|
2001 Explained....
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DjConfessions |
actually, it was easy to understand and i saw it in the 9th grade in my chemistry class.
i didn't even have to go to gamefaqs.com and read the plot summary.
it's about disdig. do u have disdig or not? |
|
|
| Cobalt |
With all due respect to the creator, that flash was pretty poor. I think it oversimplifies much of the film, and ascribes too specific a "meaning" to some of the symbolism. Kubrick nor Clarke was that direct, and some of 2001 is more abstract than "x means y", particularly in Beyond The Infinte.
At best, it's one of various interpretations. But in particular, I think the notion that HAL turned on the crew by his own accord is pretty much nonsense. HAL was a computer, and although he had trappings of a sentient being, he couldn't effect errors upon himself. His bizarre homicidal turn can only be explained as outside influence of the intelligence behind the monolith, and indeed, this was intentional on the part of that intelligence. |
|
|
| quidgydog |
Seriously, just read the book.
2001 was a great movie, and Kubrick did very well with the medium he had to deal with. If someone was making 2001 from Arthur C Clarke's book today, it would be a very different movie (and would probably star The Rock or Tom Cruise . . . . . . e).
For those with a sense of history - the movie and book were pretty much written at the same time. The book, in many ways, could therefore be considered the explanation for the abstractness of the movie - much like the role the website for Donnie Darko plays.
The nature and detail of the story, particularly the madness of HAL and the rebirth of Dave at the end is not something that can be portrayed in film, the explanation is too complex.
Likewise, the animation also does a poor job of explaining the concepts involved. For those who lack the time/desire/intellect to read the book - it is probably a good substitue though.
For everyone else - if you haven't already . . . . read the book. Or at least read the explanation of the plot on Wikipedia! |
|
|
| Cobalt |
| Yeah, the book is much more explicit about the subjects involved. Which if you've seen the film first, actually strips some of the mystery and abstract beauty away from Kubrick's piece. |
|
|
| Mebot |
I thought i read somewhere that Kubrick once said "if you come out of the theater feeling pretty good about knowing what the movie is about, then I have failed."
I agree. I try to stay away from articles and websites that try to explain what happened, because i have my own explanations and symbolism for the movie. |
|
|
| Ripped Bag |
In 2001 I did a lot of drugs, and had sex.
there, 2001 explained |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cobalt
At best, it's one of various interpretations. But in particular, I think the notion that HAL turned on the crew by his own accord is pretty much nonsense. HAL was a computer, and although he had trappings of a sentient being, he couldn't effect errors upon himself. His bizarre homicidal turn can only be explained as outside influence of the intelligence behind the monolith, and indeed, this was intentional on the part of that intelligence. |
Would you consider your perspective to be "echoed" in Alien/Aliens?
From Bishop's perspective Ash's actions were the result of a known glitch in the "computer man". But from Sigourney's perspective Ash's actions were by design rather than error. |
|
|
| Cobalt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Would you consider your perspective to be "echoed" in Alien/Aliens?
From Bishop's perspective Ash's actions were the result of a known glitch in the "computer man". But from Sigourney's perspective Ash's actions were by design rather than error. |
Echoed? No, not really.
In the 2001 universe the HAL 5000 was a tightly monitored, purely deterministic computer, with no "free will". The sister 5000 model on earth did not match output with Discovery's HAL 5000. The conclusion on earth was simply that the Discovery HAL was in error, which can occur by all manner of mechanistic causes (or by intervention of a superintelligent alien presence *cough*). However, the HAL 5000 had a flawless record, indicating something beyond simple error.
Ash and Bishop were assumed to have a degree of machine "free will", some capacity to make decisions that no other identical model would arrive at independently. They were 'androids', not 'computers'. Further, one can dispute whether Ash's actions were a 'malfunction', versus the intentional result of programming from the company, in order to return the alien. |
|
|
| WillyWonka |
| Haven't seen the movie in awhile, but isn't it Hal 9000?;) |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by WillyWonka
Haven't seen the movie in awhile, but isn't it Hal 9000?;) |
A superintelligent presence overrided Cobalt's post in order to *insert* "We're V by V" symbolism into it. |
|
|
| SpecRadio |
| Wtf is this garbage? |
|
|
|
|
