U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2018, 05:31 PM
 
4,807 posts, read 1,355,105 times
Reputation: 4779

Advertisements

2001: A Space Odyssey”: What It Means, and How It Was Made
Fifty years ago, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke set out to make a new kind of sci-fi. How does their future look now that it’s the past?



Fifty years ago this spring, Stanley Kubrick’s confounding sci-fi masterpiece, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” had its premières across the country. In the annals of audience restlessness, these evenings rival the opening night of Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring,” in 1913, when Parisians in osprey and tails reportedly brandished their canes and pelted the dancers with objects. A sixth of the New York première’s audience walked right out, including several executives from M-G-M. Many who stayed jeered throughout. Kubrick nervously shuttled between his seat in the front row and the projection booth, where he tweaked the sound and the focus. Arthur C. Clarke, Kubrick’s collaborator, was in tears at intermission.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ow-it-was-made
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-06-2018, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
18,888 posts, read 8,867,123 times
Reputation: 18291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarallel View Post
2001: A Space Odyssey”: What It Means, and How It Was Made
Fifty years ago, Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke set out to make a new kind of sci-fi. How does their future look now that it’s the past?



Fifty years ago this spring, Stanley Kubrick’s confounding sci-fi masterpiece, “2001: A Space Odyssey,” had its premières across the country. In the annals of audience restlessness, these evenings rival the opening night of Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring,” in 1913, when Parisians in osprey and tails reportedly brandished their canes and pelted the dancers with objects. A sixth of the New York première’s audience walked right out, including several executives from M-G-M. Many who stayed jeered throughout. Kubrick nervously shuttled between his seat in the front row and the projection booth, where he tweaked the sound and the focus. Arthur C. Clarke, Kubrick’s collaborator, was in tears at intermission.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ow-it-was-made
I just watched the film for the first time since I saw it in the theater in 1968. I remember how impressed I was at the time. The film was something truly special.

Now, 50 years later, my viewpoint is quite different.

1. There is so much dead time in this film it's unbelievable. I can see why some people think the film is boring.

2. The Dawn Of Time segment is wonderful...but again, too long.

3. Not a single actor went on to a significant film career after making this movie.

That's not to say there aren't some superlatives here. In fact, just the uniqueness of the film at the time deserves a real kudo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2018, 03:54 AM
 
727 posts, read 66,982 times
Reputation: 325
Ahh but you can put all that aside right phetaroi?

What an excellent movie this is
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2018, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
18,888 posts, read 8,867,123 times
Reputation: 18291
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotthouse View Post
Ahh but you can put all that aside right phetaroi?

What an excellent movie this is
Why should I put it aside? The film has good points and bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2018, 11:24 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
18,888 posts, read 8,867,123 times
Reputation: 18291
So I just finished watching the sequel, which I felt was less creative, but more understandable. But there were two key differences that I realized as I watched:

The first film was sloooooooooooooow moving. Almost painfully sloooooooooooooow. The sequel moved along at a reasonable pace.

The first film was too sterile. It had no humanity to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2018, 11:38 PM
 
7,549 posts, read 7,978,155 times
Reputation: 8025
I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I always chuckle at the Pan Am "space shuttle."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 12:09 AM
 
Location: on the wind
4,141 posts, read 1,540,807 times
Reputation: 14749
There were aspects of the story (and the film) that were intended to move slowly and provoke thought as well as questions. It was, after all, a mystery, so some of it was supposed to create impatience. The music reinforced it...stately and carefully paced. Slow crescendos, etc. This was not intended to be an "action" film; just the opposite. The plot attempted to portray big spans of time, slow incremental change, learning by the apes in the first sequences, slow motion of planets, space stations, space travel, time to reach planets, all the metamorphosis at the end.

I remember seeing it right after release, in a panorama-type theater where the screen almost surrounded the audience. It was overwhelming. Even now considering the technology of the time, the effects are still clean, careful, just well done. I happened to be the only one in the family who had read the book, so knew what was going on. Definitely a film that worked better if you read it first. Maybe because of that I didn't find it slow at all.

In these days of non-stop almost frenetic action I'm sure it seems slow in comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 03:37 PM
 
17,907 posts, read 9,836,596 times
Reputation: 17386
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
So I just finished watching the sequel, which I felt was less creative, but more understandable. But there were two key differences that I realized as I watched:

The first film was sloooooooooooooow moving. Almost painfully sloooooooooooooow. The sequel moved along at a reasonable pace.

The first film was too sterile. It had no humanity to it.
It wasn't intended to have humanity. That was part of the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 03:41 PM
 
17,907 posts, read 9,836,596 times
Reputation: 17386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parnassia View Post
There were aspects of the story (and the film) that were intended to move slowly and provoke thought as well as questions. It was, after all, a mystery, so some of it was supposed to create impatience. The music reinforced it...stately and carefully paced. Slow crescendos, etc. This was not intended to be an "action" film; just the opposite. The plot attempted to portray big spans of time, slow incremental change, learning by the apes in the first sequences, slow motion of planets, space stations, space travel, time to reach planets, all the metamorphosis at the end.

I remember seeing it right after release, in a panorama-type theater where the screen almost surrounded the audience. It was overwhelming. Even now considering the technology of the time, the effects are still clean, careful, just well done. I happened to be the only one in the family who had read the book, so knew what was going on. Definitely a film that worked better if you read it first. Maybe because of that I didn't find it slow at all.

In these days of non-stop almost frenetic action I'm sure it seems slow in comparison.
Even at the time, it was rather slow-paced...people were used to westerns with horse chases.

If I were to compare it to a more modern movie in that aspect, I'd compare it to Bladerunner 2049.

When I saw it with a group of friends in '68, one of our group was rather a "stoner." In the middle of the wormhole sequence, he started screaming "It's blowing my mind! It's blowing my mind!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-08-2018, 03:49 PM
 
17,907 posts, read 9,836,596 times
Reputation: 17386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coney View Post
I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I always chuckle at the Pan Am "space shuttle."
It rather bums me out. As I watched it in '68, I totally expected to be able to take a Pan Am flight like that by 2001. In 1960, we had a 50% failure rate just getting a rocket off the pad. By the end of 1968 we had sent men around the moon and in the next year we'd land men on the moon.

With that much progress in less than decade...for sure in 30 more years--a whole generation--we'd have a permanent base on the moon, a permanent torus station, and Pan Am business flights into space.

For sure. No doubt.

Shoot. Not only do we not have a moon base or a space station...we don't even still have Pan Am.

Nor--looking at how times and thought, politics and economics, have changed, I don't have a real hope any of that will ever happen. At least not by the US. The US doesn't even have the national will to build another Hoover Dam or Interstate System. Nothing that might take more that one presidential term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top