2001 Space Oddity!

[jaygeo1]

I certainly have respect for the quality and effects of this late 60's film, BUTthe story line is ........well-l-l-l....boring. Yes a classic but watching it twice would be painful for me. Is it just me?

[ValinBlade]

No my friend, it was indeed revolutionary, beautiful, well written, and poignant, but not very entertaining.

[GregBlu5]

Originally Posted by jaygeo1

I certainly have respect for the quality and effects of this late 60's film, BUTthe story line is ........well-l-l-l....boring. Yes a classic but watching it twice would be painful for me. Is it just me?

I guess you had to see it on the big screen, back in 1970 or so, stoned. (Or so I was told. I saw it without the aid of chemicals, and I had to go out and buy the book to figure out what was going on in the final segment. Since then I believe I've read every Sci Fi book that Clarke ever wrote. It becomes an acquired taste.)

I just wish they'd come out with 2010 on Blu. Sounds like that would be more of your kind of movie.

-Greg

[MOONPHASE]

seriously the transfer was great but 148 minutes of it is way to boring. I dont know why it was so popular back then but i guess with people today we want like the whole explosions, car chases, blood and gore spraying everywhere, sexy chicks, and so on. plus whoever made those space suits must have been on crack because they look so retarded looking but i guess back then they didnt think of the stuff we could have today

[GregBlu5]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

seriously the transfer was great but 148 minutes of it is way to boring. I dont know why it was so popular back then but i guess with people today we want like the whole explosions, car chases, blood and gore spraying everywhere, sexy chicks, and so on. plus whoever made those space suits must have been on crack because they look so retarded looking but i guess back then they didnt think of the stuff we could have today

No one had seen special effects quite like those before. The space sequences and those on the moon and in the ship looked realistic. Remember, the U.S. had just landed men on the moon. And this was a logical projection into the future as to what it would be like to have a 'conquered moon' orbiting around the Earth.

Adding the mystery of what the monolith meant was a heightened aspect to the film. What will they find? And why was Hal malfunctioning?

(Again, 2010 actually completed the cycle of 2001, answering some of the mystery and the questions a viewer would have.) Sure, it didn't have the high octane of newer Sci Fi. But it wasn't competing against any of that back then. Yeah, you had to be there, really.

-Greg

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by GregBlu5

No one had seen special effects quite like those before. The space sequences and those on the moon and in the ship looked realistic. Remember, the U.S. had just landed men on the moon. And this was a logical projection into the future as to what it would be like to have a 'conquered moon' orbiting around the Earth.

Adding the mystery of what the monolith meant was a heightened aspect to the film. What will they find? And why was Hal malfunctioning?

(Again, 2010 actually completed the cycle of 2001, answering some of the mystery and the questions a viewer would have.) Sure, it didn't have the high octane of newer Sci Fi. But it wasn't competing against any of that back then. Yeah, you had to be there, really.

-Greg

but now in days we could actually put actors on a real spaceship if we wanted to or even make it look more realistic of how the space ships make a lot of noise when they take off

[GregBlu5]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

but now in days we could actually put actors on a real spaceship if we wanted to or even make it look more realistic of how the space ships make a lot of noise when they take off

Yes. That's one of those great space myths: people can hear you scream. As well as hear your space ship loudly roar off into the abyss.

-Greg

[Brandon B]

Originally Posted by GregBlu5

Remember, the U.S. had just landed men on the moon.

Released in 1968, that would be "was about to land men on the moon"

I love this movie, but I can certainly understand those who have trouble enjoying it. They are undoubtedly a majority.

BB

[buckshot]

Originally Posted by GregBlu5

I guess you had to see it on the big screen, back in 1970 or so, stoned. (Or so I was told. I saw it without the aid of chemicals, and I had to go out and buy the book to figure out what was going on in the final segment. Since then I believe I've read every Sci Fi book that Clarke ever wrote. It becomes an acquired taste.)

I just wish they'd come out with 2010 on Blu. Sounds like that would be more of your kind of movie.

-Greg

that was how i saw it the first time. i think if you watch the featurettes you understand more about it and it will make much more watchable.

[Living Near Shamu]

Originally Posted by GregBlu5

I guess you had to see it on the big screen, back in 1970 or so, stoned. (Or so I was told.)

-Greg

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." - Bill Clinton

[GregBlu5]

Originally Posted by Living Near Shamu

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." - Bill Clinton

Bill, just don't *inhale*.

[quexos]

Originally Posted by jaygeo1

I certainly have respect for the quality and effects of this late 60's film, BUTthe story line is ........well-l-l-l....boring. Yes a classic but watching it twice would be painful for me. Is it just me?

How can you say that ? This movie is very special, it's a visionary quest of our origins, a metaphor demonstrating the emergence of consciousness in the universe, a vision of the metaphysical absolute and the infinity beyond space and time, a connected circle between the beginning of evolution and its final purpose represented by the rectangular monolith. This movie does something that very few others have ever tried and almost none has succeeded: put in words, sounds and images a vision of what is beyond our understanding, about life and death and the ultimate purpose of all things.

Granted, it is based on a human vision of the big mysteries, like religion does and therefore it is subject to the limits of the human mind. But This movie IMO manages to express quite well the human desire to go always further on in a maybe hopeless attempt to become perfect and touch the infinite. To be with God as religious people would put it.

bottom line, this movie could not be otherwise than slow (to give us a feel of the vastness that lies ahead in the evolution and acquisition of knowledge and the understanding that we are insignificantly small in the great scheme of things) and I hope I can enjoy it on Blu eventually when it comes over here

[Kristin Simard]

Yes, it's just you. It's time for you to see a psychiatrist, I guess

Seriously, it is a slow paced film, but if they do in the future send men to Mars, for example, is it going to be an exciting trip on the way? I doubt it.
Computers and ground control will be guiding and running the spacecraft. Astronauts will likely spend their time watching Blu-ray movies. Or if both sexes are on board, trying out couplings in a weightless environment. Not much else to do on the long journey.

I think it's really wrong to associate this film with drugs. Drugs have nothing to do with it. Isolation and loneliness in outer space, yes. The filmmakers themselves were ingenious with all the mechanical and optical special effects. That took a lot of work. For its time, this was all new.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by Kristin Simard

Yes, it's just you. It's time for you to see a psychiatrist, I guess

Seriously, it is a slow paced film, but if they do in the future send men to Mars, for example, is it going to be an exciting trip on the way? I doubt it.
Computers and ground control will be guiding and running the spacecraft. Astronauts will likely spend their time watching Blu-ray movies. Or if both sexes are on board, trying out couplings in a weightless environment. Not much else to do on the long journey.

I think it's really wrong to associate this film with drugs. Drugs have nothing to do with it. Isolation and loneliness in outer space, yes. The filmmakers themselves were ingenious with all the mechanical and optical special effects. That took a lot of work. For its time, this was all new.

Thanks for the excellent comments. Socially and otherwise. You are a very wise, well rounded person Kristin. Relating this movie to being a drug induced experience (as if you could really only "get it" while on chemicals) is so pathetically lame. I seriously dought Kubrick was wasted when he made this unique masterpeice of art, and I'm pretty sure Clarke wasn't taking an acid trip while writting the book. If only people could only be as intelligent and visionary as this movie represnts....

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by jaygeo1

I certainly have respect for the quality and effects of this late 60's film, BUTthe story line is ........well-l-l-l....boring. Yes a classic but watching it twice would be painful for me. Is it just me?

If you are asking me?.... then Yes. It's just you.

[ziggythecat]

Originally Posted by jaygeo1

I certainly have respect for the quality and effects of this late 60's film, BUTthe story line is ........well-l-l-l....boring. Yes a classic but watching it twice would be painful for me. Is it just me?

i guess as with anything, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 2001 is one of my top five favorite movies.

[Kirsty_Mc]

Yes it is very slow indeed. Glacial in fact!!!

However the slowness IMO is what the film is trying to get over. For example the shots of Poole and Bowman rattling around in the huge spacecraft with the evocative string music implies the loneliness of outer space. This is probably how in reality it is going to be... at least with the technology which we can currently come up with.

Apparently a lot of NASA people were involved with the design of the Discovery... it is what they wanted to build in reality before economics brought them back to Earth.

Looking forward to 2010 coming out (whenever that may be). Tle Leonov was quite a cool spaceship too!!!

[Seretur]

Why does every movie have to be entertaining?

More often than not, this just means that it has to do all the emotional and intellectual work for you. 2001 is a lovely example of the film where you, the viewer, have to do most of the heavy lifting.

Next, try some Antonioni on for size.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by Seretur

Why does every movie have to be entertaining?

More often than not, this just means that it has to do all the emotional and intellectual work for you. 2001 is a lovely example of the film where you, the viewer, have to do most of the heavy lifting.

Next, try some Antonioni on for size.

I find this movie very entertaining. A very good point about the viewer doing the work/thinking on this one. Every individual will walk away from this movie with their own unique thoughts, questions and wonders of the Universe in the film's ambaguity and powerful visual story telling. Unfortunate that some only walk away with "It was slow". I like wizzing bullits right over my head and explosions as much as the next person, but my tastes are not limited to the short attension span movie section.

[AaronSCH]

It is difficult to love Stanley Kubrick's films the first time around. I think Spielberg stated in an interview that they strangely grow on you. They certainly have had that effect on me. All of his films will have a place in my collection. I find 2001: A Space Odyssey strangely hypnotic and still ahead of its time nearly 40 years since its release..