2001: Revelations in '60s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

2001: Revelations

Author	Comment
pringly		#61	[-]
Dec 22 10 9:22 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A passion for the mind created by Clark, not Kubrick. I read the novel before I saw the movie and I remember my sister telling me that I'd be disappointed and boy she was right. She told me that when she saw it on its initial release people were throwing stuff at the screen. Maybe its my age and what I had seen before it, but there is nothing interesting, intellectually stimulating, or beautiful about watching a routine space flight to a space station for 5 to 10 minutes or a pen floating around in 0 gravity for 1 minute. I think I read in an interview with Clark that Kubrick first approached him about doing a "space movie" with no story in mind. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that he wanted to showcase the effects he could do with no story in mind. I'm not saying that he did not care about the story, but, to me that is ass backwards. The extensive visual effects, inventive at the time, are borrrrrrrring and take away from a very interesting and great story. I will give him props in that he did not spell everything out to the audience and sort of made you think why things were happening, but the pacing is so slow that the movie, at least for me, couldn't hold my interest.
	Remove this ad
Rick		#62	[-]
Dec 22 10 9:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I read the novel before I saw the movie and I remember my sister telling me that I'd be disappointed and boy she was right. But, personally, I've always been disappointed by films when I've read the novel first. Honestly can't think of a single exception to that rule. She told me that when she saw it on its initial release people were throwing stuff at the screen. Maybe she was just unlucky enough to have seen it with a bunch of yay-hoos. I saw it twice on its initial release, and the audience reaction was "ooh" and "ahh" and applause at the end. If the movie bores someone, then it just does, and I can actually kind of understand that. That was the furthest possible thing from the effect it had on me, though. I actually showed it to my two sons when they were in their teens and they were rapt with attention. When it finished, I could barely get them to sleep because they both insisted on discussing what it "meant." And the next night, when my younger son walked into the apartment, the first thing he said was, "I have to see that movie again." This was a videotape shown on a 27" cathode ray tubed tv set. Hardly optimum viewing for a movie like this. To each his own, of course, but 'my own' is that this is a masterpiece, almost beyond appropriate praise. Obviously, mileage may vary.
hermanthegerm	2001: Revelations	#63	[-]
Dec 22 10 9:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	pringly wrote: A passion for the mind created by Clark, not Kubrick. Based on their meetings and discussions, Clarke proceeded to go and write his novel and Kubrick to make his movie. The book and the movie are two absolutely and totally different things. Clarke would be the first to say so. ...there is nothing interesting, intellectually stimulating, or beautiful about watching a routine space flight to a space station... I simply do not know what to respond to this. Maybe you need to be bitten by the space bug. I know I have been. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Dec 23 10 11:22 AM. Edited 2 times.
pringly		#64	[-]
Dec 22 10 9:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the novel part; I always thought To Kill a Mocking bird (which was very close to the book), Night of the Hunter, and Blade Runner were better then what I had read. Still on the whole you are right about that. I also agree that it is an opinion. As an aside, just this weekend I watched Eye of the Devil, for the first time, with my son who is 8. I was bored to tears, but he was transfixed and couldn't stop asking me questions about what was going on. To each his own!!!!!!
pringly		#65	[-]
Dec 22 10 9:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	>>>Based on their meetings and discussions, Clarke proceeded to go and write his novel and Kubrick to make his movie. The book and the movie are two absolutely and totally different things. Clarke would be the first to say so.<<< The whole story that Clarke proposed to Kubrick was, I may be wrong, based on a short story he had already written called The Sentinel. I don't think that Kubrick came into the collaboration with any story in mind.
Rick		#66	[-]
Dec 22 10 10:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think the backstory is that Kubrick wanted to make a science-fiction film and contacted Clarke. They discussed things and Kubrick chose The Sentinel among Clarke's backlog for the basis of his story. As far as the novel/film thing goes, I now intentionally and carefully avoid novels when I know there's gonna be a film. I can almost always still enjoy a novel after seeing the film. Not so vice versa -- although since my first post I have thought of one exception: SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. A great novel (the very definition of a page-turner) and a great movie, very carefully and closely adapted from the source. So I guess that's the exception that proves my rule.
Dubious Comforts		#67	[-]
Dec 23 10 12:06 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: To each his own, of course, but 'my own' is that this is a masterpiece, almost beyond appropriate praise. Obviously, mileage may vary. There is no good reason for varying mileage in this case. It would be a different story if there were a half-dozen similar films, but there aren't. 2001 stands alone. I could sit and watch the opening vistas all day long. www.LivingDeadDocumentary.com
ryanbrennan		#68	[-]
Dec 23 10 3:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Maybe she was just unlucky enough to have seen it with a bunch of yay-hoos. I saw it twice on its initial release, and the audience reaction was "ooh" and "ahh" and applause at the end. If the movie bores someone, then it just does, and I can actually kind of understand that. That was the furthest possible thing from the effect it had on me, though. I actually showed it to my two sons when they were in their teens and they were rapt with attention. When it finished, I could barely get them to sleep because they both insisted on discussing what it "meant." And the next night, when my younger son walked into the apartment, the first thing he said was, "I have to see that movie again." This was a videotape shown on a 27" cathode ray tubed tv set. Hardly optimum viewing for a movie like this. I saw it twice in its "Cinerama" run and a couple or three times after indoors and outdoors and there were never any audience disturbances. I think your experience with your sons, Rick, epitomizes what this movie was good at engendering -- a lot of thought and discussion about what it all meant. I can't tell you how many people would bring this movie up out of the clear blue to get your (my) opinion on it.
ghoulkid		#69	[-]
Dec 23 10 11:08 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	pringly wrote: I don't know, but every time I see a Kubrick film be it 2001 or anything else he has done, I think he over emphasizes visuals over story. In 2001, there is a great, very interesting story, but when you watch the movie, it is so diluted and sidelined by what he is trying to do cinematicly that it becomes lost and the movie, in of itself becomes boring. It depends on what you're into. I'm a very creative person so I watch this movie for it's cinematic visuals for the most part. I don't analyze everything in the movie as to have some significance,but it's almost impossible not to read an overall symbolism in this movie,which for me,keeps it from becoming boring,beyond the visuals. To me it's about the effect (and consequences) of technology. I've known people that hate this movie,think it's boring and confusing. I can understand that. Different people will read different things about this movie. I know people who love Vertigo,and I still don't understand why. For me,what you describe in your post applies more to today's CGI movies;a lot of visuals with weak plots. At least 2001 gets me to think,as long as I don't go overboard.
Bill Warren		#70	[-]
Dec 23 10 2:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: [a] But, personally, I've always been disappointed by films when I've read the novel first. Honestly can't think of a single exception to that rule. [b] To each his own, of course, but 'my own' is that this is a masterpiece, almost beyond appropriate praise. Obviously, mileage may vary. (a) Did you read JAWS or THE GODFATHER before you saw the movies? Both movies are major improvements on the novels--and the author of the novel co-wrote the movie of THE GODFATHER. (b) I agree. I was bowled over by both LOLITA and DR. STRANGELOVE, so when I read a press announcement that Kubrick was going to make what he referred to as "the proverbial good science fiction movie," I was beside myself with excitement. I figured out a way--which wasn't easy to determined--to write to the director, and I did, offering my help to choose a co-writer for the movie. To my great surprise (and pleasure), Kubrick wrote back, thanking me for my offer, but saying he'd already teamed up with someone I might have heard of, Arthur C. Clarke. The way things went was this: Kubrick wanted to make a science fiction movie. And lordy NO, it wasn't because he wanted to show off special effects. Effects were of very little concern to him as a director, but he was determined that the effects in his movie be among the best ever done, largely so the movie wouldn't be harmed by them. Then he began combing through published and filmed science fiction; both greatly disappointed him. Until he came across a collection of stories by Arthur C. Clarke; they were good enough that Kubrick hired him. Then they went over the stories, finally--together--choosing "The Sentinel" as the rough basis of the story. (Kubrick wanted the story to be about mankind's first encounter with aliens.) They worked on the screenplay together for quite some time, but Kubrick, Clarke felt, had more to do with the finished product than he did. After the story was firmly settled, then they worked--together--on the novel. But Kubrick knew Clarke had much more to do with that than he did, so he declined to take co-authorship credit. hermanthegerm wrote: Based on their meetings and discussions, Clarke proceeded to go and write his novel and Kubrick to make his movie. The book and the movie are two absolutely and totally different things. Clarke would be the first to say so. I doubt that very much. Kubrick and Clarke worked out the storyline from beginning to end; while the novel is not, strictly speaking, a novelization, it was definitely written cocurrently with the screenplay. In speeches and articles, and to me face to face, he always said that Kubrick should have been listed as the co-writer of the novel. Cllarke was on the project at least until well after production began. (The director of 2010, however, gave orders to keep Clarke off the set, after he had been there once.) ryanbrennan wrote: I saw it twice in its "Cinerama" run and a couple or three times after indoors and outdoors and there were never any audience disturbances. I saw it (blush) sixteen times during the first year and a half of its release (mostly at low student-discount prices; I was in graduate school) and, of course, always in Cinerama as it wasn't yet available in any other format. At no time, ever, was there any audience disturbance, none whatsoever, just silence, except for a few gasps at the images. I think it was Greg Bear, a teenager at the time, who told me that at one showing in San Diego during the first run, some guy, high on more than the movie, walked up to the enormous screen, shouted "it's GOD!", then parted the screen (Cinerama screens are built like vertical Venetian blinds--lots of thin scrips) and stepped through it. He didn't realize it was fifteen feet to a concrete floor beyond. Last Edited By: Bill Warren Dec 23 10 3:02 PM. Edited 2 times.
	Remove this ad
delgadosaur		#71	[-]
Dec 23 10 4:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	This is a cinematic masterpice that has stood the test of time. Each story works on its on, and they all come together to fulfill the promise of the title. The Dawn of Man sequence is still one of the most amazing things I've ever seen on screen.
Rick		#72	[-]
Dec 23 10 10:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	(a) Did you read JAWS or THE GODFATHER before you saw the movies? Both movies are major improvements on the novels--and the author of the novel co-wrote the movie of THE GODFATHER. No, I didn't. The novel of THE GODFATHER is very entertaining, but far from great, while the movie is phenomenally great. And I blush to admit that I've still not read JAWS. Another example that might have been an exception was BEING THERE. I was bowled over by the movie and immediately afterwards read the novel. The book is excellent, but very slim, and almost reads like an outline for the considerably filled-out film.
DonM435		#73	[-]
Dec 24 10 12:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I saw 2001 during its original release, but after the initial negative reviews. Still, I felt that it was something special. I do recall that that at the intermission, nobody left his/her seat for a while: everybody had to discuss the film with someone else for a minute or two.
Spoiler II		#74	[-]
Dec 24 10 12:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: (a) Did you read JAWS or THE GODFATHER before you saw the movies? Both movies are major improvements on the novels--and the author of the novel co-wrote the movie of THE GODFATHER. No, I didn't. The novel of THE GODFATHER is very entertaining, but far from great, while the movie is phenomenally great. And I blush to admit that I've still not read JAWS. You'll be just fine. The film version of JAWS is such a stripped down,no filler story that the book comes off as bloated in comparison,with too many subplots that feel like they are there to keep the middle aged female summertime readership mildly titillated (with its adultery and organized crime baloney). JAWS is the very foremost example that springs to mind whenever anyone asks if a movie has ever improved on a book.
Bill Warren		#75	[-]
Dec 24 10 1:32 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I've told this story here before. Veterans, bear with me. At the time JAWS was being made, I often saw Carl Gottlieb at a friend's parties. I had read JAWS, which I thought was unappetizingly crammed with details unrelated to the shark story. I asked him, "What about the Mafia?" (In the book, they're involved somehow.) "First thing to go," Gottlieb replied. "What about the shark expert's affair with the sheriff's wife?" "Second thing to go," he said with a smile. "Then that means the shark expert---" He accurately filled in the rest of what I was going to say: "doesn't die at the end." The main reason he was hired as an actor was to have him handy on the set for continuing rewrites.
Spoiler II		#76	[-]
Dec 25 10 1:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bill Warren wrote: I've told this story here before. Veterans, bear with me. At the time JAWS was being made, I often saw Carl Gottlieb at a friend's parties. I had read JAWS, which I thought was unappetizingly crammed with details unrelated to the shark story. I asked him, "What about the Mafia?" (In the book, they're involved somehow.) "First thing to go," Gottlieb replied. "What about the shark expert's affair with the sheriff's wife?" "Second thing to go," he said with a smile. "Then that means the shark expert---" He accurately filled in the rest of what I was going to say: "doesn't die at the end." The main reason he was hired as an actor was to have him handy on the set for continuing rewrites. As a youth i loved the ending of JAWS,but the older i get and the more i appreciate and enjoy the film with age,the more i wish Hooper wouldn't have made it. Brody overcoming his fear of the deep,finishing the shark off as the last man standing and paddling to shore by himself is an idea i like much more than the (mildly) feel good ending. Hooper drops the tooth, Hooper drops the poison tipped spear, Hooper loses his entire anti shark cage and still the bumbler sneaks out alive.
DonM435		#77	[-]
Dec 25 10 5:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Right. If one survivor is enough for Moby Dick . . .
Jonatwork		#78	[-]
Dec 26 10 6:19 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	2001's depiction of space flight alone makes this a must-see. Putting aside everything else, just sitting there and seeing the scenes of the approach to the space station, the landing on the moon, the trip to the crater, and then the Discovery scenes--this was enough to make me think, "This is not like the movies I watch on Saturday afternoons, this is...adult, or real, or grown-up, or something." I am not a techie, so to speak; I look at message board arguments about this DVD looking better or worse than that one and hundreds of postings on this TV or that one, and I feel a little like someone who grew up during the Depression and others can't understand why I always clean my plate. I fell in love with movies watching them on a black and white set with commercial interruptions. 2001 I saw in color, but with commercials, with an annoying kid whose mom was upstairs shooting the breeze with my mom, and I had to work to understand any of it, but I refused to change the channel. I felt I'd really be missing something if I did, so I watched the movie to the end. I figured I was just a dumb kid and couldn't grasp what this adult movie was all about. But I didn't forget the imagery. Again, putting aside every other image that stayed with for years until I could see it on videotape, the spaceflight scenes were unique. They were nothing like those in STAR WARS, and they were silent, and the music was doing something else, too. Different films offer different treasures. For me, 2001, a story about human evolution being shepherded by an alien intelligence, FORCED me to think about it in ways other films did not. That's what I mean when I say that I watched STAR WARS many more times, and can regard 2001 with something like coolness. But there are few movies that are as significant to me, not just as a movie fan, but as a person. Last Edited By: Jonatwork Jan 5 11 1:36 AM. Edited 1 times.
DonM435		#79	[-]
Dec 28 10 8:40 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	2001's use of classical music was bold, but successful. The film also made it clear that it was very quiet out in interplanetary space. You didn' t expect any noisy explosions.
Jonatwork		#80	[-]
Dec 29 10 12:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	When I saw MOON, I was at first impressed that the exterior scenes were silent, but the later scenes had sound. I still don't know what to make of that choice. I can't think of many post-2001 space movies that don't have sound in space.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

2001: Revelations