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.

- - - - -

2001: A Space Odyssey..bits and pieces.

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
67 replies to this topic

#21 of 68 OFFLINE   Francois Caron

Francois Caron


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

Posted April 25 2006 - 04:55 AM

Interesting concept, Man losing control of his tools. What's ironic is that to watch the flash film, I stopped listening to This Week In Tech for a few minutes, a show about people losing control of their computers. Posted Image

#22 of 68 OFFLINE   Lew Crippen

Lew Crippen

    Executive Producer

  • 12,060 posts
  • Join Date: May 19 2002

Posted April 26 2006 - 12:52 AM

Thanks for the link Dan.
¡Time is not my master!

#23 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 26 2006 - 01:17 AM

You are welcome, but Mr Flemming provided the link originally. Posted Image Isn't it cool?
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#24 of 68 OFFLINE   MarcoBiscotti



  • 4,796 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 02 2003

Posted April 26 2006 - 01:48 AM

That flash film was great.

#25 of 68 OFFLINE   Flemming.K


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 76 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2005

Posted April 26 2006 - 04:02 AM

Hi! Glad you all seem to like it Posted Image

I really think I "nailed" it beforehand, but efter seeing the flash, I believe some things are better explained in it. I guess I buy that for a dollar Posted Image
Waiting impatiently for Sir Ridley Scotts Prometheus!

Danish filmsite Cinefil

#26 of 68 OFFLINE   JediFonger



  • 3,945 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 02 2006

Posted April 26 2006 - 04:13 AM

if you read the most recent edition's forward by Arthur C. Clarke, the story of 2001 was developed by both Kubrick and Clarke. so, the novel IS authoritative in every sense of the word. although Clarke doesn't say so explicitly, both the movie and book should be enjoyed to fully capture the 2001 experience. =). 2001 doesn't work (imho) as a standalone movie. i'm not one of those Gen X/Y, etc. w/ short attention span, in fact, i like silent films more.

#27 of 68 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin



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

Posted April 26 2006 - 05:40 AM

the novel is the novel, and the film is the film. To argue that either one is necessary to understand the other cheapens both.

#28 of 68 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer

  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted April 26 2006 - 07:36 AM


#29 of 68 OFFLINE   Chris Lynch

Chris Lynch

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 164 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 29 2001

Posted April 26 2006 - 10:33 AM

Actually, I always assumed that Dave asked HAL to rotate the pod just to test HAL, i.e. to check his response to the order when Dave knew HAL could hear him, and then follow that with the test when he turned off the sound transmission. Besides, I would think that if Kubrick needed HAL to see their lips, he could've put HAL's "eyeball" anywhere in the room to make that happen

#30 of 68 OFFLINE   andrew markworthy

andrew markworthy


  • 4,766 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 1999

Posted April 26 2006 - 08:02 PM

Neither and both. Posted Image Essentially, the final sequence represents Dave learning the wisdom of the aliens. This seems like a matter of moment for the aliens but is a lifetime for human beings. 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. It's useful to remember that in the original version of the script, the starchild doesn't just gaze at the Earth but blows up the various satellite weapons (remember the bone that jump cuts into the spaceship at the start of the film? - that spaceship is meant to be some kind of weapon) that threaten humanity. However, Kubrick scrapped the idea because he thought it would remind people too much of his previous film Dr Strangelove.

In a less metaphysical frame of mind, you can explain the ageing in minutes as the effects of relativity playing themselves out. However, I get a headache trying to explain it.

#31 of 68 OFFLINE   Ricardo C

Ricardo C


  • 5,060 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2002

Posted April 26 2006 - 10:21 PM

I enjoy the novel (and its sequels), but I think they should only be read after taking in the film. 2010 and the rest diminish the beauty of the film's third act by explaining and trivializing too many things the film made mysterious and majestic.
Man, an hour wasted on this sig! Thanks, Toshiba! :P

#32 of 68 OFFLINE   Holadem


    Lead Actor

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

Posted April 27 2006 - 01:09 AM

It's a match cut. An extremely common error.


#33 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted April 27 2006 - 01:16 AM

Great responses everyone Posted Image
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#34 of 68 OFFLINE   Ike



  • 1,677 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 14 2000

Posted April 27 2006 - 07:58 AM

I'm sure that at some point-be it while writing the scene, or rehearsing the scene, or while the mechanics for the pods to spin were being made-the thought was had that they could simply have the pods facing forwards when the two enter and save a lot of money and time. That the film goes out of its way to include the scene should not be looked at as a flaw. Without looking at the scene again, I suspect the point might be along a similar vein to the anti-gravity toilet, showing the fearless crew either unwilling or unable to walk the few steps to the front of the pod, so they instead have to rely on HAL to slowly spin the pods around. That seems to be the major point of the scene-how slow the movement of the pods is. A seemingly pointless action that takes up a lot of time, which encapsulates a lot of Kubrick's version of the future.

#35 of 68 OFFLINE   rich_d



  • 2,000 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001
  • Real Name:Rich
  • LocationConnecticut

Posted April 29 2006 - 12:26 AM

I think a highlight of 2001 is that there are different valid ways of interpreting the film. Personally, I'm not wedded to any particular 'this is it' kind of viewpoint. I like the idea that the monoliths are more than just tests of accomplishment as well as: - beacons that report progress back to their maker - passing of intelligence The last point being the possibility that intelligence of man didn't evolve over millions of years but received as a 'booster shot' (for lack of better words) from a more advanced civilization. Using a bone as a weapon occurs after the apes touch the monolith. I also like the idea that the ape age monolith was not the only monolith on Earth. I fancy the idea that one jump started the Renaissance. After all, that was a remarkable period of human creativity and production. Further, was this the last report back from the Planet Earth (itself) to the monolith's maker? After all, the guest quarters are done in Louis the 15th pattern (or whatever Louis that was). Was that done to make the guest feel at home or was the maker's style reflected on Earth though our encounter with a monolith? Fun stuff.

#36 of 68 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin



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

Posted April 29 2006 - 01:15 AM

Louis Seize (at least according to this article)

(as much as I can figure out, XIII is renaissance, XIV is baroque, XV is rococo, and XVI is neoclassical.) see Wikipedia:Louis for more details.

Perhaps it was in fashion in 1968.

#37 of 68 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin



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

Posted April 29 2006 - 02:11 AM

I found this Claudia Zimny essay on the significance of 2001's Louis Seize Room For instance,

And, of course, had the room been Louis Quinze, those connections could not have been made.

#38 of 68 OFFLINE   george kaplan

george kaplan

    Executive Producer

  • 13,064 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 2001

Posted April 29 2006 - 02:25 AM

I always thought it would have been better as Louis De Palma, with tiny furniture, that Bowman had clearly outgrown. Posted Image
"Movies should be like amusement parks. People should go to them to have fun." - Billy Wilder

"Subtitles good. Hollywood bad." - Tarzan, Sight & Sound 2012 voter.

"My films are not slices of life, they are pieces of cake." - Alfred Hitchcock"My great humility is just one of the many reasons that I...

#39 of 68 OFFLINE   Dick



  • 4,374 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 1999
  • Real Name:Rick

Posted April 30 2006 - 05:06 AM

It's a match cut. An extremely common error. Not a perfect match cut, either. The positioning of the bone is about 45 degrees off from the positioning of the warhead. With a super 8mm print I owned of this film, I cut 4-5 frames so that the transition was smoother. I know, Kubrick was a perfectionist and what is in the film is exactly what he intended, but for me, a more aligned transition worked better. Playing God? I don't know. Worked better for me.

#40 of 68 OFFLINE   Holadem


    Lead Actor

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

Posted April 30 2006 - 05:12 AM

Agreed. It's a nitpick, but perfectionism is ALL about nitpicks. And for the work of such a vaunted perfectionist, that cut could have been much better. But I am sure the "Kubrick can do no wrong" crowd will find a way to rationalize it Posted Image