2001: A Space Odyssey Sucks

[IcarusBen]

Different films handle ambiguity quite well to a certain degree. Perhaps nowhere near as high of a degree as 2001, but the withholding of information can give a film great longevity.

An example more contemporary: Star Wars. Original Trilogy, I mean. There's a saga that didn't need to go out of its way to explain every little nuance. It left so much to our imaginations, that fans were able to keep the fire going for decade and a half. Nobody knew how the war got started, but we could use what information we had to make an educated guess. People bickered about whether or not the Alliance was even the definitive 'good guy' in the whole ordeal. What exactly was "The Force?" Was it an intelligent entity like some kind of 'heartbeat of the universe?' A collective unconscious? Did it have "a plan?" How did Vader get hurt? How did Luke and Leia get hidden from him? People were gathering as much data as they could about the capabilities of Star Destroyers and the Death Star, trying to guess at what kind of resources and power would be required. Even how powerful a "death ray" would need to be in order to nuke a planet.

There's what you get when you leave things to the imagination. Or you could then surrender your intellectual property to the "insta-gratification" movement of modern society and, "Oh, by the way, it's because of Midichlorians."

2001 doesn't spell everything out for you because you're expected to analyze it yourself. Instead of just having you sit back and watch explorers do their science, Kubrick is inviting you to BE an explorer. Observe, hypothesize, and have fun doing it. You're even granted ample time

There's a difference being ambiguity and WTF. Lots of sci-fi shows have excelled at dealing with ambiguity. Doctor Who, Stargate, Firefly. But the reason we those were good is because the answers were there, but it took a lot of digging and hypothesizing. Yet, it was still in the episodes and films and other things.

WTF is where 2001 steps in. Ambiguity in a film is good, but only if there actually IS an answer to be found by the viewer. The thing here is that the answers aren't there. Most ambiguity leaves us with fridge logic, things that either don't bother us until we open up the fridge to get some post-movie beverages, or things we realize "oh, that's why the Time Lords used the Master to escape the Time War." With 2001, we get "WTF?" and our questions have no answers unless we take time to READ the story in book-form or in the original screenplay. A movie should be able to stand on it's own. 2001 just feels like a game where the story is presented like "turn to page 97, paragraphs 3-7."

[Creature]

There's a difference being ambiguity and WTF. Lots of sci-fi shows have excelled at dealing with ambiguity. Doctor Who, Stargate, Firefly. But the reason we those were good is because the answers were there, but it took a lot of digging and hypothesizing. Yet, it was still in the episodes and films and other things.

That's not ambiguous, it's clues pointing to an existing answer. Where 2001 steps in is that it actually provides ambiguous situations and concepts for us to think about. There's not supposed to be "an answer" to figure out. If there was, it wouldn't be so thought provoking.

[Red Iron Crown]

It is an error to think that Kubrick cared at all what people thought of his movies. He very much did what pleased him and stuff the rest.

[ICrashRockets]

Depending on your age, if you've been raised on only 90's and beyond, yeah you're going to find it pretty bizarre. But a LOT of the best classic sci-fi is pretty dry, and isn't trying to keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time.

I was born AFTER the 90's and I loved it. It's like abstract art. Makes you think.

[IcarusBen]

It is an error to think that Kubrick cared at all what people thought of his movies. He very much did what pleased him and stuff the rest.

And by doing so performed one of the cardinal sins of film-making; he didn't care about the audience. You don't just throw your hands in the air, say "screw the audience," and suddenly end up with Saving Mr. Banks.

[vger]

You don't just throw your hands in the air, say "screw the audience," and suddenly end up with Saving Mr. Banks.

No, that's what happens when you throw your hands in the air and say, "Screw the author."

[Brethern]

And by doing so performed one of the cardinal sins of film-making; he didn't care about the audience. You don't just throw your hands in the air, say "screw the audience," and suddenly end up with Saving Mr. Banks.

Not catering to the audience is a good thing at times. Imagine what Episode 1 would have been like if Binks wasn't there to appeal to the younger crowd.

[vger]

Not catering to the audience is a good thing at times. Imagine what Episode 1 would have been like if Binks wasn't there to appeal to the younger crowd.

In case anyone here didn't know, he almost wasn't...

[IcarusBen]

No, that's what happens when you throw your hands in the air and say, "Screw the author."

Hey, Mary Poppins is an amazing film, no matter what PL Travers says.

[Dodgey]

If only vger, if only. Icarus_Vice, I honestly think that you ate looking at it too superficially, the plot doesn't revolve around the characters. As Red Iron Crown said they should of left the first scene to the end.

[IcarusBen]

Just because the plot isn't about the characters doesn't mean they can't be good characters.

For instance,

Dave: Good

HAL: Better

Heywood: Ugh.

HAL: Better

[Dodgey]

I know that. But my point still stands. You can still have a good plot with bad characters if the plot doesn't revolve around character development.

[LaydeeDem]

Okay, let me explain the lack of plot. The first act, about 25 minutes, is... monkeys. Okay. The first half of the second act is eyecandy, then it establishes our character, who we learn has a daughter. She's never mentioned again. Then we have a bunch of foreign scientists, who are never mentioned again. Then, the second half of act 2 is eyecandy, then an annoying lecture, then MORE EYECANDY, then... well, then they all die, which means that whole act was, say it with me, COMPLETELY POINTLESS!!!

Fail, Kubrick. Fail.

Finally, we have act 3, which is my favorite, because of, and only because of, HAL. After establishing our new cast, and having most of them die, we have act 4, which is MORE EYECANDY!!! Gah! In fact, act 4 is NOTHING but SFX.

As for the final boss battle, I very much liked that part. It sent chills up my spine. HAL is my favorite movie villain. It's a darn shame that he got stuck with this piece o' doggie doo.

I'm guessing you don't read books. How embarrassing it would be to need someone to read for you.

Plot can be carried without narration. Also, "boss battle"? lol. It's a movie, not a video game.

[IcarusBen]

This February, I probably read eight books. Secondly, narration isn't what I'm looking for here. Narration is when you hear voices going "This is the story of a man named Stanley. Stanley blah blah blah 427 blah blah blah." Finally, boss battle is a catch-all term. I couldn't think of a better term (the climax is when HAL kills everyone) so I used boss battle.

[Vanamonde]

Let's please not make this personal, guys. I love the movie, but I can still get along with people who disagree.

[Daishi]

We've been seriously brainwashed to expect this structure from movies and of course it works really well in keeping viewers attention and it's not a bad structure in itself. But it does condition us to react badly to different kinds of movies.

^

This. In fact its incredibly worrying watching films today that are almost predictable and cliche'd because they conform so tightly to that stupid structure. I'm probably the weirdest 25 year old you'll meet - but watching classics like Boris Karloff's "The Mummy" (1932) and comparing it to its sequel (or any other modern hollywood monster movie) almost makes you sick in the stomach. They had such a grasp over pacing, restraint, careful consideration to color, tone and contrast to express mood, and built anticipation with longer shots and very sparing cuts. It's an art that has fallen to flashy visuals, hard cuts every 10 seconds to maintain audience interest, and cheap thrills with explosions and OTT character designs.

I trained to work in the film industry (mainly Weta Workshop), but going through tertiary study i became more and more jaded when i realised how little VFX artists and technicians were paid for their talent, and how little respect they were given (Life of Pi). Every movie (or even tv series) is almost half CGI now to cut costs and to save on location shoots. Movies often have flashy special effects because they can and its cheap, and not because they should. Even though i am still young (ish) - I can't work 18 hour days anymore for below minimum wage, on contracts that expire in 4 months with no guarantee for work afterwards. The modern film industry, for all their flashy fast-paced action and glitzy hyped up marketing - chews up and spits out its workforce because they're cheap and expendable. "Proper" film is nothing but moneymaking, riding off a common plot structure that does little to promote directors thinking and working creatively anymore. To do so is a risk that the studios can't afford to take.

2001 is a film that explores so much, so modestly (a $10 million budget!), and is really a testament to the science fiction genre you rarely see anymore. Kubric thought about realism first and flashy effects second (engines firing, no audio in vacuum, etc), consulted leading scientists of the day (yay Carl Sagan and 'realistic' depictions of advanced extraterrestrial life), explored so many important issues of the time (the Cold War and weaponization of space), and used soundtracks that were restrained and alluded to themes of ballet (spaceships spinning in space while docking). HAL was probably even commentary of the potential dangers of AI that may have been developing at the time.

Consider it less of a conventional structured film, and more of a narrative that the public could reflect on and appreciate based around what was happening in the world. There was so much wonder and awe about space during the 60's, and Kubrick wanted to indulge in that and share his work with the rest of the world. Calling it "wooden" and saying "it sucked" compared to the cheap shells of blockbusters today doesn't really sit well with me, sorry.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Daishi

[KerbMav]

It's Kubrick's job to explain things to me or at least make the movie comprehensible. I shouldn't have to go find script notes to be able to say "ah ok, now I see what's going on."

You don't expect this from a painting, a poem, a song or a sculpture nor always from a book. You're expected to stare at Mona Lisa's smile after centuries and still ponder what it's really about or you can read a poem over and over and over, find new thoughts rising and new feelings.

2001 is not a movie made for quick entertainment, it's more philosophy and art and exactly as was inteded by the director. If Kubrick had failed, there would be no 10 page discussion.

The reason that a movie needs to be comprehensible on a first viewing is simple; you have no idea whether the audience will like your film, or if they'll want to rewatch it, so the message must be put forwards the first time watching.

An example more contemporary: Star Wars. Original Trilogy, I mean. There's a saga that didn't need to go out of its way to explain every little nuance. It left so much to our imaginations,

2001 doesn't spell everything out for you because you're expected to analyze it yourself. Instead of just having you sit back and watch explorers do their science, Kubrick is inviting you to BE an explorer. Observe, hypothesize, and have fun doing it. You're even granted ample time

I can concur with both sides for each of the two main points in this discussion.

1. Kubrick created art, and you can like it or not, muster the nerve to try and understand it or not.

2. I dislike movies spelling everything out for the audience, I like to be taken serious as a viewer and not treated like a child (depending on the main target audience of course), I love to be surprised (as with the end of Odd Thomas where the realisation swam up my tear ducts or Sixth Sense that baffled me for the span of three hours after watching it).

But: He could have been a bit more clear with some of it.

2010 is basically a movie explaining what happened in 2001 mostly.

Again, had the third act been the main premise of the film, with it's chilling depiction of an AI, some excellent (if not slightly wooden) characters, and a sense of both paranoia and isolation, this film would've been so much better.

I remember reading somewhere that Kubrick did this intentionally to contrast the cold behaviour of the humans to the confused emotional reactions of HAL. The AI has as much of a dilemma inflicted on it by the humans as they are affected by its reactions to this dilemma. The movie might even be seen not as a story of humans having trouble with a computer, but a computer struggling to fulfill its orders.

As for the cliches, this is the only place I can defend Kubrick. When this movie was released, none of the cliches in the movie were actually cliches.

I think I already mentioned The Godfather as the mother of all gangster movie cliches - so, yes, this.

Now, if they EVER remake this movie, then they should solely focus on the third act, because for a while there, I enjoyed it. I love HAL as a character, and his death scene sent chills up my spine.

If they remake 2001 it will most likely be changed like this:

- no apes, but pre-humans with a primitve language, so they can explain (to the audience) what is happening to them or dreams/visions depicting the "education" process of the monolith

- shortened space travel scene

- scene showing some command staff programming HAL to keep the real mission a secret even from the crew

- Terminator/Robocop-vision for HAL "explaining" his dilemma and decision to kill the crew to keep them from disclosing the secret mission

[Godot]

...

If they remake 2001 it will most likely be changed like this:

- no apes, but pre-humans with a primitve language, so they can explain (to the audience) what is happening to them or dreams/visions depicting the "education" process of the monolith

- shortened space travel scene

- scene showing some command staff programming HAL to keep the real mission a secret even from the crew

- Terminator/Robocop-vision for HAL "explaining" his dilemma and decision to kill the crew to keep them from disclosing the secret mission

Not to forget that there will be most likely at least one female astronaut in the crew, who has a romance with Bowman,

and a lot of actions of Bowman being made in order to save said female astronaut from HAL.

Also, very likely said female astronaut will be the only surviving crew member, as Bowman will put her into an escape pod on way to earth, before he himself starts his voyage into the Monolith

(the reason while he himself doesn´t flee with the female astronaut probably being, that this escape pod is the only one left, with just one cryo bed)

[Red Iron Crown]

Not to forget that there will be most likely at least one female astronaut in the crew, who has a romance with Bowman,

and a lot of actions of Bowman being made in order to save said female astronaut from HAL.

And HAL can only be disabled by Bowman winning a martial arts fight with it. Bonus points for Matrix-style slow motion wire fighting.

[KerbMav]

And HAL can only be disabled by Bowman winning a martial arts fight with it. Bonus points for Matrix-style slow motion wire fighting.

With HAL's android avatar - or with his representation in cyberspace?

Regarding the accuracy of 2001, wikipedia has a nice writeup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technologies_in_2001:_A_Space_Odyssey

[vger]

And HAL can only be disabled by Bowman winning a martial arts fight with it. Bonus points for Matrix-style slow motion wire fighting.

HAL, played by Ian Holm.

[EdFred]

I'm late to the party on this thread, but since it's about 2001 I figure I'm coming in somewhere on the trip to Jupiter, but here's how I sum up 2001:

Opening scene: probably one of my favorite scenes from any movie ever.

The next 90ish minutes, you don't even have to watch the movie - you miss nothing until HAL starts losing it. Go do yard work, take a nap, play with the kids.

Whoa, I found LSD!

OK, the LSD wore off...

Whoa, giant orbiting fetus!!!! I guess the LSD didn't wear off.

That movie could be gutted down to an hour and it would lose absolutely nothing. Drama? What drama? Suspense? Not really. Most of the movie seemed more like dabbling in special effects. Hey, check this out, we can make it look like a pen is floating, should we put it in the movie? Of course we should put it in the movie!

If we're going back to 1968 movies, I will take Planet of the Apes every day, all day, and on my death bed over 2001: A Steaming Pile. If not for the opening scene, and HAL I would probably put it as the absolute worst "big" movie ever.

[IcarusBen]

If 2001 was remade, today, the best to do it would be to get rid of the first two acts, just drop hints as to what happened throughout the dialogue, so we learn what's going on as Bowman learns it, then do everything bigger, while still keeping the basic premise of the film. No martial arts fights, no sexy female crew members, nothing like that. If there is a female crew member, she should be the first one to die, then Frank, then the sleeper crew, then HAL. Make the ship CGI, but keep it as realistic as possible. Give us gravity rings, giant radiators, etc. etc.

Finally, give us a reason Bowman thought it was a good idea to FLY INTO A BIG FLYING BRICK.

Oh, and give us a possible Siri/HAL romance. Those two were programmed for each other <3

[Red Iron Crown]

Giant radiators were actually a point of dispute between Kubrick and Clarke. Clarke insisted on them for realism, Kubrick hated the way they made the Discovery look (the radiators dwarfed the ship itself).

[KerbMav]

Finally, give us a reason Bowman thought it was a good idea to FLY INTO A BIG FLYING BRICK.

He cannot fly the Odyssey home without HAL, so being there close to his actual mission objective all alone ...