| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2004 04:05:07 PM · #1 |
Well I just saw 2001 Space Odessey for the first time. I feel I need to comment. WOW DID THAT SUCK!
I know it's supose to be a classic. But wow what a bore. Before you judge me to be a Sci-Fi action movie only please punk....please note I do appreciate movies with deeper meanings, such as a movie I love ... Contact. Yes I enjoy Star Wars and all that but I was assuming that 2001 S.O. was in that class (Contact) of Sci-Fi. BOY WAS I WRONG.
Over all I found it to be pretentious. It was as if Kubrick was saying âthis is for the people with GOD like minds, like me.â The pace was extreeeeemmly slow. I mean how many times do you need to show a sunset after the words âDawn of Manâ appear on the screen to let the audience understand that this is the beginning of man. Apparently 10x. I didnât know where the film was taking me. Then the over played noxious ending.
The movie peaked my interest when HAL showed up but even this was slow as a turtle with 3 broken legs. Bottom line this is a glorified episode of the Outer Limits. IMO. But I'm to stupid to understand it.
Did you see it and what did you think?
Message edited by author 2004-05-04 16:06:05. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 04:39:21 PM · #2 |
I attended a premier showing back in 1967(?) or so and found it to be a fantastic experience. Granted, now it is a little dated much like Forbidden Planet, but that doesn't diminish its (their) status as a classic.
But then I liked the Tarzan movies every Saturday too.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 05:22:17 PM · #3 |
It was great at the time. I also liked it but for today well thats a different story! You have to remember many of us grew up watching B&W televisions! LOL
;-) |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 05:28:00 PM · #4 |
This was an AWESOME movie when I saw it back in 1969. Remember, that was 35 years ago. There were NO PCs, NO cell phones, NO digital cameras, VCRs, DVDs, etc. Back then we thought we'd be all over the solar system by now. Not even close...
Trivia question: Where did they get the name for HAL?
Message edited by author 2004-05-04 17:28:23. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 05:37:42 PM · #5 |
twas the biggest pile of cack i've ever seen. i've been repeatedly abnomished for making similar utterings in public, but really, i agree with Mr Optix. Totally pretentious, totally without meaning and what the buggery was the ending about!? total pants, biggest waste of two hours in my LIFE! I love films, but seriously, I'd rather watch Hudson Hawk on a continuous loop for 12 hours than watch 2001 again. The mokeys were cute, but still. And stone me, couldn't he like get another song or something? So repetitive! And the whole oooh trippy space ship thing. GRR! I haven't seen many kubrick films and i'll doubt if i will ever watch more, because all three of the ones i have seen were total PANTS.
Message edited by author 2004-05-04 17:38:13. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 05:46:25 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
This was an AWESOME movie when I saw it back in 1969. Remember, that was 35 years ago. There were NO PCs, NO cell phones, NO digital cameras, VCRs, DVDs, etc. Back then we thought we'd be all over the solar system by now. Not even close...
Trivia question: Where did they get the name for HAL? |
Heuristically programmed Algorithmic computer
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 05:50:03 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
Trivia question: Where did they get the name for HAL? |
Trivia Answer: From IBM. Move one letter toward the beginning of the alphabet for each of the letters in IBM, the largest computer company in the world when the movie was made. I-1=H, B-1=A, M-1=L, hence: HAL.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:13:56 PM · #8 |
According to co-author Arthur Clark, Laurie is correct. "Heuristically programmed Algorithmic computer." However, it is likely that Clark was hedging simply to avoid a hassle with IBM. IBM actually grew to like the association.
I saw the movie in 1968 when it was released, in Cinerama no less, at the Cooper Theater in Denver, Colorado. For its time the movie was considered an awesome production years ahead of its time and done without computer generated Star Wars style graphics.
It is interesting to note that those who dislike the film tend to be the younger set who grew up on instant gratification and a "spell it out for me" attitude so it is understandable that they have a hard time finding any meaning in it. But then I think the Mona Lisa is kind of silly so I guess time just marches on.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:17:42 PM · #9 |
I saw it in Viet Nam 1969 and I found it to be verrrrrrry slow. But then a lot of the early SF movies had the tendency to dwell on some supposedly fantastic âthingâ that was meant to spell blind everyone to the point of addnosium.
Message edited by author 2004-05-04 18:21:49. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:30:56 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
For its time the movie was considered an awesome production years ahead of its time and done without computer generated Star Wars style graphics.
|
...actually, if memory serves me correctly, Star Wars was created with no computer generated effects at all. It was released only nine years after 2001 was released, and both movies were created with the same kinds of blue-screen effects and models. Only the more recent additions to the Star Wars family, including the special editions, were made with computer generated effects.
For clarification purposes, I was born a year after 2001 came out and grew up with the original Star Wars movies, and I find both to ROCK!
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:31:32 PM · #11 |
'2001 A Space Odessey' was and still is one of the greatest films ever made! The special affects that they pulled off without any CGI is incredible. I watched it on DVD not to long ago and was once again totally blown away by it. The scene where the guy is running around the circle; they actually had to turn the whole set to make it work. It is also the only movie that I can remember seeing that got the silence of space correct! In the space suit scenes, he didn't add any stupid sound effects to make it 'better'.
I know that the story line isn't real straight forward. It actually makes you think about what it is you are seeing. In fact you actually have to figure it out! That's why todays younger people don't 'get it'. It doesn't slap you in the face with CGI graphics that give away every minute part of the plot.
To compare it with a movie like 'Contact' is laughable at best. 'Contact' didn't even have a real author writing the story line. Carl Sagan--Hah! |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:33:34 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
Originally posted by dickwilhelm:
For its time the movie was considered an awesome production years ahead of its time and done without computer generated Star Wars style graphics.
|
...actually, if memory serves me correctly, Star Wars was created with no computer generated effects at all. It was released only nine years after 2001 was released, and both movies were created with the same kinds of blue-screen effects and models. Only the more recent additions to the Star Wars family, including the special editions, were made with computer generated effects.
For clarification purposes, I was born a year after 2001 came out and grew up with the original Star Wars movies, and I find both to ROCK! |
The big difference between Star Wars and 2001 was that Lucas created a company for the sole purpose of inventing the special effects that were used. In fact that company is still on the cutting edge of special effects. Industrial Light and Sound. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:37:10 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Industrial Light and Sound. |
I think you mean ILM.. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:42:34 PM · #14 |
I actually saw it at U C, Santa Cruz, for a film class. Yes it is slow. No it doesn't have Battlestars or light-sabers, or much of any other kind of shoot-em-up action, which I find a refreshing change. It is much closer to actual science (and science fiction), and to real life, than those cowboy movies with lasers ....
Some of those special effects involved matting together more than 20 layers of images, for every frame ..., and real models (no CGI graphics back then). There's no spoken dialog for some 22 minutes at the beginning ... They didn't win the Oscar for costumes because some judges didn't believe those were (human) dancers and actors in the ape costumes (compare the quality with any of the "Planet of the Apes" movies). It's an amazing piece of work, even if it's "boring." |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 06:44:53 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by TooCool:
Industrial Light and Sound. |
I think you mean ILM.. |
Yes, Industrial Light & Magic. Lucas also has a separate sound company, Skywalker Sound. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 07:02:47 PM · #16 |
Fibre Optix- how did you view 2001 Space Odyssey? It was intended for the big screen and suffers when shown on a smaller multiplex size screen, or a TV set. I liked Contact too but wouldn't put it on the same level as Kubrick's masterpiece. Movies are an artform like photography, or music for that matter. I listen to rock, jazz & blues a lot more than the classics but I doubt people will be listening to The Allman Brothers Band when their music is over a hundred years old like Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite is.
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 07:09:09 PM · #17 |
in my best computer voice: "Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."
James
|
|
|
|
05/04/2004 07:43:58 PM · #18 |
| Another great sci fi classic is Silent Running, I would like to know what people think of it? |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 08:09:42 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Dim7:
Another great sci fi classic is Silent Running, I would like to know what people think of it? |
Another great film. This one is often overlooked! I loved it when it came out and have shared it with my wife and kid many years later!
Oh, it's not a shoot 'em up. It's not as intellectual as 2001 though. |
|
|
|
05/04/2004 09:33:56 PM · #20 |
Of course, the reason that 2001 is such a 'classic' is that it got such mixed reviews when it came out. Critics either loved it or hated it. It was a matter of extremes. It also got a lot of press because nothing like it had ever been seen before. It was all brand new with lots of special effects and eye candy that had never been on screen before--and it was very intelligent.
I happen to like the film a lot.
Silent Running is another great old sci-fi/Eco flick. If you haven't seen that one, it's worth the DVD rental. Bruce Dern plays a guy who lives in a space-borne arboretum that houses the last of the plant life from earth (as I recall). There are cute little robots in the film, too, but they aren't as cute as R2D2. They're much more realistic.
Message edited by author 2004-05-04 21:36:36.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 11:49:10 PM EDT.
