The movie IS a Monolith for its viewers; you were just supposed to sit closer to the screen to receive its enlightening effects.

The first step on the path to wisdom is realising that one is a fool.

__________________
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

There are certainly people who insist that everyone agree with their viewpoint on the movie, but from my point of view, there usually seem to be more that push the "if you like it, you're wrong" position than the "if you dislike it, you're wrong" position.

I think it is clear there is a bit of perception issue, and not just from one side.

Oh, that's certainly true. I always have considered it a great science fiction film, and liked it for that reason. I never had any spiritual revelations, whatever intentions they might have had.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

It has never bothered me if people do not like 2001. Same goes for any film though I may wonder why a re make is raved at yet the original is forgotten and that may be a far better film.

One film I thought was a scream when I was younger comes under the name of "Dark Star". I had the opportunity a few years ago to see it again I had to wonder why I thought it hilarious the first time around. Whilst I still enjoyed it, the memory I think tried to let me know it was a side splitter when in fact it was a rib tickler.

Impressions change and tastes vary. Dull world otherwise.

I believe you. Even though I used your initial post to this thread as an inspiration for my first reply, I did not mean to criticise you directly. Your post was quite measured and reasonable, except for one thing: you complained about the elitist attitude of some 2001 fans, but never noticed that in this thread no such opinions were expressed. On the contrary, several of the replies to this thread (not yours) were rather crudely scornful of 2001 ("It's lame!" -- can you think of a lamer criticism?)

I just found it, well... shortsighted... to complain about the snobbery of 2001 fans in a thread where such snobbery was nowhere to be seen, while there were actually several examples of gratuitous 2001 egging, which is at least just as obnoxious.

Or, as Van Rijn explained more concisely, above:

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

But I wasn't complaining about snobbery in this thread. I can't remember if there was any in evidence before my original statement, and whether I noticed there wasn't any (or not) is entirely unrelated to my making the statement in the first place. I was talking about the snobbery associated with the film in general.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

I think that qualifier "in general" is in your mind alone. Most people who like 2001 just like it. They (we) don't use it as an argument of superiority.

Furthermore, many intellectual film snobs do not like 2001. They think it's too science fictiony, and complain that we didn't have regular space flights to the Moon in the real year 2001.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

That's your opinion. It is not mine, and does not match my experience. Also, it's not all fans of the film, merely a small subset of snobs who try to use it as an argument of superiority.
Yes, I've seen that too.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Then the qualifier "in general" is hardly justified, is it?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Kubrick was American, but the film was made at Shepperton in England.

I agree with Jason that the middle segment of the film is deliberately banal. To me, it is a reprise of the prehumans gathering around the monolith, examining something they cannot possibly understand. The great joke was having everyone gather in front of it to have their picture taken.

And, yes, it helps to see (as I've said elsewhere) it in Cinerama. Watching it on a television screen really doesn't help.

I always felt the film had to be judged as completely separate from the novelization, since Kubrick and Clarke had, um, differing views of the human species. Consider 'Paths of Glory', 'The Shining' or 'A Clockwork Orange'. When the Star Child appears in the final scene and looks out at the audience, for all I know it is thinking, "You're next."

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.

Are you actually intentionally misrepresenting/misunderstanding almost everything I say? It's becoming increasingly tiresome, and I am increasingly disinclined to continue this utterly pointless discussion.

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

If I am misrepresenting some of what you've said, it's not intentionally (and most certainly not "almost everything" you say -- a bit of hyperbole there). What have I misrepresented?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Can you people stop arguing about who said what when and maybe get back to the subject?

__________________
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

Good idea.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

That's what I was wondering.

Personally I prefer the novel.

__________________
"How strange when an illusion dies. It's as though you've lost a child." ~Judy Garland

I like the novel, but I probably prefer the movie as the more "official" depiction. Jupiter and an orbiting monolith is more interesting than Saturn and a monolith on "Japetus" in my book.

__________________
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

My son (the essential 18-year-old) tells me the review was totally tongue in cheek, and asked how old people like me could possibly see it as straight.

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.

I'm just the opposite: Completely prefer the Saturn/"Japetus" setting.

__________________
"How strange when an illusion dies. It's as though you've lost a child." ~Judy Garland

Just a thought. I really enjoyed the book and still dip into it once in a while. Maybe that the film brings up the memories of the book that you enjoyed and that makes the film more pleasurable.

Just been perusing my collection and thought "Dune" for a change. The TV series that is. Now I know the effects are low key but I enjoy it as the book and the series complement each other to an extent. At least for me anyway.

I also realise the on line reviews can be very subjective.