Okay so I finally rented 2001: A Space Odessey

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919
it's because you didn't even take the time to spell it right

ROFL, QFT :beer:

 

[imported_Tango]

Absolute masterpiece by the greatest movie director ever born in the US. Not his best one, still a masterpiece.

Too bad the new generation completely lacks talent when compared to the Kubrick/Scorsese generation.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
One of the best films ever. Its subtle brilliance is on a different magnitude than that of most films.

However, for ATOT to like it, it needs more 'splosions, boobies, and homoerotic Spartans.

never truer words spoken....

and it needs to appeal to the 13 and 14 year olds who would have us believe they are much older than they are...rofl

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: lozina
"getting" 2001 and enjoying it is a good gauge of a person's intelligence.

QFT

/thread

 

[Siddhartha]

The first time I saw it was on a pre multiplex large screen, The theatre had for the time a state of the art sound system. I thought the movie was visually amazing.

To understand the movie, I read Clarke's books and short stories. He had a thing about an advance civilization that nutured emerging or evolving species.

I think 2001 was and is one of the benchmarks to which all science fiction movies will be compared.

 

[BrownTown]

Well, the ways I've understood it was that it was a representation of the transition from animal to superman according to the philosophy of Nietzsche. At first you have the animals, and then they evolve into man, and then man creates god in his image (HAL 9000), but eventually man must kill god (deactivating HAL 9000) in order to become a superman who will approach the earth like a child. Anyways, if you have read Thus Spake Zarathustra (on which the score of the movie is also based), or Beyond Good and Evil the comparisons are VERY readily made. However I have also seen it interpreted as man creates technology and then has to overcome is (as opposed to man creates God and then overcomes him). Certainly in the movie technology is used, but you have to determine whether you think that is ALL that is meant or whether it is a metaphor. But from my understanding the actual book has it meant just as its seen and not so much the metaphor as some would suggest.

So explain what you think the BOOK actually wants us to think, and then if you think the movie also means that or goes a slightly different route.

 

[Iron Woode]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Well, the ways I've understood it was that it was a representation of the transition from animal to superman according to the philosophy of Nietzsche. At first you have the animals, and then they evolve into man, and then man creates god in his image (HAL 9000), but eventually man must kill god (deactivating HAL 9000) in order to become a superman who will approach the earth like a child. Anyways, if you have read Thus Spake Zarathustra (on which the score of the movie is also based), or Beyond Good and Evil the comparisons are VERY readily made. However I have also seen it interpreted as man creates technology and then has to overcome is (as opposed to man creates God and then overcomes him). Certainly in the movie technology is used, but you have to determine whether you think that is ALL that is meant or whether it is a metaphor. But from my understanding the actual book has it meant just as its seen and not so much the metaphor as some would suggest.

So explain what you think the BOOK actually wants us to think, and then if you think the movie also means that or goes a slightly different route.

you are over analyzing it.

when I posted that people should read "The Lost Worlds of 2001", I had hoped some of the posters would check it out.

Forget this philosophy junk. The book is a straight forward sci-fi novel.

The real point is that alien beings came to Earth and discovered our ancient ancestors and decided to help us out a little bit. Since the original story would have taken too long to watch, the aliens are represented by an obelisk. This obelisk imparts the ability to do simple reasoning. This is what you see in the first part of the movie. The original story was more involved; the alien watched and helped out one member of the group until it was time to go. This push with learning and teaching helped them to evolve into us.

Then we as modern man make our way into space, we discover something strange on the moon: an Obelisk. This in turn tells us that we are not alone in the universe. It also points the way to another object out near Jupiter: the Star Gate. (this is based on the original story The Sentinel)

The journey to the Star Gate is an analogy of the first story about reasoning and learning. HAL was just made up by Clarke and Kubrick in order to have something go wrong. The crew were killed off by various accidents in order to have one man actually experience the Star Gate. This is where the original story and the movie part company. The original story has him entering the Gate and meeting with the alien race that built it. He then gets a guided tour of the various aliens in the universe. The movie couldn't actually do this unless major money was spent on the special effects necessary for the alien worlds and how much time this part actually takes up. The movie would have ended up 5 hours long or more. So to simulate the journey a bizarre light show was used. He then has to make a decision about higher enlightenment and at the end is reborn as a baby; ready to experience the universe and to grow in a new direction.

So there you go. No mystical hogwash or some other twisted philosophical meaning. Just pure sci-fi from the man himself.

 

[Fritzo]

It was the first movie that was ever done (or even COULD be done) that depicted realistic space flight. It introduced realistic computers, realistic technology...it was a good 15 years ahead of it's time.

Nobody from this generation is going to appriciate it because they grew up sucking on an iPod, so they have no concept of life sans modern technology. Also, the story was a metephor- I take it the the point was missed?

 

[Vic]

Well, the movie/book was/is realistic except for HAL. Roboticists have since discovered that sentient intelligence is almost certainly impossible from a computer in a box, i.e. the nature of our physical human form is just as important to the development of our sentience/self-awareness as our brains.

One thing I always liked about the book was how the development of reasoning lead almost directly to human-on-human violence.

 

[BrownTown]

So, you people who think that 2001 is such a deep movie and should be used as "an intelligence test" are only basing this on the obvious interpretation of the movie and no deeper meaning? I mean the straight up sci-fi interpretation isn't any deeper than many other movies, the only difference is that it comes so slow it could be used as a test for ADD, but not for intelligence.

 

[Skotty]

People who think "getting it" is a good measure of intelligence are proof that it's not.

 

[conehead433]

If you liked 2001 watch the sequel 2010. Both very good movies.