2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

tammyp's picture

I KNOW I'M GOING TO REGRET SAYING THIS, BEING A BIG FAN OF HORROR AND SCIENCE FICTION.  BUT LAST NIGHT MY HUSBAND AND I SAT AND WATCHED "2001" FOR THE FIRST TIME FROM START TO FINISH.

I HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE A COUPLE OF TIMES BUT ALWAYS CAME IN AT THE MIDDLE OR THE BEGINNING OR SOMEWHERE INBETWEEN.  AND FOR REASONS I CAN'T EXPLAIN, NEVER SEEN IT THROUGHT TIL THE END.

WELL LAST NIGHT IT WAS ON "SHOWTIME" AND WE DECIDED TO WATCH IT FROM THE BEGINNING.

WOW! WHAT A GREAT MOVIE.  STILL STANDS STRONG SOME FORTY YEARS LATER.  SO MUCH OF THE MOVIE IS TRUE TO WHAT "THEY" SAY SPACE TRAVEL IS REALLY LIKE.  FOR EXAMPLE, NO SOUND, LOVED HOW YOU ONLY HEARD "DAVE" BREATHING WHENEVER EVENTS TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE CRAFT.  AND THE FACT THAT MAN IS ALWAYS IN CAHRGE OF HIS OWN FATE AND HOW MUCH OUR RELIABLITY ON "MACHINES" ULTIMATELY CAUSES OUR DOWNFALL.  SUCH AS THE CASE WITH THE "H.A.L 9000" COMPUTER.

SO HERE'S MY QUESTION:  SEEING IT THROUGH TIL THE END.  CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE HELL THE LAST FIVE MINUTES WAS ALL ABOUT?  I KNOW "DAVE" APPARENTLY MISSED THEIR TARGET OF JUPITER.  BUT ALL THE EERIE IMAGES AT THE END.  WAS THAT HIM AS AN OLD MAN, WAS THAT HIM AS A FETUS.  I HAVE MY THOUGHTS BUT WHAT EXACTLY DID HAPPEN OR WHAT WAS IT REPRESENTING.

THANKS

up
13
Share this discussion

neener56's picture

Exactly. Kubrick even stated once you fully understand the film then it becomes less powerful. I think that can be said about all abstract films. Kubrick was a genius and in my opinion the greatest director who ever lived. He was an incredibly smart man.

Funny little side note. Did you know that the project name (like when they have movie names in code to not alert the public) was How The Universe Was Won. a joke to How The West Was Won.

HELLFIGHTER's picture

If you see the sequel which is not boring in the least, lol, GREAT movie. They will reveal why Hal did what he did AND make you feel sorry for him/it, reveal at least an important concept about the monolith, reveal who we pissed off that has something to do with it all, and give you a better understanding of BOTH movies.

neener56's picture

To be honest the sequel would only give their interpretations. The only person who knows what the hell that movie is about is Kubrick and he's long dead.

HELLFIGHTER's picture

Not exactly true, bud. Kubrick directed the film and owned the production company but the story was CO-WRITTEN by Kubrick and legendary sci fi writer Arthur C. Clarke. Want to bet that Clarke wrote the story with input from Kubrick and Kubrick turned it into a movie screenplay. The movie is paritally based on a Clarke short story THE SENTINEL. The movies SEQUEL, 2010 THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT, is based on Clarkes novel which is a literary sequel to the movie. The novel is called 2010 ODYSSEY 2. Regardless of how "mysterious" Kubrick wanted to be (many Hollywood insiders thought he was cruel and pompous) Im sure Clarke had more insight than ANYONE as to what the stories and movies were about.

HELLFIGHTER's picture

BTW, Kubrick did not work on the sequel, but Clarke DID.

neener56's picture

I have both read the book and the watched the film. Well read most of it. Its quite the read. But infact the book is alot different than the film. I would say its VERY loosely based. And i also believe that the 2001 book is actually based on the film. Not the other way around. See on the cover it says "based on the screenplay by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clark"

arthur_clarke.jpg

HELLFIGHTER's picture

That might have been to cash in on the movies popularity as it has been stated that the film was based on a previously written Clarke short story regardless of how loosely. But my point WAS that Kubrick was NOT the only one who understood or guided the premise to the movie and the sequel DOES reveal correctly, the points the AUTHORS wanted to make. Took two to tango on that story line. Thats all I was saying.

HELLFIGHTER's picture

 BTW. . . . . . here is some interesting info PARTICULARLY AT THE END. I was NOT aware that Clarke shows up in the sequel to ODYSSEY. . . . . . .

2001: A Space Odyssey

Clarke's first venture into film was the Stanley Kubrick directed 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick and Clarke had met in New York City in 1964 to discuss the possibility of a collaborative film project. As the idea developed, it was decided that the story for the film was to be loosely based on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", written in 1948 as an entry in a BBC short story competition. Originally, Clarke was going to write the screenplay for the film, but Kubrick suggested during one of their brainstorming meetings that before beginning on the actual script, they should let their imaginations soar free by writing a novel first, upon which the film would be based. "This is more or less the way it worked out, though toward the end, novel and screenplay were being written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions. Thus I rewrote some sections after seeing the movie rushes – a rather expensive method of literary creation, which few other authors can have enjoyed." The novel ended up being published a few months after the release of the movie.

Due to the hectic schedule of the film's production, Kubrick and Clarke had difficulty collaborating on the book. Clarke completed a draft of the novel at the end of 1964 with the plan to publish in 1965 in advance of the film's release in 1966. After many delays the film was released in the spring of 1968, before the book was completed. The book was credited to Clarke alone. Clarke later complained that this had the effect of making the book into a novelisation, that Kubrick had manipulated circumstances to downplay Clarke's authorship. For these and other reasons, the details of the story differ slightly from the book to the movie. The film contains little explanation for the events taking place. Clarke, on the other hand, wrote thorough explanations of "cause and effect" for the events in the novel. James Randi later recounted that upon seeing the premiere of 2001 for the first time, Clarke left the theatre in tears, at the intermission, after having watched an eleven-minute scene (which did not make it into general release) where an astronaut is doing nothing more than jogging inside the spaceship, which was Kubrick's idea of showing the audience how boring space travels could be.

In 1972, Clarke published The Lost Worlds of 2001, which included his accounts of the production, and alternate versions, of key scenes. The "special edition" of the novel A Space Odyssey (released in 1999) contains an introduction by Clarke in which he documents the events leading to the release of the novel and film.

2010

In 1982 Clarke continued the 2001 epic with a sequel, 2010: Odyssey Two. This novel was also made into a film, 2010, directed by Peter Hyams for release in 1984. Because of the political environment in America in the 1980s, the film presents a Cold War theme, with the looming tensions of nuclear warfare not featured in the novel. The film was not considered to be as revolutionary or artistic as 2001, but the reviews were still positive.

Clarke's email correspondence with Hyams was published in 1984.Titled The Odyssey File: The Making of 2010, and co-authored with Hyams, it illustrates his fascination with the then-pioneering medium of email and its use for them to communicate on an almost daily basis at the time of planning and production of the film while living on different continents. The book also includes Clarke's list of the best science-fiction films ever made.

Clarke appeared in the film, first as the man feeding the pigeons while Dr. Heywood Floyd is engaged in a conversation in front of the White House. Later, in the hospital scene with David Bowman's mother, an image of the cover of Time portrays Clarke as the American President and Kubrick as the Russian Premier.

neener56's picture
Originally, Stanley Kubrick had Stuart Freeborn create a primitive but more human-like makeup for the actors playing early man, but he couldn't find a way to photograph them in full length without getting an X-rating from the MPAA, since they had to be naked. So Kubrick went with the hairy monkey model instead. With the exception of two baby chimpanzees, all were played by humans in costume. Freeborn and his wife Kathleen Freeborn used comic actor Ronnie Corbett as a makeup model, but he did not appear in the final film. Daniel Richter, who plays the ape moon watcher, choreographed most of these scenes. Early viewers of the movie wondered where Kubrick obtained such well-trained apes. It was later joked that "2001" lost the Best Makeup Academy Award to John Chambers for Planet of the Apes because the judges didn't realize the 2001 apes were really people, but there was no nomination list at all, as the award was not created until 1981--Chambers' award was merely honorary.

HELLFIGHTER's picture

I know many seem to think Kubrick was a genius but the more I read from people who worked for him, the more he looks like the typical Hollywood prick. . . . albeit a "genius". It seems if it wasnt for his public rep and his standing among Hollywood moneymen, most people wouldnt work with him if they could without getting blacklisted or losing fame.

Pages

Add new comment

Please login or register to post in the message boards.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
<none>