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

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 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...

it's not random at all.

Dave gets near the monolith and utters "It's full of stars", then a long
sequence of abstract psychdelic patterns and figures resembling galaxies and
planets suggests Dave has entered some kind of portal into hyperspace for a very
long travel.  Obviously, this is the doing of some alien intelligence.  When he
arrives at the destination, after an uncertain time until he regains
counsciosness, he finds himself in a replica hall of some of his time buildings,
all alone.  The camera then plays with the loneliness of this laboratory by
contrasting several time lapses of Dave's life in this environment superimposed
one against the other, as if his former self is looking at his older one.  Until
we get to the final shot of the star child, whose meaning is up to metaphysical
interpretation...

It was a mind-expanding movie back then and still holds wonderfuly well against
modern day empty blockbusters.

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.07.2012 04:23, schrieb nemesis:

> it's not random at all.
>
> Dave gets near the monolith and utters "It's full of stars", then a long
> sequence of abstract psychdelic patterns and figures resembling galaxies and
> planets

The association with galaxies and planets is pretty far-fetched.

> suggests Dave has entered some kind of portal into hyperspace for a very
> long travel.  Obviously, this is the doing of some alien intelligence.

Uh-huh... that, or he(*) has taken some funky pills. Occam's razor 
suggests the latter.

(*that is either Dave or the script author)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> and utters "It's full of stars"

Actually that doesn't happen in the movie. (They put it in the sequel,
though.)

Post a reply to this message

On 28/07/2012 8:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> 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...

If anyone wants to borrow them, I have mp3 versions of the four Odyssey 
audio books with Sir Arthur speaking a preface. Well he does on the 
first two, I took a break in reading them so I can't say about the last two.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 28/07/2012 8:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> > 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...

> If anyone wants to borrow them, I have mp3 versions of the four Odyssey 
> audio books with Sir Arthur speaking a preface. Well he does on the 
> first two, I took a break in reading them so I can't say about the last two.

I don't think sending an mp3 to someone constitutes "borrowing"...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 29/07/2012 9:28 AM, Warp wrote:
> I don't think sending an mp3 to someone constitutes "borrowing"...

Just keeping to the niceties amongst friends.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 25/07/2012 10:14 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> For example, both Captain Sparrow and Captain Barbosa are pirates. They
>> both lie, cheat, steal, and generally look out only for themselves. And
>> yet, somehow Sparrow is the hero, and Barbosa isn't.
>
> Who has the more charisma?

That's a big of an open question. Like I said, a lot of the best 
villains have charisma. And, indeed, at the end of Dead Man's Chest, 
Barbosa returns as something of a hero. It's not like there aren't 
scenes where Jack is the enemy.

I think perhaps what it comes down to is that Jack seems averse to 
killing people, whereas Barbosa does not hesitate. Perhaps that's it.

Post a reply to this message