Started By
Message

re: 2001 A Space Odyssey

Posted on 5/20/23 at 12:39 pm to
Posted by AUFANATL
Member since Dec 2007
5322 posts
Posted on 5/20/23 at 12:39 pm to
quote:

First of all, it's unfair to say you have to see 2010 to understand 2001. The 2001 movie and book were written at the same time and Kubrick had full creative control of both. Clarke was more or less a writer for hire with Kubrick using his expertise to punch up the sci fi elements.


2001 was mostly a composite of other themes and plot points that Clarke had already used in short stories. They weren't Kubrick's ideas although he was definitely the mastermind of translating them to film.

Posted by CU_Tigers4life
Georgia
Member since Aug 2013
9402 posts
Posted on 5/20/23 at 1:35 pm to
quote:

First of all, it's unfair to say you have to see 2010 to understand 2001



It's not unfair, it's my opinion and they're like assholes..we all have one.
Posted by mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Member since Nov 2015
39386 posts
Posted on 5/20/23 at 2:52 pm to
quote:

Visually stunning for its time.

Also, Incredibly boring.

I think Roger Ebert summed up this dichotomy pretty well.

quote:

This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn't include a single shot simply to keep our attention.

He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations.

Alone among science-fiction movies, “2001" is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.

I attended the Los Angeles premiere of the film, in 1968, at the Pantages Theater...To describe that first screening as a disaster would be wrong, for many of those who remained until the end knew they had seen one of the greatest films ever made. But not everyone remained.

The film did not provide the clear narrative and easy entertainment cues the audience expected. The closing sequences, with the astronaut inexplicably finding himself in a bedroom somewhere beyond Jupiter, were baffling.

The overnight Hollywood judgment was that Kubrick had become derailed, that in his obsession with effects and set pieces, he had failed to make a movie.

What he had actually done was make a philosophical statement about man's place in the universe, using images as those before him had used words, music or prayer.

And he had made it in a way that invited us to contemplate it -- not to experience it vicariously as entertainment, as we might in a good conventional science-fiction film, but to stand outside it as a philosopher might, and think about it.
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
38397 posts
Posted on 5/21/23 at 12:18 am to
quote:

Clarke was more or less a writer for hire with Kubrick using his expertise to punch up the sci fi elements.
You could not be more wrong.
Posted by Brosef Stalin
Member since Dec 2011
42219 posts
Posted on 5/21/23 at 1:25 am to
LINK
quote:

Kubrick was revising the novel (2001) with Clarke and simultaneously preparing his shooting script … At the end of August Clarke decided that the novel should end with Bowman standing beside an alien ship. Kubrick was not satisfied with this conclusion and the search went on. - p283 Stanley Kubrick by Vincent Lobrutto

quote:

Kubrick / Clarke had a 60/40 deal on the book - p310 Stanley Kubrick by Vincent Lobrutto

quote:

I think that the divergences between the two works (2001 film and novel) are interesting. Actually, it was an unprecedented situation for someone to do an essentially original literary work based on glimpses and segments of a film he (Arthur C Clarke) had not yet seen in its entirety. – Kubrick interviewed by Joseph Gelmis 1969

quote:

Arthur C. Clarke, back in Ceylon, continued to wrangle with Kubrick about the novel, the final text of which the director still refused to approve. Each time Clarke felt sure the script and book were set, Kubrick would cable him for some more dialogue or a new scene, none of which, Clarke claimed, ever found their way into the film. … Kubrick almost certainly did delay the book in order to protect the film. The film took on its own life as it was being made, and Clarke became increasingly irrelevant. Kubrick could probably have shot 2001 from a treatment, since most of what Clarke wrote, in particular some windy voice-overs which explained the level of intelligence reached by the ape men, the geological state of the world at the dawn of man, the problems of life on the Discovery and much more, was discarded during the last days of editing, along with the explanation of HALs breakdown. - p227 / 228 Stanley Kubrick: A Biography by John Baxter

quote:

Kubrick wanted to make a sci-fi film before he even hooked up with Clarke. He based his original ideas for 2001 upon a handful of short stories written by clarke, in particular The Sentinel. Kubrick then hired Clarke to work on the film's story with him, but the book was written as the film was being made. Clarke was allowed to view rushes of what had been filmed and based many of the book's details upon what he believed Kubrick's footage was conveying. Kubrick had creative control over the book and so was at liberty to instruct Clarke on how the book should be written. Quite simply, Kubrick was the primary creative force and Clarke was a writer for hire.

quote:

So in the case of 2001, the book isn't a reliable source for determining the film's visually encoded themes.
Posted by BigNastyTiger417
Member since Nov 2021
5599 posts
Posted on 5/21/23 at 8:00 am to
The aliens were studying him to learn more about humans (as stated by Kubrick).
Posted by Fewer Kilometers
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
38397 posts
Posted on 5/21/23 at 8:42 am to
None of that changes the fact that every theme in the film was taken from Clarke’s previous work, negating the possibility of his involvement as being just a “punch up writer”.
Posted by prplhze2000
Parts Unknown
Member since Jan 2007
58105 posts
Posted on 5/21/23 at 8:49 am to
Lousy plot. Even more lousy cast.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
115075 posts
Posted on 5/21/23 at 12:09 pm to
I would note 11 people agree with me.

And I am not saying it is a bad movie. I am just saying it does not merit the slavish praise it receives.
Posted by 88Wildcat
Topeka, Ks
Member since Jul 2017
16984 posts
Posted on 5/21/23 at 12:22 pm to
Back story about the movie. The first time Kubrick and Clarke met to discuss collaberating on a project they witnessed a UFO. Clarke asked Kubrick if he wanted to report it to the Air Force. Kubrick replied "After Dr. Strangeglove I don't think the Air Force would talk to me."
Posted by Flyingtiger82
BFE
Member since Oct 2019
1621 posts
Posted on 5/23/23 at 8:36 am to
quote:

The Hal 9000 going nuts was due to faulty Government tampering trying to coverup as much as they can about the monolith any when they reprogrammed HAL to cover things up it became corrupted and carry out it's new programming in the way it interpreted, This was clarified in 2010.


I was a kid when 2010 came out and I remember my folks taking me to see it. I wasn’t real excited about it. My Dad explained 2001 to me as basically monolith, monkey, humans, spaceflight, monolith in space, mission, HAL, and then some weird shite about a baby with a lot of classical music in the background. Because that seemed like a crazy explanation, he rented it and let me watch it the night before we saw 2010. So I could not imagine waiting all those years to finally understand what it was all about.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram