 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 2001 starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and ends up nowhere. It's almost
>> /literally/ a series of random shots with no connecting narrative at
>> all. (Except the middle part on the space station. /That/ almost makes
>> sense.)
>
> Just because you refuse to understand the movie doesn't mean it's not
> possible (or even easy) to understand.
>
> (And the end sequence is not even supposed to be understood. It's just
> random.)
So the end sequence is "not even supposed to be understood", and that's
me "refusing to understand"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >> 2001 starts nowhere, goes nowhere, and ends up nowhere. It's almost
> >> /literally/ a series of random shots with no connecting narrative at
> >> all. (Except the middle part on the space station. /That/ almost makes
> >> sense.)
> >
> > Just because you refuse to understand the movie doesn't mean it's not
> > possible (or even easy) to understand.
> >
> > (And the end sequence is not even supposed to be understood. It's just
> > random.)
> So the end sequence is "not even supposed to be understood", and that's
> me "refusing to understand"?
You are not talking just about the end sequence. You didn't say "everything
else is quite clear, but the end sequence is very hard to understand."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/26/2012 23:53, Warp wrote:
> (And the end sequence is not even supposed to be understood. It's just
> random.)
I would more say it's intended to be understood by the audience as something
beyond understanding.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/26/2012 12:46, andrel wrote:
> On 26-7-2012 18:15, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 26/07/2012 03:33 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you telling me you don't love Bambi?
>>
>
> I don't like the fact that the mother and father are apparently in a sort of
> monogamous relation and that Bambi knows who his father is.
You mean, that Bambi marries his sister? (Well, substitute a rude word for
"marries" there.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-07-27 01:53, Warp wrote:
> (And the end sequence is not even supposed to be understood. It's just
> random.)
You've not read the book, I take it.
The book was written in conjunction with the movie, and quite clearly
explains what's going on in the scenes in the end sequence.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/07/2012 9:24 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I drive /past/ Northampton. I don't actually drive /into/ Northampton.
It could not have been you, then.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/27/2012 19:41, Tim Cook wrote:
> The book was written in conjunction with the movie, and quite clearly
> explains what's going on in the scenes in the end sequence.
There's a difference between "it explains what's going on" and "you're
supposed to understand it."
Consider, for example, the typical time-travel paradox story. It can explain
what happens quite clearly without you understanding what's going on.
The sequence at the end of 2001 is the hyper-intelligent alien whatever
magically transporting Dave. Even tho Dave says "it's full of stars", you
aren't necessarily understanding *how* or *why* it is full of stars.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 7/27/2012 19:41, Tim Cook wrote:
> > The book was written in conjunction with the movie, and quite clearly
> > explains what's going on in the scenes in the end sequence.
> There's a difference between "it explains what's going on" and "you're
> supposed to understand it."
> Consider, for example, the typical time-travel paradox story. It can explain
> what happens quite clearly without you understanding what's going on.
> The sequence at the end of 2001 is the hyper-intelligent alien whatever
> magically transporting Dave. Even tho Dave says "it's full of stars", you
> aren't necessarily understanding *how* or *why* it is full of stars.
Also note that the book was written *after* the movie, in other words,
the movie was original and not based on any book.
AFAIK Kubrick didn't have anything particular in mind when he made the
final sequence. Just randomness. Of course there's no way of knowing for
sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kubrick made it random on purpose,
just to "troll" the viewers and make them try to make some sense of it.
I haven't read the book (or if I have, it was really, really long time ago
and I don't remember anything), but AFAIK Clarke tried to put some sense
into the ending in the book, but that doesn't make the original scene in
the movie any less random...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/28/2012 12:52, Warp wrote:
> AFAIK Kubrick didn't have anything particular in mind when he made the
> final sequence. Just randomness.
Yeah. In addition, the whole movie was showing off firsts in special
effects. It was the first movie with realistic low gravity, the first movie
with matte paintings (e.g., when you see people thru the windows of the
space ship walking around), etc. It was a tremendous technological challenge
to create a visual effect like that, especially one that could be reflected
off a helmet.
> I haven't read the book (or if I have, it was really, really long time ago
> and I don't remember anything), but AFAIK Clarke tried to put some sense
> into the ending in the book, but that doesn't make the original scene in
> the movie any less random...
Yes. The ending of the book, or at least that segment, was always very
unsatisfying compared to everything else.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2012-07-28 14:52, Warp wrote:
> Also note that the book was written *after* the movie, in other words,
> the movie was original and not based on any book.
The book was *released* after the movie, because Kubrick felt its
simultaneous release would detract from the profitability of the film.
Not sure where I read the last part of that, originally, but Wikipedia
notes the following:
The collaborators originally planned to develop a novel first, free of
the constraints of a normal script, and then to write the screenplay;
they envisaged that the final writing credits would be "Screenplay by
Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, based on a novel by Arthur C.
Clarke and Stanley Kubrick" to reflect their preeminence in their
respective fields. In practice, however, the cinematic ideas required
for the screenplay developed parallel to the novel, with
cross-fertilization between the two.
...
In the end, the screenplay credits were shared while the novel, released
shortly after the film, was attributed to Clarke alone, but Clarke wrote
later that "the nearest approximation to the complicated truth" is that
the screenplay should be credited to "Kubrick and Clarke" and the novel
to "Clarke and Kubrick".
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
