posted
I loved 2001 both the novel and the movie. I saw the movie way back in the 8th grade, I think. It always seemed to be, in my opinion, a "cerebral" film. Not the typical Hollywood fare, but something that wanted the audience to think about. Of course, I never quite understood what I was supposed to think about. Still, I enjoyed the movie. I read the book the following year for a project, and I have to say that I much prefer the book over the movie. However, I still love the movie immensely.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Please don't take my previous remark as a dis on Arthur C. Clarke. I probably would have enjoyed his "odyssey" books more if they weren't tied to 2001, because their focus is just so different than the film (and, before anyone cries that the film is based on the book...the film story was developed in parallel with the novel...and Clarke kept rewriting the novel to match what Kubrick was up to...least as far as the plot goes...thematically the two are almost unreleated).
Bringing this all back to Trek, although 2001 appears to be a strong inflence on TMP, what's interesting is how completely opposite the two films are, despite their superficial similarities. In 2001 alien superintelligences are needed to evolve humans, and in TMP humans are needed by an alien superintellect to evolve into a new form. 2001 takes a black look at humankind's relationship with its tools. TMP claims that it's those quirks of humanity that make us more than mere machines. Unfortunately, we're told this rather than shown it. In a film in which the characters mostly react to events beyond their control, these innate human quirks are not at all in evidence. The climax of the story, where it is determined that V'ger needs a human quality in order to evolve, would have been better served has we been treated to examples of those qualities in the preceeding 100 minutes.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote: Compared to the book, it sucked a whole whole lot...
You do realize that the book was written by Clarke and Kubrick while they were creating the movie?
Damn, beat me to it mrneutron... It also appears that everything in the defence of Kubrick and 2001 has already been stated...so I'll refrain from my 'Kubrick is a genius sermon'.
[ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: Stingray ]
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
True. The movie was originally based upon a Clarke short story entitled "The Sentinel".
A fairly typical Clarke short tale. Good - but not epic in scope or grandeur. The adapted-from nature of the novel does show in part - however its scope is far larger (and the detail is richer) in 2001 the novel than in the movie.
The movie is entirely eye-candy - albeit the Toblerone of eye-candy.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
"...2001 and ST:TMP are two of the defining films that have made sci-fi cinema what it is today."
I suppose that explains the sad state of sci-fi cinema these days... :-)
"You do realize that the book was written by Clarke and Kubrick while they were creating the movie?"
Yes. And, as I said, the book is infinitely better. A solid twenty minutes of nothing but flashing colors does not a good movie make. Unless you're stoned or something, I suppose.
"The movie was originally based upon a Clarke short story entitled 'The Sentinel'."
Only very very very very loosely. Basically, the only resemblance is that, in both stories, people find a large piece of alien technology on the moon. Other than that, they aren't really alike.
posted
2001 is a film posey college students love to say they watched and enjoyed. Just keep pushing them to explain the ending though, and they usually give up, and go and play with their train-set.
If anyone, on a rainy Sunday afternoon, thinks to themselves "I know! I'll watch 2001! That'll entertain me!" then fair play to them. Their brains must be made of solid granite, but that's not their fault.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
I'm half asleep write now and i am uding only ond and to type so don't hold it against me if my post makes little sense.
Anywho, wasn't the ending of 2001 trying toexplain Bowman's experience while he was being transformed into the star child? That can't be it. I just rmembered that, according to 3001, the big brother monolith did the V'ger thing and simply "downloaded" Bowman into its computer core.
posted
Liam, that's actually how I watched 2001. It was a rainy Sunday afternoon, and I begged my mom to let me rent 2001.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Stingray: I was very disappointed by A.I.. The first part was okay. But then things happened too quickly. And then things happened too slowly. And it was way too long. And the ending was kinda dumb. Well, for a Kubrick film, the ending wasn't bad. Except that most of the first part was a Spielberg film.
I seem to recall the ending of 2001 the book made more sense than the ending of 2001 the movie. But, then, the ending in the book was a lot more detailed. In the movie, stuff just kind of happened w/o any explanation.
posted
If I'd been making A.I., I'd have ended it with the voice over as the oceans froze, and skipped the rest. Then it would have been a tragedy, and a good one.
As it is, with that whole 'bring mommy back for a day', I don't know WHAT it was, tragedy, happy-ending, ???.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
I AM GOING TO SAY THIS ONCE AND ONLY ONCE
A.I. is NOT a Stanley Kubrick film
In any way, shape, or form. The only thing Kubrick had to do with that thing is that he paid for it after he died. And that's all the creative input he had.
As far as the ending having stuff w/o any explanation - I'll admit I needed an explanation but once you do have it figured out (either on your own or somebody else told you) then it becomes much more enjoyable. Hell, NOBODY got it when it first came out.
First of Two, that's exactly why Spielberg is not Stanely Kubrick. He tried to make it like Kubrick, but he just AIN'T Kubrick.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
"I AM GOING TO SAY THIS ONCE AND ONLY ONCE"
And then I'm going to say it again.
"Goddamn, I have never seen a more holier than thou attitude about cinema/drama - especially AGAINST the likes of Kubrick/2001. Have you even TRIED to get it?"
Strangely, I was thinking the same thing, but in reverse, about how some people have a holier than thou attitude about anyone who doesn't like Kubrick.
I have read the first 3 books, y'know. And Tim's right, they are very different creatures. The ending of the book makes sense. The ending of the film was just a mess of pretty pictures ultimately saved by the use of "Thus Spake Zarathusa".
If the book had never existed, and Kubrick and Clarke had died the day after the film had come out, along with everyone who worked on it, I wonder if the explanations for it people have would be the same.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
However, Psy, though the multitudes didn't get it, one critic did and while everybody was either blindly praising it or 'not getting it' - at least one person managed to.
The simple fact is is that 2001 is not dramatic theater. I guess absurdist would be the best description for it, so if you like Waiting For Godot, then 2001 just might be for you.
And BTW - I love how people from this forum can trash 2001 and yet recite every crappy B, 70s & 80s scifi shit ever made.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
