6
   

2001: A Space Odyssey

 
 
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:50 am
I love this movie. It is one of my all time favorites. One common criticism of it is that it's hard to follow. I was very lucky. When I was 14 or 15 and the book and movie came out, my mother brought me home the book. She had gotten it for free through connections in the publishing industry. I read it immediately. Whereas the director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, makes the viewer connect a lot of dots, the book does not. It explicitly explains the whole thing. So, when I went to see the movie a few weeks later, I had already read the book, which was helpful. I have read speculations as to what different elements of the story mean, but those wondering need only read the book to find out. For example, Clarke, the author, explicitly tells you that the monoliths are machines left behind by aliens who had passed by our solar system to give our ancestors a little push in the right direction.

The representation of future technology and of space in the movie were outstanding by the standards of 1968. I believe that this movie permanently raised the ante for the quality of the visuals in subsequent science fiction movies. Two things I like about the movie are that (1) it shows the difficulties that our ancestors had to endure to survive and eventually tame a world, and (2) it shows mankind flourishing and expanding outward into space.

Admittedly, this is an oversimplification, but I am getting ready for work and don't have the time to phrase this any better. Any "2001" fans out there?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 839 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 07:08 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
For example, Clarke, the author, explicitly tells you that the monoliths are machines left behind by aliens who had passed by our solar system to give our ancestors a little push in the right direction.


Clarke wrote a short story, "The Sentinel," upon which Kubrick based his concept for the motion picture. Kubrick was looking for a theme and a vehicle for a good science fiction movie. He and Clarke met, and Clarke gave him some of his short stories to read. Kubrick selected "The Sentinel." In the short story, an artifact is found on the moon, which seems to be protected by a "force field." When that field is breached, the device sends a powerful signal out into the cosmos. Kubrick, of course, greatly expanded the idea.

Quote:
The representation of future technology and of space in the movie were outstanding by the standards of 1968.


The movie had only about 70 special effects. I think it was far better in terms of portraying space and space travel, compared, for example, to Star Wars, which had hundreds of special effects and looked hokey from start to finish.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 07:10 am
@Brandon9000,
I loved it when I saw it, as did all my friends. I was pretty young and had never seen a Kubrick before. I read the book somewhat later and it did help explain some things, but the gist was pretty clear.

I found the extreme cerebral nature of the film fascinating.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 08:05 am
I was in Boston in the summer of 68 and saw 2001 at the Cinerama.
I'd estimate a quarter of the audience was stoned.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 08:07 am
@George,
That few, huh?
George
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 08:10 am
@Setanta,
May have been more. I based my estimate on the volume of "Oh wow, man"
during select sequences. There was an aroma factor, too, but that can be
deceiving.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 08:39 am
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the film.

When it was out in theaters...I saw it 13 times.

I've seen it at least as many times on television.

Hope that answers your question, Brandon.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 08:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Anything with Leonard Rossiter in it is worth seeing.

0 Replies
 
coluber2001
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 10:10 am
One of the things I liked about the movie was its vagueness. Everybody seemed to have their own idea about what it meant. That most of us were wrong doesn't seem to matter, because we were thinking. And being a mystic, more or less, I don't need an explanation for everything.

For me, about half the movie was the music; I was entranced by Richard Strauss, Ligeti, Khachaturian, and even Johann Strauss. The whole movie was almost like a religious experience; it transcended itself. Bravo!
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 03:18 pm
@Brandon9000,
I love this movie too. But it is slow. I find that I like it a lot more in retrospect than I did when I first saw it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 03:41 pm
@coluber2001,
coluber2001 wrote:
For me, about half the movie was the music; I was entranced by Richard Strauss, Ligeti, Khachaturian, and even Johann Strauss. The whole movie was almost like a religious experience; it transcended itself. Bravo!


A good point--i had forgotten about the wonderful score.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » 2001: A Space Odyssey
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 12:11:51