11–20 of 169 posts
TBH, I'm really happy we didn't get a version with voice-overs and all. Hard to imagine a concept of "documentary" would have been better than what we ended up with.
This article CONSTANTLY refreshes on mobile, even after several minutes, making it next-to-impossible to read
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly does. Being much, much more Clarke than Kubrick, I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars", and then usually switch off, as I know from then on the masterpiece will be descending into lava lamps and nonsense.
I was very let down when I watched it some years ago--I was like, 'where's the climax?' But I've watched a few more arty ambiguous movies lately ('Under the Skin', 'The Neon Demon', 'Mother!') and recently liked 'Annihilation' despite its slow pacing and ambiguity, so I've been thinking maybe I'll like '2001' better this time if I check it out again... Something I've noticed about '2001' in the meanwhile is that its…
It's only a couple of months since I last tried - and gave up on - watching 2001 to the end. Probably my own shortcoming entirely - I see nothing but pretentious late sixties posing from the stargate and onwards.
I literally had to scroll all the way to the very bottom in order to get to the point. If journalists want us to pay them then they must abandon this cancerous writing style of endless fluff and nonsense.
Relevant passage is this:
"Close to tears, he left at the intermission, having watched an 11-minute sequence in which an astronaut did nothing but jog around the centrifuge in a scene intended to show the boredom of space travel. This scene was considerably cut in the version put out on general release.
If Arthur was disappointed by Kubrick’s decision to cut his dialogue and narrative to the bone, he was eventually reconciled by being able to put everything left out of the film into the novel, meaning that each man was able to produce his own preferred version. The success of the film ensured that the book became a bestseller, as audiences sought answers to questions raised by Kubrick’s version, and Arthur soon got over his disappointment, going on to write three bestselling sequels to his novel, only one of which has been filmed so far."
I literally had to scroll all the way to the very bottom in order to get to the point. If journalists want us to pay them then they must abandon this cancerous writing style of endless fluff and nonsense.
And you didn't even condense the salient detail for us, being that Kubrick had cut Clark's extensive voice-over narration, which wasn't revealed until the premiere, provoking Clark to walk out of the screening.
I literally had to scroll all the way to the very bottom in order to get to the point. If journalists want us to pay them then they must abandon this cancerous writing style of endless fluff and nonsense.
No one is forcing you to read the “fluff and nonsense” of an award-winning 78-year-old author who was friends with A. C. Clarke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Descending into lava lamps and nonsense." is hardly what I'd call it. Kubrick is all about subtext.
I know I am supposed to find it deep and like it to the bitter end. And boy have I tried. There'a lot of Kubrick I don't get. I have actually read A Clockwork Orange , the novel, and liked it despite its Burgessian lapsed catholic babble, but I intensely dislike the movie. And don't get me started on The Shining .
I can't blame Kubrick for cutting all the voice-overs, which probably would have made the movie unbearable to watch. At the same time, it's maddening in its ambiguity. Seeing it as a product of this enormous gulf between creative approaches explains a lot.
It certainly does. Being much, much more Clarke than Kubrick, I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars", and then usually switch off, as I know from then on the masterpiece will be descending into lava lamps and nonsense.
Interestingly, this isn't actually said in 2001. It is in the novelization but its only said in the sequel 2010. It surprised me re-watching 2001 in the cinema a few years ago to not see it said, so I thought I might be watching a weird recut, but no. How the mind plays tricks.
I can't blame Kubrick for cutting all the voice-overs, which probably would have made the movie unbearable to watch. At the same time, it's maddening in its ambiguity. Seeing it as a product of this enormous gulf between creative approaches explains a lot.
It certainly does. Being much, much more Clarke than Kubrick, I watch the thing in awe up till and including "My God, it's full of stars", and then usually switch off, as I know from then on the masterpiece will be descending into lava lamps and nonsense.
I envy you the progress you'll make when you get around to re-examining some of your faulty assumptions (as we all eventually must, or at least should). Most of us don't have that much room left for personal growth and discovery in our lives.