Gary Lockwood seems to have made a habit of playing doomed characters

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Saw 2001 last night at Hollywood Bowl. My second time, if I remember right, seeing it with the score performed live. (And I've seen it enough times to get it. And as I was leaving, I reassured a few people that it's perfectly normal not to understand it the first time. Or the second. Or the third.)

Between Gary Mitchell and Frank Poole, Gary Lockwood seems to have been in a bit of a rut with doomed characters, at least back in the 1960s.

 

[Christopher]

Not really. Lockwood was the star of Roddenberry's first series as producer, The Lieutenant, which ran for 29 episodes in 1963-4. He played US Marine Lt. William Tiberius Rice. Why does that name sound so familiar...?

In 1961-2, Lockwood was a regular in a series called Follow the Sun which ran for 30 episodes. And in 1962, he played the heroic prince in Bert I. Gordon's The Magic Sword, opposite Basil Rathbone as the evil sorceror. He defeated the sorceror, saved the princess, and lived happily ever after.

Lockwood was the bad guy in a season 7 Mission: Impossible episode, and unlike many M:I villains, his character survived being shot by his co-conspirator and was arrested at the end. He had two Six Million Dollar Man appearances that split the difference; his sniper character in the first episode was taken alive at the end, but the sequel revealed that he'd died in prison and his identical twin brother was seeking revenge. The brother was also taken alive, this being the '70s when there were more restrictions on network-TV violence. Lockwood returned as a traitorous OSI director in The Return of the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman in 1987, and was taken alive at the end.

So no, there was no "habit" or "rut" here -- just a coincidental similarity between Lockwood's two most famous roles. Two examples aren't enough to define a pattern.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Glad to see that he has had roles that were neither "doomed" nor "bad guy," nor both.

And mods, please feel free to move this to Science Fiction and Fantasy, if you think it's a better fit there. Or even to merge it into an existing thread.

There is something to be said for 2001 with live music. Even if the musicians spend most of their time sitting around, waiting for the next cue. And the seating arrangement was better this time: the first time I saw it at the Bowl, I distinctly recall the piano used for "extended techniques" in (I think) certain Ligeti pieces being up front, where one could clearly see musicians reaching into it, enough to be distracting.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Saw 2001 last night at Hollywood Bowl. My second time, if I remember right, seeing it with the score performed live. (And I've seen it enough times to get it. And as I was leaving, I reassured a few people that it's perfectly normal not to understand it the first time. Or the second. Or the third.

Hell, 2001 is my favorite movie of all time and even I don't know what it's about!

Stanley Kubrick did once say that there's no single correct answer though. Viewers are free to interpret it however they want. There's no right or wrong answer. So whatever you think the monolith is, for example, you're right. I think it's aliens, but what do I know.

As for having it with live music: How did they handle stuff like Ligeti's Requiem? Did they have a choir standing around going OOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOO?

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

As for having it with live music: How did they handle stuff like Ligeti's Requiem? Did they have a choir standing around going OOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOO?

Actually, the Los Angeles Master Chorale. And they didn't really spend any more time sitting around waiting for the next cue than any other musicians on stage.

 

[Jedi Marso]

Alright, I'm interested in reading everyone's interpretation of the ending of 2001.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

It's something far beyond human understanding, translated into a form we can at least perceive. And as to what the star-child-who-was-Bowman will do, he will think of something.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm a literalist. I buy Arthur C. Clarke's interpretation (in the novel).

 

[Christopher]

It's something far beyond human understanding, translated into a form we can at least perceive. And as to what the star-child-who-was-Bowman will do, he will think of something.

Ah, you've read the novel.

I read the novel of 2001 many times before I finally saw the film. I don't think I would've had a clue what was going on otherwise. It was such a weird collaboration -- Clarke was very straightforward and explained everything, while Kubrick was very cryptic and explained nothing.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Yes. Reading the novel can shave a few iterations off how many times you have to see it before you begin to understand it. BTW, I was closely paraphrasing the last line of the novel entirely from memory, and it's been a few years.

 

[Christopher]

Yes. Reading the novel can shave a few iterations off how many times you have to see it before you begin to understand it.

I've seen people complaining about how 2010 "ruined the mystery" of HAL's breakdown by explaining it, and I was like, "What? That's the exact same explanation Clarke gave in the original 2001 novel!" That's when I realized how different the experience was for people who saw the movie but never read the book.

Which just goes to show: People should read books.

 

[The Old Mixer]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I've seen people complaining about how 2010 "ruined the mystery" of HAL's breakdown by explaining it, and I was like, "What? That's the exact same explanation Clarke gave in the original 2001 novel!" That's when I realized how different the experience was for people who saw the movie but never read the book.

Which just goes to show: People should read books.

They should have been able to explain to HAL why he was being ordered not to reveal the existence of the monolith. Since Dave and Frank were there simply to get Discovery to Jupiter, it wasn't important to the mission that they know about the monolith. I think HAL could have lived with that explanation.

And if Dave or Frank ever asked HAL why they were going to Jupiter, HAL could have simply said "I'm sorry, that's classified." Which is the truth!

Besides, HAL was never ordered to lie (as Dr. Chandra claimed). He never said "there is no monoltih." He just never said there WAS. There is a difference.