Quite a brilliant move, I think. It allows the viewer to connect their own dots and make a logical connection of ape/man. But those that discount that, they can always ignore the first act and still have a great sci-fi flick.

You know, love or hate 2001, it is pretty unique. I can't think of another film quite like it. I haven't seen it in years, I should revisit it with my more mature eyes, I got the Blu-Ray on sale recently. I'd kill to see this in 70mm

I don't know that I was wrong. Seems to me that my opinion of this movie can't be right or wrong. Perhaps you just disagree. However, I can not say I have changed my mind on this movie. Just don't see what is so great about it.

I wonder if a remake with updated effects, better acting, and spelled out better certain aspects of the movie (the monoliths and what the aliens wanted) would make me enjoy it more. The only thing I really love from this movie is some of the incredible shots of space. Some look almost like pieces of art

Some of you are using facts you read in the book. I don't know that having to read a explaination of what is just watched is great story telling. As an example, the movie does not indicate what the baby at the end is, you have to read the book for that.

I also don't nitpick movies, the nitpicks listed came from IMDB. I don't even care if the windows are down on the walking dead.

What? The year a film was made matters a lot when to to effects and all designs.

Oz was top notch in the costumes. You're bonkers.

I realize that film makers today have advantages over their predecessors when it comes to visuals. But I'm not under any obligation to be more lenient when evaluating the visuals of an old film.

Clearly, this is a matter of opinion, so it's not worth debating. You evaluate films using your criteria, and I evaluate films using my criteria.

Oz is a dreamland in The Wizard of Oz, but it was originally intended to be a real place with real animals. Return to Oz is probably more faithful to the source material than The Wizard of Oz.

Also, I like the flying monkeys. It would have been nice to have a real lion in addition to real monkeys. Perhaps if the people who who made The Wizard of Oz had access to today's technology, then Oz would not have been a dreamland and the Cowardly Lion would have looked like a real lion.

Not sure, but I'm fairly certain we'll never see a remake of 2001.

Thankfully.

Your criteria is fucking weird and unrealistic.

IMO

Remember 12 years ago when all of this happened?

You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact that you want a version that spells everything out in big bright neon letters tells that me that you do not understand the film as it is, and what it is doing. And the version you want sounds like an abomination to me. I refuse to even read the book for fear of Clarke spelling things out too clearly. Not that I think Clarke's book acts as canon for the film, but rather I want to formulate my own interpretations without worrying about Clarke's.

In the world of the film, it's a dream. It doesn't matter that it's a real place in the books. The film needs to be taken on its own merits.

Have you watched 2010?

The 2001 novel is actually somewhat different from the movie. The monoliths behave a bit differently than they do in the movie, and the ending goes slightly further and you know a little more about the "starchild."

Arthur C. Clarke's Odyssey series (2001, 2010, 2061, 3001) is sort of a strange beast. While it is, ostensibly, a series, the novels aren't direct sequels and each one sort of takes place in its own 'universe' while sharing themes, events, and characters.

In the book this takes place during the Pleistocene.

I don't need everything spelled out for me.
This movie does not explain the starchild for instance. I said he was bringing death to Earth. In this thread I was told I was absolutely wrong because it is spelled out in the book he was to protect the Earth.

For this to be a masterpiece, parts need to really be open to interpretation or spelled out IMO. This one choses to do neither. I can interpret it, but to really know I need to read the cliff notes (book).

Also, there is a difference from leaving things open to interpretation and just having random visuals on the screen with not definition of what is happening. This just lets the film maker feel how smart he is that he created a "thinking movie" and lets viewers think how sophisticated and smart they are that they "get it"

How did you come to the conclusion that the star child was there to protect the Earth? Gimme some examples for the film that led you to believe this. If you can't then it sounds like you heard others say it or read the book, because if you interpret it any other way, according to the book and this thread, you would be WRONG.

So a quick line from the scientist says that somehow these monoliths may be responsible for man development to using tools would make this an abomination. One line ruins the masterpiece?

HAL going crazy is fine left to the imagination. he was program to kill if he was threatened or he malfunctioned. Doesn't matter why because the outcome is the same

By the way letting that guy live the rest of his life out before becoming the star child was the act of a great alien race. He got to live his last 40-50 years in complete solitude in captivity. Didn't appear he could leave, didn't see any books, didn't see a tv just a bed and a whole lot of time. Sounds like torture to me. maybe off screen they were nice enough to water board him too.

I have absolutely not watched 2010. I see no reason for it to exist, and on top of that I consider Peter Hyams to be a hack. I've never even been curious.

You are welcome to your interpretation. As I have not read the book, I could not have argued that you are wrong because the book says so. However, if you think your interpretation is the only one, then it is you who are wrong.

There is nothing random about the visuals in this film. Kubrick DID create a "thinking" movie (and 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't the only one he made), and you seem frustrated because you do not "get it". That's not the movie's fault.

Actually, I am not frustarated with this movie.. Not because I don't get it, but because I don't like it. I get the movies story, I just don't see the masterpiece.

I'm not even upset that my interpitation is wrong, and it is according to the author of the book. I would consider him an authority on the subject matter, so I am fine with that.

My problem is the actual movie doesn't seem to convey those points as well as the book, perhaps even not as all as far as I can tell. I feel that there are some major points of information in the book, that are not in the movie. As long as the movie is, I don't feel there should be that many gaps.

I just don't see how anyone can make some of these leaps in the story that they have to about the monoliths and star child, unless the read the book or some else who has has explained it.

It is not clear from the movie the star child purpose, yet almost everyone agrees what it is. I find that hard to believe everyone came to that conclusion by themselves based on just the movie..ie the book had to explaine it..ie the movie did a poor job of explaining it itself

PS don't think I am slamming the movie if you happen to think it is a masterpiece. All I am doing is having a fun conversation about it with movie buffs. No one has had hurt feeling yet, but 2001 fans are protective of the movie, so no offense is meant when I say the movie sucks

Maybe I don't get it, but I feel this would be the first movie I am so far off on except American Psycho which I really don't get

I have watched this movie many times and i always enjoyed, it's a very good movie.

Over two years since the OP started this, and he/she still feels the need to talk about this movie? I think that fact alone makes it one of the greatest films ever made.

Just to be clear, the movie is NOT an adaptation of the book. The book was written by Clarke while Kubrick was making the movie, and the movie was released first.

And the movie does explain itself, but it may not be apparent without repeated viewings. The movie makes you work to uncover its meanings, and it's all the better for it.

That's funny, I consider American Psycho to be brilliant, and perhaps the best film of the '00s.

I might have trouble trying to find anything to watch at supermallet's house.

I knew a guy who went to a girl's house on the first date and as a litmus test, she made him watch Eraserhead and Pink Flamingos. She had the whole John Waters collection. There was apparently no second date. I'm not making this up, it's actually the version of the story he told me anyway.

Keep watching for it. With a 70mm print on the big screen, it was a completely different movie. I've never experienced anything else like it.

Watching movies is a bad first date idea anyway. He's better off.

Agreed.