I just watched 2001: A Space Odyssey

[fr]

Anyone want to say what they thought about it?

Twice I felt like fast forwarding. I skiped through about two minutes near the end. That flying through the colors sequence was just too long.

So what happened to Dave? He got old and then reborn?


I could have told the same story in 5 minutes...without the "art" though.

Some people like the sequel and some hate it. I'll get to seeing it next week.

 

[GhettoFob]

<< I could have told the same story in 5 minutes...without the "art" though.

Some people like the sequel and some hate it. I'll get to seeing it next week. >>


I thought the exact same thing after watching it a few weeks ago. There's a sequel?

 

[AaronP]

the sequel is more mainstream and dumbed down for the lame brained audience. You guys would probably like it better.

 

[fr]

<<

<< I could have told the same story in 5 minutes...without the "art" though.

Some people like the sequel and some hate it. I'll get to seeing it next week. >>


I thought the exact same thing after watching it a few weeks ago. There's a sequel? >>




It's called 2010: The Year We Make Contact. The trailer was on the DVD. It seems kinda like Event Horizon without gore.

 

[FrysInsider]

2001: A Space Odyssey is a great great movie.

Fast forwarding it ruins it!! Do not do that!!


Everyone has their own interpretation of the end...there is no single right answer!!

 

[HombrePequeno]

Do yourself a favor and read the book. The movie isn't event close to as good.

 

[FrysInsider]

actually didn't the movie come out before the book? or simultaneously

 

[HombrePequeno]

It was based on 2001 by Arthur C. Clarke wasn't it? I'd imagine the book came first.

 

[thedan]

That movie sucked, monkeys screaming at the sun for a good 15minutes

 

[Whitecloak]

the book came after the movie , if i remember correctly. the movie was based on a short story - "The Sentinel" by Arthur C Clarke. Awesome book. I think it is the best book he has written

 

[HombrePequeno]

I did not know that.

 

[HamSupLo]

dude, the color sequence is da best!

 

[cavingjan]

The Sentinel inspired it but the book and movie were released at the same time. The book is much better than the movie. But just to put things in perspective for the younger folks: this came out in 1968 and the special effects were incredible for the time.

 

[TallBill]

<< That movie sucked, monkeys screaming at the sun for a good 15minutes >>



haha, that part was great! when they kill and scream and go nuts

 

[Whitecloak]

cavingjan
you are right.what i meant was that the script was done slightly earlier than the book. thats why there are a few discrepancies between the book and the movie.

 

[Nemesis77]

The movie was inspired by a short story by Clarke. Kubrick and Clarke then teamed up on the movie, and the book and the movie were made simultaneously. Both the book and the movie have a slightly different look on the events.

What happened to Dave? Well, that's up to you, there's no single correct answer.

As for the sequel... It's different. Like it was said, it's more mainstream.

2001 is a movie that forces you to think.

 

[Whitecloak]

check this out

<< The screenplay was written primarily by Kubrick and the novel primarily by Clarke, each working simultaneously and also providing feedback to the other. As the story went through many revisions, changes in the novel were taken over into the screenplay and vice versa. It was also unclear whether film or novel would be released first; in the end it was the film. Kubrick was to have been credited as second author of the novel, but in the end was not. It is believed that Kubrick deliberately withheld his approval of the novel as to not hurt the release of the film. >>

 

[gotsmack]

I didn't like the movie too much. everyone was telling me what a great movie it was but I just found it kind of boring and long.

 

[konichiwa]

Great movie. If you didn't like it you need to watch it again because you missed something. Either that or you should just stick to movies with Jean Claude van Damme...

 

[kami]

The movie is great, some people just don't understand it and/or has incredibly short attention spans.
It took a few viewings before I could fully take it in....but once you do you realize how kickass it is.

 

[pulse8]

I didn't get the movie at all and sometimes I wonder if the people who say they got it are just saying that because everyone else does.

If anyone could give a synopsis of the story and what everything meant, I'd be impressed.

Maybe if you read the book as well you could get everything?

 

[konichiwa]

Everything doesn't "mean" something no matter what your High School Lit teacher might have told you. It is to be interpreted.

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<Do yourself a favor and read the book. The movie isn't event close to as good.>>

Couldn't put it any better than that. To all those of you saying that the Clarke's book came out after the movie, technically right, but not completely. The book and the movie were developed simultaneously, and there was a massive amount of collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. Because of the limitations of film as a medium, the book does a much better job of explaining things. I have not seen 2010, but I have read 2010, and the book makes a lot of things about 2001 much clearer. Once you have read and understood the book, the movie becomes far better and those "boring" sequences make sense.

Zenmervolt

 

[pulse8]

<< Everything doesn't "mean" something no matter what your High School Lit teacher might have told you. It is interperative. >>



Interperative? Like modern art? I kind of think that's a crock. It's like painting 3 lines on a piece of paper and saying, "It is interperative."

I guess I was just expecting some sort of storyline and at least a hint of what some things in the movie meant.

Like the big rectangle that shows up everywhere. What the hell was that??

I'm a big fan of Kubrick and I don't consider myself a cinematic moron, but this was just way to unstructured for my taste. I can appreciate movies that require a high level of interpertation, but this one was beyond me.

 

[kev0ut]

I understood 2001 but that doesn't mean I thought it was good. In fact I thought it was a gigantic borefest. If I want to be bored to death while trying to "interpret" something I'll go stare at a painting. But for me, movies should at least be entertaining in their art (as opposed to boring the hell outta me.) Example given (of a non-boring artsy movie): Requiem for a Dream