The movie is like three shorts string together by a thin plot thread, the monolith. The problem is that the middle part is so awesome that everything is going to be bland by comparison. The beginning is spent anticipating the space portion. The third act have the impossible task of topping the HAL confrontation.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Thread of WTF (Spoilers lol)
- Thread starter SappYoda
- Start date
- Status
rainking187
Member
I saw this recently. Didn't care much for it. If they'd cut everything but the sequence involving Hal and expanded it it would have been much more interesting imo. It did make me wonder how many people initially walked out of the film during the part with the apes. It went on too long and wasn't interesting. Sorry, but it's true.
PumpkinPie
Banned
DP.
PumpkinPie
Banned
The only thing I can honestly remember about the film is Monkeys clonking each other with bones, the rest is a blur. I think it was just too long for me, films from the 60s and 70s seem to have a habit of going on for too long with not much happening.
I think there's an element of the period about the pacing, but it is deliberately slow. It's attempting to show a world in which space travel is mundane. I imagine the film being even more meaningful in a few hundred years when space travel actually is mundane.PumpkinPie said:
I actually see 2001 and some films around that time, The Graduate for example, as the start of really modern cinema. Technologically we've advanced, but in terms of every other meaningful element of film, we're no better now. Oddly it's also the same time music really went heavily into multitracking and tape generations, allowing for production essentially as good as have it now.
The Librarian
Banned
Everything about this post is anything but true.rainking187 said:
Red Nightmare
Banned
I love Stephen King, but dude needs to shut it here. A brilliant artist like Kubrick is not obligated to stay completely faithful to a book. He makes the movie that HE wants to make.Orellio said:
The Shining movie is an all-time classic about a man's descent into homicidal madness. Nicholson's performance is iconic and will live forever.
Stanley Kubrick is the greatest filmmaker who ever lived.
His best film - A Clockwork Orange, my droogs.
Escape Goat
Member
StuBurns said:
I'm not sure a film that shows us how boring real life is is going to become meaningful. Imagine if they showed us how boring a plane ride from NY to Paris is. Not sure it would set the public conciousness on fire. But I could be wrong. Time will tell.
Well the film is already meaningful, I meant more in regards to comprehending space travel as something as irritating as taking a plane is now. People literally have paid millions just for the journey right now. It's going to be a long time before people bitch about having to go into space.Teh Hamburglar said:
The first third of the film is setting the mood, trying to get the viewer acclimatized to a world in which space doesn't hold the awe it does in our world, before they reveal modern man discovering the monolith. I understand some people don't like it, but I really think it's integral to the film as a whole. I don't think you could chop of the start and end and just have 'Hal and Dave does deep space'.
And it's nothing to do with sacred cows. I think FMJ would literally be a better film if you deleted half of it.
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
It's amazing that a film made over 40 years ago is still unrivaled in terms of cinematography. It's stunning.
It's probably my favourite film of all-time.
It's probably my favourite film of all-time.
To be fair, I totally get why the author of a book is unhappy with the movie version. I agree with King although much of King's book was about the charcaters too, but he had time to develop both sides.Red Nightmare said:
I look at them as seperate works and the movie did indeed scare the bejeebies out of me too. With that said, I'll take the book version any day f the week over Kubrick's
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
Yup, 2001 and Blade Runner are two films that really show the night and day difference between BR and DVD.DECK'ARD said:
You might as well throw out your DVD copies of those films since they look so much better on BR.
How can a director be overrated when a lot of people haven't even heard of him? With only 5 films in a long career and none gaining a ton of mainstream success, the only people that even know he exists are moderate film buffs.StuBurns said:
Some of those people might overblow his films a bit; I've only seen Badlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line and I'd call none of them life-altering. But they're all fantastic movies with a unique style.
I like them, I just don't consider them as great as most people I speak to about it. Hence, overrated. More consistently overrated than any other director. For example I'd consider Bonnie and Clyde a hugely better film than Badlands.big ander said:
Regardless, I'm looking forward to the Tree of Life immensely, the trailer was beautiful. Unfortunately I'm English and will have to wait.
Sorry for the bump. But 2001 is currently showing in a few British theatres, and having seen Interstellar recently and having never seen 2001 before I decided to take advantage of teh opportunity to go watch it. Wellll...I dunno. The cinematography and special effects were awesome especially when you considered when the movie was made. I also loved the trippy ending. However...the movie is kinda dull. Character dialogue is really flat (maybe intentionally so) and yeah some scenes did really go on for too long.
I'm not going to say that Interstellar is a better movie because both movies were trying to do different things. However if I'm home bored and want to watch a movie, I don't see myself putting in the 2001 BluRay.
I'm not going to say that Interstellar is a better movie because both movies were trying to do different things. However if I'm home bored and want to watch a movie, I don't see myself putting in the 2001 BluRay.
Saw it too for the first time after watching Interstellar couple of weeks ago. It's been on my 'to watch' list for a very long time, but after Interstellar I just had a sudden urge to watch it. My first attempt ended up in stopping the movie about 40 minutes in. Not the movies fault, but mine. Should have known I was too tired.
Next evening I tried again, starting from the beginning. And loved it throughout the entire playtime. Even though I didn't quite get the ending, which I didn't mind actually, since it made me think about the entire thing. I obligated myself to try and figure it out for myself (at least for the most part) before looking up the answers on the internet. When looking up the meaning of the ending (and film for that matter) I got quite close apparently with my own conclusion, which was kinda fulfilling. Been a long time since a movie made me think like that. (Even Interstellar didn't have that impact on me, thought it was pretty straight forward. I don't get why half of the internet is talking about how they don't get the movie...)
Next evening I tried again, starting from the beginning. And loved it throughout the entire playtime. Even though I didn't quite get the ending, which I didn't mind actually, since it made me think about the entire thing. I obligated myself to try and figure it out for myself (at least for the most part) before looking up the answers on the internet. When looking up the meaning of the ending (and film for that matter) I got quite close apparently with my own conclusion, which was kinda fulfilling. Been a long time since a movie made me think like that. (Even Interstellar didn't have that impact on me, thought it was pretty straight forward. I don't get why half of the internet is talking about how they don't get the movie...)
You should read the book too. The two were composed intentionally to be experienced together - maximising the strengths of each format.
People don't get it because they've been socialised to have to think about things when they go to films. This has gotten worse over the last few decades.
ReplacementPelican
Member
It's because Nolan's movies have a pretentious air about them so people tend to overthink the movies and then feel like they've missed the point of something with is hugely straightforward.
I'm not really sure where the confusion would lie with Interstellar actually, the part where they switch dimensions and fuck around with time and gravity?
Onto the topic though, this has long been a favourite of mine and I decided to show it to my partner (we went through my Blurays and made a pile of the things she hadn't seen). I honestly didn't expect her to take too much away from it and I was concerned that she would get bored because of the pacing and lack of dialogue but she ended up loving it and googling theories on the ending, it was quite nice to see a new viewer of the film engage with it's concepts and ideas, I tried to encourage her to come up with her own before looking at other people's but I think she was too stumped.
Going to try and make her watch Blade Runner next.
not just that, but the book and the movie are not the same. They are going into different directions. And the book was written while the movie was already in production.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNOJYfyIiDo
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
Stephen King wishes he could even come close to making something as great as Kubrick's The Shining.
The film is a masterpiece that takes its mediocre source material and elevates it in every possible way.
I go back and forth between 2001 and The Shining as my favorite American films of all time. They are both flawless diamonds. Even my hyperbole can't capture how awesome those movies are.
<Edit>...Didn't realize I was responding to an ancient thread.
Went to see 2001 last night on the BFI re-release at Greenwich, London. Nice cosy little cinema with lovely seats. I've seen the film a few times before but watching it last night I realised that the last few times I must have skipped through a lot of it to get to the juicy bits like you do with a music album.
The music is great, and most of the special effects particularly those of the spaceships/stations etc hold up pretty well. But some of the other stuff doesnt't, understandably. I kept expecting some Monty Python graphics to pop up on some of the space scenes.
I still have no idea how they put the majority of the 'trip' sequence together way back then.
Great film though, loved it - like putting on a pair of comfy socks and letting my mind wander.
They even had the 20 minute interval, which everyone took to go and fill up their glasses and drain their bladders.
The music is great, and most of the special effects particularly those of the spaceships/stations etc hold up pretty well. But some of the other stuff doesnt't, understandably. I kept expecting some Monty Python graphics to pop up on some of the space scenes.
I still have no idea how they put the majority of the 'trip' sequence together way back then.
Great film though, loved it - like putting on a pair of comfy socks and letting my mind wander.
They even had the 20 minute interval, which everyone took to go and fill up their glasses and drain their bladders.
Freewheelin'
Member
Going to see this on Sunday with a mate, can't wait.
Is it in its original 70mm?
Is it in its original 70mm?
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Moff
Member
the movie was considered slow back when it was released.
it was also highly disliked by both critics and the audience.
like most kubrick films, it was far ahead of it's time. so time is what it took for people to appreciate this masterpiece, which is widely considered to be one the best films ever made, often put on the top spot in rankings.
but yes, it is slow, it is not an entertaining movie, it is not meant to entertain.
and I am very glad people talk about it a lot lately, because of interstellar of course.
I just cant help not comparing the two docking sequences in the films, where the ships need to rotate to dock on the station.
sure, in interstellar it's a dramatic, hectic situation and in 2001 it' s a textbook docking witthout problems.
but still, comparing these 2 scenes really shows the difference between a movie that respects it's audience and a movie that thinks only stupid people sit in the audience.
it was also highly disliked by both critics and the audience.
like most kubrick films, it was far ahead of it's time. so time is what it took for people to appreciate this masterpiece, which is widely considered to be one the best films ever made, often put on the top spot in rankings.
but yes, it is slow, it is not an entertaining movie, it is not meant to entertain.
and I am very glad people talk about it a lot lately, because of interstellar of course.
I just cant help not comparing the two docking sequences in the films, where the ships need to rotate to dock on the station.
sure, in interstellar it's a dramatic, hectic situation and in 2001 it' s a textbook docking witthout problems.
but still, comparing these 2 scenes really shows the difference between a movie that respects it's audience and a movie that thinks only stupid people sit in the audience.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I saw a lot of banned people ITT, and thought "wow, did the thread get really really heated?"
And then I realized "Necrobump lol"
But yeah no, 2001's a solid awesome movie. We need more thoughtful space movies like it.
And then I realized "Necrobump lol"
But yeah no, 2001's a solid awesome movie. We need more thoughtful space movies like it.
Cammington
Neo Member
Did the same as yourself. Been wanting to watch 2001 for a while, especially after seeing Interstellar.
Thought a lot of the film was self indulgent bollocks. I genuinely enjoyed the third act with HAL but the rest of the film? Na, sorry. I'm sure a lot of this was seminal in 1968 but at the same time I refuse to believe audiences back then were thrilled to watch really long, dull shots of nothing in particular going on.
Was this reissued in the US as it has been in the UK? Saw it at my local cinema last night, still a stunningly beautiful picture with a surprisingly logical in many respects (if likely hundreds of years too early) vision of the future: people still wander around in suits, everything is sponsored (Pan Am made me laugh), anything that doesn't need changing still looks pretty much the same (the conference room could have taken place in any decade). It's a very sixties movie in its philosophy, and some of its aesthetics, in particular the ambiguity and abstraction working so much in its favour as a piece of art. Wonderful stuff.
nortonff
Hi, I'm nortonff. I spend my life going into threads to say that I don't care about the topic of the thread. It's a really good use of my time.
This is just a spine chilling epic ending:
The movie feels a little boring sometimes...but it's a masterpiece.
I'll get the blu ray for a double dip.
The movie feels a little boring sometimes...but it's a masterpiece.
I'll get the blu ray for a double dip.
biggersmaller
Banned
This film is not good. I would lie in high school and claim to find profound philisophical and symbolic meaning in a 160 minute masturbatory art piece on the evolution of man. However, after watching more films as I matured - I came to terms with finding this film to be nothing but a self-indulgent series of seemingly unrelated scenes tied together only by a fucking black slab plot device. A literal blank slate. It's almost a parody on what a pretencious film student would make.
- Status