2001: A Space Odyssey... Am I the only one that...

[SithLord]

When you are watching it on the big screen, the pace works well to convey the sense that you are really there, in real time. I think that is part of the effectiveness and realism of the movie. We've grown so accustomed to quick takes that the art of creating an atmosphere or mood or sense of setting has been lost in more contemporary films.

Once you get on the Discovery things definitely get more interesting. I'm also of the view that the time it takes to get to the moon site of the monolith is a bit long. But it does build the suspense (if you want to call it that).

2001 is still amazingly a beautiful motion picture and testimony to Kubrick's genius.

 

[phase pistol]

I'll second that. I've seen 2001 several times on the big screen, and I find it utterly captivating, almost hypnotic. The part after the intermission (starting with Poole's EVA to replace the AE-35 unit) is incredibly suspenseful.

Gotta remember:

- the year is 1968. No-one has even landed on the MOON yet. In the popular mind, the Space Age is just getting started. Orbiting hotels and moon bases by 2001? Sure! Inevitable.

- That Kubrick is a sly dog. Like all the rest of his films, "2001" is a comedy about the human condition. Takes a few viewings to see it this way.

- Since "Star Wars" is years in the future, the special effects in "2001" are ground-breaking, phenomenal. Nobody has seen anything like them.

k

 

[Larry Young]

Going back to my comment about watching it on the iPhone: 2001 really observes the graphic design adage about images and logos that a good image or logo works at both the size of a postage stamp and the size of a blimp. Artists know if something is recognizable on a watch and a billboard, you've done the job.

Dave coming down the ladder of the centrifuge and throwing his iPad on the table as Frank eats breakfast and he gets dinner works at 3.5 inches as well as 35 feet, and Kubrick's a genius. Works little, and works big.

 

[DARTH SABER]

You have to keep in mind that this film took a totally unconventional way of telling a story.
Many people are accustomed to watching films that move the story forward by using dialog as a primary driving force. This film has very little dialog, and the majority of the story driven by visuals.
Ive seen this film several times and every time I watch it I always pick up something new.

Considering that this film deals with a complex storyline, it's actually very impressive that Kubrick was able to pull off this story with the most basic of all storytelling methods.

 

[SupMyNerfHerder]

In 2007 the Visual Effects Society screened a pristine reel of 2001 on the big screen, accompanied a panel comprising what I consider the pantheon of visual effects pioneers, led by Douglas Trumbull, who is no less responsible for the look and feel of 2001 than Kubrik was, if not more so. I'll let the photos speak for themselves:

I don't think I would have been more awed or honored to be in the same room as thes guys - let alone shake their hand - than if it were a panel of all the living US presidents. You just had to be there...

Dan

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Some films, I think, are meant to be viewed as primarily sensory experiences. Turn off your brain (to a degree) and let the experience just sort of wash over you. I feel this way about action films and many David Lynch films. Other films, I think, are rife with symbolism and message. 2001, from the descriptions here, sounds more like the latter. .

It's ironic that at the time of release, the film was perceived by many - defenders and detractors alike - as being the former. The film was savagely denounced by many highbrow critics as being contentless visual self-indulgence propped up by a hollow, confused philosophy and pretentious, muddle-headed metaphysics (but then, they'd be into real art films, the Russian stuff, 'Solaris', 'Stalker' etc., films which make the pace of 2001 look like 'Transformers'.) There may be a case for this harsh criticism of the film in art terms, but for many, including me, it doesn't matter, because the film is more than a film; it's kind of a... reference point, a meditation tool for visualizing one's true place in time and space, and in its final reel, one of the greatest visions of transcendance ever expressed anywhere.

 

[Birdie]

but then, they'd be into real art films, the Russian stuff, 'Solaris', 'Stalker' etc.

I actually like both of those movies more than 2001. Tarkovsky was a genius, even more so given the conditions he had to shoot those movies under.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Tarkovsky was a genius all right. I've often wondered if in 'Solaris' there are a few moments where he is taking the p*ss out of 2001, if incredibly obliquely. For instance that endless p.o.v shot from a car driving down a motorway, through underpasses and under bridges. The shot seems to go on for about 10 minutes, and seems to stand in place of Kubrick's space travel shots, as if to say: I've got no money for interminable fx shots, and I don't want any anyway, because I can make a space journey out of this motorway ride, so f you, Kubrick. I'd love to know the actual intention of that shot...

 

[Solo4114]

It's ironic that at the time of release, the film was perceived by many - defenders and detractors alike - as being the former. The film was savagely denounced by many highbrow critics as being contentless visual self-indulgence propped up by a hollow, confused philosophy and pretentious, muddle-headed metaphysics (but then, they'd be into real art films, the Russian stuff, 'Solaris', 'Stalker' etc., films which make the pace of 2001 look like 'Transformers'.) There may be a case for this harsh criticism of the film in art terms, but for many, including me, it doesn't matter, because the film is more than a film; it's kind of a... reference point, a meditation tool for visualizing one's true place in time and space, and in its final reel, one of the greatest visions of transcendance ever expressed anywhere.

To be clear, I think there are also different kinds of "turn your brain off" movies. David Lynch films do have symbolism, but much of the symbolism is less about a literal meaning for the image, and more that the image produces an emotional response which itself is symbolic. On the other hand, you also have pure eye candy films like Transformers (which I actually debate whether it's eye candy -- I found that film visually unappealing).

But from the sound of it, 2001 is these days regarded as a film rife with symbolic meaning through its imagery, rather than just "Ok, so, remember, before he says 'it's full of stars' make sure you already did your acid tab, k?"

 

[Clutch]

Everytime I see this image I think the ship is of Death Star proportions. :lol I know it isn't but it is burned into my brain.

 

[Birdie]

I'd love to know the actual intention of that shot...

He did it because he could :lol

Another good one is the lengthy shot of remants of the old world littering the river bed under the water in Stalker.

The whole of that movie had to be reshot after an error processing the film, and the editor later died in a fire, which also destroyed the original rushes and Tarkovsky suffered a serious heart attack during production.

He is rumoured to have been murdered by the KGB by exposure to radiation!

Makes Kubrick's life and career seem a bundle of laughs :unsure

 

[CessnaDriver]

It's hard sci fi and is a beautiful film.

Not for everyone.

I was bored to tears of Citizen Kane for instance mostly because I have no interest in those kind of characters. The "greatest move ever made" had impact in how all films were made after I know. But that didn't make me interested or care anymore then if it was a Transformers movie. I just didn't care about that kind of thing.


If your not into hard sci fi, you will be bored.
Similar as some people do not care for Blade Runner.

Now if it just a pacing issue.
That could be a serious problem in enjoying many films.

If you need explosions, fast dialog and action every two seconds, well a lot of films will be unwatchable.

 

[Larry Young]

Similar as some people do not care for Blade Runner.

WHAT?



:lol

 

[CessnaDriver]

WHAT?



:lol

I know.
It can be frustrating when others don't "see" what we see in beloved films we tend to obsess over.

 

[DARKSIDE72]

John Knoll... sorry but isn't he one of the Lucas YES boys next to well whatever his name is... McCallum (arse kissing joke)? WHAT has he done for film visual effects?

 

[DarkHelmet]

Gen Xers were born from the 60s, so yes, we get it.

Well, not the entire 60's. I was the last year of the Baby Boomer generation at 1964.

I am so glad I grew up when I did. These movies were about the future we all hoped we were going to be living now.

No CG, just real effects, with real stories.

2001, though slow paced, kept me glued, even through the lull as Dr. Floyd transfers to the Discovery. It portrayed what "real" space travel would be like with no gravity, where attendants had to wear velcro shoes.

I really do feel sorry for my Son's generation.

 

[darth_myeek]

I was just curious if everyone on the board likes this movie, or are there others that couldn't sit through it?

 

[GKvfx]

John Knoll... sorry but isn't he one of the Lucas YES boys next to well whatever his name is... McCallum (arse kissing joke)? WHAT has he done for film visual effects?

Helped develop Photoshop along with his brother Tom...........

Gene

 

[swgeek]

You think watching GIGLI is bad, try working on GIGLI....... :confused

:lol oh sorry Gene:lol

In 2007 the Visual Effects Society screened a pristine reel of 2001 on the big screen, accompanied a panel comprising what I consider the pantheon of visual effects pioneers, led by Douglas Trumbull, who is no less responsible for the look and feel of 2001 than Kubrik was, if not more so. I'll let the photos speak for themselves:

Damn, a panel of Ken Ralston, Denis Muren, John Knoll, Douglas Trumbul, Richard Edlund and John Dykstra. Wish I could have been there for that.


I absolutely love 2001, fantastic film. Although I could do with a little less of the slit scan photography at the end.

 

[Wes R]

it can be pretty slow but its a good film, I prefer the sequel but i finally figured the first movie's ending out lol. Plus most people under 30 probably won't like it since nothing is blowing up (yes its a generalization but let's face it, big booms win over story these days).