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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Call me culturally challenged, but I never understood what was so brilliant or exquisite about 2001:ASO and Blade Runner. Someone enlighten me.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
is there a 2001:ASO:SE ?
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Yeah. It's called TMMOM:Tired and Old.
[ June 20, 2002, 09:54: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
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.
IP: Logged
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
The Real Folk Blues
Ex-Member
posted
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 ]
IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
The Real Folk Blues
Ex-Member
posted
yes indeed. you beat me to the edit button, Magnus. quick draw, ol' boy.
IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
