Nobody in this thread would say that the cinematography was bad. The problem was that Kubrick sacrificed pacing and a coherent plot on the altar of creating meaningful, awesome-looking shots. The latter is partly Clarke's fault - the man was always much better at creating the feel of a science fiction novel than at writing an actual story arc - but it's hardly as though Kubrick made things any better.
Oh, I completely agree... despite failing to see why HAL turns into a killing machine (I understood when I saw 2010, IMO of quite an inferior quality). I could follow it quite well, until the psychedelic phase, but then its bizarreness has something... I already said mystical, but that's what it is. It's just it. You can call it crap or art, it's just something. (I personally think it's art )It does make sense though...
2001 does stand on its own but you need to fill in some of the blanks with your own imagination.
How would you have shot it differently? I'm not really sure what about it you didn't like.
That's like saying we shouldn't consider a car to be bad because it can't move. A car's purpose is to get from point A to point B; a movie's purpose is to entertain. Now a movie may entertain in many ways, some are funny, others may be epic, but in the end a movie that doesn't entertain, or that is downright boring as in the case of 2001, is definitely bad.
I just thought people in monkey suits messing around to be pretty funny, although this comical effect probably unintended. The part where the monkeys all bundled up around the huge monolith was super, super funny. Then one monkey reaches out and touches it. He suddenly realizes, "O hey toolz lolz". The monolith was supposed to help them evolve, but this is not explained in anyway in the film, I think some people will be annoyed at this point, I wasn't annoyed, I just thought it funny and stupid.
I disagree on both points. A car's purpose is to safely transport the occupants from one place to another more efficiently than other means of getting there. Your legs can get you from point A to point B and so can horse or bike or whatever. The fact that car does it much faster and usually in more comfort is why people spend thousands per year on their cars and trucks. There are multiple purposes of film; to translate a script into live action, to transport the viewer into an alternate reality, to record an event or series of events, etc.
A film as a medium can do all of the things you mentioned, 2001 is not just a video recording of some sort, it's a commercial film produced to entertain and make money. Now you may shot a film of nothing by flying plastic bag, that's your choice, but a commercial film produced by major studio is expected to have a different purpose than that.
Hmm maybe you are not quite ready for a scene like that? Give it some time and revisit the movie in 10-20 years.
A film as a medium can do all of the things you mentioned, 2001 is not just a video recording of some sort, it's a commercial film produced to entertain and make money.
Dida said:Maybe it is you that are not ready to see the scene for what it is. This scene is just dumb. It is nothing but a poorly done, so bad that it borders comedy shaggy God story kind of thing.
Movies can be made for a multitude of reasons. Sure, hollywood pumps out cash-making cows all the time, cause they have to make their investors happy, but that doesn't mean that a movie's sole purpose is to bring in cash. The purpose is whatever the directors and producers want it to be, they're the ones in charge.
I hate repeating myself, but again, this is like modern art. Some people say "This is just 200 cans of Campbell's soup piled up" And turn away, and someone else might say "Wow, this is (I don't know, I'm the first opinion)" and pay millions for it.
Here Dida is saying "This is just 200 cans", but some of us see something else, and he keeps on saying "Don't you see it? It's just a pile of cans!"
And here we are, +40 years later discussing the movie in a multi-page thread at an iternet forum. I would say it must have some interest after all.I hate repeating myself, but again, this is like modern art. Some people say "This is just 200 cans of Campbell's soup piled up" And turn away, and someone else might say "Wow, this is (I don't know, I'm the first opinion)" and pay millions for it.
Here Dida is saying "This is just 200 cans", but some of us see something else, and he keeps on saying "Don't you see it? It's just a pile of cans!"
Fixed, for pedantry's sake.I hate repeating myself, but again, this is like post-modern art. Some people say "This is just 200 cans of Campbell's soup piled up" And turn away, and someone else might say "Wow, this is (I don't know, I'm the first opinion)" and pay millions for it.
Here Dida is saying "This is just 200 cans", but some of us see something else, and he keeps on saying "Don't you see it? It's just a pile of cans!"