Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(1) The width to height aspect ratio of the monoliths were EXACTLY the same as the width to height aspect ratio of the cinema screens the movie was first shown on, rotated 90 degrees. The movie screen monoliths are singing to the audience signifying that their minds are about to be blown in the same way that the monoliths in the movie are singing to Moonchild, and then the astronauts that their minds are about to be blown.
|
So the monoliths that appear whenever a great technological/intellectual leap is made happen to appear as a part of the movie screen? Sounds like Kubrick was trying to point out that movies and art are one of the greatest ways of expressing amazing ideas and pushing humanity closer towards greater understanding. Specifically, it sounds like he thought his movie was just such a push. No offense, but that kind of coincides with my own interpretations of what Kubrick was trying to do with the movie. The only difference between our ideas is that you think that the monoliths are singing for the astronaut, while I think it's apart of a grander metaphor aimed at all of humanity since the beginning of our existence.
Face it, this isn't even an argument that can be won or lost, and thinking that it is is missing the point and intentions of the movie. We're simply comparing perfectly valid interpretations. Also, stop saying moonchild. I'm having Neverending Story flashbacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chula Vista
(2) 2001 was a joint collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. It's not an assumption. They did that project as a team.
|
No, they didn't. If that was the case, then Clarke would never have felt compelled to write his own version of the story. The fact that he did only shows that the story he had in mind was different from Kubrick's vision. It's the same as if two friends, one atheistic and one religious, wrote a story together but couldn't finish it and flesh it out in a way that satisfied both, so they decided to just each write their own version and let the readers decide which they preferred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
I think it's perfectly acceptable to take the movie on its own accord without giving credence to the novel. They're two different animals and the book isn't that great anyhow. The aesthetic of the film alone makes it a 9/10, the plot and themes that it touched on gives it that extra point to make it a perfect film.
|
Before you call it a "perfect film", keep this in mind: After looking at everything I've said in this thread, and all of the points I've made, how would you feel if I told you that I fast forwarded through at least half of the film? I'd like to think that I at least kind of get where Kubrick was coming from with this movie, and yet I technically watched less than half of it. Making the movie drag on forever isn't some grand artistic statement that is integral to the film, it's actually the movie's greatest and most pointless weakness. There's no reason why Kubrick couldn't have said what he wanted to say in just one hour, let alone more than two, and by stretching it out he alienated a whole hell of a lot of people who could have gotten much more out of the film. Not only that, but the characters and dialogue are so forgettable that almost everyone who watches the movie can't name a single character other than HAL and the astronaut, and usually can't bring up a single quote beyond one of HAL's creepy moments (as well as "See you next wednesday", for some reason).
Edit: Oh yeah, one last thing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
i just like the scene with the monkies
|
No offense, but I think you should elaborate more on why that specific scene stuck out to you.