Times change, people change. Anyways, if you beat him, I will be forced to beat you in turn. Get used to the taste of defeat!
_________________
<PhilCote> I don't like your attitude Mr. Zurreco. Are you trying to make me feel minus because somone beats me at Castlevania or what?
Why would they be? The external shots of the space station show the windows on the sides of the ring, not on the inside or outside curves.
I'm confused here. You say that the windows are on the outside of the ring, and then you say that it fits that the windows are on the walls of the inside of the station. Therefore, that means that the station was not rotating to induce gravitation, since the people would be thrown towards the outside of the ring, which is composed of windows. Which one is it?
No ... I said the windows are on the sides of the ring, which are obviously the walls of the inside of the station. There's not any potential for confusion. Kubrik made it very obvious that the surface the people were walking on was the inside curve of the ring, and that they were held to the floor by centripetal acceleration. Go watch the movie again and notice how the floor curves aggressively upwards towards the horizon.
So you need a sign that says "antigravity" with arrows pointing everywhere? Not everything needs to be painfully obvious. The shoes probably said 'grip shoes' because random idiots in the future would make normal shoes that look identical to space shoe.
I don't need a sign that says antigravity -- the point is if antigravity were being used, Kubrik would have needed such a sign. The shoes said "grip shoes" because Kubrik thinks you are an idiot.
To Kubrick, the ship could have been stylish. Who are we to say that it wasn't stylish by the view of 1960s film makers? Furthermore, you're still assuming that all that was shown is all that was there. No lack of consideration for other possibilities will make you right by default.
Blahblahblah, I shouldn't have let you sidetrack me with useless talk about style. There can be no excuse for the upside-down seating arrangement in a planetary vessel other than Kubrik's oversight.
The movie ended before we sang Daisy Bell, Kyrsimys.
Okay, I thought about it overnight and I still don't understand what you mean. I know that Daisy Bell is the song sang by HAL but what does that have to do with anything?
EDIT: Do you mean the movie ended before you had time to realize anything?
No ...
There are two artificial intelligences in the movie. The movie happens to end before we see the second one sing Daisy Bell, but probably only because Kubrik ran out of film.
As best as memory serves me, the windows were not on the ceilings.
Why would they be? The external shots of the space station show the windows on the sides of the ring, not on the inside or outside curves. This is appropriate and would correspond with windows on the walls, and the floor being the inside curve. The gravity was clearly simulated with centripetal acceleration, and not an antigravity device.
Since the existence of antigravity was not conspicuously pointed out to us, we can assume this is not true
This is bad logic. Just because something isn't pointed out doesn't mean it isn't a factor.
It's not bad logic considering: 1) gravity was already explained, and 2) other technologies were explained in insulting detail, e.g. shoes with "grip shoes" written on the side.
You're missing the point here: I made the assumption that the ships were designed in such a manner so that they would impress. Therefore, running with this assumption, that would mean that the first generation shuttles were flashy. Even if the corrolary weren't true, and your assumption about style were true, then what makes you think that a second, revised version of the ship, which is so comfortable in its own success that it focuses on style, isn't being shown here?
For one, the ship wasn't stylish. It was a bland sphere, in sharp contrast, for example, to the sleek lines of the space shuttle. Second, it was clearly just an oversight on Kubrik's part ... he thought it would be cool to show the stewardess walking up the wall, but didn't stop to think about the fact that you can't land a ship like that without someone being upside down! No amount of hemming and hawing will change my perceptions on this. It was a clear mistake.
Uhh... by devoting the whole first part of the movie to it?
I don't think "dignified" means what you think it means.
If this were true, why were the windows panning sideways? Unless you're trying to say that in its attempt to simulate gravity, they messed up and everyone is able to sit on the walls.
I'm not sure what you mean, but it was very obvious that the floor of the space station was the inside curve of the rotating wheel.
Unless the docking bays have artificial anti-grav, or just before landing, they all move to a less comfortable but gravity friendly room. There are millions of what-ifs that make it a non-issue.
Since the existence of antigravity was not conspicuously pointed out to us, we can assume this is not true, and it also doesn't make sense within the context of the other methods they used to simulate gravity. And now you are just grasping at straws here, there are no reasonable explanations other than Kubrik @#$%ed up.
For starters, you're assuming that space travel was boring in its familiarity.
I didn't, you did. Don't you remember when you said man's complete mastery of the unknown, his utter comfort in space, etc., was one of the themes of the movie?
Secondly, you're assuming that the shuttle is a 2nd+ generation ship, or something of that sort. If it were the first generation of such craft, and it had been in existence for... say, 10 years, then that would explain why the flashy and innovative design was still there.
First generation designs actually usually don't concern themselves with flashiness and stylistic innovations. They are concerned with only practicality. Did MP3 players start with the iPod Nano? Or even the iPod?
Also, since we are all used to how automobiles work, we should all drive blank cubes with wheels? I find driving pretty banal and commonplace, but that doesn't mean I don't like my car to look nice or have nice features.
But you still don't drive upside down.
What you're saying is that music composed for this movie (which is now very iconic for many things, which says something about interpretation.) instantly became commonplace for the viewers of the 60s, to the point that the second time they heard the song, they didn't think "hey, I've heard that before.." but instead thought "oh man, INCOMING MONOLITH MUSIC". Emotional memory will trigger just before things fall in to place: if you immediately hated the Monolith upon seeing it with the music, then yes, you will always feel hatred towards monoliths upon hearing that music. However, this isn't universally applicable, so there.
Your entire premise is wrong :/ . The music in the movie was not composed for the movie. Many of the viewers would have been familiar with the music, with the possible exception of the Ligeti, which was still fairly new.
There is a good reason I referred to it as "intelligent life": the instance that man progressed away from animal by means of tools is shown when the tribe used bones as weapons to reclaim their water hole. Intellectual advancement -> reward, whic is something I would think to be very significant.
I still don't follow how the movie dignified the birth of intelligent life.
Therein lies the problem: glorifying man's ability to conquer outerspace is part of the overall message of the film. Showing, at great lenghts mind you, the comfort at which man is when in outer space, a setting very foreign to us, depicts the advancement that Kubrick thought man would have achieved come 2001.
I saw it as quite the opposite. I believe the film tells us we have no hope of conquering the unknown, and that we are little more than apes with slightly fancier bones. Of course this is subjective, but I don't care how you interpret the film, really. I don't see how one interpretation or the other makes the movie any less boring.
On the other hand, the scenes where plot (not theme) advances weren't given the same amount of attention.
There was a plot?
I don't think that this is really a legitimate concern. The reason that the stations were/were not rotating is purely speculation. For all we know, the station was rotating because, as a tourist attraction, it was meant to display a view of space, rather than just the Earth. For that matter, everyone on the station gets to enjoy the same sights, since they all essentially see the same panorama, given enough time.
It's clearly not speculation. The station was rotating to simulate gravity. That, however, is no reason for the docking bay to be rotating as well. And you may be right it's not a legitimate concern, but I was finished thinking about the legitimate concerns while the scene was still only 5% done. With nothing else to think about, even illegitimate concerns become a focus of my thoughts and begin to irk me.
Well, once again, this is up to debate. I don't really care about the composition of seating inside the shuttle, since it is of no consequence to anything at all ever
Again, this is not up for debate. It was clearly a mistake simply because Kubrik wanted to be cool but didn't give any thought to the practicality of his schemes. Ships designed to land in gravity cannot have seating like that. And perhaps you are right it's not worth caring about, but there is nothing else to occupy my mind! I can't help but think about something while the movie takes its sweet time getting nowhere.
but one could say that they maximized the shuttle's available space by creating circular seating along the outside and inside boundaries of the shuttle. Wouldn't that maximize the amount of seating per not looking up to stare at a woman's cleavage ratio?
No.
Also, one could argue that the shuttle was made in this fashion to impress future travellers. It's really up for debate.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too >< . Was space travel commonplace and boring with its supposed familiarity and banality, or was it new and impressive? Make up your mind!
The music was not subtle, it's message was. Also, the reason I'm talking about this movie in the way that I am is because I wrote a pretty lengthy thesis on this movie back when I took some film classes. Also, keep in mind that the music was not a 'painfully ovbious cue' to the people that this movie was made for: the music was meant to inspire emotion to viewers in the 60s who hadn't grown up hearing all of these tracks to the extent that we have.
You don't have to have the knowledge I have for the music to be the obvious cue that it is. Instead of thinking, "Oh, it's that Ligeti piece I hate," the viewers of the 60's would have thought, "Oh, it's that same crappy piece we heard before, must be a monolith near!"
Well, I would disagree here, but I'm willing to hear you out. Examples?
The next time I watch the movie I will keep a detailed log for you, how about that?
The movie succeeds in being thought provoking, since the underlying theme is very dominant in its subtlety. Keep in mind that many people will never understand the movie; if you were insulted by the simplicity of certain scenes, that's because you succeed where many people fail.
Whether or not the movie succeeds in being thought provoking differs from person to person, and I didn't actually say whether or not I thought it did a good job. I just said it paired scenes which were clearly meant to be thought provoking with scenes that were insulting to the viewer. As a general rule I don't enjoy movies that insult the viewer's intelligence, but moreso for movies that put on airs of being the intellectual nadir of cinema. I am also curious what subtext it is you think I missed that is so "dominant in its subtlety." (What does that even mean?)
I didn't find the movie to be pretentious or self-absorbed: dignifying the birth of "intelligent life" or the glory of space travel seems fairly acceptable.
I don't believe the movie dignified the birth of intelligent life. I'm curious to hear why you interpreted it that way.
I don't think the production values were important in this movie, but I'd like to hear what scenes you disliked for this reason in particular.
The quality of the production was clearly a major point of pride in the film, as scenes/effects which I suspect Kubrik thought new (at the time) and attractive were dragged on without end to emphasize how cool they were.
One example of the astonishing disparity in quality between various moments in the film is the scene where the "space shuttle" is docking with the space station. Never mind that there is no reason for the docking portion of the station to be rotating (indeed, even Kubrik later realized this, apparently, and managed to comprehend that the Jupiter ship didn't have to rotate in its entirety in order to have a rotating subsection), I am willing to ignore that. The scene was an impressive accomplishment. Now cut to the stewardess walking to retrieve Floyd's pen. I can only describe that scene as terrible. The effect of the stewardess walking up the side of the wall a few scenes later (the one that was serving food on the ship to the moon) was even worse! I can only classify that scene as bad beyond belief, again ignoring nonsense like there being absolutely no reason whatsoever for the cockpit and the passenger section of the ship to be upside-down with respect to each other (and, indeed, good reasons for them *not* to be since the ship lands on a body with gravitation!) I could go on and on.
While I will admit that the movie is very slow, every single scene plays a role in summation. Whilst I do admit that I don't fully comprehend the last few scenes, I do know that they play a purpose, and weren't just thrown in.
I can only say that I disagree.
It is my understanding that the acting in this movie was supposed to be realistic, not dramatic.
To me it was neither.
You aren't the first to find the music intrusive, but I will state that it played a subtle role as a unifying archetype for certain elements of the movie.
I wonder how you can keep a straight face when you call the music subtle. I also feel like I am in a high school English class. Unifying archetype? Do you mean the music was a painfully obvious cue as to the subject matter of the unfolding scene? I would agree with that statement.
As warp stated, the movie was made in the 60s, not recently. To claim that the inaccuracies portrayed by the movie's grandiose protrayal of the turn of the millenium is a detractor is to say that Newton was the stupidest man alive for not realising that his model of physics is not universally applicable.
I made my statement taking into full consideration the scientific knowledge of the time. I still maintain that it is chock full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
There may be many reasons why you didn't like that movie:
1) You belong to the so-called "MTV-generation".
2) You watched a movie made in 1968 in 2006 and expected to see the same kind of SFX brainmushing blockbuster as nowadays.
3) You don't understand scifi. Star Trek is not scifi.
4) Any combination of the above.
I think it's safe to say that any of the reasons you listed that insult my intelligence (wait -- all of them!) are invalid, for obvious reasons. More likely reasons I hated it:
The movie attempted to be thought provoking in some scenes while going on to insult the intelligence of the viewer in others.
In that vein, I found the movie to be pretentious and self-absorbed, as opposed to thought provoking.
The movie mixed astonishingly good production in some scenes with astonishingly bad production in others.
The movie was an unbearably slowly paced mishmash of unrelated scenes that were both: 1) completely unnecessary to the plot, and 2) advanced by poorly conceived contrivances.
The acting was subpar.
Ligeti's music is really overbearing and offensive.
The movie is filled to the brim with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, which I was not expecting from a movie that clearly thinks so much of itself.
The real problem, though, is one of expectations. I went in expecting a Faberge egg, and came out holding a diamond-encrusted pile of shit.
I'm sure that argument was triggered by one delayed jump costing 5 frames, which then completely de-railed the thread.
Again, I'm not surprised you missed the true nature of the conflict when there was all this hand waving about WMDs. I'll let you in on a dirty little secret, though -- there were no WMDs!
The non-Ligeti music was good, but who cares? It's not like he had it made for the film. All the pieces were very famous orchestral works that I was already very familiar with. The whole time I was wondering how he could justify tainting the music with his excuse for a film.
I just watched this for the first time. It is without a doubt the worst film I have ever seen. I guess my question is, what the @#$%? Why has anyone, anywhere, ever claimed this movie was even watchable, much less one of the greatest films of all time?
I have a PC with two monitors, and when I drag FCEU to the secondary monitor, it lags like a waffalu and the sound gets all choppy. No other programs seem to suffer from this problem, even ones that are likely much more resource intensive than FCEU. For example, I can watch a DVD on each monitor simultaneously without issue.
