Jump to content
Stefancos

I just watched 2001: a space odyssey

Recommended Posts

It's sad to think that while this groundbreaking sci-fi film has been imitated hundreds of times. It's never been imitated well. (as far as I know).

Why is is that any other sci-fi film after it just seems pedestrian and ordinary compared to it?

Why is it, that with all the CGI technology aiding film makers today, they still cannot make a film that looks as beautiful, as poetic, and as real as this one?

Why is it, that in 2008, our capabilities as a human species can take us to the moon, but we no longer care to go.

Why is it that Kubrick and Clarke in 1968 can take us to Jupiter (and beyond), but NASA still cannot go there 40 years later?

Why is it that this film never fully clicked 100% for me untill my eight viewing while drinking one bottle of apple cider and some Vodka-bitter lemons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is is that any other sci-fi film after it just seems pedestrian and ordinary compared to it?

Why is it, that with all the CGI technology aiding film makers today, they still cannot make a film that looks as beautiful, as poetic, and as real as this one?

Why is it, that in 2008, our capabilities as a human species can take us to the moon, but we no longer care to go.

Why is it that Kubrick and Clarke in 1968 can take us to Jupiter (and beyond), but NASA still cannot go there 40 years later?

The answer is the same to all the questions: because what we thought was there was much more powerful than what actually was there.

Why is it that this film never fully clicked 100% for me untill my eight viewing while drinking one bottle of apple cider and some Vodka-bitter lemons?

Because to grasp such vastly new concepts, one must have a vastly open mind.

Opiates or acid would have worked much better, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

It is a technical marvel to view and shows that good old fashioned model work is just as good as CGI.

And while I agree with most of your points I don't think the film is as good as the acclaim it receives. But then there are movies that I feel should be judged better so in the end it's all a matter of ones opnion.

But for one the classical music is distracting, I think North's score would have worked better. And I just don't find the film works as a cohesive story, which can be a problem at times from Kubrick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it, that in 2008, our capabilities as a human species can take us to the moon, but we no longer care to go.

Expect us to have a permanent base on the moon within the next decade.

Why is it that Kubrick and Clarke in 1968 can take us to Jupiter (and beyond), but NASA still cannot go there 40 years later?

It's easy to have a movie with a ship going to Jupiter, not so easy in real life considering it's pretty f-ing far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Expect us to have a permanent base on the moon within the next decade.

I've been hearing that since the 1980's!

It's easy to have a movie with a ship going to Jupiter, not so easy in real life considering it's pretty f-ing far away.

No, Jupiter is close, very close in space terms.

I doubt anyone in 1968 could have though that 40 years later, we would have developed so little as a species.

Kubrick and Clarke's imagination takes us to a place we could not go in 1968, and were we will possible never go in the 21th Century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's easy to have a movie with a ship going to Jupiter, not so easy in real life considering it's pretty f-ing far away.

No, Jupiter is close, very close in space terms.

In space terms, yes, but that doesn't mean it's still nearly impossible to plan a manned spacecraft to even get close to it. Let's not even forget Jupiter is a gas giant and can't even be landed upon. So in real terms, we have been to Jupiter with space probes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes be we NEED to look at Jupiter's moon's.

Especially Europa, the ice-covered world that might contain a vast ocean containing life.

The only reason why we cannot go their are the budgetary constraints imposed by politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it, that with all the CGI technology aiding film makers today, they still cannot make a film that looks as beautiful, as poetic, and as real as this one?

I rather have Peter Jackson's King Kong than.. those guys in suits. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Especially Europa, the ice-covered world that might contain a vast ocean containing life.

Tsk tsk tsk - "ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Expect us to have a permanent base on the moon within the next decade.

I've been hearing that since the 1980's!

Well, things are starting to pick up again. Don't forget that this time, there's no space race to push the space industry forward (and along with that, no reason for them to actually go through with programs that would be deemed way too risky under normal circumstances).

As for Jupiter, as Koray said, what would be even be doing there with a manned mission? And you can't just navigate today's "spaceships" around freely, they need tons of fuel for the launch alone. They usually have carefully planned trajectories across the entire solar system (often involving multiple slingshots around other planets or moons), and there's not much freedom to change that course.

And as for the movie, I re-watched Sunshine yesterday, a very good movie on its own (and one that actually somewhat illustrates the navigational problem), although it clearly owes a lot to 2001 and Alien, and it had me thinking about this genre of "space travel movie", if you like - what other notable examples are there aside from these three? It also made me wonder whether ANY major scifi movie since 2001 has bothered to correctly portrait the silence of the non-atmospheric interplanetary space. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2001 is my favorite film.

I find the film vastly superior to the book, and the use of the classical pieces is full of possible readings, that go way beyond the regular underscoring.

Sadly I only saw it once on the big screen, though I watch the full movie a couple of times a year, since I first taped, years ago... now I use the DVD, and hopefully, sometime soon, HD :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should fly out here on the 23rd. It's playing in 70mm,...again.

And if you come out sooner, on the 21st you can see Tom Hanks and Douglas Trumbull host an evening devoted to the making of the movie.

Neil - who sat in the front row center last month at a 70mm screening

Wow, that looks like a fantastic evening. Maybe I should go. Its only a 3 hour drive for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2001 is a film I can only describe as "breathtakingly boring." Sure, it has amazing graphics for its time, and it paved the way for SciFi films as we know them, but it's just plain boring to watch. Of the three plots, the middle one with HAL is the only one that remotely resembles a real story, and even it just moved so slow.

Anyone who calls himself a SciFi fan has to watch it at least once to give it a chance, but after that, well, Meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2001 is a film I can only describe as "breathtakingly boring." Sure, it has amazing graphics for its time, and it paved the way for SciFi films as we know them, but it's just plain boring to watch. Of the three plots, the middle one with HAL is the only one that remotely resembles a real story, and even it just moved so slow.

Anyone who calls himself a SciFi fan has to watch it at least once to give it a chance, but after that, well, Meh.

I hope not being out of order here, and if i am, feel free to erase this post, Marc.

But might the film be "boring" for questioning some religious issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Visually, what aspects of the film now seem dated?

Monitors and computer displays are usually the first thing to look aged, along with console and controls.

But the thing that really screams 1960's are those red art deco chairs on the space station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

"Are you proud of having got rid of one of the very few humans on the Discovery?"

I actually saw 2001 in the cinema a few months ago. I had terrible seats and the print was very damaged, but it was still an amazing experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DVD has good quality. With the right equipment, you can beat an average theatre (with annoying people, dirty film prints and poor sound).

The DVD of this film (or even the HD-DVD) can't even begin to scratch the surface of what a 70mm print is capable of. I've had the pleasure twice this year of seeing the film that way (once at the Cinerama Dome and the second time at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater) and it was a fantastic experience both times. It's a completely different experience than just watching it on home video. It's a movie designed for the biggest screens with the most amount of detail. Video can't compete.

Neil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Visually, what aspects of the film now seem dated?

Monitors and computer displays are usually the first thing to look aged, along with console and controls.

But the thing that really screams 1960's are those red art deco chairs on the space station.

I really don't know... so many people use 60's styled furniture nowadays...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2001: A Space Odyssey is one of my top five movies. (The others are The Searchers, The Wizard of Oz, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Vertigo, but I can never sort out what order I want them in. And sometimes Lonesome Dove will sneak up and replace one of them for a while.)

Like a lot of Kubrick movies, this one gets labelled "cold" and "emotionless," but I don't think that could possibly be farther from the truth. To me, they are mostly very emotional movies. It's just that the emotions are very complex, and not quite traditional. I find it to be terrifying, awe-inspiring, and brutally sad; in a few scenes, it's all of those things at once.

There is a lot to be said about that movie, but -- for now at least -- I'm finding myself to not quite be up to the task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope not being out of order here, and if i am, feel free to erase this post, Marc.

But might the film be "boring" for questioning some religious issues?

No, actually that really has nothing to do with it.

I don't believe in evolution, but I am aware that much of America (and certainly hollywood) does. When evolution comes up in movies, I tend to just ignore the fact that I know it is inaccurate and enjoy it as story anyway. Take Transformers as a good example.

I think that 2001 is boring simply because hardly anything happens, and it takes three times longer to do it than it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does...stuff need to happen in a movie?

And how much stuff, and how fast, or how slow?

Why not free yourself from what you feel a movie should be?

Actually, a lot happens in this film, and Kubrick allows us the luxury to ponder over it, wonder over it, and at the end, be puzzled by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The DVD of this film (or even the HD-DVD) can't even begin to scratch the surface of what a 70mm print is capable of. I've had the pleasure twice this year of seeing the film that way (once at the Cinerama Dome and the second time at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater) and it was a fantastic experience both times. It's a completely different experience than just watching it on home video. It's a movie designed for the biggest screens with the most amount of detail. Video can't compete.

All I can say is that the DVD on a 2m wide screen looks better than some recent movies look at local theatres. The resolution is a bit lacking on DVD (never seen Bluray, but imagine that can't be missing much anymore), but the picture quality is far better.

For the average theatre here, the choice whether to watch a movie at home or there is just a matter of convenience.

Does...stuff need to happen in a movie?

And how much stuff, and how fast, or how slow?

Stuff even has to happen in novels. Haven't you seen the outcries about nothing happening in the sixth Potter book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of Kubrick's films were not for the audiences of the times they were released either.

The 2001 is boring and nothing happens critique is soimething that's been said for 40 years, even by the likes of Pauline Kael.

Does...stuff need to happen in a movie?

And how much stuff, and how fast, or how slow?

Stuff even has to happen in novels. Haven't you seen the outcries about nothing happening in the sixth Potter book?

I don't know anything about Potter books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes a good story (in my opinion) is that it should be filled with plot. It should have twists and turns that keep you guessing until the end. If it is a predictable plot, it should at least be made up for with humor, or intensity, or some similar effect. 2001 has none of those characteristics. All it really has is good graphics (for it's day) and perhaps some philosophical-thought-provoking-ness. (I don't care that that's not a word).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, a lot happens in this film, and Kubrick allows us the luxury to ponder over it, wonder over it, and at the end, be puzzled by it.

Exactly. Just because there are only 40 minutes of dialogue, that doesn't mean nothing happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's overrated, but still an awe-inspiring piece of work. That said I really haven't fully grasped it, and I don't think I will for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the old BBC logo. :)

Ah you beat me to it. BBC '12' wasn't it? And the flute intro. Hahaha.

Myself, I view the movie as if the viewer is supposed to a passive witness to a vast timescale of humany history, and not to be pulled into complexitys of character and that sort of thing that people 'expect' from a movie. It's witnessing the journey of humanity, as if you're the source behind the monolith itself witnessing everything going on from the ape era until everything comes to the 'ascending' final moments. Bringing that sense of silent passive witnessing to the movie,was perhaps intentional. Like a mother waiting outside the school gates for her child to arrive in her arms at the end of the day when the bell rings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who say that nothing happens in 2001 are just off-base. I really don't even see how somebody could see the movie and get that out of it. I can see being bored by it, but that's a different thing altogether.

It's not even accurate to say that there are scenes of the movie in which nothing happens. Some scenes take longer than they might, strictly speaking, need to take in order to advance the plot. But Kubrick is creating a mood; he wants the audience to have to live inside of a scene, to have to come to grips (even if only very temporarily) with what it's like to be in a certain type of situation. Outer space feels really, really empty in that movie; but that makes the presence of the monolith that much more alarming, when its presence comes about. Every scene has a specific purpose, and achieves that purpose. I think that it's in the methodology of those achievements that the movie loses a lot of people.

I saw 2001 as a small child, and I hated it. But the next time it came on TV, I watched it again. And hated it. But the next time it came on, I watched it again . . . and hated it less. But still, I watched it the next time I had an opportunity. I had no idea why, but there was something in the movie that drew me to it. And by the time I was old enough to start appreciating it, it became one of my favorite movies. It still is, and probably always will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×