2001...a rewatch

One of my friends in high school was fond of Dune and 2001...a Space Odyssey.  I watched both films and read both books as well.  Dune made a bigger impression on me, as i hardly recall the 2001 novel and never got around to reading the third book in the series.  The first Dune film, on the other hand, was more memorable, and not as true to its novel as i would have liked.  With that series of novels...they were a little too politically and religiously involved, even for me.  I might be able to enjoy more of it now.

2001, on the other hand...the film has made absolutely no sense to me any of the times i've watched it.  What plot i was able to work out was only through other people telling me about it.  It isn't relayed through the film itself.  Last January we discussed part of the film in my World's Greatest Films class...and the information that the professor relayed to set up the scene is not in the actual film at all.  He claimed that the satellites in Earth's orbit carry nuclear weapons (Earth still being in the midst of the Cold War, apparently).  It's apparently alluded to in the commentary and interviews, etc., and was originally part of the story, but if you read the Wikipedia page then it's obvious that this information was abandoned.  If all you have to go off of is the film itself then such a context never even enters your mind.  This is because when the film went to the cinema it had been expunged of all references to nuclear weapons.  The original ending, you see, was for the so-called Star Child to make all the nukes detonate.  This, i have only learned because of Wikipedia.  I'm not taking the time to watch the film again with commentary.  While this is purportedly in the novel (i don't remember), this information is not in the film, and Clark and Kubrick seem clear than the two stories are not meant to be identical.

But i did watch the film again last night.  I wanted to see it again post WGF Clockwork Orange viewing and since it was referenced on Stargate Universe (which i finally finished watching a couple of nights ago).  The biggest thing i noticed was that Alan Tudyk as Sonny in I Robot sounded a lot like HAL.  The other thing that i confirmed is that the film lacks a coherent objective, plot, or message.  Some people (a couple of my professors, for instance) think that this is an okay thing for a film--or even a novel--to do.  I do not agree.  Many people seem to go for this kind of art, and accuse those of us who don't to be afraid or dumb or something or other.  Personally, i just don't think that something can be considered art unless it is expressive and communicates something.  There are lots of pretty paintings out there that are nothing more than blobs of color, sculptures that are nothing but a cacophony of shapes.  But without a certain framework, then the artist is just being lazy.  That's my feeling about it anyway, it might not be rational, but there it is.  Which isn't to say that if i look at an abstract i'm guaranteed to get nothing out of it.

But with film, in particular, i think that it is important for a screenwriter and director to actually do their jobs and not only provide a story but effectively portray and communicate what it is to the audience.  Now, the argument with 2001 is that Kubrick was being vague, surreal, realistic, and even that it is impossible to communicate a plot when there is limited dialogue.  This last point is ridiculous.  I grew up being familiar with several of the Chaplin films which do communicate a plot with minimal textual and no verbal information.  I have also watched foreign films, anime, and other silent films that are perfectly able to communicate a message through music, movement, color, etc.  I can understand the plot points, if not the details, even without subtitles.  I am forced to conclude that Kubrick was either being lazy or thumbing his nose at us.

If i were watching the film with no outside source information from a novel, reviews, or research...i would be forced to conclude that i had watched a horrific film where the computers that are designed to protect us instead murder us and that the alien beings who created and guided our evolution are just as ill-intentioned.  However, the final part of the film, that of the Star Child...makes no sense whatsoever.  I have no idea why Bowman found the trip to be so horrific and his becoming a huge baby that appears to still be in the womb...only there is no womb and he has no mother...but can exist in space?!?  Pure fantasy, impossible, we might as well be tripping or hallucinating.

Technically, the cinematography is menacing as well as beautiful.  The music reinforces this.  The models and science seem to be accurate but it is all stilted and the presentation bores one almost to tears.  In the real year 2001 and 2011 we all use technology and are excited about it (even some of us in Third World countries).  In this film the technology seems tedious on one hand, far beyond what we have been able to yet achieve on the other.  I am forced to conclude that Kubrick meant to bore us and scare us at the same time.  The three tools do not work with each other, in fact their messages are conflicting and cause yet more confusion.

Now i realize that this film was considered to be a landmark achievement and made tons of money.  And i know that some people see Kubrick as god.  But i really don't get it.  After watching all of the Lord of the Rings special features again, and then watching this again, i really do not have a high opinion of Kubrick at all.  He did not successfully communicate with the viewer, he did not do his job.  To sum up, he failed on an epic scale and was teaching us what worked and what doesn't.  I love science fiction, and he turns me off.  There is so much potential here but it's all muddled, it's painful for me to watch or even think about.  I find 2010 to be so much more enjoyable and the changes, really, are very slight.  In retrospect i think that one of the things that is hardest to overcome in this film is how very flat the characters are.  We know next-to-nothing about them and do not care whether they live or die.  Which is probably what made me think of LotR, besides those films being epic is how very much that is communicated without words.  Most of all, you can understand and enjoy the plot without reading the novel, but then, why would you want to?  The LotR films point to Tolkien as their source material.  2001...it's just as much fantasy, but not nearly as believable or enjoyable.

the countdown

I meant to post as soon as i found out about the newest WoW expansion, Mists of Pandaria (now forever to be known as "mop"...seriously?), but Blogger or the nets or something was just not working right.  First off, i was skeptical.  I don't particularly care for the pandaren non-combat pet.  But i eventually realized that i love the Star Trek and Firefly references (etc.) that they put into the game, so why shouldn't they put in some Kung Fu Panda, too?  It is an awesome movie, and i love martial arts in certain action films, so why shouldn't that be incorporated into the game?  My biggest concern is the lore/plot being advanced, which they are being very hush hush about, so maybe MoP will be the best xpac yet.  Trying to be optimistic...

Secondly, i was super upset the first night about losing melee weapons as a hunter, but i can't say that i'm at all surprised.  Taking the dead zone away does nothing to change the fact that i have always wanted my Hunter to be a true dps hybrid capable of defending herself when mobs collapse into melee range.  Legolas was awesome with his pair of knives but hunters, sadly, are not allowed the same privilege.  However, unless they fix focus then i can't say that i will be playing a hunter anymore at all   All i'm really doing on her right now is trying to get my last couple of mounts for the achieve (i'm sitting pretty on 93 mounts right now...more on this later).  I prefer playing my shammy even while my shammy continues to feel like an alt.  I am a hunter through and through, and being alienated like this has not been a fun journey over the past few years.

Thirdly, i opped into the year long membership.  Free Diablo 3 and guaranteed in to the MoP beta?!?  Worth it even if i am going to (possibly) be mostly playing SWTOR for a while.  So right now i'm finally working (even if it is a crap job) and am looking into upgrading my power source and graphic/video card.  Hopefully this will be happening very soon, within the next paycheck or two.

Lastly, i have been leveling two alliance characters on another server with a new friend.  I'm up to lvl 66 on my worgen druid and 62 on my human spriest.  I have been wanting to lvl as alliance for a while, to see what it was like if nothing else, but it still doesn't sit right with me after 65 levels+.  I am horde through and through.  It seriously messes with my head.  I leveled my belf spriest to 65 and did a little bank maintenance on my 45 belf rogue a couple of days ago and had to keep stopping myself from approaching alliance flight master in Gadgetzan, for instance.  Just today i decided to take Lui to OL and my first inclination was to turn left to go to the flight master just inside the gate.  I don't know that i want to even raid on these characters, though i have enjoyed leveling them i constantly feel as if i'm a deserter or being unfaithful because of the faction change.  I keep wondering if this game will ever do away with factions entirely or even fracture them further (the horde definitely seems to be on the verge of breaking apart).  MoP seems to be a step closer to that no matter how much they try to deny it.


No screenshots for most of this, but recent acquisitions that i'm proud of...my last two AQ mounts (including the red one!), the Venomhide Ravasaur, and an Amani Battle Bear on both my mains (shown here on Fyre).

Oh and did i mention?  I was able to tame Deth'tilac with the help of a guildee and a couple of his friends.  You have to be able to kite perfectly do this alone... alas i am fallible and needed help.

Lastly, my countdown is not to the newest expansion (though i'm sure that will be coming sooner than we had to wait for Cat).  I've been wanting to screenshot my last ten mounts as i acquire them.  Let me just say that Coren, the Baron (is it still the Baron who's in Strat?), Kael, Skadi, and Greta (curse you!) have not been kind.  You may have noticed that there was a name that wasn't on that list that you might have expected. /cackle

90+91 = two Goblin trikes (my Ambassador title is finally complete again...that is, until MoP)

92 = Flameward Hippogryff

93 = Headless Horseman's Mount!!!

I am really hoping that i'm not going to have to start grinding Argent Dawn dailies in order to get 7 more mounts.  I foresee a lot of archaelogy and fishing in my immediate future.  That and hoping for rare drops and more Call to Arms on Fyre with a mailbox a quick click away.  Is that cheating?  How many times have i run Occ and UtP only to see nothing drop?!?