And I'm just... wtf?
I really liked the middle parts. In silent dark space with a killed AI. Then magic or something?
The ending was just too weird for me... still a good movie.
Did you like the end? Middle? The monkeys? Was first view the last couple of years or watched it decades ago? Or both? Do you think it has aged well?
This is just my signature and is not part of the post lol...
- Signature, Mr
Saw it when it first came out, and it hasn't aged a bit for me, even when taking nostalgia into account. I've watched it dozens of times over the subsequent decades, and I always get something new out of it.
The ending can be difficult, as it certainly doesn't spell everything out neatly for the viewer -- it's all there, just not in words. It's the visual storytelling that carries the real meaning, I think. It helps to consider it as a symphony or tone poem of sorts, something to be experienced rather than just viewed as a typical film -- although it is film in its purest form. And while it certainly raises countless questions for discussion & contemplation, it's meant to engage the viewer on far more than just the intellectual level, it seems to me.
Give it some time, then go back & watch it again. Now that you know what happens in terms of narrative, you can immerse yourself in the experience of the film. That may help with the ending -- again, not on an intellectual, analytical level, so much as an aesthetic & philosophical level. It's an extremely intelligent film, but it's meant to be felt as much as thought about. (Again, that's how it's always struck me, anyway.)
Yeah, I think this is one of these kind of movies that needs to be seen more than once to get the full experience. It's all pretty neat, and it's is a great subject for lots of different subjects.
The movie is also 50 years old, and I really give it credit for all the space stuff which was very believable. In these days, everything would be CGI.
Wish there was more Hal, though :(
This is just my signature and is not part of the post lol...
- Signature, Mr
It's hard to feel much of anything when a film is so mind-numbingly DULL.
shareOne thing (Of Many lol) that amazes me with 2001-ASO is even though it's almost been half of a century since it's release, it looks sharper than so many films. Sure, a few moments show it's age, mostly the "Modern Day" moments with the BBC and the Phone Call but that's just impossible to avoid, no matter how far ahead of the art Kubrick was... BUT, that's about it. The film is Timeless. Even the Front-screen Projection still looks sharp. The entire DOM Sequence still puts me in awe. Douglas Trumbull is an incredible talent. From 2001, Blade Runner and then his comeback with Terrence Malick on 'Tree of Life'... He's always understood the power of Practical Effects and how they can create something that even the best CGI cant. With CGI, there's always something in our brain that tells us what we're seeing just isn't "Real."
shareOne thing (Of Many lol) that amazes me with 2001-ASO is even though it's almost been half of a century since it's release, it looks sharper than so many films.
Absolutely... But it's also the Set Design and the avoidance of anything that would make the film look "Retro." While I love 'Alien', the whole "Space Junk" theme makes the film look a bit dated. I don't mind that of course, Alien is still one of the best. 'Star Wars' looks like a 70's film as well. 2001 just steered clear of certain Visuals that would no doubt make it look like a film released in 1968.
shareActually I find 2001 looks more related to its era than Alien, in terms of interior set designs and clothing. It's very kitsch at times (espacially the little girl in the television). Alien looks outside of our reality, like we have no clue when it could be taking place.
shareI agree on Squirts phonecall, it's one of the 2 examples I used that definitely appear dated. But I'd say Alien is worse in that department. The clothes look like 1977-1980, Olivia Newton-John in 'Let's Get Physical' type wardrobes. The headbands especially. I don't think either film is particularly overly so in this regard but Alien is definitely more so, IMO of course. Also, the opening scene when Muther gets the signal, the helmet and such, definitely retro, the whole "Space Junk" I was talking about. It adds to the charm of the film for me and it's probably my Second favorite in the Genre behind 2001, so I say it with respect to the film but it most certainly dates it.
shareTo me the clothes look futuristic. Maybe because I wasn't born at that time so I don't associate them with a particular period.
shareTo me the clothes look futuristic.
They put some real thought into them. My only reservation is the stew in that roundabout elevator which Floyd boards on his way to the voice print identification station. Well, and the stew in that subsequent voice print video. Those costumes do seem to me very 1960s. Otherwise, I think the costuming remains astonishingly undated.
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.
At risk of making 2001:ASO fans mad at me, I first watched this film a couple of years ago and I did not care for it at all.
And I'm just... wtf?
I really liked the middle parts. In silent dark space with a killed AI. Then magic or something?
The ending was just too weird for me... still a good movie.
Did you like the end? Middle? The monkeys? Was first view the last couple of years or watched it decades ago? Or both? Do you think it has aged well?
If all you saw was the surface (admittedly spectacular in itself), then it's no wonder you found it dull. But if ever there was a film that's so much more than surface, it's 2001.
shareA lot of people had your same reaction when the film first hit the theatres. To me it's missing some plot elements to make it make more sense. Because otherwise all you have is this trippy film towards the end that doesn't explain itself. Therefore you have a lot of artistic interpretation by "experts" who are just blowing hot air.
Still, it's an interesting film. I'm not sure I would have shot it any differently, but I would have added some story points to explain the ending.
but I would have added some story points to explain the ending.
Agreed! "Added story points" would have locked the ending into one specific, neatly comprehensible explanation, when the whole point is that Bowman is experiencing something utterly beyond human comprehension. And the audience is supposed to feel as he does.
shareEh, well, it was the 60s, and "incomprehensible" was in, but I'm of the old school of needing to explain to the audience what's happening.
It's just my personal preference. I mean the film is what it is, but when I first saw it I thought it was supposed to be some kind of great artistic expression of some kind, and where it sort-of kind-of is, it's supposed to be a story point in and of itself.
Oh well. Just me.
when I first saw it I thought it was supposed to be some kind of great artistic expression of some kind, and where it sort-of kind-of is, it's supposed to be a story point in and of itself.
I've said all I've had to on the topic.
shareSaying that "'incomprehensible' was in during the 1960s" doesn't seem quite fair to me. A different, more fluid & definitely symbolic zeitgeist certainly was "in" -- there was a pervading sense of unlimited possibilities & both personal & cultural transformation. Currently we seem to be at the opposite end of that, so much so that to many people, that sense of unlimited possibilities is itself incomprehensible now.
But part of that zeitgeist was trusting the audience to be eagerly engaged with something artistic & difficult. And certainly everything is there on the screen, albeit not in the formulaic style of having someone literally explain to the audience (via one of the characters) what's going on. But as I've said before, perhaps 2001 is meant to be experienced more as a symphony with recurring motifs, or a vast tone poem, than the typical film.
by Owlwise » 20 hours ago (Sun Dec 11 2016 04:55:31)
IMDb member since April 2002
Saying that "'incomprehensible' was in during the 1960s" doesn't seem quite fair to me. A different, more fluid & definitely symbolic zeitgeist certainly was "in" -- there was a pervading sense of unlimited possibilities & both personal & cultural transformation.
I think I understand your viewpoint. However, I wasn't talking about feel-good psychology (not a good thing in the long run at any time, I agree). I was talking about the feeling of possibilities, which came as much from the mainstream culture as anything else, starting with the space program, which fired up all of us children in the late 1950s/early 1960s. I don't think anyone can deny that the 1960s/early 1970s were a time of enormous creative energy in all of the arts. New ideas were everywhere -- some brilliant, some absurd, all bursting with energy.
What I think we're discussing here, from two rather different POVs, is a difference in innate temperament & worldview. Neither one is completely right or wrong; both are necessary for a more whole & balanced life. You skew a bit more to one, I skew a bit more to the other. Going too far in either direction all too often leads to either stagnation or chaos. In other words, different personality types, who experience & process the world in different ways.
I was lucky enough to get most of what was good from growing up & coming of age in that era, and very little of the bad. Yet I can recognize the bad all the same, and I'm grateful I avoided it.
Going directly to 2001, I believe it's a film that could only have been made then, in order to be the masterpiece I believe it to be. I don't think it was promoting "feel-good psychology" or the idea that "believing makes it so" -- no, what it was saying (among many other things) was that we are capable of far more growth than we might imagine -- that, in fact, while the Universe does impose certain natural limitations, we create & impose even more limitations for ourselves -- we imprison ourselves through doubts & fears -- and it's those limitations we can break through & surpass. 2001 doesn't offer facile self-deception, but poetic & transcendent metaphor.
Or so it seems to me. :)
I'm glad you posted your response, which was thoughtful & made me look at my own POV a bit more in depth.
(This is not unlike the discussion between Wally & Andre in My Dinner With Andre. At different times in the film I find myself agreeing with one more than the other and then vice-versa; or more accurately, both of them at once.)
Well, to be more concise, Kubrick put in a plot device at the end, and because of its wondrous presentation people gleamed a lot of what wasn't there.
I mean, how do you present an ultra high alien "magic tech" factory/laboratory? This was Kubrick's version.
But, people thought it something otherwise. Oh well.
Is it just ultra high alien tech, though? In a strictly literal reading of the plot, that's certainly sufficient. But on a metaphorical, poetic level, it's a lot more, I think. The beauty of Art is that it can comfortably contain both the literal & the metaphorical, it seems to me.
I'm a (very minor) amateur artist, so of course my POV naturally goes in that direction anyway. :)
Sure, why not. To each his own. Like I say, I shrug my shoulders at it now. If I were in charge I'm not sure I could have shot it anything better. As a visual sequence it is an inspiring work.
shareI like Kubrick's own metaphor. Why is the Mona Lisa smiling? If I said it's because she was having an affair with Da Vinci, would that add to or detract from your enjoyment of the painting? What does the Scherzo of Beethoven's 5th mean? To quote the man who questions the lecturer in Howards End who claims the music represents a gnome: "But why a gnome? Why not a dwarf?"
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.
I guess. I'm not much for abstract art, as impressive as a lot of it is, and this final sequence doesn't strike me as being as abstract as a lot of people think it is
But in the end I guess it's not a big deal.
this final sequence doesn't strike me as being as abstract as a lot of people think it is
I agree. It's spectacular without being arcane. I suppose there's just people who need things spelled out for them in big neon letters. No surprise, eh?
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.
I mean, how do you present an ultra high alien "magic tech" factory/laboratory? This was Kubrick's version.
A lot of scifi is plot driven. Perhaps 2001 is different in this regard, and perhaps I'm viewing it through "Star Trek" plot-driven glasses, but the film is about the possibility of an alien intelligence seeding intelligence among prehistoric apes, and the result of that. Frank Boorman goes into the monolith and is given a "factory tour", so to speak. Only it's a bit more beyond what anyone would expect.
Just my take.
But, I guess there's something to be said for the abstract artistry of the whole thing ... though I'm not much for leaving it as pure artistic license. But I guess I've already stated that.
I just rewatched it after about a decade. Love it still. My favorite part is the middle too but I appreciate the setup and ending. The middle flies by actually. It's fun know watching it now with so many theories out there easily accessed online.
The moon landing hoax is the most intriguing and at best I would say Kubrick was messing with heads. (Skeptoid recently covered the moon landing but didnt reference the Kubrick stuff.) Anyway, it's still a meaty movie.