 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocain freeservecouk> wrote:
> And lo on Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:48:24 -0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
> spake, saying:
....
> "True. Okay we'll try that. Now next on the agenda spelling out suggestive
> words in clouds of dust..."
Couldn't resist...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'sugwords.jpg' (34 KB)
Preview of image 'sugwords.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly
> random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or
> meaning.
surely there is this huge visual clue connecting it all together, namely a black
monolith? Note the story isn't about people or any character in particular...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>> Yeah see Andrew, duh it's obviously an allegory for the life cycle. :-P
>> In seriousness for a moment...
>
> it is: unknown intelligent race devises a device (monolith) to spread
> intelligent life in the galaxy. One of them ends up on Earth where it
> instigates apes to become the dominant life form on the planet. They
> eventually get to a level of sophistication that allows them to travel through
> space and reach the moon where the beacon monolith warns the creators that the
> new intelligent species are now able to contact. One of the species come in
> contact with the portal monolith and trips over to unknown place where it lives
> for the rest of his life. When of old, at death bed he figures out the purpose
> of the monolith, represented as a baby in gestation.
Close, but not quite. According to the book (which was written at the
same time as the movie, but the movie got released first due to
Kubrick's paranoia), Dave goes through the Stargate (long before
MacGuyver got to it), sees various cosmic scenery, ends up in a holding
cell whereby he spends the rest of his life. The Monolith, programmed
aeons ago by the aliens to do just this sort of thing, records his
memories and, as his physical body dies, stores his essence in a lattice
of light, hence the Star Child, newborn ambassador for Earth and toady
for the aliens' designs. Close the novel with him looking at shiny
Earth and having the same thought of what to do with his abilities as
Moon Watcher, the man-ape whose brains got stir-fried by the paleolithic
monolith.
If you want incomprehensible-for-the-sake-of-being-artsy, check out the
anime Ergo Proxy. It's all deep and cerebral, right up to the very end,
where...something anticlimactic happens. And you, the viewer, goes "ho
hum, that was lame compared to the buildup".
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> It involves Bruce Willis in a dystopian future and a team of scientists
> who keep sending him back in time to try to avert the terrorist
> catastrophy that overtook civilisation
I think in the USA, it was just called "twelve monkeys". And it makes a
lot of sense if you just watch it a couple times. (Unlike 2001, which is
missing a whole bunch of story bits.)
> Basically, a very bad film that barely makes sense.
It was a great film! "Bruce Willis, please report for Volunteer Duty!"
> I think I'd class that one more as "rather hard to follow" rather than
> actually "incomprehensible".
12 monkeys was simply "hard to follow" too, as a time-travel movie.
> Ditto for 2001. (Seemingly a random selection of camera angles.)
It was a special-effects movie.The book makes more sense.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> There's a movie called "The Island"
That was definitely rentable, altho I liked the book "Spares" much better.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> But then, the film was so unrelentingly depressing that by then I'd
> given up *trying* to understand it.
I would recommend you avoid "Pan's Labrynth" then too. I thought it was
delightful, but you'd just be depressed.
From another review:
"""
You know those movies where no matter how depressed you are, and how
poorly things are going for you, you can just watch this movie and no
matter how often you've seen it, it cheers you right up and you can face
the day again? Pan's Labrynth is like that, except exactly opposite.
"""
> Um... wuh??
I'm with you on this one. The book makes way more sense.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> Alien artifact. To kickstart human evolution.
> Intelligent Design! ;)
That's one of the several ways in which you can have designed humans
without God, which is why I don't understand the position of "evolution
has problems, therefore it must be God." :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> When of old, at death bed he figures out the purpose
> of the monolith, represented as a baby in gestation.
Actually, if you read the second book, it is claimed that the baby is
actually what the old man turns into, for reasons explained in the
second book.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> The problem is, I watched this thing, and it just seemed to be a fairly
> random assemblage of different images with no obvious connection or
> meaning.
Much of it was, actually. The main point was to demonstrate special
effects. The plot was secondary. That's why they spend so long on things
like showing space ships coming over the horizon (first matte painting),
pens floating in air, jogging around the inside of a centrifuge, and so on.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder wrote:
> #2 The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover
> (Friendly warning: this film is considered offensive by several folks
> who are generally rather difficult to offend, myself included.)
Ah yes, the only movie I ever walked out of during the opening credits.
Bleh.
Also the only movie where the door had a sign saying "if you want your
money back, just ask."
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
