<< Like the big rectangle that shows up everywhere. What the hell was that? >>
Monolith, not rectangle, and it will be explained in the sequel.
<< Like the big rectangle that shows up everywhere. What the hell was that? >>
Monolith, not rectangle, and it will be explained in the sequel.
guyver01
Lifer
- Sep 25, 2000
- 22,135
- 5
- 61
If you thought 2001 was interpretative.. try reading 2061 or even worse.. 3001.... oy.... Dave Bowman and HAL in 3001... boggles the mind.
<edit links>
Screenplay for 2001
HAL 9000 Simulator
History of 2001 movie
2001 Links
<edit links>
Screenplay for 2001
HAL 9000 Simulator
History of 2001 movie
2001 Links
I've read all the books and seen all the movies.
In the 2001 reprint I read there was a forward by Mr. Clarke stating that he revised the book to fit the movie, the same for 2010. In fact, he says in the 2010 forward that he changed some science/facts to fit current findings. That means that even though there might be some disparity between the books, all he did was edit the facts to fit the times. For example, in both 2001 and 2010 ( 2061?) the USSR plays a big role. By the time 3001 arrives the USSR is gone, and is all but eliminated in the book. In fact he mentions the breakup in 1990.
Yes, I know some folks would argue that the ending of 3001 was too pat, but I really liked it. At any rate they're all worth reading, even 2061 which I enjoyed as well.
In the 2001 reprint I read there was a forward by Mr. Clarke stating that he revised the book to fit the movie, the same for 2010. In fact, he says in the 2010 forward that he changed some science/facts to fit current findings. That means that even though there might be some disparity between the books, all he did was edit the facts to fit the times. For example, in both 2001 and 2010 ( 2061?) the USSR plays a big role. By the time 3001 arrives the USSR is gone, and is all but eliminated in the book. In fact he mentions the breakup in 1990.
Yes, I know some folks would argue that the ending of 3001 was too pat, but I really liked it. At any rate they're all worth reading, even 2061 which I enjoyed as well.
I was not bored by the movie...
I mean come on...those were the Monoliths!!!!!
And what about HAL??? That's some dope shiznit!!!
I mean come on...those were the Monoliths!!!!!
And what about HAL??? That's some dope shiznit!!!
guyver01
Lifer
- Sep 25, 2000
- 22,135
- 5
- 61
People that thought 2001 was too wordy and intellectual for them might find their brain cells stimulated by this resounding classic of modern cinema.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
guyver01, thanks for the link to the original screenplay, quite interesting. I think Kubrick did the right thing by altering it, but the original script certainly explained things much better.
Zenmervolt
EDIT: The 2001...Explained link was interesting, but I think that it perpetuates a couple of what I feel are myths about the film and the book. I've never liked the idea that H.A.L. malfunctioned, I am a member of the camp which insists that the problems were caused by H.A.L. having been given conflicting orders in his programming (ie. do not lie, do not tell the truth about the mission purpose, keep the crew safe, do not joepardise the mission). Also, I believe that in the H.A.L. deliberately caused that final video to be played once his higher functions were disabled. The review makes the playing of the video seem like more of a coincidence than I am willing to believe. Of course, that's just me.
Zenmervolt
EDIT: The 2001...Explained link was interesting, but I think that it perpetuates a couple of what I feel are myths about the film and the book. I've never liked the idea that H.A.L. malfunctioned, I am a member of the camp which insists that the problems were caused by H.A.L. having been given conflicting orders in his programming (ie. do not lie, do not tell the truth about the mission purpose, keep the crew safe, do not joepardise the mission). Also, I believe that in the H.A.L. deliberately caused that final video to be played once his higher functions were disabled. The review makes the playing of the video seem like more of a coincidence than I am willing to believe. Of course, that's just me.
<< People that thought 2001 was too wordy and intellectual for them might find their brain cells stimulated by this resounding classic of modern cinema. >>
You've really got to hate intellectual elitists.
<<
<< People that thought 2001 was too wordy and intellectual for them might find their brain cells stimulated by this resounding classic of modern cinema. >>
You've really got to hate intellectual elitists. >>
I am not an intellectual elitist, I just play one on AT.
Since this movie is so hard to understand (to enjoy) for most people, I think it's not made for general public ...
Btw, I don't like it too ... :Q
Btw, I don't like it too ... :Q
I read the book before I watched it so a lot of things is pre-explained. Anyway those monkeys are the ancestor of mankind...
Anyone watched Zoolander and the scene with the iMAC? ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Anyone watched Zoolander and the scene with the iMAC? ROTFLMAO!!!!!
<< the sequel is more mainstream and dumbed down for the lame brained audience. You guys would probably like it better. >>
yea you know us lamers
You really have to watch it more than once... The first time I saw it, I thought it was boring, but after 3-4 times you understand more stuff and start making your own interpretations rather than being confused, especially at the end.
Keep in mind it was made over 30 years ago...
Keep in mind it was made over 30 years ago...
It being made 30 years ago has nothing to do with it. There are movies 80 or 90 years old that can be understood by just watching it once.
<< There are movies 80 or 90 years old that can be understood by just watching it once. >>
So that makes them better movies? I understood "Corky Romano" the first time I saw it but it sucked. Perhaps NOT being able to understand it by watching it once is a good thing...
So that makes them better movies? I understood "Corky Romano" the first time I saw it but it sucked. Perhaps NOT being able to understand it by watching it once is a good thing...
Well, this is truely the end of the world.
A day has come when computer geeks don't like or understand 2001.
I can't believe it.
The novel and the movie have held an almost religious status for years.
It is an order of magnitude worse than publicly admitting you saw the original TV Star Trek, didn't get it, and thought it sucked.
A day has come when computer geeks don't like or understand 2001.
I can't believe it.
The novel and the movie have held an almost religious status for years.
It is an order of magnitude worse than publicly admitting you saw the original TV Star Trek, didn't get it, and thought it sucked.
Computer geeks don't get this movie!
Where do you think the computer's name came from?
HAL 9000
That's one letter before I, one letter before B, and one letter before M.
Where do you think the computer's name came from?
HAL 9000
That's one letter before I, one letter before B, and one letter before M.
I read 2063 amd 3001, and let me tell ya, DON'T READ THEM! They both suck, esp 3001. Here's a hint for you, Frank Poole is alive@@ He is frozen in space, and they are able to reanimate him in 3001 when they find his floating body!
<< Well, this is truely the end of the world.
A day has come when computer geeks don't like or understand 2001.
I can't believe it.
The novel and the movie have held an almost religious status for years.
It is an order of magnitude worse than publicly admitting you saw the original TV Star Trek, didn't get it, and thought it sucked. >>
I LOVE this movie! It raises so many important questions and highlights so many suggestive ambiguities. And the soundtrack kicks a$$
guyver01
Lifer
- Sep 25, 2000
- 22,135
- 5
- 61
<< I read 2063 amd 3001, and let me tell ya, DON'T READ THEM! They both suck, esp 3001. Here's a hint for you, Frank Poole is alive@@ He is frozen in space, and they are able to reanimate him in 3001 when they find his floating body! >>
That made me gag... explosive decompression woulda boiled his blood... not froze it.
That movie sucked, Ithink you have to be on acid to like it. Either that, or you have to pretend you like it cause everyone else does. It was the longest peice of crap I ever watched.
<< So that makes them better movies? I understood "Corky Romano" the first time I saw it but it sucked. Perhaps NOT being able to understand it by watching it once is a good thing... >>
Slow down there, punchy! Who said they are better movies? The person I was referring to said that because it was made 30 years ago, it may be harder to understand.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter