If ya dig the movie here's a little background on it. For me, it's one of those movies you're supposed to find earth shaking, mind boggling, but I've only found to be a great sleep inducer.

[www.theguardian.com]

If you first saw it a couple of decades ago at the age of 12 in a cinema with a proper screen and sound system, it left you slack-jawed. The fact that the plot dissloves at some point just contributed to the effect.

Never much of a fan of SF, but 2001 is an exception. Reading the book clarifies some of the ambiguities of the film, as does (if I recall correctly) Lost Worlds of 2001. The book and movie were written / filmed somewhat in tandem. Clarke wrote much of the book at the Chelsea Hotel in NYC and I was thrilled to see a plaque outside to that effect. The dimensions of TMA-1 is still the combination for my luggage lock. (OK, I’m a geek...) Thanks for posting!

Quote
dmay
I've only found to be a great sleep inducer.

Well it's a bit deeper than "Star Wars" or any Spielberg crap. Get some knowledge of Nietzsche philosophy, especially the beast/man/overman triad. It's really at the core of 2001.

Then give the film another try. You'll like it.

Dave?

HAL?

I'm a bigger fan of "2010: The Year We Made Contact" with wonderful actors Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren, and Bob Balaban in the cast.

A masterpiece by Stanley Kubrick, but it is redundant to say that because every film Mr Kubrick made was a masterpiece. He put more on screen in his films than anyone ever. He may be the most thoughtful film maker of all time. Everything you see on screen in his movies has a meaning. They teach college courses on individual films of his.

I will admit I would not know that unless it was been pointed out to me by people who actually understand these things. And I am talking about reading people who really understand, respect and appreciate these things.... unlike going to a Stones "fan" site and reading mostly the deluded ramblings of bored exfans making ill-informed silly predictions to amuse themselves as they make fun of the band and current fans.


Looking up intesting facts on films and movies I enjoy(ed) is a fun hobby I have done forever. It usually only takes 5-10 minutes to read up on the typically few bits of interesting information which might make the film more enjoyable a second time around.... but looking deeper in to Stanley Kubrick films can take one down a deep deep multi-forked rabbit hole. It is hard to believe a person could think through so much and then successfully, thoughtfully, detaily put it up on the screen. From The Shining to 2001 to eyes wide shut.... the tiniest details of these films mean things. Things that people (who dropped a hit when the movie starts so they could time it to be tripping balls by the time the light show starts) probably miss meaningful things... and that is cool too, that 2001 light show is spectacular all by itself to make the movie... esp tripping balls at a midnight movie (I heard anyway)

From the HAL (off by one letter IBM) computer to the flat screen TV prediction monolith to etc etc ... it all means something. Mr Kubrick was that great of a film maker.

We lost a great film maker when Stanley Kubrick passed away too young...
some say he showed too much in his last film... and it cost him... everything.




TL/DR
Yeah man, 2001 is a good one. It is time for another viewing.


RIP Mr Kubrick,
Thank you again for your awesome films.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-03-31 23:02 by Leonioid.

reminds me I bought this several years ago on Bluray as part of a 3pack of classic movies but have not watched it.

Would love to see it again on the big screen in a Theater with a proper sound system but will have to fire it up on my 65" Panasonic HD Plasma through my Marantz 9.2 surround system tonight as I have not seen this movie in over 30 years and even then it was on a standard def 4:3 TV.

Older sister took me & a friend to see it in a theatre back in 1968 -- it was in Boston and the Theatre showing it touted 'state of the art" sound..meaning it was LOUD ! I was 11 years old.....didn't understand a bit of it, but the visuals, the soundtrack, and the ending blew my young mind !

Quote
Leonioid
...From the HAL (off by one letter IBM) computer ...

Hmmm...the old IBM rumour. HAL actually is an acronym for the type of programming used to create him - heuristically algorithmic. Don’t ever ask me anything else about computers though, that’s the extent of my tech knowledge.

Agree with you, dmay. "The Shining", "Barry Lyndon" and, somewhat "Dr Strangelove" are my Kubrick favourites. I know you are supposed to like "2001: A Space Odessey" and "A Clockwork Orange" also.
But I didn't. Even though the cinematography is exquisite. I might add "Paths of Glory" too. Behind the three I mentioned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-01 00:06 by Stoneage.

Quote
Leonioid
I will admit I would not know that unless it was been pointed out to me by people who actually understand these things. And I am talking about reading people who really understand, respect and appreciate these things.... unlike going to a Stones "fan" site and reading mostly the deluded ramblings of bored exfans making ill-informed silly predictions to amuse themselves as they make fun of the band and current fans.

When you think about it, nearly everything we perceive and certainly everything we express from the cradle to the grave is because we were taught by those who already understood. It's also possible to love films and music, read books, and still have fun with friends who share the same interests. After all, "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll." Take it too seriously and you're in Arrows territory incensed at the lack of reverence and thinking "I Love Rock 'n' Roll" is an appropriate response. Admittedly, you could do worse than live off songwriting royalties courtesy of Joan Jett and Weird Al Yankovic, but I'd rather keep a trademarked lapping tongue in cheek.

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl

Quote
Leonioid
...From the HAL (off by one letter IBM) computer ...

Hmmm...the old IBM rumour. HAL actually is an acronym for the type of programming used to create him - heuristically algorithmic. Don’t ever ask me anything else about computers though, that’s the extent of my tech knowledge.

So programmed in heuristically algorithmic language...

Interesting, Thank you!

"I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
...and to this day sideline coaches over their mouth with a folder to prevent "HAL types" from stealing plays

Definition of heuristic
: involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods

; also : of or relating to exploratory problem-solving techniques that utilize self-educating techniques (such as the evaluation of feedback) to improve performance. a heuristic computer program

SING IT HAL!!!

Daisy [www.youtube.com]




That scene has always kind of freeked me out... very spooky... deathy... weirdy

Quote
The Sicilian
I'm a bigger fan of "2010: The Year We Made Contact" with wonderful actors Roy Scheider, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren, and Bob Balaban in the cast.

Right up there with The Godfather Part III.

"Paths of Glory" is a helluva Stanley Kubrick movie. Very powerful.
I have only watched it one time, and I watched it proper, start to finish... and it is... powerful.

There isn't a single film he did that was less than impressive. I would agree he was a peerless film-maker. A number of his pictures (starting with 2001 I would say) have scenes that are perfect in every way. Yet for all of their depth of meaning and their stunning compositions, not a single one of them projects warmth. It could be that it was never his intent artistically to make conventional films about conventional themes, but even STRANGELOVE (for all of its satirical brilliance) is a harsh, cold film. I love a lot of his work, but I never want to watch one after another because the view of humanity becomes too much for me to take if seen in close proximity to one another. ONE-EYED JACKS (which he started, but didn't complete) is interesting to consider sandwiched between SPARTACUS and LOLITA. Without its failure (for him, personally), he might never have started on the path he began with LOLITA.

For me, his musical counterpart would be Roger Waters (with and without the rest of Pink Floyd). A brilliant artist whether serious or satirical, but as much as he paints masterpieces each time, more often than not I'm left cold by his vision despite appreciating just how talented he is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-01 01:39 by Rocky Dijon.

2001 was a classic and voted the best sci fi film ever, it is confusing though, but worth a couple of viewings although kubrik gets a lot of credit but never underestimate arthur c clarke role as he had a huge understanding of space and sci fi topics.

on the subject of sci fi i prefer the time machine or the day the earth caught fire.

not a single one of them projects warmth.

It is probably because by take #23-55th-87th-150th all the humanity is gone from even the best actors. He was famous for doing too many takes. It is his business, his project his style and I respect his great films... but I never understand needing more than 10-20 takes.


I imagine he would have loved making movies 100 years from now when it is all CGI actors and he could control everything, no need for warm flesh and blood... just his vision. His amazing vision and amazing ability to put that vision on the silver screen, even if it can be somewhat arctic, it is usally powerful.


Compare and contrast Clint Eastwood as a film maker whose version of multiple takes is done when he picks the actors at the start. He picks an actor purposelessly for their style and then allows/expects them do their expected "thing". He/they shoot the scene and move on, only doing multiple takes when it is required for specific reasons.


Then we have the Coen Brothers whom I consider the greatest modern masters of film and movies and they can make both very well. So far they are perfect. They are amazing. They are the opposite of one trick ponies like Quinton Tarrentino who can only make one style of bloodfest. QT may do that type of schlock quite well, but that seems to be all he can do. I challenge QT to make a relationship story... where no one says n****r... no onr says shtfk dmn every other word... no one gets killed and there is not one drop of blood. I dare QT to vary things up like the Coen Brothers do.

I am amazed at the way the Coen Brothers write / direct / edit their masterpieces. I am so happy they are still with us and making profitable entertaining movies that are different... they are different every time. Their process is amazing. I hope they live long long lives and make movies forever.


not to veeer off topic or anything....


IT'S FULL OF STARS!!

Yeah the Coens make amazing films .... and have you ever
noticed that the under lying theme in most of their films is built
around the greed and the extraordinary lengths people will go to for money ... LD

Maybe one day they'll do a remake of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre ....



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
Yeah the Coens make amazing films .... and have you ever
noticed that the under lying theme in most of their films is built
around the greed and the extraordinary lengths people will go to for money ... LD

Maybe one day they'll do a remake of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre ....

The Coens are the only ones in the whole wide world I would trust
to remake that already perfect movie. I am pretty anti remakes, but
how they did with True Grit gained my trust... I trust them to say
"Yup we can make it great"... I trust them to say.... "There is no need to
remake it"... I trust them know and do what is best.

I was mesmerized by their True Grit... but at first I was highly
skeptical. I really hate the Hollywood money grabs at remaking
movies which were made perfect to start with. There are infinite
examples of bad reamkes... sigh.... like last years LETS REMAKE "BEN HUR"! WUT?

But "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" ... that is a great movie Rockeeee
it is (at least) a top 50 movie of all time... but if the Coens say... well you know.


I love their movies.


I was just reading how they write their movies... it is very very interesting.
They have a process and it repeats the same every time...

Quote
Rocky Dijon
There isn't a single film he did that was less than impressive. I would agree he was a peerless film-maker. A number of his pictures (starting with 2001 I would say) have scenes that are perfect in every way. Yet for all of their depth of meaning and their stunning compositions, not a single one of them projects warmth. It could be that it was never his intent artistically to make conventional films about conventional themes, but even STRANGELOVE (for all of its satirical brilliance) is a harsh, cold film. I love a lot of his work, but I never want to watch one after another because the view of humanity becomes too much for me to take if seen in close proximity to one another. ONE-EYED JACKS (which he started, but didn't complete) is interesting to consider sandwiched between SPARTACUS and LOLITA. Without its failure (for him, personally), he might never have started on the path he began with LOLITA.

For me, his musical counterpart would be Roger Waters (with and without the rest of Pink Floyd). A brilliant artist whether serious or satirical, but as much as he paints masterpieces each time, more often than not I'm left cold by his vision despite appreciating just how talented he is.

Understood; And I very appreciate the way you describe his work generally; as to it's depth and etc....

I don't think Stanley saw his mission as projecting human warmth, as much as perhaps displaying
(imo with 'off-the-wall' unique particular brilliance)
observtions relating to what could be described as 'critical flaws' in his characters; even the non-human ones, like HAL....

his prescience and brilliance imo shows a wryness and very deep and particular
intellectual ability and curiosity; he's a Master who could be teaching lesser Masters; and in fact, I'm sure every half-way decent director must have
tons of respect for his couragoues individuality.

The behind-the-scenes The Shining footage is interesting; showing him
actually directing. Some say his attention to detail in Each and Every FRAME, regarding the entirety of props and every tiny aspect of any shot; is sorta
like a masterpiece painting; with many stories within stories....
Stanley Kubrick is easily one of the most very exclusive extremely rarest gift,
in the entire history of the medium since silent films.

I consider Kubrick as significant as Chaplin even...
i loved Close Encounters and a lot of those general-entertainment "ET"kinda
things.....but I think even cats like Speilberg and others who have reached
some stunningly brilliant peaks with their gifts, are like cartoons compared
to even almost any random one scene from a Stanley movie. imo.

I take COMFORT IN HIS dead-eye cold eye on the Target; which is usually the
Threats his Antagonist characters cause; and accomplish.
which of course is a simplistic general (non) analysis of his general thematic intentions and inventions,
if one can credibly identify those in a general way; but I don't think his significance can be over-emphasized;
and I don't think the public is ready, even now; to generally speaking 'absorb' his trajectory in some kind of context,
as those themes; 'contentions,' if you will, are extremely disturbing;
especially to real-life peeps who some of those characters and situations are representing; or alluding to.
Kubrick imo is much much more than one of the Greatest film directors...
talk about rock and roll attitude and guts.....and smarts.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-01 04:05 by hopkins.

Quote
Rocky Dijon
HAL?

Dave, I do not understand why a humorous/silly thread about socks needs to be closed.

Love to hear what the Coens think of Wilder ...

Heck I dunno how many times I've watched Sunset Boulevard .... Some Like It Hot not far behind ...

Kubrick well like the other Rocky ... talented but always a coldness...
No lovin' and laughin' in those frames ........ Paths of Glory great...



ROCKMAN

Quote
crholmstrom
Dave?

I remember being at a Roger Waters concert where he had this spaceman guy floating high above the crowd, and out of the loudspeakers you could hear HAL's voice from the movie, saying "I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave .... My mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it." I thought that was kinda interesting given who "Dave" is within the context of Pink Floyd.

Quote
tatters

Quote
crholmstrom
Dave?

I remember being at a Roger Waters concert where he had this spaceman guy floating high above the crowd, and out of the loudspeakers you could hear HAL's voice from the movie, saying "I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Dave. Dave .... My mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it." I thought that was kinda interesting given who "Dave" is within the context of Pink Floyd.

Seeing that Rocky made mention of Roger Waters several posts back, and to add to your post tatters, here's the connection:

"Perfect Sense, Part I" is the third track from the concept album Amused to Death by ex-Pink Floyd member Roger Waters. The song is sung partially by Roger Waters but mainly by PP Arnold on both the original album and live shows.

The song begins with a loud and unintelligible rant cutting out the noise of the previous track, "What God Wants, Part 1". Following this inaudible opening is words uttered by Roger Waters, played backwards. This hidden message tells that Roger has decided to record a backwards message. "Julia, however, in the light and visions of the issues of Stanley, we changed our minds. We have decided to include a backward message. Stanley, for you, and for all the other book burners..." This is not the first example of Roger Waters using reversed messages in his musical work.

In an interview with Rockline on 8 February 1993 Roger Waters stated that he had wanted to use samples of HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey on the album. Stanley Kubrick, the director, turned him down on the basis that it would open the door to too many other people using the sound sample.[1] Since this incident Waters has used the audio of HAL describing his mind being taken away during the introduction of "Perfect Sense Part 1" in live performances, such as the In the Flesh tour in 2002, after Kubrick had died.

The opening lines of the song begin with a reference from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey in which "The monkey sat on a pile of stones and stared at the broken bone in his hand". This monkey – the human being – is referred to continuously throughout the album.

In the 2015 re-released and remastered edition of the album, the samples of HAL 9000 were finally included, but the backwards message was left out.

Perfect Sense, Part I

_________________________________________________________________________

Also of interest - the Kubrick/Pink Floyd connection, and the myth that Pink Floyd were asked to do the soundtrack for the movie (along with some other stuff):

Investigating the myths around the '2001'-Pink Floyd connection

"Summing it up

Stanley Kubrick got in contact with Pink Floyd to request permission to use Atom Heart Mother in A Clockwork Orange, but the band refused. Later, it was Kubrick's turn to refuse permission to Roger Waters to use a sample from 2001. Although Waters was definitely fascinated by the movie, the lack of any hard proofs and the amount of circumstantial evidence goes against the claim that Pink Floyd have ever had anything to do with 2001, either for its soundtrack or, later, in syncronizing their tracks to the film"'.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-01 05:25 by Hairball.

Quote
Rockman
...Love to hear what the Coens think of Wilder ...

Loved him in Young Frankenstein!

speaking of BIG movies...
The Ten Commandments is doing its annual Easter run tonight,
Ive seen it 50+ times and still somehow watch again every year. What a spectacle.
Cecil B. DeMille could make quite the movie.

Moses just parted the Red Sea... whoa...
Fire and brimstone coming up!!!

And one might think the people would learn after all this time to stop listening to Edward G. Robinson's (that trouble maker) advice... and building that golden calf... and drinking and orgying... ya just know that is going to piss off Moses and God... and... yeah... it never ends well when Dad... errr... Moses gets home.



And in this (Easter) genre...
It looks like one of the networks will be doing a live TV televised version of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice Jesus Christ Superstar tomorrow night. They have Alice Cooper singing/playing the part of King Herod. It should be interesting to see. I am not too religious but I have always enjoyed this rock opera... it does kind of rock.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-01 06:36 by Leonioid.

Quote
SomeTorontoGirl

Quote
Leonioid
...From the HAL (off by one letter IBM) computer ...

Hmmm...the old IBM rumour. HAL actually is an acronym for the type of programming used to create him - heuristically algorithmic. Don’t ever ask me anything else about computers though, that’s the extent of my tech knowledge.

While thinking of space walks, recently I happened upon a show on tv which showed an edge walk at the CN Tower in Toronto. I didn't realize you could do this. It is ridiculously crazy. Have you done this? I thought the ride on the outside elevator was nerve racking.

video: [www.youtube.com]

This has been a fun exchange. I liked the idea of Kubrick being focused on character flaws. In regards to the coldness of his work starting with LOLITA, maybe it's because the characters always seem lacking in humanity in different ways in every film from LOLITA through EYES WIDE SHUT. I would count A.I. but for me, it's Spielberg in every way despite where the project originated.

I revere TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE. I like the original TRUE GRIT a lot (not so much ROOSTER COGBURN), the remake just didn't click for me (but I'm very much the exception). That said, some of the Coen Brothers' work does grab me. Especially BLOOD SIMPLE, MILLER'S CROSSING, and O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? Ranking Kubrick would be difficult for me.

Oh, and HAL, sorry about the socks. I think it was Frank's fault. He always was Aldous Huxley's Stagnant Poole. And if anyone else gets OF APE AND ESSENCE, hats off to you. Now go watch BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES and watch what you can do to material when you secure the rights, but are refused permission to credit the original author.

And since Terry brought up Billy Wilder, I'd put him next to Preston Sturges in my pantheon. Sturges' SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS ties in nicely to the Coen Brothers for that matter. Jumping back to books for a switch, Sturges' son P. G. Sturges writes a hilarious hardboiled comedy series called THE SHORTCUT MAN. I've read all of them and love them. Closest thing would be to call them a cross between his Dad's films with Elmore Leonard's and Donald Westlake's works. And just to keep the music connection alive, the younger Sturges has also written songs with both Barry Manilow and David Lee Roth. He's a great guy and almost as much a raconteur as his Dad.

I might as well go for a fifth edit and weigh in on Arthur C. Clarke. It was nice to see THE LOST WORLDS OF 2001 referenced here. I used to own that book as a kid. I loved his 2001 sequels in the 1980s, but was disappointed by 3001. That said, if that was one too many trips to the well, his TIME ODYSSEY trilogy struck me as dire. I wondered if his co-author actually wrote all of them. Just terrible in my jaded view. A sad end to a franchise that had run its course.

As for sci-fi in general, my tops will always be the original PLANET OF THE APES. I used to love STAR WARS and DOCTOR WHO, but today the only stuff I can muster affection for is FLASH GORDON and BUCK ROGERS. I do have a soft spot for Japanese men in rubber costumes, though. Some would call it a fetish, I suppose.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2018-04-01 07:17 by Rocky Dijon.