184 replies to this topic

[Alexcremers]

The one film that just doesen't age a day is "2001". In fact, it gets more and more prescient with each passing year ....

The lightning in space is wrong. I don't know if they were conscious of this when they were making the film or not.

Is this better?

[Chaac]

Lighting, I mean. I thought it was the same word.

[Wojo]

If he'd approached it in the same way he did LotR, we'd have...a theme for that bit of splintered wood in the door frame, a theme for...

Shore would have translated the text of Brundle's interactions with the computer into binary, and used that as the framework for an elaborate operatic text, set to music.

I got the Varese double-Fly album as part of the barnburner of cheap VS soundtracks but haven't given it much listen yet.

[Quint]

Whilst I agree that 2001 still looks astoundingly relevant, it's not as immaculately aged as some of you guys like to make it out to be. Some of the costumes date it, and again; it's the hairstyles - specifically the condition of the actors' hair, which betray the rest of the ultra realistic design. Nit-picking perhaps, but valid all the same. This is supposed to be a serious discussion isnt it? My point is all films show their age, even beautifully composed ones. It doesn't matter, and it certainly doesn't make them any less great.

[Chaac]

When I set stories in the future I give the characters hairstyles and looks that are already dated right now, so it looks like some of these films. I find it fun.

[Alexcremers]

2001: A space Odyssey looks very sixties but the film is not dated. I wish more films had that level of visual beauty. I can watch it in a whole different way than I would watch a normal movie. Of the photos that Quint posted, only the third one respects the correct aspect ratio. Every film fan should own 2001 on Blu-ray.

Alex

[KK.]

Whilst I agree that 2001 still looks astoundingly relevant, it's not as immaculately aged as some of you guys like to make it out to be. Some of the costumes date it, and again; it's the hairstyles - specifically the condition of the actors' hair, which betray the rest of the ultra realistic design. Nit-picking perhaps, but valid all the same. This is supposed to be a serious discussion isnt it? My point is all films show their age, even beautifully composed ones. It doesn't matter, and it certainly doesn't make them any less great.

Good point, Quint. But besides the general dressing styles, 2001 has indeed aged very well in its slick stylistic fashion. Visually its a great film! But God, I will never understand that piece of overrated bull-crap...

Please don't hurt me!!!

[Stefancos]

The lightning in space is wrong. I don't know if they were conscious of this when they were making the film or not.

Several aspects of how objects would look in space are not 100% accurate. For instance Earth would not look the way it does in 2001, were you can see a sharp outline between the planet and space. In reality it is more diffuse.

The reason why this is not accurate is of course because they simply did not have access to this type of information yet. Space travel was still an incredibly rare and secret thing.

It's amazing how good this film looks considering the fact that high quality photographs of film material from space was virtually non existent.

2001: A space Odyssey looks very sixties but the film is not dated. I wish more films had that level of visual beauty. Of the ones that Quint posted, only the third photo respects the correct aspect ratio. Every film fan should own 2001 on Blu-ray.

Alex

I agree. You can definitely see the film was made in a certain era. this is unavoidable with any film.
But non if it looks dated, or cheesy.

[Chaac]

The lightning in space is wrong. I don't know if they were conscious of this when they were making the film or not.

Several aspects of how objects would look in space are not 100% accurate. For instance Earth would not look the way it does in 2001, were you can see a sharp outline between the planet and space. In reality it is more diffuse.

The reason why this is not accurate is of course because they simply did not have access to this type of information yet. Space travel was still an incredibly rare and secret thing.

It's amazing how good this film looks considering the fact that high quality photographs of film material from space was virtually non existent.

Because they spent a lot of time thinking on how things would actually look. They made that film right before we started obtaining juicy info from space.

They purposely obscured Jupiter and its moons to make it less dated. In a way it was a better idea than going to Saturn. It turns out the Saturnian system is more complex than it was thought back then (and visually stunning, I have to say. I've been obssesed with it for a while).

[Alexcremers]

I agree. You can definitely see the film was made in a certain era. this is unavoidable with any film.
But non if it looks dated, or cheesy.

Some more than others, of course. I think Alien looks pretty timeless. Or The Duellists ...

[Quint]

The lightning in space is wrong. I don't know if they were conscious of this when they were making the film or not.

Several aspects of how objects would look in space are not 100% accurate. For instance Earth would not look the way it does in 2001, were you can see a sharp outline between the planet and space. In reality it is more diffuse.

The reason why this is not accurate is of course because they simply did not have access to this type of information yet. Space travel was still an incredibly rare and secret thing.

It's amazing how good this film looks considering the fact that high quality photographs of film material from space was virtually non existent.

2001: A space Odyssey looks very sixties but the film is not dated. I wish more films had that level of visual beauty. Of the ones that Quint posted, only the third photo respects the correct aspect ratio. Every film fan should own 2001 on Blu-ray.

Alex

I agree. You can definitely see the film was made in a certain era. this is unavoidable with any film.
But non if it looks dated, or cheesy.

I disagree; I think the costumes I linked to look kinda cheesy. Not they dont bother me in particular, but I can imagine casual viewers sniggering at them.

Also Alex, why did you bring up the aspect ratio? The photos were just examples of the costumes and hair, the ratio is irrelevant here, is it not?

[Alexcremers]

I don't even think the first photo is in the movie. BTW, the costumes in the third photo are considered hip right now. I certainly see nothing laughable with the men's hairstyles.Of course, personally, I find the '60s more stylish and classy than the '80s. The last decade(s) saw a lot of '60s influences.

[Quint]

Yeah sorry I should've been specific - the third photo drew my attention to the hair. They're neutral styles it's true, but to someone with an eye for details those are cuts of the sixties.

Don Draper has the best hair ever btw.




Oh you edited. As I said, details.

[KK.]

I watched Gattaca last night and there many moments where I felt the sets and design were outdated. Felt like an 80s sci-fi film in terms of design and it was released in 1997(I think).

Still a good movie though.

[Chaac]

I watched Gattaca last night and there many moments where I felt the sets and design were outdated. Felt like an 80s sci-fi film in terms of design and it was released in 1997(I think).

Still a good movie though.

There's outdated stuff (or directly wrong) in some science in the film even before it was made as well.

[Alexcremers]

Eh, Gattaca looks timeless, as if it was shot yesterday. It looks 'retro' by design but not '80s. It even has an almost monochrome color tone to it as seen in many a modern film.

[KK.]

Eh, Gattaca looks timeless, as if it was shot yesterday. It looks 'retro' by design but not '80s. It even has an almost monochrome color tone to it as seen in many a modern film.

At times, yes. But a lot of the buildings look quite outdated in appearance, it wasn't in tune with the 90s' idea of what the future would look like. The colour tones were effective, but some of the camera shots and set designs betrayed the film in certain moments. Personally, I don't think Gattaca isn't one of those films that seem timeless.

[Alexcremers]

Don't forget, Gattaca is a low budget film, the buildings you see are real to cut costs. 'Real' also means 'not fake' like dated effects and so on.





Notice how the tone for exterior scenes in Gattaca is mainly orange.

[Chaac]

I just got it for re-analysis.

[Joey]

we watched Forbidden Planet last Friday night, the effects are dated, but the concepts are bold and innovative. Though the visuals may be dated they work within the story and bridge the gap between events and imagination. As 50's scifi goes it not among my favorites, but it's a good looking film filled with some good character actors.

[Stefancos]

There are some very impressive shots of the underground city.

You can really see Rodenbery took inspiration from this for the look of Star Trek.

[Quint]

The most dated thing about that movie is the colour in Nielsen's hair.

[Joey]

he was young.

[Wojo]

wandering the face of the Earth, wondering what his dreams might be worth, learning that he's only immortal for a limited time

[Quint]

I always thought he was born with that silver mane