posted
I can recite whole parts of He-Man episodes. It doesn't stop them from being appallingly bad.
-------------------- 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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
First of all, as I posted previously, 2001 (the film) isn't a traditional/mainstream film narrative, so demeaning it for not following the conventions of mainstream cinema is a little like criticizing jazz musicians for making it up as they go...that's the point.
2001 is a film of images, period. It's intentionally slow, it's intentionally flat, and repetative. Kubrick himself said "nothing important is conveyed in the dialogue", because the film is about the images and their juxtaposition, comoposition and color.
As to the ending making sense, personally, I think I "get" the film all right. And in my mind the point it makes is much more powerful than the book's. I won't launch into a treatsie on it, unless someone wants me to.
Finally, using "entertaining" as criteria is to lop off all other possible experiences you can get out of the film. I don't watch 2001 to be entertained any more than I do going to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Matisse's works don't have to entertain for me want to linger over them. The same with 2001.
Seriously, and as stated previously, we're so conditioned by mainstream films and television that we expect all movies to fall into a narrow, cookie cutter form. For me, what's sinful isn't that a film isn't necessarily entertaining, but when a film that is INTENDED to be entertaining, fails miserably at its appointed task.
-------------------- "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
posted
I second that. Bravo, mrneutron. I agree with the vast majority of your post.
The only point I disagree on is using "entertaining" as part of the criteria in judging a film. I think that entertainment carries more than one meaning. There is the traditional meaning in that for something to be entertaining, it must illicit an emotional/physical response. Terms of Endearment is entertaining because it is emotionally charged and the viewer develops a connection to the characters. Armageddon is entertaining in that it is a solid feel-good action movie that will probably leave the majority of its American (read: US) veiwers in a good state of mind. But entertaining can also be used to refer to the mental response. That's how I look at 2001. It required me to think and interpret what I was watching. It produced an intellectual reaction, and that's why I can say that I'm entertained by it.
Siegfried. You are correct that I perhaps have too narrowly defined the word "entertaining". There certainly are various forms of and levels of being entertained. I suppose a less loaded words would be "enjoyed", but even that has other connotations.
2001 certainly doesn't engage the viewer's emotions the way you classic character driven drama does, nor does it titilate with action. Certainly, I'm entertained by 2001, but it's primarily an intellectual entertainment and visceral, not an emotional one (albeit there are things in the film that give me delight).
Of course, it's also a very funny movie if you groove on black black comedy and cosmic scaled irony.
-------------------- "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
quote:Of course, it's also a very funny movie if you groove on black black comedy and cosmic scaled irony.
Now I need to go rent 2001 just so that I pick this out of the movie. Should be fun.
quote:Armageddon is entertaining in that it is a solid feel-good action movie that will probably leave the majority of its American (read: US) veiwers in a good state of mind.
Well, considering that's the full context of the quote, I still expect you to trust my opinion.
posted
Mister Neutron: Is that proposed V'Ger design by Syd Mead a new design for the special edition, or one of the original concepts from -79? What did you mean by "used" concept? It looks an awful lot like the later species 8472's ships, especially the "planet killing" ship.
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I mean that the design by Syd Mead I listed in a previous post IS the shape of V'ger as it appeared in TMP. If you look at the film carefully during the flyover you can see that the geography is pretty much right on the money. Of course, that sketch is only the broad outlines, all the surface detailing is absent, and the half sphere thing at the very back isn't there on the sketch.
The big spherical part near the back end is where the Voyager probe is, and from there the energy effect that consumes V'ger originates in the film.
That sketch appears, incorrectly labeled, in the Star Trek Phase II book. There's also a plan view of the shape on the same page, from which a clever 3D artist could actually render the shape . I'd do it myself, but I have up 3D modeling around 1994! I can draw how the maw works if anyone is interested. I figured out the shape of the parts. It's actually pretty simple.
Some of Mead's production paintings for V'ger, as well as a plan for the interior detailing, appears in his book Oblagon.
[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: mrneutron ]
-------------------- "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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
