FILM: 2001: A Space Oddyssey

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2001: A Space Odyssey.

Always though the DVD looked great. But it looks absolutely stunning on blu-ray.

I think for the first time I noticed that all the computer monitors and view screens are completely flat, instead of the concave shape TV screens had, and would have for many decades after this film.

Also Poole and Bowman are watching a TV broadcast from something that looks remarkably like a tablet PC.

Billed as the thinking man's sci-fi film. over the years I find that it is less and less an intellectual experience. There's nothing for the brain to deduct, or solve, since any answer would either be obvious, or unsatisfactory. Better to sit back and let the film flow over you, like a warm bath.

Watching this a day after seeing TESB, I was struck by how much that film looks like 2001 visually. Lucas' universe has a distressed, used up look, but the foundations are certainly taken from 2001.

Strange, 43 years after this films has been made, 10 years after the years it takes place humanity still has not caught up with it's vision. The Space Shuttle is no more. We haven't made a base on the moon, or did a manned expedition to Jupiter.

I wonder if back in the late 60's the great minds of Kubrick and Clarke could have possibly imagined that even in 2011, their vision is still ahead of us.

**** out of ****

[crocodile 7,978]

I think for the first time I noticed that all the computer monitors and view screens are completely flat, instead of the concave shape TV screens had, and would have for many decades after this film.

I haven't seen it that way myself, but my friend told me you can read the space toilet instructions on this one. LOL

Karol

[Wojo 2,453]

Fortunately for all of us that Roddenberry and friends were also wrong when they imagined that a race of genetically bred supermen would conquer half the globe by the year 1998.

[Quintus 5,399]

They need to get a move on with dem flyin cars aswell. They've only got three and a half years to go till they're due.

[A24 4,326]

2001: A Space Odyssey.

Always though the DVD looked great. But it looks absolutely stunning on blu-ray.

I think for the first time I noticed that all the computer monitors and view screens are completely flat, instead of the concave shape TV screens had, and would have for many decades after this film.

The film does look fantastically preserved, doesn't it? In case you are wondering about the flat screens, it's done through film projection. The simple effects (and in-camera, not added later) are always the best.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It looks fantastic. Was blue screen even used for this films? there's not a single moment were i can see the usual artefacts. matte lines things like that?

[A24 4,326]

It looks fantastic. Was blue screen even used for this films? there's not a single moment were i can see the usual artefacts. matte lines things like that?

No, no blue screen. No optical effects. All in-camera effects. I read Trumbull proposed the same working method to Malick for Tree Of Life.

[Quintus 5,399]

It looks fantastic. Was blue screen even used for this films? there's not a single moment were i can see the usual artefacts. matte lines things like that?

Yeah, the sfx have aged about as well as the similar sorts of shots seen in Alien.

Which is amazing, considering.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oddly enough the thing that dates the look of 2001 the most is the furniture. Those weird-ass 1960's chairs.

[Jay 37,266]

Damn, now I need to rent the 2001 blu from Netflix.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Oddly enough the thing that dates the look of 2001 the most is the furniture. Those weird-ass 1960's chairs.

and the technology in the film makes the film look old. Very old.

[Quintus 5,399]

Oddly enough the thing that dates the look of 2001 the most is the furniture. Those weird-ass 1960's chairs.

And the awful, ridiculously drawn out stargate sequence.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Examples?

[A24 4,326]

Oddly enough the thing that dates the look of 2001 the most is the furniture. Those weird-ass 1960's chairs.

I used to think so too, but now I love it.

It would still be hip today.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

In real life the chairs on a space station would probably be a bit more utilitarian.

But again this gives the film a certain specific look. It's maybe better then reality.

[A24 4,326]

Oddly enough the thing that dates the look of 2001 the most is the furniture. Those weird-ass 1960's chairs.

and the technology in the film makes the film look old. Very old.

Yep, they should've gone with tube monitors. Those paper thin flat screen look sooooooooooooo old. And didn't they know spaceships make spectacular noises in space?! Or that they maneuver like war planes? What idiots!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The padded wall designs of the Discovery have been used in many subsequent films. It's actually a logical idea. i wonder if they have them on the ISS.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Oddly enough the thing that dates the look of 2001 the most is the furniture. Those weird-ass 1960's chairs.

and the technology in the film makes the film look old. Very old.

Yep, they should've gone with tube monitors. Those paper thin flat screen look sooooooooooooo old.

They did use tube monitors

The same thing dates Alien too. And all the blinking lights.

It never occured the them that computers would shrink.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Not in the film, Joe.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

yes they were Stefan, they were regular tv monitors. CRT's.

They were recessed and covered with a flat glass or plastic cover

[A24 4,326]

It never occured the them that computers would shrink.

Wow! This beats it all!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

It never occured the them that computers would shrink.

Wow! This beats it all!

wow what another moronic statement by the psuedo intellectual poster.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

yes they were Stefan, they were regular tv monitors. CRT's.

They were recessed and covered with a flat glass or plastic cover

that would not make then appear flat joe, they would just look like a standard curved screen with a plate of flat glass on them.

While they certainly not got everything right, It's amazing how much of it looks and feels right.

[A24 4,326]

Steef, again, the flat screen monitors are simulated through rear film projection. And ... this is the best ... these are some of the supercomputers of today (not in 2001, but TODAY!)

Looks familiar?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It just dawned on me that the front of the Discovery spacecraft looks a bot like The Death Star. (well, vice versa, actually)

No, no blue screen. No optical effects. All in-camera effects. I read Trumbull proposed the same working method to Malick for Tree Of Life.

I think there are only 3 instances when there is a flaw of somekind with the visual effects (not counting the pen).

During the approach to the space station there is a shot were the shadows do not rotate, even though they are supposed to. And in 2 separate shots of pod turning around 9in one instance to kill Poole) you can see a reflection in the upper left corner of the screen of the pod turning.

But other then that....

[A24 4,326]

But other then that....

... it's a great movie.

And still the sci-fi movie to beat, according to Ridley Scott.

Alex

[Wojo 2,453]

2001, where the "00" is for booring.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And still the sci-fi movie to beat, according to Ridley Scott.

Alex

and George Lucas.

[Brónach 1,301]

One of my favourite films. I love so many things about this film that I wouldn't know where to start. My favourite part is the first chapter and the opening of the wormhole.

Last time I saw it I realized how Kubrick uses music to manipulate the viewer and give scenes a feeling than in reality would be completely different.

Example 1: the monolyth scene in the Moon is completely terrifying.

Example 2: the beggining of the third chapter has this (unnecesary?) depressing tone.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Example 1: the monolyth scene in the Moon is completely terrifying.

It is, but it's also funny, in an unforced way.

The most important artifact found in human history, and what do people do. they stand in front of it to have their picture taken.

That is exactly what would happen in real life.

[Brónach 1,301]

It's scary to the viewer, I don't think the stronauts are scared at all. That's what I meant.

And, yes, you're right

[JoeinAR 1,949]

2001, where the "00" is for booring.

how true,

my understanding is the group Foreigner saw the film and used it as inspiration to write the song Cold as Ice.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What is your problem with cold, intellectual films, Joe?

[A24 4,326]

It's far from a cold film, Steef.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I know, but It's how many of its detractors feel about it.

[Brónach 1,301]

The the first chapter is quite passionate. The second chapter is cold but gets quite heated in its last scene. The third chapter starts coldly and suddenly shit happens. The last chapter would be called cold by those who are not interested in stuff like atronomy (beautiful sights of Jupiter), wormholes and interstellar travel, contact with alien intelligences and transhumanism etc

[JoeinAR 1,949]

In 1979, just a little over a decade since the flim's original release I enrolled in a class called 20th Century novel.

It was an elective class to pad my grades. Lit classes were always an easy A. Turned out this was a religious survey of 20th Century novels(I almost dropped it when I found out, more for James Joyce than 2001). One of the novels was 2001, and because the film is a solid adaption of the novel we watched the film instead. I've never connected the humanity with this film, never cared for Dave in the film. If he died I would not have cared because there was nothing there to care about. Stefan I do not think it is an intellectual film. I told my professor the same thing, and I completely disagreed with his take which is similar to yours and Alex's. Still I got my A.

I should give 2001 a view, you can get the blu ray for cheap since it hasn't sold well.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Really 2001 is not an intellectual film perse, since there's not much for the mind to figure out.

It works for me on a sensory level, the way it looks, sounds, how it's been edited.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

2001 is one of those movies where, if you don't like it, you are told that you don't 'get it' and need to look at the deeper meaning and symbolism. You're told that you clearly have a slow attention span, and just want to see sex, explosions, and have the plot handed to you on a platter.

[Brónach 1,301]

In 1979, just a little over a decade since the flim's original release I enrolled in a class called 20th Century novel.

It was an elective class to pad my grades. Lit classes were always an easy A. Turned out this was a religious survey of 20th Century novels(I almost dropped it when I found out, more for James Joyce than 2001). One of the novels was 2001, and because the film is a solid adaption of the novel we watched the film instead. I've never connected the humanity with this film, never cared for Dave in the film. If he died I would not have cared because there was nothing there to care about. Stefan I do not think it is an intellectual film. I told my professor the same thing, and I completely disagreed with his take which is similar to yours and Alex's. Still I got my A.

I should give 2001 a view, you can get the blu ray for cheap since it hasn't sold well.

I see. Yes it's sort of distant. But then again humanity is not everything. I'm not sure what's exactly an intellectual film.

Then again to me this is one of these films that show what the Kubrick quote in Steef's sig is really about, what "cinematic" is, and its the side of it that has captured me everytime I've seen it.

I have to say that it's not an adaptation of the novel, both the script and the novel were writern at the same time, I think. I haven't read it though.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I always thought the use of classical music was a mistake, and still do. I've never heard North's score, but I suspect it might have given the film the warmth and humanity I felt it lacked.

[Brónach 1,301]

I only can remember the prehistoric section of North's score and I'm glad it wasn't used.

It's normal that a film lacks "humanity" when it shows things that dwarf it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I only can remember the prehistoric section of North's score and I'm glad it wasn't used.

It's normal that a film lacks "humanity" when it shows things that dwarf it.

not true, but the film is reflextive of Kubrick who is often describe as a cold fish himself.

[Brónach 1,301]

I don't follow you. what are we meaning with "humanity" here?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I don't follow you. what are we meaning with "humanity" here?

ideas you perceive as greater than humanity. I don't believe that. I believe there are things beyond human comprehension but that doesn't mean humanity cannot be applied.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

I think Kubrick meant for the film to seem cold and without humanity, as opposed to the film lacking it. I'm not trying to defend the film because I really don't like it that much, but what you are describing as an erroneous flaw seems to me to be an intentional part of the film.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It is of course all intentional.

[Melange 446]

I'm sorry Dr Smyslov, but I'm really not at liberty to discuss this.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

One of the novels was 2001, and because the film is a solid adaption of the novel we watched the film instead.

wtf?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm sure Joe knows when he's talking shit. He usually does.