2001: A Space Odyssey... Am I the only one that...
- Thread starter dfrey79
- Start date
Eh, makes you an X-er according to some definitions (1961 onwards). Then again, I'm a Boomer according to some definitions (I've seen ones that go as late as 1968, 69). Silly things.
Ditto.
The small talk on the space station and the meeting on the moon are the hardest to get through. I mean---it's a MEETING. One run by a dullard. A nice dullard, but a dullard. In a later scene, someone says he made a nice presentation---the HELL he did! :lol
The star gate scene is way, way, way, way, way, way too long.
But yes, I love the movie. Just not unconditionally. :lol
The star gate scene is way, way, way, way, way, way too long.
But yes, I love the movie. Just not unconditionally. :lol
In America, it's always been officially designated as the years 1946 to 1964.
Well, there were some benefits to being on that shoot.....
Actually, I helped organize that event, along with Van Ling. And yes, it was a goose-bump moment when they all walked in the room and were just chatting before we let the audience in. All of these guys know each other and though there might have been friendly competition going on when they were all at the height of their careers, they were all friends. And I found out from John Knoll that he actually spent the day at Apogee when he was a kid and his family was in town. He cold called the Apogee office and managed an invite to watch them film......BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.
That panel up there represents 17 Academy Awards between them, with a further 21 nominations. All of them have at least two, save for John Knoll, who only has one, and Doug Trumbull (who has none). Doug may not have an Oscar, but he has an enormous amount of respect from within the VFX community, film makers, and the fan base. After we did the 50 Most Influential VFX Films, Doug did a great presentatio on working with Kubrick and "2001" -
And yes, even the most jaded VFX practitioner couldn't resist geeking out (John Knoll brought a bunch of Cinefantastique magazines and had the guys autograph them) -
The night before, we did a little counter programming. We did a panel on "Guilty Pleasures, Films That Didn't Make the VES 50" where we talked about films like "Flash Gordon", "Flesh Gordon", "Night of the Lepus", "The Black Hole", etc. We had the Publisher and Editor from GEEK Magazine, as well as Director Joe Dante and a special guest -
The panel didn't have the same gravitas as the VES 50, but it was a blast......
So, I may have to work on a lot of crappy films, but in the end, I get to hang out with some cool guys and put on some neat events, so it all balances out in the end.
I think that's a good way to put it, Treadwell......... I think all movies are subjective and are as much about the experience of watching them (where you saw it, how old you were, your tastes for similar films, etc.) as they are about the movie itself.
Gene
It was billed once as "the ultimate trip", I guess trying to get the druggie culture into seats, and of course the storys of people getting effed up to "experience" the film have been around for decades now.
Putting the drug implications aside, there are times I deeply envy Bowman's trip.
Taking a radical revolutionary evolutionary leap. Becoming that "star child".
Would you do it?
Putting the drug implications aside, there are times I deeply envy Bowman's trip.
Taking a radical revolutionary evolutionary leap. Becoming that "star child".
Would you do it?
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
It's interesting that it was The Christian Science Monitor that called the film 'The Ultimate Trip'. For me the Star Child is even more than an evolutionary step. Because it's placed after decline into extreme old age, it can't help but play on ideas of life after death. So Kubrick gives us a Resurrection - or more properly an Ascension - but uses such a visceral universal image for it, that Christians and atheists alike yearn for the fate of Bowman.
For Clarke, the idea is mere SF, an evolutionary step, but, as with the monolith, Kubrick injects metaphysics, possibly unintentionally to a degree (through his sheer power as an image-maker). At the time the film came out, people were asking, 'is the monolith God?' And Clarke had to say, 'no, it's this alien sentinel device.' But Kubrick must have known what he was doing. The film's beginning and end diffuse Clarke's hard SF to a point where it posits an alternate metaphysics to that of the established religions, and as such actually puts even atheists and agnostics like me in touch with their 'religious' gene. Who can resist the vision of salvation offered by that jumpcut from the decrepit Bowman to the Star Child?
drusselmeyer
Master Member
No kidding! Did anyone notice the first introduction of Windows? Oled displays, the Ipad???
It escapes many members of the audience today, but in 1968 automatic sliding doors and television phones were still new!
Imagine having a flat panel OLED display shown to you for the first time when your television at home might still weigh 30 lbs and be black and white! Touchtone and zip codes were still things people were getting used to.
The sheer, cold, distance of the film is a trademark of Kubrick and helps to emphasize the detachment of our own sympathies. There are scenes that are like a Voight-Kampf of our ability to empathize. Like with the science crew as they are systematically murdered by a crazed spree killer. You could sit through the scene and not be moved by the murders.
The horror at our own detachment to understand that people are dying is a double shock as the counter most films which have to drive the point home i.e. Psycho etc. It also is a precognitive counterpoint to the blood-lust of the 80' slasher films.
When I was 4, yes it was too boring to sit through, but even then, I woke up to experience the stunning visuals. It spoiled me for all future sci fi that did not measure up i.e. Star Wars etc.
Like Twin Peaks, it opened the door to new unexplored vistas in its genre.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
Oh yes, thanks for rubbing our noses into that panel. If we ever meet, remind me to kick you in the groin repeatedly!
lol:lol
It is one of the few panels I actually ever wanted to attend.
BTW it is neither Christian nor atheist -it is Zoroastrian! (Zarathustra btw is another name for Zoroaster).
lol:lolIt is one of the few panels I actually ever wanted to attend.
BTW it is neither Christian nor atheist -it is Zoroastrian! (Zarathustra btw is another name for Zoroaster).
JMChladek
Sr Member
The thing about 2001 is it can make a person curious. Indeed they may not watch it all the first time they see it, but some people get intrigued enough to watch it again later. In my own case, I seem to recall seeing bits of it on network TV when I was about 5 (I am 39 BTW). It seemed like it was on when I went downstairs to check on my folks who were watching it. What seemed like hours later, it was STILL on. I would watch for a couple minutes, then move onto something else.
It was when I was about age 12 that I got exposed to it again on cable TV. By that time I had seen Star Wars and Close Encounters in theaters, Logan's Run (the movie) on network TV and a couple other films (I seem to recall sneaking peaks at Outland when it was on cable) such as Dark Star. You could say these offspring films of 2001 sort of prepared me enough to watch the film finally, but it still took a couple sittings to see it all and even then I was still a little confused in spots. I finally managed to sit through a whole screening a couple years later when I was in the eighth grade, probably because I had picked up a copy of Clarke's novel 2010 and the movie was in the works.
It is one of those interesting films to experience because you know nothing like it will EVER be made again in this climate of action first, fast cuts and witty dialog. It could be said it is probably the most expensive art film of all time. Approach it like that and you tend to be more likely to sit through it. I admit it isn't for everyone though. But still the curiousity as to what it is will likely want to get you to try watching it again, sooner or later.
It was when I was about age 12 that I got exposed to it again on cable TV. By that time I had seen Star Wars and Close Encounters in theaters, Logan's Run (the movie) on network TV and a couple other films (I seem to recall sneaking peaks at Outland when it was on cable) such as Dark Star. You could say these offspring films of 2001 sort of prepared me enough to watch the film finally, but it still took a couple sittings to see it all and even then I was still a little confused in spots. I finally managed to sit through a whole screening a couple years later when I was in the eighth grade, probably because I had picked up a copy of Clarke's novel 2010 and the movie was in the works.
It is one of those interesting films to experience because you know nothing like it will EVER be made again in this climate of action first, fast cuts and witty dialog. It could be said it is probably the most expensive art film of all time. Approach it like that and you tend to be more likely to sit through it. I admit it isn't for everyone though. But still the curiousity as to what it is will likely want to get you to try watching it again, sooner or later.
Qrest Fourstar
Sr Member
No, I can't sit through it and have NEVER understood it's apeal, nor have I ever understood the apeal of any Kubrick film.
MegaPrime33
Sr Member
I've watched most of it and thought it was pretty good overall. However I still say that The Shining is Kubrick's best work. Fantastic movie.
CTF
Sr Member
Sucks to be you.
