MovieChat Forums > 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Discussion > No longer one of the greatest

No longer one of the greatest

posted 4 years ago by Thaisticks (2551)
22 replies | jump to latest

This movie is well past its "sell by" date. Looks great, but very (very) pokey, and no real drama after HAL gets shut down. The last 15 minutes was just an ode to 'psychedelic" art which was en vogue at the time, and is nothing more than a kaleidoscopic mishmash of color. Perhaps the book explains wtf is going on at the end, but you for sure cannot make it out from the movie, and what's more, I don't care, for A. C. Clarke was no genius, just a 2nd rate writer of popular novels.

[–] einstein (2290) 4 years ago

kubrick himself explained the end to a japanese reporter btw

here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er_o82OMlNM

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 4 years ago

The book definitely does a better job of conveying the story than the movie does. I watched the movie, then read the book, and the book helped me to understand the movie better.

The book was not written by Isaac Asimov BTW. It was written by Arthur C. Clarke, but really, the story was developed jointly between Clarke and Kubrick, as the screenplay and the book were being written at the same time. Kubrick actually approached Clarke about writing the novelization of the story.

In any case, to me 2001 will always be among the greatest films ever made. I first saw it for the first time about seven years ago, and it was stuck in my mind for several days after. I also think that on a technical level it still holds up amazingly well.

[–] pazuzu9 (296) 4 years ago

The book is not a novelization. They are different because Clarke and Kubrick had differences in how to do the movie. Like having a narrator.

Clarke wanted to explain everything but Kubrick didn't.

Both are great pieces of work.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8290) 4 years ago

I thought for a minute if I wanted to use the word "novelization," and then decided I would go ahead and do so since it's been called a novelization by others.

It's not really the proper term, but then again, I don't think that "novel" properly captures its essence either. It exists in some weird space that is between novel and novelization.

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 4 years ago

The ending of the movie completes the arc started by the beginning of the movie, showing man as a species rising from ignorance into transcendence. It's about evolution and the beyond. It's about the human mind and how we have expanded that mind. It is about facing and touching the face of the Unknown.

2001: A Space Odyssey shows us the boundless infinite and why we should be both excited and terrified by that prospect.

I'm sorry it was too, uh..."pokey" for you.

[–] Thaisticks (2551) 4 years ago

I don't believe you.

[–] Owlwise (1489) 4 years ago

You're perfectly free not to believe him, but he's absolutely right. I first saw it as a 14-year old in 1968 & have seen it many times since over the following decades, and that interpretation was clear to me from very my first viewing of the film. Kubrick isn't obscure or pokey or psychedelic; it's all told directly through visual storytelling, as was his intention. It will always be a great film.

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 4 years ago

Owlwise, you're one wise owl.

I think you could describe aspects of that end sequence as "psychedelic", though. They are trippy visuals even if they are serving a higher purpose (and might be deliberately reminiscent of certain chemical or fungal stimulants, since a lot of people think there's a connection between such methods and the higher levels of consciousness (ancient shaman, for instance)).

[–] Owlwise (1489) 4 years ago

Oh, I agree with you there! I was imprecise earlier; I meant that I don't believe that Kubrick was specifically trying to mimic an LSD experience simply because it was au courant. Though of course all that you say about higher levels of consciousness is quite true! In short, I don't think he was trying to be trendy in a superficial way, in the sense of simply latching onto the style du jour, e.g., "Oh, this is popular right now, why don't I just toss it in?" I can readily see him knowing about the transcendent experience through human history, however.

Or maybe I'm just overthinking this point too much for my own good. :)

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

You must be a year older than I, I was 13 when I saw it in Houston Texas in one of those new huge round theaters where you could not even see the whole screen at one time ... Super-CinemaScope or whatever they called it. It really changed my life. I read the book, then read lots of science fiction, then read lots of science and went to school to be an engineer/scientist.

[–] Owlwise (1489) 4 years ago

I went the other way, following more of the arts (though with a lifelong appreciation for & fascination with science, especially the Big Ideas). But I agree with you completely about it being a life-changing experience. To this day it remains one of the most moving & transformative films I've been lucky enough to see. It made me think & it made me feel. It's a genuine work of enduring art, and it still has a powerful effect on me when I watch it again.

I saw it in one of those big, plush, old-fashioned theaters in New York City, on a huge curving screen. Our 9th grade Earth Science teacher justified & arranged it as a field trip of scientific interest for our class, bless him. :)

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

That's too harsh. It is a slow movie, it was when it came out. A lot of the ideas that were totally new back when Clarke and Kubrick collaborated on the movie ( which Clarke wrote the book from afterward ) have been done and redone since, but Kubrick was the first, and it also had to be done like that because people just did not understand stuff like that and have to have time to appreciate and digest the movie.

Clarke was definitely a genius as were most of the classic Science Fiction authors of the time.

[–] Owlwise (1489) 4 years ago

What you just wrote, seconded enthusiastically!

[–] Thaisticks (2551) 4 years ago

I'm sorry, I understand your interpretations, but the laser light show, old-man-in-bed scene, and giant fetus hovering over earth are too vague to be of any dramatic interest and certainly convey no deep philosophic meaning other than, perhaps, "man is ever evolving" which is no ground-breaking observation though it might have been during Clarke's and Kubrick's formative years. And the "dawn of man" scenes are utterly boring and don't add much to comprehending the meaning of the obelisk, which, from what I've read, apparently has any meaning you want to ascribe to it.

[–] Owlwise (1489) 4 years ago

Perhaps this is just a matter of different viewing experience. The final sequence, beginning with the stargate scene to the very end, has always been crystal clear to me, as it has been to others. And it's essentially the mirror/bookend to the Dawn of Man opening, which presages that ending. It works for me & I've always found it quite moving & meaningful. It doesn't work for you, and that's certainly fine. I won't insult you by saying that "you just don't get it" or anything like that. I've had the same experience of just not feeling something deep for a film that others have found quite fulfilling -- haven't we all?

[–] rudeboymurray (3241) 4 years ago

I think it holds up brilliantly. Still the boldest, the most visually dazzling, the most endlessly fascinating sci-fi movie ever made. Sell-by date? This one doesn’t expire, it’s not a banana.

[–] Moonglum9 (10709) 4 years ago

Yeah right! Like a monkey could throw a bone all the way into space! This movie is unrealistic.

[–] ozz969 (362) 4 years ago

I hope that was sarcasm...

[–] jdforyou1983 (1469) 3 years ago

lol

[–] ozz969 (362) 4 years ago

Every one here is focused on the movie, and not the comment "..for A. C. Clarke was no genius, just a 2nd rate writer of popular novels". I know this is MovieChat but please. The man was clearly a genius. Have you heard of "Profiles of the Future " (1962)?

If I may ask, what is "pokey"? Not enough action a-la Star Wars? This was science fiction when it was meant to be cerebral, thought provoking. Also remember - this movie was released in 1968, 1 year before the US put a man on the moon.

2nd Rate? How dare you. Read "Tales from the White Hart" as a start, and the Rendezvous with Rama. And then tell me this is 2nd rate.

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

From Clarke's Wikipedia page ...

Clarke was a lifelong proponent of space travel. In 1934, while still a teenager, he joined the British Interplanetary Society. In 1945, he proposed a satellite communication system using geostationary orbits.[8] He was the chairman of the British Interplanetary Society from 1946–1947 and again in 1951–1953.[9]
Clarke emigrated from England to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) in 1956, to pursue his interest in scuba diving.[10] That year he discovered the underwater ruins of the ancient Koneswaram temple in Trincomalee. Clarke augmented his popularity in the 1980s, as the host of television shows such as Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World. He lived in Sri Lanka until his death.[11]
Clarke was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in 1989 "for services to British cultural interests in Sri Lanka".[12] He was knighted in 1998[13][14] and was awarded Sri Lanka's highest civil honour, Sri Lankabhimanya, in 2005.[15]

[–] ozz969 (362) 4 years ago

'Nuff Said? (to coin a phrase)