Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Vincent Pereira]

I'm sorry, Jeff, you can argue it all you want, and while your opinion is certainly valid, it isn't fact. Responses to art are subjective, and that includes film. And this-

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

... A motion picture is intended to tell a story...

- is not a fact. It's an opinion, and certainly a valid one that works for you, but you can't just apply that to movies as a whole and how other people react to them. No matter how much you try and argue this as if it is a fact, it's not. It's your opinion re: movies, and what type of movies work for you. Other types work for me, and still others for other people. To say that it is a fact that there is only one kind of valid movie- i.e., ones with a coherent, explainable narrative that tell a story- is simply wrong. Some movies work as mood pieces, like a long piece of instruental music. Some provoke thought. Not all exist simply to tell a narrative story.

Vincent

[Jeff Kleist]

- is not a fact. It's an opinion, and certainly a valid one that works for you, but you can't just apply that to movies as a whole and how other people react to them. No matter how much you try and argue this as if it is a fact, it's not. It's your opinion re: movies, and what type of movies work for you. Other types work for me, and still others for other people. To say that it is a fact that there is only one kind of valid movie- i.e., ones with a coherent, explainable narrative that tell a story- is simply wrong. Some movies work as mood pieces, like a long piece of instruental music. Some provoke thought. Not all exist simply to tell a narrative story.

Like I said, there's no thought to provoke. Clarke answered all the questions, and I summed it up above I think it's more of the same people who find deep meaning in Evangelion of The Matrix, just 30 years earlier and passed on generationally Even a false documentary has a story and flow. It can either fail, like Cloverfield, where I didn't even care enough to cheer or boo when people were eaten, or succeed, like District 9 did.

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by captveg

Well, Max pretty much nailed everything I was thinking. Nicely done!



Again, I'm not talking about liking. I like a ton of films that really aren't that great by any film making standard. And while it's true all films have supporters and detractors, when the vast majority of analysis and criticism weighs in in one way or the other, especially over time as the film becomes aged, that viewpoint becomes the bar by which to compare/contrast to all future analysis/criticism. For example, The Godfather or Citizen Kane are nearly universally praised for a variety of reasons, backed up by film content evidence and analysis. In order to change their status of being (as best as can be ascertained in art) "objectively" great films one would need to present counter arguments, well supported by analysis of the film text, to equal that of the positive analysis so far put forth. In other words, the idea that The Godfather or Citizen Kane are films that are found wanting needs to be seriously backed up. 2001 is in that same echelon.

Yeah I just realized we're not disagreeing hehe

Received wisdom certainly exists.

[Braktastic]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

No, but I'll ask, and about a tradein program

Much appreciated!

[Vincent Pereira]

And like I said, Jeff, your opinion is your opinion. You're not going to convince me or any of the other folks who love the film not to love it, just as I'm not going to convince you to love it. I accept that, and I just wish you'd extend those of us who do not share your opinion the same courtesy instead of trying to convince us that we are somehow "wrong" because Kubrick didn't follow "the rules" (as if there were rules to begin with). I personally think movies have the potential to be a lot more than simply plot oriented. This is where we differ in our opinions. No matter how much verbiage you throw at me, or how many links you send me to, you're not going to convince me that I am wrong. You will never convince me that movies can only be one limited thing as you apparently think they are.

Vincent

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Like I said, there's no thought to provoke. Clarke answered all the questions, and I summed it up above I think it's more of the same people who find deep meaning in Evangelion of The Matrix, just 30 years earlier and passed on generationally Even a false documentary has a story and flow. It can either fail, like Cloverfield, where I didn't even care enough to cheer or boo when people were eaten, or succeed, like District 9 did.

[Jeff Kleist]

You're not wrong to like a terrible film

I enjoy Michael Bay movies not featuring Martin Lawrence, and mounted a successful campaign to get Warning Sign, a film so bad its director fled the industry on DVD Never would I insist it's anything but terrible I'm sure many of the Oscar and emmy winning cast would agree with me too

Seriously, the real problem I have is that no one can tell me WHY they think it's good, and basically every answer is "it just is". That drives me NUTS

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You're not wrong to like a terrible film

I enjoy Michael Bay movies not featuring Martin Lawrence, and mounted a successful campaign to get Warning Sign, a film so bad its director fled the industry on DVD Never would I insist it's anything but terrible I'm sure many of the Oscar and emmy winning cast would agree with me too

Seriously, the real problem I have is that no one can tell me WHY they think it's good, and basically every answer is "it just is". That drives me NUTS

LOL

[David Forbes]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Seriously, the real problem I have is that no one can tell me WHY they think it's good, and basically every answer is "it just is". That drives me NUTS

Here are some reasons why 2001 is a great film (and I'm not even that huge a fan, but I do appreciate it for what it is):

[First a correction: the movie is not based on the book. The movie is based on a short story by Clarke called The Sentinel. Clarke wrote the novel concurrent with the movie. In many ways, the novel is based on the movie rather than the other way around.]

It depicts space flight as it would actually be. It takes a long time to get from place to place, even relatively short distances like an orbiting space station to the moon. Kubrick takes his time with these sequences because he wanted to be as scientifically accurate as possible.

You asked why there was no apparent character development. This was intentional on Kubrick's part. He was showing the dehumanization of technology. Much of the dialogue is pointless -- Dr. Floyd's birthday talk with his daughter (Kubrick's real life daughter); Frank Poole's birthday message from his parents; the chattering on the space station. The most developed character is HAL, which was part of what Kubrick was trying to say. You may not agree with the choice, but it certainly was not something Kubrick overlooked.

Why the extended long shots of Poole drifting in space? Again, this is the first (and so far, only) film to realistically portray the amount of time it takes to get anywhere in space. Poole's body, flung away by the lifepod, is going to take a long time to reach. He's fallen hundreds if not thousands of miles behind Discovery, and Bowman can't just zip to him and zip back.

The stargate ... Bowman is traveling over vast gulfs of time and space. He sees alien landscapes and structures of light his mind simply cannot process. He goes insane (maybe) at the same time he is being forcibly evolved by the unseen aliens. I wouldn't mind if that sequence were cut down a little, but I also understand why Kubrick wanted to linger here. He is depicting a process that does not happen in an instant. For him, cutting it down to a few seconds would deprive the sequence of its grandeur and the audience the ability to contemplate that grandeur.

Dave

[Jeff Kleist]

It depicts space flight as it would actually be. It takes a long time to get from place to place, even relatively short distances like an orbiting space station to the moon. Kubrick takes his time with these sequences because he wanted to be as scientifically accurate as possible.
.....
Why the extended long shots of Poole drifting in space? Again, this is the first (and so far, only) film to realistically portray the amount of time it takes to get anywhere in space. Poole's body, flung away by the lifepod, is going to take a long time to reach. He's fallen hundreds if not thousands of miles behind Discovery, and Bowman can't just zip to him and zip back.

If it were scientifically accurate, retreival would be impossible because something that small would carry neither the fuel nor the thrust to catch up with him and then regain that momentum to return to the ship. Taking a long time doesn't make it accurate, exposition or title cards can handle things like "it takes 3 days to get to the moon" (or 24 hours in the book). By the time Bowman could have suited up and put the pod out, Poole is LONG gone IRL. Sunshine also depicted long transit times between places. Mobile Suit Gundam's Universal Century Universe takes place entirely within Earth-Luna space and it takes days to get around. So lots of Sci-fi depicts realistic space travel without being dull and long about it

The stargate ... Bowman is traveling over vast gulfs of time and space. He sees alien landscapes and structures of light his mind simply cannot process. He goes insane (maybe) at the same time he is being forcibly evolved by the unseen aliens. I wouldn't mind if that sequence were cut down a little, but I also understand why Kubrick wanted to linger here. He is depicting a process that does not happen in an instant. For him, cutting it down to a few seconds would deprive the sequence of its grandeur and the audience the ability to contemplate that grandeur.

Contact accomplished all of this while remaining coherent

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by David Forbes

Why the extended long shots of Poole drifting in space? Again, this is the first (and so far, only) film to realistically portray the amount of time it takes to get anywhere in space. Poole's body, flung away by the lifepod, is going to take a long time to reach. He's fallen hundreds if not thousands of miles behind Discovery, and Bowman can't just zip to him and zip back.

I would contend that there is also a more significant narrative purpose to the length of this scene. Frank's death is a very significant "beat" in the larger narrative about human development/evolution/life-cycle, and it proceeds directly into the transformation and re-birth which follow. All of these major "beats" are given ample space to force the reflection of the audience. Frank's death is "described" as it might be in a stanza of an epic poem.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Contact accomplished all of this while remaining coherent

A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...







Wait, what?

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

A ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...







Wait, what?

DO NOT MOCK CONTACT.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

DO NOT MOCK CONTACT.

It mocked me first!

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

I don't think anyone would ever accuse either film of lacking narrative or character development Apples and oranges

Last Year at Marienbad, then. Or Solaris. Or Fantasia.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Seriously, the real problem I have is that no one can tell me WHY they think it's good, and basically every answer is "it just is". That drives me NUTS

They are literally hundreds and hundreds of essays about 2001 out there filled with examples on why it is a great film. Some have been linked to in this thread. Here's a few more:

http://www.filmsite.org/twot.html
http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/ewic_eva08_paper18.pdf
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/fi...ew.asp?ID=3347

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I would contend that there is also a more significant narrative purpose to the length of this scene. Frank's death is a very significant "beat" in the larger narrative about human development/evolution/life-cycle, and it proceeds directly into the transformation and re-birth which follow. All of these major "beats" are given ample space to force the reflection of the audience. Frank's death is "described" as it might be in a stanza of an epic poem.

Man, stop saying it's great "Just because it is." Back it up with something.

And I also like Contact quite a bit. I'd be willing to bet, though, that Zemeckis would point to 2001 as a major influence, and as a better film.

[Jeff Kleist]

Last Year at Marienbad, then. Or Solaris. Or Fantasia.

Fantasia have no plot or character development? Each segment has a definitive story, and the characters a beautifully rendered giving them personality.

Solaris I'd have to agree on

They are literally hundreds and hundreds of essays about 2001 out there filled with examples on why it is a great film. Some have been linked to in this thread. Here's a few more:

I've read them. Just like I've read essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, and on Evangelion. Im not asking what other people think. I'm asking the specific people here

And I also like Contact quite a bit. I'd be willing to bet, though, that Zemeckis would point to 2001 as a major influence, and as a better film.

But what he thinks is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with whether Contact features a similar sequence that is far more coherent than the one featured in 2001.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereira

And like I said, Jeff, your opinion is your opinion. You're not going to convince me or any of the other folks who love the film not to love it, just as I'm not going to convince you to love it. I accept that, and I just wish you'd extend those of us who do not share your opinion the same courtesy instead of trying to convince us that we are somehow "wrong" because Kubrick didn't follow "the rules" (as if there were rules to begin with). I personally think movies have the potential to be a lot more than simply plot oriented. This is where we differ in our opinions. No matter how much verbiage you throw at me, or how many links you send me to, you're not going to convince me that I am wrong. You will never convince me that movies can only be one limited thing as you apparently think they are.

Vincent

Baraka = Motion Picture
Baraka = Art
Baraka = Plotless

I agree that movies are not required to tell a story to be good.

[David Forbes]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

If it were scientifically accurate, retreival would be impossible because something that small would carry neither the fuel nor the thrust to catch up with him and then regain that momentum to return to the ship. Taking a long time doesn't make it accurate, exposition or title cards can handle things like "it takes 3 days to get to the moon" (or 24 hours in the book). By the time Bowman could have suited up and put the pod out, Poole is LONG gone IRL. Sunshine also depicted long transit times between places. Mobile Suit Gundam's Universal Century Universe takes place entirely within Earth-Luna space and it takes days to get around. So lots of Sci-fi depicts realistic space travel without being dull and long about it

Um, yeah. I'm going to trust that Clarke and Kubrick got the science right on this one and that you're just talking out your ass. I can already think of a couple of different reasons you're wrong--the pods don't need a lot of fuel, just enough to gain momentum, because in space there's no friction or gravity to slow them down, and depending on the angle Poole was moving away from Discovery it wouldn't require much propellant or momentum because the pod was moving relative to the speed of Discovery to begin with.

That's just off the top of my head. Like I said, I'm sure Clarke and Kubrick worked it out in great detail.

[David Forbes]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

But what he thinks is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with whether Contact features a similar sequence that is far more coherent than the one featured in 2001.

Being "coherent" because it has Jody Foster talking and explaining her way through it doesn't make it better than the sequence in 2001, which was designed to be mysterious and thought provoking. It demands that the audience think about what it is seeing in order to understand it. There's nothing thought-provoking about Foster explaining that she was in a kind of transit system. It's kind of cool, sure, but it's not even on the same level as 2001.

And yes I liked Contact and own the DVD, but Contact had some really stupid shit in it too.