2001: A Space Odyssey

hence
2001 = WAR KUBRICK

Joshua??? Haha, is that the WarGames computer? You'd put a killer of astronauts up against something programmed by Matthew Broderick?!?

(Reagan-era kiddie nuke adventures: The Manhattan Project > WarGames)

The WOPR had the entire nuclear arsenal of the world at its disposal. It almost wiped out the human race. They couldn't shut it down, they had to teach it futility. That's a much, much more interesting character arc than HAL, and better armament to boot.

When I get my own digital projector and an apartment to fit it in, I'll be sure and netflix 2001 again and let you know how I feel afterwards. I am not optimistic.

(I also think Henry is right, AGAIN. Enrique didn't we used to get in fites on film threads? what went wrong?)

So is the ending of 2001 Kubrick's most optimistic? Is it, as John Simon dissed, "a shaggy God story"? Or is tracking human evolution as a series of steps engineered from Beyond the Infinite depressingly deterministic? And why do aliens like 18th-century French decor?

but i'm unsure abt evolution as a theory.

ok lol

i was a riot at college

That's a shame! I always find it interesting to see where different people draw the line beyond which everything becomes "pretentious" or "masturbatory".

Apparently the 2001 makeup people weren't considered for an Oscar because the pajama-clad Academy types didn't realize the apes were actors.

although he did use a real chimp baby...

http://blogs.citypages.com/pscholtes/images/11111111%20Jack%20Kirby.jpg

I loved the movie so early and unconditionally that reading Pauline Kael's pan as an adolescent was an event. But she was so wrong...

The 2001 apes were in Shepperton Studios -- the landscapes were rear projections.

I have. It looks great, but it doesn't change everything else I find wrong with it. This is my issue with Kubrick almost en totale. Everything looks great (except most of the Shining but I'm not sure who to blame really for why the Shining is so awful, mainly I blame Nicholson), but that's...it...which there is something to be said for that but there is also something to be said for not making films like Eyes Wide Shut.

And yeah the space baby thing was crap, I gotta be honest, that is totally awkward cinema IMO.

I can understand the Starbaby not working for you, but "awkward"? If the finale shows the post-human evolutionary leap, how else would you show it? All the other options seem too mundane.

(friend claims this is why I hate Brando in The Godfather, but I maintain it's because he's bad)

Dune, aghhh. Medieval-style sci-fi... me so sleeeepppyyy...

How the hell did you get to see Dune in the theater? Man.

I bought tickets to see Dune in a theatre. WTF?

i hate movies-as-competition shit.

what do you mean?

But as films go, Stence, you must admit that 2001 has the edge, no?

I meant where the hell do they still show Dune in the theater! I guess not in Alabama or Tennessee or the Washington DC metro area.

I was far more bored by the Herbert book -- Lynch slightly improved on it, if only by the brio with which Kenneth MacMillan popped pustules and devoured boys. Hundreds of pages on spice and worms...
(drooling, slackjawed...)

But yeah, Dune is not at all the kind of SF 2001 is.

http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/312001.html

xpost that book is unreadable. I'm not a big sci fi person though, really. The movie is about 4 hours of Kyle MacLachlan staring blankly which I'm mostly ok with. I like the fact that the disaster that was Dune actually managed to get the go-ahead for Blue Velvet from de Laurentiis.

Obviously, I disagree with that article on the '76 comic. Kirby's "lazy," "loose" style in the mid-'70s was a thing of almost abstract beauty.

well yeah, i did post earlier that it's my favorite film.

Hello! JOSHUA was totally designed by Dr. Stephen Falken. He, like, named it after his dead son or whatever. Sheesh.