What do you think of 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-06-17 09:14pm

Kurgan wrote: "Making you think" and "letting your mind run away with the concepts" are what tends to mark good fantasy for me.

There's a difference between making you think and making you go 'OK what in Valen's name is that supposed to be about, it looks like somebody's acid trip'.
2001 was one of the few times where a novel based upon the movie as opposed to the other way round made a lot more sense than the movie did.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2006-06-17 09:36pm

It did, but that doesn't mean I didn't like the movie, or the ideas it made me think of after watching it.

Yes the extended "acid trip" was a bit much, but it wasn't so bad.

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2006-06-18 01:12pm

Exact thoughts? "Did I just waste nigh-on two hours of my life watching that?". Really. Incredibly dull, pointlessly meandering. With only the HAL scene being even vaguely coherent. And really... even that was underwhelming. It was a nice moment, "open the pod bay doors" and all, but it kinda... fizzled and went nowhere.

This is what happens when you toss two geniuses together, let them run away with their own pretensions and leave no threatening goons to clue-by-four them around the head.

It WAS unique. That's for sure. Which is definitely a point in it's favor.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-06-18 02:25pm

Uraniun235 wrote:HAL's easily the most sympathetic of all the Discovery crew.

That may have been the point, you know.

As for all you guys complaining about "boredom", good grief. Not all great movies are fast paced action flics, you know. You are judging the movie on incorrect criteria. Of course, slow moving art pieces may not be your thing, but that's no reason to judge a specific movie of that type in terms other than its genre.

As for the "acid trip, bullshit ending", I liked that as well, though again, some people don't like to wrap their imaginations around surreal visuals when going to the cinema.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2006-06-18 04:56pm

Lord Zentei wrote:You are judging the movie on incorrect criteria. Of course,

Nah, I disagree. The criteria in question here is "whether they enjoyed it or not.

slow moving art pieces may not be your thing, but that's no reason to judge a specific movie of that type in terms other than its genre.

Its genre is science fiction, and judged on those terms, it is a seriously mixed bag. Everything about the monolith is questionable.

As for the "acid trip, bullshit ending", I liked that as well, though again, some people don't like to wrap their imaginations around surreal visuals when going to the cinema.

And, for God's sake, take a look at when it was made! It's important to put things into their correct contexts, or nothing old makes sense. The "long boring space scenes" were necessary to establish the scene; in 2006 everyone knows "how space works." They also provided a great contrast with the "ultimate trip" scene at the end: concrete vs. abstract.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-06-18 05:02pm

Currald wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:You are judging the movie on incorrect criteria. Of course,
Nah, I disagree. The criteria in question here is "whether they enjoyed it or not.

In such terms one is judging the style more than the movie itself perse.

Currald wrote:
slow moving art pieces may not be your thing, but that's no reason to judge a specific movie of that type in terms other than its genre.
Its genre is science fiction, and judged on those terms, it is a seriously mixed bag. Everything about the monolith is questionable.

Its genre is also psychological thriller and art piece. Not all sci-fi need be like Star Wars.

Currald wrote:
As for the "acid trip, bullshit ending", I liked that as well, though again, some people don't like to wrap their imaginations around surreal visuals when going to the cinema.
And, for God's sake, take a look at when it was made! It's important to put things into their correct contexts, or nothing old makes sense. The "long boring space scenes" were necessary to establish the scene; in 2006 everyone knows "how space works."

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this: are you suggesting that the long space scenes were to show "how space works"?

Currald wrote:They also provided a great contrast with the "ultimate trip" scene at the end: concrete vs. abstract.

Ya.

frogcurry · Post by **frogcurry** » 2006-06-20 05:39pm

I'm enjoying an nice, warm comforting feeling knowing that a lot of intelligent, rational and sci-fi clued in people out there also found this film to be an overly long, ill-explained piece of tripe. Its nice to not be alone.

If Kubrick wasn't already dead I'd be happy to fix it. I once badgered my parents to let me video this "classic" when the BBC showed it on late night TV after reading the book, so I could watch it. I stayed in on a Saturday all exciting to watch it. I was almost in tears at the end (forgive me, I was young) I felt so betrayed. It could have been so good...

The acid trip was one of the best parts. Something was actually happening on the screen for a few minutes.

Big Orange · Post by **Big Orange** » 2006-06-20 06:26pm

Christs, frogcurry, I wasn't that disheartened when I sat through 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I found it to be rambling bullshit, but I found it to be watchable and wouldn't mind getting it on DVD.

archyros · Post by **archyros** » 2006-06-22 12:56pm

I love this movie.

First saw it when it was first released. I was age ten, sitting in the Pacific Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, a humongous screen, I was blown away!

Now I watch it whenever it is on.

But I have to agree about the stargate at the end, it has become boring to watch sometimes...

And there should never be sound in space. So much more dramatic to die out in the silent cold black. And it made the emergency entry into Discovery feel so much more like a truly deadly situation.

Great, great movie.

Omeros · Post by **Omeros** » 2006-06-22 01:26pm

In it's day it was a fabulous visual spectacle. I first saw this when I was about 16 and I was blown away. The 'stargate' sequence is a lot more effective in the cinema than on a TV screen.

SF doesn't have to be just about rayguns and space battles.

Vehrec · Post by **Vehrec** » 2006-06-22 02:21pm

I wasn't blown away when I saw it on the small screen. My dad seems to think it is the BEST SCIFI EV4R! though. I did find it interesting, but mych too confusing for my 14 year old mind. I kept wondering 'wait, what does THAT mean?'

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-06-22 09:35pm

I generally thought it was over all an interesting film but some of the scenes were too drawn out. They spent TOO MUCH time showing off their special effects of the period. Same problem as Star Trek TMP.

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2006-06-23 09:37am

Horrible pacing, and extremely boring compare to the book. Watching them run multiple laps in the ship; just wow. Every single scene dragged

Omeros · Post by **Omeros** » 2006-06-23 01:07pm

Spartan wrote: Watching them run multiple laps in the ship; just wow. Every single scene dragged

That was the point. These scenes were intended to show how tedious extended space travel was likely to be.

Faqa · Post by **Faqa** » 2006-06-23 04:50pm

Omeros wrote:
Spartan wrote: Watching them run multiple laps in the ship; just wow. Every single scene dragged
That was the point. These scenes were intended to show how tedious extended space travel was likely to be.

I see. So I suppose Full Metal Jacket should have put more focus on the sentry duties of the soldiers? I mean, just to show how dull sentry duty is?

I am watching entertainment, not a fucking documentary. The tedium of space travel is not entertaining, and does not make the movie any better.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2006-06-23 08:51pm

Faqa wrote:The tedium of space travel is not entertaining, and does not make the movie any better.

That's funny, given the current environment of furious masturbation over "omg so gritty so realistic" in modern television.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-06-23 08:59pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
Faqa wrote:The tedium of space travel is not entertaining, and does not make the movie any better.
That's funny, given the current environment of furious masturbation over "omg so gritty so realistic" in modern television.

There's a difference between realistic and gritty, and realistic and 'nothing whatsoever happens'.
Not that I believe modern TV has a particularly good grip on what actually is realistic, mind you.

Darth Sephiroth · Post by **Darth Sephiroth** » 2006-06-23 11:39pm

It's the same reason that most shows skip when the characters would go to the restroom or the like.

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2006-06-25 06:38pm

Spartan wrote:Horrible pacing, and extremely boring compare to the book. Watching them run multiple laps in the ship; just wow. Every single scene dragged

He made like two or three laps. The point was to set the scene. Where the fuck is he? How come he isn't floating around; they're in space, ain't they? Etc.

Plus, and this isn't in Kubrick's defense, that was a major special effects (we'd call it a practical effects scene today) scene, and I suspect Kubrick wanted to show it off.

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2006-06-25 07:12pm

Currald wrote:
Spartan wrote:Horrible pacing, and extremely boring compare to the book. Watching them run multiple laps in the ship; just wow. Every single scene dragged
He made like two or three laps. The point was to set the scene. Where the fuck is he? How come he isn't floating around; they're in space, ain't they? Etc.

It sure as hell shouldn't take two or three laps to get that point across. That was one of the main problems with the movie: it seemed as if it was written under the assumption that its audience was made up of complete and utter morons who needed to have every single plot point pounded into their heads with a sledgehammer, until the end when they just decided "fuck it" and threw a bunch of crap onto the screen that not only didn't provide any answers, it didn't even provoke any questions other than "what the hell were they thinking" and "how the hell is this movie so popular?"