|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-27-2015, 01:23 PM | #21 (permalink) | |
Ask me how!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
|
Quote:
But I'll ask again: Why do you assume that both the movie and the novel have to go together? Kubrick wanted an abstract commentary, and Clarke wanted one that was solid. Because of their different natures, and the different intentions held by the different creators, each has to be examined on it's own. Why? Because reviewing the movie (an abstract effort) as if it were a solid effort is ignoring much of what it has to offer. And reviewing the book (a solid effort) as if it were abstract is trying to go against the way that the author was trying to inform the reader. If you gain enjoyment from combining the two, then that's fine. Go for it. But you have to realize that there are people who enjoy them both seperately, and there's nothing wrong with point of view either.
__________________
---------------------- |---Mic's Albums---| ---------------------- ----------------------------- |---Deafbox Industries---| ----------------------------- |
|
03-27-2015, 01:25 PM | #22 (permalink) |
SOPHIE FOREVER
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,541
|
I think it's perfectly acceptable to take the movie on its own accord without giving credence to the novel. They're two different animals and the book isn't that great anyhow. The aesthetic of the film alone makes it a 9/10, the plot and themes that it touched on gives it that extra point to make it a perfect film.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth. |
03-27-2015, 01:33 PM | #24 (permalink) | |
Toasted Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,332
|
Quote:
(2) 2001 was a joint collaboration between Kubrick and Clarke. It's not an assumption. They did that project as a team.
__________________
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” |
|
03-27-2015, 01:55 PM | #25 (permalink) | |||
Ask me how!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
|
Quote:
Face it, this isn't even an argument that can be won or lost, and thinking that it is is missing the point and intentions of the movie. We're simply comparing perfectly valid interpretations. Also, stop saying moonchild. I'm having Neverending Story flashbacks. Quote:
Quote:
Edit: Oh yeah, one last thing... No offense, but I think you should elaborate more on why that specific scene stuck out to you.
__________________
---------------------- |---Mic's Albums---| ---------------------- ----------------------------- |---Deafbox Industries---| ----------------------------- Last edited by Oriphiel; 03-27-2015 at 02:03 PM. |
|||
03-27-2015, 02:07 PM | #26 (permalink) | ||
Toasted Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,332
|
Quote:
(2) Why do you refer to it as an argument? It's a spirited discussion. One that would be so much better if you'd read the companion novel. (3) One last time. Clarke and Kubrick worked this together. There's no different version. Why do you keep falling back on this? One of the better aspects of the novel is the first section. Where Kubrick can only show how Moon-watcher exists and then ultimately reacts to the monolith and it's message, Clarke is able to put the reader inside Moon-watcher's primitive brain. He's such a great writer and pulls it off so well. Quote:
__________________
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” |
||
03-27-2015, 02:28 PM | #27 (permalink) | ||||
Ask me how!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll be blunt; we're discussing the movie, not the novel. You bringing it up every five seconds is like jumping in front of a movie reviewer and yelling "Read the book first!" The movie reviewer is there to review the movie, which should be capable of standing on it's own. We can talk about the novel some other time, preferably when I've actually had the chance to read it. Quote:
__________________
---------------------- |---Mic's Albums---| ---------------------- ----------------------------- |---Deafbox Industries---| ----------------------------- |
||||
03-27-2015, 02:54 PM | #28 (permalink) |
Toasted Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,332
|
Ok. Fair enough. Did you know that people walked out of the theater during it's initial run? People were pissed wondering, what the hell is this about? A lot of critics ravaged the movie in 1968 upon its release. A lot of those same critics now consider it among the greatest cinematic achievements of all time.
Kubrick was a complex man - understatement of the millennium. He made movies that he knew wouldn't even be close to be fully dissected for decades after their release. He understood Clarke's vision and then turned it into a mind f*ck for the ages. The fact that you and I are having this discussion 47 years after the movie first came out only cements what he hoped to achieve with his vision of Clarke's story. The monolith/screen aspect ratio is fact. He sang to the audience in the theater as a preface to the monolith singing in the movie.
__________________
“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.” |
03-27-2015, 03:08 PM | #29 (permalink) | |
Ask me how!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: The States
Posts: 5,354
|
Quote:
Spoiler for Heh:
__________________
---------------------- |---Mic's Albums---| ---------------------- ----------------------------- |---Deafbox Industries---| ----------------------------- |
|
03-27-2015, 03:12 PM | #30 (permalink) | |
Fck Ths Thngs
Join Date: May 2014
Location: NJ
Posts: 6,261
|
With the following in mind, I have to go with Chula on this. You could at least do some research before arguing your point as fact. I googled this in a couple seconds.
Stanley Kubrick's letter to Arthur C. Clarke that launched 2001 | Blastr Quote:
__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god... Last edited by DwnWthVwls; 03-27-2015 at 03:33 PM. |
|
|