|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by trespoochies
(Post 10994996)
Every time I hear people say it's not flawless, I tend to tell them they haven't seen it enough. The Sentinel is a short story, not a book. Well, it's part of a collection of short stories. I think Kubrick's tale is a bit more detailed than Clark's 3,800 word short story. And after all, Kubrick and Clark both wrote the screenplay for the movie.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproducti...jpg?1308307723 |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
I thought it was boring when I first saw it, and if I was to see it today, I probably would think it to be even more boring. Then again, maybe not.
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
I enjoy it for the most part although I think it could be tightened up a bit. Maybe not to the extreme that the OP mentions, but a lot of scenes linger just a bit past interesting for me.
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by trespoochies
(Post 10994996)
...The Sentinel is a short story, not a book. Well, it's part of a collection of short stories. I think Kubrick's tale is a bit more detailed than Clark's 3,800 word short story. And after all, Kubrick and Clark both wrote the screenplay for the movie.
According to IMDB, the film was released in April. The book was apparently published in July. It actually would have appeared BEFORE the movie, but Clarke had to wait for Kubrick to sign off on it. Clarke stated in the foreward to 2001: A Space Odyssey (Millenial Edition): While Stanley was making the movie, I was trying to complete the final, final version of the novel, which of course had to receive his blessing before it could be published. This proved extremely difficult to obtain, partly because he was so busy at the studio that he never had time to focus his attention on the many versions of the manuscript. He swore he wasn't dragging his feet, to make certain that the movie appeared before the book. Which it did - by several months - in the spring of 1968. Considering its complex and agonizing gestation, it is not surprising that the novel differs from the movie in several respects. Most important - and how lucky this was we could never have guessed at the time - Stanley decided to rendezvous with Jupiter, whereas in the novel the spaceship Discovery flew on to Saturn, using Jupiter's gravitational field to boost it on the way. Precisely this "perturbation maneuver" was used by the Voyager spacecraft eleven years later. Why the change from Saturn to Jupiter? Well, it made a more straightforward story line - and, more important, the special-effects department couldn't produce a Saturn that Stanley found convincing. If it had done so, the movie would by now have been badly dated, since the Voyager missions showed Saturn's rings to be far more implausible than anyone had ever dreamed. For more than a decade after publication of the novel (July 1968) I indignantly denied that any sequel was possible or that I had the slightest intention of writing one. But the brilliant success of the Voyager missions changed my mind... |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 10805478)
There isn't a single wasted nanosecond in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is the greatest film ever made in my opinion and has so much going on that it's difficult to take it all in on a first viewing.
Originally Posted by riotinmyskull
(Post 10805503)
what? it looks fucking REAL
Originally Posted by TomOpus
(Post 10805624)
Tighten by 40 mins? That's almost the most insane thing I've ever heard.
The Ending: This is my interpretation. Dave discovers the final monolith which was planted by this advanced race of beings for humans to discover. Each monolith was a new marker in human intelligence. When he gets to the final one, he travels through the star gate or whatever it is. At the end of this voyage, he ends up in some place the advanced race of beings has created for him. He sees himself old and knocks over the glass. He sees himself even older lying in the bed, dying. He dies and is reborn as the Starchild to return to Earth as the next advancement in human intelligence. To move humans beyond to the next phase of human life. Cue the music. |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
All I know is...is that if any film could be perfection. In story, editing, music, effects, etc. It's this film. This is a film at an OCD level. It's perfection taken to an extreme. It's a mind fuck of perfection (in general) and filmmaking ability.
What was literally shot in the frame? Work is so amazing that a lot of it still boggles the mind in terms of how they did it..and the control it took to achieve it. |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
If one can't understand the contemplative nature of the "extended" sequences that you feel should be "tightened up", I'd dare say 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't for you. :shrug:
And I ever get to a chance to see it on film, I'm moving Heaven and Earth to do so. :up: |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Solid Snake PAC
(Post 10995763)
All I know is...is that if any film could be perfection. In story, editing, music, effects, etc. It's this film. This is a film at an OCD level. It's perfection taken to an extreme. It's a mind fuck of perfection (in general) and filmmaking ability.
What was literally shot in the frame? Work is so amazing that a lot of it still boggles the mind in terms of how they did it..and the control it took to achieve it. :thumbsup: |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy
(Post 10995916)
If one can't understand the contemplative nature of the "extended" sequences that you feel should be "tightened up", I'd dare say 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't for you. :shrug:
And I ever get to a chance to see it on film, I'm moving Heaven and Earth to do so. :up: |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Mabuse
(Post 10995933)
It screens in 70mm in LA at least twice a year. That's hardly moving heaven and earth.
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
I can see the art in the film, but it puts me to sleep within 20 minutes of watching it. It just bores me.
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
I watched it on Blu-ray earlier this year, the first complete movie I watched in Blu-ray. It was my first viewing of the film in, like, 30 or more years. It's a beautiful movie and the kind of movie that's absolutely perfect for Blu-ray.
However, what troubled me about it is the way the two lead human characters, Dave and Frank, are portrayed. They're almost robotic. I believe that was Kubrick's intent--to show the computer, HAL 9000, to be more "human" than the actual humans. I have philosophical objections to that. Humans in 2001 (and 2011, for that matter) are no more robotic than they were in 1968. And one can argue that robots and computers are no more "human" than they were back then. Two guys on a long-term space voyage would be playing lots of videogames and watching lots of movies in whatever format the ship was equipped with. They'd be complaining about the lack of women and the lack of decent food. If they had porno, they'd access that. If the technology enabled them to talk more with Earth, they would. What do astronauts on the space shuttles and the space station do? Whatever it is, I'm sure they don't sit around acting like robots. |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
(Post 10996676)
However, what troubled me about it is the way the two lead human characters, Dave and Frank, are portrayed. They're almost robotic. I believe that was Kubrick's intent--to show the computer, HAL 9000, to be more "human" than the actual humans.
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy
(Post 10995916)
If one can't understand the contemplative nature of the "extended" sequences that you feel should be "tightened up", I'd dare say 2001: A Space Odyssey isn't for you. :shrug:
And I ever get to a chance to see it on film, I'm moving Heaven and Earth to do so. :up: |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
(Post 10996710)
Every time these threads come up, I recommend that everyone sees it on film. It's a totally different experience from seeing it on the small screen. I was riveted from the first shot. I walked out of the theater in a light trance. It was awesome.
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Ash,
First of all, how old are you? You haven't seen this film in 30 years so that makes you at least 35 to 40...and yet you love all those Pokemon movies?! Anyway, I know there's no more space shuttle but did you ever watch the astronauts do an EVA? It was the most robotic thing I've ever seen. Everything happens glacially slow and all you here are occasional voices reading checklists and speaking in as few words as possible. Real astronauts are very robotic, at the mercy of checklists, and they often are simply executing experiments they know nothing about that were devised by someone back on earth. Also, don't try to argue anything about 2001 by refrencing the actual year 2001 or our current year. The film was meant to be "the future", not a particular year. They picked an arbitrary year. Will Blade Runner instantly become a piece of shit in 8 years? I would argue that if Frank and Dave did what you say (play video games and jack off to internet porn) it really couldn't be a better example of how mechanical and lacking in human qualities they had become. |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Mabuse
(Post 10996931)
I would argue that if Frank and Dave did what you say (play video games and jack off to internet porn) it really couldn't be a better example of how mechanical and lacking in human qualities they had become.
(Oh, and I was a lot older than five or ten the first time I saw 2001, let alone the last. And, no, I've never seen any footage of what goes on in a space shuttle or space station. What, I'm supposed to do research before posting here? Where's the fun in that? And, finally, the Pokemon movies are great!) |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
I often thought that Star Trek: The Motion Picture wanted to be 2001, which was a serious misstep for that franchise. There's so much more beneath the surface of Kubrick's film. It's not just long shots of spaceships to the backdrop of majestic music.
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
(Post 10996676)
However, what troubled me about it is the way the two lead human characters, Dave and Frank, are portrayed. They're almost robotic. ... Two guys on a long-term space voyage would be playing lots of videogames and watching lots of movies in whatever format the ship was equipped with....
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Plus, they've prepared for a very long journey. You'd think that they'd be trained on how to deal with the monotony and boredom.
|
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by New-AgeOutlaw
(Post 10805419)
I just watched this movie for the first time ever at 38 years old. I have always heard how great a movie it was , a classic , and a must see.
Turns out I dislike this classic movie. Terrible pacing with 20 minutes of fluff at the begining with the evoltion of man. It takes 10 minutes of screen time everytime a ship lands or takes off. It takes another 20 minutes of traveling through light and shots of Dave's eye at the end. I love a slow pacing when it adds to the development of a character or situation but this seems to be time filler. Tighten this up by 40 minutes and the film would benifit from it. Someone explain the ending to me. I have no idea where Dave traveled. Nor do I understand what he saw. Old man eatting, old man dying, and a baby in a sphere? What the heck was all that. Kubrick did one thing very well in my opinion. It was visually appealing to me. Outdated of course by today's standards but the sets and particularly the shots of the moon and planets created an epic feel. |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
(Post 10996676)
I watched it on Blu-ray earlier this year, the first complete movie I watched in Blu-ray. It was my first viewing of the film in, like, 30 or more years. It's a beautiful movie and the kind of movie that's absolutely perfect for Blu-ray.
However, what troubled me about it is the way the two lead human characters, Dave and Frank, are portrayed. They're almost robotic. I believe that was Kubrick's intent--to show the computer, HAL 9000, to be more "human" than the actual humans. I have philosophical objections to that. Humans in 2001 (and 2011, for that matter) are no more robotic than they were in 1968. And one can argue that robots and computers are no more "human" than they were back then. Two guys on a long-term space voyage would be playing lots of videogames and watching lots of movies in whatever format the ship was equipped with. They'd be complaining about the lack of women and the lack of decent food. If they had porno, they'd access that. If the technology enabled them to talk more with Earth, they would. What do astronauts on the space shuttles and the space station do? Whatever it is, I'm sure they don't sit around acting like robots. |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
First, and I'm sorry to say most of you can't, I saw this five times on a Cinerama screen when it came out. Must it be seen this way, no, but I have to insist you must at the least see the movie on a movie screen.
The genius of Kubrick, until The Shining and every worthless film after that, is that every shot uses the perfect choice of camera, lens and position of enhance the film. Every choice he makes is flawless. The dull characters--like Floyd and the Russians are that way deliberately. The banal dialog in the vehicle, talking about sandwiches, is to play against the awesome (the most overused word of our time) discovery beneath the moon. We are just like apes to the creators of the technology used to advance our civilization. Other innovations in the film include the most creative use of surround sound to date. And yet again here, we hear about something an ordinary as a missing sweater that's been found. The special effects are still state of the art and more creative than all the CGI junk that gets thrown at us today. And, BTW, no you can't do the upside down girl unless you have an 10 foot set than can rotate 180 degrees. Again it will always be hard to convince many of today's generation of 2001's greatest. Most of them will only see it on 40" to 65" TV screens. It points out the great flaw in our modern generation's viewing options, film was never made to be seen on TV sets no matter how large. Kubrick made this film to be shown in Cinerama--a huge curved screen, it was shot in Ultra-Panavision for that purpose. It was made to be played in theaters with certain speaker requirements. It was one of the last "road show" pictures where you bought a hard ticket to see it. There was entrance music, and a planned intermission again with music. All of this was in the director's plan and all of it added to the experience of the film. At the least don't think you've really seen the movie if you don't seen it on a good size movie screen. And lastly, just this one point puts in above almost every science fiction movie or TV show that's ever been done--there is no sound in space. |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Mabuse
(Post 10996931)
Will Blade Runner instantly become a piece of shit in 8 years?
Sorry for the derail. |
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey - Your thoughts
Originally Posted by Astrofan
(Post 11001023)
And lastly, just this one point puts in above almost every science fiction movie or TV show that's ever been done--there is no sound in space.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.