        |
|
|
 The Geek Culture Forums
 Reviews
 2001 - A Space Odyssey
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: 2001 - A Space Odyssey |
|
Nemo Geek 
Posts: 86 |
posted February 18, 2002 02:52
   
Am I weird??? I saw "2001 ... " for the first time just last night, after receiving approximately a zillion warnings of how long and boring it was. But I actually liked it, it was logical, I understood it. Does that make me weird? My friend didn't understand it, he had so many questions after seeing it and kept asking me why this and why that. And he'd seen it before. Are there others out there who feel the same way? Or am I alone in this little universe where I am... IP: Logged |
|
LifetimeTrekker Alpha Geek Posts: 326 |
posted February 18, 2002 06:47
Yes, you are weird, but it's a good kind of weirdness! The warnings you received were from those who prolly wouldn't understand the movie without an interpreter to put it in their 4th grade mentality. The movie was supposed to leave you with questions; all great sci-fi is supposed to leave you thinking. Watch it again, you'll see a few things you might have missed that may bring up more questions. IP: Logged |
|
Snaggy Moderator 
Posts: 1399 |
posted February 18, 2002 08:18
2001 is such a monolithic achievement, and it's full of stars! hee hee! but seriously folks, I love it, and it shows. IP: Logged |
|
TechnoGram Super Geek 
Posts: 245 |
posted February 18, 2002 09:05
quote: As I recall, 2001 showed Hubble photographs back in the '70's. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Evilbunny Highlie 
Posts: 614 |
posted February 18, 2002 09:16
I remember watching 2001 when I was little and had a short attention span. I would go off and do something else after seeing a bit of a scence, and when I came back, lo and behold. It was still on the same scene! Man, how I loved that movie! It was PERFECT for me! IP: Logged |
|
Steen SuperBlabberMouth!     
Posts: 1162 |
posted February 18, 2002 10:30
2001 was probably the first movie I saw and realized that I had to watch it again and actually think about everything in it to get it. The people who say it's too long and too boring are usually the same people who prefer entertainment that takes less active thought to enjoy. They aren't wrong about it being boring to them, but their tastes aren't the same as yours, so they can't predict what will bore you and what won't. That said, and knowing what sort of people frequent these forums, I suspect you'll find an overwhelming majority of the people here enjoyed the movie. I know I did. (edit: hehe... this is my 1111th post... somehow that's funny to me) IP: Logged |
|
LifetimeTrekker Alpha Geek Posts: 326 |
posted February 18, 2002 13:11
quote: IP: Logged |
|
ZorroTheFox SuperBlabberMouth!
Posts: 1117 |
posted February 18, 2002 17:19
I have seen it over and over again, I still like it.......Z IP: Logged |
|
iballoondesign Alpha Geek Posts: 283 |
posted February 18, 2002 18:03
2001 is not excatly I have in mind as present. Look at us, we have no settlement at moon or orbit on the earth. Their tech are different. Some are better than present. Some are lame than present. I want to live on Moon! IP: Logged |
|
macadddikt18 SuperBlabberMouth!
Posts: 1126 |
posted February 18, 2002 18:11
Hey, i still have not seen it. I really have no plan on seeing it either. Nayt ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
MacGoldstein Geek Larva  
Posts: 25 |
posted February 18, 2002 19:56
See it MacAddikt!!! And Read it ALL! Its a great book, and really goes into much further detail than the movie, and for instance, I believe they go to a different planet than they go to in the book (Saturn, as opposed to Jupiter, the rings couldn't be reproduced), and the monolith is clear as opposed to black (Clarke's vision of it sounds like a psychodelic crystal, not a black brick). There is also a much more revealing section on how exactly David Bowman does become that starchild, and they venture many more places, including a dilapadated space 'parking lot', and a big hub o' wormholes. Its really a great read for a geek, and extremely visionary considering the time in which it was written. IP: Logged |
|
Nemo Geek
Posts: 86 |
posted February 19, 2002 00:54
Nice to hear I'm weird in a good way. I'll take it as a good sign, and consider seing "2001 ... " again in the near future. My friend with the questions, though, seemed to settle down with my answers. I don't think he'll watch it again with me. I don't want to watch it with him either, if he doesn't stop calling me "Hal". I've opend my eyes to 70 mm film, will I ever be able to watch 35 mm again? Stanley's vision of the future (1990's) was fascinating, strange to see where he was right and not. I'd like to live on the moon, but I'll have to come home in the winter - once snowy always snowy. IP: Logged |
|
littlefish Geek
Posts: 71 |
posted February 19, 2002 02:23
2010 is a fairly good sequel too, if you aren't expecting too much from it. Certainly not as good as 2001, but not much is. I mean the movie BTW, although I suppose teh same is true of the books. 2010 is better in book form, but the quality of the series goes downhill IP: Logged |
|
trowelblister Super Geek
Posts: 227 |
posted February 19, 2002 05:48
It's probably better that you (Nemo, that is)saw 2001 as an adult, yer probably better able to appreciate. I saw it first when 10 or 11 and got bored pretty quick. There wasn't enuff stuff blowing up for my pre-teen attention span,,,,, IP: Logged |
|
TechnoGram Super Geek
Posts: 245 |
posted February 19, 2002 06:57
quote: Me too. The first science fiction book I ever read -- when I was seven -- was written by Isaac Asimov for kids, and was about a set of twins that lived on the moon with their family. If anyone knows the name of that book I hope they'll post it, because I can't remember it. That was when I decided my lifetime work was to be a space girl -- the word astronaut didn't exist then -- and I wanted to live on the moon and get to watch the Earth rise and set in the sky. Wish it was possible now. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
TechnoGram Super Geek
Posts: 245 |
posted February 19, 2002 07:02
Nemo said:
quote: LOL... Don't blame you, I wouldn't want to be named after a murderous computer myself. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Punchcard Geek-in-Training 
Posts: 38 |
posted February 19, 2002 13:58
The first time I saw (most of) 2001ASO I didn't understand it and it gave me nightmares. I was 10 years old. Then I watched it on TV on 01/01/01 and THOSE STUPID, STUPID, MEDDLING TV BROADCASTERS EDITED OUT THE "It's full of stars" AND OTHER COOL BITS so that it would fit into the timeslot they'd made for it! RRRROOOOOAAAAARRRRR!!!!!!!! (That's an 8-exclamation mark ROAR) Spleen vented.....100% Returning to normal state IP: Logged |
|
MacGoldstein Geek Larva
Posts: 25 |
posted February 19, 2002 14:12
Hal wasn't murderous, he just realised that he could carry out the mission as planned without the need of humans, and so, deeming them unnessecary, killed them. So he's not a murderer, just a killer, or something like that. I haven't had a chance to see or read the sequels, but the back of my 3001 book says Frank Poole comes back.... I'd have to agree with those who say the series goes downhill... reincarnation's a bit too strange for me, well, in the secular world anyways IP: Logged |
|
Fesh Geek-in-Training
Posts: 34 |
posted February 19, 2002 17:18
I maintain that 2001 contains the most violent scene ever filmed for public consumption (and maybe even more violent than snuff films). The deactivation scene is just gruesome. Imagine popping open somebody's head and removing their brain neuron by neuron, that's the level of violence we're talking here. Ok, I go back to my corner now. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
iballoondesign Alpha Geek Posts: 283 |
posted February 19, 2002 21:21
quote: What's different between killer and murderer? Both are same define. Hal is a stupid computer. IP: Logged |
|
EngrBohn Highlie
Posts: 686 |
posted February 20, 2002 04:40
The difference is one of morals. Four examples. HAL's case is, I think, a combination of cases 1, 2, & 3. 1. I kill a cockroach. Having killed, I'm a killer (by definition), but there is no moral imperative not to kill a cockroach, so I'm not a murderer. 2. I'm unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. I kill a person. I'm a killer. Since I cannot determine whether killing a person is right or wrong, I had no moral drive telling me not to kill, so I'm not a murderer (but I certainly need to be dealt with, in the interest of public safety). 3. Killing in self-defense is generally recognized not to be murder. Likewise in the prevention of an unlawful killing. 4. I'm sactioned by the state to kill under particular circumstances. I might be an executioner, or I might serve in the armed forces. So long as any killing I do is under the terms sanctioned by the state, I am not a murderer. ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
ZorroTheFox SuperBlabberMouth!
Posts: 1117 |
posted February 20, 2002 16:13
intensity, a murderer is much worse than a killer.............Z IP: Logged |
|
ZorroTheFox SuperBlabberMouth!
Posts: 1117 |
posted February 21, 2002 16:10
all murderers are killers, but not all killers are murderers..........Z IP: Logged |
All times are Pacific Time | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
© 2002 Geek Culture® All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47e
|
And I loved those movie stars -- heh -- as much as I do the awesome starbirth pictures from the Hubble.