2001: A space overature.

[on:]

The overature before 2001: Space oddessy.  Personally I think it's undue and monotonus, to the point where I wonder why Kubrick put it in (since he'd only put it back in during the beyond the infinite scene).  Have you any strong opinions?

Poll?  Naaaaaa.

[Reply #1 on:]

You're trying to fool me goldfinger!.

[Reply #2 on:]

You can enjoy crap like 2fast 2 furious if you want.

I prefer 2001

[Reply #3 on:]

I love 2k Space Oddessy.


Daaaaaaaaaa daaaaaaaaaaaaa dah dah, dah dah daaa daaa daaaaaaaaaa!

[Reply #4 on:]

I don't understand what's the big deal about 2001.  I think it's the absolute, boringest movie ever.  I spent more time speeding through it than actually watching it.  The only good part in the whole movie was the part where the HAL supercomputer rebelled.  I mean, what's the point of showing 20 minutes of people dressed in monkey costumes?  Or showing an hours worth of things just floating through space?  Could somebody please explain to me what the big deal is behind the movie 2001?

[Reply #5 on:]

It's really more of an experience than an actual film with a normal beginig middle and an end.

[Reply #6 on:]

To be honest, I didn't really see much of it past the space station when Blue Danube plays. Of the 2001 references I remember, the one where the seniors made fun of us freshmen was the most vivid. "Hey, it's the Space Odyssey Class of 2001!"

[Reply #7 on:]

I rememeber seeing 2001 when it was first released (I still have the brochure that the theatre gave to everyone in the audience).  It's hard for young people to understand the impact that this film had on the industry.  No one had ever seen visual images like it before.  I was stunned by what I saw.  I was also confused by what I heard.  I loved the classical music, but 20 minutes into the film I'm starting to wonder if there is any dialog in this film! 

I asked my brother if he understood the film; he thought he did, but he wasn't sure.  I know that I didn't get it.  It made you think, if nothing else.

An interesting side note.  Until it went out of business, Pan Am airlines maintained a list of people who had expressed an interested in flying on the "clipper" if the service ever became available.  Too bad, really.

[Reply #8 on:]

Please, please, please, please, see "2001" more then once before you trash talk it.  The first time I didn't like it (I was more or less neutral to I...I simply didn't understand what was going on), but the second time it made more sense and was more enjoyable, and the third time around it became one of my fave movies ever.  As M Jackson said, its more of an experience then your normal "beginning, middle, and end" kind of movie.  Trust me, it will be better if you watch it again.

[Reply #9 on:]

Meh, then I'll have to watch it again soon, in that case.  I guess I'm just not a fan of Stanley Kubric.  I also found The Shining to be rather boring and slow.  The thing about 2001 was that it was revolutionary in special effects, because it was released before Star Wars and other movies with complex special effects.  The problem is, I grew up in this era, when CGI special effects are common and expected.  So I wouldn't really get anything out of 2001.  But anyway, I'll try to see it again within the next few months to see if I change my mind the second time around.

[Reply #10 on:]

Did ya'll watch the follow up with Roy Schnieder? Or whatever his name is... it sucked.

And for all you that liked Space Oddessy 2001... check out Solaris... the whole movie seemed like a homage to Kubric.

[Reply #11 on:]

I can't knock 2001 for it's content.  I'm sure that once I figure out what the hell it's supposed to mean, I'll list it as one of the 5 greatest films ever made.  I just wonder why Kubrik put in this insanely long overature using music he would end up re-using twice more (Intermission, Beyond the infinite).

Show spoiler

Anyway, the only explination I can gather from 2001 is that the monolith is God, or God is inside the monolith.  I'm hesitant to commit to it, because I know how existential much of Kubrick's work is, but come on.  It granted man wisdom, it witnessed the birth of the universe, and projected man into a heavenly being.

Anyway, I'm sure there's some other explination for it (see my first two sentances).  Whatever it is, I just wish he'd have skipped the overature.

And now, a completely unrelated sig.

[Reply #12 on:]

 

Originally posted by kip:
And for all you that liked Space Oddessy 2001... check out Solaris... the whole movie seemed like a homage to Kubric.

The origianl Russian Solaris or the Sodebergh version?

Actually, both versions and 2001 have a lot in common, mainly they can all be pretty boring at times, but they lure you in.  It's like they hypnotize you so you can't look away.

EDIT: @Pitt: I may be wrong on this, but I beleive the overture is a home video-only thing.  In the theaters, it was played as people came into the theatre to get them in the mood for the film.

[Reply #13 on:]

I much more enjoyed the book and it's sequels 2010 (also movie) 2061 and 3001(about frank being frozen in  comet and coming back in the year 3001(sound familiar)

[Reply #14 on:]

2001 is a classic, great film, although the bit with the apes is over-long.

[Reply #15 on:]

Has anyone else read the book?  Is it better than the movie?

[Reply #16 on:]

the book and the movie go hand in hand and i dont think you can fully understand one without the other

edit: actually thats not quite true, you could happily read the book and not see the movie but then you would miss out on a great flick, but if you saw the movie without reading the book(evil fox im looking at you*)
you'll start to make comments like: that was boring and/or crap. read

*look behind you

[Reply #17 on:]

 

Originally posted by Evil Fox Exec:
I don't understand what's the big deal about 2001.  I think it's the absolute, boringest movie ever.

i agree. watching that movie made me long for death, or some drugs to make it enjoyable.

[Reply #18 on:]

YES!  Thank you so much, VelourFog!  Somebody actually agrees with me!  HOORAY!  Although in my case, I didn't long for death or for drugs.  I just suddenly understood even better why the fast forward button was invented.

[Reply #19 on:]

 

Originally posted by VelourFog:
 i agree. watching that movie made me long for death, or some drugs to make it enjoyable.

Argh!  Just watch it again!  I promise it gets better.

I don't see how people can bash something that actually has an artful sense to it (even if it doesn't entirely make sense at first), over crap like "The Exorcist" or "The Sweetest Thing".  Bash "The Matrix", not Kubrick.

[Reply #20 on:]

2001 is a masterpiece of the cinema.. By sure the best sci-fi movie ever...

You have to understood the transition between the bone and the satellite...

The Blue danube representating the high precission (like a ballet) of space maneuvres (Arthur C. Clarke was NASA consultor).

And better of all. HAL9000 one of the best "bad guys".. he wasn`t evil.. only confused (as explained in the book or/and in the sequel 2010) but HAL 9000 has some of the best dialog lines of the cinema history like:

-HAL, i`m not going to discuss this with you anymore.. open the hatch..now!
-Dave... this conversation has no sense anymore... goodbye.

And if you have saw "Love & Rocket" there is plenty of references..like Bender singing "Dasy" or "i`m afraid i can`t do that Leela"

[Reply #21 on:]

Hey, you wanna know something, DotheBartman?  I actually do bash the Matrix, just not here in PEEL.  I hate that movie so much.  I never saw the whole thing, because I just got so horribly bored by it that I couldn't continue watching it.

Anyway, back to the original subject.  I'll take your suggestion and try to see 2001 again.  Although I'm in college now, so I'll have to wait till I go home for vacation.  Then I'll see whether I should continue bashing it or not.  By the way, Javier, you brought up something else worth mentioning.  I actually watched 2001 just to understand the sci-fi references in Futurama better.  Love and Rocket made absolutely no sense before I actually watched 2001.  But in the process, I discovered that 2001 was really boring.  Anyway, as I said, I'll just go watch it again and see if my opinion changes.   

[Reply #22 on:]

 

Originally posted by Javier Lopez:
And better of all. HAL9000 one of the best "bad guys".. he wasn`t evil.. only confused (as explained in the book or/and in the sequel 2010)

if you have to read a book, or watch a sequel to fully enjoy a movie, then, to me, that movie is not that good. a movie should be self contained enough that it can stand on it's own.

[Reply #23 on:]

I agree.  I mean, what's the point, then, of watching the movie in the first place?

[Reply #24 on:]

I'm going to step in here for a moment, and just say that I agree with Velour Fog and Evil Fox Exec with some of their points, ie, if you have to read a book to understand some of what's going on in a movie, then it doesn't stand on its own. 

However, that being said, 2001 is a beautifully photographed, nice FX movie, especially for it's time.  I think that it does give a fairly realistic view of space travel, (astronauts being bored, spceships move slowly, at least as far as interplanetary distance goes) and is great to watch if you have a rainy saturday afternoon to kill.

Is it a pretty good movie, yes.  Is it the greatest sf film ever, not by half.  But, it's not bad.

P.S. Full-Metal Jacket, is Kubricks best film, imo.

[Reply #25 on:]

When '2001' first came out in 1968, even a lot of movie critics at the time could not agree on what the movie was about, or if it was a great or a terrible film...

It definitely has stood the test of time to become a genuine classic -- like The Wizard of Oz, and the first Star Wars movie.

And the visuals in '2001' still look as fresh as they did back in '68. IMO, many newer SFX films don't hold up as long or well, cause the stuff in 'em gets so overused in other films (e.g. - like 'bullet time').

My other fave Kubrick film is Dr, Strangelove...

President Muffley: "Gentlemen - you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

[Reply #26 on:]

Okay, I'm bumping this thread up because I took DotheBartman's advice to heart and saw it once again.  And this time, I kept my hands off the fast-forward button when watching it.  And what can I say about it?  This time around, it was MUCH BETTER!  I did some research on the film before and after I saw it, and that helped a ton.  The first time I saw it, I thought it was too long, and I was taking everything literally.  Now I know that everything's symbolic, like the monolith, and the psychedelic ending.  I read that the monolith was put there by alien beings, and it had different meanings, depending on the which part of the movie it was (i.e. the first monolith taught apes how to use tools and become higher beings, the second one was to signal to the aliens how far mankind came, the third was a wormhole of sorts, and the fourth was to turn man into an even higher being.)  And now I understand the connection between the bone and the satellite, in that they're both tools to allow man to achieve greater things.

Anyway, point is, I'm converted.  I now like this movie, because I now know that you're not supposed to watch it like you would a normal movie.  Except I still think that that ape stuff at the beginning was too long.  Oh, well.   

[Reply #27 on:]

 

Originally posted by dr_Dean_in _Oz:
the book and the movie go hand in hand and i dont think you can fully understand one without the other

edit: actually thats not quite true, you could happily read the book and not see the movie but then you would miss out on a great flick, but if you saw the movie without reading the book(evil fox im looking at you*)
you'll start to make comments like: that was boring and/or crap. read

*look behind you

i fully agree. the movie without the book is probably rather boring. but with the book, it fricking rocks.
and i really like those extremely drawn-out, slow scenes.

amazingly, i hardly remember anything from the book but lots from the movie.   

 

Originally posted by moonbus69:
My other fave Kubrick film is Dr, Strangelove...

President Muffley: "Gentlemen - you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

yeah, dr. strangelove is a great movie, and along with 2001: a space odyssey and clockwork orange it's one of my fav kubrick movies.


------------------
resistance is futile.
(if <1 ohm)

[Reply #28 on:]

I watch 2001 like some people read poems.

[Reply #29 on:]

 

Originally posted by Evil Fox Exec:
(i.e. the first monolith taught apes how to use tools and become higher beings   

The Monolith also taught the apes to use the tools to kill.

What once was petty bickering between the two ape species turned into a bloodbath at the hands of the "enlightened ones."

So much for higher beings.

2001 = one of the greatest movies ever, and a class A mindfuck. 

[Reply #30 on:]

My dads interpretation of the ending was that, its a theory of evoloution, it came and taught the apes, and at the end its like an embryo, as if its the next step in the evoloutionary process after man. i think thats what he meant anyway

[Reply #31 on:]

Yeah, that's what I think it means, too.  I know the ending is symbolic for the next level of the human race.

By the way, Spice Weasel, my university library has several entire books over interpreting 2001.  It read that when the ape throws the bone into the air and it becomes a satellite, it's not actually a satellite.  It's actually a nuclear bomb.  In Kubrick's vision of the year 2001, Russia (well, since it was still the cold war when the movie was made, it's be the USSR) and the US are in a nuclear stalemate.  They're floating bombs over each other so that neither would attack the other.  Anyway, the point is, is that you're right, the bone is also a tool to kill.  That's another connection between the bone and the satellite.  I guess it's human advancement used in a negative way. 

Anyway, I'm glad I watched this movie again and converted.  It's a good movie, because it's deep, subtle, and they don't shove the meaning of it in your face. 

Although the premise of the movie is a bit scary.  In the movie, humanity is quite simply and experiment done by aliens!

[Reply #32 on:]

You really should watch 2010 as well, Leah.     It helps explain a lot of stuff from the first film.  (HAL's behavior, for instance.)

[Reply #33 on:]

Yeah, I actually was considering watching 2010 sometime soon.  Is the movie just as good as the original, or a bit worse?

[Reply #34 on:]

Well, which one is the better film depends on who you ask.

One thing to keep in mind though, is that 2010 isn't, strictly speaking, a sequel to the film version of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  2010 adheres more closely to the books than it does to the first film, so there are some discrepancies between the two films in places where the film version of 2001 diverges from the book.

[Reply #35 on:]

was it still directed by kubrick?

[Reply #36 on:]

2010 was directed by Peter Hyams.

[Reply #37 on:]

2010 is an easy film to watch..it took me some time to finally get through 2001. 2010 has a complete story line and a great ending. no long drawn out  slow motion musical scores and no apes. give it a try.

[Reply #38 on:]

But is it a genuine sequel, were both films based on books, or was 2010 just some guys idea to give awnsers to 2001

[Reply #39 on:]

Actually, I read that the book and the movie 2001 were written at the same time.  The release of the book was to accompany the release of the movie, or so.  I know that in the book, it explains what the monolith is for, for example.  That's why there are some discrepencies between the book and the movie.  The book was based on an earlier script of the movie.

Now, I'm assuming that the book 2010 was released before the movie, and the the movie is based on the book.  I'll give 2010 a shot.  I can't watch it now, though, because my university library doesn't have it.  I'm assuming that the reason why my university's library has a copy of the movie 2001 is because people majoring in film studies might need to see it.  I'll have to wait till I have vacation, so that I can go to my regular library and borrow a copy of 2010.  Anyway, the fact that there aren't apes and that you don't need to do research to figure out what the movie means sounds great.  I'll take your advice and see it as soon as I can.