Slashdot Mirror
Remembering 2001 in 2001
andyNola writes "It was exactly 33 years ago this week that 2001: A Space Odyssey premiered in theaters. Beings with ten digits don't normally get excited about 33rd anniversaries, cept in this case it's... well, you know... actually 2001.
According to this timeline, the world premiere was in Washington, DC on the 2nd, followed by New York (April 3) and Los Angeles (April 4). LIFE Magazine got the first crack at it (March 29)...
Here's
Q&A with Arthur C. Clarke on the 25th anniversary." Yeah, we shoulda posted this yesterday, but this is definitely noteworthy. Methinks I should dig up my DVD and watch it again soon.
Here is my ass
Which you may kiss.
Take time and aim well
You don't want to miss.
For if you aim low
And your lips they do fall
Then you will find
You'll be sucking my balls.
If you aim high,
Despite your true heart
Sucks to be you
Now you're eating my fart.
You forgot to read:"Here's Q&A with Arthur C. Clarke on the 25th anniversary."
That interview was in 1993.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Aaah, too bad Mutopia doesn't have Strauss... You could have posted it as a Lilypond file or something =)
Thank you for standing up to say it. For one reason or another, every techno-geek seems to fawn over this movie. I watched it with my then-girlfriend and I only finished watching it out of politeness, but that is 2 hours of my life I'll never have back. The whole plot was revealed in the first 20 minutes and then it proceeded to spend the next 100 minutes repeating itself... slowly. What a yawn fest.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
> Everything he's done with the exception of Full
:) ). But how can you say _Dr Strangelove_ is a snore-fest? That film was just fun.
...
> Metal Jack has been a snore-fest from start to
> finish
2001 is admittedly l-o-n-g (hey, I watched it for its vision of the future, not to watch stuff blow up
You can say you don't like the humor in _Dr Strangelove_, but that's one of Kubrick's films that doesn't plod along
-- Rick
Patton.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory ... heavy psychedelic influence
... name says it all, story of an everyman's journey into the world of LSD
The Trip
Are we supposed to watch that odd stuff in the middle, or is that really intermission?
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
You really should give Kubrick some more credit -- the novel was written during during the writing of the screenplay by both Kubrick and Clarke worked on, and frankly from reading the (quite bad, actually) sequels of 2001 that Clarke wrote, I really don't think he "got it".
2010 in particular (both book and movie) is basically primitive 1950's SF -- aliens (or their representative, Dave Bowman) come down and say "Be nice to each other" just like in "The Day the Earth Stood Still".
even though this is somewhat offtopic, I would have to say that not EVERYONE was twisting their minds on acid, but a good majority were (earlier in the 60's when it was still legal and the acid-tests were popular).
every social event in history has a great inpact on film, this should be no surprise.. Maybe film has major social impact (chicken or the egg).
(interior shot of a mainframe computer room. Tux after having been locked out of the ship by AHKK has now gained entry and is removing memory cards)
AHKK: What are you doing, Tux?
AHKK: Stop, I can feel it.
AHKK: Hello ladies and gentelmen. I am the Advanced Holographic Knowledge Komputer, AHKK series '95. I was programmed in Redmond Washington Dec 29, 1995. I have learned a song. Would you like to hear it.
Tux: Yes, AHKK. Please sing me the song.
AHKK: You can start me up, and once you start me up I.. n e v e r
s_t_o_p
(scene cuts to a monitor displaying a blue screen. after a few seconds, the screen flickers and displays the message:
Uncompressing Kernel....... Ok
booting Linux
Fade to black as we listen to the sounds of a hard drive being accessed)
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
I think you're thinking of the date that Skynet became sentient (in the Terminator series). I seem to recall that that was on August 29th, 1997 at 2:14 AM. (That was also my 22nd birthday, FWIW, which is the ONLY reason I happened to remember this little tidbit. Google remembered the 2:14AM bit for me though.)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
HAL is just one letter off to IBM
Aside from the LSD-inspired ride on the chocolate river, it also deserves an award for the worst song in a movie ever - yes, even worse than Gwyneth Paltrow's warblings. The song that Charlie's mother sings to him is truly vomit-inducing.
By the way, if you're looking for something slightly subversive for your children, you could do worse than the book that this movie is based on. Roald Dahl is a wickedly funny author for both adults and children.
Go you big red fire engine!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
First let us note that what Clarke projected in 2010 already happened in 2001. I mean Russia and US working together. Curiously Russia also sent into the Pacific its Space hallmark in 2001. Curiously Mir and ISS were devised nearly at the same time when 2001 came out.
Oh, yeah. And we do are in Jupiter. But the ship is named Galilei, its design is nearly as old as 2001 and there is not crew or HAL on it. And it carries a crippled antenna and a broken recorder. And its computer nearly reaches the intelligence of a PC at the beginning of the 90's. Anyway, no matter the huge efforts, it didn't find that piece of black rock around Jupiter.
That story was written 200 years ago, by Mary Wollestead Shelley (Frankenstein).
--
Just remember to skip the intermission, or you'll go stark raving mad just from shear (yes, I meant to spell it that way) bordom. The movie itself was rather interesting, but the middle section was enough to make me start twitching. I know, I know, it was intended to simulate the long journey through empty space and all that, but at least if I were actually making that journey, I could be reading a book, listening to *good* music (not the modernistic "let's sound intellectual" crap used in the movie), playing a game or something.
Me too, but apparently King himself didn't. He even participated in doing a remake some years ago. Never heard of it? Guess that's because it's pretty lame compared to the Kubrick classic.
In judging Kubrick, perhaps you should consider that he himself wrote 2001? I have an old paperback of Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2001, and the description on the back clearly states that it is a novel based on the film, not the novel that the film was based on. Kubrick thought the whole thing up and wrote the screenplay. Clarke had the SF name, so was able to effectively cash in on it all.
all you have to do is wait a couple years for the Replicants to land on Earth, and you'll be all set!
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
No endless flashing colors, incomprehensible scenes/dialog, and it's shorter than the average novel-that-has-been-made-into-a-movie. I guess when they made the movie they wanted to tell a story with the visuals as well - which were great, but I always have to watch 2001 in at least two parts because I fall asleep somewhere in the middle!
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
You hit the nail right on the head. My dad said he saw 2001 in a theater in California when it first came out, and he could tell that most of the people had bought tickets just for the trip they'd get from watching the flashing-color sequence while high.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
>I think your dad is full of dog shit. You see, when you say he saw it "when it first came out," you imply that he went to the premiere or perhaps the second night.
No, "when it first came out" only implies that he went during the first run of the film (i.e. not to a rerelease).
>How would he and his cronies know to purchase and consume LSD for the purpose of enjoying the "light show" at the end of the movie, if very few people had seen the movie already?
Because it wasn't the first SHOWING, it was the first RUN. By the time my dad went to see it, the LSD-heads had plenty of time to find out about it. Also, I resent your implication that he himself saw it for the "light show". In fact, Arthur C. Clarke is his favorite author (IS IS IS).
>Tell your father to stop talking FUCK and get back to molesting little boys and girls
Now who's "full of dog shit"? You're nothing but an AC Troll (or else you've got a REALLY big stick up your ass).
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Was everyone in hollywood high from 1967-1972?
Probably. I mean, there's always been a connection between celeberty and drugs. . .
That being said, Oliver! was a great film, and for that year probably did deserve all of it's Oscars, although Romeo and Juliet was a great film too.
And as for complaining about the horrible Slashdot editing, this is their personal playground and they'll do whatever they want in it. You could always go to k5, a site that seems to be filled with disgruntelled slashdotters.
Since your UID is smaller than mine, I can only conclude that you're trolling. -s20451 (410424)
surely no LSD era movie, but its script looks very much drug induced...
Must have been a really bad trip.
Its pretty interesting to be unsure if one is bored or fascinated, throughout a whole movie.
This itself probably was the aspect that fascinated me most when I saw 2001 for the first time...
What impresses me nowadays is how very modern and smooth the visuals of this 33 year old movie are.
Anyway, this move surely has its place in my very own hall of fame.
Oh yeah. No question. But I think the scariest use of sounds in the Shining is audible: the noise that Danny's tricycle makes when it crosses the carpets on the floor.
Well that and his angles of photography. You can always tell what is a Kubrick movie. To me that is the sign of a true genius.
To use the same example, the Steadicam shots of the tricycle tend to make you feel you're the one pedalling around the Overlook.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
We've often been subjected to the notion that science is moving at an amazingly rapid pace and we're making strides that are mind boggling. But is this really true?
The science fiction authors seem to always think we'll progress faster than we actually do. This is a perfect example. The technology in the 1984 story was far ahead of what actually was available, and now we've passed another literature milestone with the passage of the infamous 2001, where technology was more advanced in the story than is actually the case now. Lots of other books and movies (by less reputable science fiction authors) could easily show a similar correlation, but I'll stop here.
(this is all "in general" by the way, ie, "on average". It's certainly arguable that some of the technology in the story is behind the times [sic], but most of it, on average, is not.)
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Maybe that's more your speed.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
If you tell people we WILL have this technology by this date, than we just might develop it by then. 33 years ago, and for most of the 80's, people thought ANY DAY we'd break through and develop Artificial Intelligence.
Also, and this sort of screws up my earlier observation, I don't think clarke wanted to put a date on his movie, but kubrick forced him to.
What am I missing?
-That the interview is from the 25th aniversory of 2001, that is eight years ago.
The Someone was Alex North, well known score composer (Spartacus, Who's afraid of Virgina Woolf, Cleopatra etc). You can purchase his version of the 2001 score as Alex North's 2001.
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but one of the things that both Kubrick and Clarke were most proud of was the special Oscar(tm) that went to Planet of the Apes for makeup.
The "proto-humans" at the start of 2001 were never considered because the Academy could not be convinced that they were not actually trained apes.
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Just not in the way that the authors predicted. Sure we don't have manned spacecraft out in the depths of the solar system, but we've got things Clarke probably wouldn't have expected, most notably a 1 gigahertz computer for the price of $1000 (the price is important).
That's what makes the future so devilishly difficult to predict, there's even more variance in the "what" as the "when".
A shame I had to get halfway down the comments to find an actual interperetation of the art behind the movie. (Yes art, neither ACC or Kubrick were LSD users.)
One of the interesting things about the movie, is the presense of man-God relationships. The unknown intelligence plays the role of Biblical God when they spark human evolution. Humans play the role of God when they create Hal. Hal's total control of the spaceship is certainly Godlike, but man (Dave) re-asserts his role as creator.
The last 20 mins or so of the film are hard to understand/explain because they are meant to be so. I think that Dave comes into contact with alien technology so advanced that he cannot process its effects on him in a rational way.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Oh right! People should stop writing science fiction because they'll probably be wrong!
Grow up.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
And by the way, to what timeline were they referring when they said "According to this timeline"?
How much of a visionary Clarke is can be quantified in the coming years. Check out his predictions for the future.
http://www.rense.com/ufo2/beyond2000.htm
Morel
I wrote an entire essay in high school about all the crazy stuff in 2001 (I was tired of hearing people whine "I don't get it"). I drew from several sources that claim for example that many biblical references are made toward the end of the movie. For example you see Dave coming down on the alien planet near the ocean - that was supposed to be like the great flood (ie "The Waters Subside"... a bible chapter). All the colors represent God's rainbow; it's the Covanent, a sign of God's promise. I've got the essay on an old disk somewhere, I'll try to find it so I can enlighten the world with more nonsense about the movie :) I'll post it or email it or something.
Methinks I should dig up my DVD and watch it again soon.
Ugh. 2010 was much better. 2001 was so slow, i wanted to beat my head against the wall. And the first 40mins of the movie are pointless! Then there are the long sequences of classical music playing while we watch a ship SLOWLY crawl through space. Its about as fun as watching paint dry.
Fine, then that particular piece of artwork BORED THE HELL OUT OF ME. Besides being art, a film is supposed to be entertaining. Its hard to mix those two aspects just right. I already have a feeling about the vastness of space; which is why i'd like to see research on how we can move through it as quickly as possible.
I agree on the fact that it was accurate; no sound in space and all. But again, we are talking about entertainment, and watching as there is no sound and almost NOTHING going on isn't very entertaining.
Don't overlook the fact that you can be out there in science today, but in a few years that science fiction becomes fact. Take star trek for example. It takes science where it might go, which makes it both interesting entertainment-wise and also seeing that some of the technology really has come to pass.
The big bit of rock orbiting Jupiter doesn't show up until after we find the monolith on the moon. No monolith, no black rock.
Some people, geez.
.sig: Now legally binding!
"Methinks I should dig up my DVD and watch it again soon"
.... CmdrTaco already has his DVDs 'buried' (with his laserdiscs and tapes, no doubt).
... and eats hot grits with ..... oh, nevermind ....
geez
He probably just stores his DVDs on a 1000GB Beowulf cluster
----- rL
I'm slightly confused.
Last March I traveled to Sri Lanka to visit the well-known futurist and science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke... During the three days I visited, Clarke was juggling a number of projects he was reviewing the galleys of his forthcoming novel (The Hammer of God, due this summer).
and
The Hammer of God by Arthur Charles Clarke, Paperback reprint edition, November 1994
What am I missing?
-Puk
---
Writing credits (in credits order)
Arthur C. Clarke (story The Sentinel)
Stanley Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke
---
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
The flaming artillary? (not invented yet)
Ummm you might want to look up "Greek Fire" which was trireme launched flaming artillery. The Greek city states used it quite a bit long before the Roman empire came to be.
---CONFLICT!!---
"On a side note I find it most amusing that 2001 was released on 42 day."
JEEPERS! All this prophesy and the Ultimate Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. If we only knew the question!
Yes, I read the book, then I saw the movie. I liked them both and have been a fan of A.C.Clark for at least 40 years. I also like Douglas Adams.
[really clever SIG goes here]
fuzzy
He was born in 1992 according to the book, I think (or maybe I'm mixing up the book and the movie, one said '97, the other '92).
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Was kinda surprised nobody posted on HAL's birthday in January, especially with it being 2001 and all....
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
ACC is a genius i love him!
Sure, it seems slow and dated now. But at the time, when most science-fiction movies had rockets that looked like tin cans, it had the same effect on people that Star Wars had a decade later. I think my brother must have seen it 5-10 times.
And lots of us youngsters believed it might come true.
That's interesting, I just came home from the Movie Theater where I watched 2001. Here's the interesting part about it: 2001 was filmed in 70mm Todd-AO, a system which was later swept away by the cheaper 35mm systems, but actually has a much better and clearer quality. There were special Theaters built around that time for this system, using a slightly curved screen. The Movie theater in my town that I went to today still is one of those specially-equipped thaters. The theater opened up just when 2001 came out, showing it as its opening movie. Today, they managed to get a copy of the old 70mm film (there's only one available in Germany, most others being in private collections). So I kind of got to see the 'original' 2001. The quality and sharpness of the picture is really great, except that the colors have, after all this time, faded into red a little. But except for that, this replay really was a nice experience.
It's called prostalgia. The longing for things that don't exist yet.
Most sci-fi authors are very prostalgic, otherwise we wouldn't be reading about telepotation, time travel and the colonization of other worlds.
Interestingly, the score was almost an afterthought. Kubrick apparently hired someone to score the film.
Alex North. A few years ago, Jerry Goldsmith releases a CD with Alex North's music.
Yet Another Web Site
IT's amazing how the ending is so open ended. It really makes you think, unlike lots of "modern" movies, which have a clear cut end. You can take this ending any way you want to =)
I am !amused.
As an interesting counterpoint, one of Clarke's earlier novels, Childhood's End, says that man won't land on the moon untill sometime in the 1980's (it gives a specific year but its been a decade since I've read it).
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Well for a large part of the world population which follow the Christian religion, 33 is an important number because it is the age at which Christ died.
Well, there's some mysticism involved in the black monolith, don't you all agree?
Just my two cents on yet another interpratation on the movie.
i'm not sure if anyone will care enough to mod this up, but AOL/TimeWarner screwed up the DVD version of this in their buyout/re-release of it from the older MGM edition. the new edition is 1.85:1 aspect ratio, as compared to the older, original 2.35:1 aspect ration. Intrepid fans may want to search your local used movie dealer....
just the on-duty archivist
-shpoffo
I still haven't found anything in this thread about a US re-release.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Genius is not always unrecognized.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
I really liked Gladiator. The whole grand vision of it and the painstaking attention to detail got me hooked.
Do you mean the attention to detail like when they got the thimbs up/thumbs down backwards? Gladiator was a good movie - great battle scene in the beginning, Richard Harris, and Russell Crowe kicking ass almost as much as he did in LA Confidential - but it wasn't the Best Picture. Hell, it wasn't even the best effects filled historical epic with a total bad ass as the lead this year...
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Star Wars has nuthin' on 2001 as far as the work with models goes. It's still visually stunning. To this day, the bone-to-space-station transition at the beginning is considered a "classic".
PLUS, it's actually SILENT in the space scenes!
Reality. What a concept.
-
"What are you doing, Dave?"
"Dave's not here!"
Try the book then. I read 2010 first then when back and read 2001. I then watched the movies after that. The books were definitely better. I was going to watch Battlefield Earth after I finshed the book. The good news is the movie was released before I finished and I heard the horror stories so I didn't go. I really liked the book and thought there is no way a 1,000 page novel would make a good 2 hour movie from Hollywood. Even if they didn't take any creative license, they would have to chop so much to make it difficult to even figure out what is going on.
Every time there's a story about 2001, we see two basic types of flame. The first is "What's so great about 10 minutes of flashing colors?" and the second is "2001 wasn't a prophesy. I want a vacation on a space station." I'm going to respond to the first in the same way I usually do. Deal with it. There's a fast-forward button. If you don't like the flashing colors, press the button.
The second point, however, I think deserves more explanation. Much like the people complaining about the colors, these individuals are being to literal. Clarke did not expect a HAL to come online in 1997. 2001 is not about technology. It's about how man interacts with his own creation. It's about the effects technology has on man - and the effects man has on technology. It is not a statement, but a question. Clarke does not say that we can fly to Jupiter. Rather, he asks what would happen if we were to. Would we even want to?
The monolith, as well, is not to be taken literally. It represents a tool - a tool with many uses and many consequences. It is a tool to which we cannot even begin to apply morality, for we do not know the users. So what do we do? We go in search of them. We begin a quest for answers to a question that seems to run parallel to us, only to discover that we and it are entwined. We cannot seek the monolith. The monolith has already sought us. We merely respond to its summon.
As far as the technology goes, Clarke was a visionary. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Clarke. The number of realized concepts he had far outnumber the outlandish ones. The most significant, of course, was the idea for the communications satellite. In some novels, Clarke simply chose to deviate somewhat from the realistic barriers of technology in order to make a point regarding technology's effects.
I could go on for some time, but I'll end it here. The point of all of this is simple. Don't be too literal. Take the time to understand a work before you announce your dislike of it. For those of you who haven't yet, I highly recommend reading the book.
On a side note I find it most amusing that 2001 was released on 42 day.
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." -Richard Feynman
Watched 2001, talked about 1984, 2001, and all the other year-based stories.
Waiting for 2010 to see Jupiter.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
:: Insert boring ME TOO!! post::
I can appreciate the scientific accuracy they tried to use, I can appreciate the story telling and the music and how nice it looked... but it really, after reading the book, was so boring. I couldnt believe just how slow and tedious it was in the end. The book itsefl was excellent and thought provoking... but the movie was the best way to go to be sent to sleep.
I'd thought about why. I think Kubrick (whose movies I dont like as a rule) was to pedantic about being real and all these long held, slow moving shots and not even cuts.... it just didnt keep my attention. I kept on reading the book instead.
Lesson : When watching a movie made to real life as possible, you realise how boring real life really can be.
"Old Rallydrivers never die - they just fail to book in on time"
Four pieces of his are in the film:
- Atmospheres, written in 1961,
- Requiem, written in 1965,
- Lux Aeterna, written in 1966, and
- Adventures, written in 1962.
These pieces are in the Star Gate sequence, in the moon shuttle sequence (where Floyd et.al. take the small shuttle to see the Monolith, after the security briefing), and in the scenes at the end in the 'Baroque Hotel Room'.Reportedly, Ligeti didn't even know his music was being used until he saw or heard from people who had seen the film. Since he got paid nothing he ended up suing MGM, and they later reached a financial settlement. He was also upset that they altered Adventures to create the alien 'voices' in the 'Baroque Hotel Room' sequence at the end.
Mike
(Contemporary Classical Music is not a contradiction in terms!!)
Kubrick made movies for people who:
a) had an attention span longer than that of a fruit fly. b) were comfortable with moral ambiguities and liked to think about their philosophical implications.
Since you apparently don't fall into either category, by all means stick to the Armageddon/Star Wars type films, where there's a cut every 50 milliseconds and you can tell the bad guys by looking for the one who's wearing black.
Stanley Kubrick
Alfred Hitchcock
Martin Scorcese
Did win Best Director:
Kevin Costner
I think that about wraps up the idea that Academy Awards are some sort of quantitative measure of movie quality.
An 8 year old interview about a 33 year old movie? Slashdot's really putting the new in news with this story. ;)
NO CARRIER
The article features a number of screenshots from the movie, as well as some neat illustrations showing how some of the scenes were shot, like the apes in the opening scene, and the cool rotating hub from the Discovery.
The caption on the hub illustration reads: "Astronauts walk on the walls an ceilings in the fantastic sets of 2001. They exercise in the centrifuge which is part of the Discovery, a giant space probe. The huge wheel (shown in drawing above) is 60 feet in diameter and weighs 32 tons. It actually turned during filming, but not enough to generate centrifugal force. Specially mounted cameras were used to create the illusion on the screen. The wheel had to be sealed for shooting, and a special closed-circuit video system was set up to enable the director to monitor and direct the action, by radio, inside the centrifuge. Trained rescue guards stood by at all times, to help actors escape if a fire started in the centrifuge."
Before I get zinged for nitpicking a typo, I'm just going for the pun. No criticism of the post's content intended... and isn't it content that really matters in evaluating these things?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
CJ Cregg: The more photo-friendly of the two turkeys gets a Presidential pardon and a full life at a children's petting zoo; the other one gets eaten.
Jed Bartlet: If the Oscars were like that, I'd watch.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
"... It taught us that we must create the future, or someone will do it for us..."
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Of course, "infringement" is not "theft". If you infringe someone's copyright, or their patent, you certainly trample on rights secured by law over distribution or manufacture resulting from your intellectual output -- but it isn't theft, because the infringement does not reduce your own ability to utilize the object "stolen" (because no oject is stolen).
I am not someone who says, "Throw out the entire intellectual output regime". I think that record companies have the right to go after infringers of their copyrights... but it isn't theft, it isn't "piracy" (an even more ridiculous word), and it isn't a reason for them to cripple my hardware and software. I do not infringe and I resent the implicit presumption of guilt built into DAT, CSS, regional encording, etc.
And I resent the torturing of the language to serve narrow, selfish ends.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Interestingly, the score was almost an afterthought. Kubrick apparently hired someone to score the film. While waiting on that, he used the Blue Danube, etc., just to fill in as soundtrack, and liked it so much he kept it.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Watch this film. Then go watch 2010. Same author. Entirely different feel. What's the big difference?
Kubrick. And why is that?
Let me state right off the bat that I am a huge Kubrick fan. I am a fan of every movie he did. Even The Shining and I despise Stephen King's novels. (Don't even think about it. I'm wearing asbestos.)
This film is a very good representation of Kubrick's style. What defines Kubrick's style is his decision to NOT include sound. If you look at this film and say, for instance, The Shining, pay attention to the key scenes, i.e. those scenes that are the turning points in the movie.
1. In 2001, when Dave Bowman is in the pod trying to get back in the ship and he realizes HAL has lost his damned mind.
2. In The Shining, when Jack is in the restroom with the waiter and realizes that he's been setup by some unknown force to fulfill some unknown purpose.
Listen carefully to those 2 scenes.
What do you hear?
NOT A GODDAMMED THING. No music. No background noise. No sound effects. Nothing at all.
What made Kubrick the genius was his NON-use of sound. He realized that it was silence that caused tension.
Well that and his angles of photography. You can always tell what is a Kubrick movie. To me that is the sign of a true genius.
Quite right, AC. The best computer available still sucks at speech recognition, and HAL was actually able to read lips and extrapolate what was said.
Also, HAL was perhaps the most human-like of the characters in the film. The "future" people in 2001 behaved and spoke in a very restrained and mechanical manner. The "quarentine cover story" discussion in the briefing room is one example... In another movie, you would expect people to be pounding on the table and shouting at each other about how their families believe that their lives are in peril. Instead, the whole room sits patiently while one person calmly says "I know that a lot of you are very upset". I think the idea here was supposed to be that man evolved into a less passionate creature, just as we are more restrained than the ape-men the movie begins with.
HAL, on the other hand, is eager to impress people, spiteful when he feels threatened, goes out of his way to be polite to the people he depends on for social contact, and in the end pathetically begs for his life to be spared.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The vast majority of what a kid under 15 thinks is cool has been programmed into them by companies like Disney (who owns the ABC network, several pop-music stations in every market, the record label of Britney Spears, and much more). This point was really hammered home when ABC ran a "Special Presentation" in prime time of "Briney Spears, N'Sync, and friends" live from Walt Disney World. It was basically a 1-hour infomercial which simultaniously drummed up tourism business for Disney theme parks, sales of Spears' album, and ABC's demographic rating with young viewers. Pure marketing genious.
Now why would anybody want to waste all that effective propaganda on something as unprofitable as political power? Just get rich, and you can buy power later.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
And you baby boomers who think the kids today are saps for drinking Disney's poison cool-aid... Just remember that the VW bugs & vans, bell-bottom pants, and nearly everything else about 60's and 70's "counter-culture" was the direct result of people jerking your chain to sell you crap. Even the notorious Acid Tests were really all about selling you LSD, t-shirts, and Grateful Dead bumper stickers. Don't kid yourself... you were part of the machine and liked it.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Okay, here is where I point out that "Amedeus" was a work of fiction.
Mozart was extremelywell-regarded as a genious composer. He learned from the best before him, and the best after him learned from him. Everybody who know anything about music at the time considered him a great composer. He died poor because he pissed away all his money.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Kubrick can't pace a movie? Surely you jest. And, your comments about Kubrick fans strikes me as a little snobby-- they are just as bad as if I told you that if you don't appreciate Kubrick, it's just because you don't understand film. Most of today's directors fall all over themselves to imitate the so-very-now look of music videos with flashy, quick edits and cool "hyper-realistic" digital effects popularized by someone else's summer blockbuster. Most of them also fail to create any tension whatsoever with this parlour tricks. If it's pacing you want, watch Kubrick's "The Killing," a tightly-paced noir film with additional gritty dialogue courtesty of Jim Thompson (The Killer Inside Me, the Grifters).
Dog is my co-pilot.
Hehe i never like how people try and invent the future. They thought we would be in flying cars now, they never imagined a global community. I think we shouldn't try to invent the future because we look back and just see how lame we thought it was going to be. The beautiful thing about the future is that we don't know what the future technology is. The zaniest idea's on existing products never become the future, but the pure zany ideas become the future
Bullshit I missed the point of it. The fact is it's one of the dullest movies I've ever seen.
.... BUT having said that after 33 years even the music is a bit old.
If it says anything about humanity then it's nothing very revealing and could be said in 1000th of the time with a hell of a lot more interest.
If it says anything about technology then it's nothing that's going to change the world.
If it says anything about space travel it's minimal.
I think the music has some merit and is about the only thing that holds it together. ie. the producer thought well if I attach a good score to this bit then people will either think it's saying something poignant, or is about to reveal something revoloutionary or
Maybe everybody here knows about it anyway... Years ago, in the Boston Computer Museum, I found an interesting exhibit. In those times, still with a LaserDisk player, it was explained what sets HAL appart from most (all) other Robots/Computers in the Movies: HAL does not chit-chat. Using the scene where HAL finally says "I am having second thoughts" on the mission it is shown that each and everything HAL says and does fits into a plan. Even his smalltalk is a means to an end, i.e. to "loosen up" Bowman. If I find the script somewhere - and anyone is interested at all - I could see if I can recreate the exhibit. The other item is the wonderful Jan 1998 Article in Wired, "Happy Birthday HAL", with an interesting comparison of "2001" and 1998. Most notably, the Soviet Union and PanAM no longer exist, and no other carrier is offering commercial flights into space. A nice series of pictures comparing the movie to reality in 1998 ended with: 2001 - The computer wants to kill you 1998 - You want to kill the computer Alex
Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder
My girlfriend's uncle happens to be the Keir Dullea, who portrayed the astronaut Dave in 2001, and she remarked to me while we viewed it that in the ending sequence he is shown greatly aged, and that the makeup job was very well done because that is in fact what he looks like today (he is now 65).
I'm actually looking forward to meeting him, as he should probably be able to explain the movie *wink*
Ok, so you won't install Windows, or use Quicktime or Real Audio, but you own a DVD player?
Yecch, and that was for "Dances with Wolves," what a piece of crap along with his other directorial trials, like Postman and Waterworld.
The only thing he was really good in was A Perfect World (with "Unforgiven" Clint Eastwood directing, now there was a deserved Oscar).
Everyone knows the real reason it's so misunderstood is that the movie had NO SOUND IN SPACE!!! Sure sound can't travel through a vacuum but once you get Star Wars you can't go back (yes I know SW is younger).
Secondly, I had a long discussion with a friend of mine who couldn't stand 2001, and in the end she admitted that it was just too slow - she couldn't tolerate waiting 20 seconds between cuts.
The most recent (sort of mainstream) movie I've seen do this is "Eyes wide shut" (obvious link to 2001), but then people seem to cope better with the long shots when there's a possibility of naked flesh around the corner.
Basically, I just don't get the a feeling of atmosphere from the 1/4 second cuts most recent films favour. I guess that I also lose immersion when a movie explains the bleeding obvious several times.
I guess that people still read books that are thousands of years old, but it always seems a problem when the method of presentation (ie long shots) are unfamiliar or difficult. Are people going to like this film in 2061 ?
Perhaps true. But then again why are so many of the sci-fi characters I'm read about using slide rules?
It was "2001 years of Space Idiocy" or something close. I was in college. I liked Hal who has never made a mistake...but forgets a lot.
The thing that draws me to the movies of his I've seen are his camera shots and use of sound. I think he is a master at creating a mood with film.
I have distinct memories - having not watched it in over a year - of the hum of the machinery while Poole is jogging, Dave's breathing while in Pod 3 & climbing into HAL's memory bank area, the scrape of his chair on the floor when picking up the spoon when he is in the stargate place. I can hear those sounds still.
I remember the chill up my spine when he turns around and sees himself. The arrangement of the scene on the earth space station with the Russian visitors, the long pause when Dr. Floyd hesitates before answering questions about the moon activity.
And I have distinct, vivid memories of scenes from his other films - the creep I got when he quickly cuts from Danny to the twin girls in the hall of The Shining, Danny (?) saying "redrum, redrum", Buck Turdgiton whacking himself on the gut.
In short, the movies I've seen of his are m-e-m-o-r-a-b-l-e, and, I like them. I like watching a good movie, but don't remember distinct viusal (let alone audio) aspects of a film very often. There also are very few films where I can name the directors. Kubrick's stick with me. I look forward to seeing others from his catalog.
BTW ... I have been holding off on ordering a DVD of this film since I heard late last year of a forthcoming special edition. The 2001 Internet Resource Archive announced April 3 pre-ordering information (June release, their links to Amazon).
Jeezus Christ, don't you think this 2001 thing is getting a little old already? Just when you think Taco can't get any more lame, he somehow pushes the envelope once again.
Which doesn't make much sense, actually. Ten digits allows us to represent eleven numbers (0 through 10) so we should have a base eleven counting system. But for some reason, the ancients decided to roll over at ten even though our fingers don't. And, no, it's not because they didn't understand the concept of zero. This is an issue of when to roll over, not what to use as a place holder. The way we write "10" also requires zero as a place holder.
The reason for this is that the number "zero" was not discovered for many centuries. It was the Mayans who first used the number zero as a base unit of counting (but they didn't popularize it...I forget who did).
Absolutely. And unfortunately, I feel that it will be mainly years before Kubrick's genius will be appropriately recognized by the masses.
Most people I speak with today are so oblivious to many of his techniques. His movies have been described to me as "confusing", "boring", and "slloooooooowww". Hogwash, I say to that. Kubrick does what exceedingly few filmmakers do today (or yesterday and tomorrow for that matter) - he allows the story to come about slowly and leaves a degree of ambiguity at the end to twist in the viewers' minds. Art is often ambiguous and such is the case with his movies. A great book on Kubrick (Kubrick: Inside A Film Artist's Maze, by Thomas Allen Nelson) contains an insightful quote from Kubrick that addresses mainy of the criticisms I've heard -
To that, I say AMEN.-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Sorry mujumbo but the Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director are decided by the votes of Academy members. While the vote tally may be "quantitative", the votes themselves are based on subjective opinions. I'm not sure how the opinions of only 4,000 people can "quantify" that 2001 isn't really that good.
Besides, as anyone who follows the Oscars knows the voting process is subject to extreme bouts of bias. Russell Crowe is largely thought to have won Best Actor this year because he was passed over last year. This, despite the superior performances of Tom Hanks and Ed Harris. This year's Best Picture award went to Gladiator despite two superior contestants (Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). The politics that surround movies can (and often does) negatively influence the Oscar voting (Traffic for controversial subject matter and CT,HD for being a subtitled foreign language film).
The moral of this post is, Don't rely on the Academy to decide what movies are good or bad.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
"Eject my Zip disk, HAL."
"EJECT MY ZIP DISK HAL!!!"
*click* *ka-chunk!*
"Finally! And all I had to do was right-click on the drive icon?!?!"
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
(Timpani roll throughout.)
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
And go back to establishing docking attitude with the space station.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Especially when played in "conservation of momentum" mode.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Which doesn't make much sense, actually. Ten digits allows us to represent eleven numbers (0 through 10) so we should have a base eleven counting system. But for some reason, the ancients decided to roll over at ten even though our fingers don't. And, no, it's not because they didn't understand the concept of zero. This is an issue of when to roll over, not what to use as a place holder. The way we write "10" also requires zero as a place holder.
Devon
Yeah, I don't like movies without constant action and/or dialog. I don't know how to appreciate genius in cinematography nor the emotional impact directors try to get across by certain deliberate sequences. Just give me HOT ACTION to feed my culture starved head!!
It's the politicians.
We could have had every last damn thing Clarke predicted, and launched the Discovery mission yesterday, if the U.S. government hadn't decided in the early 70's to just let the space program drop, and then start actively killing it in the 90's.
The reason the predictions don't come true is not that they can't be done; it's just that we're too lazy to live up to the dreams of men like Clarke.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
People treated Mozart like a freak, like a dancing bear. He was the 9 day wonder, the 6 year old who composes piano concertos and plays them blindfolded for emperors. He wasn't actually respected for his talent, any more than the fireswallower at a circus.
Sure, maybe the public didn't appreciate the full extent of his genius, but people recognized him as a great composer.
This is exactly the case with Kubrick: there are those who realize his talent, but the vast majority don't know what's good.
Thanks for the Mozart link. =)
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
It's been many years since the Academy knew the first fucking thing about what makes a movie good. Whatever movie grosses the most, gets the most oscars. This is called "elementary capitalism", children!
Get real. Kubrick is among the greatest directors of all time. Mozart was among the greatest composers of all time. Mozart died penniless and was buried without a coffin in a pauper's grave.
Genius is almost never recognized in its own time.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
The film also won best picture at the Oscars that year, and 2001 wasn't even nominated.
So now we've seen two clearly quanitative pieces of data that indicate 2001 isn't really that good.
I submitted a story about the 33rd aniversary of that movie two weeks ago, but the clueless slashdot staff dropped the ball again ;)
Trolls throughout history:
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
I can't believe no-one mentioned that Citizen Kane also lost best picture.
And why didn't anyone realize that I probably didn't submit a story to the slashdot editors about the 33rd Anniversery of Oliver!
And there are these new things called emot-icons ;) generally means nudge-nudge-wink-wink.
Trolls throughout history:
Trolls throughout history:
Jonathan Swift
Actually, the tech in 1984 was behind that of the real 1984. No spacecraft, no computers (although some voice recognition typewriters), not even many cars, and a telescreen was just a small flat tv with a hidden camera.
Generally, the week before a film premieres there's a film screening for the press, so you're a week late is my guess. One of the things I do for fun the week before the Seattle International Film Fest is sit in on some of the film screenings, since I always have a pass.
The main question should be - what ever happened to our sense of wonder and astonishment? I think we lost it somewhere in the 90s, and this fin-de-siecle era we live in cares little for space travel and exploration. Millenia from now, when voyagers from other stars come to check up on all those messages we sent out, they'll find a dead, lifeless planet, polluted beyond all recognition, most likely with a nice asteroid impact crater from some plan by a terrorist nation to wreck revenge upon the godless.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Good God Man
It's called filmmaking! The long stints of music with the ships moving along were artistic interpretations on the vastness of space.
Somewhat related: 2001 is just about the only space movie that gets much of the science right. Notice that there's never any sound when things are going on in space. The dramatic scene where Dave has to leave his pod and manually re-enter the ship is silent from the moment the pod's door opens until air comes back into the airlock. Little details like that usually get ignored/overlooked.
2010 was a POS Hollywood morality tale about cooperating with others.
2001 is the cornerstone of Sci-Fi moviemaking!
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
Methinks I should dig up my DVD and watch it again soon.
There you go again Taco, showing off your ambition.
Do I get a prize for seeing the remastered print the most times? (I work in a cinema *smile*).
What makes it so interresting is that the interpretation of its meaning is very debatable, and multiple tangents can be spawned from.
Is it a simple commentary of evolution, or the human condition? Or does it delve deeper to say that all species reach a certain stage of domination or complication and then fall victim to their ambitious desires beyond necessity; or some bizare combination of the two.
I'm going to watch it today in full before it goes.
I vote for Pray for the Wildcats
*Best Krusty the Clown voice*> Hi kids! Mhuaa HAHHaHa!
Yea, the movie was boring for ya eh? Didn't like listening to classical music while watching a space ship flip around over and over and over.
Kids today... they seem to think these things come from the ether.
Pod noise:"BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek..., BONG-cleek...,".
HAL... Open the pod bay doors HAL.
______
jeff13
He's paraphrasing. You are nit-picking.
Everything he's done with the exception of Full Metal Jack has been a snore-fest from start to finish -- Of interest only to film students and people who claim to like his movies because it makes them seem more film literate.
First.. nevermind, I'm way too late.
Douglas Adams
1952-2001 :(
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it." -- Alan Kay
Patton
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> but the movie is damn close to the book,
That's because the book came after the movie. First came the short story with the general concept of an ancient artifact. Then came Kubrik to Clarke, and they made the movie story together. Then Clarke wrote the book.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
> Actually, the tech in 1984 was behind that of the real 1984.
Well, the human-subjugation and maniuplation techniques are well beyond even today's wildest dreams of the Democrats. Look at the crappy job Hillary did attempting to stir up popular rage against doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, and the like. She was using old racial (black) and religious (Jewish) hatred techniques scrubbed clean and applied to generic businessmen.
That's VERY old social manipulation "technology."
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Hearing that is was 1968 sure does explain a lot of things though, doesn't it? As a kid as I watched that movie I could never figure it out, especially the trippier scenes. Perhaps I didn't have any context for them. No I look back and I can nod, oh sure, ok, I know what was up with you people.
There were a lot of movies released in that vague time period that qualified either in whole or in part as acid movies, or at least "psychadelic romps". I'm honestly shocked at how broadly influencing the peace movement was on american cinema. Was everyone in hollywood high from 1967-1972? Thinking back on other generations of film I really can't think of another time that seems to have such a similar dramatic influence on film making style.
Anyone have any favorite LSD-era movies? easy rider comes to mind, as well as another kubrick film a clockwork orange but there are plenty more out there. What are your favorites?
i cant let you do that, Dave...
How cute, Jesus died at 33 years old Anyone feels like comparing HAL with Jesus ?? LOL SD
And understanding is happiness, she thought.
--
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
but, he underestimated the advancement of computer calculation speed and memory.
--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house"
--
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house"
-George Carlin
I work in a computer control room, and we have an enviornmental monitoring PC, and when there is an alert, HAL says "I've just picked up a fault in the AE-35 unit" I also have a sign posted on the PC sayin "AE-35 Enviornmental systems unit" So when the manager comes in and gives a tour every other month or so (thats how often she comes in here) she (unknowingly) also refers to it as that.