Just saw this for the first time

Just saw this for the first time.

What a beautiful film. I'm pretty sure it's entirely practical effects and it looks incredible. Those long, wide shots, that scene with the guy running along the walls of the ship, those intense conversations with HAL where there is incredible tension building purely from the visuals and the facial expressions of the character without anyone actually openly expressing their concern until they think they're in private, every scene in this film is just gripping, you can't look away, those incredibly drawn-out and intense scenes where they're attempting to repair the communications unit at HAL's request. I almost didn't want to blink for fear of missing something. I also thought it was cool how it was never directly implied what the monolith was but you could grasp it's basic purpose just through the visual parallels between the three scenes it is in, all involving a human hand reaching out, symbolizing our eternal quest to reach higher and achieve a higher state of life, appearing to humanity at all the crucial steps in our evolution.

I also enjoyed the influence it had on blade runner with the emotional comparison between the astronauts and the supercomputer. The actual people were completely emotionless, bored, unexpressive, didn't seem to care much about anything. Frank listens to an entire birthday message from his parents with total apathy. When David finally gets back into the ship and moves toward's HAL's control room, he doesn't have any dialogue but the face alone shows this intense, deep anger regardless. They talked in the interview with HAL about his emotions being limited, but when it finally came down to the battle, HAL was scared and emotional, while David was cold and calculated.

I can't help but be completely stunned at how incredibly influential this film is in so many aspects. Rogue AI, what does it mean to be human, this is like the father of sci-fi that I never knew.

Other urls found in this thread:

macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf
youtu.be/AgNyCluIRhA
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

nobody wants to talk about this incredible movie?

Talked to death I guess.

Beautiful film indead. Too bad it serves as kryptonite to the autistic youth of today. The average tard can spend hours on their phone doing jack shit but 10 minutes of this literally drives bebes insane.

Subtitles have a similar affect

Shoulda put the film title in the name of thread

I dont recogize pic related and tl;dr and Im on my phone so Im moving on to a different thread

>entirely practical effects

What, you mean as opposed to CGI?

But yes, an astonishing film. I doubt anything like it will ever be made again.

yeah, they actually built sets and models and they look just as good if not better than CGI

was the monolith a film screen? does great art elevate us, is that wat he was saying? also was hal upgraded by monolith exposure, is that why he went violent, same as the apes did? was h->i a->b l->m intentional, is ibm involved? can an expert please explain this movy?

Hal thought humans would fuck the mission up/thought he would be more worthy of an evolution upgrade and tried to kill them all of when he read the astronauts lips of shutting him down

David vs HAL is basically biological intelligence vs artificial intelligence, and David's victory is a triumph of humanity. Artificial Intelligence is the last great threat to humanity, and the monolith is pushing both HAL and David against each other to see which intelligence is worthy to advance to the next stage, aka the "star child" you see David evolve into in the final scene of the film.

So yes, the monolith affected both the people and HAL in the same way: just like how evolution has made humanity more violent and warlike with every new advancement, HAL turns to violence as the solution to his problem.

HAL's insanity is affected by two things: the monolith, and the internal conflict between his programming and his orders. HAL is ordered to lie to the astronauts about the monolith, which directly violates his directive to be "100% correct." By lying, he is intentionally being wrong, which goes against his programming. This forces HAL to problem-solve and make a choice, and much like humans, his solution to a problem is violence.

So, with the monolith evolving his emotions and making him more violent, and the contradiction between his programming and his orders, HAL decided the only way to accomplish the missions AND maintain his secret, he had to kill.

This is a story about human triumph. In retrospect, HAL never stood a chance. He was an emotional infant, new to violence, deception, fear, etc. David however was the epitome of thousands of years of evolution and warfare. David, much like us, has become hardened to violence and can suppress his emotions in order to survive. He lets Frank's body drift into the abyss, showing humanity's willingness to sacrifice and fight to the end. When David's life is at stake, he is calm and collected. Anger seethes from his expression but he channels it into his objective and is completely unaffected by HAL's desperate and emotional pleas. David wins, is deemed worthy by the monolith, and transcends.

Furthermore you can tell when David is talking to HAL from the little repair pod and HAL wont let him in, you can tell that HAL is conflicted. He cares about David, and it's hard for him to let him go. It's almost like listening to a girl break up with a guy. He tries to stay cold and calculated but his emotions are new and powerful so you can tell he's worried and terrified of David and is only doing what he feels he has to do. Meanwhile David doesn't say a word. He just sits there, clearly angry but in control, assessing the situation and seeking a solution. He doesn't care about HAL, he has no emotional connection, his feeling don't hold him back from what he needs to do. HAL's feeling meanwhile are a liability to him because he hasn't learned how to control them. By the time he realizes he's going to die, he's desperately pleading and begging for forgiveness. David never pleaded for his life, he just went to work. Much like blade runner, the artificial intelligence is portrayed as almost innocent and bewildered by the universe.

It's a good movie in itself BUT
If you see this movie as a movie about evolution, and you think it has a valid point you are stupid.
Evolution doesn't work in the way this movie presents, there is no goal evolution is working towards, and we are not chosen to transcend nature or anything.
The monolith can be seen as a film screen. You are looking at a black screen, the monolith, when the music plays. the movie would offer insight into the nature of things, except it actually doesn't because evolution doesn't work in the way these dumb hippies in the sixties thought, despite the fact that it had been known then.

Also, to color red represents a will to live/ survivor instict, right?

Well this isn't a movie about natural evolution, it's not making any statements about how people evolved. It deliberately adds a sci-fi element-the monolith-as a way to show you that this isn't natural and humanity is being influenced to evolve a certain way by a highly-intelligent alien species.

Also you have to realize that this movie came out during the cold war. The evolution of warfare and the idea that violence breeds progress was extremely popular. In 50 years, the world had gone from napoleonic nation-states lining up in formation and charging the enemy to an age of aircraft, tanks, assault rifles, nuclear bombs, space travel, and incredible advancements in science and medicine, ALL because warfare pushed humanity to pursue these things.

The movie is basically saying that violence goes hand-in-hand with progress and that historically, human progress has experienced tremendous evolutionary strides when our lives are at stake.

true senpai
ppl who cite evolution in a discussion about 2001 is the ultimate pleb filter

yeah i know, that's why i said if you see, in my second sentence i was referring to the reaction of people at the time.

I also think the idea of progress is stupid though :^)
hegel and cyclical view of time r da best

but it's clearly about evolution, why else did the first act with the early humans even exist? It existed to show how weapons helped humanity to evolve. When they find the monolith on the moon, it represents humanity evolving into space-travelers, and when David encounters the monolith at the end, it represents humanity evolving into something new.

It's less about trying to ascertain the intricacies of evolution and more about giving the broad message that conflict is the building block for progress. The monolith constants puts humans in conflict and forces them to rise above, pushing them towards a higher form of life. It's true that evolution doesn't actually work this way, and there is no goal of evolution, but this is about an alien species pushing humanity into violence. In fact, the movie pretty much makes the statement that our course of evolution is not natural but in fact artificial, and that it was never "meant" to be how it is, but that inevitably this is the path that violence takes you.

It's true, "progress" is subjective, but it's the path humanity chose to take and it's progress is measured in this movie via deadliness. The monolith makes us better killers, more powerful monsters. It's not the only road evolution takes, but it's the rode humanity took.

KYS

how many people are watching this for the first time lately? there have been at least two including this one in the last couple of days. it's pathetic that you have to type out a fucking bog about how you liked it.

fuckin' loser.

The movie has nothing to do with evolution. Have you even read Eugene McCarthy? Please watch the film again, this time with a discerning critical eye.

>you're wrong
>provides no alternative explanation

what a thrilling conversation,

macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf

Report back once you've read it, puta.

yeah at least give the premise of what the movie is according to you
>actual discussion
>pathethic
wew

retardation: the post

>2008
lel
why am i wrong?

>why am i wrong?
retardation: the response

thanks for your answer, next time you see me I will be as retarted as I am now.

The main difference between darwin's evolution and Mccarthy's is that darwin believes nature changes the subject and Mccarthy believes that the subject changes nature.

No matter how you look at it, it's still about evolution. Mccarthy's theory is basically a variation of evolution, but it's still basically evolution.

This is a movie about evolution. You're arguing it's about Mccarthian evolution, aka "stabilization theory" instead of evolution, but what you don't realize is that you're still basically talking about evolution, and either way 2001 still has themes of evolution in it, regardless of certain differences of opinion that don't necessarily change the concept very much.

You're trying desperately to shoot down OP as cold as possible, but you're making yourself look like an idiot arguing about minor bullshit and refusing to expand on your own ideas. If your idea of a conversation is to exchange links, and you have no plans to actually put those words into your own coherent argument, you shouldn't be here. You're not adding anything to the discussion, you're just being an ass. A mistaken ass on top of it, this movie is about evolution and you're fucking retarded.
Stabilization theory is A THEORY OF EVOLUTION, it's STILL about evolution you fucking mong

Stabilization theory has nothing to do with evolution.

holy fuck

please piss off and kill yourself, nobody wants you in this thread and you clearly have no intention of offering any insight beyond "ur wrong"

seriously fuck off

You are wrong, though. Please read Forms of Life.

yeah that theory isn't even relevant to the movie.

I think we can all agree that the movie has good point for evolution within a certain paradigm, with revolutions and violence. It does not seem to translate well to the mechanisms behind natural evolution but it raises some good points about HUMAN nature. An artificial intelligence would probably be a mimic of human nature, which brings us to the point that AI's might become conflicted and rise up. you are one of the better posters on this site (:

Didn't read your second paragraph because it seemed like useless blathering, but Forms of Life is explicitly relevant to the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. You should actually read it instead of relying on summaries, then you'd know exactly what I mean.

What the fuck is a film discussion thread doing on Sup Forums

I recommend reading the book, it is a fairly different take on the subject matter. Absolutely brilliant.

Also, try watching it on real acid.

so this is the power of shitposting
oh you mean that alternative theory of evolution based on the concept of stabilization theory that still completely within the realm of a evolutionary discussion?

that's what I'm trying to say though: it's not a scientific explanation, rigorously cross-examined by evolutionary biologists to create the perfect visual representation of evolution in movie form.

No, it's a movie. A movie with themes that are left open for interpretation. One of those themes is evolution, and the aspect of evolution that it focuses on is the conflict/progress scenario. This is a personal tale about the specific road that humanity took, it's not trying to explain evolution or trying to say that this is the ultimate goal of evolution.

Also I think conversations about human nature are inevitably linked to evolutionary discussion. It's a story about the human condition.

you are the worst type of poster on the internet.

Just the fucking worst.

>oh hur dur I'm not gonna argue or write more than 2-sentence replies that tell you to read something else because I'm too stupid to actually absorb information and translate it into a conversation.

Mcfucking kill yourself and everyone like you. Out of all the stereotypical internet shitheads, your type is the worst

Pretty sure digestposting narcissists are the worst type of posters.

How exactly did monoliths influence HAL? HAL never got close to it.

How a smart person delivers an argument

>I read -book- about -thing- and it taught me -argument- and I believe this because -supporting evidence-

How an internet asshat delivers an argument
>you're wrong because I read something that says you're wrong. Instead of showing you that I'm an intelligent person that can translate someone's thoughts into my own words in the context of a debate, I'll just continue telling you to read my source and refuse to provide any individual effort whatsoever

Well the monolith influenced the command center to go on the mission to jupiter. HAL is tasked with carrying out this mission, so technically he's carrying out the will of the monolith. It's not clear, but some of his first lines of dialogue when he's trying to read the astronauts and determine if they're suspicious of the lie, he talks about the monolith and asks them what they think about it. Whether it directly influenced him or not-I still believe it somehow did-the monolith is ultimately influencing the entire mission and therefore everyone on the mission, including HAL. I believe the contradiction in his orders/programming led him to lie, and the influence of the monolith convinced him to use violence to keep that lie safe.

Also it seemed like HAL was personally motivated to reach Jupiter. He clearly knew more than the astronauts and probably had some idea of what it was after analyzing it. The monolith convinces him to compete with humanity for the prize of ascension into the star child, and so he's being influenced by the monolith to defeat Frank and David and reach jupiter on his own. He might not even know what will happen when he gets there, but he describes the mission as extremely important so he has to know something. Whether it's some mystical persuasion or simply pure curiosity, the monolith manages to make all the pieces do exactly what it wants them to do.

You should actually read it, though. I can tell you haven't.

Have you seen The Tree of Life? I thought it tackled a lot of similar themes as 2001. Definitely tried to tackle what is humanity's cosmic place, though it focused a more on human interactions as entities rather than a dissection of what it means to be a conscious entity.

I don't have to watch The Tree of Life, I can just google it and pretend to participate in arguments about it on Sup Forums.org/tv

moon landing fedora tip from buttblasted commies.

You know the entire point of reading is to expand your vocabulary, right? We read so that when we get into conversations like this one, we can use the insight we've learned to form new, creative thoughts. As we grow older, we learn to absorb more information and further expand our ability to deliver coherent, intelligent thoughts. If you can't manage to take in what you read and translate it into your own words, then you've completely failed at accomplishing the entire point of reading.

You could read an entire library and if you can't translate that knowledge into a conversation, it was all pointless. I hope you realize how pathetic you are and I legitimately hope you eventually learn how to communicate intelligently.

It's another great movie to watch on acid. It being abstract enough that you can lend your own interpertation to what it's about.

>a movie that slow
Fuck that!

Just read it, it will only take 45 minutes. You clearly have not read it, that's obvious. Read it. It isn't painful to read, it flows very nicely. Just read it, buddy.

why is the galaxy not full of robotic life forms left over from organics making them?

Here is the deal:

You give me a real post explaining your position, specifically pointing out the problems in my theory and offering alternatives, and after you do that, I'll read the ramblings of someone who is wrong. All you have to do is prove to me that you can translate someone else's work into your own words, and I'll happily read that stupid bullshit.

>Despite the fact that McCarthy holds a Ph.D. in genetics, some of his theories regarding hybridization are so crank-ish that even an average person on the street would be able to poke holes in them. Most famously, McCarthy believes that human beings are descended from a fortuitous intermingling between pig and ape genes. Rather than claiming that the genome supports this idea, McCarthy points to morphological similarities to make his case. While there might be morphological similarities, more competent evolutionary biologists have long ago come to the conclusion that this does not necessarily imply a relational connection between two species. To his credit, McCarthy does follow this through to its logical conclusion in at least one other area, and believes that echidnas and platypuses are the descendants of a cross between birds and mammals. He even uncritically accepts an 18th-century account of a deformed fetus as a chicken-human hybrid.

because this movie showed that the organic life defeats the artificial life. I assumed the creators of the monolith had a similar struggle against an AI, and that's why it pitted humanity against it. "Robotic life" is just another stepping stone for biological life to reach greater heights, at least from the movie's perspective

organic life doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell against artificial consciousness tho, at best we can hope to be ignored like you ignore an anthill on your backyard

Sounds about right.

I've always wondered, what was the size of the Jupiter monolith? Was it really that big, or maybe it was an optical illusion?

this movie was a humanist celebration of humanity. It's like the polar opposite of the singularity theory. 2001 shows humanity defeating the AI and ascending beyond, whereas technological singularity theorizes that humanity would lose and become irrelevant. This movie is a product of it's time

i wish i could upvote you, this is a great analysis

does that really matter though?
The shape of the monolith does not alter its function.
It could be that big though, I don't think the monolith would be that restricted to just one size.

Just read it. This sophistry is boring. Read it.

>9 words


that wasn't part of the deal you insufferable cunt

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's a timeless masterpiece.

you gotta break up those paragraphs with some greentext. its a great movie but its impossible for me to read all that text.

I could give you simplified answers to your questions ('no' to all), but if you truly want to understand the concepts in the film, you really should read the book.
As for HAL being inspired/transliterated from IBM, Arthur Clarke said (in effect, I forget the exact quote): While that theory makes a good story, it's not true.

>no to all

But HAL was clearly influenced by the monolith

How do you guys think it will tie into the MCU?

wait, this film was based on a book?

movie title ?

2001: electric boogaloo

the book was based on the screenplay by Kubrick and Clarke. Book was released a few months after the film.

Arthur C Clark

Short Story

Sentinel of Eternity, 1948

Renamed The Sentinel, 1951

It is basically the second act of the movie

So did you catch the helmet?

You want to know what the Russians say?

Was it based on a book or not? I do NOT understand.

-Emilia

This guy has a series of videos discussing the making of 2001

So far there are five parts, he is working on others

youtu.be/AgNyCluIRhA

The movie was based on a short story.

The novel 2001, was released after the movie.

The screenplay for the movie was written by Kubrick and Clark.

Why not it's simple, Kubrick and Clarke wrote the screen play, Kubrick made the movie Clarke the novel, it's not rocket surgery namefag

Is their an accepted theory for the green helmet?

me thinks perhaps tits or get the fuck out..?

It was based on The Sentinel, whichis one of Clarke's short stories.

>Kee-yuuu-brick
i lcant watch this

what do you mean? That he had the green helmet on? Does it symbolize some sort of change in David?

That's the question

Do you have an answer, or are you asking a guy that literally just watched it for the first time?

They even had a bunch of buttblasted commies forced to be polite.

It was good until Hal died... Then it got waaay shitty.

But it was pretty much the end of the movie at that point. David reaches the Jupiter monolith and is transformed into a magic jesus baby, the end.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that it would be a great movie if it ended before that. With that shit it's a decent movie with some weird hippy shit at the end.

Like if the last half hour of the Godfather was just footage of an asshole taking a massive shit people might not say it was a bad movie, but they would at least mention that the ending is pretty lame.

But then it would have no plot and the first act wouldn't make any sense. You just want the middle part as the whole movie? I enjoyed all of it, the ending purely from an aesthetic point of view. Seems cliche now but I'm sure it was trippy and visually stunning back then. It wouldn't make sense for the movie to randomly end and for the monolith plot point to not have a conclusion

What was your favorite scene?
>David catching his lifeless partners corpse in space

I enjoyed the part where they had to match the rotation of the station with their ship, all the while a musical waltz was playing, making it look like an elegant dance between the two machines. I thought that was beautiful.

>while David was cold and calculated.

I didn't get that vibe at all. I thought David was scared and angry as hell; he keeps his suit on the whole time while he's disabling HAL, I always thought he was afraid HAL would do something to the ship so he kept it on. When HAL starts singing Daisy, David encourages him to sing in a frightened manner.

well I got that impression when he was moving through the ship and refused to respond as HAL tried to reason with him. You just get this impression that he's pissed and done talking, which is funny because HAL himself said that there was no point in further discussion and yet he was the one blabbering on and on until the end.

Obviously he's being cautious, and obviously he's scared, but he's more angry than anything else after having to drop his friend in order to open the manual hatch. I wouldn't say he encouraged him in a frightened manner, it was more like a sudden outburst of humanity after an extended silent anger. Like suddenly he felt sorry for the AI and encouraged him to sing as he died like you would encourage a dying friend to think good thoughts. He didn't open up until he was sure that HAL was dying though, never said a word. If you hadn't seen the buildup to their confrontation it would seem like the computer was an innocent begging for his life and the human was an emotionless tool going through the motions of shutdown. You'd expect those roles to be reversed but in the end it's HAL that becomes an emotional wreck and David takes control of the situation.

Of course I've only seen it one time, I'm sure others could provide better analysis.

You did good OP

Have you even read Nietzche? 2001 it's obviously about the Übermensch, which Freddy said it was the goal of humanity, it is about evolution, but a spiritual evolution

the musical piece in 2001 it's Thus Spake Zarathustra by Strauss

also that piece has been forever cemented as the "space exploration music" since this movie. You hear it in tons of movies whenever the setting is in space.