Okay so I finally rented 2001: A Space Odessey

[ShockwaveVT]

Its about evolution leaps being spurred by a source external to earth, represented by the monoliths. Dave Bowman becomes the Star Child, the next evolutionary leap of mankind.

Also, for a film made 40 years ago the special effects are far and away the best of their time.

 

[DougK62]

I thought 2001 was a little boring, too. But I was absolutely blown away by how polished it was. The audio and video are excellent - it's really fun to look at.

The parts in space with the robot computer were fun.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: alien42
you HAVE to read the book first or the movie will be pointless. kubrick and clarke did that intentionally.

i saw the movie, felt like you. then i read the book, had an epiphany on life and then watched the movie again and was absolutely blown away.

If I have time I might pick it up. I find the premise very interesting but just thought it was so boring. There are huge, long, drawn out scenes that just seem so superfluous. And the end was strange, I have to be honest I didn't understand it.

And lozina, I consider myself reasonably intelligent. In fact, I would consider anyone who uses movies to gauge intelligence to be stupid.
-------------------------
Dominate your face

heheheheh

 

[Special K]

I have read reviews of people comparing this movie to The Foutain. Would you guys who have seen both say that is a valid comparision? If I liked The Fountain, would I like 2001: A Space Odyssey?

 

[daveshel]

It was groundbreaking for its time. All of the special effects were created without computer animation or even CGI. It might be possible to get most of it without having read the book, but some of the concepts in the book did not work as well on screen: take the 1:4:9 (1 squared:2 squared:3 squared) dimensions of the monolith. The movie was influenced by the expanded consciousness afforded by the psychedelics that had become mainstream at the time, and is as unlike the book in that respect, but that was Kubrick: just look at how different a story The Shining was from King's book.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: Special K
I have read reviews of people comparing this movie to The Foutain. Would you guys who have seen both say that is a valid comparision? If I liked The Fountain, would I like 2001: A Space Odyssey?

The two movies are very similar in that you are being fed VERY VERY strong visuals with little narrative to reveal the story. Both movies will take a few viewings to digest properly, and you are probably best off by sitting and contemplating between viewings.

The Fountain, to me, was the best movie of 2006 and right up there in my top 5 movies of all time list.

 

[funboy6942]

The 2nd one is alot better film IMO. I didnt really care that much for the first one, but I wouldnt call it crap, just not as good as the 2nd.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: funboy42
The 2nd one is alot better film IMO. I didnt really care that much for the first one, but I wouldnt call it crap, just not as good as the 2nd.

...

The second film was fairly forgettable.

 

[yllus]

One of the most timeless films of all time. Absolutely breathtaking.

That said, I'm sure people who didn't read the books (2001, 2010, 2101) would be fairly lost trying to follow along and/or find it pretentious.

 

[Dirigible]

2001 is my favorite film of all time. Brings me to tears every time I watch it.

Still, I totally understand people not liking it, finding it boring, etc.

 

[handoverfist]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Special K
I have read reviews of people comparing this movie to The Foutain. Would you guys who have seen both say that is a valid comparision? If I liked The Fountain, would I like 2001: A Space Odyssey?

The two movies are very similar in that you are being fed VERY VERY strong visuals with little narrative to reveal the story. Both movies will take a few viewings to digest properly, and you are probably best off by sitting and contemplating between viewings.

The Fountain, to me, was the best movie of 2006 and right up there in my top 5 movies of all time list.

x2

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: yllus
One of the most timeless films of all time. Absolutely breathtaking.

That said, I'm sure people who didn't read the books (2001, 2010, 2101) would be fairly lost trying to follow along and/or find it pretentious.

Yeah, the book is more much clear and direct than the movie. The two really complement each other (which makes sense given that the screenplay and book were written at the same time).

 

[Spydermag68]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: yllus
One of the most timeless films of all time. Absolutely breathtaking.

That said, I'm sure people who didn't read the books (2001, 2010, 2101) would be fairly lost trying to follow along and/or find it pretentious.

Yeah, the book is more much clear and direct than the movie. The two really complement each other (which makes sense given that the screenplay and book were written at the same time).

The movie was taken from a short story...I forget the title at the moment. The move and the book expand on the short story.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Spydermag68

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: yllus
One of the most timeless films of all time. Absolutely breathtaking.

That said, I'm sure people who didn't read the books (2001, 2010, 2101) would be fairly lost trying to follow along and/or find it pretentious.

Yeah, the book is more much clear and direct than the movie. The two really complement each other (which makes sense given that the screenplay and book were written at the same time).

The movie was taken from a short story...I forget the title at the moment. The move and the book expand on the short story.

I think the story originated from ideas in Clarke's "The Sentinel" - haven't read it though.

 

[Shadowknight]

Originally posted by: funboy42
The 2nd one is alot better film IMO. I didnt really care that much for the first one, but I wouldnt call it crap, just not as good as the 2nd.

:thumbsup: If they cut about 45 minuts of 2001, such as the long long LONG psycheldelic "tunnel" at the end, I would have like it a lot more. There were good things about it, but it just was too slow and needed a lot of the fat trimmed. 2010, on the otherhand, was heavy on science in a cool one and was a lot tighter in story, which made it a lot better.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: handoverfist

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Special K
I have read reviews of people comparing this movie to The Foutain. Would you guys who have seen both say that is a valid comparision? If I liked The Fountain, would I like 2001: A Space Odyssey?

The two movies are very similar in that you are being fed VERY VERY strong visuals with little narrative to reveal the story. Both movies will take a few viewings to digest properly, and you are probably best off by sitting and contemplating between viewings.

The Fountain, to me, was the best movie of 2006 and right up there in my top 5 movies of all time list.

x2

Is it absolutely necessary to read the book first in order to enjoy the movie?

 

[jman19]

IMO no, but if you aren't in to visual and audio stimulus as the drivers of a movie watching experience, you might find the openess of the plot to be an issue.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
a) I don't get it

b) What a boring, over rated piece of sh!t

I'm thinking I need more drugs. But seriously that movie sucked, I don't get what the fuss is about.

Agreed. The only benefits of it are that now I fully understand numerous references to it that appear in other TV shows and movies.

Originally posted by: Shawn
You fail at life.

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

Wow, that was almost as slow-paced and drawn out as 2001 was.

Didn't get through the whole thing anyway.
I gather that the thing was sent as a probe to keep tabs on the development of life on Earth.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Special K
Is it absolutely necessary to read the book first in order to enjoy the movie?

YES

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
a) I don't get it

b) What a boring, over rated piece of sh!t

I'm thinking I need more drugs. But seriously that movie sucked, I don't get what the fuss is about.

:thumbsup: amen brother!!! I have never been able to stay away and watch all of this movie.

 

[libs0n]

Next Saturday a local arthouse movie theatre is airing it so I'll be seeing it on the big screen, which is a treat I can hardly wait for; I should freeze myself in a glacier in order for the week and a half to pass faster. I missed it four years ago and fate has kindly allowed me another opportunity to see it in such a venue.

Never read the books, save the first chapters of the second to pass the time in a location where it happened to be laying about. It is my understanding that the books are Arthur C. Clarke's vision whereas the movie is really Kubrick's baby. For instance, apparently it is explained in the books that HAL receives contradictory orders and that leads to his breakdown, a quintessential human computer error and not the fault of the machine. However Kubrick's intention was to show that with the development of intelligence also comes the possibility of madness, of which HAL succumbs to. I do agree that the basic understanding of the plot - man as an animal, prey even, given the ability to make tools by the monoliths, fast forwarding to the point where man has reached the apex of what tools can bring him, and so the monoliths come again to further advance mankind - really aids in the appreciation of the picture. Damn, I can't wait, I go now to pace.

Part of the reason I haven't read the books or watched the second movie yet is that I don't want to pollute my mind with its interpretation. Not sure if I'll change that position after I re see the film.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: alien42
you HAVE to read the book first or the movie will be pointless. kubrick and clarke did that intentionally.

i saw the movie, felt like you. then i read the book, had an epiphany on life and then watched the movie again and was absolutely blown away.

<sigh>

I couldn't disagree with you more.

The movie intentionally leaves the viewer trying to understand the next transition of mankind that he/she is not a part of, and as unable to grasp what it means as those apes that had their skulls caved in with the bone. The movie intentionally leaves questions unanswered; it is meant to be thought provoking.

The idea for the movie grew out of a short story written by Clarke. I think Kubrick deserves the credit for making the movie what it is. Clarke wrote the follow-up book 2001, and he tries to give readers all the answers in terms of aliens and advanced technologies. No unanswered questions; no thoughts provoked.

Do NOT read the book first.

See the movie.

If you don't "get it", that's okay.

If you're bored, well... go ahead and read the book. :thumbsdown:

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: libs0n
Next Saturday a local arthouse movie theatre is airing it so I'll be seeing it on the big screen, which is a treat I can hardly wait for; I should freeze myself in a glacier in order for the week and a half to pass faster. I missed it four years ago and fate has kindly allowed me another opportunity to see it in such a venue.

Never read the books, save the first chapters of the second to pass the time in a location where it happened to be laying about. It is my understanding that the books are Arthur C. Clarke's vision whereas the movie is really Kubrick's baby. For instance, apparently it is explained in the books that HAL receives contradictory orders and that leads to his breakdown, a quintessential human computer error and not the fault of the machine. However Kubrick's intention was to show that with the development of intelligence also comes the possibility of madness, of which HAL succumbs to. I do agree that the basic understanding of the plot - man as an animal, prey even, given the ability to make tools by the monoliths, fast forwarding to the point where man has reached the apex of what tools can bring him, and so the monoliths come again to further advance mankind - really aids in the appreciation of the picture. Damn, I can't wait, I go now to pace.

Part of the reason I haven't read the books or watched the second movie yet is that I don't want to pollute my mind with its interpretation. Not sure if I'll change that position after I re see the film.

kubrick and clarke worked on the book and movie at the same time and each had an influence on the other. i can not emphasize enough how the book needs to be read before watching the movie.

 

[dennilfloss]

You should have seen that movie at the theatre.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: alien42

kubrick and clarke worked on the book and movie at the same time and each had an influence on the other. i can not emphasize enough how the book needs to be read before watching the movie.

You really only need to read the book first if you are the type of person who needs everything spelled out for you...