[ June 15, 2002, 20:11: Message edited by: OnToMars ]
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
No.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
It's a REALLY GOOD MOVIE, but, in my opinion, there are better.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's an even better book...
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Aren't they always, though?
I'll roll over and die (or at least fart) the day someone says a movie was much better then its original form.
Note: this does not apply to novelizations about movies, which really suck.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
I dunno, personally I felt that "Blade Runner" was a bit more focused, coherent, and enjoyable experience than "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I didn't like Fight Club near as much as the film.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
2001 was great. It truelly showed how lonely, isolated and vunerable human life is, and the sheer tedium of realistic space travel. And that ending. Wow. Realising that you can't actually explain the ending, and then throwing together a load of random lights is the greatest thing ever, because it will appeal to smart arse college students who want to appear superior to everyone.
Sorry, but no.
Boring. As. Fuck.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I totally disagree regarding Blade Runner. It's a good film, but they wrung most of the complexity out of the story in order to film it.
As for 2001, I'd also have to disagree with Tim. The book is entertaining but slight, at best a very minor feather in Clarke's cap. The film is an epic. A visual wonder.
It is also, as Liam so...Liamly puts it, very boring. Oh, lots of things happen, but none of them really happen as the result of anything humans do. It isn't an accident that the most lifelike character in the film is a computer. What saves (or at least can, if the viewer is willing) the film from the grave of heartless arthouse pretention is that this disconnect between the people and the surrounding environment is what the film is about.
But does that make it a good film? 2001 is certainly a technical marvel. In my opinion it looks as good as Star Wars would nine years later, and is still largely unsurpassed. (Films can do more with spaceships these days, but I'm unconvinced they can necessarily do them better.) The film itself is beautiful, if you care at all about things like how shots are set up and other cinematographical concerns. But is it good? If I make a film about unwatchability, and the film itself is unwatchable, do I win?
I don't know. Your milage may vary. Etc.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The film is an epic. A visual wonder."
Maybe if you're on acid, and you walk right after Bowman falls into the space-monolith...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You don't think the space scenes are among the lushest and most lovingly depicted in cinematic history? I'm not saying they make for good plot. I'm not saying, at the moment, that the film does anything other than look pretty. But it does look pretty.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
I have watched 2001 and read the novel many times, and I have to say that the movie is on par with the book up until you get to Jupiter And Beyond The Infinite because, quite frankly, there's nothing Stanley Kubrick could have done to accuratly protray what the novel was describing. Heck, they couldn't even make a realistic Saturn. So you get the funky lines, you get the weird landscapes, you get the color changing eyeballs. Basically Kubrick is trying to say that Bowman has fallen into a place so far out of the ordinary it's not even funny.
If anything, I would love to see what Stanley Kubrick could have done with Beyond The Infinite today, because it would make the film possibly greater then it is now.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Actually, it's probably more of a masterpiece (in the technical sense) because it was made back in 1968. The movie cost $10 million or so back then, and the special effecs don't look dated at all. I never saw a wire or anything on that floating pen in the Pan Am (oops). Granted, now everything would be done on a computer, and would look better (PLUS it's 2002 and we don't have huge space stations or colonies on the moon), but it looks good NOW.
Also, this movie made a lot of money when it came out in 1968, but now, it wouldn't, because no one would want to see a space movie without explosions, blaring sound, and laser guns.
[ June 17, 2002, 14:54: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Filming models of spaceships aren't held up by strings, so of course you wouldn't see any...
Posted by thoughtychops (Member # 480) on :
Maybe you have to touch the monolith to like 2001.
Well, the parts with Hal were good.
I can feel it going, Dave. I can feel it going.
What are you doing with that Cantalope, Dave?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Oops. My mistake. I meant wires holding up the pen (even if they filmed it on a sheet of glass). I know models are filmed on motion-control rigs and the like. One of my favorite HAL lines: "You seem upset, Dave. Maybe you should take a stress pill." (or something like that)
[ June 17, 2002, 14:55: Message edited by: Veers ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I have this vision of this 60's-era Liam hotly disputing any suggestions of the film's brilliance when it was firat released, and telling all and sundry that The Jetsons is much more realistic. 8)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
It was.
No, since this isn't about music I agree with Simon. It is a masterpiece. It does set out what it was meant to do. And I'm not sure if there's any other way they could have done the end sequence.
I'm glad I've seen it, but I'd rather have my bollocks electrocuted than see it again.
2010 is much less of a masterpiece, but in many ways it's a superior movie.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Yeah, like that dude who snogged Ursula Andress.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
I just watch for the dildo-suit flight stewardess, the one that walks like she has had a mindchip inserted into her brainstem, to make her an efficient, detached worker and sex slave.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i wish i had one of those.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
We all wish you had a mindchip.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i meant i wish i had the dildo suit.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
uh...
no comment
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
good. the fewer questions the better.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
1337 insertion fantasies aside, 2001 is an incredible film, with a very potent message. I am surprised so many of you who apreciate good science-fiction aren't all that into it. Perhaps you haven't seen it on the big screen. That's really where you will come to understand the magnitude of the thing. I was lucky enough to catch the restored 70mm print up in SF a few months back. It was amazing. There is so much detail.
I mean the acid-freak-out sequence at the end is easy to poke fun at, and it could be argued is the weakest moment of the film. I don't claim to understand it, and wouldn't even hazard a guess around you lot. That excepted, the film had so much to say about the plight of man and his tools and which is which. It poses difficult questions and evokes uncomfortable emotional responses and does so with such vivid and tangible imagery. I mean the visual storytelling is just remarkable. There are so many big budget films that have come out since with access to all this newfangled technology, that can't even touch it. It is truly is a masterwork.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It'd be funny if they made a movie called 1337, and a whole bunch of script kiddies and the like went to see it, and it turned out to be about the beginning of the Hundred Years' War...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Or, really, vice versa.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
To really appreciate the technical brilliance of this movie, you have to see it on a big, big Cinerama screen. If you've only seen it on a 14" TV, you might get the completely mistaken impression that that over-literal matte-lined piece of crap 2010 was a worthy sequal. The effects, filmed with long, stately cuts, blows any other predigital effects completely away. Blown up to 40 feet, the effects are absolutely bulletproof.
Too bad about the ape suits, though.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
So if 1337 is 'leet, is 2001 Zool? Isn't that the superghost of Ghostbusters I? I sense a conspiracy!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: that over-literal matte-lined piece of crap 2010 was a worthy sequal
Y'know, when half of the bad points you can make about 2010 are that it had matte-lines, your case isn't too strong.
Kubrick tried to create a masterpiece. When they got to 2010, they tried to make a good movie. And I'd take the two suns ending over the flashy lights ending any day of the week.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
And thrice on fun-days. I rather liked 2010, a lot more stuff went on, then.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I was lucky to be able to see 2001 on the big screen, though not the Cinerama one. I saw it a few weeks ago when it came to the Times Cinema, which is a theater where they show old movies on the big screen. I was able to see many films there over the years: Hitchcock movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and even Lawrence of Arabia on the big screen. It's a big improvment over a little TV screen!
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I've managed to see it twice, once on a 10th-anniversary re-release in London in 1978, and once at an annual film festival in Newcastle (that year they had a 60's theme) in the early 90's.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Call me culturally challenged, but I never understood what was so brilliant or exquisite about 2001:ASO and Blade Runner. Someone enlighten me.
Posted by The New CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
is there a 2001:ASO:SE ?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yeah. It's called TMMOM:Tired and Old.
[ June 20, 2002, 09:54: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
I think you mean "Old and Busted."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: Call me culturally challenged, but I never understood what was so brilliant or exquisite about 2001:ASO and Blade Runner. Someone enlighten me.
Style. Both films have it. Very few SF films do. Having said that, style only goes so far, and it is, of course, terribly subjective. But style is where to start looking, I think, if you want to appreciate both films.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
As for 2001 being tired and boring, well, all I can say is "you had to be there." I had the good fortune to see the film on its initial theatrical run in 68 (do the math; depressing, huh?), and it truly was like nothing I'd ever seen before. It also set the special effects bar way beyond the reach of most filmmakers, at least till George Lucas came along. If you want a comparison, watch 2001, and then watch "Marooned", the film that won the Oscar for best visual effects the next year.
Yes, I know the film is long and ambiguous, and Hal is more human than anyone else in the film, but back in those days (the days of Godzilla movies and bad Roger Corman films), a science fiction film with any intelligent content was a rare treat.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
the movie makes a lot of sense after you read the book adaptation. i like the movie a lot, personally, but i could see why some people would be profoundly confused by it.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
"Adaption"?
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
quote:"Adaption"?
i'm assuming you mean "adaptation", considering that i used the word "adaptation" and not "adaption". to answer the question i think you are asking, the book was based on the movie and not the other way around. at least that is was Arthur C. Clarke says in interviews.
[edit: the full story is url. Kurbrick and Clarke based the screenplay on Clarkes Sentinel, and then Clarke expanded on the screenplay to write the book. the book was a film adaptation.]
[ June 22, 2002, 22:42: Message edited by: The Real Folk Blues ]
Posted by The Same Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
If I'm not mistaken, I believe that the film was based on Clarke's short story Sentinel, and then he later adapted the screenplay to make the novel.
Posted by The Real Folk Blues (Member # 510) on :
yes indeed. you beat me to the edit button, Magnus. quick draw, ol' boy.
Posted by Nim Pim (Member # 205) on :
So the "Monolith" is the 'sentinel', then? Searching for planets with content, wellfed apeforms whose lives it can ruin? Ultimately leading up to it's supreme purpose in existence, John Lithgow barfing in space?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I thought that the book and film were written at the same time. Certainly some of the differences in the book (such as adding Saturn to the whole thing) seem to serve no real purpose. And 2010 the novel is a sequel to the film rather than the book, so if Clarke wrote the book after the film (and presumably improved it), why would the sequel be based on the film?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
The book and the screenplay were written more or less at the same time, with Clarke and Kubrick trading notes. The Saturn thing came about simply because Kubrick found he could not get a convincing Saturn built, and so switched to Jupiter, which didn't have rings and was thus easier to create and film.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
IIRC, UM has it right about the film being an extension of the original short story. In addition, the book and film were created at the same time, however, the book was actually finished first and sent to the publisher. However, to preserve the ambiguity of the ending, Kubrick wanted the book not to be released until after the film had been out for a while. He got his way.
Kinda ironic come to think of it, nowadays, the book version of SW:AotC was released way before the film debut. Read into that, in whatever way you want.
Note: Sol System seems to have posted between my viewing of the thread, and my post, which makes mine make a bit less relevant. Oh well.
[ June 23, 2002, 19:45: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, not much of Saturn would have needed to be seen, would it? The monolith was on Iapetus. All they really needed to do was make sure Saturn was in there briefly, so people knew where the stuff was happening.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
2001 is many things, none of which are brief.
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
In a new foreward in the millenial edition novel of 2001: A Space Odyssey, they describe the process of writing both the book and the movie at the same time. The entire story begins in 1948 when "The Sentinel" was written for a BBC short story competition (it didn't even place). But this merely covers the parts on the moon. Another five shorts story, one of which is known as "Encounter In The Dawn" (reprinted, along with "The Sentine", in Clarke's anthology "Expedition To Earth"), make up the rest of the 2001 story.
Both script and novel were written at the same time, with entire chunks of either being rewritten after they had seen parts of the other. The story was originally titled "Journey Beyond The Stars", before being changed to "How The Solar System Was Won".
The movie did indeed beat the book out by a few months (novel published in July 1968).
At the end Clarke adds: "The novel you are about to read has sometimes been criticized for explaining too much, and thus destroying the movie's mystery (Rock Hudson stormed out of the premiere complaining "Can someone tell me what the hell this is all about?") But I am quite unrepentant: the printed text has to give much more detail than can be shown on the screen."
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Don't they slingshot around Jupiter in the book? And in the change from Saturn to Jupiter, wasn't the slingshot sequence taken out because it *cough* slowed things down too much?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, one would hope the slingshot would have been eliminated for the simple reason that you can't slingshot around Jupiter in order to get to Jupiter...
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
There was also a part of the book where they pass by an asteroid and tag it while between Earth and Jupiter. I think Kubrick hinted at this part of the novel when we see an asteroid fly by the Discovery in the movie, but other then that possible reference, it's not in there at all.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I gather that Kubrick just decided he fancied Jupiter for the destination, regardless of how much preproduction work they'd done on Saturn already.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: Style. Both films have it. Very few SF films do. Having said that, style only goes so far, and it is, of course, terribly subjective. But style is where to start looking, I think, if you want to appreciate both films.
Never thought of it that way, but Simon is right. I've always liked 2001, but it took a long time for Blade Runner.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)