• 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.
3

3rdman

Member
StuBurns said:
It's not a space ship, it's a space based weapon. Looks you missed out on the entire freakin' theme of the movie...
Click to expand...
That particular space ship is a weapon? I thought it was a transport...in any case, my point stands and you are only being argumentative...nice try at getting a rise out of me though.
 
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
Orellio said:
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.
Click to expand...
I started reading the book after because I was such a big fan of the movie. I think I got a little bit past the part when he goes for the interview but haven't continued reading yet. I really want to though and will eventually. I heard lots of people dislike what Kubrick did though which was essentially chop up a lot of stuff from the book I guess? I just don't want to enjoy the book so much that it retroactively ruins the movie for me lol.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
3rdman said:
That particular space ship is a weapon? I thought it was a transport...in any case, my point stands and you are only being argumentative...nice try at getting a rise out of me though.
Click to expand...
I was joking with the quote bit, which is why I removed it because it wasn't that clear. But yes, it is a space based weapon.
 
O

Oreoleo

Member
StuBurns said:
I was joking with the quote bit, which is why I removed it because it wasn't that clear. But yes, it is a space based weapon.
Click to expand...

What evidence is there that it's a weapon? Even though the monkey throws a weapon into the air, I think it's more symbolic as a tool (ie, the monolith gave the monkeys the mental capacity to use the bone as tool) and the quick cut is just a way of saying that the spaceship is an evolution of the tools that we've learned to use as a species. Of course our interpretations are not mutually exclusive, but the 2nd half of the movie is all about space travel and exploration. Making the spaceship a weapon seems kind of ancillary.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
Orellio said:
What evidence is there that it's a weapon? Even though the monkey throws a weapon into the air, I think it's more symbolic as a tool (ie, the monolith gave the monkeys the mental capacity to use the bone as tool) and the quick cut is just a way of saying that the spaceship is an evolution of the tools that we've learned to use as a species. Of course our interpretations are not mutually exclusive, but the 2nd half of the movie is all about space travel and exploration. Making the spaceship a weapon seems kind of ancillary.
Click to expand...
Because they've openly discussed it.
 
C

ChoklitReign

Member
I hate slow movies yet this is my favorite movie of all time. IMO the slowest parts are the beginning Earth dialogues and the way-too-long-yet-fucking-awesome ending (plus a few random moments on the Discovery). I manage to be engaged most of the time because of the unbeatable cinematography. The space sequences have a screensaver property to them.

It's not a movie for everyone, and neither is any classic for that manner. The hardest classics for me to enjoy are the long crime ones, like The Godfather and Taxi Driver.
 
B

big ander

Member
Did OP seriously:
1) say he fast-forwarded
2) make a long post solely summarizing the plot to a film that's been out for 45 years
3) think a thread was necessary for this when the movie watching thread is so active

ChoklitReign said:
I hate slow movies yet this is my favorite movie of all time. IMO the slowest parts are the beginning Earth dialogues and the way-too-long-yet-fucking-awesome ending (plus a few random moments on the Discovery). I manage to be engaged most of the time because of the unbeatable cinematography. The space sequences have a screensaver property to them.

It's not a movie for everyone, and neither is any classic for that manner. The hardest classics for me to enjoy are the long crime ones, like The Godfather and Taxi Driver.
Click to expand...
Taxi Driver is under 2 hours long.
 
Death Dealer

Death Dealer

Member
Angry Fork said:
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 =(
Click to expand...

Eyes Wide Shut is a good movie. Definitely worth seeing, especially if you're a Kubrick fan.
 
SappYoda

SappYoda

Member
big ander said:
Did OP seriously:
1) say he fast-forwarded
2) make a long post solely summarizing the plot to a film that's been out for 45 years
3) think a thread was necessary for this when the movie watching thread is so active
Click to expand...

1) I felt the space vistas were too long, and did nothing but add ambiance to the movie. But after minutes and minutes staring at space (we are on space I get it) I skipped to see what happened afterwards. Once HAL appeared I did not skip once.

2) My original post was only my opinion. I though it was too short so I added my interpretation of the plot afterwards.

3) After seeing the ending, my mind was gone. Not happening again I promise.

I feel like I didn't made myself clear. I really enjoyed the movie.
 
J

JGS

Banned
SappYoda said:
Maybe in 1986 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.

What's your opinion on the movie?
Click to expand...
OK, I admit that made me lol.

I love the movie- primarily for how well put together it is. It really is flawless in that regard. However, I can't really connect to it.

In no way is it in my all time favorites list although I get why it is in others.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Max Armstrong said:
O83Sb.jpg
Click to expand...
Indeed.
Man, I used to think I'm all special and stuff for liking Barry Lyndon.

I'm obviously just kidding, I really loving the fact that this movie seem to be getting more of the recognition it deserves.
 
B

big ander

Member
SappYoda said:
1) I felt the space vistas were too long, and did nothing but add ambiance to the movie. But after minutes and minutes staring at space (we are on space I get it) I skipped to see what happened afterwards. Once HAL appeared I did not skip once.

2) My original post was only my opinion. I though it was too short so I added my interpretation of the plot afterwards.

3) After seeing the ending, my mind was gone. Not happening again I promise.

I feel like I didn't made myself clear. I really enjoyed the movie.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you enjoyed it, I'm of the opinion that you can't truly judge a movie unless you've seen all of it.
 
N

Narag

Member
Chichikov said:
Indeed.
Man, I used to think I'm all special and stuff for liking Barry Lyndon.

I'm obviously just kidding, I really loving the fact that this movie seem to be getting more of the recognition it deserves.
Click to expand...

I'll end up watching this soon if only for how highly you've praised it time and time again.
 
N

Narag

Member
Max Armstrong said:
Take notes of the cinematography, you will be blown away.
Click to expand...

Will do. Read it was all natural lighting too, correct? Sounds like a real treat.


Edit: Had some amazon credit so ordered the Barry Lyndon BRD as well as Once Upon a Time in the West for about $17.
 
J

Jack Scofield

Member
StuBurns said:
Because they've openly discussed it.
Click to expand...

While it's true that the satellites were originally intended to be orbital nuclear platforms, Kubrick himself has distanced himself away from any specific interpretation. From Wikipedia:

Kubrick, notoriously reluctant to provide any explanation of his work, never publicly stated the intended functions of the orbiting satellites, preferring instead to let the viewer surmise what their purpose might be.
Click to expand...

Basically, they were supposed to be nuclear bombs, but at some point Kubrick decided to back off from this explanation and instead purposely removed most references to the satellites being bombs.

So they are bombs and they aren't bombs, depending on the viewer. Neither interpretation is more valid than the other, especially considering the changes Kubrick made to deliberately make the satellites' function ambiguous.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
Jack Scofield said:
While it's true that the satellites were originally intended to be orbital nuclear platforms, Kubrick himself has distanced himself away from any specific interpretation. From Wikipedia:



So they are bombs and they aren't bombs, depending on the viewer. Neither interpretation is more valid than the other, especially considering the changes Kubrick made to deliberately make the satellites' function ambiguous.
Click to expand...
What changes?
 
T

tedtropy

$50/hour, but no kissing on the lips and colors must be pre-separated
Treefingers said:
Personally I think Full Metal Jacket is Kubrick's best.
Click to expand...

Second half doesn't live up to the first, but I do love the movie.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
Jack Scofield said:
Here's a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Military_nature_of_orbiting_satellites
Click to expand...
The only thing in there that really suggest any change of intent is him referring to it as a ship in an interview years later. Removing the VO doesn't change it's purpose at all. Especially if it's as that article states, to distance the film from Strangelove and to aside a debate from the recent Russian/American relations. If he'd also changed the cut maybe, but as it is, I don't see why anyone would think the actual intent changed, just how implicit it is.
 
Insane Metal

Insane Metal

Member
I like the movie, but not as much as the people in this thread do. I think it's just a good movie. And I agree about the pacing, I almost slept while watching it.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Orellio said:
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.
Click to expand...

I always thought if they could take the first half of the book and the second half of the movie, it would be perfect.

Not to dis King, but psychological terror is a hell of a lot more scary than supernatural terror. The ending of the book is a fizzle, the ending of the movie has me riveted. And that's because the first half of the book is largely psychological terror.
 
DiscoJer

DiscoJer

Member
I think part of the appeal of the space scenes is that it was the first (and really still only) realistic depiction of what actual spaceflight might be like in the future. Okay, probably 50 years too early, as commercial space flight is really just starting up now.

Anyway, not everything has to be created for those with short attention spans.
 
D

Dipper145

Member
Was so excited to finally watch this movie, because of everyones favourable opinions of it.

Most boring slow paced movie I've probably ever watched. Came out of it feeling kind of angry because I felt like everyone had played a joke on my by telling me how good it was.


If the movie were condensed down to like 45 minutes I think it would have been significantly better.
 
C

ChoklitReign

Member
Dipper145 said:
Was so excited to finally watch this movie, because of everyones favourable opinions of it.

Most boring slow paced movie I've probably ever watched. Came out of it feeling kind of angry because I felt like everyone had played a joke on my by telling me how good it was.


If the movie were condensed down to like 45 minutes I think it would have been significantly better.
Click to expand...
90 minutes is the minimum time I would accept, given the dense philosophical allegories. A good abridged version would allocate ~15 minutes for The Dawn of Man, ~15 minutes for the Star Gate, and the rest takes place on the Discovery and the moon.
 
K

kehs

Banned
Between this and Blade runner, I don't know which to pick for 2nd and 3rd most over rated pieces of tripe.
 
R

RyanDG

Member
Copernicus said:
Between this and Blade runner, I don't know which to pick for 2nd and 3rd most over rated pieces of tripe.
Click to expand...

Even though I disagree with you, I have to ask what would #1 be then?
 
U

umop_3pisdn

Member
I have seen some films with some fucking agonizing pacing, and 2001 is not even close to being one of them. Some of you probably need to exercise more mental discipline.
 
G

googleplex

Member
StuBurns said:
It's one of the best films ever made, maybe the best, and the end is awesome.
Click to expand...
Everything in this post is a lie!

2001 is a filmed beautifully!

But that being said, the acting, pacing and story fucking sucks. Most over rated film in history. 2010 is better in every way except the cinematography.
 
T

Treefingers

Member
googleplex said:
Everything in this post is a lie!

2001 is a filmed beautifully!

But that being said, the acting, pacing and story fucking sucks. Most over rated film in history. 2010 is better in every way except the cinematography.
Click to expand...
LOL

This thread keeps on giving
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
googleplex said:
Everything in this post is a lie!

2001 is a filmed beautifully!

But that being said, the acting, pacing and story fucking sucks. Most over rated film in history. 2010 is better in every way except the cinematography.
Click to expand...
Well we all know that's just not accurate.
 
E

Expendable.

Member
I can't wait in 40 years, similar threads will pop up each week for this film:

the-tree-of-life-movie-poster-02.jpg


At least we are able to experience the above masterpiece in the theaters now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Zack Snyder's Rebel Moon: Part Two - The Scargiver | Rotten Watch
Community 2
54
4K
jason10mm replied
Starfield Q&A on Discord Details
15
2K
balls of snow replied
Starfield Devs Q&A Session
37
3K
Hendrick's replied
Sea of Stars - Review Thread !
2 3 4 5
236
18K
delfrickintree replied
Starfield traits list: Here are the effects of every trait in the game
News Hype
43
7K
Topher replied
Top Bottom