2001 - A Space Odyssey - The Geek Culture Forums

The Geek Culture Forums

Reviews

2001 - A Space Odyssey

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: 2001 - A Space Odyssey
Nemo Geek Posts: 86 From: The deep woods of Norway Registered: Feb 2002	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 From: Albuquerque, NM, UD Registered: Sep 2001	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 From: Canada Registered: Jan 2000	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 From: USA Registered: Jan 2002	posted February 18, 2002 09:05 quote: Originally posted by Snaggy: 2001 is such a monolithic achievement, and it's full of stars! hee hee! but seriously folks, I love it, and it shows. As I recall, 2001 showed Hubble photographs back in the '70's. And I loved those movie stars -- heh -- as much as I do the awesome starbirth pictures from the Hubble. ------------------ .--. .-. --- - --- - - -... IP: Logged
Evilbunny Highlie Posts: 614 From: A Calculus book near you... Registered: Nov 2001	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 From: Maryville, TN, USA Registered: Jan 2000	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 From: Albuquerque, NM, UD Registered: Sep 2001	posted February 18, 2002 13:11 quote: Originally posted by TechnoGram: As I recall, 2001 showed Hubble photographs back in the '70's. And I loved those movie stars -- heh -- as much as I do the awesome starbirth pictures from the Hubble. IP: Logged
ZorroTheFox SuperBlabberMouth! Posts: 1117 From: Milton, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2001	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 From: Midland, TX Registered: Dec 2001	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 From: In a world beyond your understanding Registered: Jan 2002	posted February 18, 2002 18:11 Hey, i still have not seen it. I really have no plan on seeing it either. Nayt ------------------ Through out your life you will wonder who THEY are. Then you find out who THEY really are. From then on you live you life in fear of THEM and you wish you never knew who THEY were. IP: Logged
MacGoldstein Geek Larva Posts: 25 From: Temple, Texas, United States Registered: Feb 2002	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 From: The deep woods of Norway Registered: Feb 2002	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? They're showing all of Stanley Kubrick's films here these days, I might go 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 From: Edinburgh, UK Registered: Nov 2001	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 From: doylestown, pa, usa Registered: Sep 2001	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 From: USA Registered: Jan 2002	posted February 19, 2002 06:57 quote: Originally posted by iballoondesign: 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! 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 From: USA Registered: Jan 2002	posted February 19, 2002 07:02 Nemo said: quote: 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". 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 From: A concrete bunker on a volcanic island, deep in the South Pacific... Registered: Jan 2001	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 From: Temple, Texas, United States Registered: Feb 2002	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 From: Clinton, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2002	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. ------------------ Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out. IP: Logged
iballoondesign Alpha Geek Posts: 283 From: Midland, TX Registered: Dec 2001	posted February 19, 2002 21:21 quote: Originally posted by MacGoldstein: 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. What's different between killer and murderer? Both are same define. Hal is a stupid computer. IP: Logged
EngrBohn Highlie Posts: 686 From: United States Registered: Jul 2000	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. ------------------ cb Oooh! What does this button do!? IP: Logged
ZorroTheFox SuperBlabberMouth! Posts: 1117 From: Milton, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2001	posted February 20, 2002 16:13 intensity, a murderer is much worse than a killer.............Z IP: Logged
ZorroTheFox SuperBlabberMouth! Posts: 1117 From: Milton, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2001	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
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page