Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 2:11 PM   
 By:   Steve Johnson   (Member)

I'd comment, but the original poster saw fit to re-post on the other side. I intensely dislike having to repeat myself.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 2:15 PM   
 By:   Eric Paddon   (Member)

I'll let what I said in the other thread two years ago remain unchanged. The film has interesting visuals but it is a pretentious, elitist mess of a movie story wise and it does not represent a lack of appreciation for "art" to simply want to see some narrative cohesion and good acting in a movie.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 3:21 PM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

I wanted to blow my brains out, from boredom, when I saw it during its original theatrical release in faux Cinerama, at The Boyd Theater, in Philadelphia. It was big, it was loud and it was D U L L. But then, I hate every film that takes place in outer space. It is the complete antithesis of what makes a good film, to me. It has no plot that engages, it has no character that I care about, it has no original score that I connect with, it moves at a snail's pace and, nothing in it looks real.

What's your beef with space, exactly? Let's say you had a realistic chamber piece drama that took place on the existing International Space Station (i.e. very little science FICTION, more like science drama); would you still hate it? What about something like APOLLO 13?

As for 2001, we've discussed it a million times already, in equally many threads, so I'll refer back to those for my own views. I don't want to type everything yet again.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:15 PM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)

I wanted to blow my brains out, from boredom, when I saw it during its original theatrical release in faux Cinerama, at The Boyd Theater, in Philadelphia. It was big, it was loud and it was D U L L. But then, I hate every film that takes place in outer space. It is the complete antithesis of what makes a good film, to me. It has no plot that engages, it has no character that I care about, it has no original score that I connect with, it moves at a snail's pace and, nothing in it looks real.

What's your beef with space, exactly? Let's say you had a realistic chamber piece drama that took place on the existing International Space Station (i.e. very little science FICTION, more like science drama); would you still hate it? What about something like APOLLO 13?

As for 2001, we've discussed it a million times already, in equally many threads, so I'll refer back to those for my own views. I don't want to type everything yet again.


Not being a fan of either Ron Howard's directing style, nor Tom Hanks; plus the fact that I watched the real events as they happened, so felt no need to see a movie version of them, I skipped APOLLO 13. However, I would assume that as much of that takes place on earth as in in space. The only films that come to mind that take place in space or a spaceship, that I like, are ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS and MISSION TO MARS. Otherwise, all the other films I've seen, mostly fit the reasons stated above for why I hate 2001. My biggest issue with most of these films is the space-ship speak and the excruciatingly dull showing of space ship controls, registering uninteresting information about something that is equally uninteresting. Add to that, generally smug and detached characters, who give you absolutely no reason to care about them. It's just a formula that I despise, and a setting I dislike (second only to Viet Nam). My least favorite type of film. Not sci-fi, but space. All my favorite sci-fi films take place on earth.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 5:59 PM   
 By:   Michael24   (Member)

I've seen this movie twice. Once when I was a younger (had no idea what to make of it), and again when I was older, hoping I would be able to now enjoy and understand it. Neither happened. Visually impressive, but otherwise not something I can get into. My dad loves it, but I just shake my head and go, "I guess I just don't get it."

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 6:03 PM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)

Has anyone ever explained to you what you don't get?

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 6:05 PM   
 By:   Steve Johnson   (Member)

It is a turd. How anyone can make sense of it makes me consider the defender's sanity.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 6:58 PM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

It is a turd. How anyone can make sense of it makes me consider the defender's sanity.



I could make the same comment about anyone who DOESN'T "get it"...what's not to understand? If you have trouble read the book. You need everything spelled out for you? geeezzzz.
BTW-we already covered this topic more than adequately in the old thread.

 
 Posted:   Oct 10, 2010 - 7:44 PM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)

It is a turd. How anyone can make sense of it makes me consider the defender's sanity.



I could make the same comment about anyone who DOESN'T "get it"...what's not to understand? If you have trouble read the book. You need everything spelled out for you? geeezzzz.
BTW-we already covered this topic more than adequately in the old thread.


I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but I think it's a cop-out to say "read the book" (which actually came out after the film, and Clarke felt the film required lots of clarification). A good work (book, film, show) stands on its own merits. To many, 2001 has those merits. To many (I am one), it does not. There's not really anything to "get", as the film is deliberately without explanation.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 3:10 AM   
 By:   Thor   (Member)

Not being a fan of either Ron Howard's directing style, nor Tom Hanks; plus the fact that I watched the real events as they happened, so felt no need to see a movie version of them, I skipped APOLLO 13. However, I would assume that as much of that takes place on earth as in in space. The only films that come to mind that take place in space or a spaceship, that I like, are ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS and MISSION TO MARS. Otherwise, all the other films I've seen, mostly fit the reasons stated above for why I hate 2001. My biggest issue with most of these films is the space-ship speak and the excruciatingly dull showing of space ship controls, registering uninteresting information about something that is equally uninteresting. Add to that, generally smug and detached characters, who give you absolutely no reason to care about them. It's just a formula that I despise, and a setting I dislike (second only to Viet Nam). My least favorite type of film. Not sci-fi, but space. All my favorite sci-fi films take place on earth.

OK, so it has more to do with certain narratives and narrative elements, not really a beef with astronomy and the actual existence of space around us?

Personally - like most sci fi fans, I guess - I've always been extremely fascinated by space and astronomy, although just in laymen terms, which is why I love it when art begins to philosophize about what is out there. Especially if it's done very realistically, like ALIEN. Or 2001 (plus the arty elements at the end).

On the other hand, I have a friend who for some reason despises everything that takes place in space. It needs to take place on earth, with things he can relate to, to catch his interest. That's OK, I guess, it's a preference or taste. But I've still found it odd in a way, since space is also very much part of our existence, even though most of us can't have a physical relation to it.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 11, 2010 - 4:57 AM   
 By:   Gordon Reeves   (Member)

On the other hand, I have a friend who for some reason despises everything that takes place in space.
It needs to take place on earth, with things he can relate to, to catch his interest. That's OK, I guess,
it's a preference or taste.




Or mebbe an extremely limited case of Earth-chauvinism, perhaps? big grin

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 12, 2010 - 12:23 AM   
 By:   Rick15   (Member)

I'd comment, but the original poster saw fit to re-post on the other side. I intensely dislike having to repeat myself.

As do I.

If you'd READ the thread on the other side, you would see that I acknowledged it as a mistake and said that I'd moved it across.


 
 Posted:   Oct 13, 2010 - 9:44 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

I'd just like to say to any passing aliens who might be reading, that there are MANY, MANY people on this planet who appreciate this film. This thread is just a place where humans choose to expel certain byproduct gases. They feel better that way. A biological thing. It MEANS nothing of course, unlike the film itself, which means a great deal.

The film's 'meanings' aren't that obscure, especially today when the symbolism has been totally assimilated.

As for all this about movies NEEDING certain plot conventions, character development etc., well, all that just goes to show how kindergarten truisms stick with one through life sometimes. Not that the film has no plot: in many ways it has THE plot. But if you miss the plot, you miss the plot.

 
 Posted:   Oct 13, 2010 - 10:15 AM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

It is a turd. How anyone can make sense of it makes me consider the defender's sanity.



I could make the same comment about anyone who DOESN'T "get it"...what's not to understand? If you have trouble read the book. You need everything spelled out for you? geeezzzz.
BTW-we already covered this topic more than adequately in the old thread.


I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but I think it's a cop-out to say "read the book" (which actually came out after the film, and Clarke felt the film required lots of clarification). A good work (book, film, show) stands on its own merits. To many, 2001 has those merits. To many (I am one), it does not. There's not really anything to "get", as the film is deliberately without explanation.



I "got" the film completely when I was 16 seeing it in Cinerama for the first time. Dr. Floyd's taped message at Jupiter tells you everything you need to know about the plot. The apemen's monolith is partially explained by the one on the moon and the discussion in the moon bus. The intervening subplot with HAL was a bit of a diversion to have "something happen" during the trip to threaten the outcome. (HAL's behaviour later explained in 2010) The ending trancendental trip and Starchild seem self explanatory to me...(but then I went to see it a couple of times on acid later on) smile

 
 Posted:   Oct 13, 2010 - 10:29 AM   
 By:   WILLIAMDMCCRUM   (Member)

A good work (book, film, show) stands on its own merits. To many, 2001 has those merits. To many (I am one), it does not. There's not really anything to "get", as the film is deliberately without explanation.


What on earth does that mean? First you say there's nothing to get as the film HAS no meaning. Then you chide it for having no meaning.

'Deliberately without explanation'? Like Charles, I 'got' the big picture immediately, though I didn't see it until much later. Is this because we're some geniuses, or reading in our own projections? No, it's because it's fairly obvious what it's about, but it's the sort of film that no-one really wants to 'explain'. That's what spoilers are REALLY for. You have to get it for yourself. And if you do, you'll get a hell of a lot more than some stupid predictable plotline in some thriller.

They used to say that a critic shouldn't spell out too much about a film or book or play, and it makes sense: people value what they find for themselves. But recently I got to thinking that, in fact, there isn't ENOUGH explanation nowadays. People don't just throw out the baby with the bathwater: they don't even realise there's a bath, even though they see there's water sitting there somehow.

 
 Posted:   Oct 13, 2010 - 10:38 AM   
 By:   gone   (Member)

it's kinda like the ape with the bone... he 'got it' smile -g-

 
 Posted:   Oct 13, 2010 - 12:48 PM   
 By:   PhiladelphiaSon   (Member)

A good work (book, film, show) stands on its own merits. To many, 2001 has those merits. To many (I am one), it does not. There's not really anything to "get", as the film is deliberately without explanation.


What on earth does that mean? First you say there's nothing to get as the film HAS no meaning. Then you chide it for having no meaning.


You mean you don't get what I'm saying?! Well, some people do and some people don't.

 
 Posted:   Oct 13, 2010 - 12:57 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

it's kinda like the ape with the bone... he 'got it' smile -g-

That's really it! "Getting it" is the core of the film's message, from the physical to the metaphysical as the film progresses. The film portrays the evolution of man's consciousness, something no other film maker has ever attempted. As with anything, some will get it and some will not. It's like a joke, in a way, in that if you have to explain it, the point is lost. It is in the analysis of the parts and details that the "big picture" is lost.

 
 Posted:   Oct 13, 2010 - 3:04 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Hey, Charles (Thaxton), wasn't Ed Straker the pilot of Floyd's transport on the downwind leg to Clavius?

 
 Posted:   Oct 13, 2010 - 3:12 PM   
 By:   David Sones (Allardyce)   (Member)

"I'm not going to tell you what the ending means. You figure it out."
--Roman Polanski in his commentary to The Ninth Gate (2000)

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.