MovieChat Forums > The Fountain (2006) Discussion > The reception for this movie is a reason...

The reception for this movie is a reason why I hate 2001:A Space Odyseey

posted 13 years ago by gmc-catalin
94 replies | jump to latest

(Spoilers from both movies down below)

You're probably wondering why am I talking about that movie in this place. The reason is simple, that is: I think The Fountain is the closest movie to 2001 in so many aspects.

I hate Kubrick's sci-fi flick with a passion (it's actually the only movie I honestly detest), but that doesn't mean I hate The Fountain. In fact, this is the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey failed to be. Here are some similarities IMO:
* Both are visually stunning movies. Kubrick's effects were a bit sterile, but that's his style and I respect it.
* Great music in both. I give credit to The Fountain for having an original score rather than using classic masterpieces (which I believe it's cheating).
* Both are dealing with metaphysical themes, that are even intersecting at various points.
* The guy in a bubble!!
* Both movies are nonlinear and ambiguous.
And so on ...

What this movie accomplished is that it had a soul. We had humans to care for, we had dialog and subplots. Also, one thing that this movie did better was that it was able to pace itself. 2001 was one hour longer, had almost no dialogue and only one character to be interested in (that being HAL).

Even though I praised The Fountain, I don't think it's a masterpiece, far from it even. It's a niche movie, something you need to have a developed taste towards such films in order to enjoy it. There are too many ambiguous moves, too many things that are good for some people, but not for everyone.

Did you knew that the monoliths from 2001 were made by aliens? Did you knew that the bubble surrounding Tom and the dying tree was a spaceship? I sure as hell didn't, and nothing in the movie ever suggested that. I always thought the monolith was God (with the smaller ones being his agents), and the bubble from The Fountainhead was just a metaphorical spiritual journey of Tom to being enlightened and awakened. Yes, I thought it was all inside his head, and the present was not a flashback, as the official story says.
By the way, have you caught the reason why is it called The Fountain? Me neither.

And there ain't too many things to prove me otherwise. Which is why I think this kind of movies are niche. They are like paintings (the pace feels like a painting too :P) from which we can interpret various themes and stories. And let's be honest, this is not the way most movies are made and enjoyed.

In AFI's top 10 sci-fi movies, 2001: A Space Odyssey tops. Like I said, this movie is really different, especially compared to everything else on that list. Making a list of top sci-fi movies with Star Wars and ET and Back to the Future and topping the list with 2001:ASO is as normal as making a list of top 10 gangster movies where the winner is a documentary on Al Capone.

But anyway, let's say for the benefit of the doubt that critics loved 2001 because it was unique. That doesn't explain why this movie received mixed reception, which is the point of this thread.

A movie like The Fountain is just as slow-paced, philosophical, aesthetically beautiful and full of symbolism as 2001, yet it doesn't deserve being a classic? Critics booed at its screening in a festival This is pure hypocrisy, and it's the reason why I hate that movie. Like I said, I think THIS movie was much better than that one, yet it doesn't receive the appreciation it should. That one is regarded a masterpiece of cinema, this one isn't. Why?

The answer is Stanley Kubrick. Everything he made, including 2001 and Shining (a movie originally considered bad) was hyped up.

And you know what? I think The Fountain is going to be hyped just as well, since Aronofsky is a big deal nowadays after Black Swan. Which is sad, because it shows that critics don't really give a damn about good movies and their perspective on such things change according to popularity.

So my conclusion is that critics and movie-goers that loved 2001 but didn't enjoyed this movie should go *beep* themselves because they're cheap hypocrites.

[–] Isitsafe 13 years ago

Actually, I like both films, but I suspect that their detracters view them as slow, lacking in narrative and pretentious. I like pretentious films and I must admit the visuals in 'The Fountain' justify its attention alone. The soundtrack, by Mogwai and The Kronos Quartet is sublime and adds to the experience. I don't understand the story but i'm not one of those movie goers that needs to (why I can love films like Eraserhead when most hate them).
I do agree with you that directors like Kubrick, Lynch and Tarantino tend to have their films hyped to an extent, although I'm a huge fan of most of their output.

[–] erdreick 13 years ago

Haha. Eraserhead... I'll never understand that movie, but I love the sh*t out of it!

That baby (thing) still gives me nightmares!

We've both said a lot of things that you're going to regret. But I think we can put our differences behind us. For science. You monster.

[–] gmc-catalin 13 years ago

Don't get me wrong, I like them weird movies too, but I still think they're for a niche audience having a cult following and such.

[–] StrangeSwami 11 years ago

Actually, I like both films, but I suspect that their detracters view them as slow, lacking in narrative and pretentious. I like pretentious films and I must admit the visuals in 'The Fountain' justify its attention alone. The soundtrack, by Mogwai and The Kronos Quartet is sublime and adds to the experience. I don't understand the story but i'm not one of those movie goers that needs to (why I can love films like Eraserhead when most hate them).
I do agree with you that directors like Kubrick, Lynch and Tarantino tend to have their films hyped to an extent, although I'm a huge fan of most of their output.

Word!

Szell!

[–] mojorecords 9 years ago

I think people have a tendency to confuse pretentiousness with ambition. The movie "Babel," for instance, is dripping with pretentiousness, creating an air of a deep message when the actual plot lines within it are complete and utter meaningless garbage. I disagree that "The Fountain" is pretentious; I think both it and "2001" are simply extremely ambitious.

Movies can certainly suffer from having too much ambition, but I think both movies make their points rather well and execute their imagery to near perfection. About the most pretentious thing I think you can claim for "2001" is the length and pace of it, but that's just part of Kubrick's style. You either like him or you don't (I can't stand his pacing and that's the main thing I hate about "2001," but I accept it because the visuals are so amazing). Both movies ultimately do enough things well to be worth watching, especially if you happen to have that sort of taste in movies.

My main point is that movies that are pretentious tend to try to create the feeling that there's a deeper meaning to the film that doesn't actually exist. That's not the case in either movie, their messages are clear. The manner in which that message is conveyed doesn't really make them pretentious, it just makes them ambitious. And being ambitious isn't necessarily a bad thing for a movie (nor a good thing, for that matter), as long as the movie can manage to execute it well. (A fine example of an overly ambitious movie is "The Dark Knight," which suffers from trying to cram too much plot into a single movie. It's not a bad movie, but it could have been better if the story were tightened up and the plot a little more focused.)

[–] joaquinpaez 13 years ago

After all your blabber I still don't understand why you " hate Kubrick's sci-fi flick with a passion ".
I understand your point on the similarities between both films, however not everyone liked(or disliked) this films by the same reasons you did. My point is if you like one and dislike the other, dose not make you a cheap hypocrite, film taste is not that simple. So your insults only make you sound like an angry baby.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alexart-1 13 years ago

Well, I think you're right about the fact that The Fountain deserves better standing in the movie world, but I definitely believe that 2001: A Space Odyssey deserves all the praise it gets. 2001 is one of my favorite movies. I couldn't say the same for The Fountain, but still, Aronofsky's film is pretty damn good. I'd bet that most of the people who hate this movie don't understand it. And I'll bet that those same people refuse to watch it again to even try to understand it.

"Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France..."

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

There isn't much ambiguity in either film and both films explain just about everything.

In 2001: A Space Odyssey the only thing Stanley Kubrick left open to interpretation was the identity of the monoliths. According to Kubrick the monoliths could be anything and they were designed purposely to be ambiguous so your view that they are god isn't wrong, but a possibility. Arthur C. Clarke had a specific view on what the monoliths are but he didn't put this in the film and Kubrick rejected putting his view in the film so you shouldn't take Clarke's view as true.

On The Fountain Darren Aronofksy stated the entire film takes place in a type of hyper reality or sci-fi world with a slightly different history from our own. The film takes place in its on reality where all three time periods as seen in the trailer did indeed happen. So yes everything in the film happens and is real. Izzi's book of the past is a real account, the present story does happen, and the future story is how humanity's history ends. So your perception of the film wasn't entirely wrong you just didn't get that the film takes place in its on reality where all three time periods as seen in the trailer did indeed happen. Sort of like how 2001: A Space Odyssey takes place in a slightly different reality from our own.

So in conclusion you weren't wrong on 2001: A Space Odyssey and on The Fountain you kind of got it.

[–] gmc-catalin 13 years ago

There isn't much ambiguity in either film and both films explain just about everything.

Hundred of pages of debate would prove you wrong.

For example, when I first saw 2001, I thought that HAL was built using a shard from the monolith on the moon. He was black and ominous (minus the eye of course) and it was the only way I was able to connect him to the general theme.
On a second thought, I was thinking that HAL was just meant to show that humans were so cold and inhumane because of their technological advancement that robots actually had more feelings than them.

The funniest bit came from a guy that said how HAL rebelled against the human crew because the Discovery was close to the Monolith, which basically gave him free will and sentience like he did to us. It kinda makes sense, only that the other ones make as much sense.

There are some other vague things in 2001 (I've analyzed it a bit more than the Fountain), but you will have to trust me on them existing. The movies are ambiguous. Maybe not Eraserhead kind of ambiguity, but it's still there a lot compared to many other flicks.

[–] happyguy99993 12 years ago

Mayhaps the movie of 2001 is ambiguous, but the novel makes a lot of the weird details clear. However, that same ambiguity is one of the many things that makes 2001 Kubrick's masterpiece (and one of the few movies that is better (if only slightly) than its book.)

As for the Fountain, I couldn't care less for it.

I'm not going there to die. I'm going to find out if I'm really alive.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Giskdan 11 years ago

"Hundred of pages of debate would prove you wrong. For example, when I first saw 2001, I thought that HAL was built using a shard from the monolith on the moon.".

What???? What???? What???? What???? You imagine stupid things, and that proves the poster wrong?

[–] Grizzleberries 12 years ago

yea, screw arthur c. clarke's view on the monoliths....it is just sooooo boring, reductionist and squarishly logical and boring scientific....not a perspective that is thought provoking in anyway in my mind, that these things(monoliths) which were obvioulsy made to seem otherworldly throughout the whole movie, would simply be probes....LOL arthur c. clark, i must say came across as a very boring person with such a perspective like that.....not taking back anything else he came up with, but that idea on the monoliths, it just seems....idk squarish...

[–] sd-106 8 years ago

Well, it's 4 years later but...

2001 was based on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel" which was about a probe on the moon so...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentinel_(short_story)

[–] ctrilling 11 years ago

when did aronofsky say that the fountain was a hyper reality? I'm just curious because it would debug almost everything I thought the movie was about.

[–] gmc-catalin 13 years ago

Like I said, this kind of post that you make is why I hate 2001. It's overhyped as hell.

The Fountain provokes as much thought or even more (due to getting much more involved with the audience) than A Space Odyseey did. It's about projecting humanity's fear of death, the sacrifices we do for achieving our immortality and about love being the only true immortal thing we still have. It's a tale of Adam and Eve wildly searching through the centuries for their perfection to be brought back again.

Hell, you think that's mystic crap, hippie nightmare, but 2001 is thoughtful? Come on, get a *beep* grip of yourself.

[–] Tychoxz 13 years ago

I think you are mixing your shiet up. Though I understand how one movie getting praise leads you to hate (and hate leads to suffering!) if you think that praise should befall another movie you feel is better but got lamelurk reception. Still, its nonsense. People can hate Fountain and love 2001, and I'm sure if you ask them they will give their reasons, they are not hypocrites. They are quite different movies, you can't default to a "it's one movie or the other" approach. I mean why focus on 2001, there's plenty of thought-provoking classics which got better reception than the Fountain, there's no reason to hate 'em. And then you shouldn't give a rat's anus what the critics praise or stop praising, man. That's just, like, their opinion. Luckily, movies will always retain their inherent quality no matter what people say.

I like both movies very much (if you were to torture me I guess I would end up saying I like The Fountain over 2001). For starters Fountain is a visual treat with one of the best scores ever (Thank you Clint Mansell). But then again, for example, 2001 does have characters to care for, many people were drove to freaking tears while HAL died, I mean I didn't go that far but that whole scene (from Dave's reentrance into the ship to HALs finally shutting up) was one of the most gripping and expertly crafted moments a movie bestowed upon me. Some find many redeeming qualities in Dave Bowman too. And if you think having just one or two characters is a fault, then you haven't seen enough movies. And using classical music is in no way cheating man, c'mon!

Anyways, I always assumed the title alludes to the Fountain of Youth, which is merged with the biblical Tree of Life. If by Fountain Darren was also referring to other things (like Xibalba being the fountain of life via death or simply of death, or... something) well that's a brain-hurter.

Many classics end up vindicated only after a couple of decades have passed on, so yeah Fountain may end up being hyped up, but maybe it will just end up receiving its due credit.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

It is revealed in 2001: A Space Odyssey why Hal went mad. It was because of conflicting programs. He was told to help the crew reach Jupiter but also to keep the true reason of their mission a secret from them. The conflicting programs drove Hal mad as he can't understand ambiguity, only cold straight facts. Why did you ever think Hal was made from a monolith? No evidence is given out that he was created from any monolith. In fact its clearly stated in the film that he was created on Earth.

Most of the debate on these films comes from people that didn't observe basic details. Like the gateway in 2001: A Space Odyssey or the trailer for The Fountain that says all three time periods are real.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

Most of the debate on these films comes from people that didn't observe basic details.

That’s pretty funny coming from a guy who failed to make the basic observation that the past timeline is Izzi’s novel, and not some “past life” flashback.

Like the gateway in 2001: A Space Odyssey or the trailer for The Fountain that says all three time periods are real.

The trailer for The Fountain says *nothing* about the fictional or non-fictional nature of any of the timelines. And frankly it's insane to use a trailer to make an argument about a film’s meaning. For the record, everyone please note the conspicuous absence of explanation in both of the official trailers:

The Fountain, first official trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYc-WdX5uaE

The Fountain, second official trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgHHOZTWFZo&NR=1

Nothing supports your crazy theory that Izzi’s book is some kind of “past life diary.” Aronofsky even specifies in his interviews that her fairy tale about a queen and her conquistador is just a metaphor for their battle against cancer/mortality (the spread of the Inquisition throughout Spain is obviously a metaphor for the spread of her cancer).

Spreading your crazy and wrong ideas about this film on the board, for years now, does a terrible disservice to everyone here and to the film itself.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

Dude, Aronofksy called the entire film his fairy tale and sci-fi story. You have tunnel vision and you don't get Aronofksy made all stories equal. The trailers treat all stories as equal, not one separate from the rest. Only an egomaniac would ignore the obvious. Did you notice the future story has a Tree of Life too? One just like in the past story? Therefore according to you the future story must be a novel too, since it includes several elements straight out of the past story.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

You're all mixed up because there's a tree in each of the three story lines. The Tree of Life is simply a recurring theme in the story, and not a recurring tree in the story. Here are the three different trees in the story:

Old story: there's a Tree of Life in Izzi's story, which is a legend that she borrowed from the Bible.
Modern story: Tommy extracts a chemical from some bark that he got the year before from an "old growth tree" in Guatemala, which we never see.
Space story: Tom is traveling to Xibalba with the tree that he planted at Izzi's grave after she died, and along the way he sparingly nibbles its bark for sustenance.

These are three different trees, not one tree.

You have to realize that there are more than two simple interpretations of the story, you seem to think it's an either/or problem: "either ALL the time periods are real, or NONE of the time periods are real." It's neither: the past storyline is Izzi's fictional tale, and the other two timelines are real. And the tree in the bubble ship with Tom is the tree he planted over Izzi's grave, not the Tree of Life from her novel.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

Except the legend is proved true in the present and the future because both have an actual Tree of Life. So the legend can't be fake unless there is no Tree of Life. You did see the old growth tree. It was the Tree of Life in the past. How hard is it to accept a three act film?

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

Except the legend is proved true in the present and the future because both have an actual Tree of Life.

There are three story lines, and three different trees. There's the fictional Tree of Life in Izzi's novel, the "old growth tree" in Guatemala that has a compound which needs to be combined with Manny's cancer drug to make Tommy's immortality drug, and there's the tree that Tommy planted over Izzi's grave which he's taking to Xibalba with him in the bubble ship.

It's not that complicated. What's it going to take to get through to you?

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

Dude they are all the same tree. Its just reincarnation. How hard is that? Its an alternate reality, like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

Dude they are all the same tree. Its just reincarnation.

They are obviously not the same tree. And nowhere in the film is reincarnation of the Tree of Life ever even mentioned. You think Izzi and Tommy are reincarnations too, and that's not mentioned anywhere in the film either. But you still keep trying to convince people that you're right, without any proof at all.

The tree in the bubble ship is the tree Tommy planted over Izzi's grave, per the Moses Morales story. Aronofsky even shows us the hairs of the tree are like the hairs of Izzi's neck, and the bough of the tree is like her naked thigh (the tree is part of her, because it tree grew over her grave).

The only kind of reincarnation in this film is how the material of your dead body will become trees, seeds, grass, birds, etc.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

Did you notice the Tree of Life in the past time had the same characteristics? According to Izzi's book the Tree of Life reincarnates through its seeds.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

Did you notice the Tree of Life in the past time had the same characteristics?

The same characteristics as what…the Tree of Life in the Bible? Of course it does, Izzi borrowed the legend of the Tree of Life from the Bible and wrote it into write her own tale about the Fountain of Youth.

According to Izzi's book the Tree of Life reincarnates through its seeds.

There’s nothing anywhere in the film about the Tree of Life reincarnating through its seeds. Prove me wrong: cite one specific scene or quote in the film that supports your assertion. You can’t just make stuff up about this film and expect us to believe you: show us the evidence.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

Really then why did Dr. Thomas plant the seed of the Tree of Life to reincarnate Izzi?

Dude you are too arrogant to understand the obvious.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

OMG, so many people have tried to explain this to you, and you still don't get it.

Tommy planted a seedpod from a sweet gum tree at Izzi's grave, in honor of the Moses Morales story she loved so much. THAT is the tree in the bubble ship with Tom.

All the facts of the film directly support everything I've told you. But you've convinced yourself that your imaginary "past lives" theory is correct. Which I wouldn't have a problem with, except that even after two years, you're still telling new people at the board your wrong ideas, and rewriting the FAQ to suit your crazy theory.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

Are you mad? A sweet gum tree would not turn into a Tree of Life. You now mention the future story is complete fiction. The Morales story is tied to the Guetemalan compound and Mayan story. It is all tied together. Is is one story told in three acts. It isn't two stories or three stories. Why do you make it more complicated than it is? Go right your own fan fiction.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

Are you mad? A sweet gum tree would not turn into a Tree of Life. You now mention the future story is complete fiction. The Morales story is tied to the Guetemalan compound and Mayan story. It is all tied together. Is is one story told in three acts. It isn't two stories or three stories. Why do you make it more complicated than it is? Go right your own fan fiction.

he seedpod that Izzi hands Tommy near the end of the film is a sweet gum seedpod. It’s a very distinctive type of seedpod, here are some photos: http://www.google.com/search?um=1&hl=en&biw=1016&bih=557&a mp;a mp;tbm=isch&sa=1&q=sweetgum+seed+pod&btnG=Search

And you’re right about one thing – a seedpod from a sweet gum tree would not turn into the Tree of Life. But the tree in the bubble ship with Tom is NOT the Tree of Life, it’s an ordinary tree, the one that grew over Izzi’s grave.

The future story is not fictional. It’s the setting of the story, in fact. All the scenes in the modern era are flashbacks and memories than astronaut Tom is having on his way to Xibalba.

All the past scenes are Izzi’s fictional story that she wrote for Tommy while she was dying. Aronofsky went to great lengths to make this clear, but you seem to willfully disregard the facts even after multiple viewings.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

Okay let me break this down for you. The old growth tree sample Dr. Thomas uses to look for a cure for Izzi came from the Tree of Life. Izzi's ghost shows Dr. Tomas an image of a seed from the Tree of Life. Dr. Tomas plants the sample in Izzi's grave and it grows into a new Tree of Life. Really man its not complicated.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

The old growth tree sample Dr. Thomas uses to look for a cure for Izzi came from the Tree of Life.

You're just assuming that, and you're wrong. The only Tree of Life in The Fountain is the fictional Tree of Life from the Bible and Izzi's novel. This fictional tree foreshadows Tommy’s discovery of a compound which, when combined with a similar synthetic compound, yields a “fountain of youth” drug.

Izzi's ghost shows Dr. Tomas an image of a seed from the Tree of Life.

That wasn’t Izzi’s ghost, that was an –actual memory- of Izzi handing Tommy a seedpod. A seedpod from a sweet gum tree. The implication is that this happened when Tommy went chasing after her during the first snow, which is why she’s dressed in exactly the same white outfit she was wearing when she asked him out into the first snow.

Dr. Tomas plants the sample in Izzi's grave and it grows into a new Tree of Life.

So you really have no problem imagining stuff that has nothing to do with the film, and presenting it as fact. Nowhere in the film is there any indication that the tree Tommy plants at Izzi's grave is the legendary Tree of Life. It's just a tree. What makes it special is that it's the tree he planted at Izzi's grave. That's all. You're assuming stuff without any evidence.

There are no seeds taken from the Guatemalan tree in this film. The seedpod Izzi hands Tommy is a seedpod from a sweet gum tree (look it up!), which thrives in northern climes (and we can surmise that the tropical “Natul tortuosa” probably wouldn’t survive in snowy climates like at Izzi’s grave site).

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

The supposed actual memory never happened. He never went after her originally, this is why its an image of a ghost bathed in white light. Just like Tomas sees her ghost in the fugure.

Guatemala was Mayan territory dude. Dr. Thomas sees a projection of Xibalba and remembers Guatemala.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

The supposed actual memory never happened. He never went after her originally, this is why its an image of a ghost bathed in white light. Just like Tomas sees her ghost in the fugure.

Have you ever even watched this movie? When Izzi plucks the seedpod from the tree, she’s not “bathed in white light,” and she’s not a ghost in this scene. It’s an actual memory that Tommy is (obviously) having of her handing him the seedpod he’s about to plant at her grave. She’s dressed in exactly the same outfit she was wearing when she asked Tommy out into the first snow, so it’s clear that this scene happened later that very day. You can see the branches of the tree she picks the seedpod from, with lots of other seedpods hanging from the limbs. The ground is mostly white because there’s snow on the ground, but you can also see some grass and dirt at her feet when she picks the seedpod. She then hands it to Tommy, who is now remembering this moment at her grave site, and he plants the seedpod over her grave.

And only moments before in the film, we see Tommy change his mind about going to the lab, and he runs after Izzi into the first snow instead. This is obviously what happened after he caught up with her. It’s not as obvious that this series of events is the basis of a new timeline that starts when he chases after Izzi instead of going to the lab. But since you’re struggling so hard with the really easy stuff, I have no delusions about you ever understanding that deeper solution to the film.

Guatemala was Mayan territory dude.

I know that dude. And like I said before: the Tree of Life foreshadows the discovery of the Guatemalan tree that contributes to Tommy’s miraculous “fountain of youth” drug. Apparently you struggle with the concept of foreshadowing, maybe if you look it up you'll figure it out eventually. Normal people have no problem with such common concepts and literary devices though.

Dr. Thomas sees a projection of Xibalba and remembers Guatemala.

Stop calling him “Dr. Thomas.” The characters in the script are referred to as Tomas, Tommy and Tom.

Tommy has a premonition of Xibalba in his lab. That’s all. His premonition looks nothing like a tree, it looks like the rings of Xibalba. In keeping with the transcendental themes of the film, we can safely assume that Tommy gets his inspiration for the new drug from Tom.

But once again, an idea as cool and intriguing as “consciousness transcends linear time” is just way over your head, and I don’t expect you to ever grasp it.

"The observer is the observed." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] Anticitizen 13 years ago

I just watched this movie, and came here to read some discussion and interpretations of it, but I must say that your vulgar and insulting attitude on the board has turned me off of the prospect completely. Congratulations, you must be a real hit at parties.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

Sorry you got caught in the crossfire, doomsoldier. If you’d been coming to this board for the last year or two, you might not be so unforgiving of my profound frustration. This guy has been misleading people on this board with his wrong and empty interpretation of this marvelous film for nearly two years now, and he’s also been forcing his insane ideas into the FAQ for nearly as long (even though –everyone- has told him to stop). And frankly I’m appalled at the horrible loss of time and energy that everyone has invested in trying to show this guy all of the zillion different ways that he’s wrong about this film (so he’ll stop filling the FAQ and the board with his insane interpretation that destroys the meaning of the film).

I hope you won’t let this dissuade you from participating in the discussions, there are a lot of profound concepts to explore in this deep and complex film.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

It is Dr. Thomas seeing a ghost. You can clearly tell as he originally didn't go after Izzi because he was too busy working. It can't be Izzi because she is dead. Dr. Thomas is seeing a ghost in real environments. Just like Tomas saw a ghost in the future.

Izzi never gives Dr. Thomas the seed for real as Dr. Thomas dismissed such notions as fiction. The seed is a metaphor for the tree sample which Dr. Thomas puts in Izzi's grave.

There is no alternate timeline. There is only one timeline and you see it all in the film. There are also ghosts, reincarnation and an immortal across three time periods which is hard for you to accept since you have a limited understanding of transcendence.

Dr. Thomas in his lab was remembering his past life, do not try to make it any harder than it is. It is just memory recall. I do understand consciousness transcends linear time as the film is about an immortal across three different time periods that recalls his past.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

It is Dr. Thomas seeing a ghost.

So what you’re saying is, your argument strategy is to ignore all the facts that people present to prove logical arguments that straighten out your warped interpretation of the film, while you just keep repeating yourself like a parrot, right?

You can clearly tell as he originally didn't go after Izzi because he was too busy working.

Unless your lame interpretation is wrong and there’s an explanation soaring way over your head. Then it’s not so clear - then it’s actually proof that you’re wrong, and always have been, and have no business shilling your terrible "Definitive Explanation" which only dumbs the story down to an elementary school level. So tell us genius, how do you explain the scene where Tommy’s talking to Manny, and changes his mind and goes running after Izzi? Lemme guess, you think Tommy, Manny and Izzi are *all* ghosts in that scene? Lol.

It can't be Izzi because she is dead. Dr. Thomas is seeing a ghost in real environments. Just like Tomas saw a ghost in the future.

But the scene where he chases after Izzi, and the scene that takes place later that day when she picks the seedpod from the tree, both took place –before Izzi died-, so in those scenes she’s a memory, not a ghost.

Izzi never gives Dr. Thomas the seed for real as Dr. Thomas dismissed such notions as fiction.

So you’re okay with just rewriting the film to suit your dumb ideas. Check. Because rational people see Izzi explicitly hand the seedpod over to Tommy, and accept that it actually happened, because that’s why the director showed us that it actually happened. If that seedpod were just some "ghostly vision" as you assert, then why does Tommy actually have the thing in his hand, which he then buries in the (very real) ground over her grave?

The seed is a metaphor for the tree sample which Dr. Thomas puts in Izzi's grave.

Hah, you don’t even know what the word “metaphor” means….funny. So now you’re saying that he planted a metaphor in the ground after digging a real hole over Izzi’s grave. Lol. So how’d you score on the SAT verbal? Did you even break 400? 300?

There is no alternate timeline. There is only one timeline and you see it all in the film. There are also ghosts, reincarnation and an immortal across three time periods which is hard for you to accept since you have a limited understanding of transcendence.

No, no, and no, and I bet I understand transcendence better than you understand metaphor ;P

Dr. Thomas in his lab was remembering his past life, do not try to make it any harder than it is. It is just memory recall.

So now memory recall is the simple explanation, when two seconds ago you were arguing that despite the obvious facts, Izzi’s ghost handed Tommy a metaphorical seedpod to bury in the (metaphorical?) cold ground, and that wasn’t actually a memory? Because “memory recall” is either the simple explanation, or it isn’t. You’re trying to tell me it’s the simplest explanation when you say it is, but it’s overly complex when you say it is too.

You’d be funny if you were pretending.

the film is about an immortal across three different time periods that recalls his past.

This, from the guy who said that Tom didn’t have a scar from where the priest stabbed him because it wasn’t in the budget. Lol =)

Y'know, dude: having an answer for everything isn't the same as having the *right* answer for everything. Do you understand that?

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

Dude see trailer for facts.

See commentary and graphic novel for official interpretation.

He saw Izzi's ghost at the end of the present time period. The scene is similar because he is working and once again getting called to check up on some things, but this time he goes after Izzi's ghost. I never said she gave him an actual seed. Her ghost also appears in the graphic novel.

Yes, it was a budget and time limit issue for why he didn't have the actual scar, but this got covered with him having mental scars of the past. See the graphic novel for reference.

[–] the-devil-boy 13 years ago

Lol.

[–] Arsius11 13 years ago

haha I just had to say something....

Firstly, I do much agree with you the-devil-boy.

There is no ghost. She was the real thing indeed.
As I see it, when Tom in the future accepts that he must die and climbs up the tree to sacrify himself (puts the ring on) he becomes full circle. In some way I think that future Tom might have in his acceptance, as time is not linear, sent a message to past Tom just before he goes in to surgery with Donovan. Instead, he chooses to go after Izzi to walk with her. As he does this I think indeed that he later on is presented with the seed BY IZZI IRL.

But, as Tommy never went to surgery, he never went on to find the 'cure' and Izzi died here as well (as she was suppose to), the only difference is that Tommy now accepted her dying.

As I see it, maybe she didn't tell him the story about the Mayan guide while in the hospital, but rather before presenting Tommy with the seed (looked a bit old when he planted it).

Now, this is just how I see it. :)

And by the way, if you are going to call him by his 'title' then AT LEAST call him Dr. C-R-E-O!

[–] rdeschene 13 years ago

But, as Tommy never went to surgery, he never went on to find the 'cure' and Izzi died here as well (as she was suppose to), the only difference is that Tommy now accepted her dying.

Also, because Tommy never goes to surgery, he also never loses his wedding ring. As he's brushing snow off of Izzi's headstone, prior to planting the sweetgum seedpod over her grave, we see that he is wearing his wedding ring.

[–] raptorshark 11 years ago

^this is correct

[–] CaptainTiddlywinks 11 years ago

In a film full of metaphors and interpretive meanings it's not wise to assume the seed shown in the film is the same as its real world counterpart, especially since there is no actual 'tree of life' seed that we know of and so a real seed had to be used in its stead. Also, the tree shown in the future tale looks nothing like a sweetgum tree, rather it looks a lot like the tree of life shown in the past yet devoid of leaves which is appropriate considering it was dying at that point. However once Tommy and the tree reach the star the tree explodes to life and becomes very similar to the tree shown at the top of the temple.

If they were not the same tree, they were very much the same species. The director would not have gone to all this trouble to tell a tale of eternal life and reincarnation with a sweetgum tree.

[–] the-devil-boy 11 years ago

It's been a couple of years since I thought about this issue, but I don't remember saying that the tree was a sweet gum tree, only that the seed Izzi hands Tommy is the seed of a sweet gum tree. Which I agree, was chosen for its striking visual quality (a bit reminiscent of the supernova at the end of the film), not to establish the species of the tree.

But the rest of your comment doesn't make any sense, because there is no tree from the past. "The past" is just Izzi's story, not a depiction of real events. So there's only one real tree of significance in the film - the tree in the space bubble with Tom (because we never see the South American tree that Tommy's team used to make the elixir of life). The species of the tree in the bubble is irrelevant, because there's nothing special about it, other than the fact that Tom associates it with Izzi. Which he does because it's the tree that grew over her grave, where Tommy planted the seed.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] CaptainTiddlywinks 11 years ago

The seed Izzy hands him is the same one he plants over her grave, which is precisely why he planted it over her grave. So yes you are saying the tree that sprouted over her grave is a sweetgum tree.

As for the 'the past' section of the film being merely an imaginative tale, that is a matter of interpretation not fact.

It is my belief the tree from the Spanish-Mayan tale is the same tree Tom uses to treat the primate, and the same one he travels with to the Nebula. There are many clues in the film which support this including the above, their very similar appearance and similar response to Toms touch (hairs moving toward him). Most importantly the ring Conquistador Tom drops in his trees bedding as his abdomen explodes appears exactly alike the one spaceman Tom picks up from his trees bedding and places on his finger.

Finally, if you truly believe "there's nothing special about" a tree that preserves the youth and extends the life of the person eating its bark for hundreds of years, you have a serious lack of imagination.

[–] the-devil-boy 11 years ago

The seed Izzy hands him is the same one he plants over her grave, which is precisely why he planted it over her grave. So yes you are saying the tree that sprouted over her grave is a sweetgum tree.

Don’t tell me what I’m saying. Especially when it’s the opposite of what I just said: the seedpod is a sweet gum seed pod, but I think Aronofsky chose it because it was striking, not because the tree would be a sweet gum tree. Pretty sure he wasn’t making the film for the staunch dendrologist crowd in the audience.

for the 'the past' section of the film being merely an imaginative tale, that is a matter of interpretation not fact.

Granted. But that doesn’t mean that some of the interpretations of this film aren’t *unreasonable* interpretations of this film. Note that whenever the film cuts to or from the conquistador story, Tommy’s holding the book. I guessed you missed that, check it out.

It is my belief the tree from the Spanish-Mayan tale is the same tree Tom uses to treat the primate, and the same one he travels with to the Nebula. There are many clues in the film which support this including the above, their very similar appearance and similar response to Toms touch (hairs moving toward him). Most importantly the ring Conquistador Tom drops in his trees bedding as his abdomen explodes appears exactly alike the one spaceman Tom picks up from his trees bedding and places on his finger.

How does –any- of that make sense? The tree in the story bleeds a milky substance that turns the conquistador into a field of flowers, but the tree in reality has bark that requires a complimentary compound to make an immortality elixir. Also, *Tomas the conquistador dies.* So you’d have to postulate some absurd resurrection scenario where he somehow comes back to life (after making the whole point of the film by dying in the first place). And Izzi wrote the story for Tommy, so of course he’d imagine her in the role of Queen Isabella, and imagine that the ring looks the same as his wedding ring, etc. The story is Izzi’s metaphorical lesson to Tommy about the futility of chasing immortality at the expense of life. This was the central motif of the entire film.

Finally, if you truly believe "there's nothing special about" a tree that preserves the youth and extends the life of the person eating its bark for hundreds of years, you have a serious lack of imagination.

You’re all mixed up. The bark accomplished nothing on its own. Tommy had to create the immortality elixir by combining it with his own recipe. That recipe made Tommy immortal. Space Tom was eating the bark partly to A.) feel closer what was left of Izzi - as outlined in the story of Moses Moralez, and B.) to sustain himself through the journey to Xibalba. Any other explanation requires a lack of attention to the details of the film itself, plus unsupported suppositions about “missing” parts of the film (which aren’t actually missing, or parts of the film).

Watch it more carefully a few times -impartially- and let the film tell the story to you. A lot of people come to this board after hastily deciding what it means, and continue down a long awful spiral of wild conclusions because they're too proud to recognize that the facts don't fit the "past was real" interpretation.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

Really? So many people have tried to explain that? Tell me where are the "so many people" you are talking about? I think you are BOTH wrong in your assumption that you are right. Neither one of you are "right" or "wrong" in your intepretation. The film is purposely surrealistic in every single aspect of it and thus it is pretty much open to interpretation. If you think the past was just Izzi's story, then fine. If the other guy thinks it is not just a story and in fact it happened in the past, then good for him to.

[–] the-devil-boy 12 years ago

Apparently you take exception to something I said to Drakentard during the gazillionth of our brain-numbing bytchfights. And apparently it has something to do with the fact that you weren’t here when he was shilling his awful “all time periods are realz0r!” pseudotheory, which everyone with an unimpaired cerebral cortex absolutely hated for its sheer banality. But you might enjoy it, so here it is (and I suspect that it answers your first “request” (read: “belligerent demand”).
Drakenlard’s witless “Definitive Explanation – All Time Periods Are Real!” thread:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/board/nest/150751723

And regarding your second issue - your claim that this film is entirely subjective (which is the all-too-predictable assertion of post-modernism which inevitably comes up here from time to time via the abundantly-populated “armchair critic” camp), I can only offer you the incontrovertible proof of your wrongness, and hope that you find it as convincing as the rest of us do:

“Those space sequences have drawn comparisons to the masterwork of another auteur filmmaker, Stanley Kubrick in his 2001: A Space Odyssey. But unlike that film, with its famously enigmatic ending, Aronofsky insists that "The Fountain," no matter how ambiguous, has a definitive interpretation: his. ‘It's very much like a Rubik's cube, where you can solve it in several different ways, but ultimately there's only one solution at the end,’ he says.” (emphasis added)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/23/AR2006 112300534.html

So if you take Aronofsky’s word for it – and you should, because he wrote and directed this film – then there is a single, correct solution to understanding the story within this film. And I have additional quotes and sources that prove that Aronofsky intended the past sequences to be Izzi’s fictional novel, but can’t be bothered with that anymore.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] Tales-from-the-Goondocks 12 years ago

I'm sorry, but without seeing those additional quotes and sources, I can't believe your own interpretation is the one Aronofsky intended, especially after reading this: The nature of that solution, though, is something he refuses to discuss during interviews. "Follow the clues and how it all adds up," he says, predicting that "the engine that drives 'Lost' will drive people to watch [the film] again". I think what was established there is that Aronofsky refuses to give his own interpretation, meaning that I pretty much doubt you can take his definitive interpretation from other quotes and sources.

Also, while I understand that he is the writer and director, the interpretation of a film will always be subjective. ALWAYS. That's the nature of art itself, and that's the nature of film too. If the film itself is left open to interpretation, it doesn't matter how many external quotes you get from the director/writer, because he failed at establishing that defintive interpretation within the film in the first place. I'm sure after reading his take on his own film, one can simply say "oh, yeah, now I get it. It makes sense", but in reality, the mere fact that people got different interpretations from it means that the storyteller failed in his objective of giving one definitive interpretation.

If you feel like it, you can check out this link: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Fountain-Explained-3975.html. It shows different quotes, from different critics, who interpreted different things from the film. As I said, if Aronofsky's purpose was really to give the audience one straightforward way to interpret his story, then he failed at that. In fact, even his alleged quotes from his commentary are apparently being interpreted in different ways by different users in the link you gave me.

After reading the imdb link you gave me, I must say that I agree with this guy:
"Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of art should know that the artist's interpretation of his piece is oftentimes the LEAST important" - DrNordo

Let me explain myself:

There's one expressionist group named Der Blaue Reiter, that was formed in 1911 in Munich, which had a great idea of how art works. Not only expressionism, but art itself. They believed that the transmission of feelings and messages between an artist and viewers worked as a chain, in whose beginning you could find the "awareness of the artist's soul", an emotionality that gave form to the artist's work. Then, his/her work provokes in the viewer certain feelings, transforming such work in the agent responsible for the "awareness of the viewer's soul". At the end of the chain, the association of concept and meaning is ultimately in the hands of the VIEWER, not the artist.

This, my friend, is the true nature of art itself. There's no right interpretation or wrong interpretation, especially in surrealism. Maybe I could agree with you, if we were talking about a film that tries to portray objective reality, but The Fountain is not it. Of course you are allowed to disagree with me if you want to, but you would be wrong in assuming that the artist has the last say in his own work.

[–] timerty4 12 years ago

The Tree in the bubble ship is not the sweet gum tree but the Tree of Life, because it has the exact types of hairs found on the Tree if Life as seen on the Mayan pyramid.

Darren himself in one of his interviews also said that the tree in the bubble ship is the tree of life that has been heavily exploited by man.

Case closed!!

[–] HorusEye 11 years ago

You seem to have a problem with the notion of symbolism. This movie is a work of abstract art playing on emotion and aestethics - and is open to personal interpretation. You seem to want to have ONE fixed, literal interpretation of it all, where everything is boxed in and organized and has labels on it, and everyone must see it all the same way as you, or it's no good! That mentality is fine, I guess, when it comes to Star Trek where fans can spend a lifetime arguing over some little detail and where it belongs in the great boxed up system of logic and literal interpretation - not really when it comes to films like The Fountain that speak to other parts of human awareness than cold logics.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gmc-catalin 13 years ago

It is revealed in 2001: A Space Odyssey why Hal went mad. It was because of conflicting programs. He was told to help the crew reach Jupiter but also to keep the true reason of their mission a secret from them.

That was never really sad into the movie, only in the sequel and/or the book.

Why did you ever think Hal was made from a monolith? No evidence is given out that he was created from any monolith. In fact its clearly stated in the film that he was created on Earth.

First of all, of course he was created on Earth. Why would someone create an advance AI on the moon (extremely inhospitable place) just because the material was found there?
Second, there wasn't any clear evidence for that, but for your theory or anyone's theory either. Everything is just interpretation or pickings from other mediums.

It was about conflicting programs? Then why is he acting like a human being and begs Dave not to shut him off at the end? Is singing part of his cold and logical self?
Actually, *beep* that. What do you mean true reason of their mission? How was that ever revealed in the movie and how does it relate to anything? He killed everyone just because they planned to shut him off for being bugged. He gave a bad diagnostic to some tech stuff, and they wanted him not to jeopardize the mission. What conflicting programs, that's just dumb.

[–] Drakenlord 13 years ago

In the film it is implied Hal went nuts because he was given conflicting mission orders. If you watch the film carefully you can see the astronauts suspect that Hal is malfunctioning, they just don't know why. At the end of the film Dave Bowman finds out why Hal was malfunctioning. The crew was told they were sent to Jupiter just to explore, but the real reason for why they were sent was to intercept a huge monolith. Hal was told to serve the crew faithfully but also to lie to them about the real mission, since Hal only understands facts the paradox made him glitch. This led to him trying to tell the crew the truth and also trying to kill the crew in order to fullfill both mission orders. Watch the film again and it is made obvious. Hal was programmed to act somewhat human and the first thing he learned was that song.

[–] turkeyprophet 13 years ago

By the way, have you caught the reason why is it called The Fountain? Me neither.

People call this film pretentious then say stuff like this (this showing they lack basic comprehension skills). The film was clearly centred around the Fountain of Youth legend. I can only assume I'm being trolled or you didn't actually watch the film.

[–] gmc-catalin 13 years ago

I love how you actually become pretentious by using "clearly centered" when a full-out debate about what the movie was about just happened in this same thread. It was obviously not that clear.

Where the hell did you saw a Fountain? I saw a tree in this movie, and for your own knowledge, there was a biblical Tree of Life that supposedly gave people immortality (I mean hell, the movie actually said that iirc).

[–] turkeyprophet 13 years ago

I don't see how stating the obvious makes me pretentious. I think most people would be somewhat familiar with the legend (a mad quest for youth set in South America). The statement is about as pretentious as saying the Lion King is centered around Hamlet. Perhaps you need to look up the word pretentious, y'know, instead of incorrectly using the term and therefore being pretentious (because you are implicitly claiming to understand a word and concept, by using the pretentious, but clearly don't understand what it means and so have claimed to have an understanding of something that you do not).

You are mixing up arrogance with pretentiousness. So whilst it might be arrogant of me to assume that people would have knowledge the fountain of youth (by assuming it is basic knowledge) it is not particularly pretentious as it is a very easy link to make with the film.

Whatever the ambiguities of the film may be the central themes are about life and death and postponing death. It's pretty unquestionable that that's what the title refers to. I've only skimmed over the previous discussion but it seems to be more about the themes and why you hate films, not why the film is named "The Fountain".

[–] blair-marc 10 years ago

Umm...you didn't see a fountain and don't know why the movie was called The Fountain? One it's the Fountain of Youth, and ideology in anything that gives immortality, which is the tree of life in this movie...also her book is named The Fountain so even if there wasn't an actual fountain in the movie, the title would still be justified...but if you're still not convinced...oh would you look at that?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/Marxtheory/actualfountain.jpg

a fountain!!!

[–] Blitzerg 13 years ago

i love both films. but how you can come to love the fountain without loving 2001 is beyond me. it is a timeless masterpiece. i have no words to describe the first time i watched that film.

If you do good, you'll see me one more time. If you do bad, you'll see me.. two more times.

[–] gmc-catalin 13 years ago

Well, I don't really "love" The Fountain. I just think that it's a niche movie, and I appreciate it for its style.
And I would've done the same with 2001 if it wasn't so appreciated by everyone else. I hate this one just because it gets universal praise even though it should stay as a cult movie.

[–] Nukeuz 13 years ago

I love this movie, I will rarely truly think a movie is a 9.5 or a 10 unless its a once in a generation masterpiece, but this is probably close to it. It requires you to watch this a few times to understand most of the movie, and maybe some digging online too but for me thats fun. However, the whole story between the Hugh's character and the woman is beautiful, the visual aspect of the movie is beautiful. I would give this a 9/10

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zheffner 13 years ago

i think the reason you hate 2001 is because you dont like to think. its a surreal movie about evolution, the creation of man and the future of mankind. its for a limited audience because its art not a michael bay film. its meant for you to question everything. even though their is a straight answer for everything in the movie, kubrick wanted to make is vague enough so people come up with their own side of things. thats how real art is. Kubricks my favorite director and Aronofsky is on my top 5. 2001 is my favorite movie but the fountain isnt even in my top 100. Why? 2001 was genius, the direction, the script, the originality, the cinematography, the acting, the effects (nothing had EVER been done like that in its time. it was the star wars before star wars, most realistic moon setting, realistic costumes, the warp effect, the stations, the zero gravity), the fact that its what started the rumor that the moon landing was fake, that its the most scientifically accurate movie ever made(which is pretty much why its always the number 1 sci-fi movie). its a film makers wet dream. So much time, blood, sweat and tears went into it. the fountain is obscure but nothing ground breaking. a good film thats all that needs to be said. theirs so many obscure films but you cant point them out as being like 2001. its nothing like it and cant compare.

If you need an explanation of 2001 to see what its about:
in the early days of man, a species of alien so far on the evolution scale that they need no bodies anymore (pure energy, which is a scientific fact of evolution) observes earth and gives the apes a tool to progress the evolution (the first monolith) we watch as they evolve into learning how to use tools and weapons. as the ape throws the bone, his weapon, into the air we see it jump ahead 4 million years into the future as it turns into a nuclear warhead hovering above earth (one of the greatest and most haunting scenes in film history) we come to find out that humans on their triumph of evolving to the point where they actually reach space exploration, they find the second monolith buried on the moon. it sends out a beacon to saturn. why? this was to let the aliens know when mankind had reached this stage of evolution. after they find out where the beacon was sent, a team of unknowing astronauts head to saturn for an unknown mission. the whole space ship is run by mankind's greatest creation A.I. (artificial Intelligence) the humans live depend completely on a machine to think whats best for them. its an operating system called Hal 9000 that has a track record of zero errors. But throughout their travel subtle mistakes begin to occur (I.E. while dave plays chess with HAL, HAL places his piece to put dave in checkmate but says the wrong tile number when he does it.) later he tells that one of the satellites is about to fail. as they check on it they find no error. this gets the crew thinking they need to shut HAL down so they dont risk anymore problems. unfortunately for them, as they talked in a sound proof capsule, they didnt know HAL could read lips....thus began his murdering of the entire group. he was the only one on board who knew the reason for the mission and didnt want to be shut down because he thought he was too important. After everything Dave finally manages to turn HAL off in which the blocked video HAL had explaining the mission appears and Dave finally knows what hes out there for. As he nears Saturn, the 3rd monolith opens as a gateway and launches him through a wormhole to the other side of the galaxy. At the end of the Surrealist trip fest of a journey through time and space he ends up in a room...this room is a zoo exhibit. nothing more. it was created by the aliens as a way for them to view what they had help create so many years ago. in the time we see him their, we see him skip through stages of life until he finally dies. the 4th monolith then recreates him and sends him back to earth as Star Child (the baby in the bubble) he is the next phase in the evolutionary chart of man.

read the book and look into it, theirs so much, satanic, masonic and historical imagery and symbolism of life in it and its just brilliant. the ONLY reason i see people not liking it is because they dont understand it. thats it. its a work of art, its genius and deserves every piece of praise it gets. to say its not is ignorant, its like going up to the mona lisa and saying its crap just because its a painting of a woman with a half smile. but its so much more then that. that is what 2001 is. as for the fountain, it doesnt compare so dont say its the same because its anything but.

[–] alanjones792 13 years ago

You don't hate 2001. You hate people's reactions to 2001. There's a big difference.

I love 2001. I am vaguely indifferent to The Fountain. The reason? 2001 is an incredible movie. The Fountain is simlpy a decent one.

-------