So, I finally got around to watching 2001 this weekend and can sum it up:
Apes- we get it, your apes- 15 minutes too long
Walking in space craft- we get it...sssssssllllllllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwww walking
Eating in space- we drink evrything!! OMG
The HAL parts are like the chase in Bullitt. 10 minutes of cool surrounded by 2 hours of filler.
So DMF, enlighten me. What am I missing?
Now that you mention it, I recall feeling a bit like I missed something also. I have never watched it again.
For the record, my favorite sci-fi flick is Blade Runner.
question: with the exception of full metal jacket, do you like other kubrick movies?
when 2001 first came out.... if you licked the back of your theater ticket..... the movie made sense.
A Clockwork Orange [thumbsup] [thumbsup] [thumbsup]
Quote from: derby on October 27, 2008, 09:19:39 AM
question: with the exception of full metal jacket, do you like other kubrick movies?
Love Clockwork Orange, saw it for the first time in a theater in Denver(converted church downtown can't think of the name) and the Shining is very good.
Quote from: bobspapa on October 27, 2008, 09:22:18 AM
when 2001 first came out.... if you licked the back of your theater ticket..... the movie made sense.
Weird. Your post just reminded me about a dream last night wherein I took a hit of acid before going to work. The military does not look fondly on such things, you know.
As for 2001, I agree with what I think Derby was leaning toward: Stanley K movies are a touch like Russian novels... a lot of background and exquisite detail, not exactly action-packed. Even The Shining spends quite a lot of time on background imagery, scenic shots, people eating, etc. It just happens to have a more mobile antagonist.
Quote from: elTristo on October 27, 2008, 09:51:58 AM
Weird. Your post just reminded me about a dream last night wherein I took a hit of acid before going to work. The military does not look fondly on such things, you know.
As for 2001, I agree with what I think Derby was leaning toward: Stanley K movies are a touch like Russian novels... a lot of background and exquisite detail, not exactly action-packed. Even The Shining spends quite a lot of time on background imagery, scenic shots, people eating, etc. It just happens to have a more mobile antagonist.
I think that's the best analogy I have ever seen with regards to Kubrick flicks.
stretch the second
Quote from: elTristo on October 27, 2008, 09:51:58 AM
Weird. Your post just reminded me about a dream last night wherein I took a hit of acid before going to work. The military does not look fondly on such things, you know.
As for 2001, I agree with what I think Derby was leaning toward: Stanley K movies are a touch like Russian novels... a lot of background and exquisite detail, not exactly action-packed. Even The Shining spends quite a lot of time on background imagery, scenic shots, people eating, etc. It just happens to have a more mobile antagonist.
So thats why I don't read russian novels ;D
Quote from: supafly on October 27, 2008, 10:28:50 AM
So thats why I don't read russian novels ;D
No worries, nobody really does. ;D ;D
Quote from: elTristo on October 27, 2008, 12:22:52 PM
No worries, nobody really does. ;D ;D
I do. They're some of the best literature on the planet.
If you can read "Notes from the Underground" or "Anna Karenina" and tell me you didn't like them, you're crazy.
Nooooo ... sacrilege. first off, its kubrik ... best director ever. second, the concept of guided evolution
was inspired (by arthur clarke). third, it was the first best depiction of space travel as we know it (apart
from the whole cosmic way-station thing).
Oh ... and the 'diamonds' are still breathtaking 30 years later.
movie was so ahead of its time, kubrick is a genius.. watch it on E or smoke a lot of pot and watch it in blueray with surround sound. dont do that with the shining.
Quote from: abby normal on October 27, 2008, 04:03:36 PM
Nooooo ... sacrilege. first off, its kubrik ... best director ever. second, the concept of guided evolution
was inspired (by arthur clarke). third, it was the first best depiction of space travel as we know it (apart
from the whole cosmic way-station thing).
Yeah man, that shit was genius. You can't watch it now and compare it to the crazy sci-fi stuff we get nowadays. This was at a time when people were just getting used to the idea of space travel. This movie blew minds.
And the "guided evolution"/"progressive revelation" thing is brilliant.
This movie is art. A lot of people would prefer to have a sensory overloaded emotional experience, rather than a contemplative vacuum and meandering discovery. That's fine, but I like both! [thumbsup] ;D
"My mind is going Dave....I can.... feel it..." Awesome.
Quote from: darylbowden on October 27, 2008, 01:10:45 PM
I do. They're some of the best literature on the planet.
If you can read "Notes from the Underground" or "Anna Karenina" and tell me you didn't like them, you're crazy.
Hey, I've got a degree in literature and studied Russian, so I'm not unfamiliar. I was being silly. Or perhaps stupid. It's hard to tell sometimes. [cheeky]
Quote from: supafly on October 27, 2008, 09:05:04 AM
So DMF, enlighten me. What am I missing?
umm quite a bit actually. It is worlds apart from the standard frenetic hollywood fare that spoon-feeds plot and action to a passive viewer. You are probably confused because it is a type of movie that basically doesn't exist anymore.
Yes it is filled with long, slow shots that take their damn sweet time getting done and the first line of dialogue is 40+minutes into the film. It's not meant to be objective entertainment. It demands something of the viewer and that is probably what leaves you with that wtf? feeling.
The non-linear, self-interpretive nature of the movie is its genius. The depictions of spacecraft and orbiting bodies are spot-on and the head trip part is stunning. Personally my favorite scene is where Dave has to re-enter the ship without a helmet by blowing himself into the airlock. It's one of the most tense and brilliantly-conceived scenes in all of cinema.
^^^^^ totally.
what a great trip oit is to allow yourself to be bobbed along like a cork through this crazy film. i have seen it about 12 times, and every time it is a different experience (and that's without the 'e' ;))
makes modern sci-fi look like dreck. total genius, not for everyone.
but totally for me. but then again, i worked on 'naked lunch' :o
Quote from: eyeboy on October 27, 2008, 06:22:11 PM
but totally for me. but then again, i worked on 'naked lunch' :o
And you lived to tell the tale?
As Nelson Muntz said, "I can think of at least two things wrong with that title."
Starship Troopers is way better.
Quote from: Super T.I.B on October 27, 2008, 08:17:35 PM
Starship Troopers is way better.
[laugh] [laugh] [laugh]
From what I remember from seeing the movie quite a while ago, this sums it up pretty well:
http://www.kubrick2001.com/ (http://www.kubrick2001.com/)
;D
Quote from: Speeddog on October 27, 2008, 11:57:33 PM
From what I remember from seeing the movie quite a while ago, this sums it up pretty well:
http://www.kubrick2001.com/ (http://www.kubrick2001.com/)
;D
An interesting and well presented analysis. I certainly don't agree with all of it, but is was reasonably comprehensive and logical.
Quote from: Speeddog on October 27, 2008, 11:57:33 PM
From what I remember from seeing the movie quite a while ago, this sums it up pretty well:
http://www.kubrick2001.com/ (http://www.kubrick2001.com/)
;D
Yeah, I thought that was pretty good as well. I'm sure everyone puts their own person spin on it (as with all art), but that's not bad.
[thumbsup]
Had to change my profile pic!
It was and still is a brilliant movie [thumbsup]
Quote from: elTristo on October 27, 2008, 07:30:09 PM
And you lived to tell the tale?
As Nelson Muntz said, "I can think of at least two things wrong with that title."
and i lived to tell the tale. strangely it was the first film i worked on and probably the only one that was worth the trouble.
of course none of it made sense
until we dropped acid and watched it in a theater :o :o
Naked Lunch actually freaked me out for about a week....
Quote from: abby normal on October 27, 2008, 04:03:36 PM
Nooooo ... sacrilege. first off, its kubrik ... best director ever. second, the concept of guided evolution
was inspired (by arthur clarke). third, it was the first best depiction of space travel as we know it (apart
from the whole cosmic way-station thing).
Oh ... and the 'diamonds' are still breathtaking 30 years later.
What part of the space travel? The empty PanAm flight? The 30 minutes of walking to establish their weightlessness?
Quote from: factorPlayer on October 27, 2008, 05:33:11 PM
umm quite a bit actually. It is worlds apart from the standard frenetic hollywood fare that spoon-feeds plot and action to a passive viewer. You are probably confused because it is a type of movie that basically doesn't exist anymore.
Yes it is filled with long, slow shots that take their damn sweet time getting done and the first line of dialogue is 40+minutes into the film. It's not meant to be objective entertainment. It demands something of the viewer and that is probably what leaves you with that wtf? feeling.
The non-linear, self-interpretive nature of the movie is its genius. The depictions of spacecraft and orbiting bodies are spot-on and the head trip part is stunning. Personally my favorite scene is where Dave has to re-enter the ship without a helmet by blowing himself into the airlock. It's one of the most tense and brilliantly-conceived scenes in all of cinema.
I'm not confused, just disapointed. I heard so many great things about this film, the masterpiece from the master Kubrick, the best SciFi film ever, and what I got was not that good. The special effect still hold up, the apes look great, the ships look great, weighlessness is well done, but...
Really, the airlock scene? Back the egg up, push a button, get inside, and push the other button...?
Maybe I'm too young (32) I'm sure in 68 this movie blew make the beast with two backsing minds, but in 08 its just kinda annoying.
well, my girlfriend is 38 and she finds it waaaaay too slow as well.
me? i love it, but i grew up on films without lightning fast editing. to me a lot of what passes for movies these days is 2 hour music-video garbage. i hate it.
but try showing an old steve mcqueen film to a twenty-year-old... they'll be asleep in 5 minutes, all people want now is a 3 second sound bite whether its news or films. no-one has the patience to 'let a story develop' because we all just want to get to the next 'event'.
it's a bit like comparing US football vs. soccer.
and nobody reads anymore either. who cares? dunno. i think its a bit sad but unavoidable, a sign of 'progress'
i don't have time to read a newspaper every day, so i read it on the web, is that wrong? nope. not to me.
Quote from: eyeboy on October 28, 2008, 08:26:52 AM
well, my girlfriend is 38 and she finds it waaaaay too slow as well.
me? i love it, but i grew up on films without lightning fast editing. to me a lot of what passes for movies these days is 2 hour music-video garbage. i hate it.
but try showing an old steve mcqueen film to a twenty-year-old... they'll be asleep in 5 minutes, all people want now is a 3 second sound bite whether its news or films. no-one has the patience to 'let a story develop' because we all just want to get to the next 'event'.
it's a bit like comparing US football vs. soccer.
and nobody reads anymore either. who cares? dunno. i think its a bit sad but unavoidable, a sign of 'progress'
i don't have time to read a newspaper every day, so i read it on the web, is that wrong? nope. not to me.
My 29 year old wife almost ripped out my eyes 15 minutes into 2001 [laugh]
I'll agree with you about "Bullitt" (the only McQueen movie I know well), a 20 year old would die of boredom waiting for the chase scene.
I like UK football. Go figure.
you should start practicing [old man voice] "Get off my lawn!!!" ;D
Quote from: supafly on October 28, 2008, 07:34:55 AM
What part of the space travel? The empty PanAm flight? The 30 minutes of walking to establish their weightlessness?
The first space scene (with
The Blue Danube playing) elegantly demonstrates the importance of rotational motion for bodies in space. The famous jogging scene shows how spacecraft reproduce gravitational effects via cetrifugal motion. These days even well-regarded movies have totally given up on depicting any kind of realism regarding space travel; there is always perfect gravity, ships travel in a straight line, etc.
Quote from: supafly on October 28, 2008, 07:34:55 AM
I'm not confused, just disapointed. I heard so many great things about this film, the masterpiece from the master Kubrick, the best SciFi film ever, and what I got was not that good. The special effect still hold up, the apes look great, the ships look great, weighlessness is well done, but...
Really, the airlock scene? Back the egg up, push a button, get inside, and push the other button...?
Maybe I'm too young (32) I'm sure in 68 this movie blew make the beast with two backsing minds, but in 08 its just kinda annoying.
what exactly where you expecting? I first saw it when I was 19 and it took a few times for it to grow on me.
<tangent>
I remember when there was a *long* time of rumors/speculation/panting about Dune being made into a movie.
Ended up as what, 8 of the pivotal parts of the movie strung together?
OK, if you'd read the book, but if not, it made no f'n sense whatsoever.
However, a movie doing the book justice would have been 10 hours long....
</tangent>
IMO, like many critically acclaimed movies, it's an acquired taste, at best. :P
Quote from: Speeddog on October 28, 2008, 10:48:17 AM
<tangent>
I remember when there was a *long* time of rumors/speculation/panting about Dune being made into a movie.
Ended up as what, 8 of the pivotal parts of the movie strung together?
OK, if you'd read the book, but if not, it made no f'n sense whatsoever.
However, a movie doing the book justice would have been 10 hours long....
</tangent>
IMO, like many critically acclaimed movies, it's an acquired taste, at best. :P
Which version of the movie? There are at least three I know of, with the 4 hour version that come on SciFi channel being the best IMHO.
Yeah, the movie version of Dune totally sucked balls. :P Paled big-time compared to the book.
Maybe I need to rewatch 2001. Maybe I wasn't high enough to fully appreciate it when I last saw it a bazillion years ago. [laugh]
Quote from: factorPlayer on October 28, 2008, 10:41:53 AM
The first space scene (with The Blue Danube playing) elegantly demonstrates the importance of rotational motion for bodies in space. The famous jogging scene shows how spacecraft reproduce gravitational effects via cetrifugal motion. These days even well-regarded movies have totally given up on depicting any kind of realism regarding space travel; there is always perfect gravity, ships travel in a straight line, etc.
what exactly where you expecting? I first saw it when I was 19 and it took a few times for it to grow on me.
To be honest I was expecting something like Blade Runner, to be impressed, immersed, entertained, all the things a great movie does. I guess I saw the HAL clips to much over the years and thought the whole movie was that with a flying bone in the beggining.
No more viewings for me. One and done.
Quote from: supafly on October 28, 2008, 11:02:17 AM
Which version of the movie? There are at least three I know of, with the 4 hour version that come on SciFi channel being the best IMHO.
I'm assuming the one I saw was the 1984 version shown in theatres, Lynch/De Laurentiis.
Quote from: Speeddog on October 28, 2008, 11:16:47 AM
I'm assuming the one I saw was the 1984 version shown in theatres, Lynch/De Laurentiis.
The film was not well received by critics and performed poorly at the American box office at the time. Upon its release, director David Lynch distanced himself from the project, stating that pressure from both producers and financiers restrained his artistic control and denied him final cut.
Fans of the Dune series are polarized by the movie, although in the years since its release, the film has become a cult favorite, and at least three different versions have been released worldwide. In some cuts of the film Lynch's name is replaced in the credits with the name of a fictional director Alan Smithee, a pseudonym used by directors who wish not to be associated with a film for which they would normally be credited.I need to see the dvd cut still. And I need to read the book ;D
Quote from: supafly on October 28, 2008, 08:55:23 AM
...you should start practicing [old man voice] "Get off my lawn!!!" ;D
i've been doing that one for years... next up 'honey! what are those kids doing in the lane, two streets over??'
Quote from: supafly on October 28, 2008, 07:34:55 AM
What part of the space travel? The empty PanAm flight? The 30 minutes of walking to establish their weightlessness?
Uh, lets see. space shuttle (10 years pre-dating the real deal), orbital space platform, TLI with a non-atmospheric vehicle,
the flight to jupiter. apart from liftoff and re-entry, space flight has proven to be (as was correctly predicted) mostly boring
with long stretches of nothing happening. there's no high G turns, no 'warp' speed or artificial gravity (apart from that induced
by acceleration). clarke / kubrick were exactly on the money except on the subject of lunar topography ... they showed steep
craggy mountains instead of the smooth worn features actually present.
the press and the public didn't (and mostly still don't) like it 'cause it required thinking. the answers weren't laid out nice and
neat with a tidy conclusion and the bad guys getting zapped by ray guns.
no other space-based film has even come close.
Quote from: abby normal on October 28, 2008, 12:55:13 PM
Uh, lets see. space shuttle (10 years pre-dating the real deal), orbital space platform, TLI with a non-atmospheric vehicle,
the flight to jupiter. apart from liftoff and re-entry, space flight has proven to be (as was correctly predicted) mostly boring
with long stretches of nothing happening. there's no high G turns, no 'warp' speed or artificial gravity (apart from that induced
by acceleration). clarke / kubrick were exactly on the money except on the subject of lunar topography ... they showed steep
craggy mountains instead of the smooth worn features actually present.
the press and the public didn't (and mostly still don't) like it 'cause it required thinking. the answers weren't laid out nice and
neat with a tidy conclusion and the bad guys getting zapped by ray guns.
no other space-based film has even come close.
And don't forget the hibernation of the crew, and artificial intelligence. Pre "Alien" and "Terminator".
I love movies that require thought.
It's just that this one wasn't all that interesting to me. The effects and such were top-notch (still are), but if I want to be bored as hell for two to three hours I'll paint a wall and watch it dry.
well suit yourselves - if anything as always that movie is not for everyone.
I liked the 1984 Dune movie myself, it was a noble effort.
Aronofsky's The Fountain a year or two ago reminded me of both strangely.
Quote from: factorPlayer on October 28, 2008, 04:08:47 PM
well suit yourselves - if anything as always that movie is not for everyone.
I liked the 1984 Dune movie myself, it was a noble effort.
Aronofsky's The Fountain a year or two ago reminded me of both strangely.
+1, great film. didn't remind me of the other flicks mentioned, but still awesome.
i dig 2001, and i'm 24. so not just for the old farts.
definitely requires patience, though. if i'm not in the mood for it, it can be maddeningly slow-paced.
and like 'apocalypse now,' watching it requires me to have at least three hours i want to kill.
Well, I have to dig it out and watch it again, now that you have rekindled my interest.
I thought Dr. Strangelove was a bit corny and not that funny when I first saw it. Then I picked up on some of the subtle humour, things that I missed or didn't understand until I got further into my history degree. Now I laugh my ass off at some scenes where the back and forth banter is just so perfectly scripted and the quotes are hilarious.
Shining is still my top Kubrick pic with FMJ coming a close second. Clockwork Orange was interesting but not my favourite. Paths of Glory is worth watching too, it's a different take on the war film and is one of his early works (and you'll never see a younger Kirk Douglas).
Quote from: NeufUnSix on October 28, 2008, 08:43:47 PM
Well, I have to dig it out and watch it again, now that you have rekindled my interest.
Glad I could help ;D
Dr. Strangelove is my favourite movie ever.
[thumbsup]
Quote from: eyeboy on October 29, 2008, 06:23:01 AM
Dr. Strangelove is my favourite movie ever.
[thumbsup]
Peter Sellers rules. [thumbsup]