Why Does Everyone Love "2001: A Space Odyssey"? - Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community Forum
Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community Forum
Go Back   Tree of Souls - An Avatar Community Forum » General Forums » Debate

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-02-2011, 11:52 AM
Woodsprite's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
Woodsprite is very busy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,157
Default Why Does Everyone Love "2001: A Space Odyssey"?

Ready for a rant?

This is a serious question. I'm not attempting to flame anyone or troll; I'm actually serious. Why is this movie so highly regarded?

I saw this film for the first time a few years ago, and still remember it... for how inanely boring and unbelievably bizarre it was. After watching, I simply asked myself, "Why?" Why did I sit and endure almost 2 hours of pure LSD-trip insanity with the intriguing nature of a pencil sitting on a chair?

I never understood what anything meant when I first watched it. I had to be told by my uncle about what the monolith meant, why we were shown 10 minutes of spaceships floating to The Blue Danube, why we were subject to almost 20 minutes of a 60s psychedelic trip into the colors of the wind, and why we were shown a gargantuan baby with absolutely no warning whatsoever, except to tell non-book readers, "HA! Didn't see that coming, did ya?"

I understand it all. I know every symbolic meaning to this film. Why? Because I attempted to like it. I did. I attempted to understand the long, drawn-out phases of events that were as compelling as watching security camera footage from a grocery store at 3 am. I attempted to grasp the "epicness" that everyone so fervently talked about. I tried.

"The message is what matters," most would say.

...No, it's not. Some would call me an idiot, assuming I'm the kind of guy who enjoys fast-paced, mindless movies that has no deep quality at all. But just this isn't true. I see so much when I watch film. I've seen over a thousand films in my lifetime; I'm a movie buff; I have a very diverse taste.

But I cannot understand why "2001" is so highly praised. What is there to praise? Camera angles? "Absorbing the moment?" "Beauty?" "Beauty" is only beautiful for so long before it ends up outright mind-numbing. And I'm NOT insensitive. I can look at a sunrise for an hour. I can. But what is the cinematic point of looking at it for that long on a screen?

A message is only compelling when it's accompanied by some sort of plot, but there is no observable plotline (or storyline, for that matter) in "2001: A Space Odyssey." None. You can't call "evolution of man" a plot; it isn't. You can't call "progression into the future" a story. It isn't; it's an idea. Moreso, in "2001," it's merely a depicted idea, but nothing more than depiction.

Now, I'm going to get blasted for this on here. I'll be crucified for it. "'2001' is one of the most brilliant sci-fi films ever created!!! What's wrong with you?!!?!??!?!?!1 You are just too dumb to get it." I can hear the insults and retaliation coming forth already.

But I'm posting this topic because I am actually, genuinely curious to know why everyone here regards it so highly. I want to know what you guys like about this film. Is it merely the "beauty?" If so, I applaud your ability to sit through nothing but stationary shots of space for 20 minutes at a time. I'm truly amazed. No really: I'm truly amazed. But really, tell me why you like it. I'm dying to know why.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-02-2011, 12:33 PM
tm20's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
tm20 has no status.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,751
Default

yeah i also don't understand why it's considered such a great film so i decided to watch it one day when it was showing on TV. i recorded it and watched it another day.... about 15-20 minutes in i got bored and deleted it
__________________
There are many dangers on Pandora, and one of the subtlest is that you may come to love it too much.

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-02-2011, 12:49 PM
LOVEavatar's Avatar
Tsahik
LOVEavatar has a urge to watch Avatar again
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sweden-Uppsala
Posts: 2,066
Send a message via MSN to LOVEavatar Send a message via Skype™ to LOVEavatar
Default

The only thing i like about it so far is the epic intro music.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-02-2011, 03:12 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Tsamsiyu
Aaron has no status.
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 509
Default

First off, I'll *strongly* recommend the 2001 *novel* to anyone here. Clarke knows how to tell this stuff, and does a simply awesome job keeping the reader engaged. And contrary to what most people think, the novel was not based on the film. In fact, in the novel, the destination planet *isn't* Jupiter (no spoilers, I hope! )

Regarding the movie: 2001 is illustrative of some fascinating locations and scenarios, but, as a piece of storytelling, is rather difficult to like (for me). Pace is a huge problem. Particularly once you've already seen it, watching it again without your thumb firmly planted on the fast-forward/skip button is almost impossible. Some of the segments are just incredibly long relative to the amount of actual story you glean from them. This is, of course, intentional, but it does make a taste for the movie a somewhat exclusive thing.
__________________

My Avatar fanfic | My 3D Avatar album | A bit about my profile picture.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-02-2011, 03:23 PM
rapunzel77's Avatar
Ikran Makto
rapunzel77 has no status.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: florida
Posts: 881
Send a message via ICQ to rapunzel77
Default

There are many reasons why it is considered one of the greatest movies of all time. Remember that up until 2001, space was shown in very absurd ways. Kubrick tried to be as realistic as possible with it in terms of design, the physics of it, etc. For instance, there is no sound in space. He is one of the few that shows that. He made space travel look more plausible with the space station like ship, the clothing, etc. He was showing stuff on there that was still in planning and testing phases at MIT and NASA. The special effects were also ahead of its time as well.

When it comes to the message of it, I agree that it is less clear but that is also typical of the time period. I admit that it is a bit dated but if you were to imagine someone living in 1967-1968 when it came out, you would have been blown away considering that scifi usually was treated with campiness unless its a movie like Forbidden Planet. 2001 tried to be philosophical but to those who never read the book, the ending in particular would make many people scratch their heads. I know I did. I admit that some of the scenes are very, very long like the big snooze inducing scene with the ships while the Blue Danube Waltz is playing. Also keep in mind that back in the 1960's, they were more accustomed to slower paced movies unlike today where most movies move at a frenetic pace.

In spite of the snooze moments, it does have an important message about technology and life and death. Unlike previous scifi films that treated progress and technology as very wonderful things, 2001 does get the message across that technology and progress are not always a good such as the case with Hal who has no moral conscience just a machine's brain who ultimately kills mostly everyone. One could argue that Hal is evolving into another kind of intelligence who is self aware and it was only trying to protect itself but then other moral issues are brought up. It is a film that can make one think but the argument can also be made that it is just a pretentious piece of crap. Either way, it is still a great movie although I admit that it isn't on one of my favorites and I don't think I will be watching it over and over again.
__________________
You wont walk alone
I'll be by your side
There will be no empty home
if you will be my bride
the rest of my life will be
Song for Rapunzel and me.


I see you

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-02-2011, 04:50 PM
Sempu's Avatar
Tsamsiyu
Sempu has no status.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pacific NorthWest
Posts: 579
Default

Movies with intelligence behind them back then were uncompromising in artistic intent. They expected you to work at understanding them. You said you had to be told by your uncle what the monolith meant; audiences then were more accustomed to thinking about puzzles like that and coming up with their own answers. Jerome B. Agel's book "The Making of Kubrick's 2001" contains a selection of letters from fans and their imaginations simply ran riot over what was going on; their interpretations are breathtaking in extent.

2001 is a movie for people who prefer more questions than answers. The book answers them. 2010 reduced it from the sublime to the mechanistic.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-02-2011, 09:59 PM
Tsyal Makto's Avatar
Tsulfätu
Tsyal Makto glad to be home!
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Body - Chicago, Spirit - Pandora
Posts: 1,873
Default

Kubrick 2001: The space odyssey explained

This should clear up some things.
__________________


The Dreamer's Manifesto

Mike Malloy, a voice of reason in a world gone mad.

"You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling." - Inception

"Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy **** we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off." - Tyler Durden
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-02-2011, 10:05 PM
Woodsprite's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
Woodsprite is very busy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,157
Default

Shouldn't movies, by definition, have the answer embedded just clearly enough so that an average audience could grasp its intent? Why did it have to be explained with long, drawn-out scenes that bored one to death? I understand this was made in the 60s, and that people may have been accustomed to such films, but as I said, I'm a movie buff. I've seen all sorts of films from the 60s, and none of them are as slow-paced as "2001."

Even Kubrick's "Spartacus," released 8 years prior, showed quite a long scene towards the end battle where the Roman army was gathering, but was still a bit intrguing because it intercut with shots of other people, and lines were said. That's what made it interesting. "Avatar" does the same thing: it shows you the beautiful vistas of Pandora's stunning landscape while intercutting with plot elements. That's how film is done concerning capturing the public's attention while still holding their interest. With "2001" you have none of that. What happened?

It's like holding to the argument that the 1931 version of "Dracula" is a "classic." "It's a fine representation of the 'horror' genre at its best." But Stoker purists (including me, but not only me) would tell you that it sucks. It strays very far from the novel, is incredibly boring beyond belief, doesn't show anything like the book describes (but rather has it talked out), and contains some of the worst acting in history. They, surprisingly, recommend "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (Coppola's version) because it's claimed to be much truer to the novel, and it's far more engrossing. I listened, watched, and agreed. It was.

What does this mean, though? In my opinion, it means that you can't simply pass off a film for being a "product of its times." Films like that, for the most part, normally die quite quickly. But classics like the '31 version of Dracula, "2001," and a slew of other films that just aren't good by today's standards of artistic filming, remain in the favored eye of the public because they were thought of highly in their day. This is not a good trend.

Last edited by Woodsprite; 04-02-2011 at 10:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-02-2011, 10:53 PM
Tsmuke_Becca's Avatar
Dreamwalker
Tsmuke_Becca Smile people :)
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: England, Great Britain
Posts: 47
Default

Well i personally love it. I can't really explain why, i guess it has something to do with the way it can be interpreted in so many different ways.. i personally see it either as a depiction on the stages of our evolution or as a exploration of our place in the universe. I've watched it several times, and every time i see a different message in it.
As for the baby, which was a big 'wtf?!' moment for alot of people (including me the first time i saw it), i see it as being symbolic of how, even though we believe ourselves to be an 'advanced' species, we are still only in our infancy. The book probably says otherwise, but thats just how i see it.

I guess its just one of those things you either love or hate
__________________
"Our technology contains within it the paradox of salvation and destruction" - Activist Survival Guide

"We must learn again to trust when everything in our diminished lives says we can't"

"To watch Avatar is to dream lucidly, with your eyes wide open."


I love planet Earth <3
And a certain moon of Polyphemus...

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-03-2011, 02:46 AM
Sempu's Avatar
Tsamsiyu
Sempu has no status.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Pacific NorthWest
Posts: 579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsprite View Post
Shouldn't movies, by definition, have the answer embedded just clearly enough so that an average audience could grasp its intent?
By whose definition? Why should everything be at the level of "average"? Why not have something that's beyond the average grasp?

Quote:
But classics like the '31 version of Dracula, "2001," and a slew of other films that just aren't good by today's standards of artistic filming, remain in the favored eye of the public because they were thought of highly in their day. This is not a good trend.
I don't know enough about the '31 Dracula to comment, but I hardly think you've proven your case that 2001 isn't good by today's standards, and I'm sure there's a raft of people educated in the art of film who'd disagree with you. I'm not educated in that, so I can't produce any kind of erudite arguments of disagreement.

It's different from today's standards, for sure, but many works are different from today's standards without becoming less great. It takes a pile of notes larger than the text to understand what Shakespeare is saying these days but that doesn't make his work any less brilliant.

To my mind, there is a purpose to the "boring bits". For one, they draw a stark contrast between the mechanistic sterile lives modern Man lives - I don't need to justify that one to this audience - and the tough but vital existence of our primitive forebears. Are we doomed to sink further into becoming appendages of our machines, or can we transcend that fate? This is the sort of thing that the mind of the appreciative 2001 viewer churns on when it is "boring."

To look at it another way: Kubrick is a master of story, and was already so by 1968. He was fanatical about his craft and never did anything without a very good reason. If he does something that looks boring, there must be something to discover underneath.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:10 AM
josie20's Avatar
Tsamsiyu
josie20 None of you understand
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 654
Default

I've never seen it. But I can tell you that I hate it and it sucks!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
I may not be as excited about Avatar as I use to be. But, I will never forget that it changed my life.

As our bodies die, all the stars reply, "Now you see the lie"



"Bide your time and hold out hope"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:25 AM
Woodsprite's Avatar
Olo'eyktan
Woodsprite is very busy.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 3,157
Default

Well, I have been educated in the art of film (and rightly so, considering my major is related to it), and I'd rather rely on actual, empirical reasons behind storytelling than vague references that signify imagery and random thought about the universe. I'm not trying to be pretentious or anything, but I am saying that just because a message may be behind the whole thing doesn't make it "correct" in film. There's a reason why no other film has done the same thing. My contention is: it's because it simply doesn't work.

Kubrick made "Eyes Wide Shut," which I thought was a terrible film. Was it because I "didn't understand it" or "didn't possess enough of a 'mental capacity' to appreciate it?" Was it because I "have a lack of seasoned movie-going experience to draw a proper opinion of it?" I've been accused of all of these for criticizing both "Eyes Wide Shut" and "2001." I resent that, coming from others.

Storytelling... Stephen King is a storyteller. Steven Spielberg is a storyteller. Christopher Nolan is a storyteller. Cameron Crowe is a storyteller. Frank Herbert was a storyteller. James Cameron is a storyteller.

Kubrick... is more of a visionary, but not a storyteller. I realize how many people -- educated people -- I'm going against in this assertion. I realize my bounds, but I stand by what I say, nevertheless. No offense taken from anyone who may enjoy/like Kubrick's films (particularly "2001"); I'm not against anyone for liking any film. But what I am against is praising a film as "a great work in the history of filmmaking" when there are clearly fundamental mistakes with it. Where's the plot? Where's the storyline? Where's the intrigue? You can get a mind-blowing sci-fi film like "Moon," which possesses many elements of "2001," but more-importantly, contains a story and plot, along with characters you care about.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply referring to the many films before and since that have been rightly praised for their storytelling ability. "2001" contains almost none of the fundamentals of filmmaking. Was this because it was and is "ahead of its time?" I don't believe so. I think it's because Kubrick was merely invisioning his idea of the future on screen, and had absolutely no plan to turn it into a story. To my knowledge, he just filmed some footage and spliced it together in chronological order in a way he thought "meaningful." I've read the script to "2001;" it's as absorbing as reading stereo instructions. There's no point except to contemplate the idea it presents; that's not, according to the many books I've read, what film is about. Film is the visual art of storytelling. That's what it is. That's its primary purpose. You may have ideologies presented in them, but they're still stories.

As far as Kubrick's reasons may go, I don't personally know them. From what I can deduct, however, is that the reasons he may have done certain things may have been "good reasons" for him, but not according to the other great storytellers of the world. Many of them have praised "2001," I understand. But it comes to reason that such praise may be hypocritical, considering how no one else will ever do the same thing.

Last edited by Woodsprite; 04-03-2011 at 04:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:39 AM
Empty Glass's Avatar
Karyu
Empty Glass has no status.
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,406
Default

Before I had read beyond the title of this thread, my immediate thoughts were "Because I love the music and I love thinking about what it all means!" Yeah, I actually like the lack of obvious explanations for everything. I like using my imagination to figure it out, and I like hearing other people's explanations too.

Also, I actually enjoy the long, drawn-out scenes and the occasional slow pace. Sometimes, slow-paced movies are good when you're in the mood for them. Oh, and the waltzing spaceships scene with the "Blue Danube"...brilliant! IMO, anyways.

Overall, I can give these various hints, but I don't know if I'm fully able to explain why I love 2001: A Space Odyssey. Don't think I can do the same for Avatar either. With both films, it's just a feeling I have.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:47 AM
Pa'li Makto's Avatar
Palulukan Makto
Pa'li Makto : Once ate an octopus.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,909
Default

I understand where you are coming from Woodsprite. I've heard all the rave reviews and my dad insisted that I watch it and I did watch and I intended to like it. Of course for it's time it would of been groundbreaking and all that but I think they drew the scenes out way too long. The monolith was interesting, I still need to understand it a bit more in relation to the evolution of humans but the only bit I seemed to enjoy watching was the devious Hal the ships computer and the apes. >.<
Overall I would understand anyone who devoted the entire movie length to shutting their eyes and going for a nap instead.
__________________
Always listening to The Orb: O.O.B.E...



My fanfic

"The man who learns only what others know is as ignorant as if he learns nothing.
The treasures of knowledge are the most rare, and guarded most harshly."
-Chronicle of the First Age


"Try to see the forest through her eyes."

Réalisant mon espoir, Je me lance vers la gloire. Je ne regrette rien. (Making my hope come true, I hurl myself toward glory. I regret nothing.)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-03-2011, 04:53 AM
Ashen Key's Avatar
Ikran Makto
Ashen Key is writing
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 796
Send a message via AIM to Ashen Key
Default

No idea - I really dislike the movie, actually. The book is okay - but my favourite is 2010 (of which there is no movie of. Nope. No movie, because if there was a movie, I'd have to burn it for BUTCHERING the book).

But the movie 2001....eh. So boring.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
2001, movie, space

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Visit our partner sites:

      pandoraworld.ru



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 PM.

Based on the Planet Earth theme by Themes by Design


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
All images and clips of Avatar are the exclusive property of 20th Century Fox.