Jump to content


2001: A Space Odyssey


54 replies to this topic

#1 July Diaz

    Earwolf Buddy

  • Administrators
  • 5,868 posts
  • LocationUnder a roof

Posted 27 June 2018 - 04:40 PM

Paul & Amy journey beyond the infinite to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey! They ask what the film has in common with a Rothko painting, marvel at what 2001 got right about the future, and decide whether to join Team Hal. Plus: Discover what other listeners think that ending is all about!

What iconic duo would you cast in a modern Bonnie & Clyde? Call 747-666-5824 with your answers. Follow us on Twitter @Unspooled, and don’t forget to rate, review & subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts. And watch "The Universe" here!
listen to carmen christopher on the latest ep of my podcast trends with benefits twb.cool

#2 sycasey 2.0

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 556 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 05:37 AM





#3 sycasey 2.0

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 556 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 05:42 AM





#4 AlmostAGhost

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 196 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 06:18 AM

My history with 2001 (like a lot of the epics on this list) is that I saw it when I was younger, but probably not in 25 years. (Basically I watched a lot of these famous movies in the '90s, as a university student with time and a nearby video rental store. Then I went like 10 years not caring about movies.) The Dawn Of Man sequence was pretty embedded in my memory but a lot of the rest I didn't remember, so watching this week felt pretty fresh.

Anyway, I don't have much to add besides that I think it's awesome and I love how it looks and feels and makes you think and is ambiguous and defies convention and defines convention and is fun too.

I don't know exactly where it will fall on my ratings, but it will almost certainly be in my top-5.

My only nitpicky criticism really is the title. The story seems to be so much more than just one year in time, I don't get why Kubrick & Clarke went with "2001" - esp. since that was only 30 years in the near future. Why date it like that? That feels like an odd choice to me, though granted this is the first time I've watched it since 2001 actually happened haha. Are we supposed to take that this story happened 17 years ago?

#5 Cam Bert

    Foreign Correspondent

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,470 posts
  • LocationOsaka, Japan

Posted 28 June 2018 - 06:49 AM

One of the film classes I took in university the professor was obsessive with 2001. To him, it was the greatest technical film ever made and would bring it up all the time. The two thing I remember most about what he had to say on the film are oddly related. First, was the Margaret Stackhouse letter. She was a child prodigy and she wrote to Kubrick with her interpretation of what the movie was about. According to my professor Kubrick felt that hers was the most accurate to his ideas and intentions (albeit the quote offered on the following site is not the same.) Here's a link to what she had to say:

Margaret Stackhouse's comments on 2001

Then he followed it up with the second thing I remember. That is he told the the English majors in the class that 2001 was the Ulysses of the film world. There is no wrong answer about what the true meaning is.
My Howdy sense is tingling. Break out Google maps and my abacus...there's a C&O to be solved! And this time, it's personal...
(credit to Elektra and Cameron H)

#6 tomspanks

    jaded meowndarin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 07:19 AM

View PostCam Bert, on 28 June 2018 - 06:49 AM, said:

One of the film classes I took in university the professor was obsessive with 2001.


I first watched 2001 in 8th grade science class, lol. Science teachers can be obsessed with films too! She made us marathon 2001 and 2010 and had us complete a take-home quiz about the 2 films. I think that's why I always thought the monolith was kind of a catalyst in science terms - it speeds up a reaction, but itself does not get used up.

#7 grudlian.

    Debbie Downer Award Winner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 736 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 07:39 AM

View Posttomspanks, on 28 June 2018 - 07:19 AM, said:


I first watched 2001 in 8th grade science class, lol. Science teachers can be obsessed with films too! She made us marathon 2001 and 2010 and had us complete a take-home quiz about the 2 films. I think that's why I always thought the monolith was kind of a catalyst in science terms - it speeds up a reaction, but itself does not get used up.

Did the teacher explain anything about 2001? I don't thinkI would have gotten the movie at all then. I first saw it when I was 8 or 9 and it made no sense at all. I'm pretty sure I didn't even begin to get it until I read an analysis online in high school.

I agree with you on seeing the mobility as a catalyst of sorts. I haven't read the Stackhouse letter yet (I will whenI get off work) but the catalyst to a kind of evolution makes the most sense to me.

#8 tomspanks

    jaded meowndarin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 07:57 AM

View Postgrudlian., on 28 June 2018 - 07:39 AM, said:

Did the teacher explain anything about 2001?


No, she mainly used the movies to loosely tie it to her lessons. But I remember she thought the baby at the end was a big bang-type event and the universe starting over.

#9 Society Max

    Ⓜⓐⓧⓘⓜⓘⓛⓘⓐⓝⓞ

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • LocationⓂⓐⓧⓘⓜⓘⓛⓘⓐⓝⓞ

Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:06 AM



#10 Cameron H.

    Jabber-whoppin'

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,259 posts
  • LocationWerewolf Warehouse

Posted 28 June 2018 - 08:47 AM

Not the best quality, but still...


Shad: Is this conceivably as big as the yogurt deal?
Striptease (1996)

Chris: Maybe that's why they call themselves "grunts." Cos a grunt can take it. Can take anything.
Platoon (1986)

#11 tomspanks

    jaded meowndarin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:39 PM

Did anyone else Google the full instructions for the zero gravity toilet? Just me then?

#12 CakeBug Tranch

    Loyal Tompkastaway

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • LocationSchmocation

Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:39 PM

I thought I had seen 2001 until this week when I watched it again and found that aside from a couple of iconic scenes and things I knew from The Simpsons, I definitely hadn't seen it. I absolutely loved it and immediately booked tickets to see Christopher Nolan's 70mm re-release of the film that is playing in Toronto this week only. I'm seeing that on Wednesday - looking forward to reporting about how it looks on a giant screen!
Cru: "God, what I wouldn't give to go ass-sliding with you right now." - Smooth Operator, Rad

Elwood: "Baby clothes." Jake: "This place has got everything." Perfection, The Blues Brothers

HDTGM No-Prize Champion
Vampire's Kiss; xXx: Return of Xander Cage; Body Parts; The Running Man

#13 tomspanks

    jaded meowndarin

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:41 PM

View PostCakeBug Tranch, on 28 June 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

I thought I had seen 2001 until this week when I watched it again and found that aside from a couple of iconic scenes and things I knew from The Simpsons, I definitely hadn't seen it. I absolutely loved it and immediately booked tickets to see Christopher Nolan's 70mm re-release of the film that is playing in Toronto this week only. I'm seeing that on Wednesday - looking forward to reporting about how it looks on a giant screen!


Lucky!!!

#14 CakeBug Tranch

    Loyal Tompkastaway

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • LocationSchmocation

Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:48 PM

View Posttomspanks, on 28 June 2018 - 12:41 PM, said:


Lucky!!!


Its playing all over: http://www.movingima...new-70mm-print/

Or, come up to Toronto and see it with us!
Cru: "God, what I wouldn't give to go ass-sliding with you right now." - Smooth Operator, Rad

Elwood: "Baby clothes." Jake: "This place has got everything." Perfection, The Blues Brothers

HDTGM No-Prize Champion
Vampire's Kiss; xXx: Return of Xander Cage; Body Parts; The Running Man

#15 CakeBug Tranch

    Loyal Tompkastaway

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,671 posts
  • LocationSchmocation

Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:49 PM

View Posttomspanks, on 28 June 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

Did anyone else Google the full instructions for the zero gravity toilet? Just me then?

I really appreciated how much attention he gave that sign. Really read it through, which suggested that it was serious business.
Cru: "God, what I wouldn't give to go ass-sliding with you right now." - Smooth Operator, Rad

Elwood: "Baby clothes." Jake: "This place has got everything." Perfection, The Blues Brothers

HDTGM No-Prize Champion
Vampire's Kiss; xXx: Return of Xander Cage; Body Parts; The Running Man

#16 Dan Engler

    Ombudsman

  • Administrators
  • 1,650 posts
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:53 PM

I find it fascinating that, rather than explain his intentions, Kubrick intended 2001's message to be conveyed directly to the viewer's subconscious, yet so many critics had a violent negative reaction after seeing it.

The first time I tried to watch 2001 (in actual 2001), I bailed 45 minutes in because it was "slow" and "boring". My excuse is that I was a stupid kid whose brain hadn't evolved enough to receive the signal and oh shiiiiiiiiiit

Posted Image

17 years later, I am a different person and I love a pensive, open-ended visual experience. The Twin Peaks revival is one of my favorite things in recent memory, and Part 8 "explains" the creation mythos of the Twin Peaks universe (to the extent that David Lynch ever explains anything.) I've lost track of how many time I've watched it. It obviously owes a great debt to Kubrick.


Disclaimer: I am not an Earwolf employee. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Midroll Media LLC.

#17 Dan Engler

    Ombudsman

  • Administrators
  • 1,650 posts
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:57 PM

View Posttomspanks, on 28 June 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

Did anyone else Google the full instructions for the zero gravity toilet? Just me then?

Yes! I took a screengrab every time a sign appeared so that I could read the text later. Typeset in The Future seems to be the de facto resource for most other transcriptions.
Disclaimer: I am not an Earwolf employee. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Midroll Media LLC.

#18 sycasey 2.0

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 556 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 01:53 PM

This is probably my favorite film of all time, so I would obviously have it on my list, at #1 in fact. But even taking my personal feelings aside, I think it's certainly earned a spot in the Top 15 because of (1) its massive influence, not just on sci-fi cinema but on science and culture in general and (2) how much it pushed the technology of filmmaking forward. The resonance of 2001 continues to be felt.

Like many, the first time I saw it as a teenager I didn't know what it was about. Where's the plot? The action? Sure, some of the scenes were good and suspenseful (the apes and HAL) but there's so much other weird stuff.

Then one night after I'd started college it was shown on the local PBS station (pretty late at night) in widescreen format, and I just happened to start watching it . . . and the whole thing clicked. It became a religious experience. That's what I love about it: 2001 is a heavily-detailed "hard sci-fi" movie that also feels like it touches your soul. Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of science fiction grapples with religious questions (What does God need with a starship?), but this is the one that most seems to give off the feeling of having a religious awakening. It's about the evolution of the human race, in both the inspirational and frightening connotations of that word. It doesn't have many characters because humanity is the character.

I don't really agree with Amy's take that Kubrick is like more of a "splatter painter" -- I think every one of his films sticks to a theme and develops it, so he's not just doing stuff at random -- but I do love the stories about Gary Lockwood and Keir Dullea coming up with new ideas on set that made it into the finished film. I agree with most that Kubrick was one of the best film directors, but there's a certain cult surrounding him that (IMO) gets the wrong idea of what made him great. He's gotten this mythical reputation as the perfect, exacting artist who planned out every detail well in advance and knew exactly what everything meant. The more you learn about him, you'll find that he wasn't like that exactly. He certainly was meticulous and detailed, but he was also above all else a curious person, which means he wanted to listen to people and learn from them. He wasn't above changing his original plan if someone else's suggestion worked better. Every movie he made was based on some prior source material (or in the case of 2001, developed at the same time with the input of a sci-fi author), not something Kubrick came up with alone. Some other directors who try to act like mini-tyrants on set might do well to remember that.

#19 grudlian.

    Debbie Downer Award Winner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 736 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 03:20 PM

View Postsycasey 2.0, on 28 June 2018 - 01:53 PM, said:

This is probably my favorite film of all time, so I would obviously have it on my list, at #1 in fact. But even taking my personal feelings aside, I think it's certainly earned a spot in the Top 15 because of (1) its massive influence, not just on sci-fi cinema but on science and culture in general and (2) how much it pushed the technology of filmmaking forward. The resonance of 2001 continues to be felt.

Like many, the first time I saw it as a teenager I didn't know what it was about. Where's the plot? The action? Sure, some of the scenes were good and suspenseful (the apes and HAL) but there's so much other weird stuff.

Then one night after I'd started college it was shown on the local PBS station (pretty late at night) in widescreen format, and I just happened to start watching it . . . and the whole thing clicked. It became a religious experience. That's what I love about it: 2001 is a heavily-detailed "hard sci-fi" movie that also feels like it touches your soul. Don't get me wrong, I know a lot of science fiction grapples with religious questions (What does God need with a starship?), but this is the one that most seems to give off the feeling of having a religious awakening. It's about the evolution of the human race, in both the inspirational and frightening connotations of that word. It doesn't have many characters because humanity is the character.

I don't really agree with Amy's take that Kubrick is like more of a "splatter painter" -- I think every one of his films sticks to a theme and develops it, so he's not just doing stuff at random -- but I do love the stories about Gary Lockwood and Keir Dullea coming up with new ideas on set that made it into the finished film. I agree with most that Kubrick was one of the best film directors, but there's a certain cult surrounding him that (IMO) gets the wrong idea of what made him great. He's gotten this mythical reputation as the perfect, exacting artist who planned out every detail well in advance and knew exactly what everything meant. The more you learn about him, you'll find that he wasn't like that exactly. He certainly was meticulous and detailed, but he was also above all else a curious person, which means he wanted to listen to people and learn from them. He wasn't above changing his original plan if someone else's suggestion worked better. Every movie he made was based on some prior source material (or in the case of 2001, developed at the same time with the input of a sci-fi author), not something Kubrick came up with alone. Some other directors who try to act like mini-tyrants on set might do well to remember that.

Pretty much all of this.

I was way too young to watch this the first time I did. I was 8-9 and I don't even know how I heard of it. My parents certainly wouldn't have made me watch it. I made my parents record it off tv for me and I was very confused at every aspect. I remember asking my mom why it had black bars on the screen because I'd never seen a letterbox movie before (this was 80s). I didn't know why there were apes in this space movie. I really didn't get the ending. And my mom couldn't answer any of my questions either. But it stuck with me for some reason probably in the "this is a great movie????" kind of way though. I eventually saw it again after reading about interpretations of it once the internet existed. I understood it but I didn't "get" it.

Then it came out on DVD in my mid 20s and we had a big screen television and I got it. It wasn't a movie. It was an experience that I still can't put into words. I didn't just appreciate it. I felt it and no movie since (or maybe even before) made me feel that way. Just completely sucked into it. I've seen it since and it hasn't worked on me like that but it deserves a place for that one viewing alone.

I agree with you so much about people putting Kubrick on some mythical level of perfectionist. He was a technical master and understood filming a movie so well from his history as a photographer. I've seen completely insane analysis of his work though where every single thing was placed into frame to have a meaning behind it. Kubrick is great but he's still just a guy. I'd recommend Room 237 which is a documentary about some more out there theories on The Shining which really puts some perspective on how far analysis of Kubrick's film can go.

#20 grudlian.

    Debbie Downer Award Winner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 736 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 03:25 PM

View PostCakeBug Tranch, on 28 June 2018 - 12:39 PM, said:

I thought I had seen 2001 until this week when I watched it again and found that aside from a couple of iconic scenes and things I knew from The Simpsons, I definitely hadn't seen it. I absolutely loved it and immediately booked tickets to see Christopher Nolan's 70mm re-release of the film that is playing in Toronto this week only. I'm seeing that on Wednesday - looking forward to reporting about how it looks on a giant screen!

I wish this were playing near me but there's not a single functioning 70mm projector in my state to my knowledge. I could have gone to the Chicago shows I suppose but never did. I'm very envious of you.