What do other Aspies think of 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I don't like the movie. Movies like this, I watch for the story and to me, the story is very incomplete. So many questions are presented and none of them answered (at least until you see 2010: The Year We Make Contact). The movie gets a lot of praise for its unique use of images and the thought provoking questions it asks, but it's lack of answers leads to an incomplete and thus poorly constructed narrative. When the movie ends, one make make a reasonable assumption that the monoliths are of alien origin, but that's it. There's nothing to indicate why HAL malfunctioned, nothing to indicate what the Star Child is supposed to be/represent, nothing specific to indicate the intentions of the monolith creators, nothing to explain the "bedroom" scene Dave experienced at the end of the movie. This movie gets a lot of critical praise, but I just don't like it. I hear people say that the story isn't important for this movie which makes zero sense to me.

I've never seen the movie. I read the book a long time ago. I remember enjoying it, but it's been a long time and I was pretty young so I don't remember much about it. Sorry. I'll have to dig up another copy somewhere.

Regards,

Patricia

You obviously have never read any material behind the movie, and sound like you've only seen it once.
It's clear when the monolith appears to the apes suddenly and influences the one ape to hit another with a jawbone that they are alien in origin. This is confirmed when later on the scientists discover the monolith buried on the moon. The first time sunlight strikes it, a piercing signal is sent to the planet Jupiter.
(Hpw did ypu miss this ??)
HAL's malfunctining is lots more subtle, it's the fact that he was told the secret destiny of the flight, but could not reveal this information to Dave and the crew.
Overall, a true classic but a bit slow until we meet HAL.

No, I haven't read anything behind it. IMO, a good movie should be able to stand on its own. I've seen the movie 3 times.


What's clear? That the monolith somehow influences the apes to evolve? Yes, this is obvious, but is this what the monolith was intended to do or was the monolith designed for some other purpose and its influence was just a side effect? If this was the intended result of the monolith, why did the creators of the monolith want to take this action?


What is confirmed when the scientists discover one buried on the moon?


I didn't miss it, but it still doesn't answer any questions about it.


Bit there's no way for the viewer to know this from just watching the movie.


And I still say it's incomplete from a narrative standpoint.

I could say a lot of words about 2001 but "clear" wouldn't be one of them.

It's an interesting film.
More than a little slow by today's standards (and even 20 years ago).

It's a product of its time.

The fact that the tagline was "The ultimate trip" is a bit of a giveaway. Sure, it was based on the book etc... and sure it's cerebral but that last 30 minutes of pointless SFX was pretty much designed to give the hippies the ultimate "trip".

I like the film but it's not a "favourite", though it's admittedly the best film released in 1968. I'd agree that a good film must stand on its own and I believe that it does... just barely... in a "David Lynch sort of way".

I remember it being boring as hell. I don't care about depth if I'm bored. I want to be entertained. I can enjoy a semi-nonsensical plot if I am entertained, but if I am bored, I don't care enough to analyse it.

It was slow, but it held my interest while I was waiting for the payoff at the end. When there was no payoff/explanation, I was upset.

I didn't like it the first time I saw it for much the same reasons as others, but it gets better each time you see it, plus the music is fantasic. I don't bother about plot details, it's so long anyway, you just go along on the journey. I love the upside down walking stuff too, that's fun.

2001 looks amazing on blu-ray disc with the video settings adjusted correctly.

I went to see it at the cinema when it first came out.
I thought it was impressive but quite apparent the money ran out half way through making the film.
Back then we believed there would be permanent colonies on the Moon and that manned spacecraft would be going to Jupiter 2001 we have just sent the first men to the Moon!

I first saw it when I was a little kid, and re-watched it a few times since then. I find it sort of interesting, but it's definitely not one of my favorite movies... a little too slow and boring for me, like most of Kubrick's films. I only understood part of what was happening because my dad explained it to me (he had read the book.) My favorite part of the movie was HAL going crazy, and Dave having to dismantle him... "Daaaishy, Daaaaaissshhhy... give me your ansshhwer do..."

In a lot of ways, the movie sucked.

If you read 2001, the movie makes a lot more sense because the book tells you what is happening. The end of 2001 to me was a bad effort at a drug-free acid trip. It does nothing to reflect what the book revealed.

The one thing I thought 2001 got right that 2010 got wrong is that space scenes had no sound. In space, that would be correct. 2010 followed the flawed premise of adding sound effects.

Reading later books, especially 3001, was a total crock. Clarke got a bit nutter in his last years and all his writing reflects his anti-religious biases where his earlier work was a lot more subtle with a "live and let live" attitude.

Great, great film, though I didn't like it at first for the same reasons as most people who don't like the film. I guess I don't mind having unanswered questions anymore.

It seems longer these days, but when he made the film Kubrick wanted to break away from the "Rockets In Outer Space" science fiction movies. Up to then nobody had ever shown what a realistic instrument panel would look like for a craft that could ferry people to a moon base. So we get some shots that are old hat today, but were ground breaking in their time. This sort of thing was picked up by George Lucas who showed us what equipment would look like after getting scratched up.
I really can't defend the opening, though so far no one has complained about that. 30 minutes of apes is too much, and needed to be edited down.
The ending wasn't done for hippies, or because he ran out of money. Kubrick wanted to represent something that he couldn't really visualize, namely what would Dave's POV be while being forced through evolution into man would be in the far future.

I like the book, but do not like the film.