Jump to content
John

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) vs. Interstellar (2014)

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) vs. Interstellar (2014)  

42 members have voted

  1. 1. Which movie do you prefer?

    • 2001: A Space Odyssey (directed by Stanley Kubrick)
    • Interstellar (directed by Christopher Nolan)
  2. 2. Which movie has better/makes better use of music?

    • 2001: A Space Odyssey (excerpts from classical music)
    • Interstellar (composed by Hans Zimmer)


Recommended Posts

I'm already fairly certain of this poll's outcome, but I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

 

Which sci-fi film and its respective score do you prefer; Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey or Christopher Nolan's Interstellar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, John said:

I'm already fairly certain of this poll's outcome

 

Ya think?

 

 

OK, the one that's actually worth talking about a bit - Interstellar's score is pretty damn good, but it gets repetitive overall and it's mixed very weirdly, so it doesn't do well on the "makes better use of" part.

 

2001 is a legendary production in every single aspect, its use of music not the least.

The results of this poll will be quite handy in starting to build my ignore list :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, John said:

Star Trek has emotion?

 

In especially the TNG-DS9-VOY era, its characters were real adults with agency and their own inner lives.  Often dealing with issues of loves, death, prejudice, society, religion, war, loneliness.

 

So yes, it does.

 

Also the holodeck was glitchy as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The holy trinity of sci-fi will always be E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and The Empire Strikes Back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would probably be no INTERSTELLAR without 2001 (and kudos to Nolan for restoring the latter to its former celluloid glory!), but they're both absolutely brilliant films. And scores. Still, I voted 2001 for film, and INTERSTELLAR for score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not Mr. Big said:

AI

 

Another good choice. 

 

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

 

24th century Trek just had a more lived-in, relatable feel to it.

 

More realistic and relatable, you might say.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Quintus said:

If I listen to the score, Interstellar should be some seminal work of brilliant and cerebral science fiction. But Nolan.

X4Tqobb.gif?2

 

Karol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2001 for film, Interstellar for score. Cause “No Time For Caution” is an orgasmic marriage of image and sound. Nolan brings the human condition to sci-fi with rollercoaster emotion, heartache, and longing... all perfectly accentuated by Zimmer’s delicate score. Kubrick is a mastermind of aesthetic and the audiovisual language, constructing a grounded tale of immense scale, that elicits awe and wonder.

 

Both are masterpieces. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stefancos said:

But it is if its supposed to be a masterpiece, as you seem to think.

Nolan has three categories of quality in his filmography:

 

***

Following

Batman Begins

****

Memento

Insomnia

Prestige

Inception

The Dark Knight Rises

*****

The Dark Knight

Interstellar

Dunkirk

 

The latter are masterpieces, all three. It is only partially true that it's relevant how long they will be remembered. After Hours by Martin Scorsese was already forgotten a few weeks after its release (or should I dare say after a few hours).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently rewatched The Dark Knight, and I couldn't help but feel that it's overall a pretty average movie elevated by Ledger's performance. I absolutely loved every minute that the Joker was on screen, but everything else... meh. It doesn't have any glaring issues, but I feel it could've been better in lots of ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I begrudge no one the art they respond to, but anyone who calls Dunkirk a genuine masterpiece.... well, they have very different ideas of aesthetic value from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Stefancos said:

But it is if its supposed to be a masterpiece, as you seem to think.

It’s a personal opinion on a film, and answering a question about which I prefer, of which I said 2001! Whether it’ll be shown in cinemas 50 years from now has no bearing on how I judge the film against my filmic preferences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Holko said:

It's 2001, of course it's even better than itself! It may be the one piece of media where I think every superlative is completely warranted.

 

I agree, but exactly why is 2001 so good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its the one avant-garde film that can also pass for entertainment (or, really, the other way around)...

 

I'm not the biggest fan, but I do like it more than Interstellar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richard said:

 

but exactly why is 2001 so good?

 

I dunno, it's mf'in' 2001, that's why! :D

I haven't seen it in over a year, I think, which is something I will remedy shortly, collect my thoughts, and then can I try and muster up an answer.

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

×