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.


This topic has been archived.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

#41 of 68 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer



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

Posted April 30 2006 - 06:05 AM

The standard rationalization is "Brechtian Alienation Effect"

#42 of 68 ONLINE   Nelson Au

Nelson Au

    Executive Producer



  • 11,534 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 16 1999

Posted April 30 2006 - 09:53 AM

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.

#43 of 68 OFFLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter



  • 2,628 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted April 30 2006 - 11:02 AM

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. Posted Image
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#44 of 68 OFFLINE   Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor



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

Posted April 30 2006 - 11:42 AM

Quote:
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".
Do you rationalize every movie this way? "Obviously he did this because he felt he was right".

And that's that?

Jeezas...

--
H

#45 of 68 OFFLINE   Peter Apruzzese

Peter Apruzzese

    Screenwriter



  • 2,628 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 1999
  • Real Name:Peter Apruzzese

Posted April 30 2006 - 02:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holadem
Do you rationalize every movie this way? "Obviously he did this because he felt he was right".

And that's that?

Jeezas...

H

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.
"What we're fighting for, in the end...we're fighting for each other." - Col. Joshua Chamberlain in "Gettysburg"

 


#46 of 68 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor



  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted April 30 2006 - 02:26 PM

"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 madePosted Image

#47 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted May 01 2006 - 02:01 AM

Very interesting stuff, JonZ. Thanks! Posted Image

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
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#48 of 68 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer



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

Posted May 01 2006 - 02:44 AM

Come on... This is 2006, several years into the age of hypertexual reality. Please link to your sources. Posted Image

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kubrick
You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophy and allegorical meaning of the film -- and such speculation is indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level -- but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point.
source
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarke
If you understand 2001 completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered.
source

#49 of 68 OFFLINE   Dan Keliikoa

Dan Keliikoa

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 199 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 19 2003

Posted May 01 2006 - 02:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyErwin
Come on... This is 2006, several years into the age of hypertexual reality. Please link to your sources. Posted Image

A pox upon me, Jeremy! Posted Image I added the link...think I must have spaced out, as it were Posted Image
"He is not Herbert. We reach!"

#50 of 68 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor



  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 01 2006 - 03:16 AM

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".

#51 of 68 OFFLINE   Holadem

Holadem

    Lead Actor



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

Posted May 01 2006 - 03:31 AM

Quote:
-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)
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

#52 of 68 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor



  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 01 2006 - 03:32 AM

Yes Holadem I agree.

I should have said that more clearly.

#53 of 68 OFFLINE   Rex Bachmann

Rex Bachmann

    Screenwriter



  • 1,975 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 2001
  • Real Name:Rex Bachmann

Posted May 07 2006 - 07:56 PM

JonZ wrote (post #50):

Quote:
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).

Holadem wrote (post #51):

Quote:
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.

I believe it is Nietzsche's point that the leap in stage from ape to "superman", of which present-day man is only a link, will be attained not through technology, but through this "self-overcoming" (Selbstüberwindung) of which he writes. After all, he often refers to the "blond beast" running through the forest in many of these writings (which is one of the reasons he became all too closely associated with the Nazis---wrongly, in my view). For him, technology is definitely not the way to get there.


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

There is nothing at all "inaccurate" about the translation: German über = 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!)

"Delenda est . . . . "

 


#54 of 68 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor



  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 08 2006 - 02:01 AM

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.

#55 of 68 OFFLINE   JeremyErwin

JeremyErwin

    Producer



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

Posted May 08 2006 - 02:55 AM

one wonders if a true ubermensch would rely on the services of a translator.

#56 of 68 OFFLINE   Cees Alons

Cees Alons

    Executive Producer



  • 18,660 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 31 1997
  • Real Name:Cees Alons

Posted May 08 2006 - 04:01 AM

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

#57 of 68 OFFLINE   Rex Bachmann

Rex Bachmann

    Screenwriter



  • 1,975 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 2001
  • Real Name:Rex Bachmann

Posted May 14 2006 - 04:54 PM

Cees Alons wrote (post #56):


Quote:
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.


Uh, no. German über is the direct, literal cognate of English over and, for that matter, Latin super-. (The inital [s] of Latin is a historical innovation and addition on the part of that language.) upper is just English up ( = German auf) + comparative -er. The critics' assessments (i.e., that the word strikes them as "ironic") have to do with English super, not with the German version.


Quote:

. . . . The next step in evolutionary progress never descends from the very dominant species . . . because the dominant species isn't challenged enough by the hazards of nature to be forced to a change (to get the "fittest" selected).

. . . . 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.

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

 


#58 of 68 OFFLINE   Nigel McN

Nigel McN

    Supporting Actor



  • 848 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 2000

Posted May 15 2006 - 04:38 AM

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.

#59 of 68 OFFLINE   JediFonger

JediFonger

    Producer



  • 3,942 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 02 2006

Posted May 15 2006 - 07:30 AM

is arthur c. clarke still alive?

#60 of 68 OFFLINE   Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer



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

Posted May 15 2006 - 07:48 AM

Yes, Yi, Dr. Clarke is alive (though feeble and wheelchair-bound) and living in Sri Lanka.


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow