Film The Tree Of Life

[ForEverAfter]

Again just because the film doesn't explain the appearance of the obelisk does not mean it is not obvious that it is an alien construct. Even Kubrick has said as much.

He purposely left it open-ended. I don't see how it is obvious that aliens left the monolith. There is no reference to aliens whatsoever. Doesn't really matter. Whether it's God or Aliens (or category C) is irrelevant.

 

[freddy47]

Yeah it could've been much worse. Either way it doesn't do anything for me. Nor does the final act of the film with the Starchild and shit. The only part that is really well made IMO is the man vs. machine segment.

That's cool. I liked it but that's just me.

You said a sunrise or a snail. Sunrises receive too much attention, and snails all too little. Space is exotic and unexplored, sunrises have been referenced in about three billion poems and gazed at by ten billion people. We stand on snails... I think I might be getting slightly off track here.

Sunrise, snail, supernova, spiders. Whatever the point is I find space more interesting. But yeah getting off track here.

The fact that a bunch of apes are standing by a water hole doesn't really mean shit to me. There is no indication of "Earth's finite resources". The scene is before man evolves and depletes them, a period of time which is skipped over entirely in the narrative. It's just (aside from the transition to the second act) SUCH an over-rated bit of cinema. Apes first discovering tools is a commonly accepted theory. The idea that evolution began when one ape hit another with a blunt instrument. Taking that already established theory and putting it on screen isn't very interesting. People can over-analyze it and look at the shallow level of water in the background and apply all sorts of meanings. To me, it's just that annoying beginning bit before the eye candy. It doesn't appear to have required much thought.

I think it did. As I have said over and over again the apes discovered the tools because the obelisk unlocked that part of their minds. Again if you disagree with the obvious fact that the obelisk is an alien construct designed to spark that hint of intelligence I don't know what to tell you other than to perhaps watch the movie again. Kubrick initially wanted to approach it differently. Having actors in suits as aliens and what not. Until he talked to Carl Sagan and Sagan suggested only implying the aliens existed because in his (Sagans) opinion aliens would have evolved completely differently from us. And therefore wouldn't have had a humanoid form. This is all in Carl Sagan's book Carl Sagan's cosmic connection:
an extraterrestrial perspective.

 

[freddy47]

He purposely left it open-ended. I don't see how it is obvious that aliens left the monolith. There is no reference to aliens whatsoever. Doesn't really matter. Whether it's God or Aliens (or category C) is irrelevant.

He left it open ended because he decided against his initial idea of having actors in alien costumes. He left it merely as an implication because of Carl Sagan's advice not to use the cliche of showing aliens as humanoids because Carl Sagan thought aliens, if indeed they existed would have evolved differently from us.

I think you're just purposefully ignoring the obvious implication to better suit your own opinion and interpretation of the film. But whatever its all good.

 

[ForEverAfter]

By deciding to remove the aliens completly from the film, and leaving no reference to them whatsoever, it is not obvious that the monolith/obelisk was delivered by aliens. It is not an "obvious" fact. What hint/ What indication is there - in the entire film - that it is alien technology?

 

[freddy47]

By deciding to remove the aliens completly from the film, and leaving no reference to them whatsoever, it is not obvious that the monolith/obelisk was delivered by aliens. It is not an "obvious" fact. What hint/ What indication is there - in the entire film - that it is alien technology?

By simply using your powers of deduction it becomes quite obvious.

A. No natural rock formation would be so smooth and stand completely upright with no support. That is why the apes were initially fearful of the object because it appeared so unnatural to them.

B. When they found the second monolith on the moon it reacted to them emitting a high pitched sound that penetrated their minds. The sound linked with the mind violation would seem to imply some sort of technology.

C. When the monolith was found the astronauts talked about how the monolith was "Buried" there for millions of years. The term buried would seem to imply that some sort of intelligence actively dug a hole and put the monolith in there and then covered it with moon dirt. And the fact that in the film it is said it has been buried there for millions of years it is obvious that humans didn't leave it there. So by process of deduction some sort of alien entity put it there.

The monolith is not a natural formation. Therefore the monolith is the reference to the aliens. You just have to be open minded to see it. In fact you are the only person I have ever talked to that denies that the monolith is an alien construct.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Kubrick encouraged people to explore their own interpretations of the film, and refused to offer an explanation of "what really happened" in the movie, preferring instead to let audiences embrace their own ideas and theories. In a 1968 interview with Playboy magazine, Kubrick stated:

"You're free to speculate as you wish about the philosophical and allegorical meaning of the film—and such speculation is one indication that it has succeeded in gripping the audience at a deep level—but I don't want to spell out a verbal road map for 2001 that every viewer will feel obligated to pursue or else fear he's missed the point."

A. I never said anything about natural rock formations. I was suggesting that there might be a mystical/supernatural significance to the object.

B. That doesn't imply technology any more than it does a mystical/supernatural talisman.

C. This doesn't imply aliens either. Natural things are buried. Mystical things can be buried too. Buried does not imply an alien intelligence or the digging of a hole. There are entire civilizations/species that have been buried - by nature/ God - for thousands/millions of years (respectively).

Nothing you mentioned is inherently alien (neither A, B or C). The only indication that it is technological is that it's black and shiny and has sharp angles. That's not enough to make it either obvious or a fact.

I'm out Jimmy.

You're getting carried away.

 

[freddy47]

^Oh dear lord here we go again.

I don't see how I got carried away this time. I remained rather civil I thought this time around. So much for your new approach I take it.

If anything I thought you got a bit carried away.

But alas I fear you are intent on personally insulting people and then slinking away after leaving a condescending post.

Cheers buddy. Its been fun as always.

For the record though.

Kubrick hinted at the nature of the mysterious unseen alien race in 2001 by suggesting, in a 1968 interview, that given millions of years of evolution, they progressed from biological beings to "immortal machine entities", and then into "beings of pure energy and spirit"; beings with "limitless capabilities and ungraspable intelligence".

 

[ForEverAfter]

You just have to be open minded to see it. In fact you are the only person I have ever talked to that denies that the monolith is an alien construct.

I think denying other people's interpretations of art is close-minded. I've read the book. In the book, it is clearly alien. In the film, it is not clear. Your A, B, C explanation was kind of ridiculous. The line: "You're getting carried away," was meant to be a sort of in-joke between us. Sorry.

 

[freddy47]

I think denying other people's interpretations of art is close-minded. I've read the book. In the book, it is clearly alien. In the film, it is not clear. Your A, B, C explanation was kind of ridiculous.

I never stated that my interpretation of the film is the only interpretation. If you actually read any of my above posts you would see that. I'm just stating from my experience you are the first person I have ever talked to that has denied that the Monolith is of alien origin. My A,B,C explanation is only ridiculous to you because it challenges your particular view of the movie. Your attack on my opinion is in itself a denial of my interpretation of the film.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You stated that your interpretation was both a fact and an obvious one. You did this twice.

I don't appreciate your attitude. Here's an example, from what you just wrote.

If you actually read any of my above posts you would see that.

The implication is that I haven't bothered to read your posts; as if I haven't done you the courtesy of responding, point by point.

My A,B,C explanation is only ridiculous to you because it challenges your particular view of the movie.

No it's ridiculous because it contains seriously flawed logic. You're free to explain how the word buried implies aliens given Machu Pichu and dinosaur fossils. You're also free to explain how something that is clearly not "of this world" and has an effect on the mind is obviously NOT mystical in nature and therefore alien. Please do.

Which is in itself a denial of my interpretation of the film.

I have never implied at any point throughout this discussion that my opinion is anything more than an opinion.

 

[freddy47]

I personally think that we need to stop talking to each other.

Even on a thread where we both like the film in question we somehow get into an argument that goes completely off topic.

And then somehow you end up insulting me and then on and on it goes. Perhaps its just better if we ignored each other?

 

[ForEverAfter]

I never insulted you in this thread or in the other one. I'm happy not to talk to you anymore, though, because - as I said - I don't like your attitude towards what should be open discussion. In Contagion you told someone that they clearly don't know anything about film because they disagreed with you. Here, you call your interpretation a fact, then deny it. Maybe you need to look in the mirror.

 

[freddy47]

You stated that your interpretation was both a fact and an obvious one. You did this twice.

I don't appreciate your attitude. Here's an example, from what you just wrote, because I couldn't be bothered scrolling back up.

It is a fact and an obvious one given the context of the film as well as the directors and screenwriters comments on the film. Just back off already. When you quoted that playboy article you conveniently left out the parts where Kubrick talks about how he thought aliens could have evolved.

The implication is that I haven't bothered to read your posts. Little things like that accumulate. The attitude is unneccesary.

This "attitude" is simply my reaction to your condescending posts as well as you overly confrontational demeanor. If you got a problem with that I suggest adjusting the way you talk to people.

No it's ridiculous because it contains seriously flawed logic. You're free to explain how the word buried implies aliens given Machu Pichu and dinosaur fossils. You're also free to explain how something that is clearly not "of this world" and has an effect on the mind is obviously NOT mystical in nature and therefore alien. Please do.

I never realized the process of deduction is flawed logic. Just because I'm approaching the film from an empirical position doesn't make me illogical. You're approaching it from a spiritual standpoint and that's cool I have no problem with that. We reached different conclusions with the same evidence. Fine. So be it.

I have never implied at any point throughout this discussion that my opinion is anything more than an opinion.

Nor have I.

 

[freddy47]

I never insulted you in this thread or in the other one.

I consider your condescending tone insulting. As well as the term fascist.

But whatever talking to you is tiresome to say the least.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I never insulted you in this thread or in the other one. I'm happy not to talk to you anymore, though, because - as I said - I don't like your attitude towards what should be open discussion. In Contagion you told someone that they clearly don't know anything about film because they disagreed with you. Here, you call your interpretation a fact, then deny it. Maybe you need to look in the mirror.

You said, twice, that your interpretation was factual and that it was obviously correct.

In Contagion, you did much of the same.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I consider your condescending tone insulting. As well as the term fascist.

There is no tone.

 

[freddy47]

You said, twice, that your interpretation was factual and that it was obviously correct.

In Contagion, you did much of the same.

As I recall I apologized to you for that whole Contagion thing. Look who is here digging up old grievances that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. I have already said in my PM to you I blew up on you there because of what I perceived to be an insult as well as your condescension bullshit.

There is no tone.

If you say so dude. If you say so...

 

[freddy47]

In Contagion you told someone that they clearly don't know anything about film because they disagreed with you.

So what? You say essentially the same thing to me albeit in a less open and direct manner. I don't like hypocrites and clearly you are one.

 

[ForEverAfter]

My God. Listen to yourself. Now you're calling me a hypocrite. I actually just read over what I wrote to try and find what you misinterpreted as condescending. I couldn't find it. There is honestly no tone. Maybe you assume there is and interpret my posts to be insulting, but they are not.

In the past half dozen posts - alone - you have called me a condescending hyporcrite who is tiresome to have a discussion with. I stopped talking to you in the last thread because you called me both incredibly ignorant and insane in one sentence. I haven't resorted to any of that sort of shit in either thread. As I said you may add tone to my words, but there is none there.

Tone is something often misinterpreted on internet forums. Kind of like the significance of obelisks in films.

You say essentially the same thing to me albeit in a less open and direct manner.

If I didn't think you knew anything about film, I wouldn't be having these discussions with you. You are more than a worthy adversary, though sometimes you compromise the integrity of your argument by getting upset.

 

[freddy47]

My God. Listen to yourself. Now you're calling me a hypocrite. I actually just read over what I wrote to try and find what you misinterpreted as condescending. I couldn't find it. There is honestly no tone. Maybe you assume there is and interpret my posts to be insulting, but they are not.

As far as I can tell I'm not the first one to "misinterpret" what you say as condescending and insulting. You have said that peoples opinions are outright wrong. That is hypocritical.

In the past half dozen posts - alone - you have called me a condescending hyporcrite who is tiresome to have a discussion with. I stopped talking to you in the last thread because you called me both incredibly ignorant and insane in one sentence. I haven't resorted to any of that sort of shit in either thread. As I said you may add tone to my words, but there is none there.

Again as I recall I apologized to you personally for that. Seems someone here has problems letting things go. You were being confrontational and acting like a dick.

Tone is something often misinterpreted on internet forums. Kind of like the significance of obelisks in films.

Yeah that wasn't condescending at all.

Listen if you want to split hairs with me fine. I can do this all night. But may I suggest that you remember that I ultimately agreed with you that the film this thread is about is a great film? Why the fuck can't we just find some common ground here?