2001 on steroids8 RepliesAdd A Reply
In an interview published in the New York Times a couple of days ago, that is how Ridley Scott described Prometheus. Now, is that exciting news or more worrisome? I am hoping by steroids, Scott is referring to maybe 'roid rage and its horrors and not some beefed up slightly more intellectual version of Aliens. Not that I would have a problem with that, as long as folks don't try to compare it to the "ultimate trip" that is 2001. But I was reading an interview with Kubrick in a response to another post and I swear to God that sometimes I think I am reading Scott speak and about David. What follows is a bit I put in my reply. Feel free to lock if it has already been discussed. HAL 9000, here are the words from the master himself. it is from "The Kubrick Site", Elmis' interview with Stanley Kubrick. "Why was the computer more emotional than the human beings? This was a point that seemed to fascinate some negative critics, who felt that it was a failing of this section of the film that there was more interest in HAL than in the astronauts. In fact, of course, the computer is the central character of this segment of the story. If HAL had been a human being, it would have been obvious to everyone that he had the best part, and was the most interesting character; he took all the initiatives, and all the problems related to and were caused by him. Some critics seemed to feel that because we were successful in making a voice, a camera lens, and a light come alive as a character this necessarily meant that the human characters failed dramatically. In fact, I believe that Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, the astronauts, reacted appropriately and realistically to their circumstances. One of the things we were trying to convey in this part of the film is the reality of a world populated -- as ours soon will be -- by machine entities who have as much, or more, intelligence as human beings, and who have the same emotional potentialities in their personalities as human beings. We wanted to stimulate people to think what it would be like to share a planet with such creatures. In the specific case of HAL, he had an acute emotional crisis because he could not accept evidence of his own fallibility. The idea of neurotic computers is not uncommon -- most advanced computer theorists believe that once you have a computer which is more intelligent than man and capable of learning by experience, it's inevitable that it will develop an equivalent range of emotional reactions -- fear, love, hate, envy, etc. Such a machine could eventually become as incomprehensible as a human being, and could, of course, have a nervous breakdown -- as HAL did in the film." This is just part of the interview. There is another section where he talks God and advanced life and its powers. I have been saying for awhile here and elsewhere this is going to be hugely derivative of 2001. And Scott seems to be saying so himself. Does this make you all happy? Or something else?
Hi Dallas, could you post a link to this interview (if its available)? Good find, thanks.
Windood, http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html There is a lot of info about his Napoleon attempt. About halfway through he gets into 2001. I am not very well versed with computers so I am not sure if this will take you there or not but that is the address I copied from the bar. Hope it works. I know the site is called The Kubrick Site and the interview was with joseph Gelmis.
great read.. dont forget the movie reflects the technical knowledge from ´68...
In my opinion, 2001 is the greatest film film yet made. It takes on the Big Questions of our species- who are we and where are we going. If I were to reference and explain the two sentences preceding this one in full to my satisfaction, I would be at this keyboard a very long time. dallas!dallas!, ...If I understand you correctly, you ask three questions here pertaining to comments Ridley Scott has made, and I know what those comments concerned. Your first question was... "Now, is that exciting news or more worrisome?" It is not worrisome to me and it is light years beyond exciting. Your second and third questions... "Does this make you all happy?" "Or something else?" Again, more than happy news.....something else? Try rapturous. I have long believed that Ridley Scott would eventually make a film that in part would pay direct tribute to Stanley Kubrick...there are elements in "Blade Runner" that nod to Kubrick, yes, but this is the first time Scott has said what he said to my knowledge, and I have been following his career since he hit the world with "Alien". I don't see Scott attempting to cash in or steal in any way from Kubrick...I feel that this is a heartfelt, genuine effort showing both admiration and love for The Master. As the trailers for Prometheus were released one by one, I looked for signs, that in my opinion, might indicate that this film might be the film in which Scott made his move, so to speak. When the full David8 trailer was released, I felt this was that film. I am convinced that David is the transformational character in this film...Dave Bowman to the Star child...David from A.I. and his journey....David 8, surpassing his creators, losing his innocence...all examinations of of growth if not evolution. 2001 is a film of trilogies, both linear and simultaneous....first Kubrick, then Speilberg picking up the mantle...and now Ridley.
Yep, I'm all for some brain cell push-ups from this film. My only worry, as I've said in other posts, is that there is the possibility that a good portion of the audience may not be ok with that and will start to seek boredom alleviation remedies while in the process disturbing the other more discerning portion of the audience.
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!