Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2001 - Wtf?!

Options
  • 15-05-2005 7:32pm
    #1
    Seeker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭


    I was flicking thjough channels when I came across the end of this movie. Basically i saw the last scene with an astronaut.Then there was a kaleidoscope of colours that seemed to go on for ages. After this an ornate room was shown with a bed a table and some weird loking guy who then goes to bed.

    I didnt see the whole movie so im wondering if someone will explain it to me what it was about. Was it symbolism or something?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    simu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    No! Go watch the film or you'll never know.


  • Options
    #3
    KdjaCL
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,346 ✭✭✭✭KdjaCL


    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

    Possibly one of the best sci fi movies ever made, find it weird you never heard of it.


    kdjac


  • Options
    #4
    Seeker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Seeker


    Ive heard of it but ive never seen all of it.


  • Options
    #5
    projectmayhem
    Registered Users Posts: 9,481 ✭✭✭projectmayhem


    i've seen it loads of times and own it on dvd, and i still had questions -- until i went to www.kubrick2001.com :)


  • Options
    #6
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,810 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    It's an amazing film. You do have to watch it from start to finish. It's no wonder you didn't get it. I pick up new things from it everytime I watch it.
    Untitled Image




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    ObeyGiant
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭ObeyGiant


    Actually, fuck these guys - watching the rest of the movie won't really explain the ending to you. It's a lot of heavy symbolism. But listen to Projectmayhem, that site is amazing and really helps open the entire film up.


  • Options
    #8
    Gordon
    Registered Users Posts: 35,523 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    KdjaC wrote:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

    Possibly one of the best sci fi movies ever made, find it weird you never heard of it.


    kdjac
    Shame on you.

    THE best!


  • Options
    #9
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    For Gods sake (!) don't explian it. That'll ruin the mystery.

    Pity ITV3 choose to screen it in 4:3 ratio (though thats typical of ITV alround), but that said the picture defintion was perfect.

    Mike.


  • Options
    #10
    ObeyGiant
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭ObeyGiant


    mike65 wrote:
    Pity ITV3 choose to screen it in 4:3 ratio (though thats typical of ITV alround), but that said the picture defintion was perfect.
    Kubrick would have approved. He preferred that aspect ratio.


  • Options
    #11
    TabulaRasa
    Registered Users Posts: 33 ✭TabulaRasa


    Read the book by Arthur C Clarke, it'll make way more sense then.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/
    11/ Why are Some Kubrick films only available in the "full frame" aspect ratio (1) on VHS video, DVD and Laserdisc?

    It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."

    The decision to release Kubrick's back catalogue as full frame only has been very controversial. The problem for Vitali and other defenders of the Kubrick legacy is that Kubrick never publicly voiced the preference now being attributed to him, so they are always open to the charge of over zealousness in protecting his legacy or even outright betrayal of that legacy. But this seems excessively harsh, Vitali' has been given the Hobson's choice of remaining true to his employers wishes no matter how anachronistic they seem (or may seem in future given the recent advances in home entertainment technology). Like a devoted acolyte, protecting his masters life work his position he will not yield to the clamour of criticism but will remain intractable in his resolve because he is not fighting for himself or defending his personal opinions, but those of the person he devoted half his adult life to serving. Ironically no one will ever know what would have happened if 16:9 widescreen TV sets became commonplace before Kubrick died -- he could might rethought his films one more time and chosen to transfer them to that widescreen ratio, or offered consumers the choice. Who knows? But one thing is certain, as long as his loyal staff and family still have a say in the matter, we will only being seeing his films in the format he wanted them to be shown in before he died.

    Which helps explain the quality of the print screened yesterday. The defintion goes to hell when 1:2.20/1:2.35 is shown 4:3

    Mike.


  • Options
    #13
    simu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,730 ✭✭✭✭simu


    Gordon wrote:
    Shame on you.

    THE best!

    I agree - it must be fate :-P

    Oh, the book by Arthur C. Clarke is worth reading as well.


  • Options
    #14
    Pigman II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,921 ✭✭✭✭Pigman II


    That flash file sure gives some food for thought!

    One other thing I noticed is when DaveBowman is trying to get back into the Spaceship it is necessary for him to discard the body of FrankPoole into space. Perhaps symbolic of evolution towards non-corporial form?


  • Options
    #15
    Quinnsey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 71 ✭✭Quinnsey


    ObeyGiant wrote:
    Kubrick would have approved. He preferred that aspect ratio.

    He would certainly NOT approve 2001 being shown in 4:3.

    While he is said to prefer the 4:3 ratio for films such as The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, they were shot open matte in spherical 35mm so presenting them full frame shows more information. Films such as 2001 or Spartacus were shot in widescreen 70mm so panning and scanning them chops off up to 40% of the image and totally ruins the composition.

    Some say the reason he went on to film most of his future films in full frame was because of the way 2001 and other films were being ruined on TV.


  • Options
    #16
    OY
    Closed Accounts Posts: 545 ✭✭✭OY


    projectmayhem wrote:
    i've seen it loads of times and own it on dvd, and i still had questions -- until i went to www.kubrick2001.com :)

    This is a cool site! I like it a lot. It has been many years since i watched the movie and read the book.
    I think that i will do it again...
    Thanks!


Advertisement