Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mental Floss)   It's Saturday. Postpone your Cheetos and porn session and spend 43 minutes watching a great documentary of the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Everyone essential to the film is interviewed, except that one guy   (mentalfloss.com) divider line 49
    More: Cool, Cheetos, stock footage, executive sessions, porn, watch  
•       •       •

1511 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Aug 2012 at 6:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-08-04 06:12:07 AM  
Damn, my first green! And I didn't make any dick jokes this time!

Anyway, I know 43 minutes is an investment, but Arthur Clarke is in it. They show the ridiculously simple but awesome pen trick, an AI expert, and the HAL/IBM myth is debunked from the horse's mouth. Dave is interviewed.

Also, some Farker turned me onto this site within the last month. If you remember, please stand up and take my gratitude. 'Cos I'm there like, all the farking time now.
 
2012-08-04 06:45:39 AM  
Postpone cheetoes and porn?! The blue angels fly at 1pm; so I gotta get while the gettin' is good. And more importantly, I believe you over estimate my self-control.
 
2012-08-04 07:09:28 AM  

dickfreckle: Damn, my first green! And I didn't make any dick jokes this time!

Anyway, I know 43 minutes is an investment, but Arthur Clarke is in it. They show the ridiculously simple but awesome pen trick, an AI expert, and the HAL/IBM myth is debunked from the horse's mouth. Dave is interviewed.

Also, some Farker turned me onto this site within the last month. If you remember, please stand up and take my gratitude. 'Cos I'm there like, all the farking time now.


Good for you, some of us have refused to pay the $5 / month fee to get an article greenlit.
 
2012-08-04 07:17:20 AM  

The_Time_Master: Good for you, some of us have refused to pay the $5 / month fee to get an article greenlit.


Uh, OK.
 
2012-08-04 08:03:56 AM  
After all these years and viewings, I never realized that Commander Straker was the captain of the lunar lander.
 
2012-08-04 08:32:35 AM  

The_Time_Master: Good for you, some of us have refused to pay the $5 / month fee to get an article greenlit.


Got any evidence that paying $5 per month will get you a green light or not paying will deny you a green light?

Do you really think Fark will survive if it rejects better headlines. They won't hook people to pay that $5 unless they have good headlines to get people addicted to Fark. Besides, there are far too many people paying that fee to promise green lights.

/203 green lights.
//Never gave Drew any money, beer, gifts, etc.
 
2012-08-04 08:32:38 AM  
Who gives a crap about this?
 
2012-08-04 08:35:56 AM  
I always wondered how they did the floating pen bit.
 
2012-08-04 08:40:44 AM  
Ah, good documentary. I wonder why this one never made it into the Bluray edition of 2001. It's better than the three that were on that disc.
 
2012-08-04 08:40:50 AM  

The_Time_Master: dickfreckle: Damn, my first green! And I didn't make any dick jokes this time!

Anyway, I know 43 minutes is an investment, but Arthur Clarke is in it. They show the ridiculously simple but awesome pen trick, an AI expert, and the HAL/IBM myth is debunked from the horse's mouth. Dave is interviewed.

Also, some Farker turned me onto this site within the last month. If you remember, please stand up and take my gratitude. 'Cos I'm there like, all the farking time now.

Good for you, some of us have refused to pay the $5 / month fee to get an article greenlit.


I get green lights all the time.
 
2012-08-04 08:44:55 AM  
BUT THE LITTLE GREEN LIGHTS ARE FOLLOWING

ohnonotagain

I'M STUCK WITH A FIVE DOLLAR FRIEND
 
2012-08-04 09:59:09 AM  
Cheetos + Porn = Oompa Loompa genitals
 
2012-08-04 10:03:06 AM  

Cheron: Cheetos + Porn = Oompa Loompa genitals


My God. I envisioned that quite clearly. Why would you do this?
 
2012-08-04 10:05:21 AM  
One of my favorite parts is learning the story behind HAL singing "Daisy." For those who don't want to watch it, he basically sent some guys to research computer voicing and, well, they happened to be working on a real computer singing Daisy because it concentrated on the vowels, which are/were apparently easiest to produce.

And now you know the real-life reason for one of cinema's most iconic, creepy scenes.
 
2012-08-04 10:15:27 AM  
 
2012-08-04 10:18:45 AM  
Good grief, what's with the Casiotone music? Cameron couldn't spring for an actual score?
 
2012-08-04 10:31:00 AM  
Um..... a documentary about one of the most boring movies in the history of ever? I think I'll pass, I prefer my brain cells intact.
 
2012-08-04 10:35:28 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Good grief, what's with the Casiotone music? Cameron couldn't spring for an actual score?


Yeah, that kinda pissed me off, too. Even if it were a licensing issue (conductor, living musicians), it would be cheaper to find public domain copies of Thus Sprach and Blue Danube to dub. Anything would be better than that Yamaha DX7 crap.
 
2012-08-04 10:38:34 AM  

MuonNeutrino: Um..... a documentary about one of the most boring movies in the history of ever? I think I'll pass, I prefer my brain cells intact.


It's your right to have an opinion. Knock yourself out. Thanks for taking time out of your exciting day to comment on a boring film thread. Frankly, I feel enriched by your refreshing honesty.

Really, I do.
 
2012-08-04 10:55:24 AM  

MuonNeutrino: Um..... a documentary about one of the most boring movies in the history of ever? I think I'll pass, I prefer my brain cells intact.


Humor me, look at my link.

Link
 
2012-08-04 10:57:55 AM  
The 36 minutes of interview with TMA-1 were intriguing.

/hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhummmmmmmmmmmm
 
2012-08-04 11:43:24 AM  

MuonNeutrino: Um..... a documentary about one of the most boring movies in the history of ever? I think I'll pass, I prefer my brain cells intact.


Well, there's always MTV for you if you want visual stimulation and no thought
 
2012-08-04 11:43:52 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: MuonNeutrino: Um..... a documentary about one of the most boring movies in the history of ever? I think I'll pass, I prefer my brain cells intact.

Humor me, look at my link.

Link


Great site. I was gonna post it in here myself.
 
2012-08-04 12:13:35 PM  
Kubrick was a genius.

That said, I read the book before I saw the movie and honestly Kubrick did a piss poor job of capturing what is going on at the end of the book.

Did you guess that Dave had been transported across the universe and then his consciousness was uploaded into an immaterial matrix stored in the fabric of space-time itself that was then sent back to earth to keep an eye on what was going on there?

Or did you just think somebody had gotten ahold of the bad acid?
 
2012-08-04 12:25:36 PM  

BullBearMS: Kubrick was a genius.

That said, I read the book before I saw the movie and honestly Kubrick did a piss poor job of capturing what is going on at the end of the book.

Did you guess that Dave had been transported across the universe and then his consciousness was uploaded into an immaterial matrix stored in the fabric of space-time itself that was then sent back to earth to keep an eye on what was going on there?

Or did you just think somebody had gotten ahold of the bad acid?


I did the same thing myself and wonder what people that never read the book think what is going on in the movie because none of it is explained at all in the movie. I mean, I love the book series to death(even 3001, haters gonna hate) but the movie for 2001 was just terrible.
 
2012-08-04 01:08:45 PM  

lousyskater: the movie for 2001 was just terrible


The middle part of the movie was awesome, and I do know people who figured out that the monolith was modifying the ape-men into more evolved tool users in the opening scene of the movie. That wasn't super obvious, but people did figure it out.

However, that ending is just a big ole acid trip if you never read the book.
 
2012-08-04 01:28:09 PM  
Had to laugh at the Cameron introduction. Kubrick is to Cameron as lightning is to a lightning bug.

For the next several years after 2001 came out you could see all sorts of directors trying, with limited success, to shoehorn a 2001 style narrative into their films. This was doomed to fail, since SK developed a unique narrative strategy for each of his mature films. Read the original Odyssey and then you will see where he got the robotic humans acting out under the control of external deities.
 
2012-08-04 02:48:53 PM  
Well, that was the best 43 minutes I wasted this weekend.

Good find, subby.

I don't get the hate but I'm guessing it is from younger audiences that can't think while watching a scifi movie. It's all about explosions and false physics all around.

2001 was made to be realistic in the realm of space travel and yeah, the long trip plus boredom can take its toll. Loneliness. Bat shiat crazy computer. Hidden mission agendas. Aliens watching our progress. What more could you ask for?

My CSB

I was 13 when I first saw it. My previous movies had all been in cheap theaters but I saw 2001 in its full glory in a Century 21 theater back before they split them up. Great seats, rounded wide screen, stereo. This is when it was rare.

I walked out knowing I had seen something important but did not know what it was. In my later viewings I realized the levels SK put into it.

/flame suit? check!
 
2012-08-04 03:23:05 PM  
Stellar Boobies, subby.

/do you see what I did there?
 
2012-08-04 04:41:27 PM  

BullBearMS: That said, I read the book before I saw the movie and honestly Kubrick did a piss poor job of capturing what is going on at the end of the book.



The film wasn't an adaptation of the book. The novel was actually released after the film.
 
2012-08-04 04:46:07 PM  
People say they love 2001 because they're too embarrassed to admit they slept through most of it.
Shoulda but Bruce Willis in it: "Anyone else want to negotiate?"
 
2012-08-04 05:30:20 PM  

alowishus: The film wasn't an adaptation of the book. The novel was actually released after the film.


Actually, no.

The two were developed concurrently.
 
2012-08-04 05:55:36 PM  

dickfreckle: Damn, my first green! And I didn't make any dick jokes this time!

Anyway, I know 43 minutes is an investment, but Arthur Clarke is in it. They show the ridiculously simple but awesome pen trick, an AI expert, and the HAL/IBM myth is debunked from the horse's mouth. Dave is interviewed.

Also, some Farker turned me onto this site within the last month. If you remember, please stand up and take my gratitude. 'Cos I'm there like, all the farking time now.


Thank you thank you thank you
 
2012-08-04 07:16:04 PM  

BullBearMS: alowishus: The film wasn't an adaptation of the book. The novel was actually released after the film.

Actually, no.

The two were developed concurrently.


Which means the film was as much an adaptation of the book as the book was of the film.

Also, the book was released in June 1968, and the film came out in April 1968.
 
2012-08-04 07:29:07 PM  
It didn't mention the fact that Osamu "creator of Astro Boy" Tezuka was approached by Kubrick to be the designer for the movie, but he turned down the job because it would have meant an extended stay outside of Japan.

oharadesigngroup.files.wordpress.com

In the post-film, era, Jack Kirby is the best 2001 comic artist ever, IMO.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-04 10:18:27 PM  
A few years ago fark led me to the website of a film reviewer who put a ton of in depth analyses on YouTube.
Loads of Kubric insights.
I spent a number of nights watching his stuff.
 
2012-08-04 11:44:58 PM  

shooosh: People say they love 2001 because they're too embarrassed to admit they slept through most of it.
Shoulda but Bruce Willis in it: "Anyone else want to negotiate?"


2001 is the hipster darling of sci-fi.

Dare to say anything bad about it, and the inevitable response is "You're just too dumb to understand it. Why not go watch Ghost Chasers?", even though the people insulting your intelligence couldn't make any sense of the pile of crap, either, therefore it must be good.
 
2012-08-04 11:49:46 PM  

saturn badger: I don't get the hate but I'm guessing it is from younger audiences that can't think while watching a scifi movie. It's all about explosions and false physics all around.


Thing is, 2001 is a little boring on the first viewing. It's only when the film starts sinking in that it becomes a masterpiece. I estimate seeing it in full at least 50 times in the 20 years since I first saw it as a teenager. That's a lot bigger a reward than being emotionally pleased by some sh*t blowing up once. 50 times, and I always see something new.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. Sometimes it will take some time to appreciate the true gravity (no pun) of the art I'm seeing. But once I "get it" it becomes an obsession. And I'm obsessed with this film. I think the scene when 'man' learns to use a tool is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

Btw, one thing I learned from the documentary is that in the famous bone/spaceship switch, the 'ship' depicted is a farking weapon. I've read Clarke's story, but had always just assumed that scene was an eye-candy way of switching centuries.
 
2012-08-05 12:05:31 AM  

FirstNationalBastard: shooosh: People say they love 2001 because they're too embarrassed to admit they slept through most of it.
Shoulda but Bruce Willis in it: "Anyone else want to negotiate?"

2001 is the hipster darling of sci-fi.

Dare to say anything bad about it, and the inevitable response is "You're just too dumb to understand it. Why not go watch Ghost Chasers?", even though the people insulting your intelligence couldn't make any sense of the pile of crap, either, therefore it must be good.


Just because hipsters wax rhapsodic about their favorite band doesn't mean that band isn't any good on it's own merits.

And btw, it transcends the sci-fi genre. As films go, it's gotta be the most universal (damn, these unintended puns keep coming) theme in the history of cinema. What other films so expertly address the entirety of mankind? Take away the AI and the space, and you're still left with most important philosophical questions we'll ever have.

I'm not even a True Geek, aside from rolling my own desktop computers (any half-witted 15 year-old with his dad's credit card and a Newegg account can do this). Oh, and I root my Androids. The film is about humanity, not spaceships.

/loathes most science fiction because it all seems silly to me, and with equally silly acting, like everyone in those movies and SyFy or whatever it's called are just porn actors who can't find work
 
2012-08-05 12:09:44 AM  

dickfreckle: but had always just assumed that scene was an eye-candy way of switching centuries.


Didn't I just tell you I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed?

/millenniums. sigh
 
2012-08-05 12:34:37 AM  

dickfreckle: Didn't I just tell you I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed?


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-05 03:42:38 AM  

shooosh: People say they love 2001 because they're too embarrassed to admit they slept through most of it.
Shoulda but Bruce Willis in it: "Anyone else want to negotiate?"


He was born in 1955, so he would have been a bit too young to play one of the lead roles.
 
2012-08-05 06:07:04 AM  

alowishus: Which means the film was as much an adaptation of the book as the book was of the film.


The point, lest we stray too far from it, is that the book contains a clear account of what is occurring at the end of the story. The movie... not so much.

I've never met anyone who didn't read the book who understood what was supposedly happening at the end of the movie.
 
2012-08-05 10:01:41 AM  

alowishus: BullBearMS: alowishus: The film wasn't an adaptation of the book. The novel was actually released after the film.

Actually, no.

The two were developed concurrently.

Which means the film was as much an adaptation of the book as the book was of the film.

Also, the book was released in June 1968, and the film came out in April 1968.


The Sentinel of which the book & movie was based was written in 1948 and published in 1951, so the concept predates both.
 
2012-08-05 10:13:38 AM  

StrikitRich: The Sentinel of which the book & movie was based was written in 1948 and published in 1951, so the concept predates both.


In that same vein, Clarke's "Encounter in the Dawn" features aliens influencing the development of early humans.
 
2012-08-05 03:07:34 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: shooosh: People say they love 2001 because they're too embarrassed to admit they slept through most of it.
Shoulda but Bruce Willis in it: "Anyone else want to negotiate?"

2001 is the hipster darling of sci-fi.

Dare to say anything bad about it, and the inevitable response is "You're just too dumb to understand it. Why not go watch Ghost Chasers?", even though the people insulting your intelligence couldn't make any sense of the pile of crap, either, therefore it must be good.


Well, you are dumb for not understanding the film. The concepts Kubrick and Clarke presented are not terrible difficult--an advanced alien species has guided humanity's development from bestowing sentience on our ancestors in the Rift Valley to transforming an astronaut into an emissary to Earth.

And if you think 2001 is slow, all I can say is that you have a very narrow understanding of film. Chantal Akerman's Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles is 3 hours long and has many scenes withoout dialogue showing the protagonist performing ordinary chores like making meat loaf. I also doubt you've ever watched Last Year at Marienbad, a mesmerizing film that has zero action and spends much if its running time on long tracking shots in the hallways and courtyards of an immense mansion. And you probably have never seen any of Yasujiro Ozu's domestic dramas, beautiful films that explore the emotional spaces between parents and their children, and the consequences of choices that alter those relationships forever.

You know, just because a child would prefer Kool-Aid to champagne doesn't mean that champagne itself is inferior or that adults cannot appreciate it.
 
2012-08-05 03:37:36 PM  

BorgiaGinz: FirstNationalBastard: shooosh: People say they love 2001 because they're too embarrassed to admit they slept through most of it.
Shoulda but Bruce Willis in it: "Anyone else want to negotiate?"

2001 is the hipster darling of sci-fi.

Dare to say anything bad about it, and the inevitable response is "You're just too dumb to understand it. Why not go watch Ghost Chasers?", even though the people insulting your intelligence couldn't make any sense of the pile of crap, either, therefore it must be good.

Well, you are dumb for not understanding the film. The concepts Kubrick and Clarke presented are not terrible difficult--an advanced alien species has guided humanity's development from bestowing sentience on our ancestors in the Rift Valley to transforming an astronaut into an emissary to Earth.

And if you think 2001 is slow, all I can say is that you have a very narrow understanding of film. Chantal Akerman's Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles is 3 hours long and has many scenes withoout dialogue showing the protagonist performing ordinary chores like making meat loaf. I also doubt you've ever watched Last Year at Marienbad, a mesmerizing film that has zero action and spends much if its running time on long tracking shots in the hallways and courtyards of an immense mansion. And you probably have never seen any of Yasujiro Ozu's domestic dramas, beautiful films that explore the emotional spaces between parents and their children, and the consequences of choices that alter those relationships forever.

You know, just because a child would prefer Kool-Aid to champagne doesn't mean that champagne itself is inferior or that adults cannot appreciate it.


static.guim.co.uk
 
2012-08-05 06:10:06 PM  

dickfreckle: saturn badger: I don't get the hate but I'm guessing it is from younger audiences that can't think while watching a scifi movie. It's all about explosions and false physics all around.

Thing is, 2001 is a little boring on the first viewing. It's only when the film starts sinking in that it becomes a masterpiece. I estimate seeing it in full at least 50 times in the 20 years since I first saw it as a teenager. That's a lot bigger a reward than being emotionally pleased by some sh*t blowing up once. 50 times, and I always see something new.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. Sometimes it will take some time to appreciate the true gravity (no pun) of the art I'm seeing. But once I "get it" it becomes an obsession. And I'm obsessed with this film. I think the scene when 'man' learns to use a tool is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

Btw, one thing I learned from the documentary is that in the famous bone/spaceship switch, the 'ship' depicted is a farking weapon. I've read Clarke's story, but had always just assumed that scene was an eye-candy way of switching centuries.


I had forgotten about the bomb part. But yeah, especially with Kubrick, it takes a few viewings to grasp the subtleties.

Kind of the same with Barry Lyndon. It never made any headlines but on subsequent viewings it is a pretty amazing movie. His moving up in the social sphere along with homes higher up on the hill is kind of subtle.

The end result is you feel sorry for him, you don't care about what happens to him or you think he got what he deserved. And yeah, he got what he deserved.

CSB time again

Years ago they advertised the showing of BL at the SF public library. This was before VHS rentals and such, you young uns. There was such a time, believe it or not.

We head to the room it is supposed to be showing and are surrounded by all these people speaking a language we cannot fathom. I finally asked about the movie and was told it was moved to another room. This was the Esperanto gathering. No wonder we couldn't make sense of it.

So we go to the other room. We sat in front of a screen you would use in your home to show 16mm movies and watched the movie in 16mm. Almost postage stamp sized but we wanted to see it it again. We even had to wait for the reel changing.

Good movie. Long and slow moving but good.

If you want to see an early excellent Kubrick movie see The Killing.

Sorry, young uns. It is in B&W.
 
2012-08-05 11:40:31 PM  
It's all about tools.

The monolith guys gave man tools -- HAL was the ultimate tool that attempted to replace man -- Monlith guys moved man beyond tools to make Dave a star-child
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report