Search this Topic:
Dec 22 10 9:22 PM
Dec 22 10 9:33 PM
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.
Dec 22 10 9:42 PM
pringly wrote:A passion for the mind created by Clark, not Kubrick.
...there is nothing interesting, intellectually stimulating, or beautiful about watching a routine space flight to a space station...
Dec 22 10 9:51 PM
Dec 22 10 9:57 PM
Dec 22 10 10:10 PM
Dec 23 10 12:06 AM
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.
Dec 23 10 3:23 AM
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.
Dec 23 10 11:08 AM
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.
Dec 23 10 2:51 PM
[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.
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 saw it twice in its "Cinerama" run and a couple or three times after indoors and outdoors and there were never any audience disturbances.
Dec 23 10 4:40 PM
Dec 23 10 10:32 PM
(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.
Dec 24 10 12:22 AM
Dec 24 10 12:48 PM
(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.
Dec 24 10 1:32 PM
Dec 25 10 1:52 PM
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.
Dec 25 10 5:13 PM
Dec 26 10 6:19 AM
Dec 28 10 8:40 AM
Dec 29 10 12:16 AM
© 2013 Yuku. All rights reserved.