In Response to the Inclusion of 2001: Space Odyssey in “10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies”
I don’t know what kind of qualifications the writer used to include 2001: Space Odyssey in this list. Science geek or not, he/she should have studied carefully the points presented to include this film in her/his list of “Most Historically Inaccurate Movies.” I guess she/he was not fascinated by the storyline of that film, or simply, she/he was bored by it. For me, 2001: Space Odyssey should not be included in this list, because of the following reasons:
- 2001: Space Odyssey is not a historical movie, but rather a predictive science fiction tracing human evolution and projecting his story in the space age.
“According to Merriam-Webster history is defined as (1) chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes b: a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena c: an account of a patient's medical background d: an established record, (2) a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events, and (3) a: events that form the subject matter of a history b: events of the past c: one that is finished or done for d: previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal) [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history]. On one hand wikipedia defines history as the study of the past, focused on human activity and leading up to the present day, more exactly, history is the continuous, systematic narrative and the research of events in the past of importance to the human race, including the study of events over time and their relation to humanity, those who study History as a profession are called historians.”
Whatever dictionary you are going to consult history is all about the past, and I am wondering why the author of that article considered 2001: Space Odyssey as a historical film. Maybe because of the first part of the film exploring the early ancestors of Homo sapiens, but the reason she/he gave did not exposed the inconsistency of that kernel. She/he pointed out the 2001 events shown by the film and if this is the main reason why she/he included the said film in the list, then I guess she/he totally misinterpreted Kubrick and Clarke’s 2001: Space Odyssey. That was a very unintelligent critique of the film.
2001: Space Odyssey does not tell the past story of Homo sapiens, but rather speculates and projects the future possibility of human space age. Take note this film was released in 1968, 33 years before 2001. Would you consider this as a historical film compared to 10,000 BC?
- 2001: Space Odyssey is not historically incorrect nor scientifically inconsistent.
How come the things that were shown in the film did not happen in 2001?
Again, as I mentioned above 2001: Space Odyssey is not a historical film but rather a predictive science fiction. Everything that would happen in 2001, as based on the film, may or may not happen in 2001. They were not a historical facts deliberately twisted to satisfy the audience. In fact much most movie-goers found 2001: Space Odyssey boring because of its strict scientific exposition. Maybe this paragraph of one of the IMBD user comments will encapsulate the whole thought of the film:
“Thankfully, those that cannot appreciate Kubrick's accomplishment are still a minority. Most viewers are able to see the intelligence and sheer virtuosity that went into the making of this epic. This is the film that put the science in "science fiction", and its depiction of space travel and mankind's future remains unsurpassed to this day. It was so far ahead of its time that humanity still hasn't caught up.” – [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/]
If you are going to ask me about the certainty of those things to happen, then I will give 100%. Maybe the time estimation was not accurate but they will surely happen in the near future. Here are several movements in the Human space age where my confidence is built.
(a) Cassini-Huygens
(b) Extrasolar planets discovery.
(c) International Space station and experiments conducted in the station to further enhance the knowledge of human of space exploration.
(d) Messenger – Mercury space orbiter.
(e) Mars exploration – SPIRIT and OPPORTUNITY, Mars Reconnaisance Orbiter,
(f) Other future projects of ESA, NASA, JAXA and other space agencies.
These new generation explorers of space will surely materialize the human dream of space age as exposed in the film.
The time to let these things happen is not that important, what is important is the vision we can derive from it. Just because of this wrong extrapolation of time, is it valid enough to consider 2001: Space Odyssey as inaccurate? If that will be case then she/he should have included hundreds of science fiction films who had committed the same mistake.
If we are just going to base the qualification on wrong scientific facts and modeling then she/he should have included several other science fiction films such as Star Trek, Star Wars, War of the Worlds, The Day The Earth Stood Still, ET, Back To The Future and Metropolis.
- The Art of Film-making
I am not really a professional film critique but I guess I know which film is crap and which one is not. Basing on her comments, I believe the writer is just a simple movie-goer with no critical thinking skills in film critique. New generation films need not to stick hardly on the actual historical facts. If there are inconsistencies based on the historical facts, then maybe the writers or the producers did it to provide more colors, textures and emotions in the plot of the story. He/She needs to remind herself/himself that she/he is watching a movie, a film and not a historical documentary, like the one in History Channel or Discovery Channel.
Sometimes I am also disappointed with the colors and variations added in the films, because they misinform everyone and deny everyone with the actual truth of the story line. One should be wise enough to understand the philosophy, the interpretation or the variation presented by the moviemakers or writers in the film. Perfect example is “300.” Everyone knows that this is not the actual “Battle of Thermopylea” scenes but instead an adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel reconstructing the plot of the “Battle of Thermopylea”. He/She should ask Frank Miller why he drew the warriors in leather speedos. I guess it would make sense if he/she should have written about the film “The 300 Spartans” released in 1962.
2001: Space Odyssey is a unique film, a breakthrough in filmmaking and science fiction, and it’s unfair for him/her to tag it as one of the most “inaccurate”movies. I guess she/he was just bored when she/he watched it.
There are several other points that were missed by the writer of that article. But I am not going to point them out. Those three major points are enough to prove that he/she is missing the point of her/his article. He/She was simply writing the article without in-depth understanding of films and movies, as well as some underlying facts and interpretations behind the movies (some movies have but other are totally for good-feel purpose only).
I don’t know how to put it, but it seems, for me, the article has no bearing at all. He/she handled everything irresponsibly. Maybe she/he was catching up her/his deadline without doing in-depth scrutiny of what she/he had written.
On one hand, I have the same sentiments as hers when it comes to “Apocalypto,” “The Patriot,” and “10,000 BC,” because I don’t like the Heroic or Saviour complex inserted in those films.
