Mackey.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/12/83)
Will be shown on channel 2, 7:00pm *this* Thursday (relative coordinates: tomorrow). Though it won't be quite the same as seeing it on a big screen, with a nice sound system, the quality of the film (no scratches, faded colors, cuts) should be better than the versions which circulate to daily theaters like the New Varisty. For the 2 or 3 of you who have yet to see it, it's definitely one of *the* Science Fiction movies you must see. If you want to understand what the ending is all about, read the novel, or talk to someone who has. In addition to the novel, Clarke wrote the book "The Lost Worlds of 2001" about the making of the film. This book includes excerpts from a diary Clarke kept while working on the film and Novel with Kubrick (which were done more or less simultaneously). It also contains several alternate scenes, particularly the meeting with the aliens. I recommend it for anyone who wants to understand the movie better, or is interested in how movies and scripts are made. A copy is available in the Bayhill S.F. library. ~Kevin
Wiseman.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/12/83)
Just saw 2001 at the New Varisty and it was a good print. Its has held up rather well over the years. The story is still a little long with too much heavy breathing. The special effects (excluding the "to infinity" segment) are still good even by todays standards. The creativity and fun of antigravity are impressive. The landing sequence with the Blue Danube is a masterpiece. The psychedelic segment has been copied some many times (including the ABC network promo) that is all seems ho hum. Haven't seen Brainstorm yet, but it should be interesting to see what Trumbal has learned in 15 years! By the way, Varsity showed the silent masterpiece "Metropolis" last week. The acting is strange but the imagery and metaphors were stunning,. Ever see it? Ben
swong.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
I saw the movie recently. Could someone explain what the movie is about? I was absolutely confused.
Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
From: Ron Newman <Newman.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA> Read the book. /Ron
Roberts.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
I don't remember it very well, but it went something like this: A long time ago some extra-terrestrials planted a big black slab on the earth, and it somehow caused apes to learn how to use tools. In the late 20th century, humans discovered a slab like that on the moon. When it was exposed to light, it sent off a signal to Saturn (I think). So the space program decided to send somebody to Saturn to see what was up. When the astronaut got there (after a bunch of space adventures), he went through a psychedelic experience which resulted in his being born as a new kind of being, some kind of protector for earth. Hope this was more helpful than "read the book", -Terry
Mackey.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
It may have been more helpful, but it wasn't as fun. Also, it was Saturn in the Novel, but Jupiter in the movie. They thought it would confuse people if the movie showed them going by Jupiter then arriving at Saturn (one too many planets). But WHO changed him into a new kind of being, and WHY? Don't answer! Anyone who wants to know should read the book. There are particular chapters which answer these, so it's not necessary to read the whole novel, though that's best. Finally, where was your "SPOILER" warning? ~Kevin
Orr.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
Don't be silly; she doesn't need a spoiler warning. This is Junk^ and anything goes, very frequently, on Junk . . .''~J~
SJohnson.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
Ok, I can't resist putting in my two cents worth. As I understand it, the main reason the movie didn't go to Saturn was that it was difficult to come up with a convincing effect for the rings (remember, this was filmed in mid-to-late '60's). Doug Tumbull (sp?), who did the special effects for "2001", got the opportunity to show Saturn's rings in his later film, "Silent Running" (I think he directed and/or produced). It was a very dramatic effect, regardless of any technical inaccuracies. And for those who may not know, Trumbull is the producer, director (and presumably SPFX whiz) of "Brainstorm".
Neely.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
I loved the movie. Saw it four times the year it came out. Twice before reading the book and twice after reading the book. Haven't seen it in a decade and still remember it almost scene by scene. I waited to read the book so that I could "figure it ALL out" on my own. Considered that a enjoyable intellectual challenge. Not too surprisingly(I had read a lot of science fiction including much by Clarke) my interpretation was consistent with the book, except that I hadn't been able to deduce a reason for the computer failure. One of the things I loved about the movie was that it was one of the first science fiction movies that didn't stop and explain what was going on. Now this is fairly common but, then, ... magnificent! Actually, the movie and the book are different. The movie is delibertly more ambiguous than the book to allow alternative interpretations. Kubric(sp?) is really in to that. I've heard some pretty wild interpretations which were consistent with the movie. The book can be considered the "most probable" interpretation of the movie. Following the spoiler warning is a interpretation of the MOVIE consistent with the book. **** SPOILER WARNING **** Remainder contains plot details. ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V ! V 2001 is about extra-terrestrial intervention(interference?) in man's evolution. Four million years ago an extra-terrestrial object causes an evolutionary jump in one group of premen who thereby become our ancesters. This is accomplished, at least in part, by stimulating in the minds of the premen the idea of tool-use. There's a popular notion, less so now than in the 50's, that tool-use preceeded and stimulated the evolutionary changes leading to man. Ironically they first use tools as weapons. Converting animal threat behavior into murder. Arghh! Skip ahead to 2001AD when man, having discovered a strange magnetic anomoly(MA1) on the moon, excavates a superficially similar device. Being solar activated, it generates a "radio" signal at lunar sunrise. Because the men near the device were wearing space suits with radio communications, they collapsed in pain from the resultant sound produced by their suit radios. We, watching the movie, may presume that the device on the moon was planted at the time of the original intervention(~ 4 million BC) with the intention of triggering the next stage of intervention as soon as man had progressed to the point of space travel. The original story that had attracted Kubrik was a short story by Clarke called The Sentinel which covered just the lunar sequence leaving the purpose of the "Alarm" on the moon to the reader's speculation. The radio signal was directional and humans tracked it to Jupiter. So astronaughts were sent toward Jupiter with the infamous computer HAL at the controls. The scientific members of the expedition were maintained in hypo-thermal "hibernation" to conserve supplies during the long trip. The mishap of Hal's failure was just a mishap. It was not caused by the aliens. Considering HAL a hardware-assisted AI program, we find in the book that the failure was a caused by a combination of user error and program bug. The user error was that the project bigshots decided to (1) keep the real purpose of the mission from the astronaughts (2) tell Hal AND order HAL to keep it a secret and (3) charge HAL with responsibility for a successful mission. The incompatibility of keeping secrets from the crew AND having a successful mission caused HAL to go insane. This is indicated in the movie only by Hal asking Dave if he's "noticed anything strange about the mission?" just before falsely anouncing the failure of a part and setting out to kill the crew. After the death of all the crew except himself, Dave disables HAL and continues to Jupiter where he discovers another alien device in orbit around Jupiter. This one's a "Star Gate"(i.e. a space-warp transporter) that transports Dave to a planet in a Galaxy Far Far Away. There he is "made comfortable" by being surrounded by familiar things while undergoing a process of personal transformation(as opposed to the evolutionary transformation used in the first stage intervention). The movie ends with Dave, transformed into a fetal Homo Superior, crossing the lunar orbit on his way to Earth. Notice that HIS EYES ARE OPEN. PS. Take Newman's advice and "Read the book." then see the movie again! ev.
Cowden.Wbst@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
I too was confused by the movie, so I bought the book. Then I saw that the book was written AFTER the movie. Anyone can make up a story after seeing a movie to 'explain' the movie, but in my view this is just an interpretation of the film. I believe Kubrick intended the audience to be confused and was intentionally being obscure (i.e., there is no explanation). By the way, I am in total agreement that the choice of The Blue Danube as music for the landing scene was a stroke of pure genius. The high point of the entire film for me. Have a nice day! Charlie.
LFeinberg.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
Anyone wanting to understand 2001 (especially the ending) should read Clarke's novel, "Childhood's End". This is the book which Kubrick read which gave him the idea for the movie, and Clarke's short "The Senitel", which contributed another important idea. SPOILER WARNING: Details of these follow in the next paragraph. SPOILER TO Childhood's End and The Senitel: In the novel, aliens return to Earth to guide us to the next giant step in our mental/spiritual evolution. This is the meaning of the ending of 2001, with the psychedelic sequence and the space baby. For full details of this complex idea, read the novel. In the short story, aliens leave a structure on the moon. When Earthpersons dig it up and generally mess with it, it signals the aliens that we have acheived space flight and are evolved enough for them to contact us.
Suk.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
I enjoyed the really clever trivia in the flick-- Like how many of you noticed that the letters H-A-L are each one letter short of--?-?-?
RDones.es@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
If you really want to find out what, eventually, happens then you must read the sequel to "2001", "2010". The role of the Star Child and the final role of the HAL 9000 computer are once again used to build towards a new beginning. A new beginning of what, you ask? If I tell you, it will ruin the book! Rene
PNeumeister.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
You want 2001 trivia, eh? What's the name of the song HAL sang as he was being disconnected?
Mackey.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
To: Cowden.Wbst Clarke didn't just "make up a story after seeing a movie." He worked with Kubrick on the film, sharing ideas and outlining the movie. Then he wrote the novel based on those ideas and scenes. It came out after the movie (by how much?) since it takes time to publish a novel. Also, notice that the novel contains pictures from the movie, and the cover refers to the movie. The studio timed it so that people who saw the movie could go out and buy the novel. I could quote Clarke from "The Lost Worlds of 2001," but it seems to have disappeared from the Bayhill S.F. library. . . To: Denber.WBST I think the most confusion in the movie is found at the ending, from the moment Bowman takes his journey. My interpretation is that Kubrick is a film maker, an artist, and as such he tried to express Clarke and his ideas without dialogue; just with film. The movie visually expresses the ideas contained in the novel. If it's confusing, then it joins several other movies, and works of art, which are not easily understood, though are visually pleasing. Once you know the ideas being expressed, then the film becomes enjoyable in a different way. To: Suk Clarke denies the "trick" of the choice of HAL's name. He used it to mean "Heuristic and ALgorithmic." But it's still an interesting coincidence. ~Kevin
Suk.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
"Clarke denies the "trick" of the choice of HAL's name. He used it to mean "Heuristic and ALgorithmic." But it's still an interesting coincidence." -------------- I won't buy that. If it's true, how does he explain the "HAL" appearing on a blue & gray monster in an almost exact copy of the IBM logo, with nothing changed but the letters? Stan
Mackey.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
Blue and gray monster? Where was that in the movie? The color I associate with HAL is red: the red of his TV cameras (trivia: where else in the movie do we see red eyes?), and the red in the "computer core." ~Kevin
Goodell.ES@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
Why doesn't anyone pick up on all those subtle hints dropped by Commodore Perry? If you want to have a private discussion, follow his suggestion and start your own dl. I mean, like really! By the way, whatever happened to all those messages about TV's Whiz Kids and all the others about Graphite oil. Just for the record, I also thought the movie was rather dull in 1979. And by the way, did anyone catch the little piece of symbolism at the very end of the credits, when they showed the date of the movie in Roman numerals. If you didn't, I suggest you see it again and pay closer attention.
titsworth.pa@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/13/83)
This message is empty.
Stolfi.PA@PARC-MAXC.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP (10/14/83)
17,235,477 of us did.
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (10/18/83)
No, the book and movie were written together. Clarke wrote the
screenplay, so I don't think the statement "Anyone can make an
interpretation" applies here. Also, I believe that 2001 was based on a
Clarke short story ("The Sentinel"?).
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmarpdbain@wateng.UUCP (Peter Bain) (10/20/83)
I am looking for the text of the diaglogue of the movie as HAL is being disconnected. This is for a logoff program. Anyone with a VCR and the tape of the movie? thanx in advance. -peter bain