The ending isn't "so cryptic that is could mean anything". The monolith did a forced evolution to Dave and he is the fetus in the end. I don't think that's very ambiguous. He is the next step in evolution, seems fairly straight forward...
Going from the end of evolution (age death)
To the beginning of the new (birth)
that's fairly deep and very artistic
There are shots in the film that I, with years and years of film knowledge and understanding of production, cannot figure out. Specifically, there is a shot of the astronauts walking down a corridor to a spinning location at the end and they switch from the non-spinning corridor to the spinning end and climb down a ladder. At no point during this shot is real world gravity betrayed. I don't think they could have spun one part of the set then stopped it and simultaneously spun another part of the set. That single shot, to this day, blows my mind. You cannot say the films effects are dated when there is at least that one, and maybe more, that are impossible to figure out.
About pacing, I understand that some people just don't like the slow pace of the film, but that does not make it a bad film. I think, in the case of a lot of films, pacing is a personal taste. The filmmaker obviously had pacing in mind while editing the film, so it should never really be a fault of the film unless there truly was nothing going on (try watching a film like Jonah Hex where nothing is going on and the film truly is boring). In the case of 2001, I believe there is always something happening. Even during the long takes, there is mundanity being conveyed (space travel is old hat for the characters in the film), or suspense being built.
Well said. 2001: A Space Odyssey Is art using the film as a medium. it should be approached as art discussed like art and defined as art. I'd like to suggest that from now on in this thread we discuss the deep meaning of symbols and metaphors that the art conveys in the literal and abstract instead of attesting the art has" slow pace"
That being said my view of the interpretation of the monolith(s) is that of a film screen, when turned sideways (90 degrees) the monolith(s) overlap the same ratio as a film screen of the day approximately 2.20:1 (1 being the height of the screen). associated with the monolith is strange music which, can be heard every time man kind realizes the meaning of the object. Also the music plays during the intermission, and at the start of the film, leading me to believe that we are looking at the monolith at these times. This is the interpretation i currently believe to be accurate.
You have to ignore the camera and just remember that they didnt suspend gravity, wo wherever her feet are pointed is down.
All they did was mount the camera to the room, and rotate the room. It's ridiculously simple. The entire scene is rather small amount of total visual real estate. Just a corridor really, mounted on wheels or gears or rollers.
Every other "gravity defying" shot in that movie is just a variation on that theme.
The funky walking style is established in the first walk down the corridor to mask the funky walk on the circular part when they slowly rotate the room, and she can only take a tiny step at a time.
The rotation never looks funky because the camera is physically mounted to the room.
-
You have to understand that the later shots are going to be a variation on the original technique (not gonna use two completely different techniques in the same film for the same thing)
Its a giant rotating set. Spent $750,000 on it (1968 dollars, so probably cost millions in today's dollars)
Quote from Kelzar »
Discuss the art, not how slow the film is.
fine we can discuss fhe art. But part of that is discussing how slow the film is. Starry night was a great painting but I don't want to stare at it for 2 hours, so pacing for a film matters.
Who is the artist in film?
As art, Film is traditionally an actor's medium, as well as a director's medium and a writer's medium*. Usually you need all 3 in a collaborative effort because film is a collaborative medium. In this movie, where is the great acting? As I wrote, we could have done it just as well with Captain Scarlet style marionettes.
* Part of why as much as people **** on James Cameron's work as "not art", at least he wrote it himself. Bad dialog and all. As opposed to somebody who is inking in and interpreting somebody else's words. He may not be your cup of tea, but at least he is more the auteur than somebody who directs other people's writing.
You have to ignore the camera and just remember that they didnt suspend gravity, wo wherever her feet are pointed is down.
All they did was mount the camera to the room, and rotate the room. It's ridiculously simple. The entire scene is rather small amount of total visual real estate. Just a corridor really, mounted on wheels or gears or rollers.
Every other "gravity defying" shot in that movie is just a variation on that theme.
The funky walking style is established in the first walk down the corridor to mask the funky walk on the circular part when they slowly rotate the room, and she can only take a tiny step at a time.
The rotation never looks funky because the camera is physically mounted to the room.
-
You have to understand that the later shots are going to be a variation on the original technique (not gonna use two completely different techniques in the same film for the same thing)
Its a giant rotating set. Spent $750,000 on it (1968 dollars, so probably cost millions in today's dollars)
That is not the shot I'm talking about. That shot is extremely easy to explain away. I'm talking about a shot later in the film where the two astronauts are walking down a corridor and climb into a rotating cap and descend a ladder. I can't figure out if one half of the set is spinning while the other is stationary and, if that is how they did it, how did they "walk" in one part of the set and "climb" in another without betraying which half of the set is remaining stationary. Watch the film again, you will know the shot I'm talking about.
You have to ignore the camera and just remember that they didnt suspend gravity, wo wherever her feet are pointed is down.
All they did was mount the camera to the room, and rotate the room. It's ridiculously simple. The entire scene is rather small amount of total visual real estate. Just a corridor really, mounted on wheels or gears or rollers.
Every other "gravity defying" shot in that movie is just a variation on that theme.
The funky walking style is established in the first walk down the corridor to mask the funky walk on the circular part when they slowly rotate the room, and she can only take a tiny step at a time.
The rotation never looks funky because the camera is physically mounted to the room.
-
You have to understand that the later shots are going to be a variation on the original technique (not gonna use two completely different techniques in the same film for the same thing)
Its a giant rotating set. Spent $750,000 on it (1968 dollars, so probably cost millions in today's dollars)
fine we can discuss fhe art. But part of that is discussing how slow the film is. Starry night was a great painting but I don't want to stare at it for 2 hours, so pacing for a film matters.
Who is the artist in film?
As art, Film is traditionally an actor's medium, as well as a director's medium and a writer's medium*. Usually you need all 3 in a collaborative effort because film is a collaborative medium. In this movie, where is the great acting? As I wrote, we could have done it just as well with Captain Scarlet style marionettes.
* Part of why as much as people **** on James Cameron's work as "not art", at least he wrote it himself. Bad dialog and all. As opposed to somebody who is inking in and interpreting somebody else's words. He may not be your cup of tea, but at least he is more the auteur than somebody who directs other people's writing.
haha thats definitely not the shot he is talking about. i don't even see why you would need to explain the link you posted, it is incredibly easy to figure out. definitely not rocket science.
kubrick wrote a lot of his own work to, although adapted, so I'm not sure where you are going with the James Cameron example. just because he adapted 2001, or even a Clockwork Orange, doesn't mean the SCREENPLAY wasn't his work, or even less compelling than an original work.
I'm sorry but it is much more than "somebody who directs other people's writing". screen adaptation is an art, whether you like it or not.
and if you are applying that a good film requires great acting, that is not true either. it certainly helps, but definitely not required. there is one thing all great films need, though, and that is a good SCRIPT.
There are shots in the film that I, with years and years of film knowledge and understanding of production, cannot figure out. Specifically, there is a shot of the astronauts walking down a corridor to a spinning location at the end and they switch from the non-spinning corridor to the spinning end and climb down a ladder. At no point during this shot is real world gravity betrayed. I don't think they could have spun one part of the set then stopped it and simultaneously spun another part of the set. That single shot, to this day, blows my mind. You cannot say the films effects are dated when there is at least that one, and maybe more, that are impossible to figure out.
Quote from 808Billdo »
haha thats definitely not the shot he is talking about. i don't even see why you would need to explain the link you posted, it is incredibly easy to figure out. definitely not rocket science.
Well it's hard to guess which of the 100% obvious visual tricks you two find bewildering. I just pulled YouTube links to 2001 that show the spinning room trick, and camera POV tricks, which is at the core of all of this.
Every scene is trivial to figure out, especially for somebody with "years and years of film knowledge and understanding of production".
The set is just a hamster wheel. The other guy who is upside down part of the time just has his hair stuck down and is just belted into his seat. the tray is bolted down too. Is this the scene youre talking about? Or something similar?
The thing is there is no "mystery" here. The rotating part of the set rotates. The other part only has to be stationary, and the actor's down is always down. The optical illusion comes from the camera being locked to the rotation, locked to the actor, or locked to the stationary room.
Well it's hard to guess which of the 100% obvious visual tricks you two find bewildering. I just pulled YouTube links to 2001 that show the spinning room trick, and camera POV tricks, which is at the core of all of this.
Every scene is trivial to figure out, especially for somebody with "years and years of film knowledge and understanding of production".
The set is just a hamster wheel. The other guy who is upside down part of the time just has his hair stuck down and is just belted into his seat. the tray is bolted down too. Is this the scene youre talking about? Or something similar?
The thing is there is no "mystery" here. The rotating part of the set rotates. The other part only has to be stationary, and the actor's down is always down. The optical illusion comes from the camera being locked to the rotation, locked to the actor, or locked to the stationary room.
why don't u read his description again. just because the camera "spins" in the scenes you are linking, does not mean it is the scene he is referring to.
"100% obvious visual tricks". no sh*t. movies are made up of visual tricks, stock footage, etc.
i saw the movie about 4 years ago and know exactly which scene he is talking about. maybe he can post, i tried to find it on youtube for you but it didn't come up.
i don't think he was trying to brag about his extensive knowledge of production, simply trying to say that such a shot even amazes him, to this day, with the current technology at hand. every shot is trivial, and you won't impress anyone by "figuring" something out. its the attention to detail in such scenes with the "camera tricks" that make them memorable.
Guess what, the youtube you are searching is the same one that everybody else and I have access to to. The only reason I've broken down the scenes I've chosen to break down is because they're the only ones I've been able to pull up on YouTube.
Quote from 808Billdo »
why don't u read his description again...
...i don't think he was trying to brag about his extensive knowledge of production, simply trying to say that such a shot even amazes him, to this day, with the current technology at hand. every shot is trivial, and you won't impress anyone by "figuring" something out. its the attention to detail in such scenes with the "camera tricks" that make them memorable.
lets both read his comments again:
Quote from dimir impersonator »
There are shots in the film that I, with years and years of film knowledge and understanding of production, cannot figure out...
...You cannot say the films effects are dated when there is at least that one, and maybe more, that are impossible to figure out.
He wrote "at least that one and maybe more, that are impossible to figure out"
I pulled what was available on YouTube to get the "maybe more". I cant read his mind and figure out which other scenes seem "impossible" to him.
Dimir impersonator also did not write that he simply found the scene "amazing", which would be far more subjective. He suggested that even with a person of his expertise in film and production (implied to be well ahead of non-film experts) there are one or more effects that are impossible to figure out. And that this somehow makes this film timeless.
"cannot figure out"
"Impossible to figure out"
I'm just offering explanations, and when I argue that it was trivial for me to figure it out, while offering NO claim of expertise, I am not "bragging". I'm arguing that the film effects are no great mystery, and the effects are certainly not "timeless".
is there any film whose effects are a great mystery? if it was shot, it can be done, and therefore can be explained. no one is asking for explanations- especially from you- which are really easy to give after the fact. u aren't bragging, but u certainly aren't enlightening anyone either by explaining the links u provided in previous posts.
people are merely commenting on how extraordinary some shots are even today, let alone when the movie was first released. maybe u should take his comments with a grain of salt.
if the effects in 2001 aren't timeless by your definition, and in my opinion they are, can you name a movie you feel is timeless in this department? because EVERY SINGLE SCENE AND EVERY EFFECT can be dissected and proved in cinema, it really doesn't take much film experience AT ALL to figure this out.
I'm not the one who made the claim about the special effects being "impossible to figure out". Dimir impersonator did. You should take it up with Dimir. He claims "impossible". I say "not impossible". Glad you've come around and agree with me now.
I don't think any movie is truly "timeless".
Certainly special effects are not "timeless", and special effects tend to date faster than drama.
How can any particular movie be truly "timeless", when the medium itself may not be truly timeless?
I don't deny that 2001 is an "important" film. It was innovative for a lot of reasons, no the least of which was effects. "innovative" in 1968 is of historical importance, but doesn't make it compelling to watch for most people today. Arguing that that is a failing on the part of modern people is ridiculous.
How can an inability to enjoy one particular piece of passive entertainment made 44 years ago, sitting for 2 hours plus, somehow indicate a neurological flaw?
It's a movie. Read a book.
In terms of films that "age better"... human beings with real feelings, real human drama, tends to be more timeless to me. I love old films. In B&W films, I own copies of Bringing up Baby, Casablanca, it's a Wonderful Life... I don't think they're truly "timeless", but I still enjoy them.
You obviously have no idea what shot I'm talking about, dcartist. I looked for the shot on YouTube before I even made my first post. It's not there.
It's a shot of Dave and Frank walking down a corridor that is spinning and climbing into a ladder that is also spinning. It looks like both sets are spinning, but that isn't possible. It's a pretty impressive shot for any film making era.
Regarding my "expertise"; I used to be a special features junkie. If it's been done, I pretty much know how. But, since that's not direct knowledge, I worked in TV production for a while. Here's some of my horriblework that I did. Yes, it's terrible, but it takes knowledge and training to do these things.
I'm not the one who made the claim about the special effects being "impossible to figure out". Dimir impersonator did. You should take it up with Dimir. He claims "impossible". I say "not impossible". Glad you've come around and agree with me now.
I don't think any movie is truly "timeless".
Certainly special effects are not "timeless", and special effects tend to date faster than drama.
How can any particular movie be truly "timeless", when the medium itself may not be truly timeless?
I don't deny that 2001 is an "important" film. It was innovative for a lot of reasons, no the least of which was effects. "innovative" in 1968 is of historical importance, but doesn't make it compelling to watch for most people today. Arguing that that is a failing on the part of modern people is ridiculous.
How can an inability to enjoy one particular piece of passive entertainment made 44 years ago, sitting for 2 hours plus, somehow indicate a neurological flaw?
It's a movie. Read a book.
In terms of films that "age better"... human beings with real feelings, real human drama, tends to be more timeless to me. I love old films. In B&W films, I own copies of Bringing up Baby, Casablanca, it's a Wonderful Life... I don't think they're truly "timeless", but I still enjoy them.
im confused.
who is saying that modern viewers who don't like the film have some neurological flaw? who is even arguing not liking it is a failing on the modern viewer?
i commented that some of the posts about attention spans and modern pacing are interesting, but i don't think anyone suggested anything about neurological flaws on the part of the viewer.
you don't think any movie it timeless. ok, that's the bottom line with you. why even comment on the issue when your viewpoint is so absolute? why not just say ' i don't think any movie is timeless' rather than trying to show and tell the effects of 2001, and disprove people- not doing a very good job- that are saying otherwise?
Do not intentionally misquote other users names. - LN
@Dimir: That wasn't horrible. It was hilarious. It's nice work.
Hey, look, I am not really question your expertise, but calling this 2001 practical effects shot, "impossible" is kind of hyperbole. As long as there's not two people in the scene walking on opposite walls, then moving gravity from floor to wall to ceiling is pretty much workable as a practical shot as long as you plan it out well, especially when you have a giant set that you can rotate at will (and if they're on opposite walls walking, then it's some sort of composite). As for any rotation going on in the scene, that can always be achieved. You have to consider what part of a counter-rotating section is actually IN FRAME.
Maybe if you described the scene better. Does it take place in that centrifuge room? Or more like that hallway type situation with the woman? Because your verbal description is not painting a word picture that illustrates how amazing the scene is.
Where is the ladder they climb? At the end of the corridor? How is that end wall or section spinning? With the corridor or in some other direction. From your description the ladder has to have a base that is not rotating in relation to the floor they're initially walkin on or else they can't climb onto it. Can you describe it more accurately?
@808Billdo: with "neurological flaw", I was referencing "ADD" which was attributed since page 1 to people who find 2001 too slow.
As for your claim that I'm "not doing a good job" of arguing that the effects can be figured out easily:
(1) it's hard to explain in detail how a specific shot was done when only the vaguest description of the scene has been offered, and no video. Not even a time point on the movie. Could you even draw a diagram based on that description?
(2) you've already agreed with my position that all the special effects shots are easy to figure out, so what are you arguing about? You're on my side on the question of whether those shots can be figured out.
It's a shot of Dave and Frank walking down a corridor that is spinning and climbing into a ladder that is also spinning. It looks like both sets are spinning, but that isn't possible. It's a pretty impressive shot for any film making era.
I don't think they could have spun one part of the set then stopped it and simultaneously spun another part of the set.
Funny - that's exactly what they did. He had a Ferris wheel sort of set-up, and it was split in halves. The camera is anchored to the half they start on which is not spinning to begin with, and they make the nearly seamless rotation change as they cross the threshold.
I absolutely adore 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I find it interesting that people feel the pacing is a flaw. For me, the slow, deliberate pace is a master stroke conveying the temporal realities of space travel, and scientific discovery and exploration. A lot of effort is taken to make sure that the weight of reality remains in the audience and the pacing plays a huge role in accomplishing that. This may make it inappropriate for "empty entertainment", whatever that is, but makes for excellent mood if you come into it without that expectation.
As for it being an adaptation, he worked directly with Clarke to expand his earlier short story "Sentinel", and then they split off to do the two works simultaneously without much communication. They are two different treatments of the same notion; neither is an adaptation of the other. The book explains a bit more than the film's willing to do - for example, Kubrick wanted the ending to be enigmatic, wanted for each person's personal interpretation to be just as valid - but for the most part they agree.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Funny - that's exactly what they did. He had a Ferris wheel sort of set-up, and it was split in halves. The camera is anchored to the half they start on which is not spinning to begin with, and they make the nearly seamless rotation change as they cross the threshold.
That is amazing to me. I wish I had a clip of the shot so dcartist could see what I'm talking about. At no point in that shot do they ever betray where real gravity is or what part of the set is remaining stationary.
I absolutely adore 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I find it interesting that people feel the pacing is a flaw. For me, the slow, deliberate pace is a master stroke conveying the temporal realities of space travel, and scientific discovery and exploration. A lot of effort is taken to make sure that the weight of reality remains in the audience and the pacing plays a huge role in accomplishing that. This may make it inappropriate for "empty entertainment", whatever that is, but makes for excellent mood if you come into it without that expectation.
Unfortunately too many people have been brainwashed by rapid-fire MTV style editing and stories that move so fast that the viewer doesn't even notice how empty they are. There's just not much we can do about that. Just wait 5-10 years when everyone has been further brainwashed by their smartphones/personal computing devices and no one on the entire planet has patience anymore. I'm seriously concerned about a society that no longer understands the concept of simply waiting and doing "nothing".
As for it being an adaptation, he worked directly with Clarke to expand his earlier short story "Sentinel", and then they split off to do the two works simultaneously without much communication. They are two different treatments of the same notion; neither is an adaptation of the other. The book explains a bit more than the film's willing to do - for example, Kubrick wanted the ending to be enigmatic, wanted for each person's personal interpretation to be just as valid - but for the most part they agree.
And yet there are people who hate this idea and find it to be a flaw of the film! As if it's a crime for someone to force others to actually think about something!
And yet there are people who hate this idea and find it to be a flaw of the film! As if it's a crime for someone to force others to actually think about something!
In order to think about something, you have to be given enough information and context to use for mental toeholds. When presented with surreal imagery and events apropos of nothing, there is not really very much to think about.
Look at the ending for Inception. (Which I actually didn't like, but for unrelated reasons.) It presents us with a mystery, but movie leading up to it has equipped us to understand the nature of the mystery and how we might go about solving it. We've spent all that time learning the rules of the dream-worlds and exploring how they work. So while we don't necessarily get all the answers, at least we know what question we're being asked, and what questions we might ask in turn.
The only question to ask of 2001 is, "What the...?" It is surreal, and beautiful, and humbling, but it is not thought-provoking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In order to think about something, you have to be given enough information and context to use for mental toeholds. When presented with surreal imagery and events apropos of nothing, there is not really very much to think about.
Look at the ending for Inception. (Which I actually didn't like, but for unrelated reasons.) It presents us with a mystery, but movie leading up to it has equipped us to understand the nature of the mystery and how we might go about solving it. We've spent all that time learning the rules of the dream-worlds and exploring how they work. So while we don't necessarily get all the answers, at least we know what question we're being asked, and what questions we might ask in turn.
The only question to ask of 2001 is, "What the...?" It is surreal, and beautiful, and humbling, but it is not thought-provoking.
True. I guess the concept of "where did our intelligence come from/what purpose does it serve/why are we here?" isn't thought-provoking at all. Good point.
That is amazing to me. I wish I had a clip of the shot so dcartist could see what I'm talking about. At no point in that shot do they ever betray where real gravity is or what part of the set is remaining stationary.
here you go. I'm sorry it seemed obvious at the every time I was watching it.
When I'm watching. I know i see them walking so I know where gravity actually is at all times (wherever their soles are pointing while walking). Anything that doesn't rotate relative to the camera is attached to the camera. Rotation of any piece of the set can be relative to another part of a set or relative to the actual ground. It really didnt fool my eye for more than a second or two. I suspend my disbelief while watching the movie... But it doesn't bewilder me.
Quote from American Cinematographer »
The first live action shots in the space sequence took place on board the Orion spacecraft during its journey to the space station. For long shots of the apparently weightless floating in mid-air, the pen was simply suspended on thin monofilament nylon strands. For the close-up reverse angle shots the entire end of the set was floated away, and an eight-foot diameter rotating glass was moved into position with the pen lightly glued to it. The stewardess merely had to pluck it off...
...The interior of the space station was a giant curved set over three hundred feet long, and sloping up at one end to nearly forty feet. It may be noticeable that in the long shot of two men approaching the camera from the far end, their pace as slightly awkward, and this was due to the very steep slope at that end of the set. Most action took place in the more comfortable area at the bottom. The Earth image seen through the window of the space station was a rear-projected four-by-five transparency in a special rotating mount.
Aboard the Aries spacecraft on its trip to the moon, in the passenger compartment a stewardess is watching another TV screen, and again the action was directed and edited by Stanley Kubrick. The galley scene of this spacecraft where the stewardess comes in, picks up a tray, and then walks up the wall to exit upside down, was filmed using a rotating set with all lights and the camera secured to the rotating structure. The stewardess merely remained upright as the set and camera rotated around her.
The Discovery spacecraft included the most exciting sets of the production, and the most spectacular of these was the giant centrifuge. At a cost of over $750,000 the massive forty-foot diameter structure could rotate like a ferris-wheel. With the actors either standing, walking, or even running at the bottom of the set, cleverly thought-out camera angles made it appear that the actors could stand upright at any angle around the circular set.
In one of the most difficult shots Gary Lockwood was strapped into his seat and had to hang upside-down pretending to eat glued-down food while Keir Dullea climbed down the ladder at an angIe 180 degrees opposed to Gary. As Keir began to walk around the centrifuge toward Gary, the centrifuge was slowly rotated until Keir and Gary were together at the bottom. The camera, which was locked down to the centrifuge floor, was then at the top. For other shots the camera was mounted on a specially made 360-degree tilting platform which was bolted to the floor of the centrifuge, and the camera operator sat in a ferris-wheel type seat which kept him upright at all times. Other shots were done with the camera mounted on a small rubber-tired dolly, which would be pulled by grips frantically clambering up the inside of the centrifuge as it rotated, trying to keep ahead of an actor shadow boxing at the bottom.
All lights and large banks of 16mm projectors also rotated with the set, so that exploding bulbs, loose junk, and reels of film constituted a serious hazard to people nearby. Hard hats had to be worn by everyone involved, and the control area from where the centrifuge was driven, and action directed by closed-circuit television, was netted over with chicken wire and heavy plastic.
The cylindrical corridor which linked the hub of the centrifuge to the rest of the ship, was constructed of two separately rotating sections, with the camera mounted securely to the corridor end. With the hub end rotating, the actors could walk down the static corridor and then step onto the hub as the port came to a position at the bottom. As soon as they stepped across onto the hub, it would stop and the corridor would begin to rotate in the opposite direction. From the camera's point of view the apparent rotation remained constant, but the actors seemed to be completely defying the law of gravity.
Other apparently weightless effects, which took place during the excursions outside the spacecraft, and in the "Brain Room," were created by suspending the astronaut on wires and then shooting from directly below so that he would cover his own means of support.
the rotation appearing constant is trivial because the camera is locked into position, and relative rotation of the other section to the camera is only important to the camera. Any rotation of the whole set relative to the true horizon or true gravity doesn't have to be "smoothly" stopped, and doesn't matter to the camera. The camera only knows what it sees and has no intrinsic up or down attached to its POV.
Quote from dimir impersonator »
Unfortunately too many people have been brainwashed by rapid-fire MTV style editing and stories that move so fast that the viewer doesn't even notice how empty they are. There's just not much we can do about that. Just wait 5-10 years when everyone has been further brainwashed by their smartphones/personal computing devices and no one on the entire planet has patience anymore. I'm seriously concerned about a society that no longer understands the concept of simply waiting and doing "nothing".
And the implication is that not enjoying the glacial pace of 2001 is an indication that "unfortunately", I am one of those "brainwashed" people, while you, by virtue of enjoying this movie, are NOT one of those "brainwashed" people.
It's one thing to be a strong proponent of the movie. But unless you or your family member made it themselves (and it's therefore a very "personal" thing), I don't see why you have to attach some kind of FLAW to people who don't like it like you did.
Quote from dimir impersonator »
And yet there are people who hate this idea and find it to be a flaw of the film! As if it's a crime for someone to force others to actually think about something!
think about what?
You complain that people call it a "flaw"
Then you immediatelt equate that to calling it a "crime".
Fine, I'm too "brainwashed" to get what the imagery ending of the movie was really about. I need it spelled out for me. Explain what the ending is about and why it was important for me to sit through.
I already knew aliens might exist before i watched this movie. I already knew that the events in the movie had nothing to do with any existing historical evidence of aliens on earth. Why is it so important for HAL to go crazy? Is it necessary to the central themes, or is it simply a side story to keep us engaged enough to stay awake and invest in this cold, unexpressive astronaut we barely know and struggle to care about.
For it's time, the effects were interesting, but for me, never mind blowing, and the pace was slow...
In analyzing it further I think it wasnt even the space scenes that made the pace seem so glacial. It was really that the characters were so sterile and boring. Do normal humans really talk like that? Its a spacecraft full of socially awkward autistic scientist-astronauts? When people are living together, don't they have lively conversations? Joke? Act like relatable humans? Banter? The mood is like some experimental Scandinavian film with androgynous people in jumpsuits sitting on ikea furniture and staring at square plates Zzzzzzz...
I can appreciate Kubrick's control and his technical brilliance... But in trying to "force" (your words) us to eat his story, he seems so uninterested in telling us a human story or have us invest in the characters. The rest of the movie could easily work as a straight horror film and end with a demon eating the last astronaut. The loneliness & isolation of space... It's influenced a lot of other movies...
But who cares what happens to this dude? I can't identify with him. I have spent the entire movie bored by these astronauts and am not really caring that any of them died.
Unlike, say, Dr Strangelove, where there are multiple great acting performances and brilliant dialog. Real emotion. Spartacus: human beings. Feelings. A Clockwork Orange: human beings. Feelings.
Maybe I was supposed to be high when I watched it. I know many people chose that route:
Quote from American Cinematographer »
During the filming of what are probably best termed the "psychedelic" effects for the end sequence, we all joked that "2001" would probably attract a great number of "Hippies" out to get the trip of their lives. It seems now that what was once a joke is fast becoming reality, and as of this writing, I understand that each showing draws an increasing number of these people, who would probably prefer to just see the last two reels over and over again.
True. I guess the concept of "where did our intelligence come from/what purpose does it serve/why are we here?" isn't thought-provoking at all. Good point.
How does having a movie with some alien race with these Stone monoliths, a 2 hour spaceship ride with astronauts devoid of charisma and conversation skills, and a montage of psychedelic images including eventually a fetus... Provoke us to think further about "where did our intelligence come from/what purpose does it serve/why are we here?"
First thing I am thinking is "sure wasnt these aliens on Jupiter. I think more about these questions during the 15 minute travel show through the stars at the planetarium. What a waste of two hours."
Why should I believe you? My research mentor and residency advisor as a medical student & rehab resident was a REAL astronaut and REAL scientist (MD & PhD) who flew multiple shuttle missions (Dan Barry - also was on Survivor actually... He also invented the Brooks hydroflow shoe while I was there). He was not "cold and emotionless" and I have no idea why you would get the impression that an astronaut or scientist must be "cold and emotionless".
The Odyssey is HUGE compared to the cramped quarters of the shuttle or even, let's say, spacelab, and they are spending vast amounts of time there, and the COMPUTER is piloting the ship. Spending lots of time together, People's personalities would tend to revert to what they naturally are. Deep space travel in this case is more like long travel on the sea than anything else.
Sure, these particular fictional astronauts were deliberately just uncharismatic, boring people (probably in order for Kubrick to set the mood for us and have more control over the precise viewer experience), but how can you possibly argue that "cold and emotionless" traits are intrinsic to the career or the setting? What data supports this? I couldn't relate to them at all, and 2 hours of space eye candy without a human story (and fake eye candy of space, models in front of black sheet metal with star holes cut into it) no matter how well executed, cannot dazzle like looking at REAL stars and REAL telescope images.
It wasn't unwatchable, but it was boring. Again, with my cooking analogy, I can appreciate the craft, without actually enjoying the food.
Fine, I'm too "brainwashed" to get what the imagery ending of the movie was really about. I need it spelled out for me. Explain what the ending is about and why it was important for me to sit through.
I already knew aliens might exist before i watched this movie. I already knew that the events in the movie had nothing to do with any existing historical evidence of aliens on earth. Why is it so important for HAL to go crazy? Is it necessary to the central themes, or is it simply a side story to keep us engaged enough to stay awake and invest in this cold, unexpressive astronaut we barely know and struggle to care about.
[/i]
i don't think your brainwashed. just very opinionated and a little jaded for whatever reason.
the shots we are talking about aren't great just for their technical aspects, it is the attention to detail, the work of the camera, the mise-en-scene in the whole frame. you can simplify the cinematography all you want, you aren't enlightening anyone. anyone can look up how something was done 50 years ago and make it seem mediocre in today's world.
yes i agree with you that the shots aren't impossible. since they've been done i think it is fairly obvious they aren't impossible. where we disagree, however, is that I think the effects of the movie are timeless. you don't think anything in cinema is timeless, which is a reflection of your interpretation of films.
HAL is the antagonist of the film. his transformation shows the evolvement of technology to the human level. remember when he started to read lips? his slow progression into this maniac computer is remarkable. being trapped in space in such a situation would be horrible.
the ending leaves you with questions. really? you don't say....
you wasted 2 hours of time? that sucks for you. you're probably going to waste more time trying to convince everyone WHY the 2 hours was a waist of time... certainly to no avail.
it really seems like you just don't understand the movie, and you can't figure out why, and that makes you dislike it. and when someone tries to offer their opinion on the end, you dismiss it or try to prove why it's wrong. maybe the ending needs some personal interpretation?
although i think DIMIR hit it pretty much on the head.
perhaps this is why you like Cameron? his movies are fairly cut and dry, his endings are definitive, and you don't really have/need/want any questions when the movie is finished.
maybe have a "productive" 3 hours watching titanic over again?
Quoting another user as "dbag" is deliberate trolling. Infraction issued. - LN
Fine, I'm too "brainwashed" to get what the imagery ending of the movie was really about. I need it spelled out for me. Explain what the ending is about and why it was important for me to sit through.
I already knew aliens might exist before i watched this movie. I already knew that the events in the movie had nothing to do with any existing historical evidence of aliens on earth. Why is it so important for HAL to go crazy? Is it necessary to the central themes, or is it simply a side story to keep us engaged enough to stay awake and invest in this cold, unexpressive astronaut we barely know and struggle to care about.
[/i]
i don't think your brainwashed. just very opinionated and a little jaded for whatever reason.
the shots we are talking about aren't great just for their technical aspects, it is the attention to detail, the work of the camera, the mise-en-scene in the whole frame. you can simplify the cinematography all you want, you aren't enlightening anyone. anyone can look up how something was done 50 years ago and make it seem mediocre in today's world.
yes i agree with you that the shots aren't impossible. since they've been done i think it is fairly obvious they aren't impossible. where we disagree, however, is that I think the effects of the movie are timeless. you don't think anything in cinema is timeless, which is a reflection of your interpretation of films.
HAL is the antagonist of the film. his transformation shows the evolvement of technology to the human level. remember when he started to read lips? his slow progression into this maniac computer is remarkable. being trapped in space in such a situation would be horrible.
the ending leaves you with questions. really? you don't say....
you wasted 2 hours of time? that sucks for you. you're probably going to waste more time trying to convince everyone WHY the 2 hours was a waist of time... certainly to no avail.
it really seems like you just don't understand the movie, and you can't figure out why, and that makes you dislike it. and when someone tries to offer their opinion on the end, you dismiss it or try to prove why it's wrong. maybe the ending needs some personal interpretation?
although i think DIMIR hit it pretty much on the head.
perhaps this is why you like Cameron? his movies are fairly cut and dry, his endings are definitive, and you don't really have/need/want any questions when the movie is finished.
maybe have a "productive" 3 hours watching titanic over again?
Why do you keep quoting me as "dbag"? Is that really necessary? Its at least the second time you've done it. First you quoted me as "d***" then "dbag" and now "dbag" again.
And again instead of talking about the movie, you're insisting on talking about me. Since when did *I* become the topic of this thread?
You should believe me because I'm a Rocket Scientist
Also, you're doing that thing again.
You said that astronauts and scientists should be a certain way. You argued "believe me..." followed by an assertion about how astronauts behave:
Quote from ( N_S ) »
believe me, anyone who is sent up there irl for extended stays in space is supposed to act cold and emotionless, you never want to have "feelings" up there in a tiny, constrained, claustrophobic setting of high-tech machinery who needs high-precision handling by trained professionals.
my response that my mentor was an astronaut-scientist and was nothing like that. It seemed to be a very reasonable response and at least ONE counterexample to a rather bold claim on your par about how trained professionals will behave in extended space stays.
I didnt claim to be an expert, I didn't tell you "believe me..." as if Im an authority. I offered one sincere counterexample, and expressed some doubt about your claim, which I continue to do. There is virtually no reason to make the people so quiet and boring other than "atmosphere".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Going from the end of evolution (age death)
To the beginning of the new (birth)
that's fairly deep and very artistic
Well said. 2001: A Space Odyssey Is art using the film as a medium. it should be approached as art discussed like art and defined as art. I'd like to suggest that from now on in this thread we discuss the deep meaning of symbols and metaphors that the art conveys in the literal and abstract instead of attesting the art has" slow pace"
That being said my view of the interpretation of the monolith(s) is that of a film screen, when turned sideways (90 degrees) the monolith(s) overlap the same ratio as a film screen of the day approximately 2.20:1 (1 being the height of the screen). associated with the monolith is strange music which, can be heard every time man kind realizes the meaning of the object. Also the music plays during the intermission, and at the start of the film, leading me to believe that we are looking at the monolith at these times. This is the interpretation i currently believe to be accurate.
TL;DR
Discuss the art, not how slow the film is.
@dimir impersonator: its not rocket science.
You have to ignore the camera and just remember that they didnt suspend gravity, wo wherever her feet are pointed is down.
All they did was mount the camera to the room, and rotate the room. It's ridiculously simple. The entire scene is rather small amount of total visual real estate. Just a corridor really, mounted on wheels or gears or rollers.
Every other "gravity defying" shot in that movie is just a variation on that theme.
The funky walking style is established in the first walk down the corridor to mask the funky walk on the circular part when they slowly rotate the room, and she can only take a tiny step at a time.
The rotation never looks funky because the camera is physically mounted to the room.
-
You have to understand that the later shots are going to be a variation on the original technique (not gonna use two completely different techniques in the same film for the same thing)
Its a giant rotating set. Spent $750,000 on it (1968 dollars, so probably cost millions in today's dollars)
fine we can discuss fhe art. But part of that is discussing how slow the film is. Starry night was a great painting but I don't want to stare at it for 2 hours, so pacing for a film matters.
Who is the artist in film?
As art, Film is traditionally an actor's medium, as well as a director's medium and a writer's medium*. Usually you need all 3 in a collaborative effort because film is a collaborative medium. In this movie, where is the great acting? As I wrote, we could have done it just as well with Captain Scarlet style marionettes.
* Part of why as much as people **** on James Cameron's work as "not art", at least he wrote it himself. Bad dialog and all. As opposed to somebody who is inking in and interpreting somebody else's words. He may not be your cup of tea, but at least he is more the auteur than somebody who directs other people's writing.
That is not the shot I'm talking about. That shot is extremely easy to explain away. I'm talking about a shot later in the film where the two astronauts are walking down a corridor and climb into a rotating cap and descend a ladder. I can't figure out if one half of the set is spinning while the other is stationary and, if that is how they did it, how did they "walk" in one part of the set and "climb" in another without betraying which half of the set is remaining stationary. Watch the film again, you will know the shot I'm talking about.
haha thats definitely not the shot he is talking about. i don't even see why you would need to explain the link you posted, it is incredibly easy to figure out. definitely not rocket science.
kubrick wrote a lot of his own work to, although adapted, so I'm not sure where you are going with the James Cameron example. just because he adapted 2001, or even a Clockwork Orange, doesn't mean the SCREENPLAY wasn't his work, or even less compelling than an original work.
I'm sorry but it is much more than "somebody who directs other people's writing". screen adaptation is an art, whether you like it or not.
and if you are applying that a good film requires great acting, that is not true either. it certainly helps, but definitely not required. there is one thing all great films need, though, and that is a good SCRIPT.
Every scene is trivial to figure out, especially for somebody with "years and years of film knowledge and understanding of production".
The set is just a hamster wheel. The other guy who is upside down part of the time just has his hair stuck down and is just belted into his seat. the tray is bolted down too. Is this the scene youre talking about? Or something similar?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmB4Q49abn8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The thing is there is no "mystery" here. The rotating part of the set rotates. The other part only has to be stationary, and the actor's down is always down. The optical illusion comes from the camera being locked to the rotation, locked to the actor, or locked to the stationary room.
why don't u read his description again. just because the camera "spins" in the scenes you are linking, does not mean it is the scene he is referring to.
"100% obvious visual tricks". no sh*t. movies are made up of visual tricks, stock footage, etc.
i saw the movie about 4 years ago and know exactly which scene he is talking about. maybe he can post, i tried to find it on youtube for you but it didn't come up.
i don't think he was trying to brag about his extensive knowledge of production, simply trying to say that such a shot even amazes him, to this day, with the current technology at hand. every shot is trivial, and you won't impress anyone by "figuring" something out. its the attention to detail in such scenes with the "camera tricks" that make them memorable.
Censor evasion, infraction issued. - LN
lets both read his comments again:
He wrote "at least that one and maybe more, that are impossible to figure out"
I pulled what was available on YouTube to get the "maybe more". I cant read his mind and figure out which other scenes seem "impossible" to him.
Dimir impersonator also did not write that he simply found the scene "amazing", which would be far more subjective. He suggested that even with a person of his expertise in film and production (implied to be well ahead of non-film experts) there are one or more effects that are impossible to figure out. And that this somehow makes this film timeless.
"cannot figure out"
"Impossible to figure out"
I'm just offering explanations, and when I argue that it was trivial for me to figure it out, while offering NO claim of expertise, I am not "bragging". I'm arguing that the film effects are no great mystery, and the effects are certainly not "timeless".
The actors explain working in the centrifuge on 2001:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDnuoAe3Cms&feature=youtube_gdata_player
people are merely commenting on how extraordinary some shots are even today, let alone when the movie was first released. maybe u should take his comments with a grain of salt.
if the effects in 2001 aren't timeless by your definition, and in my opinion they are, can you name a movie you feel is timeless in this department? because EVERY SINGLE SCENE AND EVERY EFFECT can be dissected and proved in cinema, it really doesn't take much film experience AT ALL to figure this out.
I don't think any movie is truly "timeless".
Certainly special effects are not "timeless", and special effects tend to date faster than drama.
How can any particular movie be truly "timeless", when the medium itself may not be truly timeless?
I don't deny that 2001 is an "important" film. It was innovative for a lot of reasons, no the least of which was effects. "innovative" in 1968 is of historical importance, but doesn't make it compelling to watch for most people today. Arguing that that is a failing on the part of modern people is ridiculous.
How can an inability to enjoy one particular piece of passive entertainment made 44 years ago, sitting for 2 hours plus, somehow indicate a neurological flaw?
It's a movie. Read a book.
In terms of films that "age better"... human beings with real feelings, real human drama, tends to be more timeless to me. I love old films. In B&W films, I own copies of Bringing up Baby, Casablanca, it's a Wonderful Life... I don't think they're truly "timeless", but I still enjoy them.
It's a shot of Dave and Frank walking down a corridor that is spinning and climbing into a ladder that is also spinning. It looks like both sets are spinning, but that isn't possible. It's a pretty impressive shot for any film making era.
Regarding my "expertise"; I used to be a special features junkie. If it's been done, I pretty much know how. But, since that's not direct knowledge, I worked in TV production for a while. Here's some of my horrible work that I did. Yes, it's terrible, but it takes knowledge and training to do these things.
im confused.
who is saying that modern viewers who don't like the film have some neurological flaw? who is even arguing not liking it is a failing on the modern viewer?
i commented that some of the posts about attention spans and modern pacing are interesting, but i don't think anyone suggested anything about neurological flaws on the part of the viewer.
you don't think any movie it timeless. ok, that's the bottom line with you. why even comment on the issue when your viewpoint is so absolute? why not just say ' i don't think any movie is timeless' rather than trying to show and tell the effects of 2001, and disprove people- not doing a very good job- that are saying otherwise?
Do not intentionally misquote other users names. - LN
Hey, look, I am not really question your expertise, but calling this 2001 practical effects shot, "impossible" is kind of hyperbole. As long as there's not two people in the scene walking on opposite walls, then moving gravity from floor to wall to ceiling is pretty much workable as a practical shot as long as you plan it out well, especially when you have a giant set that you can rotate at will (and if they're on opposite walls walking, then it's some sort of composite). As for any rotation going on in the scene, that can always be achieved. You have to consider what part of a counter-rotating section is actually IN FRAME.
Maybe if you described the scene better. Does it take place in that centrifuge room? Or more like that hallway type situation with the woman? Because your verbal description is not painting a word picture that illustrates how amazing the scene is.
Where is the ladder they climb? At the end of the corridor? How is that end wall or section spinning? With the corridor or in some other direction. From your description the ladder has to have a base that is not rotating in relation to the floor they're initially walkin on or else they can't climb onto it. Can you describe it more accurately?
@808Billdo: with "neurological flaw", I was referencing "ADD" which was attributed since page 1 to people who find 2001 too slow.
As for your claim that I'm "not doing a good job" of arguing that the effects can be figured out easily:
(1) it's hard to explain in detail how a specific shot was done when only the vaguest description of the scene has been offered, and no video. Not even a time point on the movie. Could you even draw a diagram based on that description?
(2) you've already agreed with my position that all the special effects shots are easy to figure out, so what are you arguing about? You're on my side on the question of whether those shots can be figured out.
Funny - that's exactly what they did. He had a Ferris wheel sort of set-up, and it was split in halves. The camera is anchored to the half they start on which is not spinning to begin with, and they make the nearly seamless rotation change as they cross the threshold.
I absolutely adore 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I find it interesting that people feel the pacing is a flaw. For me, the slow, deliberate pace is a master stroke conveying the temporal realities of space travel, and scientific discovery and exploration. A lot of effort is taken to make sure that the weight of reality remains in the audience and the pacing plays a huge role in accomplishing that. This may make it inappropriate for "empty entertainment", whatever that is, but makes for excellent mood if you come into it without that expectation.
As for it being an adaptation, he worked directly with Clarke to expand his earlier short story "Sentinel", and then they split off to do the two works simultaneously without much communication. They are two different treatments of the same notion; neither is an adaptation of the other. The book explains a bit more than the film's willing to do - for example, Kubrick wanted the ending to be enigmatic, wanted for each person's personal interpretation to be just as valid - but for the most part they agree.
That is amazing to me. I wish I had a clip of the shot so dcartist could see what I'm talking about. At no point in that shot do they ever betray where real gravity is or what part of the set is remaining stationary.
Unfortunately too many people have been brainwashed by rapid-fire MTV style editing and stories that move so fast that the viewer doesn't even notice how empty they are. There's just not much we can do about that. Just wait 5-10 years when everyone has been further brainwashed by their smartphones/personal computing devices and no one on the entire planet has patience anymore. I'm seriously concerned about a society that no longer understands the concept of simply waiting and doing "nothing".
And yet there are people who hate this idea and find it to be a flaw of the film! As if it's a crime for someone to force others to actually think about something!
In order to think about something, you have to be given enough information and context to use for mental toeholds. When presented with surreal imagery and events apropos of nothing, there is not really very much to think about.
Look at the ending for Inception. (Which I actually didn't like, but for unrelated reasons.) It presents us with a mystery, but movie leading up to it has equipped us to understand the nature of the mystery and how we might go about solving it. We've spent all that time learning the rules of the dream-worlds and exploring how they work. So while we don't necessarily get all the answers, at least we know what question we're being asked, and what questions we might ask in turn.
The only question to ask of 2001 is, "What the...?" It is surreal, and beautiful, and humbling, but it is not thought-provoking.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
True. I guess the concept of "where did our intelligence come from/what purpose does it serve/why are we here?" isn't thought-provoking at all. Good point.
When I'm watching. I know i see them walking so I know where gravity actually is at all times (wherever their soles are pointing while walking). Anything that doesn't rotate relative to the camera is attached to the camera. Rotation of any piece of the set can be relative to another part of a set or relative to the actual ground. It really didnt fool my eye for more than a second or two. I suspend my disbelief while watching the movie... But it doesn't bewilder me.
the rotation appearing constant is trivial because the camera is locked into position, and relative rotation of the other section to the camera is only important to the camera. Any rotation of the whole set relative to the true horizon or true gravity doesn't have to be "smoothly" stopped, and doesn't matter to the camera. The camera only knows what it sees and has no intrinsic up or down attached to its POV.
And the implication is that not enjoying the glacial pace of 2001 is an indication that "unfortunately", I am one of those "brainwashed" people, while you, by virtue of enjoying this movie, are NOT one of those "brainwashed" people.
It's one thing to be a strong proponent of the movie. But unless you or your family member made it themselves (and it's therefore a very "personal" thing), I don't see why you have to attach some kind of FLAW to people who don't like it like you did.
think about what?
You complain that people call it a "flaw"
Then you immediatelt equate that to calling it a "crime".
Fine, I'm too "brainwashed" to get what the imagery ending of the movie was really about. I need it spelled out for me. Explain what the ending is about and why it was important for me to sit through.
I already knew aliens might exist before i watched this movie. I already knew that the events in the movie had nothing to do with any existing historical evidence of aliens on earth. Why is it so important for HAL to go crazy? Is it necessary to the central themes, or is it simply a side story to keep us engaged enough to stay awake and invest in this cold, unexpressive astronaut we barely know and struggle to care about.
For it's time, the effects were interesting, but for me, never mind blowing, and the pace was slow...
In analyzing it further I think it wasnt even the space scenes that made the pace seem so glacial. It was really that the characters were so sterile and boring. Do normal humans really talk like that? Its a spacecraft full of socially awkward autistic scientist-astronauts? When people are living together, don't they have lively conversations? Joke? Act like relatable humans? Banter? The mood is like some experimental Scandinavian film with androgynous people in jumpsuits sitting on ikea furniture and staring at square plates Zzzzzzz...
I can appreciate Kubrick's control and his technical brilliance... But in trying to "force" (your words) us to eat his story, he seems so uninterested in telling us a human story or have us invest in the characters. The rest of the movie could easily work as a straight horror film and end with a demon eating the last astronaut. The loneliness & isolation of space... It's influenced a lot of other movies...
But who cares what happens to this dude? I can't identify with him. I have spent the entire movie bored by these astronauts and am not really caring that any of them died.
Unlike, say, Dr Strangelove, where there are multiple great acting performances and brilliant dialog. Real emotion. Spartacus: human beings. Feelings. A Clockwork Orange: human beings. Feelings.
Maybe I was supposed to be high when I watched it. I know many people chose that route:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/2001a/page3.html
How does having a movie with some alien race with these Stone monoliths, a 2 hour spaceship ride with astronauts devoid of charisma and conversation skills, and a montage of psychedelic images including eventually a fetus... Provoke us to think further about "where did our intelligence come from/what purpose does it serve/why are we here?"
First thing I am thinking is "sure wasnt these aliens on Jupiter. I think more about these questions during the 15 minute travel show through the stars at the planetarium. What a waste of two hours."
The Odyssey is HUGE compared to the cramped quarters of the shuttle or even, let's say, spacelab, and they are spending vast amounts of time there, and the COMPUTER is piloting the ship. Spending lots of time together, People's personalities would tend to revert to what they naturally are. Deep space travel in this case is more like long travel on the sea than anything else.
Sure, these particular fictional astronauts were deliberately just uncharismatic, boring people (probably in order for Kubrick to set the mood for us and have more control over the precise viewer experience), but how can you possibly argue that "cold and emotionless" traits are intrinsic to the career or the setting? What data supports this? I couldn't relate to them at all, and 2 hours of space eye candy without a human story (and fake eye candy of space, models in front of black sheet metal with star holes cut into it) no matter how well executed, cannot dazzle like looking at REAL stars and REAL telescope images.
It wasn't unwatchable, but it was boring. Again, with my cooking analogy, I can appreciate the craft, without actually enjoying the food.
i don't think your brainwashed. just very opinionated and a little jaded for whatever reason.
the shots we are talking about aren't great just for their technical aspects, it is the attention to detail, the work of the camera, the mise-en-scene in the whole frame. you can simplify the cinematography all you want, you aren't enlightening anyone. anyone can look up how something was done 50 years ago and make it seem mediocre in today's world.
yes i agree with you that the shots aren't impossible. since they've been done i think it is fairly obvious they aren't impossible. where we disagree, however, is that I think the effects of the movie are timeless. you don't think anything in cinema is timeless, which is a reflection of your interpretation of films.
HAL is the antagonist of the film. his transformation shows the evolvement of technology to the human level. remember when he started to read lips? his slow progression into this maniac computer is remarkable. being trapped in space in such a situation would be horrible.
the ending leaves you with questions. really? you don't say....
you wasted 2 hours of time? that sucks for you. you're probably going to waste more time trying to convince everyone WHY the 2 hours was a waist of time... certainly to no avail.
it really seems like you just don't understand the movie, and you can't figure out why, and that makes you dislike it. and when someone tries to offer their opinion on the end, you dismiss it or try to prove why it's wrong. maybe the ending needs some personal interpretation?
although i think DIMIR hit it pretty much on the head.
perhaps this is why you like Cameron? his movies are fairly cut and dry, his endings are definitive, and you don't really have/need/want any questions when the movie is finished.
maybe have a "productive" 3 hours watching titanic over again?
Quoting another user as "dbag" is deliberate trolling. Infraction issued. - LN
And again instead of talking about the movie, you're insisting on talking about me. Since when did *I* become the topic of this thread?
You said that astronauts and scientists should be a certain way. You argued "believe me..." followed by an assertion about how astronauts behave:
my response that my mentor was an astronaut-scientist and was nothing like that. It seemed to be a very reasonable response and at least ONE counterexample to a rather bold claim on your par about how trained professionals will behave in extended space stays.
I didnt claim to be an expert, I didn't tell you "believe me..." as if Im an authority. I offered one sincere counterexample, and expressed some doubt about your claim, which I continue to do. There is virtually no reason to make the people so quiet and boring other than "atmosphere".