2001: A Space Odyssey & 2010 the sequel

[Tycho]

"Good morning, Dave."

"Good morning, HAL."

2001 can be completey boring or reminiscient of the worst hallucination while sniffing Mouse Droids that could possibly be imaginable.

The movie opens with shots of us forumites from SirStevesGuide sitting around a black monolith alien and playing with dead animal bones - sort of what we do on this website anyway. A few of us get some starring scene parts.

Then the movie takes us to the moon on a flight that takes up nearly 30 minutes of the feature. It's pretty realistic to what is close to space travel today - or a meeting of Congress.

They find another monolith alien that's been burried on the moon for 4 million years.

This prompts them to launch a Jupiter mission when a tight beam transmission's sent by the alien towards Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.

Frank and Dave set off there in the Discovery-One (no relation to Slave-One) and HAL 9000 is the operations computer in control. There are 3 other scientists who just stay in an artificially induced catatonic trance, kind of like the audience.

Then HAL goes homicidal when he's threatened with being turned off because he malfunctioned and he believes he's perfect, but Frank and Dave don't.

HAL kills Frank and Dave disconnects him after some tense moments. The Discovery arrives at Jupiter though, and Dave is compelled to explore. He meets the monolith and is turned into an old man and then an infant after a serious psychadelic trip that you can't take even illict drugs to understand.

The answers to this movie's questions are never provided really. It's considered artsy to create something that's flashy but open to interpretation and all style and no substance - almost like a lot of my posts (but not quite).

2010 sort of settles some of those issues, but by another author and screenplay writer who probably never slept well again until they did this since Stanley Kubrick screwed so badly with their heads.

2001 stars Gary Lockwood of Star Trek fame (Gary Mitchell, Kirk's original First Officer for one episode).

I'm about to watch 2010 in a few minutes here. I offer the chance for discussion about both films here, because they go together and talking about one would probably lead to talking about the other anyway.

Who knows if they'll ever make another - say called 2040 for instance?

[decadentdave]

Tycho, 2001 happens to be one of my favorite films of all time. I saw it when I was 4 years old and it opened my eyes to the universe. I remember watching it with my 7th grade science class and everyone in the class fell asleep and I was the only one who stayed awake. Afterward, the class complained how boring it was and I just shook my head in shame. 2010 was not a great film, although I was really hoping it would be as good as Peter Hyams' Capricorn One but I think the problem was that there should not have been a sequel. The original film needs no explanation period. I read Arthur C. Clarke's follow up novels 2061 and 3001 and they were utter disappointments. When you find out that the monoliths were nothing more than some kind of alien virus, I was completely insulted. I wished I had never read them. I heard Tom Hanks wanted to make 3001 and I laughed and thought "God no, for all our sakes," but knowing the creatively bankrupt entertainment biz, it is inevitable. Stanley Kubrick's film is a masterpiece. It is pure cinema art. Anything else is a homogenized derivative that has been soured by corrupt studio commerce.

[Tycho]

I liked 2010 - I just finished watching it and I'd say the feeling that best describes it is "satisfying," as some answers are arrived at and the message of peace is quite warm and fuzzy.

What meaning do you ascribe to 2001, Dave? What "truth" do you find in it?

BTW, note that the one on the moon was the "Tycho Monolith"

[decadentdave]

I liked 2010 - I just finished watching it and I'd say the feeling that best describes it is "satisfying," as some answers are arrived at and the message of peace is quite warm and fuzzy.

What meaning do you ascribe to 2001, Dave? What "truth" do you find in it?

BTW, note that the one on the moon was the "Tycho Monolith"

I had been meaning to ask you if that was where you derived your name from. As far as truth goes, life has taught me that all "truth" is relative. There are no absolutes, there is only belief, consciousness and the determination of the human spirit. Stanley Kubrick deliberately made the ending ambiguous and there have been many theories and interpretations to its meaning so I won't dwell on that here. There is a great transcendence of the human spirit to strive to reach the heavens and find meaning to the universe and his place in it and I think Kubrick's film illustrates this well. As a film by itself, I guess 2010 is okay but it is nothing like its predecessor. Two completely different films by two completely different directors. While some may find Kubrick's film slow and boring by today's standards I find it refreshing and poetic and philosophically contemplating. I am in awe every time I watch it. There will never be another film like it although Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain is the closest thing to it and its good to see that there is at least one film in this day and age that appreciates philosophical existentialism and artistic exhibition.

[JediTricks]

When I first saw 2001 as a kid, I really disliked it, it was plodding and confusing and hard to grasp at a real story... and that monkey scene at the beginning was intolerably long. A few years later, 2010 came out and I really liked it, it was everything that 2001 was not to my young mind. More importantly, 2010 made it possible for me to go back to 2001 as a teenager with a better understanding of what it was getting at, which let me appreciate the film for what it was. I think 2001 is a very "adult" movie, the concepts are presented in a serious fashion with a heavy Kubrickian visual statement rather than a full-blown narrative, and there is no ending really, the statement made on its own makes the audience fill in the blanks - an interesting way to make a movie, when it works and folks can have a discussion about it that is, because even when it first came out the film really didn't work for people in that regard, they wanted answers handed to them and when the ending went so far off the rails they felt entirely confused and didn't dig deeper (unless they had chemical enhancements).

I think 2010 is a very underrated movie, I think it works on its own and is a good counterpoint to 2001, 2010 is more direct with its storytelling than 2001, is a better sci-fi story overall, and gives you more of a complete feeling about what you've saw - it gives you a real direction for answers to the questions posed in 2001. 2010 also supposedly is a little more true to Clarke's 2001 novel than Kubrick's movie.

Both movies are very good for very different reasons, 2001 is a vision of the past's vision of the future and tries to get metaphysical about the human condition, higher lifeforms, and how we perceive tools while making the audience do a lot of the legwork; 2010 fills in a lot of the gaps and tells a more direct story, has better pacing and more dialogue, is a less outrageous vision of the future, and has an important sociopolitical undertone.

[Tycho]

I had been meaning to ask you if that was where you derived your name from.

No. It was derived from Capt. Tycho Celchu, Rogue Squadron, an X-wing pilot and First Officer under Wedge, developed in Michael Stackpole's comics and novels. He might've gotten the character's name from 2001 though. But 12 years ago, or whatever, when I first came online, everyone was grabbing Star Wars names, and the Han, Luke, and Darth Vaders were obviously taken up fast, so I made a grab for a more obscure but still-cool character.

Stanley Kubrick deliberately made the ending ambiguous and there have been many theories and interpretations to its meaning so I won't dwell on that here.

One can argue that this is creative or that it is lazy and saved him from a lot of expository work with a special effects light show. I see what you are getting at, and usually think that way about the film myself, but I had to point out the other possibility because that was what I was honestly feeling when I watched this the other night.

There is a great transcendence of the human spirit to strive to reach the heavens and find meaning to the universe and his place in it and I think Kubrick's film illustrates this well.

That's an awesome quote, Dave!

and that monkey scene at the beginning was intolerably long.

I noted before that this scene featured all of us here in the forums. We were acting out in our usual manner that is intolerably long. And note the presence of "The Tycho Monologue." There must have been a typo in the script and they made the 'monolith' instead.

I think 2010 is a very underrated movie, I think it works on its own and is a good counterpoint to 2001, 2010 is more direct with its storytelling than 2001, is a better sci-fi story overall, and gives you more of a complete feeling about what you've saw - it gives you a real direction for answers to the questions posed in 2001. 2010 also supposedly is a little more true to Clarke's 2001 novel than Kubrick's movie.

There I give kudos to 2010's writers for bringing to life their own vision of the answers to Kubrick's puzzle from the first film. Perhaps Clarke supplied those answers. I've never felt compelled to read the 2001 book.

Both movies are very good for very different reasons, 2001 is a vision of the past's vision of the future and tries to get metaphysical about the human condition, higher lifeforms, and how we perceive tools while making the audience do a lot of the legwork; 2010 fills in a lot of the gaps and tells a more direct story, has better pacing and more dialogue, is a less outrageous vision of the future, and has an important sociopolitical undertone.

Another great analysis. This is a good topic for a thread.

[JediTricks]

Tycho is a crater on the moon, that's where 2001 got the name from, the 2nd monolith was found buried in the Tycho crater. The crater was named after 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe.


Kubrick making the end of the movie vague in order to draw the audience into thinking about it was very smart, but it stood in stark contrast to the other tricks Kubrick had used in the film already, most notably the emphasis on the visual medium to tell the story rather than on dialogue, which makes the movie very offputting for most viewers. Kubrick was many things, but "lazy" was not among them.


In hindsight, the "dawn of man" monkey scene at the beginning couldn't be any shorter than it is now (it used to run way longer, hard to believe) - it tells its story and connects the monolith to man's beginnings visually since it cannot do it with dialogue, it could maybe be trimmed a tiny bit here and there to shave off a minute at most but the shots of the monkey behavior are setting up what we see later when the monolith appears. It's still a hard pill to swallow though.


Clarke worked a little with Kubrick on writing the screenplay for 2001, and worked more directly with director/screenwriter Peter Hyams on 2010, which is why I've always felt 2010 is more genuine to Clarke's vision, though Hyams did take heavy liberties adding the political aspects.

[decadentdave]

I think 2001 is a very "adult" movie, the concepts are presented in a serious fashion with a heavy Kubrickian visual statement rather than a full-blown narrative, and there is no ending really, the statement made on its own makes the audience fill in the blanks - an interesting way to make a movie, when it works and folks can have a discussion about it that is, because even when it first came out the film really didn't work for people in that regard, they wanted answers handed to them and when the ending went so far off the rails they felt entirely confused and didn't dig deeper (unless they had chemical enhancements).

That is the problem I have with most films today is that they have to spoon-feed the audience any kind of expository meaning or simply dumb down any sophisticated or subversive ideas that would take away from popcorn entertainment. I like popcorn and cheese films just as much as the next guy but there was a time during the late 60's to early 70's when Hollywood took many artistic chances on new ideas and up-and-coming directors who gave us artistic films that have prevailed the test of time and 2001 is definitely one of those films. Those were the days when a movie was more than just commercialized entertainment, it was art, and it was an experience.

Both movies are very good for very different reasons, 2001 is a vision of the past's vision of the future and tries to get metaphysical about the human condition, higher lifeforms, and how we perceive tools while making the audience do a lot of the legwork; 2010 fills in a lot of the gaps and tells a more direct story, has better pacing and more dialogue, is a less outrageous vision of the future, and has an important sociopolitical undertone.

This is both true and somewhat unfortunate. The past's vision of the future was a lot more optimistic. I wouldn't call it outrageous because the kitchy fashions of the 60's obviously date it as a product of its era, but about how far the human race would come, even during the cold war conflict in 2010. As a kid I always assummed that we would be out there exploring the universe by the year 2001 (or Space:1999 ) and it disappoints me that we haven't really changed. It is unlikely that we will see those visions realized in our lifetimes. There is so much political and civil unrest in the world now that (and I hate to invoke Roddenberry's altruistic vision because I find it flawed) we really are going to have to deal with the mess this world is in for many generations. My hope is that we will have no choice but to put our efforts towards the colonization of other worlds and the exploration of the great unknown. If films like 2001 or 2010 for that matter can inspire this then they served their purpose.

[Tycho]

As a kid I always assummed that we would be out there exploring the universe by the year 2001 (or Space:1999 ) and it disappoints me that we haven't really changed. It is unlikely that we will see those visions realized in our lifetimes. There is so much political and civil unrest in the world now that (and I hate to invoke Roddenberry's altruistic vision because I find it flawed) we really are going to have to deal with the mess this world is in for many generations. My hope is that we will have no choice but to put our efforts towards the colonization of other worlds and the exploration of the great unknown. If films like 2001 or 2010 for that matter can inspire this then they served their purpose.

Unfortunately, our leaders' efforts are focused on expanding short-term profits that they'll only be able to realize for the fleeting moments that make up their lifespan.

A long term approach is that they are "elected" (read: Bought) to ensure the longer-term profits of corporations, so that those who are and will be invested in them (inclusive of family legacies, stock holder heirlooms if you will) can have prosperous continuance.

Now if we look at Roddenberry's universe and compare, we have to question whether conspiracies are at work here.

Our leadership's biggest focus seems to be on what two consenting adults do with each other in privacy (for any orientation or preference) and a focus on belittling or attacking those who don't conform to a bell curve standard.

This would seem to lead to almost conflicting results.

On the first hand, policies seem to encourage breeding, thus economic growth due to new expenditure (kids outgrow their clothes and eventually need new automobiles and television sets more often than a healthy, lively, 100 year old adult - who aside from over-priced pharmaceuticals, would curb much of their spending, especially in retirement). Hence family values are really business growth values.

On the other hand, not providing affordable healthcare makes both the medical and pharmaceutical industries an area of profit for exploitation, and (against alleged pro-life values) kills off "lower consumers."

Imagine if you knew you were going to live to be 200 years old, and in good health. Would your consumption patterns change over the years? Would you retire at one point or another? Would you try to spend less in retirement.

OK, back to how this is relevant to our future as depicted in science / space exploration in futuristic dramas.

If science is allowed to progress too far ahead of religion, don't you think that it will be possible to either transplant enough cloned organs, or chemically adapt our bodies to stay healthy to live 200 year plus lives? When the powers that be value capitalism more, wouldn't this be a disaster?

If birth control proliferates enough to make population control and freedom from STDs (via vaccination advancement also), wouldn't sex just be a recreational past-time or a bought-and-sold-service in massage parlors? How would this impact growth economies for capitalists that want new babies creating new expenditures? "Family Values" is a code name for the program that attempts to prevent this.

If science progresses to space exploration and planet colonization, new businesses that sprout up elsewhere might challenge the old ones. "Mars-Mart" might outbid Wal-Mart, etc. The latter would either have to figure out how to monopolize interstellar trade and master outsourcing to Cybertron, or else face marketplace defeat. They'll fight using the politicians they own to never see this happen.

Furthermore, the whole Family Values program hinges much on religious beliefs. If more is discovered about the universe's origins each day that point away from the Bible (I'm not talking about intelligent design specificially here - there might be designers (plural) who once worked on it), there will be no binding social order. Plus religion gives many hope that would have none otherwise. They believe they are validating their beliefs by installing religious believers into power (or religious pretenders who use their positions to do their work for the capitalist corporations).

I know we border on Rancor Pit discussion here, but this is my very specific answer to the question about why our society is so slow to claim the vision of the future shown in popular science fiction. The movie makers are free to share their dreams (more free than the extent the CEO's of other industries are) and they don't bore the responsibility for the population growth issues or the health of the larger variety of publically held stock shares.

Tying this up with 2010 - it's the very same money issues that cause international rivalries and the crisis alluded to in 2010. That movie relates about Central America, but look at Hugo Chavez and tell me for sure you know he's the "bad guy."

[decadentdave]

I certainly never looked at those films from a financial analyst perspective as you seem to have. I'm more of a philosophical mind but yes certainly the capitalist mentality impacts how our society is managed today and to be quite frank, its atrocious. I think if private organizations invest in ecological improvements to solving world problems such as oil consumption it would be the first step towards achieving those attainable goals. I just watched a fascinating documentary called "Who killed the Electric-Car?" which exploited the conspiracy of how Big Oil, the Government and General Motors all conspired to make electric cars strategically and deliberately fail in the consumer market. Anyway, I'm digressing here but the point is there are attainable solutions that are within our grasp yet corporations and beauracracy deliberately impede such progress and only shows how little we have progressed and how far we still have to go. I think that is why science fiction has such an allure to most people because we can visualize the future and we know that we can attain it. That's what the monoliths in 2001 inspired in us to rise up and use our intelligence to find solutions and it was present at each evolutionary leap leading us to our inevitable destiny. Unfortunately, we are so bogged down in wars over oil so that captitalists can profiteer from the blood of others when we have alternative solutions that can be implemented that we have not made any progress on the frontier of space.