 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 8, 2017 - 5:17 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Watching it tonight and the production design, model work and FX are as awesome as ever - the fact that they all stand up even by today's standards is remarkable.
But as for the rest of it - what a load of of pretentious rubbish. Seriously, I just cannot get why this film is consistently lauded as one of the greatest movies ever made. The dialogue and acting is no better than an avaerage episode of UFO.
For the most part, the bolt-on score just doesn't work. Yes, I accept that also sprach zarathustra is pretty awesome but the over-use of Blue Danube is terrible, particularly given that, often, the music massively overpowers the visuals.
And the editing is just awful, As is typical for Kubrick, scenes go on and on and on without cuts, to the extent they are just boring to watch. A good example of this is first time we see Discovery. First we get one very long fly past of the ship -ok, I get it, it shows it is a BIG SHIP. But then to re-enforce that we get another shot, just as slow, from a different angle. The. For the hard of thinking we get a long shot that goes on forever just to confirm it is a BIG SHIP. And then for those people who haven't fallen asleep or slashed their wrists from boredom, we now get an internal shot of Poole jogging. And it's a very clever shot because he is running around it. So, delighted with how clever he is, Kubrick let's this sequence go on and on and on, us choosing to cut to different angles but contributing nothing to the story.
As for the famous match-cut of the bone-to-satellite, I've always thought this was terribly executed ever since I first saw the movie. On a conceptual level it is a fantastic idea but the execution of it is just totally wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! Yes, good one Mike. I would have agreed with you twenty-five years ago, but since then I've read a couple of hundred books and essays telling me how I (we) was (were) getting the whole big thing point wrong.
I'll always have an emotional attachment to the film though, despite everything. My dad was an SF enthusiast and introduced me to the writings of Asimov, JG Ballard, Ray Bradbury and an endless etcetera. He took me and my brother to see 2001 on the big screen shortly after its initial release because it had blown his mind and he wanted to share the experience with his kids. But at the age of seven or eight I didn't quite get it, much to dad's disappointment, and at the age of fifty-five I still can't quite grasp why it's so absolutely brilliant.
Thus Spake Neanderthalus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 9, 2017 - 4:15 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
Mike_J wrote: So, no, I don't need car crashes in a movie, just decent characters and story.
Thus, that is the "limit" of your appreciation. 2001 works at a scale where individual characters become irrelevant; it is a concept film. Some of the "boring" characters are intended to be very flat and lifeless. Compare the cool and expressionless human astronauts to HAL, or note the bureaucratic dithering by Floyd and company over the most exciting news in all of human history.
Mike_J wrote: First we get one very long fly past of the ship -ok, I get it, it shows it is a BIG SHIP.
Forest for the trees. I could make the same comment about many Japanese directors who are fond of virtually static shots where two characters simply stare at each other for seemingly endless time. The home video version of 2001 includes captioning in the Dawn of Man sequence for those who cannot understand the dialog between the early hominids.
Solium wrote: I can understand why some people find the film boring and uninvolving, but the film is not overrated.
Agreed. And while the depiction of spaceflight was a tremendous improvement over other films of the time, it is not entirely flawless. For example, the Tycho-bound moonbus is shown gliding along in a flat trajectory over the lunar surface. With no atmosphere for conventional aeronautics, such point-to-point transportation would most likely use ballistic jumps. Also, the hibernacula for the astronauts would not be in the "gravitated" portion of Discovery, but some freefall area to reduce wear and tear on the sleepers. Realistically, there would be no fill light on the shadowed side of Discovery and so on.
At least one "inaccuracy" was intentional—radiator panels for Discovery's engines were left out for fear audiences would interpret them as wings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 9, 2017 - 8:05 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Mike_J wrote: So, no, I don't need car crashes in a movie, just decent characters and story.
Thus, that is the "limit" of your appreciation. 2001 works at a scale where individual characters become irrelevant
No, it isn't at the "limit" of my appreciation, whatever that means. For me, the film doesn't work in any level at all, apart from as a showreel for some decent effects. If it does for you, then great, I'm very happy for you - your ability to appreciate movies is clearly far superior to mine. Apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 9, 2017 - 9:40 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
leagolfer
(Member)
|
Watching it tonight and the production design, model work and FX are as awesome as ever - the fact that they all stand up even by today's standards is remarkable.
But as for the rest of it - what a load of of pretentious rubbish. Seriously, I just cannot get why this film is consistently lauded as one of the greatest movies ever made. The dialogue and acting is no better than an avaerage episode of UFO.
For the most part, the bolt-on score just doesn't work. Yes, I accept that also sprach zarathustra is pretty awesome but the over-use of Blue Danube is terrible, particularly given that, often, the music massively overpowers the visuals.
And the editing is just awful, As is typical for Kubrick, scenes go on and on and on without cuts, to the extent they are just boring to watch. A good example of this is first time we see Discovery. First we get one very long fly past of the ship -ok, I get it, it shows it is a BIG SHIP. But then to re-enforce that we get another shot, just as slow, from a different angle. The. For the hard of thinking we get a long shot that goes on forever just to confirm it is a BIG SHIP. And then for those people who haven't fallen asleep or slashed their wrists from boredom, we now get an internal shot of Poole jogging. And it's a very clever shot because he is running around it. So, delighted with how clever he is, Kubrick let's this sequence go on and on and on, us choosing to cut to different angles but contributing nothing to the story.
As for the famous match-cut of the bone-to-satellite, I've always thought this was terribly executed ever since I first saw the movie. On a conceptual level it is a fantastic idea but the execution of it is just totally wrong.
Its 1968, it holds up well. Tell-me Mike, what's good in sci-fi terms, about todays films. filming + actors, I'm lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_J, you've started this thread to do little more than piss in that waterhole that is an appreciation of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, and there is only one way to deal with an invader like you....
There's about six of them. They email each other and take bets as to whether named individuals will rise to the occasion if they start a particular thread. I'm not sure what the prize is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
