I'm glad that we don't have all sorts of space travel right now. It costs too much, and is financially not feasible right now. Wait until the market, through technological advancements, makes it so. When fusion gets cheap. . . maybe then. Furthermore, I don't think I'd enjoy sitting in a cryo tube for months. Wait until faster-than-light speed capabilities.
Also note that 2001 was a bit too optimistic in technology, period. Hal coming out in 1996? Seriously. Didn't happen. . . . and to think of the expectations our silicon has surpassed already.
As for viewing 2001 in the context of art. . . I'm a pretty artistic guy. I still don't like Rothko, for that matter, or even Van Gogh, to much of an extent. Just not my style. 2001 was pleasant to look at, but I think it got too carried away. It actually IS my style, but I think it actually needed a good editing job. 5 minutes of psychedelic monotony? Please. 20 seconds is more than enough.
In art there's a fine line between too little and too much. To put this in concrete (or rather steel) look at Gehry buildings. Aside from the Bilbao museum, they kind of suck.
I'm glad that we don't have all sorts of space travel right now. It costs too much, and is financially not feasible right now. Wait until the market, through technological advancements, makes it so. When fusion gets cheap. . . maybe then. Furthermore, I don't think I'd enjoy sitting in a cryo tube for months. Wait until faster-than-light speed capabilities.
Also note that 2001 was a bit too optimistic in technology, period. Hal coming out in 1996? Seriously. Didn't happen. . . . and to think of the expectations our silicon has surpassed already.
As for viewing 2001 in the context of art. . . I'm a pretty artistic guy. I still don't like Rothko, for that matter, or even Van Gogh, to much of an extent. Just not my style. 2001 was pleasant to look at, but I think it got too carried away. It actually IS my style, but I think it actually needed a good editing job. 5 minutes of psychedelic monotony? Please. 20 seconds is more than enough.
In art there's a fine line between too little and too much. To put this in concrete (or rather steel) look at Gehry buildings. Aside from the Bilbao museum, they kind of suck.
woah! this puts it all in perspective.
the mistake they made about computers was they (kubrick & clarke) didn't anticipate everything getting smaller.
edit = gehry's doing the new bandshell here in chicago (millennium park) and it's not even finished and it's one of the coolest thing i've ever seen.
Yes, 2001 could use a few more minutes on the cutting room floor for those under no third-party influence if you know what I mean. But aside from what might add up to (at the absolute most) 20 minutes from the film, I find little if anything to fault in it myself.
2001 is less Gehry and more Mies, minimal but more sinister than any built architecture. Of course, I don't think a whole lot of Mies' work either, but you get the idea. Really, I don't know of any analogous aesthetics in other medium; it is its own "style." Unlike Mies' work and the work of Rothko, it has more content, and while vague and arguably dodgy in its ambiguity, it does present real things -- figures, actions, etc. -- for the most part to get its ideas across. (And where it doesn't present nouns and verbs so to speak is where the film can be trimmed.) It's open-ended but not tipping the scales of the BS meter IMO like so much abstract or "non-objective" art.
Anyone know the url to that place where 2001 is interpreted for you in a flash movie? I remember not agreeing with completly but it opened my eyes for some POWs I hadn´t thought about.
Yeah, I never liked that interpretation. It's taken from Clarke's account in Sentinels and later in his book, 2001. It's all about aliens, little about divinity.
I also love 2010. I love 2001, too, and for pretty much the same reasons as those who have already posted.
One thing I like about 2010 is that it shares lots of the silence of 2001. The bits with John ____ (name escapes) hyperventalating while going between the ships, for example, are much loved by me. Come to think of it, 2010 is pretty quiet for a sci fi movie made in the 80s (it was the 80s, right?).
I also thought the movie handled the Cold War well (very optimistic). Plus I've always liked Roy Scheider.
As others stated here, 2001 is metaphysical, and 2010 is rational.
2001 is the only old sci fiction movie that you can watch without laughting out loud : how look at this crappy special effects ...
It's the only great movie where nobody is able to have a correct explanation of the end of the movie : when he became old (and i doubt that Kubrikc wanted a clear explanation)
the story with HAL is classical. Everyone remember the scene where the eye of HAL spie the lips of the pilots. This has inspired tons of TV series.
The film was damn slow : it's genius. Space is silence, and it's slow. A travel to mars will recquire 6 months. In this movie you can feel the slow.
I watch 2010 once, it appears more a sci fiction parabol about cold war rather a movie about aliens. This is like the return of god, explaining to us that don't mess, you are not alone, be mature.
Some sequences where indeed amazing like the birth of the Jupiter sun.
I doubt that today, this movie can be made the same way. The cold war is over, and the war against terrorism is there.
Yes, 2001 could use a few more minutes on the cutting room floor for those under no third-party influence if you know what I mean. But aside from what might add up to (at the absolute most) 20 minutes from the film, I find little if anything to fault in it myself.
2001 is less Gehry and more Mies, minimal but more sinister than any built architecture. Of course, I don't think a whole lot of Mies' work either, but you get the idea. Really, I don't know of any analogous aesthetics in other medium; it is its own "style." Unlike Mies' work and the work of Rothko, it has more content, and while vague and arguably dodgy in its ambiguity, it does present real things -- figures, actions, etc. -- for the most part to get its ideas across. (And where it doesn't present nouns and verbs so to speak is where the film can be trimmed.) It's open-ended but not tipping the scales of the BS meter IMO like so much abstract or "non-objective" art.
Definitely agree with most of what's said here. Bauhaus is something I want to like, but I don't appreciate the whole socialist thing. Anyway, part of the reason why I like 2010 a lot is because of the contrast between the Russian ship (Leonov?) and the American ship (Discovery). The Discovery is very clean and white. . . very Mies for sure. The Leonov is not. It has all sorts of multicolored glowing buttons everywhere and machinery all over the place. Sort of techno-gothic. Nice eye candy, to say the least.
I can't believe no one mentioned the appearance of the Apple IIc in 2010.
It's hilarious to look at it now and think that something as bulky as the IIc would be what passes for a portable in 2010, but at the time it seemed reasonable.
2001 vs 2010? I took a film class once where the professor said that 2001 is a film everyone should see once, and no more. I liked 2010 better.
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.
Very well put...
To the original poster: dude, like, you are a wierdo
Actually, as far as the science stuff, both 2010 and 2001 portray space more convincingly and do it by being realistic, oddly enough. 2001 especially uses the vacuum of space to such great effect: the silence, the spinning bodies (ships and people), the blackness, our solar system being a really boring place between here and Jupiter, exploding bolts , etc. It probably takes its liberties with science, but it defies most other abuses of science before and after so they're less noticeable.
I wish this site posted its opinion on either film in that regard.
Well Splinemodel, considering you said you watched A-team reruns, I'm not sure how many other people here can relate to your, uh, taste.
But if you want another very slow-moving, philosophical sci-fi, check out Solaris. I watched the original 1970s Soviet production for the first time last week. Haven't seen the American remake with George Clooney, but apparently it is similar in feel.
Comments
it's pretty much a kiss of death to have gotten a product plug in that movie.
someone once told me that hal was originally spoken by martin balsam
but kubrick wanted a dryer reading.
also there was a narration that was removed.
Also note that 2001 was a bit too optimistic in technology, period. Hal coming out in 1996? Seriously. Didn't happen. . . . and to think of the expectations our silicon has surpassed already.
As for viewing 2001 in the context of art. . . I'm a pretty artistic guy. I still don't like Rothko, for that matter, or even Van Gogh, to much of an extent. Just not my style. 2001 was pleasant to look at, but I think it got too carried away. It actually IS my style, but I think it actually needed a good editing job. 5 minutes of psychedelic monotony? Please. 20 seconds is more than enough.
In art there's a fine line between too little and too much. To put this in concrete (or rather steel) look at Gehry buildings. Aside from the Bilbao museum, they kind of suck.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I'm glad that we don't have all sorts of space travel right now. It costs too much, and is financially not feasible right now. Wait until the market, through technological advancements, makes it so. When fusion gets cheap. . . maybe then. Furthermore, I don't think I'd enjoy sitting in a cryo tube for months. Wait until faster-than-light speed capabilities.
Also note that 2001 was a bit too optimistic in technology, period. Hal coming out in 1996? Seriously. Didn't happen. . . . and to think of the expectations our silicon has surpassed already.
As for viewing 2001 in the context of art. . . I'm a pretty artistic guy. I still don't like Rothko, for that matter, or even Van Gogh, to much of an extent. Just not my style. 2001 was pleasant to look at, but I think it got too carried away. It actually IS my style, but I think it actually needed a good editing job. 5 minutes of psychedelic monotony? Please. 20 seconds is more than enough.
In art there's a fine line between too little and too much. To put this in concrete (or rather steel) look at Gehry buildings. Aside from the Bilbao museum, they kind of suck.
woah! this puts it all in perspective.
the mistake they made about computers was they (kubrick & clarke) didn't anticipate everything getting smaller.
edit = gehry's doing the new bandshell here in chicago (millennium park) and it's not even finished and it's one of the coolest thing i've ever seen.
2001 is less Gehry and more Mies, minimal but more sinister than any built architecture. Of course, I don't think a whole lot of Mies' work either, but you get the idea. Really, I don't know of any analogous aesthetics in other medium; it is its own "style." Unlike Mies' work and the work of Rothko, it has more content, and while vague and arguably dodgy in its ambiguity, it does present real things -- figures, actions, etc. -- for the most part to get its ideas across. (And where it doesn't present nouns and verbs so to speak is where the film can be trimmed.) It's open-ended but not tipping the scales of the BS meter IMO like so much abstract or "non-objective" art.
Originally posted by HOM
Ask and ye shal receive
Thanks a lot
PS: read your PM please
One thing I like about 2010 is that it shares lots of the silence of 2001. The bits with John ____ (name escapes) hyperventalating while going between the ships, for example, are much loved by me. Come to think of it, 2010 is pretty quiet for a sci fi movie made in the 80s (it was the 80s, right?).
I also thought the movie handled the Cold War well (very optimistic). Plus I've always liked Roy Scheider.
2001 is the only old sci fiction movie that you can watch without laughting out loud : how look at this crappy special effects ...
It's the only great movie where nobody is able to have a correct explanation of the end of the movie : when he became old (and i doubt that Kubrikc wanted a clear explanation)
the story with HAL is classical. Everyone remember the scene where the eye of HAL spie the lips of the pilots. This has inspired tons of TV series.
The film was damn slow : it's genius. Space is silence, and it's slow. A travel to mars will recquire 6 months. In this movie you can feel the slow.
I watch 2010 once, it appears more a sci fiction parabol about cold war rather a movie about aliens. This is like the return of god, explaining to us that don't mess, you are not alone, be mature.
Some sequences where indeed amazing like the birth of the Jupiter sun.
I doubt that today, this movie can be made the same way. The cold war is over, and the war against terrorism is there.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I doubt that today, this movie can be made the same way. The cold war is over, and the war against terrorism is there.
I agree.
"2001"->"2010"->"Independence day"->"The Osama Bugger from outher space" would be the logic path.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Yes, 2001 could use a few more minutes on the cutting room floor for those under no third-party influence if you know what I mean. But aside from what might add up to (at the absolute most) 20 minutes from the film, I find little if anything to fault in it myself.
2001 is less Gehry and more Mies, minimal but more sinister than any built architecture. Of course, I don't think a whole lot of Mies' work either, but you get the idea. Really, I don't know of any analogous aesthetics in other medium; it is its own "style." Unlike Mies' work and the work of Rothko, it has more content, and while vague and arguably dodgy in its ambiguity, it does present real things -- figures, actions, etc. -- for the most part to get its ideas across. (And where it doesn't present nouns and verbs so to speak is where the film can be trimmed.) It's open-ended but not tipping the scales of the BS meter IMO like so much abstract or "non-objective" art.
Definitely agree with most of what's said here. Bauhaus is something I want to like, but I don't appreciate the whole socialist thing. Anyway, part of the reason why I like 2010 a lot is because of the contrast between the Russian ship (Leonov?) and the American ship (Discovery). The Discovery is very clean and white. . . very Mies for sure. The Leonov is not. It has all sorts of multicolored glowing buttons everywhere and machinery all over the place. Sort of techno-gothic. Nice eye candy, to say the least.
Originally posted by tonton
Don't know any oter films besides 2001, but Joss Whedon's Firefly portrayed this accurately as well.
Really? Wow, that is very cool. Thanks for the heads up.
sound track is good but not worth the boredom of the film.
It's hilarious to look at it now and think that something as bulky as the IIc would be what passes for a portable in 2010, but at the time it seemed reasonable.
2001 vs 2010? I took a film class once where the professor said that 2001 is a film everyone should see once, and no more. I liked 2010 better.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
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.
Very well put...
To the original poster: dude, like, you are a wierdo
I wish this site posted its opinion on either film in that regard.
But if you want another very slow-moving, philosophical sci-fi, check out Solaris. I watched the original 1970s Soviet production for the first time last week. Haven't seen the American remake with George Clooney, but apparently it is similar in feel.