OK, so here's a puzzling thing...

The other night I watched Pirates of the Caribbean again. OK, so get 
this: Captain Jack Sparrow. He's a notorious pirate. He steals. He lies. 
He cheats. He tries to sell a man's soul to get his ship back. He 
triple-crosses the Royal Navy and then quadruple-crosses his enemies. 
The guy will basically do anything to save his own neck, or anything 
with a profit in it for him.

And yet... he's the hero? No, seriously. He tries to sell poor Will so 
he can get cut up, and at the end of the film, Will risks being hanged 
to help Jack escape. Wuh??

Jack does all these despicable things. And yet, as the audience, we all 
come away instinctively "knowing" that he's obviously the hero. How the 
heck did the script writers *do* that? How did they turn such a 
villainous man into a hero?

Apparently I still have much to learn about the art of writing a good 
story...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK, so here's a puzzling thing...
>
> The other night I watched Pirates of the Caribbean again. OK, so get
> this: Captain Jack Sparrow. He's a notorious pirate. He steals. He lies.
> He cheats. He tries to sell a man's soul to get his ship back. He
> triple-crosses the Royal Navy and then quadruple-crosses his enemies.
> The guy will basically do anything to save his own neck, or anything
> with a profit in it for him.
>
> And yet... he's the hero? No, seriously. He tries to sell poor Will so
> he can get cut up, and at the end of the film, Will risks being hanged
> to help Jack escape. Wuh??
>
> Jack does all these despicable things. And yet, as the audience, we all
> come away instinctively "knowing" that he's obviously the hero. How the
> heck did the script writers *do* that? How did they turn such a
> villainous man into a hero?
>
> Apparently I still have much to learn about the art of writing a good
> story...

what good story is in Pirates of the Caribbean?  Fun blockbuster?  Sure!  Makes
any sense?  No.

Characters are just there doing their stunts with some nonsense lines thrown in
the air for good measure in a dramatic voice tone that makes it sound like
something truly serious is about to happen in the flick, but it's just an
amalgama of disparity events leading onto more disparity events.

Glueing it all and making it work?  The bumbling and remarkable persona that
Depp imbued the character with.  He's already right up there with Darth Vader or
a John Wayne cowboy as an iconic Hollywood figure.  Depp's talent is the reason
we forgive all of Sparrow's cowardice and quirks.  He's a resourceful and
versatile actor, no doubt.

Plus, don't forget audiences these days love twisted tales and imoral
characters.  Villains turning into poor souls tormented by bullying
protagonists, lame and coward heroes, beautiful and twisted princess are all
already a staple of many movies and literature these days, specially fanfics
retelling old fairy tales.  That's why even Disney is cashing into fairy
comedies rather than the old dramatic approach...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> And yet... he's the hero? No, seriously.

It's the typical anti-hero trope.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/07/2012 06:41 AM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> And yet... he's the hero? No, seriously.
>
> It's the typical anti-hero trope.

Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and 
say "he's the hero". That wouldn't work as a story. And yet, there are 
several stories where it clearly /does/ work. And I can't figure out how 
they do that.

Post a reply to this message

On 24/07/2012 10:02 PM, nemesis wrote:
> what good story is in Pirates of the Caribbean?  Fun blockbuster?  Sure!  Makes
> any sense?  No.

If you think the story doesn't /make sense/, you're clearly doing 
something very, very wrong.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 25/07/2012 06:41 AM, Warp wrote:
> > Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> And yet... he's the hero? No, seriously.
> >
> > It's the typical anti-hero trope.

> Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and 
> say "he's the hero". That wouldn't work as a story. And yet, there are 
> several stories where it clearly /does/ work. And I can't figure out how 
> they do that.

See my answer above.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > On 25/07/2012 06:41 AM, Warp wrote:
> > > Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> > >> And yet... he's the hero? No, seriously.
> > >
> > > It's the typical anti-hero trope.

> > Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and 
> > say "he's the hero". That wouldn't work as a story. And yet, there are 
> > several stories where it clearly /does/ work. And I can't figure out how 
> > they do that.

> See my answer above.

Ok, I'll be a bit nicer and try a slightly more profound analysis of the
character archetype.

Jack Sparrow is an anti-heroical subversion of the classical swashbuckler
archetype.

In nostalgic/romantic storytelling, a swashbuckler has been traditionally
a goody-goody merry adventurer, most often from the romantic period of
16th-17th century European baroque and the golden era of piracy (the three
musqueteers being the quintessential example), although it can go much
farther in the past (Robin Hood being another excellent example, whose
stories are often dated to something like the 13th or 14th century)

The goody-goody hero character is a bit boring nowadays, and often tends to
be a rather flat and two-dimensional character. The so-called anti-hero is a
much more popular character type nowadays. The swashbuckler anti-hero is
quite similar to his more traditional counterpart in that he is a merry
adventurer who gets into wacky and flashy adventures, but unlike the
traditional swashbuckler, he has no qualms in lying, stealing and
committing other crimes if it serves his purposes (usually those of purely
personal gain). He might end up fighting the villains, but not because of
a sense of doing the right thing, but for personal reasons.

Unlike the typical swashbuckler, this is a *flawed* character. He commits
crimes, he is selfish and does things for personal gain, not to help others
(unless he is emotionally invested, eg. from a romantic perspective), yet
he usually ends up being the unwitting hero of the story who defeats the
actual villains.

There's much more depth to this character, and the writers have a much richer
variety of hijinks at their disposal for this character because he is not
limited to the boundaries of what's good, ethical and lawful.

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.07.2012 17:33, schrieb Warp:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2012 06:41 AM, Warp wrote:
>>>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>>> And yet... he's the hero? No, seriously.
>>>>
>>>> It's the typical anti-hero trope.
>
>>> Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and
>>> say "he's the hero". That wouldn't work as a story. And yet, there are
>>> several stories where it clearly /does/ work. And I can't figure out how
>>> they do that.
>
>> See my answer above.
>
> Ok, I'll be a bit nicer and try a slightly more profound analysis of the
> character archetype.
>
> Jack Sparrow is an anti-heroical subversion of the classical swashbuckler
> archetype.
>
> In nostalgic/romantic storytelling, a swashbuckler has been traditionally
> a goody-goody merry adventurer, most often from the romantic period of
> 16th-17th century European baroque and the golden era of piracy (the three
> musqueteers being the quintessential example), although it can go much
> farther in the past (Robin Hood being another excellent example, whose
> stories are often dated to something like the 13th or 14th century)
>
> The goody-goody hero character is a bit boring nowadays, and often tends to
> be a rather flat and two-dimensional character. The so-called anti-hero is a
> much more popular character type nowadays. The swashbuckler anti-hero is
> quite similar to his more traditional counterpart in that he is a merry
> adventurer who gets into wacky and flashy adventures, but unlike the
> traditional swashbuckler, he has no qualms in lying, stealing and
> committing other crimes if it serves his purposes (usually those of purely
> personal gain). He might end up fighting the villains, but not because of
> a sense of doing the right thing, but for personal reasons.
>
> Unlike the typical swashbuckler, this is a *flawed* character. He commits
> crimes, he is selfish and does things for personal gain, not to help others
> (unless he is emotionally invested, eg. from a romantic perspective), yet
> he usually ends up being the unwitting hero of the story who defeats the
> actual villains.
>
> There's much more depth to this character, and the writers have a much richer
> variety of hijinks at their disposal for this character because he is not
> limited to the boundaries of what's good, ethical and lawful.

Plus, it's much easier to like this guy. The audience can identify with 
his flaws (at the same time feeling superior to him because he's even 
worse, making him a non-threat), and also with the stuff that happens to 
him.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/25/2012 0:57, Invisible wrote:
> Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and say
> "he's the hero".

You can if his redeeming trait is that he's fighting against the even more 
awful "legitimate" characters.  Han Solo is a smuggler, a pirate, a card 
cheat, etc. But since he's giving the finger to Darth Vadar, we like him anyway.

-- 
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:
> Darth Vadar

That name gets misspelled probably as frequently as "Hannibal Lecter".
I wonder in how many ways it's misspelled.

Post a reply to this message

On 25/07/2012 07:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 7/25/2012 0:57, Invisible wrote:
>> Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and
>> say "he's the hero".
>
> You can if his redeeming trait is that he's fighting against the even
> more awful "legitimate" characters. Han Solo is a smuggler, a pirate, a
> card cheat, etc. But since he's giving the finger to Darth Vadar, we
> like him anyway.

Perhaps. But I'm not sure that's all.

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.

Post a reply to this message

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?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 24/07/2012 10:02 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > what good story is in Pirates of the Caribbean?  Fun blockbuster?  Sure!  Makes
> > any sense?  No.
>
> If you think the story doesn't /make sense/, you're clearly doing
> something very, very wrong.

says the dude who wouldn't figure out the narrative arc from monkeys to space in
A Space Odissey... -_-

Don't get me wrong, it does make sense as a sequence of banalities.  It's just
non-sense by itself, specially irritating when actors act all serious and
dramatic spilling their irrelevant lines...

I'd say it's the most fun and expensive B movie(s) ever...

BTW, you guys do know it's based on the Disney attraction in their parks, right?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 25/07/2012 07:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 7/25/2012 0:57, Invisible wrote:
> >> Sure. But you can't just take somebody with no redeeming qualities and
> >> say "he's the hero".
> >
> > You can if his redeeming trait is that he's fighting against the even
> > more awful "legitimate" characters. Han Solo is a smuggler, a pirate, a
> > card cheat, etc. But since he's giving the finger to Darth Vadar, we
> > like him anyway.
>
> Perhaps. But I'm not sure that's all.
>
> 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.

Barbosa acts all serious and menacing.  Sparrow is the unlucky and coward
bastard who somehow got hold of a ship, crew and a reputation as a pirate
legend.  He's fun and we sympathise with him, not with Barbosa (or Davy Jones
for that matter). :)

Post a reply to this message

>> If you think the story doesn't /make sense/, you're clearly doing
>> something very, very wrong.
>
> says the dude who wouldn't figure out the narrative arc from monkeys to space in
> A Space Odissey... -_-

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.)

> Don't get me wrong, it does make sense as a sequence of banalities.

It's one of my favourite films /ever/. So don't even /try/ to tell me 
it's a bad film. :-P

Post a reply to this message

> Jack Sparrow is an anti-heroical subversion of the classical swashbuckler
> archetype.
>
> In nostalgic/romantic storytelling, a swashbuckler has been traditionally
> a goody-goody merry adventurer, most often from the romantic period of
> 16th-17th century European baroque and the golden era of piracy (the three
> musqueteers being the quintessential example), although it can go much
> farther in the past (Robin Hood being another excellent example, whose
> stories are often dated to something like the 13th or 14th century)

This has always bothered me: How come the three musketeers are /never/ 
seen holding muskets? What is /that/ about??

Robin Hood is a set of tales which have morphed between many things over 
the course of history. The "original" Robin Hood was quite different 
from the fable we know today. It's changed with the times, depending on 
what type of story audiences enjoy hearing. (I suppose the same can be 
said of just about any really old story.)

> Unlike the typical swashbuckler, this is a *flawed* character. He commits
> crimes, he is selfish and does things for personal gain, not to help others
> (unless he is emotionally invested, eg. from a romantic perspective), yet
> he usually ends up being the unwitting hero of the story who defeats the
> actual villains.
>
> There's much more depth to this character, and the writers have a much richer
> variety of hijinks at their disposal for this character because he is not
> limited to the boundaries of what's good, ethical and lawful.

Sometimes a character starts out as an actual villain with an honest 
streak - perhaps one he didn't even know he had - and by the end of the 
story he changes sides.

But that's not what happens in this particular tale. In the beginning, 
Jack is a pirate. At the end, he's still a pirate. And yet, we love him 
for it.

It's not so much that he beat the Evil Authorities. Really, the Royal 
Navy comes across as pretty righteous. And they aren't even IN the film 
all that much. This is mostly a battle of Jack verses Barbosa. And Jack 
wins. So, ultimately, it all comes back to which pirate is the good guy.

Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be 
"flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed 
character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his 
mother was shot? OK, now go watch Bambi II. (Yes, this film exists. No, 
it isn't any good at all.) In order to make it "relevant" and 
"accessible" to today's youth, they had to make it all so that Bambi's 
father has difficulty relating to him, and that's the drama to be 
resolved over the course of the film. Yuck!

While I'm here... It seems there are two types of villain too. Some of 
them are just monsters. Purest evil. The kind that nobody could possibly 
like. But it seems that all the /best/ villains are at least partially 
likeable. Perhaps you understand what drove them to do it. Or maybe 
they're just charismatic, even hypnotic. But the best ones all have 
something about them...

...I really suck at writing, BTW.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2012-07-26 04:26, Invisible a écrit :
> This has always bothered me: How come the three musketeers are /never/
> seen holding muskets? What is /that/ about??
>

The Musketeers were a militia serving the King.  Athos, Portos and 
Aramis were full-fledged members of that militia, and D'Artagnan was a 
young kid from the country who was tired of fixing the water 
condensators on his uncle's farm and wanted to join the Space Academy. 
No wait! Wrong story!

The muskets - from which this militia gets its name - were kept at the 
garrison.  Just like today's military do not walk around with their 
assault rifles all the time but.

> While I'm here... It seems there are two types of villain too. Some of
> them are just monsters. Purest evil. The kind that nobody could possibly
> like. But it seems that all the /best/ villains are at least partially
> likeable. Perhaps you understand what drove them to do it. Or maybe
> they're just charismatic, even hypnotic. But the best ones all have
> something about them...

Yep.  Everyone thinks Darth Vader is cool.  No one thinks that of Jabba 
The Hut.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 2012-07-26 03:26, Invisible wrote:
> Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
> "flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
> character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
> mother was shot?

...wait, what?

WAY TO SPOIL THE MOVIE, MAN.

:(

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2012 03:09 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2012-07-26 03:26, Invisible wrote:
>> Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
>> "flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
>> character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
>> mother was shot?
>
> ...wait, what?
>
> WAY TO SPOIL THE MOVIE, MAN.
>
> :(

Required bash quote: http://www.bash.org/?176169

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.07.2012 10:26, schrieb Invisible:

> Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
> "flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
> character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
> mother was shot?

/Who/ loved Bambi?

It was mostly children, wasn't it? Children don't need flawed 
characters to love them.

Adults, OTOH, typically have learned that apparently flawless people are 
actually just hiding their flaws, and that you have to be careful about 
befriending such types.

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2012 03:33 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.07.2012 10:26, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
>> "flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
>> character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
>> mother was shot?
>
> /Who/ loved Bambi?
>
> It was mostly children, wasn't it? Children don't need flawed characters
> to love them.
>
> Adults, OTOH, typically have learned that apparently flawless people are
> actually just hiding their flaws, and that you have to be careful about
> befriending such types.

Are you telling me you don't love Bambi?

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2012-07-26 03:26, Invisible wrote:
> > Another thing: I really /hate/ this idea that every character has to be
> > "flawed" in some way or the audience can't like them. Was Bambi a flawed
> > character? Did the audience like Bambi? Did little children cry when his
> > mother was shot?

> ...wait, what?

> WAY TO SPOIL THE MOVIE, MAN.

> :(

It was his sled!

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
Women are the canaries of science. When they are underrepresented
it is a strong indication that non-scientific factors play a role
and the concentration of incorruptible scientists is also too low

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2012 9:02 AM, Invisible 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.)
>
The book has more of a beginning, middle and end than the film. I've 
just finished listening to the audiobooks of 2001 & 2010.
BTW do you drive through Northampton on the way home from work? On 
Monday or Tuesday I saw someone who looked like you in my rear view 
mirror when I was stopped at traffic lights.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.07.2012 18:15, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

>> /Who/ loved Bambi?
>>
>> It was mostly children, wasn't it? Children don't need flawed characters
>> to love them.
>>
>> Adults, OTOH, typically have learned that apparently flawless people are
>> actually just hiding their flaws, and that you have to be careful about
>> befriending such types.
>
> Are you telling me you don't love Bambi?

Heh, I've never even /seen/ Bambi :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 26/07/2012 10:07 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Are you telling me you don't love Bambi?
>
> Heh, I've never even /seen/ Bambi :-)

If you don't count the tome I hid behind the sofa. I've not seen Bambi 
either.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 26/07/2012 10:07 PM, clipka wrote:
> >> Are you telling me you don't love Bambi?
> >
> > Heh, I've never even /seen/ Bambi :-)
>
> If you don't count the tome I hid behind the sofa. I've not seen Bambi
> either.

how about Dumbo?  He's far more loveable... :)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> If you think the story doesn't /make sense/, you're clearly doing
> >> something very, very wrong.
> >
> > says the dude who wouldn't figure out the narrative arc from monkeys to space in
> > A Space Odissey... -_-

> 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.)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Are you telling me you don't love Bambi?

What is love?

It's a human emotion.

No, it is a word. What matters is the connection the word implies.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.)
>>
> The book has more of a beginning, middle and end than the film. I've
> just finished listening to the audiobooks of 2001 & 2010.

I think I read the sequel, and that seemed reasonably sane.

> BTW do you drive through Northampton on the way home from work? On
> Monday or Tuesday I saw someone who looked like you in my rear view
> mirror when I was stopped at traffic lights.

I drive /past/ Northampton. I don't actually drive /into/ Northampton.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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] devnull> 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

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

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> 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.

you should wait about, hmm, 65 more years to make the dead author happy with his
royalties?

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 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.

It's not.  Amongst this very long sequence there are landscapes in funky
photographic coloring and some early special effects like milk diluted in water
in slow motion to make it look like galaxies.  The other caleidoscopic patterns
do look a bit like what SW would do to represent hyperspace traveling a decade
later...

> > 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)

could be.  Dave shut off the computer who ran the ship and with no way to get
back home safely, decides for suicide via overdose of LSD.  A valid
interpretation no doubt.  Drugs can always explain all scifi speculations, like
in Matrix too...

except, of course, why speculate in the first place then only to explain it all
as the doing of drugs or a bad dream?  That's a hallmark of bad fiction.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> > 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.

> you should wait about, hmm, 65 more years to make the dead author happy with his
> royalties?

Probably not going to help as long as Disney exists. And they are going
to exist for a long time.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message