Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

rogerebert.suntimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#31

Post by protomyth »

Jun8 wrote: post #20
protomyth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm, because they are the bad guys? John Wayne films are pretty clear on why the bad guys are considered bad. I realize that these films are not high brow entertainment, but factual honesty is always a bonus. Witty false statements playing on a cliche kind of irritate me.

Yes, that's understood. But what are the gunslinger character's motivations behind wanting to kill the bad guys? After all, we encounter really bad guys all the time in our lives, e.g. Jared Lee Loughner. If he were out in the wild, would you be willing to seek out and kill him. It takes a certain kind of person to be motivated to do this. What are those motivations? For being a Western that delves into some of these…

In many periods of history (including a chunk of the 20 years of the Old West), it was up to individual members of the community to deal with the really bad guys. Killing them was the method. Holding people from historical eras (even the fiction of that era) to modern conventions / beliefs kinda defeats the purpose.

Have you actually watched any of the John Wayne flicks? The motivation is pretty self explanatory. Its like asking why the military in ID4 wants to kill the aliens. Getting shot at first is generally considered a basic reason.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#32

Post by Jun8 »

protomyth wrote: post #31
Jun8 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's understood. But what are the gunslinger character's motivations behind wanting to kill the bad guys? After all, we encounter really bad guys all the time in our lives, e.g. Jared Lee Loughner. If he were out in the wild, would you be willing to seek out and kill him. It takes a certain kind of person to be motivated to do this. What are those motivations? For being a Western that delves into some of these…

In many periods of history (including a chunk of the 20 years of the Old West), it was up to individual members of the community to deal with the really bad guys. Killing them was the method. Holding people from historical eras (even the fiction of that era) to modern conventions / beliefs kinda defeats the purpose. Have you actually watched any of the John Wayne flicks? The motivation is pretty self explanatory. Its…

You miss my point. I understand what the obvious motivation is. But actually killing a man is emotionally quite hard, especially when he's shooting back at you (this is why even some good hunters fail in these situations, there's a classic scene in The Last Samurai about this). One of my favorite gunslinger quotes is "You don't have to be fast, you just have to be willing."

Even in those times you mention, not everyone was up to the task, and not just because they weren't sharp shooters; they just weren't willing in the above sense. Think about it: Would you be able to ruthlessly kill a "bad guy", when if he shot at you first.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#33

Post by sdenheyer »

DanI-S wrote: post #13

One thing I always found slightly sad about this movie is the idea that humans can only advance through outside intervention. I don't believe that at all!

I agree. It struck me re-watching this movie recently that it invokes a "sky-hook"-type explanation for human cognitive development. This occurred to me during the opening scenes, but it didn't detract from the power of the film. These types of explanations are very satisfying, for some reason.

(I guess you could also ask what was responsible for the cognitive development of whatever planted the monoliths..)

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#34

Post by bradleyland »

mhb wrote: post #30
grandpa wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feynman is saying that explanations do not detract from enjoyment, not that they are necessary to it.

He's saying that explanations produce a net gain in enjoyment since they add another dimension to an experience without affecting the ability to enjoy it in an unexplained fashion.

Feynman was speaking to poets. He was allaying their fear that increased understanding would lead to less "wondering", and hence less creativity.

I find it hard to believe that Feynman would apply that argument to works like Kubrick's 2001. In all of Feynman's speaking, he never took the stance that something must be explained entirely in order to be interesting. Quite the opposite; Feynman was most interested in the things that hadn't yet been explained. The things that no one else could explain.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#35

Post by mhb »

bradleyland wrote: post #34
mhb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's saying that explanations produce a net gain in enjoyment since they add another dimension to an experience without affecting the ability to enjoy it in an unexplained fashion.

Feynman was speaking to poets. He was allaying their fear that increased understanding would lead to less "wondering", and hence less creativity. I find it hard to believe that Feynman would apply that argument to works like Kubrick's 2001. In all of Feynman's speaking, he never took the stance that something must be explained entirely in order to be interesting. Quite the opposite; Feynman was most interested in the…

He was addressing the idea of the poets' that he could not appreciate the beauty of the stars because he understood why they worked. His delight in understanding how things worked increases his enjoyment of them.

The reason he was interested in things that hadn't been explained yet is because he wanted to find explanations - not because there is an inherent advantage to their remaining opaque.

Re: "2001": The Monolith and the Message (Roger Ebert, April 21, 1968)

#36

Post by protomyth »

Jun8 wrote: post #32
protomyth wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many periods of history (including a chunk of the 20 years of the Old West), it was up to individual members of the community to deal with the really bad guys. Killing them was the method. Holding people from historical eras (even the fiction of that era) to modern conventions / beliefs kinda defeats the purpose. Have you actually watched any of the John Wayne flicks? The motivation is pretty self explanatory. Its…

You miss my point. I understand what the obvious motivation is. But actually killing a man is emotionally quite hard, especially when he's shooting back at you (this is why even some good hunters fail in these situations, there's a classic scene in The Last Samurai about this). One of my favorite gunslinger quotes is "You don't have to be fast, you just have to be willing." Even in those times you mention, not everyo…

No, I really don't think I miss your point. I should point out every film is not a deep drama with a message. The basic plot line for a Western has many people who don't deal with the villains for various reason, thus the need for our heroes. It would be a very short movie if the whole town took up arms against the bad guys.

To the second point, if someone is shooting at me, I take a little exception at my response being called "ruthless", I would say it is more in the justified range. Given everything, yeah, I would feel bad about it, but I would defend my family / friends.

Post reply on HN