Custodian
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 10:32 AM[b]"worked it out"?[/b]
couldn't Scott have just READ all four of C Clarke's novels 2001 thru 3001?
*shrugs*
2013 sci-fi horror novels 'Custodian' and 'Tandem' available from Amazon, B&N, iTunes etc...
Engineering
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 10:39 AMSuppose he could have but does the greatness of the FILM 2001:A Space Odyssey rest on the eventual continuations in novel or film form? Does anyone consider 2010 even close to 2001?
The 2nd novel wasn't even written when Kubrick did 2001 so none of the film hinges on the 2nd novel.
[IMG]http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/q507/Engineering211/sig2.jpg[/IMG]
Engineering
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 10:42 AMGrrr...I know there are tons of grammar and wording errors in my first post which can make some of it hard to make out but the edit function is not working again. I hope you guys can put together what I was trying to say despite these errors. Sorry.
[IMG]http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/q507/Engineering211/sig2.jpg[/IMG]
Indy John
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 10:53 AM"..that Shaw's character really mirrors the audience in the respect that it's what you choose to believe. ..."
It seems to me that if she was a true scientist she would not choose to believe anything,,,but follow what is placed before,,using her abilities to understand just what is going on..
In the same sense going to the movie with an open mind..and letting the movie display it's story while the person in me observes the activities taking it all in,,,that to me..is a path of discovery,,,but not toward a goal..
Do we really need to follow path?...or just live today this minute.. this film...and sort of create our own 'path'?
All in all it does make for a good story something that maybe I'll understand a bit better by reading few posts..
Be choicelessly aware as you move through life
Indy John
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 11:00 AM"..the greatness of the FILM 2001:A Space Odyssey .."
For me this statement is what I read/ hear for other people..but not felt after several viewings..through the decades..
As far Prometheus,, since I have saw it early in it's movie life I don't feel it's greatness yet..but after reading several discussions here,, I realize i need a another dose of the movie to grasp additional themes..
That is something I have never did after viewing 2001....no matter how great the reviews.
Be choicelessly aware as you move through life
David 1
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 11:43 AMah, you make me chase you.
Allow me to relpy to the "2001" matter again:
Engineering:
"Does anyone REALLY know the meaning of the end of 2001 or why what happened happened?"
No one does, but there are lots of sub-narratives inside the main narrative.
"Did Kubrick even know? Did he have to make another film to answer all that?
Kubrik knew exactly what he was doing. And no he did not had to make another movie because he didn't want to explain it. Has he himself said 2001 is a movie that is suposed to "work you in your subcoscient".
Plus he always refused to explain any of his movies [because of the sub-narratives involved] such as The Shining,
"Someone else eventually did and Spaihts or whoever it was mentioned this and what he and Scott felt about the approach taken for 2010 The Year We Make Contact. "
See, here is the thing: 2001 is Kubrik + A. C. Clark thing. But to be honest it's Kubrik taking advantage from A. C. Clarks "the Sentinel". Clark droped down to his knees and begged to be involved in 2001. Kubrik said yes but he himself had all the controll over the flick, not Clark,
Clark would be writting at the same time Kubrik was shooting. Kubrik never told Clark what was it all about and Clark had to make a guess.
Fun fact: Kubrik also had writing rights to the 2001 book, so he sort of told Clark what he should write and what he should not; wich is also a great way of saying: don't mind reeding this cause you'll find no truth in it.
2010 is a A. C. Clark continuation [and 2061 and 3001] and none of them replies to what Kubrik made in 2001. they are all "best guesses" and that's it.
On a final note: Prometheus is faar waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy from 2001. There is no movie with the same aestethics, mind bogling material, sound escaping, plot ambiguity ever done since 2001, and there will never be another one.
2001 is a Work of Art by itself. And the million attempts made to even trying to copy it have been failling miserabily.
[b]Ask nothing from no one. Demand nothing from no one. Expect nothing from no one.[/b]
SpaceNik
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 1:05 PMIndy, I felt the same way about 2001 the movie. The movies effects were state of the art for the time period it was made in but I much preferred the book. To me they just took a great sci-fi story that was more straight forward and turned it into a trippy art film to appeal to acid using hippies at the time. Some people seem to think Kubrik was above a shameless cash grab but I have to disagree no matter how great he and his movies are considered. I definitely like Prometheus better than 2001 the movie and perhaps even 2001 the book as well. I felt Prometheus stands on its own better and never felt the need to view the movie while high in order to understand it.
Inquisitor Tremayne
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 1:07 PMlet me sum up - 2001 is great and prometheus is crap!
now! let's have someone tattle!
Custodian
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 1:20 PMArthur C Clarke says in his FOUR monolith novels 2001 2010 2061 and 3001 that, "you don't have to read them in order" because they're not necessarily lineal i.e. answering original questions which Kubrick then took on with his (fake moon landing) film version.
:)
2013 sci-fi horror novels 'Custodian' and 'Tandem' available from Amazon, B&N, iTunes etc...
lost_in_lost
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 2:48 PMWell, what is the meaning of the end of 2001?
What was this "room" standing for where that old man eats and sees himself laying in bed as even older man?
I interpret it as "some other / higher (?) dimension that humans can not understand or imagine". Time lost its meaning. You dont have anything to "do" in that room, nor any "goals", like "busy people on earth" who there whole life run around searching for something that does not exist and can never be found. And when they get older and realize, that there is nothing worth to run for as all its been there inside their brains for all their life what they were searching for but did not see it - then they can sit the whole day in their garden and watch clouds and feel happy. Or lay in bed and meditate about a monolith standing in the middle of the room.. it makes no difference.. at all. Mankind is synonym for limited imagination. Our reality is not "THE" reality, its just an very very limited interpretation of limited impressions.
---------------------------
I dont think 2001 would work fine nowadays.
But imagine, when it was made! 1968! JESUS CHRIST!
There was no terminator, matrix, alien(s), predator,blade runner, majority report, soylent green,planet of apes etc kubrick could use as "blueprint". etc when this masterpiece came out.
It was NEW, it was FRESH. The design is still 2012 breathtaking.
Kubrick was a genius hard to find nowadays...
Indy John
MemberOvomorphJul-18-2012 10:23 PM".. Our reality is not "THE" reality,.."
We may not be at the top of the food chain...but are curious about our location on that chain...
I guess we are hoping we are closer to the top..than the bottom.(and not the missing link)
Be choicelessly aware as you move through life
Engineering
MemberOvomorphJul-19-2012 5:17 PM@David 1...
[quote] [b]Kubrik knew exactly what he was doing. And no he did not had to make another movie because he didn't want to explain it. Has he himself said 2001 is a movie that is suposed to "work you in your subcoscient".
Plus he always refused to explain any of his movies [because of the sub-narratives involved] such as The Shining,[/b] [/quote]
This was really my point exactly. When I reread my post I noticed that I what I meant to say was "Did Kubrick ever explain or give all the answers to 2001?" I can't edit the thread though.
As far as some of the other comments in this thread...It REALLY bugs me when people state their opinions as facts. Like THIS is BETTER than THAT. It comes across seeming like you think your opinion is a fact rather than an opinion. It's real easy to put IMO after statements like these or in the post a few times along the way. I might get somewhat adamant about things but I always try to let people know that this is my opinion and I respect yours. Especially in the cases when I do feel strongly about things.
I wish people could accept other's views and realize that what they feel is not "scripture" but guess it's a fact of life that everyone has to deal with.
[IMG]http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/q507/Engineering211/sig2.jpg[/IMG]
Engineering
MemberOvomorphJul-19-2012 5:28 PM@FreePlanet...
Quote=FreePlanet
[i][b]Arthur C Clarke says in his FOUR monolith novels 2001 2010 2061 and 3001 that, "you don't have to read them in order" because they're not necessarily lineal i.e. answering original questions which Kubrick then took on with his (fake moon landing) film version.[/b][/i]
If you knew that then why did you ask this??????????
Quote=Engineering
[b][i]"worked it out"?[/i] [/b]
Quote=FreePlanet
[b][i]couldn't Scott have just READ all four of C Clarke's novels 2001 thru 3001?
*shrugs*[/i][/b]
If you knew that Clarke was not [i]"answering original questions which Kubrick then took on with his (fake moon landing) film version"[/i] then why would "*shrug*" at the fact that Scott didn't "just read all four of C Clarkes's novels 2001 thru 3001"?
IMO asking the first question you asked and then explaining that you know that even if Scott read the books he wouldn't get the answers just doesn't make sense.
Can you explain where you were going with both posts?
[IMG]http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/q507/Engineering211/sig2.jpg[/IMG]
Engineering
MemberOvomorphJul-19-2012 5:33 PMQuote=Spacenik
[b][i] I definitely like Prometheus better than 2001 the movie and perhaps even 2001 the book as well. I felt Prometheus stands on its own better and never felt the need to view the movie while high in order to understand it.
[/i]][/b]
I know we're in the minority but I enjoy Prometheus better as well. I don't feel the need to view either one high to understand though lol.
[IMG]http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/q507/Engineering211/sig2.jpg[/IMG]
Engineering
MemberOvomorphJul-19-2012 5:37 PMQuote=lost_in_lost
[b][i]There was no terminator, matrix, alien(s), predator,blade runner, majority report, soylent green,planet of apes etc kubrick could use as "blueprint". etc when this masterpiece came out.
[/i][/b]
lol "majority report" lol!
That really did give me a laugh!
[IMG]http://i1161.photobucket.com/albums/q507/Engineering211/sig2.jpg[/IMG]
shambs
MemberOvomorphJul-19-2012 5:43 PMI really like to see that the black monoliths of Space Odyssey are the Gods creators of the Engineers XDD
shambs
MemberOvomorphJul-19-2012 6:52 PM[img]http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x368/bipolarestancia/2010-Monolith.gif[/img]
In "2010 Odyssey two", a sequel to 2001, the monoliths are the will of superior alien entities who decide to terraform Europe to manage the evolution of the Europeans. But for that they destroyed the alien forms from Jupiter.
This is Destruction and terraforming for the greater good, because the Europeanos are more likely to evolve that the creatures from Jupiter. Some times I think that maybe this is the reason of why the Engineers want to destroy us; or in the words of David "Sometimes, In Oder To Create, You Must First Destroy".
[img]http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x368/bipolarestancia/Tsien_cont.jpg[/img]
sukkal
MemberOvomorphJul-20-2012 12:18 AMIf A. C. Clarke had collaborated with R. Scott on [i]Prometheus[/i], it would have been a better movie.
The reason that the film [i]2001[/i] and all of the books wrapped together are more interesting to me than [i]Prometheus[/i] is *so far*, is that there is no Fifield or Milburn in any of them. We are given plenty of screen/story time in which the monoliths and/or their influence on humans is demonstrated. The result of the presence of the alien intelligence is mysterious weirdness and I agree that humans are not likely even meant to be capable of understanding a lot of it in the fictional context. And that's the way it should be.
It is sophisticated. All of it. IT does not pander. No one wrote it or made it for an audience of of 16~23-year-olds males as statistically conceived by a marketing construct.
Now, that said, Prometheus is set up to have a lot more going for it in many ways. The Engineers are humanoid. That means that there is a more potential for us (average humans) to commune with them than with the intelligence in the [i]2001[/i] universe, which might even be robotic and a mechanical legacy of a long ‘dead’ civilization.
The reason that I'm interested in the Engineers’ language is that it is required for anything truly interesting to happen between *us* and *them*. The Monolith intelligence communicated in English through humans and HAL with whom it had merged in a process that we can't understand. But, we humans are defined by our imaginations and our language is intimately intertwined with our imaginations in a feedback loop from which we can't really escape.
And, we do know from [i]Prometheus[/i] that our language ability *IS* our language ability directly because of the Engineers, in fact English is even related to at least one language that they speak.
In [i]2001[/i], I doubt seriously that we'd even have a prayer of understanding the mind of *that* god, but in [i]Prometheus[/i], things have the potential to be much more intimate and personal and relevant to the philosophical problems that our imaginations are capable of relating to and learning from.