Slashdot Mirror
The 50th Anniversary of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey"
Today marks the 50th anniversary of the original release of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," a seminal film in motion picture history and one that has awed millions over the years. Kubrick's title has often been credited with paving the way for science-fiction films that took a realistic approach to depicting the future. Even as "2001" has grown to become one of the most iconic movies of all time, the reception it received when it originally premiered wasn't good. An excerpt: The film's previews were an unmitigated disaster. Its story line encompassed an exceptional temporal sweep, starting with the initial contact between pre-human ape-men and an omnipotent alien civilization and then vaulting forward to later encounters between Homo sapiens and the elusive aliens, represented throughout by the film's iconic metallic-black monolith. Although featuring visual effects of unprecedented realism and power, Kubrick's panoramic journey into space and time made few concessions to viewer understanding. The film was essentially a nonverbal experience. Its first words came only a good half-hour in.
Audience walkouts numbered well over 200 at the New York premiere on April 3, 1968, and the next day's reviews were almost uniformly negative. Writing in the Village Voice, Andrew Sarris called the movie "a thoroughly uninteresting failure and the most damning demonstration yet of Stanley Kubrick's inability to tell a story coherently and with a consistent point of view." And yet that afternoon, a long line -- comprised predominantly of younger people -- extended down Broadway, awaiting the first matinee. The Cannes Film Festival will celebrate the 50th anniversary of "2001: A Space Odyssey" with the world premiere of an unrestored 70mm print, introduced by Christopher Nolan. The event is set for May 12 as part of the Cannes Classics program. The screening will also be attended by members of Kubrick's family, including his daughter Katharina Kubrick and his longtime producing partner and brother-in-law Jan Harlan.
Further reading: Why 2001: A Space Odyssey's mystery endures, 50 years on (CNET); 50 years of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- how Kubrick's sci-fi 'changed the very form of cinema' (The Guardian); The story of a voice: HAL in '2001' wasn't always so eerily calm (The New York Times); and The most intriguing theories about "2001: A Space Odyssey" (io9); and Behind the scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the strangest blockbuster in Hollywood history (Vanity Fair).
Audience walkouts numbered well over 200 at the New York premiere on April 3, 1968, and the next day's reviews were almost uniformly negative. Writing in the Village Voice, Andrew Sarris called the movie "a thoroughly uninteresting failure and the most damning demonstration yet of Stanley Kubrick's inability to tell a story coherently and with a consistent point of view." And yet that afternoon, a long line -- comprised predominantly of younger people -- extended down Broadway, awaiting the first matinee. The Cannes Film Festival will celebrate the 50th anniversary of "2001: A Space Odyssey" with the world premiere of an unrestored 70mm print, introduced by Christopher Nolan. The event is set for May 12 as part of the Cannes Classics program. The screening will also be attended by members of Kubrick's family, including his daughter Katharina Kubrick and his longtime producing partner and brother-in-law Jan Harlan.
Further reading: Why 2001: A Space Odyssey's mystery endures, 50 years on (CNET); 50 years of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- how Kubrick's sci-fi 'changed the very form of cinema' (The Guardian); The story of a voice: HAL in '2001' wasn't always so eerily calm (The New York Times); and The most intriguing theories about "2001: A Space Odyssey" (io9); and Behind the scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the strangest blockbuster in Hollywood history (Vanity Fair).
Any non-paywalled links?
I'm going to see this with a live orchestra in London later this month.
2001 is a prime example of a movie that doesn't age well. I read and enjoyed the book, which was relatively short and to the point. The Movie however was mostly 2 hours of impossibly bad tedium. I'll never forget the spaceship landing scene where a model of a space ship descends at a glacial pace towards a moon base or something while music builds and build and builds... until nothing happens and we cut to the next scene.
If you liked 2001, you'll definitely love the "moon landings". The production values were much higher (some say impossible, but nothing is impossible for the world's greatest director).
I can't do that. Would you like to play a game of Chess?
It's one of the most beautiful, elegant movies ever made. The visuals are just astounding, especially if you see it in glorious 70mm. I can somewhat see the original reactions though. If you're somehow able to ignore the amazing job Kubrick did presenting the majesty and elegance of Space, you're left with just an OK story.
Combine that with the older straight-laced audiences of the 60s who want everything to fit within some narrow confines, they're going to be disappointing by the ending. Not that the ending DOES make a huge amount of sense, but at least it's beautiful. But you're not going to like it if you're not comfortable with the inexplicable and somewhat disturbing. And you're going to hate it if you want it all to make sense in some conventional, simple way.
I took a date to it in the 80's (campus showing). She fell asleep and had no energy later either.
The movie was not structured around plot, but around music. Pay close attention to the music when watching - it's what is driving everything.
When the proto-humans first encounter the monolith, there is a chaotic, almost primitive chorus. The Blue Danube plays over the highly choreographed space ship scenes. Then the sparse orchestrations of the later second half, which were borrowed heavily from for the famous Alien soundtrack.
Heaven forbid you should use your big brain to THINK on your own. It's much better to have your hand held and be told what to think at all times, like a little toddler. Next time maybe they'll throw in some big explosions and car chases for you.
I missed the "for" in the quote. I just ready the "from". You said, "from for". Call me a knucklehead.
The problem is that you were looking for a typical movie storyline, and instead got a meditation on humanity's place in the Universe. It's like complaining that Beethoven didn't put a guitar solo in the Fifth Symphony.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If anyone else feels like watching it to mark the occasion, it's available in full on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/video_20160419
Ignore the fact it's tagged as Spanish.
This is a movie that should be listened to as much as watched. It is a symphony about human achievement and man's (yes, man's, not woman's, women have no place in space - *smile* *tongue-in-cheek*) place in the universe.
Didn't you ever go to Psych 101 in which they TOLD you that if you wanted your date to find you exciting, take her to a horror movie?
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
2010 was instantly forgettable. It ditched everything that made the original so fascinating and unique.
Mission to Mars (2000) was another movie that tried to tap into the mystique of 2001, but it fell short of the mark.
2001 is not a film/story that you can just watch once and walk away.
I see an AC claiming that it doesn't have a beginning, middle and end (it most definitely does).
Arthur C. Clarke wrote quite a bit about the concepts behind the story, the film, the process of writing and filming it as well as people's reactions.
Watch it, read about it, talk to other people about it. You'll be amazed at what you discover.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I watch movies to be enterained. If I wanted to think, I'll read a book. I've read all the Space Odyssey books.
Man is a Sinner in the Eyes of a Holy God.
So if god created man in his image, why did he do such a shitty job? We are what god made us after all, so if he made us sinners then it's his own damn fault. "The fall" is just god's excuse for shoddy (and probably drunk) workmanship.
At least it would have been if HAL let me.
I saw the movie in it's theatrical release, and it was unwatchable even back then.
Unless you read the book, much of the movie simply doesn't seem connected - more like a random series of events. It wasn't obvious that the monolith *caused* the monkeys to become smart, it wasn't obvious what the connection with the moon monolith was, and it was completely non-obvious what was going on with a psychedelic light show cutting back-and-forth to a human iris. (David Bowman's apotheosis.)
What remained was a few scenes of breathtaking visual scope, which were admittedly very well done for the time, no action, and almost no plot.
People thought at the time that Kubrick's movie-making days had ended, that he no longer had the ability to make movies that people would want to see.
I enjoyed the movie but gave up on trying to understand the ending - what's with the fetus orbiting the planet?
The story is really amazing when you see it from HALs perspective. What you have there is a computer trying to solve a classic double bind situation.
And finding a solution for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
which were borrowed heavily from for the famous Alien soundtrack.
* Alien - Release Date May 25, 1979 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_(film))
* 2001: A Space Odyssey - Release Date April 3, 1968 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film))
Yes, it is clear that 2001: A Space Odyssey borrowed music/soundtrack from Alien. After all, S. Kubrick had already perfected time travel (it is shown in the end of the movie).
The OP wrote "borrowed from for...", meaning that musical constructs were borrowed from 2001 for the Alien soundtrack.
I watched it in my 20s in the early 00s for the first time, I liked it (considering it was made in the late 60s, its very well done) up-to the end which made no sense, I think you need to be on LSD to "get it".
How could you miss the opportunity to make a Uranus joke here?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I couldn't understand what it was about & it boring as hell
I couldn't understand what it was about and it was boring as hell
I once read that the original screening was 15-20 minutes longer, and Kubrick trimmed it after the negative reception. Would love to see it.
I can't imagine, save perhaps for the very first generation of film goers, any cinema audience who would have, on its first screening, really understood what the hell they were seeing. Certainly film audiences these days, used to be bashed over the head with CGI, noise, and average shot lengths measured in seconds, with endless streams of dialogue whose only function is to push the plot line forward for audiences who might as well just shut down their cerebral cortexes for 90-120 minutes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I still find the space scenes some of the best every filmed. Like the original Star Wars films, there's just something about models as opposed to CGI which gives the visual heft and weight. There's something tangible and real moving through an actual three dimensional space. And because Kubrick and Clarke were obsessed with realism for those shots, there's no sound save whatever the astronauts can hear, and indeed Kubrick was willing to allow for stretches of silence. In fact, considering most of the dialogue is pretty much incidental to the story, much of the film might as well be considered a silent film. And the brilliance of that is that when we do get some heavy meaningful dialogue, it's when Bowman is killing HAL. That's what I love about the movie Kubrick, he saves any emotion-bearing dialogue for a goddamned AI. The humans barely show emotion at all through the film, save for Bowman when he's order HAL to open the pod bay doors, or when he's falling through the Star Gate. HAL 9000 is the most human character in the whole film.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hackaday did a recent article about a clock prop that was cut from the movie.
Also, we've basically got video phones now, although it's clunky and more difficult to use than a phone call was back then.
(Back in the 50's and 60's, you could dial a number and be connected to the other phone in about 2 seconds. It would ring and they'd pick up, or not if they weren't home, and the audio was clear and crisp, you could make out other people talking in the background, and hear sounds from their environment. Fast forward to today, and see how difficult it is to use Skype to call your grandparents.)
I could have gone for a coherent meditation on humanity's place in the Universe. I've studied meditation, philosophy, and to some extent mysticism. I got nothing out of the end. I don't need a guitar solo, but finishing the symphony with random atonal music rather ruined the fourth movement.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What I mostly remember about 2010 was the guy leaning on the console to position a pencil in mid-air. Microgravity fail!
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I was one of that very first generation of film goers. I didn't understand it.
The extreme slowness in much of the movie shut down my cerebral cortex fairly effectively. Remember the discussions on staying alert in self-driving cars? I couldn't stay alert when things took so long. The space flight visuals were great for the time, and Kubrick lingered on them too long.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I for one welcome our new I.T. closet cleaner overlord.
I had the pleasure of seeing an un-restored 70mm print of 2001: A Space Odyssey, possibly this one, as it had never been through a projector when I saw it in the 90's. That it was unused was one of the selling point. I think there was about 5 people in the cinema - which was better for me. I'd read the book several times and was a big fan of the story.
There is something special about the 70mm format that is very pleasing to the eye, like watching a moving painting the way it draws you in, there is so much to see. A master story teller and movie maker collaborating to tell the story of man's evolution from chimp to our ultimate evolution.
I think I was really lucky to have seen it the way it was intended to be seen by the people who made it. The ultimate abstraction of all stories into this one is why I think people called it a masterpiece.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The visuals are just astounding, especially if you see it in glorious 70mm. I can somewhat see the original reactions though. If you're somehow able to ignore the amazing job Kubrick did presenting the majesty and elegance of Space, you're left with just an OK story.
I agree with this but the critics all seemed to expect to compare it to "That Darned Cat" or something. Seriously was it the first movie anyone ever saw that was supported by a book?
As a pre-teen in the late '60s I saw the original at the Cooper Theater (now torn down sadly) in Denver. There were not that many theaters that could show 70mm and that was one of them. In those days it was not unusual for people to put on better clothes to go to a place like that.
The impact of the visuals and the quality of the art were far beyond anything anyone had experienced before. Sci-fi movies even then had a very cheesy quality where it was easy even for the moderately sophisticated to see why the things they saw on the screen just "wouldn't work" in real life.
Not 2001. Kubrik enlisted IBM to build the data displays and they were state of the art with vector graphics that could be produced in a computer lab. The shuttle had a very convincing interior which very accurately predicted the seat-back display panels we know today. The dual-torus space station was well-founded as was the Discovery ship. You had something that looked very much like a modern tablet aboard it.
One other major impact that 2001 had on sci-fi films going forward is that it set the gold standard for how to handle zero-G scenes and the views of planets from orbit.
Also the use of real-life company logos: IBM, Pan-AM, AT&T and Hilton was inspired. (And I think it provided funding as well.) It gave you something to relate to. I remember leaving the theater and doing the calculation of just how old I would be in 2001 with the idea of that was when I would be able to have that experience and book a flight. At that time many people put deposits with Pan-AM for a preferential seat on a ride to the moon (when available) and 2001 was influential.
The critics of the story were and are just lazy. Because the ending wasn't just spoon fed to them with a nice pabulum moral they just couldn't take it. 2001 deserves to be ranked in anyone's top 25 movies of last century regardless.
I was one of that very first generation of film goers. I didn't understand it.
You must not have taken the right drugs for it
I'm sure there are a couple reasons people left the theater for reasons other than it was a "unmitigated disaster". When it was released in 1968, the opening scenes with apes, and them essentially turning into humans through evolution, would be sacrilege to many religious people. I'm sure that was the reason the majority of people walked out.
A second reason is the impatient individuals expecting a sci-fi space flick and they just couldn't be bothered to wait until the movie got to that point. They probably thought it was a bait-and-switch from what the movie posters depicted.
Better known as 318230.
I wasn't born when 2001: A Space Odyssey came out. But I saw it as an adult, I think (appropriately enough) in the year 2001. As others have pointed out, the film did not age well. Visually, it had moments that were interesting, but the film is so slow and so little happens that the brilliant moments are mostly lost in the tedium.
There are some clever moments - the rotating space ship corridor, the monolith, the HAL/IBM references, the evolution of man, the desperation in trying to appealing to a cold, calculating machine. All good stuff. But the rest of the film around those moments is so slow and disjointed that it's hard to sit through.
I appreciated pieces of the film and its cultural impact, but on the whole it's not something I'd want to watch again.
Mostly because it was so slow I barely got through the monkey scene. After that I figured I'd be better off reading the book. Hey on the bright side it was great when I got to explain to someone who watched the movie but hadn't read the book what the plot actually was supposed to be about and what was happening in the movie.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
If you took Psych 101, you'd know that the horror movie would get the adrenalin flowing in your date and that would be associated with you - you're perceived as an exciting guy and all it took was $13.50, a coke and popcorn.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
The special effects still stand up surprisingly well, and I found parts of the movie absolutely hilarious. The part where HAL starts malfunctioning, I would have sprinted down to the server room pull everything out of the fucking racks. No secret conversation for me.
Not something to brag about.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
2010 still has one of the scariest scenes to watch alone. "Look behind you.........."
That aspect has not changed much. If anything, skepticism of the findings of science have spread to climate and pollution research. The USA is "devolving" in that aspect.
Table-ized A.I.
In 2001, Hal was distorted by the monolith. In 2010 suddenly he wasn't. No, thanks.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
A movie so goddamned boring it had meetings on the Moon.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The one thing it didn't foresee was the mobile phone, but then again, nothing did.
I guess:
a) most people know how to pronounce Uranus correctly
b) those who don't, are adult enough to find 'jokes' about an anus very funny
Your milage may vary, though.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Your entitled to your opinion. I thought the closing sequence was magnificent, the Star Child being the completion of the circle that the alien civilization had started with the Australopithecines at the beginning of the film.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
so the middle was okay and the beginning and ending kinda sucked, but the movie didn't have a beginning, middle and ending.
please, tell me more.
Star Trek did only a year or two after 2001. The "flip phone" style that was dominant before smartphones was often compared to the communicator device.
I also recall in the novel "Space Cadet" by Heinlein almost 20 years earlier had a fairly accurate description of a cell phone. Not only in the concept of using local cell relay stations but also the social situation of one kid telling another "hey is that your phone (in your bag) going off? Oh, yeah."
In many ways 2001 was the stereotypical pretensions bad art. Normally if the artist will ask you what do YOU THINK it means, is normally a failure in the artist.
A lot of the direction from Kubrick hindered from the actual Arthur C. Clark book. It sometimes jumped from A to C where the book had B to explain it. However with the Jump from A to C created confusion, and when such confusion was criticized they just go, you didn't get it.
In the movie the actions didn't make sense. After deactivating HAL, I got no motivation to want to fly the Pod into the monolith. Was it a sense of duty to complete the mission? Was he just trying to kill himself from a mission with no way back? Being that the actors were directed to act near emotionless, there is little understanding on the action, just from the movie alone.
Then you have any lack of closure. Is the freaky baby, at the end symbolic of a next step in our evolution? Or just a new space monster that will kill us?
We make a lot of decisions from non-verbal queues, In a book these needs to be explained, in a movie it needs to be acted. Directing the actors to tone down their emotional responses, even if that was in the book, just didn't translate to the movies because we need such queues to get what is going on. I saw this movie as a kid and the ending scared me, as an adult when I know what is going on, it was just directed poorly.
Art is to share ideas, and/or feelings. 2001 failed to show that, because we needed to guess what they were thinking and what they were feeling.
Now I commend Kubrick for trying something new, but that particular combination just didn't work out well. There is going minimalist then going to a John Cage level.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yes. I think that is missing today, a sense of mystery and the need for everything to be classified and explained by the end of the picture (but it is OK to leave a dangling thread for the promised sequel).
I loved that I didn't understand 2001 the first few viewings. Much later I read the novel and went, AH HA! But it didn't take away from the sense of awe the film still imparts, even on the 20th viewing.
2010 pairs nicely with it when you look at HAL as a character with an arc. Some of my favorite acting anywhere can be found between these two films. Both stand up well to today's offering in my opinion. The contrast in styles between them is staggering but somehow adds to the flavor.
No one cares about your creimer fixation.
I am guessing by guitar solo, you are expecting a highly distorted electric guitar. Being that instrument wasn't available. the equivalent sound is actually made by the bowed strings sections playing playing together. Which the Fifth does have a lot of, so yes it did have that Guitar Solo in it. As there have been many Rock versions of it done on Electric Guitar where such piece sparks much the same feeling as the orchestral version.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Maybe I'm a bad person, but I didn't like it either. It was not because I thought it should have a certain story line. I liked House of Leaves, and nobody would accuse that book of having a traditional plot. I had the distinct misfortune of watching 2001 for the first time with a college acquaintance who was a theater major. I endured a condescending primer about lighting and symbolism, making it harder to actually figure out what the movie was about. I got the whole AI thing, but the beginning and end of the film seemed so disconnected with the meat of the story that I just couldn't reconcile it in my head. The soundtrack was probably my least favorite thing about the movie, probably because I knew some of the songs already and had my own emotional and symbolic baggage that I brought along with me. Also, I'm not a fan of micropolyphony.
The DIscovery depended on HAL though for the mission to succeed. It ran the spacecraft. Wanting to immediately shut down the entire system, tantamount to aborting the entire mission, and endangering the sleeping crew, without even discussing it with the only other active crew member means that you should not be a crew member on such a mission.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Discovery 1 is now in Orbit of Jupiter and close to the monolith, and you know this was the actual mission.
Here are some of the motivations:
* It is not clear in the movie he can still talk to earth, but there is no indication that this isn't possible without HAL. But if there is two way communication possible then earth may have wanted him to investigate the monolith. Even if only one way communication, from him to earth, is possible he may decide to carry out the missions and report his findings.
* He may not be able to return to earth without HAL controlling the ship's engines. He gets bored and decides to complete his mission.
* He may need to wait a few years for a transfer window to go back to earth. He gets bored and decides to complete his mission.
There is no indication for him to believe that anything would happen when he flew to the monolith, or that it would be dangerous. So completing the mission would be no more dangerous than the original mission, except for not having HAL or coworkers to help him.
However 2010 made 2001 make sense. I can appreciate 2001 after seeing 2010. 2010 filled the gaps that 2001 had, that made it difficult to understand and difficult to watch.
There were too many times where 2001 was directed for us to try to guess what the motive was, without any sort of direction on where to see it. After HAL malfunctioned, and it played the classified message, why would I think HAL was suffering from a paradox in commands?
2001 went a bit too much on the minimalist side in the story.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Where did you get that from?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
see it's all about Man's aggressive tendencies driving him to conquest of the universe.
First with the ape-Men inventing tools and and in short order murder, and ending with a desperate struggle to the Death between Man and his AI progeny that ends with Man triumphantly murdering his creation in its crib in order to arrive at the black monolith first, gaining Ascension.
pretty obvious, ackchyually
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The term you should research is theodicy, and no, they've never given good reasons, ever.
Sorry, I was using the maturity level of the original post as the general gauge.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2010 was a better movie with a more coherent storyline.
You just made me throw up a little. Thanks.
It's because the planet isn't named "Myanus".
Why come you think from for isn't good?
Often times there is a book and then a movie is based on the book. Owing to difference in narrative style, even a wordy movie script is much shorter in length than most novels, the movie script writers and director have to find a different way to express the book. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail (cough, Dune, cough).
With 2001, the movie came first and the book was either co-written or came shortly later. It is also my understanding that the movie storyline was really Stanley Kubrick's creative product with the Clarke collaborating or advising, and Kubrick did not want to explain everything. He wanted the aliens to be a confounding mystery rather than being the cheesy guy-in-a-rubber-suit from Lost in Space or even from Star Trek.
Physicist Freeman Dyson explains this in one of his popular books. Dyson was interviewed as a "scientific authority on the possibility of contact with aliens and what that could be like and how this could differ from the typical science fiction movie." He told about how they filmed him using the IBM computer in the studio's accounting department as a movie prop, which they had to power down because its cooling system was making too much noise for the audio technicians to get a clean recording of the Dyson interview, which was a big hassle to the business office of the studio trying to get their payroll checks printed on time. Dyson also explained that his "part" in 2001 ended up on the cutting room floor, Dyson explained that Kubrick wanted the aliens to be a mystery and decided to do without a "scientific authority on the possibility of contact with aliens . . . and how this could differ from the typical science fiction movie" and let the visual imagery tell the tale. Dyson also writes that he agreed with Kubrick even if that meant that he Dyson couldn't be in the movie; Dyson argues that not explaining the aliens made 2001 a better movie because Dyson believes that our first contact with aliens will be bizarre beyond any sci-fi imagining of it.
Whereas Kubrick had a reputation for relying on the visuals to move his story forward, Clarke had a reputation in his novels for explaining everything beyond recognition. So yes, the book differs from the movie, famously having Discovery 1's continue to Saturn rather than stop at Jupiter, where famous special effects expert Douglas Trumbull didn't feel confident he could "do" Saturn's rings until later when he worked on Silent Running. So the movie only guesses at HAL's breakdown whereas the book explains that HAL never properly learned how to lie in protection of the secret regarding the Monolith and the nature of the Discovery 1 mission, which is a Star Trek trope that a computer can be messed up when Kirk reasons with it and catches it in a logical contradiction. Kubrick just shows the Star Child gazing over the Earth, playing Thus Spoke Zarathustra that is supposed to build on Nietzsche's notions of a Super Man as a next step in human evolution. Clarke goes into details regarding what the Star Child is and how the Star Child willed a premature detonation of the orbiting atomic weapons that gave the people of Earth quite a fright regarding the manner in which they were delivered from a potential world-ending war. Clarke needed the Star Child to have a purpose whereas Kubrick wanted to appeal to the viewers' imaginations.
Whether 2001 is a good movie or not, it certainly sparks a lot of geek discussion, and there hasn't been anything like it since despite attempts to imitate -- consider Mission to Mars being rendered a silly movie by having the aliens explain themselves to tie up all the loose ends rather than leaving loose ends as in 2001. .
Yeah it didn't make much sense when I wrote it :)
The specific piece I was thinking about was in Aliens, anyways, though there are some thematic similarities with the Alien soundtrack as well:
Introduction of the Discovery spaceship:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB3IokHelRk (Khachaturian Gayane suite)
Opening scene of Aliens - showing the interior of Ripley's escape pod (fast-forward to 1:10 to get past the initial title sequence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnPJRJbVEIg&list=PLH9C08qrQ7S6uEqnEWzVJsr5J_DhB4zkN
Not a blatant rip-off, but definitely an homage. James Horner re-used that theme in a bunch of other movies, which he was known to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Horner#Musical_%22borrowing%22
I'd put it in the top 5. It really is one of the great achievements of the cinema.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The guitar solo is not in Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Instead, it is in the 3rd Presto Agitato movement of Beethoven's Sonata #14 in C# minor ("The Moonlight Sonata").
https://www.bing.com/videos/se...
Geez, I thought this was common knowledge?
2001 was pretentious crap, made as an excuse to have fancy special effects, thus a harbinger of all the crap sfx and cgi movies of today. The only good thing about 2001 was the special effects. Other than that was unmitigated garbage. Better to celbrate the 50th anniversary of Joe Schmoe.
Well, there is this thing called "free will", and humans have an incredible attraction to sin (sinning is usually fun).
Personally, I can resist anything except temptation.
I saw the movie as a very young boy, my Dad took us to see it when Mom needed us out of the house for a bit.
I followed it mostly I remember in the theater then, until the very end.
For years after, whenever it was shown on TV...I'd watch it and I got most of it, except the end.
I finally bought the book, read it, and was a bit disappointed at again at the end....didn't really explain the star child thing from what I remember.
Now....over the years, I take it to be the next step in the evolution of Man as aided by some alien form.
I dabble in video, and work in After Effects, etc. To this day, so many of the effect of this 60's movie still stand today as pretty darned good!! We didn't really see another leap in special effects till we got Star Wars in what...'76?
Over the past years, I've gotten a bit of an interest in Kubrick. I've been reading and watching those that analyze him and his films.
I'd not say I"m a HUGE fan, but more and more as I watch and re-watch his films, I must admit I watch looking for things in them.
Full Metal Jacket....wow, some parts just inspired, especially the first part.
The Shining - whatever you think of how Kubrick messed with King's story, if nothing else, the analyzation and supposed "hidden' messages in the movie by some border on the level of conspiracy theory (is it really tied to Kubrick faking the moon landings??). I don't buy into most of it, but when you know what to look for, there is some really WEIRD stuff in the movie. The layout of the Overlook hotel for instance, that quick scene with the guy in a bear costume that's been going down on another man in a room with the door open, etc.
On that one, with Kubrick usually being such a stickler for details...the things that are in the Shining, well, so different of him to let those go that many think they are there for a reason.
If nothing else, makes for fun reading and watching of analysis.
Dr. Strangelove - Im' still trying to figure that one out.
Barry Lyndon - Whew..that is LONG and hard to watch, BUT...I'm still fascinated that Kubrick basically got ahold of a customized NASA lens with a max aperture of f/0.7 , so that the scenes lit only by candle light...were lit ONLY by candle light on the set.
Pretty amazing stuff there for that alone.
Clockwork Orange - Well, I need to watch that a few more times.
I'll be honest, I'm just a novice when it comes to films, I watch all these...and of late, now I"m reading about them, and looking at them with different eyes so to speak, and well....its interesting and in some way fascinating if, for nothing else, the technical aspects of his lighting, framing and VFX of the day that were often groundbreaking.
I now like to look for all the leading lines (One Point Perspective?) in the framing of scenes.
A lot of interesting stuff, in a lot of movies that on first glance, look kinda plain.....and simple.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I find it hard to believe, as much as the Beatles denying that Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds had no reference at all to LSD....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
There's one key scene that has always bugged me. And the flaw is so simple; the scene is like 10 minutes long (or feels that way) and it needed to be cut to one minute (or less).
It's the scene where Dave is "moving" to the "future/higher plane of existence" and there are rainbow effects flashing across the screen. For minutes. And more minutes. And still more minutes.
WTF was the editor doing? Sleeping? Paging Kubrick, pacing and plot development?? Point was made in the first 60 seconds, so they decide to repeat the point for 9 more minutes for no apparent reason?
I can forgive the other flaws in the movie, but not this one. The scene becomes boring and repetitive. It should have been a triumph of 60's era special effects. Instead it feels like reading a phone book after that first minute; it's just excruciating to watch.
Danny Boyle's Sunshine perhaps closest same atmosphere o 2001 movies I've seen. If you haven't and liked 2001, then definitely worth seeing.
...and that Chris, no one likes. :(
your too young for this shit..
dumb ignorant bitch
According to Allah you're worshiping a false god and will rot in hell for it. Jesus can't save you from that. You will spend eternity in the hell of my religion.
I agree.
They should change the name of the planet altogether. I suggest Urectum.
Yep, I'm old enough to remember watching it when it premiered. Saw it at the Century theaters next to Winchester Mystery House in San Jose. These had the big panoramic screen, stereophonic sound, snazzafrazzic seats (yes, they were good), and poppaphonic popcorn (not really, borrowed the terms from Mad Magazine). It all made sense as we were going to the Moon, technology was racing ahead, etc. The Pan Am spaceplane, Hilton Hotel and Bell System on the space station was perfectly logical. I figured once I become an old man I can fly into space just like my grandfather when he was a little boy my age, airplanes were flimsy contraptions that barely got off the ground. By 1960s him and my grandmother conveniently fly to Europe on a Pan Am 707 with no special prep.
I never understood what the movie was about, still debated with friends for years and years. It wasn't until I read the book years later then it all made sense. But it took away the mystery what it was all about, kind of disappointing because if you didn't read the book then your imagination can go wild with ideas of what was Clarke and Kubrick portraying. It was something definite, not chaotic. Obviously the special effects made every other space movie look cheesy.
I do remember the classical music which matched perfectly to futuristic spaceflight. I didn't followed classic music, regarded it as that's the stuff old people listen to but it still made sense. I did read years ago many older people didn't get it (Strauss and space have nothing in common).
It still stands the test of time. Rather than many movies portraying when first encountering intelligent life elsewhere the actors pay usual "totally amazed." In 2001, "One thing certain it was deliberately buried. Oh, how about some coffee?" I think when or if we come across conclusive evidence of life outside earth probably images of some samples someplace, researcher will comment, "looks like rat turds to me. By the way, where you guys going for lunch today?"
I didn't get impression that it had negative reviews, only read about that till decades later. 1968 was same year of Apollo 8 which I clearly remembered watching it on TV (black and white with rabbit ears), this huge rocket slowly leaving the pad with these big long flames. Shortly after I thought "wow, they are ONE HUNDRED MILES into outer space!" For a ten year old in those years it felt like as far away as Andromenda Galaxy. Then later announcer said, "and that was the TLI burn that has sent them to the Moon." I also clearly remembered all of sudden EVERYTHING was different.
So 50 years later and 18% into the 21st century we are struggling to put someone at same altitude as where Gagarin been. And currently have to rent seats from the Russians.
mfwright@batnet.com
That was one of the biggest complaints about the film, how coldly kier dullea played bowman
Both Clarke and Kubrick have also repeatedly stated it wasn't intentional.
IBM did approach the producers over product placement during filming, but long after HAL had been named. Kubrick himself expressed concern to them that part of the film was about a computer going wrong and probably not the association they wanted.
Hey, let's get serious...
God knows what he's doin'
He wrote this book here
An' the book says:
He made us all to be just like him,
So...
If we're dumb...
Then God is dumb...
(an' maybe even a little ugly on the side)
Frank Zappa - "Dumb All Over"
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
I remember going to see 2001: A Space Odyssey days after it opened in the Cinerama theatre in my city. I was in high school and a couple of friends and I went to see it in the afternoon. Cinerama was incredible! I loved it and still consider it one of the best films ever made and it had a big impact on the rest of my life. At the time I was a musician and photographer and taking classes in space science outside of school while dabbling in electronics. Later I moved to northern California and was present to much of the early days of silicon valley. After spending a couple of decades mostly designing circuits and writing code for micros (lots of assembly language stuff) and later system architect for some larger projects I went on to invent and start companies based on novel 3D imaging methods and was the founder of the first wireless broadband Internet service in Austin, Texas in the 1990's. I'm retired now and spend much of my time making films again. I don't remember having any problem understanding 2001 the first time I saw it and have to give it credit for being the germ for much of the inspiration for my later accomplishments. I was an avid science fiction reader at the time and particularly loved Arthur Clarke's work. Unlike so much of the later scifi films and novels which were visually exciting but whose stories all seem to be thin remakes of shoot-em-up westerns or cop shows with aliens and blasters, 2001 was profoundly inspirational and evoked an almost religious meditation on who we are and our place in the universe. Interestingly, I just watched it again a couple of months ago and, even on a 55 inch display, I thought it was as powerful as the first time I saw it.
Remember when you laughed at penisbird and goatse?
Now you're old and just too good to laugh at something as silly as Uranus.
Now you're someone's annoying pointy haired boss.
Go watch a recent episode of Tom Green.
Even he matured. Stop pretending you got better you only got old.
But none of the people really showed anything but superficial emotion. Not Heywood Floyd, not any of the people at the moon base. The only real emotions were by the proto-humans at the beginning. I can't believe that was anything but intentional acting direction that Kubrick was giving to Dullea. The emotion-bearing dialogue was saved strictly for HAL.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I saw 2001 a couple times on TV. Never did anything for me. But a bunch of friends were going to a showing of a 70mm print in a theater and I tagged along.
WOW! It's a completely different experience in the dark, on the big screen, with a good sound system. On TV I was only paying partial attention. In the theater the movie demands your full attention. It has one of the most disquieting scenes in movies -- Frank is outside fixing the antenna. We only hear him breathing in his suit. The pod approaches... We hear breathing. The pod reaches him... We hear breathing. The pod snips his air hose. We hear... nothing. And see him spinning out into space flailing his arms about trying to reach the air line. Damn. The ending is still a psychedelic trip, but it's a full-sensory psychedelic trip. Just sit back and let it wash over you. If you want the rational explanations, read the book. It's a good book, Clarke is a great writer. The movie ending isn't about the rational, it's about the raw experience of meeting with aliens so advanced they're literally beyond human comprehension.
That's when I became a major Kubrick fanboy.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Entirely possible. I've never gotten into drug use.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sure. I'm not saying my opinion is the only reasonable one (although I will insist that it is a reasonable one). I'm saying that it was possible to be open to a meditation on the future of humans and still dislike the movie. So far, I haven't seen anyone come up with any reason why people liked or did not like it.
The symbolism of the Star Child was obvious, but it didn't give me anything beyond that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It may have been seminal but it was boring. I was in high school at the time. It wasn't the best movie to take a girlfriend if you wanted her to watch the movie. ;)
Highly distorted electric guitar music was being deliberately used in the early 1950's, and was not uncommon by 1962 ("You Really Got Me" by The Kinks).
http://ontheaside.com/uncategorized/a-brief-history-of-guitar-distortion/
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Allah should know the god of muslims and the god of christians are the same fucking god. Or havent you bothered to even figure that out?
Could be, I don't remember.
So, actually not a malfunction. Working as designed. Thank you kind sir.
A good movie, intended to be more philosophical.
I also liked 2010 quite a bit...more action oriented, some answers to questions. Seemed to be quite a bit of a tech jump from 2001 to 2010 though internally, given that a mission would have started *building* on a 2010 spaceframe around 2005 or so.
Liked them both though. They're different movies aimed at different audiences catering to different times though.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
According to Allah you're worshiping a false god and will rot in hell for it. Jesus can't save you from that. You will spend eternity in the hell of my religion.
Can one simultaneously be in Jesus' heaven and the hell of your religion?
That was one of the biggest complaints about the film, how coldly kier dullea played bowman
That was one of the biggest complaints about you is you are a fucking troll fucking sockpuppet asshole motherfucker cuntfaced pus filled fuck head. Cunt.
It's not just the mm4u is a sockpuppet, it's that he is an anonymous troll post of the time.
Sunshine wasn't that great if you ask me. It did start out with a lot of promise, but it then turned into a generic monster on the loose horror movie.