• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Thread of WTF (Spoilers lol)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SappYoda

Member
I just saw the movie, and my face looks like this:

nFaEy.gif


I wanted to see the movie since all the references in Portal, Futurama, and other science fiction films, series and videogames. and see what the deal was and wow. Also I love all the Stanley Kubrick's movies I've seen so far, so this was a must for me.

Well... How can I start this?

Some group of monkeys have lost a pond to another group of monkeys. A monolith appears, the monkeys observe the monolith, then learn how to use objects as weapon and they reclaim their pond. The end.
j/k

Then we go to the future, a doctor travels to the moon to study with a group of doctors a foreign object. The government prevents access to the area and makes a cover story. The foreign objects ends up being a monolith like the one that appeared to the monkey. They approach the monolith, a loud high pitch sound is heard and looks like its hurting them. The end.
Of this part lol

And 18 months later. A group of astronauts is sent to Jupiter with a HAL 9000 computer in charge of monitoring the mission.

The film holds up really well in my opinion in the photography department since most scenes are quite beautiful and has a damn good image quality. Does not feel like an old movie at all, apart from the obvious old style of clothing and manners.

The problem is the pacing in my opinion. The movie is slow, and when I mean slow, I mean really slow. Thank god movie players got a jump forward button. Usually the movie is about the camera staring at some space scenery watching the earth, the moon and some space ship, approach a station veeeery slowly from different angles, while classical music plays.

Maybe in 1968 staring at space was the rage, but in 2011 its not a novelty anymore and its boring. Until this point the film feels like a documental.

The star of the movie is HAL 9000, and its definitively the best part of the movie. The interaction between the crew and the computer makes up for all the previous "slow" parts of the film.

The sole crew member who survives the disaster fights against the rouge AI like we all love and enjoy and we get a lot of the references from that Futurama episode and Portal. This part delivers like expected.

But then it happened. The movie turn into a 8 minute acid trip that makes no sense whatsoever and ends like a David Lynch movie throwing random shit to the screen until the film runs out, leaving a bad taste, and a bit of headache. I did not skip the acid trip and maybe I should have, the astronaut faces we get from time to time sums pretty much my reaction to that part. My mind is going.

It's been fun seeing how wrong they got life was going to be ten years ago.

What's your opinion on the movie?
 

Higgy

Member
Love it and "gasp" I even liked the sequel. Moves a little slow but is for me pretty much an engaging ride the whole way. Stanley was such a master.
 

SappYoda

Member
Higgy said:
Love it and "gasp" I even liked the sequel. Moves a little slow but is for me pretty much an engaging ride the whole way. Stanley was such a master.

Wait. There's a sequel? lol
 
Hated it. I thought it was Planet of the Apes or something when I first started it. The entire middle part of the movie was so boring I fell asleep like 5 or 6 times. Also the ending, what was up with that?!
 

Borgnine

MBA in pussy licensing and rights management
Usually the movie is about the camera staring at some space scenery watching the earth, the moon and some space ship, approach a station veeeery slowly from different angles, while classical music plays.

Maybe in 1986 staring at space was the rage, but in 2011 its not a novelty anymore and its boring.

Meant to be watched on an enormous screen.
 

Chichikov

Member
StuBurns said:
It's one of the best films ever made, maybe the best, and the end is awesome.
It's not even Kubrik's best film.

Though I do agree it's one of the best films ever made.

Also, the ending is great on a visual and thematic level, but it's confusing as all hell form a story perspective.
Which might not be a terrible thing, as reading the book (or watching the sequel) make it pretty clear that it's kinda stupid (at least when taken at face value).
 

joelseph

Member
Neuromancer said:
what was up with that?!

Closing in on the event horizon of a black hole your timeline begins to stretch out. He was simply passing into the black hole and that is how his mind experienced it.
 

Chichikov

Member
StuBurns said:
I disagree.
It's splitting hairs really.
Don't read it as a knock against 2001 in any shape or form.

icarus-daedelus said:
Didn't we have one of these last month?
We did, but do you really feel we talk too much Kubrick in this forum?
I guess we can always have another girlfriend (read: LOOK AT ME NERDS! I HAD SEX!) thread.
 

Oreoleo

Member
Chichikov said:
It's not even Kubrik's best film.

Though I do agree it's one of the best films ever made.
Which one do you think is?



Yeah, I guess this movie just isn't for some people, and I feel sorry for them. Basically the best movie of all time.
 
joelseph said:
Closing in on the event horizon of a black hole your timeline begins to stretch out. He was simply passing into the black hole and that is how his mind experienced it.
I know I'm just trolling, this is like the 3rd thread we've had on 2001 in about as many months. Thank you for your thoughtful response though, now I feel bad. =\
 
joelseph said:
Closing in on the event horizon of a black hole your timeline begins to stretch out. He was simply passing into the black hole and that is how his mind experienced it.
I must have missed the part when the black hole showed up then. From what I remembered he got into the pod and then tripped out. I'll rewatch it.
 

Oreoleo

Member
thezerofire said:
I must have missed the part when the black hole showed up then. From what I remembered he got into the pod and then tripped out. I'll rewatch it.

It might not be wise to compare the book with the movie, but in the book the laser light show is a result of Bowman coming into contact with the huge floating monolith in space, not a black hole.
 
Orellio said:
It might not be wise to compare the book with the movie, but in the book the laser light show is a result of Bowman coming into contact with the huge floating monolith in space, not a black hole.
either way I didn't see anything to cause the light show, hence my confusion about it
 

cj_iwakura

Member
I'm partial to Dr. Strangelove, but I've only seen that, part of Clockwork Orange, this, and Eyes Wide Shut(what a train wreck).
 

bud

Member
it's great, but i'd rather eyes wide shut or the shining instead. there are still a few kubricks i haven't seen yet, so it could very well end up being one of my least favorite kubricks.
 

Angry Fork

Member
The Shining is my favorite from Kubrick since i'm an atmosphere nut, and I have a love affair with creepy hotels/motels. Barry Lyndon is amazing as well though. The only Kubrick films I haven't seen yet are Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut. Lolita i'll see eventually but Eyes Wide Shut i'm apprehensive about because of people's mixed reactions to this very day. I don't want Kubrick's legacy to be tainted in my eyes =(
 

joelseph

Member
Orellio said:
It might not be wise to compare the book with the movie, but in the book the laser light show is a result of Bowman coming into contact with the huge floating monolith in space, not a black hole.

They fly to two completely different moons!
 

StuBurns

Banned
Angry Fork said:
The Shining is my favorite from Kubrick since i'm an atmosphere nut, and I have a love affair with creepy hotels/motels. Barry Lyndon is amazing as well though. The only Kubrick films I haven't seen yet are Lolita and Eyes Wide Shut. Lolita i'll see eventually but Eyes Wide Shut i'm apprehensive about because of people's mixed reactions to this very day. I don't want Kubrick's legacy to be tainted in my eyes =(
Lolita is pretty awesome. The 90s one is great too actually.
 

3rdman

Member
Some group of monkeys have lost a pond to another group of monkeys. A monolith appears, the monkeys observe the monolith, then learn how to use objects as weapon and they reclaim their pond. The end. j/k
Perhaps you missed out on the entire freakin' theme of the movie...The monolith imparts knowledge to the monkeys and the very first thing they learn is how to kill. The final scene with them as they retake the pond ends with one of the most daring juxtapositions ever done in film...The monkey tosses the bone (weapon) into the air and it turns into a space ship drawing a direct connection from our most primitive (and murderous) technology to space travel.

The monolith is (in essence) the forbidden fruit.
 

StuBurns

Banned
3rdman said:
Perhaps you missed out on the entire freakin' theme of the movie...The monolith imparts knowledge to the monkeys and the very first thing they learn is how to kill. The final scene with them as they retake the pond ends with one of the most daring juxtapositions ever done in film...The monkey tosses the bone (weapon) into the air and it turns into a space ship.

The monolith is (in essence) the forbidden fruit.
It's not a space ship, it's a space based weapon.
 

Dilly

Banned
The like the slow pacing in this movie, it just fits together with the vast loneliness and emptiness of space.

That 8 minute sequence is what I don't like about the movie. I get the concept of it, but that really took way too long.
 

An-Det

Member
2001 is a fantastic movie that took another watch for me to truly appreciate, but there are some sequences that overstay their welcome.
 

Oreoleo

Member
Angry Fork said:
The Shining is my favorite from Kubrick

I'm curious if you've read the book, because I read it before seeing the movie (Compared to 2001 where I saw the movie first) and the movie just isn't even close to being as good as the book. I've always wanted to go back and give the movie another shot but I honestly don't think my opinion would change much.

The quote from Stephen King says it all:

"Parts of the film are chilling, charged with a relentlessly claustrophobic terror, but others fall flat. Not that religion has to be involved in horror, but a visceral skeptic such as Kubrick just couldn't grasp the sheer inhuman evil of The Overlook Hotel. So he looked, instead, for evil in the characters and made the film into a domestic tragedy with only vaguely supernatural overtones. That was the basic flaw: because he couldn't believe, he couldn't make the film believable to others. What's basically wrong with Kubrick's version of The Shining is that it's a film by a man who thinks too much and feels too little; and that's why, for all its virtuoso effects, it never gets you by the throat and hangs on the way real horror should."

Maybe he goes a little hard on Kubrick there, but ultimately I think he's right. He made the movie too much about Jack Nicholson's character instead of the, uh.. forces of the hotel. Also he basically rewrote the ending and it's not nearly as good as what transpired in the book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom