Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 22-26 August 2011 (1996-2000)
Akima:
--- Quote from: DSL on 23 Aug 2011, 17:43 ---they never seriously considered what the spaceship Tsien should look like, except for one faintly humorous scribble of a Chinese-food take-out box with a rocket motor attached.
--- End quote ---
Ha fucking ha! I didn't know about that thigh-slapper, but it would be par for the course. After all, the spaceship is named after a Chinese scientist treated disgracefully by the US government.
westrim:
--- Quote from: gangler on 23 Aug 2011, 09:31 ---Wow. That actually is pretty impressive. I didn't realize all that came from that movie. "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." in particular I would not have assumed to have any particular origin. Just something you say in those types of situations.
Sounds like whether or not HAL is famous or recognizable, it was at the very least very culturally influential.
--- End quote ---
I'm sure that similar words were said many times in the past (as well as many apologies for not being able to do something), but that specific phrasing is now nearly almost always used as a reference to 2001 in media.
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 23 Aug 2011, 12:20 ---Not even something along the lines of: "I've got this pain in the diodes down my left side?"
--- End quote ---
Nope.
--- Quote from: Carl-E on 23 Aug 2011, 11:53 ---
--- Quote from: westrim on 23 Aug 2011, 09:24 ---Other widely known 2001 quotes include "good morning Dave," "open the pod bay doors, HAL," and "This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it." It also gave us a lot of indelible imagery, like the monolith, the protohumans fighting, bone becomes spaceship match cut, Dave's helmet cam, and probably some other stuff, but aside from HAL's optical sensor they don't have much to do with AI.
--- End quote ---
And don't forget "Thus spake Zarathustra", the famous opening music. Not to mention watching the space station revolve to the Blue Danube waltz...
--- End quote ---
I didn't, thus "include" and "like" (as bolded) to indicate this was a nonexhaustive list. I just wanted to present a couple more quotes and imagery to jog the memory of references to it that had never been recognized as references at all.
--- Quote from: Andy147 on 23 Aug 2011, 14:25 ---Well, I know "Thus spake Zarathustra" and "Blue Danube" but don't associate them with 2001, not having seen it. (I watched the beginning once because people rave about it, and was so underwhelmed by the "bone becomes spaceship match cut" that I gave up.)
--- End quote ---
Ah, the insidious hype backlash.
--- Quote from: Akima on 23 Aug 2011, 20:39 ---Ha fucking ha! I didn't know about that thigh-slapper, but it would be par for the course. After all, the spaceship is named after a Chinese scientist treated disgracefully by the US government.
--- End quote ---
Freaky. Not two weeks ago I read his obituary that I had cut out of a newspaper (ikr?) and saved long ago, in the course of checking my folder of interesting articles to read and tossing ones that were no longer interesting. It was one of only four or five pieces that I read in its entirety and it was very frank about how badly we screwed him over. At least he didn't end up like Turing (in before mudslinging about who did what to which important scientist to screw them over.)
Regarding comments concerning its entertainment value, I admit regarding it as plodding and sometimes incomprehensible. My father, who has read the book, says that most of what's confusing about the movie is explained by the book and vice versa. I have neither seen the entire movie in one sitting nor read the book (I have it but have not yet read it) to confirm the veracity of that claim. I have however read up on it and seen all the parts at one time or another, so I recognize most cultural references that I encounter.
TheBiscuit:
--- Quote from: westrim on 23 Aug 2011, 20:40 ---My father, who has read the book, says that most of what's confusing about the movie is explained by the book is explained by the movie and vice versa. I have neither seen the entire movie in one sitting nor read the book (I have it but have not yet read it) to confirm the veracity of that claim. I have however read up on it and seen all the parts at one time or another, so I recognize most cultural references that I encounter.
--- End quote ---
I can not only confirm what your father has told you, but I can state that Arthur C. Clarke fully intended that this be so. I've seen clear statements to this effect in an interview. I wish I could offer a link, it is really rather fascinating. The relationship of book to film, and film to book changed somewhat during development, but the book cannot properly be called the original version, or the source material. They were developed in parallel.
By the end of the project, the film and the book had been consciously crafted to complement each other. You only get the full picture by taking both in conjunction. This is part of why I find the film so unsatisfying. I also don't have much appreciation for scenes of vast visual beauty which are not relevant to the plot, so... that explains my distaste for the film. For me it just doesn't tell a story. It merely works as a visual and auditory companion work to the novel. Mind you, although it approaches blasphemy for me to say it, even if the narrative of film and book were presented in medium and style I could enjoy more, I find that Clarke has covered much of the same ground and in a more satisfying way in his other books.
At the same time I have an immense admiration for Clarke and I can't help but admire the work even if I don't enjoy it.
It's an important and fascinating work, but I'll never be able to appreciate it.
westrim:
--- Quote from: TheBiscuit on 23 Aug 2011, 20:51 ---
--- Quote from: westrim on 23 Aug 2011, 20:40 ---My father, who has read the book, says that most of what's confusing about the movie is explained by the book is explained by the movie and vice versa. I have neither seen the entire movie in one sitting nor read the book (I have it but have not yet read it) to confirm the veracity of that claim. I have however read up on it and seen all the parts at one time or another, so I recognize most cultural references that I encounter.
--- End quote ---
I can not only confirm what your father has told you, but I can state that Arthur C. Clarke fully intended that this be so. I've seen clear statements to this effect in an interview. I wish I could offer a link, it is really rather fascinating. The relationship of book to film, and film to book changed somewhat during development, but the book cannot properly be called the original version, or the source material. They were developed in parallel.
--- End quote ---
That's what my dad said, although I didn't specifically mention he did. Mind you I didn't disbelieve my dad, but he taught me to confirm what even he says before claiming it as fact, so outside confirmation is still cool. That's what the veracity bit was about.
--- Quote from: TheBiscuit on 23 Aug 2011, 20:51 ---By the end of the project, the film and the book had been consciously crafted to complement each other. You only get the full picture by taking both in conjunction. This is part of why I find the film so unsatisfying. I also don't have much appreciation for scenes of vast visual beauty which are not relevant to the plot, so... that explains my distaste for the film. For me it just doesn't tell a story. It merely works as a visual and auditory companion work to the novel. Mind you, although it approaches blasphemy for me to say it, even if the narrative of film and book were presented in medium and style I could enjoy more, I find that Clarke has covered much of the same ground and in a more satisfying way in his other books.
At the same time I have an immense admiration for Clarke and I can't help but admire the work even if I don't enjoy it.
It's an important and fascinating work, but I'll never be able to appreciate it.
--- End quote ---
See, I disagree. A movie soundtrack can still be awesome without the movie, Garfield is even better when Garfield isn't speaking, and I've seen performance art pieces with music or vocals that would still be compelling without them. I figure at some point I'll read the book, then sit down and watch the movie while reading the book and get the full experience. Until then, I will probably never watch the movie as a whole piece, but I can still appreciate the separate scenes and join them in my mind with the silent parts on fast forward.
But hey, everyone experiences things differently and your experiences are just as valid as mine.
musicalsoul:
You know.... I saw 2001 at Wal-mart for five dollars last week and I was very tempted to get it, cause I've never seen it, and I've always heard it was amazing.
I ended up not getting it, but all this talk on here about it, just makes me wish that I had.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version