2001: A Space Odyssey useless beginning?

[theNothingComes]

Originally Posted by camper

Personally, I don't think that the film stands the test of time (neither do the other two) but they are respected because they earned it the hard way. And, that doesn't mean that they aren't enjoyable today, or that today's films are superior (I don't believe the latter one bit). Still, in 2001's case a lot of the impact has been lost from 1968 to now and I really think that only the people who saw it for the first time then truly 'get it' in the way it was meant to be gotten.

~Camper
(Yes...I've got my fireproof suit on, so let me have it)

Basically what I see you saying is what I personally see as the difference between a person who buys films and a person who is a film collector.

There are those who want to get the latest and greatest - anyone lining up for Hanna Montana (I know there is - and more power to them if that's what they like)?

Then there are those that can't wait for the original 1933 King Kong to be released on blu right along with Peter Jackson's version. I appreciate both and entertained by both. Because both have something to offer in our rich history of film making. I hate to see The Marx Brothers Duck Soup ignored just because it's in black and white. I also hate to see Apatow's Superbad passed off as a disgusting teen flick. Both are great comedies depicting the era they were made in - although Duck Soup is almost a political fantasy film of sorts.

There are those who will be enthralled with 2001 and MANY who will hate it. So be it. It is a part of our film heritage and I appreciate the fact they have put it on blu-ray in it's entirety for us to see and argue over.

[camper]

Originally Posted by theNothingComes

Basically what I see you saying is what I personally see as the difference between a person who buys films and a person who is a film collector.

Probably, yeah. But even a film collector can still be entranced with something that is pure bubble gum an pop-rocks (like Hannah Montana...I guess) and buying certain films to watch and enjoy vs buying certain films to watch and appreciate.

Then there are those that can't wait for the original 1933 King Kong to be released on blu right along with Peter Jackson's version. I appreciate both and entertained by both.

See, I would want Jackson's Kong on Blu before I would want the original because the remake is to be viewed on Blu wheras the original doesn't need that treatment. I think it benefits from that 'haze' that standard DVD gives. Yes, I want the film to be restored to be as much like the original as possible, but the blu treatment would be too sharp and clean, IMHO.

There are those who will be enthralled with 2001 and MANY who will hate it. So be it. It is a part of our film heritage and I appreciate the fact they have put it on blu-ray in it's entirety for us to see and argue over.

The debate over 2001 being great or greatly overrated has been raging since it's release, so why stop now Still, I would rather argue over it in it's intented glory (on blu) than on VHS, Beta, or DVD.

~Camper

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by camper

2001 is pure eye & ear candy, extremely well done for its time and it deserves it's respect because because of what it meant for it's time--very much like the aforementioned Citizen Kane. Yet like Citizen Kane, it doesn't stand up against films of this day and age; and it was most certainly not Kubrik's best work. (IMHO)

That doesn't mean that it isn't an exceptionally important film--both 2001 and Citizen Kane have done more for cinema than practically any other film in the past 20 years.

But like Hitchock's Psycho, when you remove them from their time and into the now the elements that they pioneered seem dull and boring due to the number of times they have been copied. And like Psycho, when you take away the relevance of the era in which it was released you LOSE a lot of the impact which can make the film seem like less than it originally was. Seriously, Anthony Perkins in drag at the end of the film elicits laughs and not the mixture of shock/horror/disgust it did in 1960.

Likewise, 2001 doesn't have the same impact because it has completely lost the connection to the preparation of the moon landing in 1969 making the possibility of space travel real for the first time, the advent (and potential fear of) computers in the minds of the public, and the use of special effects in a very nonchalant (yet impressive) way.

2001 is a snooze fest if you're not in the mood to sit in front of the movie and simply relax and take it in. As a film, it's extremely boring. Even those who love it understand that 'not a lot happens' in the film, and what does is abstract on purpose. You don't say "I'm in the mood for sci-fi" and then pop it in, you say "I'm in the mood for 2001". While some might see that as a strong point, perhaps it is more of a flaw than anything else.

Personally, I don't think that the film stands the test of time (neither do the other two) but they are respected because they earned it the hard way. And, that doesn't mean that they aren't enjoyable today, or that today's films are superior (I don't believe the latter one bit). Still, in 2001's case a lot of the impact has been lost from 1968 to now and I really think that only the people who saw it for the first time then truly 'get it' in the way it was meant to be gotten.

~Camper
(Yes...I've got my fireproof suit on, so let me have it)

It's very hard to make a movie that stands above and beyond your contemporaries, let alone one that remains the very best forever and ever until the ending of the world. Movies which today might seem hard hitting and revolutionary might come off as dated and cheesey 20 years from now. Until we evolve to the next stage of being, then i'll continue to say that the themes and ideas in 2001 are pretty current.

[jceperley]

2001 is definitely a must buy on Blu-ray. Now, I might be the only one, but I've never really understood the story that much, but have always thought that it was just a beautiful movie and 1080p makes it even better. As for the music you seem to be complaining about, it what's called an "overture" which they don't do at all these days, but it really sets the tone and mood of the movie just with music and sometimes a very basic visual. I remember being a little kid and thought that the one for Star Trek The Motion Picture was pointless, but now have found that Goldsmith's score there and the simple starfield that was added in the director's edition perfectly sets up the movie and the journey we, the audience, will be taking for the next 2 hours. I don't understand why they don't do it anymore.

[theNothingComes]

Originally Posted by camper

Probably, yeah. But even a film collector can still be entranced with something that is pure bubble gum an pop-rocks (like Hannah Montana...I guess) and buying certain films to watch and enjoy vs buying certain films to watch and appreciate.

~Camper

I don't mean this to come off in a snobbish sense (but I'm sure it will) however I began "collecting" films since I was 11 - on 8mm film (even before Super 8). I have movies in every format that has been made available in the past 40 years and the equipment to show them on. I consider myself a collector.

This week with Criterion giving their list of films to be released, I am more than anxious to purchase The Third Man and Francois Truffaut's 400 Blows (among others).

I also wait with baited breath for Transformers (a pure fun summer time popcorn movie) to be announced on blu. Yes that's right I enjoy Harold & Kumar right along with W.C. Fields.

I guess what I'm saying is - I agree with you completely on the above statement and was not trying to make a point other than there are many who purchase todays movies with no interest in anything other than what is relevant today. And no big deal. If that's what they like - more power to them. At least they enjoy film. Just don't berate the films that truly are classics just because you don't care to (or want to) understand them.

[EricJ]

==NEW PAGE THEMATIC RECAP ALERT==
(For those who don't bother to read the previous pages in the thread.)
---

The OP was not debating
A) the quality of 2001, or
B) the relevance of 60's cinema,

and the branch of
C) Those Young Kids Today having never heard of the classics (thus causing the discussions of A and ) was only caused by other posters, sparked by the specific item that:

D) the OP had never heard of theatrical Overtures being played before big-city roadshow engagements in 60's-70's theaters, didn't know what they were doing on the disk, and thought they were kinda funny-looking.
(Thus causing the basic film-historical factoid provided by those more versed in classic-film.)
---

Thank you for your participation in this thread--
You may now continue, without the necessary bother of getting too far off track....Join us for our next out-of-context recap on Page 5!

[Variable]

very little of why this movie was good has to do with when it was made or how impressive the visuals are. it's the most epic film of all time, telling our story from history so long ago as to be unknown into a future that we haven't begun to imagine yet.

I can understand being bored by this film, but to me that means you need to approach it differently or under different circumstances. it deserves your time and full attention and it will reward you for your commitment.

citizen kane can be viewed differently now because, while still excellent, we tell stories differently now, so it feels like an older movie. 2001 just feels like 2001. it was unique when it came out and it's unique now.

I also don't thnk of it as his best. I'd probably give that honor to The Shining although I personally love watching Clockwork. that being said, it's a great and epic film that will be remembered and debated forever for a very good reason.

[haushausman]

The whole movie is about humans and there obsession with tools.

That should help clear things up a bit.

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

no, the overture is part of the movie. it establishes a fundamental time scale used later in the movie. as i said, the 3 minutes of "beginning of earth until beginning of man" dovetails with the fraction-of-a-second shot later in the movie between the flying bone and the flying spaceship, showing that man has only been around for a fraction of a second on a 3 minute scale.

IMO any conclusion which ignores the above is not well founded. just my opinion, i could be wrong

Wow, I think you are reading WAY too much into the overture, something that was a common feature on many movies from the period. But of course we're all entitled to our opinions.

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

no, the overture is part of the movie. it establishes a fundamental time scale used later in the movie. as i said, the 3 minutes of "beginning of earth until beginning of man" dovetails with the fraction-of-a-second shot later in the movie between the flying bone and the flying spaceship, showing that man has only been around for a fraction of a second on a 3 minute scale.

IMO any conclusion which ignores the above is not well founded. just my opinion, i could be wrong

Did you read this somewhere or come up with this theory on your own?

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Mystique

I just got around watching 2001: A Space Odyssey after buying it from Amazon's BOGO a few months or so ago and man that movie is pretty weird. What I felt was so useless was the first three minutes of the film, where the screen was blank and music was playing. What was the intent of that? To waste time? Overall the movie was pretty hard to get into and I never really did.

It wasn't uncommon in the 50s and 60s for the epic films to have an overture and intermission (a la live theater).

The purpose of the overture is to tell people to get to their seats, the film is beginning. But, nowdays we have 10-15 minutes of commercials to show them.

Now, in the case of 2001 specifically, I believe the concept is of the void before "creation", and then "genesis" (the opening scene of Earth, Sun and space) and then into the Dawn of Man.

Any sufficiently advanced civilization would be considered gods to primitives. And here we have a creature about to be touched by "god" and "evolved" into modern man.

Gary

[J6P]

Originally Posted by camper

See, I would want Jackson's Kong on Blu before I would want the original because the remake is to be viewed on Blu wheras the original doesn't need that treatment. I think it benefits from that 'haze' that standard DVD gives. Yes, I want the film to be restored to be as much like the original as possible, but the blu treatment would be too sharp and clean, IMHO.

I think this illustrates a basic divide between two major groups on this board; one that sees film as evolving "tech" that gets better each year like a car engine or a cell phone, and one that sees film as art -- timeless.

For instance, King Kong. In the 1930s the only way to see King Kong was to watch it in a theater. There was no television. There was no internet. You walked to a large theater and viewed it. Unless, of course, you were mega rich. I'm talking Bill Gates of the '30s rich. These lucky few had full theaters installed in their mansions, and they could see film as film was intended at home. And that picture was HD. King Kong has more than 1080 lines of visual information on it, much more, as does all film. But the technology to enjoy it did not exist for the man on the street after the movie finished its theatrical run.

In the following decades many, many methods came and went for enjoying a movie at home. 8 and 16mm projectors (I remember checking out Marx Brothers and Laurel & Hardy movies from the library when I was a kid), VHS, Beta, LaserDisc, DVD. All of them paled in comparison to seeing the movie in the theater.

Now here comes Blu. We can finally see the detail we've been missing at home. It boggles my mind that people think there would be no benefit to seeing a black and white classic on Blu, or a '40s musical, or a '50s epic. Or even a modern day comedy! They all benefit, and the older classics most of all in my opinion.

This discussion doesn't come up in the fine art world. The Mona Lisa exists. You can walk up to it and look at it. If you had the choice, wouldn't you rather walk up to within 6 inches of it and see the individual brush strokes instead of merely looking at it in a magazine? That's what Blu-ray and classic movies give you -- the chance to see a classic in detail previously only available in theaters. It's been locked away for decades, and now we can see it.

I think everything should be available in Blu-ray, because everything will benefit.

[JamesN]

Originally Posted by J6P

...Now here comes Blu. We can finally see the detail we've been missing at home. It boggles my mind that people think there would be no benefit to seeing a black and white classic on Blu, or a '40s musical, or a '50s epic. Or even a modern day comedy! They all benefit, and the older classics most of all in my opinion.
...
I think everything should be available in Blu-ray, because everything will benefit.

Extremely well-stated.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

It wasn't uncommon in the 50s and 60s for the epic films to have an overture and intermission (a la live theater).

And theatrical programs. Find one person on this thread who even remembers those sold in the lobby, also a la live theater.

(Heck, find one person on this thread who remembers ritzy downtown theaters being studio-owned or independently-owned movie palaces that showed ONE movie in their entire building, and made it a "prestige" production for the big-city dwellers....
Every theater palace in Boston has since either disappeared over the last thirty years, or else converted to a live theater or office space, except for one former hotel, which is now a 15-screen cineplex.)

'77 was one of the last gasps of "Old-school" studio movies, and you can even find Fox theatrical programs of Star Wars's big city showing, if you search the right eBay collectors.
Whether that was indeed the last Theatrical Program ever produced for a big-studio presentation (and, indeed, one of the last Theatrical Roadshow presentations studios ever backed, before the '78-'83 Cineplex Renaissance), I will leave to more experienced film historians to answer.

The purpose of the overture is to tell people to get to their seats, the film is beginning. But, nowdays we have 10-15 minutes of commercials to show them.

Now, in the case of 2001 specifically, I believe the concept is of the void before "creation", and then "genesis" (the opening scene of Earth, Sun and space) and then into the Dawn of Man.

Which is in the "planet" opening shot

The music, OTOH, was the Overture. To get you in your big-ticket seats, just like the musical "Sound of Music" overture, the "Bridge Too Far" overture, the "Bridge on the River Kwai" overture, or even the "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" overture.
That was class, back then...They didn't even show a Pepsi ad.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Mystique

I just got around watching 2001: A Space Odyssey after buying it from Amazon's BOGO a few months or so ago and man that movie is pretty weird. What I felt was so useless was the first three minutes of the film, where the screen was blank and music was playing. What was the intent of that? To waste time? Overall the movie was pretty hard to get into and I never really did.

Better Theaters.

2001 was from a more elegant age with much grander and opulent theaters then todays edited down version. It was an artistic event on 70mm that no 1080p home theater comes close to duplicating. If you are under 30, it's going to take some stretch of imagination to understand, that despite all the technical advances whose clarity never makes it to the big screen, the movie going experience was much better back then then it is today.

A Few Good Ones Still Around:

• Radio City Music Hall
• Arc Light Cinemas

Back to The Odyssey

[Deciazulado]

btw, those wanting to see 2001 in 70mm living 'round MN, they're playing it tomorrow and Thursday at the Heights Theatre. Tonight too but it's too late unless you have a DeLorean

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Craig Ruchman

2001 was from a more elegant age with much grander and opulent theaters then todays edited down version with a cheep plastic screen hung above two exit doors. It was an artistic event that no 1080P home theater comes close to duplicating. If you are under 30, it's going to take some stretch of imagination to understand, that despite all the technical advances whose clarity never makes it to the big screen, the movie going experience was much better back then then it is today.

I remember being a college kid in NYC (first full-time city living) back in '83, back before the Cineplex Plague (three screens!) in the suburbs reached out to the cities:

Back then, most theater chains barely extended beyond the immediate state (left over from the days when MGM and UA owned their own chains, and independently-owned theaters had to bid for the rights to show movies), and downtown theaters in the big cities were still the old movie-palaces from the 60's...
I remember taking a fall break going down to 57th St. to see "Krull" or "Christine", or even a sneak preview of "Right Stuff", in "regular" old surviving downtown theaters...with curtains...with balconies...that would put even the highest class "stadium seating" shopping-mall cineplex closet to SHAME. As well they deserved.

In 1983, it was just Going to a Movie.
Nowadays, thinking back, we didn't know just how soft we had it, at the end of an era...The same people who weren't there would nowadays drool at the privilege of doing the same thing at a Disney El Capitan screening-stunt for $20 bucks a pop.

[mikesoba]

Originally Posted by camper

. . . .2001 is a snooze fest if you're not in the mood to sit in front of the movie and simply relax and take it in. As a film, it's extremely boring. Even those who love it understand that 'not a lot happens' in the film, and what does is abstract on purpose. You don't say "I'm in the mood for sci-fi" and then pop it in, you say "I'm in the mood for 2001". While some might see that as a strong point, perhaps it is more of a flaw than anything else. . . .

Could that explain why I fell asleep in the theatre while watching Transformers: I went in expecting to see a SciFi film, but instead saw a film where not a lot happened, except things getting crushed?

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

It wasn't uncommon in the 50s and 60s for the epic films to have an overture and intermission (a la live theater).

The purpose of the overture is to tell people to get to their seats, the film is beginning. But, nowdays we have 10-15 minutes of commercials to show them.

Now, in the case of 2001 specifically, I believe the concept is of the void before "creation", and then "genesis" (the opening scene of Earth, Sun and space) and then into the Dawn of Man.

Any sufficiently advanced civilization would be considered gods to primitives. And here we have a creature about to be touched by "god" and "evolved" into modern man.

Gary

Exactly right.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by bferr1

Wow, I think you are reading WAY too much into the overture, something that was a common feature on many movies from the period. But of course we're all entitled to our opinions.

Actually he is far more right than you are. It did serve a specifc purpose in 2001. None of the scenes are filler or wasted... there is a specific intent for everything... that is why it is paced the way it is.