[ASTRO] Re: ohn's Ultimate Trip...

[Michael Kepler <kepler@metro1.com>]

.. begin astro-transmission [X-HJIKE27.W5]

On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, n wrote:

Continuing off Astro-topic, but I can't resist talking about my
favorite movie.

<snip!>
> 
> Speaking of 2001, has anybody ever noticed what happens when you add a 
> letter to each of the letters in the name "HAL?"  (I'm _not_  claiming to 
> have discovered this myself, for all you quick-fused listees.)  

I have read and heard many denials from Clarke (The co-author of the
script and the book of 2001) that the whole HAL/IBM thing was 
intended.  He claims that nobody even was aware of the "coincidence"
until someone pointed it out to them (Clarke and Kubrick) after the
movie and book were already finished.  I don't beleive him for a 
second.

> I also read 
> in an interview with Douglas Trumbull (effects supervisor for the movie) 
> that the shooting ratio on the film was 200:1, an interesting coincidence 
> (though once again, I must include a disclaimer stating that I have no idea 
> what the hell "shooting ratio" is, and if anybody wants to explain it I 
> would be tickled pink).

I don't know with absolute certainty, but I would bet real money
that the "shooting ratio" is the ratio of feet of film shot to feet
of film included in the final cut.  The ratio of "200:1" is consistent
with Kubrick's infamous reputation for being a budget-blowing 
"perfectionist".  Although I love most of his work, it bugs me that
someone who is woefully undisciplined in their waste of other people's
money and talent is called a "perfectionist".

For lots of really interesting 2001-related material, do your darndest
to track down a book called "The Lost Worlds of 2001" by Arthur C.
Clarke.  This book combines excerpts from Clarke's personal diaries
written during the parallel iterative development of the movie and
the book of 2001 and discarded drafts of scenes for the script and
chapters for the book.  It is super interesting to any fan of 2001,
Clarke or Kubrick.

For the Humble Opinion File, I think Clarke is good but over-rated.
Despite his wasteful methods, Kubrick is more often than not the
father of true works of genius.  2001 trancends everything either
of them have done before or since, a whole far greater than the
sum of the efforts of it's creators.  And don't, by any means,
underestimate the significance of the contribution by Douglus
Trumbull.

2001, the only movie that convinces the viewer that long, boring
sequences are artisticly valid and even significant.

There I go again, babbling on too long.

Mookie




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yo spud! This message is from the Astro-List.  To post to the list send
your message to the list at: astro-list@grantbob.com  To be removed 
from the list, please send a message with "UNSUBSCRIBE astro-list"
(no quotes) in the BODY of the message to listserv@grantbob.com
For more info see: <http://www.grantbob.com/moam/astro.html>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. end astro-transmission [X-HJIKE27.W5]