2001 A Space Odyssey

I really love this film if it wasn't for the Dawn of Man scene in the beginning. I understand what it means, I see why it's there but.. I hate it. I always just skip that part.

 

I just went on and on in a tape letter to someone recently about why I love that Dawn of Man sequence. It's so quiet and still, as if it's all real, not a film, as if we're intruders. Great 60s/70s style challenging beyond-morality viewpoint, that maybe the worst violence does make progress possible.

Greatest film ever made. It's almost some superior other thing, above and beyond motion pictures.

I just learned that John Lennon used to buy tickets to 2001 every week, and leave them at the Apple office or someplace for anyone to pick up, who couldn't afford to go otherwise.

 

I love that beginning! It's excellent. Since it's so different from other movies I just can't say it's my favourite movie, but it's among my favourites for sure. After a few times watching it I think I'd rather skip the end after the trip than the beginning. But of course skipping is blasphemy in this movie. I won't watch it for a few years I guess, so I won't feel any urge skipping parts when I'm watching it again.

 

I think, that, this movie, is one of the best... With, it's own special plot. Also, directing is best. Stanley is the greatest director, from my opinion...

 

hal

 

I have watched it several times and its quite hard to understand! (I recently saw the 2nd one also (2010)) both very good!!

 

It helps to understand the movie if you understand Pantheism and Panentheism, which is what roughly half the world believes in. Pantheists believe God is imminent, or in everything that exists and does not exist, while Panenthists believe God is simultaneously, magically, inexplicably, both imminent in everything around us, and transcendent, as in Heaven. Cupric leveraged the simple fact that western Deism can blend into Pantheism and Panentheism to confuse everybody thoroughly using a scalar approach that emphasizes magnitudes and differentials. In other words, first he shows you a man, and you can compare his astronaut to a Kachina doll. Such dolls have smaller dolls just like them inside, and each doll can be said to innocently beg the question of what goes inside of it. Exactly what is a man and what is God becomes rather confusing and lends itself to sweeping classical music and cinematography, of the Big Sky variety in particular, giving his movie commonality with plays such as Oklahoma, famous for their one dimensional characters.

Some of the finest blue smoke and mirrors Hollywood has ever produced, with the lead male actor practicing raising his eyebrows. The Matrix gets honorable mention for second place. Hollywood meets classical philosophy and modern physics, and learns how to juggle convincing bullshit. Its how convincing it is that's the fun thing to explore, but the Matrix is actually so shallow under all of its pomp and ceremony and bullet's flying that it would make good toilet paper. Its a very dramatic Japanese approach to classical philosophy, that gets past plot holes by asking "What is the sound of jacking off?" The lead male actor is extremely familiar with Japanese culture, has a huge following there, and is a huge fan of their dramas. But, I make ordinary academic philosophers look stupid on a daily basis, because they insist on it. I used to be more polite about it, but I've got a book to write now.

 

It’s definitely a movie you can’t watch on tv because commercial breaks ruin it. You have to be fully immersed in it. I’ve found a lot of Kubrick movies like this... I’ve never seen it’s sequels though. Are they even remotely good?

 

When I was a kid I saw 2010 but from what I can remember it was quite forgettable

 

2001 is Paradise Lost, while Paradise Regained was a huge flop too. Clark's book was a more artistic take on the subject than you normally find in science fiction, and Kubrick went out on a limb creating a film with little dialogue and a ton of classical music to go with his primitive special effects. Its similar to the first sci fi smash hit, "Metropolis" which used cheesy special effects, but artistically done. Artists often feel an obligation to enlighten their audiences, but now that special effects are becoming a dime a dozen, we still don't have an artistic science fiction film that has brought much in the way of any new meaning to the world.

 

I only heard of this via my boyfriend via a game he's into; Star Citizen. We watched the movie because of this game trailer, I've seen the movie once but kind of found it boring yet interesting, its weird.

 

I HIGHLY recommend 2010, especially with what's going on in the world today.

2001 is my favorite scifi of all time, one of my fave flicks ever, so I was skeptical about a sequel trying to rehash & cash in on the original. But 2010 took it in a totally different direction. While 2001 is an abstract story that looks at humankind at a distance through a telescope, 2010 is all about close human interactions and personalities as if looking through a microscope. In particular, it's about a tense group of Russian & American astronauts trying to work together at the height of a Cold War. It's funny because the exact same thing is happening today in space with Russian & American astronauts on the ISS... What do you suppose would happen up there if war breaks out on earth? Watch the movie for a pretty realistic scenario.

About 2001 the book, it might help explain some parts, but Clarke deviated from Kubrick very sharply on some points. Kubrick was the real writer of 2001, loosely based on a short story "The Sentinel" by Clarke. Kubrick took the story (just the monoilith part) and wove a much larger Odyssey, hiring Clarke to be on set during filming as sort of a technical consultant. As they filmed, Clarke was simultaneously writing the novelization so both the movie & book were released at the same time. But Kubrick was really the one who called the shots while Clarke did his best to (over?)explain the abstract concepts via the book. I think they're best left abstract, up to the viewer's interpretation as Kubrick intended. But the books are still fun to read.