Post by David SpainWhat's odd about the one on the Discovery is that it's not located where you
think it would be in the control sphere; you would expect it to go around
the equator of the sphere dividing it into front and back halves for maximum
diameter on the centrifuge, but it's aft of center.
This is a quirk that I think helps authenticate the movie. Of course you'd
start out with a paper design that places it squarely on the equator only to
discover later you have to move it to make way for lab space, or other gear
that for one reason or another has to be close to the command module. So you
back the centrifuge back towards aft to make room, making it slightly smaller
in the process. Sounds like the typical design trade-off to me...
What's odd about Discovery is that it's perfectly designed to generate
artificial gravity by spinning the whole ship around the center section
where the communication system is (as is shown in 2010) but it doesn't
do that. The reason Discovery looks the way it does in the 2001 isn't
about science, it's to resemble the skull and spinal column of an animal
to connect it with the bones the apes were using as weapons in the
movie's beginning, as well as a sperm cell (with the crew as the genetic
material in its head) that's going to knock up the funny light show at
the end and create the Star Child floating around in the womb of space.
Although this all sounds unhinged in retrospect, this is just the sort
of stuff that came out of the LSD-soaked late 1960's.
As the studio knew that when they marketed the movie with posters like
this:
Loading Image...After they realized what an oddball thing they had just spent so much
money on and were desperately trying to recoup their losses any way they
could.
I never did it, but at the time it was considered way cool to see the
movie while three sheets to the wind on acid.
"Can't understand it? Man, it's just too deep for squares like you. Eat
this little piece of blotter paper and soon all will be clear.
Dig it, man! Now the emperor has hip new glowing clothes!"
Post by David SpainThe rotating set in the movie was indeed 40' in diameter. It also points
out what I always thought was the big problem with 2001; it's fascinating to
look at the thing going around, but it doesn't add one whit to the storyline
(what little there is of it) while being very hard and expensive to produce
(as in $750,000 dollars back when that was real money) The whole movie is
like this spectacular gift box with sparkly wrapping paper and glittering
bows and ribbons all over it...and nothing much inside, a triumph of
packaging over content.
You mean like Avatar and Waterworld?
Haven't seen either of those, but those Star Wars prequels certainly
come to mind.
I wonder if watching them on acid would make them better?*
Probably not, but dipping the film emulsion _into_ acid might vastly
improve them.
Post by David SpainEssentially contributing to the visuals of a movie is major. Sometimes even
more so than the plotline when it comes to an audience draw.
Sure didn't work for 2001; the audience stayed away in droves after it
had been out for a week or so, helped by the critical reviews that
basically said: "What...the fuck...was that?".
(other critics of course went with the "It's totally incomprehensible,
so it _must_ be great, and I'm not going to admit that I couldn't
understand it and be the subject of scorn by my peers" approach, which
was very big in the modern art and modern music criticism of the time also.)
Post by David SpainThe story of the
Wizard of Oz was well known when the definitive movie came along in the
30's. But the big draw wasn't just the story; it was the music, the sets, the
actors and the careful presentation of color framed around what starts and
ends as a B&W movie.
Yeah, but the Wizard Of Oz has a good storyline, and flying monkeys to
boot (though even it wasn't an instant classic when it was first
released, as Hitler made the Wicked Witch look pretty mundane by
comparison, although one can certainly picture Goering ordering flying
monkeys around.)
That M-Factor was vital to its success as in any good sci-fi or fantasy
movie, and I would have been much more entertained if 2001 had just
stayed with the "Smart Killer Monkeys" concept through the whole movie
like Planet Of The Apes from the same year did.
If you wanted to make that fit in better with the timbre of the times,
the monkeys could be seen as the downtrodden colonial populations of the
world and the Monolith as Marxist-Leninism, liberating them through
creative violence against the sell-out lackeys of the capitalist system
among them.
HAL would be the CIA in this version, talking calmly while killing
everything in sight, and Moonwatcher Che Guevara.
But I digress.
Post by David SpainFor 2001, it seems that the overriding quality Kubrick was going for was
disorientation.
Worked for me; I saw that movie for the first time and didn't know what
the hell going on, and that was after reading the book.
Post by David SpainI think he was striving to provide this quirky environment
that you could never quite get confortable with, a constant reminder of where
you were during the movie.
Staring at my watch a lot, and trying to figure out how to apologize to
my parents for suggesting we see this?
Post by David SpainThere was more alienation going in that movie that
just that provided by the esoteric monolith. A movie very much of its time,
the late 60s...
Speaking of alienation, wouldn't it have been fun if the Monoliths had
stuck a little something funny in Bowman's food when he was hanging out
in that bedroom at the end, and later when the Star Child was floating
in space near Earth, it suddenly screamed and convulsed as something
horrifying tore itself out of its stomach and attacked the planet?
The audience wouldn't have seen that one coming, would they?
And it's the perfect set-up for the sequel, "2002-The Monolith
Monsters". ;-)
* "Man that little green guy is so completely Zen! Look, he's jumping
all over the place! Jump Zen Yoda, jump! Okay, who let the Dewback
Lizard crawl under my seat? I can feel it's down there, panting in the
darkness...FUCK...THAT THING HAS FOUR ARMS AND ASTHMA! A ROBOT WITH
ASTHMA! That is SUCH a bad trip! Are there going to be any Ewoks in
this? I've heard you can understand what they say if you play it
backwards in your head. Look, it's Saruman! SARUMAN IS IN THIS! I should
have recognized his foul stench when we entered the theater!
My feet are turning all wet and soft...Dewback spit no doubt, but I
can't move or the Womp Rats will detect my fear and that will be the end
of me...I didn't know you were a Wookie. Just a beard? Let's see if it's
on your back also; that would be a sure sign that you're a Wookie. We
must shave your back or you will be detected and killed by Saruman."
Pat