Waltzes in with...


From the Ronseal Plots challenge. See all 754 entries (closed)

(Andy_R Yes, the one from the Pirate Party UK, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:40, archived)

This description amuses me

( Joe Scaramanga The bitch hit me with a toaster, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:41, archived)

this^

( - D - Onion-head-carrot-fingers, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:43, archived)

Indeed. Also, in other news
I logged on to my Flickr account (available from my profile, folks!), and realised that B3ta has warped my fragile young mind:


( A Vagabond has got new boots for kicking things, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:51, archived)

I like this
I'm sick of people saying "oh it's such a classic" - it's bollocks.

It's so dull I always fall asleep after the monkey bit, and it took me about twenty separate viewings to watch it all the way through. Then it made absolutely fuck-all sense, and just went *pew* *pew* *pew* for a bit. Classic my arse.
( emvee I wanna do bad things to you, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:44, archived)

never seen it.

( mugatu what the deuce?, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:46, archived)

Don't bother
or, if you do, just watch the bit with the monkeys at the start
( emvee I wanna do bad things to you, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:47, archived)

I view it the way people look at modern art
it's a composition to be looked at, rather than a film to be watched.

If that makes sense.

Or is it that just wank?
( Joe Scaramanga The bitch hit me with a toaster, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:47, archived)

with that in mind, it's probably just wank to me ;-)

( glubglub should be working on, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:49, archived)

I dunno
maybe

the special effects are very pretty, but as soon as the Blue Danube kicks off I'm asleep in my chair anyway
( emvee I wanna do bad things to you, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:50, archived)

There is some sense in this post

(Ning is wearing pants today, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:50, archived)

If you read the original Arthur C. Clarke novel
...it makes perfect, complete sense.

It's just that Kubrick chose to remove some of the key moments which indicate the meaning of the story.

Sort of defeats the object to me, and makes him, in my book, a bit of a cunt.
(Super Jet Shoes, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:50, archived)

what was the point in the book?

( HappyToast sorted on, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:52, archived)

Just wrote a little summary a bit lower down

(Super Jet Shoes, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:56, archived)

The book explains: -
Monkey bit = Monolith placed on early earth, teaches bright ape to use tools and sparks evolution of man.
Moon bit = Monolith placed on moon, sparks evolution of man to next phase.
Trippy sequence = Detailed description of Dave Bowman passing through a star gate to another reality and becoming omnipotent.

I watched the film a few times before reading the book. When I did eventially read it it all made sense.
( Carlossus - Fable 2 ate my Mrs., Fri 30 May 2008, 16:00, archived)

Me too
The book is a great read - it's crystal clear what's going on.
(Super Jet Shoes, Fri 30 May 2008, 16:03, archived)

exactly
a good movie wouldn't require you to read the book, it would be a self-contained story. To be honest, I did try and read it a while back but even the book was boring me to tears.

I fear that it will be forever beyond me.
( emvee I wanna do bad things to you, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:52, archived)

*chucks 2p in*
If you go in expecting 2001 to be a story, have some magical meaning of life moment, or be anything other than an ambiguous collection of visuals connected by the appearance of the monolith then I think you'll be disappointed. If you go in to see these stunning visuals (especially for it's 1968 release date) set to some classical music that you can ponder over and insert your own meaning then this is possibly gonna make you smile and nod in a smoking jacket and pipe kind of way.

It is regarded as a classic because I think this was the first feature film to try such a thing and as a result be a work of art.

That said, I'm not a huge fan, I get far more out of a film like Baraka
( HappyToast sorted on, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:51, archived)

This is true
...and it's the first film which conveyed space realistically.

And, for those who didn't get it, here's what it's about (after reading the book):

Mankind's development is being guided by an alien force. The development progresses in stages, each stage is precluded by the appearance (or discovery) of a black monolith. Firstly, the apes encounter one, and develop the ability to use tools. Next, mankind encounters one (on the moon), and develops the ability to travel to the planets. Next, interplanetary man encounters one (by Jupiter), and moves to the next stage of human development, that of being pure intellect. In the book it ends up with the "star-child" observing nuclear missiles being launched on earth, and stopping them with his mental abilities.
(Super Jet Shoes, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:56, archived)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
De-RISsed! Hooray!
( A Vagabond has got new boots for kicking things, Fri 30 May 2008, 16:00, archived)

you know what, I missed the end bit!
but otherwise yes, I got that much from it, but not the "did you get it man?" "no I mean did you REALLY GET IT?" hippy shit that a lot of people swear blind it contains.

It would be a better film if they gave people a card saying your summary before they went in. :D
( HappyToast sorted on, Fri 30 May 2008, 16:05, archived)

see no-one ever told me that
they said it was a classic sci-fi film

I was disappointed
( emvee I wanna do bad things to you, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:57, archived)

I share this sentiment.
Always liked 2010 better, because it has that neat 80's sci-fi look and feel about it. It also has Roy Scheider, who is (was) awesome. It also features a fake russian saying "piece of pie", which was a great new idiom even before Weebl and Bob.

*goes back to defrosting fridge*
(Warrior_Librarian To Halliburton the spoils, Fri 30 May 2008, 15:54, archived)