What are your favorite shots in a movie?

[GerateWohl 4,371]

On 24/09/2023 at 12:10 AM, Chen G. said:

 

From an esthetical perspective these two shots remind me a lot of H.R. Giger's paint brush works and probably even Alien. 

[Chen G. 3,950]

I don't see it.  I know Jackson loves Alien: he wanted to cast Holm back in the day partially because he was so brilliant in Alien and Chariots of Fire, but mostly because he was Frodo in the 1981 Radio serial.

[A24 4,345]

1 hour ago, GerateWohl said:

From an esthetical perspective these two shots remind me a lot of H.R. Giger's paint brush works and probably even Alien. 

 

I see it! It's clearly a homage!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

13 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

 

 

 

 

These are brilliant.

Are they from METROPOLIS?

[GerateWohl 4,371]

2 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

These are brilliant.

Are they from METROPOLIS?

Yes.

[Schilkeman 964]

Some of my favorite shots from the first half of Star Wars, not including effects shots and the obvious binary sunset:

 

 

 

 

Other shots I love that work better in motion are the stormtroopers boarding the Tantive IV, where all you see are the legs of the troopers coming into frame, and the handheld shots of R2 when the Jawas are stalking.

[Mr. Hooper 1,801]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

 

Goosebumps. Seeing the resolve in Luke's face, and hearing it in the horns... The start of a galaxy-spanning adventure.

[Schilkeman 964]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Goosebumps. Seeing the resolve in Luke's face, and hearing it in the horns... The start of a galaxy-spanning adventure.

Yeah, that shot stuck with me from a young age. The Dies irae really sells it, then the wipe to the Death Star.

From the second half, some favorites:

 

 

[JTN 2,042]

I could put in every single shot from BLADE RUNNER, since it’s a visual masterpiece, but instead I remembered how awe-inspiring  the finale of SPIDER-MAN was when I first saw it in the theater. Sam Raimi truly got what it meant to be a superhero in a more innocent time. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,801]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

The Dies irae really sells it

Wow, never noticed the Dies irae in there. Oh that John Williams!

[JTN 2,042]

Again, every frame is perfect in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and this transition is one of many great ones from Maestro Stanley Kubrick.

[Schilkeman 964]

34 minutes ago, JTW said:

Again, every frame is perfect in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and this transition is one of many great ones from Maestro Stanley Kubrick.

This says in 7 seconds what it took Nolan 3 hours to say, and does it better. Great stuff.

[Tallguy 3,401]

8 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

and the handheld shots of R2 when the Jawas are stalking.

 

You know, that's probably my most vivid memory of seeing the scene in the theater in 1977. I'm glad George dialed out Williams' music.

 

I heard some director say something like "A little noise makes the audience know that it's silent. No noise makes them think they can't hear."

[Chen G. 3,950]

12 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

You know, that's probably my most vivid memory of seeing the scene in the theater in 1977.

 

Probably the most dynamic visual sequence in the film. Although, I must say, the edit reveals the Jawas much too soon to the audience. Sniping out a few more shots would have made the whole thing much more intense.

[Tallguy 3,401]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Probably the most dynamic visuals in the film. Although, I must say, the edit reveals the Jawas much too soon to the audience. Sniping out a few more shots would have made the whole thing much more intense.

 

I've been living with this shot since third grade so I can't see anything wrong with it. But it's not like it reveals "Oh, just Jawas." You don't what anything is. And they're dark hoods with glowing eyes sneaking around. Surely that's intense enough.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

4 hours ago, JTW said:

Again, every frame is perfect in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and this transition is one of many great ones from Maestro Stanley Kubrick.

 

You bounder! You cheat!

This is four shots! 

 

The shot of the Starchild staring right into the camera, at the end of 2001 never fails to reduce me to tears.

[Schilkeman 964]

10 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

I've been living with this shot since third grade so I can't see anything wrong with it. But it's not like it reveals "Oh, just Jawas." You don't what anything is. And they're dark hoods with glowing eyes sneaking around. Surely that's intense enough.

I know. It’s not a horror movie. How intense does it need to be? It’s more curiosity than suspense.

13 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

 

You bounder! You cheat!

This is four shots! 

 

The shot of the Starchild staring right into the camera, at the end of 2001 never fails to reduce me to tears.

I think it’s Kubrick’s best film, and one of the great ambiguous endings in cinema. It introduced me to Ligeti and Clarke. What’s not to love?

[Tallguy 3,401]

4 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

This says in 7 seconds what it took Nolan 3 hours to say, and does it better. Great stuff.

 

It doesn't say anything. In the very general terms it says that humans develop tools and use those tools in space. I know it's SUPPOSED to be a nuclear device of some kind but the film doesn't say that. It doesn't even imply it. In the context that an audience would be watching it it would be far more likely to be a communications satellite. (Even more so since it's an Arthur C. Clarke film.)

[JTN 2,042]

34 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

The shot of the Starchild staring right into the camera, at the end of 2001 never fails to reduce me to tears.

Me too.

[Schilkeman 964]

7 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

It doesn't say anything. In the very general terms it says that humans develop tools and use those tools in space. I know it's SUPPOSED to be a nuclear device of some kind but the film doesn't say that. It doesn't even imply it. In the context that an audience would be watching it it would be far more likely to be a communications satellite. (Even more so since it's an Arthur C. Clarke film.)

I never saw it as a nuclear analog, just that our first use of tools was to kill each other with them, but that we are equally capable for using them for good, like exploration in space. 

[Tallguy 3,401]

Just now, Schilkeman said:

I never saw it as a nuclear analog, just that our first use of tools was to kill each other with them, but that we are equally capable for using them for good, like exploration in space. 

 

The first use of the weapon in the movie is to kill food. THEN against each other. Not to nitpick.

 

It astounds me that the scenes with the apes were on a soundstage. (Right? No location footage?)

[Schilkeman 964]

56 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

The first use of the weapon in the movie is to kill food. THEN against each other.

It’s funnier that way, but the juxtaposition still works.

[JTN 2,042]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

I never saw it as a nuclear analog

I always saw it "just" as a cool transition where the satellite has the same shape as the bone. I guess I'm not deep enough. 

 

But yes, on a more symbolic level the bone thrown up in the air transitioning into the satellite definitely represents the technical evolution. But I think Kubrick also thought it would look cool.  

[Schilkeman 964]

50 minutes ago, JTW said:

I always saw it "just" as a cool transition where the satellite has the same shape as the bone. I guess I'm not deep enough. 

 

But yes, on a more symbolic level the bone thrown up in the air transitioning into the satellite definitely represents the technical evolution. But I think Kubrick also thought it would look cool.  

Yeah, people who want to find meaning in every inch of film forget the Rule of Cool often applies, but film sometimes gets labeled as shallow when compared to other types of art. I prefer to call it efficient, which means that deeper meaning is often there, but it can be both cool and profound at the same time.

[JTN 2,042]

14 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

Yeah, people who want to find meaning in every inch of film forget the Rule of Cool often applies, but film sometimes gets labeled as shallow when compared to other types of art. I prefer to call it efficient, which means that deeper meaning is often there, but it can be both cool and profound at the same time.

I agree. And with all that said 2001 is as profound as it gets. And Clarke’s novel only makes it better, as it completes it, adds even more layers to it. 

[Schilkeman 964]

1 minute ago, JTW said:

And Clarke’s novel only makes it better, as it completes it, adds more layers to it.

I think I like the book more, honestly. I own all the sequels, but haven't gotten around to reading them.

[JTN 2,042]

7 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

I think I like the book more, honestly. I own all the sequels, but haven't gotten around to reading them.

Definitely. And Clarke this time wrote 2010 before the adaptation, it was solely his vision, as were all the other two sequels. I’ve read all of them and they’re fascinating. My two favorites are 2001 and 2010, but 2061 and 3001 are very good, too. 
 

With that said, with all its imperfections, I thoroughly enjoy Peter Hyams’ 2010. It’s a solid sci-fi, and especially considering it had to follow Kubrick’s masterpiece which is almost an impossible task all in itself, but Hyams rose to the challenge. 

[Marian Schedenig 8,208]

8 hours ago, JTW said:

 

One cool thing about this cut that I think I've always felt but only now consciously noticed is how it cuts from the free falling bone to the satellite/device/thingy - which, like anything in space, is also in constant free fall. The sudden cut and the downwards (on the screen) movement of the satellite leave the viewer with a brief but very effective free fall/zero G sensation.

[Chen G. 3,950]

56 minutes ago, JTW said:

I agree. And with all that said 2001 is as profound as it gets. And Clarke’s novel only makes it better, as it completes it, adds even more layers to it. 

I gotta say I don’t share that observation…😅 It’s just a paean to the (then up and coming) space age. Essentially it’s a travelogue along the lines of “This is Cinerama” and “How The West Was Won.”

[Schilkeman 964]

[Andy 4,141]

13 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

The shot of the Starchild staring right into the camera, at the end of 2001 never fails to reduce me to tears.

 

12 hours ago, JTW said:

Me too.

Really?  Can I ask why?  Not trying to be insincere.  In fact I’m envious I don’t feel that.  It’s really open for some interpretation, but I first saw it as a teen and never had that much emotional response.  I respect and enjoy the film, but it doesn’t grab me by the soul.
 

Did you have the response the first time you saw it?  Or did it take multiple viewings to get there?

[Mr. Hooper 1,801]

I don't remember ever dropping a tear, but I get a lump in my throat.

 

From just a cinematic standpoint, it's an awe-inspiring image, perfectly wedded to and made grander by Strauss' music.

 

And there's something in the "Starchild's" gaze. Hope, for a new beginning for humanity.

 

This is Kubrick at his most hopeful.

 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,950]

3 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

This is Kubrick at his most hopeful.

 

I do think its a hopeful ending - it has to be for the film to work as paean to the space age.

[GerateWohl 4,371]

6 hours ago, Andy said:

Really?  Can I ask why?  Not trying to be insincere.  In fact I’m envious I don’t feel that.  It’s really open for some interpretation, but I first saw it as a teen and never had that much emotional response.  I respect and enjoy the film, but it doesn’t grab me by the soul.
 

Did you have the response the first time you saw it?  Or did it take multiple viewings to get there?

Usually normal people are just left completely confused at the end of watching the movie for the first time. 

[JTN 2,042]

6 hours ago, Andy said:

 

Really?  Can I ask why?  Not trying to be insincere.  In fact I’m envious I don’t feel that.  It’s really open for some interpretation, but I first saw it as a teen and never had that much emotional response.  I respect and enjoy the film, but it doesn’t grab me by the soul.
 

Did you have the response the first time you saw it?  Or did it take multiple viewings to get there?

I don’t cry per se, but I get emotional at the end. The entire experience of the film, a journey that has taken us from the beginning of man to the space age, the fact that the film has a completely different and unique explanation for where we came from and where we’re going, combined with the breathtaking visuals and music, together as a whole makes me feel overwhelmed with joy and a sense of wonder that’s hard to explain. It’s both on an intellectual and emotional level, which has nothing to do with religious faith. It’s the feeling that there could be things out there that can’t be explained, yet they are awesome and intelligent and caring and are waiting for us to explore, and mankind can some day reach the level where getting to know the secrets of the universe will be possible. Ultimately it fills me with hope, that the existence is not just the terrible place mankind has made its own world that used to be a paradise. 
 

But to fully comprehend 2001 I’d suggest you read Arthur C. Clarke’s novel, which is a perfect companion piece and is not entirely the same as the film. 

In the end you either love 2001 or you don’t. I’m fully aware that it takes a certain amount of openness and patience from the viewer in order for them to appreciate it. It’s not an “easy” film, but it’s a very rewarding one. 

[Brónach 1,302]

i first watched this movie as a little kid and it simply scared the shit out of me, i understood nothing and then went on to play to be an astronaut

[JTN 2,042]

2 minutes ago, Brónach said:

i first watched this movie as a little kid and it simply scared the shit out of me, i understood nothing and then when to play to be an astronaut

See, it is a hopeful film. ;-)

[JNHFan2000 2,968]

This thread is so cool. Sometines I forget how beautiful films I've seen a bunch of times are.

 

Those A New Hope still made feel all nostalgic!

[GerateWohl 4,371]

Aiming to become an astronaut can either mean, "I want to be in the first line of progress for mankind" or just "I wanna get the hell out of here".

[JTN 2,042]

1 minute ago, GerateWohl said:

Aiming to become an astronaut can either mean, "I want to be in the first line of progress for mankind" or just "I wanna get the hell out of here".

Or “I want to get the hell out of this room watching this crazy film with the scary space baby head.”

[Chen G. 3,950]

59 minutes ago, JTW said:

he film has a completely different and unique explanation for where we came from and where we’re going

 

I don't think anybody would suggest Kubrick seriously thought mankind's evolution was due to the machinations of omniscient aliens. Its just something Kubrick (and Clarke) use as a setup.

 

The point of the film is to posit that manned space travel (with or without its potential for encountering alien civilisations) is the stepping stone to the next phase in human evolution. In other words, a glorification of the (then up and coming) space age.

 

Sorry, but I'm nonplussed.

[Brónach 1,302]

well chen you live in the current year and they're fucking up the sky with tiny artifacts that relay internet but that can create kessler syndrome at any time and that have a cost to pay for everyone much higher than internet on the ground.

 

it kind of got weird.

[Chen G. 3,950]

4 minutes ago, Brónach said:

well chen you live in the current year and they're fucking up the sky

 

Yeah, but also in the present day, the space race has long, long been dead, eulogised, buried and memoralised. So to see Kubrick - no doubt as caught in the excitement of his day about the space age as anyone - effectivelly saying, "the space age is going to be so cool, y'all! We're going to go to other planets, meet other races, learn new things, maybe even evolve beyond man because of it!" seems mighty naive today.

[JTN 2,042]

56 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Its just something Kubrick (and Clarke) use as a setup.

If it's a setup that's in the film, isn't that what Kubrick and Clarke suggest?

Besides, we're talking about a film, right? It's a work of fiction, not hard science. But I'd choose this explanation if I had to, rather than what's in the Bible. 

 

56 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The point of the film is to posit that manned space travel (with or without its potential for encountering alien civilisations) is the stepping stone to the next phase in human evolution.

Could be, but not just that. If that's the only thing you took from it, you should look again. And have you read the book? It's far more than just the glorification of space exploration, a.k.a. the evolution of science and technology, the human condition and mankind. Which is not such a bad thing all by itself. 

34 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Yeah, but also in the present day, the space race has long, long been dead, eulogised, buried and memoralised.

If that were true, then why are the Chinese, India, the Americans trying so hard going back to the Moon, and more importantly, going to Mars? 

34 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

So to see Kubrick - no doubt as caught in the excitement of his day about the space age as anyone - effectivelly saying, "the space age is going to be so cool, y'all! We're going to go to other planets, meet other races, learn new things, maybe even evolve beyond man because of it!" seems mighty naive today.

And why is that message so bad, tell me? Why naive? Learning and evolving through science and technology has helped mankind evolve from using stone tools to building rocket ships and space stations, and finding the cure for several lethal deseases and living a much longer, healthier life etc. 

 

What Kubrick and Clarke say is that through learning and knowledge and understanding mankind can reach unimaginable places and achievements that will actually help us instead of killing us. 

I think that that optimism is what the world needs today more than ever. And because mankind is becoming more and more pessimistic, it almost can't understand Kubrick's and Clarke's optimistic message anymore, which is very sad. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

.

[Tallguy 3,401]

 

 

 

[Marian Schedenig 8,208]

7 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

I don't remember ever dropping a tear, but I get a lump in my throat.

 

From just a cinematic standpoint, it's an awe-inspiring image, perfectly wedded to and made grander by Strauss' music.

 

And there's something in the "Starchild's" gaze. Hope, for a new beginning for humanity.

 

More than anything it just scared the shit out of me (like the entire final act). Without the calming Donauwalzer in the credits I'm not sure how I would have survived my first viewing of the film. The Starchild's gaze still creeps me out today.

[Tallguy 3,401]

2001 is one of those movies that I never REALLY experienced as a film, TBH. I saw it on a TV screen (pan and scan) in 8th grade. Partially. Then I think we probably rented it at home at some point. I have rarely sat down and watched it from start to finish. I saw it once on the Big Screen in my 30's. And while it was glorious by that time I knew pretty much every shot, every beat. So it was me drinking in every detail but not really seeing a FILM. Which is too bad.

[Marian Schedenig 8,208]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Yeah, but also in the present day, the space race has long, long been dead, eulogised, buried and memoralised. So to see Kubrick - no doubt as caught in the excitement of his day about the space age as anyone - effectivelly saying, "the space age is going to be so cool, y'all! We're going to go to other planets, meet other races, learn new things, maybe even evolve beyond man because of it!" seems mighty naive today.

 

Watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos once every couple of years is a good way of keeping the excitement about space exploration alive.

 

3 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Aiming to become an astronaut can either mean, "I want to be in the first line of progress for mankind" or just "I wanna get the hell out of here".

 

[JTN 2,042]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

More than anything it just scared the shit out of me (like the entire final act).

Yeah, the sequence before the Starchild appears, does have some horror element to it, that Kubrick would later revisit in THE SHINING. It does make the viewer a little uncomfortable at first viewing. One thing's for sure. This film could never be made today. Heck, people didn't understand it back then and it was a commercial flop, just like Blade Runner. The fact that we're discussing it 55 years after its release is a testament to what a groundbreaking film it is. Without 2001: A Space Odyssey we wouldn't have Star Wars.