards the non-linear side, right? lol:lol

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Perhaps I can enlighten you then a bit on some of Kubrick's thinking... It seems his vision of the movie is less metaphysical than mine. When asked (Playboy interview 1968) if the film had anything to do with God he replied 'everything', but went on to explain only in the sense that highly advanced aliens might share every characteristic we attribute to said God. Which, as I see it, would rule out mysticism entirely, since these godlike aliens would've developed from chemical ooze within the universe just like us. When he says 'every attribute' he must surely be omitting God's creator role.

Some other clues may be drawn from Kubrick's response to a viewer letter in which the writer concludes that the film is structured like Jung's dream structure, which consists of 4 acts, named by Jung as: Introduction, The Plot Thickens, Crisis, Resolution. The writer points out that the slab, which he calls 'knowledge', introduces the 4 Jungian dream acts.

Excerpts from the letter:

"2. The Plot Thickens - an overeducated doctor is congratulated on a completely innocuous speech, and he, in turn, congratulates his colleagues on a discovery which took no more initiative than a dog discovering a bone. Knowledge is turned against them. It deafens them. It overwhelms them. So, to discover its origins they send a ship, captained by a man of humility, calm under pressure, an artist; in short, a hero. Knowledge on board in the form of a computer tries to thwart him...

3. Crisis - the hero arrives at the point of discovery (monolith and stargate)... a more terrifying experience than his bout with the computer, for as we discover...

4. Resolution - the discovery is not of some new strange world but of himself...

But whose dream is it? Yours of course, but I think you asked yourself if you were so much different than the rest of us and you decided you were not and so you made a film.

-Frederic P. Lyman, California"

Kubrick responded, "Thank you for your fascinating note. You are very perceptive indeed."

 

[laszlo]

Colin DM - thats a great letter - where was it published?
Amazed that Kubrick replied too.

On another note which may or may not have been mentioned in this thread, outside of the intellectual and artistic constructs of the film, watching 2001 can be understood or more accurately experienced as mainlining pure cinema. Pure sensory input. In my mind, to not appreciate 2001 is to not appreciate cinema.

 

[wannab]

I loved Memento... that has to count for something towards the non-linear side, right? lol:lol

There is always hope. lol

Just to clarify, what I meant was linear in your wanting a dot to dot or box checking to understanding the art as a whole, not linear in the story telling sense.

After reading your reply that what you meant was wanting the artist to explain or be able to explain his work. This is the box checking I'm talking about. You need further explanation so you can fully appreciate the work. It's how you are wired, and again nothing wrong there.

In my case, I think too much info can ruin art -- e.g. Mona Lisa as brought up earlier. As an personal example, I was fearful I might find out some things in the docs for 2001 I didn't want to, that would ruin my appreciation for the work as a piece of art. I lucked out in that I still get to enjoy it on my level of understanding and interpretation. What I really wanted to learn from the docs was more about the technical side of making the movie rather than the meaning behind the story. I guess I'm a "box checker" in the area of films in the "how'd they do that?" sense.

It's perfectly fine to love, like, tolerate, not fully understand, not like or even hate this movie. Hell, I still haven't come around to appreciating Citizen Kane at anywhere near the level many have.




Doug

 

[wannab]

Perhaps I can enlighten you then a bit on some of Kubrick's thinking... It seems his vision of the movie is less metaphysical than mine. When asked (Playboy interview 1968) if the film had anything to do with God he replied 'everything', but went on to explain only in the sense that highly advanced aliens might share every characteristic we attribute to said God. Which, as I see it, would rule out mysticism entirely, since these godlike aliens would've developed from chemical ooze within the universe just like us. When he says 'every attribute' he must surely be omitting God's creator role.

Some other clues may be drawn from Kubrick's response to a viewer letter in which the writer concludes that the film is structured like Jung's dream structure, which consists of 4 acts, named by Jung as: Introduction, The Plot Thickens, Crisis, Resolution. The writer points out that the slab, which he calls 'knowledge', introduces the 4 Jungian dream acts.

Excerpts from the letter:

"2. The Plot Thickens - an overeducated doctor is congratulated on a completely innocuous speech, and he, in turn, congratulates his colleagues on a discovery which took no more initiative than a dog discovering a bone. Knowledge is turned against them. It deafens them. It overwhelms them. So, to discover its origins they send a ship, captained by a man of humility, calm under pressure, an artist; in short, a hero. Knowledge on board in the form of a computer tries to thwart him...

3. Crisis - the hero arrives at the point of discovery (monolith and stargate)... a more terrifying experience than his bout with the computer, for as we discover...

4. Resolution - the discovery is not of some new strange world but of himself...

But whose dream is it? Yours of course, but I think you asked yourself if you were so much different than the rest of us and you decided you were not and so you made a film.

-Frederic P. Lyman, California"

Kubrick responded, "Thank you for your fascinating note. You are very perceptive indeed."

"Fascinating" and "perceptive", but doesn't say correct. Gotta love those chess players! lol



Doug

 

[Bryancd]

Indeed. And partly for this technical reason: KubricK didn't just want good special effects, or better special effects than had gone before, but set himself the insane goal of making a movie where you coudn't tell visually that the shots even were special effects. He was quite clear about this. And by ****** did he succeed. Indeed there is nothing inferior about the space station and its motion to any such modelwork or motion in SW or anything since. If you were to film that space station today it simply could not be done any better than it appeared in 1968. This is ASTOUNDING. And everyone - especially SW fans - should be on their knees thanking Kubrick for lifting FX in a single bound to this level.

Yeah, this has always been my primary reaction to the film and the aspect of the film I mention most to people who ask me about it. I acknowledge the story is interesting but it's the methodical pace of the scenes in space on on the Discovery that really amaze..and bore me. Yes, watching how someone can jog around in artificial gravity created by a spinning section of the ship and how that would work can be tedious but by God it's correct. I have always been amazed how Kubrick got all of that right. and when there would been no gravity, there isn't, when there would be no sound, there isn't. When a pod is moving with small thrusters and takes forever to get anywhere, well just watch a NASA spacewalk, same thing. I am such a fan of real space and no other film has gotten space so right. That in and of itself was an amazing accomplishment considering the time and it looks perfect.

 

[DARTH SABER]

I have always been amazed how Kubrick got all of that right. and when there would been no gravity, there isn't,

Although I love the film, there is one major and blatant flaw in the film regarding gravity.

During the trip on baord the pan am shuttle we see theres' clearly no gravity. Things are floating around, Floyd has to use a zero gav toilet etc.
Kubrick remedies this by having the stewardess wear some kind of velcro gravity boots.

After the shuttle docks at the space station we clearly see there is artifical gravity due to the centrifugal force generated by the stations rotating motion.

Now, here's the major flaw...After the space station floyd and the rest of his team are in a small shuttle going to the location of the Monolith....The shuttle seems to have full gravity.
Even though they are near the surface of the mooin ()which does have gravity) there's no characteristic of the gravity on thge shuttle being any less than earth gravity.
One of the men even pours a cup of coffee with no problems.
You could easily say that the shuttle had some sort of unknown technology creating gravity, but then again, why wouldnt the Pan Am shuttle also have this technology?
Kubric also went out of his way to clearl;y show how the rotating space station is able to generate artificial gravity but the gravity on the small moon shuttle remains a mystery.
Why?

 

[Bryancd]

I never saw the Moon Suttle having gravity as they are all seated. And the Moon does have gravity, so traveling just above it's surface or sitting on it's surface one would experience 1/10 Earth gravity. So that would apply to this scene.

 

[wannab]

Although I love the film, there is one major and blatant flaw in the film regarding gravity.

During the trip on baord the pan am shuttle we see theres' clearly no gravity. Things are floating around, Floyd has to use a zero gav toilet etc.
Kubrick remedies this by having the stewardess wear some kind of velcro gravity boots.

After the shuttle docks at the space station we clearly see there is artifical gravity due to the centrifugal force generated by the stations rotating motion.

Now, here's the major flaw...After the space station floyd and the rest of his team are in a small shuttle going to the location of the Monolith....The shuttle has gravity.
You could easily say that the shuttle had some sort of unknown technology creating gravity, but then again, why wouldnt the Pan Am shuttle also have this technology?
Kubric also went out of his way to clearl;y show how the rotating space station is able to generate artificial gravity but the gravity on the small moon shuttle remains a mystery.
Why?

I think it's because the moons gravity is in play. I have to re-watch that scene now.


edit: Bry beat me to it.




Doug

 

[wannab]

I never saw the Moon Suttle having gravity as they are all seated. And the Moon does have gravity, so traveling just above it's surface or sitting on it's surface one would experience 1/10 Earth gravity. So that would apply to this scene.

Just a friendly heads up it is closer to 1/6th. :thumbsup



Doug

 

[Bryancd]

Just a friendly heads up it is closer to 1/6th. :thumbsup



Doug

Good catch, Doug!

 

[DARTH SABER]

I think it's because the moons gravity is in play. I have to re-watch that scene now.


edit: Bry beat me to it.




Doug

I edited my post while you guys were answering , I did mention the moon gravity in my edit and also pointed out that one of the guys was walking around the shuttle (with no lunar gravity effects) and they also pour coffee in a cup for Floyd with no lunar gravity effects.

 

[wannab]

I edited my post while you guys were answering , I did mention the moon gravity in my edit and also pointed out that one of the guys was walking around the shuttle (with no lunar gravity effects) and they also pour coffee in a cup for Floyd with no lunar gravity effects.

Brings up an interesting point -- what does liquid being poured look like at 1/6th earth gravity?



Doug

 

[CessnaDriver]

Brings up an interesting point -- what does liquid being poured look like at 1/6th earth gravity?



Doug

I recall one story.
Aldrin had a small communion kit he used on the moon in a private ceremony...

"In the radio blackout," he wrote later, "I opened the little plastic packages which contained the bread and the wine. I poured the wine into the chalice our church had given me. In the one-sixth gravity of the moon, the wine slowly curled and gracefully came up the side of the cup. Then I read the Scripture,

 

[Shadow345]

What is the general consensus on 2010: The Year We Make Contact ?