Well… the LOTR thread was a lot more popular than I ever expected it to be, so I thought I might post another similar one… this one probably won’t be as popular, but, ahhh… who can tell?
Just saw 2001: A Space Odyssey. I thought it was a very good movie. The book was good, too. Very strange, but I really enjoyed it. What do you guys think?
my opinion on 2001 has been met with great opposition, but I will post it here.
I found 2001: ASO to be an extremely tedious, pointless, and all-around boring movie for a few reasons: It’s plot could have easily been covered in a quarter of the time the movie took to finish it, the freaky psychadelic landscapes went on for far too long (FAR too long), and if HAL had spoken at the speed of a normal person, the movie could have been half as long. Too much of the movie was spent listening to that idiotic monotone voice. (Yes, i realize HAL is supposed to be a computer, and that is a computerish voice, but PLEASE, I can only take so much) “Whats wrong, HAL” “I…think…you…know…Dave…” “Open the pod bay doors HAL” “I…can’t…do…that…Dave” “Open the doors, HAL” “No…Dave…” and on and on and on…
Don’t get me wrong, the effects were good for the time, the overall idea of the film had potential. So yeah. my main critizism is that it was far too long for the plot material they covered. And the end was too “interpretive.” wtf is with the giant baby. (go ahead, call me stupid. 
)
thanks for letting me waste your time.
I thought it was long.
And that’s about it.
Martin
2001, imho, is like Dune. You have to watch/read the sequels to fully enjoy the series as a whole compared to a single one as an individual story. I didn’t like 2001 too terribly much though, I liked 2010 more…
I liked it. But I can understand why It drove a lot of people nuts.
The sequences were loooooong but to me that gave it a sense of real time.
In 2010 I think they addressed some of the issues that people didn’t like about 2001. Stuff happened faster, They told the audience what was going on, There was more dialog. It was good but not as unique as 2001.
The baby was Dave by the way as was the old man but I think it also represented humanity.
I happen to think it is far and away one of the greatest achievements in visual effects history. This film was made in 1967, and for all intents and purposes looks real. Realer than the lunar landings at any rate.
I like the feel of it too. It’s slow, yes, but soo damn atmospheric. It is highly stylized, and it rules.
But just my opinions. 8)
I personally think the book was amazing, but the movie was very boring. It went by so slowly. I remember the warp/wormhole scene where you just had flashing colors for five minutes or something. The effects were very good for the time, even better than some movies today. I personally liked HAL’s voice, but that’s just me. 
Goo
I’ve read the book and enjoyed it ver much. What comes to the movie, I’ve still to see it… I mean I have started to watch it for about five times, but not once I have managed to watch it through, it’s just way, way too boring (and that is a lot to say from me) 
But one day, I will watch it through.
2010 is differet from 2001 because it wasn’t made by Stanley Kubrick, who thought of movies as an art medium.
I think me and my dad enjoyed it most… my mom just kind of stumbled around saying she liked Star Trek better (she really likes star trek), and my brother and sister just keep repeating Hal’s pleadings for Dave to stop disconnecting him. They seem to think it’s funny in some way. (Don’t ask me)…
Does anyone know how they did the “anti-gravity” effects in the 60’s? I know the scenes with dave running along the wall were done on a ferris-wheel shaped thing, but how did they do the scenes where people are floating around? For Apollo 13 they used that plane that goes into free-fall.
ropes?
Martin
Hi,
Don’t think so.
The room they are in can turn 360 degrees around some axis along with the camera. So the walking actor is always perpendicular to the ground 
Bye,
If you say that it’s too long then you should probably try to read the book to understand it more. As PlantPerson said, Kubrick used film as an art medium more than most directors. The film is long because he was trying to convey a point in film that was easier to express on paper.
It’s a great film. 
Wait… even better…
:Z :Z :Z :Z :Z
Marvellous
NO. THERE IS NO WAY ANYBODY CAN TALK SH*T ABOUT 2001, STANLEY KUBRICK IS A GENIUOS (SPELLING SOORY) HAS ANYBODY SEEN A CLOCKWORK ORANGE? NOBODY THAT DOESNT LIKE STANLEY KUBRICK, DESERVES TO LIVE, I AM SORRY, U WILL BE EXCECUTED (U LIKE MY GEORGE BUSH IMPERSONATION?) LOL, BUT REALLY, ITS A WORK OF ART.
:<
p.s. CATHOLICS SHOULD DIE TO, GODDAMN MOLESTERS LOL
I own 2001 on DVD. I haven’t watched it since getting it for Christmas… last year. Dogs are fun. I like them.
DVD is a good point too, as this movie must be viewed in full theatrical aspect-ratio. It’s an insanely wide one at that 2.33:1 if I’m not mistaken.
I had bought it on VHS in wide-screen before I owned a DVD player. Full-screen cuts out nearly half of what you should be seeing at all times.
Frickin fullscreen schnicta!!! :x
someone do me a favor and kill skeletor. kill him or permaban him either way. he shows too much promise.
I can talk shit about whatever I want, those are called opinions…
Martin
2001 was a great movie !
It’s very long, yes. But then it does cover the “Dawn of Man” to evolved “Star Child” so it should be ! Personally I found HALs voice suitably creepy. It wouldn’t have worked had it been at a faster speed. And the “interepretive” scenes at the end were meant to be like that : they didn’t want people to understand everything. It’s also probably the ONLY sci-fi movie ever made without any explosions in it, and it’s very popular : quite an achievment !
At the time of its release (apparently, I wasn’t around then 
), teenagers would go and get stoned to see it. Which no doubt made all those pretty colours seem even nicer…
valarking wrote :
2001, imho, is like Dune. You have to watch/read the sequels to fully enjoy the series as a whole compared to a single one as an individual story. I didn’t like 2001 too terribly much though, I liked 2010 more…
I sort of agree…I like the sequels to both (actually, I like 2010, which was great - especially the book - didn’t like 2061 or 3001 though) but I think both Dune and 2001 are excellent as stand-alone novels.
I can see why people don’t like it though, it’s very stylized and some people just don’t like certain styles, which is fair enough !
Anyway if you liked the book you may want to read this thread if you haven’t already… :
https://blenderartists.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14279
ill be happy to oblige (haha, i have no idea how to spell that)
yes theeth, u can, but the director has passed away, and its just not right
he is my idol
:<
don’t get me wrong here, I never said Kubrick was a bad director, I only said that 2001: A Space Odyssey was too long IMHO.
Martin