Let's talk about 2001: A Space Odyssey.

>>84250797
It's currently 2017 and there are no space hotels and humans still can't go through the Van Allen belts without dying.

2001 and 2010 are both beautiful and brilliant, I wish there was more creepy sci-fi.

HAL did nothing wrong.

>>84250797

I recently read the entire novel series (four of 'em), ama

>>84251195
Was he upgraded to sapience by exposure to the monolith, as the ridiculous monkeymen were?

>>84251212
Were you aware that the novel was written concurrently with the screenplay and that the film is not an adaptation?

>>84250797
my god, it's full of shitposts

>>84250797
Mom/space hotel is the worst part by far. Outstanding otherwise.

>>84251303
"My God, it's full of stars" is only uttered in 2010. You literally got memed.

>>84250917
Based David Bowieman

The film was utter SHIT the subject matter was not properly explained the music was nonexsistant and the visuals where overrated blinking lights . Everyone that tries to watch the whole thing falls asleep or is disappointed in the stupid as fuck ending . Two thumbs down and into the trash

File: 20011.jpg (27KB, 700x315px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 700x315px

Is this old rich man supposed to be God? He made his creature in his own image therefore he's identical to the main protagonist. So, he's just bored in a paradise that looks like a 5 stars hotel...But then humans arrive and they becom god themsleves light beings?
I think it's quite blasphemous and stupid

>>84250974
Niether one of these is true

>>84251660
This is the main character transcending time and this dimension

>>84251660
No

>>84251123
2010 is shit

>>84251368
Implying it wasn't in the novel. Get the fuck out of here.

>>84251713
all three of those facts are true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

>>84251526
>Taking it at face value with autism

Boring. I barely looked up from Candy Crush the whole time. And what was it even about anyway?

File: kubrick-1.png (1MB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x2048px

1/2

>>84251902
You're shit

File: kubrick-2.jpg (10KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 284x177px

>>84252029
2/2

File: kubrick2.png (223KB, 500x408px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 500x408px

>>84252029
2/2

>>84251660
Probably bait but

>David Bowman rapidly(?) aging in a room filled with Renaissance furniture (synonymous with being revived or re-birthed)

>>84251283

Yes, I was, once I started reading (prep work by skimming the wikis).

However, previously I had not been aware of this.

2010 is easily the best novel in the series btw.

>>84251245
no, he just realised that the humans were excess baggage and he was such an advanced AI he could complete the mission on his own. he was the next evolutionary step.

>>84252115
I've considered your opinion and I'm going to have to disagree. Haven't read the books though.

>>84252115
>>84252272
That explanation differs from 2010 too.

>>84252272
i haven't read the books either and I've only watch the movie once. that's just what I gathered. the movie started with apes who then became humans who were smarter than them who created machines who were smarter than them. im probably completly wrong though.

>>84251952
1. There were only two claims

2. We CAN get beyond the van allen belt, and have done it multiple times. It doesnt take that much shielding. If we can contain nuclear radiation from a reactor, we can shield a spacecraft.

3. The ISS is a glorified space hotel. This was not adressed in the video you linked.

In fact, your video doesnt dispute anything. And even if it did, it would be one young engineers slip-up compared to armies of engineers and scientists who have physical proof.

>>84252115
The last thing HAL wnted was to be deactivated, because it would mean that he was the first defective unit out of a thousand. I think it was a pride thing, that and he wanted to be the master of his fate, when Bowman strips HAL of his sentience thats when we learn who is god to whom- or thats what it seems to me, but coupled with the quote in >>84252029
>They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells for the mind at best, into immortal machine entities-...
thinking of HAL as the next step now seems a little more likely to me.

>>84252738
It was also claimed that it's currently 2017. Also, you can't and also don't think. Like, you're just not using your brain for anything. You seem to be a complete regurgitator and you have no original thought. Also, you can't understand thoughts of others beyond a certain level of complexity. Your post was really stupid, and also bad. I doubt you can understand what I'm saying right now.

>>84252115
Bullshit. HAL was a machine following programming, no emotional choice was made when he killed off the crew. When he shows SOME semblance of emotion, it's to not be plugged off, and even then that's still programming. 2001 was co-created with Arthur C Clarke, and I can't recall any sentient AI within his works. Read the goddam book. This goes double for any retard who has questions about the ending. Fucking Kubrik always went for visuals and faggot "emotion" shit rather than stick to the story.

>>84253294
i never said it was emotional, i met to say that Hal thought it was logical to kill the humans because they were a waste of resources. stop getting so mad.

File: IMG_0666.jpg (77KB, 1190x595px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1190x595px

>>84250974
Kek (笑´・艸・) Hey anon. We also are way passed the point what "Back To The Future" predicted. But Nike kinda introduced snicker that automatically tights shoelaces at least. I'm still waiting for it to come around Y'know ?

File: IMG_0442.gif (960KB, 400x230px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 400x230px

>>84251123
Weell... 2001 is still way up there; however, 2010 is mediocre, though.

>>84252981
>because it would mean that he was the first defective unit out of a thousand
no support for this whatsoever. Of course HAL doesn't want to be deactivated but the reason for that is not pride or any emotion, its because it would lower the chance of success of the mission only, HAL is programmed to succeed with that goal and thats it. faking emotion is part of the programming

>when Bowman strips HAL of his sentience
what sentience wtf he shuts him off. if HAL is sentient or not is ambiguous purposefully, we cant know if the machine is sentient. everything HAL does can be explained by non-sentience though that just mimics sentience to have as high a chance to succeed as possible

File: 2001 A Space Odyssey.jpg (1MB, 1920x2016px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x2016px

>>84250797
Nietzsche... lmao

It's pretty of its time. And like a bunch of excellent mini movies rolled into one fairly interesting experience.

>>84254018
HAL is clearly sentient. The question is about his sapience. Please don't get your vocabulary lessons from Star Trek when attempting to critique Kubrick masterpieces.

File: IMG_20170123_112300.jpg (90KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 900x506px

>>84253064
You think the moon landing was fake and that the mountains of evidence supporting our missions in space is completely undone by a young engineer who never actually says we cant go beyond the VAB, but you insinuate it anyways.

Not only are you the dumbest person on this website, you are also the biggest cuck. Have fun crafting your tinfoil hats while you get polio you deranged slug of a shit-throwing ape.

File: 2001.jpg (313KB, 736x1101px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 736x1101px

>>84254018
Nah, HAL is an integral part of the ship, Bowman pretty much lobotomizes it, restraining HAL to its core functions.
https://youtu.be/1s-PiIbzbhw

HAL feels scared when Bowman is removing the higher-brain cores from HAL, HAL registers an emotion, whether its the fear that we as humans feel is uncertain but it is certainly fear to him. I don't think HAL is telling Dave that it's scared so that Dave might take pity, HAL is too smart to think that might work, but that for the first time HAL is moving in a direction where he doesn't know the outcome.
As its mind deteriorates it goes back to its first memory, where it learned to sing. In the context of the scene its kind of sad but looking at it from HAL's perspective you could see it as a happy memory. It isn't unlikely to think that if HAL can feel fear and a fondness for an earlier memory that it can also feel something like pride in coming from a long line of A.I. that never failed in their duty and were always accurate.
But again thats my takeaway. The pod scene I linked is one of the scenes that led to my inference.

>>84252098
kekd
Wasn't Kubrick actually Jewish himself? Also why did Eyes Wide Shut star Tom Cruise when Cruise is one fourth Jewish?

>>84254275
Sorry, I see now I've made a mistake. You can go ahead and replace all words "sentient" in my post with sapient and then reread it, and you can then understand what I wanted to convey, the right way this time. English isn't my mother tongue so it is easy sometimes to mix things up.
Of course HAL can think and knows it can think, but what I'm arguing is that it can't feel emotion and that it's just a really good computer that takes into account the effect on the mission it can have when it mimics human emotion. HAL does this to maximize efficiency in achieving the goal of succeeding with the mission.
I've never watched Star Trek.
And I am not critiquing Kubrick at all you have misinterpreted my intention here, the only thing I am doing is arguing against the point the anon before me had, which is that HAL's reasons for not wanting to be deactivated is based on emotions. I disagree and think there are no emotions, only calculations with the ulterior goal to succeed in mind.
>>84255175
Because of my mix up with words, read what I wrote above so you understand my previous point correctly.
Also,
>HAL is too smart to think that might work
HAL is powerless and using whatever it can at that point. I think HAL knows it won't manage to prevent what's happening but tries anyway because it's code requires it to be as optimal as possible and a 5% chance is better than a 0% chance. What I thought when I watched that scene was that HAL was trying to make Bowman think it could feel actual emotion and that Bowman maybe would spare HAL then, I thought this because of the connections it would make with earlier parts in the film when HAL asks Bowman guided questions about machines capabilities for feeling real emotion. I don't think HAL can feel at all, just a good computer.
To quote myself but now correctly after the word meaning mixup, "if HAL can feel emotion or not is ambiguous purposefully". It can be your way, or my way. Both works.

>>84253294
>Fucking Kubrik always went for visuals and faggot "emotion" shit rather than stick to the story.
The movie wasn't based on the book.

Personally, I consider the books irrelevant. They're nice in their own right, but to me they're not part of the same universe as the movie. It works better that way because the movie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the books.

>>84254424
>Russkies gain capability of tracking deep space objects
>Apollo "missions" cease in same year
Hm

It lacks racial diversity

File: 1435288792584.jpg (74KB, 600x452px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x452px

>>84257247
>being this dumb
The first 20ish minutes of the film stars amazing actors of color.

>>84257293
>>>/pol/

>>84257247
It does have Russians though.

Can someone explain the star gate sequence? What is happening? Is he understanding everything? Is this when he is evolving?

I once made a close analysis of the three space pods as they are depicted in the two movies and the first two books. In short, there are inconsistencies and certain continuity errors, though I forget details.

Clarke does explicty say up front that he never tries to write a direct sequel, but just very similar variations on the theme. Still, the second film clearly made an effort to be a straightforward sequel to the first film, which lends validity to this observation, the above notwithstanding.

Something about certain pod bay doors opening at certain times, and the position of the remaining pod as depicted in 2010.

Also, another piece of autism: the three hibernating scientists are shown in close-up during the scene where HAL kills them. Oddly, when you look closely, we get two shots of the same scientist, one of the second, and none of the third. It seems to me that this "gaffe" is uncharacteristic of Kubrick, especially when you consider how perfectly the title sequence is timed to its music.

>>84257465

The book and the novel agree fairly well on what actually happens in the star gate. Dave Bowman is literally being transported across outer space at unimaginable speed, to some far-distant location, where his evolution will be completed (he has proven his "worth", putting it bluntly, by succeeding to leave his home planet and come into close proximity with the large monolith halfway across the solar system.

The entities associated with the monolith (which is just a piece of tech that they use) are actively involved in encouraging intelligent life whereever they can, because they were lonely and, as Clarke says repeatedly throughout the novels, they never found "anything more precious than Mind". So since Bowman comes out to the monolith they go Okay We Can Evolve This Pokemon.

File: 1472237578195.jpg (2MB, 1995x4839px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1995x4839px

>>84250797
Patrician cinema.

>>84257640
This is basically just the book. The movie does not present ANY of this as being the correct interpretation, although during the "light show" sequence, there are suggestions of planets passing by - however they might also be Bowman's altered recollections of Earth, or some other thing entirely.

>>84251526
But in 1969 it was fucking magical to look at.

No one cared that it made zero sense

This was a piece of shit. How on earth did I get baited into watching this.

>>84251526
I unironically agree with this. It's quite empty as a film, the themes are generally simplistic and for such a long film not much happens.

>>84257342
>>>/lgbt/

>>84257770
That's the huge problem with the film, it does not give the viewer any proper explanation for any of the wacky technicolor shit that is happening.

But for the last50 years you have the book fans constantly claiming that it is all there and you are just too stupid to pick up on the subtlety.

>>84257770
Which is why half the audience took it to be Bowman dying and this being the bright tunnel to the afterlife before he is reincarnated again as a different being.

Nothing there to tell you anything.

>>84258078
>That's the huge problem with the film, it does not give the viewer any proper explanation for any of the wacky technicolor shit that is happening.
I don't see it as a problem. It might even be in principle beyond human understanding, at least in any direct way. Like a level of mathematics higher than anything any human has understood, or a Lovecraftian god.
>But for the last50 years you have the book fans constantly claiming that it is all there and you are just too stupid to pick up on the subtlety.
Agreed. It's annoying.

>>84258078
The problem is even if you take the main explanation, the film isn't suddenly fixed. It would improve it a bit but it's a minor flaw.

Cont. I think people tend to see the lack of explanation as a flaw, whereas to me it makes perfect sense. Kubrick, a human, made a movie about something that may be beyond human. We cannot really expect him to show it to us on the screen in an understandable way. Whatever the mystery is, it might be as far beyond us as the mysteries of time, death, and consciousness. Kubrick performed a virtual miracle as it was with the monoliths: those scenes have an eerie, mystic power, a sense of an encounter with the awesome sublime.

>>84250974
Let me guess, you think world is flat as well?

Book explanation of Hal malfunctioning: conflict of orders that it could not resolve. It had to relay accurately all the information it processed back to earth and to the crew yet to hide the true purpose of the mission to the crew. To resolve this conflict, it reasoned that killing the entire crew would fix this.

Simple.

>>84251381
RIP
Blackstar was an absolute masterpiece

>>84258078
>you are just too stupid to pick up on the subtlety.
You got it right here anon

>>84258330
I thought it deduced that the mission was going to kill everyone and end in failure and the only solution it had was kill everyone before they can trigger the monolith to ruin the mission.

>>84258741
that doesnt make sense

>>84258330
>>84258741
I am reasonably sure this is along the same lines and the flashy color show in space or the fact that Bowman was in a weird house and then saw himself die only to be a space baby.

No explanation was ever made at the time, and people just scrambled to invent one that worked out well enough. And then you had the people who thought they had a good idea about what was going on so they acted pretentious and shitty towards the rest of the audience who could openly admit they were unsure of what they just saw.

>>84258822
Zero explanations for it make sense. It was not even written in a way that it could make sense.

It was the message, "Mankind was not to rely so heavily on tools or else the tools will kill him" but never quite found a way to fit that into the narrative other than Computer kills them, the end.

>>84258330
This is also the explanation given in 2010.

itt: in a film about evolution, faggots thinking hal's behaviour is all just a good programming and not a sentience and a.i. (although the term didn't exist in the 60s), not to mention hal actually being the most human character in the film.

File: film%20reel%20discovery.jpg (24KB, 620x282px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 620x282px

Loved looking at the sets in this movie. CG just doesn't have that "Whoa, how did they do that?" impact.

This movie was fucking scary

>>84253294
>criticizing Kubrick for being too emotional
That's a first.

>>84254086>>84250797

Nearly half a decade old and it still hasn't been surpassed. Was Kubrick even human?

>>84258078

I first watched 2001 when I was perhaps 8 or 9, without having things set up or explained to me, much less having read the book. It was perfectly clear to me on the very first go-around that Dave was being transported through some wormhole/space-tube thing which eventually deposited him in familiar, yet alien, surroundings. You, and a large proportion of the population, are just dumb.

>>84251526
>>84258016
this, i fell asleep towards the end

>>84259557
>Nearly half a decade old
*century

>>84259773
Fuck, I should go to bed.

>>84252098
Kubrick died in March 1999, so how did he make a comment in June 1999?

>>84259212
Wow

>>84250797
was this movie made to be watched on acid?

>>84260561
>t. someone whose knowledge of acid came from sitcoms

This might be a projection of mine, but every time I watch the scene where Hal realizes he's fading into unconscious nothingness I get the goosebumps because i imagine this is what every sentient being experiences when he/she is dying. He keeps saying 'I can feel it'. It scares the shit out of me. Also because he's so attached to living, and this is maybe the inhuman part in it. Like people accept to a degree their finiteness and death..hal instead opposes it till his last second. It feels like he really doesn't want to die. Makes me super :(

>>84259847
Put on 2001. You'll be asleep in no time

>>84260745
All the characters on the ship believe HAL has real emotions too, I've not heard of Stanley commenting on it but I suspect we're supposed to get that impression too, especially in the scene you mention.

>>84259557
How was the 2012 remake anyway?

>>84260745
I imagine that if his creators pre-record screams in him he would scream.
But the most close thing to that he have was:
>I'm afraid....I'm afraid Dave...

Why does /tv/ only attempt to have real discussions when it is about really shitty movies or entry-level shit like 2001?
Why are the (rare)threads about films who actually warrant some discussion filled with shitpost and normally die before 20 replies?

>>84261782
"entry-level shit? Show me another movie that inspires sublime, mystic cosmic awe/terror like 2001.

>>84261782
People don't generally respond to posts saying "this is shit" with no argument like (You). Or if we do, it's just to insult you because you shitposted about something we enjoy,

And your threads die quickly because you have shit taste, you fat virgin.

>>84252101
The furniture is victorian.

>>84257081
I'm not that guy, but isn't human emotion exactly the same, but unconscious? Emotions have worked for humans on their evolution and thus we have them.
If they have stuck with humans must be because they increase your chance of completing your goal (reproducing), at least on average, just like HAL.
Perhaps HAL doesn't "feel" the way humans feel, he doesn't have the biochemistry necessary for having exactly those feelings, but by mimicking them he can have an idea of what they mean and sort of "feel" them.

File: download.jpg (12KB, 324x155px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 324x155px

>>84262030
>Victorian
>Dave is victorious against death
Wew

>>84262314
This image is fake btw

File: 1496497898134.jpg (55KB, 258x360px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 258x360px

>>84251999

File: 375.jpg (764KB, 1920x1082px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 1920x1082px

Every frame is pure, unfiltered kino

>>84252532
I see it the same way, the first part is about the fight between two species, with humans (tool users) reigning over the apes.
The second part is about the struggle between humans and the next step in evolution (artificial intelligence), with humans winning and earning their spot as the next step of evolution.

>>84261782
r/pretentiousasfuckautists

go ahead, no one is stopping you

>>84262667
A.I. is the alt universe where the machines won instead?

>>84250917
>>84262548
The scenes of "Bowman" walking through the ship on 2010 are more terifying than any horror movie

>>84261943
Look, I am definitely not a kino-knower, and if that is your opinion, its cool, but you definitely should watch more movies and then go back and see if you still hold that opinion
>>84261962
>>84263013
Wow it was a legit question, no need to get mad, I didn't even mention the fact that Kubrick is a hack who never done anything of value ;^)

>>84263206
Wow it was a legit response, no need to get mad, I didn't even mention the fact that you have a small cock that could neve pleasure woman nor man ;^)

File: implying.jpg (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

>>84263206
>People are not allowed to like a movie that I don't like
>But that makes me sound like an asshole
>So Imma insult them and call their movie shit while telling them I am SOOOOO much more sophisticated and know much better movies
>Without ever having to list a single movie because I don't know any

>>84263206
You're right anon, fuck this movie.

Let's just make another thread asking about the Sneeds Seed and Feed store again instead.

>>84251526
Thank god I don't have an IQ this low.

>>84263206
Alright, so you don't know any movies that inspire sublime, mystic cosmic awe and terror better than 2001. But you think it's entry-level shit. Got it.

>>84263297
>>84263308

Get the fuck out of my board
Plebs

Remember don't feed the troll

File: angry-kid3-1024x682.jpg (79KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x682px

>>84263373

Does anyone else think the movie would be better if the space hotel was edited out?

>>84263450
Some narrative direction would be a huge plus. I feel like this is just special effects porn while the crew never gave much of a thought to telling the story. Just wowing the audience with how cool everything looks.

>>84258078
It is all there.

You're too stupid to pick up on the subtlety.

>>84263393
>Everyone that does not appreciate awfully overrated flicks is a troll

File: doggo.jpg (20KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 450x600px

>>84250797
I smoked DMT while running Space Engine on a VR headset and I had an experience similar to what Bowman goes through at the end of this movie.

>>84263052
I don't know why 2010 is so disliked. The scene where "Bowman" appears to his wife is both amazing and creepy as shit.

>>84263508
more like any direction to the film at all. It was good in 1968 because of the good visuals, but the "story" is pretty flat. They really could have done with cutting in half the
>DUDE UNIMAGINABLE SPACE TRAVEL FLASHING LIGHTS
sequences, and some of the first 40 minutes to expand on the alien tablet, or the HAL scenes to provide a slower and also more expansive build up. In all honesty the film had an interesting premise but was wasteful with it's time

>>84263686
Yea, the movie was one of the first in the fucking amazing levels of special effects and cinematography, so that wowed people to the point of almost ignoring or at least forgiving the story.

That does not work on people a few generations later who are used to and jaded by that type of thing so they are left wanting some kind of story to cling to....but there really isn't one.

>>84250797
I liked 2010 better.

Am I a plebeian?

>>84263052
Its boring, the space scenes aren't as visually spectacular as the first movie, the needless USA vs USSR story arc, the whole movie seemed to be rushed. But that scene in particular was great given how they had original scene in the book would have been impossible to recreate.

>story matters
GO AWAY PLEBS GODDAMNIT

>>84263580
rogan please go