In comment to 2001, the producers and Kubrick decided to use a rectangle instead of the Avatar Arthur C. Clark had in his story. The film was loosely based upon. The Avatar still enigmatic was supposed to be a part of the story to show the existence of higher dimensions than our own, NOT God which is how Kubrick understood it.
Kubrick decided to ignore the higher dimensional quality and only create a space baby since the Book was more profound than his movie was. The set artists made Kubrick's film, and the computer HAL who turned to murder to complete the communications of conflicting commands from the suits of Earth. Hal should have had psychological knowledge programed into him to keep from still having the literal brain of a child. Children do not understand psychology, and can only comprehend simple things without the creativity to take in or consume complex situations and the difference between 'pretend' and illusion or higher life forms otherwise called Ghosts. M. night Shamalan does better movies than Kubrick did, Kubrick's last Film was a Roman Polanski story about a ghost taking over a living person, like a demon would. He failed to make the movie as good as the story or actually tell the story Polanski wrote.

None the less 2001 is still a landmark classic, (I liked it) but it was so bizarre since Kubrick didn't really understand the scope of what he was trying to show, that he instead concentrated upon HAL and the enigmatic obelisk 'He' created. His only contribution to higher dimensions was the light show at the end.

Sorry - I hit the wrong "Reply" button; my new post was intended as a reply to yours. Just letting you know - otherwise it won't show up in your Notifications. Appreciate your comments.

First of all, thank you for reading! I don't know how many "views" my journal has had, but I'd guess very few; my own fault, really, for being something of a lurker.

Second, I'm not sure I agree with you about 2001 or Stanley Kubrick. According to Clarke, he and Kubrick essentially wrote the book and the screenplay together - a true collaboration; Clarke once said that the author credit for the book should read "2001: A Space Odyssey, a novel by Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick, based on the movie screenplay 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, inspired by the short story The Sentinel by Arthur C. Clarke."

I don't feel that the book was more profound; rather, it was a more technical, hard-science version and explanation of the same story. More importantly, Clarke was only able to use words, which requires a particular style of communication and a certain degree of clarity. Kubrick was free to use images without offering a literal explanation of what they meant, leaving it up to the viewers to draw their own conclusions - in fact, he specifically refused to explain the movie:

"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."

I also think you may be underestimating HAL (as the astronauts did, with disastrous consequences). Yes, in a later book (2010: Odyssey Two) Clarke offered the explanation that HAL's so-called madness was the result of his inability to reconcile conflicting orders from Earth; but again, Clarke, a technological futurist, is working from a "hard science" point of view. In the film version of 2001, HAL displays a great deal of psychological insight in his interactions with Dave and Frank, studying them, anticipating their behavior - and manipulating them. I think the critics who commented disparagingly that HAL was "the best actor in the movie" actually sensed this, even while failing to realize that that was Kubrick's point in the first place. HAL only reverts to childlike simplicity when Dave disconnects most of his electronic brain - the haunting "Daisy" scene.

I thought The Sixth Sense was superb, and I have been disappointed that Shyamalan's subsequent efforts haven't reached the same level of creativity or impact; he made the mistake of starting off with his best work, instead of building up to it. But I'm not sure which film you mean by "Kubrick's last film [based on a] Polanski story"; as far as I know, the two never worked together. Kubrick's "official" last film was Eyes Wide Shut, for which he co-wrote the screenplay himself (with writer Frederic Raphael) based on a 1926 novella by Arthur Schnitzler; I found the film to be rather chilly. His real last film was AI: Artificial Intelligence, a close collaboration with Spielberg, which I loved; most people assumed that the sweet parts were Spielberg and the dark parts were Kubrick, which turns out to be the exact opposite of the truth.

I sometimes read reviews of movies I have already seen, just to find out what other people thought about them, and I came across a fascinating discussion of 2001 - on Amazon, of all places. It started with a Customer Review, and as of today there are 55 additional posts on that thread; here's a link, if you want some other ideas about the film:

https://www.amazon.com/review/RZZKQ.....SIN=B00005ASUM

********************************

As to your Shout (and again, thanks): it turns out there is actually another "Fafnir314"! There is a blogger/DJ who uses that name, or did a decade ago; I wasn't aware of them, since we don't frequent the same sites. There's also someone who posted recently on a sports blog; don't know if it's the same person. (It's also a commercial brand of ball bearing.) I think that when you choose a name from European mythology, like Fafnir, the odds are you won't be the only person who had that same idea; how they also landed on "314", however, I don't know - unless they named themselves after the ball bearings, a nice steely (and ballsy) identity. I didn't know about the bearings at the time, and that wasn't the image I was going for.

Well you name stopped me and I read people's thoughts in their bio or journal. I get to know the person somewhat.

I read a recent synopsis of 2001 that talked from a mystical viewpoint instead of Hard science.

I did not know Clark worked with Kubrick on the film. I never ran across anyone explaining that before. As for Kubrick I had heard that Polanski had written a story and that Kubrick directed the film, Then I'd heard he died in the early 80's. So much for watching the news, I guess they were fake back in the 80's too.

My character's name is :Grossefelderschwartzenngeldermannenstien (Old Prussian aristocracy) rough translation of the Prussian add everything in it possible last name is; Big Iron (in) Blackened Castration Man Profession or a guy that castrates stallions or bulls his middle name is Siggurdtotten (or death to Siggurd), his real first name is Fafnirr. Fafnir's parents thought the dragon got the short end of the stick since the whole story about the 'Hero' was written from his point of view instead of the Dragon; who was taken from behind while clipping coupons, then the 'Hero stole all of his money, ...some hero!

Since your name is Fafnir why not create a Prussian last name?!

Ich Spreche ein bicen deutsche.

I love your elaborately compound name, but I speak essentially no German, and since there are people on FA who speak it fluently, I would rather not embarrass myself. However, there is a strong German connection to the name: while the original character comes from Norse mythology, I identified more with the character as portrayed in Wagner's massive Ring Cycle, a four-opera miniseries which - if you can get through 16 hours of Wagnerian opera! - is a stunning multi-generational epic about the struggle between power, authority, and the system on one hand; love, youth, and freedom on the other.

Fafner (as he is spelled in the opera) and Wotan (the leader of the gods) end up in much the same situation: they each make bad choices, and end up losing everything and everyone they loved. The difference is that Wotan sees the big picture, and understands that he is the one responsible for destroying not only his own life, but the lives of so many others; Fafner spends the latter part of his life hiding alone in a remote cave, fiercely guarding a treasure which no longer provides him any joy, but not until he is finally killed by Siegfried (another Wagner renaming) does he appreciate that both he and Siegfried are pawns in someone else's game. All of them are tragic figures, in one way or another: the "heroes", including Siegfried, are doomed by the actions of those in power; the "villains", who are fairly complicated characters, had control of their situation - had the opportunity to redeem themselves, and the world - but instead tried to hang on to power at all costs, and found out just how high those costs actually were.

Cheerful stuff! Your version sounds a lot less bleak. Amazingly, though, the opera ends on a hopeful note: the entire world is set ablaze and washed away, giving us a chance to start over and try again. (At least, that's Wagner's idea of a hopeful note; and in fairness, the music is glorious.)

I have a birthday gift from my father that was mythology from around the world, Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. I read The Norse hero Sigurd smote the holder of the ring of the Nibelung and took his treasure. Wagner kind of elaborated the story a tad, The Ring allowed it's wearer in this case a Dwarf to 'become' a Dragon and in turn allowed him to have two things as well as becoming a Dragon anytime you put on the ring, a fabulous treasure, and, avarice or monetary greed. These were seen as two edged swords, the dwarf never took off the ring so he thought he always was the dragon not a dwarf with a magic ring. And Avarice is one of the seven deadly sins considered a bad thing if that is all you desire in life. Early Christian Church influence on the story line. Wotan or Wodin was Odin's brother and had the problem of not being able to see the future like Odin could. Still Wodin was king of the Gods first until Odin (through subterfuge and really treachery) stole his title for himself because he saw the future and how he could beat Wodin in a duel. So he did and was christened the "Rightful Ruler of the Gods" after killing Wodin and taking his Kingdom even though they were brothers!
As long as you are 'right' in Norse mythology it is okay to use all the worse traits of humanity to gain your ends, including treachery and murder. Odin saw the future of his rightful rule he and all the Gods would die in Ragnarok leaving only two minor Gods to inherit the World, men would be supreme then not Gods. Sort of 'yeah you can steal the kingdom through treachery but things have a habit of righting themselves, though not for poor Wodin. Wagner decided to change the stories to what sounded better in his time, Sigfried was made a hero killing a miser who's only crime was hoarding his own treasure, but because he was a dragon that made him automatically abhorrent and evil.

Some of my best friends are born in the year of the Dragon, and others believe they ARE dragons, others still like dragons, like me.

My Horse is a character originally played out of my game across several years and many adventures. Though I invented the game I let others ref or DM it in their own adventures, where I played a character. Mericus is one of those characters, his given name is Marcus Raidien he identifies with a Wagnerian like previous hero of his own World Mericus Htwtchka. (I wrote an extensive history and mythology to go with my RPG). He follows the Order of the Sword a group that are like Conan with his sword or a Samurai with a Katana, and a Guild who have the goal of being the best in their chosen profession, or looking like it as a politician. Marcus is the best Swordsman in seventeen universes, no one can beat him in a fight,

But he is addicted to two things the mind numbing effects of Black Wine that he built up an immunity to, He was captured once and made into a homosexual sex slave against his will Black Wine was used to erase his memory and made him docile. The other thing is he likes being gay even though he was quite the lady's man when he started out in life. He sleeps with whichever person asks for him to help them through a curse he put on himself to be tele-dimension-ported to new universes to anyone that calls his name in a time of dire need. If they need a Swordsman Druid Wizard that cannot lose, his price ...you have to sleep with him later! He did this to get to go to universes he never had any other way to get there. In magic once you've been to a place you can go there any time you want to. The curse is the most powerful kind of magic though the effects are weak and easily corrected.

A person is made by the things that they chose from the things that they experience in life. When I built my game i modeled it from mythology and included everything from all mythologies. What happened is everyone that has ever played it gets addicted to it because of that one fact, you are free to make your own choices in life. Wagner didn't follow mythology instead he abridged it to make an epic. I created a game where you control your own invention of your own character and play in a world of more possibilities than our own. I built zero limitations into the game people never have to retire their favorite characters, it is a renaissance where anything is possible, you only have to make your choices dependent upon what happens from what you try to do. The game is popular because of its freedom while including everything possible and having only two rules!

Everyone all asks me the same thing anytime they have played it only once "When can we play this again?" I want to bring the text version out to play on your phone like the way people text all the time anyway. I like money, but I like playing my own game more even if i made nothing on it. It will be an app for a dollar seventy-seven cents.

It is interactive and social though it has combat in it the structure runs itself as the players control the direction of the game. All that is needed is a story-teller referee no AI program and no all powerful DM is needed. It controls itself through structure. You can play a Ginn in my game the name for Dragons in my game, no other game allows you to play such a formidable being.

You can play Fafnir 314 for instance. But he would call himself Ginn not Dragon, calling him a dragon is an insult like calling a Human a neanderthal. Dragon exist in my game as mindless always pissed off monsters, like all monsters they kill for the sake of killing. Ginn on the other hand look like dragons but are more refined, still like all dragons they have a hoard of treasure somewhere. I followed mythology unlike Wagner

Wagner certainly played with the original Norse mythology, but I don't think he was simply updating the conflicts for a 19th century audience. He actually uses the myths as a springboard for a deeper, more complex and more philosophical story which is fundamentally not about "the gods" up there and their win-at-any-cost ambitions, but about us: the fundamental choices we face in life; the devastation of watching all our accomplishments turn to ashes; and the observation that we will always fail miserably if we believe we can have it all without making a choice. The whole cycle is an attack on the idea that you can grasp power and love at the same time - or secular and spiritual accomplishment, to put it in religious terms.

In addition, Fafner's story in the Ring is quite complicated - no easy heroes or villains here - and his crime is a lot deeper than just being a miser. Here's a thumbnail summary of the first opera in the cycle, Das Rheingold:

Alberich, a dwarf, is taunted by the Rhinegirls about how hideous he is. Realizing that no one will ever love him, he renounces and curses love, and thereby acquires the skill to steal the gold from the Rhine and forge it into a ring of power. (Yes, this is where Tolkien got his inspiration.)

Meanwhile, Wotan (the leader of the Gods) is admiring his grand new palace, Valhalla. Two giants, the brothers Fafner and Fasolt, built it for him in exchange for Freia, his sister-in-law (!), a price Wotan never had any intention of paying; he was counting on the trickster god of fire, Loge (Loki), to figure out a way for him to weasel out of the contract. He can't just refuse to pay, because then his treaty with the giants would become meaningless, and his need to maintain power limits his options.

Loge tells Wotan about the ring, and the two of them travel underground to Alberich's home, where the Nibelungs are hammering out Alberich's treasure, compelled by the power of the ring. Loge tricks Alberich and captures him. They bring Alberich back to Valhalla; the other dwarves follow, carrying the golden treasure he had forced them to create, including a magic helmet which can change the size, shape, and appearance of the wearer.

Wotan piles up the treasure for the giants, which they have reluctantly agreed to accept as payment, in place of Freia, whose power grants the gods eternal youth; the last items on the pile are the magic helmet, and the ring, which Wotan yanks off of Alberich's finger. Alberich, now utterly ruined, calls down a curse on the ring: people will destroy themselves chasing its power, until it is back on his hand once again.

Fafner, who is more practical and cynical, and Fasolt, who is more romantic, quarrel over the ring, and Fafner kills his brother - the curse's first victim. Fafner uses the magic helmet to transform himself into a dragon, and disappears into the deep forest, where he lives in a cave, solitary and brooding, and guards his treasure alone. (We don't actually see him as a dragon until the third opera, Siegfried.)

[We now flash forward to the third opera, set 30-40 years later:]

Siegfried, whose father was murdered by Wotan, has been raised from infancy by Mime, a dwarf - Alberich's brother. Both Mime and Alberich know that Siegfried will be the one to steal back the treasure from Fafner - it's all part of Wotan's plan - and they both want to claim its power for themselves. Siegfried knows none of this, hates Mime, and just wants to be free.

Mime brings Siegfried to Fafner's cave, urging him to learn the nature of fear - which he has never felt - from that terrible monster. Siegfried, left alone and feeling bored, plays a hunting call on his horn, which brings Fafner out of the cave. Siegfried asks Fafner to teach him what fear is, and threatens to attack him if he doesn't; Fafner tells Siegfried that he will make a good snack; Siegfried says he'll shut Fafner's mouth for good; they fight, and Siegfried mortally wounds Fafner. Note that at this point, he has no idea about the treasure, and he attacked Fafner not for being an "abhorrent and evil" monster, but for threatening him. There is no hatred in Siegfried's heart, and if they hadn't misunderstood and irritated each other, they could have ended up as friends.

He pulls his sword from Fafner's heart, and the dragon's blood burns his hand; when he puts his hand to his mouth and accidentally tastes the blood, he can suddenly understand the song of a Forest Bird in a nearby tree. The bird sings of the treasure in Fafner's cave; this is the first Siegfried has ever heard of it. He retrieves the helmet and the ring because they are pretty souvenirs of his fight with the dragon, and because the bird advised him to take them; he doesn't crave their power - doesn't even understand it - and so he isn't touched by the curse, until the fourth opera (Götterdämmerung) when, tricked by the ambition of a local nobleman, he starts to think of the treasure as rightfully his.

********************************

I've been a dragon fancier for much of my life, and it may or may not be a coincidence that I too was born in a Year of the Dragon, which I actually didn't discover for many years. I don't see myself as a dragon in real life - not in general - but I do feel a kinship with Fafner.

Larousse is a great reference work, with some excellent art; I own it, but haven't looked through it in a while. I'm also familiar with a fair amount of the art from games, though I'm not much of a player myself. My talents are much more "left brain": logic, analysis, explanation; I admire people who can tell original stories and conjure up entire worlds, because that is a "right brain" skill which I lack. Your RPG sounds as if it has a very complex and well-thought-out back story, but I would probably have to create a new persona to participate in RPGs - Fafnir is pretty solitary.

I do like your comment that "A person is made by the things that they chose from the things that they experience in life." It reminds me of one of my favorite movie quotes, from Total Recall: "A man is defined by his actions, not his memories."