Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Oct 20, 2010 - 1:06 AM   
 By:   Marcato   (Member)



uhhhh NO...you're talking about the ending for 2010.

The monolith found by Bowman at Jupiter opens a Stargate which sucks him to another part of the universe through various dimensions and realms where he comes to rest in a room manufactured by the unseen aliens (themselves now evolved into pure consciousness beyond flesh) out of images from Bowman's mind where he is artifically evolved though bending time jumps until they recreate him as a new species (the next step forward for man to superman) the Starchild returns to Earth orbit and ponders his former home and fate (and in the novel he blows up all the orbiting nukes which isn't in the film)



And 2001 - if you did not read it all then read it again...

I've seen both movies.

 
 
 Posted:   Oct 26, 2010 - 3:20 AM   
 By:   Triple Threat   (Member)



I have never seen the follow up, 2010. Is it any good?



2001's greatness -- and the root of its rejection by many -- is its eschewing of most melodramatic conventions. 2010 is nothing but conventional melodrama, a middling Star Trek movie without Kirk and Spock. Like most great stories, 2001's conclusion is the end. It doesn't matter what happens after that. The story's been told. All the rest, as that great extraterrestrial monolith, the Talmud, likes to say, is merely commentary.

 
 Posted:   May 12, 2013 - 11:53 AM   
 By:   Mark R. Y.   (Member)

It's a film that really advanced the art of cinema, but one problem is the deliberate irony of the people who inhabit it acting like unemotional computers - and HAL the computer emerging as the most "human" character!

I prefer Tarkovsky's SOLARIS - another deliberately paced meditative film that largely takes place on a spaceship. The human element is more moving than 2001's.


I wrote the above nearly three years ago, and it still generally holds true for me. I still have more affection for the 1971 SOLARIS, but I seem to have been too dismissive of 2001 in my statement.
I watched 2001 last night, my first time in several years - and my first time ever on my widescreen TV. I sat close to the screen to get the home viewing equivalent of watching in the Cinerama theatre, did not distract myself with anything else, and allowed the slow, measured pace of the film to relax me - so that by the time of the "star gate" sequence I really felt the seductive, "trippy" aspects of it. It was a great viewing; one really needs to get into that state naturally to flow along with the film's rhythms, rather than feeling bored and impatient with it. Anyway, I've seen so many really slow art films of late that 2001 seems almost breathlessly paced by comparison.
Before I considered the human characters rather artificial, but I was more impressed with Keir Dullea's performance this time. Very subtle, but much more emotional than I ever remembered it to be.
I have read plenty of books and articles about Kubrick that analyze his films, so I find the storyline of 2001 to be quite straightforward. I think it's the odd structure of the entire film that throws many people off.

 
 Posted:   May 12, 2013 - 12:28 PM   
 By:   solium   (Member)

I love this film. First off I'm fascinated with anything to do with "manned space flight". Visually it took me to a place we could only dream of in terms of space flight and technology. There's a beautiful ballet between music and visuals. (Something one doesn't see often in film) Spaceships are cool. wink

Second, I actually love the acting style in this film. The characters thoughts and actions are precise and non emotional. These are well trained, educated professionals that don't let emotion rule behavior. (Thanks Gods) It's what I would expect from a society that is trying to advance its knowledge of the universe. (Frankly most attempts at mimicking astronauts behavior in films are downright embarrassing.)

Sure the ending had me scratching my head a bit. I got there was a rebirth of some kind, an evolutionary jump, and that's all I really needed to know. cool

 
 
 Posted:   May 13, 2013 - 6:37 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)



I have never seen the follow up, 2010. Is it any good?



2001's greatness -- and the root of its rejection by many -- is its eschewing of most melodramatic conventions. 2010 is nothing but conventional melodrama, a middling Star Trek movie without Kirk and Spock. Like most great stories, 2001's conclusion is the end. It doesn't matter what happens after that. The story's been told. All the rest, as that great extraterrestrial monolith, the Talmud, likes to say, is merely commentary.



2010 is a less great cinematic accomplishment, but a better entertainment. You do not really watch 2001 to be entertained, but to be sucked in and tranquilized.

The story is sometimes a stretch, and the cold war angle is surely a stale one. On the other hand the effects in 2010 are really very good, representing some of the best model work and photo effects before CGI took over.

I like Roy Scheider and John Lithgow and Hellen Mirren in these roles. Peter Hyams style can be a challenge, lots of low light and grainy shots. It surely wraps up a little too neatly in the end, entirely the opposite of 2001.

 
 Posted:   May 13, 2013 - 9:11 AM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

I still think they should've had William Sylvester reprise his role as Floyd in 2010, and had Scheider play a new role.

One thing that bugs me about 2010's efx are the visible "overlay/matte blocks" around some of the ship shots. Another is the use of the wrong Ligeti cue for the monolith.

 
 
 Posted:   May 13, 2013 - 10:33 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I still think they should've had William Sylvester reprise his role as Floyd in 2010, and had Scheider play a new role.

One thing that bugs me about 2010's efx are the visible "overlay/matte blocks" around some of the ship shots. Another is the use of the wrong Ligeti cue for the monolith.


Oh, I agree that there are visible matte lines, but it does not really bother me. The Discovery and the other model are so terrific, and even the little pod is great. The music is sometimes good, I think some of that Shire stuff backing Scheider's voiceover is nicely moody minimal electronic stuff. Other of it, the action beats, not as great, and the Ligeti was wrong somehow, not sure what they did there. What I do like about the film is Hyams does these really long wide shots from far away, on earth and in space, those are not used much nowadays.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.