2001: A Space Odyssey. free discusision
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]
[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]
Film is a "show me don't tell me" medium. It's not that hard to pay attention to the images and understand the story on a surface level. Just out of curiosity are there any silent movies you enjoy (outside of the comedies)
DharmaMember77
So now we are going to act as if the audio dimension of films isn't extremely important? That is just a downright stupid notion and I would argue that the addition of sound in film is probably the greatest innovation film ever experienced beyond it's original inception of course.
And as I said you do not need to spell things out, but once again if the VAST majority of people are watching your movie and not having ANY grasp as to what happened, you have failed in the storytelling department. I pay attention to the images but in 2001 there is nothing putting those images together into a story until you read the explainations of them and considering I have yet to meet the person who didn't need the movie explained after the first viewing there is obviously some serious storytelling issues that fans like to act is ok because "art".
As for the silent movie question, I can't say there is but alot of that is lack of exposure and my lack of interest in those older periods of film. The silent films (may have seen 2 hnestly can't remember) that I have seen I just didn't like at all. Mind you the plots made perfect sense, but I just didn't care for the movies.
I will say I do love watching foreign movies in subtitled form and absolutely HATE watching dubbed versions of foreign movies, so I don't mind having to "read" a movie.
The addition of sound was a great accomplishment but even Fellini has stated that there is nothing sound films have done that silent films haven't already done in the past (Aside from musicals which is why that was the most popular genre during the early 30's)
OK, but silent films still also had writing that delivered dialogue and told story. Film being a visual medium does not invalidate the need for PROPER storytelling to get the story acrossed. Things don't need to be blatenly stated, but the movie essentially lacks any sort of clues into what is happening and requires a whole analysis just to understand the story which as I mentioned isn't even a great story.
I will repeat what I have said before, if your film requires someone to essentially do HOMEWORK just to understand the uttermost BASIC plot of the movie, your storytelling is bad.
I honestly think that a main reason why there are these people who want to go and be so forgiving of the glaring flaws of this movie is because it is a Kubrick film and we all know Kubrick as a great director.
Kubrick did a really bad job with this movie. Hate to say it as I think he is a great director, but 2001 ranks as one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The only saving grace is Kubricks cinematography which has been excellent in every movie of his I have seen.
Okay, I'm seeing people who claim that the movie didn't explain itself, but I'm curious as to exactly how that's the case. I'm not denying that it's sort of a difficult film (though it really isn't THAT difficult). But here's the thing: even ifyou didn't understand the movie at all upon first watching it, even if you had to go online and read explanations and analyses in order to understand what even happened, that's not really a flaw in the film. After reading those explanations and analyses, you can go back and watch the film a second time, and then it actually makes sense. What this means is that the information is actually there. For the most part, the film DOES explain itself. It's just that it requires a little work on the viewer's part when it comes to paying attention and making the necessary connections.MrGeezerSee that's where I differ in opinion, the basic story should be understandable then if people want to see the deeper meaning behind everything then they can read analysis's and explanations. A film should be pretty self contained where the book and explanations supplement the film instead of being necessary to understand the basic plot of the film.
Okay, I'm seeing people who claim that the movie didn't explain itself, but I'm curious as to exactly how that's the case. I'm not denying that it's sort of a difficult film (though it really isn't THAT difficult). But here's the thing: even ifyou didn't understand the movie at all upon first watching it, even if you had to go online and read explanations and analyses in order to understand what even happened, that's not really a flaw in the film. After reading those explanations and analyses, you can go back and watch the film a second time, and then it actually makes sense. What this means is that the information is actually there. For the most part, the film DOES explain itself. It's just that it requires a little work on the viewer's part when it comes to paying attention and making the necessary connections.MrGeezer
No people are EXPLAINING the film, it is not explaining itself. Hell for all we know the explainations people have of the movie are just utter BS considering the movie doesn't actually do ANYTHING to explain itself.
Other movies/stories I have seen that involved a little bit of research afterwards was just to fully grasp certain points, NOT to have to read a whole write up just to explain the basic plot elements of the movie.
It would be one thing if what we were talking about was some sort of hidden meaning within the film, like hidden themes or messages, but what we are talking about is THE ENTIRE PLOT needing to be explained in it's most basic level, which once again it isn't even like Kubrick himself is giving this explaination. THAT is just a complete failure in the realm of storytelling.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Okay, I'm seeing people who claim that the movie didn't explain itself, but I'm curious as to exactly how that's the case. I'm not denying that it's sort of a difficult film (though it really isn't THAT difficult). But here's the thing: even ifyou didn't understand the movie at all upon first watching it, even if you had to go online and read explanations and analyses in order to understand what even happened, that's not really a flaw in the film. After reading those explanations and analyses, you can go back and watch the film a second time, and then it actually makes sense. What this means is that the information is actually there. For the most part, the film DOES explain itself. It's just that it requires a little work on the viewer's part when it comes to paying attention and making the necessary connections.LostProphetFLCL
No people are EXPLAINING the film, it is not explaining itself. Hell for all we know the explainations people have of the movie are just utter BS considering the movie doesn't actually do ANYTHING to explain itself.
Other movies/stories I have seen that involved a little bit of research afterwards was just to fully grasp certain points, NOT to have to read a whole write up just to explain the basic plot elements of the movie.
It would be one thing if what we were talking about was some sort of hidden meaning within the film, like hidden themes or messages, but what we are talking about is THE ENTIRE PLOT needing to be explained in it's most basic level, which once again it isn't even like Kubrick himself is giving this explaination. THAT is just a complete failure in the realm of storytelling.
What don't you understand at a basic level in the 2001 story? It's really straightforward, the black monoliths are supernatural, an expedition is sent to research the area it's sending signals to, on the way the AI goes haywire. When arriving there Bowman starts getting affected by the monoliths and is transformed into a giant floating baby. I mean it's not like it's a series of various colors in sequence or something.A very big point of the film is that it's trying to point out that aliens don't have to be little gray men. They can actually be beyond our comprehension. You'd probably have no problems with the film if the apes were visited by a little gray guy, on the moon they would have found a wrecked space ship and at Jupiter they would have found an alien city full of little gray men that would have sacrificed the crew or something.
Can you give some SPECIFIC examples of story elements that you feel weren't explained? Can you give some SPECIFIC examples of scenes which either make no sense or don't mean anything or don't serve a purpose? I mean, you're obviously not talking about the ENTIRE movie, because the middle part actually does have dialogue and exposition and is fairly straightforward. So can you be a little more clear about what you didn't understand, or which parts didn't make any sense?No people are EXPLAINING the film, it is not explaining itself. Hell for all we know the explainations people have of the movie are just utter BS considering the movie doesn't actually do ANYTHING to explain itself.
Other movies/stories I have seen that involved a little bit of research afterwards was just to fully grasp certain points, NOT to have to read a whole write up just to explain the basic plot elements of the movie.
It would be one thing if what we were talking about was some sort of hidden meaning within the film, like hidden themes or messages, but what we are talking about is THE ENTIRE PLOT needing to be explained in it's most basic level, which once again it isn't even like Kubrick himself is giving this explaination. THAT is just a complete failure in the realm of storytelling.
LostProphetFLCL
[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]
[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]
The addition of sound was a great accomplishment but even Fellini has stated that there is nothing sound films have done that silent films haven't already done in the past (Aside from musicals which is why that was the most popular genre during the early 30's)
LostProphetFLCL
OK, but silent films still also had writing that delivered dialogue and told story.
Not always
Kubrick did a really bad job with this movie. Hate to say it as I think he is a great director, but 2001 ranks as one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The only saving grace is Kubricks cinematography which has been excellent in every movie of his I have seen.
LostProphetFLCL
uhhhh
So now we are going to act as if the audio dimension of films isn't extremely important? That is just a downright stupid notion and I would argue that the addition of sound in film is probably the greatest innovation film ever experienced beyond it's original inception of course.
And as I said you do not need to spell things out, but once again if the VAST majority of people are watching your movie and not having ANY grasp as to what happened, you have failed in the storytelling department. I pay attention to the images but in 2001 there is nothing putting those images together into a story until you read the explainations of them and considering I have yet to meet the person who didn't need the movie explained after the first viewing there is obviously some serious storytelling issues that fans like to act is ok because "art".
As for the silent movie question, I can't say there is but alot of that is lack of exposure and my lack of interest in those older periods of film. The silent films (may have seen 2 hnestly can't remember) that I have seen I just didn't like at all. Mind you the plots made perfect sense, but I just didn't care for the movies.
I will say I do love watching foreign movies in subtitled form and absolutely HATE watching dubbed versions of foreign movies, so I don't mind having to "read" a movie.
LostProphetFLCL
Dialogue is not a necessity for telling a story.
This isn't The Last Year at Marienbad. On the surface, which is the only way you seem to engage with the film, it's a pretty straightforward story. It's not difficult to grasp what's going on.
i love it BossPerson<3
A straight up classic. jg4xchampExcept for those who hate having to use their brain while watching movies. In which case: it sucks, it's a super boring movie for boring people! Not enough action and too incoherent!
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]A straight up classic. Mcspanky37Except for those who hate having to use their brain while watching movies. In which case: it sucks, it's a super boring movie for boring people! Not enough action and too incoherent! Yeah bro...Michael bay is the best have seen transformers? Why do people always have to so high and mighty about how others don't get a movie. I get the movie, but it was boring and slow paced. Sure technically it was great with sound design, cinematography and special effects etc... You can make a thought provoking movie that is interesting for more then its cinematography.
[QUOTE="Mcspanky37"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]A straight up classic. Person0Except for those who hate having to use their brain while watching movies. In which case: it sucks, it's a super boring movie for boring people! Not enough action and too incoherent! Yeah bro...Michael bay is the best have seen transformers? Why do people always have to so high and mighty about how others don't get a movie. I get the movie, but it was boring and slow paced. Sure technically it was great with sound design, cinematography and special effects etc... You can make a thought provoking movie that is interesting for more then its cinematography.
:roll: "Getting" a movie and "understanding it" are two different things. You may understand it, but you very obviously don't get what makes the movie good if you complain that it's too boring or slow placed. If you did, you wouldn't say it's boring (or slow paced, as if being slow paced is a bad thing).
Yeah bro...Michael bay is the best have seen transformers? Why do people always have to so high and mighty about how others don't get a movie. I get the movie, but it was boring and slow paced. Sure technically it was great with sound design, cinematography and special effects etc... You can make a thought provoking movie that is interesting for more then its cinematography.[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="Mcspanky37"] Except for those who hate having to use their brain while watching movies. In which case: it sucks, it's a super boring movie for boring people! Not enough action and too incoherent!Mcspanky37
:roll: "Getting" a movie and "understanding it" are two different things. You may understand it, but you very obviously don't get what makes the movie good if you complain that it's too boring or slow placed. If you did, you wouldn't say it's boring (or slow paced, as if being slow paced is a bad thing).
At a certain point being slow paced is usually a bad thing. Can't really talk about all the specific things I disliked about it since I haven't seen it in years, but I definitely understood it because I had to watch it for a film class and write an analysis of it. (wish I could find that) People have different opinions about films...[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="Person0"] Well know you see the film in a different way because you have seen it numerous times and had read explanations and analysis about the film. Go find someone that has never heard of it and tell them to watch it, my guess is they will say "what the hell was that about". I remember the first and only time ive seen it, had to watch it for film class and that was my reaction to it.Person0Seriously, what's so hard to understand in the movie? It's not highly abstract or something, it's pretty straightforward at surface level, and to make out the themes it's trying to portray isn't really hard. The only thing that is really abstract is the finale, Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite, and even then it's (in my opinion) trying to convey the inability of our minds to even comprehend what the monolith is doing. Pretty much everything to do with the monolith makes no sense in the context of just the movie itself. Yeah specifically the ending, and see its your opinion. My opinion is that Kubrick got high when he though of that part and put it in and pretends there's a deeper meaning. Which opinion is more valid? Well it's an opinion, the point of the movie is that you make opinions about it's themes. Sure you can say that it's all just random junky crap, but you can also give it a meaning. And that meaning isn't just anything, you develop it through the movie. Why should a movie give everything to you on a platter? Would you rate the movie better if the monoliths had a handy users guide in a side pocket? Or that some little gray dude would go and tell Bowman what their evil little agenda is? The movie is trying to portray extra-terrestrial life in a different manner. Instead of straight forward gray humans or something , it's portraying it as something that we can't even really comprehend. These giant black slabs that appear out of nowhere are the only thing really seen. The cinematography and music gives them an unsettling aura of mystery and power. The fact that the movie gives no hints about what the hell their function is, apart from them seemingly having power over our evolution, is it's greatest strength. The movie basically makes us know that these things are very powerful, but that's all we know about them. What we are feeling is what the guys on the expedition would be feeling, knowing nothing about them.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that if the monoliths were explained any further it would have ruined the movie. We could grasp their function and their agenda if it was described to us. But because the movie gives them a very ominous and eerie aura along with the finale, it asserts that the power they have is beyond description, beyond our comprehension.
Wow. I have seen the movie dozens of time and love it every time. I love everything about it. It is not boring in the least. Modern day science fiction films pale in comparison to 2001: a Space Odyssey. I think most young people today just dont have the mental ability to appreciate a movie like this. The dumbing down of America now gives us Transformer movies.seems like on of those movies people watch just so they can say they've seen it, not because they enjoy it
lostrib
Some people look at an abstract painting and say, "this is $hit. There aren't any people, there aren't any animals, there aren't even any representational objects. It's just a bunch of lines and shapes! So why should I care about it?" Or some people look at a Sally Mann photograph and say, "wtf is this $hit? It's just some chick pissing! Why should anyone care about this?"MrGeezer
Offtopic, but have you guys heard of an exhibition in France of asshole photos? I mean literally assholes. Apparently this is art: http://www.sedentario.org/internet/exposicao-de-arte-o-olho-do-cu-4918
Edit: turns out it's in Portugal.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Some people look at an abstract painting and say, "this is $hit. There aren't any people, there aren't any animals, there aren't even any representational objects. It's just a bunch of lines and shapes! So why should I care about it?" Or some people look at a Sally Mann photograph and say, "wtf is this $hit? It's just some chick pissing! Why should anyone care about this?"nunovlopes
Offtopic, but have you guys heard of an exhibition in France of asshole photos? I mean literally assholes. Apparently this is art: http://www.sedentario.org/internet/exposicao-de-arte-o-olho-do-cu-4918
Edit: turns out it's in Portugal.
You just don't get it bro.[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Some people look at an abstract painting and say, "this is $hit. There aren't any people, there aren't any animals, there aren't even any representational objects. It's just a bunch of lines and shapes! So why should I care about it?" Or some people look at a Sally Mann photograph and say, "wtf is this $hit? It's just some chick pissing! Why should anyone care about this?"nunovlopes
Offtopic, but have you guys heard of an exhibition in France of asshole photos? I mean literally assholes. Apparently this is art: http://www.sedentario.org/internet/exposicao-de-arte-o-olho-do-cu-4918
Edit: turns out it's in Portugal.
jeezus crip
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Some people look at an abstract painting and say, "this is $hit. There aren't any people, there aren't any animals, there aren't even any representational objects. It's just a bunch of lines and shapes! So why should I care about it?" Or some people look at a Sally Mann photograph and say, "wtf is this $hit? It's just some chick pissing! Why should anyone care about this?"nunovlopes
Offtopic, but have you guys heard of an exhibition in France of asshole photos? I mean literally assholes. Apparently this is art: http://www.sedentario.org/internet/exposicao-de-arte-o-olho-do-cu-4918
Edit: turns out it's in Portugal.
I hadn't heard about that, but I actually think it's pretty f***ing cool. One thing I instantly notice is that at several of the @$$hole photos are aesthetically pleasing in terms of design. Not all of them though, some of them just look like nasty @$$holes. But in at least some of them, the placement of hair and the lines formed by the wrinkles ends up feeling well-balanced. I think it was a good decision to get in really close and show only the @$$hole and the area immediately surrounding it. Getting in close to normal things can have that effect: it basically turns it into an abstraction and reduces it to lines, shapes, colors and values. Once you crop out the buttcheeks and the legs and the dangling ballsack, it sort of removes context and basically forces me to judge it based on ONLY what's shown. It registers to me more as abstract art than as an @$$hole, because in my personal experience I've never looked at an @$$hole close enough for these photos to instantly register as "just an @$$hole". For me at least, this is an entirely new way of looking at the @$$hole, and I always welcome attempts to portray old stuff in a new light. And on that note, I always find it just fascinating how something relatively harmless becomes disgusting with the introduction of details. It's like Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ". The actual IMAGE is inoffensive in and of itself. It's just an unconventional and sort of dreamlike image of Jesus on the cross. Going SOLELY by the visuals, it's a gorgeous photograph that seems to be revering Jesus. But then you see the title, and learn that that lighting and color was created by dunking a Jesus statuette into a jar of blood and piss, and suddenly everyone is like, "OMG, this is so horrible". In this case, the images themselves are actually pretty tame. Yeah, they are @$$holes, but it's not as if there's goop leaking out of them, and it's not as if there are dingleberries tangled all up in the butt hair. The images themselves might not be partivularly remarkable, but to me they just come off as abstractions. These images are all about form and line and color. It's simplifying the butthole and reducing its elements of design. But OMG even though people do that $hit all the time with fingers and eyes and nipples, you can't do that with the @$$hole! Somehow, just knowing that it's an @$$hole results in a kneejerk response that says "don't look at that." For some reason, you can try to personalize the face. You can personalize the fingers or the hair. You can even do a study on peoples' goddamn fingertips and eyebrows. But this personalizes the @$$hole, gives the @$$hole an identity, and somehow that's messed up just because it's an @$$hole? That idea just fascinates me to no end. Why should this kind of attention to the @$$hole be deemed stupid or distasteful, just because it's an @$$hole? We give lots of other things this kind of attention, so why are @$$holes off limits?
I could not get into it at all. Scenes in the movie dragged on for way too long, and made it hard for me to keep my attention. The story was very hard to follow because the of the movie dragging out so much plus the movie not really explaining much at all. I'm all for open interpretatiion or artisticness, but I feel the movie took it too far and could have gine into a bit more detail.
The movie had great producton values for the time and had its moments of eerieness and atmosphere thanks to its soundtrack, I will certainly give Kubrick credit for that, but the actual story itself just failed to give me any reason to give a sh*t about what was going on, it had a great premise with the space setting and with HAL, but these could not save it for me.
I liked Clockwork Orange alot more than 2001 personally.
[QUOTE="nunovlopes"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]Some people look at an abstract painting and say, "this is $hit. There aren't any people, there aren't any animals, there aren't even any representational objects. It's just a bunch of lines and shapes! So why should I care about it?" Or some people look at a Sally Mann photograph and say, "wtf is this $hit? It's just some chick pissing! Why should anyone care about this?"MrGeezer
Offtopic, but have you guys heard of an exhibition in France of asshole photos? I mean literally assholes. Apparently this is art: http://www.sedentario.org/internet/exposicao-de-arte-o-olho-do-cu-4918
Edit: turns out it's in Portugal.
I hadn't heard about that, but I actually think it's pretty f***ing cool. One thing I instantly notice is that at several of the @$$hole photos are aesthetically pleasing in terms of design. Not all of them though, some of them just look like nasty @$$holes. But in at least some of them, the placement of hair and the lines formed by the wrinkles ends up feeling well-balanced. I think it was a good decision to get in really close and show only the @$$hole and the area immediately surrounding it. Getting in close to normal things can have that effect: it basically turns it into an abstraction and reduces it to lines, shapes, colors and values. Once you crop out the buttcheeks and the legs and the dangling ballsack, it sort of removes context and basically forces me to judge it based on ONLY what's shown. It registers to me more as abstract art than as an @$$hole, because in my personal experience I've never looked at an @$$hole close enough for these photos to instantly register as "just an @$$hole". For me at least, this is an entirely new way of looking at the @$$hole, and I always welcome attempts to portray old stuff in a new light. And on that note, I always find it just fascinating how something relatively harmless becomes disgusting with the introduction of details. It's like Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ". The actual IMAGE is inoffensive in and of itself. It's just an unconventional and sort of dreamlike image of Jesus on the cross. Going SOLELY by the visuals, it's a gorgeous photograph that seems to be revering Jesus. But then you see the title, and learn that that lighting and color was created by dunking a Jesus statuette into a jar of blood and piss, and suddenly everyone is like, "OMG, this is so horrible". In this case, the images themselves are actually pretty tame. Yeah, they are @$$holes, but it's not as if there's goop leaking out of them, and it's not as if there are dingleberries tangled all up in the butt hair. The images themselves might not be partivularly remarkable, but to me they just come off as abstractions. These images are all about form and line and color. It's simplifying the butthole and reducing its elements of design. But OMG even though people do that $hit all the time with fingers and eyes and nipples, you can't do that with the @$$hole! Somehow, just knowing that it's an @$$hole results in a kneejerk response that says "don't look at that." For some reason, you can try to personalize the face. You can personalize the fingers or the hair. You can even do a study on peoples' goddamn fingertips and eyebrows. But this personalizes the @$$hole, gives the @$$hole an identity, and somehow that's messed up just because it's an @$$hole? That idea just fascinates me to no end. Why should this kind of attention to the @$$hole be deemed stupid or distasteful, just because it's an @$$hole? We give lots of other things this kind of attention, so why are @$$holes off limits? That's a huge wall of text, not going to read that. Anyway this is disgusting IMO.
It was quite lame, so many long boring shots of nothing, a good 70% of the film is just slow long shots of ships, and areas of the ship.
2010 was a far far better film.
It was quite lame, so many long boring shots of nothing, a good 70% of the film is just slow long shots of ships, and areas of the ship.
2010 was a far far better film.
WilliamRLBaker
2010 was a rush job of a film that just tried to fit in among 80s Sci-fi trends. 2001 is a masterpiece that broke every barrier.
2001 is about 1000 times more meaningful as well.
I think it's a very boring movie. The ending is also super dumb.
Well the problem is that you're a moron. Something close to everyone on this forum agrees on.It was quite lame, so many long boring shots of nothing, a good 70% of the film is just slow long shots of ships, and areas of the ship.
2010 was a far far better film.
WilliamRLBaker
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment