2001 Space odyssey

[blonde_devil]

biggest problem I have with the movie, and I like the movie, is that you need to read the book for things to make better sense. if you just watch the movie, it is easy to get confused or to miss the point of something. the ending for example - some people would be confused as to what is happening to Bowman since the shots are arranged to it looks like he is looking at older versions of himself. people might think he is watching someone watching someone else... the book fills in some things and makes the movie a little easier to understand. but it is still an amazing movie.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

All valid takes on it. There are potential religious overtones as well that some people find versus the "alien" angle. You can almost view the stargate sequence with man's higher power "revealing" themselves to Dave. If such a thing happened, it would certainly be something "wild and crazy" like that. Nothing we'd understand or be prepared for. Hence, Daves shocked and startled look the whole time!

The concept of the monolith is very cool. Instead of blind faith which is what most religions require, the monolith gives man something to "see, touch, and feel" which is always the problem with people buying into religion or a belief of a higher power. Im not trying to spin the film into some religious thing....just pointing out that the whole idea does NOT neccessarily have aliens behind it. It could be viewed as the supreme being in the universe is seeing mankind go down a path that leads to his desstruction and the monolith is the "greeting card invitation" for mankind to "find" himself again.

I always felt that was cooler than just some alien race being behind it.

Ultimately though, the film has its themes set clearly within some type of "rebirth" paradigm or evolutionary progression.

Still an amazing film, despite some pacing issues here and there. GREAT thread!!!!

I believe that one of the main attractions of this film is that Kubrick has left a large part of the movie a mystery. By not answering all of the questions, the audience has to participate, which makes it a more involved experience. Thus, your stargate interpretation is as valid as any. We don't know - and may never know - "the origin and purpose" of the aliens or their monoliths, but that is also true of the "real" universe and reality in general. And as I have said before, I still cannot think of a movie that have tried to tackle a subject that is as large in scope.

[Gaius Marius]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I believe that one of the main attractions of this film is that Kubrick has left a large part of the movie a mystery. By not answering all of the questions, the audience has to participate, which makes it a more involved experience. Thus, your stargate interpretation is as valid as any. We don't know - and may never know - "the origin and purpose" of the aliens or their monoliths, but that is also true of the "real" universe and reality in general. And as I have said before, I still cannot think of a movie that have tried to tackle a subject that is as large in scope.

I actually like the mystery. It makes you think about what is going on throughout the movie and the themes involved (evolution, spirituality, isolation, etc...), and can even make multiple theories and ideas valid (such as who or what exactly is repsonsible for the monoliths).

I agree with you on the scope of 2001 being impressive, and it is the reason why it is one of my favorite movies

[Shanderson88]

Originally Posted by Gaius Marius

I actually like the mystery. It makes you think about what is going on throughout the movie and the themes involved (evolution, spirituality, isolation, etc...), and can even make multiple theories and ideas valid (such as who or what exactly is repsonsible for the monoliths).

I agree with you on the scope of 2001 being impressive, and it is the reason why it is one of my favorite movies

This completely. I just watched 2001 again last night, and a major reason I find it so incredible and love it so much is the idea that I can have one theory regarding the movie and love it, someone else can have a totally different theory and also love it, and neither of us are wrong.

Before last year, I had not seen 2001 in a long, long time, and I remember thinking when I saw it as a kid that it was "weird". After a few viewings over the course of the past year, I feel confident in saying that I think it is the best movie ever made. IMO it is flawless.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The memory I have from my first viewing of the movie at a Cinerama theater in 1968 was that Ligeti's "Atmospheres" was initially playing as background music while the audience was being seated. Eventually the curtains opened to the low frequency rumble and the lion appeared as you state. I had no idea of what to expect going into the theater - I assumed the subject matter would include the usual space monsters - but when "Zarathustra" started playing with the conjunction of moon, Earth, and sun, I knew at that moment this was going to be a different movie.

Yes, the Ligeti was first, with the house lights fully on, at the 70 mm ("Cinerama" by virtue of the patented Cinerama curved, non-cross reflective screen) 1968 showing at the Century 21 in San Jose, as well. Then came the rumble and the hairs on end)

[dag]

While I'd seen the film previously, I attended a 70mm screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Cinematheque on Friday night. Incredible.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Shanderson88

... After a few viewings over the course of the past year, I feel confident in saying that I think it is the best movie ever made. IMO it is flawless.

Well, one of the best. It is on my Top Ten list, for sure. And, in 70 mm, the way I saw it repeatedly in '68, then again in two (local) 70 mm revivals since, it was so hypnotic, that yes, it seems to have no flaws. On the Blu-ray, on our big projection screen with an excellent sound system, it loses a lot, but is still great.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by dag

While I'd seen the film previously, I attended a 70mm screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Cinematheque on Friday night. Incredible.

Jealous like a mother.

[Scruffy Nerf Herder]

Originally Posted by dag

While I'd seen the film previously, I attended a 70mm screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey at the Cinematheque on Friday night. Incredible.

Very nice, sir. That sounds like a good time.

[psychomugs]

I passed by the novel at a nearby used book store, I was set on picking it up sometime but I think you guys have convinced me otherwise. Other than the fact that I don't really read for pleasure, I want to keep this movie as free from a single, bound interpretation as I can.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by psychomugs

I passed by the novel at a nearby used book store, I was set on picking it up sometime but I think you guys have convinced me otherwise. Other than the fact that I don't really read for pleasure, I want to keep this movie as free from a single, bound interpretation as I can.

Good move. This is a case where the film is better than the book. Clarke isnt very keen on supreme beings or any type of godlike stuff. Thats why he makes sure its purely aliens that we are dealing with. I wont touch the book either. I have plenty of good sci fi to read without messing with 2001!

[L-Rouge]

I loved the book, it made me appreciate in greater detail what the film was about. I read it because I had learned it was written in tandem with the film being made, so I thought very much Kubrick and Clarke may have been on the same page. and very much appreciate 2010, that has so many interesting side stories (the Chinese craft Tsien?, the nuclear fusion of jupiter)

3001 may be an interesting film, but I could not finish that book .

[retablo]

Originally Posted by psychomugs

I passed by the novel at a nearby used book store, I was set on picking it up sometime but I think you guys have convinced me otherwise. Other than the fact that I don't really read for pleasure, I want to keep this movie as free from a single, bound interpretation as I can.

It's an interesting read, and certainly not the same thing really at all. I understood the film, and what it was trying to achieve... reading the book didn't change that, but gave me a deeper sense of the more abstract things in the film. I honestly wouldn't say it changed my interpretation of the film, only enhanced it.

[Grand Bob]

Although I enjoy the book and have read it many times, IMO it works against the movie. One of the main attractions of the movie is the element of the mysterious; that is, as humans our consciousness and therefore our level of understanding is primitive on the scale of universal consciousness. Conversely, the book tries to explain everything, bring the infinite experience down to a human level ("dumbs it down", so-to-speak), and a result lessens the experience. Some things are better left unsaid.

[zLin]

Solaris comparable to 2001? NO NO WAY.

In Solaris, when watching the movie, I do not feel convinced that the astronauts are indeed dealing with an outer space intelligence. Also, Solaris is mostly about psychology.

Movies that can convince the viewer that the story is indeed going on in the outer space are rare. In fact, "2001" appears to be only one. Sad.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Although I enjoy the book and have read it many times, IMO it works against the movie. One of the main attractions of the movie is the element of the mysterious; that is, as humans our consciousness and therefore our level of understanding is primitive on the scale of universal consciousness. Conversely, the book tries to explain everything, bring the infinite experience down to a human level ("dumbs it down", so-to-speak), and a result lessens the experience. Some things are better left unsaid.

Totally agree!