2010
So, it's witner break and it's the last time I'm going to spend more than a few days at my parent's house. That means I'm going to have to make the most of it by watching A-Team reruns and cheesy late night movies.
Last night the feature was "2010." Some of you may have seen this, and whodathunk, it's the sequel to "2001" made 15 or so years prior.
Am I weird to actually have preferred 2010 to 2001? 2001 has the original idea, yes, but it came with all of those drugged-up, self-righteous Kubrickisms that 2010 thankfully lacked. I also enjoyed seeing how the sci-fi guys made the Russian stuff look kind of grungy compared to the American stuff, even though they got the whole Soviet Union thing way off.
Perhaps a bit cheesy, but I like cheese.
Last night the feature was "2010." Some of you may have seen this, and whodathunk, it's the sequel to "2001" made 15 or so years prior.
Am I weird to actually have preferred 2010 to 2001? 2001 has the original idea, yes, but it came with all of those drugged-up, self-righteous Kubrickisms that 2010 thankfully lacked. I also enjoyed seeing how the sci-fi guys made the Russian stuff look kind of grungy compared to the American stuff, even though they got the whole Soviet Union thing way off.
Perhaps a bit cheesy, but I like cheese.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
2001 is one of the best movies of all time.
That's, like, your opinion, man. As I said, I'm not a big fan of any of Kubrick's work. Aaaaanyway, what about 2001 do you think is really great, particularly in comparison to what was done in 2010?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's, like, you're opinion, man. As I said, I'm not a big fan of any of Kubrick's work. Aaaaanyway, what about 2001 do you think is really great, particularly in comparison to what was done in 2010?
Of course it's my opinion. Oh no, I haven't seen 2010 yet. Tape it for me?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Of course it's my opinion. Oh no, I haven't seen 2010 yet. Tape it for me?
That was a dude-ism from me. . . but back on subject. . . 2010 was on TCM last night. That means it will probably be on many times between now and the end of the year. Letterbox format, no ads. See if ya can catch it. If you liked 2001, chances are you find at least some enjoyment in 2010.
I think the basic difference between Clarke's interpretation of 2001 and Kubrick's is that Clarke is a writer and Kubrick is a film maker. Clarke also expects God (through aliens apparently, nothing too metaphysical mind you) to do things with a clear and obvious reason to us. Kubrick sees divinity to be outside of our full comprehension. Clarke looks for literal explanations/analogs for metaphysical events: aliens, HAl being reprogrammed, etc. Kubrick sees no need to explain this stuff away. There's nothing in the film 2001 that requires aliens or human backstories, and he lets the viewer choose to make God in their own image. The books, 2001, 2010 and 2061, are literal and plot-driven. Kubrick's work is probably the most purely cinematic film ever made, the story being incidental, and the moving images and sounds having a concept outside of narrative, more like painting or poetry.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
That's, like, you're opinion, man. As I said, I'm not a big fan of any of Kubrick's work. Aaaaanyway, what about 2001 do you think is really great, particularly in comparison to what was done in 2010?
said someone who was born after star wars came out.
2001 was groundbreaking, in it's use of music, special effects, and treating science fiction in an adult manor. it visually blew everyone away when it came out. plus the bone to spaceship gazinta (danny devito's term for transition) is pretty cool, even now. it may not seem as special today as it did 35 years ago but that movie is like a manual for the sci-fi that came after it.
i liked 2010's acting performances, the whip around the sun still holds an emotional impact, last time i saw it i was riveted.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Yes, you are weird.
I think the basic difference between Clarke's interpretation of 2001 and Kubrick's is that Clarke is a writer and Kubrick is a film maker. Clarke also expects God (through aliens apparently, nothing too metaphysical mind you) to do things with a clear and obvious reason to us. Kubrick sees divinity to be outside of our full comprehension. Clarke looks for literal explanations/analogs for metaphysical events: aliens, HAl being reprogrammed, etc. Kubrick sees no need to explain this stuff away. There's nothing in the film 2001 that requires aliens or human backstories, and he lets the viewer choose to make God in their own image. The books, 2001, 2010 and 2061, are literal and plot-driven. Kubrick's work is probably the most purely cinematic film ever made, the story being incidental, and the moving images and sounds having a concept outside of narrative, more like painting or poetry.
nicely put.
wasn't the book and the movie a collaboration between the two, with the book coming out after the movie. my favorite part of the book was the ape moonwatcher who tried in vain to grab the moon and thought that someday he'd climb a tree and try again.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
2001 is one of the best movies of all time.
You think so? I actually felt in sleep 3 times when I was watching it/
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
said someone who was born after star wars came out.
2001 was groundbreaking, in it's use of music, special effects, and treating science fiction in an adult manor. it visually blew everyone away when it came out. plus the bone to spaceship gazinta (danny devito's term for transition) is pretty cool, even now. it may not seem as special today as it did 35 years ago but that movie is like a manual for the sci-fi that came after it.
I am fully aware of the technical whizbang from 2001, but other than that, but other than the model design and shooting techniques, I think most sci fi since then has avoided the slow-paced "waltz" sequences. For good reason. How much does it add?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Kubrick's work is probably the most purely cinematic film ever made, the story being incidental, and the moving images and sounds having a concept outside of narrative, more like painting or poetry.
Exactly.
Splinemodel, I've always really liked 2010. I think it's a really cool film. I also don't ever compare it to 2001, though. Totally different films in my mind.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I think most sci fi since then has avoided the slow-paced "waltz" sequences. For good reason. How much does it add?
Like all great art, it's a matter of paying attention and understanding it.
Technically the film is excellent, with visual effects and production design that hold up well today.
a 2001 - lawrence of arabia double feature would probably kill you.
in much the same way the original Alien was a horror movie with a Sci-Fi setting...
while the sequel, Aliens was mostly an Action movie with Sci-Fi setting...
Both were riffs on a theme, but the execution and intent were different
(and the second successfully leveraged the characters and plots of the first, without trying to duplicate the original director's classic vision)
Similarly, the original 2001 was a Sci-Fi movie in a Sci-Fi setting...
while the sequel, 2010 was mostly an Action movie in a Sci-Fi setting...
both were riffs on Clarke's Sentinel theme, but the intent and execution were different
(leveraging the unfinished business from 2001, without trying to duplicate the original director's classic vision)
Now if they made a film based on 2061, the third book (or if Clarke cranked out a fourth), we could compare it to the later movies in that other quadrology, but I'd hate to see the crap that would need to be produced to sink to the level of Alien3/4.
Originally posted by giant
Exactly.
Splinemodel, I've always really liked 2010. ?Totally different films in my mind.
Oh, I'm just ribbing Splinemodel a bit.
I haven't seen 2010 in a long time, possibly since it was in the theater. I know it's not as good of a film as 2001, but it might be a better movie. 2001 though, like almost all of Kubrick's work, is just genius on a level most contemporary art doesn't reach. Just his use of silence in that film deserves a discussion all on its own.
The visuals were not only ground breaking for their time, but accurately created what moon walking would look like before the moon landing. But what is the most comment complaint? That the movie is too slow and boring. But if you take the time to pay attention to what is going on the movie is a very critical look at how humanity was being supplemented by our technology. Or rather how technology, the bone, made humanity, and it was the eventual downfall of humanity. Notice how HAL speaks with more emotion in his voice then either of the crewmen do. How Dave is not in the least concerned about his birthday or the video he gets from his parents.
If you really want to see 2001 with a fresh eye watch the last act, Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite synced up to Pink Floyd's Echo off of Meddle. It was their first attempt at recreating a sound track to a movie. It syncs much better then the Wizard of Oz. Oh, and the lyrics describe what is going on. It really is amazing if you get it right.
I liked the USS Discovery (and was in rapture when those six NERVA engines finally fired up in 2010).
I liked Clavius Moonbase.
I rather liked the Lunar Transport.
Aries 1B