What the Hell was that??

John

Mr. Meme
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
7,742
Likes
11,292
#1
Ok, I know I'm a little late on this - finally watch 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time tonight. Very stunning movie - the classical score really added a lot to it too (the other music was Godawful, the weird chanting, etc). I liked everything right up until the final act. W~T~F was that???? All the flying colors, then the bedroom, the man eating then laying in bed, then he turns into a bubble baby.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,409
Likes
4,923
#2
Yea, great movie, entrancing in many ways. It really ratchets up the tension as HAL gets more menacing. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I've always took the appearances of the monolith as a helping alien hand in mankind's evolution. The last act taking Bowman through the final stages of that evolution until his rebirth into a more perfect human specimen. Probably a simplistic take, but again it's been a while. Would be a great Superman or superhero origin story anyway.
 

ZooCougar

Shut Up Carl.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,351
Likes
13,138
#3
Yea, great movie, entrancing in many ways. It really ratchets up the tension as HAL gets more menacing. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I've always took the appearances of the monolith as a helping alien hand in mankind's evolution. The last act taking Bowman through the final stages of that evolution until his rebirth into a more perfect human specimen. Probably a simplistic take, but again it's been a while. Would be a great Superman or superhero origin story anyway.
It's all in the books. I never read them though.
 

ZooCougar

Shut Up Carl.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
18,351
Likes
13,138
#4
Ok, I know I'm a little late on this - finally watch 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time tonight. Very stunning movie - the classical score really added a lot to it too (the other music was Godawful, the weird chanting, etc). I liked everything right up until the final act. W~T~F was that???? All the flying colors, then the bedroom, the man eating then laying in bed, then he turns into a bubble baby.
I have the same interpretation as Mano. The monoliths appear at all of the crucial junctures in mankind's evolution.

At this point mankinds tools have begun outsmarting man (Hal). So maybe the monoliths are balancing everything out by creating the Starchild at the end?


I usually rewatch this one every few years. The last time I saw it was when Interstellar came out.
 

JCSuperstar

Garbage Time All Star
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
336
Likes
1,312
#6
I think of the end scene as being a mirror of the beginning as well. Instead of desperate and starving like the Apes who learn to use tools to kill, Bowman is now bored and comfortable as you watch him with his steak dinner (it's been a while for me too). Capital 'M' Man has solved his old problems and must move on.
 

John

Mr. Meme
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
7,742
Likes
11,292
#7
Yea, great movie, entrancing in many ways. It really ratchets up the tension as HAL gets more menacing. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I've always took the appearances of the monolith as a helping alien hand in mankind's evolution. The last act taking Bowman through the final stages of that evolution until his rebirth into a more perfect human specimen. Probably a simplistic take, but again it's been a while. Would be a great Superman or superhero origin story anyway.
the HAL scenes are chilling - loved HAL lip-reading.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
2,409
Likes
4,923
#9
You know Kubrick is obviously one of the great masters of cinema, and the return of this thread got me thinking about his movies again. I was too young and/or not born to have seen his movies when they first came out but I've always wondered if I would of been aware of the cultural impact his ouevre would have had in the moment.

When I first borrowed my brothers box set of his films and started watching them for the first time each one was like a slap in the face. Nearly all of them are amazing films! The one that left me most floored would probably be Barry Lyndon though. I need to see that one again!
 

CTMike

Analysis: Partly True
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,775
Likes
23,995
#10
You know Kubrick is obviously one of the great masters of cinema, and the return of this thread got me thinking about his movies again. I was too young and/or not born to have seen his movies when they first came out but I've always wondered if I would of been aware of the cultural impact his ouevre would have had in the moment.

When I first borrowed my brothers box set of his films and started watching them for the first time each one was like a slap in the face. Nearly all of them are amazing films! The one that left me most floored would probably be Barry Lyndon though. I need to see that one again!
I’ll have to add that to the list. Clockwork Orange is scheduled to record to the DVR later this month...
 

HuskyHawk

Hoping to see something that looks like basketball
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
11,681
Likes
11,951
#11
I’ll have to add that to the list. Clockwork Orange is scheduled to record to the DVR later this month...
I missed Barry Lyndon too. Clockwork has some really interesting messages, and I used to like it a lot, but damn, it's still freaking disturbing in so many ways. Just not pleasant. Since I have ingested the message pretty well by now, I don't think I need to see it anymore.
 

CL82

Trust the process
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
27,115
Likes
41,205
#12
IIRC from the book at the end big blue baby Bowman:
Looks at the mess and clutter of the earth and destroys everything on it leaving the pristine planet behind. The final line is something like "He didn't know what he do next but he'd think of something"

But I read it decades ago, so I could be "misremembering" it.

For what it worth, I liked the sequel "2010 - (something something) better in someways in that it was less conceptual and had better pacing and more structured story line.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2012
Messages
5,599
Likes
3,079
#13
2001: A Space Odyssey is regarded as a great film, and Stanley Kubrick is certainly a master director. However, I have to confess that it is not a favorite of either me or my wife. I have watched it a few times, and I find I am just indifferent about it. As was mentioned in the Citizen Kane thread, these things happen. As for Kubrick, I much prefer “Dr. Strangelove” and “A Clockwork Orange”, the films he did before and after 2001 The Kubrick directed Spartacus is also a great movie, but that one is considered more of a Kirk Douglas film than a real Kubrick production.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
3,320
Likes
1,521
#14
Watched this last night for the first time, long overdue. For a movie that is SIXTY years old, just plain impressive how well the visuals and score hold up. Story was a little... mystifying... at times but still enjoyable nonetheless.
Read the book first and it (the movie) all makes sense. I would tell you what really happened to Bowman and what his kalidoscope trip in the space pod is, but don't want to ruin it for you if you decide to read the book. Quite frankly after reading Arthur C. Clarks brilliant novel, Kubrick's interpretation seems slightly over the top IMO.
 

CL82

Trust the process
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
27,115
Likes
41,205
#15
Read the book first and it (the movie) all makes sense. I would tell you what really happened to Bowman and what his kalidoscope trip in the space pod is, but don't want to ruin it for you if you decide to read the book. Quite frankly after reading Arthur C. Clarks brilliant novel, Kubrick's interpretation seems slightly over the top IMO.
I believe it is just the opposite. Kubrick's movie came first and Clark's (very good) novelization came afterward.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
3,320
Likes
1,521
#16
I believe it is just the opposite. Kubrick's movie came first and Clark's (very good) novelization came afterward.
No you're wrong, Clarke's novel and manuscript for 2001 per see, actually is a compilation of one of Clarke's earlier stories called "The Sentinel" written in 1948 and a short story "Encounter at Dawn" also IIRC published around 1951. Both long before Stanley Kubrick ever came on the scene. The novelization as you call it, meaning the book wasn't actually published until it came out pretty much concurrently (or slightly after the movies release) with the movie in 1968. In deference to Kubrick there are some things in the published novel that were Kubrick's ideas and were taken from the screenplay jointly written by Clarke and Kubrick. Kubrick himself gave an interview in the early 70's and admittedly said in that interview that the book better explains the story than the movie ever did.
 
Last edited:

CL82

Trust the process
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
27,115
Likes
41,205
#17
No you're wrong, Clarke's novel and manuscript for 2001 per see, actually is a compilation of one of Clarke's earlier stories called "The Sentinel" written in 1948 and a short story "Encounter at Dawn" also IIRC published around 1951. Both long before Stanley Kubrick ever came on the scene. The novelization as you call it, meaning the book wasn't actually published until it came out pretty much concurrently (or slightly after the movies release) with the movie in 1968. In deference to Kubrick there are some things in the published novel that were Kubrick's ideas and were taken from the screenplay jointly written by Clarke and Kubrick. Kubrick himself gave an interview in the early 70's and admittedly said in that interview that the book better explains the story than the movie ever did.
That's interesting Rob. The book was published after the movie, but it isn't a true novelization because was based upon a couple of short stories that were published before. Apparently, Kubrick and Clarke worked jointly on the book (so says Wikipedia) even though only Clarke was credited. Clarke also worked on the screenplay.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
3,320
Likes
1,521
#18
That's interesting Rob. The book was published after the movie, but it isn't a true novelization because was based upon a couple of short stories that were published before. Apparently, Kubrick and Clarke worked jointly on the book (so says Wikipedia) even though only Clarke was credited. Clarke also worked on the screenplay.
They didn't work jointly on the book....that was done by Clarke alone, however they did of course work jointly on the screenplay and Clarke used some of that collaboration for the novel. One thing that Kubrick did contribute was the title, that was his idea.....the following is taken from an interview given by Kubrick in the early 70's.....

"There are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn was altered during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus an impression of some of the rushes, and wrote the novel. As a result, there's a difference between the novel and the film ... I think that the divergences between the two works are interesting."

Also the book came out shortly after the film was released only to not take away from ticket sales.
 

CL82

Trust the process
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
27,115
Likes
41,205
#19
They didn't work jointly on the book....that was done by Clarke alone, however they did of course work jointly on the screenplay which and Clarke used some of that collaboration for the novel. One thing that Kubrick did contribute was the title, that was his idea.....the following is taken from an interview given by Kubrick in the early 70's.....

"There are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn was altered during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus an impression of some of the rushes, and wrote the novel. As a result, there's a difference between the novel and the film ... I think that the divergences between the two works are interesting."
2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C. Clarke. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film. Clarke and Kubrick worked on the book together, but eventually only Clarke ended up as the official author.

Linky
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
3,320
Likes
1,521
#20
They didn't work jointly on the book....that was done by Clarke alone, however they did of course work jointly on the screenplay and Clarke used some of that collaboration for the novel. One thing that Kubrick did contribute was the title, that was his idea.....the following is taken from an interview given by Kubrick in the early 70's.....

"There are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset. This initial treatment was subsequently changed in the screenplay, and the screenplay in turn was altered during the making of the film. But Arthur took all the existing material, plus an impression of some of the rushes, and wrote the novel. As a result, there's a difference between the novel and the film ... I think that the divergences between the two works are interesting."

Also the book came out shortly after the film was released only to not take away from ticket sales.
2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 science fiction novel by British writer Arthur C. Clarke. It was developed concurrently with Stanley Kubrick's film version and published after the release of the film. Clarke and Kubrick worked on the book together, but eventually only Clarke ended up as the official author.

Linky
I guess you either believe a Wikpedia author of which there are thousands or believe Stanley Kubrick's own words. I prefer to believe Kubrick.
 

CL82

Trust the process
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
27,115
Likes
41,205
#21
I guess you either believe a Wikpedia author of which there are thousands or believe Stanley Kubrick's own words. I prefer to believe Kubrick.
Sigh, you might want reread the quote you posted Rob. It confirms that the book was derivative of the collectively written screenplay and "rushes" which are the daily shooting. It wasn't a precursor to the film.

The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
3,320
Likes
1,521
#22
Sigh, you might want reread the quote you posted Rob. It confirms that the book was derivative of the collectively written screenplay and "rushes" which are the daily shooting. It wasn't a precursor to the film.

The novel came about after we did a 130-page prose treatment of the film at the very outset.
Bigger sigh.....
The whole thing was based on "The Sentinel" written by Clarke in 1948. How stupid can you be??? Why do you think Kubrick sought out Clarke in 1964? Geeze, give it a rest.
 

CL82

Trust the process
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
27,115
Likes
41,205
#23
Bigger sigh.....
The whole thing was based on "The Sentinel" written by Clarke in 1948. How stupid can you be??? Why do you think Kubrick sought out Clarke in 1964? Geeze, give it a rest.
Lol, you were (very gently I might add) proven wrong using your own quote but... you got to name call. Feel better?
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
3,320
Likes
1,521
#24
Lol, you were (very gently I might add) proven wrong using your own quote but... you got to name call. Feel better?
Proven wrong how??? I never said that the book "2001 A Space Odyssey" was a precursor to the movie. However I have pointed out that the short story, The Sentinel, written by Clarke in 1948 serves as the basis for the movie and the novel, and is the reason Kubrick sought out Clarke in the early 60's.
 


Top