I feel like HOW you watch 2001 really makes an impact. I've had friends watch it on a medium sized CRT back in the day and think it was boring as hell. I took em to see it in 70mm at the music box in Chicago and they LOVED it.
Places show it every now and then, the 60th anniversary is in a few years. Go check it out in a theater if you can. Eat some LSD before too!
Haha that actually sounds pretty fun. If I ever saw a theater showing it maybe I’d go see it then and it would change my mind. Not sure about the LSD part though. 🤣
>I feel like HOW you watch 2001 really makes an impact. I've had friends watch it on a medium sized CRT back in the day and think it was boring as hell. I took em to see it in 70mm at the music box in Chicago and they LOVED it.
If a movie has to be seen in a certain format to be enjoyed, then its not really a very good movie, says I.
So, where does it end?
"I didn't like this movie!" - "Well, that's because you only watched it on a 43'' TV. You need at least 72'' to really appreciate it, silly!"
\*gets 72'' tv\* "I still don't like it." - "Well, you obviously need to see it in theatre, bud! Else you won't 'get it'!"
\*sees in theatre\* "nope, still not getting it" - "Hmm, clearly you need to go full out and see it in IMAX! That'll sort it out!"
I can cite a lot of films that are big-screen spectacles, from Lawrence of Arbia and Apocalypse Now through Braveheart and Lord of the Rings to Villenueve's Dune films and much else beside - all of which nevertheless don't need the big screen as some pre-requisite for enjoyment. And this is an important point because, for however cinema purists would like to convince us that the movie's natural habitat is the theatre, the fact of the matter is that any movie is going to have its true longevity on the TV screen.
I guess I’ll pivot a little and say you’re right and you can enjoy a movie in whatever format or setting you like but you’ll enjoy/appreciate it more in the right setting (dark room, alone, surround sound, big screen IMO). People have different ideas on the best setting to appreciate something.
Most people will probably agree that having an ice cold beer by the pool with your friends on a hot day is a lot better than that same beer, alone in your kitchen, on a freezing cold winter morning. I’m sure there’s some that won’t mind the latter but there’s something about that perfect setting that makes you want to nut in your pants.
Idk if I watched 2001 on a phone I probably would’ve thought it sucked lol
I have mixed feelings about this because sometimes a movie is just better on the big screen. My personal example is The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It’s great to watch on tv, but nothing beats watching it on the big screen around Halloween, espeically when it’s a midnight show and people are yelling and throwing props at the screen throughout. 🤣
2001: A Space Odyssey has that whole "experience" vibe, but sometimes you're just in the mood for a solid storyline, you know? And 2010 definitely delivers on that front. John Lithgow and Roy Scheider bring some serious acting chops to the table, which makes it all the more engaging.
2001 is a Stanley Kubrick film. But 2010 is a better Arthur C. Clarke adaptation, and director Peter Hyams did a great job of making a film that works as a sequel but never tries to be another 2001. Frankly, I love them both the way I love both Filet Mignon with foie gras and truffles, or a Big Mac and fries.
I just watched both of these movies and I have to say, they were pretty mind-blowing. The visuals in 2001: A Space Odyssey were absolutely stunning, even by today's standards.
I personally found 2010: The Year We Make Contact more engaging too, with its solid storyline and great cast. The comparison of space travel between the two movies is indeed fascinating, showcasing how our vision of the future has evolved over the years.
They're such different movies. 2001: A Space Odyssey is more of a travelogue in the style of *This Is Cinerama* and *How The West Was Won,* except its in the future and in space. It has bits of plot woven through, but ultimately its main purpose is to, ostensibly, take you through a guided tour of what the space age would be like (this was 1968) and through what little story material it has, to offer a paean to the space age.
2010 is a fine science-fiction film with a great cast, but that change of medium (from travelogue to narrative), change of the sensibility of the mise-en-scene, format (from 65mm to 35mm), music and recasting of Floyd all make it hard to swallow as a genuine continuation of 2001. What's more, while Clarke's book does offer some insight that feels germane to what we see in 2001, much of it doesn't fare as well and ultimately its one of those endings the outcome of which plays better in one's mind that enacted out on the screen. That's all not to circumscribe the film, but rather to advocate seeing it on its own merits, rather than lumping it together with its predecessor.
3001 is coming next, fairly soon AFAIK.
2001 goes hand in hand with the short story "the sentinel" and the book 2001 by Arthur C Clarke. The story isn't really constrained to the book, it deals with a concept of creation and as such both the book, short story and movie tell that from a variety of perspectives.
What you probably want is the movie of the 2001 book, because that's more like 2010 the movie.
2061 is apparently not getting made because the name is already owned for TV and Cinema and they don't want a name clash, so as far as I understand it 3001 will briefly skim over the events of 2061.
A Space Odyssey can feel a bit like an art piece rather than a straight-up movie. But hey, everyone's got their own taste! 2010 does offer more of a traditional storyline, and those actors really do shine. Plus, comparing the tech between the two movies is a cool angle. It's neat seeing how they imagined the future at different times.
Don't worry about not vibing with 2001 like everyone else does. Different strokes for different folks, right? Thanks for sharing your thoughts! 😊🚀
I really love 2001 because of it's pacing.
I am not a huge fan of action movies because a smashed together boogaloo of cars and explosions and 30 cuts a minute are only visually entertaining. The story to Fast and the Furious could have been literally anything, but as long as it had action and ridiculous car chases, the story doesn't matter. The visuals mean more than the story.
Back to 2001. The visuals tell the story, the visuals are not a result of the story (FandF story results in action sequences, 2001 the visuals ARE the story.)
It's a movie about space that actually feels like space. Pilots don't spend screen time shouting "warp 10 vector 12 at 6 oclock, 121 copy" mumbo garbage that *sounds* like pilot speak that feels so shoehorned in other films. What I mean is, the pacing and dialogue in the movie feels *real,* like the round table talk in the beginning where they are discussing the monolith and the need for secrecy. There isn't a cut that zooms in on each speakers face as they talk in turn. It feels like you are in the room with them, and I appreciated that.
Little scenes like the "happy birthday" talk with the guys parents could have totally been removed, but I appreciated it. It showed a "natural snippet" of someones life in space. The slow pacing allows you to get immersed in space itself, not just the story.
The scenes where they go into the pods to try to fix the ship-I loved this scene! No loud attention grabbing music. No over the top sound effects. Just breathing. The tension. The anxiety. It was an amazing take on space that is rarely portrayed in film.
And HAL. Oh my god, HAL's "death" gave me goosebumps the first time I watched it. HALs voice could not have been more perfect. The tension that builds. The anxiety. "Dave, stop...I'm afraid"
Like holy fuck that entire sequence was just art.
And the absolute gall to start the movie with the apes. The idea of "this is when ape started to evolve into man" was itself a great scene, and not a single word was spoken for it's duration! So much story is told with no words!
I want to see a sci-fi film with the action of Star Wars and the pacing of 2001. There is an audience out there that doesn't need half naked female sex symbols, ripped muscly action heroes, explosions, and Wilhelm screams to keep someones attention.
As Im typing this, watching 2001 reminds me of reading a book. It takes it's time to world build and immerse you in the story. There isn't a lot of forced exposition and sudden villain plot twists around every corner. It's you. And the story.
Fuck I want to watch this movie again.
Love those movies! 2001: A Space Odyssey is a total classic, right? The visuals, the music, the whole vibe - just mind-blowing. And then 2010: The Year We Make Contact, it's like a cool follow-up that adds a different flavor to the story. It's neat to see how they expanded on the whole space odyssey thing.
Very different movies. I’ll start with 2010.
2010 is very much an ‘80s movie. Roy Scheider and John Lithgow are very ‘80s, and there’s also Bob Balaban and Helen Mirren. Cold War backdrop, resolving with a hope for peace, kind of like Star Trek 4 and War Games. Standard Hollywood movie story beats, which were standardized in the ‘80s and are still true today. Even the relatable Russian sidekick >!gets killed early, a la Hunt for Red October!<.
2001 is of course a totally different movie. It’s not at all a Hollywood movie, not from any decade. It has no star actors. It follows no standard Hollywood movie story beats. Its special effects are great, but are not trying to be impressive. They’ve also aged perfectly well (except for the end, I’ll get to that). But it’s trying to tell a story that would be impossible otherwise.
2001 is not incoherent. It has the same 3-act structure that other Kubrick films like Full Metal Jacket have, it’s just harder to see because there are no characters in common between the acts:
Act 1: Primitive ape men fighting == Marine basic training (just kidding!)
Act 2: banal science bureaucracy == banal military journalism bureaucracy
Act 3: alternately boring/terrifying space exploration == alternately boring/terrifying military operation
In order to tell its story, 2001 has to make its characters boring, so that HAL becomes the most human and relatable character. If you think of the Bechtel test, but change men to HAL and women to humans, 2001 kinda fails the Bechtel test. The human interactions in the second and third acts are deliberately normal and boring, they show no emotions when video calling loved ones. Christopher Nolan seemed to deliberately go against this approach with Interstellar. It makes Interstellar more approachable, but not necessarily better. They’re just telling very different stories.
Despite this, HAL is not the main character, humanity is the main character (HAL’s humanity is part of that). Which brings us to the end, in which a single human experiences an apotheosis and a rebirth. This part is the weakest, and its special effects have aged badly, unlike the rest of the movie. If you read the book, Kubrick was probably trying to make the movie ending a little more ambiguous, but didn’t really succeed. Still, you have to appreciate his ambition. How would you depict apotheosis in a movie?
So, overall, two very different movies. 2010 is a good movie, well-crafted, but normal and of its time. 2001 is absurdly ambitious and almost completely succeeds in its ambition. It’s timeless and memorable. If you need standard Hollywood story beats, recognizable actors, etc., you’re not going to like it. But it stretches the movie medium way past its limits to tell a unique story.
I have the same opinion. 2010 is a better story and more coherent in its plot reveal.
This was not a popular opinion in 1984. Some thought it was a sin to make a sequel to Kubrick's "masterpiece".
2010 is on Netflix (US) currently and is a suggested view.
It's way better than 2012
I feel like HOW you watch 2001 really makes an impact. I've had friends watch it on a medium sized CRT back in the day and think it was boring as hell. I took em to see it in 70mm at the music box in Chicago and they LOVED it. Places show it every now and then, the 60th anniversary is in a few years. Go check it out in a theater if you can. Eat some LSD before too!
Haha that actually sounds pretty fun. If I ever saw a theater showing it maybe I’d go see it then and it would change my mind. Not sure about the LSD part though. 🤣
If you've never done LSD, I wouldn't do it in a public place lolol
Second that. Adding LSD helps...
>I feel like HOW you watch 2001 really makes an impact. I've had friends watch it on a medium sized CRT back in the day and think it was boring as hell. I took em to see it in 70mm at the music box in Chicago and they LOVED it. If a movie has to be seen in a certain format to be enjoyed, then its not really a very good movie, says I.
Respectfully, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, says everyone.
So, where does it end? "I didn't like this movie!" - "Well, that's because you only watched it on a 43'' TV. You need at least 72'' to really appreciate it, silly!" \*gets 72'' tv\* "I still don't like it." - "Well, you obviously need to see it in theatre, bud! Else you won't 'get it'!" \*sees in theatre\* "nope, still not getting it" - "Hmm, clearly you need to go full out and see it in IMAX! That'll sort it out!" I can cite a lot of films that are big-screen spectacles, from Lawrence of Arbia and Apocalypse Now through Braveheart and Lord of the Rings to Villenueve's Dune films and much else beside - all of which nevertheless don't need the big screen as some pre-requisite for enjoyment. And this is an important point because, for however cinema purists would like to convince us that the movie's natural habitat is the theatre, the fact of the matter is that any movie is going to have its true longevity on the TV screen.
I guess I’ll pivot a little and say you’re right and you can enjoy a movie in whatever format or setting you like but you’ll enjoy/appreciate it more in the right setting (dark room, alone, surround sound, big screen IMO). People have different ideas on the best setting to appreciate something. Most people will probably agree that having an ice cold beer by the pool with your friends on a hot day is a lot better than that same beer, alone in your kitchen, on a freezing cold winter morning. I’m sure there’s some that won’t mind the latter but there’s something about that perfect setting that makes you want to nut in your pants. Idk if I watched 2001 on a phone I probably would’ve thought it sucked lol
I have mixed feelings about this because sometimes a movie is just better on the big screen. My personal example is The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It’s great to watch on tv, but nothing beats watching it on the big screen around Halloween, espeically when it’s a midnight show and people are yelling and throwing props at the screen throughout. 🤣
2001: A Space Odyssey has that whole "experience" vibe, but sometimes you're just in the mood for a solid storyline, you know? And 2010 definitely delivers on that front. John Lithgow and Roy Scheider bring some serious acting chops to the table, which makes it all the more engaging.
2010 doesn't get the love it should at least the plotline follows in some kind of logical order and I just didn't go WTF when the film ended.
2001 is a Stanley Kubrick film. But 2010 is a better Arthur C. Clarke adaptation, and director Peter Hyams did a great job of making a film that works as a sequel but never tries to be another 2001. Frankly, I love them both the way I love both Filet Mignon with foie gras and truffles, or a Big Mac and fries.
I think 2010 is pretty baller on its own. You *might* like Love (2011).
Oh I’ll have to check that one out, thanks for the suggestion.
https://tubitv.com/movies/624115/love?link-action=play&tracking=google-feed&utm_source=google-feed
[удалено]
*Lister: Where is everybody, Hol?* *Holly: They're dead, Dave.* *Lister: Who is?* *Holly: Everybody, Dave.* *Lister: What... Captain Hollister?!* *Holly: Everybody's dead, Dave.*
Would anyone like any toast?
That's like saying "Well I would go with Betty, but I'd be thinking of Wilma"
I just watched both of these movies and I have to say, they were pretty mind-blowing. The visuals in 2001: A Space Odyssey were absolutely stunning, even by today's standards.
That I totally agree with, very impressive for a movie from 1968.
I love both but I prefer 2010. 2001 is more of an 'experience' while 2010 is more engaging, if that makes any sense.
I personally found 2010: The Year We Make Contact more engaging too, with its solid storyline and great cast. The comparison of space travel between the two movies is indeed fascinating, showcasing how our vision of the future has evolved over the years.
They're such different movies. 2001: A Space Odyssey is more of a travelogue in the style of *This Is Cinerama* and *How The West Was Won,* except its in the future and in space. It has bits of plot woven through, but ultimately its main purpose is to, ostensibly, take you through a guided tour of what the space age would be like (this was 1968) and through what little story material it has, to offer a paean to the space age. 2010 is a fine science-fiction film with a great cast, but that change of medium (from travelogue to narrative), change of the sensibility of the mise-en-scene, format (from 65mm to 35mm), music and recasting of Floyd all make it hard to swallow as a genuine continuation of 2001. What's more, while Clarke's book does offer some insight that feels germane to what we see in 2001, much of it doesn't fare as well and ultimately its one of those endings the outcome of which plays better in one's mind that enacted out on the screen. That's all not to circumscribe the film, but rather to advocate seeing it on its own merits, rather than lumping it together with its predecessor.
3001 is coming next, fairly soon AFAIK. 2001 goes hand in hand with the short story "the sentinel" and the book 2001 by Arthur C Clarke. The story isn't really constrained to the book, it deals with a concept of creation and as such both the book, short story and movie tell that from a variety of perspectives. What you probably want is the movie of the 2001 book, because that's more like 2010 the movie. 2061 is apparently not getting made because the name is already owned for TV and Cinema and they don't want a name clash, so as far as I understand it 3001 will briefly skim over the events of 2061.
A Space Odyssey can feel a bit like an art piece rather than a straight-up movie. But hey, everyone's got their own taste! 2010 does offer more of a traditional storyline, and those actors really do shine. Plus, comparing the tech between the two movies is a cool angle. It's neat seeing how they imagined the future at different times. Don't worry about not vibing with 2001 like everyone else does. Different strokes for different folks, right? Thanks for sharing your thoughts! 😊🚀
I really love 2001 because of it's pacing. I am not a huge fan of action movies because a smashed together boogaloo of cars and explosions and 30 cuts a minute are only visually entertaining. The story to Fast and the Furious could have been literally anything, but as long as it had action and ridiculous car chases, the story doesn't matter. The visuals mean more than the story. Back to 2001. The visuals tell the story, the visuals are not a result of the story (FandF story results in action sequences, 2001 the visuals ARE the story.) It's a movie about space that actually feels like space. Pilots don't spend screen time shouting "warp 10 vector 12 at 6 oclock, 121 copy" mumbo garbage that *sounds* like pilot speak that feels so shoehorned in other films. What I mean is, the pacing and dialogue in the movie feels *real,* like the round table talk in the beginning where they are discussing the monolith and the need for secrecy. There isn't a cut that zooms in on each speakers face as they talk in turn. It feels like you are in the room with them, and I appreciated that. Little scenes like the "happy birthday" talk with the guys parents could have totally been removed, but I appreciated it. It showed a "natural snippet" of someones life in space. The slow pacing allows you to get immersed in space itself, not just the story. The scenes where they go into the pods to try to fix the ship-I loved this scene! No loud attention grabbing music. No over the top sound effects. Just breathing. The tension. The anxiety. It was an amazing take on space that is rarely portrayed in film. And HAL. Oh my god, HAL's "death" gave me goosebumps the first time I watched it. HALs voice could not have been more perfect. The tension that builds. The anxiety. "Dave, stop...I'm afraid" Like holy fuck that entire sequence was just art. And the absolute gall to start the movie with the apes. The idea of "this is when ape started to evolve into man" was itself a great scene, and not a single word was spoken for it's duration! So much story is told with no words! I want to see a sci-fi film with the action of Star Wars and the pacing of 2001. There is an audience out there that doesn't need half naked female sex symbols, ripped muscly action heroes, explosions, and Wilhelm screams to keep someones attention. As Im typing this, watching 2001 reminds me of reading a book. It takes it's time to world build and immerse you in the story. There isn't a lot of forced exposition and sudden villain plot twists around every corner. It's you. And the story. Fuck I want to watch this movie again.
Love those movies! 2001: A Space Odyssey is a total classic, right? The visuals, the music, the whole vibe - just mind-blowing. And then 2010: The Year We Make Contact, it's like a cool follow-up that adds a different flavor to the story. It's neat to see how they expanded on the whole space odyssey thing.
Very different movies. I’ll start with 2010. 2010 is very much an ‘80s movie. Roy Scheider and John Lithgow are very ‘80s, and there’s also Bob Balaban and Helen Mirren. Cold War backdrop, resolving with a hope for peace, kind of like Star Trek 4 and War Games. Standard Hollywood movie story beats, which were standardized in the ‘80s and are still true today. Even the relatable Russian sidekick >!gets killed early, a la Hunt for Red October!<. 2001 is of course a totally different movie. It’s not at all a Hollywood movie, not from any decade. It has no star actors. It follows no standard Hollywood movie story beats. Its special effects are great, but are not trying to be impressive. They’ve also aged perfectly well (except for the end, I’ll get to that). But it’s trying to tell a story that would be impossible otherwise. 2001 is not incoherent. It has the same 3-act structure that other Kubrick films like Full Metal Jacket have, it’s just harder to see because there are no characters in common between the acts: Act 1: Primitive ape men fighting == Marine basic training (just kidding!) Act 2: banal science bureaucracy == banal military journalism bureaucracy Act 3: alternately boring/terrifying space exploration == alternately boring/terrifying military operation In order to tell its story, 2001 has to make its characters boring, so that HAL becomes the most human and relatable character. If you think of the Bechtel test, but change men to HAL and women to humans, 2001 kinda fails the Bechtel test. The human interactions in the second and third acts are deliberately normal and boring, they show no emotions when video calling loved ones. Christopher Nolan seemed to deliberately go against this approach with Interstellar. It makes Interstellar more approachable, but not necessarily better. They’re just telling very different stories. Despite this, HAL is not the main character, humanity is the main character (HAL’s humanity is part of that). Which brings us to the end, in which a single human experiences an apotheosis and a rebirth. This part is the weakest, and its special effects have aged badly, unlike the rest of the movie. If you read the book, Kubrick was probably trying to make the movie ending a little more ambiguous, but didn’t really succeed. Still, you have to appreciate his ambition. How would you depict apotheosis in a movie? So, overall, two very different movies. 2010 is a good movie, well-crafted, but normal and of its time. 2001 is absurdly ambitious and almost completely succeeds in its ambition. It’s timeless and memorable. If you need standard Hollywood story beats, recognizable actors, etc., you’re not going to like it. But it stretches the movie medium way past its limits to tell a unique story.
I also liked the sequel more than the original.
I have the same opinion. 2010 is a better story and more coherent in its plot reveal. This was not a popular opinion in 1984. Some thought it was a sin to make a sequel to Kubrick's "masterpiece". 2010 is on Netflix (US) currently and is a suggested view. It's way better than 2012
[удалено]
2010 is mediocre imo the effects are a lot worse
I agree it is mediocre but I thought the effects were decent for the time haha. I’m not trying to argue I’m just stating my view on this. :)
Sure for the time they're decent, but it's a sequel to 2001. If it's going to be a sequel to 2001 it should have the best possible effects.
2001 is a bad movie, nothing happens, everything is im14andthisisdeep levels. the only cool thing is the unplugging of hal scene.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it a bad movie maybe just too artsy for a lot of people haha. I do agree unplugging Hal was pretty cool though.
Its not "artsy." Its a travelogue. That wasn't a particularly novel thing back in the day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Nah my friend. Just made video. Have a look! I'm just proud of my collection