|
Post by thekindercarebear on Jul 15, 2022 17:37:19 GMT
so where I saw this film was at the byrd theater - named after a white supremist/segregationist family so i have heard.
i am surprised there has not been a push to rename it yet.
it is pretty magnificent for being 94 years old.
if you guys ever stop through Richmond, VA - maybe you'll be able to catch a movie here.
it used to be a $1 revival theater but now it is a $8 revival theater thanks to inflation and soaring operating costs even before inflation hit.
I actually saw something there once at some point, but I can't for the life of me remember what. It's been a long time....
they are showing big trouble in little china and the goonies next week and the week after.
i want to take the kids to BTILC as i fear the goonies probably has not aged well.
|
|
|
Post by llanwydd on Jul 15, 2022 17:46:36 GMT
Not only is 2001: A Space Odyssey insanely boring it's one of the most pretentious movies ever made as well.
Stanley Kubrick is a hack and one of the most overrated movie directors ever.
The movie is a visual spectacle indeed and it uses pretty well all classic pieces of music during the events, but exception made to the Hal and astronauts segment there's no relevant plot at all in 90% of the movie.
The characters are boring and flat, totally uniteresting, which is a trademark of Stanley Kubrick.
I'll give him credit for this movie being a bit visionary for the year 1968 but when there's not much layers and not entertainment factor this movie is a tremendous failure.
Do you realize what you are saying here? I would not argue your point that Kubrick is overrated but HACK?! Seriously? Please get a grip on the English language. That word is usually applied to a writer and always refers to one who is very prolific, constantly struggling to meet deadlines and usually writes in a certain genre. Stanley Kubrick is as far from a hack as anybody could possibly imagine.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jul 15, 2022 17:48:22 GMT
Not only is 2001: A Space Odyssey insanely boring it's one of the most pretentious movies ever made as well.
Stanley Kubrick is a hack and one of the most overrated movie directors ever.
The movie is a visual spectacle indeed and it uses pretty well all classic pieces of music during the events, but exception made to the Hal and astronauts segment there's no relevant plot at all in 90% of the movie.
The characters are boring and flat, totally uniteresting, which is a trademark of Stanley Kubrick.
I'll give him credit for this movie being a bit visionary for the year 1968 but when there's not much layers and not entertainment factor this movie is a tremendous failure.
Do you realize what you are saying here? I would not argue your point that Kubrick is overrated but HACK?! Seriously? Please get a grip on the English language. That word is usually applied to a writer and always refers to one who is very prolific, constantly struggling to meet deadlines and usually writes in a certain genre. Stanley Kubrick is as far from a hack as anybody could possibly imagine. No. YOU get a grip on English language.
The word "hack" can be applied in here which is done 10000 times.
Yes, Stanley Kubrick is a legendary and massive hack and his fanatic lovers are insane.
|
|
|
Post by thekindercarebear on Jul 15, 2022 17:50:12 GMT
Not only is 2001: A Space Odyssey insanely boring it's one of the most pretentious movies ever made as well.
Stanley Kubrick is a hack and one of the most overrated movie directors ever.
The movie is a visual spectacle indeed and it uses pretty well all classic pieces of music during the events, but exception made to the Hal and astronauts segment there's no relevant plot at all in 90% of the movie.
The characters are boring and flat, totally uniteresting, which is a trademark of Stanley Kubrick.
I'll give him credit for this movie being a bit visionary for the year 1968 but when there's not much layers and not entertainment factor this movie is a tremendous failure.
Do you realize what you are saying here? I would not argue your point that Kubrick is overrated but HACK?! Seriously? Please get a grip on the English language. That word is usually applied to a writer and always refers to one who is very prolific, constantly struggling to meet deadlines and usually writes in a certain genre. Stanley Kubrick is as far from a hack as anybody could possibly imagine.
maybe he means hack in this way: If you call someone a hack, you mean they're not great at what they do — especially writing. A mediocre writer is called a hack. Once upon a time hack was short for “an ordinary horse,” and now it's an insult.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Skywalker on Jul 15, 2022 17:53:41 GMT
Not only is 2001: A Space Odyssey insanely boring it's one of the most pretentious movies ever made as well.
Stanley Kubrick is a hack and one of the most overrated movie directors ever.
The movie is a visual spectacle indeed and it uses pretty well all classic pieces of music during the events, but exception made to the Hal and astronauts segment there's no relevant plot at all in 90% of the movie.
The characters are boring and flat, totally uniteresting, which is a trademark of Stanley Kubrick.
I'll give him credit for this movie being a bit visionary for the year 1968 but when there's not much layers and not entertainment factor this movie is a tremendous failure.
Do you realize what you are saying here? I would not argue your point that Kubrick is overrated but HACK?! Seriously? Please get a grip on the English language. That word is usually applied to a writer and always refers to one who is very prolific, constantly struggling to meet deadlines and usually writes in a certain genre. Stanley Kubrick is as far from a hack as anybody could possibly imagine. No. YOU get a grip on English language. The word "hack" can be applied in here which is done 10000 times. Yes, Stanley Kubrick is a legendary and massive hack and his fanatic lovers are insane.
|
|
|
Post by bartlesby on Jul 15, 2022 18:12:22 GMT
... bartlesby any input you would like to share? It's an excellent movie to fall asleep watching.
|
|
|
Post by thekindercarebear on Jul 15, 2022 18:13:38 GMT
... bartlesby any input you would like to share? It's an excellent movie to fall asleep watching.
hahaha
i won't lie, i almost fell asleep a few times and i was in a theater!
maybe that's why the audio was close to bursting, to keep the rest of us awake.
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jul 16, 2022 3:19:09 GMT
At the end the audience filed into the lobby, each one looking like they had just been hit in the head with a brick, and asking their companions: "What the hell did we just see?"
Only two films have had that effect on me, The Birds and 2001, A Space Odyssey.
|
|
|
Post by thekindercarebear on Jul 16, 2022 4:15:30 GMT
At the end the audience filed into the lobby, each one looking like they had just been hit in the head with a brick, and asking their companions: "What the hell did we just see?" Only two films have had that effect on me, The Birds and 2001, A Space Odyssey. Well when I was leaving i did feel like wtf just happened but I soon got over that and tried to process the film as best as my limited intellect could. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by thekindercarebear on Jul 16, 2022 4:19:37 GMT
I will have to say HAL was the most memorable part because it was so unexpected and devious in the computers murder of 4 men and the attempt on a fifth while in denial and then trying to bargain and talk it's way out of deactivation.
But really the more I think on it, it's more a side story really. If HAL had been the one to arrive, I doubt the aliens would have transported it to them.
Right?
Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jul 16, 2022 12:53:45 GMT
I watched it again, a few times, actually, sometime last year. I have problems following along in films, and I forget so much of them. 2001 is no exception, and it’s made infinitely harder for me because so much of it doesn’t make sense (I didn’t even “get” that the obelisk helped cavemen to advance, I don’t think. Plus I have a really shitty memory. That chess scene totally went over my head (doesn’t help that I don’t know how to play chess) and I had to follow along with help from IMDb proper’s synopsis section. Haven’t seen 2010 in decades. I’ll have to watch that one again, too. I did start watching it right after my numerous viewings of 2001 last year, but somehow I managed to forget about finishing it. I only made it like 10 minutes in. I watched 2001 in the theaters when it came out. I didn't understand it at all except that somehow, the obelisk affected the intelligence of some primate group and then suddenly they transitioned to the future and encounter the object around Jupiter. It wasn't until I read the book(s) that I understood. I can't remember now what the story meant, but did at one time. I have rewatched it a few times but don't find it all that interesting anymore.
I find the second movie more RE-watchable...better acting and more of an obvious story I can follow. It's up to you, but if you push through the first 10 minutes, I think the story gets good once they are in space.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jul 16, 2022 12:55:09 GMT
I’m a big fan of Kubrick and Clarke, but I could never get into this movie. I’ve watched it 3-4 times over the years and it always leaves me cold, and a tad bored. The book is better.
It’s a story about the human race taking its next evolutionary step toward some sort of ethereal intelligence. A subject that Clarke also explored in A Childhoods End. 2001:ASO also mixes in one of his short stories, The Sentinal - which is about an ancient alien alarm system on the moon that alerts the cosmos that we (humans) have taken our first steps into outer space.
In ACE, our evolution is natural. The aliens are only there to facilitate a (relatively) smooth transition. In both stories, it is the advent of our space exploration that is the indicator that we are ready for the next step.
In 2001, aliens are responsible for our evolutionary leaps. From primate to human, and then from human to whatever. I never really liked that idea. I prefer the way it was handled in ACE. It was more wonderous and disturbing. It’s a shame the mini series kinda sucked.
|
|
|
Post by dlancer on Jul 16, 2022 15:04:51 GMT
I like how the movie didn't make it about god or aliens that were responsible for our evolution, but instead kept it ambiguous.
The monolith is left to be this mysterious thing that just appears, and its cubic dimensions too symmetrical for a primitive species to ignore.
Then after contacting it, we slowly gain the expertise to go off world and venture to the most obvious next step which is the moon.
Then we have perhaps the biggest pivot in all of cinema where we go from this mysterious evolution story, to a story of man vs machine (Dave vs HAL).
That's the part everyone seems to remember the most, probably because of the tension, and tends to define the film.
But then there's the impossible task of satisfying the audience by resolving the earlier confusing and mysterious evolution story with something more confusing and mysterious.
This is where the audience splits, with those interested enough to view it again until it clicks, and others not caring to sit through it again to figure it out.
Unless of course you read the book, but to me, that kinda takes away from the experience.
Kubrick's 2001 is its own thing, separate from the book. I would also separate it from the 2010 sequel which brought back Dave.
I think it's best described as a cinematic experience, where the twists and turns aren't in the movie itself, but rather how you react to it.
Did you watch it again to try to understand it?
Did you shortcut it by having someone tell you what it's about or look on the internet? Did you read the book? Did you give up on it?
All are correct answers because, in a way, it's a sort of 'choose your own adventure' after you've seen it.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jul 17, 2022 12:45:41 GMT
I like how the movie didn't make it about god or aliens that were responsible for our evolution, but instead kept it ambiguous.
The monolith is left to be this mysterious thing that just appears, and its cubic dimensions too symmetrical for a primitive species to ignore.
Then after contacting it, we slowly gain the expertise to go off world and venture to the most obvious next step which is the moon. I thought it was pretty obvious that the monolith caused the evolutionary steps. At the beginning of the movie it is not until after the monolith appears and hums at them that the protohumans acquire the intelligent to utilize an object as a tool (weapon). At the end of the movie, the transformation into the star child is also pretty obviously a result of Bowman being sucked into the monolith. I suppose it’s possible to think that the first monolith simply appeared at the moment when the protohumans revealed that they possessed the intelligence to use tools … but there was no indication that the final transformation would have naturally occurred, if not for the monolith … which indicates that the role of the monoliths was the same in both instances - transform a primitive species into the next evolutionary form.
|
|
|
Post by dlancer on Jul 17, 2022 15:05:52 GMT
I like how the movie didn't make it about god or aliens that were responsible for our evolution, but instead kept it ambiguous.
The monolith is left to be this mysterious thing that just appears, and its cubic dimensions too symmetrical for a primitive species to ignore.
Then after contacting it, we slowly gain the expertise to go off world and venture to the most obvious next step which is the moon. I thought it was pretty obvious that the monolith caused the evolutionary steps. At the beginning of the movie it is not until after the monolith appears and hums at them that the protohumans acquire the intelligent to utilize an object as a tool (weapon). At the end of the movie, the transformation into the star child is also pretty obviously a result of Bowman being sucked into the monolith. I suppose it’s possible to think that the first monolith simply appeared at the moment when the protohumans revealed that they possessed the intelligence to use tools … but there was no indication that the final transformation would have naturally occurred, if not for the monolith … which indicates that the role of the monoliths was the same in both instances - transform a primitive species into the next evolutionary form. I said nothing about it not being obvious the monolith caused the evolutionary steps.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jul 17, 2022 15:13:25 GMT
I thought it was pretty obvious that the monolith caused the evolutionary steps. At the beginning of the movie it is not until after the monolith appears and hums at them that the protohumans acquire the intelligent to utilize an object as a tool (weapon). At the end of the movie, the transformation into the star child is also pretty obviously a result of Bowman being sucked into the monolith. I suppose it’s possible to think that the first monolith simply appeared at the moment when the protohumans revealed that they possessed the intelligence to use tools … but there was no indication that the final transformation would have naturally occurred, if not for the monolith … which indicates that the role of the monoliths was the same in both instances - transform a primitive species into the next evolutionary form. I said nothing about it not being obvious the monolith caused the evolutionary steps.
|
|
|
Post by dlancer on Jul 17, 2022 15:14:50 GMT
I said nothing about it not being obvious the monolith caused the evolutionary steps. Again, I said nothing about it not being obvious the monolith caused the evolutionary steps. The ambiguity I'm referring to is "about god or aliens."
|
|
|
Post by thekindercarebear on Jul 17, 2022 15:17:47 GMT
I didn't see the monolith as causing our evolution.
Sentiment beings will use their environment to build, defend, and attack.
I mean did beavers touch the monolith?
No?
Then how do they know how to build dams?
😏
I think the aliens knew we were morons and were not ready to meet them for thousands if not 10s of thousands of years.
So they took their monolith and set it on the moon and left us alone.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Jul 17, 2022 15:21:44 GMT
Again, I said nothing about it not being obvious the monolith caused the evolutionary steps. The ambiguity I'm referring to is "about god or aliens." Are you suggesting the monoliths were not alien devices?
|
|
|
Post by dlancer on Jul 17, 2022 15:28:05 GMT
Again, I said nothing about it not being obvious the monolith caused the evolutionary steps. The ambiguity I'm referring to is "about god or aliens." Are you suggesting the monoliths were not alien devices? I'm suggesting the movie left it ambiguous.
|
|