|
|
Post by Popeye Doyle on Mar 20, 2017 6:57:15 GMT
This whole sequence goes on a bit too long. Five minutes would have it done. Then again, it's Kubrick and I'm just a pleb.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jonesy1 on Mar 20, 2017 6:58:30 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film.
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 20, 2017 7:35:47 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film. Same here... I thought the special effects in the first film, was great. The plot was interesting... But the minutes upon minutes of having no dialog was boring... And I found the end of the film confusing, and unsatisfying. Still do... The second film didn't have those same flaws. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 20, 2017 17:07:39 GMT
This whole sequence goes on a bit too long. Five minutes would have it done. Then again, it's Kubrick and I'm just a pleb. It's actually among my 5 favorite movies but I would have to agree with you on this.
Then again, I am just a mere mortal.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Mar 20, 2017 17:25:29 GMT
2001 was such a difficult film for me to rate. I love sections of it and thought other sections were poor. I felt it lost it's way in places or i lost it's way but the section on Discovery One is brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by bd74 on Mar 20, 2017 19:32:19 GMT
I think the issue with 2001 is that Kubrick didn't know how to explain the concept well. The concept of course being of an extraterrestrial civilization guiding man to his ultimate destination -- to evolve into the "starchild" or whatever. For someone who watches 2001 for the first time and knows nothing about the story, they'll think it's just some weird art movie.
And also, the notion of a stargate or a wormhole was not something that the general public was familiar with until about maybe 10 or 15 years ago. So, anybody watching the stargate sequence before that time would probably think "What's the meaning all those colored lights?".
Kubrick also didn't do a good job explaining the monoliths or their purpose(s). In the "Jupiter and beyond the infinite" segment, you just see David Bowman in a pod near Jupiter and then the stargate light show automatically begins, but I think in the short story that the movie was based on, Bowman actually enters into the monolith itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 20, 2017 20:28:54 GMT
I think the issue with 2001 is that Kubrick didn't know how to explain the concept well. The concept of course being of an extraterrestrial civilization guiding man to his ultimate destination -- to evolve into the "starchild" or whatever. For someone who watches 2001 for the first time and knows nothing about the story, they'll think it's just some weird art movie. And also, the notion of a stargate or a wormhole was not something that the general public was familiar with until about maybe 10 or 15 years ago. So, anybody watching the stargate sequence before that time would probably think "What's the meaning all those colored lights?". Kubrick also didn't do a good job explaining the monoliths or their purpose(s). In the "Jupiter and beyond the infinite" segment, you just see David Bowman in a pod near Jupiter and then the stargate light show automatically begins, but I think in the short story that the movie was based on, Bowman actually enters into the monolith itself. Kubrick purposely left it ambiguous imo and that is what I love about the movie. The story that was written along side explains everything and he could have easily done the same in the film but chose not to. I always thought Dave was transported into another dimention by a higher power, which he kind of is as you said. I also thought the starchild was his evolution into a higher existence through death. The child appears as if looking down onto Earth and I took that as to mean we are all still children in our POV of reality and existence.
The monoliths I just took as being guides and teachers of sorts.
The mystery of the movie is why it is so great.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Mar 20, 2017 20:39:33 GMT
Watch it high on a huge screen with blaring sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 20, 2017 22:04:27 GMT
Watch it high on a huge screen with blaring sound.  |
|
|
|
Post by bonerxmas on Mar 20, 2017 23:24:35 GMT
I think the issue with 2001 is that Kubrick didn't know how to explain the concept well. The concept of course being of an extraterrestrial civilization guiding man to his ultimate destination -- to evolve into the "starchild" or whatever. For someone who watches 2001 for the first time and knows nothing about the story, they'll think it's just some weird art movie. And also, the notion of a stargate or a wormhole was not something that the general public was familiar with until about maybe 10 or 15 years ago. So, anybody watching the stargate sequence before that time would probably think "What's the meaning all those colored lights?". Kubrick also didn't do a good job explaining the monoliths or their purpose(s). In the "Jupiter and beyond the infinite" segment, you just see David Bowman in a pod near Jupiter and then the stargate light show automatically begins, but I think in the short story that the movie was based on, Bowman actually enters into the monolith itself. not just the short story, it is all explained in the original screenplay, but kubrick just threw it out, fortunately for him this was the LSD era and people were watching the movie on drugs so they didnt care, the posters advertising the film even encouraged this |
|
|
|
Post by bonerxmas on Mar 20, 2017 23:27:53 GMT
I think the issue with 2001 is that Kubrick didn't know how to explain the concept well. The concept of course being of an extraterrestrial civilization guiding man to his ultimate destination -- to evolve into the "starchild" or whatever. For someone who watches 2001 for the first time and knows nothing about the story, they'll think it's just some weird art movie. And also, the notion of a stargate or a wormhole was not something that the general public was familiar with until about maybe 10 or 15 years ago. So, anybody watching the stargate sequence before that time would probably think "What's the meaning all those colored lights?". Kubrick also didn't do a good job explaining the monoliths or their purpose(s). In the "Jupiter and beyond the infinite" segment, you just see David Bowman in a pod near Jupiter and then the stargate light show automatically begins, but I think in the short story that the movie was based on, Bowman actually enters into the monolith itself. Kubrick purposely left it ambiguous imo and that is what I love about the movie. The story that was written along side explains everything and he could have easily done the same in the film but chose not to. I always thought Dave was transported into another dimention by a higher power, which he kind of is as you said. I also thought the starchild was his evolution into a higher existence through death. The child appears as if looking down onto Earth and I took that as to mean we are all still children in our POV of reality and existence.
The monoliths I just took as being guides and teachers of sorts.
The mystery of the movie is why it is so great.
well you think ambiguity is great, but thats only because you can impose this cornball "evolution through death" message onto it, why not go all the way and say you see the face of jesus in the movie? |
|
|
|
Post by Dayodead on Mar 20, 2017 23:35:44 GMT
I thought the sequel was a much better film. Good to see somebody appreciating 2010, which is really good in it's own right... |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 21, 2017 9:47:34 GMT
I hated 2001.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 9:54:39 GMT
This whole sequence goes on a bit too long. Five minutes would have it done. Then again, it's Kubrick and I'm just a pleb. You're just impatient. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 9:55:05 GMT
That's because you have ADD. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 9:57:16 GMT
I think the issue with 2001 is that Kubrick didn't know how to explain the concept well. The concept of course being of an extraterrestrial civilization guiding man to his ultimate destination -- to evolve into the "starchild" or whatever. For someone who watches 2001 for the first time and knows nothing about the story, they'll think it's just some weird art movie. And also, the notion of a stargate or a wormhole was not something that the general public was familiar with until about maybe 10 or 15 years ago. So, anybody watching the stargate sequence before that time would probably think "What's the meaning all those colored lights?". Kubrick also didn't do a good job explaining the monoliths or their purpose(s). In the "Jupiter and beyond the infinite" segment, you just see David Bowman in a pod near Jupiter and then the stargate light show automatically begins, but I think in the short story that the movie was based on, Bowman actually enters into the monolith itself. not just the short story, it is all explained in the original screenplay, but kubrick just threw it out, fortunately for him this was the LSD era and people were watching the movie on drugs so they didnt care, the posters advertising the film even encouraged this So, what do you think of the movie? |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 21, 2017 9:59:15 GMT
That's because you have ADD. I don't think so. I just think 2001 is bad. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 10:00:39 GMT
That's because you have ADD. I don't think so. I just think 2001 is bad. Bad in what ways? |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 21, 2017 10:06:08 GMT
I don't think so. I just think 2001 is bad. Bad in what ways? Incredibly boring and lack of cohesive plot. No characters to wrap around. Overlong scenes that exist specifically for artistic purposes only. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 10:16:18 GMT
Incredibly boring and lack of cohesive plot. No characters to wrap around. Overlong scenes that exist specifically for artistic purposes only. I can understand how many people would find the first segment boring, but I think most of them are either used to fast-paced movies which don't require the paying of close attention, or are people who in general have some difficulty paying attention. I recommended 2001 to a friend who happens to have ADHD and he couldn't watch it because it was "boring". I disagree that it lacks a cohesive plot. It just doesn't come right out and tell you everything. Agreed, it doesn't tell you much, but it makes you think. Some people don't like movies that make you think, and that's legitimate; it doesn't mean they can't think. As for scenes being overlong, again I disagree because I feel that Kubrick films are edited well, and that everything he shows you looks great, especially from an artist's perspective. The human characters aren't the focus; the monolith is because the story is about the final evolution of Man. I think Kubrick's genius is in presenting the story as a mystery. |
|
