Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Photo
- - - - -

2001: A Space Odyssey..bits and pieces.


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 24 2006 - 04:02 AM

My wife and I watched this masterpiece of film over the weekend. I've seen in before, but I REALLY enjoyed it this time, and 'got' it. I know there are several big fans of this film on the boards, so hoping to get some thoughtful insights from them Posted Image

My wife watched it for the first time and thought it wonderful, she was very impressed and she also 'got' it. But, she's very smart and very observant and caught some details I hadn't noticed before...little niggles that I thought were amusing:

--When Frank and Dave go into the pod for their discussion of their concerns over HAL, why did they have him rotate the pod so he could see them? Why not keep it's backside to him so they would have COMPLETE privacy?

--When (Dave, right?) goes EVA to service the antenna unit that HAL mistakenly thought was going to fail, why no tether to the pod? Also, how is the pod 'keeping up' with the Discovery, since they didn't stop the ship? Shouldn't the pod be going one way and the Discovery going the other?

--When Dave is in the 'zoo' at the end of the film and is aging, is he seeing himself, like when he was eating, gets up from the table and walks over to see who was there? Is he witnessing himself age really rapidly, or are we to think it was in real-time? Fascinating sequence.

--Lastly, if HAL could remotely control the pods (like when he killed Frank), why didn't he take over control of Dave's pod?

Again, just fun little points/questions we both came up with. I'm so delighted that she enjoyed the film (she'd seen 2010 previously..now she wants to see both films back to back and read the books).

I think if I had one solitary gripe about the movie, it would be that IMO, the 'stargate' sequence is too lengthy. Despite that (and some obvious backgrounds/staging during the Dawn of Man), 10 out of 10!
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#2 of 68 OFFLINE   MatS

MatS

    Screenwriter



  • 1,599 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 24 2000

Posted April 24 2006 - 04:06 AM

might want to look for future responses to appear in the 'movies' forum I have a feeling this thread is about to take a trip through the stargate

#3 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 24 2006 - 04:11 AM

Oh, that's my bad! Wrong forum....should I repost it there, or just wait for this to be moved?
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#4 of 68 OFFLINE   Francois Caron

Francois Caron

    Screenwriter



  • 2,145 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 1997
  • Real Name:Francois Caron

Posted April 24 2006 - 04:46 AM

The post will most likely be moved. These accidents happen even to the best of us. As for the pod being able to stay with the ship, that's easy. It's all part of Newton's first law. Just like everything else we've sent to other planets, the ship's thrusters are only used at the start of the flight to fling them towards Jupiter; the thrusters are turned off during transit. So when the pod left the ship, the pod still had the same inertia as the ship. Hence, they stayed next to each other until the pod altered its own inertia by activating its thrusters. However, the tether and the lip reading were gross oversights. Well, maybe not the lip reading as that was more a "hidden talent", but the tether is definitely a no-no by today's standards.
The sequence in the hotel is basically a transformation sequence. David's body is being discarded so that his "essence" (for lack of a better word) can be transformed into the Star Child.
You might want to check out the books as well. There's more information in them although some sequences are radically different, such as heading to Saturn instead of Jupiter.

#5 of 68 OFFLINE   Cees Alons

Cees Alons

    Executive Producer



  • 18,977 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 1997
  • Real Name:Cees Alons

Posted April 24 2006 - 04:54 AM

Wait no longer. It's there already. Posted Image


Cees

#6 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 24 2006 - 05:21 AM

Thank you, Cees Posted Image Apologies for my mistake.

Francois, thank you for your insights, but I have a question. If they take the pod out, use thrusters to get to the antenna, stop the pod to go work on antenna, how does the pod 'revert' back to it's initial inertia to keep up with Discovery?
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#7 of 68 OFFLINE   seanOhara

seanOhara

    Supporting Actor



  • 820 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 09 2005

Posted April 24 2006 - 05:29 AM

I take it you never took physics in high school. This is Newton's First Law -- an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. On Earth, that force is friction, and it means airplanes need constant thrust to maintain speed. But in the vacuum of space, an object moving at a hundred miles a second will continue going a hundred miles a second until it hits something. And when the pod left the ship, it was traveling at a hundred miles per second (or whatever Discovery's velocity was).
My Blog
Les Miserables Volume 1 with my reading of "Four and Four"
Librivox Short Story Collection 34 with my reading of Jack London's "War"

#8 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 24 2006 - 05:43 AM

No, Sean...no physics in high school for me Posted Image

What you said has led me to this...the pod seemed 'stopped' relative to it's position to Discovery after it had gone from the pod bay to the antenna. However, it had only 'slowed' to it's position alongside Discovery...is that correct?

Sorry to be geeking on this...wish I had had physics, now Posted Image Interesting stuff.
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#9 of 68 OFFLINE   Andrew Chong

Andrew Chong

    Supporting Actor



  • 739 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2002

Posted April 24 2006 - 06:54 AM

Let me try my hand at explaining. It's all about relativity. Yes, relative to the Discovery, the pod appeared stopped. Relative to, say, the sun, both the Discovery and the pod would appear to be moving at the same velocity.
ac

#10 of 68 OFFLINE   Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor



  • 8,972 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 04 2000

Posted April 24 2006 - 07:00 AM


Correct.

The same reason when you jump straight up, the earth does not rotate away from under you... you fall back on the same spot because the inertia of the earth's rotation allows you to travel at the same speed in the same direction (West-East) for the time you are airborne, causing you to land on the same spot. Essentially, it is as if the earth threw you. This example breaks down over larger distances, but for the purposes of this discussion, it is sufficient.

Now imagine what would happen to all of us if the earth stopped spinning all of a sudden (noting that the rotation speed at the equator is a little more than 1000mph, less where you live, all the way down to 0 at the poles). Then you would suddenly become aware of your inertia Posted Image.

--
H

#11 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 24 2006 - 07:02 AM

Okay, I'm good on the physics now Posted Image Thanks guys!

Anyone care to comment on HAL not taking control of Dave's pod while he's in it? Or should it be assumed that if he's controlling it, HAL is unable to?

Also, is Dave aging in a matter of minutes, or is he aging in real time? It seems that the aging process is going as fast as what we are actually seeing.
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#12 of 68 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer



  • 3,219 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2001

Posted April 24 2006 - 07:52 AM

Are you quite sure that HAL made a mistake? Perhaps he had some good reasons for indicating a fault in the AE35 unit. This component controlled the Discovery's antenna, and HAL might well have had reason to interrupt communications with earth. He might have planned the murders at this stage, or perhaps he was testing the crew's tolerance for the mistakes that inevitably arise with full sentience. On the other hand, he might have overestimated the crew's trust in him.

#13 of 68 OFFLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter



  • 2,858 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted April 24 2006 - 08:43 AM

Re: Pod control. I would assume the pods are always under astronaut control, however when Frank goes EVA, the pod is now controlled via ship computer. Sort of like a "dead man's switch" on a train, as long as the astronaut is inside, the pod is under his control. Re: Aging: I always assumed real time aging and Kubrick is using cinematic shorthand ("seeing" himself) to let us know that Dave is spending his life in the alien's care.

Read the blog (please): www.bigscreenclassics.com


#14 of 68 OFFLINE   Eric F

Eric F

    Screenwriter



  • 1,810 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 05 1999

Posted April 24 2006 - 03:33 PM

Read the book, it makes thing much more clear.

#15 of 68 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer



  • 3,219 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2001

Posted April 24 2006 - 03:58 PM

The novel is not authoritative...

#16 of 68 OFFLINE   Brian W.

Brian W.

    Screenwriter



  • 1,959 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 29 1999
  • Real Name:Brian
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 24 2006 - 06:04 PM

But that still doesn't explain WHY they had him rotate the pod in the first place. Which is something I've always wondered myself. And the answer is: Because Kubrick needed Hal to see their lips. Simple as that.

#17 of 68 OFFLINE   MatthewLouwrens

MatthewLouwrens

    Producer



  • 3,034 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 18 2003

Posted April 24 2006 - 07:35 PM

Perhaps not, but Kubrick and Clarke were working on the story together for the novel - if I remember correctly, they were basically writing the novel to develop the story rather than going straight into screenplay - and then adapting that for the movie. The novel may be more linear and straightforward than the movie, but I think the novel can offer some insight into what Kubrick may have been thinking.

#18 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 25 2006 - 01:18 AM


LOL...this is true! It's so good and realistic, I forget that I'm watching a MOVIE....ENTERTAINMENT. Not a documentary or filmed memoir!

...but....

they could have at least LOOKED like they were working in the pod instead of PLOTTING. Posted Image Posted Image
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#19 of 68 OFFLINE   Flemming.K

Flemming.K

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 76 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2005

Posted April 25 2006 - 03:08 AM

I can recommend

2001 Explained in flash format. It really is a great go through of 2001:

http://www.kubrick2001.com/
Waiting impatiently for Sir Ridley Scotts Prometheus!

Danish filmsite Cinefil

#20 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 25 2006 - 03:59 AM


That was quite entertaining! Thanks! Posted Image
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users