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

[crocodile 8,017]

They should have applied more HDR and DNR! And DVD. And HIV. And CNN. And NFL.

 

Karol

 

 

[karelm 2,913]

6 hours ago, TGP said:

Even if you could agree that psychological screening is enough to ensure that nobody will ever go nuts - and I don't - the whole point of the character is to show someone pushed past some very extreme point into irrational hysteria despite how well balanced and trained he may have been.  Hardly seems like something worth complaining about, but ye gods if we haven't been over all this before!

I have no problem with inaccuracy if it serves a story/character arch but this was terribly executed.  So imagine if in 2001 one of the characters went psychopathic how lame that would be.  Say a robot or some unexpected character...oh...wait...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

8 hours ago, crocodile said:

They should have applied more HDR and DNR! And DVD. And HIV. And CNN. And NFL.

 

Karol

 

 

 

That's nonsense. 

 

But tweaking the levels a bit to compensate for the degradation of celluloid over the decades isnt a bad thing, Karol.

 

 

6 hours ago, karelm said:

I have no problem with inaccuracy if it serves a story/character arch but this was terribly executed.  So imagine if in 2001 one of the characters went psychopathic how lame that would be.  Say a robot or some unexpected character...oh...wait...

 

HAL is a far more interesting character than David Mann though.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

tweaking the levels a bit to compensate for the degradation of celluloid over the decades isnt a bad thing, Karol.

 

True, but Nolan doesn’t do digital grading; ever.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I didn't talk about digital grading. Image correction was done decades before CGI and digital editing.

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

The point is he doesn't do any of that.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I know. And I don't really see the point of that.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Well, Nolan has an obsession with getting as good an image quality out of his film-stock as possible. Whenever you doctor an image, digitally or photo-chemically, you inevitably degrade the ouright image quality a tad.

 

But, the counter-argument is that we percieve image qualtiy based on other critera as well, vivid colors (in this case) not being the least of them.

 

Speaking of the Nolan presentation: is it the entire film? Because I recall having read that it was just "a couple of reels".

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Well, Nolan has an obsession with getting as good an image quality out of his film-stock as possible. Whenever you doctor an image, digitally or photo-chemically, you inevitably degrade the ouright image quality a tad.

 

Not really. Though that is a commonly held, mistaken believe.

You don't degrade the image at all, you change it. It's already a copy of the original camera negative, and a non-digital copy always has some image degradation anyway. Doing minor adjustment of the colour or contrast levels or the sharpness does degrade the image of you copy any more that it already is.

 

I works in printing for over 15 years. 

[Joni Wiljami 1,206]

Interstellar on both. Easily.

 

Great movie and hansu's best score.

 

No words for the other one, I don't do drugs.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You don't need drugs to enjoy 2001: ASO.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Some opioid might help ease the boredom pain.

[Quintus 5,399]

The stargate scene is boring as fuck, unless you're a big fan of Tomytronic graphics.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

See, I disagree with you there.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I like the concept of the sequence; its just that the execution is twice the length that it needs to be, and its true of other parts of the film as well. And to think that in the premiere it was 20 minutes longer!

 

I hear that some of the film's financial success came from people going to see it utterly stoned. Even some later reviews called it "psychedelic" as a praise rather than a drawback.

 

That's not to say that Interstellar is a breezy watch, though! Lethargic as it can sometimes get, A Space Odyssey offers a much more sophisticated execution of a narrative that's actually much more straightforward.

[Quintus 5,399]

The stargate scene is my one single misgiving with the film. Fifty years later,  I find it overlong and mind numbingly ineffective. The shots of Dave are good but the excessive special effects shots there are beyond crude so as to be plain boring.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I don't look at it from the point of view of the quality of the special effects. Even if they were completely convincing, the sequence would still be overlong.

 

There's nothing in any film that so spectacular that an audience can't become saturated in it. If you see the same thing for too long, whether its the spaceships in the early part of the picture or stargate sequence, you'll get used to it. Especially for a contemporary audience who's seen a lot of science fiction and for whom the concept of space exploration is much less novel than it was in 1968.

 

I still like it more than Interstellar, though.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Every sane person will, Chen!

[Chen G. 3,949]

I'm not entirely sure.

 

Interstellar is certainly more accesible as a story. 2001 is a simple story, but told (for various reasons) in an avant-garde fashion. Something tells me the average filmgoer will find the latter more palatable.

 

More palatable of course does not necessarily mean better, but the accessibility of the story (or the presence of a strong "hook") is certainly a part of what makes a film good.

[Quintus 5,399]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I don't look at it from the point of view of the quality of the special effects. Even if they were completely convincing, the sequence would still be overlong.

 

 

For me it's a combo.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ideally the scene should run longer, really.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Roland Emmerich's stargate scene was better.

[crocodile 8,017]

I don't like 2001. Almost 2 hours in space an not a single star war.

 

Karol

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

For me it's a combo.

 

Its some of the most stylized filmmaking I've ever seen: juxtaposing moving images with stills, macro closeups with vistas, and all form color and color palettes. I just think its the kind of thing that works better as visual touches sprinkled throughout a motion picture, rather than a whole sequence.

 

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

Ideally the scene should run longer, really.

 

Why? What does it not convey in its current length, that it would were it longer? what does it convey that it wouldn't if it were half the length?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

12 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Why? What does it not convey in its current length, that it would were it longer? what does it convey that it wouldn't if it were half the length?

 

It's important to test your audience's endurance and their resolve to finish the movie.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

53 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

what does it convey that it wouldn't if it were half the length?

 

Passage of time? a sense of distance? The feeling that Dave has truly left the known universe?

 

Modern movies are too fast.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Only on JWFan!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Don't mince words, TGP. What do you really think?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

That if Chen G is really an educated film person and represents where academic thinking on the subject is or is going, we're screwed.  Kids!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Movies? Academic? Fuck that. I watch movies to rot my brain! Not learn shit like in a book.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

16 minutes ago, TGP said:

That if Chen G is really an educated film person and represents where academic thinking on the subject is or is going, we're screwed.  Kids!

 

He certainly doesn't seem to understand films, narratives, storytelling and characters very well 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I think true understanding of film doesn't depend on which films you like and dislike, but on why. 

 

One can have a taste in film that is very eccentric to that of the general film-buff public, and still be considered a discerning filmgoer by virtue of the fact that he can back-up what he likes and dislikes in film astutely.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Dude, you love the Hobbit films!

[Chen G. 3,949]

Again, it doesn't matter what. It matters why.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

So having an eloquent explanation on why you like bullshit makes you a discerning film-buff?

 

Hmmm...

[Chen G. 3,949]

One of my favorite people to listen to talk about movies gave Attack of the Clones a 4/5. I would have given it a 0.5/5, but I respect his opinion even if I profoundly disagree with him on that particular case. It also works the other way around: I know others who have a dislike for certain "classics" with whom I don't necessarily agree, but whose opinions on the whole I very much respect nonetheless.

 

That's something JWFan is sorely lacking: to answer to a radically different viewpoint not with a "what the hell is wrong with you?" but with a genuine interest to know why such a viewpoint is being held by the individual with whom they are conversing.

 

Here, one has to like a very specific set of films, hate another specific set of films - for one's opinions to not become completely eschewed in discussions that have nothing to do with either of those groups of films - Now, that's a perfectly logical and healthy way to conduct a discussion right there...

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

22 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

"what the hell is wrong with you?"

 

This is exactly the initial response I got from JWfan when I first revealed my liking for daytime soaps.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

The recent stupid (and tedious, and lecturing) SJW argument (and accompanying rants) in the SWD thread excepted, I actually think JWFan is one of the more fun, and civil, genre forums out there. Even when things get heated it's generally in a good natured, taking the piss kind of way.  

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Its a civil forum alright, but its a very conformistic one.

 

One's choices of films to like and dislike needn't be conformist. If you can explain the merit or demerit you find in a film - more power to you.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

48 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

One of my favorite people to listen to talk about movies gave Attack of the Clones a 4/5. I would have given it a 0.5/5, but I respect his opinion even if I profoundly disagree with him on that particular case. It also works the other way around: I know others who have a dislike for certain "classics" with whom I don't necessarily agree, but whose opinions on the whole I very much respect nonetheless.

 

That's something JWFan is sorely lacking: to answer to a radically different viewpoint not with a "what the hell is wrong with you?" but with a genuine interest to know why such a viewpoint is being held by the individual with whom they are conversing.

 

Here, one has to like a very specific set of films, hate another specific set of films - for one's opinions to not become completely eschewed in discussions that have nothing to do with either of those groups of films - Now, that's a perfectly logical and healthy way to conduct a discussion right there...

 

One’s reputation on JWFan is solely based on how you post and reply, not your opinions!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its a civil forum alright, but its a very conformistic one.

 

If JWfan is conformist, then there must be a status quo. Could you elaborate?

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

I don't think JWFan is conformist.  It's only conformist if you conform to something.

 

For example, most people here don't care for what Gia did with Star Wars. I, on the other hand, like it. It's only conformist if I conform to the (wrong) take on his Rogue One score.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Take your definitions elsewhere, Nickyboy!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

52 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

That's something JWFan is sorely lacking: to answer to a radically different viewpoint not with a "what the hell is wrong with you?" but with a genuine interest to know why such a viewpoint is being held by the individual with whom they are conversing.

 

If I had ever seen any cogent and rational explanations from you for your stranger ideas, then I might be interested in more of them.  Alas.

[SteveMc 2,674]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

I think true understanding of film doesn't depend on which films you like and dislike, but on why.

Yes!

59 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

So having an eloquent explanation on why you like bullshit makes you a discerning film-buff?

Also yes!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

That's something JWFan is sorely lacking: to answer to a radically different viewpoint not with a "confused reaction emoji" but with a genuine interest to know why such a viewpoint is being held by the individual with whom they are conversing.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

What JWFan is lacking is women!

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Where's Indianagirl?

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

@The Mary Sue?

[SteveMc 2,674]

 

1 minute ago, TGP said:

Where's Indianagirl?

 

Sticking mostly to the SWD thread.  We do need more like her around here, less scaring them off with crudeness.