|
|
| Author |
Message |
bk
|
|
2001
| 
Dec 24 00:32 UTC 1992 |
I saw 2001 last night and thought peoples' explanations for the movie would
be a good subject to talk about.
|
| 52 responses total. |
davel
|
|
response 1 of 52:
|
Dec 24 01:06 UTC 1992 |
Well, Clarke *claimed* it was an expansion of one of his early short stories
("The Sentinel", 1951), but that seemed to me pretty thin. The contrast
between Richard Strauss and Johann Strauss (in the sound track) was kind of
striking.
(What kind of "explanation" did you have in mind?)
|
gregor
|
|
response 2 of 52:
|
Dec 24 02:04 UTC 1992 |
And he really didn't mean for people to get the wrong idea about HAL.
You'll note that if you shift the letters H-A-L you get I-B-M.
And, IBM actually stands for "I Buy Macintosh."
|
steve
|
|
response 3 of 52:
|
Dec 24 05:52 UTC 1992 |
There is a book, titled _The Making of 2001_ (I believe) that is a
must-read if you appreciated the movie. It fills in gaps that are
otherwise difficult to fill.
Every time I've seen the movie I get different things from it, and
maybe learn a little. It *isn't* one of the short little films that you
can see once, and say "oh yeah, I saw that...". But most of Clarke's
writings are like that.
It is interesting to note that Dr. Clarke is not nearly as optimistic
about the future now, as he was when he wrote 2001. As an example,
_Rendevzous with Rama_ paints a brighter picture of what will come than
the following books in the series, like _Garden of Rama_.
But back to 2001...
|
ecl
|
|
response 4 of 52:
|
Dec 24 06:40 UTC 1992 |
The two sequels to the book also explain a bit of what was going on.
|
vipul
|
|
response 5 of 52:
|
Dec 24 19:05 UTC 1992 |
I still stand by my Fruedian interpretation. I think the producer
is extremely repressed... Something about his brother. The guy in the
bed... Hmmmm.
|
eric2
|
|
response 6 of 52:
|
Dec 24 21:44 UTC 1992 |
Vipul, your Freudian interptrataion is worthless. It was a man in the bed, not
a women and certainly not his mom. Unless he was suggesting a sex-change
operration??? hmmmm...I'll think about that one. The movie made sense untill
the end...maybe because Vipul fell asleep and couldn't explain it any longer.
|
robh
|
|
response 7 of 52:
|
Dec 24 22:51 UTC 1992 |
Due to a dearth of activity in the scifi conference, I've linked
this in as scifi item 13, as well as agora item 10.
|
tnt
|
|
response 8 of 52:
|
Dec 24 23:29 UTC 1992 |
Clarke passed his love for 'shrooms on to Kubrick. No further analysis should
be necessary.
|
vipul
|
|
response 9 of 52:
|
Dec 25 04:05 UTC 1992 |
It was not his mom in the bed. It was his brother. The author/producer had
some really repressed feelings.
|
eric2
|
|
response 10 of 52:
|
Dec 25 06:09 UTC 1992 |
Well, then it doesn't conform to Freud's ideas. Besides, Vipul is such a
bastard anyway... :)
|
ldiot
|
|
response 11 of 52:
|
Dec 26 05:18 UTC 1992 |
Have you seen 2010 anyone?
|
eric2
|
|
response 12 of 52:
|
Dec 26 22:13 UTC 1992 |
Yeah...it wasn't as good as 2001 - I think it's because it had a plot.
|
tsty
|
|
response 13 of 52:
|
Dec 27 10:28 UTC 1992 |
2001 was about as visionary a movie as could have been created - or
could be created today.
Ididn't know abut the book _The Making..._, but if there is a copy
to borrow .......
|
popcorn
|
|
response 14 of 52:
|
Jan 3 10:05 UTC 1993 |
i saw 2010 -- because i used to babysit for the older kid of Bob Balaban,
the guy who played the computer scientist.
|
tnt
|
|
response 15 of 52:
|
Jan 3 12:57 UTC 1993 |
Gee, I just saw 2010 because I thought it would be a good movie.
|
keats
|
|
response 16 of 52:
|
Jan 3 20:00 UTC 1993 |
you're just jealous because popcorn got paid to see it.
|
tsty
|
|
response 17 of 52:
|
Jan 4 01:24 UTC 1993 |
2010 wasn't +all+ that bad.
|
robh
|
|
response 18 of 52:
|
Jan 4 03:26 UTC 1993 |
True, but it didn't live up to the book. Certainly the book's
vision of American/Soviet (well, Russian now, I guess) cooperation
was more accurate than the movie's continuation of the cold war.
|
tsty
|
|
response 19 of 52:
|
Jan 4 10:36 UTC 1993 |
It was, however, a reasonable guess, given the original time ...
|
shf
|
|
response 20 of 52:
|
Jan 5 14:37 UTC 1993 |
_2001_ was more Kubrick than Clarke, and who knows where *that* guy is at:)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 21 of 52:
|
Jan 6 04:28 UTC 1993 |
(clarification: i paid to see 2010 the same as everybody else. the
reason why i wanted to see it was because Bob Balaban was in it.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 22 of 52:
|
Jan 6 16:08 UTC 1993 |
(There's probably very few people in the WHOLE WORLD who saw 2010 for
that reason.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 52:
|
Jan 7 15:34 UTC 1993 |
OK. What part did Bob Balaban play in 2010?
|
steve
|
|
response 24 of 52:
|
Jan 7 22:02 UTC 1993 |
2010 was a good movie in its own right I think, *But It Didn't Follow The
Book!*. If you saw the movie, please read the book. The only thing I'll
say is that, for example, the conflict between the US and USSR is nonexistant
in the book...
|