Huh?

I think the reason they put 2001 in the title (the year is not mentioned anywhere within the film) is due in part to the theme of the next age of mankind. When the film was made, the first year of the next millennium was going to be the year 2001 (not the year 2000 as is commonly believed - that's the final year of the previous millennium). And the next millennium of mankind could be thematically seen as the next age of mankind. Without seeing a need for such a thematic touch, the film could've easily been titled simply "A Space Odyssey"

This thread is a fascinating combination of mindless nitpicking and fundamental misunderstandings of the film.

And one guy who apparently thinks that both Blade Runner and all of Kubrick's output post-1980 is shit?!

Somewhere, somehow, in a "Jeffty Is Five" sorta way, I'd love to see Kubrick's 2010.

Pick me, pick me.

But please make that post-1971.

in the later books the alien intelligence kept humans away from what it did. turning jupiter into a star and life on europa. every time humans tried to send a probe to europa it failed.

So basically it was a double secret probation.

I think the biggest flaw/mistake in the film is in the spinning "ferris wheel" space station exterior scenes. When first shown, facing the completed side of the space station with the under-construction side away, the space station is spinning clockwise. But later on, when the space plane is approaching, when facing the completed side with the under-construction side away, the space station is spinning counter-clockwise. This is the biggest goof in the film (IMO).

I've seen the film 20 plus times and never noticed--so it can't be that big of a goof. Nitpickers make me

You don't like Barry Lyndon?!

Leave this forum and never darken my doorstep again.

Saw it the week it opened. I was, and still am, a huge Kubrick fan. 2001 and Dr. Strangelove are both in my Top Ten. But I was very disappointed. However I haven't seen it since and I've been considering watching it again. My initial problem was the casting of non-actor Ryan O'Neal. I will say that Scorsese's Age Of Innocence is a pale wannabe to Barry Lyndon.

I think a big problem with the way people perceive Barry Lyndon is that it's not immediately obvious that it's meant to be a comedy.

But Barry Lyndon is fucking hilarious.

....can anyone else confirm/deny this?

Also, as you watch it, realize that most shots were meant to appear like a painting. It becomes quite beautiful and amazing knowing that.

Your opinion of the film is based on seeing it once...36 years ago. Maybe you should give it another try.

Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood on Up Late With Alec Baldwin (MSNBC) right now (CST)

Wow, reading back on this thread is a real trip. Not an odyssey, though. New Age Outlaw is still totally wrong.

Also, the apes in the beginning of the film would NOT be the last common ancestor between chimps and humans. There were several hominid species in between the last common ancestor and us.

audio appears to be messed up on "Alec Baldwin's Cosmic Journey" video which starts off the show but I think the others work
http://www.msnbc.com/up-late

it was a very cool (almost) hour

2001 is an excellent film, aesthetically and otherwise. The space scenes look pretty darn good. But the movie's not flawless. What is?

If a costume looks fake, it detracts from my experience a little. I'm a film watcher, not a film maker. To me, the date that a film was made is irrelevant. Would I enjoy The Wizard of Oz slightly more if it featured a realistic lion in addition to monkeys? Yes. The Cowardly Lion's costume is undeniably bad.

My interpretation is that the apes are the common ancestor, but I could be mistaken. I don't think the film contains definitive information, but a documentary or book about the movie might.

Yes.

The Cowardly Lion's costume is incredible! What an amazing piece of workmanship. All three of the Oz costumes are.

As for the common ancestor, I was making an inference, as to the best of my knowledge, genus Homo are the first sophisticated tool users among the primates. Chimpanzees and Orangutans do use tools (as do Brown-Tufted Capuchins in the New World), but it seems pretty clear to me from the film that this is meant to be the origin of our direct lineage.

I read the 2001 book that was developed at the same time as the movie, but I can't recall what it states or implies about the relationship between the apes and humans.

Actually, the movie states that sequence takes place 4 million years ago, which means we're probably looking at Ardipithecus.

You do realize the lion was not supposed to be totally realistic. Dorothy has to make the connection that Zeke was represented by the Cowardly Lion. There had to be the resemblance to him along with a lion. As Supermallet said, the workmanship was incredible. And those Flying Monkeys are some of the freakiest things created for film.

As for 2001, I didn't throw up my hands and sat "it's a man in a monkey" and get taken out of the movie. I will look at how the costume is articulated, how the mouth works and how well the actor inside plays the part. Instead of taking me out of the movie, the artistry pulls me into the scene.