 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.37.240.251
In Reply to: 201 A Space Odyssey. You get from this movie what you bring to it posted by Analog Scott on January 4, 2007 at 10:57:08:
***I have no desire to try to convince anyone of the greatness of this movie if they have already failed to see it.No? Then why this post? Looks like you just can't accept the fact some people are not as much in love with it as you are.
Follow Ups:
You don't like scifi. I may as well comment on opera. It all sucks. Is that a valuable meaningful comment? I think not. Victor there is no questioning your pasion for movies but you have very distict taste. Nothing wrong with that. You can't argue taste. The problem is you confuse your taste with artistic merit. Of course there is overlap between everybodies personal taste and true artistry. You seem to think you have achieved 100% overlap between the two. Nobody has.
nt
Joined by the keyboard?
s
I am a lot less patient than James. I'd think that would be obvious.
But I don't mind some temper and I usually quickly forget.
> > > "Joined by the keyboard?" < < <ROTFL-APMP! Talk about the proverbial pot attempting to carbonize the unsuspecting kettle!
Of course, it's only one man's opinion (albeit an opinion that is very well informed), but you & patrick are so co-joined that PT Barnum might've dumped Chang & Eng Bunker and paid a small fortune just to take you two "Archies" on a world tour along with his other curiosities! Hey, just add Napoleonic knickers and a pair of artsy-fartsy faux sabers and I'd wager that you two sin-twisters would've been a sensation with 19th century high-society in Europe!!! ;^D
Seriously (after administering such a brutal teasing), why can't you just allow someone else to express a point-of-view without trying to lay a guilt trip on the poster? After all, he wasn't challenging you, but agreeing with Analog Scott, was he not? I guess being unable to totally dominate the discussion without some disagreement cuts against the grain for ya, huh.
AuPh
And hold it under your nose, my little darling...And? And what you see is....you!
Come on let us have a threesome...
What, tag teaming o.k. only when you are doing the tag teaming? How's about we meet the two of you in the back of the wine rack after school.
And I thought you would be honored! :-(
While 2201 has a vision, and the first ten minutes are one of the strongest opening ever seen in a movie, I failed and I did try hard to love the rest of the film.
With all my respect to this creation, it just failed on me.Maybe ML was pregnant?
It did for a lot of people. At least you tried.
Taste-wise, Victor's only passion for SF is that he romances Tvarscki, ...err Tarkovsky's Sore-laris. IMHO, poor Victor definitely suffers tunnel-vision! ;^)In regard to Peter Jackson's films and Tolkein's Lord of The Rings in particular, Victor's informed opinions are highly suspect, if you can call them 'informed' since he admittedly hasn't seen any these films in their entirity, theatrical releases or extended cuts.
However, if the film fare has a thick layer of grey poupon euro-sitcom personal relationship-foo slathered on he'll wax poetic for hours like Ernie Kovacs doing Percy Dovetonsils. 8^D
Cheers,
AuPh
nt
...you'd hop on board for a tandem luge with Victor; it's as predictable as a Swiss watch! ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
After that you factually do not post a message on this board witout mentionning LoTS, or making it the central theme of your posts, it must be more than one, my dear...
In matters of public taste & incontinental visual arts criticism it is assumed that you two will stubbornly Prevail! ;^)Cheers,
AuPh
The kind who prostitute themself?
As I am sure you notice, I do not comment on things like Star Troopers Part 17 and other such films - but the 2001 was made by one of the greatest directors to ever walk this Earth, and is believed by many to have crossed the line between mindless entertainment and serious thinking movies, so it is a legit target (not that there is anything illegitimate with commenting on your run-off-the-mill sci-fi).Regarding the opera, I am not sure what your familiarity with it is, but I have certainly seen many, many sci-fi films - I do not always watch what I like. I had even watched some of those Star Troopers, or whatever that name is.
Nobody would put the 2001 in the same bin as ST, but the point of disagreement seems to be the philosophical, phychological and human depth of it. While there is definitely some there, I just don't see it close to that of the Solaris. The two represent two different extremes of sci-fi genre, ir you will - one purely visual and mechanical, the other one lacking severely in that department, but concentrating on the effect of all that technical mumbo-jumbo on humans.
They never worked on me ::rim shot:: I certainly can appreciate the set designs , lighting designs, the quality of the live orchestra, and even the quality of acting within such a stylized presentation. But I can't stand the singing. I hate it. It is a pure aesthetic distaste like my distaste for the smell of B.O. the taste of raw fish, the sound of construction work or the look of an industrial dump. That personal tatse slants my opinion of any opera to the point of being pretty worthless. But I know that it is my taste and not the artistic merits of opera that are at play here.While 2001 has high aspirations I think the very divide you put between high aspirations and scifi tells us something most of us already know about your taste with this genre. There are two basic kinds of scifi movies. the "what if" type and the futuristic fantasy type. 2001 is very much in it's premise and story arc a "what if" type of scifi movie. A well constructed intelegent "what if" scifi movie will take some sort of premise and ask interesting moral, ethical and even spiritual questions about the human existance. Most of them will go on to take a stance on those issues and use that stance to reflect on the human condition and the nature of the characters in the story. This is where 2001 differs from most good scifi. It doesn't take stances on the moral, ethical or spiritual questions that arise from it's basic premise. It brings us to the questions and leaves us to answer them for ourselves. It would seem that this sort of narative does not apeal to you, the "what if" scifi narative. many of us fidn great value in the construct of such a premise and story arc all by itself. The other thing that is very important is the spectacle of scifi. At it's best it is more than just eye candy and bring us into the world o f the ppremise, and disarms are guard against contiplation of the moral, social and spiritual issues that the "what if" gives us. It seems you do not care much for the spectacle of film. That's finer but that is a quirk of your taste. From the begining of film, from the begining of theater, from the begining of oral traditions of story telling spectacle has been a major element of narative. It may not matter to you but it can't be denied as a valued part of film. That element is an extremely important part of 2001. The "what if" is very well constructed. What if humanity as we know it was the result of an encounter with an intelelgent extra-terrestrial entity. What if that was the spark of enginuity that lead to hominids becoming tool makers/ builders of civilization? What if the second step in that experiment/encounter were to happen at a time when technology developed to the level of interplanetary space travel and AI? Interesting what if. one that was so smartly developed into a brilliant and truly tight narrative that showed us the begining of each stage without breaking any rules of logic or reason. There is plenty of depth in the questions this movie asks. I think what makes it so brilliant is that it makes sense that it doesn't give us answers. *IF* we were to encounter extra terestrial intelegence that evolved seperately from all life on earth it would in all likely hood be truly alien, not just in the literal sense but in the deepest meaning of the wrod alien. almost all scifi falls back on the anthropomorphising of aliens. makes it easy to relate to them and tell stories about them with neat conclusions all tied up and without need of explination. But I think most people who have given it any thought agree that this is a convenience of story telling that would be highly unlikely in reality. So any encounter with such an entitiy would likely be as mysterious as it is in 2001 and would likely leave us with far more questions than answers as it does in 2001. The questions we come up with and the answers we come up with is where we find the depth in this movie. It is unconventional but it is there. If we bring it. It's very hard to bring it if the genre which asks the "what if' questions doesn't appeal to us and if the spectacle which in the case of this movie is important doesn't matter to us.
Just a quick comment on that opera thing and then need to run, might come back to do the second part later.I love opera, and listen a lot to it, in fact have the ipod with nothing but opera in my car at the moment. For the life of me I can't understand your rejection of bel canto, but hence the rub - I do not have such reaction towards the sci fi movies, none at all. I actually love them as light form of entertainment. But I also find that what the American cinema has done to that genre truly sucks - it turnd it into a monster - pun purely intended... with nothing but row upon row of drooling ugly creatures. Sci fi can be intelligent, insigntful, psychological, entertaining and more - and that is how I recall it.
But today's dirty wave of "creaturism" is revolting.
But like I said - I do not see any similarity between your feelings towards the opera and mine regarding the sci-fi films. Give me a good one and I will enjoy it.
Here are some from the better one.-The day the Earth catch fire.
-Blade Runner ( first version ) this film is poetic and have a vision.
-The Thing ( Hawk version of course!
-Matrix only part one.
-Metropolis- Lang opus still rock.
-And Solaris which I used to consider a sleeper, and must revised it as this director ( Tarkowski ) in the meantime maybe in my eyes as the best universal director of all time.
But I was under the impression that you were about as fond of genre movies as I was of opera. I remember way back I asked you to come up with a short list of genre movies that you liked and you couldn't come up with anything other than one of the Sinbad movies, as very light entertainment.
...let me just state once again that I have nothing agains that or any other genre... heck, I dig the teenage films with cute babes... so it is just the matter of meeting a good one.The 2001 is one such good film, it is a fine work from many perspectives, it just fails, in my view, live up to the highest prase some people bestow on it.
nt
You are certainly not alone.
I have done extensive research into the 2001 phenomena over the last 20-25 odd years. My compiled research tells me that of the total no. of people who have watched 2001 - actually, make that "tried to watch" 2001 - somewhere between 25% to 50% fell asleep.
If you go into 2001 expecting to be entertained, you will probably end up a sleeper.
I agree with Analog Scott - it is a thinking movie. It leaves you with lots of questions and few answers. No ideology or philosphy is foisted onto you - but there is a lot to ponder afterwards if you want to.As an engineer, I loved it instantly for its totally realistic vision of space travel, which IMO is unsurpassed. I can't suspend my sense long enough to relax and enjoy Star Wars or any other modern sci-fi film - they are all 5th Element to me - just fun stories with gobs of mindnumbing CGI effects done because without the effects they'd have no movie at all.
The fact that almost nothing happens for much of the film is fine with me, the guys who one day travel to Mars or Jupiter will do nothing for most of the time as well.
Cheers,
John K
"Natura abhorret a vacua"
2001 is like Pink Floyd music----something I no longer enjoyed once I stopped smoking pot.2001 was a big buildup to....nothing. Something for the pot smokers and would be intellectos to endlessly speculate about and make themselves feel bright and refined. Like another such picture of the period, "Blow Up".
Your comment on this two films reflect to the point what I think of, but certainly no one can deny many qualities to both of this films.
> > > "As I am sure you notice, I do not comment on things like Star Troopers Part 17 and other such films - but the 2001 was made by one of the greatest directors to ever walk this Earth, and is believed by many to have crossed the line between mindless entertainment and serious thinking movies, so it is a legit target (not that there is anything illegitimate with commenting on your run-off-the-mill sci-fi)." < < <LOL! Ummm, maybe you have Starship Troopers confused with Stalag 17. Hey, you really should cut back on the Stolli, dude! ;^)
As for great Directors, yes Kubrick was a master, but Paul Verhooven is no slouch either, but of course, YMMV. Conversely, I'd rather avoid the spin employed by your rodent-powered "run-off-the-mill" grey poupon.
> > > "Regarding the opera, I am not sure what your familiarity with it is, but I have certainly seen many, many sci-fi films - I do not always watch what I like. I had even watched some of those Star Troopers, or whatever that name is." < < <
Your ego is such that you can't even get straight which film you are referencing or bring yourself to use the real name as if embarrassed to admit seeing Paul Verhooven's magnificent SF film. Yes, there was a sequel by a lesser director; it was almost straight to video. While the sequel is not bad, it bears no resemblance to Verhooven's high-powered tongue 'n cheek pastiche of militarism, propaganda and the uncomfortable balance between patriotism and fascism. BTW, this film is not without it's critics, mainly because it strayed afield of Heinlein's deeper themes, many of which probably proved as uncinematic as that now infamous endless tunnel sequence in Tarkovsky's Solaris.
> > > "Nobody would put the 2001 in the same bin as ST" < < <
I don't know, doesn't "T" (spelling out 2001) come just after "S" in the SF section? ;^)
> > > "...I just don't see it close to that of the Solaris." < < <
Thank goodness!
> > > "The two represent two different extremes of sci-fi genre, ir you will - one purely visual and mechanical, the other one lacking severely in that department, but concentrating on the effect of all that technical mumbo-jumbo on humans." < < <
Not to take away anything from Lem's written work, the filmed versions of Solaris (both of them) are BORING, albeit for different reasons. The U.S. version is claustrophobic, talky and slow, and the Russian version would make Eric Von Stroheim's original director's cut of Greed seem of shorter duration.
Heck, you cannot find a more Sominex inducing formula for film watching than the Tarkovsky's Solaris. SF movies, scratch that ...genre movies in general, don't have to be solely about action, but they should at least MOVE! In other words, a GOOD genre movie should be involving and paced well enough to move the story forward plot-wise, something sorely lacking in Snorelaris.
AuPh
A film than many considered as Faschistoid, when it did come out.
At first glance I did loke it.
At second, I found it utterly boring.
Now up for a third time, as the director is a good one.
Has anyone else noticed that you do not get a realistic depiction of alien life forms anymore? Not since "Close Encounters" basically. It annoys me that there are no realistic depictions anymore. Some claim it is because the people that control the media won't allow it.click on "audio stream" for Dr Greer intervier with American Antigravity.
Elected officials are afraid of offending the migrant alien voting block! ;^)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
