Chase explains 2001 to Confused Matthew because somebody really needs to - part 3 of 9

This is part 3 of my epic 9 part response / rebuttal to Confused Matthew's "review" of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. I decided to explain 2001 and just how truly "confused" Confused Matthew really is because somebody needs to. IF you are a fan of 2001 and on the fence or not a fan at all of Mr. Confused then this may be for you but be advised, it's long and i may not make too much sense if you haven't seen 2001 or Confused Matthew's review of it.

Watch Full Playlist here - http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A92A639CBA3CBD66

part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WvrQ6h_GWE
part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Su8vPlZHJw
part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PSsmkzGJPE
part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbgTAMNbqNE
part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnEYZxvyzzo
part 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cutpLn2_DN4
part 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GsMidV6MzA
part 8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xs4DprRR6k
part 9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF_xfD9i7PI

Here is a link to Matthew's review of 2001 (heads up if you like the movie, it's hard to get through) - http://www.confusedmatthew.com/2001%3A-A-Space-Odyssey.php

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• chase melendez
• 2001
• space odyssey
• confused matthew
• movie review
• part 3
• video response

[twooffour]

The argument that this transition shows "what the monolith truly did to our evolution", is therefore backwards.

[twooffour]

... they must've behaved back then.

We also know how people get used to amazing modern day technology, sleep on planes and in submarines, and feel secure in their homes rather than having to watch out for enemies like the apes in the 2001 intro.

All the movie does here, is telling us that apparently, an enigmatic alien Monolith had a part in humankind's evolution of intelligence (rather than a God, or just nature) - that's the information bit, the results are already known to the viewer.

[twooffour]

... be cool, the movie not so much.

8:52 Or did it? All we know is that it got the ball rolling. Maybe it was like "hmph, why do these monkey not evolve? We need them to evolve like, now! Fiiiine, let's give 'em a little push"...

All over-interpretation - interesting as fuck when discussing various way to look at the movie, worthless as hack when pinpointing what actually IS in the movie.

Also, a little bit of real-world context here - we already KNOW how apes behave, and how...

[twooffour]

8:40 Great, still nothing to do with the story, or it being a movie.

He could've made a 2 hour reel entirely of meticulously recreated, realistic space imagery, and it would've been cool for what it would be - but that is not a film with a plot.

8:48 All impressive as far as the SETTING goes, but irrelevant if you want to evluate it as a MOVIE.

What if LOTR had 5 times more beautiful landscape shots, and replace all of its good writing and acting with crappy one?

The landscape would still..

[twooffour]

8:23 Ok, I could take a clip with a tiger hunting zebras, and then cut to a fat dude poking his nose in a cubicle - would that be a "nice touch" to "show the contrast"? Maybe, it certainly is in the movie.

But in no way is that some kind of profound statement to rub your chin at, it's actually what you'd expect from a cut from apes (even modern day apes, no difference) to the Enterprise bridge.

8:30 He already praised the "direction", you know? SFX, camerawork... lighting... whatever.

[twooffour]

8:05 Maybe the people on the ship are in a better mood than the scary apes at the intro? It really can be as simple as that, and it's all about style and mood.

8:16 Um... it's his routine work, and he needs sleep after a day of work? What, does "travelling to and working in space can take days, man" now a profound plot point?

It's fairly obvious, and it shows a dude doing boring routine activities in space - of which there's a lot in this movie.

[twooffour]

Chase can't possibly be as dense as not to understand the difference between this, and the score from Donald Duck shorts.

To be fair, CM's statement is also dumb: sure, you can just "listen to the music", but you can also listen to the same music being well used to a series of images.

Music itself doesn't magically add content, but that phrasing was hella dumb.

7:55 Gimmick; style, not substance.

8:04 Rhythmless, yes - Ligeti's Requiem is pretty "rhythmless"... oh wait, Zarathustra.

[twooffour]

.... emotional state, unseen going-ons behind the scenes, or anything else a film score can "inform" the audience about in the only cases the music actually becomes part of the content, not just the atmosphere and style.

Drop the lecture on film history, because otherwise I'll give you a lecture about what "Space Opera" actually means. ;)

7:24 Music is mostly written specifically to accompany, or "define", a film.

In this case, an already written piece was taken as a background.

[twooffour]

nyoh" earlier on.

5:30 WRONG. No one said anything about "granting consciousness", in fact the apes seem pretty conscious all the time.

All we see the Monolith do is increase their intelligence (by one bit).

5:37 Because of intelligence, not consciousness.

6:20 That Waltz adds levity and light humor to the scene (especially if you view what happens inside the shuttles with humor), but that's still style, not substance.

This music doesn't in any way tell anything about a character's...

[twooffour]

... exactly two astronauts assuming the role of the protagonist; the intro has the ape who "invents" the bone, possibly extending to his little tribe that fights over the waterpool with another tribe, and encounters the Monolith.

4:55 Agreed, he skips over that part, and it's a rather important (and easy to understand) plot point in the film.

He sucks at that passage.

Having that said, I'm trying to figure out what I find more annoying right now, his "ohhhohohoh, nohohoho", or your "nyoh, nyoh