Space1999.Net Forum Archive
Discussion
Discussion about Space:1999.
2001: A Space Odyssey
Science Fiction's Greatest Film?
Page 1 of 2 [Next] [Last Page]
| Author | Post | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Validus 04 Feb 2003 07:06:56 |
I would like to ask everyone their thoughts regarding that masterpiece of science fiction cinema 2001: A Space Odyssey. To some people 2001 is the fulcrum of all science fiction films. The first that can be truely be called great (if we discount Fritz Lang's Metropolis). Still others think it is the most mind-numbingly boring film ever made. I personally love the film. I own it on DVD and watch it at least once a year. But again- I'm wondering........what do you all think? |
||
| Space1999! 04 Feb 2003 19:06:23 |
I certainly appreciate the beauty and scope of 2001. Chronologically it ranks as the 2nd most influential sci-fi film, the first of course being one of my favourites Forbidden Planet (1956). For those unfamiliar with it you can see how many ideas the original Trek ripped off from this movie and similarities between the earthmen as god storyline in F Planet and Where No Man Has Gone Before. Then of course you have Star Wars and Alien which I believe both owe a huge debt to Year One of Space: 1999 whether it be for special effects, sets, scope or superb music. With 2001 I find myself jumping right to the Pan Am spacecraft scene and watching to the end. The whole fake ape thing is not particularily well done and the environment is exceedingly hostile whereas it should be more lush with vegetation, in my opinion, given the time period of 4 million years ago. All in all a classic movie well worth owning (and I do!  ) but doesn't make my top 5 favourite sci-fi films. |
||
| JackTheFool 04 Feb 2003 21:06:58 |
2001 is a film I appreciate, bu t I only pull it out to watch it about once every two years or so. I agree it was obviously a landmark film. I think Blade Runner and Alien are also landmark films. Jack |
||
| DX-SFX 05 Feb 2003 00:29:37 |
The whole point of the barren landscape in 2001 is that it ISN'T lush. The man apes are on the road to extinction through starvation. They are unaware that there is a rich food source grazing with them. It's the first Monolith's intervention that promotes intelligence that saves the species. Until this point they are merely prey for the big cats. As the film states in the opening shot it is "The Dawn Of Man". Perhaps it's made a bit clearer in the book. The alien entities that passed through our solar system four million years ago cherish intelligence and promote it in the species they encounter. The monoliths are tools left behind by them to carry out this work. The 2nd monolith on the Moon is an alarm clock to tell the alien intelligence when the man apes have become a space going species since it would take an intelligent species to reach the Moon and dig the Monolith up. I rate it as my top film along with Jaws as both I can watch again and again. |
||
| Validus 05 Feb 2003 18:39:22 |
DX-SFX, Have you read 3001: The Final Odyssey yet? If not I highly recommend it. I am hoping that it gets made into a film, but so far no word down the pipe. |
||
| DX-SFX 05 Feb 2003 18:54:03 |
By a strange coincidence I'd re-read it for the fourth time just before the religious thread started. I rate Clarke very highly. I must confess to being a little disappointed by it as a story the first time around (restoring a thousand year old corpse to life is a little hard to take on board however much it can be rationalised) although I find myself warming to it a little more each time. It's the weakest of the four books I think however there are a few very interesting takes on the human race proposed in it. When I read 2010 before the movie came out I was as amazed at Clarkes idea of igniting Jupiter as I was at Space 1999 blowing the moon out of orbit. Both were amazing and totally unexpected concepts bordering on the downright shocking. Clarkes descriptions of the universe and it's wonders are breathtaking and vivid. In return I'd like to recommend Clarkes Book "JULY 20, 2019 - A DAY IN THE LIFE OF THE 21ST CENTURY" ISBN 0-246-12980-8 It's not so much a story as predictions about the future and each chapter covers things such as "Transportation in 2019", "A day in the office", "A day in the life of a space station", "A day at the Hospital". Anyone thinking of setting a story in the near future would do well to read this book because Clarke has an uncanny knack of predicting the future with scary accuracy. |
||
| Validus 05 Feb 2003 19:09:18 |
Good points. I actually liked 3001 more then the middle two books. I did very much enjoy 2010: The Year We Make Contact even though many critics smashed it to bits. One British writer called the film "ten past eight". I have it on DVD and I think it makes a good "companion" to 2001. Thinking about the other thread (isn't it getting interesting?) I can now see why 3001 won't get made into a film. It's views of Theism would offend a mass audience and doubtless the film would bomb. If they did make it though I wonder if they'd get Gary Lockwood to reprise his role as Astronaut Frank Poole. Sure, he's old.....but it fits. |
||
| Flamegrape 05 Feb 2003 22:50:03 |
But the ape scene is one of the most dramatic and important part of the film! And by only using cinemagraphic techniques of montage, it's explained that the monolith affected Moonwatcher and sparked the idea of using tools. And when Moonwatcher throws the bone into the air and it "transforms" into a weapons satellite, it's one of the most striking jump-cuts in the history of film. Also there's that weird chorus in the soundtrack when the apes notice the monolith. The "monolith theme" is heard again each time it appears in the film. Kubrick was a genius. I love all of his films. Eyes Wide Shut was a masterpiece. |
||
| Validus 06 Feb 2003 06:42:22 |
I will confess that the film 2001 was greatly improved for me by reading the actual book by Arthur C. Clarke. In the book Clarke made some interesting predictions that actually came true- such as the laptop computer. He also predicted that the private sector would eventually become the seat of power and in 1999 it was pointed out that Microsoft had a greater value then many of this world's nations......hmmm. | ||
| Eagle One 15 Feb 2003 15:20:13 |
It's been a about 18 years since I've seen 2001 all the way thru. I read the book ~25 years ago. I need to revisit 2001 and I might change my mind. However, I remember it as being very slow paced and somewhat boring. I know it's a master piece and all that but it's not entertaining or easy to follow. My favorite part is still the issue with HAL. That is the outstanding moment in the whole film to me as I remember it. The whole star child thing was just too far out there for me to really get into. The black rectangles were pretty cool. The starving apes were ok. Yes the jump cut of the bone being tossed up and becoming the space station is outstanding. That sequenced annoyed my dad some much he wanted to turn off 2001. He disliked the monkeys at the start, the starchild, and the ending but loved the music. (Baptist minister) I liked 2010 and enjoyed it very much. Even managed to talk my dad into going to see it in the theater with me. He remember 2001 but begrudingly went. He like 2010 much better as a movie (no monkey themes) but didn't like the music as much as 2001. I was always impressed he was willing to see 2010 after his reaction to 2001. To his credit he's far more open about ths sort of thing than many of his generation are. The redemption of HAL was important and he viewed this as having important overtones. In other words, HAL and his creator in some ways were an analogy of man (and his failings) and God his creator. In any case, we had some good discussion about the 2010 far more than we did about 2001. As for 2061, I remember reading it and thinking it was ok but the weakest of the stories. As for 3001, I liked it. Always wondered about the guy floating off into space. It was very intriguing and novel and wrapped the whole 2001 thing up about as well as one could wish. I probably should view both 2001 and 2010 and see what my reaction now is. |
||
| DX-SFX 15 Feb 2003 15:51:45 |
Once again it's interesting to see how different people read different interpretations into the same thing. A lot of people consider Hal to be the only character in the movie. Some have chosen to interpret this as mans lot in the future, for all it's wonders, has become dull and mundane and it's the machines that dominate. If that makes the film slow or boring then maybe that's one of the ideas about the future it tries to portray. Afterall it's a film to make you think. It's not a mindless thrill ride like we seem to see ad infinitum on the screens nowadays. |
||
| Validus 15 Feb 2003 16:50:38 |
DX-SFX- I tend to agree. Hal is by far the most "human" character in the film. Kubrick was obsessed with the theme of dehumanization and it fills all his movies to one degree or another, especially Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket. For me that same theme is seen in a much later film, Blade Runner. In BR it is hard not to notice that the most human character is in fact Roy (Rutger Hauer), the gene-engineered warrior who more then anything wants to live. . . . . . even if it means living in the post-modern Hell of Los Angelis in the year 2019. I've always felt that 2001 was ment to be a "meditative film", which is why I think in the era of Cable & films like The Matrix it probably seems boring to more modern audiences who need every single plot point underlined for them. |
||
| DX-SFX 16 Feb 2003 11:02:26 |
Agreed also. Unfortunately we're now living in the "two minute" society where people's attention span is much shorter so something like 2001 suffers. I recently went back and watched some of Gerry Anderson's ealier series "Supercar" and I was amazed at how wordy and slow it seemed compared to how I remember it. It was (and still is) quite original especially for it's day but I can imagine modern TV execs complaining that there wasn't some thrilling action piece every thirty seconds or a crap rock soundtrack. | ||
| Validus 16 Feb 2003 17:22:10 |
It's interesting to me to consider films like 2001 because one ends up asking the basic question- "what makes great science fiction?" There is a lot of talk over at SciFi.com about reviving the old tv show Battlestar Galactica. My first question upon hearing this was "why?" If memory serves correctly I loved that show.....when I was 12! Looking at it now I cringe at the bad scripts and blatant rip-off of Star Wars.....the whole "Chariots of the Gods" theme....dialogue that would embaress even the likes of Lorne Green. I've always felt that what made Space:1999 such a great show was pretty much killed in the second season. I think what made Season One so good were the elements that challenged the audience like 2001 did just a few years earlier. To me shows like Battlestar Galactica (and more recent efforts like Stargate SG-1) really sink to merely trying to "entertain" the audience....which really means keeping them just long enough to aire the commercials. I imagine that if an ambitious film maker (and a very stupid one) decided to re-make 2001 today it might have more dialogue, better special effects, and.......you guessed it........it would suck hard. I think that for me 2001 works as well as it does because it asks the audience to rise above their own limits, to consider ideas it never considered before. Good luck finding worthwhile concepts in something like "Tremors: The Series". |
||
| Eagle One 16 Feb 2003 20:48:30 |
Your post about a remade 2001 conjures up visions of the starving monkeys being totally butched. In the remake the monkeys would probably end up Micheal Jackson clones sort of like in Planet of the Apes. The helpful monkey in the remake of Planet of the Apes looks exactly like Micheal Jackson. While it might be possible to make a decent 2001 remake from a technical stand point of special effects, I don't think the remake could fair very well at the box office today without extreme revision which would totally change the nature of 2001. If I was remaking 2001 I'd shoot for a run time not over one hour and forty minutes otherwise people would be falling out of their seats. I would also want to cast Colin Ferrel and Brad Pitt as the Discovery's astronauts. Spectacular special effects of the Discovery's journey with far briefer durations would allow cutting many minutes from the length and do the least damage to film. |
||
| Validus 17 Feb 2003 08:03:13 |
Let me begin my post by saying that I would be totally against anyone that thought remaking 2001: A Space Odyssey was a good idea. Remember the remakes of Psycho and King Kong? Remember the "American" version of Godzilla? Now- having said that, if someone decided to make another version of 2001 I can only think of one way it could work at all. It would have to stick more clearly to the novel by Clarke, which would mean expanding on the theme of Doomsday through nuclear tensions between the US, Russia and China. I think it would also have to be made with the assistance and blessing of Arthur C. Clarke, otherwise such a project would be utterly and totally doomed to failure before it even got started. I have to say this though- I would think that any film maker would be utterly screwed if he tried to remake 2001. It would be like trying to remake Citizen Kane or duplicate Hamlet.......no chance in Hell. |
||
| DX-SFX 17 Feb 2003 10:18:55 |
I agree entirely! It would be like someone saying "Hey, lets improve the Mona Lisa!". | ||
| Validus 17 Feb 2003 17:20:25 |
I would love to see a film version of 3001: The Final Odyssey . That book has been out for a few years now and I've unfortunately heard nothing is in the works. I guess people would much rather watch films like "Star Wars Episode XIII: Attack of the Cloned Plot". Gary Lockwood could even reprise his role as Astronaut Frank Poole since now he'd be about the right age. | ||
| DX-SFX 17 Feb 2003 23:56:03 |
I suspect that they would have to incorporate some flash back sequences from 2061 for it make sense though. | ||
| Validus 18 Feb 2003 04:14:38 |
3001 makes no reference at all to the previous novels and could be thought of as a direct sequal to 2001. Clarke said so himself. |
Page 1 of 2 [Next] [Last Page]