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.
"2001" has been one of Nolan's touchstone films since childhood. "When I was 7 my dad took me to see it at London's Leicester Square, a very big theater with 70-mm projection," he recalls. "I remember the scale of it, how larger than life it was. To sit in a theater and be taken on that kind of journey, it's a screening I've carried with me." Christopher Nolan restores Kubrick sci-fi masterpiece '2001: A Space Odyssey' the old-fashioned way
When I 1st saw the movie as a kid, it was very confusing. Then watched it as an adult I realized that it was such a masterpiece. I really hope perhaps a remake but most likely it would get dumbed down because there are no more real science fiction movies only action movies today.
As story ... it's about 45 minutes too long. Very self-indulgent and often confusing. And the characters are all cold fish. In terms of story and characterization and plot, 2010 is actually a much better movie.
2010? Really? I did like it. But head to head it doesen't hold a candle to A Space Odyssey.
Anything can hold a candle to 2001, but 2001 has no heat. It is one of the coldest movies ever made. There is not a calorie of human warmth in it. It is all Intellect.
In terms of great directing, music, cinematography, and Big Ideas, 2001 is an undisputed masterpiece. But it's all Concept. There no human Connection, which 2010 provided.
Anything can hold a candle to 2001, but 2001 has no heat. It is one of the coldest movies ever made. There is not a calorie of human warmth in it. It is all Intellect.
In terms of great directing, music, cinematography, and Big Ideas, 2001 is an undisputed masterpiece. But it's all Concept. There no human Connection, which 2010 provided.
They are both different movies with radically different styles.
2001 is a masterpiece. It is Art.
2010 is a well done, but basic film that answers some questions. It did not try to mimic 2001 and thank God for that as it would have crashed and burned.
I've been considering streaming it it from Prime lately not only because of the 50th but because it may be my favorite film ever. I've certainly watched it more than any other starting from its initial release in theaters in '68, watch it every few years since & always notice something I hadn't seen before, it rewards repeat viewings.
And 2010 is ok light entertainment, but not even remotely close to the same league as 2001, it's like comparing lightning to a lightning bug. There isn't supposed to be human warmth in it, it's a scenario of a cosmological struggle, it's deliberately nonverbal & an unusual narrative structure. And a technical masterpiece that has influenced all space films since despite being in the pre-digital era.
Why would Nolan supervise it? Like he just stood around and made sure it went well and it was the best transfer it could be? If I was a Hollywood director I would probably be like "Don't you have other people for that"?
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.
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.
