So what's the big deal with Avatar?

Ugghh, there's nothing to figure out about 2001, it's meant to be utterly fucking meaningless (oh wait, excuse me: "open to interpretation"), Dr. Strangelove rules hard, and surely no one would ever try to defend anything about Blade Runner besides the visuals and atmosphere? o_O
 
Ugghh, there's nothing to figure out about 2001, it's meant to be utterly fucking meaningless (oh wait, excuse me: "open to interpretation"), Dr. Strangelove rules hard, and surely no one would ever try to defend anything about Blade Runner besides the visuals and atmosphere? o_O

It's not meaningless, those segments nobody gets are a reference to the "The Sentinel" short story the movie is loosely based on.
 
Ugghh, there's nothing to figure out about 2001, it's meant to be utterly fucking meaningless (oh wait, excuse me: "open to interpretation"), Dr. Strangelove rules hard, and surely no one would ever try to defend anything about Blade Runner besides the visuals and atmosphere? o_O

I skipped watching Power Rangers to watch the first 20 minutes of Blade Runner every morning before the school bus came, eating Ramen because Deckard made it look so cool. Though it was different from the novel, I think Blade Runner stands on its own.
 
The story deals with the discovery of an artifact on Earth's Moon left behind eons ago by ancient aliens. The object is made of a polished mineral and tetrahedral in shape, and is surrounded by a spherical forcefield. The first-person narrator speculates at one point that the mysterious aliens who left this structure on the Moon may have used mechanisms belonging "to a technology that lies beyond our horizons, perhaps to the technology of para-physical forces."

For millennia (evidenced by dust buildup around its forcefield) the artifact has transmitted signals into deep space, but it ceases to transmit when the astronauts who discover it breach the forcefield. The narrator hypothesises that this "sentinel" was left on the moon as a "warning beacon" for the possible intelligent and spacefaring life that might develop on Earth.

This quotation illustrates the idea, and its ramifications:

It was only a matter of time before we found the pyramid and forced it open. Now its signals have ceased, and those whose duty it is will be turning their minds upon Earth. Perhaps they wish to help our infant civilization. But they must be very, very old, and the old are often insanely jealous of the young.

In the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, the operation of the sentinel is reversed. It is the energy of the sun, falling for the first time on the uncovered artifact, that triggers the signal that creatures from the Earth had taken the first step into space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentinel_%28short_story%29

2072975741_4fc36ee2a3.jpg
 
Ok so I remember they find it on the moon ...

what about the beginning with the monkeys ... was there another on earth or did it go to the moon after it instigated monkey-shit-fight?
 
huh .. you know, that actually kinda cleared that up a bit for me :)

Danke!

doesn't really jive with what it seems to be doing in 2010 though, especially with the final warning about Europa and all but I don't know if 2010 was actually directly related to the original story
 
doesn't really jive with what it seems to be doing in 2010 though, especially with the final warning about Europa and all but I don't know if 2010 was actually directly related to the original story

Bitte! ;)

And Kubrick wasn't involved in 2010. The guy who wrote the short that 2001 is based on, released another novel shortly after the release of 2001 with the same name that incorporates all the changes and further developments that Kubrick drew from the original short. That's why Kubrick got credit for that novel too.

The novel eventually did so well (part of the reason being the many cinema goers who left the theatre wondering about Kubrick's movie - who wanted some answers, this book delivered), that the author continued to write novels based on the original, to continue the franchise.

Kubrick had no input to either the subsequent novels nor movies, so it's not a surprise that the movie 2010, released shortly after the novel, is so vastly different on almost every level.
 
Both the book and movie 2001 were written pretty much simultaneously by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, and apparently the book explains a lot more of why everything happened, whereas Kubrick just wanted to make an "experience" - I get where he was going with it, but it's just way too psychedelic and 60s for me :yuk: (and every SFX scene involving ships was just AGONIZINGLY slow, good god). 2010 explained almost everything, though, and was apparently pretty closely based on Clarke's book (a direct sequel to 2001). Interesting point about thinking of the book almost as an extension of the movie though David (I know you didn't phrase it exactly that way), with the book being there to actually give some resolution and explanation.

I skipped watching Power Rangers to watch the first 20 minutes of Blade Runner every morning before the school bus came, eating Ramen because Deckard made it look so cool. Though it was different from the novel, I think Blade Runner stands on its own.

That's badass dude, I'm gonna have to watch it again, but I remember being kinda baffled by the ending and not feeling much of a plot - but man, the visuals, talk about archetypical cyberpunk :headbang:
 
That's badass dude, I'm gonna have to watch it again, but I remember being kinda baffled by the ending and not feeling much of a plot - but man, the visuals, talk about archetypical cyberpunk :headbang:

I feel the visuals stand up even to todays standards. Maybe it the way they had to use the lighting to fool you with certain things and give depth. But yeah, cyberpunk all the way. Made me want a CS-80 because of the soundtrack alone. As far as plot from the movie standpoint, its a guy hunting robots, while hinting that me may be one. While the novel deals more with Deckard having an actual life(and not being a replicant) and the replicants dealing with shit too.
 
God when did enjoying simple entertainment on face value become the social equivalent of blowing second hand smoke on minority babies and having angry, fart fetish phone sex on your mobile in a crowded elevator?

I hate the zeitgeist of being an opinionated college douche who thinks doing a bachelor of arts puts one on a higher plane of thinking than everybody else.
 
I thought it was a simple story, but very well done. I was pulled along well and was on the edge of my seat in the last 30 minutes.

I think the reason why it's doing so well in with the whole technology is the fact that it brings back the enjoyment of seeing a movie again. With our big screen TVs in HD and our nice sound systems, it's almost pointless to go to the movie theater. Most of the time I can sit close enough to the TV to feel like it's the same size as in the theater because it's "just as big" in terms of how much of my field of vision it takes up and my sound system is better. It seems like a lot of theaters have turned down their sound systems and made the bass NOT hit you in the chest anymore. I miss that.

With this whole 3D thing, it's a really cool and neat experience that you can't get anywhere. Avatar did this well and for that, I think it's brilliant.

The movie industry needed this 3D thing to take off and they're doing it. It wasn't cool back in the day, but they sure did a great job on it now!

just my 2