Siegfried wrote:
the baby God
I don't think Kubrick used that term; (correct me if I'm wrong) in fact it wasn't at all the point from my perspective. I'm troubled that someone could have interpreted the star-child as deity. The entire story didn't resort to any kind of metaphysics or mysticism; it did paint a picture of nature as much larger and perhaps more complex than mankind is capable of understanding, but baby God? No way. The monolith and star-child represented a massively superior alien race and their interventionist tactics, nothing more. Maybe this is a good application of Isaac Asimov's definition of "magic", but not deity. There were allusions to modern religion having it's roots in ancient alien intervention, but that was just a plot device and an artistic statement. Certainly the audience, with it's outside perspective, can see that God as God played no direct, interventionist role in the story.
If there ever was a movie where you had to read the book to enjoy the movie, this was it.
Did you really mean "enjoy", or would "understand" be more appropriate? Are you saying that for you, full comprehension is a prerequisite to enjoyment? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: 2001 Having read the book I understood the movie much more than if I hadn't read the book and to me that translates into more enjoyment then I otherwise would have had. I can't speak to someone else's enjoyment threshhold. Kubrick didn't use the term "baby God," that was my term. You're reading way too much into that. I meant a quantum leap in evolution. A quantum step to a higher being, a higher level of existence. Put enough of those steps together and where are you? Btw, I read the book, I believe, decades ago, so this is all based on long term memory which, in my case, is a bit shaky. Siegfried Quoting Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com>:
Siegfried wrote:
the baby God
I don't think Kubrick used that term; (correct me if I'm wrong) in fact it wasn't at all the point from my perspective. I'm troubled that someone could have interpreted the star-child as deity. The entire story didn't resort to any kind of metaphysics or mysticism; it did paint a picture of nature as much larger and perhaps more complex than mankind is capable of understanding, but baby God? No way. The monolith and star-child represented a massively superior alien race and their interventionist tactics, nothing more. Maybe this is a good application of Isaac Asimov's definition of "magic", but not deity.
There were allusions to modern religion having it's roots in ancient alien intervention, but that was just a plot device and an artistic statement. Certainly the audience, with it's outside perspective, can see that God as God played no direct, interventionist role in the story.
If there ever was a movie where you had to read the book to enjoy the movie, this was it.
Did you really mean "enjoy", or would "understand" be more appropriate? Are you saying that for you, full comprehension is a prerequisite to enjoyment?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page  Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (2)
-
Chuck Hards -
ziggy943＠xmission.com