http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slit-Scan_photography

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish (but I've never seen the movie). Are you trying to create a time-warp type event?

--QD Jones

If you've never seen 2001, it's well past time you did :). In fact, watch all Kubrick's movies: I don't think he was quite the genius that some people make him out to be, but his movies are certainly memorable.

The one real downside of 2001 is that it's deliberately boring.

2001 also tends to make more sense if you are on some sort of drug...not like i think you should try a drug. But for the people who have seen it they know what I'm talking about. While it is a very interesting film and a classic it is also very weird (imagine that, a weird Kubrick film) and has like four different stories if i remeber correctly. Not like a Pulp fiction type of numerous stories, im talking like its three short movies condensed into one epic. What do all the stories have in common? a giant black rectangle.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure i know what you are talking about. Are you talking about at the end when he is zooming through space and all the lights and stuff are flashing? Cause if so, I just assumes they flshed different lights at him. I am probably really off but i havent seen it in long time.

"Anyone who has ever been privileged to direct a film also knows that, although it can be like trying to write 'War and Peace' in a bumper car in an amusement park, when you finally get it right, there are not many joys in life that can equal the feeling." - Stanley Kubrick

Are you talking about at the end when he is zooming through space and all the lights and stuff are flashing?

-yes

The one real downside of 2001 is that it's deliberately boring.

-yes, but it's a nice change from A.v.P, Fast 2 Furious etc.:P
-which is one of the reasons why it's lasted so long...all of Kubriks movies actually (Dr. Stranglove)

Thanks for the feedback guys, the question is probly a bit over specific though...

I hated the early man section at the start of 2001. I hated the star child section a the end of 2001. I really liked the bit in the middle where they actually tried for scientific accuracy. It's slow, but wonderful in the details and "how'd they do that" type effects with zero gravity.

RJSchwarz
San Diego, CA

I realize that this is an old topic, but I just read the book and it is far superior to the movie. If you've ever seen the movie, you've probably thought, "What in bloody hell?!" Well, the book actually explains all those weird things; the star child, the black monolith, etc. And the 'early man' sequence is actually very interesting in the book. If you get a chance, definitely read it (by Arthur C. Clarke)

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'

Are you referring to the novel what was adapted from the screenplay (and published after the film came out) or the original short story Kubrick used to write the screenplay published in 1951?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

The novel that came out near the release of the movie. It was written by Arthur C. Clarke, who collaborated heavily with Kubrick writing the screenplay. They were basically written at the same time, and they were both very aware of what was going on with each other's works. In any case, the novel gives a far better explanation as to what is going on, and is actually one of the best books I've read.

'In the life that man creates for himself, he too, creates his demise... and his legacy.'