The Monolith

[Diopos]

Arthur Clarke: 3001 The final Odyssey
check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.h...al_adaptations

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

Stanley Kubrick never had any intention of including expository scenes to 2001, and none of the scenes edited from the movie after it premiered were really "explanatory" ones. Besides, Arthur C Clarke was heavily involved in the film's production, the book wasn't actually published until six weeks after the movie was released, and Kubrick was too much of a perfectionist to "cut and run." He made only 14 movies from 1953 to 1999 - hardly someone in a hurry. He'd film 50 takes of someone opening a door. Not exactly a careless director who'd run wild in the editing room before skedaddling off to his next production.

I have to disagree. He axed 29 minutes from the original without A. C. Clark's input. Clark was said to be very disappointed in his selections too leaving a lot unexplained in the theatrical version.

-S

PS. Here is an example:

James Randi later recounted that upon seeing 2001 for the first time, Clarke left the movie theatre during the first break crying because he was so upset about how the movie had turned out.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Subnuts

Stanley Kubrick never had any intention of including expository scenes to 2001, and none of the scenes edited from the movie after it premiered were really "explanatory" ones. Besides, Arthur C Clarke was heavily involved in the film's production, the book wasn't actually published until six weeks after the movie was released, and Kubrick was too much of a perfectionist to "cut and run." He made only 14 movies from 1953 to 1999 - hardly someone in a hurry. He'd film 50 takes of someone opening a door. Not exactly a careless director who'd run wild in the editing room before skedaddling off to his next production.

Correct. Kubrick was a hardcore perfectionist, who did not evade a single confrontation with anyone about how he wnated things being done - and getting it done exactly the way he wanted it. This director took no prisoners, and accepted no compromise - even to the consequence of not doing a film he knew he had not the technical means to make it real, or to competently direct it himself himself - like "A.I.", which he offered to Spielberg instead, after having delayed the project for many years until technology was capable to fulfill the visions he had on his mind - and then running out of time, and knowing he could not competently direct these technologies himself.

If there is one totally uncompromising filmmaker ever - Kubrick is it. And he was like that already in hios very first work ever, where he indicated to a famous cameraman who used a different optic than Kubrick wanted that if he ever questioned Kubricks technical and optical understanding again he could go looking for a new job. Since Kubrick was a nobody at that time and that cameraman was famous in business, this was remarkable. The result proved Kubrick right, and his choice of lenses and visual compositions is never careless or not delivering the effect Kubrick was after, which shows a deep and thorough insight in and understanding of what different lenses do and do not for a given perspective.

The cameraman never dared to question Kubrick again.

there is a interesting 2-hour documentation that was published after Eyes Wide Shut, which treats all his films and the hostory behind their making. It was very entertaining and insightful at the same time. If one is interested in Kubrick's pefectionism and work, this is a good start. Maybe someone knows the film I mean and can give the title.

[SUBMAN1]

You should try reading my posts before commenting on them. Not getting them from a reply. You are missing half the information.

-S

[Iceman]

Wow..thks for all the replies...at least I am not alone in liking these two movies...the first one was trippy when i watched it...the breathing scene when the guy was in space made me start breathing just like him..it was what hooked me on it...thought it was great movie making and use of sound and visuals.

I'll buy the jump starting theory and multiple hershey bars being found in different places...especially since at the end of 2010 it flashes over to a scene of some supposedly pre-tropic type of planet and suggests the same scnario will again begin,.,,,anyways thks for all the replies and I will have to see the other movies mentioned I don't think i have...thks again simmers.

[Iceman]

Wow..thks for all the replies...at least I am not alone in liking these two movies...the first one was trippy when i watched it...the breathing scene when the guy was in space made me start breathing just like him..it was what hooked me on it...thought it was great movie making and use of sound and visuals.

I'll buy the jump starting theory and multiple hershey bars being found in different places...especially since at the end of 2010 it flashes over to a scene of some supposedly pre-tropic type of planet and suggests the same scnario will again begin,.,,,anyways thks for all the replies and I will have to see the other movies mentioned I don't think i have...thks again simmers.

[Sailor Steve]

As Subnuts pointed out, the book wasn't published until after the movie was released. What no one has mentioned is Arthur C. Clarke's original short story, The Sentinel, published in 1951. In the original story the object discovered is a pyramid, which is irrelevant to this discussion; but in the story the lunar explorers turn off the continuing beacon, and the story ends with speculation as to the nature of the race who put it there:

"It was only a matter of time before we found the pyramid and forced it open. Now its signals have ceased, and those whose duty it is will be turning their minds upon Earth. Perhaps they wish to help our infant civilization. But they must be very, very old, and the old are often insanely jealous of the young."

A very good story which might have made a great Outer Limits or Twilight Zone episode. The movie? I love it for the possibilities it presents, and its taking of pre-CGI effects to the limit. But speculating on what it means is, to me, fruitless, as I don't think Clarke or Kubrick had any idea themselves beyond posing questions with no answers.

While Clarke might have disliked the end result, he was still willing to appear in 2010, the sequel.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Iceman

I'll buy the jump starting theory and multiple hershey bars being found in different places...especially since at the end of 2010 it flashes over to a scene of some supposedly pre-tropic type of planet and suggests the same scnario will again begin,.,,,anyways thks for all the replies and I will have to see the other movies mentioned I don't think i have...thks again simmers.

You need to read the book. That is exactly what's going on, and he explains much this time around.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I have to disagree. He axed 29 minutes from the original without A. C. Clark's input. Clark was said to be very disappointed in his selections too leaving a lot unexplained in the theatrical version.

-S

PS. Here is an example:

Actually the film makes much more sense without explanatory details. You could watch the film from beginning to end without paying attention to the dialog and still you would understand it all. 2001 is a visual fest, dialogue is really secondary in this masterpiece.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Arthur Clarke: 3001 The final Odyssey
check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.h...al_adaptations

Excuse me for quoting myself! But instead of assuming what Arthur Clarke was thinking about the Monolith(s) why not have a look at the link above. It's a summary of "3001 The final Odyssey" the final word on the Monoliths. Final indeed, because as you know Clarke died recently. Great guy!

[TLAM Strike]

According to 2010 (the book) it was an Von Neumann Probe. Basicly an Alien automous swisis army knife.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Diopos

Excuse me for quoting myself! But instead of assuming what Arthur Clarke was thinking about the Monolith(s) why not have a look at the link above. It's a summary of "3001 The final Odyssey" the final word on the Monoliths. Final indeed, because as you know Clarke died recently. Great guy!

There is no final word about the Monolith. Either you subscribe to Clarke's rationalistic point of view, or you prefer Kubrick's mystical open endness.
Really the film is not about the Monolith at all, think of it as a macguffin.
The film really is about humanity, and our place in the universe. If you replace the Monolith with a higher being, or God does it change the nature of the film ? I don't think so. 2010 and 3001 are not to be considered sequels to 2001.

[Diopos]

Originally Posted by goldorak

There is no final word about the Monolith. Either you subscribe to Clarke's rationalistic point of view, or you prefer Kubrick's mystical open endness.
Really the film is not about the Monolith at all, think of it as a macguffin.
The film really is about humanity, and our place in the universe. If you replace the Monolith with a higher being, or God does it change the nature of the film ? I don't think so. 2010 and 3001 are not to be considered sequels to 2001.

Just reminded Clarke's view! And I certainly did not comment on the artistic content of either his books or of the films! I don't "analyse" art.
BTW I prefer "Kubrick's mystical open endness" as you say...
No need to bang your head though!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

What no one has mentioned is Arthur C. Clarke's original short story, The Sentinel, published in 1951.

Read thread again!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Actually the film makes much more sense without explanatory details. You could watch the film from beginning to end without paying attention to the dialog and still you would understand it all. 2001 is a visual fest, dialogue is really secondary in this masterpiece.

I agree with this. it is the best space movie thus far, bar none. Just a lot is left to the mind to interpret as - WTF? is the best way to put it.

-S