2001: A Space Odyssey useless beginning?

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by jdc115

I think ever previous generation has said the same thing about the following generation. These Young folks of today will be thinking the same thing in 20 odd years to what ever current trends has replaced our current trends.

This is not valid actually.

2001 did not have a style that was prevalent at the time and it was NOT the current trend in its own time. It was not common then. Also it is impossible to ignore the total lack of art and attention span exhibited by today's youth. I agree that things will always change but the specifics are not as you make them out.

BTW 2001 is well before my time too... that's probably true for most of the folks on here defending it.

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

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.

But on what basis is his reasoning correct? Did the director state it? Was it from some analysis by a film student? Or is it his own idea? I am not saying it is wrong, I am wondering where the idea came from. I sometimes wonder if directors are just scratching their heads at the theories people come up to analyze every subtle detail of a film into something bigger then it is.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

I put 2001 on for my 3 sons a few months ago (aged 6, 3 and 2 at the time ) and watching the overture & Dawn of Man segment it struck me that there is absolutely no way that a major studio these days would stump up a huge budget to make the 2001 that Kubrick did; 24 minutes with no dialogue??

They might, if another Kubrick shows up...

He was a rare bird. I don't know of any other film by anybody that was as "out there", that actually got funded on such a huge scale.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Steverhcp02

i didnt really "love" this movie either. Just because something is a "classic" doesnt mean it must be loved. The movie was unique.

Im surprised with the amount of snobby comments from this forum towards the OP just because 2001 wasnt his cup of tea.

I get it, no life, then life, the progress of technology etc. Some of the effects were important to cinema and the end as far as techs. evolution to near human transcends time.....i guess i can appreciate perhaps what the movie did for future cinema, but the movie was still poorly paced, not as poignant as its subtext...... and i dont need anticipation for the first whatever minutes of a movie, imo, it pointless since i clearly anticipate going to the movie or else i wouldnt be there.....just my opinion.....now go ahead and tell me how young and stupid i am. haha.

And just because you don't love it doesn't mean that it isn't "loved". Get over yourself.

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

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.

Is he? Since nothing is filler and no scenes are wasted, why, then, is there an exit music sequence of The Blue Danube over black? Why is there an intermission? What's their cosmic significance?

[Steverhcp02]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

And just because you don't love it doesn't mean that it isn't "loved". Get over yourself.

im not full of myself. just expressing MY OPINIONS in a way that doesnt insult or bring down others. As you see i simply stated my take on the movie without bashing what other folks get out of it. If you cant handle that then perhaps you shouldnt frequent internet message board open forums.

I never said others cant get different levels of joy out of the experience i simply stated i dont think just because a movie is a classic or transcends time etc. it is a great 2.5 hour experience. Thats all.

EDIT: for goodness sakes i even stated IMO twice to convey a tone that i was speaking humbly. geesh.

[jdc115]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

This is not valid actually.

2001 did not have a style that was prevalent at the time and it was NOT the current trend in its own time. It was not common then. Also it is impossible to ignore the total lack of art and attention span exhibited by today's youth. I agree that things will always change but the specifics are not as you make them out.

BTW 2001 is well before my time too... that's probably true for most of the folks on here defending it.

I don't mean specifically about 2001. but for that fact, the same idea still sort of holds true, how many classically composers were not the trend during their lifetime and had a style that was not prevalent during their time? Yet now would be considered masters. Though many that might have followed them could be looked upon as not being cultured for their time.

I don't know what to say about the attention span of today's youth other then that probably many previous generations said had the same idea of those that loved the Beatles back in the 60s when they were not into that kind of music.

It is just general feeling I have when ever the youth of today thought to be uncultured as the majority may not enjoy those classics of older generations. It will probably forever being repeating this pattern.

For the record, I am not a youth (39) and enjoyed 2001 from the first time I watched it around 1986.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by jdc115

But on what basis is his reasoning correct? Did the director state it? Was it from some analysis by a film student? Or is it his own idea? I am not saying it is wrong, I am wondering where the idea came from. I sometimes wonder if directors are just scratching their heads at the theories people come up to analyze every subtle detail of a film into something bigger then it is.

I wish it was my theory i made up no i read it (can't remember the source)

My recollection is Kubrick is quoted as stating that "2001 is open to various interpretations..." (or something to that effect), and Kubrick went out of his way not to give explicit interpretations scene-by-scene. again, i could be wrong in my reading. so it seems no interpretation (assuming its reasonable, of course, and not baseless) can be "wrong". just my take again

[Marcusarilius]

After reading the book 2001, the visual story telling way Kubrick directed the film made perfect sense.

[Octavio]

Originally Posted by mikesoba

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?

I Couldn't have said it better. "Transformers" was one of my fav TV shows when I was a Kid so I went to the theater with very high expectations... but I left the place VERY disappointed.

Most the time I couldn't see who was who! and what the hell was happening!

Gimme 2001 over Transformers any given day!

[sardaukar1977]

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.

BLASPHEMY!! I smite you!!

[MatintheHat]

Originally Posted by bferr1

Guys, Mystique is talking about the overture at the beginning of the movie. Previous home video editions of "2001" had the word "Overture," but this was added for home video, never a part of the theatrical version.

Mystique, many epic-length films from the '30s through the '60s often had opening music and an intermission, and some (like "Gone with the Wind") even had Exit Music.

Here's what Wikipedia had to say about Overtures:



Here's a list (from Wikipedia):


Missing from the list: "Spartacus" (1960)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overture#Film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...with_overtures

Also missing is 1984 (The Eurythmics song 1984 was used as an overture.)
Also missing is Doctor Dolittle (1967).
Also missing is Around The World In 80 Days (1956).
(I've added them to the Wiki.)

What's more heart-wrenching to me is that many 35mm and 70mm prints have these overtures and entre acte music pieces hacked off by young projectionists thinking it's just blank film. I received a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia to show as part of a 70mm festival and the overture, end of act 1 music, entre acte to part 2 music and finale music were all wound up in a ball in one of the cans.

When I ran Dr. Zhivago recently it was a beautifully restored print but again, the overtures to both parts of the movie were completely cut out and trashed by some idjit so I played the audio from the DVD to try and replicate what should have been. I've done this many, many times (with LOA and others) and it always pains me.

Similarly Monty Python & The Holy Grail has about 90 seconds of walk-out music that's usually been hacked off too.

[camper]

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.

There's no question that it could benefit, but there comes a point and time where you have to wonder how big the difference will be, and whether that higher resolution available to the public will go against the directors intentions. A 1930's movie like Kong isn't going to be as sharp as a B&W from the 1950's because the film quality is not the same. Even the projection equipment back in the 30's wasn't as good, so seeing the film in "HD" might expose flaws that the filmmakers never intended to be shown, because they knew certain details and information on the film wouldn't be seen by the public due to the equipment limitations.

The comparison between a pic of the Mona Lisa and the painting itself is unfair, because the painting was intended to have those lines and marks.

However, if you look at a film before it's cropped, you see boom mikes and wires and lighting, and these are never intended to be seen. If a Blu Ray shows every inch of film regardless of the cropping, then you're seeing things in addition to what the director intended.

Likewise, with an HD release of Kong all the 'flaws' that the director didn't intend (makup, wires, costume seams, etc) are now fully visible because the quality can be reproduced, when they were not counting on the quality being so high they would be noticed.

I will say that ALL movies should be on Blu Ray, because Blu Ray is the successor to DVD. However, I still say that in Kong's instance, I wonder if it will hurt the look of the film when it comes to the 'special effects' parts.

~Camper

[MatintheHat]

Originally Posted by camper

There's no question that it could benefit, but there comes a point and time where you have to wonder how big the difference will be, and whether that higher resolution available to the public will go against the directors intentions. A 1930's movie like Kong isn't going to be as sharp as a B&W from the 1950's because the film quality is not the same. Even the projection equipment back in the 30's wasn't as good, so seeing the film in "HD" might expose flaws that the filmmakers never intended to be shown, because they knew certain details and information on the film wouldn't be seen by the public due to the equipment limitations.

The comparison between a pic of the Mona Lisa and the painting itself is unfair, because the painting was intended to have those lines and marks.

However, if you look at a film before it's cropped, you see boom mikes and wires and lighting, and these are never intended to be seen. If a Blu Ray shows every inch of film regardless of the cropping, then you're seeing things in addition to what the director intended.

Likewise, with an HD release of Kong all the 'flaws' that the director didn't intend (makup, wires, costume seams, etc) are now fully visible because the quality can be reproduced, when they were not counting on the quality being so high they would be noticed.

I will say that ALL movies should be on Blu Ray, because Blu Ray is the successor to DVD. However, I still say that in Kong's instance, I wonder if it will hurt the look of the film when it comes to the 'special effects' parts.

~Camper

Camper, I'd say yes and no. The example I'll use is Blade Runner - one of my favorite movies I've seen time and time again in theatres, on Beta, VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and now Blu. Not too long ago I ran this film in 70mm and although it's a blowup from 35mm there were things I had never seen before - most notably the wires used to fly some of the life-size cars into the air. BUT I could also see individual droplets of mist and the lines on Harrison Ford's face. So like the switch from DVD to HiDef, there's going to be an added amount of appreciation of detail to go along with the more noticeable defects. Also like seeing a favorite movie in the theatre you've only ever seen on t.v. - there's a whole lot more to enjoy you never knew you were missing.

[dixonhill]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

Well, two of my 7 year old son's favourite movies are King Kong (1933) and The Adventures of Robin Hood, so maybe there's some hope!!

I listened to Bach last night to sooth me to sleep

I am so pleased to hear!

Yes, maybe there actually is hope

[Beta Man]

you guys convinced me...... I only like movies about mechanical shape changing robots now

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

Yeah, it was to waste time.
Same with Lawrence of Arabia and Seven Samurai, and some more crappy old movies.

A good story outlives it's special effects.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Steverhcp02

im not full of myself. just expressing MY OPINIONS in a way that doesnt insult or bring down others. As you see i simply stated my take on the movie without bashing what other folks get out of it. If you cant handle that then perhaps you shouldnt frequent internet message board open forums.

I never said others cant get different levels of joy out of the experience i simply stated i dont think just because a movie is a classic or transcends time etc. it is a great 2.5 hour experience. Thats all.

EDIT: for goodness sakes i even stated IMO twice to convey a tone that i was speaking humbly. geesh.

I wasn't saying that you weren't humble. I was saying that you think that just because you didn't love it means that a lot of people don't love it; You are overestimating how many people share your point of view. You go on to say how poorly paced it was, etc. Strange though how it is a beloved classic considering how bad you think it is. You are of the mistaken opinion that people only respect it as unique but don't love it.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

One of the things that the detractors totally miss is that in 2001 HAL actually developed as a very interesting character. The movie not only established the concept of AI in the public mind, it demonstrated the potential for uniqueness and personality. Lesser movies like "I Robot" and a million others merely borrow the notion that AI is possible but completely fail to address the character aspect.

There is no reason why an AI character cannot be interesting. Yet in nearly all sci-fi movies, they never are.

[FIDDYPOP]

2001 i son e of the greatest movies ever. It is classic and also has much depth to it. Not to mention it was released a year before our lunar landing and is accurate looking. Amazing