Badmovies.org Forum

(http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7727491_f260.jpg)

The last time I saw Stanley Kubrick's legendary sci-fi mindf*cker 2001: A Space Odyssey, I was about twelve years old, and my mind was not ready for Stanley Kubrick yet soooo... I didn't get it.

Thirty years (!) later, I finally decided to give 2001 another spin, aaaaaand.... I still don't think I totally "got" it, but I wrote a blog about it anyway:

http://fatfreddyscat.hubpages.com/hub/Revisiting-2001-A-Space-Odyssey-1968

I enjoyed your review, but I would like to offer something that MAY shed some light on the situation...not the movie itself but the acceptance of it vs the "plot."

You mentioned that your expectations were set by visual entertainment such as STAR WARS and BATTLESTAR GALACTIC.  Therein lies at least part of the disconnect.

Those are NOT "science fiction" stories.  They share more in common with the western genre than true (classic) sci fi.  Yeah, they have space ships and lasers, but there was a time that sci fi was about the story and it's metaphorical relationship to some real contemporary human condition rather than the tech.  The tech was just a vehicle to drive the story.

This is absolutely not true anymore.  It's rare to have a true sci fi "story" made into a movie.  THE FINAL CUT is one fairly recent one that comes to mind and it did a good job (an excellent movie imo).  GATTACA is another.  Most modern films that are called science fiction would be better classed in other genres, but the tech has taken over the definition of the genre.

2001 remains in part significant in that is represents classic sci fi in spades, and continues as a shining example in the face of the genre shift.  It's VERY different from a 'western' or 'action' movie set in space, and the contrast is in part the attention getter.

I respect 2001 a lot more than I like it, if that makes any sense. (The main draw for me in a movie is characters I can invest in and that doesn't really happen here.)  Ulthar makes a good point about it representing "classic" sci fi where movies like STAR WARS are taking a lot of cues from other genres (Ep IV was pretty much a remake of Kurosawa's HIDDEN FORTRESS, after all.)  That is a big part of what sets it on its own from other sci fi movies. 
It's also a strong example of Kubrick's style - which is very cold & clinical.  It's not an easy movie to just sit down and get into.

I think it's about creation. God created man, and man created Hal or Frankenstein.
In both movies the creation turns on its creator.
This scene where Hal kills Frank reminds of The Frankenstein Monster turning on man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHnewWOxfgw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nur4g4r1LN4

Well, yeah, I "get" that about science fiction now, but those were my expectations when I first saw the movie at 12 years old. I like to think that my tastes have expanded and I've matured some in the intervening thirty years, but that probably depends on which one of my friends/family members you talk to.... :bouncegiggle:

As a kid I actually read the "2001" comic book series by Jack Kirby (which, if you've never experienced it, is a hilariously schlocky must-read) before I ever saw the movie. As I mention in the article, the comic book was full of the usual aliens, laser beams, explosions, etc., etc. so obviously as a 12 year old, my expectations for the movie were mis-led by a combination of Jack "King" Kirby and the works of George Lucas. Haha.



Yeah, I think I'm in the same boat. I dig it in a visual sense (as I said in the article, its FX and set design can still hang with stuff being made today) but the story just didn't "grab" me.