2001: a space odessey

[ulthar]

They add to the story but they are (really almost the definition of) backstory. The information could have been divulged in a 2-minute prologue, or even a line of dialogue somewhere else.

Well, so could the whole HAL killing Poole thing. 

Bowman, in radio transmission, or Captain's Log type deal:  "I had to shut down HAL.  He was malfunctioning, which culminated in Poole's death."

[RCMerchant]

I dunno-being an artist myself-I won't try to dissect it.
It is what it is.
And I think it is f**king a piece of art.

You don't have to understand Dali-(who can?) to love his work.
I understand it-because I read Arthur Clarkes story "Childhoods End."
But before that-2001 was a film I seeen on it's initial release in the late 60's when I was just a wee Monster Kid-and I found it visually cartoon like.
Kubrick designs his films like your looking at the panels of a comic book.-Like wise Jack Kirby makes his art-and Will Eisner-cinematic. It's 80% visual.
They're both visual forms,basically.
I didnt CARE what was going on.
It had apes,and spacemen and planets and cool special effects....DAM!  

Oh- WELCOME HOME CLOCKWORK!!!!   

[clockworkcanary]

Heh, I do admit that a great many scenes in this movie could have been minimized to only a couple of minutes.

[Rev. Powell]

They add to the story but they are (really almost the definition of) backstory. The information could have been divulged in a 2-minute prologue, or even a line of dialogue somewhere else.

Well, so could the whole HAL killing Poole thing. 

Bowman, in radio transmission, or Captain's Log type deal:  "I had to shut down HAL.  He was malfunctioning, which culminated in Poole's death."

That's true, but structurally HAL was a subplot (contemporaneous with the main plot), not backstory (happened before the main plot). Giving a subplot such prominence is another way Kubrick breaks the narrative mold.

[clockworkcanary]

Oh- WELCOME HOME CLOCKWORK!!!!   

Hey! Thanks :)     

[ulthar]

That's true, but structurally HAL was a subplot (contemporaneous with the main plot), not backstory (happened before the main plot). Giving a subplot such prominence is another way Kubrick breaks the narrative mold.

All true, and I don't disagree with your point.  I just like batting this stuff back and forth.

To me, this is an example of how this movie has texture, for lack of a better word.  It's layered, seamed, folded.

The other value I see in 2001 is comparative.  We can back-n-forth about it's intrinsic merits (or faults), but what do we have when we start to make comparisons to other good or not-so-good movies?

Still trying to place it in the bad movies board in mind, though....