Vin's Magical Amazing Suppositary™

PelliX said:
To me Bladerunner (and perhaps 2001, though I'm still undecided after all these years) have a message that only really becomes clear long after you've seen them. Bladerunner - to me - is about mortality and tough decisions that go against human nature, wrapped in a sci-fi jacket. 2001 I've enjoyed every time I've watched it, except the 'trip' at the end which is simply cut too long in my opinion. The lack of clarification at the finish seems like a letdown until you realize that Stanley must have meant something by it. I'm still unsure what he meant, but maybe I'll figure it out some day.
Click to expand...
Did you know Kubrick had the sets destroyed and all edited film, in case the studio wanted to screw him over, he was that set about how he wanted it presented. That's almost Banksy gangster stuff. It is supposed to be each person's interpretation.
 
XTRXTR said:
Did you know Kubrick had the sets destroyed and all edited film, in case the studio wanted to screw him over, he was that set about how he wanted it presented. That's almost Banksy gangster stuff. It is supposed to be each person's interpretation.
Click to expand...

He sure was a strange one. I'm still not even sure what actually happens at the end of 2001. Does he travel through time, space? Is it more symbolic, indicating another 'milestone' has been reached? Does he die and is he looking back? Why is 'it' full of stars? My dad's take was that it was just 'spaced out' entertainment for folks on acid back in the 60's (himself presumably included). I don't quite buy that from Kubrick.
 
PelliX said:
He sure was a strange one. I'm still not even sure what actually happens at the end of 2001. Does he travel through time, space? Is it more symbolic, indicating another 'milestone' has been reached? Does he die and is he looking back? Why is 'it' full of stars? My dad's take was that it was just 'spaced out' entertainment for folks on acid back in the 60's (himself presumably included). I don't quite buy that from Kubrick.
Click to expand...
The book and the movie are apples and oranges with the same name. The book is a typical science fiction book that spoon feeds you, the film is an expense, beautiful art film that while has plenty of sub-text and rich ideas, leaves much up to your interpretation. It's pretty amazing. Must be seen in the theater, not on your cell phone.
 
human123 said:
Must be seen in the theater, not on your cell phone.
Click to expand...

For better or worse, I was born a few decades too late for that. I concur though, the directing is first class and the images are stunning.

human123 said:
The book and the movie are apples and oranges with the same name.
Click to expand...

You got me fair and square, this is one of those odd cases where I've seen the film but not read the book. I should do that sometime.
 
PelliX said:
He sure was a strange one. I'm still not even sure what actually happens at the end of 2001. Does he travel through time, space? Is it more symbolic, indicating another 'milestone' has been reached? Does he die and is he looking back? Why is 'it' full of stars? My dad's take was that it was just 'spaced out' entertainment for folks on acid back in the 60's (himself presumably included). I don't quite buy that from Kubrick.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think it was the idea that your whole life flashes in front of your eyes as you die, combined with the idea you become one with the universe. You see everything all at once. He sees himself as a baby and the old man he may have been. Hence the statement, "It's full of stars..." as he is surprised and fulfilled at the same time. It sort of wraps to the beginning of the movie, humanities journey from Australopithecus to the ultimate end in the stars.

There is a couple 2¢
 
human123 said:
The book and the movie are apples and oranges with the same name. The book is a typical science fiction book that spoon feeds you, the film is an expense, beautiful art film that while has plenty of sub-text and rich ideas, leaves much up to your interpretation. It's pretty amazing. Must be seen in the theater, not on your cell phone.
Click to expand...
The book and the movie were both worked by Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick but the film came out first. Likely each artist having their own way to provide the meaning of the same ideas. Both great artists.
 
XTRXTR said:
There is a couple 2¢
Click to expand...

That's a pretty good stab at it, I guess. It would make sense.

XTRXTR said:
The book and the movie were both worked by Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick but the film came out first. Likely each artist having their own way to provide the meaning of the same ideas. Both great artists.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've watched most of Kubrick's films, for better or for worse and I read practically all of Clarke - not 2001 yet, though.

Vinsanitizer said:
Over the the past couple of weeks, I've been snacking on black peppercorns.
Click to expand...

Vin, I don't want to discuss your dried, shriveled berries at the current time if that's alright wiv ya... :wink:
 
human123 said:
It's been great here. Plus we have a weekend of bands at the local street fest this weekend. One or two might even be interesting!
Click to expand...
Oh yeah? Well whoop de frickin' doo!

iu


Just kidding. I'm in upstate NY (not the crappy city). We drove to TN once, arrived in Pidgeon Forge as the sun was going down, and there were live bands all over the place doing free music shows. We never get that in NY. Best we get a is a once-a-summer scheduled tribute band, like The Beatles, and they only do it at a the public parks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top