My God, it's full of stars.

So, I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the very first time a few days ago.

Just have to say, holy shit. What a fantastic film. It holds up fantastically; the fact that they could accomplish such a good looking film in the 60s is incredible to me.

I wish there were more films like this today. The slow burn nature of it is amazing, and I loved it. Most films now pander to low attention spans, and it bothers me (sometimes; Mad Max: Fury Road is an incredible film, and it's definitely not a slow burn!). Even Interstellar, which is a pretty slow film by modern standards, is much, much faster paced than 2001.

Speaking of which, you can definitely see a lot of 2001 in Interstellar. A lot of very similar shots. And the two best AIs ever created, I think, in both films. I love TARS (and wish Ghost was more like him!), and I've never seen anything more menacing than HAL. Those long shots of the red "eye" are horrifying.

Anyway, just needed to mention it; how I've gone 27 years without seeing this movie is beyond me, but I'm glad I finally watched it.

I've heard some not very good things about it's follow up, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.

locked

2387 views

I definitely recommend the book series, but I'm quite a fan of Clarke's writing, so I'm biased.

2010 (film) has a very different tone than the first film, IMO, so there's that.

locked

2252 views

I do want to read the books, I just haven't had a chance to pick them up yet.

locked

2150 views

But what a great film. I love 2001, so very well done.

locked

2137 views

I read all of the books growing up (unless there was something after 3001), but I don't think I've ever seen the movie. I might have to remedy that this weekend.

-Disciple

locked

2187 views

So, I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the very first time a few days ago.

Just have to say, holy shit. What a fantastic film. It holds up fantastically; the fact that they could accomplish such a good looking film in the 60s is incredible to me.

I wish there were more films like this today. The slow burn nature of it is amazing, and I loved it. Most films now pander to low attention spans, and it bothers me (sometimes; Mad Max: Fury Road is an incredible film, and it's definitely not a slow burn!). Even Interstellar, which is a pretty slow film by modern standards, is much, much faster paced than 2001.

Speaking of which, you can definitely see a lot of 2001 in Interstellar. A lot of very similar shots. And the two best AIs ever created, I think, in both films. I love TARS (and wish Ghost was more like him!), and I've never seen anything more menacing than HAL. Those long shots of the red "eye" are horrifying.

Anyway, just needed to mention it; how I've gone 27 years without seeing this movie is beyond me, but I'm glad I finally watched it.

I've heard some not very good things about it's follow up, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.

I loved the book, but the movie was the one film I've EVER seen that I fell asleep in a theater while watching. Slow burn, indeed.

locked

2255 views

I think the only part where I was really aware of it being slow was the opening scene with the apes. Once it got past that I was just enthralled.

locked

2234 views

I think the only part where I was really aware of it being slow was the opening scene with the apes. Once it got past that I was just enthralled.

It's been a really, really long time since I saw it (35 years? maybe only 30), but I vaguely remember the part that killed me was the LSD-inspired space stuff (lots of colors, just music, no dialogue).

locked

2240 views

Well, to be fair, that's around two hours into a two and half hour film, so you almost made it, I guess.

That scene is one of the few (or only) that doesn't really hold up all these years later. It just doesn't look great.

locked

2236 views

- No text -

locked

2185 views

It's been a really, really long time since I saw it (35 years? maybe only 30), but I vaguely remember the part that killed me was the LSD-inspired space stuff (lots of colors, just music, no dialogue).

Never watched the movie, but the equivalent section in the book convinced me that I'm more of an Asimov guy than a Clarke guy. My powers of visualization are terrible.

(I missed all you guys. I don't know a thing about Destiny, but I'll stop by more often for the OT threads.)

locked

2131 views

Reportedly that came out of Kubrick's desire for "authenticity" space travel is slow-feeling. So much slower then the other space travel movies and serials had made it seem up to that point.

locked

2240 views

I loved the book, but the movie was the one film I've EVER seen that I fell asleep in a theater while watching. Slow burn, indeed.

That's the Kubrick Curse for me too. No matter how "great" and "groundbreaking" his films are, they're so dang boooooooooring to sit through. I'm not one of the Michael Bay types, but things in Kubrick's films drag on way, way too much (especially when he goes into the pointless slo-mo or long music-driven scenes). It's a commitment to sit through his films, but it pays off, for the most part.

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

locked

2155 views

I loved the book, but the movie was the one film I've EVER seen that I fell asleep in a theater while watching. Slow burn, indeed.

That's the Kubrick Curse for me too. No matter how "great" and "groundbreaking" his films are, they're so dang boooooooooring to sit through. I'm not one of the Michael Bay types, but things in Kubrick's films drag on way, way too much (especially when he goes into the pointless slo-mo or long music-driven scenes). It's a commitment to sit through his films, but it pays off, for the most part.

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

If I were a jerk I'd step in here and say that everyone knows that Korny has the worst taste in movies, but I'm not a jerk.

MY DINNER WITH ANDREW is one of my favorites. Bought the criterion version a few years back.

As a comic counterpoint, try MY BREAKFAST WITH BLASSIE.

locked

2189 views

I loved the book, but the movie was the one film I've EVER seen that I fell asleep in a theater while watching. Slow burn, indeed.

That's the Kubrick Curse for me too. No matter how "great" and "groundbreaking" his films are, they're so dang boooooooooring to sit through. I'm not one of the Michael Bay types, but things in Kubrick's films drag on way, way too much (especially when he goes into the pointless slo-mo or long music-driven scenes). It's a commitment to sit through his films, but it pays off, for the most part.

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

If I were a jerk I'd step in here and say that everyone knows that Korny has the worst taste in movies, but I'm not a jerk.

MY DINNER WITH ANDREW is one of my favorites. Bought the criterion version a few years back.

I tried watching it twice with a dear friend (and fellow film aficionado), since he loves it, and had a lot of trouble keeping my eyes open. My friend thought I was joking around as I struggled to keep my eyes open, but I dropped like a rock after what felt like an eternal struggle.

We tried watching it again the next day, and when Dude B got to the part of his "story" where he was inside the hole, I asked to check how much longer the film was, saw the remaining time, and Nope'd so hard that I might have offended my friend a bit. But c'est la vie. That "film" is the equivalent of modern art for me: Pretentious garbage by and for pretentious folk ("Sawdust" is a DBO-friendly term that comes to mind).

Of course, maybe I just don't "get" it, but it is what it is... Some people don't like "Battlefield Earth"...

locked

2181 views

I loved the book, but the movie was the one film I've EVER seen that I fell asleep in a theater while watching. Slow burn, indeed.

That's the Kubrick Curse for me too. No matter how "great" and "groundbreaking" his films are, they're so dang boooooooooring to sit through. I'm not one of the Michael Bay types, but things in Kubrick's films drag on way, way too much (especially when he goes into the pointless slo-mo or long music-driven scenes). It's a commitment to sit through his films, but it pays off, for the most part.

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

If I were a jerk I'd step in here and say that everyone knows that Korny has the worst taste in movies, but I'm not a jerk.

MY DINNER WITH ANDREW is one of my favorites. Bought the criterion version a few years back.

I tried watching it twice with a dear friend (and fellow film aficionado), since he loves it, and had a lot of trouble keeping my eyes open. My friend thought I was joking around as I struggled to keep my eyes open, but I dropped like a rock after what felt like an eternal struggle.

We tried watching it again the next day, and when Dude B got to the part of his "story" where he was inside the hole, I asked to check how much longer the film was, saw the remaining time, and Nope'd so hard that I might have offended my friend a bit. But c'est la vie. That "film" is the equivalent of modern art for me: Pretentious garbage by and for pretentious folk ("Sawdust" is a DBO-friendly term that comes to mind).

Of course, maybe I just don't "get" it, but it is what it is... Some people don't like "Battlefield Earth"...

Some of it might be sentimental for me. I was eighteen or so when I first saw it. I was discovering films that weren't shown at the mall. I'd never seen anything like it.

locked

2158 views

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

The "My Dinner With Andre" episode of Community however is hilarious.

locked

2173 views

You want sleep-inducing film, though? Try sitting though "My Dinner With Andre". Cure for insomnia right there...

locked

2269 views

I think the first and second acts of 2001 are okay, but it just falls apart at the end, because it assumes the audience has read the books.

In my opinion, the only reason someone should watch 2001 (aside from historical purposes) is so they have the appropriate context when they watch 2010.

2010 is AWESOME.

locked

2252 views

Yeah, so the novel came AFTER the movie.

Stanley Kubrick is genius.

locked

2308 views

Yeah, so the novel came AFTER the movie.

Stanley Kubrick is genius.

Well... they sort of came together.

Kubrick is, of course, a genius, but so was Clarke.

I also have a soft spot for the sequel, 2010. Both the novel and the film. Which also differ quite a bit, as the originals do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgmUW2nKyug

locked

2342 views

What's up with that, anyway? I read the book on a plane and a few train trips. I liked it okay. I watched the movie and the differences were minor, but I didn't like it and it FELT more different than it was. What am I doing wrong here?

locked

2286 views

What's up with that, anyway? I read the book on a plane and a few train trips. I liked it okay. I watched the movie and the differences were minor, but I didn't like it and it FELT more different than it was. What am I doing wrong here?

I dunno. I like the movie plenty, although I do agree with a lot of people that the psychadelic light show near the end goes on a bit too long.

locked

2266 views

What's up with that, anyway? I read the book on a plane and a few train trips. I liked it okay. I watched the movie and the differences were minor, but I didn't like it and it FELT more different than it was. What am I doing wrong here?

I dunno. I like the movie plenty, although I do agree with a lot of people that the psychadelic light show near the end goes on a bit too long.

You haven't watched it under the proper "conditions."

locked

2156 views

What's up with that, anyway? I read the book on a plane and a few train trips. I liked it okay. I watched the movie and the differences were minor, but I didn't like it and it FELT more different than it was. What am I doing wrong here?

I dunno. I like the movie plenty, although I do agree with a lot of people that the psychadelic light show near the end goes on a bit too long.

You haven't watched it under the proper "conditions."

Drugs. You're talking about drugs. Wink wink
:-D

locked

2180 views

locked

2183 views

In that case, I have no idea how the audience is supposed to understand what's happening in the last third of that film.

locked

2209 views

In that case, I have no idea how the audience is supposed to understand what's happening in the last third of that film.

I think you're just supposed to speculate about it. There really would be no good way for the film to communicate those ideas without a mechanism like a voiceover, and Kubrick (I think wisely) chose not to include one.

It's also possible to watch the sequel and get a kind of explanation of what happened at the end of 2001 from that.

locked

2118 views

In that case, I have no idea how the audience is supposed to understand what's happening in the last third of that film.

I think you're just supposed to speculate about it. There really would be no good way for the film to communicate those ideas without a mechanism like a voiceover, and Kubrick (I think wisely) chose not to include one.

It's also possible to watch the sequel and get a kind of explanation of what happened at the end of 2001 from that.

This. I haven't read the book or seen the sequel (and will remedy both soon), so I can't say that I "get" whatever was going on. I assumed that was part of the point. You're supposed to try and reach your own conclusion.

I can't say not understanding the ending hurt the film at all, at least not in my eyes.

locked

2175 views

I can't say not understanding the ending hurt the film at all, at least not in my eyes.

Now that I get that I wasn't necessarily supposed to understand, it doesn't. All this time I thought I was just an idiot.

locked

2197 views

This. I haven't read the book or seen the sequel (and will remedy both soon), so I can't say that I "get" whatever was going on. I assumed that was part of the point. You're supposed to try and reach your own conclusion.

But you aren't. A conclusion and a statement was made by him with his choice of imagery and sound. Everything up to that point also matters. It's deliberate. Kubrick was incredibly intentional as a filmmaker. Everything, even the tinniest details had meaning within the frame. In all his films. It's incredible. He always had vision and voice. That is the opposite of 'leaving it up to you to interpret'.

Imagine you are talking with someone who speaks Mandarin. You don't know Mandarin. And so you don't understand them. You don't speak the language. Well, Kubrick was such a genius he spoke a different visual language. But once you learn it, you can converse and understand.

locked

2190 views

This. I haven't read the book or seen the sequel (and will remedy both soon), so I can't say that I "get" whatever was going on. I assumed that was part of the point. You're supposed to try and reach your own conclusion.

But you aren't. A conclusion and a statement was made by him with his choice of imagery and sound. Everything up to that point also matters. It's deliberate. Kubrick was incredibly intentional as a filmmaker. Everything, even the tinniest details had meaning within the frame. In all his films. It's incredible. He always had vision and voice. That is the opposite of 'leaving it up to you to interpret'.

Imagine you are talking with someone who speaks Mandarin. You don't know Mandarin. And so you don't understand them. You don't speak the language. Well, Kubrick was such a genius he spoke a different visual language. But once you learn it, you can converse and understand.

....yes and no.

There are very specific things meant by what happens to Bowman in the novel. You certainly can reach those meanings by interpreting the film, but I wouldn't say that would be the only valid interpretation of what we're shown at the end.

Auteur theory is cool but only takes you so far.

locked

2196 views

So, I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the very first time a few days ago.

Just have to say, holy shit. What a fantastic film. It holds up fantastically; the fact that they could accomplish such a good looking film in the 60s is incredible to me.

I wish there were more films like this today. The slow burn nature of it is amazing, and I loved it. Most films now pander to low attention spans, and it bothers me (sometimes; Mad Max: Fury Road is an incredible film, and it's definitely not a slow burn!). Even Interstellar, which is a pretty slow film by modern standards, is much, much faster paced than 2001.

Speaking of which, you can definitely see a lot of 2001 in Interstellar. A lot of very similar shots. And the two best AIs ever created, I think, in both films. I love TARS (and wish Ghost was more like him!), and I've never seen anything more menacing than HAL. Those long shots of the red "eye" are horrifying.

Anyway, just needed to mention it; how I've gone 27 years without seeing this movie is beyond me, but I'm glad I finally watched it.

I've heard some not very good things about it's follow up, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.

Although I have movies that I enjoy more on a regular basis, 2001 is probably the closest to a perfect film I've ever seen (Thin Red Line is up there, and The Master might be as well, I need to watch it again...).

I first saw it when I was ten or eleven, and I remember sitting with my mouth open for two hours and looking at my older brother from time to time doing the same thing. It instilled something in me, perhaps a love for science fiction that specializes in wonder. I know the Forerunners in Bungie's Halo games captivated me for a reason and I could trace that captivation back to the Monolith standing on the Moon.

I don't think 2010 is a bad movie, but it's more of a... normal film? Without Stanley Kubrick, you lose quite a bit of the style that essentially made 2001 what it is. It's worth a watch.

The novels are fun, and I especially liked 2061, but they are little too explicit for me. The magic of 2001, the film, which Clarke wrote with Kubrick at the same time as the first novel, was the ability to interpret it in your own way, especially the ending. Watching it subsequent times as I got older was a joy as I poured different things into it.

If you liked the style of 2001 - the excellent cinematography -slow, menacing shots balanced like the composition of a classic painting- and the feeling that you are more of an observer of the story than it being delivered to you with a bow tie on top, I highly recommend all of Kubrick's films.

P.S. The Art of Interstellar beings with Nolan talking about seeing 2001 as a kid. He definitely doesn't avoid it's impact - how could you? I'm just happy we finally have something made in the last twenty or more years that can actually stand up to 2001's visuals. :)

locked

2249 views

If you liked the style of 2001 - the excellent cinematography -slow, menacing shots balanced like the composition of a classic painting- and the feeling that you are more of an observer of the story than it being delivered to you with a bow tie on top, I highly recommend all of Kubrick's films.

The Shining has been one of my favorite movies for a long time. I've seen A Clockwork Orange but it's not even in my top ten. I don't think I've seen any of his others; it's something I'll definitely have to check out.

P.S. The Art of Interstellar beings with Nolan talking about seeing 2001 as a kid. He definitely doesn't avoid it's impact - how could you? I'm just happy we finally have something made in the last twenty or more years that can actually stand up to 2001's visuals. :)

I want to get that (I loved Interstellar very much, and am a huge sucker for art books and behind the scenes type things), but I couldn't afford it at the time I picked up the Blu Ray of Interstellar, and I subsequently forgot all about it. I did get the deluxe whatever edition of Interstellar, which game with a very small art book, and it's great. Now I need to order the real thing.

The special features on the Blu Ray set are amazing. Not quite as long or in depth as say The Extended Editions of Lord of the Rings (which will always stand out as the best special features to me), but it's pretty close.

locked

2138 views

Full Metal Jacket.

locked

2129 views

I forgot about Full Metal Jacket. Never seen Dr. Strangelove, though . . .

locked

2207 views

It encourages me that you younger folk are able to appreciate such a "deliberately paced" movie. Now watch the Russian equivalent, SOLARIS. Tarkovsky is another director whose work will have you either engrossed or bored to tears.

Something similar but more accessible is MOON, which I adore. That one owes a lot to SILENT RUNNING, which freaking blew my mind when I was a kid.

I've already said my piece about INTERSTELLAR.

locked

2209 views

But that light show looks like crap and drags on forever. The film veers from beautiful and well-paced to bad 60s production trying too hard to showcase "effects." No matter how good 2001 otherwise is, it's hard to walk away without feeling sort of disappointed with it.

locked

2191 views

"it's hard to walk away without feeling sort of disappointed with it."

If you're a philistine.

locked

2155 views

- No text -

locked

2189 views

- No text -

locked

2109 views

In my quest to watch all of Star Trek in story-order during the last few years (I had only seen random episodes and films growing up), getting to The Motion Picture was a big highlight! I had only seen glimpses of it before.

I instantly fell in love with the art direction (Ralph McQuarrie from Star Wars had a big part to play in that) and the music of the Motion Picture (which is the first use of the theme that would become TNG's intro music). I think I was crying as much as Kirk in the ten minute montage of the Enterprise at space dock.

Wrath of Khan is a better action-adventure film, sure, but it's lighter on the sci-fi and feels smaller, less grand, especially since it lost that epic music theme and replaced the great costumes of TMP with ugly red sweaters and turtlenecks.

Also, I should note I'm a bigger fan of the ST:TMP Director's Cut, which has a better pacing. It's still quite slow and steady (just how I like it - falling asleep to a Middle Earth Extended Edition is a weekly tradition around here) but it feels a little more to the point. It's worth checking out if you liked elements of the TMP.

locked

2254 views

Not a single person in the world found that film even the slightest bit exciting or bearable.

locked

2183 views

Not a single person in the world found that film even the slightest bit exciting or bearable.

Hah, with a recommendation like that I might just have to give it a go. I liked the director's Ghost Dog back in middle school or wherever I was. At the least, it might be something good to work to. :)

locked

2129 views

In my quest to watch all of Star Trek in story-order during the last few years (I had only seen random episodes and films growing up), getting to The Motion Picture was a big highlight! I had only seen glimpses of it before.

Wrath of Khan is a better action-adventure film, sure, but it's lighter on the sci-fi and feels smaller, less grand, especially since it lost that epic music theme and replaced the great costumes of TMP with ugly red sweaters and turtlenecks.

Not just you, although I also like WoK quite a bit, and I acknowledge that the red uniforms are way too military-like for the universe Roddenberry imagined.

locked

2148 views

- No text -

locked

2197 views

In my quest to watch all of Star Trek in story-order during the last few years (I had only seen random episodes and films growing up), getting to The Motion Picture was a big highlight! I had only seen glimpses of it before.

Wrath of Khan is a better action-adventure film, sure, but it's lighter on the sci-fi and feels smaller, less grand, especially since it lost that epic music theme and replaced the great costumes of TMP with ugly red sweaters and turtlenecks.

Not just you, although I also like WoK quite a bit, and I acknowledge that the red uniforms are way too military-like for the universe Roddenberry imagined.

My wife was not raised in a remotely trek environment (reference any post I've made about my inlaws), and when I watched WoK with her to prep her for the new Into Darkness flick, she was so thrown out of the film by Montalbon's sweaty chest she made me stop the film half way through.

She was, of course, depressingly enthralled with Cumberbatch in STID.

locked

2075 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

My God, it's full of stars. (Off-Topic)