1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

2001: A Space Odyssey..bits and pieces.

Discussion in 'Movies' started by Dan Keliikoa, Apr 24, 2006.

  1. JeremyErwin

    JeremyErwin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    The standard rationalization is "Brechtian Alienation Effect"
     
  2. Nelson Au

    Nelson Au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 1999
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    698
    2001 is not a film I would nitpick myself. But if you were to, what about the sequence when Heywood runs into the Russian scientists on the space station. They start discussing the rumours about the epidemic and how the one scientist uses the term "row", pronounced like cow. A British slang word for argument regarding a damaged Russian shuttle turned away from an emergency landing. Perhaps the scientist spent time in a particular pub in Britain and picked up that particular slang. I don't pretend to know anything about slang and regional speech, so someone with better knowledge could elaborate.
     
  3. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    520
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    It's not nitpicking if you don't like the cut. But he made the film and, obviously, thought his cutting of the scene was the correct one and didn't feel the need to make it "line up".

    History tells us that he was right. [​IMG]
     
  4. Holadem

    Holadem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2000
    Messages:
    8,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you rationalize every movie this way? "Obviously he did this because he felt he was right".

    And that's that?

    Jeezas...

    --
    H
     
  5. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,027
    Likes Received:
    520
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese

    Sorry, forgive me for injecting what I thought was obvious humor into my post.

    I was agreeing that people may not like the cut; I'm disagreeing that there is any sort of "mistake" in the way he cut it, either technically or aesthetically. The cut works because of the way he did it. Do you think he didn't try it any number of ways, including a perfect match, before settling on this one?

    The scene is in no need of "rationalization" - it's the way it is because he made it that way. It's not like we're talking about a film where things that are wrong ("Apollo 13" having sound in outer space: a needless audience-pandering flaw in an otherwise well made film, for example) need to be rationalized.
     
  6. JonZ

    JonZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1998
    Messages:
    7,794
    Likes Received:
    7
    "The broken glass section is symbolic of the marriage of human and alien minds (think of the jewish wedding ceremony) and from this union comes the starchild."

    According to Keir, at a Q&A I was at, the broken glass has no sybolism.He and Kubrick may have seen things differently if Kubrick or Clarke did say thats how they viewed it. Keir claimed Kubrick was very open to improvising that scene and claims quite alot of that sequence is actually from him.

    I always viewed the "Louis-seize room" is familiar surroundings at its most basic.

    "When (Dave, right?) goes EVA to service the antenna unit that HAL mistakenly thought was going to fail, why no tether to the pod?"

    Did HAL make a mistake or lie? Part of the great thing about this film is that its open to multiple interpretation. I always thought HAL lied about the AE unit failing.

    BTW, still the greatest film ever made[​IMG]
     
  7. Dan Keliikoa

    Dan Keliikoa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very interesting stuff, JonZ. Thanks! [​IMG]

    Beginning to wonder about HAL's antenna 'error' myself after what you guys have been saying....but he also was in error in the chess game with Frank, so not sure if he's lying or so conflicted that he's making mistakes like a sentient being would.

    Here's the bit about the chess match, taken from Wikipedia (suppose we should take it with a grain of salt...any chess experts here?)

    "There are early signs, however, that all is not well with HAL: when playing chess with one of the astronauts, he claims that the game is over and then describes the remaining moves. His analysis is not quite correct: his opponent would not have to make one of the moves he describes, and he outlines one of the moves from the wrong perspective (see *Poole - HAL 9000). Since Kubrick was a chess expert, and the game an actual match (an obscure one played years before by two relatively unknown players), this has to be a deliberate error and a clue for those who can spot it that all is not well with HAL. This is slightly at odds with Kubrick's own explanation for HAL's breakdown (see next paragraph), because HAL had not then wrongly diagnosed the AE35 unit."

    Link to full article: Linky
     
  8. JeremyErwin

    JeremyErwin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Come on... This is 2006, several years into the age of hypertexual reality. Please link to your sources. [​IMG]

    The wikipedia article is here.

    Apparently the explanation given in 2010 (for silly reasons having to do with anamorphic enhancement, I have not seen this film in a long time), was that Poole and Bowman were not read into the mission. The other crew members were trained separately, and loaded onto discovery, already in hibernation, largely to prevent Poole and Bowman from learning this classified information. HAL knew, but he was programmed to lie, which conflicted with his core programming.

    This is not, of course, definitive.

    source
     
  9. Dan Keliikoa

    Dan Keliikoa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2003
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    0

    A pox upon me, Jeremy! [​IMG] I added the link...think I must have spaced out, as it were [​IMG]
     
  10. JonZ

    JonZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1998
    Messages:
    7,794
    Likes Received:
    7
    Some points there Ive always agreed or picked up on......

    -That HAL is almost more human than the human characters of the film.
    -Man first tool is used as a weapon(its in our nature)
    -Our tools are a hinderance to our evolution("a state Man reaches through self-mastery, self-cultivation, self-direction, and self-overcoming".Technology gets in the way)

    Also,I always found HAL discussion with Bowman about the secretive nature of the mission odd. Right after, he picks up the fault in the AE unit. I never considered HAL may have been hinting to Dave. Right after he picks up the fault which leads to him trying to kill the crew. A new perspective - thanks.

    BTW, newer versions of Thus Spoke Zarathustra have gotten rid of the "Superman" reference and have replaced it with a more accurate "Overman".
     
  11. Holadem

    Holadem Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2000
    Messages:
    8,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    More like became a hinderance, no? They were essential for some 4M years, and have only become so when we reached our "current" evolutionary plateau. Tools aren't evil, there just comes a time to let them go.

    --
    H
     
  12. JonZ

    JonZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1998
    Messages:
    7,794
    Likes Received:
    7
    Yes Holadem I agree.

    I should have said that more clearly.
     
  13. Rex Bachmann

    Rex Bachmann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Rex Bachmann
    JonZ wrote (post #50):


    There is nothing at all "inaccurate" about the translation: German ├╝ber = English super-. Some literary critics---mostly ones that look down on American comic-book literature---have felt that the term "Superman" has come to have too strong an association with the comic-book hero and, therefore, that the term is "beneath" the Nietzschean concept (despite the fact that that use of the term preceded its application to the comic-book character).

    "Overman" means nothing in modern English and is just an attempt at a literal translation (a calque) of the German. ("Look up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Overman!" Oy!)
     
  14. JonZ

    JonZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 1998
    Messages:
    7,794
    Likes Received:
    7
    When I get home I can look at the words from the translator in the beginning of my version and relate why he felt Overman was a more accurate term to be used - if you care enough for me to do it.
     
  15. JeremyErwin

    JeremyErwin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,219
    Likes Received:
    0
    one wonders if a true ubermensch would rely on the services of a translator.
     
  16. Cees Alons

    Cees Alons Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 1997
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    242
    Real Name:
    Cees Alons
    The problem with "super" could be, that it's present in more languages, including German, and certainly wouldn't have been chosen by Nietzsche (in German, that is). Another possibility would be "Upperman", which is etymologically closer to "Uebermensch" even.

    But anyhow, the concept is based on a misunderstanding of evolution (also not counting those who reject evolution totally). The next step in evolutionary progress never descends from the very dominant species. That's because the dominant species isn't challenged enough by the hazards of nature to be forced to a change (to get the "fittest" selected).

    Another way to say the same: the very dominant species of any moment is always too specialized to fit in the big flow of evolution. Evolution delivers success, but is based on failures.


    Cees
     
  17. Rex Bachmann

    Rex Bachmann Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2001
    Messages:
    1,975
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Rex Bachmann
    Cees Alons wrote (post #56):



    Well, I don't know about that. By "failure", you do mean a gene-copy error (I hope).
     
  18. Nigel McN

    Nigel McN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2000
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read 2001, 2010, 2065, & 3001 in sequence of the space of a week. Don't do that. 2010 is written as a sequel to the film, so there are plenty of things that throw you off when you read them one after the other. There is also a heck of a lot of cut and pasting from previous books, when you read the same stuff for the 3rd, 4th time you just skip it. Wasn't a fan of the whole Deist refashioning stuff in the future.

    Despite how that my read I enjoyed reading them a lot, it's just been a little while and those are the things you remember.

    I did feel that 3001 was a big set up for a '4001' sequel though my flatmate disagrees.
     
  19. JediFonger

    JediFonger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Messages:
    3,955
    Likes Received:
    24
    is arthur c. clarke still alive?
     
  20. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,740
    Likes Received:
    129
    Yes, Yi, Dr. Clarke is alive (though feeble and wheelchair-bound) and living in Sri Lanka.
     

Share This Page