Oriphiel, let's discuss 2001: A Space Odyssey

Oriphiel · 03-27-2015, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

With the following in mind, I have to go with Chula on this. You could at least do some research before arguing your point as fact. I googled this in a couple seconds.

Stanley Kubrick's letter to Arthur C. Clarke that launched 2001 | Blastr

I don't think you've properly read through the discussion; I never claimed that Kubrick and Clarke made both stories independently. My point was that Kubrick, the director of the movie, took liberties that completely changed the theme of the story that they had both come up with, and Clarke later wrote his novel to approach the story from a point of view that he felt was more true to the original subject matter. I think I've already stated my point of view on that subject, and why I think that even though they originally collaborated on the screenplay, both Kubrick and Clarke ended up taking different approaches in the movie and book. And I also think I've made it clear that a movie reviewer shouldn't feel obligated to read background material beyond their own personal discretion; they are, after all, reviewing the movie on it's own merits, not reviewing the canon as a whole. Here are some excerpts from the discussion, if you want to read them:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

I disagree. You might think that ignoring the novel is doing the movie a disservice, but I think it's the other way around; that taking the novel into account robs the movie of it's strongest point (the openness to interpretation).

But I'll ask again: Why do you assume that both the movie and the novel have to go together? Kubrick wanted an abstract commentary, and Clarke wanted one that was solid. Because of their different natures, and the different intentions held by the different creators, each has to be examined on it's own. Why? Because reviewing the movie (an abstract effort) as if it were a solid effort is ignoring much of what it has to offer. And reviewing the book (a solid effort) as if it were abstract is trying to go against the way that the author was trying to inform the reader. If you gain enjoyment from combining the two, then that's fine. Go for it. But you have to realize that there are people who enjoy them both seperately, and there's nothing wrong with point of view either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

That's not fair. The movie never leans in favor of the monoliths being strictly literal objects placed by aliens, or metaphors. Again, you're using the novel to try and justify your interpretation of the movie, which is perfectly fine if that's what you enjoy, but you can't demand me to have the same preferences or interpretations. The movie and the novel are two seperate entities, and whether they are to be put together is up to each individual audience member.

I was making a point. The answer to each question asked in this thread so far has been a matter of interpretation, and yet you keep insinuating that there is only one way of looking at the 2001 canon (that aliens were responsible), and that the novel gives concrete answers (when in reality it is simply the elaboration of Clarke's personal take on the story). By that logic, should fans of The Last Airbender be forced to accept Shyamalon's recent movie into the canon? It's up to every fan to decide for themselves.

But there are different versions; the movie and the novel. If both Clarke and Kubrick wanted their collective work to be viewed as a whole, why did they both end up creating different stories altogether? Each was dissatisfied with the other's interpretation; why else would Kubrick feel the need to deviate so far from Clarke's idea of "aliens", as well as Clarke feeling the need to write a novel after the fact clarifying his specific version?

DwnWthVwls · 03-27-2015, 02:36 PM

Quote:

I never claimed that Kubrick and Clarke made both stories independently.

Quote:

(2) 2001 was a joint collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. It's not an assumption. They did that project as a team.

Quote:

No, they didn't. If that was the case, then Clarke would never have felt compelled to write his own version of the story.

.

Chula Vista · 03-27-2015, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

My point was that Kubrick, the director of the movie, took liberties that completely changed the theme of the story that they had both come up with, and Clarke later wrote his novel to approach the story from a point of view that he felt was more true to the original subject matter.

With all due respect, this is where you keep stumbling. They both did the same story. Kubrick just did it with ambiguity. Clarke didn't.

It's the same story both in the movie and the novel. The same.

Nameless · 03-27-2015, 02:56 PM

2001 was the one that had like 20 minutes of blank screen, right?

Oriphiel · 03-27-2015, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

With all due respect, this is where you keep stumbling. They both did the same story. Kubrick just did it with ambiguity. Clarke didn't.

It's the same story both in the movie and the novel. The same.

Of course they're the same story, but they're both told by two different people. I realize that I've said things like "They're both two completely different stories", but I didn't mean that they were literally different, but different thematically and stylistically. After Kubrick started taking his own artistic liberties with the screenplay they wrote, Clarke wrote his novel so that he could publish a version that he was satisfied with. My point was that they're both incredibly different, seeing as how Clarke wanted to tell a linear narrative about aliens, while Kubrick wanted to be much more abstract, and both the movie and the novel are capable as stories of standing on their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

.

DwnWthVwls, you seem to think that I believe that Kubrick and Clarke didn't collaborate on the screenplay. However, here's one of the quotes you used to prove that (which you, for some reason, edited off the last half of it, where I make an analogy that wouldn't work at all if I had really believed that neither of them worked together). As you can see, I freely admit that they both began the project together, but because of stylistic differences both decided somewhere along the way that they each wanted to tell the story a different way. Hence, Kubrick directed the movie in an abstract way that never reveals the existence of aliens, and Clarke wrote his book from a point of view where the aliens are very real and their existence is without interpretation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

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.

Now that I've made my stance perfectly clear, I hope that we can stop talking about semantics and choice of wording and get back to the actual discussion.

Oriphiel · 03-27-2015, 03:04 PM

Also, DwnWthVwls, why do you keep going back and editing this insult into and out of the beginning of your first post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

You could at least do some research before arguing your point as fact.

If you're going to insult me, just do it and stick with it. But I hope you realize that I haven't been passing my opinions off as "point of fact", and in fact have flat out stated that this is a matter of interpretations and opinions. For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oriphiel

I was making a point. The answer to each question asked in this thread so far has been a matter of interpretation, and yet you keep insinuating that there is only one way of looking at the 2001 canon (that aliens were responsible), and that the novel gives concrete answers (when in reality it is simply the elaboration of Clarke's personal take on the story). By that logic, should fans of The Last Airbender be forced to accept Shyamalon's recent movie into the canon? It's up to every fan to decide for themselves.

Honestly, I feel like we've all been very respectful and understanding so far.

DwnWthVwls · 03-27-2015, 03:14 PM

Still trying to figure out where you're getting this info...

Quote:

As you can see, I freely admit that they both began the project together, but because of stylistic differences both decided somewhere along the way that they each wanted to tell the story a different way.

Sometimes in literature/movies/etc there are parts that are open to interpretation but have also been made clear by the creator(s). I feel this is one of those instances because we know it's a collaborative project but the movie leaves out things the book offers answers to. I'd be happy to concede if you had some sort of evidence that suggests they are intended to be two separate works or inversions of one collaborative idea.

Oriphiel · 03-27-2015, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Still trying to figure out where you're getting this info...

Sometimes in literature/movies/etc there are parts that are open to interpretation but have also been made clear by the creator(s). I feel this is one of those instances because we know it's a collaborative project but the movie leaves out things the book offers answers to. I'd be happy to concede if you had some sort of evidence that suggests they are intended to be two separate works or inversions of one collaborative idea.

I'll elaborate. They both collaborated with the screenplay, however Kubrick wanted (and eventually directed) the movie to be very vague as to whether or not the monoliths were a metaphor, or actual objects that were literally placed around the universe by aliens. Clarke wrote his novel to be clear that the aliens were very much real, and that the monoliths were placed around specifically for the main character (known in the novel as The Moon Child/Star Child). As Chula said, Clarke wrote his book mainly to "fill in all the holes" that he thought were becoming apparent in the movie (which was limited by their budget, and also stylistically to what Kubrick wanted to portray, as he had a habit of preferring ambiguity over solid answers):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Ok. Before we go any further you need to read the novel by Clarke. It was written while he and Kubrick worked on the screenplay for 2001. In it he fills in all of the holes. Kubrick decided (as he always does) to make the film hugely ambiguous. But Clarke spells it all out in the novel.

So they both decided to let the film be however abstract Kubrick wanted it to be, while Clarke would get as specific as he wanted to get with his novel. Wikipedia sums it up like this:

"The director of the film, Stanley Kubrick, and the writer, Arthur C. Clarke, wanted to leave the film open to philosophical and allegorical interpretation, purposely presenting the final sequences of the film without the underlying thread being apparent" (Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Here is an actual quote from Clarke from the same page:

"You will find my interpretation in the novel; it is not necessarily Kubrick's. Nor is his necessarily the 'right' one – whatever that means."

For more about their differing opinions, and differences between the movie and novel, you can check out the "Differences from the Film" section of the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A...Odyssey_(novel)

Now, can we all start talking about the movie again? Wasn't that the whole point of this thread in the first place? I feel like Chula and I were doing great, until DwnWthVwls came along and started demanding to know why I don't think the movie needs the book to be reviewed.

DwnWthVwls · 03-27-2015, 03:41 PM

I removed that part you quoted while you were replying. I realized it was rude and tried to edit it out but since it was in the quote already I put it back.

Anyway, your answer to Chula is what I was asking for.

Oriphiel · 03-27-2015, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

I removed that part you quoted while you were replying. I realized it was rude and tried to edit it out but since it was in the quote already I put it back.

Anyway, your answer to Chula is what I was asking for.

It's all good. Have you seen the movie, and if so, what did you think of it?

03-27-2015, 02:56 PM	#34 (permalink)
Nameless Fat girls in yoga pants Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 152	2001 was the one that had like 20 minutes of blank screen, right?