Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
I don't believe the movie dignified the birth of intelligent life. I'm curious to hear why you interpreted it that way.
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.
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.
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. On the other hand, the scenes where plot (not theme) advances weren't given the same amount of attention.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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? Also, one could argue that the shuttle was made in this fashion to impress future travellers. It's really up for debate.
To me it was neither.
Then, as you said, we will just have to disagree. The businessmen struck me as businessmen and the cool, composed astronauts seemed like cool, composed astronauts to me. If the video conference with the daughter were removed, I couldn't think of any acting in the movie that struck me as out of place.
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?
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.
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.
Well, I would disagree here, but I'm willing to hear you out. Examples?
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
xebra wrote:
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.
You nailed the issue right there. Lots of factors about the film are purely subjective - nothing can please everybody. You set your own standards going into the movie and it didn't live up to them. Therefore, you hate it and you are always right. Personally, I disagree with your opinion of the film, but no amount of arguing I make is going to change your mind. At best, I can only hope to suggest that there are lot of movies out there that are truly terrible, and maybe you shouldn't lump this respected film in with those because of your own preconceptions.
Regarding Mullholland Drive, I'm tempted to say that I hated it although I think that's a similar movie in the sense that the critics raved about but when I saw it, I didn't know what the fuck I was looking at. Still, there are movies I haven't understood that I've enjoyed, and Mulholland Drive is not one of them.
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?
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Zurreco wrote:
Mullholland Drive is composed of four things:
-Cowboys!
-Hobos with Blue Cubes!
-Black dots that cover vaginas, but not boobs!
-TERRIBLE EVERYTHING
Admit this, the lesbian scene (bed scene) turned you on like never before... I did for me.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
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.
Did you understand what happened in the end? The point is exactly that humans were finally able to follow the signal that more highly developed beings had left them ages ago. In the end, the entire human race ascends to a whole new plane of existence. This isn't very apparent in the movie, which is why I prefer the book.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
I still don't follow how the movie dignified the birth of intelligent life.
Uhh... by devoting the whole first part of the movie to it?
I don't see how one interpretation or the other makes the movie any less boring.
For the same reason that some people like ballet? I don't know, I guess I can't convince you that it wasn't boring.
There was a plot?
There was, in fact, a plot.
It's clearly not speculation. The station was rotating to simulate gravity.
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.
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.
Mang, you must want to kill yourself after seeing Uwe Boll films or something.
Ships designed to land in gravity cannot have seating like that.
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.
Was space travel commonplace and boring with its supposed familiarity and banality, or was it new and impressive? Make up your mind!
For starters, you're assuming that space travel was boring in its familiarity. 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. 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.
"Oh, it's that same crappy piece we heard before, must be a monolith near!"
You could use this same logic for a lot of things. If someone has a ring tone that I'd never heard before, I don't automatically assume that hearing that sounds means that that person is getting a phone call.
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.
Also, as stated earlier, this music is still around. Nowadays, when we hear the Dawn of Man music, we don't immediately assume 'here comes the monkey patrol'. When we hear the music that accompanied the Monolith in the film, we don't automatically expect giant black idols to appear. The music stands for something abstract, something more than just the images shown in this movie. They depict a feeling that can't really be bound by your experiences with one film.
The next time I watch the movie I will keep a detailed log for you, how about that?
Either you produce the list now or you cede on the point :p
Furthermore, stop responding to me! I have P Chem homework to do!
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.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
I don't think "dignified" means what you think it means.
No, it does.
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.
As best as memory serves me, the windows were not on the ceilings.
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.
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?
No, I don't think that man being the complete master of something makes him tire of it. Also, man's mastery of his tools would be the theme. His tools allow him to venture beyond his normal boundaries, and in turn master them. It isn't necessarily about space.
First generation designs actually usually don't concern themselves with flashiness and stylistic innovations.
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?
But you still don't drive upside down.
This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Something being common to us does not make it boring.
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.
Hmm. Then allow me to reiterate, by personal experience: I hadn't heard any of the movements in this movie until I saw this movie. Therefore, my initial responce to the music would be to subconsciously bind it to the feelings it evokes from me. As I observe the music being used in modern times, it overlaps with the same sense of emotion that was experienced when I heard it during the movie. Therefore, the music plays an integral role in a presentation aimed towards emotion, not prediction. As I said, whenever people hear the Dawn of Man tune, they don't anxiously await for a group of ape-men to charge around and revel in their new knowledge.
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.
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?
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
xebra wrote:
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?
e.g. shoes with "grip shoes" written on the side.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
Ok, just finished watching it.
You people debate too much over a piece of entertainment. It's a movie! I watched the movie and whenever there were things that didn't correspond to reality, i understood the reason they were there. Because it looked cool, period!
Ok, I can say I enjoyed watching it pretty much. Why, because it was very well directed. It was a believable situation. Up to the point where he goes beyond. At that point Kubrick was just on crack. But it's ok, since it was short compared to the movie and it's the visual acid trip. I didn't mind watching it.
Metaphor for the pseudo-intelectual garbage, ftw! Just have fun, guys...
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
I've never read a book, so how am i supposed to know? :P probably not, i don't like books, the letters don't stop moving it's annoying..
I didn't notice anything saying "grip shoes" but that was one of the aspects i thought was there just to be "cool" and "sci-fi"ish. We all know it makes no sense.
clearly,
people were walking here |
V
( ( o ) )
/\
not here |
To me, that means outer side of the ring but inside the ring.
people were walking here |
V
( ( o ) )
/\
not here |
To me, that means outer side of the ring but inside the ring.
No, you're just plain 100% wrong. If they were walking on the outer curve of the ring, the floor would curve downwards towards the horizon, just like on the Earth, and they would also be flung into outer space. People on the space station (and in the rotating room on the Jupiter ship) were walking precisely where you said "not here," on the inner curve, held to the floor due to centripetal acceleration. Kubrik was unbelievably blatant in his portrayal of this.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Wait, what? Both answers could be correct, assuming that the station was rotating in such a manner to induce gravity. However, as I recall, the people were standing perpendicular to the windows (as in, the windows were their walls), and the windows were on the outer ring. That would mean that they weren't standing on the inner or outer loops of the ring structure, but on the 'side' of the ring.
